x`g ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1871-—jk"Vªifr] lafo/ku ds vuqPNsn 299 ds

[kaM (1) ds mica/ksa ds vuqlj.k esa funs'kd] jk"Vªh; vklwpuk

fxzM esa lEifÙk dh lafonkvksa vkSj vk'okluksa dks fu"ikfnr djus ds

fy,] ,rn~}kjk izkf/d`r djrs gaS A

¹iQk- la- 22011@1@2013&yhxy@608º

jkds'k ¯lg] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2014

S.O.

1871.—In pursuance of the provisions of

clause (1) of article 299 of the Constitution, the President

hereby authorizes the Director, National Intelligence Grid

to execute contracts and assurances of property in the

National Intelligence Grid on behalf of the President.

[F. No. 22011/1/2013-Legal/608]

RAKESH SINGH, Jt. Secy.

2547 GI/2014

(4851)

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- 27]

ubZ fnYyh, twu 29—tqykbZ 5] 2014] 'kfuokj@vk"kk<+ 8—vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

No. 27]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 29—JULY 5, 2014, SATURDAY/ASADHA 8—ASADHA 14, 1936

bl 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)

ubZ fnYyh] 27 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1872-—fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu vf/fu;e]

1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr /kjk

5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk çnÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, vkSj

dk£ed] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=kky; vkSj dk£ed ,oa izf'k{k.k

foHkkx ds fnukad 24-07-2013 ds i=k la- 228@38@2013&,ohMh II,

ds rgr Hkkjr ds jkti=k ds Hkkx II, [kaM (ii) esa izdkf'kr

vfèklwpuk ds Øe esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk dsjy jkT; ljdkj]

x`g foHkkx (,e)] fr#ouariqje dh lgefr ls fnukad 28 vçSy]

2014 dh vf/lwpuk th-vks- (,e,l) la- 81@2014@x`g }kjk nks"kh

vthc ,-ih-] flfoy iqfyl vf/dkjh] jktq eFkso] l'kL=k mi

iqfyl fujh{kd rFkk iz'kkar dqekj] flfoy iqfyl vf/dkjh vkSj

vU; ds fo:n~/ vijk/ fuokj.k vf/fu;e] 1988 (1988 dk

vf/fu;e la- 49) ds rgr iqfyl LVs'ku usnqeclsjh] fr#ouariqje

(dsjy) ds vijk/ vUos"k.k la- 1568@12@vkjlh-

6(,l)@2013@lhchvkbZ@ ,llhch@Vhohih,e) ls lkeus vkus okys

rFkk mi;qZDr vijk/ksa ls lacaf/r iz;kl] nq"izsj.k ,oa "kM;a=k ds

4852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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

¹la- 228@38@2013&,ohMh&IIº

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 27th June, 2014

S.O.

1872.—In exercise of the powers conferred

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

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

1946), and in continuation of the Notification published

with the Gazette of India in part II section (ii), Ministry of

Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department

of Personnel and Training No. 228/38/2013-AVD-II dated

24.7.2013, the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Kerala, Home (M) Department,

Thiruvananthapuram vide Notification G.O. (Ms.) No. 81/

2014/Home dated 28th April, 2014, hereby extends the

powers and Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special

Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Kerala for

investigation relating to the offences of criminal conspiracy,

bribery and criminal misconduct under the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988) against accused

Ajeeb A. P., Civil Police Officer, Raju Mathew, Armed

Sub.Inspector of Police and Prasanth Kumar, Civil Police

Officer and others arising out during investigation of Crime

(Nos. 1568/12 RC. 6(S)/2013/CBI/SCB/TVPM) of

Nedumbassery Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram

(Kerala) and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in

relation to the above mentioned offences.

[No. 228/38/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1873-—dsanzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

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

ds lkFk ifBr /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk çnÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, >kj[k.M jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] jkaph ds fnukad

4 tqykbZ] 2013 dh vf/lwpuk la- 6@lh-ch-I&613@2813 }kjk izkIr

lgefr ls nso/j ftyk (>kj[k.M) esa Jh lat; flag dh iq=kh

pkanuh dqekjh (vk;q 13 o"kZ) vkSj Jh jkekuqt flag dh iq=kh v£irk

dqekjh (vk;q 14 o"kZ) ls cykRdkj vkSj blds i'pkr~ gR;k djus

ds laca/ esa rFkk mi;qZDr vijk/ ds laca/ esa iz;kl] nq"izsj.k vkSj

"kM+;a=k fd, tkus ds laca/ esa iqfyl LVs'ku tlhMhg (>kj[k.M) esa

ntZ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk 1860 (1860 dk vf/fu;e la- 45) dh

/kjk 34] 201 ,oa 302 ds rgr rFkk Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk 1860

(1860 dk vf/fu;e la- 45) dh 'kkfey dh /kjk 376&Mh ds

rgr dsl ua- 124@2013 fnukad 27-05-2013 dh tkap gsrq fnYyh

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

dk foLrkj laiw.kZ >kj[k.M jkT; ij djrh gSA

¹la- 228@49@2013&,ohMh&IIº

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2014

S.O. 1873.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

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

the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Jharkhand, Home Department, Ranchi vide

Notification No. 6/C.B.I.-613/2013-2813 dated 4th July, 2013,

hereby extends the powers and Jurisdiction of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of

Jharkhand for investigation of Case No. 124/2013 dated

27.05.2013 under section 34, 201 and 302 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and added section 376-D

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

registered at Police Station Jasidih (Jharkhand) relating to

rape and after that, murder of Chandani Kumari (Age 13

years) daughter of Sh. Sanjay Singh and Arpita Kumari

(Age 14 years) daughter of Sh. Ramanuj Singh in Deoghar

District (Jharkhand) and attempts, abetments and

conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the above

mentioned offence.

[No. 228/49/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

dk;kZy; ç/ku eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] jktLFkku

t;iqj] 8 ebZ] 2014

la- 01@2014&15

dk-vk- 1874-—vk;dj fu;e 1962 ds fu;e 2 lh , ds

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

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

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

o"kZ 2014&15 ,oa vkxs ds fy;s dfFkr /kjk ds mís'; ls egkjkuh

xk;=kh nsoh xYlZ ifCyd Ldwy lkslk;Vh vtesjhxsV] t;iqj dks

Lohd`fr nsrs gSaA

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

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

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

¹Øekad% çeqvkvk@vkv@(rd-)@10(23 lh)(vi)@2014&15@718º

vrqys'k ftany] ç/ku eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr

OFFICE OF THE PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAX, RAJASTHAN

Jaipur, the 8th May, 2014

No. 1/2014-15

S.O. 1874.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4853

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

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

Jaipur hereby approves "Maharani Gayatri Devi Girls' Public

School Society, Ajmeri Gate, Jaipur" for the purpose of

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

the society conforms to and complies with the provisions

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

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

Rules, 1962,

[No. PCCIT/JPR/ITO(Tech.)10(23C)(vi)2014-15/718]

ATULESH JINDAL, Pr. Chief Commissioner

of Income-tax

lwpuk vkSj izlkj.k ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 19 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1875-—dsanz ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e

(4) ds vuqlj.k esa nwjn'kZu egkfuns'kky;] izlkj Hkkjrh (lwpuk

vkSj izlkj.k ea=kky;) ds v/huLFk dk;kZy;] nwjn'kZu dsUnz] gSnjkckn

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

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

¹la- bZ&11017@06@2012&fganhº

fç;Eonk] funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND

BROADCASTING

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2014

S.O. 1875.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies

Doordarshan, Hyderabad under Directorate General,

Doordarshan, Prasar Bharti (Ministry of Information and

Broadcasting) more than 80% of the staff whereof have

acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

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

PRIYAMVADA, Director (O.L.)

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

(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)

Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

ubZ fnYyh] 27 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1876-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (çek.ku) fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa

Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn,

x, gSa %&&

Ø-

ykblsal

Lohd`r djus

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk

Hkk ek la- Hkkx@

la-

dh frfFk

'kh"kZd

vuqHkkx½ % o"kZ

o"kZ@ekg

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¼5½

¼6½

4735269

20140502

eSllZ fCyax ,fyesUV çkbZosV fyfeVsM

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]

IS 1417 % 1999

njoktk la- 501] vorkj dkWEiySDl]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh&

fcx ctkj lM+d]

'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

dks;ecÙkwj&641001

4735370

201400505

eSllZ rUxEeu ,Dok QElZ

iSdstcan is; ty

IS 14543 % 2004

,l ,Q la- 431/2B/D. No. 127/9A,

¼iSdstcan feujy ty

ikYdjkj rksV~Ve eq[; lM+d]

ds vykok½

fr#eq#xu iwUMh] fr#Iiqj&641652

4735774

20140506

eSllZ fCyax ,fyesUV çkbZosV fyfeVsM

pkanh ,oa pkanh feJ/kkrq,a] IS 2112 % 2003

njoktk la- 501] vorkj dkWEiySDl]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh&'kq)rk

fcx ctkj lM+d]

,oa eqgjkadu

dks;ecÙkwj&641001

4854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4740767

20140509

eSllZ Jh ckuq ToSyjh

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]

IS 1417 % 1999

41&A] ,u th vkj jksM]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh&'kq)rk

iYyMe]

,oa eqgjkadu

fr#Iiqj&641664

4739782

20140512

eSllZ ,l , ih feujYl

iSdstcan is; ty

IS 14543 % 2004

,l ,Q la- 31@1B]djV~Vqiky;e]

¼iSdstcan feujy ty

is#Urkyqoq iksLV]

ds vykok½

fr#Iiqj&641665

4737172

20140512

eSllZ Jh /kuy{eh QkSUMªh

fuEetuh; iEilsV

IS 8034 % 2002

27] nf{k.k lM+d la- 3]

vokjeiky;e]

dks;EcÙkwj&641006

4741264

20140520

eSllZ y{eh okWVj izksMDV~l

iSdstcan is; ty

IS 14543 % 2004

1@193, fcfyph iksLV]

¼iSdstcan feujy ty

isfj;kereiky;e]

ds vykok½

dks;EcÙkwj&641019

4742367

20140522

eSllZ ckuq ToSyjh

pkanh ,oa pkanh feJ/kkrq,a] IS 2112 % 2003

41&A] ,u th vkj jksM]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh&'kq)rk

iYyMe]

,oa eqgjkadu

fr#Iiqj&641664

4740565

20140519

eSllZ isfUXou feujYl

iSdstcan is; ty

IS 14543 % 2004

,l ,Q la- 31@3] iYykdV~Vq

¼iSdstcan feujy ty

rksV~Ve] d:j eq[; lM+d] yDdkiqje]

ds vykok½

bZjksM&638002

10-

4740969

20140519

eSllZ çfx'k ,Dok çksMDV~l

iSdstcan is; ty

IS 14543 % 2004

la- 275]1@711] 'kfDr uxj iwoZ]

¼iSdstcan feujy ty

iks;eiky;e] ih- ,u-- jksM]

ds vykok½

iwyqokiV~Vh iksLV]

fr#Iiqj&641602

11-

4742973

20140523

eSllZ f'kok'kfDr feujYl

iSdstcan is; ty

IS 14543 % 2004

256] ohjIie iky;e]

¼iSdstcan feujy ty

ckbZ&ikl jksM] foyjleiV~Vh]

ds vykok½

frUMky iksLV] bZjksM ftyk&638012

12-

4743167

20140525

eSllZ th- oh- ,Dok izksMDV~l

iSdstcan is; ty

IS 14543 % 2004

,l ,Q la- 277@1B] dsEekjeiky;e

¼iSdstcan feujy ty

xk¡o] esVwiky;e rkyqd]

ds vykok½

dks;EcÙkwj ftyk&641113

13-

4744472

20140525

eSllZ t;Jh IykfLVDl

iSdstcan is; ty

IS 15410 % 2003

241&th] is:j jksM]

¼iSdstcan feujy ty

dqejkiky;e]

ds vykok½

dks;EcÙkwj&641026

¹la- lh ,e Mh@13%11º

,e- lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa çeq[k

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¼5½

¼6½

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4855

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 27th June, 2014

S.O.

1876.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

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

following schedule:—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant Date

Name and Address (Factory)

Title of the

IS No. Part/

No.

of the Party

Standard

Sec. Year

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

4735269

20140502

M/s. Bling Element Private Limited

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Door No. 501, Avathar Complex,

Jewellery/ Artefacts -

IS 1417 : 1999

Big Bazaar Street,

Fineness and Marking

Coimbatore - 641 001.

4735370

201400505

M/s. Thangamman Aqua Firms

Packaged Drinking Water

SF. No.431/2B/ D.No.127/9A,

(other than Packaged

IS 14543 : 2004

Palkarar Thottam Main Road,

Natural Mineral Water)

Thirumurugan Poondi,

Tiruppur - 641 652.

4735774

20140506

M/s. Bling Element Private Limited

Silver and Silver Alloys,

Door No. 501, Avathar Complex,

Jewellery/ Artefacts -

IS 2112 : 2003

Big Bazaar Street,

Fineness and Marking

Coimbatore - 641 001.

4740767

20140509

M/s. Sri Banu Jewellery,

Gold and Gold Alloys,

41-A, N.G.R. Road,

Jewellery/ Artefacts -

IS 1417 : 1999

Palladam,

Fineness and Marking

Tiruppur - 641 664.

4739782

20140512

M/s. S.A.P Minerals

Packaged Drinking Water

SF. No .31/1B, Karattupalayam,

(other than Packaged

IS 14543 : 2004

Peruntholuvu (P.O.),

Natural Mineral Water)

Tiruppur - 641 665.

4737172

20140512

M/s. Shri Duraimani Foundrry

Submersible Pumpsets

IS 8034:2002

27, South Street No. 3,

Avarampalayam,

Coimbatore - 641 006.

4741264

20140520

M/s. Lakshmi Water Products

Packaged Drinking Water

1/193, Bilichi Post,

(other than Packaged

IS 14543 : 2004

Periyamathampalayam,

Natural Mineral Water)

Coimbatore - 641 019.

4742367

20140522

M/s. Sri Banu Jewellery,

Silver and Silver Alloys,

41-A, N.G.R. Road, Palladam,

Jewellery/ Artefacts -

IS 2112:2003

Tiruppur - 641 664.

Fineness and Marking

4740565

20140519

M/s. Penguin Mineralss

Packaged Drinking Water

SF. No. 31/3, Pallakattu Thottam,

(other than Packaged

IS 14543 : 2004

Karur Main Road,

Natural Mineral Water)

Lakkapuram,

Erode District - 638 002.

4856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

4740969

20140519

M/s. Pragish Aqua Products

Packaged Drinking Water

No. 275,1/711,Shakthi Nagar North,

(other than Packaged

IS 14543 : 2004

Poyampalayam, P.N.Road,

Natural Mineral Water)

Pooluvapatti(Post),

Tiruppur - 641 602.

11.

4742973

20140523

M/s. Saaisakthi Minerals

Packaged Drinking

256,Veerappam Palayam,

Water (other than

IS 14543 : 2004

Bye-Pass Road, Villarasampatti,

Packaged Natural

Thindal(P.O.),

Mineral Water)

Erode District - 638 012.

12.

4743167

20140525

M/s. G.V.Aqua Products

Packaged Drinking Water

SF. No. 277/1B, Kemmarampalayam

(other than Packaged

IS 14543 : 2004

Village, Mettupalayam (Tk),

Natural Mineral Water)

Coimbatore District - 641 113.

13.

4744472

20140527

M/s. Jaishri Plastics

Containers for Packaging

241-G, Perur Road,

of Natural Mineral

IS 15410:2003

Kumarapalayam,

Water and Packaged

Coimbatore - 641 026.

Drinking Water

[No. CMD/13:11]

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 27 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1877-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (çek.ku) fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mifu;e (6) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

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

vuqlwph

Ø-

ykblsal la-

ykblsal/kkjh dk

LFkfxr fd, x,@jí fd, x, ykblsal ds varxZr

jí gksus dh

la-

lh ,e@,y& uke o irk

oLrq@çØe lEc) Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

frfFk

65286678

eSllZ ,- ,- ,tsUlht

iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan feujy ty ds vykok½]

09-05-2014

17] lkfo=h uxj]

IS 14543%2004

jkeukFkkiqje]

dks;ecÙkwj&641045

¹la- lh ,e Mh@13%13º

,e- lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa çeq[k

New Delhi, the 27th June, 2014

S.O.

1877.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

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

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

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence No.

Name & Address

Article/ Process with

Date of

No.

CM/L-

of the Licensee

relevant Indian Standard covered

Cancellation

by the licence cancelled/suspension

6528678

M/s. A. A. AGENCIES

Packaged Drinking Water

17, SAVITHRI NAGAR,

(other than Packaged

09-05-2014

RAMANATHAPURAM,

Natural Mineral Water) – IS 14543:2004

COIMBATORE - 641045

[No. CMD/13: 13]

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4857

ubZ fnYyh] 28 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1878-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (çek.ku) fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mi&fu;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 ykbZlsal iznku fd, x, gSa %&&

Ø-

ykblsal

Lohd`r djus

ykblsal/kkjh dk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

Hkk ek

Hkkx

vuq

o"kZ

la-

la[;k

dh frfFk o"kZ

uke o irk

la[;k

ekg

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¼5½

¼6½

¼7½

¼8½

¼9½

2872168

02 vçSy] 2014 eSllZ Mk;eaM Vh,eVh ,.M

daØhV izcyu ds fy, mPp

1786

2008

çksdsku izkbZosV fyfeVsM losZ

lkeF;Z fodflr bLikr NM+

ua- 468&469] xkao lkuksMj]

vkSj rkj

ryktk gkbZos] rkyqdk ?kks?kk]

ftyk Hkkouxj]

xqtjkr&364050

2872269

02 vçSy] 2014 eSllZ 'kqHk Iyk; foujl

leqnzh mi;ksx ds fy,

710

2010

izkbZosV fyfeVsM

IykbZoqM

IykWV ua- 277] 1yh eafty]

lSDVj 1@v] ekeyrnkj

dk;kZy; ds ikl] xka/kh/kke]

ftyk dPN] xqtjkr&370201

2872370

02 vçSy] 2014 eSllZ ifjJe lceflZfcy iEi fueTtuh; iEi lsV

8034

2002

losZ ua- 143] IykWV ua- 1]

ugs:uxj bUMLVªht ,fj;k

fjax jksM] xksaMy ck; ikl

gkbZos] jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360002

2872471

03 vçSy] 2014 eSllZ d`".kk cSojsthl

iSdstCn is; ty ¼iSdstcan

14543

2004

43ch] ek#rh bUMLVªht ,fj;k] çkd`frd feujy ty

xksaMy jksM] vkDVªks; ukdk]

ds vykok½

ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360004

2874172

08 vçSy] 2014 eSllZ jfo IykLV

dUMSl Qksj bySDVªhdy

9537

1983

ljnkj iVsy m|ksxuxj]

bULVksyslu % ikVZ 3 jhxhaM

IykWV ua- 17] cksjh;k] rkyqdk

IySu dUMSVl vkWQ bUlqysfVax

tkedaMksj.kk]

eSVhfj;Yl ¼lqijlsMhax

ftyk jktdksV]

vk, ,l % 2509½

xqtjkr&360405

2875073

09 vçSy] 2014 eSllZ vej ikWyhfQYl

ikWyhizksikbyhu jLlh ¼3 ybZ

5175

1992

izkbZosV fyfeVsM]

okyh gkWlj rFkk 8 ybZ okyh

losZ ua- 258@2] Nk;k]

cVnkj½ & fof'k"V

us'kuy gkbZos] ,;jiksVZ

ds ihNs]ftyk iksjcanj]

xqtjkr&360577

4858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2875174

09 vçSy] 2014 eSllZ f'koe bUthfu;lZ

flapkbZ miLdj&ehfM;k

14606

1998

losZ ua- 237]

fQYVj&fof'k"V

IykWV ua- 4@ch]

fodkl LVo ds ihNs]

osjkcy]ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360024

2875376

10 vçSy] 2014 eSllZ uqru bUthfu;fjax

fueTtuh; iEi lsV

8034

2002

tSLehu bUthfu;fjax

ds ihNs]f'ko bUMLVªh;y

,fj;k] QkYdu iEIl

ds ikl] okoM+h]

ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360001

2875477

10 vçSy] 2014 eSllZ ¶yksjsDl iEi

fueTtuh; iEi lsV

8034

2002

bUMLVªht] 8@ch] us'kuy

gkbos] U;q ljnkj ekdsZfVax

;kMZ ds ikl] ljnkj Vk;lZ

ds ihNs] xksaMy] ftyk]

xqtjkr&360311

2875578

10 vçSy] 2014 eSllZ ¶yksjsDl iEi

[kqys dqa, ds fy,

14220

1994

bUMLVªht 8@ch] us'kuy

fueTtuh; iEi lsV

gkbos] U;q ljnkj ekdsZfVax

;kMZ ds ikl] ljnkj Vk;lZ

ds ihNs] xksMy] ftyk] jktdksV

xqtjkr&360311

2875982

11 vçSy] 2014 eSllZ ek/ko ikWyhelZ

behVhax ikbZi flLVe

13488

2008

losZ ua- 215] IykWV ua- 3ch]

n'kZu ikdZ] lkslk;Vh ds ikl]

ek#rh vkW;y fey ds ihNs]

,u,p 8ch] osjkoy ¼'kkij½]

ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360024

2876782

16 vçSy] 2014 eSllZ fr#ifr ok;j dSc

1100 oksYV rd dh

694

1990

IykWV ua- 6] losZ ua- 60ih 1]

dk;Zdkjh oksYVrk ds fy,

rjax bUMLVªht ,fj;k]

ih oh lh jksf/kr

ck?ks'oj eafnj ds ihNs]

dscy vkbZ ,l

us'kuy gkbos 8ch]

gMerkyk] rkyqdk dksVMk

lkaxk.kh] ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360211

2876883

16 vçSy] 2014 eSllZ ¶yksfou dscYl

1100 oksYV rd dh

694

1990

losZ ua- 143] IykWV ua- 58]

dk;Zdkjh oksYVrk ds fy,

jsyos vksoj fczt ds ikl]

ih oh lh jksf/kr

<scj jksM] dksBfj;k]

dscy vkbZ ,l

ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360002

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¼5½

¼6½

¼7½

¼8½

¼9½

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4859

2876984

16 vçSy] 2014 eSllZ t; fot; dksiksZjs'ku

1100 oksYV rd dh dk;Zdkjh 694

1990

losZ ua- 187] IykWV ua- 6v]

oksYVrk ds fy, ih oh lh

xqtjkr] bUVªDl

jksf/kr dscy vkbZ ,l

çkbZosV fyfeVsM ds ihNs]

xkWo 'kkij] rkyqdk dksVMk

lkaxk.kh] ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360030

2877582

17 vçSy] 2014 eSllZ dkLV ,.M Cyksoj

[kqys dqa, ds fy,

14220

1994

daiuh xqtjkr izkbZosV

fueTtuh; iEi lsV

fyfeVsM ih ch ua- 1009]

f='kwy iEi] vkth

b.MLVªh;y ,LVsV]

80 fQV jksM]

ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360003

2877683

21 vçSy] 2014 eSllZ jscSdk ysfeusVl

ltkoVh FkeksZlsVhax laf'y"V

2046

1995

8A ,u ,p lks[kkMh cl

jsftuc) ijrnkj pknjsa&

LVkWi] rkyqdk eksjch]

fof'k"V

cgknqjx<+] ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&363642

2879283

24 vçSy] 2014 eSllZ ,p ,e IykfLVd

nzfor iSVªksfy;e xSl

3224

2002

xksdqy uxj 4] xksdqy/kke

¼,yihth½ flysUMjksa dks

esu jksM] xqtjkr dkfLVax

NksM+dj laihfMr xSl

LVªhV] ftyk jktdksV]

flysUMjksa ds fy, okYo

xqtjkr&364004

fQfVax&fof'k"V

2879586

28 vçSy] 2014 eSllZ jktsÜoj bUMLVªht

fueTtuh; iEi lsV

8034

2002

3] xksdqyuxj] tSu

IykfLVd ds ihNs

xksdqy/kke esu jksM]

ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360004

[la- dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11]

la prqosZnh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa çeq[k

New Delhi, the 28th June 2014

S.O.

1878.—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 grnat of licences particulats of which are given below

in the following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant

Name and address of the

Title of the

IS No.

Part. Sec.

Year

No. No.

Date

party

Standard

¼1½ ¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¼5½

¼6½

¼7½

¼8½

¼9½

2872168

02/04/2014

M/s. DIAMOND TMT &

Specification for high

1786

2008

PROCON PVT. LTD.

strength deformed steel

Survey No. 468-469,

bars and wires for

Village Sanodar, Talaja

Concrete reinforcement

Highway, Taluka Ghogha,

Distt : Bhavnagar,

Gujarat-364050

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¼5½

¼6½

¼7½

¼8½

¼9½

4860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2872269

02/04/2014

M/s. SHUBH PLY & VENEERS Specification for Marine 710

2010

Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 277,

Plywood

1st floor, Sector 1/A,

Near Mamlatdar office,

Gandhidham,

Distt : Kachchh,

Gujarat-370201

2872370

02/04/2014

M/s. PARISRAM SUB-

Submersible Pumpsets-

8034

2002

MERSIBLE PUMP

Specification

Survey No. 143, Plot No. 1,

Near Nehrunagar Ind. Area,

Ring Road, Gondal by pass

Highway, Distt : Rajkot

Gujarat-360002

2872471

03/04/2014

M/s. KRISHNA BEVERAGES Packaged Drinking Water 14543

2004

43-B, Maruti Industrial

(other than Packaged

Area, Gondal Road, Near

Natural Mineral Water)-

Octroi Naka, Distt : Rajkot,

Specification

Gujarat-360004

2874172

08/04/2014

M/s. RAVI PLAST

Conduits of electrical

9537

1983

Sardar Ptel Udyog Nagar,

installations : Part 3 Rigid

Plot No. 17, Boriya Taluka

plain conduits of insulting

Jamkandorana,

materials (superseding

Distt : Rajkot,

IS : 2509)

Gujarat-360405

2875073

09/04/2014

M/s. AMAR PLOYFILS Pvt. Ltd. Polypropylene ropes

5175

1992

Survey No. 258/2,

(3-strand hawser-laid and

Chhaya, National Highway,

8-strand-plaited)-Specification

Opp. Airport,

Distt : Porbandar,

Gujarat-360577

2875174

09/04/2014

M/s. SHIVAM ENGINEERS

Irrigation equipment-

14606

1998

Survey No. 237, Plot No. 4/B,

Media filter-Specification

B/H Vikas Stove, Veraval,

Distt : Rajkot,

Gujarat-360024

2875376

10/04/2014

M/s. NUTAN ENGINEERING Submersible Pumpsets-

8034

2002

Opp, Jasmin Engineering,

Specification

Shiv Ind Area, Near Falcon

Pumps, Vavdi,

Distt : Rajkot,

Gujarat-360001

2875477

10/04/2014

M/s. FLOREX PUMPS

Submersible Pumpsets-

8034

2002

INDUSTRIES 8/B National

Specification

Highway, Near New Sardar

Marketing yard,

Opp Sardar tyres, Gondal,

Distt : Rajkot,

Gujarat-360311

¼1½ ¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¼5½

¼6½

¼7½

¼8½

¼9½

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4861

2875578

10/04/2014

M/s. FLOREX PUMPS

Openwell Submersible

14220

1994

INDUSTRIES 8/B National

Pumpsets-Specification

Highway, Near New Sardar

Marketing yard,

Opp Sardar tyres, Gondal,

Distt : Rajkot,

Gujarat-360311

2875982

11/04/2014

M/s. MADHAV POLYMERS

Emitting pipes system

13488

2008

Survey No. 215, Plot No. 3-B,

B/H Darshan Park Society

Opp. Maruti Oil Mill,

N.H. 8B, Veraval (Shapur),

Distt : Rajkot, Gujarat-360024

2876782

16/04/2014

M/s. TRUPATI WIRE CAB

PVC Insulated cables for 694

1990

Plot No. 6, Survey No. 60 P. 1, working voltages upta and

Tarang Ind. Area,

including 1100V

Opp. Wandheshwar Temple,

National Highway 8B,

Hadamatala, Taluka-Kotda

Sangani,

District : Rajkot,

Gujarat-360211

2876883

16/04/2014

M/s. FLOWIN CABLES

PVC Insulated cables for 694

1990

Survey No. 143, Plot No. 58,

working voltages upta and

Near Railway over Bridge,

including 1100V

Dhebar Road, Kothariya,

District : Rajkot,

Gujarat-360002

2876984

16/04/2014

M/s. JAY VIJAY COR-

PVC Insulated cables for 694

1990

PORATION Surve No.-187,

working voltages upta and

Plot No.-6A, Opp/Gujrat

including 1100V

Intrux Pvt. Ltd.

At Shapar, Taluka Kotda

Sangani, District : Rajkot,

Gujarat-360030

2877582

17/04/2014

M/s. CAST AND BLOWER

Openwell Submersible

14220

1994

COMPANY (GUJRAT) PVT.

Pumpsets-Specification

LTD. P.B. No. 1009, Trishul

Pump, Aji Ind. Estate, 80 feet

Road, District : Rajkot

Gujarat-360003

2877683

21/04/2014

M/s. REBECCA

Decorative Thermo-

2046

1995

LAMINATES

setting Synthetic Resin

8-A N.H. Sokhada Bus Stop,

Bonded Laminated Sheets-

Taluka Morbi, Bahadurgadh,

Specification

Distt : Rajkot,

Gujarat-363642

2879283

24/04/2014

M/s. H. M. PLASTICS

Valve Fittings for

3224

2002

Gokul Nagar-4,

Compressed Gas

Gokuldham Main Road,

Cylinders Excluding

Gujarat Casting Street,

Liquefied Petroleum Gas

Distt : Rajkot,

(LPG) Cylinders-

Gujarat-364004

Specification

¼1½ ¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¼5½

¼6½

¼7½

¼8½

¼9½

4862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2879586

28/04/2014

M/s. RAMESHWAR

Submersible Pumpsets-

8034

2002

INDUSTRIES

Specification

3, Gokul Nagar, Opp. Jain

Plastic, Gokuldham Main

Road, District : Rajkot,

Gujarat-360004

[No. CMD/ 13:11]

S. CHATURVEDI, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 28 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

1879-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (çek.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 esa fn, x, gSa dks ykbZlsal jn~n fd, x, gSa %&&

vuqlwph

Ø-

ykblsal la-

ykblsal/kkjh dk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@çØe

jí gksus dh

la-

uke o irk

lEc) Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

frfFk

3757072

eSllZ eksekbZ ,UVjizkbZt

iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan çkd`frd

29 vçSy 2014

thvkbZMhlh IykWV ua- 11]

feujy ty ds vykok½

xkao HkkVh;k]

rkyqdk dY;k.kiqj]

ftyk tkeuxj]

xqtjkr&361315

¹la- dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11º

la- prqosZnh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa çeq[k

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2014

S.O.

1879.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

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

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

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence No.

Name & Address

Article/ Process with

Date of

No.

CM/L-

of the Licensee

relevant Indian Standards covered

Cancellation

by the licence cancelled/suspension

3757072

M/s. MOMAI

Packaged Drinking Water

ENTERPRISE GIDC

(other than Packaged

29/04/2014

Plot No. 11, Village Bhatiya,

Natural Mineral Water)

Taluka Kalyanpur,

District : Jamnagar,

Gujarat-361315

[No. CMD/13: 11]

S. CHATURVEDI, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

¼1½ ¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¼5½

¼6½

¼7½

¼8½

¼9½

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4863

varfj{k foHkkx

csaxywj] 1 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1880-—dsanzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e (4)

ds vuqlj.k esa ,rn~}kjk vUrfj{k foHkkx ds fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku

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

¹la- 8@1@10@2011&fga-º

,u- iV~VkfHk jkeu] voj lfpo

DEPARTMENT OF SPACE

Bangalore, the 1st July, 2014

S.O.

1880.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of the Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the

Union) Rule, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies the following Office of the Department of Space, whereof more

than 80 percent staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. 8/1/10/2011-H.]

N. PATTABHI RAMAN, Under Secy.

d`f"k ea=kky;

(d`f"k ,oa lgdkfjrk foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1881-—cgq&jkT; lgdkjh lfefr vf/fu;e] 2002 (2002 dk 39) ds [k.M 4 ds mi[k.M (1) esa iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, rFkk Hkkjr ljdkj ds fnukad 20 ebZ] 2013 dh vf/lwpuk la- ,y&11012@2@2003&,y,aM,e ds vf/Øe.k esa dsUnz ljdkj]

Jh jkt flag] la;qDr lfpo (lgdkfjrk)] d`f"k ea=kky;] d`f"k ,oa lgdkfjrk foHkkx dks lgdkjh lfefr;ksa ds dsUnzh; jftLVªkj ds :i esa

rRdky izHkko ls rFkk vkxkeh vkns'kksa rd fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gSA

¹la- ,y&11012@2@2003@&,y,aM,eº

?ku';ke Bkdqj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(Department of Agriculture and Cooperation)

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2014

S.O.

1881.—In exercise of the powers conferred vide sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Multi-State Cooperative

Societies Act, 2002 (39 of 2002) and in supersession of the Government of India Notification No. L-11012/2/2003-L&M dated

20th May, 2013, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Raj Singh, Joint Secretary (Cooperation) in the Ministry of

Agriculture, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, as the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies with immediate

effect and until further orders.

[No. L-11012/2/2003 L&M]

GHANSHYAM THAKUR, Under Secy.

4864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(d`f"k vuqla/ku ,oa f'k{kk foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1882-—dsUnzh; ljdkj d`f"k ea=kky;] d`f"k

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

ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;ekoyh 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e (4) ds

vuqlj.k esa Hkk-d`-v-i- ds ifj;kstuk funs'kky; [kqj idk ,oa eqag

idk jksx] Hkk-i-fp-v- ifjlj] eqDrs'oj] uSuhrky] mÙkjk[akM dks

ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d

Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrh gSA

¹la- 13&10@2009&fganh@226º

vydk vkgwtk] voj lfpo

(Department of Agricultural Research & Education)

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2014

S.O.

1882.—In pursuance of sub-Rule (4) of Rule

10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the

Union) Rules 1976, the Central Government, Ministry of

Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Research &

Education hereby notified the Project Directorate on foot

and Mouth Disease IVRI Campus Mukteshwar-263138

Uttrakhand where more than 80% of Staff have acquired

the working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. 13-10/2009-Hindi/226]

ALKA AHUJA, Under Secy.

oL=k ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1883-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa

ds fy,) jktHkk"kk fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e (4) ds

vuqlj.k esa] oL=k ea=kky; ds varxZr vkus okys fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa

dks ftlds 80% ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku

izkIr dj fy;k gS] vf/lwfpr djrh gS %&&

vuqla/ku izlkj dsanz] dsanzh; js'ke cksMZ] c<+Suh baVj dkWyst

ds ikl] Hknjklh] okjk.klh&221311 (mÙkj izns'k)

jk"Vªh; iQS'ku VSDukWykth laLFkku (fuÝV)] ubZ fnYyh dsanz]

fuÝV dSEil] gkSt [kkl] fudV xqyeksgj ikdZ] ubZ

fnYyh&110016 (jk"Vªh; jkt/kuh {ks=k fnYyh)

jk"Vªh; iQS'ku VSDukWykth laLFkku (fuÝV)] dksydkrk dsanz]

fuÝV dSEil] CykWd ,y,] IykWV&3ch] lSDVj&III] lkYV

ysd flVh] dksydkrk&700098 (i- caxky)

jk"Vªh; iQS'ku VSDukWykth laLFkku (fuÝV)] jk;cjsyh dsanz]

fuÝV dSEil] nwjHkk"k uxj] jk;cjsyh&229010 (mÙkj izns'k)

¹la- bZ&11016@1@2011&fgUnhº

lqu;uk rksej] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF TEXTILES

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1883.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule

10 of the Official Languages (Use for the official purpose

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

notifies the following offices of the Ministry of Textiles,

more than 80% staff whereof have acquired working

knowledge of Hindi:—

Research Extention Centre, Central Silk Board, Near

Barrahini Inter College, Bhadrasi, Varanasi-221311

(U.P.)

National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT),

New Delhi Centre, NIFT Campus, Hauz Khas, Near

Gulmohar Park, New Delhi-110016 (NCT, Delhi)

3. National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT),

Kolkata Centre, NIFT Campus, Block-LA, Plot-3B,

Sector-III, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700098, (West

Bengal)

National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT),

Raebareli Centre, NIFT Campus, Doorbhash Nagar,

Raebareli-229010 (U.P.)

[No. 11016/1/2011-Hindi]

SUNAINA TOMAR, Jt. Secy.

dks;yk ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1884-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS

fd] blls mikcn~/ vuqlwph esa mfYyf[kr ifj{ks=k dh Hkwfe esa

dks;yk vfHkizkIr fd;s tkus dh laHkkouk gS_

vkSj mDr vuqlwph esa o£.kr Hkwfe ds {ks=k dk C;kSjk var£o"V

djus okys js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e@ih,yth@ySaM]

rkjh[k 28 tuojh] 2013 dk fujh{k.k egkizca/d (xos"k.k izHkkx)]

lsaVªy ekbu Iykfuax ,.M fMtkbu bULVhP;wV fyfeVsM] xksanokuk

Iysl] dkads jksM] jkaph ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=kd]

1- dkmafly gkÅl LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k

ftyk dysDVj] ftyk 'kgMksy] eè; izns'k ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk

ldrk gS_

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj

fodkl) vf/fu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20) (ftls blesa blds

i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 4 dh mi/kjk (1)

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] iwoksZDRk vuqlwph esa o£.kr

Hkwfe esa dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS_

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4865

mi;qZDr o£.kr vuqlwph esa o£.kr Hkwfe esa fgrcn~/ dksbZ

O;fDr bl vf/lwpuk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu dh

vof/ ds Hkhrj egkizca/d (xos"k.k izHkkx)] lsaVªy ekbu Iykfuax

,.M fMtkbu bULVhP;wV fyfeVsM] xksanokuk Iysl] dkads jksM]

jkaph&834031 (>kj[kaM) dks&

(i) mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 4 dh mi /kjk (3) ds v/hu

dh xbZ fdlh dkjZokbZ ls gqbZ ;k laHkkO; gksus okyh fdlh

{kfr ds fy;s mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk

(1) ds v/hu izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk_

(ii) mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 13 dh mi /kjk (1) ds v/hu

iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds izHkkoghu gksus ;k mDr vf/fu;e

dh /kjk 13 dh mi&/kjk (4) ds v/hu [kuu iV~Vs

izHkkoghu gksus dh ckcr izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk vkSj

mls mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 13 dh mi/kjk (1) ds

[kaM (i) ls [kaM (iv) esa fofu£n"V enksa dh ckcr dh

mixr O;; dks min£'kr djus ds fy;s iwoksZDr Hkwfe ls

lacaf/r lHkh ekufp=kksa] pkVks± vkSj vU; nLrkostksa dks

ifjnÙk dj ldsxkA

vuqlwph

iVklh CykWd] lksgkxiqj dks;yk {ks=k

ftyk&'kgMksy] eè; izns'k

(js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e@ih,yth@ySaM] rkjh[k

28 tuojh] 2013

Øe ekStk@

rglhy

iVokjh

cUnkscLr

ftyk

{ks=k

fVIi.k

la-

xzke

gYdk

la[;k

,dM+

gSDVj

la[;k

esa

(yxHkx) (yxHkx)

uoyiqj

lksgkxiqj 63

503

'kgMksy 2471-10 1000-00

Hkkx

ykyiqj

lksgkxiqj 64

918

'kgMksy

123-56

50-00

Hkkx

/qjokj

lksgkxiqj 69

492

'kgMksy

123-55

50-00

Hkkx

gjnh

lksgkxiqj 62

1029

'kgMksy

247-11

100-00

Hkkx

dqy {ks=k % 2965-32 ,dM+ (yxHkx) ;k 1200-00 gSDVj (yxHkx)

lhek o.kZu%

d&[k ;g js[kk gjnh xzke ds fcUnq ^d* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj

uoyiqj xzke ds fcUnq ^[k* ij tkdj feyrh gSA js[kk

^d*&^[k* bl CykWd dh mÙkjh lhek dk fuekZ.k djrk gSA

[k&x

;g js[kk xzke uoyiqj ds fcUnq ^[k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj

mlh xzke ds fcUnq ^x* ij feyrh gSA js[kk ^[k*&^x* bl

CykWd ds iwohZ lhek dk Hkkx gSA

x&?k

;g js[kk xzke uoyiqj ds fcUnq ^x* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj

xzke ykyiqj ds fcUnq ^?k* ij feyrh gSA js[kk ^x*&^?k* bl

CykWd ds iwohZ lhek dk Hkkx gSA

?k&Ä

;g js[kk xzke ykyiqj ds fcUnq ^?k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj

mlh xzke ds fcUnq ^Ä* ij feyrh gSA js[kk ^?k*&^Ä* bl

CykWd ds iwohZ lhek dk Hkkx gSA

Ä&p

;g js[kk xzke ykyiqj ds fcUnq ^Ä* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj

xzke /qjokj ds fcUnq ^p* ij feyrh gSA js[kk ^Ä*&^p* bl

CykWd dh nf{k.kh lhek dk fuekZ.k djrk gSA

p&d

;g js[kk xzke /qjokj ds fcUnq ^p* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj

xzke uoyiqj ls gksdj xqtjrh gq, gjnh xzke ds fcUnq ^d*

ij tkdj feyrh gSA js[kk ^p*&^d* bl CykWd dh if'peh

lhek dk fuekZ.k djrk gSA

¹iQk- la- 43015@08@2014&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&Iº

nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2014

S.O.

1884.—Whereas, it appears to the Central

Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the

lands in the locality mentioned in the Schedule annexed

hereto;

And, whereas the plan bearing number SECL/BSP/

GM/PLG/LAND, dated the 28th January, 2013 contained

the detailed of the area of land described in the said

Scheduled may be inspected at the office of the General

Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and

Design Institute, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi or

at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street,

Kolkata-700001 or at the Office of the District Collector,

District Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh.

Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquision and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957),

(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central

Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect

for coal in the land described in the aforesaid schedule;

Any person interested in the land described in the

aforesaid Schedule may :—

(i)

claim compensation under sub-section(1) of

section 6 of the said Act for any damage/caused

or likely to be caused by any action taken under

sub-section 3 of section 4 of the said Act; or

(ii)

claim compensation under sub-section(1) of

section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting

licence ceasing to have effect or under sub-

section(4) of section 13 of the said Act for mining

lease ceasing to have effect and deliver all maps,

charts and other documents relating to the

aforesaid land to show the expenditure incurred

in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv)

of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act,

to the Office of the General Manager (Exploration Division),

Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited,

Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi-834031 (Jharkhand)

within a period of ninety days from the date of publication

of this notification.

4866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

Patasi Block, Sohagpur Coalfied

District-Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh

(the plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM/PLG/LAND,

dated the 28th January, 2013

Sl. Mouja/ Tahsil

Patwari Bando-

District

Area

Rema-

No. Village

halka

bast

in Acres in

rks

number number

(approxi- hectares

mately)

(approxi-

mately)

1. Navalpur Sohagpur

503

Shahdol

2471-10 1000.00 Part

2. Lalpur

Sohagpur

918

Shahdol

123-56

50.00 Part

3. Dhurwar Sohagpur ` 69

492

Shahdol

123-55

50.00 Part

4. Hardi

Sohagpur

1029

Shahdol

247-11

100.00 Part

Total area : 2965.32 acres (approximately) or 1200.00 hectares

(approximately)

Boundary description :

A-B

Line starts from point 'A' in Hardi village and meet

at point 'B' in Navalpur village. 'A-B' line forms the

northern boundary of the block.

B-C

The line starts from point 'B' in Navalpur village

and meet at point 'C' in same village. 'B-C' line forms

the part of eastern boundary of the block.

C-D

The line starts from point 'C' in Navalpur village

and meet at point 'D' in Lalpur village. 'C-D' line

also forms the part of eastern boundary of the block.

D-E

The line starts from point 'D ' in Lalpur village and

meet at point 'E' in Dhurwar village. 'E-F' line forms

the part of eastern boundary of the block.

E-F

The line starts from point 'E' in Lalpur village and

meet at point 'F' in same village. 'D-E' line forms the

part of Southern boundary of the block.

F-A

The line starts from point 'F' in Dhurwar village and

meet at point 'A' in Hardi village passing through

the Navalpur village. 'F-A' line forms the western

boundary of the block.

[F. No. 43015/08/2014-PRIW-I]

DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.

Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 27 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1885-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr

èkkjk 88 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~}kjk nkeksnj

oSyh dkWjiksjs'ku (Mhohlh) ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer

deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vf/fu;e ds izpkyu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA

;g NwV vf/lwpuk tkjh gksus dh frfFk ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/ ds

fy, izHkkoh gksxhA

2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/hu gSa_ vFkkZr~%&&

1- iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj

j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke

fn[kk;s tk;saxs_

2- bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/fu;e ds v/hu

,slh izlqfo/k,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl

vf/lwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ

lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vk/kj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa_

3- NwV izkIr vof/ ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd,

tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs_

4- mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/ dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/fu;e

(ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ ^^mDr vof/ dgk x;k gS**)

izorZeku Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls çk:i esa vkSj ,slh fof'kf"V;ksa

lfgr nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e]

1950 ds v/hu mls mDr vof/ dh ckcr nsuh visf{kr

gksrh Fkha_

5- fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e dh /kjk 45

dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ fujh{kd

;k fuxe dk bl fufeÙk izkf/d`r dksbZ vU; in/kjh_

(i)

/kjk 44 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] mDr vof/

dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'k"V;ksa dks

lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ_ vFkok

(ii)

;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh

jkT; chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e] 1950 }kjk ;Fkkvisf{kr

jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/ ds fy, j[ks x;s

Fks ;k ugha_ ;k

(iii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

fu;kstd }kjk fn;s x, mu iQk;nksa dks] ftlds

iQyLo:i bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu NwV nh tk jgh

gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk

gqvk gS ;k ugha_ ;k

(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vof/

ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/ esa vf/fu;e

ds mica/ izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha mica/ksa dk vuqikyu

fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds

fy, l'kDr gksxk %&&

(d)

ç/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk

fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr

fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kjh vko';d le>rk

gS_ vFkok

([k)

,sls iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds vfèkHkksxkèkhu]

fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU;

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4867

ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij izos'k

djuk vkSj mlds çHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk djuk

fd og O;fDr;ksa ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds

lank; ls lacaf/r ,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU;

nLrkost] ,sls fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kjh ds

le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus nsa ;k

,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d le>rs

gSa_ ;k

(x)

ç/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds vfHkdrkZ

;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks] tks

,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa ik;k tk,] ;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr

dkj.k gS fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k

(?k)

,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh ;k vU;

nLrkost dh udy rS;kj djuk ;k m¼j.k

djuk A

(Ä)

;Fkkfu/kZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djuk A

fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznÙk NwV Lor% jí gks

tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj

dh vuqefr ysuh gksxhA

[la- ,l&38014@06@2014&,l-,l&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 27th June, 2014

S.O.

1885.—In exercise of the power conferred by

section 88 read with section 91-A of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/

establishments of Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC),

Kolkata from the operation of the said Act. The exemption

shall be effective from the date of issue of notification for a

period of one year.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely :—

(1)

The aforesaid establishment wherein the employees

are employed shall maintain a register showing the

name and designations of the exampted employees;

(2)

Notwithstanding this exemption, the employees shall

to receive such benefits under the said Act to which

they might have become entitled to on the basis of

the contributions paid prior to the date from which

exemption granted by this notification operates;

(3)

The contributions for the exempted period, if already

paid, shall not be refundable;

(4)

The employer of the said factory/establishment shall

submit in respect of the period during which that

factory was subject to the operation of the said Act

(hereinafter referred as the said period), such returns

in such forms and containing such particulars as

were due from it in respect of the said period under

the Employees' State Insurance (General)

Regulations, 1950;

(5)

Any Social Security Officer appointed by the

Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of

the said ESI Act or other official of the Corporation

authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose

of :—

(i)

Verifying the particulars contained in any

returned submitted under sub-section (1) of

section 44 for the said period; or

(ii)

Ascertaining whether registers and records

were maintained as required by the Employees'

State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for

the said period; or

(iii)

Ascertaining whether the employees continue

to be entitled to benefits provided by the

employer in cash and kind being benefits in

consideration of which exemption is being

granted under this notification; or

(iv)

Ascertaining whether any of the provisions

of the Act had been complied with during

the period when such provisions were in

force in relation to the said factory to be

empowered to :

(a)

require the principal or immediate employer

to furnish to him such information as he

may consider necessary for the purpose of

this Act; or

(b)

at any reasonable time enter any factory,

establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or immediate

employer at any reasonable time and require

any person found in charge thereof to

produce to such inspector or other official

and allow him to examine accounts, books

and other documents relating to the

employment of personal and payment of

wages or to furnish to him such information

as he may consider necessary; or

(c)

examine the principal or immediate

employed, his agent or servant, or any

person

found

such

factory,

establishment, office or other premises or

any person whom the said inspector or other

official has reasonable cause to believe to

have been an employee; or

4868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(d)

make copies of or take extracts from any

maintained in such factory, establishment,

office or other premises,

(e)

exercise such other powers as may be

prescribed.

In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the

exemption granted shall become automatically

cancelled and then the new entity will have to

approach the appropriate Government for exemption.

[No. S-38014/06/2014-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 27 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1886-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr /

kjk 88 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~}kjk us'kuy

iQ£Vykbtj fyfeVsM (ukaxy] HkfVaMk ,oa ikuhir ;wfuVsa) ds

dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa izHkkoh gksxhA fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vf/

fu;e ds izpkyu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g NwV vf/lwpuk tkjh

gksus dh frfFk ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, izHkkoh gksxhA

3- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/hu gSa_ vFkkZr~%&&

1- iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj

j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke

fn[kk;s tk;saxs_

2- bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/fu;e ds v/hu

,slh izlqfo/k,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl

vf/lwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ

lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vk/kj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa_

3- NwV izkIr vof/ ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd,

tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs_

4- mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/ dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/fu;e

(ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ ^^mDr vof/ dgk x;k gS**)

izorZeku Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls çk:i esa vkSj ,slh fof'kf"V;ksa

lfgr nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e]

1950 ds v/hu mls mDr vof/ dh ckcr nsuh visf{kr

gksrh Fkha_

4- fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e dh /kjk 45

dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ fujh{kd

;k fuxe dk bl fufeÙk izkf/d`r dksbZ vU; in/kjh_

(i)

/kjk 44 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] mDr vof/

dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'k"V;ksa dks

lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ_ vFkok

(ii)

;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh

jkT; chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e] 1950 }kjk ;Fkkvisf{kr

jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/ ds fy, j[ks x;s

Fks ;k ugha_ ;k

(iii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

fu;kstd }kjk fn;s x, mu iQk;nksa dks] ftlds

iQyLo:i bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu NwV nh tk jgh

gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk

gqvk gS ;k ugha_ ;k

(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vof/

ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/ esa vf/fu;e

ds mica/ izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha mica/ksa dk vuqikyu

fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds

fy, l'kDr gksxk %&&

(d)

ç/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk

fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr

fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kjh vko';d le>rk

gS_ vFkok

([k)

,sls iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds vf/Hkksxk&

/hu] fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k

vU; ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij izos'k

djuk vkSj mlds çHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk djuk

fd og O;fDr;ksa ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds

lank; ls lacaf/r ,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU;

nLrkost] ,sls fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kjh ds

le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus nsa ;k

,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d le>rs

gSa_ ;k

(x)

ç/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds vfHkdrkZ

;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks] tks

,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa ik;k tk,] ;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr

dkj.k gS fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k

(?k)

,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh ;k vU;

nLrkost dh udy rS;kj djuk ;k m¼j.k

djuk A

(Ä)

;Fkkfu/kZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djuk A

fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznÙk NwV Lor% jí gks

tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj

dh vuqefr ysuh gksxhA

[la- ,l&38014@13@2011&,l-,l&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4869

New Delhi, the 27th June, 2014

S.O.

1886.—In exercise of the power conferred by

section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/

establishments of National Fertilizers Limited (Nangal,

Bhatinda & Panipat Units) from the operation of the said

Act. The exemption shall be effective from the date of issue

of notification for a period of one year.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely :—

(1)

The aforesaid establishment wherein the employees

are employed shall maintain a register showing the

name and designations of the exampted employees;

(2)

Notwithstanding this exemption, the employees shall

continue to receive such benefits under the said Act

to which they might have become entitled to on the

basis of the contributions paid prior to the date from

which exemption granted by this notification

operates;

(3)

The contributions for the exempted period, if already

paid, whall not be refundable;

(4)

The employer of the said factory/establishment shall

submit in respect of the period during which that

factory was subject to the operation of the said Act

(hereinafter referred as the said period), such returns

in such forms and containing such particulars as

were due from it in respect of the said period under

the Employees' State Insurance (General)

Regulations, 1950;

(5)

Any Social Security Officer appointed by the

Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of

the said ESI Act or other official of the Corporation

authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose

of :—

(i)

Verifying the particulars contained in any

returned submitted under sub-section (1) of

Section 44 for the said period; or

(ii)

Ascertaining whether registers and records

were maintained as required by the Employees'

State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for

the said period; or

(iii)

Ascertaining whether the employees continue

to be entitled to benefits provided by the

employer in cash and kind being benefits in

consideration of which exemption is being

granted under this notification; and

(iv)

Ascertaining whether any of the provisions

of the Act had been complied with during

the period when such provisions were in

force in relation to the said factory to be

empowered to :

(a)

require the principal or immediate employer

to him such information as he may consider

necessary for the purpose of this Act; or

(b)

at any reasonable time enter any factory,

establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or immediate

employer at any reasonable time and require

any person found in charge thereof to

produce to such inspector or other official

and allow him to examine accounts, books

and other documents relating to the

employment of personal and payment of

wages or to furnish to him such information

as he may consider necessary; or

(c)

examine the principal or immediate

employed, his agent or servant, or any

person

found

such

factory,

establishment, office or other premises or

any person whom the said inspector or other

official has reasonable cause to believe to

have been an employee; or

(d)

make copies of or take extracts from any

maintained in such factory, establishment,

office or other premises,

(e)

exercise such other powers as may be

prescribed.

In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the

exemption granted shall become automatically

cancelled and then the new entity will have to

approach the appropriate Government for exemption.

[No. S-38014/13/2011-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 27 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1887-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr /

kjk 88 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~}kjk eSllZ

bafM;u iQkjelZ iQ£Vykbtj dkWijsfVo fyfeVsM (bWiQdks)] (lHkh

;wfuV@dk;kZy;) ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vf/fu;e ds

izpkyu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g NwV vf/lwpuk tkjh gksus dh

frfFk ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, izHkkoh gksxhA

3- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/hu gSa_ vFkkZr~%&&

1- iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj

j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke

fn[kk;s tk;saxs_

2- bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/fu;e ds v/hu

,slh izlqfo/k,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl

4870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vf/lwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ

lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vk/kj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSasa_

3- NwV izkIr vof/ ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd,

tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs_

4- mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/ dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/fu;e

(ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ ^^mDr vof/ dgk x;k gS**)

izorZeku Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls çk:i esa vkSj ,slh fof'kf"V;ksa

lfgr nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e]

1950 ds v/hu mls mDr vof/ dh ckcr nsuh visf{kr

gksrh Fkha_

5- fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e dh /kjk 45

dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ fujh{kd

;k fuxe dk bl fufeÙk izkf/d`r dksbZ vU; in/kjh_

(i)

/kjk 44 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] mDr vof/

dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'k"V;ksa dks

lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ_ vFkok

(ii)

;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh

jkT; chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e] 1950 }kjk ;Fkkvisf{kr

jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/ ds fy, j[ks x;s

Fks ;k ugha_ ;k

(iii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

fu;kstd }kjk fn;s x, mu iQk;nksa dks] ftlds

iQyLo:i bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu NwV nh tk jgh

gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk

gqvk gS ;k ugha_ ;k

(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vof/

ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/ esa vf/fu;e

ds mica/ izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha mica/ksa dk vuqikyu

fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds

fy, l'kDr gksxk %&&

(d)

ç/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk

fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr

fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kjh vko';d le>rk

gS_ vFkok

([k)

,sls iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds vf/Hkksxk&

/hu] fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k

vU; ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij izos'k

djuk vkSj mlds çHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk djuk

fd og O;fDr;ksa ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds

lank; ls lacaf/r ,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU;

nLrkost] ,sls fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kjh ds

le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus nsa ;k

,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d le>rs

gSa_ ;k

(x)

ç/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds vfHkdrkZ

;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks] tks

,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa ik;k tk,] ;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr

dkj.k gS fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k

(?k)

,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh ;k vU;

nLrkost dh udy rS;kj djuk ;k m¼j.k

ysuk A

(Ä)

;Fkkfu/kZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djuk A

fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznÙk NwV Lor% jí gks

tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj

dh vuqefr ysuh gksxhA

[la- ,l&38014@05@2014&,l-,l&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 27th June, 2014

S.O.

1887.—In exercise of the power conferred by

section 88 read with section 91-A of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby exempts the regular employees of M/s. Indian

farmers Fertiliser Corporative Ltd. (IFFCO), (All Units/

officers) from the operation of the said Act. The exemption

shall be effective from the date of issue of notification for a

period of one year.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely :—

(1)

The aforesaid establishment wherein the employees

are employed shall maintain a register showing the

name and designations of the exampted employees;

(2)

Notwithstanding this exemption, the employees shall

continue to receive such benefits under the said Act

to which they might have become entitled to on the

basis of the contributions paid prior to the date from

which exemption granted by this notification

operates;

(3)

The contributions for the exempted period, if already

paid, shall not be refundable;

(4)

The employer of the said factory/establishment shall

submit in respect of the period during which that

factory was subject to the operation of the said Act

(hereinafter referred as the said period), such returns

in such forms and containing such particulars as

were due from it in respect of the said period under

the Employees' State Insurance (General)

Regulations, 1950;

(5)

Any Social Security Officer appointed by the

Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4871

the said ESI Act or other official of the Corporation

authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose

of :—

(i)

Verifying the particulars contained in any

returned submitted under sub-section (1) of

section 44 for the said period; or

(ii)

Ascertaining whether registers and records

were maintained as required by the Employees'

State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for

the said period; or

(iii)

Ascertaining whether the employees continue

to be entitled to benefits provided by the

employer in cash and kind being benefits in

consideration of which exemption is being

granted under this notification; or

(iv)

Ascertaining whether any of the provisions

of the Act had been complied with during

the period when such provisions were in

force in relation to the said factory to be

empowered to :

(a)

require the principal or immediate employer

to furnish to him such information as he

may consider necessary for the purpose of

this Act; or

(b)

at any reasonable time enter any factory,

establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or immediate

employer at any reasonable time and require

any person found in charge thereof to

produce to such inspector or other official

and allow him to examine accounts, books

and other documents relating to the

employment of personal and payment of

wages or to furnish to him such information

as he may consider necessary; or

(c)

examine the principal or immediate

employed, his agent or servant, or any

person

found

such

factory,

establishment, office or other premises or

any person whom the said inspector or other

official has reasonable cause to believe to

have been an employee; or

(d)

make copes of or take extracts from any

maintained in such factory, establishment,

office or other premises,

(e)

exercise such other powers as may be

prescribed.

In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the

exemption granted shall become automatically

cancelled and then the new entity will have to

approach the appropriate Government for exemption.

[No. S-38014/05/2014-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 27 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1888-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

vfèfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr

èkkjk 88 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~}kjk eSllZ

lsehdaMDVj yScksjsVjh] eksgkyh ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vf/

fu;e ds izpkyu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g NwV 26-07-2014 ls

,d o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, izHkkoh gksxhA

2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/hu gSa_ vFkkZr~%&&

1- iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj

j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke

fn[kk;s tk;saxs_

2- bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/fu;e ds v/hu

,slh izlqfo/k,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl

vf/lwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ

lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vk/kj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa_

3- NwV izkIr vof/ ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd,

tk pqd gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs_

4- mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/ dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/fu;e

(ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ ^^mDr vof/ dgk x;k gS**)

izorZeku Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls çk:i esa vkSj ,slh fof'kf"V;ksa

lfgr nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e]

1950 ds v/hu mls mDr vof/ dh ckcr nsuh visf{kr

gksrh Fkha_

5- fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e dh /kjk 45

dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ fujh{kd

;k fuxe dk bl fufeÙk izkf/d`r dksbZ vU; in/kjh_

(i)

/kjk 44 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] mDr vof/

dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'k"V;ksa dks

lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ_ vFkok

(ii)

;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh

jkT; chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e] 1950 }kjk ;Fkkvisf{kr

jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/ ds fy, j[ks x;s

Fks ;k ugha_ ;k

(iii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

fu;kstd }kjk fn;s x, mu iQk;nksa dks] ftlds

iQyLo:i bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu NwV nh tk jgh

gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk

gqvk gS ;k ugha_ ;k

4872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vof/

ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/ esa vf/fu;e

ds mica/ izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha mica/ksa dk vuqikyu

fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds

fy, l'kDr gksxk %&&

(d)

ç/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk

fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr

fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kjh vko';d le>rk

gS_ vFkok

([k)

,sls iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds vf/&

Hkksxk/hu] fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy;

;k vU; ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij

izos'k djuk vkSj mlds çHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk

djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh

ds lank; ls lacaf/r ,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj

vU; nLrkost] ,sls fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kjh

ds le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus nsa

;k ,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d le>rs

gSa_ ;k

(x)

ç/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds vfHkdrkZ

;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks] tks

,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa ik;k tk,] ;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr

dkj.k gS fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k

(?k)

,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh ;k vU;

nLrkost dh udy rS;kj djuk ;k m¼j.k

djuk A

(Ä)

;Fkkfu/kZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djuk A

fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznÙk NwV Lor% jí gks

tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj

dh vuqefr ysuh gksxhA

[la- ,l&38014@07@2014&,l-,l&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 27th June, 2014

S.O.

1888.—In exercise of the power conferred by

section 88 read with section 91-A of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby exempts the regular employees of M/s. Semi-

Conductor Laboratory, Mohali from the operation of the

said Act. The exemption shall be effective from 26.07.2014

for a period of one year.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely :—

(1)

The aforesaid establishment wherein the employees

are employed shall maintain a register showing the

name and designations of the exampted employees;

(2)

Notwithstanding this exemption, the employees shall

continue to receive such benefits under the said Act

to which they might have become entitled to on the

basis of the contributions paid prior to the date from

which exemption granted by this notification

operates;

(3)

The contributions for the exempted period, if already

paid, shall not be refundable;

(4)

The employer of the said factory/establishment shall

submit in respect of the period during which that

factory was subject to the operation of the said Act

(hereinafter referred as the said period), such returns

in such forms and containing such particulars as

were due from it in respect of the said period under

the Employees' State Insurance (General)

Regulations, 1950;

(5)

Any Social Security Officer appointed by the

Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of

the said ESI Act or other official of the Corporation

authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose

of :—

(i)

Verifying the particulars contained in any

returned submitted under sub-section (1) of

section 44 for the said period; or

(ii)

Ascertaining whether registers and records

were maintained as required by the Employees'

State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for

the said period; or

(iii)

Ascertaining whether the employees continue

to be entitled to benefits provided by the

employer in cash and kind being benefits in

consideration of which exemption is being

granted under this notification; or

(iv)

Ascertaining whether any of the provisions

of the Act had been complied with during

the period when such provisions were in

force in relation to the said factory to be

empowered to :

(a)

require the principal or immediate employer

to furnish to him such information as he

may consider necessary for the purpose of

this Act; or

(b)

at any reasonable time enter any factory,

establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or immediate

employer at any reasonable time and require

any person found in charge thereof to

produce to such inspector or other official

and allow him to examine accounts, books

and other documents relating to the

employment of personal and payment of

wages or to furnish to him such information

as he may consider necessary; or

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4873

(c)

examine the principal or immediate employer,

his agent or servant, or any person found

in such factory, establishment, office or

other premises or any person whom the said

inspector or other official has reasonable

cause to believe to have been an employee;

(d)

make copes of or take extracts from any

maintained in such factory, establishment,

office or other premises,

(e)

exercise such other powers as may be

prescribed.

In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the

exemption granted shall become automatically

cancelled and then the new entity will have to

approach the appropriate Government for exemption.

[No. S-38014/07/2014-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 27 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1889-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr

èkkjk 88 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, bfM;u js;j vFkZ

fyfeVsM ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dks bl

vf/fu;e ds izpkyu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g NwV bl vf/

lwpuk ds tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy,

izHkkoh gksxhA

2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/hu gSa_ vFkkZr~%&&

1- iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj

j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke

fn[kk;s tk;saxs_

2- bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/fu;e ds v/hu

,slh izlqfo/k,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl

vf/lwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ

lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vk/kj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa_

3- NwV izkIr vof/ ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd,

tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs_

4- mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/ dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/fu;e

(ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ ^^mDr vof/ dgk x;k gS**)

izorZeku Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls çk:i esa vkSj ,slh fof'kf"V;ksa

lfgr nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e]

1950 ds v/hu mls mDr vof/ dh ckcr nsuh visf{kr

gksrh Fkha_

5- fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e dh /kjk 45 dh

mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ lkekftd lqj{kk

vf/dkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufeÙk izkf/d`r dksbZ vU; in/kjh_

(i)

/kjk 44 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] mDr vof/

dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'k"V;ksa dks

lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ_ vFkok

(ii)

;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh

jkT; chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e] 1950 }kjk ;Fkkvisf{kr

jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/ ds fy, j[ks x;s

Fks ;k ugha_ ;k

(iii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

fu;kstd }kjk fn;s x, mu iQk;nksa dks] ftlds

iQyLo:i bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu NwV nh tk jgh

gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk

gqvk gS ;k ugha_ ;k

(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vof/

ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/ esa vf/fu;e

ds mica/ izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha mica/ksa dk vuqikyu

fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds

fy, l'kDr gksxk %&&

(d)

ç/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk

fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr

fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kjh vko';d le>rk

gS_ vFkok

([k)

,sls iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds vf/&

Hkksxk/hu] fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy;

;k vU; ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij

izos'k djuk vkSj mlds çHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk

djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh

ds lank; ls lacaf/r ,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj

vU; nLrkost] ,sls fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kjh

ds le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus nsa

;k ,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d le>rs

gSa_ ;k

(x)

ç/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds vfHkdrkZ

;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks] tks

,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa ik;k tk,] ;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr

dkj.k gS fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k

(?k)

,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh ;k vU;

nLrkost dh udy rS;kj djuk ;k m¼j.k

djuk A

(Ä)

;Fkkfu/kZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djuk A

fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznÙk NwV Lor% jí gks

tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj

dh vuqefr ysuh gksxhA

[(la- ,l&38014@08@2014&,l-,l&I)]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

4874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 27th June, 2014

S.O.

1889.—In exercise of the power conferred by

section 88 read with section 91-A of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby exempts the regular employees of factory/

establishments of Indian Rare Earths Limited from the

operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be effective

from the date of issue of notification for a period of one

year.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely :—

(1)

The aforesaid establishment wherein the employees

are employed shall maintain a register showing the

name and designations of the exampted employees;

(2)

Notwithstanding this exemption, the employees shall

continue to receive such benefits under the said Act

to which they might have become entitled to on the

basis of the contributions paid prior to the date from

which exemption granted by this notification

operates;

(3)

The contributions for the exempted period, if already

paid, shall not be refundable;

(4)

The employer of the said factory/establishment shall

submit in respect of the period during which that

factory was subject to the operation of the said Act

(hereinafter referred as the said period), such returns

in such forms and containing such particulars as

were due from it in respect of the said period under

the Employees' State Insurance (General)

Regulations, 1950;

(5)

Any Social Security Officer appointed by the

Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of

the said ESI Act or other official of the Corporation

authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose

of :—

(i)

Verifying the particulars contained in any

returned submitted under sub-section (1) of

section 44 for the said period; or

(ii)

Ascertaining whether registers and records

were maintained as required by the Employees'

State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for

the said period; or

(iii)

Ascertaining whether the employees continue

to be entitled to benefits provided by the

employer in cash and kind being benefits in

consideration of which exemption is being

granted under this notification; or

(iv)

Ascertaining whether any of the provisions

of the Act had been complied with during

the period when such provisions were in

force in relation to the said factory to be

empowered to :

(a)

require the principal or immediate employer

to furnish to him such information as he

may consider necessary for the purpose of

this Act; or

(b)

at any reasonable time enter any factory,

establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or immediate

employer at any reasonable time and require

any person found in charge thereof to

produce to such inspector or other official

and allow him to examine accounts, books

and other documents relating to the

employment of personal and payment of

wages or to furnish to him such information

as he may consider necessary; or

(c)

examine the principal or immediate employer,

his agent or servant, or any person found in

such factory, establishment, office or other

premises or any person whom the said

inspector or other official has reasonable cause

to believe to have been an employee; or

(d)

make copes of or take extracts from any

maintained in such factory, establishment,

office or other premises,

(e)

exercise such other powers as may be

prescribed.

In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the

exemption granted shall become automatically

cancelled and then the new entity will have to

approach the appropriate Government for exemption.

[No. S-38014/08/2014-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1890-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr

èkkjk 88 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, lSUVªy dkWVst

baMLVªht dkWjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer

deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vf/fu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g

NwV 19-07-2014 ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, ykxw jgsxhA

2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/khu gSa_ vFkkZr~%&&

1- iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj

j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke

fn[kk;s tk;saxs_

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4875

2- bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/fu;e ds v/hu

,slh izlqfo/k,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl

vf/lwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ

lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vk/kj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa_

3- NwV izkIr vof/ ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd,

tk pqd gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs_

4- mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/ dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/fu;e

(ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ ^^mDr vof/ dkg x;k gS**)

izorZeku Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls çk:i esa vkSj ,slh fof'kf"V;ksa

lfgr nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e]

1950 ds v/hu mls mDr vof/ dh ckcr nsuh visf{kr

gksrh Fkha_

5- fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e dh /kjk 45

dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ lkekftd

lqj{kk vf/dkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufeÙk izkf/d`r dksbZ vU;

in/kjh_

(i)

/kjk 44 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] mDr vof/

dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'k"V;ksa dks

lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ_ vFkok

(ii)

;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh

jkT; chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e] 1950 }kjk ;Fkkvisf{kr

jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/ ds fy, j[ks x;s

Fks ;k ugha_ ;k

(iii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

fu;kstd }kjk fn;s x, mu iQk;nksa dks] ftlds

iQyLo:i bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu NwV nh tk jgh

gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk

gqvk gS ;k ugha_ ;k

(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vof/

ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/ esa vf/fu;e

ds mica/ izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha mica/ksa dk vuqikyu

fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds

fy, l'kDr gksxk %&&

(d)

ç/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk

fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr

fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kjh vko';d le>rk

gS_ vFkok

([k)

,sls iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds vf/&

Hkksxk/hu] fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy;

;k vU; ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij

izos'k djuk vkSj mlds çHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk

djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh

ds lank; ls lacaf/r ,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj

vU; nLrkost] ,sls fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kjh

ds le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus nsa

;k ,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d le>rs

gSa_ ;k

(x)

ç/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds vfHkdrkZ

;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks] tks

,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa ik;k tk,] ;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr

dkj.k gS fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k

(?k)

,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh ;k vU;

nLrkost dh udy rS;kj djuk ;k m¼j.k

djuk A

(Ä)

;Fkkfu/kZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djuk A

fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznÙk NwV Lor% jí gks

tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj

dh vuqefr ysuh gksxhA

[la- ,l&38014@17@2013&,l,l&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2014

S.O.

1890.—In exercise of the power conferred by

section 88 read with section 91-A of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby exempts the regular employees of factory/

establishments of Central Cottage Industries Corporation

of India Limited from the operation of the said Act. The

exemption shall be effective from 19.07.2014 for a period of

one year.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely :—

(1)

The aforesaid establishment wherein the employees

are employed shall maintain a register showing the

name and designations of the exampted employees;

(2)

Notwithstanding this exemption, the employees shall

to receive such benefits under the said Act to which

they might have become entitled to on the basis of

the contributions paid prior to the date from which

exemption granted by this notification operates;

(3)

The contributions for the exempted period, if already

paid, shall not be refundable;

(4)

The employer of the said factory/establishment shall

submit in respect of the period during which that

factory was subject to the operation of the said Act

(hereinafter referred as the said period), such returns

in such forms and containing such particulars as

were due from it in respect of the said period under

the Employees' State Insurance (General)

Regulations, 1950;

4876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(5)

Any Social Security Officer appointed by the

Corporation under sub-section (1) of Section 45 of

the said ESI Act or other official of the Corporation

authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose

of :—

(i)

Verifying the particulars contained in any

returned submitted under sub-section (1) of

section 44 for the said period; or

(ii)

Ascertaining whether registers and records

were maintained as required by the Employees'

State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for

the said period; or

(iii)

Ascertaining whether the employees continue

to be entitled to benefits provided by the

employer in cash and kind being benefits in

consideration of which exemption is being

granted under this notification; or

(iv)

Ascertaining whether any of the provisions

of the Act had been complied with during

the period when such provisions were in

force in relation to the said factory to be

empowered to :

(a)

require the principal or immediate employer

to furnish to him such information as he

may consider necessary for the purpose of

this Act; or

(b)

at any reasonable time enter any factory,

establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or immediate

employer at any reasonable time and require

any person found in charge thereof to

produce to such inspector or other official

and allow him to examine accounts, books

and other documents relating to the

employment of personal and payment of

wages or to furnish to him such information

as he may consider necessary; or

(c)

examine the principal or immediate

employed, his agent or servant, or any

person

found

such

factory,

establishment, office or other premises or

any person whom the said inspector or other

official has reasonable cause to believe to

have been an employee; or

(d)

make copes of or take extracts from any

maintained in such factory, establishment,

office or other premises,

(e)

exercise such other powers as may be

prescribed.

In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the

exemption granted shall become automatically

cancelled and then the new entity will have to

approach the appropriate Government for exemption.

[No. S-38013/17/2013-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1891-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMIVh

Mk;jsDVj vkWiQ+ fV;k MsoyiesaV Vh cksMZ uhyfxfjl ds izca/kra= ds

lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

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

U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 14@2014) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[ la- ,y&42012@184@2013&vkbZvkj(Mh;w)

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

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014

S.O.

1891.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 14/2014)

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 Deputy Director of Tea

Development Tea Board, Nilgiris and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 20/05/2014.

[No. L-42012/184/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 8th May, 2014

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 14/2014

(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 Tea Board and their workman)

BETWEEN

Sri N. Lakshmanan

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Dy. Director of Tea

2^nd Party/Respondent

Development

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4877

Tea Board, “Shelwood”

Club Road, PO Box No. 6

Coonoor-643101

Nilgiris

Appearances :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

In Person

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent :

M/s Paul & Paul,

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-42012/184/2013-IR(DU)

dated 27.02.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of Tea Board,

Coonoor in terminating the services of Sri N.

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

entitled to?

2. After receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 14/2014 and issued notice to both

sides. On receipt of notice the First Party has appeared in

person and the Respondent has appeared through

Counsel.

3. After the first date of appearance the First Party was

absent continuously. He seems to be not interested in

pursuing the matter. He has not cared to file Claim

Statement. So the ID is closed.

An award is passed accordingly.

Typed to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 8^th May, 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 both sides

–Nil–

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

1892

1892.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-

bZ- lh- ,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 09@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 24@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@326@1999&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh&II½]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d, MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O.

1892.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 09/2000)

of the Cent. Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Dankuni Coal Complex

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 24/06/2014.

[No. L-22012/326/1999 - IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 09 of 2000

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of

The Chief General Manager, Dankuni Coal

Complex

A N D

Their workmen.

Present : JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the

: None

Management

On behalf of the

Mr. Saibal Mukherjee,

Workmen

Ld. Counsel.

State: West Bengal

Industry: Coal

Dated: 2nd June, 2014.

AWARD

By Order No. L-22012/326/99/IR(CM-II) dated 27.01.2000

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of

its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of Dankuni

Coal Complex (SECL) in not considering the seniority

to Sh. Tapas Bhattacharjee, Clerk – Special Grade

w.e.f. 1992 at par with Sh. Subrata Bhaduri, Clerk

Special Grade is justified? If not, to what relief is the

workman entitled?”

4878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2.The instant reference has arisen at the instance of

one Tapas Bhattacharjee, concerned workman, for non-

consideration of his seniority in the matter of promotion

to Clerk Special Grade from Clerk Grade I.

3. Bereft of all unnecessary details the workman’s case

is as follows: Concerned workman Shri Tapas Bhattacharjee

while, posted as Clerk Grade-I in Sripur Area of Eastern

Coalfields Ltd., applied for transfer to Dankuni Coal

Complex. The authority, after observing all formalities,

allowed his application for transfer and accordingly Shri

Bhattacharjee was transferred to Dankuni Coal Complex.

He then joined there and started working as Clerk Grade-I

on and from 21.12.1989.

Similarly, Subrata Bhaduri, another workman was

transferred to Dankuni Coal Complex and he joined there

on 16.06.1986 as Clerk Grade-II. Thereafter he was

promoted in Clerk Grade-I on 12.12.1987 after counting the

period of service rendered by him at his earlier place of

posting.

It is contended that at the time of transfer to Dankuni

Coal Complex, Company issued circulars (Ext. W-05 and

Ext. W-12) wherein it is stated that “Since the transfer is at

their own request, they will not be entitled to transfer TA/

DA and joining time excepting actual journey period and

their seniority in the grade will be fixed from the date of

their joining in Dankuni Coal Complex.” But in case of A.

Roy Chowdhury, Shyamali Mondal, Arun Banerjee and

Dipak Das promotion was given to them after considering

the period of service rendered by them at their previous

place of posting. It is further contended that Shri Tapas

Bhattacharjee would have been entitled to promotion in

1992 if the period of his service in the earlier place of

posting was considered. But he was denied such

promotion in 1992 because his seniority was considered

from the date of his joining Dankuni Coal Complex.

4. As against this, management has opposed the claim

and stated that the seniority is maintained unitwise/

departmentwise and not Companywise. According to the

management, the case of Shri Tapas Bhattacharjee was

not at par with Shri Subrata Bhaduri. It is submitted that

Shri Subrata Bhaduri completed five years of service in

the post of Clerk Grade-I in Dankuni Complex and

accordingly, he was promoted in Clerk Special Grade in

1992.

5. By filing rejoinder, the workman has contended that

the promotion policy adopted by the management of the

Company was not followed in the case of the concerned

workman, Shri Tapas Bhattacharjee.

6. In this case the workman has in support of his case

examined two witnesses including himself. Management

has also examined one witness. The documents filed on

behalf of the workman have been marked Ext.W-01 to Ext.

W-25. The documents of the management have also been

marked Ext. M-01 to Ext. M.-07.

7. On perusal of the evidence of the workman it appears

that the said witnesses have supported the case of the

workman by corroborating the facts as disclosed in the

statement of claim and rejoinder of the workman. The

witness of the management, on the other hand, has

corroborated the case of the management as stated in the

written statement.

8. From Ext. W-25 it appears that a person requires

minimum 3 years experience in Clerk Grade-II for promotion

to Clerk Grade-I and 5 years for promotion from Clerk Grade-

I to Clerk Special Grade.

Now, Ext. W-09 goes to show that Subrata Bhaduri,

Shyamali Mondal, Amitava Roy Chowdhury, Dipak Das

and Arun Banerjee were transferred to Dankuni Coal

Complex on 16.06.1986, 1.03.1987, 01.04.1987, 02.05.1987

and 08.04.1987 respectively and at that time their post was

Clerk Grade-II. But Subrata Bhaduri was promoted in Clerk

Grade-I on 12.12.1987 and others on 02.05.1987. So, it is

evident that before completion three years’ service, the

aforesaid persons were promoted from Clerk Grade-II to

Clerk Grade-I.

But, in case of Tapas Bhattacharjee, his period of service

in the previous posting was not taken into consideration

at the time of his promotion from Clerk Grade-I to Clerk

Special Grade. He was promoted only after his completion

of five years’ service at Dankuni Coal Complex.

9. By pointing out Ext. W-05 and Ext. W-12 it is argued

that Shyamali Mondal, Amitava Roy Chowdhury, Dipak

Das and Arun Banerjee were transferred to Dankuni Coal

Complex as per the terms and condition that “Their seniority

in the existing grad in D.C.C. will be reckoned from the

date they joined D.C.C.”. Similar circular was also issued

at the time of transfer of Tapas Bhattacherjee. But the

period of service of the previous place of posting was

considered at the time of promotion of Sm. Shyamali

Mondal, Shri Amitava Roy Chowdhury, Shri Dipak Das

and Shri Arun Banerjee and the same principle was not

followed at the time of giving promotion to Shri Tapas

Bhattacharjee and there was a gross violation of Article 14

of the Constitution of India by way of making an artificial

and unreasonable classification.

10. It has been submitted that transfer on compassionate

ground at the request of the employee, the period of service

rendered by the employee at earlier place cannot be kept

out of consideration in determining his eligibility for

promotion. In support of the said contention a reference

has been made to the decisions reported in 1998 LAB I.C.

2517 and 1996 LAB I.C. 763.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4879

From the decision reported in 1998 LAB I.C. 2517 it

appears that “………….Even if an employee transferred

on his own request, from one place to another, on the

same post, the period of service rendered by him at the

earlier place where he held a permanent post and had

acquired permanent status, cannot be excluded from

consideration for determining his eligibility for promotion,

though he may have been placed at the bottom of the

seniority list at the transferred place. ……..”

It has been held in the decision reported in 1996 LAB

I.C. 763 that “The service rendered by an employee at the

place from where he was transferred on compassionate

grounds is regular service. It is no different from the service

rendered at the place where he was transferred. Both the

periods are taken into account for the purpose of leave

and retiral benefits. The fact that as a result of transfer he

is placed at the bottom of seniority list at the place of

transfer does not wipe out his service at the place from

where he was transferred. The said service, being regular

service in the grade, has to be taken into account as part

of his experience for the purpose of eligibility for promotion

and it cannot be ignored only on the ground that it was

not rendered at the place where he has been transferred.

In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly held that the service

held at the place from where the employee has been

transferred has to be counted as experience for the purpose

of eligibility for promotion at the place where he has been

transferred.”

11. Perused the evidence of the witness of the

management, Shri S.B. Das Mahapatra From his evidence

it appears that the said witness has failed to state whether

or not the transfer of Shri Bhattacherjee was administrative

transfer or an on request transfer.

12. Now, considering the evidence on record with

reference to the terms and conditions as incorporated in

Ext. W-05 and Ext. W-12 it appears that inspite of the terms

and conditions as noted in the said circulars, the period of

service of the previous place of posting was counted in

respect of Shyamali Mondal, Amitava Roy Chowdhury,

Dipak Das and Arun Banerjee at the time of their promotion.

But the same procedure was not followed in case of Shri

Tapas Bhattacherjee.

13. Ext. W-9 goes to show that Subrata Bhaduri joined

Dankuni Coal Complex on 16.06.1986 and was posted as

Clerk Grade-II and thereafter on 12.12.1987 he was

promoted in Clerk Grade-I. From the above facts it is evident

that the period of service of the previous place of posting

was considered at the time of promotion of Shri Bhaduri.

Written argument of the management does not disclose

that the transfer in question of Shri Subrata Bhaduri was

administrative transfer and not an on request transfer and

that Tapas Bhattacharjee and Subrata Bhaduri were not

placed on same footing.

14. The management in its written argument has stated

that the concerned workman by accepting the terms and

conditions of the order of transfer joined Dankuni Coal

Complex and thereby he relinquished his seniority. So, in

subsequent stage he cannot claim that the service period

of his previous posting should be considered for the

purpose of his promotion.

It has already been pointed out that in the order of

transfer of Tapas Bhattacharjee and also in the transfer

order of Shyamali Mondal and three others almost similar

terms and conditions were imposed to the effect that

seniority would be counted from the date of joining at

Dankuni Coal Complex. But before completion of three

years at Dankuni Coal Complex, Shyamali Mondal and

three others were promoted from Clerk Grade-II to Clerk

Grade-I. But in the case of promotion of Shri Tapas

Bhattacherjee, the same principle was not followed at the

time of his promotion from Clerk Grade-I to Clerk Special

Grade in clear violation of the principle of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India.

15. In view of the discussion made above, it is evident

that decision of the management in not reckoning the

seniority of Shri Tapas Bhattacharjee from 13.12.1986 and

thereby denying his promotion to Clerk Special Grade from

Clerk Grade-I was bad, arbitrary and the same being

discriminatory cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

Management should reconsider the promotion of

Shri Tapas Bhattacharjee from Clerk Grade-I to Clerk Special

Grade and for that his seniority should be counted from

13.12.1986.

The reference is answered accordingly.

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

The 2^nd June, 2014.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

1893

1893.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-

lh- lh- ,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

35@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- 22013@1@2014–vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh&II½]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d, MsLd vf/kdkjh

4880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O.

1893.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award of the

Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/

35/2008) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 24.06.2014.

[No. L-22013/1/2014 - IR(C-II)

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-VI ADDL. DISTRICT &

SESSIONS COURT

AT GODAVARIKHANI

PRESENT :- Sri G.V. Krishnaiah, Chairman-cum-

Presiding Officer, Godavarikhani

Tuesday, the 1^ST day of April, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 35 OF 2008

Between :-

Kondru Venkata Upender, Ex-Badili Filler, E.C.No.2915382,

S/o. Yakaiah, Aged about 35 years, R/o. H.No.8-158,

Bhagathsingh Nagar, RK-8 Incline, Srirampur Colony,

Mancherial Mandal of Adilabad District.

...Petitioner/Workman

-A n d-

The Supdt of Mines, S.C.Co. Ltd, IK 1 A Incline, P.O:

Srirampur, Dist: Adilabad (A.P.).

The General Manager, S.C.Co.Ltd, Srirampur Area,

P.O: Srirampur, Dist: Adilabad (A.P.).

The Chairman & Managing Director, S.C.Co. Ltd.,

P.O: Kothagudem, District: Khammam (A.P.)

...Respondents/Management

This Industrial Dispute petition coming on before me

for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Amarender Rao,

Advocate, for the petitioner and Sri D. Krishnamurthy,

Advocate, for the respondents, and the matter having

stood over before me for consideration till this date, the

Court passed the following:-

AWARD

1. This petition is filed by Ex-Badili Filler of Singareni

Company Limited challenging his dismissal from service.

The allegations in the petition are as follows:-

2. It is stated that in the year 2006 the mother of the

petitioner sustained major fracture to her leg and petitioner

was attacked by Chicken Gunya in the month of April,

2006 to September, 2006, though petitioner submitted all

original certificates but without considering them he had

issued charge sheet that he worked 127 musters in the

year 2005, that petitioner submitted satisfactory

explanation to his charge sheet, that the copy of

explanation is misplaced, that the enquiry was not

conducted fairly, that the respondent failed to conduct

family counseling and observation period to the petitioner

after the Domestic Enquiry, which is against the Circulars

and MOs of the Company, that ultimately petitioner was

dismissed from service vide his order dated 13.09.2007,

that the punishment is disproportionate to the alleged

misconduct and therefore petitioner may be reinstated into

service with continuity of service, all other consequential

attendant benefits and full back wages.

3. R-2 filed counter adopted by R-1 and R-3 stating that

the Respondent Company is a Central Government and

therefore this Court has no jurisdiction. Petitioner

attended for 37 days in the year 2004, 127 days in the year

2005, 87 days in the year 2006 and 30 days upto May, 2007.

Petitioner was given charge sheet for habitual absence

from duties without sufficient cause as per 25.25 standing

order, that prior to imposing punishment petitioner was

supplied with the enquiry reports and asked to show cause,

that petitioner was kept under observation for three months

i.e., from May, 2007 to July, 2007, but failed to avail

opportunity. Therefore, petition may be dismissed.

4. During the course of enquiry, Exts.W-1 to W-5 and

M-1 to M-7 are marked.

5. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the respondents are justified in

dismissing the petitioner?”

6. As far as the attendance of the petitioner is

concerned, there is no dispute about the number of days

attended by the petitioner as alleged by the management

is not in dispute. His attendance is poor during the years

2004, 2005 and 2006. Ext.M-2 is the explanation of the

petitioner to the charge sheet served on him. Ext.M-2 is

dated 27.4.2007, it shows that petitioner could not attend

duties due to ill-health in the year 2006. As per Ext.M-4,

petitioner attended for counseling on 28.4.2007 along with

his family members, but in the month itself he was given

show cause notice on 29.05.2007. On 13.09.2007 he was

dismissed from service.

7. Therefore as far as absence of the petitioner is

concerned there is no material on record to show that he

was sick on his duties.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4881

8. However, with regard to the proportion of the

punishment, the misconduct of the petitioner does not

involve moral turpitude or loss to the respondent company.

Therefore, order of dismissal is not justified.

9. In the result, the order of dismissal dated 13.09.2007

marked as Ext.M-7 is set aside and the respondents’

company is hereby directed to reinstate the petitioner into

service as “Afresh Badili Filler” and he shall be subjected

to medical test for the post. The petitioner is not entitled

to any back wages, continuity of service and any other

attendant benefits.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this the 1^st day of April, 2014.

Sri G.. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-

Presiding Officer

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For workman:-

For Management:-

-Nil-

E X H I B I T S

For workman :

Ex.W-1

Dt. 03-09-2004

Office order (appointment

order as Badli Filler)

Ex.W-2

Dt. 29-05-2007

Show cause notice.

Ex.W-3

Dt. 13-09-2007

Dismissal order. x.copy

Ex.W-4

Dt. 24-12-2007

Dismissal letter, o/copy

Ex.W-5

Dt. 27-12-2007

Postal Ack., card

For Management :

Ex.M-1

Dt. 18-04-2007

Charge sheet

Ex.M-2

Dt. 27-04-2007

Reply to charge sheet.

Ex.M-3

Dt. 27-04-2004

Enquiry proceedings

Ex.M-4

Dt. 28-04-2007

Undertaking given by the

petitioner after counseling

regarding absenteeism.

Ex.M-5

Dt. 05-05-2007

Enquiry report.

Ex.M-6

Dt. 29-05-2007

Show cause notice.

Ex.M-7

Dt. 13-09-2007

Dismissal order.

ubZ fnYyh] fnukad 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1894

dk-vk- 1894.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w- lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 31@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@82@2004&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh,e&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d, MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O.

1894.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2005)

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

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

dispute between the management of New Majri Open Cast

Sub Area of W.C.L. and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 24/06/2014.

[No. - L-22012/82/2004 - IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/31/2005

Date: 02.06.2014

Party No.1

: The Sub Area Manager,

New Majri OCM Sub Area of

WCL, PO:Shivaji Nagar,

Distt. Chandrapur (MS).

Versus

Party No.2

: Shri Vilas S. Kakade (Dead)

Substituted by Legal heirs

Surekha V. Kakde (wife)

Karisma daughter

Diksha daughter

Shivangi daughter

:Address:

C/o. Shri Lomesh Khartad,

General Secretary,

National Colliery Mazdoor Congress,

Dr. Ambedkar nagar, Ballarpur,

Post & Tah. Ballarpur, Distt.

Chandrapur.

AWARD

(Dated: 2^nd June, 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

4882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of WCL and their workman, Shri Vilas S.

Kakade, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/82/2004-

IR (CM-II) dated 07.02.2005, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management in relation

to New Majri Open Cast Sub Area of Western

Coalfields Limited in terminating the service of Shri

Vilas S. Kakade, Ex-General Mazdoor, New Majri

Open Cast Sub Area vide order No. WCL/MA/SAM/

NMOC-II/PER/3/228 dated 12.06.2003 is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief is the workman

entitled?”

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

file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, in response to which, the union, “National

Colliery Mazdoor Congress”, (“the union” in short) filed

the statement of claim on behalf of the workman, Shri Vilas

Kakade, (“the workman” in short) and the management of

WCL, (“party no.1” in short) filed the written statement.

The case as projected in the statement of claim by the

union on behalf of the deceased workman was that it

(union) is a registered trade union under the Trade Unions

Act,1926 and the party no.1 is a Government company

owned and controlled by the Central Government and is a

State, as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the

management of party no.1 is not competent to resort the

change in service conditions, wage structures, monetary

benefits and other service conditions provided to the

workers unilaterally, in contravention of the provisions

contained in the National Coal Wage Agreements (“the

NCWA” in short) and so far six NCWAs have already

been signed and finalization of NCWA- VII is in the

process and the provisions contained in NCWAs have

become the terms and conditions of service and the said

provisions cannot be interpreted unilaterally by the party

No.1.

The further case as presented by the union on behalf

of the workman is that the workman was appointed on

09.01.1993 as a general Mazdoor and worked at New Majri

Open cast II (A) Mine and he put in unblemished service

and during the course of his service, he suffered from

serious diseases and party No.1 had referred him to

different hospitals for treatment and during the period of

his treatment, the workman was not even able to attend

natural calls without the help of others and he was

completely depressed and demoralized and he was not in

a position to take any decision and the permanent address

of the workman is village-Karmana, Post-office-Chili

Parando, Tahashil-Wani, District-Yavatmal(MS), a remote

village situated about 60 kilometers from new Majri Open

Cast Mine II (A) and to avoid the difficulty in attending

duty in odd hours and for his treatment, the workman took

a rented house in Wani town and remained there.

It is further pleaded by the union that charge sheet

No.489 dated 20/22.10.2002 was issued against the

workman and he was kept suspended without any written

communication or payment of subsistence allowance and

he was allowed to resume duty after a gap of several weeks

and the charge sheet submitted against the workman was

vague and the suffered from several infirmities and the

workman was not given full and fair opportunity to defend

himself during the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer acted

arbitrarily and proceeded with the enquiry ex-parte and

the workman had never received any communication, such

as letter of appointment of the Enquiry Officer and number

of notices of the enquiry and though the workman was

residing in the rented house at Wani, the correspondences

were made in his home address, as learnt from the

documents produced by the party No.1 at the time of

conciliation and the workman was not served with the

second show cause notice and the workman lost the

opportunity to explain his case and for that the action of

party No.1 is liable to be quashed and the workman was

also not served with the order of dismissal and due to non

service of the dismissal order, such order does not exist

and the entire departmental proceedings was without

application of mind and was in contravention of the specific

provisions of the Certified Standing Order and specific

order of delegation of powers for disciplinary action and

due to such violation, the workman lost the chance of

appeal and the enquiry proceedings and report are biased

and prejudicial and the same suffer from several serious

infirmities and the enquiry officer acted merely as recorder

and when the treatment of the workman was stopped at

Majri hospital, the wife of the workman, Smt. Surekha

approached the management at different level including

the Personnel Manager and she was informed that her

husband, the workman to have already been dismissed

from services of the company.

The further case of the workman as presented in the

statement of claim by the union is that the workman

approached the then GM/CGM, Majri Area, with his wife

and children and explained about his serious illness and

submitted written appeal for reinstatement and placed

papers relating to his illness and treatment and he was

assured by the CGM for his reinstatement in services and

the CGM also sent proposal for the reinstatement of the

workman vide letter dated 04.07.2003 to the Head Office,

Nagpur, but the workman was intimated by the Personnel

Manager, New Majri area vide letter dated 14.09.2003, that

the competent authority desired that such cases are to be

put up only after one year of dismissal. It is also pleaded

that during the service period, the workman suffered from

various serious illness and he was referred by the

management to various hospital for his treatment and the

workman always kept the management informed about the

same and basing on the papers produced by the workman

about his treatment, the management had been taking

sanction for his treatment, form the headquarters of the

party no.1 and to decide the further course of action of his

treatment and the enquiry was conducted in gross-

violation of the principles of natural justice and the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4883

punishment of dismissal is too harsh and disproportionate

for the charge of absenteeism and his absence was due to

the serious ailment and beyond his control and as such,

the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with

continuity, full back wages and all consequential benefits

and in case the workman is found to be unfit for duty, his

wife be given employment as per the provisions of 9.4.0 of

the NCWA-VI.

3. It is necessary to mention here that during the

pendency of the reference, the workman expired and his

legal heirs, namely, Smt. Surekha Vilas Kakde (wife) and

Karisma, Diksha and Shuvagini (daughters) were

substituted in his place by order dated 20.03.2007.

4. The party no.1 denying the adverse allegations made

in the statement of claim, in the written statement has

pleaded inter-alia that the workman did not approach the

Tribunal with clean hands and suppressed facts in order

to mislead the Tribunal with the intention to gain misplaced

sympathy and the legal heirs of the workman have

accepted the order of dismissal of the workman by

accepting all the terminal benefits without any protest

and as such, the reference is liable to be answered in the

negative.

It is further pleaded by party no.1 that they were

constrained to initiate the departmental enquiry against

the workman for remaining absent without any intimation

or without obtaining leave and prior to issuance of the

charge sheet in question, on earlier occasion also they

had issued a charge sheet against the workman for

remaining unauthorized absent and still then, the workman

failed to improve his conduct and the charge sheet

submitted against the workman was neither vague nor

had several infirmities and the workman has failed to point

out as to how the charge sheet was vague and of having

several infirmities and the workman was never kept under

suspension, rather, the workman failed to report for duties

and when he reported for duties, he was allowed to resume

duty pending the departmental enquiry and the workman

himself submitted a medical certificate showing his fitness

to resume duties and inspite of permitting him by the

management to resume duties, he failed to join duty and

they were having one address of the workman and all

efforts were taken by them to serve the charge sheet,

notices and second show cause notices etc, on the

workman, by registered post, but the same could not be

served as the workman was not available on the said given

address and the workman had never informed the

management of his staying in any rented house at a

particular given address at wani and had it been the case

that he was staying in a rented premises at Wani, then the

workman must have disclosed the address of the said

rented house in the statement of claim, but he did not

disclose the same in the statement of claim and the enquiry

cannot be faulted with, if the workman had changed his

registered address without informing the same to the

management and the enquiry was conducted against the

workman by observing all the principles of natural justice

and except the said statement made in the statement of

claim, the workman has failed to point out as to how the

enquiry, its procedure, report etc are defective and the

workman was never assured for his reinstatement in service

and though the recommendation was forwarded for

approval of the headquarters to reinstate the workman,

the same was refused and the workman did not file any

appeal before the management and as such the question

of giving him hearing does not arise and the special leave

granted to the workman was much prior to the issuance of

the charge sheet and submission of fitness certificate by

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

5. In the rejoinder, the union has reiterated the facts

mentioned in the statement of claim and has further

mentioned that the charge sheet, letter of appointment of

enquiry officer, notices of the enquiry, report of the enquiry

officer and second show cause notice were not served on

the workman. It is further pleaded by the union that the

order of punishment was approved by the Chief General

Manager, Majri Area, who is the appellate authority, so,

the workman lost the chance of appeal and there was

denied of the principles of natural justice and the legal

heirs of the deceased workman are entitled for all the

monetary benefits.

6. As this is a case of termination of the workman from

services after conducting of a departmental enquiry against

him, the fairness or otherwise of the departmental enquiry

was taken up for consideration as a preliminary issue and

by order dated 27.03.2014, the departmental enquiry

conducted against the workman was held to be proper,

legal and in accordance with the principles of natural

justice.

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

learned advocate for the union that the terms and service

conditions of the employees of WCL are governed by the

certified standing orders and National Coal Wages

Agreements and the party No.1 being a public undertaking

is a “state” within the meaning of Article 12 of the

Constitution of India and in support of the validity of the

departmental inquiry, the party No.1 did not adduce any

evidence and it is clear from the charge sheet submitted

against the workman that the same was submitted against

him for remaining absent from duty for more than 10 days

without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause w.e.f.

01.09.2002 and in the correspondence sent by party No.1

to the workman in his home address, the name of the post

office was not correctly mentioned and it is also clear from

the document, Ext. M-II filed by the party No.1 that the

workman had submitted the medical certificate dated

16.11.2002 issued by Dr. D. Deshpande for the period from

01.09.2002 to 16.11.2002, covering the period of absence

and management No. 23 shows that Shri Sayre, who was

the personnel Manager and who was appointed as the

Enquiry Officer initiated the note sheet dated 17/18.11.2002

to allow the workman on duty, finding from the medical

4884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

certificate that there was sufficient cause for the absence

of the workman and the same was approved by the Chief

General Manager and the order of dismissal from service

of the workman has not been filed by the party No.1 and

party No.1 did not consider the medical certificate, Ext. M-II

and document No. 23. The note sheet for allowing the

workman to join duty, in the enquiry and though on one

hand the party No.1 accepted Ext. M-II to be valid, genuine

and satisfactory and allowed the workman to resume duty,

on the other hand without taking into consideration the

said documents in the enquiry, dismissed him from service

and thus party No.1 played hot and cold in the same breath

and the Enquiry Officer travelled beyond his jurisdiction

and acted merely as a recorder without application of mind

and in view of Ext. M-II, which shows that the workman

was prevented by sufficient cause for remaining absent

from duty, the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the charge

was proved against the workman is perverse and against

the evidence on record. It was further submitted that the

order of punishment has been approved by the Chief

General Manager, who is the Appellate Authority and as

such, the same is illegal and the appeal filed by the

workman was not disposed of promptly i.e. within 45 days

of receipt of the same as required under clause 30 of the

Standing order and as such, the entire action taken by the

party No.1 is illegal and against the principles of natural

justice and the punishment from dismissal from service

was too harsh and disproportionate and as the workman

was entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity

and full back wages, the wife of the workman is entitled for

payment of the monetary compensation and also for

employment as a dependant of the deceased workman

and the benefits of life cover scheme.

In support of the submissions, the learned advocate

for the union placed reliance on the decisions reported in

AIR 1973 SC-2650 (Western India Match Company Ltd.

Vs. Workmen ),2007(115) FLR-427 (Mohan Mahto Vs.

M/s. Central Coal Fields Ltd.), 2011-II-LLJ-627 (SC)(Union

of India Vs. S.K. Kapoor), 2010(126) FLR-994(Indubhushan

Dwivedi Vs. State of Jharkhand), 1995(70) FLR-817 (Surjit

Ghosh Vs.Chairman cum Managing Director, United

Commercial Bank), 2001 LAB IC (NOC) 829(CHH) (J Prasad

Vs. Board of Directors) and 2010(1) Mh. L J-587 (Shriram

Viswanath Deshpande Vs. Presiding Officer).

So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the

Hon’ble Courts in the decisions mentioned above, now,

the present case in hand is to be considered.

8. It is to be mentioned here that party No.1 remained

absent on the date of argument and did not make any

argument.

9. As already stated, the departmental enquiry

conducted against the workman has already been held to

be legal, proper and in accordance with the principles of

natural justice.

So, the submissions made by the learned advocate for

the union regarding the fairness of the departmental

enquiry cannot be considered again.

10. Perused the record. It is found from the record that

the workman has admitted to have remained absent from

duty from 01.09.2002. According to the workman he was ill

from 01.09.2011 to 16.11.2002 and was under the treatment

of doctor at Wani and his absence from duty was on

account of unavoidable, sufficient reasons and

circumstances beyond his control and it was not willful or

intentional. However, from the material on record, it is found

that the workman had not taken any leave before remaining

absent. He also did not intimate the management about

his illness or that he was under the treatment of a doctor at

Wani, during the period of remaining absent. It is also

found that the management had never admitted the medical

certificate, Ext. M-II, submitted by the workman to be

genuine. On perusal of Ext. M-II, it is found that the same

was obtained by the workman on 16.11.2002. Ext. M-II

reveals that the workman was under the observation of

the doctor from 01.09.2002 to 16.11.2002 as OPD patient

for headache and defective vision right eye. The said

certificate does not say that the workman was under the

treatment of the doctor. It is also found that the workman

was permitted by the party No.1 to join duty subject to

continuance of the departmental enquiry. The document

was never produced in the enquiry held against the

workman.

It is also found from the record that the findings of the

Enquiry Officer are based on the evidence on record of

the enquiry and not any extraneous material. The Enquiry

Officer has assigned reasons in support of his findings.

Hence the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be said

to be perverse.

11. It is also found from the record that the workman

did not prefer any appeal against the order of punishment.

The application as referred by the union is a mercy

application to consider his reappointment. So, there was

no question of disposal of the appeal within the time limit

as claimed by the workman. There is also no definite

material on record to show that the order of punishment

was approved by the appellate authority.

From the material on record, it is found that commission

of serious misconduct of remaining unauthorized absence

has been proved against the workman in a properly

conducted departmental enquiry. Hence, there is no scope

to interfere with the punishment imposed against the

workman. Hence, it is order:-

ORDER

The action of the management in relation to New Majri

Open Cast Sub Area of Western Coalfields Limited in

terminating the service of Shri Vilas S. Kakade, Ex-General

Mazdoor, New Majri Open Cast Sub Area vide Order

No. WCL/MA/SAM/NMOC-II/PER/3/228 dated

12.06.2003 is legal and justified. The workman was not

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4885

entitled to any relief. As the workman was not entitled to

any relief, his legal heirs are not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1895

dk-vk- 1895.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,e- ,u-

vkbZ- vkWQ Vh- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 54@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 24@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@255@2005&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh,e&II½]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d, MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O.

1895.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/2006)

of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Malviya National Institute of

Technology, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 24/06/2014.

[No. L-42012/255/2005 - IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

vuqcU

vuqcU/k/k/k/k/k

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;] t;iqj

lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 54@2006

Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

jsQjsUl ua- L-42012/255/2005–IR(CM-II)

fnukad 17@08@2006

Shri Kailash Chand Meena S/o. Shri Samarth Lal,

R/o Vill., Post - Mohi,

Tehsil Baswa, Distt.- Dausa (Rajasthan)

V/s.

The Registrar,

Malviya National Institute of Technology,

Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,

Malviya Nagar,

Jaipur (Rajasthan)

izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls

Jh dSyk’k pUn dqEHkdkj & ,MoksdsV

vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls %

Jh y{e.k flag dPNkok & ,MoksdsV

% % % % % iapkV

iapkV

iapkV % % % % %

fnukad % 16-04-2014

1- dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh

/kkjk 10 mi/kkjk 1 [k.M ¼?k½ ds vUrxZr fnukad 17-08-2006 ds

vkns’k ls izsf"kr fookn ds vk/kkj ij ;g izdj.k U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq

lafLFkr gSA dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr fookn fuEuor~ gS %&

2- “Whether the action of the management of Malaviya

National Institute of Technology in terminating the service

of Shri Kailash Chand Meena w.e.f. 4. 9. 2003 is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”

3- LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse ds vuqlkj laf{kIrr% izkFkhZ Jfed dk

dFku gS fd og vuqlwfpr tutkfr dk O;fDr gS vkSj lsds.Mjh

d{kk ikl gSA mldh fu;qfDr fu;fer izfdz;k viukdj prqFkZ

Js.kh deZpkjh ds in ij foi{kh us dh vkSj fnukad 02&12&02

ls izkFkhZ bZekunkjh ,oa iw.kZ yxu ds lkFk viuk dk;Z fu;fer

:i ls ekSf[kd vkns’k ls jlk;u foHkkx esa dj jgk FkkA foi{kh

us izkFkhZ dks dksbZ fu;qfDr i= ugha fn;k FkkA

4- foi{kh ;w-th-lh- ,DV dh /kkjk &3 ds vUrxZr ,d MhEM

fo’ofo|ky; gS ftldks Hkkjr ljdkj] ekuo lalk/ku ea=ky;

}kjk vius uksfVfQds’ku ds ek/;e ls xzg.k dj fy;k x;k gS

bl izdkj laLFkku vkSj deZpkfj;ksa o vf/kdkfj;ksa ij Hkkjr

ljdkj ds fu;e vkSj izkfo/kku ykxw gksrs gSaA

5- izkFkhZ vius drZO;ksa dk ikyu iwjh fu"Bk ,oa yxu ls

foi{kh ds laLFkku esa dj jgk Fkk ,oa izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa lUrks"ktud

izd`fr dh FkhA izkFkhZ foi{kh laLFkku dh iw.kZ :i ls fu;fer lsok

esa Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ dk mifLFkfr iaftdk esa gLrk{kj Hkh gksrk FkkA

izkFkhZ us fnukad 02-12-02 ls 3-9-2003 rd fu;fer :i ls foi{kh

ds laLFkku esa dke fd;k vkSj ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls

vf/kd dke fd;kA

6- foi{kh ds laLFkku esa prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds dqy 36 in

Lohd`r gS vkSj jlk;u 'kkL= foHkkx esa prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkfj;ksa

ds 2 Lohd`r in gSa ftlesa ls ,d in ij izkFkhZ inLFkkfir Fkk

vkSj ,d in vHkh Hkh fjDr gS foi{kh }kjk fjDr in dks Hkjus ds

fy;s dksbZ fu;qfDr ugha dh x;h gS tcfd fjDr in LFkk;h izd`fr

dk Lohd`r in gSA

7- izkFkhZ fu;fer izfdz;k }kjk p;fur deZpkjh gS ijUrq

foi{kh }kjk nqHkkZouk iwoZd ,oa euekus <+ax ls izkFkhZ dh lsok;as

vuqcU/k ds :i esa ekuh tk jgh gS blfy;s izkFkhZ dks u rks

fu;fer fd;k x;k gS vkSj u gh fu;fer osru Üka`[kyk iznku dh

x;hA

izkFkhZ us fu;fer osru Üka`[kyk iznku djus gsrq dbZ ckj dgk

ftlls foi{kh ukjkt gksdj nqHkkZouk iwoZd ,oa euekus <a+x ls

izkFkhZ dks fnukad 4-9-2003 dks lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;kA

8- vkxs LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks

gVkus ls igys mls u rks dksbZ uksfVl nh xbZ vkSj u gh NaVuh

dk eqvkotk fn;k x;k vkSj u gh cpko ,oa lquokbZ dk ekSdk

fn;k x;k] bl izdkj foi{kh us izkd`frd ,oa lkekftd U;k; ds

fl)kUrksa dk mYya?ku fd;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk blls igys bl

4886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ekeys esa vij flfoy tt ¼d-[k-½ iwoZ] t;iqj esa bl izdj.k

esa eqdnek izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk ysfdu U;k;ky; us {ks=kf/kdkj

u gksus ds dkj.k okil dj fn;kA foi{kh laLFkku }kjk nqHkkZouk

iwoZd bl ekeys esa xSj dkuwuh dk;Z fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ us

le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k viuk ekeyk izLrqr fd;k Fkk

ysfdu foi{kh dh gB/kfeZrk ds dkj.k le>kSrk okrkZ foQy jgh

ftlds ckn U;k;&fu.k;Zu gsrq ;g ekeyk U;k;kf/kdj.k ds

le{k vk;k gSA izkFkhZ us ;g izkFkZuk fd gS dh mldh lsokeqfDr

dks voS/k ?kksf"kr dj fu;qfDr ds fnukad ls mldh lsok dks

fu;fer ekurs gq, iwjk osru ,oa ifjykHk fnyk;k tk, rFkk mls

lsok esa iquLFkkZfir djus dh d`ik dh tk,A

9- foi{kh ekyoh; jk"Vªh; izks|ksfxd laLFkku] t;iqj dh rjQ

ls oknksÙkj izLrqr dk izkjfEHkd vkifÙk esa dgk x;k gS fd foi{kh

us dk;Z ds lEiknu gsrq lsokvksa dh vko’;drk ds fy, fdjk;s

ij lsok;sa ysus dk ,d dkWUVªsDV fd;k gqvk FkkA fnukad

27-2-2001 ds vkns’kkuqlkj oS/kkfud rjhds ls fufonk;sa vkeaf=r

dj eSllZ f=yksd lksYtj ,.M+ eSuikWoj] 'kkfUr uxj] t;iqj

dks lsok;sa iznku djus dk dkWUVªsDV fn;k x;k FkkA ;g Hkh dgk

x;k gS fd foi{kh dks vius laLFkku esa ftl fdlh foHkkx esa

ftrus le; ds fy, lfoZl dh vko’;drk gksrh Fkh mrus le;

ds fy, ,d fuf’pr /kujkf’k ds cnys esa vko’;drkuqlkj

eSllZ f=yksd lksYtj ,.M+ eSuikWoj dks foi{kh vkns’k nsrk FkkA

10- jlk;u foHkkx ds fy;s foi{kh dks ,d prqFkZ Js.kh

deZpkjh] ysc vVs.M+sUV dh vko’;drk Fkh ftlds fy, fnukad

3-1-2002 dks foi{kh us 1800 :- izfrekg ds cnys esa 3 ekg dh

vof/k ds fy, lsok miyC/k djkus gsrq eSllZ f=yksd lksYtj

,.M+ eSuikWoj dks vkns’k fn;k Fkk ftlds vuqikyu esa ,d

O;fDr dh lsok eSllZ f=yksd lksYtj ,.M+ eSuikWoj }kjk

miyC/k djk;h x;h FkhA blh izdkj jlk;u foHkkx esa foi{kh dks

tc Hkh vko’;drk gqbZ rc f=yksd lksYtj o eSuikWoj us ySc

vVs.MsUV dh lsok miyC/k djk;hA foi{kh us dHkh&Hkh izkFkhZ dks

vius fu;kstu esa ugha j[kk vkSj u gh mldks fdlh izdkj dh

fu;qfDr nhA izkFkhZ Jh dSyk’kpUnz eh.kk }kjk xyr rF;ksa ij

LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse izLrqr fd;k x;k gS vkSj mDr dkj.k ds

vk/kkj ij izFke n`"V;rk izkFkZuk&i= fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA

11- ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd fdlh Hkh laLFkku }kjk Lohd`r in

ij fdlh O;fDr dks fu;fer fu;qfDr fn, tkus dh ,d izfdz;k

gksrh gSA foi{kh laLFkku esa Hkh Lohd`r inksa ij fu;qfDr fn, tkus

dh fu;fer izfdz;k gSA izkFkhZ us vius LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse esa

;g mYys[k ugha fd;k gS fd foi{kh us mls fu;qDr djus ds fy,

dc foKkiu izdk’ku djk;k Fkk vkSj izkFkhZ us dc vkosnu izLrqr

fd;k ,oa ijh{kk gsrq izkFkhZ dks foi{kh }kjk cqykok dc Hkstk x;k

vkSj foi{kh us izkFkhZ dks dc fu;qfDr vkns’k HkstkA LVsVesUV vkWQ

Dyse esa mDr lwpuk;sa u gksus ls ;g lkQ tkghj gS fd izkFkhZ

dHkh&Hkh foi{kh ds v/khu fu;fer fu;qfDr esa ugha jgk cfYd

izkFkhZ }kjk rF;ksa dks rksM+&ejksM+dj xyr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij

izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS tks fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA ;g

Hkh dgk x;k gS fd LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse esa ekSf[kd vkns’k ls

fu;qfDr nsus ds rF; dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS tks Loa; izkFkhZ ds

dFku ds foijhr gS fd fu;fer izfdz;k viukdj prqFkZ Js.kh ds

in ij mls fu;qfDr nh xbZ D;ksafd fu;fer izfdz;k viuk dj

ekSf[kd fu;qfDr vkns’k ugha fn;k tk ldrkA vr% xyr rF;ksa

ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dk izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA

12- izLrjokj LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse ds tokc esa foi{kh us

izLrj 1 ds fo:) ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd bldh tokc dh

vko’;drk ugha gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd izLrj 1 esa Je ea=ky;

}kjk fu.kZ; ds fy, izsf"kr funsZ’k gSA izLrj 2] 4] 5] 6] 7] 8] 9]

10 vkSj 11 esa izLrqr dFku dks xyr dgk x;k gS o vLohdkj

fd;k x;k gSA izLrj 3 ds lEcU/k esa dgk x;k gS fd bl dFku

ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ fookn ugha gS vfrfjDr dFku esa ;g dgk x;k

gS fd okLrfodrk ;g gS fd izkFkhZ dHkh&Hkh foi{kh ds fu;kstu

esa ugha jgk u gh foi{kh us izkFkhZ dks vLFkk;h] LFkk;h] nSfud

osru&Hkksxh vFkok lafonk ds vk/kkj ij fu;kstu esa j[kk FkkA

pwfda foi{kh us izkFkhZ dks dHkh dksbZ fu;qfDr ugha nh rks mls

fu;qfDr&i= nsus dk dksbZ iz’u ugha mBrkA ;g Hkh dgk x;k

gS fd pwafd izkFkhZ dHkh foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa ugha jgk blfy;s

foi{kh laLFkku ds mPpkf/kdkjh;ksa }kjk mldh lsokvksa dks ljkgus

dk iz’u ugha mRiUu gksrk gSA

13- vkxs ;g mYys[k gS fd foi{kh us fdlh fo’ks"k dk;Z dks

iwjk djus ds fy, ;k dk;Z ds lEiknu gsrq lsokvksa dh vko’;drk

ds fy;s fdjk;s dh lsok;sa ysus dk dkWUVªsDV **eSllZ f=yksd

lksYtlZ ,.M+ eSu ikoj 817] 'kkfUr uxj] xksikyiqjk ckbZikl]

nqxkZiqjk jsyos LVs’ku ds ikl] t;iqj** ls fd;k gqvk FkkA

dkWUVªsDV fnukad 27-2-2001 ds vkns’kkuqlkj eSllZ f=yksd lksYtlZ

,.M+ eSuikWoj dks fn;s x;k FkkA foi{kh laLFkku ds ftl foHkkx

eas lfoZl dh vko’;drk gksrh Fkh ml ds fy, eSllZ f=yksd

lksYtlZ ,.M+ eSuikWoj dks vkns’k fn;k tkrk Fkk vkSj ;g lsok,a

,d fuf’pr /kujkf’k ds cnys esa vLFkk;h vko’;drkuqlkj

ftrus le; ds fy, t:jr gksrh Fkh mlds vuqlkj izkIr dh

tkrh FkhA eSllZ f=yksd lksYtlZ ,.M+ eSuikWoj dks blh dkWUVªsDV

ds Øe esa dSesLVªh foHkkx esa ,d ySc vVs.MsV ¼prqFkZ Js.kh

deZpkjh½ ds fy, fnukad 3-1-2002 dks vkns’k fn;k x;k Fkk

ftlesa 1800 :- izfrekg dh ,ot esa 3 ekg ds fy, lsok

miyC/k djkus ds fy, vkns’k fn;k x;k FkkA foi{kh ds vkns’k

fnukad 3-1-2002 ds vuqikyu esa eSllZ f=yksd lksYtlZ ,.M+

eSuikWoj us ,d lsok miyC/k djk;h FkhA blh izdkj foi{kh dks

tc Hkh vko’;drk gqbZ rc dSesLVªh foHkkx esa eSllZ f=yksd

lksYtlZ ,.M eSuikWoj us ySc vVs.MsV ¼prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh½ dh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4887

lsok;sa miyC/k djk;h FkhA pwafd lafonkRed vk/kkj ij nh xbZ

lfoZlst esa Hkqxrku] fd;s x;s dk;Z ds la[;k ds vk/kkj ij fn;k

tkrk Fkk blfy;s mifLFkfr vafdr djus ds mn~ns’; ls izkFkhZ ls

jftLVj ij gLrk{kj djk;k tkrk FkkA jftLVj ij gLrk{kj

djk;s tkus ek= ls ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd izkFkhZ foi{kh ds

;gka fu;fer lsok esa Fkk] blh vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ }kjk ,d o"kZ esa

240 fnu ls vf/kd djus dk dFku Lor% xyr lkfcr gks tkrk gSA

14- oknksÙkj ds iz’rj 6 esa LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse ds iz’rj 6

ds fo:) tokc esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd foi{kh ds laLFkku esa

fdrus in fjDr gSa rFkk fdrus deZpkfj;ksa dh vko’;drk gS bl

lEcU/k esa fu.kZ; dk lEiw.kZ vf/kdkj foi{kh laLFkku esa fufgr gS

ftlesa izkFkhZ dks dksbZ gLr{ksi dk vf/kdkj ugha gS vkSj u gh

laLFkku ds fu.kZ;ksa esa izkFkhZ gLr{ksi djus esa l{ke gS D;ksafd og

laLFkku esa dk;Zjr ugha gS blfy, fjDr ;k fu;fer inksa ij

mldk dksbZ nkok ugha curkA izkFkhZ dHkh Hkh foi{kh ds ;gka

vLFkk;h] LFkk;h] nSfud osru Hkksxh vFkok lafonkRed vk/kkj ij

foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa ugha jgk gSA

15- pwafd izkFkhZ deZdkj dHkh&Hkh foi{kh dh lsok esa ugha jgk

blfy;s mls lsok ls i`Fkd djus dk iz’u ugha mBrkA bl

lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ deZdkj dk dFku eux<+a+r o vlR; gSA ;g Hkh

dgk x;k gS fd pwafd izkFkhZ dks dHkh foi{kh us fu;qfDr ugha nh

blfy;s gVkus ds fy, uksfVl nsus vFkok NaVuh dk eqvkotk nsus

vFkok cpko o lquokbZ dk ekSdk nsus dk iz’u ugha mBrkA bl

izdkj foi{kh }kjk fdlh izkd`frd o lkekftd U;k; ds fl)kUr

dk mYya?ku djus dk iz’u ugha mBrk gSA

16- foi{kh us bl rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ deZdkj

us ,d okn vij flfoy tt ¼d-[k-½] iwoZ t;iqj] izLrqr fd;k

Fkk tgk¡ mls dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr ugha gqvk vkSj mlus viuk nkok

okil ys fy;kA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd foi{kh laLFkku us izkFkhZ

deZdkj ds lkFk dksbZ nqHkkZoukiw.kZ o U;k;iw.kZ dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA

og xyr rjhds ls fu;qfDr izkIr djuk pkgrk gS ftldk dksbZ

vk/kkj ugha gSA foi{kh laLFkku }kjk lafonk ij eSllZ f=yksd

lksYtlZ ,.M eSuikWoj ls lsok;sa izkIr dh tkrh Fkh ,oa mlds

}kjk fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks lsok gsrq Hkstk tkrk FkkA lqyg okrkZ

foi{kh ds gB/kfeZrk ds dkj.k ugha cfYd deZdkj dh gB/kfeZrk

ds dkj.k foQy jghA vUrr% ;g mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd

izkFkZuk&i= fo’ks"k [kpsZ ds lkFk fujLr fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA

17- oknksÙkj ds fo:) tokc&my&tokc izLrqr dj ;kfpdk

esa fd;s x;s dFkuksa dh iqujko`fRr dh x;h gS vkSj foi{kh ds bl

dFku ds lEcU/k esa vufHkKrk tkfgj dh x;h gS fd foi{kh

lafonk ij eSllZ f=yksd lksYtlZ ,.M+ eSuikWoj ls lsok,a izkIr

djrk FkkA

18- izkFkhZ i{k dh rjQ ls lwph ls vfHkys[k] mifLFkfr iaftdk

dh QksVksizfr tuojh] 2002 ls fnuakd 3-9-2003 rd izLrqr gSA

blds vfrfjDr nks vyx&vyx lwph ls vfHkys[k MCY;w&1

yxk;r MCY;w&8 izLrqr gSA mDr vfHkys[k ds vfrfjDr izkFkhZ

deZdkj Jh dSyk’k pUnz eh.kk dh lk{; esa 'kiFk&i= izLrqr gS

ftudh fo:) deZdkj dh izfrijh{kk foi{k }kjk dh x;h gSA

19- foi{k dh rjQ ls Jh lokbZ flag] ds;j&Vsdj dh lk{;

esa 'kiFk&i= izLrqr dh x;h gS ftudh izfrijh{kk izkFkhZ deZdkj

dh rjQ ls fd x;h gSA foi{k dh rjQ ls izys[kh; lk{; izn’kZ

,u-,-1 yxk;r izn’kZ ,u-,-53 izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa

bdjkjukek] fufonk dh 'krsZa] vkWfQl vkWMZj] eSllZ f=yksd

lksYtlZ ,.M+ eSuikWoj rFkk foi{k ds chp i=kpkj ,oa izkFkhZ

deZdkj dh osru Hkqxrku ls lEcfU/kr vfHkys[k 'kkfey gSaA

20- mHk;i{k }kjk viuk lk{; lekIr fd;k x;k gSA

21- izkFkhZ deZdkj dh rjQ ls izLrqr fof/kd n`"VkUr % &

¼1-½

ts-Vh-1996 ¼7½ lqizhe dksVZ i`"B 181 lsUVªy cSad vkWQ

bf.M;k & vihykFkhZ cuke ,l- lR;e~ ,oa vU;& izR;FkhZx.k

foi{k dh rjQ ls izLrqr n`"Vkar % &

¼1½ ¼2001½ 7 ,l-lh-lh i`"B &1] LVhy vkWFkfjVh vkWQ

bf.M;k fyfeVsM & vihykFkhZx.k cuke us’kuy ;wfu;u okVjQzkUV

odZlZ ,oa vU;& izR;FkhZx.kA

¼2½ ¼2004½ 7 ,l-lh-lh i`"B &112] ,-mejkuh& vihykFkhZ

cuke jftLVªkj] dks vkWijsfVo lkslk;Vht vkSj vU; & izR;FkhZx.kA

¼3½ ¼2005½ 1 ,l-lh-lh i`"B &639] egsUnz ,y-tSu vkSj

vU;&vihykFkhZx.k cuke bUnkSj MsoyiesaV vFkkfjVh vkSj vU;

&izR;FkhZx.k

¼4½ ¼2005½ 5 ,l-lh-lh i`"B &112] ek/;fed f’k{kd ijh"kn]

;w-ih-&vihykFkhZ cuke vfuy dqekj feJk vkSj vU;&izR;FkhZx.k

¼5½ ¼2006½ 1 ,l-lh-lh i`"B &667] LVsV vkWQ ;w-ih-&vihykFkhZ

cuke uhjt voLFkh vkSj vU;&izR;FkhZx.k

¼6½ ¼2008½ 2 ,l-lh-lh i`"B &552] pUnz 'ks[kj vktkn d`f"k

,oa izkS|ksfxdh fo’ofo|ky; & vihykFkhZ cuke ;wukbVsM+ VªsM~l

dkaxzsl vkSj vU;& izR;FkhZx.k

22- eSuas mHk;i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh cgl lquh rFkk

i=koyh dk lE;d~ voyksdu fd;kA izkFkhZ deZdkj ds fo}ku

vf/koDrk ds }kjk ;g cgl fd x;h gS fd izkFkhZ deZdkj foi{kh

ds v/khu prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :Ik esa fu;qfDr dh fu;fer

izfdz;k ds vk/kkj ij fu;qDr gksdj fnukad 2-1-2002 ls dk;Zjr

Fkk vkSj ekSf[kd vkns’k ls dSesLVªh foHkkx es dk;Z dj jgk Fkk rFkk

fnukad 4-9-2003 rd fu;fer :Ik ls dk;Z fd;k vkSj izkFkhZ

4888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

deZdkj }kjk fu;fer osru Üka`[kyk iznku djus gsrq foi{kh ls

dbZ ckj dgk ftlls ukjkt gksdj foi{kh us euekus <+ax ls

nqHkkZoukiwoZd fnukad 4-9-2003 dks lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;kA ;g

cgl Hkh fd x;h gS fd izkFkhZ deZdkj us 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z

fd;k gS ysfdu lsok ls gVkus ls iwoZ u rks mls uksfVl nh xbZ

vkSj u gh dksbZ NaVuh dk eqvkotk fn;k x;k] u cpko o lquokbZ

dk volj iznku fd;k x;k] vr% izkFkhZ deZdkj dh lsokeqfä

xSjdkuwuh gS ftls voS/k ?kksf"kr dj fu;qfDr dh fnukad ls mls

fu;fer ekurs gq, iwjk osru ,oa leLr ifjykHk fnykrs gq, lsok

esa iquZLFkkfir fd;k tk;A foi{kh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh rjQ

ls ;g cgl dh x;h gS fd izkFkhZ deZdkj lh/ks rkSj ij foi{kh

dh lsok esa dHkh fu;qDr ugha Fkk vkSj u gh dksbZ fu;qfDr izfdz;k

viukdj mls lsok esa fy;k x;kA ;g cgl Hkh fd x;h gS fd

pWwafd izkFkhZ deZdkj foi{kh ds v/khu lsokjr ugha Fkk blfy;s mls

foi{kh }kjk fu;qfDr nsus vFkok lsok ls c[kkZLr djus dk iz’u

ugha mBrk gSA ;g cgl Hkh dh x;h gS fd foi{kh dh lsok esa

izkFkhZ deZdkj dk u gksus ds dkj.k mls lsok ls c[kkZLr djus

ls lEcfU/kr uksfVl nsus ;k eqvkotk nsus dk Hkh iz’u ugha mBrk

gSA izkFkhZ deZdkj }kjk foi{kh dks nh xbZ lsok ds lEcU/k esa ;g

cgl dh x;h gS fd eSllZ f=yksd lksYtlZ ,.M eSuikWoj ls

foi{kh dk lsok iznku djus ds lEcU/k esa vuqcU/k Fkk vkSj tc

lsok dh vko’;drk gksrh Fkh rks fu/kkZfjr le; lhek ds fy,

fufonk ds vk/kkj ij eSllZ f=yksd lksYtlZ ,.M+ eSuikWoj ls

lsok dh ekax dh tkrh Fkh tks lsok iznku djrk Fkk vkSj blh

vkèkkj ij mDr laLFkku dks foi{k }kjk Hkqxrku dj fn;k tkrk

FkkA izkFkhZ deZdkj ds lEcU/k es cgl esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd

dSesLVªh foHkkx esa lsok ds fy, eSllZ f=yksd lksYtlZ ,.M+

eSuikWoj ls ekax fd;s tkus ij mDr laLFkk us izkFkhZ deZdkj dh

lsok 1800 :- izfrekg dh ,ot esa iznku dh FkhA bl izdkj izkFkhZ

deZdkj foi{kh laLFkku ls fdlh Hkh izdkj dk ;kfpr vuqrks"k

ikus dk gdnkj ugha gSA

23- lh-,l- vktkn d`f"k ,oa izkS|ksfxdh fo’ofo|ky; cuke

;wukbVsM+ VªsM dkaxzsl ds ekeys esa izR;FkhZ nks fnukad 01-07-1980

dks :i;s 40 nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :Ik esa fo’ofo|ky; esa fu;qä

gqvk Fkk ftlus prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :Ik esa 31-10-1991 rd

ySc vflLVsaV&de&vVSUMsUV ds :Ik esa dke fd;k ijUrq 1-11-

1991 ls mlls lgk;d DydZ dk dke fy;k tkus yxkA izR;FkhZ]

,d VªsM ;wfu;u us izR;FkhZ nks dh rjQ ls vkS|ksfxd fookn

mBk;k fd deZpkjh dh lsok;sa fo’ofo|ky; }kjk fu;fer ugha

dh x;hA vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k fu.kZ;kFkZ ;g iz’u Fkk

fd **D;k fo’ofo|ky; us deZpkjh dY;k.k flag ¼foi{kh nks½ dks

tks DydZ :Ik esa dk;Zjr gS] LFkk;h deZpkjh ?kksf"kr u dj

voS/kkfudrk dkfjr dh gS ;fn gka rks D;k deZpkjh }kjk ;kfpr

vuqrks"k vf/kdkfjd gS ,oa fdl rkjh[k ls ,oa fdl

vk/kkj ij \**

24- vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ds fo}ku ihBklhu vf/kdkjh us

fookn dks izR;FkhZ nks ds i{k esa fuf.kZr dj fu.kZ; dh frfFk

30-5-1998 ls deZpkjh dks LFkk;h ?kksf"kr djus rFkk vuqxkeh

vkfFkZd ykHk iznku djus ds fy, funsZf’kr fd;kA

25- U;k;kf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; ds iwoZ ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;

us dqN vU; deZpkfj;ksa rFkk fo’ofo|ky; ds chp fookn ls

lEcfU/kr ,d fjV ;kfpdk deZpkfj;ksa ds i{k esa fo’ofo|ky;

ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh rjQ ls iznÙk dqN fj;k;r ds vk/kkj

ij fuf.kZr dh FkhA U;k;kf/kdj.k us ftu vk/kkjksa ij vius le{k

yfEcr mä fookn fuf.kZr fd;k mlesa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;

}kjk fuf.kZr mä fjV ;kfpdk dk fu"d"kZ Hkh vk/kkj FkkA

26- U;k;kf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) izLrqr flfoy eqrQdkZ

fjV ;kfpdk ekuuh; bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fuEu

izs{k.k ds lkFk fujLr dh x;h %&

"11.

The University statute does not provide for

appointment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis.

Respondent 2 in his written statement filed before the

Industrial Court did not make any averment that he had

been appointed in terms of the provisions of the statute or

prior thereto any advertisement therefore was made.

According to him, he being a hard working, honest, efficient

and eligible employee, was “entrusted” with the work of a

clerk from 1-11-1991. In his written statement, it was averred:

“5. That though the worker was working against a

permanent vacant post as a clerk in a permanent manner,

however, the employer is not giving him the actual scale

of pay and other allowances and benefits as that of a

permanent clerk. However, he is still considered as a daily

wager in spite of having worked since last 14 years

continuously, which is illegal and wrong.”

“12.

A feeble attempt, however, was made by the

learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent 2 to

state that he had been appointed against a permanent

vacancy. In his written statement, he did not raise any

such contention. It does not also appear from the records

that any offer of appointment was given to him. It is

inconceivable that an employee appointed on a regular

basis would not be given an offer of appointment or shall

not be placed on a scale of pay. We, therefore, have no

hesitation in proceeding on the premise that Respondent

2 was appointed on daily wages.

The Industrial Court in passing the impugned award

proceeded on the premise that Respondent 2 had been

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4889

working for more than 240 days continuously from the

date of his engagement. It is now trite that the same by

itself does not confer any right upon a workman to be

regularized in service. Working for more than 240 days in

a year was relevant only for the purpose of application of

Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

providing for conditions precedent to retrench the

workmen. In does not speak of acquisition of a right by

the workman to be regularized in service.”

27- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k vihy esa deZpkjh

dh rjQ ls ;g cgl dh x;h fd prqZFk Js.kh dehZ ds :Ik esa

deZdkj us ySc vflLVSUV ds LFkk;h fjDr in ij rFkk r`rh;

Js.kh deZpkjh ds :Ik esa DydZ ds LFkk;h in ij yEch vof/k rd

lsok dh gS] bl izdkj vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ;

vkns’k U;k;kf/kdj.k dh vf/kdkfjrk ds vUnj gSA izR;FkhZ dh

rjQ ls ;g Hkh cgl dh x;h fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds

vkns’k ls izR;FkhZ ls dfu"d deZpkjh fu;fer fd;s tk pqds Fks

vr% izR;FkhZ nks fu;fefrdj.k dk gdnkj FkkA fu.kZ; ds fo:)

vihykFkhZ dh rjQ ls ;g cgl dh x;h fd fu;qfDr LVsP;wVjh

¼statutory½ fu;eksa ds fo:) Fkh vr% vf/kdj.k }kjk fu;fefrdj.k

dk funsZ’k ugha fn;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk rFkk

vf/kdj.k ?kks"k.kkRed O;kns’k dh fMdzh ikfjr ugha dj ldrkA

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vihy Lohdkj dh vkSj ;g

vo/kkfjr fd;k]**

“17.

The Industrial Court, therefore, in our opinion,

committed a serious error in passing the impugned award.

The High Court unfortunately did not pose unto itself a

right question. It referred to a large number of decisions.

Although most of the decisions referred to by the High

Court should have been applied for upholding the

contention of the appellant herein, without any deliberation

thereupon, the learned Judge has proceeded to determine

the question posed before it on a wholly wrong premise.

As noticed hereinbefore, it relied upon Mahendra L. Jain

which in no manner assists Respondent 2.

18. What was necessary to be considered was the

nature of work undertaken by the University. It undertakes

projects. For the said purpose, it may have to employ a

large number of persons. Their services had to be

temporary in nature. Even for that the provisions of

Articles 14 and 16 are required to be complied with. In the

event, the constitutional and statutory requirements are

not complied with, the contract of employment would be

rendered illegal.

19.

Services of Respondent 2 were not terminated.

He has been continuing to serve the University. We have

noticed hereinbefore that in a writ petition filed by other

employees on a concession made by the counsel for the

University, a purported scheme dated 24-4-2000 has been

formulated. Dr. Padia in that view of the matter stated before

us that of Respondent 2 comes within the purview of the

said scheme, his services shall be regularized when his

turn comes therefor.

20.

We place on record the aforementioned statement

made by Dr. Padia that as and when Respondent 2 becomes

entitled to be considered for being absorbed in the services

of the University pursuant to the said scheme, his case

may be considered. If his turn for consideration for

regularization has already come, a decision thereupon shall

be taken as expeditiously as possible.

21.

The impugned judgment is set aside. The appeal

is allowed with the aforementioned observations and

directions. However, in the facts and circumstances of

this case, there shall be no order as to costs.”

28- ek/;fed f’k{kk ifj"kn ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us ekuuh;

loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k LosPN;k ij ;g tkfgj fd;k fd

vihykFkhZ ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds iwoZ esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ds

vuqlkj tc fo’ofo|ky; dh lsok esa vkesfyr djus ds fy,

gdnkj gks tkrk gS rc mlds ekeys ij fopkj fd;k tk

ldsxkA mä cgl dks fu.kZ; dk fgLlk cukrs gq, ekuuh;

loksZPp U;k;ky; us vihy [kkfjt dhA

29- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us mDr n`"VkUr ls ;g tkfgj

gS fd izkFkhZ@deZdkj dks mlds ekeys esa dksbZ vuqrks"k

U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk ugha iznku fd;k tk ldrk gS D;ksafd mldh

fLFkfr izR;FkhZx.k ls csgrj ugha gSa ,oa izkFkhZ lk{; ds vuqlkj

foi{kh }kjk dHkh fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k gSA

30- ek/;fed f’k{kk ifj"kn cuke vfuy dqekj ds ekeys esa

izR;FkhZx.k dks vihykFkhZ us lu~ 1986 esa vius ;gka dk;Z ij bl

mn~ns’; ls fu;r ikfjJfed ij vuqcfU/kr fd;k fd os

ek/;fed f’k{kk ifj"kn ds lQy ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa ds izek.k i= rS;kj

djsxsa tks izek.k i= Nis gq, Fks vkSj mlesa lQy ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dk

fooj.k Hkjuk FkkA 100 izek.ki=ksa esa fooj.k Hkjus dk ikfjJfed

12 #- Fkk tks c<+kdj 20 #- dj fn;k x;k FkkA foxr ,d&nks

o"kksZa ds cdk;k izek.k&i= Hkh izR;FkhZx.k }kjk rS;kj fd;s tk pqds

Fks ftldk lekuqikfrd Hkqxrku fd;k x;k FkkA Hkfo"; esa

izek.k&i=ksa dh rS;kjh dk dk;Z dEI;wVjhd`r gks tkus ds dkj.k

izR;FkhZx.k dh lsok;sa Hkfo"; esa yxkrkj mi;ksx ;ksX; ugha jg

x;h blfy, lekIr dj nh x;hA

31- lsok lekfIr ds fo:) izR;FkhZx.k us fjV ;kfpdk,a izLrqr

dh ftUgsa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us Lohdkj dh ftlls {kqC/k

gksdj vihykFkhZ us ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k vihy

izLrqr dhA

32- ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k izR;FkhZx.k dh rjQ ls

;g cgl dh x;h fd os vkdfLed ¼casual½ deZdkj Fks ftUgksaus

240 fnu lsok;sa iwjh dh FkhA lQy ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dk izek.k&i=

rS;kj djuk vihykFkhZ dk statutory obligation Fkk] izR;FkhZx.k@

4890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

deZdkjksa dh lsok lekfIr fof/k fo:) Fkh vkSj os lsok esa

iquZLFkkiuk ds gdnkj FksA rn~uqlkj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us

fjV ;kfpdk,a Lohdkj dh vkSj casual deZdkj ds :Ik esa izR;FkhZx.k

dks lsok esa iquZLFkkfir djus ds fy, funsZf’kr fd;k ,oa osru ds

lEcU/k esa ;g funsZ’k fn;k fd mUgsa og ikfjJfed fn;k tk; tks

leku dk;Z djus okyk fu;fer deZpkjh ikrk gSA ekuuh; mPp

U;k;ky; us ;g Hkh funsZ’k fn;k fd izR;FkhZx.k dks mudh

ofj"Brk ,oa 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk ds vuqlkj nSfud osru Hkksxh

etnwjh ds vk/kkj ij fu;fer ,y-Mh-lh- ds :Ik esa fu;qDr

djus ij fopkj fd;k tk; tc bl rjg ds in Hkjsa tk; vkSj

mudh lsok,a rc rd u lekIr dh tk; tc rd lHkh lsok esa

fu;fer deZpkjh ds :Ik esa lek;ksftr ugha gks tkrsA

33- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vihy Lohdkj dh vkSj

fu.kZ; ds iz’Lrj 5 eas vo/kkfjr fd;k]

“5.

We are unable to uphold the order of the High

Court. There were no sanctioned posts in existence to

which they could be said to have been appointed. The

assignment was an ad hoc one which anticipatedly spent

itself out. It is difficult to envisage for them the status of

workmen on the analogy of the provision of 240 days’

work. The legal consequences that flow from work for that

duration under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are

entirely different from what, by way of implication, is

attributed to the present situation by way of analogy. The

completion of 240 days, work does not, under that law

import the right to regularization. It merely imposes certain

obligation on the employer at the time of termination of

the service. It is not appropriate to import and apply that

analogy, in an extended or enlarged form here.”

34- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk mä n`"VkUr dh O;oLFkk

ls ;g Li"V gS fd izR;FkhZx.k lh/ks vuqcU/k ij vihykFkhZ }kjk

vfuf’pr vof/k ds fy, fu;qä Fks fQj Hkh mudh lsok;sa mUgsa

lsok esa okil fy;s tkus ds fy, i;kZIr ugha ekuh x;h D;ksafd

mudh fu;qfä oS/kkfud rjhds ls ugha dh x;h Fkh] vr% orZeku

ekeys esa mä fof/k O;oLFkk dks n`f"Vxr j[k izkFkhZ dSyk’k pUnz

ehuk dks ;kfpr vuqrks"k iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA

35- tgkW rd ;kfpdk esa izLrqr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ;kph dks

;kfpr vuqrks"k iznku fd;s tkus dk iz’u gS ,oa ;kph dh lsok

lekfIr fof/kd laxr vkSj fof/k }kjk U;k;kuqer ik;s tkus dk

iz’u gS bl lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr dh izd`fr ds lEcU/k esa

i{kdkjksa }kjk izLrqr fd;s x;s lk{;ksa dh O;k[;k izklafxd gSA

i{kdkjksa ds vfHkopuksa ds ;g tkfgj gS fd nkos ds izLrj 2 esa

izkFkhZ us ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd mldh fu;qfDr foi{kh us

fu;qfDr dh fu;fer izfdz;k viukdj prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds

in ij dh Fkh vkSj fnukad 2-1-2002 ls og viuk dk;Z fu;fer

:Ik ls dj jgk FkkA izLrj 2 esa gh izkFkhZ us ;g mYys[k Hkh fd;k

gS fd foi{kh ds ekSf[kd vkns’k ls og jlk;u foHkkx esa prqFkZ

Js.kh deZpkjh ds in ij dk;Z dj jgk Fkk vkSj fu;qfDr i= ugha

fn;k Fkk foi{kh }kjk vius oknksÙkj esa mDr dFku dk izcy

[k.M+u fd;k gS vkSj ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dHkh Hkh foi{kh

dh fu;qfDr esa ugha jgk vkSj bl lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ us vius nkos

esa dksbZ mYys[k ugha fd;k fd lEcfU/kr in ds fy, dc foKkiu

gqvk Fkk vkSj mlus dc vkosnu fd;k] ijh{kk ds fy, mls dc

cqykok i= Hkstk x;k vkSj dc mls fu;qfDr nh xbZ izkFkhZ fd

rjQ ls izLrqr vfHkys[kh; lk{; esa foKkiu ijh{kk ds fy,

cqykok i=] vkosnu i= vFkok fu;qfDr i= ls lEcfU/kr dksbZ

vfHkys[k izLrqr ugha gSA izkFkhZ }kjk lk{; esa izLrqr 'kiFk&i=

ds izLrj 1 esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd mls dksbZ fu;qfDr i= ugha

fn;k x;k FkkA nkos ds izLrj 2 esa izkFkhZ us fu;fer fu;qfDr

izfdz;k viukdj prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds in ij foi{kh }kjk

fu;qfDr fd;s tkus dk tks mYys[k fd;k x;k gS ml lEcU/k esa

izkFkhZ fd foi{k }kjk izfrijh{kk dh x;h gSA viuh izfrijh{kk esa

izkFkhZ us bl lEcU/k esa Lohdkj fd;k gS fd prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh

ds fy, v[kckj esa foKfIr fudkys tkus dh tkudkjh mls ugha

gS vkSj Lo;a ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd mldh fu;qfDr ls lEcfU/kr

foKfIr laLFkku ds uksfVl cksMZ ij nh xbZ FkhA uksfVl cksMZ ij

foKfIr yxus dh tkudkjh izkFkhZ dks dSls feyh bl lEcU/k esa

izkFkhZ us izfrijh{kk esa ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ ds lkbZM+ ds

yM+ds laLFkku esa dke djrs Fks mUgksuas uksfVl cksMZ ij yxh

foKfIr fd tkudkjh izkFkhZ dks nh FkhA QkeZ Hkjus ds lEcU/k esa

izkFkhZ us ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd mls laLFkku dh rjQ ls

vkosnu i= fn;k x;k Fkk ftldks Hkjdj mls laLFkku esa izLrqr

fd;k Fkk ysfdu laLFkku ds }kjk lk{kkRdkj gsrq mls dksbZ i=

ugha Hkstk x;k FkkA vkxs izkFkhZ lk{kh us izfrijh{kk esa ;g mYys[k

fd;k gS fd mls fyf[kr :Ik esa dksbZ fu;qfDr i= ugha fn;k x;k

Fkk vkSj ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd tks mlus Dyse izLrqr fd;k

og i<+us vkSj le>us ds ckn is’k fd;k gS vkSj lk{; esa izLrqr

'kiFk&i= Hkh i<+dj vkSj le>dj is’k fd;k gSA nkos ds izLrj

2 esa fu;fer izfdz;k viukdj fu;qfDr gksus dk tks mYys[k gS

mls izkFkhZ ds le{k izfrijh{kk ds nkSjku j[kk x;k gS rks lk{kh us

dgk gS fd lgh fy[kk gS fd fu;fer izfdz;k viukdj foi{k

}kjk fu;qDr fd;k x;k gSA nkos ds izLrj 2 esa vaxszth ds v{kj

A o B ds chp fu;qfDr dh izfdz;k ds lEcU/k esa tks bckjr

fy[kh x;h gS mlds lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ us ;g dgk gS fd ogka txg

[kkyh Fkh rFkk mls ogka [kkyh txg ij yxk fn;k FkkA izkFkhZ dh

rjQ ls uksfVl cksMZ+ ds foKkiu ds lEcU/k esa tkudkjh gksus ds

lEcU/k esa lk{; esa tks mYys[k fd;k x;k gS mlds leFkZu esa

izkFkhZ us fdlh O;fDr dks lk{; esa izLrqr ugha fd;k gS tks mlds

xkWao dh rjQ ds fuoklh Fks vkSj laLFkku esa dk;Zjr Fks] vr%

foKkiu ls lEcfU/kr tkudkjh ds lEcU/k esa tks dFku lk{kh us

izLrqr fd;k og mldh diksydYiuk tkfgj gksrh gSA izkFkhZ }kjk

Loa; bl rF; dks Lohdkj djuk fd lk{kkRdkj ds fy;s mls

laLFkku ls dksbZ cqykok i= ugha Hkstk x;k Fkk bl ckr dks

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4891

izekf.kr djrk gS fd og laLFkku esa dHkh Hkh prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh

ds in ij lk{kkRdkj ds fy, mifLFkr ugha gqvk ,slh fLFkfr esa

laLFkku }kjk mldks fu;qfDr fn;s tkus dk iz’u ugha mBrk gSA

tgka rd ekSf[kd vkns’k ls fu;qfDr fn;s tkus dk iz’u gS

ftldk mYys[k nkos ds izLrj 2 esa gS ;g ckr Lo;a Lohdkj

fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gS D;ksafd foi{kh laLFkku Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk

lapkfyr 'kS{kf.kd laLFkku gS tgka fdlh O;fDr dks ekSf[kd :Ik

ls fu;qfDr nsus dk vf/kdkj miyC/k ugha jgrk gSA tgkWa rd

foi{kh }kjk bl lEcU/k esa izLrqr dFku ls lEcfU/kr lk{; dk

iz’u gS bl lEcU/k esa mYys[kuh; gS fd foi{kh }kjk ;g dgk

x;k gS fd eSllZ f=yksd lksYtlZ ,oa eSuikWoj rFkk foi{k ds

chp fnukad 27-2-2001 ds vuqcU/k ds vuqlkj 1800@& :-

izfrekg ds cnys esa ,d ySc vVS.MsV ¼prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh½ dh

lsok miyC/k djkus ds fy, fnukad 3-1-2002 dks vkns’k fn;k

x;k Fkk ftlds vk/kkj ij mDr laLFkk us izkFkhZ dh lsok

miyC/k djk;h FkhA

36- foi{kh laLFkku ds ds;j Vsdj Jh lokbZ flag us izfrijh{kk

esa dgk gS fd ,e,uvkbZVh }kjk Bsds ij dk;Z fn;s tkus ds

lEcU/k esa vUnktu 2001 esa fufonk fudkyh xbZ Fkh ysfdu

fufonk dks lk{kh us i=koyh ij izLrqr ugha fd;k gS i`"B 2 ij

izfrijh{kk esa lk{kh us dgk gS fd eSllZ f=yksd lksYtlZ vkSj

eSuikWoj vkSj ,e,uvkbZVh ds e/; 2001 esa le>kSrk gqvk Fkk tks

izn’kZ&1 gS tks ewy dh QksVksizfr gS vkSj ewy izfr laLFkku esa gSA

izkFkhZ Jh dSyk’k pUnz eh.kk ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh rjQ ls ;g

cgl dh x;h gS fd i=koyh ij izLrqr bdjkjukek lk{; esa

xzg.kh; ugha gS D;ksafd iathd`r ugha gS vkSj uksVjh }kjk Hkh

lR;kfir ugha gSA bl lEcU/k esa mYys[kuh; gS fd vfHkys[k

izn’kZ ,- ,u-& 1 bdjkjukek dks vfHkysf[k; lk{; esa i<+s tkus

;k xzg.k fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa tks fof/kd deh gS bl deh

ls ;kph i{k dks dksbZ ykHk iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrk tks

fof/k dh lqLFkkfir O;oLFkk gS vkSj ;kph i{k dks Loa; vius

vfHkys[kh; vkSj ekSf[kd lk{; esa ;g lkfcr djuk gS fd ;kph

foi{kh ds ;gka fu;fer izfdz;k viuk;s tkus ds mijkUr prqFkZ

Js.kh deZpkjh ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk ftls ;kph

lkfcr ugha dj ldk gSA blds fo:) foi{kh lk{kh Jh lokbZ

flag dh rjQ ls lk{; esa izLrqr 'kiFk&i= ds izLrj 3 esa ;g

mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd eSllZ f=yksd lksYtlZ vkSj eSuikWoj

us Jh dSyk’k pUnz eh.kk dh lsok fufonk ds vk/kkj ij 1800 :-

izfrekg ij laLFkku ds vkns’k fnukad 3-1-2002 ds vuqlkj

miyC/k djk;h Fkh rFkk izLrj 4 esa ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd

vizkFkhZ laLFkku }kjk Jh dSyk’k pUnz eh.kk dks dHkh Hkh fu;qfDr

ugha nh xbZ vkSj u gh laLFkku }kjk jlk;u foHkkx esa ySc

vVS.MsV ¼prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh½ ds fy;s dksbZ foKfIr izdkf’kr

dh xbZ vkSj u dksbZ lk{kkRdkj fy;k x;k vkSj u dksbZ fu;qfDr

nh xbZ vkSj u gh Jh dSyk’k pUnz eh.kk dks laLFkku }kjk dksbZ

osru fn;k x;kA izfrijh{kk ds lE;~d ,oa lw{e voyksdu ls ;g

tkfgj gS fd foi{kh ds 'kiFk&i= ds izLrj 3 o 4 esa fn;s x;s

mDr rF; ds fo:) dksbZ izfrijh{kk ugha dh x;h blls bl

fcUnq dks cy feyrk gS fd foi{kh laLFkku esa Jh dSyk’k pUnz

eh.kk izkFkhZ dh lsok eSllZ f=yksd lksYtlZ vkSj eSuikWoj ds

ek/;e ls izkIr gqbZ FkhA foi{k dh rjQ ls izLrqr vfHkys[k izn’kZ

,-,u-&40 yxk;r ,-,u-& 53 ,sls vfHkys[k gS tks foi{k }kjk

lk{; esa izLrqr 'kiFk&i= dk vax gS ftlesa vU; yksxksa ds

lkFk&lkFk Jh dSyk’k pUnz eh.kk dks ekfld Hkqxrku ds :Ik esa

1800 :- izfrekg dh nj ls ekpZ 2002 ls ekpZ 2003 vkSj tqykbZ

2003 ds fy;s fd;s x;s Hkqxrku dk fooj.k gS tks QksVksizfr;ka gS

vkSj eSllZ f=yksd lksYtlZ vkSj eSuikWoj }kjk rS;kj dh x;h

n’kk;hZ x;h gSaA Jh dSyk’k pUnz eh.kk us tks Hkqxrku izkIr fd;k

gS mlds leFkZu esa vius uke ds le{k jlhnh fVdV ij Hkqxrku

izkIr djus ds gLrk{kj fd;s gSA ekg vizSy 2003] ebZ 2003 vkSj

twu 2003 ds Hkqxrku ls lEcfU/kr fooj.k ugha gS bu vfHkys[kksa

ls ;g tkfgj gS fd Jh dSyk’k pUnz eh.kk dh lsok foi{k }kjk

Bsds ij izkIr dh x;h gS vkSj bu vfHkys[kksa ls izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku

xyr lkfcr gksrk gS fd mldh fu;qfDr foi{k }kjk ySc

vVS.MsV ¼prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh½ ds in ij fu;fer izfdz;k

viukdj dh x;h Fkh rFkk ;kfpdk esa fu;fer izfdz;k viukdj

fu;qDr gksus ds lEcU/k esa izLrj 1 esa tks mYys[k izkFkhZ us fd;s

gS mls fl) ugha dj ldk gSA

37- tgkW rd izkFkhZ ds lUnHkZ esa /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ykxw gksus dk iz’u gS bl lUnHkZ esa

mYys[kuh; gS fd foi{k dh rjQ ls ;g dgk x;k gS fd

lafonkRed vk/kkj ij dkWUVªsDV }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsok miyC/k

djk;h x;h Fkh vkSj izkFkhZ dh mifLFkfr ds fnuksa dh tkudkjh ds

fy, jftLVj esa gLrk{kj djok;k tkrk Fkk blfy;s ek=

gLrk{kj djok;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd

izkFkhZ foi{k ds ;gka fu;fer lsok esa Fkk vkSj okLro esa izkFkhZ dHkh

Hkh foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa ugha FkkA blds fo:) izkFkhZ ds fo}ku

vf/koDrk }kjk U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e

dh /kkjk 2 ¼th½ dh rjQ vkd`"V fd;k x;k vkSj ;g cgl dh

x;h fd jktLFkku jkT; }kjk **fu;kstd** dh ifjHkk"kk esa

la’kks/ku dj Bsdsnkj dks Hkh 'kkfey fd;k x;k gS blfy;s izkFkhZ

dks foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa ekuk tkuk pkfg, vkSj bl vk/kkj ij

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kku izkFkhZ ds lUnHkZ esa ykxw

gksrs gSA bl lUnHkZ eas mYys[kuh; gS fd ;g rF; fufoZokn gS

fd izkFkhZ foi{kh dh fu;fer lsok esa ugha gS vkSj fu;fer rkSj ls

fu;qDr Hkh ugha fd;k x;k gS

,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dh lsok 'krksZa dk fu;U=.k ml

vuqcU/k ij vk/kkfjr gksxk tks lafonk ds vuqlkj eSllZ f=yksd

lksYtlZ ,.M- eSuikWoj rFkk foi{kh laLFkku ds chp gqbZ FkhA

foi{k }kjk izLrqr vfHkys[k izn’kZ ,-,u-&4 fnukafdr 3-1-2002

ls tkfgj gS fd jlk;u foHkkx ds fy;s 3 ekg gsrq 1800 :-

izfrekg dh nj ls ,d O;fDr dh lsok iznku djus ds fy;s

4892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

laLrqfr foi{kh laLFkku }kjk mijksDr Bsdsnkj laLFkk dks iznku

dh x;haA blh izdkj mUgha 'krksZa ij fnukad 6-4-2002 dks izn’kZ

,-,u-&5] }kjk 3 ekg ds fy;s] izn’kZ ,-,u-&7 }kjk fnukad

27-3-2003 dks 3 ekg ds fy;s] vkSj fnukad 2-4-2003 dks mUgha

'krksZa ij 3 ekg ds fy;s jlk;u foHkkx esa ,d O;fDr dh lsok

miyC/k djkus dk funsZ’k Bsdsnkj dks foi{kh laLFkku }kjk fn;k

x;k gSA izn’kZ ,-,u- &10 yxk;r ,-,u- 39 Bsdsnkj }kjk nh

xbZ lsokvksa ds fy;s izLrqr fcy vkSj foi{k }kjk psd ds ek/;e

ls fd;s x;s Hkqxrku ls lEcfU/kr fooj.k dh QksVksizfr;ka gS vkSj

,-,u-& 40 yxk;r izn’kZ ,-,u-&53 jlhnh fVdV ij Hkqxrku

fd;s tkus dk fooj.k gSA izn’kZ ,-,u-&39 foi{kh laLFkku ds

fucU/kd }kjk Bsdsnkj dks fuxZr i= gS ftlesa ;g lwpuk nh x;h

gS fd Bsdsnkjh ds ek/;e ls iznRr dh tk jgh lsok;as fnukad

29-11-2003 ls lekIr dh tk jgh gS vkSj rc rd nh xbZ lsok

ds lEcU/k esa Bsdsnkj fcy izLrqr dj ldrs gSA mDr i= izn’kZ

,-,u-&39 ls bl rF; dh iqf"V gksrh gS fd izkFkhZ dk ;g dguk

xyr gS fd fnukad 4-9-2003 dks foi{k }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsok;as

foi{k }kjk ukjkt gksdj lekIr dj nh x;h D;ksafd izkFkhZ us

foi{kh ls fu;fer osru Üka`[kyk dh ekax dj nh FkhA izkFkhZ ds

lUnHkZ esa izn’kZ ,-,u-&8 jlk;u foHkkx ds fy;s i=koyh ij

miyC/k vfUre vkns’k gS ftlds vuqlkj fnukad 8-4-2003 ls

3 ekg dh vof/k ds fy;s 1800 :- izfrekg dh nj ls ,d O;fDr

dh lsok miyC/k djkus dk vkns’k gS ftlls ;g fofnr gksrk gS

fd fnukad 8-4-2003 ls 8-7-2003 rd ds fy;s jlk;u foHkkx dks

lsok miyC/k djkus ds fy;s Bsdsnkj vf/kd`r FkkA Jh lokbZ flag

foi{kh lk{kh us izkFkhZ dh gktjh ls lEcfU/kr izn’kZ MCY;w 9 gktjh

jftLVj dh QksVksizfr ds lEcU/k esa ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd

izn’kZ MCY;w&9 jlk;u foHkkx ls lEcfU/kr vfHkys[k gS ftl ij

jlk;u foHkkx ds deZpkfj;ksa ds gLrk{kj gS ysfdu izkFkhZ dks

osru Hkqxrku laLFkku }kjk ugha fd;k tkrk Fkk cfYd Bsdsnkj Jh

Hkoj flag Hkqxrku djrk Fkk rFkk gktjh Hkh Bsdsnkj Hkstrk FkkA

mDr izysf[k; o ekSf[kd lk{; ls ;g tkfgj gS fd izkFkhZ dh lsok

eSllZ f=yksd lksYtlZ ,.M+ ,oa eSuikWoj ds }kjk miyC/k djk;h

tkrh Fkh ftlds fy;s le;≤ ij laLFkku }kjk funsZ’k fn;k

tkrk Fkk] vr% LokHkkfod :Ik ls izkFkhZ dh lsok dk lapkyu

lafonk dh 'krksZa ds vuqlkj fu;fU=r gksxhA izkFkhZ ds lUnHkZ esa

fnukad 8-7-2003 rd gh lsok iznku djus dk vkns’k izHkkoh gSA

mlds ckn dh vof/k ds fy, lsok ysus dk dksbZ vkns’k ugha gS

fQj Hkh izkFkhZ ds dFkukuqlkj fnukad 3-9-2003 rd mlus lsok

dh gS] vr% Bsdsnkj dks fnukad 4-9-2003 ds ckn laLFkku }kjk

lafonk ds vk/kkj ij lsok foLrkj u fn;s tkus ds d`R; dks

fof/k fo:) ugha dgk tk ldrk gSA izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls izn’kZ

MCY;w 4 vfHkys[k ds vk/kkj ij ;g cgl dh x;h gS fd ySc

vVS.MsV ¼prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh½ dk in [kkyh gS blfy;s izkFkhZ

lsok esa fy;s tkus ds fy;s vf/kd`r gSA bl lUnHkZ esa mYys[kuh;

gS fd izn’kZ MCY;w&4 vfHkys[k jftLV~kj ds dk;kZy; ls rS;kj

fd;k x;k vfHkys[k gS ftlesa laLFkku esa deZpkfj;ksa dh rRdkfyd

la[;k dh fLFkfr dk fooj.k gS vkSj blesa mu deZpkfj;ksa dk Hkh

fooj.k vafdr gS ftUgsa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk LFkxu

izkIr gSA lwph ds rS;kj gksus dh frfFk Li"V ugha gSA bl lwph

ds vk/kkj ij fdlh fjDr in dks izkFkhZ ds fy;s fof/kd :Ik ls

vkjf{kr in dh laKk ugha nh tk ldrh vkSj bl lEcU/k esa

ek/;fed f’k{kk ifj"kn mRrj izns’k cuke vfuy dqekj feJk

,oa vU; ,oa pUnz’ks[kj vktkn d`f"k ,oa izks|ksfxdh fo’ofo|ky;

cuke ;wukbVsM VªsMl dkaxzsl ,oa vU; rFkk mRrj izns’k jkT;

cuke uhjt voLFkh es ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk nh xbZ

fof/k O;oLFkk iw.kZ :Ik ls ykxw gksrh gS ftlds vuqlkj voS/k

rjhds ls dh x;h fu;qfDr;ksa dks fu;fer ugha fd;k tk ldrkA

izkFkhZ dh laLFkku }kjk vius ;gka dksbZ oS/kkfud fu;qfDr ugha dh

x;h gS vr% izkFkhZ dks lsok esa okil fy;s tkus dk gd izkIr ugha

gSA izkFkhZ dks ;g gd Hkh izkIr ugha gS fd vxj mlds 240 fnu

dh fu;fer lsok Hkh dj yh gS blfy;s mls foi{kh fd lsok esa

fu;fer deZpkjh ds :Ik esa j[kk tk; tSlk fd loksZPp U;k;ky;

us pUnz’ks[kj vktkn d`f"k ,oa izks|ksfxdh fo’ofo|ky; cuke

;wukbVsM VªsMl dkaxzsl ,oa vU; esa vo/kkfjr fd;k gSA

38- izkFkhZ i{k dh rjQ ls vius leFkZu esa izLrqr fof/kd

n`"VkUr lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bfUM;k cuke ,l-lR;e~ ,oaW vU; ds

ekeys esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ;g iz’u fopkj.kh;

Fkk fd D;k /kkjk 25 ¼,p½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds vUrXkZr

NVuh’kqnk deZdkj dh visf{kr iqu% fu;qfDr dsoy mUgha deZpkfj;ksa

rd lhfer gS tks /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ls vkPNkfnr gS ftUgksusa ,d

o"kZ ls vR;f/kd lsok dh gSA bl ekeys esa Lohdk;Z :Ik ls

izR;FkhZx.k us ,d o"kZ ls Hkh de vof/k rd vihykFkhZ ds ;gkWa

lsok dh Fkh blfy, /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds izkfo/kku ls os vkPNkfnr

ugha FksaA izR;FkhZx.k 1974 vkSj 1976 ds chp vYi vof/k ds fy;s

fu;qDr FksA lu~ 1982 esas mUgksusa viuh lsok ls eqfDr ds fo:)

fjV ;kfpdk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa izLrqr dh tks Lohdkj

dh x;h ftlls {kqC/k gksdj vihykFkhZ cSad us ekuuh; loksZPp

U;k;ky; ds le{k vihy izLrqr dhA vihykFkhZ dh rjQ ls

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds

fu.kZ; dks pqukSrh nsrs gq, ;g cgl dh x;h fd /kkjk 25 ¼,p½

vf/kfu;fer djus dk mn~ns’; ;g Fkk fd mu yksxksa dks

iqufuZ;qfDr fey lds tks /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ls vkPNkfnr gS vFkkZr

,d o"kZ ls vR;f/kd vof/k dh lsok ftUgksaus dh gS ysfdu

izR;FkhZx.k ml Js.kh ds deZpkjh ugha gS D;ksafd mUgksus ,d o"kZ

ls de vof/k dh lsok dh gS bl izdkj vdsys ;g vk/kkj

izR;FkhZx.k ij /kkjk 25 ¼,p½ ykxw u djus ds fy, i;kZIr gSA

;g cgl Hkh dh x;h izR;FkhZx.k tks 1974 ls 1976 ds chp

FkksM+h&FkksM+h vof/k ds fy, fu;qDr Fks rFkk ;kfpdk Hkh 1982 esa

izLrqr dh] vr% foyEc ds vk/kkj ij Hkh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;

}kjk iznRr vuqrks"k U;k;iw.kZ ugha gS rFkk blls mu deZpkfj;ksa

ij Hkh izfrdwy izHkko iM+sxk tks i{kdkj ugha gS rFkk e/;orhZ

vof/k ds chp fu;qDr gq, gSA izR;FkhZx.k dh rjQ ls ;g cgl

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4893

dh x;h fd /kkjk 2 ¼vkS-vkS½ esa **NVuh** dh O;kid ifjHkk"kk nh

x;h gS tks /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds izHkko ls lhfer ugha dh tk ldrh

gS rFkk /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ lHkh NVuh’kqnk deZpkfj;ksa dk ekeyk

vkPNkfnr ugha djrh gS ,oa /kkjk 25 ¼,p½ dh O;oLFkk ,slh dksbZ

lhek fu/kkZfjr ugha djuh gS fd dsoy /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ls

vkPNkfnr deZpkjh ij gh /kkjk 25 ¼,p½ dk

izkfo/kku ykxw gksxkA

39- fu.kZ; ds izLrj 8 esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us

vo/kkfjr fd;k] “………It is no doubt true that persons

who have been retrenched after a longer period of service

which places them higher in the seniority list are entitled

to be considered for re-employment earlier than those

placed lower because of a lesser period of service. In this

manner a workman falling in the lower category because

of not being covered by Section 25-F can claim

consideration for re-employment only if an eligible

workman above him in the seniority list is not available

Application of Section 25-H to the other retrenched

workmen not covered by Section 25-F does not, in any

manner, prejudice those covered by Section 25-F because

the question of consideration of any retrenched workman

not covered by Section 25-F would arise only, if and when,

no retrenched workman covered by Section 25-F is

available for re-employment. There is, thus, no reason to

curtail the ordinary meaning of ‘retrenched workmen’ in

Section 25-H because of Rules 77 and 78, even assuming

the rules framed under the Act could have that effect.

bl ekeys esa ;kfpdk foyEc ls izLrqr gksus ds dkj.k ekuuh;

lokZsPp U;k;ky; us vihy Lohdkj dh vkSj ;g vo/kkfjr

fd;k fd foyEc ls fjV ;kfpdk dh izLrqfr bls vLohdkj djus

ds fy, i;kZIr FkhA

40- ;kph ds lUnHkZ esa mDr n`"VkUr ls dksbZ enn ugha yh

tk ldrh gS D;ksafd mldh lsok;sa foi{k ls lsok foLrkj u ik;s

tkus ds dkj.k Bsdsnkj }kjk lekIr dh x;h gS rFkk izkFkhZ Loa;

foi{kh }kjk dh x;h fu;fer fu;qfDr dk fgLlk ugha gS ftls

NaVuh dk vuqxkeh ykHk fn;k tk ldsaA

41- tgkWa rd lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds vuqikyu

dk iz’u gS bl lUnHkZ esa lqjsUnz uxj] ftyk iapk;r & vihykFkhZ

cuke ng~;kHkkbZ vej flag & izR;FkhZ esa nh x;h fof/k O;oLFkk

mYys[kuh; gS ftlesa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g

vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd deZdkj }kjk U;k;ky; ls vuqrks"k ikus ds

fy, mls ;g fl) djuk vko’;d gS fd mls lsok esa cus jgus

dk vf/kdkj izkIr gS rFkk mls /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ dh lqj{kk ,oa

vuqikyu dk vf/kdkj Fkk \

42- /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ esa nh x;h O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj fdlh

fu;ksDrk ds v/khu ftl deZpkjh us /kkjk 25 ¼2½ ¼aa½ ¼i½

ds vuq:Ik ,d o"kZ vof/k dh vfofPNUu lsok dj yh gS mldh

NVuh 25 ¼,Q½ esa nh x;h izfdz;k dk ikyu fd;s fcuk ugha

dh tk ldrh gSA bl lEcU/k esa 2006] lqizhe dksVZ

¼,y-,.M ,l-½] 38 esa ekuuh; lokZsPp U;k;ky; }kjk nh x;h

fof/k O;oLFkk mYys[kuh; gSA

43- 2006 lqizhe dksVZ ¼,y-,.M ,l-½] 38] lqjsUnz uxj ftyk

iapk;r & vihykFkhZ cuke ng~;kHkkbZ vej flag & izR;FkhZ esa

izdj.k ds rF;kuqlkj izR;FkhZ dh lsok 15-8-85 ds vkns’k ls

lekIr dj nh x;h FkhA lsok lekfIr ds yxHkx lkr lky ckn

fnukad 01-6-92 dks izR;FkhZ us vihykFkhZ dks lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk

dh uksfVl Hksth vkSj vUrr% izR;FkhZ dh lsok lekfIr dk fookn

U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k dks lqiqnZ fd;k x;kA

44- izR;FkhZ us vius LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse esa ;g mYys[k

fd;k fd og lsok lekfIr ds vkns’k fnukad 15-8-85 rd 10@&

:i;s nSfud etnwjh ij vihykFkhZ dh lsok esa Fkk ,oa lsok

lekfIr ds vkns’k fuxZr gksus ds iwoZ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e

ds izkfo/kkuksa dk ikyu ugha fd;k x;kA Je U;k;ky; ds le{k

izR;FkhZ dh rjQ ls ,d vkosnu vihykFkhZ dks funsZ’k tkjh djus

ds fy, izLrqr gqbZ fd vihykFkhZ 1976 ls 1986 rd dh lsok

vof/k dk osru jftLVj ,oa eLVj jksy izLrqr djsaA vihykFkhZ

us LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse ds fo:) ;g dFku izLrqr fd;k fd

izR;FkhZ Loa; dke ij vkuk cUn dj fn;k ,oa mls dksbZ LFkk;h

fu;qfDr ugha nh x;h FkhA og eqrQdkZ dk;kZsa ds fy, fu;qDr

Fkk rFkk tc dke gksrk Fkk rks mls cqyk fy;k tkrk FkkA ;g Hkh

dgk x;k fd deZpkjh us lsoklekfIr ds Bhd iwoZ iwoZorhZ 12

ekgksa esa 240 fnu rd yxkrkj dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA ;g Hkh dgk

x;k fd mlus lu~ 82] 83 vkSj 84 esa Øe’k% 114] 63 vkSj 124

fnu dk;Z fd;k gS vr% mldh lsok,sa lekIr djus ds iwoZ /kkjk

25 ¼,Q½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e esa nh x;h izfdz;k dk

vuqikyu djus dh fof/kd vko’;drk ugha FkhA

45- izR;FkhZ us Loa; dks lk{; esa izLrqr dj l’kiFk dgk fd

og nl lky rd 470@& :i;s izfrekg ds osru ij fu;qDr

FkkA vihykFkhZ dh rjQ ls ,d deZpkjh us lk{; esa mifLFkr

gksdj dgk fd deZpkjh us dHkh Hkh ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu dke

ugha fd;kA Je U;k;ky; us izR;FkhZ ds lk{; ij Hkjkslk fd;k

vkSj eLVj jksy rFkk 1976 ls 86 rd dh osru jftLVj u

izLrqr djus ij izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk xzg.k dj ;g vo/kkfjr

fd;k fd izR;FkhZ us 240 fnu ls T;kns dk;Z fd;k vr% mldh

lsokeqfDr voS/kkfud FkhA Je U;k;ky; us /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½] 25

¼th½ ,oa 25 ¼,p½ dh izfØ;k dk ikyu u djus ds dkj.k

deZpkjh dks iquLFkkZiuk ds fy, vknsf’kr fd;k ,oa lkFk gh

fiNys osru dh 20 izfr’kr /kujkf’k vnk djus dk funsZ’k fn;kA

46- ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us Je U;k;ky;

ds fu.kZ; dh iqf"V dh rFkk Je U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds fo:)

vihykFkhZ dh ;kfpdk [kkfjt dhA ,dy ihB ds fu.kZ; ds

fo:) ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB us ysVlZ isVsaV

vihy fujLr dh ,oa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd Je U;k;ky; us

lgh vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd deZpkjh us ekSf[kd lk{; ls vius

dFku lkfcr fd;k gSA ekuuh; [k.MihB us Je U;k;ky; }kjk

4894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

osru iaftdk] eLVj jksy] rFkk deZpkfj;ksa dh ofj"Brk lwph u

izLrqr djus ij xzg.k dh x;h izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk dks Hkh lgh

Bgjk;kA Je U;k;ky; us ;g Hkh vo/kkfjr fd;k fd izR;FkhZ dh

rqyuk esa ,oa dfu"d deZpkjh dh lsok fu;fer :Ik ls tkjh

j[kh x;h vkSj izR;FkhZ dh lsok lekIr dj nh x;hA

47- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ekuuh; mPp

U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) vihykFkhZ dh ;g

cgl Fkh fd ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vius vusd fu.kZ;ksa

esa vR;Ur Li"V :Ik ls ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd izkjfEHkd rkSj

ij fl) djus dk nkf;Ro deZpkjh ij gS fd lsok lekfIr dh

frfFk ds iwoZ ,d o"kZ esa deZpkjh us 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k gS tks

nkf;Ro fuokZg djus esa deZpkjh vlQy jgk gSA ;g cgl Hkh

dh x;h fd 10 lky dk vfHkys[k izLrqr u djus ij izfrdwy

vo/kkj.kk xzg.k djus dh dksbZ otg ugha FkhA izR;FkhZ dh rjQ

ls ;g cgl dh x;h] Je U;k;ky; us izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk

vfHkys[kksa ds lEcU/k esa xzg.k djds Je U;k;ky; us lgh fd;k

gS D;ksafd fu;kstd ds dCts esa vfHkys[k Fks vr% Je U;k;ky;

}kjk ekWx fd;s tkus ij mls izLrqr djuk fu;ksDrk dk drZO;

FkkA ;g cgl Hkh dh x;h fd vfHkys[k fu;ksDrk ds dCts esa gS

blfy, mldk nkf;Ro gS fd og fl) djs fd lEcfU/kr

vof/k esa deZpkjh us 240 fnu dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA

48- mHk;i{k dh mDr cgl ds ifjis{; esa ekuuh; loksZPp

U;k;ky; us /kkjk 2 ¼vksvks½] /kkjk 25 ¼ch½ ,oa 25 ¼,Q½ dh Li"V

,oa cks/kxE; O;k[;k djrs gq, izLrj 8 i`"B 43 esa deZpkjh }kjk

rF;ksa dks fl) djus ds nkf;Ro ds lEcU/k esa rFkk NVuh dh

oS/kkfudrk ds lEcU/k esa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS] “To attract

provisions of Section 25-F, the workman claiming

protection under it, has to prove that there exists

relationship of employer and employee; that he is a

workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act;

the establishment in which he is employed is an industry

within the meaning of the Act and he must have put in not

less than one year of continuous service as defined by

Section 25- B under the employer. These conditions are

cumulative. If any of these conditions is missing the

provisions of Section 25 –F will not be attracted. To get

relief from the court the workman has to establish that he

has right to continue in service and that his service has

been terminated without complying with the provisions

of Section 25-F of the Act.

The section postulates three conditions to be fulfilled

by an employer for getting a valid retrenchment, namely:-

(i)

one month’s clear notice in writing indicating the

reasons for retrenchment or that the workman has

been paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of

such notice;

(ii)

payment of retrenchment compensation which

shall be equivalent to 15 day’s average pay for

every completed year of continuous service or

any part thereof, in excess of six months;

(iii)

a notice to the appropriate Government in the

prescribed manner.”

49- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us izLrj 10 esa ¼1980½ 4 ,l-

lh-lh i`"B 443] lqjsUnz dqekj oekZ cuke lsUVªy xoZesaUV b.MLVªh;y

fVªC;wuy de yscj dksVZ esa vius iw.kZihB ds QSlys lfgr

vusd QSlyksa dk mYys[k ,oa mudh O;k[;k djrs gq, ;g

vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd ;g fl)kUr gS fd fl) djus dk nkf;Ro

deZpkjh ij gS fd og n’kkZ;s fd dfFkr NVuh dh frfFk ds Bhd

iwoZ ,d o"kZ esa mlus 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k gS vkSj ;g nkf;Ro

Hkh mlh ij gS og Loa; ds Lkk{; esa ifjf{kr djkus ds vfrfjDr

lk{; izLrrqr djsaA

50- fu.kZ; ds iz’rj 18 esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us

mYys[k fd;k gS fd izR;FkhZ dh rjQ ls ekSf[kd lk{; ds

vfrfjDr dksbZ lk{; 240 fnu dk;Z djus ds lEcU/k esa ugha

izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] u osru ;k etnwjh ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ

jlhn] ;k vfHkys[k ;k vkns’k izLrqr gS] u dksbZ lgdeZpkjh

ifjf{kr djk;k x;k] u gh fu;ksDrk }kjk izLrqr eLVj&jksy ij

dksbZ [k.M+u izLrqr fd;k x;kA

51- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k gS fd

;g vlEHko gS fd deZpkjh tks bruh yEch lsok djus dk nkok

djrk gS mlds ikl fu;ksDrk ds v/khu lsok esa yxs jgus rFkk

dk;Z dh izd`fr ds lEcu/k esa dksbZ vfHkys[kh; lk{; ugha gksxkA

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vo/kkfjr fd;k fd deZpkjh us 240

fnu rd dk;Z esa layXu jgus ds rF; dks fl) djus ds nkf;Ro

dk fuokZg ugha fd;k gS ,oa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa us

fu;ksDrk }kjk 10 o"kZ dk vfHkys[k u izLrqr djus ds lEcU/k esa

izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk xyr xzg.k dh gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;

us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd izR;FkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ izR;Fkh

dks /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ dh lqj{kk vFkok vuqikyu dk vf/kdkj ugha

FkkA

52- /kkjk 25 ¼th½ ,oa 25 ¼,p½ ds vuqikyu ds lEcU/k esa ;g

lk{; Fkk fd nSfud osru Hkksxh dh lwph dk j[k&j[kko vihykFkhZ

}kjk ugha fd;k tkrkA bl lEcU/k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;

us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd deZpkjh fu;fer lsok ds vHkko esa

vihykFkhZ ls nSfud osru Hkksfx;ksa dh ofj"Brk lwph ds j[k&j[kko

dh mEehn ugha dh tk ldrh gSA vfHkys[kkas dh ekWx ij

vihykFkZhZ }kjk u izLrqr fd;s tkus ij /kkjk 114 (III) ¼th½

Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr U;k;ky; }kjk izfrdwy

vo/kkj.kk xzg.k fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;

us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS ,slh vo/kkj.kk xzg.k djus iwoZ U;k;ky;

ds le{k deZpkjh }kjk bl ckr dk lk{; izLrqr djuk gksxk fd

dksbZ ofj"Brk lwph vfLrRo esa gS vU;Fkk izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk

xzg.k djus dh vuqrks"k ugha iznku dh tk ldrhA U;k;ky;

}kjk izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk xzg.k djus gsrq vf/kdkj iznRr gksus ds

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4895

fy, U;k;ky; dks lUrq"V gksuk vfuok;Z gS fd lk{; vfLrRo

esa gS vkSj mls fl) fd;k tk ldrk FkkA ekuuh; loksZPp

U;k;ky; us rnuqlkj vihy Lohdkj dhA

53- orZeku ekeys ds rF; ,oWa ifjfLFkfr dks n`f"Vxr j[k

;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ deZdkj dks lsok esa cus jgus dk fof/kd

vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gS D;ksafd mldh fu;qfDr ds fy, laLFkku

}kjk dHkh dksbZ fu;fer izfdz;k fu;qfDr gsrq ugha viuk;h x;hA

ekuuh; lokZsPp U;k;ky; }kjk iznRr fof/k O;oLFkk ls ;g

fu"d"kZ Hkh Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ Jh dSyk’k pUnz eh.kk dks /kkjk 25

¼,Q½ ds vUrZxr dksbZ lqj{kk miyC/k ugha gS vkSj foi{kh laLFkku

dks /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds vuqikyu dk dksbZ nkf;Ro ugha gSA

54- tgkWa rd /kkjk 2 ¼th½ esa jktLFkku ljdkj }kjk ¼fu;kstd½

dh ifjHkk"kk esa la’kks/ku ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks foi{kh ds fu;kstu

esa ekudj lsok esa okil fy;s tkus dk iz’u gS bl lEcU/k esa

mYys[kuh; gS fd Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 14 ,oa 16 dh

ea’kk ds vuq:Ik foi{kh }kjk fu;qfDr dh fu;fer izfdz;k viukdj

fdlh O;fDr dks fu;qDr fd;s tkus dh n’kk esa gh mls

fu;fefrdj.k ds lUnHkZ esa foi{kh dks funsZ’k fn;s tkus ds fcUnq

ij fdlh U;k;ky; }kjk fopkj fd;k tkuk fof/kd :Ik ls laHko

gSA izkFkhZ ds lUnHkZ esa foi{kh }kjk dksbZ fu;qfDr izfdz;k viukdj

lsok esa ugha j[kk x;k gS vr% bl lUnHkZ esa izkFkhZ ds fo}ku

vf/koDrk dh cgl lkjghu gS fd izkFkhZ dks foi{kh ds fu;kstu

esa eku fy;k tk; vkSj mls ;kfpr vuqrks"k iznku fd;k tk;A

foi{kh dh rjQ ls lafonk deZpkjh;ksa ds lUnHkZ esa LVhy

vWkFkksfjVh vkWQ bf.M+;k fyfeVsM+ & vihykFkhZx.k cuke us’kuy

;wfu;u okWVj QzkUV odZlZ ,oa vU; dk n`"VkUr izLrqr fd;k

x;k gS ftlesa fopkj.kkFkZ vU; iz’uksa ds vfrfjDr eq[; iz’u ;g

Fkk fd dkWUVªsDV yscj (Regulation and abolition) ,DV 1970

ds vUrxZr **leqfpr ljdkj** (Appropriate Government)

}kjk Bsdsnkjksa ds ek/;e ls lsok nsus okys laohnkdfeZ;ksa ds

lafonk ij dk;Z djus ds mUewyu dh vf/klwpuk tkjh djus ds

ckn D;k lafonkdfeZ;ksa dks Lor% iz/kku fu;ksDrk ds laLFkku dh

lsok esa fu;fer deZpkjh ds :Ik esa dk;Zjr eku fy;k tk,xk\

;g ekeyk lafonk ds vk/kkj ij lsok ysus dh jhfr ds mUewyu

ls lacaf/kr Fkk \ ftls orZeku ekeys ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa

ls dksbZ lEcU/k ugha gS vkSj ugha mDr n`"VkUr esa nh xbZ fof/k

O;oLFkk dk orZeku ekeys ij dksbZ vlj iM+uk gS D;ksafd

orZeku ekeys esa mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 ds vUrxZr gS

fuxZr fdlh fu"ks/kkRed vf/klwpuk ds iz’u ij fopkj ugha gksuk

gSA vr% mDr n`"VkUr ls orZeku ekeys esa dksbZ enn ugha yh

tk ldrhA

55- mDr O;k[;k o fo’ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ

ij gaw fd izkFkhZ ds i{k esa izkFkhZ dks lsok esa okil fy;s tkus ds

fy;s vkns’k ikfjr fd;s tkus gsrq dksbZ fof/klaxr fLFkfr ugha

curh gSA

56- tgka rd izkFkhZ dh rqyuk esa mlls dfu"B deZpkjh dks

lsok esa cuk;s j[kus rFkk izkFkhZ dh lsok lekIr dj nsus ls

lacaf/kr rF; ds fopkj.k dk iz’u gS] bl lEcU/k esa mYys[kuh;

gS fd lk{; esa izLrqr 'kiFk&i= ds izLrj 4 esa ;kph us mDr

vk’k; dk mYys[k fd;k gS fd x.ks’k eh.kk ,oa vU; twfu;j

O;fDr vHkh Hkh dk;Z dj jgs gSA bl lEcU/k esa mYys[kuh; gS

fd ,slk dksbZ vk/kkj ;kph }kjk viuh ;kfpdk esa izLrqr ugha

fd;k x;k gS vkSj bl ckr dks lh/ks 'kiFk&i= }kjk izLrqr lk{;

esa mBk;k x;k gSA izfrijh{kk esa i`"B 3 ij lk{kh us dgk gS fd

x.ks’k eh.kk ,oa vU; dfu"B O;fDr dke dj jgs gS ysfdu eSus

muds fu;qfDr i= is’k ugha fd;k gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd bl ckr

dk fujkdj.k fd;s fcuk fd izkFkhZ vkSj x.ks’k rFkk vU; O;fDr

ftUgsa og vius ls dfu"B crkrk gS] mudh fu;qfDr dh D;k

frfFk gS ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd izkFkhZ ls dfu"B O;fDr

dk;Zjr gSA i=koyh ij bl lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ us dksbZ lk{; izLrqr

ugha fd;s gS ftlls bl fcUnq dk fujkdj.k gks ldsA Jh lokbZ

flag foi{kh lk{kh us izfrijh{kk esa Lohdkj fd;k gS fd jlk;u

foHkkx esa VªkUlQj gksdj vk;s prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :Ik esa

deZpkjh dk;Z dj jgs gS vkSj izkFkhZ ds gVus ds ckn VªkUlQj

gksdj vk, deZpkjh dk;Z dj jgs gSA lk{kh us ;g Hkh Lohdkj

fd;k fd x.ks’k eh.kk] HkxhjFk vkSj j.kohj dSyk’k pUnz eh.kk ds

lkFk dke dj jgs FksA mDr lk{; ls ;g fu"d"kZ ugha fudkyk

tk ldrk fd mDr O;fDr Jh dSyk’k pUnz eh.kk ls dfu"B gSaA

;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd Loa; izkFkhZ ds dFkukuqlkj jlk;u

foHkkx esa prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds nks in fjDr Fks ftlesa ,d in

ij izkFkhZ dh lsok lafonk ds vk/kkj ij yh tkuh izkjEHk gqbZ Fkh

vkSj nwljh ges’kk fjDr jghA bl vk/kkj ij Hkh izkFkhZ dh rqyuk

esa mlls dfu"B O;fDr ls lsok esa cus jgus dk iz’u ugha mBrkA

57- i{kdkjksa ds vfHkopuksa rFkk mlds leFkZu esa iznÙk

izys[kh; ,oa ekSf[kd lk{; ,oa i{kdkjksa }kjk izLrqr fof/kd

n`"VkUrksa fd mDr O;k[;k o fo’ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl

fu"d"kZ ij g¡w fd izkFkhZ Jh dSyk’k pUnz eh.kk foi{kh dh lsok esa

fu;fer :Ik ls fu;qDr deZpkjh ugha Fks vkSj mudh lsok;sa

foi{kh }kjk lafonk ds vk/kkj ij vyx&vyx vof/k ds fy;s

eSllZ f=yksd lksYtlZ ,oa eSuikWoj ds ek/;e ls izkIr dh x;h

gS] tks 3&3 ekg dh vof/k ds fy;s vyx&vyx vkns’kksa ds

vk/kkj ij yh tkrh jgh gS vkSj bl ekeys esa ekyoh; jk"Vªh;

izks|ksfxd laLFkku] t;iqj }kjk lafonk ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dh

lsok esa vkxs foLrkj u fd;k tkuk vFkkZr~ fnukad 4-9-2003 ls

izkFkhZ dh lsok,as lekIr djuk fof/kd ,oa U;k;kuqer gSA izkFkhZ ;g

rF; fl) djus esa vlQy gS fd /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kku ds mYya?ku esa mldh lsok lekIr

dh x;h] vr% nkosnkj fdlh vuqrks"k dks ikus dk gdnkj ugha

gSA U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr funsZ’k dk mRrj mDr izdkj fn;k

tkrk gSA iapkV rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

58- iapkV dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrxZr izdk’kukFkZ izsf"kr dh

tk;A

Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

4896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1896

dk-vk- 1896.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj

tujy] nwjn'kZu vkSj vnlZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh

ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 65@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@39@2000&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

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

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1896.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 65/

2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No.1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Director General, Doordarshan &

Others and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 23/06/2014.

P. K.VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

[No. L-42012/39/2000-IR(DU)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO .I, KARKARDOOMA COURTS

COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D.No.65/2011

Shri Surender Parsad

S/o Sh.Bishwanath Parsad,

C/o General Secretary,

H.No.C401, Harijan Basti,

Palam, New Delhi-110025.

...Workman

Versus

The Directorate General,

Doordarshan, Mandi House,

New Delhi.

The Executive Engineer(E),

Civil Construction Wings,

A.I.R. Soochna Bhawan,

C.G.O. Complex, Lodi Road,

New Delhi-110003.

...Management

AWARD

Civil Construction Wing, a unit of Doordarshan, Mandi

House, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the

management) assigned job of operation of air conditioning

plant, installed at Doordarshan Bhawan, Mandi House,

New Delhi to a contractor. In 1994, M/s Cool Care

Corporation was maintaining the AC plant. For the year

1995 to 1998, contract was awarded to M/s Kuldeep

Refrigerations. In 1999, contract was awarded to M/s Ventek

Engineering. Shri Surinder Parsad was engaged as a helper

to work at the said AC plant by the contractor. Services of

Shri Surinder Parsad were dispensed with by the contractor.

Feeling aggrieved by that act and belabouring under a

belief that the principal employer was under an obligation

to engage his services, Shri Surinder Parsad served a notice

of demand on the management seeking his reinstatement

in its services. The demand was not conceded to by the

management. Ultimately, he raised a dispute before the

Conciliation Officer. His claim was contested by the

management and as such, conciliation proceedings failed.

On consideration of failure report, submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred

the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order

No.L-42012/39/2000-IR (DU), New Delhi dated 30.05.2000

with following terms:

“Whether job of AC Electrician/helper in the

establishment of Doordarshan is of a perennial

nature and if Shri Surinder Parsad engaged through

different contractors from 1998 to 1999 is entitled

for regularization in services of Doordarshan?

If so, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

2. Corrigendum was sent by the appropriate Government

vide order No.L-42012/37/2000-IR(DU), New Delhi

06.11.2011 wherein it was pointed out that the words

‘1998-1999’ appearing in the fourth line of the schedule

may be read as ‘1994-1999’.

3. Claim statement was filed by Shri Surinder Parsad

pleading therein that he was employed with the

management, through a contractor, at its AC plant in Civil

Construction Wing located at Doordarshan Bhawan,

Mandi House, New Delhi. He was doing his duties under

direct guidance and supervision of the management since

1994. Initially M/s Cool Care Corporation was the

contractor. For the period 1995-98, M/s Kuldeep

Refrigeration was awarded contract for operation work of

AC plant. In 1999, M/s Ventek Engineering became the

contractor. Though the contractors changed, yet he

continued to work with the management till date of illegal

termination of his services. He rendered continuous service

of 240 days in calendar years from 1994 to 1999. He was

direct employee of the management.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4897

4. Claimant projects that legislature enacted Contract

Labour(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short the

Contract Labour Act) to abolish contract labour system

and regular working conditions of the contract labours.

Law laid by the Apex Court in Suresh ([999 (3) SCC 277]

declares that an employee working under direct control of

the principal employer is deemed to be an employee of the

principal employer. In view of the law so laid, the

management was liable to regulate his service conditions.

He was entitled to regularization in service of the

management with all facilities. Instead of regularizing his

services, his services were dispensed with on 01.06.1999

in an illegal manner. He served notice of demand on the

management seeking reinstatement in its service, but to

no avail. He is unemployed since the date of termination

of his service. He seeks reinstatement in service of the

management with full back wages and all consequential

benefits.

5. Claim was demurred by the management pleading

that the claimant was never engaged, hence there exists

no relationship of employer and employee between the

parties. Work of operation of AC plant was assigned to a

contractor. Claimant was engaged by the contractor to

carry out his contractual obligations. Claimant had no

locus standi to raise claim against the management. The

management used to issue instructions to the contractor,

who in turn complied those instructions relating to

maintenance of AC plant through his employees. As and

when new contractor was assigned the job, he was free to

engage employees of the old contractor. The management

pleads that it had no knowledge as to whether claimant

was engaged by different contractor since 1994.

6. There was no occasion for it to supervise work of the

claimant, asserts the management. The contractor was

solely responsible to carry out smooth operation of the

AC plant. Judgement relied by the claimant is not

applicable to his case. Service of the claimant was not

terminated by the management. There was no occasion

for him to serve notice of demand, seeking reinstatement

in service with continuity and full back wages on the

management. His notice of demand was misconceived.

There was no necessity on the part of the management to

reply the notice of demand. Claim raised is false and

frivolous, hence liable to be dismissed. It has been pleaded

that an award may be passed in favour of the management

and against the claimant.

7. Out of pleadings of the parties, following issues were

settled by my learned predecessor:

(i)

Whether the workman has no locus standi to

prefer present claim against the management as

stated? If so, its effects?

(ii)

Whether there exists any relationship of employer

and employee between the parties? If so, its

effects.

(iii)

As in terms of reference.

8. Vide order No.Z-22019/6/2007-IR (C-II), New Delhi

dated 11.02.2008, case was transferred to Central

Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, New Delhi for

adjudication by the appropriate Government. It was

retransferred to this Tribunal for adjudication vide order

No.Z-22019/6/2007-IR (C-II), New Delhi dated 30.03.2011

by the appropriate Government.

9. Claimant examined himself in support of his claim.

Shri Shyam Singh Yadav, Executive Engineer (Electrical),

entered the witness box to testify facts on behalf of the

management. No other witness was examined by either of

the parties.

10. Arguments were heard at the bar. Ms.Anubha

Kaushal, authorized representative, advanced arguments

on behalf of the claimant. Shri A.P. Gupta, authorized

representative, raised submissions on behalf of the

management. 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.II

11. Claimant tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A as

evidence, wherein he asserts that he was working with the

management as helper at its AC plant since 1994. Duties

were assigned to him by the Executive Engineer of the

management. He presents that a management was his

principal employer and his services were engaged through

the contractor. He was a regular employee and in that

capacity he rendered continuous service of 240 days in

every calendar year, under guidance and control of the

management. His services were illegally terminated.

12. Shri Shyam Singh Yadav unfolds in his affidavit

Ex.MW1/A that the claimant was never engaged by the

management. He was employed by the contractor to carry

out his contractual obligations. Contractor was

responsible for smooth operation of the AC plant and to

discharge those obligations, the claimant was engaged

by him. Claimant was working under direct control and

supervision of the contractor. As noted above, rival facts

are presented by the claimant and Shri Yadav in their

respective affidavits. Resultantly, it becomes expedient to

appreciate facts testified by the parties in the light of the

documents proved over the record.

13. Claimant had proved visitor’s passes as Ex.WW1/1

to Ex.WW1/22. When scanned, these documents bring it

light that the claimant obtained entry passes to pay a visit

to the Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer (Electrical).

Purpose of his visit was official as detailed in the

documents, referred above. During course of arguments,

Shri Gupta argued that entry passes were got issued by

the claimant to seek entry in the premises of the

4898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management. Entry passes were issued by the Security

Officer to facilitate entry of the claimant inside the AC

plant, installed at Doordarshan Bhawan, Mandi House,

New Delhi. Ms. Kaushal could not project that those

visitor’s passes highlight that the claimant was an

employee of the management. Those visitor passes could

not indicate that there was relationship of employer and

employee between the parties.

14. Attendance rolls Ex.WW1/23 to Ex.WW1/73 are

placed over the record by the claimant. When scanned,

these attendance rolls nowhere highlight that the claimant

was working as employee of the management. Log sheet

of AC plant, which are Ex.WW1/74 to Ex.WW1/79 are also

proved by the claimant, besides character certificate

Ex.WW1/80. Application of extension of entry passes and

note sheet are also proved as Ex.WW1/81 to Ex.WW1/82.

However, these documents nowhere give an inference that

the claimant was an employee of the management.

15. No letter of appointment, order assigning duties to

the claimant, sanctioning of leaves and release of pay in

his favour by the management has been brought over the

record. No communication of any sort, showing nexus of

the claimant with the management as its employee, has

been placed over the record. Claimant made a candid

admission to the effect that he cannot produce any

documentary evidence to show that wages were paid to

him by the management at any point of time. Bald statement

of the claimant to the effect that he was working under

direct control and supervision of the management nowhere

gets support from any documents brought over records

by him. There is complete vacuum of facts to record

findings to the effect that the claimant was an employee of

the management. On the other hand, claimant had

projected a case to the effect that he was an employee of

the contractor and the management was his principal

employer. Therefore, all these facts constrain me to

conclude that the claimant was an employee of the

contractor, who unsuccessfully claimed himself to be an

employee of the management.

Issue No. I

16. Whether the claimant, who was an employee of the

contractor, can maintain a dispute against the management?

For an answer to this proposition, the Tribunal has to take

note of the law contained in section 10 of the Contract

Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short the

Contract Labour Act), which makes provision for

prohibition of employment of contract labour. For sake of

convenience provisions of section 10 of the Contract

Labour Act are reproduced thus:

“10. Prohibition of employment of contract labour:-

(1)

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,

the appropriate Government may, after

consultation with the Central Board or, as the

case may be, a State Board, prohibit, by

notification in the Official Gazette, employment

of contract labour in any process, operation or

other work in any establishment.

(2)

Before issuing any notification under sub-section

(1) in relation to an establishment, the appropriate

Government shall have regard to the conditions

of work and benefits provided for the contract

labour in that establishment and other relevant

factors, such as –

(a)

whether the process, operation or other

work is incidental to, or necessary for the

industry, trade, business, manufacture or

occupation that is carried on in the

establishment,

(b)

whether it is of perennial nature, that is to

say, it is of sufficient duration having regard

to the nature of industry, trade, business,

manufacture or occupation carried on in

that establishment;

(c)

whether it is done ordinarily through regular

workmen in that establishment or an

establishment similar thereto;

(d)

whether it is sufficient to employ

considerable number of whole-time

workmen.

Explanation – If a question arises whether

any process or operation or other work is

of perennial nature, the decision of the

appropriate Government thereon shall be

final.”

17. As emerge out of the provisions of sub-section (1)

of section 10 of the Contract Labour Act, the appropriate

Government may, by notification in the official gazette,

prohibit employment of contract labour in any process,

operation or other work in any establishment. When

employment of contract labour is prohibited, by issuance

of a notification in official gazette by the appropriate

Government, what would be the status of the contract

labour employed in the establishment? Such a question

arose before the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India

Ltd. [2001 (7) S.C.C.I]. The Apex Court ruled therein that

there cannot be automatic absorption of contract labour

by principal employer on issuance of notification by the

appropriate Government on abolition of contract labour

system, under sub section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract

Labour Act. It would be expedient to reproduce the law

laid by the Apex Court, which is extracted thus:

“….. they fall in three classes : (1) where contract

labour is engaged in or in connection with the work

of an establishment and employment of contract

labour is prohibited either because the industrial

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4899

adjudicator/court ordered abolition of contract

labour or because the appropriate Government

issued notification under section 10(1) of the CLRA

Act, no automatic absorption of contract labour

working in the establishment was ordered, (2) where

contract was found to be a sham and nominal, rather

a camouflage, in which case the contract labour

working in the establishment of the principal

employer were held, in fact and in reality, the

employees of the principal employer himself. Indeed

such cases do not relate to the abolition of contract

labour but present instances wherein the court pierce

the veil and declared the correct position as a fact at

the stage after employment of contract labour stood

prohibited, (3) where in discharge of a statutory

obligation of maintaining a canteen in an

establishment the principal employer availed the

services of the contractor, the courts have held that

the contract labour would indeed be employees of

the principal employer”.

18. The Court ruled that neither section 10 of the

Contract Labour Act nor any other provision in that Act,

whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides

for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuance

of a notification by the appropriate Government under

sub-section (1) of section 10, prohibiting employment of

contract labour, in any process, operation or other work in

any establishment. Consequently the principal employer

cannot be required to order for absorption of the contract

labour working in the establishment concerned. It was

further ruled therein that in Saraspur Mills case [1974 (3)

SCC 66], the workman engaged for working in the canteen

run by the Cooperative Society for the appellant were the

employees of the appellant mills. In Basti Sugar Mills (AIR

1964 S.C. 355) a canteen was run in the factory by the

Cooperative Society and as such the workers working in

the canteen were held to be employees of the

establishment. The Apex Court ruled that these cases fall

in class (3) mentioned above. Judgment in Hussainbhai

(1978 Lab. I.C. 1264) was considered by the Apex Court in

the said precedent and it was ruled therein that the said

precedent falls in class (2), referred above. The Apex Court

concluded that on issuance of prohibitive notification

under section 10 of the Contract Labour Act prohibiting

employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an

industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour

in regard to conditions of service, the Industrial

Adjudicator will have to consider the question whether

the contractor has been interposed either on the ground

of having undertaken to produce any given result for the

establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of

the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere

ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial

legislation so as to deprive the workers of the benefit

thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine but

a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour will have

to be treated as employees of the principal employer who

shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract

labour in the establishment concerned, subject to the

conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose.

19. As announced by the Apex Court, on issuance of a

prohibitive notification , prohibiting employment of

contract labour or otherwise in any industrial dispute

brought before it by the contract labour in regard to

conditions of his service, the industrial adjudicator will

have to consider the question whether the contractor has

been interposed either on the ground of having

undertaken to produce any given result in the

establishment or for supply of the contract labour for the

work of the establishment under a genuine contract or it is

a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of beneficial

legislation so as to deprive the workers of the benefits

therein. Thus it was ruled that a contract labour can raise

a dispute before the industrial adjudicator in regard to his

conditions of service and in case the contract is found to

be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called

contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the

principal employer. Also see Standard Vacuum Refining

Co. of India Ltd. [1960 (II) LLJ. 233], which was referred

with approval in Steel Authority of India.

20. In Shivnandan Sharma [1955 (1) LLJ 688], the

respondent Bank entrusted its Cash Department under a

contract to the Treasures who appointed cashiers,

including the appellant Head Cashier. The question before

the Apex Court was: was the appellant an employee of the

Bank? On construction of the agreement entered into the

Bank and the Treasure, the Court laid down:

“If a master employs a servant and authorizes him to

employ a number of persons to do a particular job

and to guarantee their fidelity and efficiency for a

cash consideration, the employees thus appointed

by the servant would be equally with the employer,

servant of the master.”

In the above precedent the Apex Court for the

first time laid down the crucial test of supervision and

control for determining the relationship of employer and

employee.

21. In Hussainbhai (supra) the petitioner, who was

manufacturing ropes, entrusted the work to a contractor

who engaged his own workers. When, after some time,

the workers were not engaged, they raised an industrial

dispute that they were denied employment by the

petitioner. On reference of that dispute, the labour court

passed an award against the petitioner. When matter

reached the Apex Court, on examination of various factors

and applying the effective control test, it was held that

though there was no direct relationship between the

petitioner and the workers yet on lifting the veil and looking

4900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

at the conspectus of factors governing employment, the

naked truth, though draped in different perfect paper

arrangement, was that the real employer was the petitioner,

not the immediate contractor. The Apex Court stated law

in following words:

“Where a worker or group of workers labours to

produce goods or services and these goods or

services are for the business of another, that other

is, in fact, the employer. He has economic control

over the workers’ subsistence, skill, and continued

employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off, the

worker is, virtually, laid off. The presence of

intermediate contractor with whom alone the workers

have immediate or direct relationship ex-contractu

is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or

looking at the conspectus of factors governing

employment, we discern the naked truth, though

draped in different perfect paper arrangement, that

the real employer is the management, not the

immediate contractor***. If the livelihood of the

workmen substantially depends on labour rendered

to produce goods and services for the benefit and

satisfaction of an enterprise, the absence of direct

relationship or the presence of dubious

intermediaries or the make-believe trappings of

detachment from the management cannot snap the

real-life bond. The story may vary but the inference

defies ingenuity. The liability cannot be shaken off.

Of course, if there is total dissociation in fact between

the disowning management and the aggrieved

workmen, the employment is, in substance and real-

life terms, by another. The management’s

adventitious connections cannot ripen into real

employment.”

As noted above, this precedent does not present

an illustration of abolition of contract labour but an

instance where the Court pierced the veil and declared the

correct position to the effect that the contract labours

were employees of the principal employer and not of the

contractor.

22. In Steel Authority of India (supra) it has been ruled

that the term “contract labour” is a species of workman. A

workman may be hired : (1) in an establishment by the

principal employer or by his agent with or without the

knowledge of the principal employer, or (2) in connection

with the work of an establishment by the principal employer

through a contractor or by a contractor with or without

the knowledge of principal employer. Where a workman is

hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment

by the principal employer through a contractor, he merely

acts as an agent so there will be master and servant

relationship between the principal employer and the

workman. But when a workman is hired in or in connection

with the work of an establishment by a contractor, either

because he has undertaken to produce a given result for

the establishment or because he supplies workmen for

any work of the establishment, a question might arise

whether the contractor is a mere camouflage as in

Hussainbhai’s case (supra) and in Indian Petrochemicals

Corporation case [1999 (6) S.C.C. 439] etc.; if the answer is

in affirmative, the workman will be in fact an employee of

the principal employer, but if the answer is in the negative,

the workman will be a contract labour.

In view of the legal proposition, referred above, it is

concluded that the claimant can maintain this dispute

against the management since he agitates that the contract

agreement between the management and the contractor is

sham and nominal.

23. Whether any directions for deeming the contract

labour as having become the employees of the principal

employer can be issued, when the contractor or the

principal employer had violated the provisions of the

Contract Labour Act? To find an answer, provisions of

that Act are to be examined. The Contract Labour Act

regulates conditions of workers in contract labour system

and provides for its abolition by the appropriate

Government as provided by section 10 of that Act. In regard

to regulatory measures section 7 requires the principal

employer to get itself registered, while section 12 obliges

every contractor to obtain a licence, under the provisions

of that Act. Section 9 places an embargo on the principal

employer of an establishment from employing contactor

labour in the establishment, when either it is not registered

or its registration has been revoked. Section 12 of the

Contract Labour Act imposes a liability on a contractor

not to undertake or execute any work through contract

labour except under and in accordance with a licence.

Sections 23, 24 and 25 make contraventions of the

provisions of that Act or Rules made there-under penal. In

Dena Nath (1992 Lab. I.C. 75) the Apex Court considered

the question, whether non-compliance of the provisions

of sections 7 and 12 by the principal employer and the

contractor respectively would make the contract labour

employed by the principal employer as the employee of

the latter. It was ruled that only consequence of non-

compliance either by the principal employer of section 7

or by the contractor in complying the provisions of section

12 is that they are liable for prosecution under the said

Act. But the employees employed through the contractor

cannot be deemed to be the employees of the principal

employer.

24. In the Steel Authority of India (supra) the Apex

Court laid emphasis “……the consequence of violation of

Section 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in

Section 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High

Courts or this Court to read in some unspecified remedy in

Section 10 or substitute for penal consequences specified

in Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel, be if absorption of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4901

contract labour in the establishment of principal employer

or a lesser or harsher punishment. Such an interpretation

of the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the

principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of

interpretative legislation and as such, clearly

impermissible”. The above authoritative pronouncements

make it clear that on violations of the provisions of the

Contract Labour Act or Rules made thereunder, the

contract labour could not be deemed to have become the

employee of the principal employer.

25. Whether this Tribunal has power to order for

abolition of contract labour system in the establishment

of the management? For an answer, legal dicta is to be

considered. Before enactment of the Contract Labour Act,

the industrial adjudicator, in appropriate cases, used to

issue directions to the establishment concerned to abolish

or modify system of contract labour. Reference can be

made to precedents in United Salt Works and Industries

Ltd. [1962 (I) LLJ. 131], Shibu Metal Works [1966 (I) LLJ.

717], National Iron & Steel Co. [1967 (II) LLJ. 23] and Ghatge

and Patil (Transport) Pvt. Ltd. [1968 (I) LLJ. 566]. The

National Commission on Labour (1966) in para 29.11 of its

report, enumerated those factors, on which abolition of

contract labour was ordered, thus:

“29.11. Judicial awards have discouraged the

practice of employment of contract labour,

particularly when the work is (i) perennial and must

go on from day to day; (ii) incidental and necessary

for the work of the factory; (iii) sufficient to employ

a considerable number of whole time workmen; and

(iv) being done in most concerns through regular

workmen. These awards also came out against the

system of ‘middlemen’.”

26. After Contract Labour Act was brought on statute

book, the Apex examined jurisdiction of the industrial

adjudicator to issue directions to the establishment to

abolish contract labour in Vegoils Private Ltd. [1971 (2)

S.C.C. 724] and ruled that it would be proper that the

question, whether the contract labour in the appellant

industry was to be abolished or not, be left to be dealt

with by the appropriate Government under the provisions

of that Act, if it becomes necessary. The observations

made by the Court are extracted thus:

“The appropriate Government when taking action

under Section 10 will have an overall picture of the

industries carrying on similar activities and decide

whether contact labour is to be abolished in respect

of any of the activities of that industry. Therefore, it

is reasonable to conclude that the jurisdiction to

decide about the abolition of contract labour, or to

put it differently, to prohibit the employment of

contract labour, is now to be done in accordance

with Section 10. Therefore, it is proper that the

question whether the contract labour regarding

loading and unloading in the industry of the appellant

is to be abolished or not, is left to be dealt with by

the appropriate Government under the Act, if it

becomes necessary. On this ground, we are of the

opinion that the direction of the Industrial Tribunal

in this regard will have to be set aside.***. The

legality of the direction given by the Industrial

Tribunal abolishing contract labour in respect of

loading and unloading from May 1, 1971, can also

be considered from another point of view. The

Central Act, as mentioned earlier, had come into force

on February 10, 1971. Under Section 10 of the said

Act the jurisdiction to decide matters connected with

prohibition of contract labour is now vested in the

appropriate Government. Therefore, with effect from

February 10, 1971, it is only the appropriate

Government that can prohibit contract labour by

following the procedure and in accordance with the

provisions of the Central Act. The Industrial Tribunal,

in the circumstances, will have no jurisdiction,

through its award dated November 20, 1970, to give

a direction in that respect which becomes,

enforceable after the date of the coming into force

of the Central Act. In any event, such a direction

contained in the award cannot be enforceable from

a date when abolition of contract labour can only be

done by the appropriate Government in accordance

with the provisions of the Central Act”.

27. In Gujarat Electricity Board [1995 (5) S.C.C. 27] the

same view was taken by the Apex Court holdings that the

authority to abolish the contract labour vests in the

appropriate Government and not in any court including

the industrial adjudicator. It would be apposite to

reproduce the observation of the Court thus:

“53. Our conclusions and answers to the questions

raised are, therefore, as follows:

(i)

In view of the provisions of Section 10 of

the Act, it is only the appropriate

Government which has the authority to

abolish genuine labour contract in

accordance with the provisions of the said

Section. No Court including the industrial

adjudicator has jurisdiction to do so.

(ii)

If the contract is sham or not genuine, the

workmen of the so-called contractor can

raise an industrial dispute for declaring that

they were always the employees of the

principal employer and for claiming the

appropriate service conditions. When such

dispute is raised, it is not a dispute for

abolition of the labour contract and hence

the provisions of Section 10 of the Act will

not bar either the raising or the adjudication

of the dispute. When such dispute is

4902

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

raised, the industrial adjudicator has to

decide whether the contract is sham or

genuine. It is only if the adjudicator comes

to the conclusion that the contract is sham,

that he will have jurisdiction to adjudicate

the dispute. If, however, he comes to the

conclusion that the contract is genuine, he

may refer the workmen to the appropriate

Government for abolition of the contract

labour under Section 10 of the Act and keep

the dispute pending. However, he can do

so if the dispute is espoused by the direct

workmen of the principal employer. If the

workmen of the principal employer have

not espoused the dispute, the adjudicator,

after coming to the conclusion that the

contract is genuine, has to reject the

reference, the dispute being not an

industrial dispute within the meaning of

Section 2 (k) of the ID Act. He will not be

competent to give any relief to the workmen

of the erstwhile contractor even if the

labour contract is abolished by the

appropriate Government under Section 10

of the Act.

(iii)

If the labour contract is genuine a

composite industrial dispute can still be

raised for abolition of the contract labour

and their absorption. However, the dispute,

will have to be raised invariably by the

direct employees of the principal employer.

The industrial adjudicator, after receipt of

the reference of such dispute will have first

to direct the workmen to approach the

appropriate Government for abolition of the

contract labour under Section 10 of the Act

and keep the reference pending. If pursuant

to such reference, the contract labour is

abolished by the appropriate Government,

the industrial adjudicator will have to give

opportunity to the parties to place the

necessary material before him to decide

whether the workmen of the erstwhile

contractor should be directed to be

absorbed by the principal employer, how

many of them and on what terms. If,

however, the contract labour is not

abolished, the industrial adjudicator has

to reject the reference.

(iv)

Even after the contract labour system is

abolished, the direct employees of the

principal employer can raise an industrial

dispute for absorption of the ex-

contractor’s workmen and the adjudicator

on the material placed before him can decide

as to who and how many of the workmen

should be absorbed and on what terms”.

28. In Steel Authority of India (supra) the Apex Court

had referred the precedents in Vegoils case (supra) and

Gujrat Electricity Board (supra) with approval. Thus it

emerges that power to abolish contract labour system

vests with the appropriate Government, under section 10

of the Contract Labour Act, and not with any court

including the industrial adjudicator. This Tribunal has not

been saddled with any responsibility to abolish contract

labour in an establishment, on parameters enacted in sub-

section (2) of section 10 of the Contract Labour Act.

29. On turning to facts, the Tribunal noted that the

claimant detailed facts to the effect that he was working

under direct control and supervision of the management.

However ocular facts testified by him remained empty

sounded since it could not get any re-affirmation from any

other piece of evidence, documentary or otherwise. In other

to assess veracity of his claim the management was called

upon to place contract agreements before the Tribunal.

Pursuant to directions given, contract agreement entered

into between the management and M/s. Cool Care

Corporation and M/s. Ice Berg Corporation, the

contractors, are placed over the record. These documents

were not questioned by and on behalf of the claimant at

all. No efforts were made to assail contents of these

contract agreements. When these documents are perused,

it came to light that contract was awarded by the

management to the contractor for operation of 4 x 40 Tonne

Refrigeration capacity central air conditioning plant

comprising of 15 Nos. air handling units, 4 Nos. accel

compressor units, 10 Nos. chiller/condenser, pumps, consol

operation panel, complete with LT cubical type main

control panel, AHU panel and allied equipment/accessories

connected to AC plant, i.e. including heating system during

winter etc. as required. Contract agreements nowhere

give an inference that perfect paper arrangement was made

with a view to evade provisions of beneficial labour

legislations. As detailed in the contract agreements,

contractor was supposed to maintain the AC plant and for

that purpose he was required to engage his employees.

Engagement of the claimant for maintaining of the said AC

plant by the contractor nowhere highlight that the

contractor was an agent of the management when services

of the claimant were engaged. Contract agreements,

referred above, no where bring it over the record that

control and supervision was exercised by the management

on the work of the claimant. There is vacuum of evidence

to the effect that the management used to exercise

administrative, financial, managerial and disciplinary

control over the claimant. Under these circumstances, it

has not come over the record to conclude that the contract

agreement(s) were sham and nominal.

30. Claimant could not project that the management

adopted a sham device to frustrate provisions of beneficial

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4903

labour legislations. He could not persuade this Tribunal

to conclude that there were circumstances to announce

him to be a deemed employee of the management. In

absence of relationship of employer and employee between

the parties and contract agreement being found to be

genuine, the claimant could not show a right to raise

dispute against the management. In view of these reasons,

the issue is answered in favour of the management and

against the claimant.

Issue No.III

31. No document was brought over the record to the effect

that there was an occasion with the management to terminate

his services. When claimant was an employee of the

contractor, the management was not in a position to dispense

with his services. Under these circumstances it cannot be

said that the management acted in any manner and terminated

his services. No question to assess legality and justifiability

of action of the management, in terminating service of the

claimant, would arise at all. Under these circumstances the

claimant could not establish any claim against the

management. In view of reasons detailed above, claim put

forward by the claimant fails. He has no case for

reinstatement in service of the management. His claim is

discarded, being untenable. An award is passed in favour

of the management and against the claimant. It be sent to

the appropriate Govt. for publication.

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated : 02.06.2014

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1897

dk-vk- 1897.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,XthD;wfVo

Mk;jsDVj bafM;k VªsM izeks'ku vkxsZukbZts'ku & vnlZ ds izca/

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

fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] eqacbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k CGIT-2/47

of 2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

23@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@14@2012&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

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

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O. 1897.—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/

47 of 2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Executive Director,

India Trade Promotion Organisation & Others and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 23/06/2014.

[No. L-42012/14/2012-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-2/47 of 2012

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION & ANR.

(1)

The Executive Director

India Trade Promotion Organisation

Pragati Bhawan

Pragati Maidan

New Delhi 110 001.

(2)

The Regional Manager

India Trade Promotion Organisation

(Govt. of India Enterprises)

Jhasi Castle, 3^rd floor

7, Cooperage Road

Mumbai 400 001.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

Mrs. R.S. Khan & 9 Ors.

VRS Employees of ITPO

3^rd floor, Jhansi Castle

7, Cooperage Road

Mumbai 400 001.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

: Mr. Y.K. Sharma,

Representative.

FOR THE WORKMAN : Mr. M.V. Palkar,

Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 9^th May, 2014.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No.L-42012/14/2012-IR (DU),

dated 12.10.2012 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:

4904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of the management of India

Trade Promotion Organisation, Mumbai (A Govt of

India Enterprise) by relieving Smt. R.S. Khan and 9

ors. ex-employees (as per exhibit-I) w.e.f. 08/04/2011

without giving them 3 months’ notice pay is legal,

just and proper? If not, what relief the concerned

workmen are entitled to?”

List of workmen as per Ex-I

Mrs. R.S. Khan

Mrs. M. N. Prabhu

Mrs. A.S. Deshpande

Mrs. S. Faridi

Mrs. C.A. Redkar

Mrs. S. Damodaran

Mrs. R.R.Gawde

Mrs.M.B. Makwana

Ms. M. Potdar

10.

Mrs. V.B. Agane.

2. After receipt of the reference, notices were issued to

both the parties. In response to the notice the second

party workmen filed their Statement of Claim at Ex-8.

According to them they are ex-employees of the first party.

The first party by their circular dt. 07/10/2010 declared

voluntary retirement scheme for its employees. By issuing

circulars time to time they extended the scheme till

16/03/2011. The second party workmen have submitted

their applications in prescribed proforma for voluntary

retirement on different dates. Their applications were

accepted by the first party and their dues were also released

in instalments. However the first party did not pay them

pay of three months in lieu of notice. They have put

condition to give undertaking which was unnecessary.

As first party did not pay the three months’ notice pay,

therefore second party workmen raised industrial dispute

before ALC (C), Mumbai. As conciliation failed the ALC

sent his report to that effect to the Govt. of India, M/O.

Labour. The Ministry of Labour thus sent the reference to

this Tribunal. The workmen therefore pray for declaration

that second party workmen are entitled to get three months’

notice pay as shown in the schedule without any

undertaking from them. They also pray that the first party

be directed to release the payment of three months’ notice

pay to the respective workmen individually without

condition of giving undertaking. They also pray for

interest thereon @ 18 % p.a. from the due date till the date

of payment and also pray for cost of the proceeding.

3. The first party resisted the statement of claim vide its

written statement at Ex-10. According to them they have

paid the dues in time and as per the rules. There was no

delay and dues were not paid by instalments as has been

alleged. In respect of the notice pay, according to them,

they had offered to the workmen to accept the notice pay

by giving undertaking. The workmen refused to give

undertaking and therefore, the first party could not pay

them the three months’ notice pay. The undertaking was

necessary. They are ready to pay the three months’ notice

pay to these workmen on giving undertaking. They have

also shown readiness to pay 10% interest from the due

date i.e. from 04/06/2012. According to them the workmen

are not entitled to claim any cost.

4. Following are the issues for my determination.

I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Sr. Issues

Findings

No.

1. Whether the action of management

No.

by not giving three months’ notice

pay to Smt. R.S.Khan & 9 Ors. ex-

employees is just, legal and proper?

2. If not, what relief the workmen are

entitled to?

As per final

Order.

3. What order?

As per order

below.

REASONS

Issue No.1:-

5. In the case at hand the fact is not disputed that, as

the second party workmen had opted for voluntary

retirement as per the scheme, they were well entitled to

receive three months’ notice pay as per the rule. The fact

is also not disputed that even the first party had offered

three months’ notice pay to these workmen subject to

giving undertaking. According to the workmen the

undertaking was not necessary. They refused to give

undertaking. Therefore the first party also refused to

release the said payment of notice pay of three months.

On that count the second party had raised industrial dispute

before ALC (C). As the dispute could not be settled the

Ministry has sent the reference to this Tribunal. Both the

parties have filed their affidavits. Now the first party is

also ready to release the payment without putting the

condition of giving undertaking by the workmen. The

Regional Manager, Shri Y.K. Sharma in his affidavit Ex-13

has contended that they are not insisting to take

undertaking from the workmen. In the circumstances now

there is no obstacle in releasing the payment. I therefore

hold that the workmen are entitled to receive three months’

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4905

notice pay from the first party. The condition of undertaking

was no doubt unnecessary. In the circumstances now it

needs no further discussion to decide this issue no.1 in

the affirmative that the workmen are entitled to receive the

three months’ notice pay without giving undertaking as

sought for by the first party.

Issue no.2 :-

6. In the light of discussions and finding on the issue

no.1 above I hold that the workmen are entitled to get

three months’ notice pay without giving any undertaking.

As there is delay, I also think it proper to direct the first

party to pay interest on the amount to each workman @

12% p.a. from the due date till the date of actual payment.

Accordingly I allow the reference and proceed to pass the

following order :

ORDER

(i)

Reference is allowed with no order as to cost.

(ii)

The first party is directed to pay the three months’

notice pay to each of the workman at an earliest

with interest thereon @ 12% p.a. from the due

date till the date of actual payment.

Date: 09/05/2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1898

dk-vk- 1898.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phQ tujy

eSustj VsyhdkWe QSDVªh] Mksuj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn

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

eqacbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k CGIT&2/37 of 2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&40011@10@2004&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

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

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1898.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes theAaward (I.D No. CGIT-

2/37 of 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court No.2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Chief General manager, Telecom

Factory Deonar and their workmen, which was received

by the Central Government on 23/06/2014.

[No. L-40011/10/2014-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-2/37 of 2005

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF TELECOM FACTORY

The Chief General Manager

Telecom Factory

Deonar

Mumbai-400 088.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The Circle President

National Union of BSNL Workers

526-C-37, Lokmanya Co-op. Housing Society

Sector-5, Charkop

Kandivli (W)

Mumbai 400 076.

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER

: Mr. S. B. Kadam, Advocate.

FOR THE WORKMAN : Mr. J.H. Sawant, Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 20^th May, 2014.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No.L-40011 / 10 /2004-IR (DU),

dated 21.12.2004 in exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred

the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

“(1) Whether the action of the management in

sanctioning/regularising the period of absence of

Shri V.M. Hatipkar, Fitter (Inst) Gr.II from 2/6/1995 to

26/07/1998 as Extra Ordinary Leave without medical

certificate vide memorandum dated 13/04/1999 is

justified and proper? If not, (2) Whether the demand

of the union for treating the period from 27/07/1998

to 08/12/1998 (on full wages and allowances etc.) on

duty i.r.o. Shri V.M. Hatipkar, Fitter (Inst) Gr.II is

proper and justified? If so, to what relief the

concerned workman Shri V. M. Hatipkar is entitled

and what other directions are necessary ?”

2. After receipt of the reference, notices were issued to

both the parties. In response to the notice second party

union has filed its statement of claim at Ex-6. According to

4906

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the union the workman is employee of first party since

15/05/1982. In the year 1995 he was Fitter (Instrument)

Grade-II. Due to serious illness of epilepsy he could not

attend his duties from 02/06/1995 to 26/07/1998. The

management was well aware about the illness of the

workman. On 27/07/1998 the workman reported his duty

with medical certificate issued by the doctor stating that

workman was suffering from epilepsy for last three years

and he was under his treatment for the said period.

However management directed the workman to report the

Superintendent of J.J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai for

medical examination by standing medical board. The

process of medical examination was rather time consuming

and the workman was requesting the management to allow

him to resume his duties. However they did not allow him

to resume the duty. The Medial Board examined him and

issued certificate dated 15/09/1998 advising light duty for

the workman. The said certificate was forwarded to the

management. Instead of allowing him to resume the duties,

management had advised the workman to apply for

voluntary retirement. The workman refused the

suggestion. Finally management allowed the workman to

resume his duty since 09/12/1998. However the

management refused to treat the period from 2/6/1995 to

26/7/1998 as leave with medical certificate with all

consequential benefits. They also refused to treat the

period from 27/07/98 to 8/12/98 as a period on duty for all

the purposes including full wages and consequential

benefits. Therefore the union has raised the industrial

dispute.

3. As conciliation failed, as per the report of ALC (C),

the Central Labour Ministry has sent the reference to this

Tribunal. The union therefore pray for declaration that

action of the management not regularising the period of

absence of Shri M.V. Hatipkar from 2/6/1995 to 26/07/1998

as leave with medical certificate with all consequential

benefits including continuity of services and in not treating

the period 27/7/98 to 08/12/1998 as a period on duty for all

purposes including full wages and consequential benefits

is illegal, unjustified and prays that management be

directed to treat the absence of Shri V.M.Hatipkar for the

aforesaid period as leave with medical certificate with all

consequential benefits including continuity of service and

also prays for direction to treat the period on duty from

27/07/1998 to 08/12/1998 as a period on duty for all the

purposes including full wages and consequential benefits

and also pray for cost of the reference.

4. The first party resisted the statement of claim vide its

written statement at Ex-10. According to the first party the

workman remained absent from duty from 2/6/1995. He

neither obtained prior permission nor obtained any leave

from the authority. He had also not sent any

communication for his absence within a reasonable time

limit. As per service rules remaining absent without prior

permission or intimation for a period more than ten days

amount to misconduct and employer can institute

disciplinary action against such workman for violating rule

31 (g) of Certified Standing Orders applicable to the

employees of Telecom Factory. After three years all of a

sudden the workman came to the office on 27/7/1998 and

submitted an application with medical certificate of

sickness and fitness seeking permission to join the duty.

He was referred to Govt. Hospital for the medical opinion

with a view to ascertain his medical fitness before permitting

to join his duties. The standing medical board examined the

workman and forwarded the medical report on 15/09/1998.

The first party received it on 21/9/1998. According to the

medical report he was fit to resume light duty from 15/9/98

for two years and cannot be considered fit for type of

work prescribed by the employer. The medical board neither

recommended previous leave on medical grounds nor

passed any remark on validity or otherwise of the medical

certificate dt. 26/7/98 issued by psychiatrist in respect of

the period 2/6/95 to 27/7/98.

5. The nature of work of the workman was semi-skilled

connected with working on machine. Light work was

possible only by reverting him to the cadre of mazdoor.

He was accommodated in semi-skilled trade in other shop

by way of transfer. It took time for obtaining administrative

approval of transfer. In the mean time they advised the

workman to seek retirement on medical grounds which

would have been beneficial to the workman. However he

did not accept the suggestion. Therefore after observing

the procedure laid down the workman was permitted to

join duty w.e.f. 8/12/1998. The entire period of unauthorised

absence from 02/06/1995 to 26/07/1998 was regularised as

extra ordinary leave without medical certificate i.e. leave

without pay without medical certificate. As there was no

medical certificate produced by the workman neither he

had obtained prior sanction from the department. In the

circumstances they pray that the workman is not entitled

to the reliefs claimed for. Therefore they pray that the

reference be dismissed with cost.

6. Following are the issues for my determination.

I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow.

Sr. Issues

F i n d i n g s

No.

1. Whether the action of management

Yes.

in regularising the period of absence

of workman from 2/6/95 to 26/7/98

as extra ordinary leave without

medical certificate is just and proper?

2. If not, whether the workman is

No.

entitled to the relief in respect of

the period of absence as leave with

medical certificate with all

consequential benefits?

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4907

3. Whether the action of management

Partly in

in not treating the period from

the

27/07/98 to 8/12/1998 as period

affirmative.

on duty for all purposes including

full wages and consequential

benefits is illegal and justified?

4. What relief the workman is

As per

entitled to?

order

below.

5. What order?

As per final

order.

REASONS

Issues Nos. 1 & 2 :

7. In the case at hand fact is not disputed that workman

remained absent from 02/06/1995 to 26/07/1998. The fact

is not disputed that neither the workman had applied for

leave nor had given any prior intimation of his absence to

the management. The fact is not disputed that on

27/07/1998 he appeared in the office and submitted his

application to allow him to resume his duties. The fact is

also not disputed that along with his application the

workman has produced a certificate of a psychiatrist who

has certified that the workman was suffering from epilepsy

for last three years and he was undergoing treatment for

the same. He has also issued the fitness certificate.

8. In this respect it is pertinent to note that though the

workman was absent continuously for more than 3 years,

the management did not take any action against him. Such

unauthorised absence amount to serious misconduct and

the management could have very well initiated inquiry

against the workman. However the management neither

issued any charge sheet nor initiated any inquiry against

the workman for his unauthorised absence. On the other

hand they have regularised the period of his absence as

extraordinary leave without medical certificate and without

wages. The certificate produced by the workman is not

sufficient to justify his absence for the vast period of

3 years. No other paper, document or prescription is

produced by the workman. Therefore management sent

the workman to J.J. Hospital for examination by medical

board. The medical board has not expressed any opinion

in respect of his previous illness and absence. They have

recommended that workman was fit to perform light duty.

9. In the circumstances the action of the management

in that respect cannot be said unjust or improper. On the

other hand with all fairness they have regularised the period

of absence as extra ordinary leave without pay. In the

circumstances I hold that the workman is not entitled to

the relief claimed in respect of the said period of

unauthorised absence for three years. Accordingly I decide

this issue no.1 in the affirmative. Consequently I decide

this issue no.2 in the negative.

Issue No.3:-

10. According to the workman he reported the office of

the company on 27/07/1998 and produced the certificate

and requested the management to allow him to resume the

duty. However the management refused to allow him to

resume duty. On the other hand they sent him to J.J.

Hospital for medical examination by the medical board.

They took about four and half months’ time to allow him

to resume on duty. Therefore the workman is claiming

that the said period be treated as on duty period for all

purposes including full wages and consequential benefits.

In this respect I would like to point out that, the medical

board from J.J. Hospital had certified that the workman

was fit to join his duties w.e.f. 15/09/1998. The certificate

of psychiatrist produced by the workman in respect of his

fitness cannot be considered as the said certificate is vague

and unacceptable.

11. In the circumstances the management ought to have

allowed the workman to join his duties w.e.f. 15/09/1998.

Therefore I hold that the period from 15/09/1998 to

08/12/1998 has to be treated as the workman was on duty

for all purposes including full wages and consequential

benefits. Accordingly I decide this issue no.3 in the

negative. Consequently I answer the issue no.4 partly in

the affirmative. As a result the reference is partly allowed.

Thus I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

(i)

The reference is partly allowed with no order as

to cost.

(ii)

The action of the management in respect of the

period of absence from 02/06/1995 to 26/07/1998

regularising it as extra ordinary leave without

medical certificate and without wages is declared

as just and proper.

(iii)

The period from 15/09/1998 to 08/12/1998 be

treated as period on duty for all purposes

including full wages and consequential benefits.

The first party is directed to pay the wages and

give all consequential benefits to the workman

of the aforesaid period.

Date: 20/05/2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] fnukad 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1899

dk-vk- 1899.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj

tujy] nwjn'kZu vkSj vnlZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh

4908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 82@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@37@2000&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

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

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O. 1899.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 82/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No.1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Director General, Doordarshan &

Others and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 23/06/2014.

[No. L-42012/37/2000-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. 82/2011

Shri Satish Kumar

S/o Late Sh.Shish Ram,

R/o 18/392, R.K.Colony,

Badli Road, Near Civil Hospital,

Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar,

Haryana.

...Workman

Versus

The Directorate General,

Doordarshan, Mandi House,

New Delhi.

The Executive Engineer(E),

Civil Construction Wings,

A.I.R. Soochna Bhawan,

C.G.O. Complex, Lodi Road,

New Delhi-110003.

...Management

AWARD

Civil Construction Wing, a unit of Doordarshan,

Mandi House, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the

management) assigned job of operation of air conditioning

plant, installed at Doordarshan Bhawan, Mandi House,

New Delhi to a contractor. In 1994, M/s. Cool Care

Corporation was maintaining the AC plant. For the year

1995 to 1998, contract was awarded to M/s. Kuldeep

Refrigerations. In 1999, contract was awarded to M/s. Ventek

Engineering. Shri Satish Kumar was engaged as a helper

to work at the said AC plant by the contractor. Services of

Shri Satish Kumar were dispensed with by the contractor.

Feeling aggrieved by that act and belabouring under a

belief that the principal employer was under an obligation

to engage his services, Shri Satish Kumar served a notice

of demand on the management seeking his reinstatement

in its services. The demand was not conceded to by the

management. Ultimately, he raised a dispute before the

Conciliation Officer. His claim was contested by the

management and as such, conciliation proceedings failed.

On consideration of failure report, submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred

the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order

No.L-42012/37/2000-IR (DU), New Delhi dated 30.05.2000,

with following terms:

“Whether job of AC Electrician/helper in the

establishment of Doordarshan is of a perennial

nature and if Shri Satish Kumar engaged through

different contractors from 1998 to 1999 is entitled

for regularization in services of Doordarshan? If so,

to what relief the workman is entitled?”

2. Corrigendum was sent by the appropriate Government

vide order No.L-42012/37/2000-IR(DU), New Delhi

06.11.2011 wherein it was pointed out that the words

‘1998-1999’ appearing in the fourth line of the schedule

may be read as ‘1994-1999’.

3. Claim statement was filed by Shri Satish Kumar

pleading therein that he was employed with the

management, through a contractor, at its AC plant in Civil

Construction Wing located at Doordarshan Bhawan,

Mandi House, New Delhi. He was doing his duties under

direct guidance and supervision of the management since

1994. Initially M/s. Cool Care Corporation was the

contractor. For the period 1995-98, M/s. Kuldeep

Refrigeration was awarded contract for operation work of

AC plant. In 1999, M/s. Ventek Engineering became the

contractor. Though the contractors changed, yet he

continued to work with the management till date of illegal

termination of his services. He rendered continuous service

of 240 days in calendar years from 1994 to 1999. He was

direct employee of the management.

4. Claimant projects that legislature enacted Contract

Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short the

Contract Labour Act) to abolish contract labour system

and regular working conditions of the contract labours.

Law laid by the Apex Court in Suresh [1999 (3) SCC 277]

declares that an employee working under direct control of

the principal employer is deemed to be an employee of the

principal employer. In view of the law so laid, the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4909

management was liable to regulate his service conditions.

He was entitled to regularization in service of the

management with all facilities. Instead of regularizing his

services, his services were dispensed with on 01.06.1999

in an illegal manner. He served notice of demand on the

management seeking reinstatement in its service, but to

no avail. He is unemployed since the date of termination

of his service. He seeks reinstatement in service of the

management with full back wages and all consequential

benefits.

5. Claim was demurred by the management pleading

that the claimant was never engaged, hence there exists

no relationship of employer and employee between the

parties. Work of operation of AC plant was assigned to a

contractor. Claimant was engaged by the contractor to

carry out his contractual obligations. Claimant had no

locus standi to raise claim against the management. The

management used to issue instructions to the contractor,

who in turn complied those instructions relating to

maintenance of AC plant through his employees. As and

when new contractor was assigned the job, he was free to

engage employees of the old contractor. The management

pleads that it had no knowledge as to whether claimant

was engaged by different contractor since 1994.

6. There was no occasion for it to supervise work of the

claimant, asserts the management. The contractor was

solely responsible to carry out smooth operation of the

AC plant. Judgement relied by the claimant is not

applicable to his case. Service of the claimant was not

terminated by the management. There was no occasion

for him to serve notice of demand, seeking reinstatement

in service with continuity and full back wages on the

management. His notice of demand was misconceived.

There was no necessity on the part of the management to

reply the notice of demand. Claim raised is false and

frivolous, hence liable to be dismissed. It has been pleaded

that an award may be passed in favour of the management

and against the claimant.

7. Out of pleadings of the parties, following issues were

settled by my learned predecessor:

(i)

Whether the workman has no locus standi to

prefer present claim against the management as

stated? If so, its effects?

(ii)

Whether there exists any relationship of employer

and employee between the parties? If so, its

effects.

(iii)

As in terms of reference.

8. Vide order No.Z-22019/6/2007-IR (C-II), New Delhi

dated 11.02.2008, case was transferred to Central

Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, New Delhi for

adjudication by the appropriate Government. It was

retransferred to this Tribunal for adjudication vide order

No. Z-22019/6/2007-IR (C-II), New Delhi dated 30.03.2011

by the appropriate Government.

9. Claimant examined himself in support of his claim.

Shri Shyam Singh Yadav, Executive Engineer (Electrical),

entered the witness box to testify facts on behalf of the

management. No other witness was examined by either of

the parties.

10. Arguments were heard at the bar. Ms.Anubha

Kaushal, authorized representative, advanced arguments

on behalf of the claimant. Shri A.P. Gupta, authorized

representative, raised submissions on behalf of the

management. 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. II

11. Claimant tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A as

evidence, wherein he asserts that he was working with the

management as helper at its AC plant since 1994. Duties

were assigned to him by the Executive Engineer of the

management. He presents that a management was his

principal employer and his services were engaged through

the contractor. He was a regular employee and in that

capacity he rendered continuous service of 240 days in

every calendar year, under guidance and control of the

management. His services were illegally terminated.

12. Shri Shyam Singh Yadav unfolds in his affidavit

Ex.MW1/A that the claimant was never engaged by the

management. He was employed by the contractor to carry

out his contractual obligations. Contractor was

responsible for smooth operation of the AC plant and to

discharge those obligations, the claimant was engaged

by him. Claimant was working under direct control and

supervision of the contractor. As noted above, rival facts

are presented by the claimant and Shri Yadav in their

respective affidavits. Resultantly, it becomes expedient to

appreciate facts testified by the parties in the light of the

documents proved over the record.

13. Claimant had proved visitor’s passes as Ex.WW1/1

to Ex.WW1/14. When scanned, these documents bring it

light that the claimant obtained entry passes to pay a visit

to the Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer (Electrical).

Purpose of his visit was official as detailed in the

documents, referred above. During course of arguments,

Shri Gupta argued that entry passes were got issued by

the claimant to seek entry in the premises of the

management. Entry passes were issued by the Security

Officer to facilitate entry of the claimant inside the AC

plant, installed at Doordarshan Bhawan, Mandi House,

New Delhi. Ms. Kaushal could not project that those

visitor’s passes highlight that the claimant was an

4910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

employee of the management. Those visitor passes could

not indicate that there was relationship of employer and

employee between the parties.

14. Attendance rolls Ex.WW1/15 to Ex.WW1/73 are

placed over the record by the claimant. When scanned,

these attendance rolls nowhere highlight that the claimant

was working as employee of the management. Log sheet

of AC plant, which are Ex.WW1/74 to Ex.WW1/79 are also

proved by the claimant. However, these documents

nowhere give an inference that the claimant was an

employee of the management. Ex.WW1/M1 makes it

apparent that the claimant was an employee of the

contractor.

15. No letter of appointment, order assigning duties to

the claimant, sanctioning of leaves and release of pay in

his favour by the management has been brought over the

record. No communication of any sort, showing nexus of

the claimant with the management as its employee, has

been placed over the record. Claimant made a candid

admission to the effect that he cannot produce any

documentary evidence to show that wages were paid to

him by the management at any point of time. Bald statement

of the claimant to the effect that he was working under

direct control and supervision of the management nowhere

gets support from any documents brought over records

by him. There is complete vacuum of facts to record

findings to the effect that the claimant was an employee of

the management. On the other hand, claimant had

projected a case to the effect that he was an employee of

the contractor and the management was his principal

employer. Therefore, all these facts constrain me to

conclude that the claimant was an employee of the

contractor, who unsuccessfully claimed himself to be an

employee of the management.

Issue No. I

16. Whether the claimant, who was an employee of the

contractor, can maintain a dispute against the management?

For an answer to this proposition, the Tribunal has to take

note of the law contained in Section 10 of the Contract

Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short the

Contract Labour Act), which makes provision for

prohibition of employment of contract labour. For sake of

convenience provisions of Section 10 of the Contract

Labour Act are reproduced thus:

“10. Prohibition of employment of contract labour:-

(1)

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,

the appropriate Government may, after

consultation with the Central Board or, as the

case may be, a State Board, prohibit, by

notification in the Official Gazette, employment

of contract labour in any process, operation or

other work in any establishment.

(2)

Before issuing any notification under sub-section

(1) in relation to an establishment, the appropriate

Government shall have regard to the conditions

of work and benefits provided for the contract

labour in that establishment and other relevant

factors, such as :–

(a)

whether the process, operation or other

work is incidental to, or necessary for the

industry, trade, business, manufacture or

occupation that is carried on in the

establishment,

(b)

whether it is of perennial nature, that is to

say, it is of sufficient duration having regard

to the nature of industry, trade, business,

manufacture or occupation carried on in

that establishment;

(c)

whether it is done ordinarily through regular

workmen in that establishment or an

establishment similar thereto;

(d)

whether it is sufficient to employ

considerable number of whole-time

workmen.

Explanation – If a question arises whether

any process or operation or other work is

of perennial nature, the decision of the

appropriate Government thereon shall be

final.”

17. As emerge out of the provisions of sub-section (1)

of Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act, the appropriate

Government may, by notification in the official gazette,

prohibit employment of contract labour in any process,

operation or other work in any establishment. When

employment of contract labour is prohibited, by issuance

of a notification in official gazette by the appropriate

Government, what would be the status of the contract

labour employed in the establishment? Such a question

arose before the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India

Ltd. [2001 (7) S.C.C.I]. The Apex Court ruled therein that

there cannot be automatic absorption of contract labour

by principal employer on issuance of notification by the

appropriate Government on abolition of contract labour

system, under sub section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract

Labour Act. It would be expedient to reproduce the law

laid by the Apex Court, which is extracted thus:

“….. they fall in three classes : (1) where contract

labour is engaged in or in connection with the work

of an establishment and employment of contract

labour is prohibited either because the industrial

adjudicator/court ordered abolition of contract

labour or because the appropriate Government

issued notification under Section 10 (1) of the CLRA

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4911

Act, no automatic absorption of contract labour

working in the establishment was ordered, (2) where

contract was found to be a sham and nominal, rather

a camouflage, in which case the contract labour

working in the establishment of the principal

employer were held, in fact and in reality, the

employees of the principal employer himself. Indeed

such cases do not relate to the abolition of contract

labour but present instances wherein the court pierce

the veil and declared the correct position as a fact at

the stage after employment of contract labour stood

prohibited, (3) where in discharge of a statutory

obligation of maintaining a canteen in an

establishment the principal employer availed the

services of the contractor, the courts have held that

the contract labour would indeed be employees of

the principal employer”.

18. The Court ruled that neither Section 10 of the

Contract Labour Act nor any other provision in that Act,

whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides

for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuance

of a notification by the appropriate Government under

sub section (1) of Section 10, prohibiting employment of

contract labour, in any process, operation or other work in

any establishment. Consequently the principal employer

cannot be required to order for absorption of the contract

labour working in the establishment concerned. It was

further ruled therein that in Saraspur Mills case [1974 (3)

SCC 66], the workman engaged for working in the canteen

run by the Cooperative Society for the appellant were the

employees of the appellant mills. In Basti Sugar Mills (AIR

1964 S.C. 355) a canteen was run in the factory by the

Cooperative Society and as such the workers working in

the canteen were held to be employees of the

establishment. The Apex Court ruled that these cases fall

in class (3) mentioned above. Judgment in Hussainbhai

(1978 Lab. I.C. 1264) was considered by the Apex Court in

the said precedent and it was ruled therein that the said

precedent falls in class (2), referred above. The Apex Court

concluded that on issuance of prohibitive notification

under Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act prohibiting

employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an

industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour

in regard to conditions of service, the Industrial

Adjudicator will have to consider the question whether

the contractor has been interposed either on the ground

of having undertaken to produce any given result for the

establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of

the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere

ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial

legislation so as to deprive the workers of the benefit

there-under. If the contract is found to be not genuine but

a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour will have

to be treated as employees of the principal employer who

shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract

labour in the establishment concerned, subject to the

conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose.

19. As announced by the Apex Court, on issuance of a

prohibitive notification, prohibiting employment of

contract labour or otherwise in any industrial dispute

brought before it by the contract labour in regard to

conditions of his service, the industrial adjudicator will

have to consider the question whether the contractor has

been interposed either on the ground of having

undertaken to produce any given result in the

establishment or for supply of the contract labour for the

work of the establishment under a genuine contract or it is

a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of beneficial

legislation so as to deprive the workers of the benefits

therein. Thus it was ruled that a contract labour can raise

a dispute before the industrial adjudicator in regard to his

conditions of service and in case the contract is found to

be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called

contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the

principal employer. Also see Standard Vacuum Refining

Co. of India Ltd. [1960 (II) LLJ. 233], which was referred

with approval in Steel Authority of India.

20. In Shivnandan Sharma [1955 (1) LLJ 688], the

respondent Bank entrusted its Cash Department under a

contract to the Treasures who appointed cashiers,

including the appellant Head Cashier. The question before

the Apex Court was : was the appellant an employee of the

Bank? On construction of the agreement entered into the

Bank and the Treasure, the Court laid down:

“If a master employs a servant and authorizes him to

employ a number of persons to do a particular job

and to guarantee their fidelity and efficiency for a

cash consideration, the employees thus appointed

by the servant would be equally with the employer,

servant of the master.”

In the above precedent the Apex Court for the first time

laid down the crucial test of supervision and control for

determining the relationship of employer and employee.

21. In Hussainbhai (supra) the petitioner, who was

manufacturing ropes, entrusted the work to a contractor

who engaged his own workers. When, after some time,

the workers were not engaged, they raised an industrial

dispute that they were denied employment by the

petitioner. On reference of that dispute, the labour court

passed an award against the petitioner. When matter

reached the Apex Court, on examination of various factors

and applying the effective control test, it was held that

though there was no direct relationship between the

petitioner and the workers yet on lifting the veil and looking

at the conspectus of factors governing employment, the

naked truth, though draped in different perfect paper

arrangement, was that the real employer was the petitioner,

4912

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

not the immediate contractor. The Apex Court stated law

in following words:

“Where a worker or group of workers labours to

produce goods or services and these goods or

services are for the business of another, that other

is, in fact, the employer. He has economic control

over the workers’ subsistence, skill, and continued

employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off, the

worker is, virtually, laid off. The presence of

intermediate contractor with whom alone the workers

have immediate or direct relationship ex-contractu

is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or

looking at the conspectus of factors governing

employment, we discern the naked truth, though

draped in different perfect paper arrangement, that

the real employer is the management, not the

immediate contractor***. If the livelihood of the

workmen substantially depends on labour rendered

to produce goods and services for the benefit and

satisfaction of an enterprise, the absence of direct

relationship or the presence of dubious

intermediaries or the make-believe trappings of

detachment from the management cannot snap the

real-life bond. The story may vary but the inference

defies ingenuity. The liability cannot be shaken off.

Of course, if there is total dissociation in fact between

the disowning management and the aggrieved

workmen, the employment is, in substance and real-

life terms, by another. The management’s

adventitious connections cannot ripen into real

employment.”

As noted above, this precedent does not present an

illustration of abolition of contract labour but an instance

where the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct

position to the effect that the contract labours were

employees of the principal employer and not of the

contractor.

22. In Steel Authority of India (supra) it has been ruled

that the term “contract labour” is a species of workman. A

workman may be hired : (1) in an establishment by the

principal employer or by his agent with or without the

knowledge of the principal employer, or (2) in connection

with the work of an establishment by the principal employer

through a contractor or by a contractor with or without

the knowledge of principal employer. Where a workman is

hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment

by the principal employer through a contractor, he merely

acts as an agent so there will be master and servant

relationship between the principal employer and the

workman. But when a workman is hired in or in connection

with the work of an establishment by a contractor, either

because he has undertaken to produce a given result for

the establishment or because he supplies workmen for

any work of the establishment, a question might arise

whether the contractor is a mere camouflage as in

Hussainbhai’s case (supra) and in Indian Petrochemicals

Corporation case [1999 (6) S.C.C. 439] etc.; if the answer is

in affirmative, the workman will be in fact an employee of

the principal employer, but if the answer is in the negative,

the workman will be a contract labour.

In view of the legal proposition, referred above, it is

concluded that the claimant can maintain this dispute

against the management since he agitates that the contract

agreement between the management and the contractor is

sham and nominal.

23. Whether any directions for deeming the contract

labour as having become the employees of the principal

employer can be issued, when the contractor or the

principal employer had violated the provisions of the

Contract Labour Act? To find an answer, provisions of

that Act are to be examined. The Contract Labour Act

regulates conditions of workers in contract labour system

and provides for its abolition by the appropriate

Government as provided by Section 10 of that Act. In

regard to regulatory measures Section 7 requires the

principal employer to get itself registered, while Section

12 obliges every contractor to obtain a licence, under the

provisions of that Act. Section 9 places an embargo on

the principal employer of an establishment from employing

contactor labour in the establishment, when either it is not

registered or its registration has been revoked. Section 12

of the Contract Labour Act imposes a liability on a

contractor not to undertake or execute any work through

contract labour except under and in accordance with a

licence. Sections 23, 24 and 25 make contraventions of the

provisions of that Act or Rules made there-under penal. In

Dena Nath (1992 Lab. I.C. 75) the Apex Court considered

the question, whether non-compliance of the provisions

of sections 7 and 12 by the principal employer and the

contractor respectively would make the contract labour

employed by the principal employer as the employee of

the latter. It was ruled that only consequence of non-

compliance either by the principal employer of Section 7

or by the contractor in complying the provisions of Section

12 is that they are liable for prosecution under the said

Act. But the employees employed through the contractor

cannot be deemed to be the employees of the principal

employer.

24. In the Steel Authority of India (supra) the Apex

Court laid emphasis “……the consequence of violation of

Sections 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in

Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High

Courts or this Court to read in some unspecified remedy in

Section 10 or substitute for penal consequences specified

in Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel, be if absorption of

contract labour in the establishment of principal employer

or a lesser or harsher punishment. Such an interpretation

of the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4913

principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of

interpretative legislation and as such, clearly

impermissible”. The above authoritative pronouncements

make it clear that on violations of the provisions of the

Contract Labour Act or Rules made there-under, the

contract labour could not be deemed to have become the

employee of the principal employer.

25. Whether this Tribunal has power to order for

abolition of contract labour system in the establishment

of the management? For an answer, legal dicta is to be

considered. Before enactment of the Contract Labour Act,

the industrial adjudicator, in appropriate cases, used to

issue directions to the establishment concerned to abolish

or modify system of contract labour. Reference can be

made to precedents in United Salt Works and Industries

Ltd. [1962 (I) LLJ. 131], Shibu Metal Works [1966 (I) LLJ.

717], National Iron & Steel Co. [1967 (II) LLJ. 23] and Ghatge

and Patil (Transport) Pvt. Ltd. [1968 (I) LLJ. 566]. The

National Commission on Labour (1966) in para 29.11 of its

report, enumerated those factors, on which abolition of

contract labour was ordered, thus:

“29.11. Judicial awards have discouraged the

practice of employment of contract labour,

particularly when the work is (i) perennial and must

go on from day to day; (ii) incidental and necessary

for the work of the factory; (iii) sufficient to employ

a considerable number of whole time workmen; and

(iv) being done in most concerns through regular

workmen. These awards also came out against the

system of ‘middlemen’.”

26. After Contract Labour Act was brought on statute

book, the Apex examined jurisdiction of the industrial

adjudicator to issue directions to the establishment to

abolish contract labour in Vegoils Private Ltd. [1971 (2)

S.C.C. 724] and ruled that it would be proper that the

question, whether the contract labour in the appellant

industry was to be abolished or not, be left to be dealt

with by the appropriate Government under the provisions

of that Act, if it becomes necessary. The observations

made by the Court are extracted thus:

“The appropriate Government when taking action

under Section 10 will have an overall picture of the

industries carrying on similar activities and decide

whether contact labour is to be abolished in respect

of any of the activities of that industry. Therefore, it

is reasonable to conclude that the jurisdiction to

decide about the abolition of contract labour, or to

put it differently, to prohibit the employment of

contract labour, is now to be done in accordance

with Section 10. Therefore, it is proper that the

question whether the contract labour regarding

loading and unloading in the industry of the appellant

is to be abolished or not, is left to be dealt with by

the appropriate Government under the Act, if it

becomes necessary. On this ground, we are of the

opinion that the direction of the Industrial Tribunal

in this regard will have to be set aside.***. The

legality of the direction given by the Industrial

Tribunal abolishing contract labour in respect of

loading and unloading from May 1, 1971, can also

be considered from another point of view. The

Central Act, as mentioned earlier, had come into force

on February 10, 1971. Under Section 10 of the said

Act the jurisdiction to decide matters connected with

prohibition of contract labour is now vested in the

appropriate Government. Therefore, with effect from

February 10, 1971, it is only the appropriate

Government that can prohibit contract labour by

following the procedure and in accordance with the

provisions of the Central Act. The Industrial Tribunal,

in the circumstances, will have no jurisdiction,

through its award dated November 20, 1970, to give

a direction in that respect which becomes,

enforceable after the date of the coming into force

of the Central Act. In any event, such a direction

contained in the award cannot be enforceable from

a date when abolition of contract labour can only be

done by the appropriate Government in accordance

with the provisions of the Central Act”.

27. In Gujarat Electricity Board [1995 (5) S.C.C. 27] the

same view was taken by the Apex Court holdings that the

authority to abolish the contract labour vests in the

appropriate Government and not in any court including

the industrial adjudicator. It would be apposite to

reproduce the observation of the Court thus:

“53. Our conclusions and answers to the questions

raised are, therefore, as follows :—

(i)

In view of the provisions of Section 10 of

the Act, it is only the appropriate

Government which has the authority to

abolish genuine labour contract in

accordance with the provisions of the said

Section. No Court including the industrial

adjudicator has jurisdiction to do so.

(ii)

If the contract is sham or not genuine, the

workmen of the so-called contractor can

raise an industrial dispute for declaring that

they were always the employees of the

principal employer and for claiming the

appropriate service conditions. When such

dispute is raised, it is not a dispute for

abolition of the labour contract and hence

the provisions of Section 10 of the Act will

not bar either the raising or the adjudication

of the dispute. When such dispute is

raised, the industrial adjudicator has to

decide whether the contract is sham or

genuine. It is only if the adjudicator comes

4914

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to the conclusion that the contract is sham,

that he will have jurisdiction to adjudicate

the dispute. If, however, he comes to the

conclusion that the contract is genuine, he

may refer the workmen to the appropriate

Government for abolition of the contract

labour under Section 10 of the Act and keep

the dispute pending. However, he can do

so if the dispute is espoused by the direct

workmen of the principal employer. If the

workmen of the principal employer have

not espoused the dispute, the adjudicator,

after coming to the conclusion that the

contract is genuine, has to reject the

reference, the dispute being not an

industrial dispute within the meaning of

Section 2 (k) of the ID Act. He will not be

competent to give any relief to the workmen

of the erstwhile contractor even if the

labour contract is abolished by the

appropriate Government under Section 10

of the Act.

(iii)

If the labour contract is genuine a

composite industrial dispute can still be

raised for abolition of the contract labour

and their absorption. However, the dispute,

will have to be raised invariably by the

direct employees of the principal employer.

The industrial adjudicator, after receipt of

the reference of such dispute will have first

to direct the workmen to approach the

appropriate Government for abolition of the

contract labour under Section 10 of the Act

and keep the reference pending. If pursuant

to such reference, the contract labour is

abolished by the appropriate Government,

the industrial adjudicator will have to give

opportunity to the parties to place the

necessary material before him to decide

whether the workmen of the erstwhile

contractor should be directed to be

absorbed by the principal employer, how

many of them and on what terms. If,

however, the contract labour is not

abolished, the industrial adjudicator has

to reject the reference.

(iv)

Even after the contract labour system is

abolished, the direct employees of the

principal employer can raise an industrial

dispute for absorption of the ex-

contractor’s workmen and the adjudicator

on the material placed before him can decide

as to who and how many of the workmen

should be absorbed and on what terms”.

28. In Steel Authority of India (supra) the Apex Court

had referred the precedents in Vegoils case (supra) and

Gujrat Electricity Board (supra) with approval. Thus it

emerges that power to abolish contract labour system

vests with the appropriate Government, under section 10

of the Contract Labour Act, and not with any court

including the industrial adjudicator. This Tribunal has not

been saddled with any responsibility to abolish contract

labour in an establishment, on parameters enacted in sub-

section (2) of section 10 of the Contract Labour Act.

29. On turning to facts, the Tribunal noted that the

claimant detailed facts to the effect that he was working

under direct control and supervision of the management.

However, ocular facts testified by him remained empty

sounded since it could not get any re-affirmation from any

other piece of evidence, documentary or otherwise. In other

to assess veracity of his claim, the management was called

upon to place contract agreements before the Tribunal.

Pursuant to directions given, contract agreement entered

into between the management and M/s Cool Care

Corporation and M/s Ice Berg Corporation, the

contractors, are placed over the record. These documents

were not questioned by and on behalf of the claimant at

all. No efforts were made to assail contents of these

contract agreements. When these documents are perused,

it came to light that contract was awarded by the

management to the contractor for operation of 4 x 40 Tonne

Refrigeration capacity central air conditioning plant

comprising of 15 Nos. air handling units, 4 Nos. accel

compressor units, 10 Nos. chiller/condenser, pumps, consol

operation panel, complete with LT cubical type main

control panel, AHU panel and allied equipment/accessories

connected to AC plant, i.e. including heating system during

winter etc. as required. Contract agreements nowhere

gives an inference that perfect paper arrangement was

made with a view to evade provisions of beneficial labour

legislations. As detailed in the contract agreements,

contractor was supposed to maintain the AC plant and for

that purpose he was required to engage his employees.

Engagement of the claimant for maintaining of the said AC

plant by the contractor nowhere highlight that the

contractor was an agent of the management when services

of the claimant were engaged. Contract agreements,

referred above, no where bring it over the record that

control and supervision was exercised by the management

on the work of the claimant. There is vacuum of evidence

to the effect that the management used to exercise

administrative, financial, managerial and disciplinary

control over the claimant. Under these circumstances, it

has not come over the record to conclude that the contract

agreement(s) were sham and nominal.

30. Claimant could not project that the management

adopted a sham device to frustrate provisions of beneficial

labour legislations. He could not persuade this Tribunal

to conclude that there were circumstances to announce

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4915

him to be a deemed employee of the management. In

absence of relationship of employer and employee between

the parties and contract agreement being found to be

genuine, the claimant could not show a right to raise

dispute against the management. In view of these reasons,

the issue is answered in favour of the management and

against the claimant.

Issue No.III

31. No document was brought over the record to the effect

that there was an occasion with the management to terminate

his services. When claimant was an employee of the

contractor, the management was not in a position to dispense

with his services. Under these circumstances it cannot be

said that the management acted in any manner and terminated

his services. No question to assess legality and justifiability

of action of the management, in terminating service of the

claimant, would arise at all. Under these circumstances the

claimant could not establish any claim against the

management. In view of reasons detailed above, claim put

forward by the claimant fails. He has no case for

reinstatement in service of the management. His claim is

discarded, being untenable. An award is passed in favour

of the management and against the claimant. It be sent to

the appropriate Govt. for publication.

Dated : 02.06.2014

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1900

dk-vk- 1900.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dfe'uj]

,elhMh ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 102@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 20@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&16012@02@2012&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

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

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1900.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 102/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No.1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Commissioner, MCD and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 23/06/2014.

[No. L-16012/02/2012-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. 102/2012

The President,

CPWD General Mazdoor Union,

C/o Room No.95, Barrackes No.1/10,

Jam Nagar House,

New Delhi - 110001.

...Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

MCD, Civic Centre,

Kamla Market,

New Delhi.

...Management

AWARD

A beldar was engaged by Municipal Corporation of

Delhi (in short the Corporation) on 26.04.2001 against

seasonal work. He worked upto 25.03.2003, on different

spells of short durations. He raised a demand seeking

regularization of his services and grant of pay equal to

regular beldars, employed by the Corporation. His demand

was not conceded to. On the other hand, he was not

engaged any further after 25.3.2003. After a lapse of six

years, he raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer.

Since the dispute was contested by the Corporation,

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-16012/02/2012-IR(DU), New Delhi dated 31.07.2012

with following terms:

“Whether the action of the management of Municipal

Corporation of Delhi in terminating the services of

Shri Salim S/o Shri Keshar Azad, ex-mali with effect

from 11.01.2004 is justified or not? It not, what relief

will be given to the workman and from which date?”

2. Claim statement was filed by the beldar, namely Shri

Salim, claiming that he was employed as mali on muster

roll with effect from 26.4.2001 by the Corporation. He was

deputed to work at Ward No.92, Seelampur, Welcome Phase

III, Shahdara, where he worked continuously upto

10.01.2004. No one months notice or pay in lieu thereof

and retrenchment compensation was paid to him, when

his services were dispensed with. During course of his

employment, he requested the Corporation for

regularization of his services and equal pay for equal work,

but to no avail. Regular beldars/mali were paid wages in

time scale while he was paid only minimum wages fixed for

4916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

unskilled labours under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

Shri Pankaj Kumar, Shri Sanjay Kumar, Shri Anil Kumar,

Shri Manoj Kumar and Shri Anil, juniors to him, were also

terminated but they were reinstated on the strength of

awards, passed by the Labour Court, constituted by Govt.

of NCT Delhi. As per its policy, the Corporation was to

regularize services of daily rated workers in phased manner.

The Corporation took a policy decision to regularize daily

wagers appointed from 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2003 with effect

from 01.04.2006. He is unemployed since the date of

termination of his services. The claimant seeks

reinstatement in service of the Corporation with continuity

and full back wages.

3. Claim was demurred by the Corporation pleading

that it is barred by time and suffers from latches. As per

case projected by the claimant, his services were terminated

in 2004 whereas claim has been filed in 2010, after a gap of

more than 6 years. His claim is stale. No demand notice

was served, which fact also makes the dispute incompetent,

pleads the Corporation.

4. The claimant was engaged for development work of

digging holes/earth, which was of seasonal in nature. His

engagement as beldar from 26.04.2001 was not on any

permanent/regular nature of work. He was not engaged

by way of any regular method of recruitment. His

engagement was for intermittent periods from time to time.

He was well aware that on completion of seasonal work he

would not be engaged any further. When seasonal work

came to an end, he was not engaged after 25.03.2003. He

never worked for 240 days continuously in any calendar

year, muchless in preceding 12 months from the date of

alleged termination of his service. His non-engagement

after 25.3.2003 was not retrenchment, since it was covered

by sub-clause(bb) of section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). Since the claimant

was engaged on daily wages, hence was rightly paid wages

under Minimum Wages Act 1948. He was not entitled to

protection under section 25-F of the Act. His claim is

misconceived hence deserves to be dismissed, pleads the

Corporation.

5. On perusal of pleadings, following issues were

settled:

(1)

Whether the claim filed by Shri Salim is stale?

(2)

As in terms of reference.

6. To substantiate his claim, the claimant entered the

witness box. To rebut facts detailed by the claimant, Shri

Ravinder Kumar, Assistant Director (Horticulture), gave

his evidence. No other witness was examined by either of

the parties.

7. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri B.K.Prasad,

authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the claimant. Shri Vishwajit Mangla, authorized

representative, raised submissions on behalf of the

Corporation. I have given my careful considerations to

the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused

the records. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:

Issue No. 1

8. First count of attack, made by the Corporation, is

that the dispute was raised by the claimant after lapse of 6

years, which fact frustrates the relief in his favour. The

claimant argued that no period of limitation is provided by

the Act, which may come in his way of raising the dispute

after a period of six years. Rival submissions would be

addressed to, keeping in view the legal provisions. Section

10 (1) of the Act does not prescribe any period of limitation

for making reference of the dispute for adjudication. The

words ‘at any time’ used in sub section (1) of section 10 of

Act does not admit of any limitation in making an order of

reference. Law of limitation, which might bar any Civil

Court from giving remedy in respect of lawful rights, cannot

be applied by Industrial Tribunals. However, policy of

industrial adjudication is that stale claim should not be

generally encouraged or allowed unless there is

satisfactory explanation for delay.

9. In Shalimar Works Ltd. (1959 (2) LLJ 26), the Apex

Court ruled that though there is no limitation prescribed in

making reference of the dispute to Industrial Tribunal,

even so, it is only reasonable that disputes should be

referred as soon as possible after having arisen and on

failure of conciliation proceedings. In Western India Match

Company (1970 (2) LLJ 256) the Apex Court observed that

in exercising its discretion, Government will take into

account time which has lapsed between its earlier decision

and the date when it decides to consider it in the interest

of justice and industrial peace to make the reference for

adjudication. Same view was taken in Mahabir Jute Mills

Ltd. (1975 (2) LLJ 326). In Gurmail Singh (2000 (1) LLJ

1080) Industrial Adjudicator dismissed the reference on

the ground that there was delay of 8 years in raising the

dispute, which delay was condoned by the Apex Court

and it was ordered that the workman would not be entitled

to any back wages for the period of 8 years but would be

entitled to 50% of wages from the date he raised the dispute

till the date of his reinstatement. In Prahalad Singh (2000

(2) LLJ 1653), the Apex Court approved the award of the

Tribunal in not granting any relief to the workman who

preferred the claim after a period of 13 years without any

reasonable or justifiable grounds. In Nedungadi Bank Ltd.

(2002 (2) SCC 4) a lapse of seven years in raising the dispute

was held to be a factor to refuse the relief. The Apex Court

ruled that the appropriate Government has to exercise its

powers of referring the dispute in a reasonable manner.

Delay of seven years made the Court to conclude that

there was no dispute existing or apprehended when

decision was taken to refer it for adjudication. Same view

was taken in Haryana State Co-operative Land

Development Bank (2005 (5) S.C.C. 91). From above

decisions, it can be said that the law relating to delay in

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4917

raising a reference of dispute is bereft of any principles,

which can be easily comprehended by the litigants.

10. Factual matrix of the controversy bring it to light

that the claimant raised the dispute in early months of

year 2012 challenging his alleged termination of services

on 11.01.2004. Contra to it, the Corporation presents that

the claimant was not engaged after 25.3.2003. The dispute

was raised by the claimant some where in early months of

year 2012, as emerge out of the reference order. These

facts bring it to light that the claimant had raised the dispute

after a gap of 6 years. The claimant nowhere details reasons

for delay in raising the dispute. No explanation has been

offered by the claimant as to what factors persuaded him

to wait for a period of six years. However records project

the factors which made the claimant to raise the dispute,

after a gap of six years. As emerge out, services of juniors

to the claimant were also dispensed with by the

Corporation. They raised disputes, which were sent to

the Labour Court for adjudication by Government of NCT

Delhi. Those disputes were adjudicated vide awards dated

18.10.2007, proved as Ex.MW1/W2 to Ex.MW1/W4. Writ

petitions, filed by the Corporation, were also dismissed

by the High Court. Vide order proved as Ex.WW1/2, they

were reinstated in service by the Corporation in June 2010.

When the claimant came to know about these

developments he raised the dispute for adjudication. Thus,

it is evident that till order of reinstatement was passed in

favour of juniors of the claimant, he was satisfied with his

fate. When his juniors were reinstated in service he

attempted to rejuvenate the stale claim. His claim is based

on facts which are distinct and different than the facts

which became bedrock for awards Ex.MW1/W2 to

Ex.MW1/W4, as noted in subsequent sections. Attempt

was made to rehabilitate the facts which lost its vigour, on

being stale. Absence of an explanation makes the delay of

six year as inordinate and unexcusable. It is crystal clear

that the dispute was stale. There was no industrial dispute

in existence or could be even said to have been

apprehended in the year 2012, when the appropriate

Government applied its mind to the facts of the present

controversy. The dispute is liable to be thrown out on this

count alone. The issue is answer in favour of the

Corporation and against the claimant.

Issue No. 2

11. The Corporation made second prong of attack on

the dispute agitating that no notice of demand was served

on it prior to raising a dispute before the Conciliation

Officer. This fact also remained uncontroverted. The

claimant admits during the course of his cross examination

that he had not moved any application before the

Corporation, seeking his reinstatement in service. Thus, it

emerged that notice of demand was not served by the

claimant, before raising the dispute.

12.

The object of the Act is to protect workman

against victimization by the employer and ensure

termination of industrial dispute in a peaceful manner. The

Act, however, does not provide for any set of social and

economic principles for adjustment of conflicting interests.

Such norms have been evolved and devised by industrial

adjudication, keeping in view the social and economic

conditions, the needs of the workmen, the requirement of

the industry, social justice, relative interests of the parties

and common good. These norms have given rights to the

industrial employees what may be called industrial rights,

as such rights may not be available at common law.

Disputes as to the conditions of employment can be

resolved by resorting to a technique known as collective

bargaining. This tool is resorted to between an employer

or group of employers and a bonafide labour union. Policy

behind this is to protect workmen as a class against unfair

labour practices. What imparts to the dispute of a workman

the character of an “industrial dispute” is that it affects

the right of the workmen as a class.

13. An industrial dispute comes into existence when

the employer and the workmen are at variance and the

dispute/difference is connected with the employment or

non-employment, terms of employment or with conditions

of labour. In other words, dispute or difference arises when

a demand is made by the workman on the employer and it

is rejected by him and vice versa. In Sindhu Resettlement

Corporation Ltd.(1968(1) LLJ 834), the Apex Court has held

that mere demand, asking the appropriate Government to

refer a dispute for adjudication, without being raised by

the workmen with their employer, regarding such demand,

cannot become an industrial dispute. Hence, an industrial

dispute cannot be said to exist until and unless a demand

is made by the workman or workmen on the employer and

it has been rejected by him. In Fedders Lloyd Corporation

Pvt. Ltd. (1970 Lab.I.C. 421), High Court of Delhi went a

step ahead and held that “...demand by the workman must

be raised first on the management and rejected by it, before

an industrial dispute can be said to arise and exist and that

the making of such a demand to the Conciliation Officer

and its communication by him to the management, who

rejected the demand, is not sufficient to constitute an

industrial dispute.”

14. The decision in Sindhu Resettlement Corporation

Ltd. (supra) was followed by Orissa High Court in Orissa

Industries Pvt. Ltd. (1976 Lab.I.C. 285) and Himachal

Pradesh High Court in Village Paper Pvt. Ltd.(1993 Lab.I.C.

99). However, the Apex Court in Bombay Union of

Journalists (1961 (2) LLJ 436) had ruled that an industrial

dispute must be in existence or apprehended on the date

of reference. If, therefore, a demand has been made by the

workman and it has been rejected by the employer before

the date of reference, whether direct or through the

Conciliation Officer, it would constitute an industrial

dispute. In Shambhunath Goyal (1978(1) LLJ 484), the

Apex Court appreciated facts that the workman had not

made a formal demand for his reinstatement in service.

However, he had contested his dismissal before the Enquiry

4918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Officer and claimed reinstatement. Against the findings

of the Enquiry Officer, he preferred an appeal to the

Appellate Authority, claiming reinstatement on the ground

that his dismissal was bad in law. Then again, he claimed

reinstatement before the Conciliation Officer in the course

of conciliation proceedings, which was contested by the

employer. Appreciating all these facts, the Apex Court

inferred that there was impeccable evidence that the

workman had persistently demanded reinstatement,

rejection of which brought an industrial dispute into

existence.

15. In New Delhi Tailor Mazdoor Union [1979 (39) F.L.R.

195], High Court of Delhi noted that Shambunath Goyal

had not overruled Sindhu Resettlement Pvt. Ltd. But it

had distinguished it on facts. It was also pointed out that

decision of three Judges bench in Sindhu Resettlement

Pvt. Ltd. could not have been overruled by two Judge

bench in Shambunath Goyal. The High Court concluded

that decision in Sindhu Resettlement Pvt. Ltd., in case of

any conflict between the two decisions, must prevail. The

High Court held that making of the demand by the workman

on the management was sine qua non for giving rise to an

industrial dispute.

16. The High Court of Madras in Management of Needle

Industries [1986(1) LLJ 405] has held that dispute or

difference between management and the workman

automatically arises when the workman is dismissed from

service. His dismissal per se creates a dispute or difference

between the management and the workman. The Court

further observed that “it is nowhere stipulated in the Act,

particularly in section 2(k), that existence of the dispute as

such is not enough but then there should be a demand by

the workman on the management to give rise to an

industrial dispute”. However, this decision appears to be

inconsistent with the ratio of decision in Bombay Union

of Journalists(supra) and Sindhu Resettlement (supra). No

doubt, for existence of an industrial dispute, there should

be a demand by the workman and refusal to grant it by the

management. However, a demand should be raised, cannot

be a legal notion of fixity and rigidity. Grievances of the

workman and demand for its redressal must be

communicated to the management. Means and mechanism

of the communication adopted are not matters of much

significance, so long as demand is that of the workman

and it reaches the management. Reference can be made to

the precedent in Ram Krishna Mills Coimbatore Ltd. [1984

(2) LLJ 259].

17. The Act nowhere contemplates that the industrial

dispute can come into existence in any particular, specific

or prescribed manner nor there is any particular or

prescribed manner in which refusal should be

communicated. For an industrial dispute to come into

existence, written claim is not sine qua non. To read into

the definition, requirement of written demand for bringing

an industrial dispute into existence would tantamount to

rewriting the section, announced the Apex Court in

Shambunath Goyal (supra). In other words, oral demand

and its rejection will as much bring into existence an

industrial dispute, as written one. If facts and

circumstances of the case show that the workman had

been making a demand, which the management had been

refusing to grant, it can be said that there was an industrial

dispute between the parties.

18. Facts detailed above highlight that the claimant had

not projected that a demand notice was served on the

Corporation, seeking reinstatement in service. These facts

make stand taken by the Corporation to be worthy of

credence. The Corporation projects that no notice of

demand was served on it, before industrial dispute was

raised before the Conciliation Officer. Thus, it is emerging

over the record that it has not been established that

demand was raised on the corporation, which was rejected

by it and as such, dispute has not acquired status of an

industrial dispute. The dispute is liable to be discarded on

this count too.

19. Assuming for sake of argument that the dispute

was not stale and there was an oral notice of demand,

even then the claimant has no case on merits. As conceded

by him, he worked only for 34 days from 26.04.2001 to

02.06.2001, 80 days from 21.09.2001 to 22.12.2001, 76 days

from 16.09.2001 to 12.12.2002 and 70 days from 03.01.2003

to 25.03.2003. The spell of periods referred above make it

apparent that he worked for short duration with the

Corporation, in case of exigencies only. However he tried

to assert that he continuously worked with the management

till date of termination of his service. Except his bald

statement, no evidence was brought over the record by

the claimant to show his continuous service for a period

of 240 days in a calendar year.

20. 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,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4919

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.

21. 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”.

22. 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.

23. Shri Ravinder Kumar, Assistant Director

(Horticulture) deposed in bold words that the claimant

rendered service with the Corporation in four spells at

different intervals. He declares that the claimant never

rendered continuous service for 240 days in any calendar

year. Except the fact that the claimant relied seniority list

Ex.WW1/1 and awards Ex.MW1/W2 to Ex.MW1/W4, he

had not brought any evidence which may persuade the

Tribunal to record findings relating to his rendering

continuous service of one year, as contemplated by section

25 B of the Act. Seniority list Ex.WW1/1 details list of

beldars engaged by the Corporation from time to time. In

the said list, date of their engagement, authority who

ordered for their engagement, continuity in service/break

in service as well as period for which they have worked

have been detailed. Name of the claimant finds place at

serial No.46 of the said list, wherein it has been mentioned

that he was engaged for the first time on 26.04.2001 on the

orders of the Commissioner of the Corporation. It is also

detailed therein that there were breaks in service and his

services never remained continuous. Therefore, this

document nowhere project that the claimant rendered

continuous service of one year.

24. The claimant could not bring it over the record that

he was engaged for any other period, than the spells

referred above. When above spells of period are taken

into account, besides reckoning Sundays and three

national holidays, it nowhere bring to light that the claimant

rendered continuous service of 240 days in any calendar

year. It is concluded that service rendered by the claimant

was for very brief spells and there was no occasion for

him to render 240 days continuous service in any of the

calendar years.

25. The claimant was not engaged any further after

25.03.2003. Whether his disengagement amounts to

retrenchment within the meaning of section 2(oo) of the

Act? For an answer, definition of the term “retrenchment”

is to be construed. Clause (oo) of section 2 of the Act

defines retrenchment, which definition is extracted thus:

4920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“(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”.

26. 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].

27. 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].

28. Termination of service of casual workman on daily

wage will not fall within the exception contained in sub-

clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act, became the

“contract of employment” is referable to the contract other

than engagement of causal workers on daily wages. “Non-

renewal of the contract of employment” presupposes an

existing contract of employment which is not renewed.

Even in respect of a daily wager a contract of employment

may exist, such contract being from day to day. Hence this

clause does not contemplate to cover a contract such as

daily wager and is rather intended to cover more general

class of contracts where a regular contract of employment

is entered into and termination of service is because of

non-renewal of contract. The claimant being a daily wager

does not fall within the mischief of sub-clause (bb) of

section 2 (oo) of the Act. Therefore, it is concluded that

action of non-engagement of the claimant after 25.03.2003

amounts to retrenchment.

29. 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.

30. Since the claimant has not rendered continuous

service of one year as contemplated by section 25 B of the

Act, provisions of section 25F of the Act nowhere comes

into play. Claimant asserts that services of his juniors,

namely Shri Pankaj Kumar, Shri Anil Kumar, Shri Manoj

Kumar were dispensed with, in whose favour awards

Ex.MW1/W2 to Ex.MW1/W4 were passed. I have gone

through those awards wherein the Labour Court,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4921

constituted by Government of NCT Delhi, concluded that

they have rendered continuous service of 240 days in

preceding 12 months from the date of termination of their

services. In view of these different and distinct facts, the

Labour Court ordered for their reinstatement. However, in

the present controversy, the claimant is placed on different

pedestal. Therefore, reinstatement of his juniors on the

strength of the awards, referred above, would not accord

any accolade to the claimant. As concluded above,

claimant is not entitled to any relief on merits too. He is

not entitled to any relief, not to talk of relief of reinstatement

in his service. Action of the Corporation of in not engaging

the claimant any further cannot for faulted. No illegality

can be imputed to that action of the Corporation. An award

is, accordingly, passed in favour of the Corporation and

against the claimant. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dated : 02.06.2014

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1901

dk-vk- 1901.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy

eSustj] v'kksd gksVy ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 44@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 20@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@80@2011&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

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

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O. 1901.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 44/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No.1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the General Manager, M/s. Ashok

Hotel and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 23/06/2014.

[No. L-42011/80/2011-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.44/2012

The President,

Ashok Hotel Mazdoor Janta Union,

Staff Qutn. No.C-48-49, 50-B,

Chanakyapuri,

New Delhi - 110021

...Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

M/s Ashok Hotel,

50-B, Chanakyapuri

New Delhi - 110021

...Management

AWARD

Ashok Hotel (hereinafter referred to as the Hotel) invited

applications for five posts of Assistant Grade II to be

filled by way of promotion from amongst employees

serving as Assistant Grade I and Junior Stenographer Grade

I, vide circular dated 15.04.2009. Shri Ram Prakash Goyal,

Shri Kuldeep Singh and Shri Balwan Singh, the claimants,

besides others, applied against the advertisement, so made

by the Hotel. Interview letters were issued to them,

requiring them to appear for interview on 08.09.2009.

However, on 07.09.2009, the Hotel cancelled the interview

on some administrative reason, notifying that fresh date

would be intimated separately. Unfortunately, fresh date

was not intimated to the claimants, besides others for

interview. In the meantime, recommendations of Cadre

Review Committee were approved, vide settlement dated

12.12.2009. Recommendations of Cadre Review Committee

became operative from the date of settlement, referred

above. In those recommendations, eligibility criteria for

promotion to the post of Assistant Grade II was changed.

Claimants did not remain eligible for promotion to those

posts. A demand was raised on behalf of the claimants,

seeking their promotion on the basis of eligibility criteria

existing as on 15.04.2009, which demand was not conceded

to by the Hotel. Constrained by these facts, the claimants

approached the Ashok Hotel Mazdoor Janta Union

(hereinafter referred to as the union) for redressal of their

grievance. The union took up their cause and raised a

dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since the Hotel

contested the claim, conciliation proceedings ended into

a failure. On consideration of failure report, submitted by

the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government

referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide

order No.L-42011/80/2011-IR(DU), New Delhi dated

02.02.2012 with following terms:

“Whether the action of the management of Ashok

Hotel (a unit of ITDC), New Delhi in depriving the

promotion to (I) Shri Ram Prakash Goyal (Token

No.4203) S/o Shri S.N. Goyal, (II) Shri Kuldeep Singh

(Token No.4304) S/o Shri Raghbir Singh and (III)

Shri Balwan Singh (Token No.4214) S/o Shri Ram

Prasad to the post of Senior Assistant Grade II in

the scale of Rs.5600-9050 by not holding the

Schedule interview fixed for 08.09.2009 is legal and

justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to

and from which date?”

4922

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. Claim statement was filed by the claimants, pleading

therein that pursuant to daily order No.13 dated 15.04.2009,

the Hotel invited applications from eligible employees for

promotion to five posts of Assistant Grade II, in the pay

scale of Rs.5600-9050. They applied for promotion to those

posts and were called for interview on 08.09.2009. However,

the Hotel intentionally postponed the interview without

assigning any reason, vide letter dated 07.09.2009.

Interview for the posts of Assistant Grade II was not

scheduled by the Hotel till 28.07.2011, to deprive them of

their rights.

3. The claimants approached the union to espouse their

cause. Demand notice dated 02.08.2010 was sent, but to

no avail. Claimants seek an award in the form of directions

to the Hotel to promote them as Assistant Grade II in the

pay scale of Rs.5600-9050, now revised to Rs.10140-24880,

with effect from 08.09.2009.

4. Claim was demurred by the Hotel pleading that

promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It falls

within administrative realm of the Hotel to consider an

employee for promotion to a higher post. As such, dispute

raised is not an industrial dispute. Dispute has not been

espoused by the union as per provisions of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) and as such cannot

be termed as an industrial dispute. The Central

Government is not the appropriate Government to refer

the dispute under reference for adjudication, pleads the

Hotel.

5. The Hotel nowhere disputes the factum of calling

applications from eligible employees for promotion to five

posts of Assistant Grade II, vide its order dated 15.04.2009.

It is also not disputed that the claimants applied for

promotion and were called for interview, which was

scheduled for 08.09.2009. It is also an admitted fact that

interview scheduled for 08.09.2009 was postponed, vide

letter dated 07.09.2009, detailing therein that fresh date of

interview would be notified separately The Hotel presents

that major restructuring exercise in the form of Cadre Review

Committee was taken, recommendations of which

Committee were approved on 12.12.2009. As per

reformulated cadre, eligibility criteria for the post of

Assistant Grade II was changed. Claimants were not

qualified for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade II,

in view of eligibility criteria recommended for the said post

by the Cadre Review Committee.

6. The union was a party to the recommendations of

the Cadre Review Committee, which were approved on

12.12.2009. The union is estopped from raising any issue

on recommendations, which were given favourable nod

by it. Since the claimants were not eligible for promotion

in view of change in eligibility criteria for the post, their

claim is not maintainable. The Hotel seeks rejection of the

claim statement, filed by the claimants.

7. Shri S.S. Upadhyay, Shri Ram Prakash Goyal, Shri

Kuldeep Singh and Shri Balwant Singh entered the witness

box to testify facts in favour of the claimants. Shri Lohit

Joshi, Manager (H.R.) gave evidence on behalf of the Hotel.

No other witness was examined by either of the parties.

8. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri S.S. Upadhyay,

authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the claimants. Shri B.K. Singh and Shri Anurag Ranjan,

authorized representatives, assisted by Shri Lohit Joshi,

advanced arguments on behalf of the Hotel. I have given

my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at

the bar and cautiously perused the records. My findings

on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:

9. At the outset, the Hotel contended that the dispute

raised was not espoused in consonance with the

provisions of the Act, hence it did not acquire status of an

industrial dispute. Shri Singh claimed that an individual

dispute has been raised for adjudication, which does not

give jurisdiction to this Tribunal to articulate it. Contra to

it, Shri Upadhyay claims that the dispute was espoused

by the union vide its resolution dated 11.06.2010, hence it

answers all ingredients of an industrial dispute. According

to him, submissions made on behalf of the Hotel are

uncalled for.

10. Since the Hotel claims that an individual dispute

has been raised for adjudication, it would be expedient to

know as to what the term “industrial dispute” means. For

an answer to this proposition, definition of the term

‘industrial dispute’ is to be construed. Section 2(k) of the

Act defines the term ‘industrial dispute’, which definition

is extracted thus:

“2 (k) “Industrial dispute” means any dispute or

difference between employers and employers, or

between employers and workmen, or between

workmen and workmen, which is connected with

the employment or non-employment or the terms of

employment or with the conditions of labour, of any

person;”

11. The definition of “industrial dispute” referred above,

can be divided into four parts, viz. (i) factum of dispute, (2)

parties to the dispute, viz.(a) employers and employers,

(b) employer and workmen, or (c) workmen and workmen,

(3) subject matter of the dispute, which should be

connected with –(i) employment or non employment, or

(ii) terms of employment, or (iii) condition of labour of any

person, and (4) it should relate to an “industry”.

12. The definition of “industrial dispute” is worded in

very wide terms and unless they are narrowed by the

meaning given to word “workman” it would seem to

include all “employers”, all “employments” and all

“workmen”, whatever the nature or scope of the

employment may be. Therefore, except in the case where

there can be a dispute between the employers and

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4923

employers and workmen and workmen, one of the parties

to an industrial dispute must be an employee or a class of

employees. The first point, therefore, to be noted, perhaps

self evident, is that the phrase “employer and workmen”,

the plural may include singular on either side or any

permutation of singular or plural, the masculine including

the feminine. In order, therefore, to determine as to whether

a controversy or difference or a dispute is an “an industrial

dispute’ or not, it must first be determined whether the

workman concerned or workmen sponsoring his cause

satisfy the conditions of clause (s) of section 2 of the Act.

Here in the case, the Hotel no where dispute that the

claimants are not a workmen, within the meaning of clause

(s) of section 2 of the Act.

13. The Apex Court put gloss on the definition of

“industrial dispute” in Dimakuchi Tea Estate (1958 (1) LLJ

500) and ruled that the expression “any person” in clause

(k) of section 2 of the Act must be read subject to such

limitation and qualification as arise from the context, the

two crucial limitations are (i) the dispute must be a real

dispute between the parties to the dispute (as indicated in

the first two parts of the definition clause) so as to be

capable of settlement or adjudication by one party to the

dispute giving necessary relief to other, and (2) the person

regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one for

whose employment, non employment, terms of employment

or conditions of labour, as case may be, the parties dispute

for a direct or substantial interest. Where workmen raised

a dispute as against their employment, the person

regarding whose employment, non employer, terms of

employment or conditions of labour, the dispute is raised

need not be strictly speaking “workman” within the

meaning of the Act, but must be one in whose employment,

non employment, terms of employment, or conditions of

labour the workmen as a class have a direct or substantial

interest. The observations made by the Apex Court are

extracted thus:

“We also agree with the expression “any person” is

not co extensive with any workman, particular or

otherwise, equal with other, that the crucial test is

one of community of interest and the person

regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one in

whose employment, non employment, terms of

employment, conditions of labour (as the case may

be) the parties to the dispute have a direct or

substantial interest. Whether such direct or

substantial interest has been established in a

particular case will depend on its facts and

circumstances.”

14. In Kyas Construction Company (Pvt ) Ltd. (1958 (2)

LLJ 660), the Apex Court ruled that an industrial dispute

need not be a dispute between the employer and his

workman and that the definition of the expression

“industrial dispute “is wide enough to cater a dispute

raised by the employer’s workman with regard to non

employment of others, who may not be employed as

workman at the relevant time. The Apex Court in Bombay

Union of Journalist (1961 (II) LLJ 436) has observed that

in each case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute

has acquired the character of an industrial dispute, the

test is whether at the date of reference, the dispute was

taken up as submitted by the union of the workmen of the

employer against whom, the dispute is raised by an

individual workman or by an appreciable number of

workmen. In order, therefore, to convert an individual

dispute into an industrial dispute, it has to be established

that it has been taken up by the union of employees of the

establishment or by an appreciable number of the

employees of the establishment. As far as union of the

workmen of establishment itself is concerned, the problem

of espousal by them generally presents little difficulty,

since such workmen who are members of such unions

generally have a continuity of interest with an individual

employee who is one of their fellow workman. But difficulty

arise when the cause of a workman, in a particular

establishment is sponsored by a union which is not of the

workmen of that establishment but is one of which

membership is open to workmen of their establishment as

well as in that industry. In such a case a union which has

only microscopic number of the workmen as its member,

cannot sponsor any dispute arising between the workmen

and the management. A representative character of the

union has to be gathered from the strength of the actual

number of co workers sponsoring the dispute. The mere

fact that a substantial number of workmen of the

establishment in which the concerned workman was

employee were also members of the union would not

constitute sponsorship. It must be shown that they were

connected together and arrived at an understanding by a

resolution or by other means and collectively submitted

the dispute.

15. The expression “industrial disputes” has been

construed by the Apex Court to include individual

disputes, because of the scheme of the Act. In Raghu

Nath Gopal Patvardhan (1957(1) LLJ 27) the Apex Court

ruled as to what dispute can be called as an industrial

dispute. It was laid thereon that (1) a dispute between the

employer and a single workman cannot be an industrial

dispute, (2) it cannot per-se be an industrial dispute but

may become if it is taken up by a trade union or a number

of workmen. In Dharampal Prem Chand (1965 (1) LLJ 668)

it was commanded by the Apex Court that a dispute raised

by a single workman cannot become an industrial dispute

unless it is supported either by his union or in the absence

of a union by substantial number of workmen. Same law

was laid in the case of Indian Express Newspaper (Pvt.)

Limited (1970 (1) LLJ 132). However in Western India

Match Company (1970 (II) LLJ 256), the Apex Court referred

the precedent in Dimakuchi Tea Estate’s case (1958 (1) LLJ

4924

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

500) and ruled that a dispute relating to “any person

becomes a dispute where the person in respect of whom it

is raised is one in whose employment, non employment,

terms of employment or conditions of labour, the parties,

dispute for a direct or substantial interest”.

16. What a substantial or considerable number of

workmen would be in a given case, depend on particular

facts of the case. The fact that an “industrial dispute”, is

supported by other workmen will have to be established

either in the form of a resolution of the union of which

workman may be member or of the workmen themselves

who support the dispute or in any other manner. From the

mere fact that a general union, at whose instance an

“industrial dispute” concerning an individual workman is

referred for adjudication, has on its roll a few of the workmen

of the establishment as its members, it cannot be inferred

that the individual dispute has been converted into an”

industrial dispute”. The Tribunal has therefore, to consider

the question as to how many of the fellow workman

actually espoused the cause of the concerned workman

by participating in the particular resolution of the union.

In the absence of a such a determination by the Tribunal,

it cannot be said that the individual dispute acquired the

character of an industrial dispute and the Tribunal will not

acquire jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute.

Nevertheless, in order to make a dispute an industrial

dispute, it is not necessary that there should always be a

resolution of substantial or appreciable number of

workmen. What is necessary is that there should be some

express or collective will of a substantial or an appreciable

member of the workmen treating the cause of the individual

workman as their own cause. Law to this effect was laid in

P.Somasundrameran (1970 (1) LLJ 558).

17. It is not necessary that the sponsoring union is a

registered trade union or a recognized trade union. Once it

is shown that a body of substantial number of workmen

either acting through a union or otherwise had sponsored

the workman’s cause, it is sufficient to convert it into an

industrial dispute. In Pardeep Lamp Works (1970 (1) LLJ

507) complaints relating to dispute of ten workmen were

filed before the Conciliation Officer by the individual

workmen themselves. But their case was subsequently

taken up by a new union formed by a large number of co-

workmen, if not a majority of them. Since this union was

not registered or recognized, the workmen elected five

representatives to prosecute the cases of ten dismissed

workmen. Thus cases of the dismissed workmen were

espoused by the new union, yet unregistered and

unrecognized. The Apex Court held that the fact that these

disputes were not taken up by a registered or recognized

union does not mean that they were not “industrial

dispute”.

18. It is not expedient that same union should remain

incharge of that dispute till its adjudication. The dispute

may be espoused by the workmen of an establishment,

through a particular union for making such a dispute an

“industrial dispute”, while the workman may be

represented before the Tribunal for the purpose of section

36 of the Act by a member of executive or office bearer of

altogether another union. The crux of the matter is that the

dispute should be a dispute between the employer and

his workmen. It is not necessary that the dispute must be

espoused or conducted only by a registered trade union.

Even if a trade union ceases to be registered trade union

during the continuance of the adjudication proceedings

that would not affect the maintainability of the order of

reference. Law to this effect was laid by the High Court of

Orissa in Gammon India Limited (1974 (II) LLJ 34). For

ascertaining as to whether an individual dispute has

acquired character of an individual dispute, the test is

whether on the date of the reference the dispute was taken

up as supported by the union of the workmen of the

employer against whom the dispute is raised by the

individual workman or by an appreciable number of the

workman. In other words, the validity of the reference of

an industrial dispute must be judged on the facts as they

stood on the date of the reference and not necessarily on

the date when the cause occurs. Reference can be made to

a precedent in Western India Match Co.Ltd. (1970 (II)

LLJ 256).

19. To project espousal by the union, Shri Upadhyay

deposed in his affidavit Ex.WW1/A, tendered as evidence,

that the claimants approached the union for redressal of

their grievance. Working Committee meeting of the union

was held on 11.06.2010 where their grievances were

considered and a decision was taken to take up their case

as its own. He had proved resolution dated 11.06.2010 as

Ex.WW1/1. During course of cross examination, Shri Ram

Prakash Goyal deposed that meeting of the union took

place on 11.06.2010 at 3 p.m. at its office premises located

at Staff Quarters, Ashok Hotel, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi.

He also proved copy of minutes of the meeting as Ex.WW1/

1. Facts unfolded by Shri Upadhyay and Shri Ram Prakash

Goyal in that regard could not be dislodged by the Hotel

when the witnesses were made to face rigours of cross

examination.

20. The Hotel questioned the resolution Ex.WW1/1 on

the count that names of the claimants did not appear

therein. It has also been agitated that the claimants were

not members of the union. Hence, there was no occasion

for the union to espouse their cause. To appreciate

submissions advanced, I have scanned Ex.WW1/1. It

emerged that 20 members of the Working Committee of

the union participated in the meeting dated 11.06.2010 and

resolution was adopted to raise grievance of the claimants,

relating to inaction of the Hotel for their promotion on the

posts of Assistant Grade II. It is evident that the union

took up cause of the claimants as their own and authorized

Shri Upadhyay to initiate action in that matter. Collective

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4925

will was shown by the union in the cause of the claimants

and took it as its own. As held above, the union can

espouse cause of a person who may not even be a

workman. It is not necessary for a claimant to be a member

of a union to enable it to espouse his cause. An union may

espouse a dispute with regard to non-employment of

others, who may not be employed as workman at the

relevant time. A person, whose dispute may be espoused

by an union, cannot be its member when he is not in the

employment of the management at the relevant time. Thus,

it is evident that objection raised by the Hotel to the effect

that the claimants were not members of the union has no

substance. The union espoused cause of the claimants

through its resolution Ex.WW1/1. The dispute raised by

the union answers all ingredients of an industrial dispute

within the meaning of section 2(k) of the Act. Contention

advanced by the Hotel in that regard is brushed aside.

21. The Hotel claims that the appropriate Government

for the dispute under reference is the Government of NCT

Delhi. For an answer to this proposition, it is expedient to

note as to for what dispute the Central Government is the

appropriate Government. Clause (a) of section 2 of the Act

defines appropriate Government. It would be expedient to

know definition of phrase “appropriate Government”.

Consequently, definition of the phrase “appropriate

Government” is extracted thus:

“2(a) “appropriate Government” means -

(i)

in relation to any industrial dispute

concerning any industry carried on by or

under the authority of the Central

Government or by a railway company or

concerning any such controlled industry

as may be specified in this behalf by the

Central Government or in relation to an

industrial dispute concerning a Dock

Labour Board established under section 5A

of the Dock Workers (Regulation of

Employment)Act, 1948(9 of 1948), or the

Industrial Finance Corporation of India

Limited formed and registered under the

Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or the

Employees’ State Insurance Corporation

established under section 3 of the

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948(34

of 1948), or the Board of Trustees and the

State Board of Trustees section 5A and

section 5B, respectively, of the Employees’

Provident Fund and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or the

Life Insurance Corporation of India

established under section 3 of the Life

Insurance Corporation Act, 1956(31 of

1956), or the Oil and Natural Gas

Corporation Limited registered under the

Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or the

Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee

Corporation established under section 3 of

the Deposit Insurance and Credit

Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961(47 of

1961), or the Central Warehousing

Corporation established under section 3 of

the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962

(58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India

established under section 3 of the Unit

Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the

Food Corporation of India established

under section 3, or a Board of Management

established for two or more contiguous

States under section 16, of the Food

Corporations Act, 1964 (37 of 1964), or the

Airports Authority of India constituted

under section 3 of the Airports Authority

of India Act, 1994 (55 of 1994), or a Regional

Rural Bank established under section 3 of

the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of

1976), or the Export Credit and Guarantee

Corporation Limited or the Industrial

Reconstruction Corporation of India

Limited, the National Housing Bank

established under section 3 of the National

Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987)or the

Banking Service Commission Act 1975 or

an air transport service, or a banking or an

insurance company, a mine, an oil field, a

Cantonment Board, or a major port, an

company in which not less than fifty one

percent of the paid up share capital is held

by the Central Government, or any

Corporation, not being a Corporation

referred to in this clause, established by or

under any law made by Parliament, or the

Central public sector undertaking,

subsidiary companies set up by the

principal undertaking and autonomous

bodies owned or controlled by the Central

Government, the Central Government, and

(ii)

in relation to any other industrial dispute,

the State public sector undertaking,

subsidiary companies set up by the

principal undertaking and autonomous

bodies owned or controlled by the State

Government, the State Government;

Provided that in case of a dispute between

a contractor and the contract labour

employed through the contractor in any

industrial establishment where such dispute

first arose, the appropriate Government

shall be the Central Government or the

4926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

State Government, as the case may be,

which has control over such industrial

establishment;

22. In relation to an industrial dispute, appropriate

Government can either mean the Central Government

or the State Government. The Central Government

has been defined under section 3(8) and the State

Government under section 3(60) of the General Clauses

Act, 1897. In relation to an industrial dispute

concerning -

an industry carried on or under the authority

of the Central Government, or a railway

company, or

an such controlled industry as may be specified

in this behalf by the Central Government, or

a Dock Labour Board established under section

5A of the Dock Workers (Regulation of

Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948), or

the Industrial Finance Corporation of India

Limited formed and registered under the

companies Act, 1956, or

the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation

established under section 3 of the Employees’

State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or

the Board of Trustees constituted under

section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund

and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948

(46 of 1948), or

the Central Board of Trustees and the State

Boards of Trustees constituted under section

5A and section 5B, respectively, of the

Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or

the Life Insurance Corporation of India

established under section 3 of the Life

Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956),

the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited

registered under the Companies Act, 1956, or

10.

the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee

Corporation established under section 3 of the

Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee

Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or

11.

the Central Warehousing Corporation

established under section 3 of the Warehousing

Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or

12.

the Unit Trust of India established under

section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963

(52 of 1963), or

13.

the Food Corporation of India established

under section 3 of the Food Corporation Act,

1964 (37 of 1964), or

14.

a Board of Management established for two or

more contiguous States under section 16 of

the Food Corporations Act, 1964 (37 of 1964),

15.

the Airports Authority of India constituted

under section 3 of the Airports Authority of

India Act, 1994 (55 of 1994), or

16.

a Regional Rural Bank established under

section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976

(21 of 1976),or

17.

the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation

Limited, or

18.

the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India

Limited, or

19.

the National Housing Bank established under

section 3 of the National Housing Bank Act,

1987 (53 of 1987), or

20.

an air transport service, or

21.

a banking company, or

22.

an insurance company, or

23.

a mine, or

24.

an oil-field, or

25.

a Cantonment Board, or

26.

a ”major port, or

27.

any company in which not less than fifty-one

per cent of the paid-up share capital is held by

the Central Government, or

28.

any corporation, not being a corporation

referred to in this clause, established by or

under any law made by Parliament, or

29.

the Central public sector undertaking, or

30.

subsidiary companies set up by the principal

undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or

controlled by the Central Government,

the appropriate Government would mean the

Central Government”.

23. In relation to an industrial dispute appropriate

Government can either mean Central Government or State

Government. In relation to any industrial dispute, other

than those specified in sub clause (i) of clause (a) of section

2 of the Act, appropriate Government would be State

Government. In other words, all industrial disputes which

are outside the purview of sub-clause (i) are concern of

the State Government under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of

Section 2 of the Act. Thus, the general rule is that an

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4927

industrial dispute raised between employer and his

employee would be referred for adjudication by the State

Government, except in cases falling under section 2(a)(i)

of the Act. Consequently, where industrial dispute which

does not fall within the ambit of section 2(a)(i) of the Act,

appropriate Government cannot be the Central

Government.

24. It is not a matter of dispute that the Hotel is a unit of

Indian Tourism Development Corporation (in short the

Corporation), a public sector undertaking, working under

the charge of the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India,

New Delhi. The Corporation is a prime mover in the

progressive development, promotion and expansion of

tourism in the country. The objectives, for which the

Corporation came into existence in October 1966, are:

To construct, take over and manage existing

hotels and market hotels, Beach Resorts,

Travellers’ Lodges/Restaurants,

ii.

To provide transport, entertainment, shopping

and conventional services

iii.

To produce, distribute, tourist publicity material,

iv.

To render consultancy-cum-managerial services

in India and abroad,

To carry on the business as Full-Fledged Money

Changers (FFMC), restricted money changers

etc., and

vi.

To provide innovating, dependable and value for

money solutions to the needs of tourism

development and engineering industry including

providing

consultancy

and

project

implementation.

25. The Hotel is a unit of the Corporation. The

Corporation works under the Ministry of Tourism,

Government of India, New Delhi. These facts are sufficient

to conclude that the Corporation or the Hotel, as the case

may be, is an industry carried on by or under the authority

of the Central Government. In view of these reasons, it is

announced that the appropriate Government for the

dispute, under reference, is the Central Government and

not the Government of NCT Delhi. Submissions made in

that regard by the Hotel, being uncalled for, are discarded.

26. On coming to factual matrix it became apparent that

Shri Ram Prakash Goyal deposed that applications were

invited by the Hotel from amongst eligible candidates for

promotion to the posts of Assistant Grade II, vide letter

dated 15.04.2009, which is Ex.WW2/1. This advertisement

is not a matter of dispute. When this document is scanned,

it emerged that five posts of Assistant Grade II were

advertised, out of which one was reserved for candidates

belonging to scheduled tribe communities while 4 posts

were available to the candidates of general categories.

Eligible employees were called upon to submit their

applications on the prescribed proforma. The incumbents

were required to have rendered three years satisfactory

service as Junior Assistant Grade I/Junior Stenographer

Grade I in the pay scale of Rs.5310-8360 or they should

have moved to the scale of Rs.5310-8360 and should have

completed prescribed number of years service by taking

together service rendered in of pay-scale of Rs.5310-8360

and scale of Rs.5050-7900. Eligibility criteria was fulfilled

by the claimants and they were called for interview on

08.09.2009, as emerge out of Ex.WW2/3. Names of

claimants find place in Ex.WW2/3. Interview, scheduled

for 08.09.2009, was postponed owing to some

administrative reason, not made known as Ex.WW2/4

depicts. It was notified therein that fresh date of interview

would be intimated separately. These facts are not disputed

by and on behalf of the Hotel. Facts unfolded by Shri Ram

Prakash Goyal were reaffirmed by Shri Kuldeep Singh and

Shri Balwan Singh. Shri Lohit Joshi opted not to question

facts, referred above.

27. Question for consideration would be as to whether

postponement of interview, to be held on 08.09.2009, was

on account of conscious decision taken by the Hotel not

to fill up those posts till report of Cadre Review Committee

was to be submitted and approved? Ex.WW2/4 makes it

apparent that interview was postponed on account of some

administrative reason, kept close to its heart by the Hotel.

It was not notified that awaiting report of Cadre Review

Committee, interview scheduled for 08.09.2009 was

postponed. Furthermore Ex.WW2/4 makes it clear that the

applicants were informed that a fresh date would be

intimated separately. Intimation to the applicants, to the

effect that fresh date would be informed separately, makes

it apparent that administrative decision to postpone the

interview was not owing to the decision of the Hotel to

await report of the Cadre Review Committee. Language

used in Ex.WW2/4 gives room for conclusion that process

for selection of candidates for the posts of Assistant Grade

II, out of eligible employees working with the Hotel, was

still open. It was deferred for some administrative reason,

not disclosed by the Hotel to the claimants and the

Tribunal. Had there been a conscious decision to defer

filling of posts of Assistant Grade II till submission of the

report of Cadre Review Committee, the Hotel would have

made known that fact to the claimants as well as to the

Tribunal, during the course of adjudication. An eerie

silence was maintained in that regard and it was only

agitated that some administrative reason was behind

postponement of interview, scheduled for 08.09.2009.

Therefore, it cannot be said that owning to conscious

decision, taken by the Hotel to fill up post of Assistant

Grade II after receipt of report of Cadre Review Committee,

interview scheduled for 08.09.2009 was postponed.

28. Report of Cadre Review Committee was accepted

by the authorities on 12.12.2009. Resultantly a circular

was issued by the Hotel on 04.02.2010, which has been

4928

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

proved as Ex.MW1/2. Perusal of Ex.MW1/2 makes it clear

that recommendations of Cadre Review Committee were

made effective from 12.12.2009. Thus, it is evidence that

recommendations for Cadre Review Committee were

prospective and not given any retrospective operation.

29. Eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of

Assistant Grade II stood changed, as is evident out of

Ex.MW1/2. 40% of posts were to be filled by way of direct

recruitment and 60% by way of promotions. For promotion,

an incumbent was supposed to render minimum three

years satisfactory service in the scale of Rs.5310-8360 for

Junior Assistant Grade I. The eligibility criteria was

different than the eligibility criteria, prescribed in Ex.WW2/

1. New eligibility criteria was applicable since 12.12.2009

and not prior to that date.

30. Whether posts which fell vacant prior to April, 2009

would be covered by the recommendations of Cadre

Review Committee? Answer is simple. By approval of

report of Cadre Review Committee, the Hotel has changed

eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Assistant

Grade II. However, on the date when 5 posts of Assistant

Grade II fell vacant, an incumbent was required to render

three years satisfactory service as Junior Assistant Grade

I/Junior Stenographer Grade I in the pay scale of Rs.5310-

8360 or he should have moved to the scale of Rs.5310-

8360 and should have completed prescribed number of

years service by taking together service rendered in pay

scale of Rs.5310-8360 and scale of Rs.5055-7900. According

to that eligibility criteria the claimants were eligible for

promotion. However, when report of Cadre Review

Committee was implemented with effect from 12.12.2009,

none of the claimants remained eligible for promotion to

those posts. It is well settled proposition of law that posts

which fell vacant prior to the amendment of rules, would

be governed by the old rules and not by the new rules.

Law to this effect was laid by the Apex Court in Y.V.

Rangaiah [1983(3) SCC 284], R. Dayal [1997(10) SCC 419],

P.Ganeshawar Rao [1988 (Supp) SCC 740] and Dr. K.

Ramulu [1997(3) SCC 59].

31. High Court of Delhi had an occasion to consider

the proposition as to whether amended rules would apply

to posts fallen vacant prior to the date of amendment of

the rules in Dr. Sahadeva Singh (Manu/DE/0655/2012).

After consideration of catena of decisions on the subject,

it was ruled that vacancies which had arisen prior to coming

into force of new rules, would be filled under old rules.

The court formulated legal propositions on the issue,

which are as follows:

“The propositions of law which emerge from a

combined perusal of the above-referred decisions

can be summarized as under:-

(a)

The general rule is that the vacancies which

exist on the date of amendment of rules

have to be filled up in accordance with the

rules, as they stood prior to amendment,

provided the amendment is not

retrospective. If the amendment made in

the rules is retrospective, even the

vacancies which exist on the date of

amendment are also required to be filled up

as per amended rules;

(b)

The Competent Authority may take a

decision to amend the rules and fill up all

the vacancies in accordance with the

amended rules. If such a decision is taken

by the Competent Authority, that would

justify the delay in making the promotion,

against the existing vacancies. In such a

case, all the vacancies, including the

vacancies which existed on the date of

amendment of the rules can be filled up as

per the amended rules;

(c)

The decision to amend the rules needs to

be taken by the authority which is

competent to amend the rules and if such a

decision is taken by some authority other

than the authority competent to amend the

rules and the rules are later amended, the

vacancies which existed on the date of

amendment of the rules have to be filled up

in accordance with the rules as they stood

prior to amendment.”

32. As noted above, 5 posts of Assistant Grade II had

fallen vacant prior to April 2009. Those posts were

advertised to the employees by the Hotel vide letter dated

15.04.2009 when they were called upon to submit their

application in consonance with the eligibility criteria, on

the prescribed format. Applications were scrutinized and

eligible candidates were called for interview, which was

scheduled for 08.09.2009. However, on 07.09.2009, owing

to some administrative reason, interview was postponed,

informing the applicants that fresh date of interview would

be intimated separately. Thus, it is evident that the Hotel

had not taken a decision to amend the rules and then fill

up posts of Assistant Grade II in consonance with

amended rules.

33. Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority Rules, 1982

(in short the old Rules) are scanned to note as to whether

any guidelines are provided for holding Departmental

Promotion Committee meeting. I could not lay my hands

on any such calendar for holding of Department Promotion

Committee meeting. Shri Singh, on being assisted by Shri

Lohit Joshi, Manager(HR), made a candid admission that

no such calendar was provided in the old rules. Shri Joshi

presents that in the Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority

Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the New Rules), the

Hotel is supposed to convene Departmental Promotion

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4929

Committee meeting twice a year, first in January and

subsequently in July to asses candidature of eligible

incumbents for promotion to a post. They Hotel was called

upon to explain as to whether guidelines issued by the

Government of India vide office memorandum No.22011/

9/98-Esss(D) dated 08.09.1998 read with office

memorandum No.22011/9/98-Esss(D)dated 13.10.1998 and

office memorandum No.22011/9/98-Esss(D) dated

14.12.2000 would be applicable to it, when there was

vacuum in the old rules in that regard. Shri Singh as well

as Shri Joshi could not project any reasons to dislodge

applicability of those guidelines to the Hotel. As per

guidelines contained in the aforesaid office memorandums,

DPCs should be convened at regular annual intervals to

draw panels which could be utilized on making promotions

against the vacancies occurring during the course of a

year. For this purpose, it is essential for the concerned

appointing authorities to initiate action to fill up the existing

as well as anticipated vacancies well in advance of the

expiry of the previous panel by collecting relevant

documents like CRs, integrity certificates, seniority list,

etc., for placing before the DPC. DPCs could be convened

every year if necessary on a fixed date, e.g. 1^st Apirl or

May. The Ministries/ Departments should lay down a

time-schedule for holding DPCs under their control and

after laying down such a schedule, the same should be

monitored by making one of their officers responsible for

keeping a watch over the various cadre authorities to

ensure that they are held regularly. Holding of DPC

meetings need not be delayed or postponed on the ground

that the Recruitment Rules for a post are being reviewed /

amended. A vacancy shall be filled in accordance with the

Recruitment Rules in force on the date of vacancy, unless

rules made subsequently have been expressively given

retrospective effect. Since amendments to Recruitment

Rules normally have only prospective application, the

existing vacancies should be filled as per the Recruitment

Rules in force.

34. Very often, action for holding DPC meeting is

initiated after a vacancy has arisen. This results in undue

delay in filling up of the vacancy causing dissatisfaction

among those who are eligible for promotion. It may be

ensured that regular meetings of DPC are held every year

for each category of posts so that an approved select

panel is available in advance for making promotions

against vacancies arising over a year. The requirement of

convening annual meeting of the DPC should be

dispensed with only after a certificate has been issued by

the Appointing Authority that there are no vacancies to

be filled by promotion or no officers are due for

confirmation during the year in question.

35. In view of above instruction on holding DPCs, it

would be taken note of as to whether an employee has a

vested right for promotion to next higher post. Law

deciphers a right of being considered for promotion in

favour of an employee. He cannot claim promotion as a

matter of right. It is a matter of discretion of the

management to select persons for promotions, held

Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Brooke Bond

(India) (Pvt.) Ltd. [1963 (1) LLJ 256]. But three Judge

Bench of the Apex Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. (1984

Lab.I.C. 1573) suggested that it is time to reconsider this

archaic view of laissez faire days where promotion was

considered as management function because the whole

gamut of labour legislation is to check, control and

circumscribe uncontrolled managerial exercise of power

with a view to eschew the inherent arbitrariness in exercise

of such functions. However, law laid in Brook Bond India

Pvt. Ltd, (supra) rules the field. It was laid therein that

though promotion is a managerial function, “it may be

recognized that there may be occasions when a tribunal

may have to interfere with promotions made by the

management where it is felt that persons superseded have

been so superseded on account of malafides or

victimization.”

36. Promotion generally necessitated consideration of

competitive suitability of the eligible workmen and such

selection process would require the consideration ‘not

only of the past performance of those eligible but

necessitates making of comparative estimate of their skill,

sometimes of technical nature, their personality, capacity

to discharge heavier responsibilities and similar other

factors. Whether a particular employee should be

promoted from one grade to higher grade depends not

only on the length of service but also on his efficiency

and other qualifications for the post to which he seeks to

be promoted and in the matter of promotion, intimate

knowledge of the higher authority, empowered to promote,

have greater value. Seniority plays only a small part in the

matter of promotion. In the absence of any malafide, unfair

labour practice or victimization, discretion of the

management cannot be questioned. Reference can be made

to the precedent in Reserve Bank of India [1965 (2) LLJ

175].

37. When malafide, unfair labour practice or

victimization is alleged by the workmen, adjudicator will

have to enquire whether granting or withholding of certain

promotion is malafide or act of unfair labour practice or

victimization. If he finds that the promotions in question

have been made, which are unjustified on any one of these

grounds, appropriate course for him is to set aside the

promotions and ask the employer to consider the cases of

superseded employees and decide for himself whom to

promote after considering the records of the employees

worth consideration, except of course the persons whose

promotions have been set aside. In other words, when

the Tribunal finds that some workers are superseded on

account of legal malafide, it may have to cancel the

promotions made by the employer. See Williamson Magor

& Co. [1982 (1) LLJ 32].

4930

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

38. The Tribunals are intended to adjudicate industrial

disputes between the management and the workmen, settle

them and pass effective awards in such a way that industrial

peace between the employees and the employer may be

maintained so that there can be more productions and

benefit of all concerned. For the above purpose, industrial

tribunal, as far as practicable, shall not be constrained to

formulate rules of laws and avoid any inability to arrive at

an effective award of justice in a particular dispute. In

view of the findings, first of all it should be declared that

the promotions were illegal and unjustified being an act of

arbitrary action of the management and cancel those

promotions. Thereafter, the Tribunal should ask the

management to consider the cases again and to promote

the eligible employees. But even after finding of malafide

or victimization, it is not within the competence of the

Tribunal to consider merits of various employee and then

to decide to whom to promote. See Brooke Bond India

Pvt. Ltd. (supra).

39. Here in the case the Hotel deferred process of

promotion to the posts of Assistant Grade I in an arbitrary

and unjustified manner. Appointment of Shri Sudhir Kumar

Khurana, who was junior to the claimants, to officiate

against the post of Sr.Assistant Grade II with effect from

28.5.2009 bring malafides and unfair labour practice on the

part of the Hotel over the record. All these facts make it

apparent that action of the Hotel cannot be allowed to

sustain. Shri Ram Prakash Goyal and Shri Kuldeep Singh

were found eligible for promotion and were promoted to

the posts of Assistant Grade II on 29.07.2011, which fact

make it clear that their right of being considered for

promotion has matured into a right of being promoted.

Had the interview been held as per schedule referred above,

the Hotel would have been constrained to promote them,

as they were eligible for promotion. Right of Shri R.P. Goyal

and Shri Kuldeep Singh was frustrated, without any reason

and for no fault of theirs. On the other hand, Shri Sudhir

Kumar Khurana who was too junior to them was allowed

to officiate as Assistant Grade II by the Hotel. These facts

bring it to light that with a view to deprive Shri Ram Prakash

Goyal and Shri Kuldeep Singh of their right of being

promoted, the Hotel delayed process of interview.

Consequently this Tribunal finds it to be a proper case to

command the Hotel to promote Shri Ram Prakash Goyal

and Shri Kuldeep from 31^st December 2009, by which time

process of promotion would have been completed by the

Hotel.

40. Shri Balwan Singh superannuated and could not be

considered for promotion. It is not a matter of dispute that

Shri Sudhir Kumar Khurana, who was junior to Shri Balwan

Singh, was allowed to officiate as Senior Assistant Grade II

in the scale of Rs.5600-9050, vide order Ex.WW2/7.

Conditions on which he was allowed to officiate, as detailed

in Ex.WW2/7, are extracted thus:

“Shri Sudhir Kumar Khurana, Junior Assistant, Grade

I, Token No.4301 in the scale of Rs.5310-8360 is

hereby appointed to officiate against the post of

Senior Assistant Grade I in the scale of Rs.5600-

9050 with effect from 28.05.2009. He is entitled to the

payment of officiating pay at the rate of 10% of his

basic pay with effect from 28.06.2009, i.e. after he

has worked against the higher post for one month

subject to the following conditions:

(i)

The officiating pay at the rate mentioned

above will be admissible to Shri Sudhir

Kumar Khurana subject to the condition

that his basic pay plus officiating pay so

granted shall not exceed the pay which

would have been admissible to him had he

been promoted to the higher of Senior

Assistant Grade II against which he is

officiating.

(ii)

The officiating pay as sanctioned above

shall cease to be admissible to him with

effect from the date the duties and

responsibilities of higher post entrusted

to him are withdrawn or from the date he

ceases to hold the charge of the said post.

(iii)

The grant of officiating pay as above shall

not by itself confer on him any right or title

for claiming regular appointment to the

higher post.

Shri Sudhir Kumar Khurana, in addition to

assisting Bills & Credit in legal matters will co-

ordinate, follow up and supervise court cases of HR

Department and Accounts (Bills & Credit) of The

Ashok and will functionally report directly to the

Vice President (Legal). He will continue to be under

administrative

control

the

General

Manager(Ashok) and the seniority will also remain

in his parental department. The matters pertaining

to the concerned departments of The Ashok will be

routed through proper channel.

This issues with the approval of the Competent

Authority.”

41. Shri Singh argued that officiating appointments are

made by the Hotel in consonance with office order

No.10(67)/78-PHQ dated 15.07.1980. According to him, as

per said order generally officiating appointments are made

in order of seniority. However, he projects that merit,

qualification, experience, aptitude, growth potential and

immediately availability of an employee is to be kept in

view while making such an arrangement. When called

upon to explain as to whether all these merits were with

Shri Balwan Singh or not when he was denied officiating

appointment for the post of Senior Assistant Grade II by

the Hotel, Shri Singh had to cut a sorry figure. He could

not rebut that Shri Balwant Singh was having merit,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4931

qualification, experience, aptitude, growth potential and

immediately availability to work as Senior Assistant Grade

II. It is emerging over the record that in an arbitrary manner,

a junior was allowed to officiate and claim of a senior was

discarded.

42. Can management be permitted to discard senior and

promote a junior in officiating capacity? Answer lies

in negative. In Bal Kishan [1990 (I) LLJ 61] the Apex Court

announced that no junior shall be confirmed or promoted

without considering the case of his senior. The

observations made by the Apex Court are reproduced thus :

“In service, there could be only one norm for

conferment or promotion of persons belonging

to the same cadre. No junior shall be confirmed

or promoted without considering the case of his

senior. Any deviation from this principle will have

demoralizing effect in service apart from their

being contrary to Article 16(1) of the

Constitution.”

43. Appointment of a junior to the post of Senior

Assistant Grade II by the Hotel was violative of

fundamental rights available to Shri Balwan Singh. The

Hotel cannot negate his fundamental rights, while making

appointment of a junior to the post of Senior Assistant

Grade II, even in officiating capacity. In view of these

reasons the Tribunal will come to rescue of Shri Balwan

Singh and accord his fundamental rights.

44.

Shri Ram Prakash Goyal and Shri Kuldeep Singh

were denied promotion by the Hotel in an arbitrary manner.

Process of promotion was stalled illegally to frustrate their

right of being considered for promotion. Subsequently,

they were promoted, relying provisions of new Rules. They

were to be promoted, in accordance with provisions of old

rules. In view of these facts, the Hotel is commanded to

promote Shri Ram Prakash Goyal and Shri Kuldeep from

31^st December, 2009 and grant officiating allowance to Shri

Balwan Singh from the date Shri Sudhir Kumar Khurana

was given appointment on the post of Assistant Grade II

in officiating capacity. An award is, accordingly, passed.

It be sent to the appropriate government for publication.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated : 04.06.2014

ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1902.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lqifjUVsUMsUV

vkWQ iksLV vksfQlsl] ;oreky ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn

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

ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k CGIT/NGP/01/2011½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@65@2010&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

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

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2014

S.O. 1902.—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/01/2011) 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 Superintendent of

Post Office, Yavatmal and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 24/06/2014.

[No. L-40012/65/2010-IR (DU)]

P. K.VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/01/2011

Date: 04.06.2014.

Party No. 1

The Supdt. of Post Offices,

D/o. Post, Yavatmal Division,

Yavatmal (MS).

Versus

Party No. 2 : Shri Vasant Shivaji Wadhai

R/o. Akhada Ward,

Pandharkawada,Teh. Kelapur

Yavatmal (MS).

AWARD

(Dated: 4^th June, 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 Post Office and their workman, Shri Vasant

Wadhai, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-40012/65/2010-

IR (DU) dated 22.03.2011, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of

Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Post,

Yavatmal Division, Yavatmal (MS) in dismissing the

services of Shri Vasant Shivaji Wadhai w.e.f. 30/03/

1996 is legal and justified? What relief is the workman

is entitled to?”

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

file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, in response to which, the workman Shri Vasant

4932

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Wadhai, (“the workman” in short) filed the statement of

claim and the management of Post Office, (“party no.1” in

short) filed the written statement.

The case of the workman is that he was appointed in

the services of party no.1 as an E.D. Packer w.e.f. 31.07.1979

and his appointment was confirmed by party no.1 vide its

order dated 05.09.1979 and while working at Pandharkawda

Post Office, there occurred a case of shortage of cash of

Rs. 15,000 and party no.1 immediately lodged a police

complaint with the police authorities and on the basis of

the complaint, a criminal case was filed in the court of

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yavatmal bearing no. RCC 292/

97 and in the said case he was named as an accused

alongwith one Shri Namdeo Nagorao Bokade and after

trial of the case, the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order

dated 03.05.2007 acquitted both of them and in the midst

of the above events, the party no.1 arbitrarily decided to

initiate departmental enquiry against him and charge sheet

dated 02.09.1994 was issued against him by the sub-post

master, Pandharkawada and a regular departmental enquiry

was ordered by appointing one Shri R.M. Dhakate as the

enquiry officer and the enquiry officer conducted the

departmental enquiry and gave his findings dated

16.03.1996, declaring the charge against him to be proved

and consequent upon the receipt of the findings given by

the enquiry officer, his services came to be dismissed vide

order dated 30.03.1996 and he preferred an appeal against

the order of punishment, but his appeal came to be

dismissed.

The further case of the workman is that after his acquittal

in the criminal case filed against him, he requested the

party no.1 for reinstatement in service vide his

representations dated 01.12.2008 and 11.12.2008, but party

no.1 paid a deaf ear to his representation, even though

party no.1 reinstated Shri Narayan Bokade in service after

his acquittal and there was total discrimination on the face

of the action and on this ground alone, he is entitled to be

reinstated in services.

It is also pleaded by the workman that the departmental

enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer was not in

accordance with the principles of natural justice and every

reasonable opportunity of defence was not given to him

and the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer was

merely a formality and the findings and order impugned

were passed in most mechanical manner and personal

hearing was not given by the disciplinary authority as

well as the appellate authority and the entire departmental

enquiry therefore was invalid and unfair and differential

treatment was given by the party no.1 to him, while

awarding punishment and though he himself and

Shri Namdeo Bokade were involved in the same matter

Shri Bokade came to reinstated in the services of the post

office w.e.f. 04.03.1994, but he was denied reinstatement

and the said action is unfair and illegal and the findings of

the enquiry officer are perverse and there was total non-

application of mind while awarding the punishment and

principles of natural justice were followed by the party

no.1 only in its breach and the findings are based on no

evidence and the conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer

are as such, which no reasonable person would draw and

the action of party no.1 is illegal and unjustified and he is

entitled for reinstatement in service with full back wages

and consequential benefits.

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

inter-alia that the workman was working as E.D. Packer at

Pandherkawada sub-post office w.e.f. 31.07.1979 and on

30.11.1993, there was a loss of a mail bag containing

remittance of Rs. 15000 and as the workman did not carry

out his duty with honesty, sincerely, diligently and with

alertness, it suffered a loss of Rs. 15000 and as such, a

complaint was lodged at the police station, NGC,

Pandharkawada on 17.12.1993, under section 409/34 IPC

and a charge sheet was also filed by the police in the

court of JMFC, Pandharkawada and unfortunately the

charges could not be proved as the “Muddemal” seized

by the police from its office was lost from the custody of

the police and the workman was acquitted by the court on

technical ground.

Party no.1 has further pleaded that departmental

charge sheet was issued to the workman under Rule-8 of

E.D. (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1964 (“the Rules” in short)

and the workman participated in the enquiry proceedings

on 24.01.1995, 15.02.1995, 14.11.1995, 23.01.1996, 06.02.1996

and 20.02.1996 and after conducting the enquiry, the

enquiry officer assessed the documentary evidence and

other evidence produced before him and submitted his

report to the disciplinary authority holding the workman

guilty of the charges and the workman was not dismissed

from services as alleged, but he was infact removed from

the service and punishment was imposed against the

workman, after completion of the departmental enquiry

with all fairness and following the principles of natural

justice and giving reasonable opportunity to the workman

and charge sheet was also submitted against Shri N.N.

Bokade, who was the co-accused with the workman and

punishment of recovery from his pay was imposed against

him and as such, there was no discrimination against the

workman and Shri Bokade was reinstated in service, before

his acquittal in the criminal case, according to his role and

according to the gravity of the charges, punishment was

awarded to the workman and to Shri Bokade and as the

workman was found guilty in the departmental enquiry,

his claim for reinstatement in service for acquittal in the

criminal case is not sustainable and the reinstatement in

service of Shri Bokade also cannot be taken as a ground

for reinstatement of the workman in service, as both of

them were tried for different charges and charge sheet

was also issued against them by the disciplinary authority

under different rules and the acquittal of the workman was

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4933

not honorable, but the same was on technical ground and

the workman is not entitled to any relief.

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

services, after conducting of a departmental enquiry

against him, the fairness or otherwise of the departmental

enquiry was taken up for consideration as a preliminary

issue and by order dated 19.03.2014, the departmental

enquiry conducted against the workman was held to be

legal, proper and in accordance with the principles of

natural justice.

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

learned advocate for the workman that it is clear from the

report of the Enquiry Officer, Ext-W-IV that the charge

No.1 was not proved against the workman and the only

other charge levelled against him, i.e. the charge No.2 was

that while he was working as E.D. packer at Pandharkawda

Sub-Post Office on 01.12.1993, the Registration Clerk, Shri

R.S.Mahalle received a letter in connection with bag from

Parwa Post Office and directed the workman to give the

same to the Sub-Post Master, Pandharkawda. But the

workman instead of giving the said letter to the Sub-Post

Master, gave the same to Shri S.N. Bokde, Mail Clerk and

thereby he has not shown interest towards his work and

committed violation of Rule 17 of the Rules and for the

sake of argument, even if the said allegation is admitted to

be true, still then the same does amount to violation of

Rule 17 and the findings of the Enquiry Officer in regard to

the charge No.2 is against the evidence on record and

perverse and party No.1 had filed a police complaint

against him and Shri Bokde, the mail clerk and police

submitted charge sheet against them and the workman

and Shri Bokde were acquitted by the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Yavatmal by judgment dated 03.05.2007 and

differential treatment was given by the authorities to the

workman while awarding the punishment and though Shri

Bokde was ordered to give recovery of a part of the amount

of Rs.15000 and was reinstated in service, the workman

was removed from service and the punishment is

shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge

levelled against the workman and the workman is entitled

for reinstatement in service with continuity, full back wages

and all consequential benefits.

6. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate

for the party No.1 that the departmental enquiry conducted

against the workman has already been declared to be valid

and in accordance with the principles of natural justice

and the workman and Shri Bokde were charge sheeted

under different Rules and there was no discrimination in

imposing the punishment and the acquittal of the workman

in the criminal case was on technical ground of non-

production of the “Muddemal” by the police and his

acquittal was not an honorable acquittal and as such, the

workman is not entitled for his reinstatement in service for

such acquittal and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are

based on the evidence produced in the departmental

enquiry and the same are not perverse and there is no

scope to interfere with the punishment and the workman

is not entitled for any relief.

7. Perused the record. Admittedly, the charge No.1

regarding the loss of the cash of Rs.15000 levelled against

the workman was found to be not proved by the Enquiry

Officer. No finding has been given by the Disciplinary

Authority in regard to the charges.

The other charge against the workman is that he handed

over a letter to Shri Bokde, the Mail Clerk, even though he

was directed to hand over the same direct to the Sub-Post

Master and thereby he committed the misconduct as

mentioned in Rule 17 of the Rules. Rule 17 of the Rules

says that, “Every employee shall at all times maintain

absolute integrity and devotion to duty.” The allegation

as mentioned in charge No.2 against the workman does

prima facie show that the workman did not maintain

absolute integrity and devotion to duty. On perusal of the

materials on record, it is found that the findings of the

Enquiry Officer in regard to the charge No.2 are perverse

and as such, the punishment imposed against the

workman on such perverse finding cannot be sustained.

8. Now, the question remains for consideration is as to

what relief or reliefs the workman is entitled. From the

facts and circumstances of the case and as it is already

held that the punishment imposed against the workman

cannot be sustained, the workman is entitled to

reinstatement in service with continuity and all other

consequential benefits. So far the back wages is concerned,

taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into

consideration, I think that payment of 25% of the back

wages will meet the ends of justice. Hence it is order:

ORDER

The action of the management of Superintendent of

Post Offices, Department of Post, Yavatmal Division,

Yavatmal (MS) in dismissing the services of Shri Vasant

Shivaji Wadhai w.e.f. 30/03/1996 is illegal and unjustified.

The workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with

continuity and all other consequential benefits. The

workman is entitled to 25% of the back wages from the

date of his removal from service i.e. with effect from

30.03.1996 till the date of his actual reinstatement in service.

The party No.1 is directed to carry out the directions within

30 days of the publication of the award in the official

gazette.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1903

dk-vk- 1903.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phQ eSusftax

Mk;jsDVj] us'kuy izkstsDV daLVªD'ku dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM]

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

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

4934

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 116@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

20@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@30@2012&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

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

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2014

S.O.

1903.—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/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Chief Managing Director, National

Project Construction Corporation Ltd., Faridabad and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 20/06/2014.

[No. L-42012/30/2012-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX,

DELHI.

I. D. No. 116/2012

Shri Phool Singh,

S/o Late Shri Mool Chand,

Mohall- Fatehnagar, Sherkot,

Dhampur, Distt. Bijnor,

Uttar Pradesh.

...Workman

Versus

The Chief Managing Director,

National Project Construction Corporation Ltd.,

(NPCC), Plot No.67-68, Sector-25,

Faridabad.

...Management

AWARD

National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. (in

short the Corporation) was having surplus staff in various

categories of workmen in 1987. The Corporation took into

consideration its organizational requirements and decided

to retrench surplusage and close down its tapering/

uneconomical units. In July-August 1987, the Corporation

retrenched 470 workers and units like Totladoh, Tehri,

Loktak and Godavari were closed down. Shri Phool Singh,

who was working as STP Operator (Compressor) at

Maneribhali unit of the Corporation was retrenched on

17.07.1987. Since workers in large scale were retrenched

by the Corporation, the All India NPCC Employees

Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Federation) went

on a strike on 19.07.1987. The strike continued till 13.07.1993.

Matter was brought to the notice of the Government of

India and the then Hon’ble Minister of Labour agreed to

mediate between the parties. Various discussions were

held and charter of demands was submitted by the

Federation. Ultimately, memorandum of settlement was

arrived at on 22.09.1971, which settlement was submitted

before the Government and attained finality. Pursuant to

modalities detailed in the settlement, retrenched employees

were reinstated in service of the Corporation.

2. Shri Phool Singh was reinstated in service by the

Corporation on 25.06.1993. When voluntary retirement

scheme was launched by the Corporation, Shri Phool Singh

opted for that scheme. He was relieved from service on

24.01.1996. Shri Phool Singh applied for monthly pension

under Employee Pension Scheme 1995 (in short the

pension scheme), which pension was not granted in his

favour by the Corporation. In the year 2012, Shri Phool

Singh raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer,

which dispute was contested by the Corporation. On

consideration of failure report, submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred

the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide order

No.L-42012/30/2012-IR(DU) New Delhi dated 21.09.2012

with following terms:

“Whether action of the management of NPCC in

depriving pensionery benefits to Shri Phool Singh,

Ex. Compressor Operator and notional fixation of

basic in the pay scale in which he was at the time of

retrenchment/termination of service is justified? If

not to what relief workman is entitled for?”

3. Claim statement was filed by the claimant, namely,

Shri Phool Singh, pleading that he was appointed as

Compressor Operator on 12.12.1981 and served at various

units of the Corporation. He was given pay scale of

Rs.200-10-300 and paid salary in that scale of pay. He was

given regular increments till 19.07.1987. The Corporation

started harassing its employees and deprived them of

various benefits. Salary was not paid regularly to them.

The Federation was approached by the employees for

redressal of their grievances. In the garb of financial

crunch/closure of units, several workmen were terminated/

retrenched in violation and contravention of law. His

services were illegally retrenched on 19.07.1987.

4. Strike call was given by the Federation on 19.07.1987

which strike continued till 22.03.1991, when a settlement

was arrived at between the Federation and the Corporation.

Settlement, so arrived at, was submitted to the Government

and it attained finality. As per terms of the settlement, it

was stipulated that all the workmen, including those

working at Totladoh unit, mentioned in category ‘C’, were

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4935

being reinstated by virtue of the settlement and their basic

pay would be suitably fixed in pay scales in which they

were drawing pay at the time of retrenchment/termination.

However it was agreed therein that they would not get

any benefits for the intervening period, such as wages,

provident fund, gratuity, leave, bonus etc.

5. The claimant was working in skilled category. Since

the unit, where he was working at the time of illegal

retrenchment, was not closed, hence his services were

treated as retrenched, as per the settlement arrived at

between the parties. Accordingly, the unit officer concerned

was directed to offer him designation/pay scale, which he

was drawing at the time of his illegal retrenchment. He was

reinstated on 22.03.1993 vide order No. settlement/WC/

91/0995 dated 25.06.1993 as STP Operator III in the pay

scale Rs.175-8-255 on provisional pay of Rs.255 per month

and was posted at Bansagar Dam. During his service

period, he was covered under provisions of Employees

Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952. He was

entitled to monthly pension under the pension scheme.

He opted for the voluntary retirement scheme on 08.01.1996,

which request was allowed by the Corporation on

24.01.1996.

6. After fixation of his pay on 28.10.1997, he was neither

paid any arrears nor provident fund amount, pleads the

claimant. The Corporation defaulted in payment of

contribution, as a result of which his application for

pension was not processed by the Provident Fund office.

The period of strike was not taken as notional service

rendered by him. An application was moved by him for

payment of monthly pension benefits. The application

has neither been disposed off nor withdrawal benefit/

scheme certificate was issued. Despite reminders, the same

still pends disposal. Legal notice was served on the

Corporation for payment of contribution for the period

19.07.1987 to 14.07.1993 alongwith interest to the Provident

Fund Trust so that benefits under the pension scheme

may be accorded to him. It has been pleaded that an

award may be passed declaring him entitled to pension

under the pension scheme.

7. Claim was demurred by the Corporation pleading

that the claim is barred by time. The Corporation also pleads

that the claimant is guilty of suppression of material facts,

since he concealed that an amount of Rs.23,359.50 has

been paid towards his provident fund benefits. He is not

entitled to any pensionery benefits under the pension

scheme, since he had not rendered eligible service for the

same.

8. The Corporation pleads that the claimant was initially

working as an STP Operator III(Compressor) from

12.12.1981 at its Maneribhali unit on nominal muster roll.

He was converted to work charged establishment with

effect form 01.01.1983 and worked as such upto 17.07.1987

at the said unit. He had not worked at any other unit of the

Corporation. He has been paid all his dues at the time of

his retrenchment. The Corporation had taken all requisite

steps for welfare of the workmen and all benefits accruing

to them had been duly paid. This fact is also evident from

the settlement arrived at between the Corporation and

Federation, whereby large number of employees were

reinstated at the same salary on which they were working

at the time of their termination/retrenchment. The

Corporation did not resort to retrenchment/termination of

services of its employees in mass. Due to financial

problems faced by the Corporation and on completion of

works of various projects/units, the workmen became

surplus. Hence legal procedure of retrenchment was

effected in order to maintain financial position as the

Corporation was overburdened due to surplus workmen

and non-availability of work. In spite of financial

constraints, the Corporation arrived at an agreement dated

22.03.1991 with the Federation to reinstate the retrenched/

terminated employees, subject to various terms and

conditions. As per the agreement, the claimant was

reinstated by the Corporation on 25.06.1993 and placed in

the same pay scale on which he was working at the time of

termination of his services.

9. There is an NPCC CPF Trust operated and maintained

by the Corporation, in accordance with provisions of the

Employees Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act,

1952. All employees, including the claimant, are covered

by the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. Though he was

entitled for CPF Fund, he was not entitled for monthly

pension scheme, since he had rendered only 8 years, 1

month and 15 days service. For eligibility to pension under

the pension scheme, he should have rendered at least 10

years service with the Corporation.

10. As per pension scheme, Form 10(C) is required to

be submitted in order to apply for pension or for availing

withdrawals. As per column No.8, a person may either

take the scheme certificate or may withdraw the benefits.

The claimant opted to withdraw the benefits instead of

taking the scheme certificate. As per the pension scheme,

for reckoning eligible service the aggregate of past and

actual service shall be treated as eligible service and if

there is any period in the past service for which no

contributions are received towards the pension scheme,

then that period will be counted only when such

contributions are received in Employees Pension Fund.

The services of the claimant were terminated on 17.07.1987

and reinstated on 25.06.1993. For the period of strike the

claimant was not entitled to any benefits, such as wages,

provident fund, gratuity, leave, bonus etc. No contribution

for the period of strike was received from the claimant

towards pension scheme. The Corporation pleads that the

claim may be dismissed, being devoid of merits.

11. Since facts were not in dispute, there was no

occasion to call the parties to lead evidence in the matter.

12. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Om Prakash

Sharma, authorized representative, advanced arguments

4936

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

on behalf of the claimant. Shri Santosh Kumar, authorized

representative, raised submissions on behalf of the

Corporation. I have given my careful considerations to

the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused

the records. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:-

13. At the outset, Shri Santosh Kumar argued that the

claimant opted for VRS on 08.01.1996. His request was

considered favourably and he was relieved from service

on 24.01.1996, after releasing retiral benefits in his favour.

He slept over the matter for a period of 15 years and

thereafter suddenly raised a dispute before the Conciliation

Officer in the year 2012. According to Shri Santosh Kumar,

claim put forward by Shri Phool Singh had become stale

and he is not entitled to any relief. Shri Sharma submits

that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act)

nowhere provides limitation for raising a dispute for

adjudication. According to him, contention put forward

by the Corporation is uncalled for. Claimant is very much

entitled to seek relief of pension, argued Shri Sharma.

14. Section 10 (1) of the Act does not prescribe any

period of limitation for making reference of the dispute for

adjudication. The words ‘at any time’ used in sub section

(1) of section 10 of Act does not admit of any limitation in

making an order of reference. Law of limitation, which

might bar any Civil Court from giving remedy in respect of

lawful rights, cannot be applied by Industrial Tribunals.

However, policy of industrial adjudication is that stale

claim should not be generally encouraged or allowed

unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay.

15. In Shalimar Works Ltd. [1959 (2) LLJ 26], the Apex

Court ruled that though there is no limitation prescribed in

making reference of the dispute to Industrial Tribunal,

even so, it is only reasonable that disputes should be

referred as soon as possible after having arisen and on

failure of conciliation proceedings. In Western India Match

Company [1970 (2) LLJ 256] the Apex Court observed that

in exercising its discretion, Government will take into

account time which has lapsed between its earlier decision

and the date when it decides to consider it in the interest

of justice and industrial peace to make the reference for

adjudication. Same view was taken in Mahabir Jute Mills

Ltd. [1975 (2) LLJ 326]. In Gurmail Singh [2000 (1) LLJ

1080] Industrial Adjudicator dismissed the reference on

the ground that there was delay of 8 years in raising the

dispute, which delay was condoned by the Apex Court

and it was ordered that the workman would not be entitled

to any back wages for the period of 8 years but would be

entitled to 50% of wages from the date he raised the dispute

till the date of his reinstatement. In Prahalad Singh [2000

(2) LLJ 1653], the Apex Court approved the award of the

Tribunal in not granting any relief to the workman who

preferred the claim after a period of 13 years without any

reasonable or justifiable grounds. In Nedungadi Bank Ltd.

[2002 (2) SCC 4] a lapse of seven years in raising the dispute

was held to be a factor to refuse the relief. The Apex Court

ruled that the appropriate Government has to exercise its

powers of referring the dispute in a reasonable manner.

Delay of seven years made the Court to conclude that

there was no dispute existing or apprehended when

decision was taken to refer it for adjudication. Same view

was taken in Haryana State Co-operative Land

Development Bank [2005 (5) S.C.C. 91]. From above

decisions, it can be said that the law relating to delay in

raising or reference of dispute is bereft of any principles,

which can be easily comprehended by the litigants.

16. Claimant raised the dispute seeking of relief of

pension in the year 2012. He sought VRS and was relieved

from service by the Corporation on 24.1.1996. Thus, it is

emerging over the record that the claimant had raised the

dispute after a gap of about 15 years. No explanation is

offered for this inordinate delay. One fine morning, the

claimant made up his mind and raised the dispute for

adjudication. It seems that the dispute has been raised by

the claimant as a luxury litigation. No reasons are there

which may show as to how the claimant came out of

slumbers after such a long delay. All these facts make me

to comment that the dispute was stale and there was no

industrial dispute in existence or could be even said to

have been apprehended in the year 2012, when the

appropriate Government applied its mind to the facts of

the present controversy.

17. Though the Corporation does not plead that an

individual dispute has been raised, yet the issue is taken

up for consideration since it is incidental to the issues,

referred for adjudication. In case of an individual dispute

this Tribunal can not exercise its jurisdiction for articulation.

Hence it is expedient to adjudicate as to whether it is an

individual or an industrial dispute. For an answer definition

of term “industrial dispute”, defined by the Act is to be

construed. For sake of convenience definition of the term

“industrial dispute” is extracted thus :

“2(k) “Industrial dispute” means any dispute or

difference between employers and employers, or between

employers and workmen, or between workmen and

workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-

employment or the terms of employment or with the

conditions of labour, of any person”.

18. The definition of “industrial dispute” referred above,

can be divided into four parts, viz. (i) factum of dispute, (2)

parties to the dispute, viz.(a) employers and employers,

(b) employer and workmen, or (c) workmen and workmen,

(3) subject matter of the dispute, which should be

connected with –(i) employment or non employment, or

(ii) terms of employment, or (iii) condition of labour of any

person, and (4) it should relate to an “industry”.

19. The definition of “industrial dispute” is worded in

very wide terms and unless they are narrowed by the

meaning given to word “workman” it would seem to

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4937

include all “employers”, all “employments” and all

“workmen”, whatever the nature or scope of the

employment may be. Therefore, except in the case where

there can be a dispute between the employers and

employers and workmen and workmen, one of the parties

to an industrial dispute must be an employee or a class of

employees. The first point, therefore, to be noted, perhaps

self evident, is that the phrase “employer and workmen”,

the plural may include singular on either side or any

permutation of singular or plural, the masculine including

the feminine. In order, therefore, to determine as to whether

a controversy or difference or a dispute is an “an industrial

dispute’ or not, it must first be determined whether the

workman concerned or workmen sponsoring his cause

satisfy the conditions of clause (s) of section 2 of the Act.

Here in the case, the Corporation does not dispute that

the claimant is workman within the meaning of clause(s)

of section 2 of the Act.

20. The Apex Court put gloss on the definition of

“industrial dispute” in Dimakuchi Tea Estate [1958 (1) LLJ

500] and ruled that the expression “any person” in clause

(k) of section 2 of the Act must be read subject to such

limitation and qualification as arise from the context, the

two crucial limitations are (1) the dispute must be a real

dispute between the parties to the dispute (as indicated in

the first two parts of the definition clause) so as to be

capable of settlement or adjudication by one party to the

dispute giving necessary relief to other, and (2) the person

regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one for

whose employment, non employment, terms of employment

or conditions of labour, as case may be, the parties dispute

for a direct or substantial interest. Where workman raised

a dispute as against their employment, the person

regarding whose employment, non employer, terms of

employment or conditions of labour, the dispute is raised

need not be strictly speaking “workman” within the

meaning of the Act, but must be one in whose employment,

non employer, terms of employment, or conditions of labour

the workmen as a class have a direct or substantial interest.

The observations made by the Apex Court are to be

extracted thus:

“We also agree with the expression “any person” is

not co extensive with any workman, particular or otherwise,

equal with other, that the crucial test is one of community

of interest and the person regarding whom the dispute is

raised must be one in whose employment, non

employment, terms of employment, conditions of labour

(as the case may be) the parties to the dispute have a

direct or substantial interest. Whether such direct or

substantial interest has been established in a particular

case will depend on its facts and circumstances.”

21. In Kyas Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. [1958 (2)

LLJ 660] the Apex Court ruled that an industrial dispute

need not be a dispute between the employer and his

workman and that the definition of the expression

“industrial dispute” is wide enough to cater a dispute

raised by the employer’s workman with regard to non-

employment of others, who may not be employed as

workman at the relevant time. The Apex Court in Bombay

Union of Journalist [1961 (II) LLJ 436] has observed that

in each case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute

has acquired the character of an industrial dispute, the

test is whether at the date of reference, the dispute was

taken up as submitted by the union of the workmen of the

employer against whom, the dispute is raised by an

individual workman or by an appreciable number of

workmen. In order, therefore, to convert an individual

dispute into an industrial dispute, it has to be established

that it has been taken up by the union of employees of the

establishment or by an appreciable number of the

employees of the establishment. As far as union of the

workmen of establishment itself is concerned, the problem

of espousal by them generally presents little difficulty,

since such workmen who are members of such unions

generally have a continuity of interest with an individual

employee who is one of their fellow workman. But difficulty

arise when the cause of a workman, in a particular

establishment is sponsored by a union which is not of the

workmen of that establishment but is one of which

membership is open to workmen of their establishment as

well as in that industry. In such a case a union which has

only microscopic number of the workmen as its member,

cannot sponsor any dispute arising between the workmen

and the management. A representative character of the

union has to be gathered from the strength of the actual

number of co workers sponsoring the dispute. The mere

fact that a substantial number of workmen of the

establishment in which the concerned workman was

employee were also members of the union would not

constitute sponsorship. It must be shown that they were

connected together and arrived at an understanding by a

resolution or by other means and collectively submitted

the dispute.

22. The expression “industrial disputes” has been

construed by the Apex Court to include individual

disputes, because of the scheme of the Act. In Raghu

Nath Gopal Patvardhan [1957(1) LLJ 27] the Apex Court

ruled as to what dispute can be called as an industrial

dispute. It was laid thereon that (1) a dispute between the

employer and a single workman cannot be an industrial

dispute, (2) it can not be per-se be an industrial dispute

but may become if it is taken up by a trade union or a

number of workmen. In Dharampal Prem Chand [1965 (1)

LLJ 668] it was commanded by the Apex Court that a

dispute raised by a single workman cannot become an

industrial dispute unless it is supported either by his union

or in the absence of a union by substantial number of

workmen. Same law was laid in the case of Indian Express

Newspaper (Pvt.) Limited [1970 (1) LLJ 132]. However in

Western India Match Company [1970 (II) LLJ 256], the

Apex Court referred the precedent in Drona Kuchi Tea

4938

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Estate’s case [1958 (1) LLJ 500] and ruled that a dispute

relating to “any person becomes a dispute where the

person in respect of whom it is raised is one in whose

employment, non employment, terms of employment or

conditions of labour, the parties, dispute for a direct or

substantial interest”.

23. What a substantial or considerable number of

workmen would be in a given case, depend on particular

facts of the case. The fact that an “industrial dispute”, is

supported by other workmen will have to be established

either in the form of a resolution of the union of which

workman may be member or of the workmen themselves

who support the dispute or in any other manner. From the

mere fact that a general union, at whose instance an

“industrial dispute” concerning an individual workman is

referred for adjudication, has on its roll a few of the workmen

of the establishment as its members, it cannot be inferred

that the individual dispute has been converted into an”

industrial dispute”. The Tribunal has therefore, to consider

the question as to how many of the fellow workman

actually espoused the cause of the concerned workman

by participating in the particular resolution of the Union.

In the absence of a such a determination by the Tribunal,

it cannot be said that the individual dispute acquired the

character of an industrial dispute and the Tribunal will not

acquire jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute.

Nevertheless, in order to make a dispute an industrial

dispute, it is not necessary that there should always be a

resolution of substantial or appreciable number of

workmen. What is necessary is that there should be some

express or collective will of a substantial or an appreciable

member of the workmen treating the cause of the individual

workman as their own cause. Law to this effect was laid in

P.Somasundrameran [1970 (1) LLJ 558].

24. It is not necessary that the sponsoring union is a

registered trade union or a recognized trade union. Once it

is shown that a body of substantial number of workmen

either acting through a union or otherwise had sponsored

the workman’s cause, it is sufficient to convert it into an

industrial dispute. In Pardeep Lamp Works [1970 (1) LLJ

507] complaints relating to dispute of ten workmen were

filed before the Conciliation Officer by the individual

workmen themselves. But their case was subsequently

taken up by a new union formed by a large number of co

workmen, if not a majority of them. Since this union was

not registered or recognized, the workmen elected five

representatives to prosecute the cases of ten dismissed

workmen. Thus cases of the dismissed workmen were

espoused by the new union, yet unregistered and

unrecognized. The Apex Court held that the fact that these

disputes were not taken up by a registered or recognized

union does not mean that they were not “industrial

dispute”.

25. It is not expedient that same union should remain

incharge of that dispute till its adjudication. The dispute

may be espoused by the workmen of an establishment,

through a particular union for making such a dispute an

“industrial dispute”, while the workman may be

represented before the Tribunal for the purpose of section

36 of the Act by a member of executive or office bearer of

altogether another union. The crux of the matter is that the

dispute should be a dispute between the employer and

his workmen. It is not necessary that the dispute must be

espoused or conducted only by a registered trade union.

Even if a trade union ceases to be registered trade union

during the continuance of the adjudication proceedings

that would not affect the maintainability of the order of

reference. Law to this effect was laid by the High Court of

Orissa in Gammon India Limited [1974 (II) LLJ 34]. For

ascertaining as to whether an individual dispute has

acquired character of an individual dispute, the test is

whether on the date of the reference the dispute was taken

up as supported by the union of the workmen of the

employer against whom the dispute is raised by the

individual workman or by an appreciable number of the

workman. In other words, the validity of the reference of

an industrial dispute must be judged on the facts as they

stood on the date of the reference and not necessarily on

the date when the cause occurs. Reference can be made to

a precedent in Western India Match Co.Ltd. [1970 (II) LLJ

256].

26. As record tells, a dispute relating to pensionery

benefits was raised by Shri Phool Singh, which dispute

does not fall within the ambit of section 2 A of the Act. The

dispute is apparently covered within the ambit of term

“industrial dispute” defined by section 2(k) of the Act.

For raising it, the claimant was under an obligation to get

it espoused by a union or by considerable number of

workmen, working in the establishment of the Corporation.

The order, on the strength of which the dispute was sent

to this Tribunal for adjudication, makes it apparent that

the dispute was raised by the claimant in individual

capacity. It is apparent that neither the dispute was

espoused by a union nor by considerable number of

workmen working in the establishment of the Corporation.

As such, the dispute has not acquired status of an industrial

dispute. Since it remained an individual dispute, the

appropriate Government was not competent to refer it for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

27. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the claim

put forth by Shri Phool Singh is virtuous, even on merits

too, he is not entitled to any relief. Reasons for this opinion

are that Shri Phool Singh joined services of the Corporation

as STP Operator III(Compressor) on nominal muster roll

with effect from 12.12.1981. He was converted to work

charged establishment on 01.01.1983 and worked

continuously in said capacity upto 17.07.1987 at

Maneribhali unit of the Corporation. His services were

retrenched by the Corporation on 17.07.1987 on payment

of following dues:

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4939

One month notice pay

Rs.1,192.00

Wages from 01.07.1987 to

Rs. 607.00

17.07.1987

Encashment of unavailed leave

Rs.1,032.00

Bonus from 01.04.1986 to

Rs.1,330.00

17.07.1987

Gratuity upto 17.07.1987

Rs.3,697.00

Compensation 15 days per

Rs.3,204.00

completed Year of service

28. The Federation went on strike, since a handful of

workmen were retrenched by the Corporation. The strike

continued till 13.07.1993. Mater was brought to the notice

of Government of India and the then Hon’ble Minister for

Labour intervened. Various discussions on issue of charter

of demands were held between the Federation and the

Corporation. Ultimately, memorandum of understanding

was arrived at on 22.03.1991. Relevant terms of settlement,

arrived at between the parties are reproduced thus:

All workmen at Annexure ‘A’ who had been

rendered out of employment due to retrenchment may be

reinstated in service in six phases by September 1991.

All workmen at Annexure ‘B’ who had been

rendered out of employment due to termination on account

of closure of the union of Godavari, Tehri and Loktak may

be reinstated in service in six phases by September 1991.

All those workmen of Totladoh unit who had

notionally been reinstated with effect from 22^nd November,

1989 as per Labour Court (Annexure C) Nagpur, order will

now be treated as reinstated with effect from the date of

their termination.

All workmen as mentioned in Annexure ‘D’ will

be reinstated as mentioned in Annexure ‘D’ in the same

manner as mentioned in Clause’A’ above.

All those workmen who were re-employed on the

intervention of the Honble Minister of Water Resources

in the month of June 1990 shall be deemed to have been

reinstated like others mentioned at Annexure ‘A’ above.

The workmen as mentioned in Annexure ‘E’

whose services had been terminated on account of

disciplinary grounds will be required to represent their

cases before the concerned unit officer with a copy to the

General Manager(P&) at Corporate Office stating therein

the reasons on the basis of which they request for

reinstatement. The cases of such workmen will decided

within two months from the date of representation on merit

of each case and the decision of the management will be

communicated to individual concerned. In case he is not

satisfied with the decision, he will have right to appeal to

higher authorities within three months.

G..

The workmen being reinstated in the category of

watchmen/ chowkidars/ Attendants/ Helpers/Khalasis/

Riger etc. in the unskilled/semi-skilled category shall join

in Security Discipline and will undergo training for

performance of their duties as Security Guards/Watchman.

In case in future vacancy arises in semi –skilled categories

such as Khalasis, Attendants etc., the workmen absorbed

in Security Discipline will be given preference for their

original cadre as per seniority. Management will also

ascertain vacancy in these categories.

Those workmen who are being reinstated and

who possess valid driving licence and experience may be

deployed as HEM/HM/LV Drivers after taking their trade

test and interviews etc.

Those workmen being reinstated in the category

of supervisors who have qualifications of Matriculation/

Intermediate/Graduation may be offered a chance of

selection against the vacancies as Junior Clerk-Typist/

Junior

Clerk(Accounts)/Store

Keepers/Junior

Stenographers etc. These workmen will be claim promotion

above the cadre of Senior Clerks(Accounts Clerk/

Storekeeper/Compounder unless they acquire Graduation

Degree/Professional/requisite qualifications in their

discipline.

All those workman including Totladoh mentioned

at ‘C’ above are being reinstated by virtue of the settlement

may be allowed basic pay suitably fixed in pay scales in

which they were working at the time of retrenchment/

termination. They shall not get any benefits for the

intervening period viz. wages, PF, Gratuity, leave, bonus

etc.

Only II class train/business fare shall be

admissible to any of the reinstated workmen for joining

the place of duty.

Posting orders in respect of reinstated workmen

will be communicated to individual workmen on their

permanent postal address available in the records of the

Corporation directing them to join within a period of one

month form the date of issue of the letter, failing which

order of reinstatement will be treated as cancelled and

claim for reinstatement will be forfeited.

It is also agreed that those 55 workmen of Totladoh

unit who had accepted retrenchment compensation in full

tendered to them at the time of termination of their services

on account of closure of Totladoh unit but were reinstated

as per Labour Court, Nagpur order, shall refund the amount

of such compensation received by them within one month

time, failing which their services shall be retrenched and

all legal dues shall be paid as per provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act.

29. Shri Phool Singh was reinstated in service on

25.06.1993. He served the Corporation till 24.01.1996, when

he was relieved on seeking voluntary retirement, under a

scheme formulated by the Corporation. Question for

consideration before this Tribunal is as to whether period

of interregnum can be treated as service rendered by Shri

Phool Singh to the Corporation. For an answer to this

proposition, terms of settlement provide a guide. As

4940

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

detailed above, all the employees, reinstituted by virtue of

the settlement, were allowed basic pay, suitably fixed in

pay scales in which they were working at the time of

retrenchment/termination. However, they were not to get

any benefit for the intervening period, such as wages,

provident fund, gratuity, leave, bonus, etc. Therefore, it is

evident that the claimant was not to get any benefit for the

intervening period for which he was not in the active

service of the Corporation.

30. Shri Sharma argued that the said period shall be

reckoned for the purpose of pension to be fixed under the

pension scheme. Shri Kumar claims that submissions of

Shri Sharma are in contravention of the terms of the pension

scheme. For appreciation of rival submissions, provisions

of the pension scheme are to be taken note of. When

scanned, it came to light that the pension scheme details

as to how eligible service of an employee is to be

determined. For the sake of convenience, relevant portion

of the pension scheme is extracted thus:

“The eligible service shall be determined as follows:

(a)In the case of ‘new entrant’, the ‘actual service’ shall

be treated as eligible service. The total actual service shall

be rounded off to the nearest year. The fraction of service

for six months or more shall be treated as one year and the

service less than six months shall be ignored.

Explanation: In the case of employees

employed seasonally in any establishment

the period of ‘actual service’ in any year,

notwithstanding that such service is less

than a year shall be treated as full year.

(b)

In the case of the ‘existing member’, the

aggregate of actual service and the ‘past

service’ shall be treated as eligible service.

Provided that if there is any period in the

‘past service’ for which the contributions

towards the Family Pension Scheme, 1971

has not been received, the said period shall

count as eligible service only if the

contributions thereof have been received

in the Employees Pension fund.

Explanation : For the purpose of this sub-

paragraph, the total past service for less

than six months shall be ignored and the

total past service for six months and above

shall be rounded to a year”.

31. As projected above, to count aggregate of actual

service and past service, eligible service would be

reckoned only if contributions thereof has been received

in the employees pension fund. Shri Sharma could not

dispel the proposition that claimant opted not to deposit

his contribution in the pension fund for the intervening

period. When the claimant had not deposited his

contribution for the intervening period, the said period

would not be reckoned as eligible service for pension under

the pension scheme.

32. When intervening period is not to be reckoned,

claimant had rendered service of 8 years, 1 month and 15

days only. Whether that service would entitle the claimant

for pension under the pension scheme. Answer lies in

negative. The pension scheme contemplates eligible

service of 10 years or more for getting superannuation

pension or early pension by an employee. For sake of

convenience, relevant portion of the scheme in that regard

is extracted thus:

“Monthly Member’s Pension

(1)

A member shall be entitled to :

Superannuation pension if he has

rendered eligible service of 10 years or

more and retires on attaining the age of

58 years.

Early pension, if he has rendered eligible

service of 10 years or more and retires

or otherwise ceases to be in the

employment before attaining the age of

58 years.

(2)

In the case of a new entrant the amount of

monthly superannuation pension or early

pension, as the case may be, shall be

computed in accordance with the following

factors, namely:

Monthly member’s pension = Pensionable salary x

Pensionable service”

33. Since the claimant had not rendered eligible service

for superannuation pension or early pension, he is not

entitled to project a claim against the Corporation for grant

of pension in his favour. His claim on that ground is

unfounded. The Corporation is found to be justified in

depriving pensionery benefits to the claimant.

34. Pay of the claimant was fixed in the scale of Rs.175-

8-255 on 17.07.1987, the date when he was retrenched from

service by the Corporation. On his reinstatement, pursuant

to memorandum of settlement referred above, his pay was

fixed in the said scale of pay. His basic pay was fixed at

Rs.255 per month. Claimant could not project any

irregularity or ambiguity in his pay fixation order.

Resultantly, it is crystal clear that notional fixation of pay

of the claimant at Rs.255.00 per month in pay scale Rs.175-

8-255 on 15.06.1993 was in consonance with the terms of

settlement, referred above. The Corporation was justified

in fixing his pat at Rs. 255 in the above scale. The claimant

is not entitled to any relief on this count too.

35. In view of the foregoing reasons, the claimant is not

entitled to any relief. His claim statement deserves

dismissal. Discarding his claim statement, an award is

passed in favour of the Corporation and against the

claimant. It be sent to the appropriate Government for

publication.

Dated : 05.06.2014

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4941

ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1904

dk-vk- 1904.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy

eSustj] vyXxIik VsDlVkbYl] vyxIik uxj ds

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

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

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

7@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

20@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@128@2013&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

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

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2014

S.O. 1904.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 7/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the General Manager, Alagappa

Textiles, Alagappa Nagar and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 20/06/2014.

[No. L-42011/128/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K.VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

Present : Shri. D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B,

Presiding Officer

(Monday the 26^th day of May, 2014/5^th Jyaishtha, 1936)

ID 7/2014

Union

: The General Secretary

Trichur District Textile Mazdoor Sangh

PO – Alagappa Nagar

ALAPUZHA (KERALA)

Management : The General Manager Alagappa Textiles

Alagappa Nagar ALAPUZHA

(KERALA)

By Adv. Shri P Ramakrishnan

This case coming up for final hearing on 23.05.2013

and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 26.05.2013 passed

the following:

AWARD

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

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

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

Government of India, Ministry of Labour has referred the

industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication as per

Order No-L-42011/128/2013-IR(DU) dated 10.02.2014.

2. The dispute is:

“Whether the action of the management of Alagappa

Textile Mills in promoting Shri Sashidharan to the

post of Jobber/Maistry by overlooking the cadre

seniority of Shri Lawrence is correct? If not to what

relief he entitled?”

3. After the receipt of the reference it was numbered as

ID 7/2014 and notice was issued to the union and the

management. After receipt of notice union did not enter

appearance and file any claim statement in spite of several

adjournments and hence the union was set ex-parte.

4. Management filed an affidavit by making averments

justifying the action of promoting Shri Sashidharan to the

post of Jobber. It is averred that Shri Sashidharan is senior

to Shri Lawrence as per the seniority list published on

01.04.2012 and he is senior on considering the date of

joining as well. Promotion is not a vested right and it will

be at the discretion of the company based on seniority

and suitability. Shri Sasidharan was promoted to the post

of Jobber on finding that he is the most suitable person

for holding the post.

5. As the union did not participate in the proceedings

and remains ex-parte it can only be held that the action of

the management in promoting Shri Sasidharan to the post

of Jobber is correct in view of the averments in the affidavit

filed by the management.

6. In the result an award is passed holding that the

action of the management of Alagappa Textile Mills in

promoting Shri Sasidharan to the post of Jobber/Maistry

is correct. Hence the workman Shri Lawrence is not entitled

to any relief.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and

typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 26^th

day of May, 2014.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1905.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phQ iksLV

ekLVj tujy ldZy vkSj vnlZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn

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

vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k CGITA 561/2004½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@06@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@247@2002&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

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

4942

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2014

S.O. 1905.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. CGITA

561/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Chief Post Master General,

Manager, Gujarat circle and Others and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

24/06/2014.

[No. L-40012/247/2002-IR(DU)]

P. K.VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer,

CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 17^th April, 2014

Reference (CGITA) No. 561/2004

Reference (I.T.C) No.35 of 2003 (old)

Reference Adjudication order No. L-40012/247/

2002-IR(DU),

The Chief Post Master General,

Gujarat Circle, Khanpur,

Ahmedabad

The Sub Post Master,

Sub Post Office,

Petlad-388450

... (1^st party)

And

Their workman

Sh. M.S. Pathan,

Patanwada,

Near Masjid,

Petlad-388450

...(2^nd party)

For the First Party

: Shri P.M. Rami, Asst. Govt.

Pleader

For the Second Party : Shri Bhargav M. Joshi, Advocate

Shri A.P. Rawal, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi

vide its order No. L-40012/247/2002-IR(DU) dated

30.06.2003, reconsidering the dispute existing between the

employer in relation to the management of Chief Post

Master General, Ahmedabad and their workman in view of

direction of the of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in

W.P. No. 4445 of 2005, referred the dispute for adjudication

to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in respect of the

matters specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Chief

Post Master General, Ahmedabad in terminating

services of Sh. M.S. Pathan is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?”

2. The case of the 2^nd party (workman) as per statement

of claim (Ext. 4) is that he was working as peon in the sub

post office, Petlad as a casual labourer. Initially he was

given work for a short duration. Then since July, 1985 he

has put in three years of continuous service before

terminated. After termination he filed O.A. No. 564/89 with

prayer to direct the postal Dept. to regularise his services

on the basis that he had completed 360 days of service in

the 1^st party office. The O.A. was disposed of vide order

dated 21.11.1997 directing the postal dept. to consider the

case of regularisation but not decided the question of

termination and/or legality and propriety of the order of

termination. Several representation were made to the 1^st

party department to consider his case for regularisation

and the 1^st party department informed vide its letter dated

19.07.2002 that you do not fulfil the condition of scheme

for regularisation. Thereafter dispute was raised before

the conciliation officer ALC (Central) Ahmedabad who

refused to refer the dispute vide order dated 07.01.2003.

Then he filed in S.C.A No. 4445/2003 before the Hon’ble

High Court and the Hon’ble Court quashed the order dated

07.01.2003 and directed to refer the dispute for adjudication

and the dispute was then referred as per schedule for

adjudication. The case of the 2^nd party is that the 1^st party

has violated the provision of section 25F, G and H of the

I.D. Act by illegally terminating his services without paying

retrenchment compensation, not following seniority list

and engaging new casual worker for same work which he

was doing. On these grounds, prayer is to declare the

action of the 1^st party in terminating his services illegal,

improper and unjust and for his reinstatement with

consequential benefits and back wages and also to any

other relief to which he is found entitled.

3. As against this the contention of the 1^st party inter

alia as per written statement (ext.15) is that the reference is

not maintainable, the 2^nd party has no cause of action , the

2^nd party has not come up with clean hands and has

concealed the true facts in the statement of claim, the

reference is bad for delay and latches. The averment of

para 1 to 5 of the S/c are not true and so denied. The 2^nd

party was outsider casual worker working in Group ‘D’ as

substitute during leave vacancy of regular Group ‘D’staff

of sub post office, Petlad and that he was not working as

regular staff, he never completed 240 days works in the

calendar year. It has been denied that the 2^nd party was

illegally terminated and principle of natural justice was

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4943

violated. The 1^st party has not violated the provision of

section 25 F, G and G of the I.D. Act. On these scores,

prayer is to dismiss the reference since the 2^nd party is not

entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

4. In view of the rival contention of the parties, the

following issues are taken for determination:

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference maintainable?

(ii)

Has the 2^nd party Shri. M.S. Pathan any valid

cause of action to raise industrial dispute against

the 1^st party?

(iii)

Whether the reference is barred by delay and

latches?

(iv)

Whether the 2^nd party Shri M.S. Pathan is

workman u/s. 2(S) of the I.D. Act? Where relation

of master and servant exist between the 1^st party

and the 2^nd party?

(v)

Whether the 2^nd party Shri. M.S .Pathan has

completed 240 days’ work in the Calendar year

preceding his termination?

(vi)

Whether the action of the management of chief

post master General, Ahmedabad in terminating

the services of Sh. M.S. Pathan is legal and

justified?

(vii)

Whether the 2^nd party (workman) is entitled to

the relief of reinstatement with back wages? What

relief he is entitled to in this case?

FINDINGS

5. ISSUE NO. (iv) and (v):- The 2^nd party in his evidence

(Ext.11) vide para-9 of cross-examination states that he

was working as peon on the vacant post of Peon at Petlad

sub-post office on 11.03.1985 and he was removed from

work on 30.06.1988 and that he was getting Rs. 950/- per

month salary. Vide para 11 he deposed that during his

period of works from 1985 to 1986 the Postal Department

did not pass order for his regularisation and did not also

give right for permanency on the post. Though he claims

that he was not working temporarily, rather working on

permanent post. The 1^st party witness Shri Salimmbhai

Ibrahim, Asst. Postal Officer in his oral evidence (Ext.18)

says that Shri M.S. Pathan had been appointed purely on

temporary basis and he worked from 1985 to 1988 for three

years but did not work for 240 days in any year. He was

out sider workman when regular staff went on leave he

was working in his place. During cross-examination vide

para-5 he admit that after termination of M.S. Pathan the

regular staff still go on leave but M.S. Pathan was not

called back to work as substitute rather the sub postmaster

Petlad can say in details regarding the reason but he cannot

say and that if Sub-Post Master want then he can easily

keep M.S. Pathan on work. Besides, the oral evidence of

both side as discussed Ext. 9/1 the original letter of sub-

post master (LSG) Petlad addressed to senior

superintendent of post Office Kheda Division, Nadiad on

the subject of CAT judgement in O.A. No. 441/90 reveals

that Shri M.S. Pathan was working form 11.03.1985 to

30.06.1988 in Gr. D/Peon cadre reason for his engagement

as substitute on leave period of Shri H.J. Vyas, Postman,

Petlad and Shri M.S. Pathan has worked 1 year 8 month 16

days and that the reason for continuance as substitute for

long period as H. J. Vyas Pman Petlad was on long leave

and so Shri M.S. Pathan continued on work. It has also

been in corporated that Shri M.S. Pathan has worked vice

Shri H.J .Vyas who is class IV Gr. D Petlad and that Shri H.

J. Vyas class IV Petlad was promoted as Postman from Gr.

D Petlad during vacant period. This clearly go to prove

that the Gr. D post was vacant on which Shri M.S. Pathan

was working since promotion of H.J. Vyas and Shri M.S.

Pathan has continued to work for long period. Ext. 9/2 and

9/3 are carbon copy of letter dated 19.08.19999 and

30.07.1998 of post master General Vadodara Region,

Vadodara to Shri M.S. Pathan intimating that the scheme

is not yet finalised and that case of M.S. Pathan is under

consideration. Ext. 7/1 is zerox copy of letter dated

19.07.1999 of M.S. Pathan to sub-post Master Petlad. Ext.

7/1 is zerox copy of letter of post master general, Vadodara

(Ext.9/2 is original). Ext.7/3 is copy is pleader’s notice of

M.M. Pathan, Advocate dated 10.08.1998 to Asst. Director,

Postal Service, Vadodara. Ext.7/4 is zerox copy of original

letter (Ext.9/3) Ext. 9/4 is zerox copy of order dated

21.11.1997 of CAT in O.A. No. 504/1989. Ext. 9/6 is copy of

order of High Court of Gujarat S.C.A. No. 4445 of 2003

dated 30.04.2003 directing the R.L.C (Central) to reconsider

the matter for referring dispute for adjudication.

6. Thus on consideration of the oral and documentary

evidence, I am of the firm opinion and therefore find and

hold that the 2^nd party Shri M.S. Pathan is a ‘workman ‘of

the 1^st party as defined under section 2(S) of the I.D. Act

and there exist relation of master and servant . I further

find and hold that the 2^nd party Shri M.S. Pathan has

completed 240 days work in calendar year preceding his

termination w.e.f. 30.06.1988. So these issues are answered

in affirmative in favour of the 2^nd party.

7. ISSUE NO. (vi):- As per findings to issue no. (iv) and

(v) in the foregoings , I further find that the 2^nd party Shri

M.S. Pathan has worked for more than one year in

continuity but even then the management of the 1^st party

failed to observe the mandatory provision of section 25F

of the I.D. Act in not giving him one month notice, or

notice pay and retrenchment compensation and

discontinued/terminated him on 30.06.1988 without cogent

reason. So the action of the management of chief post

master General, Ahmedabad in terminating the services of

Shri M.S. Pathan is illegal and unjustified. This issue is

4944

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

answered in negative against the management of the 1^st

party.

8. ISSUE NO. (iii) :- Since after termination of Shri M.S.

Pathan, he was agitating the matter against the management

before the Hon’ble CAT, Ahmedabad and then before the

Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat. So there is no delay and

latches on part of the 2^nd party. This issue is answered in

negative.

9. ISSUE NO. (i) and (ii) :- In view of the findings to

issue No. (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) in the foregoing paragraphs,

I further find and hold that the reference is maintainable

and the 2^nd party (workman) has valid cause of action to

raise dispute against the 1^st party, employer.

10. ISSUE NO. (vii):- In the past due to violation of the

mandatory provisions of section 25F of the I.D. Act by the

employer, usually the casual workman who completed

240 days work in calendar years were granted relief for

reinstatement to work with back wages to any percentage

according to the merit of each case. But now there have

been changes in the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court that

since casual worker even completing 240 days work in

some year do not hold a post as that of regular employee.

So, as a matter of right casual worker cannot claim

reinstatement, rather a reasonable compensation should

be awarded to them. In the case of senior superintendent

Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal &

others (2010 III CLR 17) it has been held by their Lordship

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (D.B.) –”grant of reasonable

compensation to the workman instead of reinstatement

and back wage in the case of termination of service is

found illegal will sub serve the ends of justice” so in the

instant case even if the 2^nd party workman Shri M.S. Pathan

was working form 07.03.1985 to 30.06.988 and completed

240 days work in a calendar year as substitute casual

labourer, he as a matter of right cannot claim for

reinstatement with back wages, because he did not hold a

post as that of regular employee. However, he is entitled

for reasonable compensation from his employer since his

termination has been held to be illegal and unjustified.

11. So regard being had to the facts and circumstances

that the 2^nd party Shri M.S. Pathan worked as substitute

Gr. D for long in leave vacancy at Petlad Sub Post office

for one year eight month 16 days as per Ext.9/1. He is

awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. Fifty Thousand

Only (Rs.50,000) form the 1^st party which will sub serve the

ends of justice in this case. So this issue is decided

accordingly. The reference is allowed in part. No order of

any cost.

The 1^st party is directed to pay the compensation in one

lump sum to the 2^nd party workman Shri M.S. Pathan within

one month of receipt of copy of award, failing which the

amount of compensation will carry interest @ 9% per

annum.

Let two copies of award be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication on u/s 17(1) of the I.D. Act,

1947.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1906

dk-vk- 1906.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lqifjUVsUMsUV

vpkZ;ksykWftLV vpkZ;ksykWftdy losZ vkWQ+ bafM;k] vkxjk ds

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

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

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 68

of 2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

20@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@23@2006&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

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

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2014

S.O. 1906.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 68 of

2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Suptd. Archaeologist,

Archaeological Survey of India, Agra and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

20/06/2014.

[ No. L-42012/23/2006-IR(DU)]

P. K.VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 68 of 2006

Between-

Sri Raj WardhanTiwari,

Son of Sri Ram Ji Lal Tiwari,

Mohalla Hundawala,

Bouhram Gali,

District Faridabad

And

The Suptd. Archaeologist,

Archaeological Survey of India,

22 Mall Road,

Agra.

A W A R D

Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide

notification No. L-42012/23/2006-IR DU dated

11.09.2006, has referred the following dispute for

adjudication to this tribunal-

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4945

Whether the action of the management

Archaeological Survey of India, Agra, in terminating

the services of Sri Raj Wardhan Tiwari, casual

photographer with effect from 01.10.93 is legal and

justified? If not what relief the workman concerned

entitled to?

Brief facts are-

It has been alleged by the claimant that he was

engaged as a casual photographer with effect from

07.09.92 and worked there till 30.09.93, as such he

has completed for more than 240 days in a calendar

year with the opposite party at 22 Mall Road Agra.

But the opposite party without any reason and

without issuing any notice has terminated his

services w. e. f. 01.10.93, as such the opposite party

has committed the breach of the provisions of section

25F, 25G and 25 H of the Act, as junior to him by

name Sri Sunil is still working with the opposite party.

One vacancy in photographer Gr. III has fallen vacant

in June 95, for which the claimant has also sent an

application in Feb. 97, but the opposite party did

not call him for interview and the candidate was

selected through direct recruitment. It is also alleged

that the clamant is unemployed.

Therefore, on the basis of above it has been prayed

that he be reinstated in service with full back wages

and all consequential benefits.

The opposite party has refuted the claim of the

claimant by filing written statement. They have stated

that th claimant was engaged for highly intermittent

casual nature of job work on daily labor charge basis.

There was no further recruitment for engaging him

as the job for which he was engaged was finished

hence his services were came to an end by efflux of

time. The clamant had worked only for a total period

of 172 days between 07.09.92 to15.09.93, as such no

cause of action has arisen on 01.10.93, as such he

has not completed 240 days in a calendar year

therefore, under these circumstances of the case

question of making compliance of the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not arise and

the claimant’s case being devoid of merit is liable to

be dismissed.

It is stated that the case of Sri Sunil is different and

cannot be compared with the present applicant. Sri

Sunil who has been presently engaged has filed I.D.

No. 22 of 91 which culminated in his favor including

upto the Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, due to the

order of the Hon’ble High Court he has been paid

his wages. It is wrong to say that the post of

photographer Gr.III has fallen vacant; therefore,

question of fresh interview does not arise. The claim

is highly belated being raised after 12 years from the

date of alleged termination and no appointment order

was ever issued by the management.

Both the parties have filed documentary evidence

as well as adduced oral evidence.

10.

Claimant has filed several documents vide list paper

No.19/2 and these documents are vide paper

No.19/3-95.

11.

Opposite party has filed the original service record

of the claimant, which is paper No. 37/1.

12.

Claimant has adduced himself in evidence as ww.1,

opposite party has adduced m.w.1 Sri Mohit Kumar

who is In-charge of Photo Section. He has

specifically stated on oath that the claimant was

engaged as a casual labor on daily rate basis

according to the need of work on 07.09.92 but during

this date and the date of his dispensation from

service i.e. 15.09.93, he has not continuously worked

for 240 days. He has worked only for 172 days during

the aforesaid period.

13.

The opposite party has produced the original register

of photo section wherein at page 10-11 there is a

mention of the work of the claimant. Opposite party

has also filed the relevant record which is paper

No.37/1 which relates to the claimant. It is a record

of photo section mentioning as daily rate casual

worker. It clearly shows that the workman has worked

only for 172 day.

14.

The opposite party has also filed the photocopy of

the original register which are paper No.29/1 and

onwards.

15.

The claimant has filed several documents which are

the photocopies. From this record there is no such

cogent evidence from which it can be inferred that

the claimant had worked for 240 days or more.

Therefore, from the paper 19/3-95, claimant cannot

get any benefit. There is no such paper amongst

these papers which may prove that th claimant had

worked for 240 days or more and some right has

accrued to him.

16.

I have examined the oral evidence adduced by the

workman, but there is no such cogent evidence in

support of the oral statement whereas the opposite

party has specifically stated on oath and filed

relevant records and documents pertaining to the

concerned workman.

17.

As such there is no reason to discard the evidence

adduced by the opposite party either oral or

documentary.

18.

Therefore, the claimant has failed to prove his case

under the provisions of the Act, as such it is held

that the workman is not entitled for any relief

pursuant to the present reference order.

19.

Reference is answered accordingly.

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer

4946

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1907

dk-vk- 1907.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,;j Q+kslZ]

,ebZ,l] ljlkok ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufn"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 82/2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 20@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&14012@08@2013&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

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

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2014

S.O.

1907.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 82/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No.2, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Air Force, MES, Sarsawa and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 20/06/2014.

[No. L-14012/08/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

ROOM NO. 33, BLOCKS-A, GROUND FLOOR,

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,

KARKARDOOMA, DELHI-110 032

Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 82/13

Sh. Om Kumar

Versus

Air Force, MES Sarsawa.

No DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide

notification No. L-14012/08/2013-IR(DU) dated 11.07.2013

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this tribunal

for adjudication :-

Whether the action of the management of Garrison

Engineer , Air Force, Sarsawa and M/s. Mahadev

Electricals, Saharanpur in terminating the services of

Sh. Om Kumar S/o Sh. Brijpal Singh, DG Set Operator,

w.e.f. 12.01.2012, in violation of provision of section 25

FGH of ID Act, 1947 is unjustified? To what relief the

workman concerned is entitled to?

On 23.07.2013 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D. No. 82/2013 and claimants were

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.

Claimant/Workman was called upon to file Claim

Statement on 10.09.2013 but claimant/workman has not

filed claim statement even thereafter inspite of several

opportunities. Then on 18.02.2014 this tribunal directed

management to file response. Management filed response

in the shape of written statement on 23.11.2013. Wherein

management mentioned as follows:-

Preliminary Objections:-

That the present reference is bad in law, without

application of mind and in a stereo type manner

hence liable to be dismissed.

That the present statement of claim is not

maintainable as the provisions of ID. Act, 1947 are

not applicable to the answering Respondent as it

performs the sovereign function of the Government

and does not carry out any activity related to

production, distribution, or supply of goods or

services meant for satisfying for human wants.

That there is no relationship of employer and

employee and that of a master and servant existing

or otherwise exists between the claimant and the

answering Respondent.

That the present claim petition has no cause of action

against the answering Respondent as Claimant had

never been engaged as an employee of the answering

Respondent.

That by virtue of the position of the claimant and

the status of the claimant and being an employee of

the contractor agency he did not answer the

description of the word “Workman” as defined in

the clause (s) of Sec.2 of I.D. Act, 1947. In view of

this the claim of the claimant is utterly misconceived

and the same deserves to be dismissed out rightly.

That the above said claimant may have been engaged

by the Respondent No. 2 and the claimant has/had

never been engaged as an employee of the answering

Respondent.

That the above claimant has no locus standi to file

this claim against the answering Respondent being

there is no industrial dispute between the claimant

and answering respondent.

That the claim petition is not maintainable as the

claimant have not come with clean hands and

concocted the material facts before the Hon’ble

Tribunal, the claim appears to be less substantiated

with facts. Hence the claim deserves dismissal being

a misplaced ere-supposition.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4947

That the present petition is not maintainable in view

of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma

Devi & Ors. [2006(4)SCC 1], Surender Prasad Tiwari

Vs. U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad

[Appeal (civil) 3981 of 2006] as the applicant has no

cause of action for filing the present petition as it is

settled law that a person who is engaged as casual

labour/contractual worker, cannot claim any right

either for regularization or for seeking any parity

with the other regular employees. Para 11 and part

of para 34 and 36 of the judgment [State of Karnataka

Vs. Uma Devi & Ors [2006(4)SCC 1] read as under:-

“In spite of this scheme, there may be occasions

when the sovereign state or its instrumentalities will

have to employ to persons, in posts which are

temporary, on daily wages, as additional hands or

taking them in without following the required

procedure, to discharge the duties in respect of the

posts that are sanctioned and that are required to be

filled in terms of the relevant procedure established

by the Constitution or for work in temporary posts

or projects that are not indeed permanently. This

right of the Union or of the State Government cannot

be recognized and there is nothing in the constitution

which prohibited such engaging of persons

temporarily or on daily wages, to meet the needs of

the situation. But the fact that such engagements

are resort to, cannot be used to defeat the very

scheme of public employment. Nor can a court say

that the Union or the State Government do not have

the right to engage persons in various capacities for

short duration or until the work in a particular project

is completed. Since this right of the Government is

recognized and the mandate of the constitutional

requirement for public employment is respected,

there cannot be much difficulty in coming to the

conclusion that it is ordinary not proper for courts

whether acting under Article 266 of the constitution

or under Article 32 of the constitution, to direct

absorption in permanent employment for those who

have been engaged without following a due process

for selection as envisaged by the constitutional

scheme.

….Thus it is clear that adherence to the rule of

equality in public employment is a basic feature of

our constitution and since the rule of law is the core

of our constitution, a court would certainly be

disabled from passing an order upholding a violation

of article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the

need to comply with the requirements of Article 14

read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore,

consistent with the scheme for public employment,

this court while laying down the law, as necessary

to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of

the relevant rules and after a proper competition

among qualified persons. If it is a contractual

appointment, the appointments come to an end at

the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or

appointment on daily wages of casual basis; the

same would come to an end when it is discontinued.

Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to

be permanent on the expiry of his term appointment.

It has been clarified that merely because a temporary

employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a

time bound term of his appointment, he would not

be entitled to be observed 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.

While directing that appointments, temporary or

casual, be regularized or made permanent, courts

are swayed by the fact that the concerned person

has worked for some time and in some cases for a

considerable length of time. It is not as if the person

who accepts an engagement either temporary or

casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his

employment. He accepts the employment with the

eyes open. It may be true that he is no in a position

to bargain-not at arm’s length-since he might have

been searching for some employment so as to take

out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets.

But on that ground alone it would not be appropriate

to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment

and to take the view that a person who has

temporarily or casually got employed should be

directed to be continued permanently. By doing so,

it will be creating another mode of public appointment

which is not permissible. If the court were to avoid a

contractual appointment of this nature on the ground

that the parties were not having equal bargaining

power, that too would not enable the court to grant

any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such

casual or temporary employment is not possible,

given the exigencies of administration and is

imposed , would only mean that some people who at

least get employment temporarily, contractually or

casually would not be getting even that employment

when securing of such employment brings at least

some succor to them. After all, innumerable citizens

of our vast country are in search of employment and

one is not compelled to accept a casual or temporary

employment if one is not inclined to go in for such

an employment. It is in that context that one has to

proceed on the basis that the employment was

accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the

consequences following from it. In other words, even

while accepting the employment, the person

concerned knows the nature of his employment.

4948

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of

the term. The claim acquired by him in the post in

which he is temporarily employment or the interest

in that post cannot be considered to be of such a

magnitude as to enable the giving of the procedure

established, for making regular appointments to

available posts in the services of the state. The

arguments that since one has been working for some

time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue

him, even though he was aware of the nature of the

employment when he first took it up, is not one that

would enable the jettisoning of the procedure

established by law for public employment and would

have to fail when tested on the touchstone of the

constitutionality and equality of opportunity

enshrined in Article 14 of the constitution of India.

On the basis of which management prayed to dismiss

the claim statement of workman and give its award

accordingly.

I have heard the Ld. A/R for management.

I perused the pleadings of management which are on

record. Which makes it crystal clear that this tribunal has

no option except to pass. No Dispute Award and reference

is liable to be decided in favour of management and against

workman.

Which is accordingly decided.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:16/05/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1908

dk-vk- 1908.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj

tujy ¼oDlZ½ lhihMCY;wMh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh

ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 46/2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@142@2011&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

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

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2014

S.O. 1908.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 46/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Director General (Works), CPWD

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 20/06/2014.

[No. L-42011/142/2011-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI.

I.D. No.46/2012

The General Secretary,

CPWD Mazdoor Union,

Room No.95, Barracks No.1/10,

Jam Nagar House, Shahjahan Road,

New Delhi-110011.

...Workman

Versus

The Director General (Works),

CPWD,

Nirman Bhawan,

New Delhi-110001.

...Management

AWARD

Central Public Works Department (hereinafter referred

to as the management) engages casual employees on

muster roll/hand receipt basis. Shri Vinod Kumar was

engaged as mason on hand receipt basis by the

management on 01.07.1986. He served the management

for 22 years, 6 months and 24 days, till he breathed his last

on 24.01.2009. His services were not regularized by the

management. During his life time, he approached the

CPWD Karamchari Union(hereinafter referred to as the

union) for redressal of his grievance. The union raised a

dispute before the Conciliation Officer, which dispute was

contested by the management. However, during pendancy

of the dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Shri Vinod

Kumar breathed his last. Smt. Anita Rani, his widow, was

substituted in the dispute and she claimed compassionate

appointment, in the service of the management. Since the

management contested her claim also, conciliation

proceedings ended into a failure. On consideration of failure

report, submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate

government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication vide order No.L-42011/142/2011-IR(DU) New

Delhi dated 15.02.2012 with following terms:

“1. Whether Shri Vinod Kumar, daily rated mason

employed by CPWD is entitled for regularization of

services with effect from 01.07.1986, the date of his

initial appointment? What relief the workman is

entitled?

2. Whether Smt. Anita Devi, widow of late Shri Vinod

Kumar is entitled for compassionate appointment?

What relief widow of the workman is entitled to?”

2. Claim statement was filed by and on behalf of Smt.

Anita Devi, pleading therein that late Shri Vinod Kumar

was initially engaged as mason by the management on

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4949

hand receipt basis with effect from 01.07.1986. He was

deputed to work in S Division, CPWD, East Block, R.K.

Puram, New Delhi. He completed more than 20 years of

service. His services were not regularized by the

management. Pursuant to directions given by the Apex

Court in Surender Singh [1986 (52) FLR 216] the

management created 8982 posts in various categories and

regularized daily rated employees on those posts. Despite

creation of those posts, Shri Vinod Kumar was arbitrarily

singled out and not regularized in service by the

management.

3. Shri Vinod Kumar breathed his last on 25.01.2009.

He was survived by Smt. Anita Devi and Master Rahul

and Master Hemant, his widow and sons respectively.

He left the family in penury and Smt. Anita Devi is entitled

for compassionate appointment. On many occasions,

management has given compassionate appointment to

survivors of daily rated workers. However, Smt. Anita Devi

was illegally declined compassionate appointment in

service. In case services of Sri Vinod Kumar would have

been regularized, Smt. Anita Devi would have been given

family pension. She claims regularization of services of

her husband with effect from 01.07.1986 or from the date

when services of his juniors were regularized, besides

family pension as well as appointment on compassionate

grounds in her favour.

4. The management could not dispute that Shri Vinod

Kumar was engaged as mason on hand receipt basis with

effect from 01.07.1986. It has been pleaded that he was

given pay and allowances at minimum of the time scale for

the post of mason upto the date of his death, which

occurred on 25.01.2009. It has also not been disputed that

he had rendered more than 20 years of service till the date

of his death. The management projects that services of

Shri Vinod Kumar were initially engaged after imposition

of ban on recruitments, vide order dated 19.11.1985. 8982

posts were created by the department, pursuant to

directions of Apex Court for regularization of eligible

workers who were engaged before imposition of ban on

19.11.1985. All workers were regularized from prospective

dates and not from the dates of their initial engagement.

Since Shri Vinod Kumar was engaged on 01.07.1986, he

was not considered for regularization against posts, so

created by the management. However, the Apex Court in

Uma Devi [2006 (4) SCC I] directed the Union of India,

State Governments and their instrumentalities to take steps

to regularize services of the employees reengaged in an

irregular manner, who had rendered more than 10 years of

service, as one time measure.

5. In compliance of that judgement, details of Shri Vinod

Kumar were forwarded to the competent authority, but he

expired before receipt of approval for regularization of his

services. Hence, his case could not be considered for

regularization. Owing to his death, he was not in a position

to fulfill requirement of recruitment rules such as medical

examination on his entry in service and verification of

character and antecedents. Since he had not rendered

regular service, Smt. Anita Devi is not entitled to family

pension. Compassionate appointment is granted to widow

or kin of a deceased Government employee, who rendered

confirmed service. Since Shri Vinod Kumar had not

rendered services as regular employee of the management,

Smt. Anita Devi is not entitled to compassionate

appointment in service of the management. Claim put

forward by Smt. Anita Devi is liable to be dismissed, pleads

the management.

6. On perusal of pleadings, following issues were

settled:

(i)

Whether claimant was to be regularized by the

management from 11.12.2006 in terms of directions

given by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka

vs. Uma Devi?

(ii)

As in terms of reference.

7. To substantiate the claim, Ms.Anita Devi testified

facts. Shri Arab Singh, Executive Engineer, entered the

witness box to present defence of the management.

No other witness was examined by either of the parties.

8. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri B.K. Prasad,

authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the claimant. Shri Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal, authorized

representative, raised submissions on behalf of the

management. 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

9. Smt. Anita Devi declares in her affidavit Ex.WW1/A,

tendered as evidence, that her husband, namely, late Shri

Vinod Kumar was initially engaged as mason by the

management on hand receipt basis with effect from

01.07.1986. He rendered continuous service to the

management till he expired on 25.01.2009. Facts testified

by her were not disputed by Shri Arab Singh. He declares

that Shri Vinod Kumar rendered continuous service for 22

years 6 months and 24 days. Thus, it is crystal clear that

late Shri Vinod Kumar rendered continuous service of more

than 22 years with the management as mason on hand

receipt basis.

10. In Uma Devi (supra), the Apex Court was confronted

with a proposition as to whether irregularly appointed

employees are entitled for regularization in service. It was

ruled therein that an employee who has been engaged

dehors the rules is not entitled for continuation or

regularization in service. Theory of legitimate expectation

for regularization in service was also denounced by the

Apex Court. However, the Court was conscious of the

proposition that the employees, who were irregularly

4950

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

appointed, had rendered continuous service for more than

a decade to the Union of India or State Governments, as

the case may be taking into account all those situations,

the Court commanded the Union of India, State

Governments as well as its instrumentalities to take steps

for regularization of services of the employees, irregularly

appointed, as one time measure. Observations made by

the Apex Court in that regard are extracted thus:

“One aspect need to be clarified. There may be cases

where irregular appointments (not illegal

appointments) as explained in S.V.Narayanappa,

R.N.Nanjundappa and B.N.Nagarajan and referred

to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in

duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made

and the employees have continued to work for ten

years or more but without intervention of orders of

the courts or of tribunals. The question of

regularization of the services of such employees may

have to be considered on merits in the light of the

principles settled by this Court in the cases above

referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that

context, the Union of India, the State Governments

and their instrumentalities should take steps to

regularize as a one time measure, the services of

such irregularly appointed, who have worked for

ten yeas or more in duly sanctioned posts but not

under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals

and should further ensure that regular recruitments

are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts,

that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary

employees or daily wagers are being now employed.

The process must be set in motion within six months

from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if

any already made, but not sub-judice, need not be

reopened posted on this judgement, but there should

be no further by-passing of the constitutional

requirement and regularizing or making permanent,

those not duly appointed as per the constitutional

scheme.”

11. Pursuant to directions given by the Apex Court, the

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension,

Government of India, New Delhi, issued office

memorandum on 11.12.2006, which has been proved as Ex.

MW1/7. It has been detailed in Ex. MW1/7 that the Apex

Court has directed the Union of India, State Governments

and their instrumentalities to take steps for regularization

as one time measure, services of such irregularly

appointed, but who were duly qualified persons in terms

of statutory recruitment rules for the post and who have

worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts but

not under cover of orders of Courts or Tribunals. The

management also issued office order bearing No.19/176/

2004/EC-X dated 07.12.2012, which has been proved as

Ex. MW1/W5. In the said circular, it has been emphasized

that the employees who do not fulfill eligibility criteria

prescribed in existing recruitment rules but were eligible

for appointment against posts as per recruitment rules

prevailing at the time of their engagement on muster roll/

hand receipt, may be regularized in their respective

categories, if they are found eligible as per recruitment

rules prevailing at the time of their engagement on muster

roll/hand receipt.

12. Out of above office memorandum and office order it

emerged over the record that pursuant to directions given

by the Apex Court, the management started process of

regularization of services of the employees, irregularly

appointed, who were duly qualified in terms of statutory

recruitment rules and have worked for 10 years or more in

duly sanctioned posts, but not under covers of orders of

Courts or Tribunals.

13. Shri Vinod Kumar was initially engaged as mason

on hand receipt basis on 01.07.1986. The management had

not come out with a case that at the time of his engagement,

Shri Vinod Kumar did not possess requisite qualifications.

It is also not the case of the management that Shri Vinod

Kumar was overage for recruitment as mason on 01.07.1986.

Case projected by the management is that he was engaged

as mason on hand receipt basis after imposition of ban on

recruitment on 19.11.1985. Thus, it is clear that except for

imposition of ban on recruitment of employees on muster

roll, Sri Vinod Kumar was engaged in consonance with the

rules. Evidently, his engagement was irregularly made by

the management on 01.07.1986. It is admitted case of the

parties that he rendered continuous service of more than

20 years on the date when judgement in Uma Devi(supra)

was handed down by the Apex Court.

14. Whether Shri Vinod Kumar was eligible for

regularization in service? Smt. Anita Devi unfolds that as

per prevalent recruitment rules, her husband was not

having requisite educational qualifications for his

regularization in service of the management. Shri Arab

Singh presents that for appointment on the post of mason,

an incumbent should possess ITI certificate with atleast

five years’ experience in the trade. He had proved

recruitment rules for the post of mason as Ex. MW1/3.

When Ex. MW1/3 are scanned, it emerged over the record

that post of mason is Group C post and incumbent should

possess ITI certificate or equivalent in the trade with atleast

five years’ experience in the trade. He should also possess

professional knowledge as detailed below:

(a)

Should be able to use tools in common use in the

trade and in skilled manner.

(b)

to mark foundation and set out work with tape

and rule as also to prepare foundation for pumps

and other machinery

(c)

Must be able to work at height over scaffolding

(d)

Must be able to read more advanced drawings.

(e)

Should be able to dress stones/bricks well and

set them in first class work.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4951

(f)

Must be able to carry out all kinds of masonry,

i.e. masonry with various types of bonds and

arch work in case of brick work and cutting face

stones properly breaking bond in case of stone

masonry, including proper setting of bond stones

wherever called for.

(g)

Should be able to carry out all kinds of RCC work

(h)

Should be able to make cement floors (including

—— floor in panels) and be able to lay pre-cast

cement tiles and all types of glazed/ceramic floor

and dado in a workman like manner with close

joints.

(i)

Should have good working knowledge of various

lime and cement mortars for joint plastering and

pointing work and be able to prepare mortar for

the various jobs and carry out plastering and

pointing work.

(j)

Should be able to use Mechanically/ Electrically/

Battery operated machines/ tools connected with

above type of works.

15. Shri Aggarwal argued that late Shri Vinod Kumar

was not having ITI trade certificate, hence not eligible for

regularization in service. His submissions are discounted

by Shri Prasad, placing reliance on office order dated

07.12.2012, proved as Ex. MW1/W5. As noted above,

office order Ex. MW1/W5 makes it apparent that muster

roll/hand receipt workers shall be regularized in service if

they are found eligible as per recruitment rules prevailing

at the time of their engagement on muster roll/hand receipt

basis. Evidently, Shri Vinod Kumar was engaged in July

1986. Recruitment rules Ex. MW1/3 were not in force at the

time, as conceded by Shri Aggarwal. It has not been

disputed by Shri Aggarwal that in 1986, an incumbent

should possess qualification, which are detailed below,

for engagement as mason:

(a)

Should be able to use tools in common use in the

trade in skilled manner

(b)

To mark foundations and set out work with tape

and rule as also prepare foundations for pumps

and other machinery

(c)

Must be able to work at height over scaffolding

(d)

Must be able to read more advanced drawings

(e)

Should be able to dress stones/bricks well and

set them in first class work

(f)

Must be able to carry out all kinds masonry, i.e.

masonry with various types of bonds and arch

work in case of brick work and setting face stones

properly breaking bond in case of stone masonry

including proper setting of bond stones

whenever called for.

(g)

Should be able to carry out all kinds of RCC work

(h)

Should be able to make cement floors (including

mosaics in floors and panels) and be able to lay

precast cement tiles and white glazed tiles in floors

and dado in workman like manner and with close

joints

(i)

Should have good working knowledge or various

lime and cement mortars for joint plastering and

pointing work and be able to prepare mortar for

the various jobs and carry out plastering and

pointing work.

Departmental Test

(a)

Make out foundations for an additional bath room

to an existing house. Size of room 4' × 5' and

plinth 2 ft. high and structure in single storey.

(b)

Build a flat arch over a window or an arch 13 ½ ×

15’ deep over a culvert span 4 ft. after putting up

necessary centering. The fact of the arch should

show key stone projecting 2 ¾ to a side and the

entire fact to be cement pointed with colour to

match the structure. The mortar proportions to

be supplied to by the candidate.

(c)

Cut and dress a piece of flag stone to a neat

surface finis and set in the floor in replacement

of broken one.

(d)

Lay cement tiles cream coloured for a corner in a

room 4'×4'×4' and set wall dado 1'-6' in height

with similar tiles. The work should be neatly

finished including finishing of joints and to true

level and plumb.

(e)

An oral test regarding proportions and

constituents of various mortars for various

purposes.

(f)

Fix a bracket for wash hand basin in replacement

of an existing one.

(g)

Set ridge tiles over a Mangalore tiled roof or on a

hip for length of 10 feet

Make three steps 2 -1/6' long 8' size and 9' tread

and finish it up with diagonal criss cross for the

tread. The steps should be true to level and plumb.

16. Qualification which an incumbent should possess

for engagement to the post of Assistant Mason are also

detailed below:

(a)

Should be able to use tools in common use in

trade such as level square plumber etc.

(b)

Must be able to lay bricks in simple bond

(c)

Must be able to fill in hearing in case of stone

masonry

(d)

Must be able to work on heights over scaffolding

(e)

Must be able to punch holes in walls

4952

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(f)

Must be able to do patch work on walls and in

floors

(g)

Must be able to prepare rough centering for RCC

work

(h)

Must be able to carry out plastering and pointing

work

Departmental Test

(a)

Build a corner wall of 113 ½' × 13 ½' or 13 ½' × 9'

for a height of 4' and arm 4 ft. long outside and

set one of the holdfasts for a window at a height

of 3 feet above floor level. Proper care should be

taken to keep walls plumb corners square and

courses truely level and with English bond.

(b)

Punch a hold in an existing wall at a height of 9 ½'

above floor, 6' × 6' from corner The size of hole is

to be 5' ×10'. The hold should be properly finished

up in plaster to true square corners.

(c)

Put in plaster to a wallface 4' × 6' which includes

a window jamb and a corner.

17. As noted above, the recruitment rules, prevalent in

1986, nowhere contemplate that an incumbent should

possess ITI trade certificate or equivalent in the trade for

being engaged as mason. Shri Aggarwal could not dispute

that qualification for engagement to the post of mason as

prevalent in July 1986, were possessed by late Shri Vinod

Kumar. Besides above qualification, Shri Vinod Kumar

pursued a course of study under Construction Trade

Competency programme in September 2006. He also

appeared in Construction Trade Competency programme

in September 2006 and was awarded competency certificate

as mason by the Construction Industry Development

Council. He also underwent refresher course for plumber

from 31.07.2006 to 04.08.2006. His certificates in that regard

were proved as Ex.WW1/M1 to Ex.WW1/M3. Therefore,

it is emerging over the record that Shri Vinod Kumar

possessed required qualification for appointment to the

post of mason, when he was initially engaged on that post

on hand receipt basis by the management. It cannot be

said that engagement of Shri Vinod Kumar in July 1986

was in infraction of rules, except that he was engaged

during imposition of ban on engagement of employees on

muster roll. I am of the considered opinion that Shri Vinod

Kumar fulfilled all parameters of regularization of his

services as one time measure, pursuant to the directions

given by the Apex Court.

18. Seniority list of masons, as on 13.07.2006 has been

placed on record. The said list has been proved as Ex.

MW1/W1 by Shri Arab Singh. In the said seniority list,

name of Shri Vinod Kumar appears at serial no.12, while

there were four persons junior to him, whose names were

at serial Nos.13, 14, 15 and 16. Shri Arab Singh concedes

that Shri Ramesh Kumar, Shri Jeet Singh, Shri Kalu Ram

and Shri Hriday Kumar, juniors to Shri Vinod Kumar as

detailed in seniority list Ex. MW1/W1, were regularized on

11.12.2006. It is not the case of the management that juniors,

whose names have been referred above, were placed

differently than Shri Vinod Kumar was placed on 11.12.2006.

19. Can management be permitted to discard seniors

and regularize services of a junior? Answer lies in negative.

In Bal Kishan (1990 (I) LLJ 61)the Apex Court announced

that no junior shall be confirmed or promoted without

considering the case of his senior. The observations made

by the Apex Court are reproduced thus :

“In service, there could be only one norm for

conferment or promotion of persons belonging to the same

cadre. No junior shall be confirmed or promoted without

considering the case of his senior. Any deviation from

this principle will have demoralizing effect in service apart

from their being contrary to Article 16(1) of the

Constitution.”

20. In view of the above facts and law, it is evident that

Shri Vinod Kumar and Shri Ramesh Kumar, Shri Jeet Singh,

Shri Kalu Ram and Shri Hriday Kumar were placed on one

and the same pedestal, as on 11.12.2006. They cannot be

treated differently. The management projects that case of

claimant was not considered since prior to decision of the

competent authority, he breathed his last. Evidently,

regularization in service was given with retrospective

effect, viz. 11.12.2006, on which date the claimant was very

much alive. Contention, put forth by the management that

the claimant was not in a position to undergo medical

examination and verification of his character and

antecedents, is uncalled for. It is not the case of the

management that in December 2006 or thereafter, late Shri

Vinod Kumar was not medically fit to join his duties on

regular basis. It is also not a case that Shri Vinod Kumar

was involved in any criminal case, hence not eligible for

regularization of his services. Considering all these facts,

I am of the considered opinion that late Shri Vinod Kumar

is entitled for regularization of his services from 11.12.2006,

the date when his juniors were regularized as mason in

service of the management. The issue is, therefore,

answered in favour of the claimant and against the

management.

Issue No.II

21. Smt. Anita Devi could not point out anything in her

favour to project that her husband was entitled for

regularization of service with effect from 01.07.1986. As

detailed above, Shri Vinod Kumar was engaged in an

irregular manner as mason on hand receipt basis on

01.07.1986. The Apex Court had ruled in clear terms that

an employee engaged in an irregular manner has no right

to continue in service, not to talk of regularization of their

services. Thus, it is evident that Shri Vinod Kumar was

not entitled for regularization in service with effect from

01.07.1986, the date of his initial engagement as mason on

hand receipt basis. However, pursuant to directions given

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4953

by the Apex Court in Uma Devi (Supra), his case has been

considered by the Tribunal and it is ruled that he was

entitled for regularization in service with effect from

11.12.2006, the date when his juniors were regularized.

22. Shri Vinod Kumar is deemed to have rendered

service as regular mason from 11.12.2006 to 25.01.2009,

the date when he breathed his last. Smt. Anita Devi

projects that pensionery benefits were not granted to her

by the management. Question for consideration would

be as to whether she is entitled to family pension. Family

pension is granted to the family of a Government service

in the event of his death while in service or after retirement.

Family Pension Scheme 1964 was introduced with effect

from 01.01.1964. As per the Scheme, in the event of death

of a Government servant while in service or after

retirement, his family will get family pension if-

(i)

In the case of death while in service-

(a)

He has completed a minimum period of one

years’ service; or

(b)

He had been medically examined and found

fit for appointment in Government service

when his death occurred before completion

of one years’ service.

(ii)

In case of death after retirement-

He was on the date of death in receipt of pension or

compassionate allowance.

23. Family pension is payable to the family of the

deceased Government servant/pensioner. In the scheme,

family has been defined to mean-

(i)

Wife (whether marriage took place before or after

retirement in the case of male Government servant,

(ii)

Husband (whether marriage took place before or

after retirement) in the case of female Government

service,

(iii)

Unmarried son(s)/unmarried daughters (born

before or after retirement) who have not attained

the age of 25 years.

(iv)

Widowed daughters/divorced daughter (born

before or after retirement) without any age

restriction.

(v)

Parents who were wholly dependent on the

Government servant when he was alive, provided

that the deceased Government servant had left

behind neither the widow/widower nor an eligible

son or daughter or a widowed/divorced daughter

and that the earnings of the parents is not more

than Rs. 3500.00 per month.

Unmarried son(s) below the age of 25 years or married

daughter below the age of 25 years include such sons and

daughters adopted before or after retirement. Wife or

husband shall include respectively judicially separated

wife and husband.

24. From January 2006, period for which family pension

is payable is as follows:

(i)

In the case of childless widow, for life or till her

independent income from all sources becomes

equal to Rs.3500.00 per month or more, i.e. even

after remarriage.

(ii)

In the case of widow with child (ren) or widower

upto to the date of death or remarriage, whichever

is earlier.

(iii)

In the case of unmarried son/unmarried daughter,

until he/she attains age of 25 years or upto to the

date of his/her marriage or till the date from which

her/his income becomes equal to Rs.3500.00 or

more per month.

(iv)

In the case of widow (including widowed/

disabled) /divorced daughter(s) (including

disabled) for life up to the date of her remarriage

or till the date his/her income becomes equal to

Rs.3500.00 or more per month, or death, whichever

is earlier. Such daughter shall not be required to

come back to her parental home.

(v)

In the case of wholly dependent parents (till his/

her death).

25. As projected above, late Shri Vinod Kumar

completed more than 2 years service, on the date when he

expired in January 2009. Minimum service for a period of

one year rendered by a deceased employee would entitled

his widow for family pension. Since the management had

not considered the case of Smt. Anita Devi for family

pension, it is commanded that her case would be

considered for family pension on the parameters referred

above. In case her earning was not more than Rs.3500.00

in January 2009, she would be sanctioned family pension

as per scheme referred above.

26. Smt. Anita Devi seeks appointment on

compassionate grounds. Her case was not considered at

all by the management projecting that her husband was a

daily wager at the time of his death. Since late Shri Vinod

Kumar is deemed to have been confirmed in service with

effect from 11.12.2006, it would be taken into consideration

as to whether Smt. Anita Devi is entitled for compassionate

appointment in the service of the management. For an

answer to this proposition, the Tribunal is left with no

option but to consider the scheme of appointment of

compassionate appointment adopted by the Government

of India. It shall be in the fitness of things to ascertain as

to what that scheme is and to whom it is applicable.

27. Scheme of compassionate appointment applies to

dependent family member-

(B) of a Government servant who-

(a)

dies while in service(including death by suicide),

4954

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(b)

is retired on medical grounds under Rule 2 of the

CCS(Medical Examination) Rules, 1957, or

(c)

is retired on medical grounds under Rule 38 of

the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972, or

(i)

dies during service; or

(ii)

is killed in action; or

(iii)

is medically boarded out and is unfit for civil

employment

Government servant for the purpose of the scheme

means, a Government servant appointed on regular basis

and not one working on daily wage or casual or apprentice

or ad hoc or contract or re-employment basis.

28. Dependent family members has been advised to

mean:

(a)

spouse; or

(b)

son (including adopted son); or

(c)

daughter( including adopted daughter); or

(d)

brother or sister in the case of unmarried

Government servant or member of the Armed

Forces referred above, who was wholly

dependent on the Government servant/member

of the Armed Forces at the time of his death in

harness or retirement on medical grounds, as the

case may be.

29. Compassionate appointment can be made to Group

‘C’ or Group ‘D’ posts against direct recruitment quota.

For consideration of application for compassionate

appointment family of the Government servant who died

in harness or retired on medical grounds should be indigent

and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial

destitution and applicant for compassionate appointment

should be eligible and suitable for the post in all respects.

Compassionate appointments are exempted from

observance of:

(a)

Recruitment procedure.

(b)

Clearance from the Surplus Cell of the Department

of Personnel and Training/Directorate of

Employment and Training.

(c)

The ban orders on filling of posts issued by the

Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure).

30. Upper age-limit could be relaxed wherever found to

be necessary. The lower age-limit should, however, in no

case be relaxed below 18 years of age. Age eligibility is to

be determined with reference to the date of application

and not the date of appointment. Secretary to the Ministry/

Department concerned is competent to relax temporarily

educational qualifications as prescribed in the relevant

recruitment rules. In case of appointment at the lowest

level, that is, Group ‘D’ or LDC post, in exceptional

circumstances where the condition of the family is very

hard, such relaxation will be permitted up to a period of 2

years beyond which no relaxation of educational

qualification will be admissible and services of the person

concerned, if still unqualified are liable to be terminated.

Where widow is appointed on compassionate ground to a

Group ‘D’ post, she will be exempted from the requirement

of possessing the educational qualification prescribed in

the relevant rules, provided the duties of the post can be

satisfactorily performed by her without possessing such

educational qualifications.

31. Appointment on compassionate grounds should

be made only on regular basis and that too only, if regular

vacancies meant for that purpose are available. Such

appointments can be made upto 5% of the vacancies

falling under direct recruitment quota in any Group ’C’ or

‘D’ posts. Ceiling of 5% for making compassionate

appointment against regular vacancies should not be

circumvented by making appointment of dependent family

members of Government servant on casual, daily wage, ad

hoc, contract basis against regular vacancies. There is no

bar in considering him for such appointment if he is eligible

as per the normal rules/orders governing such

appointments.

32. Application for compassionate appointment can be

considered, if it is made belatedly, say moved after 5 years

of the death of the Government servant or so. While

considering such belated requests, it should, however, be

kept in view that concept of compassionate appointment

is largely related to the need for immediate assistance to

the family of the Government servant in order to relive it

from economic distress. The very fact that the family has

been able to manage somehow all these years should

normally be taken as adequate proof that the family had

some dependable means of subsistence. So such belated

requests call for a great deal of circumspection. Request

for compassionate appointment is belated or not may be

decided with reference to the date of death or retirement

on medical grounds of Government servant and not the

age of the applicant at the time of consideration.

33. The person appointed on compassionate grounds

under the scheme should give an undertaking in writing

that he/she will maintain properly other family members

who were dependent on the Government servant and in

case it is proved subsequently that the family members

are being neglected or are not being maintained properly,

his appointment may be terminated forthwith. While

considering request for appointment on compassionate

grounds, balanced and objective assessment of financial

condition of the family is to be made taking into account

its assets and liabilities (including benefits received under

various welfare schemes) and all other relevant factors,

such as, presence of an earning member, size of the family,

age of the children and the essential needs of the family.

The whole object of granting compassionate appointment

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4955

is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crises and

to relive the family from financial destitution and to help it

get over the emergency.

34. The Apex court in G.Anantha Rajeshwara Rao (1994

(1) SCC 192) had considered the scheme of compassionate

appointments formulated by the Government of India and

ruled that appointment on grounds of descent clearly

violates article 16(2) of the Constitution, but if the

appointment is confined to the son or daughter or widow

of the Government servant who die in harness, who need

immediate appointment on the ground of immediate need

of assistance in the event of there being no other earning

member in the family to supplement the loss of economies

from the bread winner to relieve to distress of the members

of the family, it is unexceptionable. Again in Umesh Kumar

Nagpal (JT 1994 (3) SC 5325) the Apex Court considered

the scheme and laid down following principles in that

regards:

(1) Only dependents of an employee dying in

harness, leaving his family in penury and without

any source of livelihood can be appointed on

compassionate grounds.

(2) The posts in group “C” and “D” are the lowest

posts in non managerial and managerial categories

and hence those posts alone can be offered on

compassionate grounds.

(3) The whole object of granting compassionate

appointments is to enable the family to tide over the

crisis and to relieve the family of the deceased from

destitution and to help it get over the emergency.

(4) Offering compassionate appointments as a matter

of course, irrespective of financial condition of the

family of the deceased or medically retired

government servant, is legally impermissible.

(5) Neither the qualification of the applicant

(dependent family member) nor the post held by the

deceased or medically retired government servant

is relevant. If the applicant finds it below his dignity

to accept the post offered, he is free not to accept it.

The post is not to be offered to cater his status but

to see family through the economic calamity.

(6) Compassionate appointment cannot be granted

after lapse of a reasonable period and it is not a

vested right which can be exercised at any time in

the future, and

(7) Compassionate appointment cannot be offered

by an individual functionary or an ad hoc basis.

35. In Asha Ram Chander Ambedker and others (Jt 1994

(2) SC 183) the Apex Court ruled that the High Courts and

Administrative Tribunals cannot give directions for

appointment of a person on compassionate ground but

can merely direct consideration of the claim for such

appointment. In Dinesh Kumar (JT 1996 (5) SC 319) and

Smt. A.Radhika Therumalai (JT 1996 (9) SC 197) it was

announced that appointment on compassionate ground

can be made only, if a vacancy is available for that purpose.

In Rami Devi and others (JT 1996 (6) SC 646) it was ruled

that if the scheme relating to appointment on

compassionate ground is accepted to all sort of casual, ad

hoc employees, including those who are working as

apprentice, then the scheme cannot be justified on

constitutional grounds.

36. Coming to factual matrix of the controversy,

admittedly Shri Vinod Kumar expired in January 2009. Smt.

Anita Devi and her children could pull on till date. She

could not project any facts to the effect that she was living

in penury and in need of immediate assistance. She could

manage her affairs for a period of more than 5 years.

Considering all these facts, I do not find it to be case

where command should be given to the management to

give compassionate appointment to Smt. Anita Devi to

relieve her family from financial destitution. In view of

these reasons, I am of the considered opinion that Smt.

Anita Devi could not project a case for grant of

compassionate appointment in her favour.

37. In view of the foregoing discussions, it is ruled that

Shri Vinod Kumar would be regularized in service as mason

by the management from 11.12.2006, the date when his

juniors were regularized. Since on his regularization with

effect from 11.12.2006, he would be deemed to have

rendered qualifying service for grant of family pension in

favour of his widow. In case her income from all sources

remain below Rs.3500.00 per month in January 2009, she

would be granted family pension by the management.

However Smt. Anita Devi is not entitled for appointment

on compassionate grounds. An award is, accordingly,

passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for

publication.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated : 03.06.2014

ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1909

dk-vk- 1909.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy

eSustj] gSoh vYykso isusVªsVj izkstsDV vkSj vnlZ ds izca/kra= ds

lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

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

U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 28/2013½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@151@2012&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

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

4956

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2014

S.O. 1909.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 28/2013)

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 General Manager, Heavy Allow

Penetrator Project & Others and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 24/06/2014.

[No. L-42012/151/2012-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Thursday, the 22^nd May, 2014

Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 28/2013

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),

between the Management of Sri Security Services and

their workman)

BETWEEN :

Sri S. Suresh

: 1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The General Manager

: 2^nd Party/1^st

Heavy Allow Penetrator

Respondent

Project

Ministry of Defence

Trichy-620025

M/s Sri Security

: 2^nd Services Party/

Trichy-Pudukkottai

2^ndRespondent

Main Road

Anna Nagar,

Mathur (Post)

Pudukkottai-622515

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

: Sri D. Muthukumar,

Advocate

For the 2^nd Party/1^st Respondent : Sri B. Sekar, Advocate

For the 2^nd Party/2^nd Respondent: Set Ex-parte

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-42012/151/2012-IR(DU)

dated 25.02.2013 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 Shree

Security Services in dismissing Sri A. Suresh from

05.12.2011, a contract workman on the direction of HAPP

is legal and justified? If not, what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to?”

2. On the receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 28/2013 and issued notices to both

sides. The petitioner and the First Respondent has entered

appearance. Subsequently, both Respondents having

remained absent, they were set ex-parte. The First

Respondent got the ex-parte order set aside on application

and filed Counter Statement. However, the First

Respondent have remained absent at the later stage and

was again set ex-parte.

3. The petitioner has set forth his case in the Claim

Statement filed by him. As seen from this, in the year 1999

he was employed as a Contract Labour to do the cleaning,

sweeping and other works in the First Respondent

establishment. In the year 2000 problems had arisen

between the contract workers and the management

regarding increment on wages and failure to pay minimum

wages. The workers had entered in a strike and after this

the Management had been paying wages @ Rs. 70/- per

day from 2001. A board of Enquiry was set up by the

Management to look into the issue of non-payment of

minimum wages to the contract labourers. The board had

submitted report making certain suggestions. However,

no action was taken on the basis of these suggestions.

After complaints from the contract workers regarding non-

payment of minimum wages the authorities of the First

Respondent started to destroy material evidence from the

factory premises. The petitioner who was cleaning the

dustbin found some of those documents and informed the

local Vigilance Officer. But no action was taken in this

respect. The petitioner and the other workers had taken

up the matter to the national level investigation agencies.

The petitioner had appeared as a witness when action

was taken against a permanent employee of the

Respondent. On account of all this, the First Respondent

directed the Second Respondent to terminate the petitioner

from service. Accordingly, the Second Respondent had

terminated the petitioner from service by order dated

05.04.2011. The termination of the petitioner is unfair labour

practice. The petitioner seeks an order holding that the

termination order passed by the Second Respondent based

on the direction given by the First Respondent is illegal

and directing the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner

in service.

4. In the counter statement filed it the First Respondent

has denied the allegations made by the petitioner. However,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4957

it is admitted in the Counter Statement that the petitioner

was employed by the Second Respondent. It is also

admitted that it was as instructed by the First Respondent

that the Second Respondent did not deploy the petitioner

in the First Respondent establishment. According to the

First Respondent the petitioner was unauthorizedly in

possession of an official document which amounts to

misconduct. This is why he was prevented from attending

the job.

5. The evidence in the case consists of affidavit in lieu

of Examination filed by the petitioner and the documents

marked as Ext.W1 to Exts.W11 on his side.

6. The points of consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Second Respondent

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. The petitioner has reiterated his case in the Claim

Statement and in the affidavit of examination filed by him

also. It is clear from his affidavit that he was working as a

contract labourer as engaged by the Second

Respondent, the Contractor, in the First Respondent

establishment. It is apparent from the counter filed by the

First Respondent also that the petitioner was doing the

work of cleaning, sweeping, etc. for the First Respondent.

8. It is revealed from the Claim Statement as well as

affidavit of the petitioner that he was terminated from

service by the Second Respondent as asked by the First

Respondent. The stand of the First Respondent in the

Counter Statement is that he was unauthorizedly found in

possession of certain documents. The petitioner has given

evidence in the enquiry proceedings taking disciplinary

action against a regular employee of the First Respondent.

According to the First Respondent during his evidence

the petitioner has revealed that he has been in possession

of official documents. It was due to this the Second

Respondent was asked not to engage the petitioner in the

premises of the First Respondent, it is stated. However,

the Respondents have remained absent and have not

made any attempt to establish the case. The Second

Respondent had remained absent throughout and the First

Respondent had remained absent after filing Counter

Statement. No evidence is available to show that the

petitioner has done anything against the interest of the

First Respondent. The petitioner has produced copy of

the deposition given by him in the enquiry proceedings

against the regular employee of the First Respondent and

this is marked as Ext.W6. As could be seen no valid reason

is available for the Second Respondent for terminating

the service of the petitioner. The termination was done

without complying with the provisions of ID Act.

Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in

service.

9. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that it is

not enough that direction is given to the Second

Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service.

According to the counsel, direction should be given to

the First Respondent also in which case only the petitioner

would be able to work in the premises of the First

Respondent. The petitioner was only a contract labour

under the Second Respondent. It is for the Second

Respondent to decide where the petitioner is to be deployed

for work. The petitioner could not insist that he should be

allowed to work with the First Respondent itself. The

Second Respondent is the one who has terminated the

petitioner from service and direction should be given to

the Second Respondent only. Accordingly, the Second

Respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service

within a 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 22^nd May, 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

Ex.W1

28.06.2000

Report submitted by Board of

enquiry

Ex.W2

23.09.2003

Letter issued by the Labour

Enforcement Officer

Ex.W3

27.06.2006

Appointment of Mr. R.M. Pillai as

Enquiry Officer

Ex.W4

09.06.2007

Report given by Mr. R.M. Pillai,

Joint General Manager/Enquiry

Officer

Ex.W5

22.07.2008

Order of the Assistant Provident

Fund Commissioner

Ex.W6

Deposition and cross-examination

of the petitioner before departmental

enquiry with regard to Mr. K.

Saravanan

Ex.W7

23.07.2012

Failure report under Section 12(4)

of the ID Act.

Ex.W8

12.03.2008

Reply letter given by the First

Respondent for RTI

4958

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.W9

07.12.2012

Office memorandum of Central

Vigilance Commission CBI

Investigation Report

Ex.W10 08.08.2007

Newspaper report

On the Respondent’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1910

dk-vk- 1910.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lqifjUVsUMsUV

vkWQ iksLV vksfQlsl ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

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

¼lanHkZ la[;k 29/2013½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 24@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@110@2012&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

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

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2014

S.O. 1910.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 29/2013)

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 Supdt. of Post Offices and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 24/06/2014.

[No. L-40012/110/2012-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Thursday, the 12^th June, 2014

Present

: K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 29/2013

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947),

between the Management of Superintendent of Post

Offices and their workman)

BETWEEN :

Sri P. Nagarajan

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Supdt. of Post Offices

2^nd Party/Respondent

D/o Post, Dindigul Division

Dindigul-624001

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

: M/s R. Malaichamy,

Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/Management : Sri B. Sekar, Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-40012/110/2012-IR(DU)

dated 28.02.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the Superintendent of Post

Offices, Dindigul regarding termination of service

of Sri P. Nagarajan w.e.f. 31.03.2011 without following

the provision of Section 25-F of the ID Act, 1947 is

justifiable or not? If not, what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 29/2013 and issued notice to both sides.

Both parties have entered appearance and filed Claim and

Counter Statements respectively.

3. The petitioner had raised the dispute challenging his

alleged termination from the service of the Respondent

w.e.f. 31.03.2011 without complying with the Section-25(F)

of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the Claim Statement filed

by him the petitioner has given the details of his service

under the Respondent. According to him he was employed

as Extra Departmental Agent (EDA) now re-designated as

Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) with the Respondent from the

year 1994. He is said to have been working in this capacity

at various Post Offices such as Konarpatti, Vembarpatti,

Ragalapuram, Manakattur and Kunnapatti, etc. under the

Respondent. According to him he had worked for more

than 400 days under the Respondent during the period

from 1994 to 1997. It is stated by him in the Claim Statement

that though his service was utilized by the Respondent

continuously it was prescribed as stop-gap arrangement.

This according to the petitioner is in violation of principles

of natural justice and adopting unfair labour practice.

According to him he was entitled to protection under

Section-25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, he having

worked under the Respondent for more than 240 days.

The petitioner seeks an order directing the Respondent to

reinstate him in service with continuity of service, back

wages and all other attendant benefits.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement denying

the averments made in the Claim Statement. According to

the Respondent the petitioner was engaged on stop-gap

arrangement from time to time on temporary basis for

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4959

short spells on leave of regular employees or whenever

there was vacancy. He was appointed not on regular basis

or even provisionally. For this reason he was not given

any order of termination also. It is further stated by the

Respondent that the claim of the petitioner that he has

worked for more than 400 days during the period from

1994 to 1997 is not correct. According to the Respondent

the post of Gramin Dak Sevak are filled in accordance with

GDS (Conduct and Engagement), Rules, 2011. It is also

stated by the Respondent that the petitioner is not entitled

to the benefit of Section-25(F) of the ID Act since he was

not appointed on a regular basis. It is also contended by

the Respondent that GDS are not workmen as the Post

Office is not an industry. According to the Respondent

the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed by him.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of the petitioner examined as WW1 and documents marked

as Ext.W1 to Ext.W11. The Respondent did not adduce

any evidence, either oral or documentary.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the petitioner was terminated from the

service of the Respondent not complying with

the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act?

(ii)

Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement

in service with attendant benefits? If not is the

petitioner entitled to any other relief?

The points

7. The petitioner has filed affidavit in lieu of examination

reiterating his case in the Claim Statement. In his affidavit

he has admitted that he has been working with the

Respondent from the year 1994 and that he had put in

work of more than 400 days during 1994 to 1997. Though

as per the schedule of reference the petitioner was

terminated from service on 31.03.2011 there is no case for

him either in his Claim Statement or in his affidavit that he

had been working with the Respondent after 2007 also

which is the last period of work given by him in these.

However some of the documents produced by the

petitioner indicate that he had worked with the Respondent

for some time after this also.

8. During his cross-examination the petitioner has stated

that he was working with the Respondent on stop-gap

arrangement and not on the basis of any interview letter

received from the Employment Exchange. He has also stated

that he was not given any letter of termination by the

Respondent also.

9. It is of course admitted by the Respondent in the

Counter Statement that the petitioner had worked under

him at times. However according to the Respondent it was

only intermittently on stop-gap arrangement basis

whenever any regular employee is on leave or whenever

any vacancy remained to be filled up. It is claimed by the

Respondent that this arrangement with the petitioner was

not even provisional in nature not to state anything about

being regular. The Respondent has denied claim of the

petitioner that he had worked for 400 days during the period

from 1994 to 1997. According to the Respondent the

petitioner is not entitled event to the benefit of retrenchment

under Section -25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

10.

Apparently the petitioner had been working with

the Respondent at different spells as substitute on leave

of the regular hands or as provisionally. He has admitted

during his cross-examination that his engagement by the

Respondent was only by way of stop-gap arrangement;

He was not employed through the Employment Exchange

or any other regular mode of appointment. There is

prescribed mode of recruitment for the post of EDA now

re-designated as Gramin Dak Sevak. So on the basis of

engagement by the Respondent at some intermittent

periods only he will not be entitled to reinstatement or

regularization with the Respondent.

11.

Probably realizing the above fact, the argument

of the counsel for the petitioner has been mainly based

on the scheme that has been evolved by the Respondent

in respect of those who had been working under it as

substitutes as provisional hands, etc.

12.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) while

considering a similar case has directed that the Respondent

is to frame a scheme for regular absorption of all categories

of casual labour who have completed 240 days of service

in any two years and who are otherwise eligible for

absorption against Group “D” post and appointment

against vacancies in the post of Extra Departmental Agent

so far as Madras Circle is concerned. On this basis of this,

the Respondent has framed the scheme dated 23.12.1993

directing to prepare a dovetail list for appointment to ED

posts from among casual labourers and ED Outsiders.

Clause-(a) of Paragraph-4 of the scheme states that ED

Outsiders whose services have been engaged before

11.02.1988 will be eligible for inclusion in the dovetail list

provided they have completed 240 days of service in any

two years prior to 11.02.1988 or after 11.02.1988. The clause

further states that those who are engaged after 11.02.1998

are not eligible for regularization even if they have

completed 240 days of service in any two years after their

engagement. Clause-g of the scheme states that

provisional appointees for ED posts who are appointed

after 11.02.1988 and allowed to continue for more than 240

days will also be included in the dovetail list based on

their seniority if they had put not less than 3 years of

service as per the letter of the Respondent dated

18.05.1979. Those provisional appointees who have

completed 240 days in any two years after 11.02.1988 will

also be included in the dovetail list based on their seniority,

it is further stated. The High Court of Madras has held in

the decision of UNION OF INDIA Vs SUGUNA AND

ANOTHER reported in 2006 1 CTC 25 that the benefit of

the scheme evolved was liable to be extended to full time

as well as part time EDA/GDS provisionally appointed or

4960

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

substitute or outsiders against the existing or future

vacancies of EDA / GDS. This dictum was followed in the

subsequent decisions also.

13. As could be seen Clause-(a) of the scheme is in

respect of persons who have been engaged by the

Respondent before 11.02.1988. Even as per the Claim

Statement the petitioner had started to work with the

Respondent from the year 1995. So he will not be eligible

to be included in the seniority list of the Respondent under

Clause-(a) of the scheme.

14. The argument for the counsel for the petitioner is

that he is eligible to be included in the seniority list as per

Clause-g of the scheme which provides for inclusion of

those persons who have been appointed after 11.02.1988

also if certain criteria is satisfied. Ext.W1 is the certificate

issued by a Sub-Divisional Inspector of the Respondent

sating that the petitioner had worked for 489 days by

08.12.1999 which is the date of the certificate. Ext.W2 and

Ext.W3 are the details regarding the working days by the

petitioner. Though these are not signed by the Respondent

or by any responsible person, the correctness of the details

given in these documents is not disputed. Ext.W2 is the

details of the working days for the period from 22.09.1994

to 30.12.1995 which shows that the petitioner had worked

for 241 days during this period. Ext.W3 shows that he had

worked for 248 days for the period from 03.01.1996 to

10.06.1997. The work done is for the spells between 1 to

5 days, probably when regular hand was on leave. Ext.W4

is the pay bill showing that the petitioner had worked at

Vembarpatti branch of the Respondent in January 2006

and had drawn Rs. 3,010/- as salary. Ext.W5 (series) are

the pay bills for different months from January to December

2007. The petitioner had worked for the Respondent for 7

months in this year. Ext.W6 (series) would show that he

had worked for the Respondent in May, June, July and

August 2008 though not on all days of these months.

Ext.W7 (series) would show that he had drawn salary from

the Respondent in March, April, June & July 2009. Ext.W8

to Ext.W11 are all charge reports of 2009 showing that

charge of a particular branch office had been given to the

petitioner or he had handed over charge. Though the

period for which he worked is not very clear from this, it is

apparent that he had worked till 18.11.2009 at least as seen

from Ext.W11. It is clear from these documents that the

criteria for his inclusion in the seniority list under Clause-

g of the scheme framed by the Respondent is satisfied.

Within the period from 22.09.1994 to 22.09.1996 he had

worked for 373 days. He will be entitled to be included in

the list even though he was appointed after 11.02.1998 if

he was allowed to continue for more than 240 days. It is

apparent from the documents that the petitioner had put

in not less 3 years of service as specified in the letter of

the Respondent dated 18.05.1979 also, though

intermittently. This also satisfies the criteria that the

provisional appointees who have completed 240 days in

any two years after 11.02.1998 also will be included in the

list. In Suguna’s case referred to earlier the High Court of

Madras has stated that the benefit of the scheme is to be

extended to outsiders also. So even if the petitioner was

an outsider working as mere substitute he is eligible to be

included in the list, provided other criteria are satisfied. So

the petitioner is entitled to be included in the seniority

list for consideration of appointment in future, even though

he is not entitled to reinstatement or regularization

immediately. The Respondent is liable to include his name

in the seniority list.

15.

Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to

include the name of the petitioner in the seniority list

prepared by it for Gramin Dak Sevak post and consider

him for appointment on the basis of his seniority as and

when vacancy arises.

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 12^th June, 2014)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

: WW1, Sri P. Nagarajan

For the 2^nd Party/Management : None

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

08.12.1999

Order of the Sub-Division

Inspector (P) Natham Sub-

Division, Natham 624401

Ex.W2

22.09.1994

Working days details from

22.09.1994 to 30.12.1995

Ex.W3

03.01.1996

Working days details from

03.01.1996 to 10.06.1997

Ex.W4

January 2006

Pay Bill

Ex.W5

January 2007

Pay Bills

to Dec. 2007

Ex.W6

May 2008 to

Pay Bills

August 2008

Ex.W7

March 2009 to

Pay Bills

July 2009

Ex.W8

13.03.2009

Order of stop gap arrangement

Ex.W9

24.03.2009

Order of stop gap arrangement

Ex.W10

14.11.2009

Order of stop gap arrangement

Ex.W11

18.11.2009

Order of stop gap arrangement

On the Management’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4961

ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1911.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lqifjUVsUMsUV

vkWQ iksLV vksfQlsl ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

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

¼lanHkZ la[;k 31/2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 24@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@103@2012&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

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

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2014

S.O. 1911.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 31/

2013) 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 Supdt. of Post Offices and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 24/06/2014.

[No. L-40012/103/2012-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 12^th June, 2014

Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI ,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 31/2013

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947),

between the Management of Superintendent of Post

Offices and their workman)

BETWEEN

Sri V. Ganesan

: 1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Supdt. of Post Office : 2^nd Party/Respondent

Department of Posts

Pudukkottai Division,

Pudukkottai

Pudukkottai-622001

Appearance :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

M/s R. Malaichamy,

Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/Management

Sri B. Sekar,

Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-40012/103/2012-IR(DU)

dated 25.02.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the demand of the workman Sri V. Ganesan

for regularization as Gramin Dak Sevak is legal and

justified? If so, what relief the concerned workman

is entitled to?”

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 31/2013 and issued notice to both sides.

Both parties have entered appearance and filed Claim and

Counter Statements respectively.

3. The petitioner has raised the dispute claiming

regularization in the service of the Respondent. In his

Claim Statement he is claiming reinstatement by the

Respondent. According to the petitioner he was being

engaged by the Respondent as Extra Departmental

Delivery Agent from the year 1990 as substitute for the

regular hand. He was appointed on provisional basis at

Pudukottai branch of the Respondent on 14.06.1998 and

had worked there till 31.07.1998. According to him he was

being appointed on provisional basis at different periods

after this also. He had worked with the Respondent thus

till 31.07.2011. In the meanwhile he had made several

representations to the Respondent to absorb him against

a regular vacant post. But the Respondent had not

considered his request. After 31.07.2011 he was not given

any work also. According to the petitioner he having put

in more than 21 years of service with the Respondent he

was entitled to absorption with the Respondent. He has

further stated that he was entitled to protection under

Section-25(F) of the ID Act. The petitioner had claimed

that the Respondent is liable to reinstate him in service

with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant

benefits.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement denying

the averments made in the Claim Statement. According to

the Respondent the petitioner was being engaged only as

a substitute on leave of the regular hands. This was only

a stop-gap arrangement and not an appointment on

provisional basis. According to the Respondent, since

the petitioner was not recruited as per the Recruitment

Rules, he has no right for claiming regularization in

view of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the

matter. The Respondent has further stated in the Counter

Statement that the petitioner having been an officiating

outsider against leave vacancy he should have participated

in the recruitment process to be recruited in the service of

the Respondent. The Respondent has also stated that the

petitioner is not entitled to the protection under Section-

25(F) of the ID Act also, he having been engaged only

4962

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

against leave vacancy. According to the Respondent the

petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5. The petitioner has examined himself as WW1 and

marked Ext.W1 to Ext.W9 on his side to substantiate his

case. The Respondent did not adduce any evidence either

oral or documentary.

6. The point for consideration is :

“Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization

as Gramin Dak Sevak in the service of the

Respondent. If not what is the other relief, if any to

which he is entitled?”

The Point

7. The petitioner has filed affidavit in lieu of Chief

Examination reiterating his case in the petition. He has

stated during his cross-examination that he is not employed

through Employment Exchange. Always it was provisional

appointment from time to time with certain conditions, by

the Respondent.

8. The evidence given by the petitioner and the

documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W9 would show that

the petitioner was being appointed by the Respondent

provisionally as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent from

time to time starting from 13.06.1998. The petitioner has

produced documents showing his provisional appointment

upto 15.10.2002. Though it is claimed by him that he was

being appointed prior to 1998 also as substitute and was

appointed provisionally after 2002 also until 2011 he has

not produced any documents pertaining to these.

9. On the basis of his provisional appointments alone,

the petitioner would not be entitled to reinstatement and

regularization in service as claimed by him. There are rules

specifying the manner in which recruitment is to be

made to the post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent

which is now known as Gramin Dak Sevak Delivery Agent.

His provisional appointments by itself will not give him

any right for regularization.

10. The counsel for the petitioner has been harping on

the scheme that was framed by the Respondent on the

basis of the direction of the Central administrative Tribunal

(CAT) for claiming absorption by the petitioner. The CAT

has directed in a similar case that the Respondent is to

frame a scheme for regular absorption of all categories of

casual labour who have completed 240 days of service in

any two years and who are otherwise eligible for absorption

against Group “D” post and appointment against

vacancies in the post of Extra Departmental Agent so far

as Madras Circle is concerned. On this basis of this, the

Respondent has framed the scheme dated 23.12.1993

directing to prepare a dovetail list for appointment to ED

posts from among casual labourers and ED Outsiders.

Clause-(a) of Paragraph-4 of the scheme states that ED

Outsiders whose services have been engaged before

11.02.1988 will be eligible for inclusion in the dovetail list

provided they have completed 240 days of service in any

two years prior to 11.02.1988 or after 11.02.1988. The clause

further states that those who are engaged after 11.02.1998

are not eligible for regularization even if they have

completed 240 days of service in any two years after their

engagement. Clause-g of the scheme states that

provisional appointees for ED posts who are appointed

after 11.02.1988 and allowed to continue for more than 240

days will also be included in the dovetail list based on

their seniority if they had put not less than 3 years of

service as per the letter of the Respondent dated

18.05.1979. This provisional appointees who have

completed 240 days in any two years after 11.02.1988 will

also be included in the dovetail list based on their seniority,

it is further stated. The High Court of Madras has held in

the decision of UNION OF INDIA Vs SUGUNA AND

ANOTHER reported in 2006 1 CTC 25 that the benefit of

the scheme evolved was liable to be extended to full time

as well as part time EDA / GDS provisionally appointed or

substitute or outsiders against the existing or future

vacancies of EDA / GDS. This dictum was followed in the

subsequent decisions also.

11. Even as per the Claim Statement of the petitioner he

started to work for the Respondent as substitute for regular

hands only after 1990. Clause-(a) of the scheme being in

respect of those who have been engaged before 11.02.1988

only the petitioner will not be entitled to inclusion in the

seniority list under this clause. Ext.W1 is the order of

provisional appointment of the petitioner as EDDA for

one and half months from 14.06.1998 to 31.07.1998. Exts.W2

to Exts.W9 are the orders of provisional appointment for

different periods in between 16.06.2000 and 12.07.2002.

In between the period of 16.06.2002 to 05.03.2002 itself the

petitioner had worked provisionally with the Respondent

for 435 days. Apart from this, he had worked for another

90 days more in the same year. There is also the provisional

appointment for one and half months in the year 1998. So

definitely the petitioner will come under Clause-g of the

scheme, he having worked for more than 240 days after

11.02.1988. The criteria that he should have put in not less

than 3 years of service as per the letter of the Respondent

dated 23.02.1979 also is satisfied, he having worked for a

period spreading over more than 4 years starting from

11.02.1988. So the petitioner is entitled to be included in

the dovetail list as per Clause-g of the scheme. He is to be

considered for regular appointment on the basis of his

seniority as and when vacancy arises.

12. On the basis of the discussion above, the

respondent is directed to include the petitioner in the

seniority list prepared by him and considered for

absorption in the department as Gramin Dak Sevak Delivery

Agent as and when vacancy arises.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4963

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 12^th June, 2014)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

: WW1, Sri V. Ganesan

For the 2^nd Party/Management

: None

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

13.06.1998

Provisional Appointment

Ex.W2

16.06.2000

Extension of Provisional

Appointment

Ex.W3

15.09.2000

Extension of Provisional

Appointment

Ex.W4

14.11.2000

Extension of Provisional

Appointment

Ex.W5

05.02.2011

Extension of Provisional

Appointment

Ex.W6

18.05.2011

Extension of Provisional

Appointment

Ex.W7

15.06.2011

Extension of Provisional

Appointment

Ex.W8

06.12.2001

Extension of Provisional

Appointment

Ex.W9

12.07.2002

Extension of Provisional

Appointment

On the Management’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1912

dk-vk- 1912.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lqifjUVsUMsUV

vkWQ iksLV vksf¶Qll ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

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

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 32/2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 24@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@102@2012&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

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

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2014

S.O. 1912.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 32/2013)

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 Supdt. of Post Offices and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 24/06/2014.

[No. L-40012/102/2012-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 12^th June, 2014

Present

: K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 32/2013

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947),

between the Management of Superintendent of Post

Offices and their workman)

BETWEEN :

Sri K. Sundararajan

: 1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Supdt. of Post Offices

: 2^nd Party/Respondent

Department of Posts, Pudukottai

Pudukottai-622001

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner :

M/s R. Malaichamy,

Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/

Sri B. Sekar, Advocate

Management

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-40012/102/2012-IR(DU)

dated 25.02.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the demand of the workman Sri K.

Sundararajan for regularization as Gramin Dak Sevak

is legal and justified? If so, what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to?”

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 32/2013 and issued notice to both

sides. Both parties have entered appearance and filed Claim

and Counter Statements respectively.

4964

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. The petitioner has raised the dispute claiming

regularization in the service of the Respondent as Gramin

Oak Sevak (GDS). According to the petitioner, he had

entered in the service of the Respondent for the first time

in the year 1990 as substitute for the regular Extra

Departmental Delivery Agent which is later renamed as

Gramin Dak Sevak Delivery Agent. He was appointed at

Mangottai branch of the Respondent on 01.03.1998 on

provisional basis and worked there till 30.04.1998. After

this date also he was working with the Respondent. He

was appointed at Vallthirakottai branch w.e.f. 15.02.2001

and had worked there till 14.05.2001. Thereafter he was

posted at Venkitakulam branch by order dated 13.08.2001

and his period was extended from time to time. He had

worked at Rasiyamangalam also. He was working at various

Post Offices after 26.07.2006 also and had worked till

30.05.2011. According to the petitioner after this date he

was denied work in spite of several representations made

by him for absorption in the post of GDS with the

Respondent. According to him he is entitled to absorption,

he having put in service of more than 21 years. It is further

stated by the petitioner that he was entitled to protection

under Section-25(F) of ID Act. The petitioner seeks an

award directing the Respondent to reinstate him in service

with all attendant benefits.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

denyjng the averments made in the Claim Statement.

According to the Respondent the petitioner has been

engaged only as a substitute during the period of leave of

regular hands. It was only a stop-gap arrangement and

not an appointment of regular basis. It is stated by the

Respondent that the petitioner is not entitred to

regularization or absorption as claimed by him.

5. The petitioner has examined himself as WW1 and

marked documents Ext.W1 to Ext.W6 on his behalf. The

Respondent did not adduce any evidence, oral or

documentary.

6. The point for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled to an order for

regularization as Gramin Dak Sevak in the service of

the Respondent. If not, what if any is the relief to

which he is entitled?”

The Point

7. In the affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination filed

by the petitioner he has reiterated the case in the Claim

Statement. He has stated that he has been wrongly denied

work by the Respondent According to him he is entitled

to reinstatement in the service of the Respondent.

8. It is clear from the documents marked as Ext.W1

to Ext.W6 that the petitioner was being engaged from time

to time by the Respondent on provisional basis as Extra

Departmental Delivery Agent and subsequently as Gramin

Dak Sevak Delivery Agent after the post was renamed so.

Ext.W1 the provisional appointment order shows that he

was being appointed at least from 1998 and continued to

be appointed so until 30.03.2002. The contention that is

raised by the Respondent is that the petitioner was being

appointed only by way of stop gap arrangement, that his

appointment being not regular in nature he is not entitled

to any absorption or regularization. It is stated by the

Respondent in the Counter Statement that regular

appointment for the post can be made only by resorting to

the provisions of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and

Engagement) Rules, 2011. It is clear from the admission

made by the petitioner himself during his cross-examination

that he was appointed not on the basis of any interview

consequent to a call letter through the Employment

Exchange. Though the petitioner had been working with

the Respondent for some time, in none of the years he had

worked for 240 days also to entitle him to the protection of

Section-25(F) of the ID Act.

9. However, the Respondent has framed a scheme

for absorption of persons like the petitioner who were

appointed on provisional basis. The scheme was the result

of a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT),

Madras Bench on the basis of petitions filed by certain

persons who were being employed by the Respondent

provisionally even before 1988. The CAT had directed

that a scheme for regular , absorption of all categories of

casual labour who had completed 240 days of service in

any two years, who are otherwise eligible for absorption.

On the basis of this direction a scheme had been framed

and this has come into effect on 23.12.1993. The scheme

states that a dovetail list is to be prepared from among

casual labourers and ED Outsiders for appointment to ED

posts. Clause-(a), Para-4 of the scheme states that ED

Outsiders whose services have been engaged before

11.2.1988 will be eligible for inclusion in the dovetail list.

These persons should have completed 240 days of service

in any two years prior to 11.02.1988 or after 11.02.1988. It is

further stated that candidates initially engaged in service

after 11.02.1998 are not eligible for regularization even if

they have completed 240 days of service in any two years

after their engagement. Clause-g states that provisional

appointees for ED posts who are appointed after 11.02.1988

and allowed to continue for more than 240 days will also

be included in the dovetail list based on their seniority if

they had put in not less than 3 years of service as per the

letter of the Respondent dated 18.05.1979. The provisional

appointees who had completed 240 days in any two years

after 11.02.1988 will also be included in the dovetail list

based on their seniority, it is further stated in the clause.

The Madras High Court has held in UNION OF INDIA VS.

SUGUNA AND ANOTHER reported in 2006 1 CTC 25 that

the benefit of the scheme evolved was liable to be extended

to full time as well as part time EDA/GDS provisionally

appointed or substitute or outsiders against the existing

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4965

or future vacancies of EDA/GDS. This dictum was

followed in the subsequent decisions also.

10. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner is

that the petitioner is entitled to be included in the seniority

list in any case and could be considered for regularization

as and when vacancy arises. The petitioner will be entitled

to such inclusion in the seniority list only if he comes

under Clause-a or Clause-g referred to above.

11. The documents produced by the petitioner shows

his first appointment in February 1998 only. Clause-a being

in respect of persons who were engaged prior to 11.02.1988

the petitioner will not be entitled to the benefit of this

clause. Now it is to be seen whether he is entitled to the

benefit of Clause-g of the scheme. Though it is claimed by

the petitioner that he used to be engaged by the

Respondent as substitute from the year 1990, those

documents are not produced. Only the documents

showing his appointment on provisional basis starting

from March 1998 are produced. As seen from Ext.W1 he

was given provisional appointment at Mangottai branch

for the period from 01.03.1998 to 30.04.1998. Ext.W2 shows

that he was appointed provisionally at the same branch

for a period from 01.05.1998 to 31.07.1998. As seen from

Ext. W3 he was , provisionally appointed at Vallthirakottai

branch for 3 months from 15.02.2001 to 14.05.2001. Ext.W4

shows that he was again appointed from the next date i.e.

15.05.2001 to 14.07.2001. Ext.W5 is the order appointing

him at Venkitakulam branch for two months from 14.08.2001

to 13.10.2001 and Ext.W6 is the order appointing him at

the same branch for the period from 01.04.2002 to

30.06.2002. As per Clause-g of the scheme, to be included

in the seniority list the person need to have worked for

240 days only within a period of 2 years. As seen from the

documents referred to above the petitioner had been

engaged for 300 days within two years starting from

15.02.2001 to 30.06.2002. He had worked for another 150

days in 2008 also. So it is a case where the petitioner will

come under Clause-g of the scheme and will be entitled to

the benefit of the scheme. Therefore, the petitioner is

entitled to be included in the seniority list prepared by the

Respondent and for consideration for absorption, if not

for immediate absorption or regularization. He is entitled

to a relief to this extent.

12. Accordingly the Respondent is directed to

include the petitioner in the seniority list prepared as per

the scheme dated 23.12.1993 and consider him for

absorption in the service of the Respondent as and when

vacancy arises.

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 12th June, 2014)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner :

WW1, Sri K.

Sundararajan

For the 2nd Party/

None

Management

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

28.02.1998

Provisional Appointment

Ex.W2

01.05.1998

Extension of Provisional

Appointment

Ex.W3

15.02.2001

Extension of Provisional

Appointment

Ex.W4

14.05.2001

Extension of Provisional

Appointment

Ex.W5

13.08.2001

Extension of Provisional

Appointment

Ex.W6

30.03.2002

Extension of Provisional

Appointment

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 27 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1913

dk-vk- 1913.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy

eSustj VsyhdkWe] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds

lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

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

U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 63@2007½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- 40011@20@2007&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

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

New Delhi, the 27th June 2014

S.O. 1913.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 63/2007)

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 General Manager Telecom District,

Mahanagar Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 24/06/2014.

[No. L-40011/20/2007-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

4966

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqcU/k

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;] t;iqj

lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 63@2007

Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

jsQjsUl ua-&L-40011/20/2007-IR(DU) fnukad 21@08@2007

Shri Mahendra Pal Singh S/o. Shri Harbhajan Singh,

R/o Malakheda Gate, Near Gurudwara,

Distt.- ALWAR (Rajasthan)

V/s.

1. The General Manager Telecom District,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Moti Doongari,

ALWAR (Rajasthan)

izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls

% Jh vkj- lh- tSu & izfrfuf/k

vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh Vh- ih- 'kekZ & ,MoksdsV

% iapkV %

fnukad % 05- 05- 2014

1- dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh

/kkjk 10 mi/kkjk 1 [k.M+ ¼?k½ ds vUrxZr fnukad 21-08-2007 ds

vkns’k ls izsf"kr fookn ds vk/kkj ij ;g izdj.k U;k;fu.kZ;u

gsrq lafLFkr gSA dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr fookn fuEuor~

gS %&

2. “Whether the demand of the Rajasthan Sarvajanik

Kshetra Karamchari Sangh for appointment of Shri

Mahendra Pal Singh as Driver, in terms of the settlement

dated 28-7-1997, is legal and justified ? If yes, to what

relief the workman is entitled to?”

3- LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse esa fn;s x;s rF;ksa ds vuqlkj

laf{kIrr% izkFkhZ Jfed dk dFku gS fd bl fookn ls igys mlus

viuh lsokeqfDr ds fo:) ,d vkS|ksfxd fookn mBk;k Fkk

ftlesa izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku Fkk fd mlus fnukad 25-4-87 ls

fnukad 2-4-98 rd vkSj fnukad 31-1-91 ls fnukad 4-4-91 rd

okgu pkyd ds in ij dk;Z fd;k Fkk ysfdu mls fnukad

3-4-88 vkSj fnukad 5-4-91 dks voS/k :Ik ls lsokeqDr dj fn;k

x;kA ;g fookn U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd

U;k;kf/kdj.k t;iqj dks Hkstk x;k ftlesa nksuksa i{kksa ds chp

fnukad 28-7-97 dks le>kSrk gqvkA bl le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij

fnukad 28-7-97 dks dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k t;iqj us

vokMZ ikfjr fd;kA

vkxs izkFkhZ Jh egsUnz iky flag dk ;g dFku gS fd

vokMZ fnukafdr 28-7-97 ds vuqlkj egsUnz iky flag dks ubZ

fu;qfDr nh tkuh Fkh vkSj og lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ okgu pkyd ds

in ij dk;Zjr Fkk vr% mudh fu;qfDr okgu pkyd ds in ij

gh nh tkuh Fkh] ysfdu foi{kh Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM+ ds

vf/kdkfj;ksa us Jh egsUnz iky flag dks vokMZ ds foijhr fnukad

30-3-98 dks etnwj ds in ij fu;qfDr nh vkSj mUgsa etnwj ds

in ij gh fu;fer fd;k gS tks iw.kZr;k vuqfpr o voS/k gSA izkFkhZ

dk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd fnukad 30-3-98 dks mls etnwj ds in

ij fu;qfDr nh xbZ ysfdu mlls MªkbZoj dk dk;Z fy;k tk

jgk gSA

;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd egsUnz iky flag }kjk leLr

;ksX;rk iwjh djus ds ckotwn pkyd ds in ij fu;qfDr ugha

nh xbZ vkSj u gh fu;fer fd;k x;k tcfd mlls twfu;j

Jfed Jh gqdepUn lSuh vkSj Jh pqUuhyky dks pkyd ds in

ij fu;qfDr nh xbZ gS vkSj mUgsa fu;fer Hkh dj fn;k x;k gSA

;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd Jh egsUnz iky flag viuh izFke

fu;qfDr ls gh MªkbZoj ds in ij dk;Z djrs Fks vr% mUgsa vokMZ+

ds i’pkr~ MªkbZoj ds in ij gh fu;qDr fd;k tkuk Fkk rFkk blh

in ij fu;fer Hkh fd;k tkuk FkkA

7- ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd foi{khx.k }kjk mDr dk;Zokgh u

dsoy vokMZ dh vogsyuk gS cfYd vu~Qs;j yscj izsfDVl Hkh

gSA

8- mDr dFku ds lkFk izkFkhZ us izkFkZuk dh gS fd U;k;kf/kdj.k

}kjk ;g ?kks"k.kk djus dh d`ik dh tk; fd Jh egsUnz iky flag

fnukad 30-3-98 ls gh pkyd ds in ij fu;fer fu;qfDr izkIr

djus ds gdnkj gSa vkSj MªkbZoj dk osru o HkRrk rFkk vU;

ifjykHk Hkh ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA

foi{kh Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM+ dh rjQ ls oknksÙkj

izLrqr dj LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse ds izLrj 1]2]3]4 vkSj 5 ds

lEcU/k esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd bu izLrjksa esa izkFkhZ }kjk ftl

izdkj dFku fd;k x;k gS og vLohdkj gSA blds vfrfjDr ;g

dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks foi{kh }kjk dHkh Hkh LFkk;h :Ik

ls MªkbZoj ds in ij fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k cfYd t:jr ds

oDr gh mls MªkbZoj ds dk;Z ij cqyk;k tkrk FkkA ;g Hkh dgk

x;k gS fd le>kSrk okrkZ ds ifj.kkeLo:Ik vokZM ds vuqlj.k

esa izkFkhZ dks fu;qfDr iznku dh x;h Fkh ,oa le>kSrs dh 'krksZa ds

vuqlkj dk;Z djus ds fy;s izkFkhZ dks funsZ’k iznku fd;s x;s rFkk

izkFkhZ us vius gLrfyf[kr izkFkZuk&i= esa izfrfuf/k dh mifLFkfr

esa le>kSrs dh 'krksZa dks lg"kZ Lohdkj fd;kA izkFkhZ rFkk foi{kh

foHkkx ds chp le>kSrs dh 'krksZa ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dks ,d etnwj

ds in ij dk;Z djuk Fkk tks fu;ekuqlkj lgh FkkA izkFkhZ dks dHkh

Hkh LFkk;h :Ik ls MªkbZoj ds in ij fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k cfYd

t:jr ds oDr gh MªkbZoj ds dk;Z ds fy, cqyk;k tkrk FkkA

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4967

le>kSrs ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dks etnwj ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k

x;k FkkA le>kSrs dh 'krksZa dks Lohdkj djus ds ckotwn vuqfpr

ykHk izkIr djus ds fy, U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izkFkhZ us ekeyk

izLrqr fd;k gS tks fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA

10-

;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks dHkh Hkh MªkbZoj ds in

ij fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k vkSj ,d etnwj ds in ij gh dk;Z

djok;k tk jgk gSA foi{k }kjk le>kSrs dh 'krksZa dk iw.kZr%

ikyu djrs gq, fu;qfDr nh xbZ gS vr% izkFkhZ dk nkok [kkfjt

fd;k tk,A

11-

izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse ds leFkZu esa

izn’kZ MCY;w&1 yxk;r MCY;w&13 vfHkys[k izLrqr gSA Jh egsUnz

iky flag dh 'kiFk&i= lk{; esa izLrqr dh x;h gS ftudh

izfrijh{kk foi{kh }kjk dh x;h gSA foi{khx.k dh rjQ ls lwph

ls vkj&1 yxk;r vkj&3 vfHkys[kh; lk{; izLrqr gSA

Jh 'kksHkkjke iq= Jh xksnkjke rFkk Jh Mh- ds- dqUMkfj;k iq=

Jh izsedqekj dqUMkfj;k] flfu;j lc fMohtuy bUthfu;j dh

'kiFk&i= lk{; esa izLrqr dh x;h gS ftudh izfrijh{kk izkFkhZ i{k

}kjk dh x;h gSA

12-

eSaus izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k rFkk foi{khx.k dh rjQ

ls muds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh cgl lquh rFkk i=koyh dk

lE;d voyksdu fd;kA foi{kh dh rjQ ls fyf[kr cgl Hkh

izLrqr dh x;h gS tks i=koyh ij miyC?k gSaA

13-

izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dh rjQ ls ;g cgl dh x;h

gS fd izkFkhZ ls MªkbZoj dk dk;Z fy;k tkrk jgk gS vr%

U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk mlds pkyd gksus ds lEcU/k esa ?kks"k.kk djrs

gq, mls ;kfpr vuqrks"k iznku fd;k tk,A blds fo:) foi{kh

ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh rjQ ls ;g cgl Hkh x;h gS fd izkFkhZ

dks dHkh Hkh pkyd ds :Ik esa fu;qfDr ugha nh xbZ vkSj mlls

Jfed dk dk;Z djok;k tkrk Fkk vkSj foHkkx ds fu;fer fu;qDr

MªkbZoj ds vodk’k ij gksus ij izkFkhZ ls MªkbZoj dk dk;Z Hkh

djok;k tkrk FkkA ;g cgl Hkh dh x;h gS fd foHkkx esa pkyd

dk vyx in gS ftlesa pkyd vyx fu;qDr gSA foi{kh foHkkx

}kjk fu;e ls ijs gVdj izkFkhZ dks Jfed jgrs gq, pkyd dh

fu;qfDr ugha nh tk ldrhA ;g cgl Hkh dh x;h gS fd le>kSrs

dh 'krksZa ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dks etnwj ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k

x;k Fkk vkSj mls ,d etnwj dk dk;Z djok;k tk jgk gS vkSj

mlus lg"kZ vokMZ ds vuqlkj fu;qfDr vkns’k dks Lohdkj djrs

gq, Jfed ds in ij dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;kA ;g cgl Hkh dh x;h

gS fd lqyg dh 'krZ esa izkFkhZ dks pkyd ds in ij fu;qDr djus

dh dksbZ ckr ugha fy[kh gSA

14-

i{kdkjksa }kjk izLrqr dh x;h mDr cgl ds lEcU/k esa

mudh rjQ ls izLrqr lk{; dh leh{kk bl Lrj ij dh tkuh

vko’;d gSA

15-

i{kdkjksa ds lk{; dh leh{kk ls iwoZ eSa lqyg dh 'krksZa

dk mYys[k djuk bl Lrj ij vko’;d le>rk gw¡ tks izn’kZ

MCY;w&3 ds vuqlkj fuEuor~ gS % &&

le{k ekuuh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ¼dsUnzh;½] t;iqjA

dsl ua- lh- vkbZ- Vh- 22@96

egsUnziky flag cuke ,l-Vh-vks- ¼Mh-½ t;iqjA

egksn; th]

bl izdj.k esa nksukas i{k yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls

fuEufyf[kr 'krksZa ij le>kSrk djus ds fy, lger gSaA

fu;kstd i{k Jfed Jh egsUnz iky flag dks foHkkxh;

fu;ekuqlkj ¼ubZ fu;qfDr½ ds le; tks foHkkx ds fu;e tSls

vk;q izek.k&i=] 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk] vU; fu;e ftudh 'krksZsa dks

iwjk djrk gSA bu 'krksZsa ds vuqlkj okafNr ;ksX;rk gksus ij ysus

dks rS;kj gSA fu;qfDr gsrq vk;q izFke fu;qfDr ds le; tks Fkh

mlh vk/kkj ij ekurs gq, fu;qfDr nh tkosxhA

Jfed lsokeqfDr ls le>kSrs dh rkjh[k rd dh

vof/k dk dksbZ osru Dyse ugha djsxkA

Jfed dks foHkkxh; fu;ekuqlkj fu;qfDr nh tk;sxh]

ysfdu mls lsokeqfDr vof/k dh ofj"Brk dk ykHk ugha fn;k

tk;sxkA bl vof/k dks fu;qfDr fn;s tkus gsrq d.Mksu ekuk

tk;sxkA

vr% fuosnu gS fd le>kSrs ds vuqlkj vokMZ ikfjr djus dh

d`ik djasA

t;iqj %

fnukad % 28-7-97

Jfed i{k % egsUnz iky flag ¼gLrk{kj iBuh; ½

Jfed izfrfuf/k% _"kHk tSu ¼gLrk{kj iBuh; ½

28@7@97

fu;kstd i{k

¼gLrk{kj viBuh;½

fu;kstd izfrfuf/k

16-

ftl fookn esa mDr le>kSrk gqvk Fkk og fookn Je

eU=ky; ds vkns’k fnukad 24-04-96 ds vuqlkj fuEuor~ gS

ftldh QksVksizfr i=koyh ij izn’kZ MCY;w&2 gS % &

“Whether the action of the management of S.D.O. (T)

Alwar in terminating the services of Shri Mahendra Pal

Singh w.e.f. 3.4.1988 and again on 4.4.1991 is proper, legal

and justified ? if not, to what relief the workman is entitled

to ?”

17- le>kSrk dh bckjr rFkk fnukad 24-4-96 dks izsf"kr fookn

dks ns[kus ls ,slk dksbZ fu"d"kZ ugha fudyrk fd izkFkhZ iwoZ esa

4968

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

pkyd ds in ij fu;qDr Fkk vkSj mls pkyd ds in ls

lsokeqDr dj fn;k x;k FkkA ;kfpdk ds izLrj 4 esa izkFkhZ us ;g

mYys[kuh; fd;k gS fd og izFke fu;qfDr esa pkyd ds in ij

fu;qDr Fkk vkSj le>kSrk vokMZ ds i’pkr~ mls pkyd ds in

ij gh fu;qDr gksuk pkfg, FkkA vr% ;g rF; fl) djus dk

Hkkj izkFkhZ ij gS fd og le>kSrk ls lEcfU/kr fookn ds ekeys

esa viuh fu;qfDr ds le; MªkbZoj ds in ij izkjfEHkd :Ik esa

fu;qDr Fkk vkSj le>kSrk ds ckn mls MªkbZoj in ij gh u;h

fu;qfDr ikuh FkhA

18-

bl ekeys ds fujkdj.k esa fuLrkj.k gsrq izeq[k fcUnq

;g gS fd D;k izkFkhZ egsUnz iky flag dks ;kfpr ?kks"k.kkRed

vuqrks"k Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS fd mls fnukad 30-3-98 ls

leLr osru o HkRrksa lfgr fu;fer fu;qDr pkyd ?kksf"kr fd;k

tk,A bl lEcU/k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk fujkdj.k gsrq izLrqr

fookn Hkh ?kks"k.kkRed vuqrks"k ds vuq:Ik gh ;g gS fd **D;k izkFkhZ

}kjk vokMZ fnukafdr 28-7-97 dh 'krksZa ds vuqlkj Jfed egsUnz

iky flag dks MªkbZoj ds in ij fu;qDr djus dh ekax fof/kd

,oa U;k;kuqer gSA

19-

le>kSrk fnukafdr 28-7-97 ftlds vk/kkj ij vokMZ

vk/kkfjr gS mlds lE;d ,oa lw{e voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd

i{kdkjksa ds chp bl ckr fd lgerh gS fd izkFkhZ dks foi{k }kjk

,d ubZ fu;qfDr iznku dh tkosxh ftlesa izkFkhZ viuh iwoZ lsok

ds lEcU/k esa ofj"Brk dh dksbZ ekax ugha djsxkA ;g fu;qfDr

fo’kq) :Ik ls ubZ ekuh tkosxhA izkFkhZ dks fu;qfDr fdl in ij

nh tk;sxh bldk mYys[k le>kSrs dh 'krksZa esa ugha fd;k x;k

gSA ;g Hkh mYys[k gS fd bl fu;qfDr esa foHkkx ds fu;ekuqlkj

izkFkhZ dks 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk iwjk djuk gksxkA izFke fu;qfDr ds le;

izkFkhZ dh tks mez Fkh mlh mez dks gh vk/kkj ekudj izkFkhZ dks

ubZ fu;qfDr nh tkosxhA mDr le>kSrs dh 'krksZa esa ;g rF; Hkh

fufoZokn gS fd 'krksZa esa bl ckr dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha gS dh izkFkhZ

dh ubZ fu;qfDr foi{k }kjk fdl in ij dh tk;sxhA ;g rF;

fufoZokn gS fd le>kSrs dh 'krksZa ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr

fnukad 30-3-98 dks iznku dh xbZ vkSj ;g fu;qfDr mls etnwj

ds in ij nh xbZA viuh izfrijh{kk esa Hkh izkFkhZ us Lohdkj fd;k

gS fd mls fnukad 30-3-98 dks etnwj ds in ij fu;fer fd;k

x;k vkSj mls etnwj dh fu;fer osru Üka`[kyk iznku dh tk jgh

gS vkSj blds vfrfjDr vU; ns; ykHk Hkh izkIr gks jgs gSaA oknh

us ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd le>kSrk fnukafdr 28-7-97 ij

mlds gLrk{kj gS vkSj le>kSrs dks i<+us ds ckn mlus ml ij

gLrk{kj fd;s FksA izkFkhZ us izfrijh{kk esa le>kSrk fnukafdr 28-

7-97 ds lEcU/k esa ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd le>kSrs esa bl

ckr dk dksbZ Li"V mYys[k ugha gS dh mls MªkbZoj ds in ij

fu;qfDr nh tk;sxhA lk{kh us ubZ fu;qfDr etnwj ds in ij fn;s

tkus ds lEcU/k esa ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd tks ubZ fu;qfDr mls

nh xbZ Fkh mls Lohdkj fd;k Fkk vkSj le>kSrk ij vk/kkfjr

vokMZ fnukafdr 28-7-97 dks mlus fdlh U;k;ky; esa pqukSrh

ugha nh FkhA lk{; esa izkFkhZ us ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ;g

lgh gS fd le>kSrs esa ;g ckr vafdr ugha gS fd mls MªkbZoj

ds in ij fu;qfDr nh tk,] vr% mDr vk’k; ds lk{; esa dFku

ds ckn ;kfpdk esa izkFkhZ ds ;g dgus dk dksbZ vFkZ ugha jg tkrk

fd le>kSrk vokMZ ds ckn mls pkyd ds in ij gh u;h

fu;qfDr feyuh pkfg, Fkh D;ksafd ,slk gksuk gksrk rks bldk

mYys[k Li"V :Ik esa le>kSrs esa gksrkA tks fu;qfDr mls nh x;h

mls mlus Lohdkj Hkh fd;k gS rFkk lk{; esa Hkh bl rF; dks

ekuk gS fd mls etnwj ds in ij u;h fu;qfDr Lohdkj dh rFkk

fdlh U;k;ky; esa mlus vokM+Z dks pqukSrh ugha nhA ,slh fLFkfr

eas MªkbZoj in dh ek¡x dk vk/kkj ugha curk gS vkSj u gh vokbZ

esa ,slk dksbZ ladsr gSA

20-

izkFkhZ dh lk{; dh izfrijh{kk ls ;g rF; Hkh tkfgj gS

fd vokMZ fnukafdr 28-7-97 ftlds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks etnwj

ds in ij ubZ fu;qfDr nh xbZ ml vokMZ ds ikfjr gksus ds ckn

foHkkx }kjk MªkbZoj ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq foKfIr fudkyh xbZ

Fkh ysfdu izkFkhZ us Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ml foKfIr ds

lEcU/k esa mlds }kjk MªkbZoj ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq dksbZ

vkosnu ugha Hkjk x;k FkkA foKfIr dc fudkyh xbZ bl

lEcU/k esa lk{kh us dgk gS fd mls /;ku ugha gSA izkFkhZ ds Lo;a

ds lk{; ls ;g Li"V gS fd tgka pkyd ds in ij foHkkx esa

fu;qfDr gsrq mldks volj miyC/k Fks mldk ykHk mlds }kjk

ugha mBk;k x;kA

21-

izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh rjQ ls ;g cgl dh

x;h gS fd ubZ fu;qfDr fnukafdr 30-3-98 ds ckn ls fu;fer

rkSj ij izkFkhZ okgu pkyd ds :Ik esa gh foHkkx esa dk;Z dj jgk

gS vr% okgu pkyd gksus ds lEcU/k esa mls ?kks"k.kkRed vuqrks"k

iznku gksuh pkfg,] bl lEcU/k esa izn’kZ MCY;w&7 dk mYys[k

cgl ds nkSjku fd;k x;kA izn’kZ MCY;w&7 ds voyksdu ls ;g

tkfgj gS fd e.M+y vfHk;Urk] iz’kklu dks foHkkx dh rjQ ls

i= fy[kk x;k gS ftlesa ;g dgk x;k gS fd “Daily Rated””

Ektnwj Jh egsUnz iky flag dh MªkbZoj ds in ij fu;qfDr djus

ds fy;s Jh egsUnz iky flag dh vkosnu vfxze dk;Zokgh gsrq

vxzlkfjr dh tk jgh gSA bl i= esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd egsUnz

iky flag D.R.M. MªkbZoj ds in ij vkosnu fd;k gS vkSj og

fnukad 30-3-98 ls nSfud etnwj ds :Ik esa dk;Z dj jgs gS vkSj

fnukad 30-3-98 ls gh foHkkxh; okgu RJ-02/1386 Pkyk jgs gSa

vkSj budk dk;Z lUrks"ktud gS ;g i= D.E. Installation,

Alwar }kjk Hkstk x;k gSA izn’kZ MCY;w 8 ls ;g tkfgj gS fd

foHkkx dks fofHkUu okguksa ds lkFk foHkkx esa dk;Zjr pkydksa dks

lEc) fd;k x;k gS ftlesa egsUnz iky flag vkSj Jh euksgj

yky lSuh R.M. dks Hkh nks vyx&vyx okguksa ls lEc) fd;k

x;k gSA izn’kZ MCY;w&8 fnukafdr 30-4-98 gSA blh izdkj izn’kZ

MCY;w&9 fnukafdr 03-11-98 gS ftlesa fofHkUu okguksa ij

vyx&vyx pkyd n’kkZ;s x;s gSa ftlesa egsUnz iky Hkh gSA

izn’kZ MCY;w&10 fnukafdr 20-6-2010 Hkh vyx&vyx okguksa

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4969

ij vyx&vyx pkydksa dks lEc) djus ls lEcfU/kr gS ftlesa

egsUnz iky T.S.M. ds in ij dk;Zjr nf’kZr gS vkSj Jh foJke

ehuk **fu;fer etnwj** ds in ij dk;Zjr nf’kZr gSA izn’kZ

MCY;w&5 ls ;g izxV gS fd fu;fer etnwj Jh egsUnz iky flag

dks LFkk;h rkSj ij lsok eas j[k fy;k x;k gS vkSj izn’kZ MCY;w&6

ls ;g tkfgj gS fd fu;fer etnwj ds :Ik esa egsUnz iky flag

dk LFkk;hdj.k fnukad 21-10-2002 ls fd;k x;k gSA mDr

vfHkys[kh; fLFkfr ls ;g Li"V gS fd Jh egsUnz iky flag

fu;fer etnwj ds in ij fu;qDr Fks ftlls okgu pkyd dk

dk;Z fy;k tkrk jgk gS vkSj Jh 'kksHkkjke flfu;j lc fMfotuy

vkWfQlj us viuh lk{; ds :Ik eas izLrqr 'kiFk&i= esa dgk gS

fd pkyd ds in ij Jfed dks dHkh Hkh LFkk;h:Ik ls fu;qDr

ugha fd;k x;k vkSj t:jr ds oDr gh MªkbZoj ds dk;Z ds fy;s

cqyk;k tkrk FkkA egsUnz iky flag ds uke ds le{k izn’kZ

MCY;w&8] izn’kZ MCY;w&9 vkSj izn’kZ MCY;w&10 esa vkoafVr okguksa

esa mudk in **fu;fer etnwj** ,oa T.S.M. (Temporary

Status Mazoor) ds :Ik esa n’kkZ;k x;k gSA izn’kZ MCY;w&7 ds

voyksdu ls Hkh ;g tkfgj gS fd izkFkhZ etnwj ds :Ik esa fu;qDr

,oa dk;Zjr jgk gS rFkk mls fufnZ"V okgu ls lEc) fd;k x;k

gSA Jh 'kksHkkjke flfu;j lc fMfotuy vkWfQlj us bZ-MCY;w 7

dks ns[kdj izfrijh{kk 2 esa ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ nSfud

etnwj ds :Ik esa gh dk;Z dj jgk Fkk u fd pkyd ds :Ik esa

vkSj okgu ds lkFk izkFkhZ dh lEc)rk Lohdkj fd;k gSA lk{kh us

;g Hkh dgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks fnukafdr 28-7-97 ds vokMZ ds

vk/kkj ij etnwj ds :Ik esa j[kus ds fy;s vkns’k fn;k x;k Fkk

vkSj ;g vkns’k i=koyh ij ugha gS ysfdu 2004 esa egsUnz iky

flag izkFkhZ dks tks dUQeZs’ku fd;k x;k gS og fiNys vk/kkj ij

gh fd;k x;k gS tks fnukad 2-11-2004 ds vkns’k ij vk/kkfjr gSA

lk{kh us ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks etnwj ds in ij yxk;s tkus

ls lEcfU/kr vkns’k i=koyh ij miyC/k ugha gS ysfdu mls

etnwj ds in ij gh yxk;k x;k FkkA izn’kZ MCY;w&5 ds

vk/kkj ij lk{kh i`"B 3 ij izfrijh{kk esa dgk gS fd ;g vkns’k

jsX;wyj etnwj ls lEcfU/kr gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd izn’kZ MCY;w&5

ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks etnwj ds in ij LFkk;h :Ik ls lsok esa

lek;ksftr fd;k x;k gSA pkyd ds dk;Z rFkk etnwj ds :Ik

esa dk;Z djus ds lEcU/k esa i`"B 4 ij izfrijh{kk esa lk{kh us ;g

mYys[k fd;k gS fd izn’kZ MCY;w&5 nLrkost ;g Li"V djrk

gS fd izkFkhZ fu;fer etnwj ds :Ik esa dk;Zjr Fkk vkSj mlh in

ij etnwj ds :Ik esa mldk LFkk;h lek;kstu gks jgk gSA Jh Mh-

ds- dqUMkfj;k us izfrijh{kk esa dgk gS fd vokMZ fnukafdr

28-7-97 ds ckn izkFkhZ dks lsok esa fy;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa vkns’k

i=koyh ij ugha gSA

22-

mHk;i{k }kjk izLrqr izys[kh; ,oa ekSf[kd lk{; dh

mDr O;k[;k ls ;g Li"V gS fd vokMZ fnukafdr 28-7-97 ds

ckn izkFkhZ egsUnz iky flag dks etnwj ds :Ik esa fu;qDr fd;k

x;k ;|fi bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ fu;qfDr&i= i=koyh ij

miyC/k ugha gS ysfdu lk{kh Jh egsUnz iky flag us Lohdkj

fd;k gS fd mls fnukad 30-3-98 dks fu;fer dj fn;k x;kA ;g

rF; Hkh Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ ls ubZ fu;qfDr ds ckn okgu pkyd

dk dk;Z djok;k tkrk Fkk ftlds lEcU/k esa 'kiFk&i= esa

foi{khx.k us dgk gS fd fu;qDr pkyd ds vodk’k ij gksus ij

Jfed ls MªkbZoj dk dk;Z djok;k tkrk Fkk ysfdu ;g ckr lgh

ugha gS fd fu;fer pkyd ds vodk’k ij gksus ij gh egsUnz

iky flag ls okgu pkyd dk dk;Z fy;k tkrk Fkk D;ksafd dbZ

vfHkys[kksa ls ;g Li"V gS fd egsUnz iky flag dks fofHkUu le;ksa

ij vyx&vyx okgu ls lEc) fd;k x;k gSA ;g Hkh Li"V

gS fd izkFkhZ ;g rF; fl) djus esa vlQy gS fd le>kSrk ij

vk/kkfjr vokMZ ds iwoZ og foi{k }kjk pkyd ds in ij fu;qDr

fd;k x;k FkkA

vc egRoiw.kZ iz’u ;g gS fd etnwj ds in ij

fu;qDr jgrs gq, izkFkhZ ls vko’;drkuqlkj okgu pkyd dk

dk;Z fy;s tkus ds dkj.k D;k U;k;kf/kdj.k ;g ?kks"k.kkRed

vkns’k ikfjr dj ldrh gS fd izkFkhZ foi{kh ds v/khu ,d

fu;fer pkyd gS vkSj pkyd in ls tqMs leLr ykHk ikus dk

gdnkj gS \ ;g rF; Hkh fufoZokn gS rFkk izkFkhZ us Loa; Lohdkj

fd;k gS fd vokMZ fnukafdr 28-7-97 ds ckn pkyd dh HkrhZ

fudkyh x;h Fkh ysfdu ml foKfIr ds lEcU/k esa mlds }kjk

MªkbZoj ds in ds fy;s vkosnu ugha Hkjk x;k FkkA mYys[kuh;

gS fd okgu pkyd dk in etnwj ls izksUur dk in ugha gS vr%

;g Li"V gS fd p;u izfdz;k esa Hkkx fy;s fcuk vkSj mlesa

lQy gq, fcuk izkFkhZ dks pkyd dk in iznku ugha fd;k tk

ldrkA fu;qfDr;ksa ds lEcU/k esa ;g lqLFkkfir fof/kd fLFkfr gS

fd fdlh in ij fu;qfDr ds fy;s p;u dh fof/kd izfdz;k

viuk;s fcuk dksbZ fof/k ekU; fu;qfDr ugha dh tk ldrh]

rnuqlkj eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gw¡ fd izkFkhZ egsUnz iky flag dks

fu;fer pkyd gksus ds lEcU/k esa ?kks"k.kkRed vkns’k fn;s tkus

dk vuqrks"k iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrk D;ksafd ,slk djuk

Hkkjrh; lafo/kku esa fu;qfDr;ksa ds lEcU/k esa iznRr volj dh

lekurk dh O;oLFkk dk mYya?ku gksxkA ;gha ij ;g ckr Hkh

fo’ks"k :Ik ls mYys[kuh; gS fd izkFkhZ i{k }kjk foHkkx esa pkyd

dk dksbZ in fjDr ugha fn[kk;k x;k gSA bl lEcU/k esa ekuuh;

loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ¼2008½ 2 ,l-lh-lh i`"B &552] pUnz

'ks[kj vktkn d`f"k ,oa izkS|ksfxdh fo’ofo|ky; & vihykFkhZ

cuke ;wukbVsM+ VªsM~l dkaxzsl vkSj vU;& izR;FkhZx.k esa nh xbZ

fof/k O;oLFkk vuqdj.kh; gSA

24-

lh-,l- vktkn d`f"k ,oa izkS|ksfxdh fo’ofo|ky; cuke

;wukbVsM+ VªsM dkaxzsl ds ekeys esa izR;FkhZ nks fnuk¡d 01-07-1980

dks :i;s 40 nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :Ik esa fo’ofo|ky; esa fu;qä

gqvk Fkk ftlus prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :Ik esa 31-10-1991 rd

ySc vflLVsaV&de&vVSUMsUV ds :Ik esa dke fd;k ijUrq 1-11-

1991 ls mlls lgk;d DydZ dk dke fy;k tkus yxkA izR;FkhZ]

,d VªsM ;wfu;u us izR;FkhZ nks dh rjQ ls vkS|ksfxd fookn

4970

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

mBk;k fd deZpkjh dh lsok;sa fo’ofo|ky; }kjk fu;fer

ugha dh x;hA vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k fu.kZ;kFkZ ;g

iz’u Fkk fd **D;k fo’ofo|ky; us deZpkjh dY;k.k flag ¼foi{kh

nks½ dks tks DydZ :Ik esa dk;Zjr gS] LFkk;h deZpkjh ?kksf"kr u

dj voS/kkfudrk dkfjr dh gS ;fn gk¡ rks D;k deZpkjh }kjk

;kfpr vuqrks"k vf/kdkfjd gS ,oa fdl rkjh[k ls ,oa fdl

vk/kkj ij \**

25-

vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ds fo}ku ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

us fookn dks izR;FkhZ nks ds i{k esa fuf.kZr dj fu.kZ; dh frfFk

30-5-1998 ls deZpkjh dks LFkk;h ?kksf"kr djus rFkk vuqxkeh

vkfFkZd ykHk iznku djus ds fy, funsZf’kr fd;kA

26-

U;k;kf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; ds iwoZ ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;

us dqN vU; deZpkfj;ksa rFkk fo’ofo|ky; ds chp fookn ls

lEcfU/kr ,d fjV ;kfpdk deZpkfj;ksa ds i{k esa fo’ofo|ky;

ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh rjQ ls iznÙk dqN fj;k;r ds vk/kkj

ij fuf.kZr dh FkhA U;k;kf/kdj.k us ftu vk/kkjksa ij vius le{k

yfEcr mä fookn fuf.kZr fd;k mlesa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;

}kjk fuf.kZr mä fjV ;kfpdk dk fu"d"kZ Hkh vk/kkj FkkA

27-

U;k;kf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) izLrqr flfoy eqrQdkZ

fjV ;kfpdk ekuuh; bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fujLr dh

x;hA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds fuEu izLrjkaas esa ;g

mYys[k gS]

“11.

The University statute does not provide for

appointment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis.

Respondent 2 in his written statement filed before the

Industrial Court did not make any averment that he had

been appointed in terms of the provisions of the statute or

prior thereto any advertisement therefore was made.

According to him, he being a hard working, honest, efficient

and eligible employee, was “entrusted” with the work of a

clerk from 1-11-1991. In his written statement, it was averred:

“5. That though the worker was working against a

permanent vacant post as a clerk in a permanent manner,

however, the employer is not giving him the actual scale

of pay and other allowances and benefits as that of a

permanent clerk. However, he is still considered as a daily

wager in spite of having worked since last 14 years

continuously, which is illegal and wrong.”

“12.

A feeble attempt, however, was made by the

learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent 2 to

state that he had been appointed against a permanent

vacancy. In his written statement, he did not raise any

such contention. It does not also appear from the records

that any offer of appointment was given to him. It is

inconceivable that an employee appointed on a regular

basis would not be given an offer of appointment or shall

not be placed on a scale of pay. We, therefore, have no

hesitation in proceeding on the premise that Respondent

2 was appointed on daily wages. The Industrial Court in

passing the impugned award proceeded on the premise

that Respondent 2 had been working for more than 240

days continuously from the date of his engagement. It is

now trite that the same by itself does not confer any right

upon a workman to be regularized in service. Working for

more than 240 days in a year was relevant only for the

purpose of application of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 providing for conditions precedent to

retrench the workmen. In does not speak of acquisition of

a right by the workman to be regularized in service.”

28-

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k vihy esa deZpkjh

fd rjQ ls ;g cgl dh x;h fd prqZFk Js.kh dehZ ds :Ik esa

deZdkj us ySc vflLVSUV ds LFkk;h fjDr in ij rFkk r``rh;

Js.kh deZpkjh ds :Ik esa DydZ ds LFkk;h in ij yEch vof/k rd

lsok dh gS] bl izdkj vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ;

vkns’k U;k;kf/kdj.k dh vf/kdkfjrk ds vUnj gSA izR;FkhZ dh

rjQ ls ;g Hkh cgl dh x;h fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds

vkns’k ls izR;FkhZ ls dfu"d deZpkjh dh fu;fer fd;s tk pqds

Fks vr% izR;FkhZ nks fu;fefrdj.k dk gdnkj FkkA fu.kZ; ds

fo:) vihykFkhZ dh rjQ ls ;g cgl dh x;h fd fu;qfDr

LVsP;wVjh ¼statutory½ fu;eksa ds fo:) Fkh vr% vf/kdj.k }kjk

fu;fefrdj.k dk funsZ’k ugha fn;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk rFkk

vf/kdj.k ?kks"k.kkRed O;kns’k dh fMdzh ikfjr ugha dj ldrkA

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vihy Lohdkj dh vkSj ;g

vo/kkfjr fd;k]**

“17.

The Industrial Court, therefore, in our opinion,

committed a serious error in passing the impugned award.

The High Court unfortunately did not pose unto itself a

right question. It referred to a large number of decisions.

Although most of the decisions referred to by the High

Court should have been applied for upholding the

contention of the appellant herein, without any deliberation

thereupon, the learned Judge has proceeded to determine

the question posed before it on a wholly wrong premise.

As noticed hereinbefore, it relied upon Mahendra L. Jain

which in no manner assists Respondent 2.

18. What was necessary to be considered was the

nature of work undertaken by the University. It undertakes

projects. For the said purpose, it may have to employ a

large number of persons. Their services had to be

temporary in nature. Even for that the provisions of

Articles 14 and 16 are required to be complied with. In the

event, the constitutional and statutory requirements are

not complied with, the contract of employment would be

rendered illegal.

19.

Services of Respondent 2 were not terminated.

He has been continuing to serve the University. We have

noticed hereinbefore that in a writ petition filed by other

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4971

employees on a concession made by the counsel for the

University, a purported scheme dated 24-4-2000 has been

formulated. Dr. Padia in that view of the matter stated before

us that of Respondent 2 comes within the purview of the

said scheme, his services shall be regularized when his

turn comes therefor.

20.

We place on record the aforementioned statement

made by Dr. Padia that as and when Respondent 2 becomes

entitled to be considered for being absorbed in the services

of the University pursuant to the said scheme, his case

may be considered. If his turn for consideration for

regularization has already come, a decision thereupon shall

be taken as expeditiously as possible.

21.

The impugned judgment is set aside. The appeal

is allowed with the aforementioned observations and

directions. However, in the facts and circumstances of

this case, there shall be no order as to costs.”

29-

ek/;fed f’k{kk ifj"kn ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us ekuuh;

loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k LosPN;k ij ;g tkfgj fd;k fd

vihykFkhZ ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds iwoZ esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ds

vuqlkj tc fo’ofo|ky; dh lsok esa vkesfyr djus ds fy,

gdnkj gks tkrk gS rc mlds ekeys ij fopkj fd;k tk

ldsxkA mä cgl dks fu.kZ; dk fgLlk cukrs gq, ekuuh;

loksZPp U;k;ky; us vihy [kkfjt dhA

30-

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk mDr n`"VkUr esa nh

xbZ fof/k O;oLFkk ls ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ egsUnz iky flag dks

mlds ekeys esa dksbZ ?kks"k.kkRed vuqrks"k U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk

iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrkA

31-

LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse ds izLrj 3 esa izkFkhZ us ;g

mYys[k fd;k gS fd mlls dfu"B deZpkjh Jh gqdepUn lSuh

vkSj pqUuhyky dks pkyd ds in ij fu;qfDr ns nh xbZ vkSj

mUgsa fu;fer dj fn;k x;kA bl lEcU/k esa mYYks[kuh; gS fd

LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse esa Jh gqdepUn lSuh vkSj pqUuhyky dh

foi{kh ds ;gka fu;qfDr dh izkjfEHkd frfFk ugh nh xbZ gS ftlls

;g tkudkjh gks lds fd egsUnz iky flag mlls ofj"B deZpkjh

gSA egsUnz iky flag dh lk{; esa izLrqr 'kiFk&i= esa Hkh

gqdepUn lSuh o pqUuhyky dh lsok esa vkus dh frfFk dk

mYys[k ugha gS ysfdu gqqdepUn lSuh dh fu;qfDr vkns’k dk

mYys[k gS tks izn’kZ MCY;w&13 gSA izn’kZ MCY;w&13 ls dsoy ;g

tkfgj gS fd Jh gqde pUn fnukad 26-2-97 dks MªkbZoj ds in

ij fu;qDr gq, gSaA bl vfHkys[k ls ;g tkfgj ugha gS fd laLFkk

esa og iwoZ ls fu;qDr jgk gS rFkk mldh fu;qfDr dh frfFk D;k

gSA izn’kZ MCY;w&1 ds voyksdu ls ;g izdV gS fd pqUuh yky

dh fu;qfDr 'ksM~;wYM dkLV dksVk ij vk/kkfjr crk;h x;h gS

vr% pqUuh yky ds ekeys ls dksbZ enn ugha yh tk ldrh gSA

;gha ij ofj"Brk ds lEc) esa ;g ckr fo’ks"k :Ik ls mYys[kuh;

gS fd le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij Jh egsUnz iky flag }kjk fnukad

30-3-98 dks viuh fu;qfDr dks u;h fu;qfDr ds :Ik esa Lohdkj

djus ds ckn iwoZ ds deZpkfj;ksa ls rqyuk dk vf/kdkj muds

ekeys esa 'ks"k ugha jg tkrk gSA le>kSrk ij vk/kkfjr vokMZ ds

dkj.k Hkh pqUuhyky vkSj gqdqepUn dh fu;qfDr dks iqu% mBkus

dk vk/kkj 'ks"k ugha jg tkrk gSA le>kSrs dh 'krZ esa Hkh izkFkhZ us

;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ofj"Brk ds lEcU/k esa og dksbZ ek¡x ugha

djsxkA vr% mDr fLFkfr ds vk/kkj ij eS bl fu"d"kZ ij g¡w fd

orZeku izdj.k esa pqUuhyky rFkk gqdqe pUn dh fu;qfDr ds

ekeys dks mBkus dk fof/kd vf/kdkj izkFkhZ ds i{k esa 'ks"k ugha

jg tkrk gSA

32-

izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 30-3-98 dks u;h fu;qfDr Lohdkj

djus ds ckn iqu% mls pkyd ds in ij fu;qDr dj fn;s tkus

dh ek¡x yxHkx vkB lky ls Hkh T;knk le; ckn bruk foyEc

ls mBk;k x;k gS fd vdsys foyEc ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dk ekeyk

vLohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS D;ksafd bls Lohdkj djus ij dbZ

vU; fookn mRiUu gksaxsA mnkg.kkFkZ& fofHkUu vkns’kksa esa fofHkUu

okgukas ds lkFk pkydks adh lEc)rk esa egsUnz iky flag ds lkFk

vU; etnwjksa ds uke Hkh n’kkZ;s x;s gSa tks pkyd ds in ij ugha

jgdj Hkh okgu ls lEc) n’kkZ;s x;s gSaA izkFkhZ dh u;h fu;qfDr

o"kZ 1998 ls ysdj jsQjsUl ds le; 2007 dh vof/k ds chp tks

pkyd fu;fer :Ik ls fu;qDr gq, gksaxss muds gd Hkh ,slk

vuqrks"k iznku djus ls izHkkfor gksaxsA bl lEcU/k esa ekuuh;

loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ts-Vh- 1996 (7) ,l-lh- 181] lsUV~y

cSad vkQ bfUM;k cuke ,l-lR;e ,oa vU; esa nh x;h fof/k

O;oLFkk izklafxd gS ftlesa 1974 rFkk 1976 ds chp NVauh’kqnk

deZpkfj;ksa dh iqufuZ;kstu gsrq 1982 esa izLrqr ;kfpdk dks

foyEc ds vk/kkj ij vuqrks"k iznku djus ds fy, vuqi;qDr

djkj fn;k x;k vkSj ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr

fd;k fd deZpkjh x.k yEcs foyEc ds dkj.k vuqrks"k ds gdnkj

ugha gSA

33-

i{kdkjksa ds vfHkopuksa rFkk mlds leFkZu es iznRr

vfHkys[kh; ,oa ekSf[kd lk{; dh mDr foospuk ,oa fo’ys"k.k ds

vk/kkj ij eS bl fu"d"kZ ij gw¡ fd le>kSrk fnukafdr

28-7-97 dh 'krksZa ds vk/kkj ij Jh egsUnz iky flag dks pkyd

ds in ij fu;qDr djus dh jktLFkku lkoZtfud {ks= deZpkjh

la?k dh ek¡x fof/kd ,oa U;k;kuqer ugha gSA vr% nkosnkj fdlh

vuqrks"k dks ikus dk gdnkj ugha gSA U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr

funsZ’k dk mRrj mDr izdkj fn;k tkrk gSA iapkV rn~uqlkj

ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

34-

iapkV dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrxZr izdk’kukFkZ

izsf"kr dh tk;A

Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

4972

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1914.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc

uS'kuy cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 83/2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 27@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@27@2007&vkbZvkj¼ch-&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2014

S.O. 1914.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 83/2007)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus.-cum-Labour Court-1, Chandigarh

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of the Punjab

National Bank and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 27/06/2014.

[No. L-12012/27/2007-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH.

Case No. ID 83 of 2007. Reference No. L-12012/27/2007-

IR(B-II) dated 24.09.2007 and corrigendum dated

03.01.2013.

Sh. Satish Kumar Kaundal,

VPO Muhal, Tehsil Dehra,

Distt. Kangra (HP), Kangra

...Workman

Versus

1. The Regional Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Regional Office, Bank Square,

Sector-17B, Chandigarh.

2. Vice President,

PNB Housing Finance Ltd.,

SCO No.84-85, Sector-8C,

Chandigarh

...Respondents

Appearances :

For the Workman

: Workman in person.

For the Management

: None for the Respondents.

AWARD

Passed on 23.04.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No.L-12012/27/2007-IR(B-II)dated 24.09.2007

and corrigendum dated 03.01.2013 has referred the

following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference:

“Whether the termination of Shri Satish Kumar

Kaudal from the services w.e.f. 12.05.2005 by M/s

Snack Services, a contractor of PNB Housing

Finance (a subsidiary of Punjab National Bank) is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?”

2. The workman in claim statement submitted that he

was employed with Respondent No.2 i.e. P.N.B. Housing

Finance Ltd. (in short PNB HFL) at Chandigarh on 24.1.1992

and on 12.5.2005 his services is terminated arbitrarily

though he has completed 14 years services without any

break. The only plea taken by the respondent No.2 was

that his services were not directly with them but he was

engaged through M/s Snack Bar who used to supply the

labour. It is further submitted by the workman that the

above M/s Snack Bar was the canteen contractor at PNB,

Sector-17-B, Main Office, at Chandigarh. It is further

submitted by the workman that the above M/s Snack Bar

has no license to supply the labour. It is further pleaded

by the workman that it is settled law that if a person has no

labour supply license, employment through him is illegal

and should be treated the employee of the principle

employer i.e. P.N.B. Housing Finance Ltd. It is further

pleaded by the workman that he was recommended for

regular services by the then Vice President on 15.10.93

and he was issued experience certificate on 6.4.1996 by

Respondent No.2 and in reply to letter of the workman

respondent No.2 that the workman was in the service of

Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Ltd. since 24.1.92

but he was not given any regular service and his claim is

further substantiated from the correspondence made by

the workman to the respondents. It is further pleaded by

the workman that the above respondent no.2 is fully owned

subsidiary of Punjab National Bank and is a registered

company under the Companies Act. It is also pleaded by

the workman that during 1992 in Punjab National Bank i.e.

respondent no.1, drivers were appointed on contract basis

like the workman and they were regularized after 4/5 years

but the workman was not given this benefit. It is also

pleaded by the workman that before his relieving he had

already completed service of more than 240 days in a

calendar year and he is still ready to work with respondent

No.2. He prayed for his reinstatement in service with full

back wages.

3. Vide corrigendum no. No. L-12012/27/2007-IR

(B-II) dated 3.1.2013, Vice President P.N.B. Housing,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4973

Finance Ltd. S.C.O. No. 84-85 Sector -8-C, Chandigarh has

been added party respondent no.2-A by the Ministry of

Labour. Notices were issued to the parties i.e. workman

and both the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2. From

the record of the file it is revealed that earlier Sh. Ashok

Kumar Sharma was representing respondent no.1 and

none was appearing on behalf of respondent no.2. Lateron

Sh. Negi was representing respondent no.1 i.e. P.N.B.

Respondent No.2 i.e. Punjab National Bank filed written

statement stating therein that PNB Housing Finance Ltd.is

a separate legal entity. They have separate rules /

regulation for appointing /engaging / employing of

employees. The Regional Manager (Now Circle Head)

Punjab National Bank, Sector-17-B Chandigarh has

wrongly been made party in claim statement. In written

statement has been mentioned that the workman had never

been engaged /worked with the Punjab National Bank. It

is also requested that name of Regional Manager (Circle

Head ) PunjabNational Bank Sector-17-B be deleted from

the array of respondents.

4. Vice President P.N.B. Housing, Finance Ltd. S.C.O.

No. 84-85 Sector -8-C, Chandigarh did not file written

statement. Photo copy of General Power of Attorney has

been filed authorizing Sh. Sanjai Kumar Singh S/o V.N.Singh

as an attorney on behalf of the company. Sh. Sanjai Kumar

Singh appeared in this court on behalf of respondent no.2

on two occasion but he also did not participate further in

the proceedings. Ultimately the case was proceeded ex-

party against the respondent No.2.

The workman also filed his affidavit almost on the same

facts and circumstances as claimed by him in the claim

statement. He also filed correspondence between

contractor i.e. M/s Snack Services to the Vice President

PNB Housing Finance Ltd. and also letter from Senior Vice

President to the Chief PNB Housing Finance Ltd. for

recommending his permanent posting with the respondent

no.2 showing that workman was deputed by M/s Snack

Services and he was maintaining the office very nicely for

the last two years and his case may be considered

sympathically. The workman also placed on record the

experience certificate issued by Vice President PNB

Housing Finance Ltd. showing the workman as deputed

by M/s Snack Services in their office. The workman also

placed on record some inter-see correspondence of

respondent no.2. He also placed on record call letter

received from Punjab National Bank for appearing for the

post of clerk-cum-cashier.

5. I have heard the submissions made by the workman

during arguments. The workman submitted that the above

M/s Snack Services have no license to supply labour,

therefore, the workman who worked continuously with

respondent no.2 from the year 1992 to 12.5.2005. He also

submitted that he had completed more than 240 days in

each year and he is still ready to work with the respondent

no.2. As the Labour Supply Contractor i.e. M/s Snack

Services has no license to supply labour and in that

eventuality, the principal employer i.e. respondent no.2 is

liable and the workman become employee of respondent

no.2 and as the management violated the provisions of

I.D.Act 1947, therefore, the workman is entitled for

reinstatement with respondent no.2 w.e.f. 12.05.2005 and

also entitled for back wages also for the period from

12.5.2005 till date.

6. The workman placed annexure P-1 a letter from Prop.

Snack Services addressed to Vice President PNB Housing

Finance regarding working of Satish Kaundal (workman).

It has been mentioned in this letter that Senior Vice

President, PNB Housing Finance Chandigarh has asked

for a one person for the job of peon-cum-record keeper in

PNB Housing Finance Ltd.Chandigarh branch from Snack

Services and the Snack Services provided one candidate

Mr. Satish Kaundal (workman) who worked from 24.1.92

to 12.5.2005 regularly and there was no break period in

this 14year of his job record. Snack Services letter also

reveal that Snack Services had no labour licence and Mr.

Satish Kaundal (workman) has not worked for Snack

Services. Snack Services clearly mentioned in this letter

that Snack Services is not labour supplier contractor and

it is only a canteen contractor.

7. The letter dated 15.10.93 addressed to the Chief

PNB Housing Finance Ltd. Head Office New Delhi by

Senior Vice President of Respdt.No.2 stating therein that

the workman Satish Kumar has been deputed by M/S Snack

Services for maintenance of his office from 24.1.1992 and

the application of workman was forwarded to the Head

Office for permanent posting under subordinate staff. The

Respdt. No.2 has also issued a certificate on 6.4.1996

stating therein that M/S Snack Services has provided Shri

Satish Kumar ( workman ) as office maintainer in their

office and the workman is maintaining their office since

24.1.1992.. The workman also drawn attention to the letter

dated 17.12.1997 in which it is stated by Respdt. No.2 i.e.

PNB Housing Finance Ltd. Chandigarh has entered into

an agreement with M/S Snack Services on 11.9.1996 for

cleaning and for upkeeping the premises and the workman

was engaged by the contractor M/S Snack Service .

8. From all the above correspondence it revels that

Satish Kumar Kaundal ( workman) was provided to the

office of PNB Housing Finance Ltd. Chandigarh on

24.1.1992 and he worked with the above Respondent No.2

i.e. PNB Housing Finance Ltd. Chandigarh up to 12.5.2005

when he was refused to work by the respondent No.2. It

also reveals from the documents/correspondence

mentioned above that M/S Snack Service has no labour

supply licence and it was only a canteen contractor.

9. As discussed above, it is settled principle of law

that if any contractor has no licence issued by the

competent authority for supply of labour, then in that

eventuality, the principal employer is liable for violation of

4974

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

any provision of Industrial Dispute Act 1947. In the case

in hand, the workman Satish Kaundal was provided by

Snack Services to respondent no.2 i.e. PNB Housing

Finance Ltd. It was the primary duty of the principle

employer to make it certain that the so called contractor

Snack Services have any valid license to supply labour. It

is admitted by Snack Services in its letter that workman

Satish Kaundal was provided to the respondent no.2 on

24.1.92 and he continued working with respondent no.2

upto 12.5.2005, continuously for 14 years without any break

when his(Satish Kaundal workman) services were

terminated without complying with the mandatory

provisions of the I.D. Act 1947. Therefore, it is held that

termination of workman is illegal in violation of the

provisions of I.D Act 1947.

10. In view of the discussion in the earlier paras, the

management i.e. respondent no.2 is directed to reinstate

the workman in service with all consequential benefits. In

the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the

workman shall be paid 40% of the back wages by the

management within one month from the publication of

award.

11. The reference is answered accordingly. Central

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

the Central Govt.for publication.

Chandigarh

23.04.2014

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1915

dk-vk- 1915.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ

cM+kSnk ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 17/2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

27@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@69@2012&vkbZvkj¼ch-&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2014

S.O. 1915.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/2013)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Bank of Baroda and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

27/06/2014.

[No. L-12011/69/2012 - IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

I.D.17/2013

Reference No.L-12011/69/2012-( IR(B-II) dated: 30.1.2013

General Secretary

Bank of Baroda Karamchari Union

C/o Bank of Baroda, D-38-A,

Ashok Marg, Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme,

Jaipur.

V/s.

1. General Manager

Bank of Baroda, Anand Bhawan,

S.C.Road, Jaipur.

2. General Manager

Bank of Baroda, Baroda Corporate Centre,

C-26, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,

Bandra (East), Mumbai.

Present :

For the Applicant union : None.

For the non-applicants

: Sh. Rupin K. Kala, Advocate

AWARD

16.5.2014

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred

the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:-

“Whether the demand of the union for payment of

special pay to the computer operators on man-

machine ratio 1:1 is fair, legal & justified. What relief

they are entitled to?”

2. In pursuance of reference order, registered notices

were sent to both the parties as per address given in

reference order. Opposite party has been served with

notice & their appearance is on record through

Vakalatnama. First notice sent to the applicant did not

returned back but acknowledgement attached with notice

to applicant was received back without signature of the

person who received the notice. In above fact &

circumstance, order was passed on 31.3.2014 to reissue

registered notice against the applicant for 5.5.2014. The

registered notice sent to the applicant has not come back

& acknowledgement attached to it has also not returned

back. In above fact & circumstance, the service of notice

was held sufficient against the applicant on 12.5.2014. It is

pertinent to note that till 12.5.2014 statement of claim has

not been filed by applicant whereas status of service of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4975

registered notice indicates that addressee is in knowledge

& receipt of the notice. It is also important to note that in

reference order dated 30.1.2013 itself the applicant was

directed by the Ministry to file statement of claim complete

with relevant documents & list of witnesses in the tribunal

within 15 days from the date of receipt of reference order

forwarding copy of such statement of claim to opposite

parties but in compliance of that order too applicant has

failed to file any statement of claim. Under these

circumstances, the reference order under adjudication

cannot be adjudicated on merits, hence, “No Claim Award”

is passed in this matter. The reference under adjudication

is answered accordingly.

3. Award as above.

4. Let a copy of the award be sent to Central

Government for publication u/s 17(1) of the I.D.Act.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1916.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj flaMhdsV

cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 34/

2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@44@2013&vkbZvkj¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2014

S.O. 1916.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2013)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Syndicate Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/06/2014.

[No. L-12011/44/2013-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

I.D. 34/2013

Reference No.L-12011/44/2013-IR(B-II) dated: 12.7.2013

Sh. Sunil Kumar

S/o Sh. Murari Lal

Vigyan Nagar, Vistar Yojana,

Ganesh Nagar, Kachi Basti,

Gali No.4, H.No.4-L 36,

Kota (Rajasthan)

V/s.

Branch Manager

Syndicate Bank

Ramganj Mandi Branch

Dist; Kota (Rajasthan).

Present:-

For the Applicant

: Sh. Jugal Kishore Agrawal,

Adv.

For the Non-applicant : Ex-Party

AWARD

Dated : 30.5.2014

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred

the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:-

“Whether action of the management of Syndicate

Bank, in terminating the service of Sri Sunil Kumar

w.e.f. 19.05.2011 is just, and legal? What relief the

workman is entitled to?”

2. The fact of the case in brief according to the statement

of the claim is that the workman Sh. Sunil Kumar was

appointed on 25.3.2009 in Syndicate Bank, Ramganj Mandi

Branch, Kota against permanent post for permanent work

according to law for which he had filled up the application

form & was interviewed by the bank. It has been further

alleged that there are number of agreements between the

bank & the worker’s Union of the bank according to which

a workman after working continuously for 240 days, he is

made regular & permanent. In order of above agreement

like applicant other workmen engaged in other branches

of the Syndicate Bank existing in the state of Rajasthan

were made permanent after completion of one year of

service, e.g. Porulal Meena in Sawai Madhopur Branch

has been made permanent & in Sikar, Bundi, Jhalarapatan

& Tonk Branches also workmen have been made

permanent & applicant is jobless since his removal from

service.

3. It has been further alleged that applicant requested

the Branch Manager that more than one year has elapsed

since he has started working hence he be made permanent.

After the request of the workman a letter dated 6.12.2010

(Annex-1) was written by the then Branch Manager to

A.G.M., Personal Department, Regional Office, Jaipur but

instead of applicant being made permanent he was removed

from the service illegally on 19.5.2011.

4. It has been further alleged that from date of

appointment on 25.3.2009 till the date of removal on

19.5.2011 the workman has worked continuously without

break except Sunday & public Holidays & payment for

the same has been made to the applicant which means

4976

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that workman has worked continuously till the date of his

illegal removal & further he has worked more than 240

days in every year. The applicant has worked with full

dedication & honesty & there has been no complaint

against the work of the applicant workman. The applicant’s

registration no. in Regional Employment Exchange, Kota

is 4386/2008 & applicant is holding the eligibility for

permanent employment in the bank. Applicant’s

educational qualification is secondary pass & he is also a

scheduled caste (SC) person.

5. It has been further alleged that before removal from

service he was not served with any notice neither he was

assigned any reason. The applicant was employed on the

post of IVth class & the work which he was performing is

of such a nature which will continued to exist till the

existence of the bank i.e. to say that his post & work was

of permanent nature. The bank has failed to comply with

provision of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H & Rule 77 & 78 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the removal of

workman from service & has also failed to observe the

principles of natural justice hence, it is necessary to declare

the removal of workman void. The applicant has not been

given one month’s notice or one month’s pay in lieu of

notice or retrenchment compensation before removal from

service. It has been further alleged that in Rajasthan there

are nearly sixty branches of the bank within the control of

Regional Office, Jaipur hence, it was necessary for the

bank to prepare the seniority list of the workman working

in those branches & they should have removed the junior

most employee according to principle of “last come first

go” which has not been complied by the bank. It has also

been alleged that after removal of the workman from the

service new appointments has been made in other branches

of the bank existing in the State of Rajasthan but before

making such appointments applicant was neither informed

nor offered any appointment.

6. It has been further alleged that following the policy

of exploitation by misusing the state of unemployment in

the country workman was paid only @ 100/- Rs. Per day

against the permanent post whereas he should have been

paid the wages of a regular employee. The minimum pay

scale for the post & cadre on which applicant was working

in the bank is Rs. 5450.00 + D.A + CCA+ other allowances

which altogether makes out approx. Rs.15000/-. It is

pertinent to inform that there is agreement between head

office of the bank & workmen’s union of the bank that if a

workman completes six months of service then he has to

be paid the minimum amount of the pay scale available to

IVth class employee but the bank has failed to comply

above agreement.

7. It has been further alleged that when applicant was

not taken back on duty after request made to the Branch

Manager then he raised industrial dispute before Central

Conciliation Officer, Kota wherein the bank has accepted

that applicant was employed as casual labourer for the

entire period mentioned above. It has also been alleged

that it is important & necessary to note that there is no

employment category as ‘casual labour’ in the bank

therefore it is unfortunate that an allegation was made by

bank before the Conciliation Officer that the applicant was

employed as casual labourer. The nature of the post & the

work of the applicant workman was permanent nature. It

has also been alleged that the industrial dispute raised

before the Conciliation Officer be treated as part of the

statement of claim. It has been prayed that the order of

removal dated 19.5.2011 be declared illegal & void &

applicant workman be reinstated with all pay & benefits &

continuity in the service.

8. Notice was sent to opposite party bank against

statement of claim which has been dully served on the

bank & acknowledgement of service is available on record

of the file. On 30.1.2014 instead of proceeding ex-parte an

opportunity was given to opposite party fixing 25.3.2014

for filing written statement but written statement was not

filed & opposite party remained absent. On 25.3.2014 in

above circumstance order was passed to proceed ex-parte

against opposite party bank & case was fixed for ex-parte

evidence of the applicant on 15.4.2014. On 15.4.2014 ex-

parte evidence of applicant Sh. Sunil Kumar has been filed

which is affidavit of Sh. Sunil Kumar; along with affidavit

annexure-1 to 8 has been attached by applicant which is

documentary evidence in form of photocopy as mentioned

below:-

Annexure Ex-w-1:-Application of the applicant Sh. Sunil

Kumar dated 3.12.2010 addressed to Regional Manager,

Syndicate Bank, Jaipur to consider his candidature for

recruitment to the post of temporary attendant.

Annexure Ex-w—2:-Letter by Branch Manager, Syndicate

Bank, Branch- Ramganjmandi to A.G.M.(Personnel

Department), Regional Office, Jaipur.

Annexure Ex-w-3:-Bio-data of Sh. Sunil Kumar dated

1.4.1990 along with photocopy of registration number at

employment office, Kota & illegible photocopy of Mark

sheet of Secondary School Examination of Sh. Sunil Kumar.

Annexure Ex-w-4:-Undated letter (3 page) of Sh. Sunil

Kumar addressed to Conciliation Officer (Central) for

issuing direction to Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank,

Ramganjmandi in favour of Sh. Sunil Kumar, applicant to

work on the post of attendant.

Annexure Ex-w-5:-Letter from Syndicate Bank,

Ramganjmandi Branch, Distt: Kota to re-conciliation officer

& Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Sribhavan,

Station Road, Kota Junction regarding industrial dispute

between Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Ramganjmandi

& Sh. Sunil Kumar in matter of denying appointment as

attendant to the applicant Sh. Sunil Kumar.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4977

Annexure Ex-w-6:-Letter dated 27.4.2011 by Branch

Manager, Syndicate Bank, Ramganjmandi to

A.G.M.(Personnel Department), Regional Office, Jaipur for

adding the name of Sh. Sunil Kumar in panel of temporary

attendant.

Annexure Ex-w-7:-Letter dated 4.5.2011 by Branch

Manager, Syndicate Bank, Ramganjmandi to

A.G.M.(Personnel Department), Regional Office, Jaipur for

adding the name of Sh. Sunil Kumar in panel of temporary

attendant.

Annexure Ex-w-8:-Agenda for “ Mini-Joint Meeting &

Fixation of Suitable date for discussion” dated 23.4.2012

sent to D.G.M., Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Jaipur by

Sh. Banwarilal Agrawal, State Secretary, Syndicate Bank

Employees’ Union, (Regd.), Lalbag, Lucknow.

Annexure Ex-w-9:-Agenda for “ Mini-Joint Meeting &

Fixation of Suitable date for discussion” dated 10.9.2013

sent to D.G.M., Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Jaipur by

Sh. Banwarilal Agrawal, State Secretary, Syndicate Bank

Employees’ Union, (Regd.), Lalbag, Lucknow.

9. In addition to above documents undated letter

consisting of 2 page by Sh. Sunil Kumar addressed to

A.G.M., Regional Office, Japur has also been filed along

with affidavit which is regarding calling the applicant Sh.

Sunil Kumar back to the post of attendant. Except above

no other evidence or document is on record.

10. Heard ex-parte argument of learned counsel for the

applicant Sh. Sunil Kumar & perused the record.

11. Following cases have been referred from applicant

side:-

AIR 1976 Supreme Court, 1111, The State Bank

of India, Appellant V/s Sh. N.Sundara Money,

Respondent.

ii.

AIR 1979 Supreme Court, 75, M/s Hindustan Tin

Works Pvt. Ltd, Appellant V/s The Employees of

M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. & others,

Respondents.

iii.

1982 (44) FLR, Supreme Court, page 250, L.Robert

D’souza V/s The Executive Engineer, Southern

Railway & another.

iv.

2011 AIR SCW 3455, Devendra Singh V/s

Municipal Council, Sanaur.

12. According to settled principle of law initial burden

is on the workman to prove that he had in fact worked for

240 days during the preceding 12 months from the date of

his alleged termination on 19.5.2011 & such termination

was in violation of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes

Act. The workman in para 4 of his affidavit has alleged

that from 25.3.2009 to 19.5.2011 he has worked for more

than 240 days in each year except Sunday, Public holiday

& Bank holidays. Copy of attendance register or detail of

payments made in form of wages have not been produced

by the workman & there is only mere allegation in the

affidavit which is repetition of statement of claim. No other

witness like co-worker has been examined to support the

case of workman. These are the very basic things which

should form the evidence of workman which has not been

produced. There is no appointment letter or dismissal letter

on record. However, it has been pointed out by the learned

counsel for the applicant that Ex-w-2, Ex-w-5, w-6 & w-7

are the documentary evidence which are creation of the

bank & in these documents it has been admitted that since

creation of the branch of Ramganjmandi workman was

working continuously till the date of removal. Although

these documents of recommendation by Branch Manager

to add the name of the applicant in panel of attendants

can not be treated as proof for working by the workman

for a period of 240 days but representation ( Ex-w-5) made

by the bank against industrial dispute raised by workman

indicates admission of the bank in para 2,7 & 10 that Ex-w-

2,w-6 & w-7 are the recommendations which were made by

the bank in form of internal correspondence to consider

the name of the applicant for including him in the panel of

temporary attendants. All these three exhibited documents

indicate that the workman was working in the branch from

the day of the opening of the bank on 25.9.2003 till the

date of his removal on 19.5.2011. Ex-w-6 is dated 27.4.2011

in which it has been admitted that Sh. Sunil Kumar is still

working in the branch on daily wage basis on the post of

sweeper. Ex-w-5 which is representation of the bank before

the Conciliation Officer admits that workman Sh. Sunil

Kumar was engaged as daily wage worker @ 100/- Rs. per

day on casual basis. In this representation it has also

been alleged that he was not the employee of the bank &

he was not issued with any appointment letter to accord

him the status of the employee of the bank hence issuing

of notice for his removal is not necessary & thus there is

no violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act.

Regarding removal of Sh. Sunil Kumar from the service it

has been alleged that he was engaged as casual labourer

& he has been paid for that & as he is not an employee of

the bank the question of his removal from the bank does

not arise. It has also been said that he was not removed

from the service but only he was discontinued as a casual

labourer. From the above admitted position & in absence

of any specific denial by the bank about services rendered

by the workman & in absence of any pleading & evidence

on behalf of bank there is no reason to disbelieve the

affidavit of the workman against which there is no cross-

examination. The affidavit of the workman that he has

worked for 240 days stands uncontroverted. There is no

documentary or oral evidence on behalf of bank to

disprove the statement of the workman. In absence of

reply to statement of claim and any evidence in rebuttal it

can be safely inferred that non-applicant has admitted the

claim of the workman about 240 days working during

4978

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

required period. From above fact & circumstances, it is

clear that the workman has worked since inception of the

bank on 25.3.2009 till the date of his removal hence I am of

the view that the workman has succeeded in establishing

that he has completed 240 days work in preceding year

from the date of his removal on 19.5.2011.

13. As far as the status of a casual labour to be covered

within the definition of ‘workman’ as defined in section

2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is concerned reference

has been made by learned counsel for the applicant about

the law laid down in the case reported in 1982 (44) FLR,

Supreme Court, page 250, L.Robert D’souza V/s The

Executive Engineer, Southern Railway & another. In the

above cited case it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme

Court that a daily rated casual labourer is a workman &

termination of his service constitute retrenchment & the

workman would be entitled to protection the provision of

section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act.

14. In 2011 AIR SCW 3455, Devendra Singh V/s

Municipal Council, Sanaur, for a person to be regarded as

a ‘workman’ it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in para 13 & 14 of the judgement as mentioned

below:-

“13. The source of employement, the method of

recruitment, the terms & 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.

“14. It is apposite to observe that the definition of

workman also does not make any distinction between

full-time and part-time employee or a person

appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the

plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be

inferred that only a person employed on regular basis

or a person employed for doing whole-time job is a

workman and the one employed on temporary, part-

time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual

employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a

workman.”

15. About application of Section 25-F of Industrial

Disputes Act reference has been made by the learned

counsel for the applicant about the law laid down in AIR

1976 Supreme Court, 1111, The State Bank of India,

Appellant V/s. Sh. N. Sundara Money, Respondent. In the

above cited case out of two employees involved in the

appeals pending before the Supreme Court one was re-

absorbed in service but the other was out of service during

pendency of appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The

respondent employee was appointed off & on, by the State

Bank of India between July 31^st, 1973 & 29 Aug, 1973. The

term & condition of appointment was as mentioned below:-

“1.

The appointment is purely a temporary one for a

period of 9 days but may be terminated earlier,

without assigning any reason there for at the

bank’s discretion;

The employment, unless terminated earlier, will

automatically cease at the expiry of the period i.e.

18.11.1972.”

16. This appointment of 9 days went on to the position

mentioned earlier for about a year. The appellant State

Bank of India suffered defeat before the Hon’ble High

Court & consequently preferred appeal before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court with special leave. The division bench of

the Hon’ble High Court held that respondent was entitled

to retrenchment compensation which was not paid &

hence the termination was invalid. It was argued by the

appellant in the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there was no

retrenchment of respondent employee within the meaning

of section 2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 &

respondent was not entitled to the statutory retrenchment

compensation. It was also argued that obligation of making

payment of compensation flows only out of retrenchment

& not from termination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

referring to the letter of appointment & section 2(oo) of

Industrial Dispute held that provision of section 25-F was

attracted. In para 9 of the judgement the Hon’ble Apex

Court held as under:-

“9. A break-down of Sec. 2(oo) unmistakably expands

the semantics of retrenchment. “Termination .............

for any reason whatsoever’ are the key words.

Whatever the reason, every termination spells

retrenchment. So the sole question is has the

employee’s service been terminated? Verbal apparel

apart, the substance is decisive. A termination takes

place where a term expires either by the active step

of the master or the running out of the stipulated

term. To protect the weak against the strong this

policy of comprehensive definition has been

effectuated. Termination embraces not merely the

act of termination by the employer, but the fact of

termination howsoever produced. Maybe, the

present may be a hard case, but we can visualise

abuses by employers, by suitable verbal devices,

circumventing the armour of Section 25F and Section

2(oo). Without speculating on possibilities, we may

agree that ‘retrenchment’ is no longer terra incognita

but area covered by an expansive definition. It means

‘to end, conclude, cease.’ In the present case the

employment ceased, concluded, ended on the

expiration of nine days automatically may be, but

cessation all the same. That to write into the order

of appointment the date of termination confers no

moksha from Sec. 25F (b) is inferable from the proviso

to Section 25F (1) (sic) (Section 25F (a). ......................

Words of multiple import have to be winnowed

judicially to suit the social philosophy of the statute.

So screened, we hold that the transitive and

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4979

intransitive senses are covered in the current

context. Moreover, an employer terminates

employment not merely by passing an order as the

service runs. He can do so by writing a composite

order, one giving employment and the other ending

or limiting it. A separate, subsequent determination

is no the sole magnetic pull of the provision. A pre-

emptive provision to terminate is truck by the same

vice as the post-appointment termination. Dexterity

of diction cannot defeat the articulated conscience

of the provision.”

17. Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal & it

has been held that respondents services were terminated

in violation of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

18. From perusal of the statement of claim, evidence

adduced in support thereof & discussions made above it

is clear that the workman has succeeded in establishing

that he is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of

Industrial Disputes Act & has worked for more than 240

days during the preceding 12 months from the date of his

termination. Admittedly, no notice or pay in lieu of notice

or compensation was paid to him at the time of termination

of his services. It is, therefore, established that termination

of the workman has taken place in violation of section

25-F of Industrial Dispute Act.

19. The workman in statement of claim & in affidavit

has stated that seniority list was not prepared by the bank

& the principle of ‘last come first go’ was not followed &

new appointments were made but opportunity was not

given neither any information was given to the applicant

therefore, there was violation of section 25-G & 25-H &

Rule 77 & 78 of the Industrial Disputes Act. From perusal

of the entire pleading it shall appear that no one has been

named who has been appointed after the date of

termination of the applicant. About retention of junior in

service it is pertinent to note that in para 2 of the statement

of claim it has been said that in Sawaimadhopur branch

Sh. Porulal Meena was made permanent but it has not

been indicated whether he was an employee junior to him

hence there does not appear to be any violation of section

25-G by retaining Sh. Porulal Meena or by making him

permanent. Similarly there does not appear to be any

violation of section 25-H as person appointed after the

termination have not been named neither there date of

appointment has been mentioned hence except the bald

statement there is no documentary evidence in support of

the contentions. Thus, the workman has failed to establish

any violation of section 25-G or 25-H of the Industrial

Disputes Act. Here it is important to mention that in the

matter of compliance with section 25-G & 25-H of the Act,

in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar

District Panchayat, Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh,

Respondent, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court,

“……………. In the absence of regular employment of the

workmen, the appellant was not expected to maintain

seniority list of the employees engaged on daily wages

and in the absence of any proof by the respondent

regarding existence of the seniority list and his so-called

seniority, no relief could be given to him for non-

compliance with provisions of the Act.” In the present

case it is admitted by the applicant that there is no existence

of seniority list of the workman employed on daily wage

basis hence, I am of the view that as per law laid down by

Hon’ble Apex Court in Surendranagar District Panchayat,

Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh, Respondent, benefit

of section 25-G & 25-H cannot be claimed by the applicant

workman.

20. As far as granting relief to the applicant is concerned

it is clear that the alleged action of the management of

bank in terminating the services of the workman was in

violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. It has

been argued by learned counsel for applicant that where

there is violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes

Act the workman can be reinstated with other

consequential benefits. In support of his contention the

learned counsel has referred the decision in AIR 1979

Supreme Court, 75, M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd,

Appellant V/s The Employees of M/s Hindustan Tin Works

Pvt. Ltd. & others, Respondents. In above cited case

Labour Court held the retrenchment of certain workman

illegal & had directed the reinstatement with full back

wages. Before the Hon’ble Apex Court the matter of grant

of full back wages was challenged but the relief of

reinstatement was not in challenge. Considering the various

facts & circumstances of the case appeal was partly allowed

by Hon’ble Apex Court & 75% back wages was awarded

to be paid in two equal instalments.

21. This legal position is not in dispute that in case of

non-compliance of section 25-F the workman can be

reinstated with other consequential reliefs.

22. Earlier in cases of termination in violation of section

25-F reinstatement of the workman with full back wages

used to be automatically granted, but keeping in view

several other factors, a change in the said trend is now

found in the recent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court. In a large number of decisions in the matter of grant

of relief of the kind, Hon’ble Apex Court has distinguished

between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a

permanent employee.

23. In recent decision (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 545 Jagbir

Singh V/s Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board after

considering the earlier decisions referred to therein on the

point should an order of reinstatement automatically

follows in a case of violation of section 25-F of the I.D.Act

Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that:-

“It would be, thus seen that by a catena of decisions

in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that

4980

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

an order of retrenchment passed in violation of

Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award

of reinstatement should not, however, be

automatically passed. 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. This court

has distinguished between a daily wager who does

not hold a post and a permanent employee.”

24. Continuing this line of approach in decision (2010)

2 SCC (L&S) 376 Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as

under:-

“While the earlier view of the Court was that if an

order of termination was found to be illegal, normally

the relief to be granted would be reinstatement with

full back wages. However, with the passage of time

it came to be realized that an industry should not be

compelled to pay to the workman for the period

during which he apparently contributed little or

nothing at all. The relief to be granted is discretionary

and not automatic. A person is not entitled to get

something only because it would be lawful to do so.

The changes brought out by the subsequent

decisions of the Supreme Court probably having

regard to the changes in the policy decisions of the

Government in the wake of prevailing market

economy, globalization, privatization and

outsourcing was evident. Hence now there is no

such principle that for an illegal termination of

service the normal rule is reinstatement with back

wages, and instead the Labour Court can award

compensation.”

“There has been a shift in the legal position laid

down by the Supreme Court and now there is no

hard-and-fast principle that on the termination of

service being found to be illegal reinstatement with

back wages is to be awarded. Compensation can be

awarded instead, at the discretion of the Labour

Court, depending on the facts and circumstances of

the case.”

25. In present matter, the workman has worked as part

time daily wager safai karamchari & was performing the

work relating to Safai Karmchari. As per documents

brought on record by the workman he was getting an

amount of Rs.100/- per day as wages. He was not holding

any regular post. Keeping in view the nature of job &

nature of employment, the total length of service rendered

by the claimant & having regard to the entire facts &

circumstances of the case, instead of reinstating him the

interest of justice will be sub-served by paying

compensation to the workman instead & in lieu of relief of

reinstatement in service.

26. In the result, the reference is answered accordingly

in favour of the workman & it is held that the action of the

management in termination of the services of the workman

being in violation of section 25-F of the Act is illegal &

unjustified. Therefore, the non-applicant is directed to pay

compensation to the workman a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Ten

Thousand only) instead & in lieu of his reinstatement of

service. The payment shall be made within eight weeks

from the publication of the award failing which it shall

carry interest @ 8% per annum

27. Award as above.

28. Let a copy of the award be sent to Central

Government for publication u/s 17(1) of the I.D.Act.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1917

dk-vk- 1917.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn

cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

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

27/2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

27@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@71@2005&vkbZvkj¼ch-&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2014

S.O. 1917.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/2006)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Allahabad Bank and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

27/06/2014.

[No. L-12011/71/2005 - IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 27/2006

Ref. No. L-12011/71/2005-IR (B-II) dated: 26.09.2006

BETWEEN :

The Secretary

Allahabad Bank Staff Association

C/o Allahabad Bank, Main Branch

Hazratganj

Lucknow – 226 002

(Espousing cause of Shri Ram Lal)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4981

AND

The Assistant General Manager

Allahabad Bank

Hazratganj Lucknow, Kesarbagh Branch

Lucknow – 226 001

AWARD

1. By order No. L-12011/71/2005-IR (B-II) dated:

26.09.2006 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred

this industrial dispute between the Secretary Allahabad

Bank Staff Association, C/o Allahabad Bank, Main Branch,

Hazratganj, Lucknow and the Assistant General Manager,

Allahabad Bank, Hazratganj Lucknow, Kesarbagh Branch,

Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE CLAIM OF SHRI RAM LAL FOR

PAYMENT OF HALTING ALLOWANCE FOR THE

PERIOD FROM 19.12.2001 TO 10.05.2004 FROM

THE MANAGEMENT OF ALLAHABAD BANK IS

JUST AND LEGAL? IF NOT, WHAT RELIEF IS

THE DISPUTANT CONCERNED ENTITLED TO?”

3. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman,

Ram Lal, Special Assistant was transferred from KUMS

Gonda branch, Gonda to Kaiserbagh branch, Lucknow on

31.01.2001 vide order dated 30-01.2011 consequent to

undertaking dated 22.01.2001. The workman vide

undertaking dated 22.01.2001, agreed upon to work in

KUMS Gonda Branch as Special Assistant even after

joining at Kaiserbagh branch, Lucknow without claiming

halting allowance till a new special assistant is posted at

KMUS Gonda. Accordingly, the workman joined

Kaiserbagh branch, Lucknow on 01.02.2001 and went back

next day i.e. on 02.01.2001 to work in KUMS, Gonda as per

undertaking given by him. The workman was relieved

finally from KUMS Gonda branch for Kaiserbagh branch,

Lucknow on 10.05.2004.

4. The workman’s union has submitted that the

workman was reverted from the post of Special Assistant

to the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier on 19.12.2001 and

accordingly, the under taking dated 22.01.2001, given by

the workman, became meaningless as the same was for

the post of Special Assistant. It is alleged by the workman’s

union that on reversion on 19.12.2001 the workman became

entitled for halting allowance @ Rs. 125/- per day who is

kept out of the city for official work; but the management

denied him of halting allowance for the period 20.12.2001

to 10.05.2004. Accordingly, the workman’s union has

submitted that the workman be held entitled for halting

allowance for the period from 20.12.2001 to 10.05.2004.

5. The management of the Allahabad Bank has denied

the allegation of the workman’s union and has submitted

that the workman was reverted back as Clerk-cum-Cashier

on 19.12.2001 by way of punishment after holding an

inquiry and the claim of the workman’s union for halting

allowance w.e.f. 20.12.2001 to 10.05.2004, on the ground

that after his reversion as Clerk-cum-Cashier, the

undertaking given by him became ineffective, is legally

not tenable as the undertaking given by the workman will

hold good till fresh request for being sent back to Lucknow

is made by the workman. It is specifically submitted by

the management that there is no provision either in any

rule or Bipartite Settlement for claim of holding allowance

when an award staff is sent from one place to another for

an indefinite period. It is also submitted that the halting

allowance is paid where an award staff who is sent on tour

for short duration in connection with official work; and in

that condition, the halting allowance is paid to compensate

such an employee for expenses, incurred by him, during

the course of his stay. Accordingly, the management has

submitted that since the workman was transferred on his

own request for an indefinite period, therefore, he is not

entitled for the halting allowance, and the workman union’s

case is liable to be rejected being devoid of any merit.

6. The workman’s union has filed its rejoined; wherein

it has stated nothing new apart from repeating the

averments already made in the statement of claim.

7. The workman’s union has filed photo copies of

communications/representations in support of its case.

The workman was cross-examined by the authorized

representative of the management. The management of

Allahabad Bank filed affidavit of Shri Anurodh Kumar,

Officer (Personnel/Administration Deptt.); but he did not

turn up for cross-examination in spite of several

opportunities being afforded to him, which led to

presumption that the management is not interested in

producing the witness for cross-examination, as such, the

opportunity to be cross-examined was closed and next

date was fixed for argument.

7. Heard, representatives of the parties and perused

entire evidence on records.

8. The learned representative on behalf of the workman

has contended that when the workman had waived ‘halting

allowance’ vide undertaking dated 22.01.2001 agaisnt the

post of Special Assistnat. But when he got reverted on

19.12.2001, his undertaking dated 22.01.2001 became in

ineffective and therefore, he is entitled for halting

allowance from 20.12.2001 to 10.05.2004, the date the

workman was finally relieved from KUMS Gonda branch

for Kaiserbagh branch, Lucknow.

9. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the

management has argued that the undertaking given by

the workman holds good even on reversion of the

4982

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workman; as the reversion was by the way of punishment

after holding an inquiry. It is contended that there is no

provision either in any rule or Bipartite Settlement for claim

of holding allowance when an award staff is sent from one

place to another for an indefinite period; in the case of

workman the transfer was made on his own request/

undertaking for a long period of time i.e. approximately for

3 ½ years.

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival submission of the authorized representatives of the

parties and perused respective pleadings and scanned

evidence available on record.

11. The workman’s union has come up with the case

that the undertaking given him was for the post of Special

Assistant and on his reversion to the post of Clerk-cum-

Cashier, he became entitled for the halting allowance under

Rules. On the contrary the management has come with

the case; firstly, that the reversion was in the wake of

punishment consequent to some misconduct, committed

by the workman; and secondly, that the halting allowance

is allowed to an award staff when he is sent for short

duration; whereas in this case the workman as transferred

for an indefinite period.

12. The workman’s union has not disputed the action

of the reversion the workman neither in its rejoinder nor in

its evidence before this Tribunal. Moreover, it is pleaded

by the union that under Rules the workman was entitled

for halting allowance. The issue before Tribunal is

regarding admissibility/entitlement of the halting allowance

to the workman. The workman’s union has examined the

workman, who has stated in cross-examination that halting

allowance is admissible on posting outside the branch.

The management has disputed the entitlement of the

workman regarding halting allowance; but failed to prove

the same with oral evidence as the management’s witness

whose affidavit has been filed in support of the pleading

before this Tribunal did not turn for cross-examination; in

spite of several dates being given. The management has

pleaded that the halting allowance is paid where an award

staff who is sent on tour for short duration in connection

with official work; and in that condition, the halting

allowance is paid to compensate such an employee for

expenses, incurred by him, during the course of his stay.

It is has also pleaded that there is no provision either in

any rule or Bipartite Settlement for claim of holding

allowance when an award staff is sent from one place to

another for an indefinite period. But it has neither filed

any documentary evidence nor turned up to substantiate

its pleadings through oral evidence that the workman on

getting reverted from the post of Special Assistant to Clerk-

cum-Cashier was not entitled for halting allowance. On

the contrary the workman’s union has proved its pleadings

by producing its witness for cross-examination who has

stated that under Rules he is entitled for halting allowance.

Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. vs. Sheo Shanker Lal

Srivastava & others (2006) 3 SCC 276 the statement of the

witness, having not been controverted would be deemed

to be admitted.

13. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of

the case and law cited hereinabove, the management of

the Allahabad Bank has utterly failed to substantiate its

pleadings by leading evidence. Therefore, I am of the

opinion that the action of the management of Allahabad

Bank in non-payment of halting allowance to the workman

for the period 19.12.2001 to 10.05.2004 was neither justified

nor legal. Accordingly, the workman concerned is entitled

for payment of Halting Allowance at the prescribed rates

for the period 19.12.2001 to 10.05.2004.

14. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

15. Award as above.

LUCKNOW

19^th June, 2014

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1918

dk-vk- 1918.—vkS|ksfxd vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fjtZo cSad vWkQ

bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼285@2001½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@06@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@260@99&vkbZvkj¼ch-&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2014

S.O. 1918.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 285/

2001) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

dispute between the management of Reserve Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 27/06/2014.

[No. L-12012/260/99 - IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 4^th June, 2014

PRESENT

: K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 285/2001

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4983

(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 Reserve Bank of India and

their workman)

BETWEEN

The Secretary

: 1^st Party/Petitioner

Reserve Bank Employees’

Association

Fort Glacis, Rajaji Salai

Chennai-600001

AND

The Regional Director

: 2^nd Party/Respondent

Reserve Bank of India

Fort Glacis, Rajaji Salai

Chennai-600001

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

: Through Authorized

Representative

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent: Sri G. R. Reddy &

D. Hariharan, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/260/99/IR (B-II)

dated 11.11.1999 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the demand of the Reserve Bank of India

Employees Association in fixation of pay of Sri B.

Devakadatcham at Rs. 315/- p.m. with effect from

14.12.1979 is justified?”

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 285/2001 and issued notices to both

sides. The petitioner has appeared through the aggrieved

person on whose behalf the dispute was raised and the

Respondent through its counsel and filed Claim and

Counter Statement respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

B. Devakadatcham who is working as Clerk/Coin Note

Examiner, Grade-II in the Respondent Bank is a member of

the Petitioner Association. Devakadatcham was appointed

by the Respondent in its service on 14.12.1979. He was an

ex-serviceman and was drawing Rs. 284/- per month at the

time of discharge from defence service. The Government

of India, Ministry of Defence had issued several office

memoranda in respect of re-fixation of pay of ex-serviceman

on re-employment in other civil services. The Govt. of

India, Ministry of Finance had issued OM No. 2/8/78 dated

21.01.1980 and 02.02.1980 regarding fixation of pay of ex-

servicemen employed in the Bank. The Respondent, the

Reserve Bank of India did not implement these orders

initially. By Administrative Circular dated 25.01.1988 the

Reserve Bank decided to implement the OM of the Ministry

of Finance dated 21.01.1980. As per the administrative

circular the pay of ex-serviceman appointed in the bank

between 01.09.1978 and 30.06.1983 should be fixed in such

a way that the basic pay so fixed plus pension in excess of

the specified exemption limit of Rs. 125/- is not less than

the basic pay last drawn at the time of discharge from

defence service. Devakadatcham was appointed in RBI on

14.12.1979 which is within the above period. His pay should

have been fixed notionally protecting his last pay drawn

at the time of discharge from defence service at Rs. 284/-

plus two additional increments for graduation. Reserve

Bank of India offered appointment to Devakadatcham in

the scale of pay of Rs. 210/-. His initial pay was fixed

at Rs. 230/- including two increments for graduation. The

National Industrial Tribunal who was adjudicating the

industrial dispute in respect of wage revision of the

workmen of Reserve Bank of India passed its award and

this was published on 18.07.1981. Consequently, the wages

of workmen were revised retrospectively and the pay of

Devakadatcham was revised to Rs. 440/-, taking the basic

pay of Devakadatcham at Rs. 230/-. According to the

Respondent the revised wages were more than Rs. 284/-

which was being drawn by Devakadatcham at the time of

discharge from military service and there was no necessity

for increase as per the administrative circular. In fact the

new scale came into effect only after publication of the

award on 18.07.1981. As the basic pay at the time of

discharge of Devakadatcham was Rs. 284/- and the initial

pay fixed in the bank was Rs. 230/- only which was less

than the pay at the time of discharge from defence service,

his basic pay should have been notionally fixed at Rs.

284/- with two additional increments for graduation totaling

Rs. 315/-. Thereafter his pay should have been enhanced

to Rs. 540/- corresponding to the stage of Rs. 315/- taking

into account the wage revision consequent to the award.

Ex-Servicemen employees appointed elsewhere were

extended all the benefits due to them. However, the attitude

of the Respondent was totally negative. An order may be

passed holding that Devakadatcham is entitled to re-

fixation of pay @ Rs. 315/- per month with effect from

14.12.1979 and for revised pay @ Rs. 540/- per month

correspondent to the stage of Rs. 315/- per month after

pronouncement of award by the National Tribunal.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows :

Devakadatcham was appointed in the Respondent’s

service on 14.12.1979. He was an ex-serviceman. On his

appointment his pay was fixed at the minimum of the time

4984

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

scale applicable to Class-III staff i.e. @ Rs. 230/- per month

inclusive of two advance increments for graduation. Even

though a settlement had been reached between the

Reserve Bank Employees Association and the Respondent

Bank, the pay of Devakadatcham was fixed in the old scale

only as the settlement was pending before the National

Industrial Tribunal for a consent award. Subsequently,

his pay was re-fixed at Rs. 440/- with effect from 14.12.1979

as per the new settlement subject to approval by the

National Tribunal, as per the Central Office circular of the

Respondent. The circular dated 25.01.1988 of the Bank

provides for re-fixation of pay of all ex-servicemen

appointed in the bank by protecting their last pay and DA

drawn in the defence service. As per the circular for ex-

servicemen who are appointed in bank’s service between

01.09.1978 and 30.06.1983 basic pay was required to be

fixed so that the basic pay so fixed plus pension in excess

of exemption limit was not less than the basic pay last

drawn at the time of discharge from defence service.

Devakadatcham was drawing Rs. 284/- at the time of his

discharge and he was a non-pensioner. His pay had

been fixed at Rs. 440/- as on the date of his appointment

and this was more than the pay drawn by him at the time of

his discharge. Even though the award of the National

Tribunal was notified at a later date, it came into force

w.e.f. 01.09.1978. So there is no basis for the contention of

the petitioner that pay should have been fixed in the old

scale and again revised when the award came into force.

There was no old pay scale on the date when

Devakadatcham joined the service of the Respondent.

There is no justification in the demand made by the

petitioner on behalf of Devakadatcham.

5. When the dispute was tried before my predecessor

WW1 and MW1 were examined and Ext.W1 to Ext.W19

and Ext.M1 to Ext.M4 were marked. My predecessor had

considered the rival contentions and passed award on

31.01.2002 holding that there is no justification in the

demand made by the petitioner. The petitioner had

challenged the award by Writ Petition No. 21691/2002

before the Hon’ble High Court. Additional documents were

filed by the petitioner to show that the circular of the

Reserve Bank had been given effect to in respect of certain

employees who were similarly placed like that of

Devakadatcham. The Hon’ble High Court had directed

that the pay is to be fixed at Rs. 275/- and disposed the

Writ Petition accordingly. The Reserve Bank of India filed

Writ Appeal No. 915/2013 challenging this order. The

Division Bench partly allowed the appeal and set aside

the order and remanded the matter to this Tribunal for

fresh adjudication as to the stand of the petitioner taken

in the affidavit filed before the High Court and also the

reply affidavit of the Management. The parties were given

liberty to file additional pleadings and let in additional

evidence. This Court was directed to dispose the matter

within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of

the judgment.

6. After the matter was remanded to this Court, the

petitioner has filed additional Claim Statement, the

Respondent has filed additional Counter Statement in reply

to this and the petitioner has filed rejoinder also. WW1

has been examined further and Ext.W20 to 30 and Exts.M5

and M6 were marked also.

7. The points for consideration in the case are:

(i)

Whether the demand of the petitioner to fix the

pay of Devakadatcham at Rs. 315/- per month

w.e.f. 14.12.1979 is justified?

(ii)

What is the relief, if any, to which the concerned

employee is entitled?

The Points

8. The facts of the case are not in dispute.

Sri Devakadatcham who was an ex-serviceman was

appointed as Clerk-cum-Coin-Note Examiner by the

Respondent on 14.12.1979. His pay was fixed at Rs. 230/-

inclusive of two increments for Graduation. Even before

Devakadatcham had joined the service of the Respondent

dispute regarding the pay and other benefits for the

Reserve Bank employees have been referred to National

Tribunal, Bombay and was under its consideration. Even

before the petitioner joined the service, on 28.09.1979, the

Respondent had entered into a settlement with the

employees fixing revised scales of pay. However, the

dispute having been before the National Tribunal the

settlement was submitted before the National Tribunal for

approval before it was put into force. The settlement was

pending approval at the time Devakadatcham had joined

the Bank. So in spite of the settlement the pay that was

fixed for Devakadatcham was in accordance with the old

scale. The National Tribunal subsequently approved the

award with some very limited modifications. The

Respondent Bank re-fixed the pay of Devakadatcham on

the basis of its circular dated 01.10.1980 as Rs. 440/- w.e.f.

14.12.1979, the date of his appointment subject to approval

by the National Tribunal. This was approved by the

Tribunal later on 17.06.1981. Devakadatcham was granted

annual increments and subsequent settlement benefits

also.

Devakadatcham, the workman had no dispute

regarding the fixing of his pay on the basis of the settlement

until the Respondent Bank issued a circular on 25.02.1988

implementing the government order regarding fixation of

pay of ex-serviceman. In fact the government had been

issuing several orders regarding fixing of the pay of ex-

serviceman. The petitioner has produced all these orders

and these are marked as Exts.W3 to Ex.W9. The OM of the

government that was in force at the time when

Devakadatcham joined the Respondent Bank is Ex.W7

dated 19.07.1978. However, this OM as well the previous

OMs were directions not to deduct a specified amount

out of pension from military service while fixing the pay

on re-employment. Ex.W9 is the OM issued by the Finance

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4985

Ministry on 21.01.1980, after Devakadatcham entered the

service of the Respondent. The direction in this was that

the pay of ex-serviceman on re-employment may be fixed

at a higher stage after allowing an increment for each year

of service rendered in a post not lower than in which he is

employed. In addition to the pay so fixed pension and

other retirement benefits was to be allowed to be drawn

subject to the limitation that the re-employment pay plus

pension and pension equivalent to other retirement benefits

does not exceed last pay drawn or Rs. 3,000/- whichever

is less. Another OM was issued by the Ministry on

02.02.1980 almost on the same lines. However, Respondent

had not immediately implemented the directions contained

in OMs dated 21.01.1980 and 02.02.1980 which are marked

as Ex.W8 and Ex.W9 respectively. After some years, in

1988, by circular dated 25.01.1988 the Respondent Bank

has decided to implement the direction in the OMs issued

by the Government. In this circular, the copy of which is

marked as Ex.W11 ex-servicemen who are appointed in

the bank between 01,09.1978 and 30.06.1983 are put in a

particular category. As per this, the Basic Pay of those

who joined during this period is to be fixed in such a way

that the Basic Pay so fixed plus pension in excess of the

specified exemption limit is not less than the Basic Pay

last drawn at the time of discharge from the defence service.

Apparently, Devakadatcham is a person who was

appointed in the Reserve Bank during this period. He was

not entitled to pension on discharge from defence service.

He was drawing pay of Rs. 284/- plus two additional

increments for Graduation making a total of Rs. 315/- at

the time when he was discharged from defence service.

The stand of the petitioner is that on the basis of the OM

issued by the Government which was implemented by the

Reserve Bank by Ext.W11, the pay of Devakadatcham

should be initially fixed as Rs. 315/- as on the date of his

appointment. His pay thereafter should have been

enhanced to Rs. 540/- corresponding to the stage of

Rs. 315/- taking into account the wage revision

consequent to the award of the National Industrial Tribunal.

Ex.W3 is the Pay Certificate showing that Devakadatcham

was drawing pay as claimed by him at the time when he

was discharged from defence service. The Respondent

has rejected the request of Devakadatcham to fix his pay

in the manner claimed by him. The stand of the Respondent

is that as per the settlement that was approved by the

National Industrial Tribunal which was having

retrospective effect the pay of Devakadatcham was already

fixed as Rs. 440/- inclusive of two additional increments

for Graduation which is more than the pay of Rs. 315/-

which was more than the last pay drawn by

Devakadatcham while in defence service. The Petitioner

Association did not accept this stand of the Respondent.

It is accordingly the dispute was raised.

10. The concerned workman himself has advanced

arguments in the case. According to him it was not proper

for the Respondent to delay the implementation of the

orders issued by the Government regarding fixation of

pay of ex-serviceman. However, it could be seen on going

through the orders that were issued by the Government

before Devakadatcham joined the service of the

Respondent that he being a non-pensioner he would not

have been entitled to the benefits of these orders even if

they were implemented by the Reserve Bank even

before he joined the service of the Bank. As already stated,

the direction in the previous orders is that pension drawn

by the ex-serviceman for his service in the military need

not be deducted to a limited extent while fixing his pay on

re-employment. Devakadatcham was not getting any

pension and so his pay in the normal course was to be

fixed in the same scale that existed in the Bank in respect

of other employees. Though as per the settlement the pay

of the employees were to be enhanced, it was in abeyance

pending approval by the National Tribunal. It was

accordingly the pay of Devakadatcham was fixed as Rs.

230/-.

11.

What is the position after the Respondent has

decided to implement the orders of the Government? The

stand of the Petitioner Association is that there is no

sanctity for the settlement entered into since the dispute

between the employees and the Respondent regarding

the pay has already been pending before the National

Tribunal. According to the petitioner what is binding is

the award of the National Tribunal and not the settlement

effected between the Respondent and various

associations representing the employees of the

Respondent. It is difficult to accept the argument advanced

on behalf of the petitioner. The copy of the award of the

National Tribunal has been marked on the side of the

petitioner as well as by the Respondent. Ext.W17 is the

one on the side of the petitioner and Ex.M1 on the side of

the Respondent. On going through the award it could be

seen that National Industrial Tribunal had considered each

terms of settlement entered into. Even an opinion poll was

conducted by the Tribunal before passing the award. The

Petitioner Association also is a party to the settlement

and is a party before the National Industrial Tribunal also.

The concerned employee had been already in the service

of the Respondent when the opinion poll was taken. He

has been stating that he has voted against the settlement.

However, this will not make matter any different for him so

far as the award is concerned. It was with the approval of

the Tribunal interim relief was granted by the Respondent

to its employees. There is no basis for the contention of

the petitioner that the award could not have retrospective

effect also. In fact the terms of reference include the date

on which the award is to come into force also. Nothing

prevents the Tribunal from accepting a settlement that

was entered into by the parties and passing it as the award.

The settlement having been entered into by the parties as

early as on 28.09.1979, the National Tribunal had ordered

4986

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that the award in terms of the settlement will be having

retrospective effect from 28.09.1979 except for certain items

like pay which was to come into force from 01.09.1979. The

attack by the petitioner against this is not sustainable.

12. A somewhat similar situation akin to that of the

present case has been considered by the Apex Court in

STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. K.P.

SUBBAIAH AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2003 SCC 3016.

In this case when the concerned employees who were ex-

servicemen joined the Indian Bank the pay and allowances

payable to the employees were governed by the Third

Bipartite Settlement. The Fourth Bipartite Settlement

which came into existence subsequently had retrospective

operation. The pay to the employees were fixed based on

the policy of the government for protecting the pay that

was drawn by the ex-servicemen at the time of their

discharge from service. When the Fourth Bipartite

Settlement was implemented with retrospective effect there

was some reduction in the pay of the concerned

employees. They challenged the reduction of pay before

the High Court. The High Court stated that the total pay

fixed by the bank when the employees entered its service

should be protected. While considering the matter the

Apex Court observed that it is clear from the various

documents based on record that the intention as reflected

in the policy of Government of India was to protect the

last pay drawn by the concerned ex-servicemen in the

Armed Forces. The Apex Court further observed that there

was no intention to protect any particular scale of pay.

That being the position the demand for a corresponding

pay scale has no rational, it was held. The Apex Court

found that the High Court was in error in holding that the

scale of pay was the determinating factor. The direction

that while re-fixing the pay and DA the total pay fixed

when the petitioner entered into bank service has to be

protected within the corresponding scale of pay cannot

be maintained and is indefensible, it was further held. The

Apex Court has further held

“the learned solicitor general is therefore right in his

submission that the protection related to pay and

not pay-scale of pay. Submission of the learned

counsel for the employees that after having been

fitted to a scale of pay in force at the time of

absorption as a natural corollary and consequentially

a corresponding scale of pay in the subsequent

settlement at first flush appears attractive. But it

does not stand closer scrutiny. The apparent

intention was to ensure that the ex-servicemen at

the time of employment in the Public Sector Bank

does not get an amount as pay lesser than what he

was drawing while in defence service. It stands to

logic that the employer while fixing pay has to fix it

at the level of pay which would ensure compliance

with the requirement that it is not less than the last

pay drawn”.

13. In the present case also the situation is similar.

Devakadatcham was drawing a particular amount of pay

based on the existing scale at the time he joined the Bank

on 14.12.1979. Though even before he joined the Bank

there was revision of pay by a settlement, it was pending

approval of the National Industrial Tribunal. The settlement

had come into operation with retrospective effect. The

pay that was due to Devakadatcham after the settlement

was put into operation with retrospective effect was more

than what he was drawing at the time of discharge from

service. If he was allowed to fix the pay on the basis of the

Reserve Bank’s circular regarding ex-servicemen based

on the old pay scale (which was actually not existing at

the time when he joined the service) and allowed to refix

the pay to the corresponding scale as per the settlement,

he would have been getting double advantage. This is

not what was intended by the direction of the Government

to protect the pay of ex-servicemen. The only intention

was that they should not be drawing pay which is lesser

than what they were drawing last while in defence service,

on re-employment. It was for this reason the Apex Court

has declined to allow the demand of the concerned

employees in the case of Subbaiah and Others referred to

above.

14. The representative of the Respondent has referred

to the decision of the Apex Court in ARUNJYOTI KUNDU

AND OTHERS reported in 2007 7 SCC 472 also in support

of the contention of the Respondent. Here the Apex Court

has held that it was open to the Government to extend the

benefit to a set of employees with effect from a particular

date on the basis of some anomaly found in the report of

the Pay Commission. In that case there would not arise

any discrimination because the very implementation of

the Pay Commission Report would not entitle the

Respondents to any benefit but their right to the benefit

arose only because of the decision of the Government to

extend a particular benefit to them though it is not specified

in the Pay Commission Report. It is pointed out by the

Authorized Representative that in the present case the

pay scales were fixed in the settlement entered into between

the Petitioner Association and the Bank and the same was

approved by the National Industrial Tribunal also. So there

is no reason for the petitioner to complain that the

concerned employee was subjected to any discrimination.

15. Before the Hon’ble High Court the petitioner has

produced certain additional documents in support of the

contention that some employees similarly placed like that

of Devakadatcham have been conferred with the benefit

in the form of higher fixation of pay. The Division Bench

has observed that the prayer of the petitioner for reception

of additional documents in respect of this has not been

considered and it was also not made clear as to whether

any argument had been advanced on the basis of the

affidavit for reception of additional documents. It was

because of the contention of the petitioner that similarly

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4987

placed persons were conferred with benefits as claimed

by the petitioner on behalf of Devakadatcham also that

the matter has been remanded to this Court. The petitioner

has produced documents pertaining to Thangaraj and

Narinder Sharma who were ex-servicemen in the service of

the Respondent. Ext.W25 is the representation made by

Thangaraj and Ext.W26 is the order issued by the

Respondent Bank re-fixing the pay of Thangaraj. Ext.W27

is the Pay Certificate of Narinder Singh Sharma and Ext.W28

is the letter from the Respondent re-fixing the pay of

Narinder Singh Sharma. Even earlier the requisition letter

given by Vasudevan for re-fixation of pay, the last pay

drawn certificate of Vasudevan while in Air Force service

and the order of the Respondent Bank re-fixing the pay of

Vasudevan and also another order re-fixing his pay

consequent upon the settlement which came into effect

on 18.08.2000 by the petitioner were produced and marked

as Exts.W13 to Ext.W16 respectively.

16. On a scrutiny of the documents pertaining to the

above employees of the Bank who were ex-servicemen, it

could be seen that there is no parity between their position

and that of Devakadatcham. Thangaraj had joined the

Bank on 16.03.1979 and Narinder Sharma on 21.08.1979.

Thus it could be seen that both of them have joined the

Bank before the settlement came to be in operation. It was

for this reason their pay was fixed under the pre-revised

pay scales at the time of their appointment. Vasudevan

had joined the Bank on 20.09.1999. Settlement was reached

between the Petitioner Association and the Respondent

on 18.08.2000 for revision of pay scales and this has come

into effect from the date of settlement. The pay of

Vasudevan who was an employee of the Bank prior to the

date of settlement was fixed in the pre-revised pay scales

and his pay was revised after the settlement had taken

effect. Even before the settlement came into effect he was

appointed on the old pay scale protecting the pay last

drawn by him at the time of discharge from defence

service. Thus it could be seen that the cases of Thangaraj,

Narinder Sharma and also Vasudevan are different from

that of Devakadatcham. All these three persons have joined

the Bank while the old pay scale was in existence and

there was no retrospective effect of the new pay scales so

far as these persons were concerned. On the other hand in

the case of Devakadatcham, unfortunately for him a

settlement had already been arrived at when he joined the

Bank and the settlement though approved later was put

into operation with retrospective effect from a date before

Devakadatcham joined the service of the Bank. The pay

to which he was entitled as per the settlement was more

than what he was drawing from the defence service and

so there was no necessity for protection of the last

pay drawn by him while in defence service. In fact if the

relief claimed by the petitioner is allowed it will be granting

double benefit to Devakadatcham. It was not at all the

intention of the Government while issuing the orders in

respect of ex-servicemen. I find that the petitioner is not

entitled to any relief.

17. In view of my findings above, the reference is

answered against the petitioner. An award is passed

accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 4^th June 2014).

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri B.

Devakadatcham

For the 2^nd Party/Management

MW1, Sri D.

Hariharan

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

Offer

appointment

No. M 4632 /34(44)79/80 dated

17.10.1979 issued by Reserve Bank

of India to Sri B. Devakadatcham

Ex.W2

Pay Certificate as on June 1974

issued by JWO, JWO I/c

Accounts, Air Force Station,

Tambaram

Sri

Devakadatcham

Ex.W3

Office Memorandum No. F8(34)/

E.III/57 dated 25.11.1958 issued by

Government of India, Ministry of

Finance,

Department

Expenditure, New Delhi

Ex.W4

Office Memorandum No. E6(8)/

E.iII/63 dated 11.04.1963 issued by

Government of India, Ministry of

Finance,

Department

Expenditure, New Delhi

Ex.W5

Office Memorandum No. F7(34)/

E.III/62 dated 16.01.1964 issued by

Government of India, Ministry of

Finance,

Department

Expenditure, New Delhi

Ex.W6

Office Memorandum No. F(1)-

E.III(A)/74 dated 02.03.1974

issued by Government of India,

Ministry of Finance, Department

of Expenditure, New Delhi

Ex.W7

Office Memorandum No. F5(14)/

E.III(B)/77 dated 19.07.1978 issued

by Government of India, Ministry

of Finance, Department of

Expenditure, New Delhi

4988

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.W8

Circular No. 2/8/78-SCT(B) dated

21.01.1980 issued by Government

of India, Ministry of Finance,

Department of Economic Affairs

(Banking Division), New Delhi

Ex.W9

Circular No. 2/8/78-SCT(B) dated

02.02.1980 issued by Government

of India, Ministry of Finance,

Department of Economic Affairs

(Banking Division), New Delhi

Ex.W10

Press cuttings dated 21.08.1986

from the Hitavada, regarding

Poojary’s instructions to RBI

Ex.W11

RBI, Central Office circular no.

PPD No. G.57/570/R(II) CP-193(4)/

87-88 dated 25.01.1988

Ex.W12

Appointment Order No. 117/1999-

2000 dated 20.09.1999 issued by

RBI, Chennai Office to Sri K.

Vasudevan

Ex.W13

Requisition letter dated 20.10.1999

for re-fixation of pay to CGM,

RBI, Chennai by Sri K. Vasudevan

Ex.W14

Last Pay Drawn Certificate of Sri

K. Vasudevan issued by Air Force

Station, Palam, New Delhi-10

Ex.W15

Re-fixation of pay Office Order No.

325/1999-2000 dated 15.02.2000

issued by RBI to Sri K.

Vasudevan

Ex.W16

Re-fixation of Pay Office Order No.

156/2000-2001 dated 04.10.2000

issued to Sri K. Vasudevan

consequent upon the settlement

dated 18^th August, 2000 between

the Bank and All India Reserve

Bank Employees’ Association

Ex.W17

The Award of National Industrial

Tribunal, Bombay (Dighe Award)

Ref. NTV 1 of 1979)

Ex.W18

Compendium of Government

guidelines in the matter of re-

employment, pay fixation etc. of

Ex-servicemen in Public Sector

Banks issued by Indian Banks

Association Bombay 400005

Ex.W19

Memorandum of Settlement

between All India Reserve Bank

Employees’ Association and the

Management of Reserve Bank of

India dated 18^th August 2000

Ex.W20

Appendix “B” to Ministry of

Defence O.M. No. 2 (29) 61/6423/

D (Civil-I) dated 08.8.1962

Ex.W21 02.06.1999

Central Office Circular issued by

Insurance Corporation of India to

all Zonal Manager / Divisional

Managers, etc.

Ex.W22 10.07.1989

Pay

Certificate

Devakadatcham

Ex.W23 16.06.1979

Appendix “A” of National

Industrial Tribunal, Bombay

Award (Contained in Page 43)

Ex.W24 19.02.1980

Appendix “C” of National

Industrial Tribunal, Bombay

Award (Contained in Page 54 to

57)

Ex.W25 26.03.2002

Representation from Sri J.J.

Thangaraj to Respondent Bank

Ex.W26 09.09.2002

Office

Order

issued

Respondent Bank regarding re-

fixation of Sri J.J. Thangaraj

Ex.W27 14.06.1988

Pay Certificate of Sri Narinder

Singh Sharma issued by

A.F.C.A.O. New Delhi

Ex.W28 18.06.2003

Letter from Respondent Bank

regarding re-fixation of pay of Sri

Narinder Singh Sharma enclosing

work sheet

Ex.W29 12.03.2001

Letter of Respondent Bank

regarding denial of re-fixation to

the petitioner

Ex.W30 06.05.1980

Ministry of Finance, Department

of Economic Affairs (Banking

Division) O.M. 2/19/79-SCT 9 (B)

dated 06.05.1980

Ex.W31 09.04.1987

Xerox copy of D.O. letter from Sri

Mantreshwar Jhan M.O.F. to Dy.

Governor RBI, Bombay

Ex.W32 20.02.2013

Xerox copy of judgment of WP

No. 21697/2002

Ex.W33 05.11.2013

Xerox copy of judgment of WA

No. 915/2013

Ex.W34 01.10.1980

Xerox copy of circular from Dy.

Manager RBI C.O. Bombay to the

Manager, RBI, Madras

Ex.W35 March 2000

Xerox copy of statement of claim

in ID No. 285/2001

Ex.W36 30.01.2002

Xerox copy of impugned order

made in ID No. 285/2001

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4989

On the Management’s side :

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

Dighe Award dated 8^th July, 1981

Ex.M2

Reserve Bank of India Central

Office Circular PRD No. 580/

CP.199/80-81 dated 01.10.1980

Ex.M3

Letter F.No. 10/49/84-SCT(B)

dated 10^th June 1986 issued by

Govt. of India, Ministry of

Finance (Banking Division), New

Delhi

Ex.M4

Reserve

Bank

India

instructions issued under Circular

PPD.G/57/570/R(ii) CP.193(4)87-88

dated 25.01.1988

Ex.M5

23.02.2012

Affidavit of Sri B. Devakadatcham

Ex.M6

17.12.2012

Reply affidavit filed on behalf of

Reserve Bank of India

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1919

dk-vk- 1919.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M

fla/k cSd ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 42@2009½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

27@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@64@2009&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf?kdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2014

S.O.

1919.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/2009)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal -cum - Labour Court-

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Punjab & Sind Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 27/06/2014.

[No. L-12011/64/2009 - IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 42/2009

Ref. No. L-12011/64/2009-IR (B-II) dated: 06.10.2009

BETWEEN

District Secretary

Punjab & Sind Bank Staff Association

Punjab & Sind Bank 11, M.G. Marg

Lucknow

AND

Assistant General Manager

Punjab & Sind Bank

Lalbagh

Lucknow

AWARD

1. By order No. L-12011/64/2009-IR (B-II) dated:

06.10.2009 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)

referred this industrial dispute between the District

Secretary, Punjab & Sind Bank Staff Association, Punjab

& Sind Bank11, M.G. Marg, Lucknow and the Assistant

General Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Lalbagh, Lucknow

for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE

MANAGEMENT OF PUNJAB & SIND BANK IN (I)

NON-FILING UP OF VACANCIES OF COMPUTER

OPERATORS IN THE BRANCHES OF LUCKNOW

CITY (II) NON-PAYMENT OF COMPUTER

OPERATION (CO) SPECIAL ALLOWANCE TO

ELIGIBLE WORKMEN AND (III) WITHDRAWAL

OF CO SPECIAL ALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF

THOSE WORKMEN WHO WERE ALREADY IN

RECEIPT OF CO SPECIAL ALLOWANCE AS PER

SETTLEMENT DATED 6/4/98 IS LEGAL AND

JUSTIFIED? WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN

CONCERNED IS ENTITLED TO?”

3. The case of the workman’s union, in brief, is that the

management of the Punjab & Sind Bank has entered into a

settlement, circulated vide staff circular No. 1622 dated

30.05.1998 and as per provisions contained in para 6 (iv)

of the circular the regular vacancy of the Computer

Operators shall be filled immediately. Further, as per para

6 (v) the if the vacancy of Computer Operator is created

on temporary basis then Computer Operator allowance

shall be paid to the senior most clerk of the branch and

furthermore, as per provisions of para 6 (viii) of the circular,

any person who refuses to accept the post as Computer

Operator shall be debarred for a period of two years for

consideration of the post for which refusal was made. It

has been alleged by the workmen’s union that the

management is not observing the above provisions of the

circular dated 30.05.1998 as it is neither appointing

Computer Operators nor making payment of Computer

4990

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Operator Allowance and has also withdrawn the Computer

Operator Allowance in respect of those employees who

were already getting the Computer Operator Allowance.

Accordingly, the workman’s union has prayed that the

management of Punjab & Sind Bank be directed to make

appointment on the post of Computer Operator and make

payment of Computer Operator Allowance to those who

are eligible for same; and also to allow the Computer

Operator Allowance to those employees who were earlier

getting the Computer Operator Allowance.

4. The management of the Punjab & Sind Bank has

denied the claim of the workman’s union by filing the

written statement; wherein it has submitted that the

management of Punjab & Sind Bank is strictly abiding by

the provisions of the settlement, circulated vide dated

30.05.1998 and the statement of claim of the workmen’s

union has no merit. It has also disputed the representation

of the workmen’s union by Shri M.K. Sachan. Accordingly,

the management has prayed that the claim of the workmen’s

union be rejected being devoid of merit.

5. The management filed its written statement on

04.01.2013; and accordingly, 06.02.2013 was fixed for

rejoinder; but the workmen’s union did not file any rejoined

on subsequent dates. However, it moved adjournments

on 13.03.2013 and 15.04.2013 seeking time for filing their

rejoinder. Thereafter, the workmen’s union neither turned

up to file the rejoinder nor moved any adjournment.

Accordingly, 19.09.2013 was fixed for parties documents.

The documents were not filed by either party on 19.09.2013,

22.10.2013, 03.12.2013; hence, next date 07.01.2014 was

fixed for workmen’s evidence. The workmen’s union again

did not turn up for filing their evidence on 07.01.2014,

24.02.2014 and 02.04.2014, therefore, 07.05.2014 was fixed

for management’s evidence. The parties again remained

absent on 07.05.2014, therefore, keeping in view the

reluctance of the parties to contest their case and long

pendency of the case since 2009, the case was reserved

for award.

6. I have scanned entire, evidence on record and given

my thoughtful consideration to the pleading of the rival

parties.

7. It was the case of the workman’s union that the

management of Punjab & Sind Bank is violating the

provisions of the settlement, circulated vide dated

30.05.1998 by not making appointment on the post of

Computer Operator and not making payment of Computer

Operator Allowance to those who are eligible for same;

and also by not allowing the Computer Operator Allowance

to those employees who were earlier getting the Computer

Operator Allowance. It has alleged that the above action

of the management is illegal. The workman’s union has

field photocopy of the certain documents in support of

his pleadings. It filed certain documents, which contained

photocopy of circulars and communications in etc. in

support of its claim; but has neither filed any rejoineder

nor turn up to prove its pleadings through evidence.

8. Per contra, the management of the Punjab & Sind

Bank has disputed the claim of the workman’s union and

has submitted that the allegations of the workman’s union

are baseless and stated that it is abiding by the terms of

the settlement and no illegality has been committed by it.

9. It is settled position of law that a party challenging

the legality of the action, the burden lies upon it to prove

illegality of the action 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’s union to

set out the grounds to challenge the action of management

of Punjab & Sind Bank in violating the provisions of

circular dated 30.05.1998; and to prove that the action of

the management in violating the provisions of circular

dated 30.05.1998 was illegal. It was the case of the

workman’s union that a settlement had been arrived at in

between the workmen unions and the Indian Bank

Association, circulated vide dated 30.05.1998 and the

management of Punjab & Sind Bank is violating certain

provisions of it. This claim has been denied by the

management; therefore, it was for the workman’s union to

lead evidence to show that the alleged illegality was

committed by the management of Punjab & Sind Bank;;

but the workman’s union failed to corroborate the

allegations by proper evidence.

10. In 2008 (118) FLR 1164 M/s. Uptron Powertronics

Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary vs.

Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad & others,

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

Apex Court in 1979 (39) FLR 70 (SC) Sanker Chakravarti

vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., 1979 (39) FLR 70 (SC) V.K.

Raj Industries v. Labour Court and others, 1984 (49) FLR

38 Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and others and

1996 (74) FLR 2004 (Alld.) Meritech India Ltd. v. State of

U.P. and others; 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.”

11. In the present case the workman’s union failed to

file any evidence in support of its claim, as it did not turn

up for filing its evidence before this Tribunal. As such,

there is no reliable material for recording findings that the

alleged injustice was done to the workmen’s union or the

action of the management of Punjab & Sind Bank in not

observing the provisions of circular dated 30.05.1998 was

illegal and unjustified.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4991

12. Hence, under the facts and circumstances and

considering the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble

Apex Court, I come to the conclusion that the workmen

concerned are not entitled to any of the relief(s) claimed.

13. Award as above.

LUCKNOW.

09^th May, 2014.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1920

dk-vk- 1920.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼a1947

dk 14 ½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkU/kzk cSad

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

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

66@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

27@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@155@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼ch-&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf?kdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2014

S.O. 1920.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/2004)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Andhra Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

27/06/2014.

[No. L-12012/155/2004 - IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

I.D. 66/2004

Reference No.L-12012/155/2004-IR(B-II) dated: 20.10.2004

Sh. Sheetal Das

S/o Sh. Narsingh Das

R/o Plot No.40, Indira Bazar

Jaipur.

V/s.

The Deputy general Manager

Andhra Bank

Zonal Office, Signature Towers,

NH No.8, Gurgaon.

Present :

For the Applicant : Sh. Radheyshyam Gothawal,

Advocate.

For the non-applicant : Mithlesh Singhal, Advocate.

AWARD

23.3.2014

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred

the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:-

“Whether the action of the management of Andhra

Bank in terminating the services of Shri Sheetal Das

S/o Shri Narsingh Das w.e.f. 5.2.2004 is legal &

justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled

to and from which date?”

2. As per statement of claim applicant Sh. Sheetal Das

was appointed on 10.2.1997 on the post of Daftary on

daily wages on temporary basis. He was paid @ Rs.115/-

per day. It has been further alleged by him that time to time

work was taken from him in different name.

3. According to statement of para 3 of statement of

claim being satisfied with the services of the workman a

letter was written on 5.5.2003 to Zonal office by employer

to the effect that the workman is on daily wages since last

two years hence, he may be considered for regular

appointment. It has been further alleged that on 29.1.2004

employer was served with a notice to regularise the

services of the workman due to which he was terminated

by employer on 5.2.2004 without assigning any reason &

another workman Sh. Mukesh was employed in place of

workman Sh. Sheetal Das & Ms. Asha was promoted from

the sweeper to the post of Daftary.

4. According to statement of para 6, 7 & 8 the workman

has worked continuously from 10.2.1997 to 5.4.2004 & he

has also worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar

year & his junior workman is still in employment of the

employer. It has been further alleged that before the

termination of service he has not been given any notice or

compensation in lieu of notice thus, he has been terminated

in violation of Section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 without just & reasonable cause. It has

also been alleged that there has been unfair labour practice

on the part of the employer, the work of the Daftary is still

existing & the services of the workman has been terminated

just because he has served the notice to the employer for

regularisation of service hence, it has been prayed that

his retrenchment be declared illegal & he be reinstated

into the service with all consequential financial benefits

with continuity in service.

5. Written statement dated 7.3.2005 starts with

preliminary objections before para wise reply of the

4992

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

statement of claim. In preliminary objection it has been

alleged that statement of claim is not based on correct

facts hence, claim is fit to be dismissed. On the point of

misjoinder of the parties it has been alleged that Sr. Manager,

Andhra Bank has been impleaded as defendant no.2 who

is not having any separate legal status from Andhra Bank

& any suit may be instituted straight in the name of the

bank & not against the post of any officer, thus necessary

party has not been impleaded in the statement of claim &

alone on this ground the statement of claim is fit to be

dismissed.

6. It has been further alleged that there is no employer

employee relation between applicant workman & bank.

The workman was engaged in specific circumstances for

specific work on contract basis & he has received the

payment according to contract hence, the dispute raised

by the workman is not within the ambit of section 2(oo), &

2(bb) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 whereas to raise an

industrial dispute it is necessary that there must be

relationship of employer & employee between the applicant

& the opposite party. It has also been alleged that

according to policy of the government there is established

procedure for appointment of subordinate staff of the bank

according to which names are called from employment

exchange & after interview of candidates they are

appointed depending upon their merit & without adopting

the said procedure no subordinate staff can be appointed.

Workman Sh. Sheetal Das has not furnished any proof of

the kind that he has gone through any procedure of

appointment. Sh. Sheetal Das had done the specific work

on basis of contract for which he was engaged & he has

been paid for the work according to the contract. No case

for his appointment as permanent or temporary is made

out & the allegation of termination on 5.2.2004 is baseless

& untrue & the case is fit to be rejected on this ground

alone.

7. It has also been alleged that the work of Daftary can

be performed only by a permanent employee because

Daftary receives special allowance along with pay hence,

it is wrong to say that the workman was appointed on the

post of Daftary. The post of Daftary cannot be allocated

to a temporary or daily wages worker engaged on contract.

The applicant was never in the employment of the bank

neither his name was ever entered in attendance register

or in the register of regular paid employees. In Andhra

Bank there is a established procedure for appointment of

subordinate 4^th class employees. The applicant intends to

have a back door entry in the bank which is in violation of

Article 14 & 16 of the Indian Constitution against those

employees who have been inducted in the bank after

following established procedure of appointment. It has

been further alleged that in the matter of temporary

employees it is necessary to make it clear that, “ The

Government of India has stipulated Certain Norms by way

of Approach paper as the time measure to resolve the

issue of temporary candidates in the Banks, a settlement

was entered into with the representative of the recognized

award Union on 9.1.1995 under section 12(3) of the

Industrial Dispute Act 1947. As per the said settlement

those candidates who were engaged by the Bank as

temporary hands and who fulfilled certain conditions were

empanelled district wise in accordance with the Seniority

calculated on the basis of the number of days they have

worked in the Bank as and when permanent vacancies are

identified, the bank has no option but to absorb the

empanelled candidates as stipulated in settlement dated

9.1.95 A copy of settlement dated 9.1.95 is enclosed.”

8. In para 12 of the written statement it has been said

that the applicant has filed certain papers before the

tribunal which are internal correspondence between Branch

Office & Zonal Office of the bank & copies of these papers

have been secured by applicant without any right which

falls within the category of criminal act & questions the

credibility of the applicant. An employee of the bank

according to Rules of the bank must be reliable otherwise

he falls within the category of disqualified employee.

Applicant was not in the employment of the bank either as

a temporary or a permanent employee hence, his allegation

of dismissal from the service on 5.2.2004 is baseless.

Accordingly, the reference made in the case is fit to be

rejected because for raising an industrial dispute it is

necessary that there should be employer employee relation

between opposite party & the applicant.

9. With above mentioned preliminary objections against

the statement of claim it has been alleged in the written

statement against para wise statement of claim that

statement in para 1 to 11 are not admitted being wrong,

baseless & untrue & have been presented by twisting &

turning the true facts. In additional statement of written

statement it has been said that it is wrong to say by the

applicant that he was appointed on 10.2.1997 on the post

of Daftary because if he would have been appointed by

the bank then there must have been a monthly pay &

other benefits according to the Rules of the bank because

the post of Daftary is never allocated to a daily wage

worker. This is also against the rule of the bank to ask

someone to work in fictitious name or in the name of

somebody else. If the applicant has worked in the bank

with different names then he must have done that with a

view to misguide the bank. Regarding the letter dated

5.5.2003 shown in para 3 of the statement of claim it has

been alleged that the letter is the internal correspondence

of the bank & recommendation made by someone cannot

be made the basis of appointment. If any vacancy is

advertised by the bank then applicant may apply in

response to the advertisement according to his eligibility.

No benefit can be extended to the applicant based on

letter dated 5.5.2003.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4993

10. It has been further alleged that if applicant has

worked on fix daily wages in the bank then his such work

does not entitle him for appointment as temporary or

permanent employee. The statement of applicant is wrong

that Sh. Mukesh & Ms. Asha were appointed in his place.

According to the record of the bank Mukesh had neither

been working earlier as sweeper nor he is working now.

This is also wrong to say that Smt. Asha has been allocated

the work of Daftary because only a permanent employee

can hold the post of Daftary & the post of Daftary carriage

special allowances along with pay hence, the statement of

applicant in respect of Sh. Mukesh & Smt. Asha is fit to be

rejected. In case of applicant there is no violation of section

25-F,25-G & 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As

the applicant is not in the employment of the bank the

question of giving notice for removal or compensation

does not arise. The allegation of the applicant that he has

worked continuously from 10.2.97 to 5.2.04 is totally wrong

& baseless & no evidence has been filed in support of

this allegation. He has also not worked for 240 days

continuously in any calendar year as required u/s 25-B of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

11. It has been further alleged that applicant was a

daily wage worker & it is wrong to say that he is jobless

from the date of removal from service. He is still working &

has better earning condition. It has also been alleged that

as the applicant was never in the employment of the bank

hence, he is not entitled to reinstatement and his

application is fit to be rejected.

12. Applicant has filed rejoinder on 9.5.2005 in which

he has reiterated the statements of statement of claim.

13. After filing of pleadings from both the parties &

documentary evidence Sh. Sheetal Das filed affidavit in

evidence on 27.7.2005 & he has been cross examined on

22.8.2005. On statement of applicant that no additional

evidence is required to be produced from his side

applicant’s evidence was closed & opportunity was

provided to opposite party to file affidavit in evidence. On

18.10.2005 affidavit of Sh. Dilip Gursahani, Deputy Manager

(Customer Relation) has been filed by opposite party in

evidence. In process of cross examination of Sh. Dilip

Gursahani which was yet to begin on 11.2.2014 applicant

filed application with affidavit on 6.2.2014 to dismiss the

statement of claim with allegation that he does not want to

contest the case further.

14. On 10.12.13 date was fixed for 11.2.14 to cross

examine the witness Sh. Dilip Gursahani hence, it was

ordered that application filed by applicant on 6.2.2014 be

placed for disposal on date fixed 11.2.14 in presence of

both the parties looking into the fact of sudden decision

by the applicant to have its case rejected which was being

contested since 2004. On 11.2.14 none appeared on behalf

of applicant to press the application hence, case was again

fixed on 20.2.14 for evidence of opposite party. On 20.2.14

witness was present but there was no one from the

applicant side to cross examine the witness hence,

opportunity for cross examination was closed looking into

old pendency of the case & lack of interest of the applicant

in pursuing the case further & 28.2.14 was fixed for

argument. On 28.2.14 there was advocate strike hence,

case was fixed on 24.3.14 for argument.

15. In CGIT Cum Labour Court, Jaipur Lok-Adalat was

to be held on Sunday, 23.3.14. On 23.3.14 both the parties

appeared & filed an application in Lok-Adalat to have

their case disposed through Lok-Adalat on the basis of

terms and conditions set out in the application. The

application has been made part of the decree which reads

as under:-

U;k;ky; dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k o Je

U;k;ky;] t;iqj

'khrynkl

V/s.

vkU/kzk cSad

eq- ua- 66@04

izkFkZuk&i= ifjokn fo

izkFkZuk&i= ifjokn foMªk djus dh vuqefr iznku

k djus dh vuqefr iznku

djus ckcr

Jheku th]

izkFkZuk&i= fuEu izdkj izLrqr gS&

;g dh mDr izdj.k Jheku U;k;ky;

esa fopkjk/khu gSA

No Objection

2- ;g dh mDr ifjokn eSus yksxksa ds

¼gLrk{kj viBuh;½ cgdkos esa vkdj cSad ds fo:) is'k fd;k

Dileep Gursahani FkkA eSus vizkFkhZ cSad esa dHkh Hkh nQrjh dk

Dy. Manager

dk;Z ugh fd;k vkSj dHkh 240 fnu ls

Andhra Bank

T;knk dk;Z ugha fd;k okLro esa eq>s

Jaipur

vizkFkhZ cSad }kjk le;≤ ij dsoy

lafonk ds vk/kkj ij etnwjh ij

yxk;k tkrk Fkk vkSj mldh etnwjh Hkh

nh tkrh FkhA cSad }kjk 5-2-2004 dks lsok

eqDr ugha fd;k x;k FkkA

Identified

3- ;g dh mDr ifjokn dks okil ysus ds

(Signature

fy, iwoZ esa fyf[kr izkFkZuk&i= is’k fd;k

illegible)

gqvk gSA lPpkbZ ;g gS fd eSaus 18-10-03 ds

Advocate

ckn cSad es dHkh dk;Z ugha fd;k

23/3/2014

4- ;g dh eSus lksp le> dj o fcuk

Andra Bank

fdlh nokc ds ;g r; fd;k gS dh eS cSad

ds fo:) viuk mDr ifjokn ugha yM+uk

pkgrk gwWa rFkk yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk dks

/;ku es j[k dj fcuk rtcht ds ifjokn

[kkfjt djkuk pkgrk gWwA

4994

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vr% izkFkZuk&i= Lohdkj djek dj cSad ds fo:) esjs eqdnes

dks fcuk rtcht [kkfjt dj fn;k tk,A

t;iqj

izkFkhZ

fnukad 23-3-14

gLrk{kj iBuh;

flrynkl

¼'khrynkl½

tfj, vf/koDrk

gLrk{kj viBuh;

16. In Lok-Adalat the case was disposed in following

manner:-

i=koyh vkt yksd vnkyr esa izLrqr gqbZA mHk;i{k rFkk

muds fo}ku izfrfuf/k mifLFkr vk;sA

izkFkhZ i{k dh rjQ ls vkosnu bl vk’k; ds izLrqr gqbZ gS fd

cSad ds fo:) eqdnesa dks fcuk rtcht [kkfjt dj fn;k tk;A

vkosnu esa dgk x;k gS fd mlus cgdkos esa vkdj cSad ds

fo:) ifjokn izLrqr fd;k FkkA og cSad esa dHkh nQrjh dk

dk;Z ugha fd;k vkSj dHkh 240 fnu ls T;knk dk;Z ugha fd;kA

og dsoy lafonk ds vk/kkj ij etnwjh ij yxk Fkk vkSj mlh

ds vuqlkj mls etnwjh nh tkrh FkhA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd mlus

18-10-03 ds ckn dHkh cSad esa dk;Z ugha fd;k ,oa fnukad

05-2-2004 dks mls cSad ls eqDr ugha fd;k x;k FkkA ;g Hkh dgk

gS fd mlus lksp&le>dj fcuk fdlh ncko ds r; fd;k gS

fd cSad ds fo:) og viuk ifjokn ugha yM+uk pkgrk gS vkSj

izkFkZuk fd;k gS fd yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk dks /;ku esa j[krs

gq, mldk eqdnek [kkfjt fd;k tk;A

vkosnu ij cSad ds mi izcU/kd }kjk “No objection””vafdr

fd;k x;k gSA mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us vius i{kdkjksa

dh f’kuk[r dh gSA vkosnu dh 'krsZa i{kdkjksa dks i<+dj lquk;ha

,oWa le>k;h x;hA 'krsZa LosPN;k izLrqr dh x;h izrhr gksrh gSa

ftUgsa 'khry nkl usa Lohdkj fd;k gSA vr% mDr vkosnu dh

'krksZa ds vuqlkj eqdnesa dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tkrk gSA vkosnu

fnukaWfdr 23-3-14 fMdzh dk va’k gksxhA vkosnu 'khry nkl dh

rn~uqlkj Lohdkj dh tkrh gS ,oWa LVsVesaV vkQ Dyse fujLr

dh tkrh gSA

17. The reference is answered accordingly in affirmative

& against the applicant that the action of the management

of Andhra Bank in terminating the services of Sh. Sheetal

Das S/o Sh. Narsingh Das w.e.f. 5.2.2004 is legal & justified

& the workman is not entitled to any relief.

18. Award as above.

19. Let a copy of the award be sent to Central

Government for publication u/s 17(1) of the I.D.Act.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1921

dk-vk- 1921.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼a1947

dk 14 ½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M

fla?k cSd ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds

chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k Je U;k;ky;] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 299@2004½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

30@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@119@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼ch-&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2014

S.O. 1921.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 299/

2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No.1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Punjab &

Sind Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 30/06/2014.

[No. L-12012/119/2004 - IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 299 of 2004. Reference No. L-12012/119/2004/

IR(B-II) dated 29.09.2004

Dan Singh S/o Sh. Sunder Singh, Village Batolu, P.O.

Sainthal, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, Mandi(HP).

...Workman

Versus

1. The Chief Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal Office,

PSB House, Model Town, Jalandhar (Punjab)-144003.

...Respondent

Appearances

For the Workman

: Sh. P.K. Longia Advocate

For the Management

: Sh. J.S. Sathi Advocate.

Award Passed On : 18^th of February 2014.

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No.L-12012/119/2004/IR(B-II)dated 29.09.2004

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of Punjab

and Sind Bank, Jalandhar for inflicting

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4995

punishment of compulsory retirement from service

upon Shri Dan Singh, Ex-Peon from service w.e.f.

16.06.2003, is just and legal? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

2. The workman filed claim statement and management

submitted his written statement.

3. The case of the workman as per the claim statement

is that he was working as a regular peon under the

respondent bank. The mother of the workman died when

the workman was of very small age. Workman’s father due

to old age was ill on 15.08.2002. Workman received telegram

about the illness of his father. Workman applied for two

days leave and proceeded to his village. Workmen’s father

was serious as such the workman informed the Bank

Authorities and requested to extend his leave for one

month. A telephone call was made in this regard to the

Zonal Office, Jalandhar. As soon as the condition of the

workman’s father improved. Workman rejoined the service

immediately on 05.10.2002 and continued discharging his

duties. Unfortunately the father of the workman again fell

ill. The situation was explained to the Bank Authorities

and Bank Authorities assured the workman that there was

nothing to worry and the workman proceeded on leave

from 05.11.2002. On 9.12.2002 a charge sheet was stated to

have been issued to the workman for remaining absent

from duties without any sanction of leave. No notice of

the charge sheet was ever sent to the workman. On return

of the workman w.e.f. 24.12.2002 the factum of issuance

charge sheet was never disclosed to the workman. He was

called in the office on Chief Manager on 15.01.2003 in the

presence of A.S. Arora and G.S. Sabharwal Officer of Zonal

Office Jalandhar. The workman was asked to sign certain

blank papers without explaining anything to him. Neither

the workman was asked any question nor anything was

explained to him. The alleged inquiry was conducted at

the back of the workman without disclosing anything to

the workman. As such the workman could not show cause

to proposed punishment nor he could file his reply. Inquiry

Officer never explained the contents of the report to the

workman. During inquiry no witness was examine in

workman’s presence nor the workman was given any

opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The workman

was neither provided with copy of the inquiry report nor

any explanation was called from the workman about

proposed punishment. The punishment of dismissal in

case of misconduct of remaining absent is harsh and

unjustified. No reasonable opportunity was given to the

workman. Workman alleged that the order of the

punishment of compulsory retirement is liable to be set

aside because nearly one or two instances absence and

those too for valid and justified reasons cannot become a

basis for awarding such punishment. The punishment of

removal is excessive and disproportionate. With these

allegations, workman requested that the order of

compulsory retirement from service w.e.f. 16.06.2003 be

set aside.

4. The management submitted his written statement

the management pleaded that on 14.08.2002 the workman

submitted leave application for casual leave from

16.08.2002 to 17.08.2002(two days) on the ground of most

urgent work. Two day casual leave was sanctioned and

the balance leave due to the workman was for one day.

Workman did not report for duties after 17.08.2002 and no

intimation/leave application was received from him.

5. The Chief Manager issued notice dated 24.09.2002

to the workman to show cause as to why disciplinary action

be not initiated against him for absenting w.e.f. 18.08.2002.

Workman reported for duties on 05.10.2002. Workman again

started absenting from 05.11.2002 without intimation/

sanction of leave. Workman attended duties on 01.11.2002,

02.11.2002 was Sunday and 04.11.2002 was holiday on

account of Diwali. In view of unauthorized absence from

05.11.202 coupled with earlier absence from 19.08.2002 to

04.10.2002 the disciplinary authority issued charge sheet

dated 09.12.2002 that was served upon the workman on

10.12.2002 in response to charge sheet, workman submitted

reply on 23.12.2002 that the workman was sick and

workman also produced medical certificates. Workman

also stated that the period of absence from duty for 35

days w.e.f. 05.11.2002 to 09.12.2002 was absolutely

necessary for the restoration of his health and workman

became ill from 10.12.2002. Workman was allowed to join

duty by disciplinary authority vide order dated 23.12.2002

pending disciplinary action initiated vide charge sheet.

Workman’s reply was not found satisfactory disciplinary

authority vide order dated 06.01.2003 appointed Sh.Amrik

Singh Arora, Manager, Zonal Office, Jalandhar as Inquiry

Officer and Sh. J.S. Sabharwal, I.R. Officer, Zonal Office,

Jalandhar as the presenting officer to conduct the inquiry.

Workman attended inquiry on 15.01.2003 and workman

confirmed and accepted both the allegations leveled

against him in the charge sheet. Although the workman

admitted the allegations however in order to provide

another opportunity to the workman the inquiry was fixed

on 20.01.2003. Inquiry proceedings were explained to the

workman and the inquiry was fixed on 20.01.2003 and was

postponed to 22.01.2003. On 22.01.2003 the workman

submitted that he already admitted all the allegations.

Inquiry Officer submitted inquiry report on 10.02.2003 and

holding that charges leveled against the workman were

proved. Copy of the inquiry report dated 10.02.2003 was

supplied to the workman. Workman did not submit his

comments against the finding of the inquiry officer. The

disciplinary authority issued show cause notice to the

workman for the proposed punishment. Disciplinary

authority also informed to the workman to appear before

him for the purpose of personal hearing. Workman did not

avail the opportunity. Disciplinary authority inflicted the

following punishment “Shri Dan Singh-Peon, Zonal Office,

Jalandhar, be compulsorily retired/removed from service/

4996

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

discharged with superannuation benefits as would be due

otherwise at that stage and without disqualification of

future employment.”

6. In evidence, workman submitted his affidavit and

filed photocopies of medical certificate and on behalf of

management. Sh. Brij Mohan Kaura, Officer Punjab & Sind

Bank, submitted his affidavits. Photocopies of the

documents were also filed. Workman Dan Singh and

management witness Brij Mohan Kaura were cross-

examined before this tribunal.

7. I have heard both the parties and perused the

entire record carefully.

8. So far the fairness of inquiry is concerned. It would

be pertinent to mention the order dated 13.07.2010, passed

by the then Presiding Officer.

“As per the provisions of Industrial Disputes

Act, if any enquiry is found to be against the rules

and in violation of the principle of natural justice, it

is the duty of this Tribunal to afford the opportunity

to conduct a fresh enquiry. The fresh enquiry may

be conducted by the Tribunal or by the enquiry

officer appointed by the disciplinary authority. Both

of the parties have agreed to conduct the enquiry

by this Tribunal. I am also of the view that

considering the manner enquiry was conducted

against the workman, it will be proper to quash the

enquiry and to afford the management an

opportunity for proving the charge afresh before

this Tribunal. Accordingly, the inquiry proceedings

and punishment awarded to the workman are set-

aside. The status of the workman during the enquiry

to be conducted by this Tribunal shall remain as

such. Management is afforded the opportunity to

conduct the enquiry of the charge which was leveled

the workman on 09.12.2002. The management is

afforded the opportunity to lead the evidence base

on the charges leveled against the workman on

09.12.2002. Considering the nature of the enquiry

and the proceedings before this Tribunal, it is hereby

made clear that proceedings of this case shall be

conducted as per the mechanism adopted by the

Tribunal, and the reference shall be answered within

two months from today. The evidence of workman

shall also be recorded on the same day after recording

the evidence of the management. List the case on

18.08.2010 for evidence of the management and the

workman.”

9. Before this Tribunal, management’s witness Shri

Brij Mohan Kaura. IR Officer Zonal Office, Jalandhar, filed

his affidavit, in his affidavit, dated 18.08.2010 stated that

the total period of absence of the workman was 277 days.

This has also mentioned in his affidavit that no ordinary

leave is due to an employee. Competent authority may

grant extra ordinary leave and no pay and allowances are

admissible during the period of extra ordinary leave and

the period spent on such leave was not count for increment.

This has also been mentioned in affidavit that extra ordinary

leave shall not exceed three months on any occasion and

12 months during the entire period of service. From the

perusal of this affidavit it is also clear that the finding of

inquiry officer were sent to the workman through registered

cover letter. Workman did not submit comments against

the finding of the inquiry officer and disciplinay authority

after considering record pass the order of punishment “Shri

Dan Singh-Peon, Zonal Office, Jalandhar, be compulsorily

retired/removed from service/discharged with

superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise at

that stage and without disqualification of future

employment.” Workman did not avail the opportunity of

personal hearing also. This has also been mentioned in

the affidavit that the workman did not avail the remedy of

appeal against the orders passed by the disciplinary

authority.

10. Workman’s contention is that the workman could

not attend the office due to his father’s illness and therefore

workman himself got ill. Workman also submitted medical

certificate about his illness.

11. Considering all the facts and circumstances and

looking to the fact that the workman is a class four

employee with less educational background, so he could

not avail the remedies as stated in the affidavit.

Considering the circumstances and facts of the case it is

held that in departmental inquiry workman was not

provided with sufficient opportunity to defend himself.

The charges leveled against workman were regarding his

absence from duties. This is not a case where workman

embezzled. The punishment awarded for absence from

duties is very harsh and deserves to be set aside.

Consequently considering all the facts and circumstances

the punishment awarded to the workman is set aside and

the workman be reinstated subject to conditions that

workman will not get any back wages during his absence

from duty, workman will be placed at the lowest of his pay

scale and he shall not be given any sort of seniority and

he shall also not be given any increment or leave

encashment benefits. Management is directed to reinstate

the workman within one month from the date of the

publication of award.

12. With these findings the reference is answered

accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well

as hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for further

necessary action.

Chandigarh.

18.02.201

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4997

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1922

dk-vk- 1922.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc

us'kuy cSd ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 80@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

30@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@26@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼ch-&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2014

S.O. 1922.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 80/2007)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal–cum-Labour Court-

No.1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Punjab

National Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 30/06/2014.

[No. L-12012/26/2007-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 80 of 2007, Reference No. L-12012

26/2007-IR(B-II) dated 04.07.2007.

Sh. Ravinder Kumar Nanda, H.No.454, Urban Estate,

Phase-II, Jalandhar (Punjab).

...Workman

Versus

1. The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank,

The Mall, Ferozepur City, Ferozepur.

...Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

: None

For the Management

: Sh. N.K. Zakhmi Advocate

Award Passed On : 03-03-2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No. L-12012/26/2007-IR(B-II) dated 04.07.2007

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of Punjab

National Bank, Ferozepur in terminating the services

of Shri Ravinder Kumar Nanda, Ex-clerk-cum-Cashier

w.e.f. 28.02.1991, is legal and justified? If not, what

relief the workman is entitled to and to what extent?”

2. On receipt of reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Workman appeared and filed claim statement

stating therein that he was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier

with the management and there was no complaint

regarding his work and conduct. It is pleaded by the

workman that on 07.07.1986 a charge sheet was served

upon him and there after inquiry proceedings were dropped

vide telegram dated 12.06.1989. It is pleaded by the workman

that he was served another charge sheet dated 13.06.1988

similar to the charge sheet dated 07.07.1986. Therefore the

subsequent charge sheet is neither proper nor legal. The

workman submitted an application bringing the above facts

to the management to withdraw the charge sheet, but he

did not receive any reply. Therefore the workman was

denied the opportunity to submit the reply to the charge

sheet. The workman received a letter from Senior Regional

Manager, Regional office Ferozepur requiring the workman

to attend the inquiry in connection with the charge sheet

dated 31.05.1988. There was no charge sheet of dated

31.05.1988. Therefore the workman did not appear again

vide letter dated 07.03.1989, the workman again informed

that inquiry is regarding charge sheet dated 13.08.1988.

Mr. R.P. Gupta was asked to conduct the inquiry and first

date was fixed on 05.04.1989 which was received by the

workman on 05.04.1989. The workman informed Mr. R.P.

Gupta, inquiry officer that he was biased against the

workman. The workman submitted representation for

providing the assistance of the advocate and result of

charge sheet dated 07.07.1986, for change the inquiry

officer, for staying the inquiry proceedings in view of the

pending criminal proceedings, enhancement of

subsistence allowance and payment of subsistence

allowance. The workman was not given reply to his

application, and management in violation of principal of

natural justice rushed through the departmental inquiry

with a pre- determined mind. He was not supplied the list

of witnesses, description of documents. The inquiry was

biased against the workman asmuch as he even refused to

receive the application of the workman. The inquiry officer

conducted the inquiry Ex-parte illegally and he was not

supplied the list of witnesses or documents. The workman

further pleaded that he requested the inquiry officer on

29.06.1989 to recall the departmental witnesses for cross-

examination and to call Mrs. Jaswinder Kaur and Sh. M.G

Kapoor, but the inquiry officer accepted the request

regarding supply of copies of documents but illegally

rejected the applicant request for calling Mrs. Jaswinder

Kaur and M.G. Kapoor. Due to illness of applicant he could

not attend the inquiry on 11.7.1989 that he informed the

4998

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

inquiry officer about his illness vide telegram dated

10.07.1989. The workman could not recover from sickness

and workman sent the medical certificate to the inquiry

officer and next date of inquiry was as on 31.07.1989. On

31.07.1989, no witness of the management was present

and the workman was asked to produce the defence

evidence from 08.07.1989. On this stage the workman

wanted to submit an application in the inquiry but inquiry

officer refused to produce the same. The inquiry officer

was also refused to summon Jaswinder Kaur and M.G.

Kapoor and asked the workman to produce them at his

own level and responsibility and inquiry was adjourned

to 25.08.1989. On 25.08.1989 the workman could not produce

M.G Kapoor and Jaswinder Kaur due to the reason that

she was out of station. Inquiry officer did not exceeded to

the request of the workman to call Mr. Jaswinder Kaur and

M.G. Kapoor officially and close the defence evidence and

adjourned the case to 02.09.1989 for submitting the written

brief. The workman could not submit the written brief on

02.09.1989 as he was not supplied the copies of relevant

documents by the officer. A show cause notice was issued

to the workman proposing the penalty of dismissal from

service. It is pleaded by the workman that inquiry report/

finding was absolutely biased at the point in issue. The

inquiry officer did not apply his mind and the workman

was not given opportunity to defend himself. As the

inquiry officer in violation of principal of natural justice

did not call the most material and relevant witnesses that

is Mr. Jaswinder Kaur and M.G. Kapoor and workman was

not given opportunity to cross-examine them. The

punishment order dated 06.09.1990 dismissing the workman

from service is illegal and it is requested by the workman

that the same may be set aside and quashed and the

workman may be reinstated in service with all

consequential benefits and continue of the service with

full back wages.

3. The management filed written statement primary

objection has been taken that the workman was guilty of

serious act of misconduct while working as clerk-cum-

cashier in the branch office of the management at Ferozepur

Cantt. He was served with the charge sheet which is as

under:-

On 09.03.1984, you fraudulently got cancelled

draft No.5/84 dated 20.02.1984 for Rs.350/-

favouring Capt. N.S. Bawa drawn on BO: Nasik

Road, purchased by Mrs. Jaswinder Kaur and

received payment in your SF A/c 22506.

One Mr. Madan Gopal holder of RD A/c No.3987

gave you Rs.200/- on 10.10.1984 and another

Rs.200/- In Nov.1984 for deposit in his RD A/c

No.3987, but you never deposited these amounts

in the bank. You simply made entries in his RD

passbook and also put your initials in the

prescribed column. As such, you pocketed that

amount cheated a valuable bank customer by

misusing your position as an employee of the

bank.

4. Inquiry officer was appointed and the workman was

duly informed for the different dates and proceedings were

adjourned from one date to another. The workman was

given sufficient opportunity to defend himself during

inquiry. But the workman failed to attend the inquiry

proceedings. He was duly informed about the appointment

of inquiry officer who issued notice for appearing for the

inquiry for 12.04.1989. On the request of the workman the

inquiry proceedings adjourned for the reason that workman

wanted sometime to engage his defence representative.

He was issued notice by the inquiry officer for appearance

on 13.06.1989, the workman again requested date and

playing delay tactics the witnesses of the management

were present in the inquiry proceedings. He was asked by

the inquiry officer to cross-examine the witness. The

workman walked out of the chamber of the inquiry officer

and he refused to sign on the inquiry proceedings also.

As there was no alternative the inquiry was conducted

Ex-parte, and inquiry proceedings were postpone to

12.04.1989 and copy of inquiry proceedings was sent to

the workman.

5. The workman was advised time and again by the

inquiry officer to appear and to bring his defence

representative and also send his list of witnesses but the

workman resorted to delaying tactics each and every time.

When he was asked to cross-examine management witness,

he asked for a date without any reason. On many dates

management witnesses were present but the workman did

not turn up and sent telegram. Still the inquiry officer

provided him opportunity to appear in inquiry and defend

him in the inquiry proceedings. For example on 15.07.1989

the management witnesses were present but the workman

neither turn up nor sent any intimation for his absence nor

submitted any medical certificate. After waiting, the

presenting officer requested the inquiry officer to start

the inquiry. Still the inquiry officer asked the presenting

officer to wait for some more time and after a long time the

inquiry officer concluded the evidence of the management.

Many times the workman was told categorically and

specifically but the workman again resorted to the same

tactics for seeking date and to avoid the inquiry

proceedings. When inquiry officer submitted his report to

the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority

ordered for reopening of the inquiry with the direction

that the workman may be given an opportunity to cross-

examine the management witness and to produce his

defence witness. In accordance with the order of the

disciplinary authority the inquiry was restarted and

workman was informed vide letter dated 24.01.1990 but

the workman again did not turn up. Still the inquiry officer

adjourned the proceedings to 19.02.1990, again the

workman did not turn up. Still the inquiry proceedings

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

4999

adjourned to 07.03.1990. On this date also, the workman

did not turn up and sent a telegram about his illness and

having no alternative except to accede the request of the

workman, the proceedings was adjourned to 21.03.1990,

again the workman did not turn up. The inquiry

proceedings adjourned on 05.04.1990 and the workman

was allowed to cross-examine the witness of the

management. In this process workman examined the

witness of the management on 20.04.1990. On further dates

the workman failed to turn up and proceedings were fixed

on 20.06.1990 when the workman despite various

opportunities failed to produced defence witnesses. The

defence of the workman was closed and he was asked to

give written brief. The workman failed to give any written

brief and inquiry officer submitted his findings to the

regional manager who issued show cause notice

proposing the punishment of dismissal from service. He

was also given personal hearing and after taking into

consideration of the facts and circumstances, the

disciplinary authority confirm the punishment to dismissal

from service vide order dated 06.09.1990. The appeal of

the workman was also decided after considering all the

record and dismissed the appeal vide order dated

28.02.1991. It is submitted by the management that the

inquiry was conducted in fair and proper manner and he

was given so much of opportunities but each and every

time the workman played delaying tactics and still after

conducting the inquiry according to the principal of natural

justice punishment was imposed by the disciplinary

authority by giving show cause notice, on each and every

step the management complied with the principal of natural

justice. He was given personal hearing by the disciplinary

authority and also by the appellate authority. It is further

submitted by the management that the bank has lost

confidence in the workman Ravinder Kumar Nanda. It is

prayed that as the inquiry was conducted in fair and proper

manner, in accordance with the principles of natural justice,

punishment is imposed in proportionate to the gravity of

misconduct of the workman. Therefore the workman is

not entitled to any relief and the reference deserves to be

dismissed.

6. From the perusal of the record it appears that the

workman firstly filed a civil suit No.540-1/1-2-93/9399 in

the court of Sub Judge Junior Division Ferozepur, for

declaration to the effect that order dated 06.09.1990 passed

by Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Ferozepur,

imposed the penalty of dismissal from service and order

dated 28.02.1991 passed by Zonal Manager wherein appeal

of the complainant was dismissed. This Civil Suit was

decided vide order dater 29.07.2002 and the suit was

dismissed with cost. The workman filed civil appeal in the

Court of Additional District Judge Fast Track Court,

Ferozepur, which was decided on 03.04.2003 and the suit

was decreed in favour of the workman. Aggrieved by this

judgment of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court,

Ferozepur, the management filed regular second appeal

No.4285 of 2003 in the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab &

Haryana. Hon’ble High Court passed the following order:-

“The judgment of the lower appellate court is set

aside. It is clarified that the plaintiff would be free to

avail of his remedy under the Industrial Disputes

Act. 1947, where his claim would be considered

without being influenced by any findings recorded

by the civil courts in these proceedings.”

7. In view of the above the present reference was

referred by the Ministry taking into consideration of the

orders of the Hon’ble High Court, as the liberty was given

to the workman to avail his remedy under the I.D. Act. In

so far as the inquiry is concerned, this Tribunal on

23.03.2010 passed the following orders:-

“Even though the recording of evidence is not

mandatory but if the circumstances of the case so

demanded parties can be allowed to adduce

evidence even on fairness of enquiry. This tribunal

should afford this opportunity for the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the parties are allowed to lead evidence

on fairness of enquiry”.

8. Both the parties examined witnesses in support of

their respective case. The workman examined himself as

WW1 wherein he tendered his affidavit as Exb.W1 and

documents Exb.W2 to W10. The management examined

Satbhushan Gupta, Senior Manager, Circle Office, Punjab

National Bank, Bhathinda, who filed his affidavit M1 and

complete inquiry proceedings as Exb.M2. Both the

witnesses have been cross examined by the rival parties.

9. The claim of the workman is that he was not afforded

proper and adequate opportunity during departmental

proceedings conducted against him. The workman was

denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of

the management and to adduce his defence. The inquiry

officer was biased and he conducted ex-parte proceedings

against him. The inquiry officer failed to summon Jaswinder

Kaur and M.G. Kapoor as his witnesses who were crucial

witnesses to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Therefore, it is requested by the workman that in the facts

and circumstances of the case, as the inquiry was not

conducted fairly and properly and in accordance with the

principal of natural justice, the same may be declared as

void and punishment imposed upon the workman may be

set aside and the workman may be reinstated in service

with full back wages & all consequential relief. On the

other hand the claim of the management is that the workman

was given ample opportunity during departmental

proceedings. The workman deliberately and intentionally

avoided the inquiry and tried to prolong the same. He was

afforded full opportunity of defence during inquiry. As far

as his contention that he was not allowed to produced

Jaswinder Kaur and M.G Kapoor is concerned. The

5000

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management pleaded that full opportunity was given to

the workman to produce his witnesses which he wanted

to produce but the workman played delaying tactics and

failed to produce those two witnesses on one pretext or

the other. The management prayed that as the workman

was given full opportunity during inquiry, the inquiry may

be held as fair and proper and the punishment imposed

upon the workman is commensurate to the misconduct of

the workman. The workman was also given personal

hearing by the disciplinary authority and the workman

availed the same. The workman was also given personal

hearing by the appellate authority which he availed. It is

prayed that there is no merit in the reference and the

reference deserves to be answered against the workman.

10. From the perusal of the evidence on record, it is

revealed that workman during cross examination admitted

that he received a letter dated 29.03.1989 in which inquiry

was fixed for 05.04.1989 and workman did not appear before

the inquiry officer as he received the letter in the afternoon.

From the perusal of the record of inquiry it appears that

the workman was informed about the date of inquiry

through registered letters. On 05.04.1989, the workman

wanted some time to engage his defence representative

vide his letter dated 08.04.1989. A notice was issued to him

for 13.06.2009 but he again requested date to arrange his

representative. On that day the witness of the management

was present and the workman was asked to cross examine

the management witness. The workman walked out of the

chamber of the inquiry officer and refused to sign on inquiry

Ex-parte. The inquiry proceeding was postponed to

02.06.1989 and a copy of the inquiry proceedings was sent

to the workman, and he was advised to attend the inquiry

proceedings. Next date was fixed on 29.06.1989 and he

was asked to bring his defence representative and send

his list of witnesses, and he was given another opportunity

to cross examine the management witness on 07.07.1989.

Again he walked out from the inquiry proceedings and

refused to cross examine the management witness. Still he

was given another opportunity and inquiry proceedings

were adjourned to 11.07.1989.

11. From the inquiry proceedings, it is revealed that he

was given so many dates to cross examine the management

witness and to bring his own witness in defence but the

workman played delaying tactics each and every time on

the crucial date of hearing in the departmental proceedings.

12. In cross examination he admitted of having received

telegrams and letters for inquiry but on one pretext or the

other he was seeking adjournment and delayed the inquiry.

The disciplinary authority set aside the order of the inquiry

officer to close the inquiry and allowed the workman to

cross examine the witness and to produce his own witness

in defence. In cross examination the workman admitted of

having received the proceeding of inquiry. He also admitted

that he received the report of the inquiry officer along

with the show cause notice and he also admitted that he

appeared before the disciplinary authority on 06.09.1990

incompliance of the opportunity of being heard given to

him he also filed appeal which was dismissed and the was

afforded the personal hearing in appeal also. From the

above it cannot be said that the workman was not given

any opportunity to cross examine management witness

and to lead his defence during the departmental

proceedings. He was given so many opportunities during

departmental proceedings but he each and every time

played tactics for delaying the inquiry. Therefore it is held

that inquiry was conducted with in fair and proper manner

and the workman was given full opportunity to defence

and he was also given the opportunity to cross examine

the management witness and the inquiry was conducted

in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

13. So far as the question of quantum of punishment is

concerned, the workman was held guilty of the charges of

miss-appropriation fraudulently cancellation of draft for

Rs.350/- and received the amount in his account and

receiving from one Madan Gopal who give him Rs.200/-

for deposit in his R.D account. He made entry in the pass

book and pocketed that amount which is serious

misconduct. The punishment was awarded to the workman

after careful consideration of the facts & circumstances

by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority

rightly rejected his appeal. Taking into consideration the

gravity of misconduct, no interference is warranted in the

quantum of punishment by this Tribunal.

14. In view of the discussion made in the earlier paras,

it is held that action of the management in terminating the

services of Sh.Ravinder Kumar Nanda, Ex-clerk-cum-

Cashier w.e.f.28.02.1991 is legal and justified and the

workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is

answered accordingly.

15. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard

copy be sent to the Central Govt. for further necessary

action.

Chandigarh

03-03-2014

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1923

dk-vk- 1923.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M

fla/k cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la- 34@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

30@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@104@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf?kdkjh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

5001

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2014

S.O.

1923.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2007)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal–cum-Labour Court No.1,

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Punjab and Sind

Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 30/06/2014.

[No. L-12012/104/2006 - IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 34 of 2007, Reference No. L-12012/104/2006-

IR(B-II)dated 04.06.2007.

Sh. Baljinder Singh, S/o Sh. Pal Singh, R/o V&PO Begowal,

Distt.Ludhiana, Ludhiana.

...Workman

Versus

1. The Zonal Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal Office,

Nobal Enclave, Bhai Bala Chowk, Ludhiana-141001.

...Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

: Sh. P. K. Longia, Advocate

For the Management : Sh. J.S. Sathi, Advocate

AWARD

Passed on 4.3.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No.L-12012/104/2006-IR(B-II)dated 04.06.2007

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of Punjab

& Sind Bank, in terminating the service of Shri

Baljinder Singh, Ex-peon w.e.f. 03.03.2003 without

following the prescribed procedure under Section

25F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is illegal and

unjustified? If so, to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and from which date?”

2. Workman in his claim statement submitted that he

joined the respondent bank on 05.10.1996 on the post of

peon and he was appointed by the Branch Manager against

two sanctioned post of peon and he has completed more

than 240 days. He made several representations for

regularizing of his services. Workman continuously works

for more than six years and when the workman asked to

the branch manager to pay him prevailing DC rates. The

branch manager denied and he was not allowed to enter in

the bank w.e.f. 03.03.2003. No notice or retrenchment

compensation was given to the workman at the time of his

disengagement on 03.03.2003. The management appointed

another person in his place and violated the Section of

25F of the ID Act, 1947. The workman prayed that as he

has worked continuously with the management for more

than six years and he completed 240 days services in every

calendar year. The management fails to comply with the

Section 25F of the ID Act, and no notice, pay in lieu of one

month notice and retrenchment compensation was given

to him at the time of his disengagement on 03.03.2003. The

workman prayed that he may be reinstated in services

with full back wages.

3. The management filed written statement, primary

objection has been taken, that the workman intermittently

worked during 1996 to 2003 but he did not complete 240

days of service in twelve months. He was not required to

mark presence in the attendance register. It is further

submitted that a person engaged unauthorized has no

right to continue in service. The engagement of the

workman was backdoor entry therefore provisions of ID

Act, 1947 are not applicable. On merits it is pleaded by the

management that no appointment letter was issued to the

workman and no proper and fair procedure was followed

while engaging him and thus it is a backdoor entry. The

workman did not render 240 days service, therefore

provisions of Section 25F are not applicable. No fresh

hand was recruited. It is prayed that reference of the

workman has no merits to stand, therefore the same may

be answered against workman.

4. In evidence, workman filed his affidavit, he also

placed on record general charges account register for the

year 1998, 2001 and 2002. The management in evidence

filed the affidavit of Sh.H.S Dugal, Ex.M1, along with a

letter dated 01.05.2006 Ex. as marked ‘A’.

5. The workman in his cross examination stated that no

application was moved by him for any post. He was

interviewed by the manager concerned. It is also stated

by the workman in the cross examination that after his

termination Surjit Singh and Mehga Singh were engaged

in the same branch. He also denied the suggestion that

the workman left voluntarily and bank has not terminated

his service. The witness of the management Sh.H.S.Dugal

admitted in his cross examination that workman was

engaged on 05.10.1996 and disengaged verbally on

03.03.2003. No attendance was maintained but numbers of

days were calculated on the basis of payment voucher. It

is also admitted by the witness of the management that no

retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman. He

also admitted that post of peon is still available and one

Mehnga Singh was part time sweeper whose services were

regularized on part time basis.

5002

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6. I have heard the parties and gone through the record.

The claim of the workman is that he was engaged on

05.10.1996 and worked upto 03.03.2003 continuously and

completed 240 days of service in every calendar year

during six years. He also placed on record the general

charges account register according to which the

management witness was admitted to be genuine. His

services were terminated on 03.03.2003 without following

the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act,

1947. The management also violated Section 25F on the

basis of which the workman prayed that he may be

reinstated in service with full back wages.

7. On the other hand, the claim of the management is

that though workman admittedly worked during the period

05.10.1996 to 03.03.2003, but it is the plea of the management

that workman did not complete 240 days in any of the

calendar year from 05.10.1996 to 03.03.2003. Therefore,

provisions of the ID Act, 1947 are not applicable.

8. In so far as the appointment of the workman is

concerned, workman himself admitted that no application

was moved by him for any post. He also admitted in his

statement that no appointment letter was issued. He was

paid daily wages @ Rs. 30 per day. He also admitted in his

statement that no termination order was passed. From the

statement of witness of the management Shri H.S. Dugal,

it is clear that workman was engaged on 5.10.1996 and was

disengaged verbally on 3.3.2003. The witness of the

management also admitted that there was no attendance

sheet and number of days were calculated by the office on

the basis of payment vouchers. The general charges

account payment register from 1996 to 2003 which are

annexed with the file are official record which he believe to

be genuine. Management’s witness Shri Dugal also stated

in his statement that Mehanga Singh was part time sweeper

has been regularized on part time basis.

9. From the above statements of the witness it is clear

that workman was engaged on daily wages basis and

worked with the management as such for the period from

5.10.1996 to 3.3.2003 intermittently. He was not appointed

against any sanctioned post and due procedure was not

followed by the management at the time of his engagement

as no retrenchment compensation was given to him and

he was also not given one month notice or pay in lieu of

notice. As he was working on daily wage basis w.e.f. 5.10.96

to 3.3.2003, therefore, he has no right to the post under

these circumstances and cannot be ordered to be

reinstated. The end of justice would be met if the workman

is allowed compensation in lieu of his reinstatement. In

view of the above, since the workman was working on

daily wage basis @ Rs. 30 per month,, therefore,

compensation amounting to Rs. 30000 would be adequate

in the given circumstances. The management is directed

to pay Rs. 30000 to the workman within one months from

the date of publication of the award. The referenced is

disposed off according. Central Govt. be informed. Soft

copy as well as hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for

publication.

Chandigarh.

03-03-2014

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1924

dk-vk- 1924.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc

us'kuy cSd ds izca/kar= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ubZ fnYyh+&1] ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la- 45@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 30@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@35@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf?kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2014

S.O. 1924.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2011)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal–cum-Labour Court No.1,

New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 30/06/2014.

[No. L-12011/35/2003 - IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS

COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 45/2011

1. The President,

All India Bank Deposit Collectors’ Federation,

TKV Memorial, P.B.No.3673,

College P.O. Mahakavi Bharathiyar Road,

Ernakulam-682 035 (Kerala).

2. The Organizing Secretary,

All India Bank Deposit Collectors

Workmen Union ® 772,

# 1439, Renukacharya Temple Street,

K. P. Agrahara, Mysore-570 024.

...Workmen

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

5003

Versus

1. The Officer on Special Duty,

Indian Banks’ Association Local Chapter,

Punjab National Bank,

C/o P.N.B. ECE House, 2^nd Floor,

K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110 001.

2. The Chairman,

Indian Banks’ Association,

Stadium House 6^th Floor,

Block 3, Veer Nariman Road,

Mumbai -400 020.

...Managements

ORDER

An industrial dispute was referred to this Tribunal for

adjudication, vide order No.L-12011/35/2003-IR(B-II), New

Delhi, dated 06.08.2003. An award was passed in the matter

on 07.10.2013. Inadvertently, a clerical mistake has

occurred in the said award.

2. Now, an application has been moved by the

management detailing therein that Tribunal has divided

the bill/tiny deposit collectors into Area A, B and C as per

the places they operate, where a bill deposit collector in

area A would collect a minimum of Rs.5 lacs per month, in

area B Rs.4 lacs per month and in area C a sum of Rs.3 lacs

per month which was wrongly mentioned as the collectors

operating in area A, B and C would collect Rs.3, Rs.4 and

Rs.5 lacs, in the award. A request has been made to make

necessary correction in the award, in that regard.

3. Rule 28 of the Industrial Disputes(Central) Rules,

1957 empowers this Tribunal to correct any clerical mistake

or error arising from an accidental slip or omission in any

award or order issued in that regard. For sake of ready

reference, aforesaid rule is extracted thus:

“The Labour Court, Tribunal National Tribunal or

Arbitrator may correct any clerical mistake or error

arising from an accidental slip or omission in any

award it/he issues”.

4. Clerical error can be defined as an error in a document

which can only be explained by considering it to be a slip

or mistake of the party preparing or copying it. Literally an

error is said to be “clerical” where it is made by a clerk or

some subordinate agent, but actually, it means an error

committed it the performance of clerical work, whether by

the Court, the draftsman of the Act or by the clerk. It is an

error which cannot reasonably be attributed to the exercise

of judicial consideration or discretion. Clerical error is in

the nature of an inadvertent omission or mistake. The term

“clerical error” which is amendable nunc pro tunc is

distinguishable from a “judicial error” which can be

corrected only on review or an appeal. Reference can be

made to precedents in Rosamma Punnose (AIR 1958 Ker.

154) and Mansha Ram L.Jagdish Rai (AIR 1962 Punj. 110).

5. Accidental slip occurs when something is wrongly

put in by an accident and an accidental omission occurs

when something is left out by accident. The expression

“accidental slip” as occurring in section 152 (new) of the

Code of Civil Procedure was construed by the Federal

Court in Sachindara Nath Kolya (5 DLR 68), wherein it was

observed as a follows:

“It needs to be stressed that the keyword in the

relevant phrase is “accidental” and it qualifies

“omission” also, with the result that the procedure

provided by section cannot be used to correct

omission, however erroneous, which are intentional,

not indeed in the sense of conscious choice, for no

court, is supposed to commit an error knowing it to

be such, but in the sense that the Court meant not to

omit what was omitted”.

6. Apex Court in Tulsipur Sugar Company Ltd. (1969 (2)

SCC 100) had occasion to consider correctional jurisdiction

of the Labour Court constituted under the UP Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. In that precedent the Apex Court made

reference to the provisions of Section 152 of the Code of

Civil Procedure and rule 28 of the Rules and announced

that power of correction of error is a limited one, which

can be exercised only to cases where mistake, clerical or

arithmetical or an error arising from an accidental slip or

omission had occurred. It was ruled therein that this power

is limited only to cases where clerical or arithmetical mistake

or errors arising from an accidental slip or omission have

occurred.

7. After ascertaining the scope of powers of correction

of errors available to this Tribunal, now it would be

ascertained as to whether the proposition that the

collectors operating in area A, B and C would collect Rs.3,

Rs.4 and Rs.5 lacs as mentioned in the award, was on

account of conscious choice of the Tribunal. Answer lies

in negative. It was so recorded on account of accidental

mistake. This Tribunal is vested with powers to correct

the accidental mistake. Accordingly, it is ordered that ‘the

collectors operating in area A, B and C would collect Rs.3,

Rs.4 and Rs.5 lacs per month respectively’ in the award

may be read as ‘the collectors operating in area C, B and A

would collect Rs.3 lac, Rs.4 lac and Rs.5 lac per month

respectively’ wherever it occurs. Ordered accordingly. The

appropriate Government may be communicated of the

correction, so made in the award, for publication.

Dr. R. K.YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1925

dk-vk- 1925.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /kuckn ds iapkV

5004

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

¼lanHkZ la[;k 26@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 01@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012@109@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e-I)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2014

S.O. 1925.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 26/2012 of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.

2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

01/07/2014.

[No. L-20012/109/2011 - 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. 26 OF 2012

PARTIES

: The General Secretary,

Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor Union,

Nutundih, PO : Jagjivan Nagar,

Dhanbad.

Vs.

General Manager,

Lodna Area, of M/s BCCL,

PO:Lodna,

Dhanbad.

Ministry's Order No. L-20012/109/2011-IR (C-I) dt.

22.3.2012.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union : : Mr. Pintu Mandal,

Union

Representative

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. D. K.Verma

Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 20th May, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act,1947 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No L-20012/

109/2011-IR (C-I) dt. 22.3.2012.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Bararee

Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing Sh.Santosh

Rabidas, Ex.M/Loader from the service of the Company

vide order dt.14.03.2011 is fair and justified ? To what

relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/109/2011-IR

(CM-I) dt. 22.3.2012. of the above mentioned reference

from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute,

the Reference Case No. 26 of 2012 was registered on

09.04.2012. 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 and filed their

pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The Union

and the O.P./Management through their own

Representative/Advocates appeared in, and contested the

case.

2. The case (with the I.D.Case No 9/2011 u/s 2 A of the

I.D, .Act, 1947) of the workman Santosh Rabidas as

sponsored by the Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor Union,

Dhanbad, is that on his appointment by the General

Manager of Bhowra Area as per the letter No.G.M.-PER/

XI/Temp/Rect. (M/L) 355-59 dt.27.12.1986/6.1.1987, he

joined the Bhowra Area on 22.1.1987, and was posted to

Jealgora Colliery of Bhowra Area. Later on his transfer to

Bararee Colliery which merged with Lodna Area, he was

working as Miner Loader there satisfactorily The workman

fell ill, so he had accordingly reported to the Management

as per his application dt.16.9.2006 for grant of his sick

leave. Again he reported to the Project Officer of Barora

colliery for extension of his sick leave as per his application

dt.6.3.2007. He got treatment from Dr. M. Prasad,

Loharkulhi, Saraidhella from 14.9.2006 to 8.12.2007. On

recovery from illness as per the Doctor’s Certificate of his

fitness for duty on 9.12.2007, the workman reported with

the Medical Certificate to the Personnel Manager of

Bararee Colliery for resumption of duty, but he was not

allowed to do so, Even the demand of the Union to that

effect resulted in the issuance of the chargesheet to the

workman on 28.03.2008 for the misconduct under clause

26.1.1 the Certified standing Orders. Even on his

satisfactory reply to the chargesheet and his application

on 20.9.2010 for resuming his duty, the Management

neither allowed his duty nor ordered for payment of

subsistence allowances for keeping him out of duty during

the pendency of the department enquiry as per the Certified

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

5005

Standing Orders. Lastly the workman had submitted his

application to the Management on 29.12.2010 for his duty.

The Project Officer of Bararee Colliery of M/s BCCL

illegally dismissed the workman as per the dismissal letter

no Bar/2011/230 dt.14.3.11.On the report of the workman

about it, the Union raised the Industrial Dispute before

the A.L.C. in which the workman learnt of his dismissal

but the failure of the conciliation proceeding due to the

adamant attitude of the Management resulted in the

reference for adjudication.

Further alleged by the Union that after knowing of the

dismissal of the workman, the union filed a rejoinder with

a prayer for changing the subject matter of the present

I.D. as his dismissal. The Management conducted the

domestic enquiry without giving an appropriate

opportunity to the workman for his defence according to

the principle of natural jsutice, and dismissed him illegally

as the Authority being below the rank of the Appointing

is not competent to pass the dismissal order as per clause

27.2.6 of the Certified Standing Oders.The misconduct has

not been proved in the enquiry. The punishment of

dismissal is dispropetionate.So the workman is entitled to

reinstatement with full back wages.

The Union for the workman in its rejoinder has

categorically denied all the allegations of the O.P./

Management as incorrect.

3. Whereas challenging the maintainability of the

reference the contra pleaded case of the O.P./Management

with the specific denials that the applicant workman posted

as Miner Loader at Bararee Colliery began to

unauthorizedly absent from his duty w.e.f. 10.9.2006 which

is misconduct under clause 26.1.1. of the Certified Standing

Orders of the M/s BCCL, for which he was issued the

chrgesheet dt.28.3.2008 he had got on 2.4.2008. He had

also submitted his explanation dt.24.4.2008. Finding his

explanation unsatisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority

appointed the Enquiry Officer, who conducted the domestic

enquiry in presence of the workman in accordance with

the principle of natural justice, and submitted his enquiry

report, holding him guilty of the charges levelled against

him in the chargesheet. At the second Show Cause Notice

dt.28.2.10, the workman submitted his reply to it. Having

considered his second Show reply unsatisfactory, his three

years past record of attendances 72, 78, and Nil in the

years 2003 to 2005 respectively, and has habitual

absentism,the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him as per

the dismissal letter dt.14.3.2011 which is legal just and

proportionate. So the applicant is not entitled to any relief.

The O.P./Management sought for permission to

substantiate the charge, if the enquiry found unfair at the

preliminary issue.

FINDING WITH REASONS

4. In the instant case, on the acceptance of Mr Pintu

Mandal, the Union Representative for the workman about

the domestic enquiry as fair and proper as per his petition

dt.6.11.2013. The Tribunal as per Order No15 dt.20.12.13

has held the enquiry indisputably fair; consequently the

photocopies of the documents of both the parties on

consensus have been marked their Exhibits for proper

appreciation of the main issue.

Mr. Pintu Mandal, the Union Representative for the

workman has submitted that the workman was initially

appointed as U/G Minder/Loader in Bhowra Area of the

BCCL as per the Management’s letter dt.27.12.1986/6.1.1987

and accordingly, he was issued his Identity Card and his

Service Excerpt dt.5.5.1997 by the Management (Extt. W.2

and W.3 respectively) ; on his joining on 22.1.1987 he was

posted at Jeenagora colliery, Bhowra Area. Consequent

upon his transfer to Bararee Colliery, he was working as

M/Loader. When he fell sick, he had accordingly reported

of his illness and treatment by the Private Doctor to the

Project Officer concerned through his letter as per his

letter (Extt.W.4 & 4/1) through posts (U.C.P.).After

recovery he also applied to the Personnel Manager of the

Colliery along with the photocopies of the Medical

Certificate( Ext.W.4/2-3 respectively) on 10.12.2007 for

resumption of his duty, and he had also informed the

Management of submitting his reply dt.24.4.2008 to the

chargesheet (Ext.W.6 & 5 respectively).Further it has been

submitted on behalf of the workman that in spite of

explaining the reasonable cause of his absence due to his

sudden illness, the workman was dismissed from his

service as per letter dt. 14.3.2011 (Ext.W.7) after holding

enquiry highly belatedly; the dismissal of the workman

for his absence is not appropriate, whereas Mr. D. K. Verma,

the Ld. Counsel for the O.P./Management has to contend

that since the workman is a regular and habitual absentee

so after due enquiry into it and the 2^nd Show Cause

dt.28.12.2010 (Ext.M.1) he was dismissed from his service

with immediate effect as per the aforesaid Dismissal Order

of the Management which is quite proportionate to the

nature of his misconduct under clause 26.1.1 of the Certified

Standing Order of the Company.

Having gone through the materials on the case record,

I find that the workman appears to have duly dealt with

the circumstances of his sudden illness as the cause of

his absence from the duty which was beyond his control.

It is also an undeniable fact that the workman had informed

the Management of his sudden illness as per his letters

dt. 16.09.2006 and 06.03.2007 through the posts (UCP),

much prior to the chargesheet dt. 28.03.2008 (WExt.W.5).In

view of the aforesaid facts, the dismissal of the workman

seems to be not only harsh but also disproportionate to

the nature of the misconduct of absentism.It is liable to

set aside.

In result, it is hereby awarded that the action of the

Management of Bararee Colliery of M/s. BCCL in

dismissing Sri Santosh Rabidas, Ex.M/Loader from the

service of the Company as per Order dt.14.3.2011 is quite

5006

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

unfair and justified. Hence the workman is entitled to

reinstate in his services with continuity but without back

wages.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1926

dk-vk- 1926.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua0- 2] /kuckn ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 316 of 1999½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 01@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012@306@1995&vkbZ- vkj- (lh-I)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2014

S.O. 1926.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 316/1999 of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/07/2014.

[No. L-20012/306/1995 - 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. 316 OF 1999

PARTIES

: The General Secretary,

Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh,

Rajender Path,

Dhanbad.

Vs.

The General

Manager,(Ropeways)

of M/s BCCL, B.B.Camp, Patherdih,

Dhanbad.

Order No. L-20012/306/95-IR (C-I) dt. 26.11.1999

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

: Mr. S. Bose, Representative

workman/Union

of the Union/workman

On behalf of the

: Mr. D. K.Verma,

Management

Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 29th May, 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-20012/306/

95-IR (C-I) dt. 26.11.1999.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Jealgora

Ropeways of M/s. BCCL in denial of employment to

the dependant son of Sri Dinbandhu Biswas,

Electrician is justified? If not, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled?”

On receipt of the Order No L-20012/306/95-IR (C-I)

dt.26.11.1999 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 316 of 1999 was registered on 08.12.1999 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 and filed their

pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The Union

and the O.P./Management through their own

Representative/Advocates appeared in, and contested the

case.

2. The case of the sponsoring Union as stated in the

written statement dt.24^th August, 2001 for petitioner Hiru

Gopal Biswas is that his father workman Dinbandhu Biswas

as Electrician was a permanent employee of Ropeways

under the Coal Board of the Central Government since

3.10.1967, and the said establishment was taken over by

M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., which introduced their

Service Rules for the employees of the Ropeways including

the workman concened.According to the clause 9.4.3. of

the NCWA-IV a workman could ask for employment of

his/her own one dependent on ground of medical

unfitness. The workman had become seriously indisposed

in early 1991, so he applied for medical check up by the

Management’s Medical Board. The Local Management as

per the letter dt.15^th Feb., 1991 for referred/forwarded his

case with all his relevant records to the Apex Medical

Board for the purpose. The workman was bedridden. At

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

5007

last, the Personnel Manager, the Ropeways Division as

per the letter dt.2/3.8.91 informed the workman to appear

before the Apex Medical Board at Jealgora Central

Hospital on 7^th August,1991. Upon the medical examination,

the Medical Board declared the workman unfit on 07.08.1991

for his original job due to I.H.D. whereas his retirement

was due in Dec.1992. The workman had submitted all his

documents for employment of his eldest son Hiru Gopal

Biswas as his dependent son under the said provisions of

the NCWA-IV. But the Management had though duly

processed for it, yet not issued any order for employment.

Hence, the Union raised the Industrial dispute on

6.12.1993. Unfortunately, the workman throughout

bedridden breathed his last on 1.10.1991. The act of the

management most inhumanely was violative of the said

provision of Social justice. It was alleged on behalf the

workman for employment of his dependent son in

accordance with the said provisions of the NCWA-IV.

The Union in its rejoinder has categorically denied the

allegations of the O.P./Management, and stated that the

workman was too indisposed to work for the job during

the tenure of his employment much prior to his

superannution. He was not paid any wages or emoluments

in the event of his incapacity to perform his normal duty

due to acute illness.

3. Whereas specially denying the allegations of the

workman, the contra pleaded case of the O.P./Management

is that the reference being vague is not legally

maintainable. The workman was a permanent employee of

the Ropeways Division, working as Electrician. He worked

for his full tenure of service till his superannuation on

29.12.1991, havng got his full wages etc.The NCWA has

no provision for employment of the dependent of an

employee in case of his retirement from service. For the

reason, the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, as

per the Order No.L-20012/306/95-IR(C-I) dt.20.11.1996 had

not considered the dispute for reference. The dependent

son of the workman is clearly not entitled to employment.

The NCWA provides for employment of dependent in case

an employee loses his employment or forced to leave his

employment for Medical ground prematurely. On reference

of the workman for his certain ailments, the Medical Board

declared him unfit for his original job on 14.9.1991. The

employers retained him in service by offering him a light

job in his existing wages etc without any curtailment till

his retirement. The application for employment of the

dependent was rejected for the valid reasons. So the action

of the Management as mentioned in Schedule to the

reference is justified. The petitioner concerned is not

entitled tom any relief.

FINDING WITH REASONS

4. In this case, since the petitioner Hiru Gopal Biswas,

the eldest son of deceased workman Dinabandhu Biswas,

expired on 01.05.2002 (Ext.W.6) during the pendency of

the reference, Sri Ganesh Gopal Biswas, the second son of

the workman, has been substituted in his place as per the

Order No.50 dt.24.01.2013 of the Tribuinal. Thereafter, only

WWI Ganesh Gopal Biswas has been examined on behalf

of the Union concerned, and cross examined by the O.P./

Management. But at the declination of Mr. D.K.Verma, the

Ld. Advocate for the O.P./Management to adduce

evidence despite ample opportunity, the evidence of the

O.P./Management was closed on 8.8.2013, resulting in

coming up for hearing the final argument of both the

parties.

Mr. Shankar Bose, the Vice President as the Union

Representative for the petitioner (Substituted) as per his

written argument has to submit that Ex-workman

Dinabandhu Biswas was a permanent employee as

Electrician Cat.VI (His Service Excerpt - Ext.W.3) of the

M/s. BCCL Managment, but consequent upon the medical

examination of the workman by the Medical Board of the

Management following his reference to it as per the letter

dt. 2/3.8.1991 (Ext.W.1), he was declared UNFIT for his

original job due to I.H.D. (Inf Ischemi /infarction) as per

the Medical report dt.7.8.1991 and the letter dt.8/14.9.1991

of the Management (Extt.W.2 and 3 respectively),whereas

his retirement was due in Dec.1992, so he had applied to

the Management for providing employment to his

dependant son in the terms of the provision under clause

9.4.3. of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA)-IV;

and lastly the employment of his dependant was though

approved by the letter dt. 27/28.5.1992 of the Management,

with the advice to arrange for submission for the claim of

his dependant employment. But the fact of the approval is

neither pleaded in the written statement of the petitioner

nor brought to proof, so it is untenable. The petitioner has

no proof of the fact on the case record whether he or his

deceased had submitted all the forms with the requisites

for his employment, if approved so.

Besides, the plea of the Union Representative for the

petitioner is that during the pendency of the Industrial

Dispute, the workman concerned expired on 1.10.1999 as

per his death Certificate (Ext.W.4), so the petitioner

concerned is entitled to his employment under the said

provision of the NCWA-IV.

Whereas Mr. D.K. Verma, Learned Counsel for the O.P./

Management has contended that it is the clear cut

admission of WWI Ganesh Gopal Biswas, the present

substituted petitioner as the second son of the Ex-wkkman,

that the reference was filed after the retirement of the

workman, so there is no death in harness; as such the

petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5. On the perusal and consideration of the materials

available on the case record, I find that the adjudication

vitally depends upon the decisive factor whether the

reference for employment was filed after the retirement of

the workman. The perusal of the Order of the reference dt

26.11.1999 itself vividly indicates initially its rejection as

per the Ministry’s letter dt.20.11.1996 but later on its

5008

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

reference as per the direction of the Hon’ble Patna High

Court at Ranchi Bench in the Writ of the workman. Whereas

the present petitioner Ganesh Gopal Biswas’s explicit

admission is that his father was given light duty after his

medically unfitness having been declared by the Medical

Board of the Management for his original job, and he

retired on 29.12.1991 at 60 years of his age.

All these facts clearly prove the reference for

employment was filed after retirement of the Ex-workman,

resulting no employer-employee relationship between the

both of them. So no question arises for employment of the

petitioner concerned under the said provision of the

NCWA-IV.

In result, it is, in the terms of the reference, hereby

responded and accordingly awarded that the action of the

Management of Jealgora Ropeways of M/s. BCCL in denial

of employment to the dependent son of Late Dinbandhu

Biswas, Electrician is quite justified and legal. So no

question of any relief to the deceased workman or his

dependent son arises.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1927

dk-vk- 1927.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /kuckn ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 31@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 01@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y- 20012@367@1999&vkbZ- vkj- (lh,e-I)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2014

S.O. 1927.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2000)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

01/07/2014.

[No. L-20012/367/1999 - 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. 31 OF 2000

PARTIES : Mr. D. Mukherjee,

Secretary, Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,

Hirapur, Jharnapara, Dhanbad

Vs. Project Officer,

Bhowra (S), Colliery of M/s BCCL,

PO: Bhowra, Dhanbad.

Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/367/99-IR (C-I) dt. 2.2.2000.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/

: Mr. D. Mukherjee,

Union

Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management : Mr. U. N. Lal,

Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 9^th May, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise

of the powers conferred on then under Sec.10(1)(d) of the

I.D. Act,1947 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/

367/99-IR (C-I) dt. 2.2.2000.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Bhowra

(South) Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing Shri Braj

Mohan Ojha from the services of the Company. w.e.f.

16.10.1997 is justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled?”

On receipt of the Order No L-20012/367/99-IR (C-I)

dt.2.2.2000 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 31 of 2000 was registered on 1^st March,2000 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 and filed their

pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The Union

and the O.P./Management through their own

Representative/Advocates appeared in, and contested the

case.

2. The case of workman Braj Mohan Ojha as sponsored

by the Union concerned is that he had been spotlessly

working as a permanent General Mazdoor at Bhowra

(South) Colliery. He was issued a false and frivolous

chargesheet dt. 24.5.1997 by an unauthorized person for

his alleged absence from duty w.e.f. 7.4.1997. Due to his

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

5009

serious illness, he had got absence, of which the

Management was informed several times by registered

post with prayer to sanction leave which was ever

unrejected by the Management. The reason of his absence

from duty was within the knowledge of the Management

until the false chargesheet having been issued by the anti-

labour Management. The allegation did not constitute any

misconduct against him. Yet he was illegally and arbitrarily

dismissed by the Management w.e.f. 16.10.1997 on the

basis of invalid enquiry in which the charges were

unproved. The workman challenged it, but of no effect.

Finally, the industrial dispute was raised by the Union

before the ALC (C), Dhanbad, but its conciliation failed,

resulting in the reference for an adjudication. The action

of the Management in dismissing the workman is illegal

and unjustified.

3. In rejoinder, the Union has categorically denied the

allegations of the O.P./Mangement,and stated that despite

being well aware of the workman’s serious illness, the

Management unfortunately could not take any step for

his proper treatment; he had to get treated by the Private

Doctor under compelling circumstances of his deteriorated

physical condition. Though he had submitted his

satisfactory reply to the alleged chargesheet, the

Management got enquired by the biased Enquiry Officer

after constituting the invalid departmental enquiry. The

said Enquiry Officer by conducting the enquiry contrary

to the principles of natural justice held the workman guilty

based on the illegal and fabricated documents of the

Management. The workman was too seriously ill to attend

his duty. He had never got any warning letter. His illegal

dismissal was too harsh and disproportionate to the alleged

quilt. Thus, it has been urged for his reinstatement service

with full back wages.

4. Whereas the contra case of the O.P./Employers with

categorical denials is that workman Braj Mohan, the

General Mazdoor at Bhowra (S) Colliery, was issued the

chargesheet dt.24.5.1997 for misconduct of his

unauthorized absence w.e.f. 8.4.1997 under clause 26.1.1.

of the Certified Standing Order of the Company. On finding

the reply of the workman unsatisfactory, as per the Office

Order dt.14.7.1997, the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting

Officer were appointed. The enquiry was fairly conducted,

giving him reasonable opportunity for his defence. He

had declined to keep his co-worker. Though the

Management witness was examined in his presence, the

workman declined to cross-examine him. The Management

witness had put forward the past attendance of the

workman 138.5,96, and 39 days in the year 1995 to 1996

respectively in his statement, for which two chargesheets

and warning letters allowing to resume his duty were

issued 12 times as stated in the written statement. Even

then he did not improve himself. He was appointed on

10.1.1988 and on transfer he had joined Bhowra (S) Colliery

on 15.3.1995.The misconduct of the habitual absentism

was established against the workman, who had accepted

his guilt/misconduct even in course of the enquiry

proceeding. Hence the Disciplinary Authority after going

through the enquiry report issued Second Show Cause as

per letter dt.2.10.1997 and had imposed on him the penalty

of dismissal as per letter dt.16.10.1997 on proved

misconduct against him. So the action of the Management

is just fair and proper.

5. Categorically denying all the allegations of the

workman, it has been stated on behalf of the O.P./

Management that no application with Medical treatment

papers and Fitness Certificate was submitted before the

Controlling Authority. The Chargesheet was issued by

the Competent Authority as per the Annexure ‘A’ of the

Certified Standing Order. The workman is not entitled to

reinstatement or any relief. The O.P./Management has

sought permission for substantiating the charges, in case

the enquiry was found unfair.

FINDING WITH REASONS

6. Consequent upon the examination of MWI Ram Janam

Singh, Retd. Personnel Manager, Kustore, Dhanbad, at

preliminary point for the O.P./Management, in course of

production of any witness of the workman at the

preliminary point, Mr.D.Mukherrjee, learned Counsel for

the Union/workman as per his written application dt. 24.7.13

accepted the fairness of the enquiry. It has resulted in

hearing for final argument of both the parties on merits.

The argument of Mr.D.Mukherjee, Learned Counsel for

the Union/workman is that the allegation in the

chargesheet is neither for habitual absence nor a

misconduct of it as per the Certified Standing Order of the

Company nor any evidence supportive to it, so on this

score, the chargesheet, and dismissal is prima facie illegal

and void. Mr.Mukherjee has drawn my attention to the

Authority. In the case of M/s Glaxo Laboratories (I)

Ltd.Vs.Presiding Officer, Meerut, reported in 1983 LAB.I.C.

1909(SC)(C.B.)(D) wherein in reference to Industrial dispute

Act (14 of 1947), Sch.II Item 6, it has been held some

misconduct neither defined nor enumerated in the relevant

Standing Order and which may be believed by the employer

to be misconduct ex post facto would not expose the

workman to a penalty (Para 23). According to

Mr. Mukherjee, the workman in course of the departmental

enquiry is alleged to have justified the reasons of absence

for his illness, of which the Management was informed,

but the Management has failed to discharge its onus of

proof about the habitual absence of the workman without

sufficient cause; so the dismissal of the workman based

on unreasonable findings of the Enquiry Officer, the same

by the Project Officer devoid of any power is illegal, as

also without prior show cause notice to him, as such the

workman is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages.

Whereas the contra plea of Mr.U.N.Lal, the Learned

Advocate for the O.P./Management is that keeping in view

5010

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the proved misconduct of absentism of the workman as in

the past and after due second Show Cause to him, the

Disciplinary Authority appears to have rightly awarded

him with the punishment of dismissal which is just fair and

reasonable.

7. After meticulous study of the materials as made

available by both the parties on the case record, it stands

clear that the misconduct of unauthorized absentism w.e.f.

7.4.1997 to 01.08.1997 as defined under clause 26.1.1. of

the Certified Standing Orders of the Company has been

factually substantiated against the workman, who appears

to have accepted his absence by implication, but he has

no proof of any information of his illness to the

Management or of his treatment on the enquiry proceeding.

Here is the misconduct of his willful absentism as also

habitual one enumerated in the Standing Orders. There is

no proof of any second Show Notice by the O.P./

Management workman prior to imposing upon him the

severe punishment of dismissal as per the letter

dt.16.10.1997 (Ext.M.1/7) merely based on his past record.

The dismissal appears to be harsh in view of his present

absentism. It is liable to be set aside.

In result, it is hereby awarded that the action of the

Management of Bhowra (South) Colliery of BCCL in

dismissing Shri Braj Mohan Ojha from the service of the

Company w.e.f. 16.10.1997 is unjustified and illegal. The

workman is entitled to reinstatement in his service without

back wages. The O.P./Management is directed to

implement it within one month from the receipt of the

Award following its publication in the Gazette of India.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1928

dk-vk- 1928.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /kuckn ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 186@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 01@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y- 20012@345@2000&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh-1½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2014

S.O. 1928.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 186/2000 of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

01/07/2014.

[No. L-20012/345/2000 - 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. 186 OF 2000

PARTIES : The Secretary,

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,

Hirapur, Dhanbad

Vs. General Manager, Moonidih Area of

M/s BCCL, PO : Monidih, Dhanbad

Ministry’s Order No.L-20012/345/2000(C-I) dt.29.11.2000

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/

: Mr. D. Mukherjee,

Union

Ld.Advocate

On behalf of the Management :Mr. D. K. Verma

Ld.Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 30th May, 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-20012/345/

2000(C-I) dt. 29.11.2000.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of

Moonidih Washery of M/s. BCCL in not regularizing

Sri P.K.Banerjee & 30 other workmen as mentioned

in Annexure as Time Rated workers and not paying

them Piece Rate Allowance is legal and justified? If

not, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled

to?”

On receipt of the Order No.L-20012/345/2000(C-I)

dt.29.11.2000 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 186-2000 of was registered on 22.12.2000 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,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

5011

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed their

pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The Union

and the O.P./Management through their own Advocates

appeared in, and contested the case.

2. The case of workmen P.K.Banerjee & 30 others as per

the list as sponsored by the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,

Hirapur, Dhanbad, is that they were originally appointed

as Piece-Rated workers, but they have been working in

time rated job as permanent time Rated workmen since

long against permanent vacancy (as shown in Annexure

‘W’ to their written statement) as per direction of the

Management, by putting in more than 240 days attendance

in their respective Time-rated jobs continuously. They had

represented before the Management several times for their

regularization in the respective time rated jobs with

protection of group wages, but without any effect. The

payment of piece rated allowance to the workmen was

also stopped by violating the mandatory provision of Sec.-

9A of the Industrial Dispute Act. The action of the

Management in not regularizing the workmen is anti labour,

illegal and unjustified. After ending all efforts for amicable

settlement, the Industrial Dispute raised by the Union

before the ALC(C), Dhanbad due to its failure in conciliation

resulted on in the reference for an adjudication.

Not any rejoinder filed on behalf of the Union

concerned for the workmen.

3. On the other hand, with categorical denials, the contra

case of the O.P./Management is that the instant reference

being vague is unmaintainable in law and facts, as it was

raised by the Union in the year 1999. Moreover, the

Annexure (to the Written Statement for the workmen) does

not mention the personal number of any of the workmen,

the actual job performed by them, the date thereof and the

category of their performance. The Management had

submitted their written comments before the Conciliation

Officer that the Union did not mention which of the

workmen were appointed as Piece rated workmen in which

Group- A. Piece Rated workmen is always in Group-I, and

gets the wages according to the work done by him in a

particular group. Whenever no job exists for Piece Rated

workmen, the Management deploy them in alternative job

as per the need. There is a total ban on conversion of

Piece Rated workmen into Time Rated Category. The Time

Rated Category has six categories I to VI, and workmen

are used to be deployed in different categories as per the

Cadre Scheme of the different cadres on the

recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee

by the Cadre Controlling Authority. Unskilled workers are

deployed in the initial basis of Category-I Mazdoor and

Category I workmen are selected for Category-II on their

Trade Test. The Piece Rated Allowance is not recognized

by the NCWA, so the demand of the Union for payment of

Piece Rated Allowance is not only vague and violative of

the Cadre Scheme formulated by the JBCCI but also

beyond the scope of NCWA.

4. The Management in the rejoinder has specifically

denied the allegations of the Union/workmen and stated

that the workmen concerned never made any demand

before the Management, which was not furnished with

specific information by the Union, so the conciliation had

failed in the Industrial Dispute Tribunal.

Since there is no component like Piece Rated Allowance

in NCWA, the question of issuing any notice under

Section 9-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 does not

rise; thus, the workmen are not entitled to any relief.

FINDING WITH REASONS

5. In this case, WWI P.K.Banerjee, one of the workmen

deposing for all of them on behalf of the Union, and MWI

Dr.K.S.Sinha, the Dy. Manager (Pers.) for the O.P./

Management have been respectively examined.

Mr. D. Mukherjee, the Learned Counsel for the Union/

workmen as per his written argument submits that these

workmen had been receiving Group VA Wages (Which

indisputably comes under other Piece- Rated workers than

those of the Grouping under clause 5.1.1. of NCWA-II)

and Piece Rated allowance for their working as Piece Rated

workers since long, but they began working in different

time rated jobs since as per Annexure to their Written

statement, working different Time-Rated jobs since 1981

as per direction of the Management, but the Management

regularized them in time rated job in the year 2000, paying

them the initial basic wage of Category I workers, without

protecting their Group VA wages, and stopping the

payment of Piece Rated allowance for the year 1991, the

date of their engagement in time-rated jobs. Further

contended by Mr.Mukherjee is that the Management has

designated them time rated workers since the year 2002 as

disposed by WWI Sr.P.K.Banerjee one of the workmen.

But all the years 1981, 1991 and 2002 appears to be beyond

their pleding, though he (WWI) has accepted their

conversion into Time Rated Category-I as per the Office

Order dtt.7/8.11.2002 and 22/23.12.2000 (Ext. W and W.1

respectively), and their alleged two representations (Ext.2

and 2/1), out of which first is of Sri Rit Lal Rawani, one of

the workmen, but second relates to punishment of

stoppage of two SPRA to one Binod Handi, TRM Group-I,

who is not workmen. Mr Mukherjee has underlined the

admission of MWI that base protection is given to the

Piece Rated workers on their conversion into Time rated

worker. But the same management witness appears to have

affirmed that their wages were fixed as per norms of fixation

at the relevant time.

The emphatic argument of Mr.Mukherjee is that the

workmen are entitled for respective Time Rated Category

from the year 1982 with Piece Rated allowance till their

conversion in time Rated job, namely, protection of Piece

5012

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Rated Gr. VA along with arrear of wages and attendance

benefits, as the provision of NCWA which is a settlement,

is legally binding upon the Management and workmen as

held in the case of Mohan Mahato CCL Ltd., 2007(115)

F.L.R..427, as per the NCWA in Coal Industry, a workman

is entitled to Category I and wage as per actual job.

According to Mr. Mukherjee, no employer under Sec.9 A

of I.D.Act,1947 can effect any change in the condition of

service mentioned in the IV Schedule to the Act related to

the wage including the period and mode of payment and

compensatory and other allowances; but the Management

reduced the basic wage, and stopped the payment of Piece

Rated Allowance contrary to the aforesaid mandatory

provision, whereas scale cannot reduced without giving

employee an opportunity to be heard even when there

was a mistake in the order of fixing scale as held in the

case of Divisional Supdt.,Eastern Railway Vs. L.N.Keshiri

reported in S.C.L.J.( II) 1974 at page 367 just as held in the

case of Indian Overseas Bank Vs. their workmen reported

in S.C.L.J.Vol(.III) at page 2183 that key allowances given

to the Cashier of the Bank is though not included in the

Desai Award yet being accepted by the Bank as a gesture

of goodwill it became terms & conditions of service of

Cashier, so notice for change under Sec. 9, .3.A of the said

I.D. Act necessary for stoppage of key allowance; so key

allowance was held to be payable until it was stopped in

accordance with Law.

6. On the other side, vehemently opposing to the

aforesaid argument of Mr. Mukherjee, Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld.

Advocate for the O.P./Management contends that in the

instant case no documents have been proved by the

workmen at the point of their status they were working in

and the time of their conversion into Time Rated workers;

as the Time Rated workers come under the Cat.I; so far as

the demand of the workmen for Piece Rated allowance is

concerned, no NCWA provides any such allowance to

Piece rated workers in the Coal Industries; moreover this

case has no proof of payment or stoppage of any Piece

rated allowance to any of the workmen; in that aspect of

the instant case, none of the aforesaid rulings holds good

with the present case under adjudication.

After hearing the argument of both the Ld.Counsels

for the respective points concerned I have perused and

found the facts as under:

(i)

As per the Office Order dt.22/23.12.2000 (Ext.W1/

1), out of the total 31 workmen as per the Annexure

to the Reference, only 13 workers as named under

its Sl.Nos. 5 to 9, 11, 13, 15, 25, 27, 28, & 31 have

been regularized in Time Rated Cat.I with the

fixation of their pay as per their terms and

conditions as per the rules of the Company.

Whereas as per Managements’ letter dt.7/

8.11.2002 (Extts. W.I =MN-I), only seven workmen

as named under Sl.Nos. 1 to 3, 18, 19, 22 & 23

converted in the Time Rated Cat.I on their written

consents to have accepted the basic wages of

Cat.I, accordingly their fixation of wages was done

as per the rule of the Company. Thus, the rest

eleven workmen under Sl.Nos have not any such

documents concerning their conversion into Time

Rated workers.

(ii)

So far as the alleged representations of the

workmen for their instant demand are concerned,

only one workman Rati Lal Rewani appears to

have claimed for regularization in Time Rated Cat.

I with SPRA as per representation dt.Nil yet under

its receipt 23.9.02 (Ext.W.2), but Ext.W.2/1 is the

Management’s letter dt.9.2.2000 by which one

Binod Hari,T.R.M.Gr.I was punished with the

stoppage of his SPRA in the complaint case

dt.30.08.1988. Aforesaid Binod Hari is not any of

the workmen as per the aforesaid Annexure List.

(iii)

On conversion of Piece Rated workers into the

Time Rated job the NCWA does not provide any

Piece Rated allowance, as their wages are fixed

as per the rule of the Company.

(iv)

Lastly since only 20 workers as per the aforesaid

noted in the Serial Nos. of the Annexure have

been regularized or converted in the Time Rated

Cat-I in the years 2000 & 2002 respectively and

accordingly their pay as per their Terms and

Conditions appear to have been fixed as per the

rule of the Company.

Thus the argument of Mr.Mukherjee, the Learned

Counsel for the Union/workmen appears to be quite

baseless and untenable. In view of terms of reference, I

find the workmen appear to have not made out their own

specific case, rather the reference appears to be totally

vague and unreasonable. Hence it hereby awarded that

the action of the Management of M/s BCCL in not

regularizing the workmen P.K.Banerjee & 30 others as per

the list of workers in Moonidih Washery into Time Rated

from 1981 and not giving them Piece Rated Allowance is

quite legal and justified. So none of the workmen is entitled

to any relief from any date.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE (LIST OF WORKMEN AS PER ORDER OF

REFERENCE NO. L-20012/345/2000(C-I) dt.29.11.2000)

P. K. Banerjee

B. K. Manjhi

Ratilal Rawani

Somar Mahato

Ashish Kumar Bouri

Anand Bouri

T. P. S. Choudhry

Sushila Devi

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

5013

Kalawati Devi

Maheshlal Mahato

Badal Bouri

Subodh Das

Hari Pd.Singh

Baijnath Mahato

Baijnath Rewani

Mansa Mahato

Shankar Rabidas

Luttan Rawani

Dinu Manjhi

Khodan Mahato

Raj Kumar Singh

Nandlal Gope

Haru Bouri

Hardhan Mahato

Banamali Mahato

Baneshar Mahato

Ganesh Mahato

Thakur Mahato

Gopal Hari

Gopal Mahato

Rajendar Kumar Singh

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1929

dk-vk- 1929.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /kuckn ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 45 of 2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 01@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012@78@2002&vkbZ- vkj- (lh-I)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2014

S.O. 1929.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2002)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

01/07/2014.

[No. L-20012/78/2002 - IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947.

REFERENCE NO. 45 OF 2002.

PARTIES: The Working President,

Bihar Lal Jhanda Mazdoor

Union, Bhowra, PO:Bhowra, Dhanbad

Vs. Project Officer,

Jeenagora Colliery of M/s BCCL

PO: Khasjeenagora, Dhanbad

Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/78/2002-IR(C-I)

dt.24/30.5.2002.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/

: Mr. S. N. Goswami,

Union

Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management :Mr. D. K. Verma,

Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the15th May, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise

of the powers conferred on then under Sec.10(1)(d) of the

I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/78/

2002-IR(C-I) dt.24/30.5.2002.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of

Jeenagora Colliery of M/s BCCL is justified in not

promoting Md.Sattar Khan as Sr.Opertor Excavation,

Gr. ‘A’. If not, what relief the workman concerned is

entitled to and from what date?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/78/2002-IR(C-I)

dt.24/30.5.2002. of the above mentioned reference from

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute,

the Reference Case No. 45 of 2002 was registered on

17th June, 2002 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 and filed their

pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The Union

and the O.P./Management through their own

5014

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Representative/Advocates appeared in, and contested the

case.

2. The case of workman Md.Sattar Khan as stated in

his own written statement is that he, a permanent employee

of Jeenagora Colliery at Sulanga O.C.P., Jeenagora of

M/s. BCCL, has been working as Dozer Operator Gr.I

Group -A from June,1984 since his initial appointment as

H.E.M.M.(T) following his accordingly regularization at

Pit No. 3 O.C.P. at Bhowra Colliery, Bhowra. His

performance was highly satisfactory and excellent as a

devotee as observed for better production while posted

at Chandan O.C.P. He has been performing the job assigned

accordingly, operating 385 HP/410 HP type Dozer since

1984 , for which he has been paid the Excavation Operator

Gr.I Group B wages as per the Office Order Ref.No.5138-58

dt.6.6.1996.Consequent upon his transfer to Jeenagora

Sulanga Colliery of M/s BCCL, he has been operating the

Dozer KT 1150 C 450 H.P.Capacity. As he had got more

than 3 years experiences and other requisites eligible for

Gr.I Group B Wages and other benefits since the year 1991,

but the Management has given him the same w.e.f. 6.6.1996.

As a matter of fact, the Management of Jeenagora Colliery

has the Dozer 155 A,H.P. of 355 A H.P. Capacity, and has

given the Excavation Gr.I Group A wages to the other

Operators operating the 155 A HP, ensuring other

operators equally of the same.

Further alleged that the workman is a highly skilled

workman of more than 8 years experience in the operation

and handling of Crawler/Wheel Type Dozer of not less

than 385 HP/414, of which having more than 3 years

experience in the next below Grade in Excv. Gr.Group B,

knowledge of mechanism of the equipment and

maintenance thereof. He possesses a valid license for

driving heavy duty vehicles. So he is legally entitled to

his next Excv.Gr.I Group-A Wages by virtue of the

operation of the said dozer by him. Despite his several

representations for his proper Grade, the action of the

Management in not promoting him in Sr.Dozer Operator

Gr.-I Group A with its wages and other benefits w.e.f. 1996

is unjustified, whereas he is entitled to regularization as

per the Office Order Circular No. 703-903 dt.30.03.1988 with

different wages as well as the other Operators.

In the rejoinder under the signature of Mr. S. N.

Goswami, Ld. Advocate for the workman, it has been

specifically denied all the allegations of the O.P./

Mangement, alleging that the Management cannot debar

the promotional right of the workman as per the decision

of Standard Action Committee of JBCCI about revised

grouping, description, nomenclature, job description of

Excavation workers, as there has not been conducted any

D.P.C. since 1996 his working as Sr. Dozer Operator, but

getting Gr.‘B’ with existing pay scale. He is eligible for up-

gradation in Group A Gr-I (Excavation) since having

18 years experience in the operation of the Engine Model

of 450 HP more than 3 years, the minimum requirement for

it. Other operators junior to him have been provided Group

‘A’ Gr.I promotion without conducting D.P.C.

4. Whereas with categorical denials, the contra case of

the O.P./Management is that the reference is

unmaintainable, as the demand of promotion is not an

Industrial Dispute within the meaning of Sec.2 (k) of the

I.D.Act 1947.The promotion is a prerogative of the

Management. The promotion is effected only on the

recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee

as per the Cadre Scheme for the excavation worker for the

post of Senior Dozer Operator Group-A as specified

therein. The workman is designated as Dozer Operator at

the Jeenagora Colliery. He was given Excavation Gr.B from

6.6.1996. He is operating the Dozer D-150 for which he is

getting the wages of Excavation Gr. ‘B’ . He has been rightly

placed in the right category as per the requirement of the

Cadre Scheme. The Jeenagora colliery has no 385 HP

Crawler. The Wheel Type of Dozer is not available there,

so there is no requirement of a Sr. Dozer Operator Gr.A at

Jeenagora Open Cast Project. The workman is not

operating the Dozer of 385 H.P./410 H.P. Class, so the

promotion of the workman as Sr.Dozer Operator Gr. ‘A’

does not arise.

Categorically denying the allegations of the workman

in the rejoinder of the O.P./Management, it has been

alleged that the promotion in Group ‘A’ is being done only

through the D.P.C. as per the Cadre Scheme subject to the

vacancy available in a higher post. The workman is not

entitled to any relief.

FINDING WITH REASONS

5. In reference, WWI Md. Sattar Khan, the workman

for the Union, and MWI Upendra Buda, the Asstt.

Manager (Pers), Jeenagora Colliery for the O.P./

Management have been examined. Mr. S.N. Goswami, Ld.

Counsel for the workman has submitted that the workman

had been operating Dozer of 450 HP since the year 1984

Bhowara Area Pit No.3 OCP continuously and had got

promotion of Excv. Gr.D in the year 1984 and Gr.C in the

year 1988, so he was firstly entitled to get promotion of

Excv. Gr.D in the year 1992 after three years, but the

Management provided him Gr.B in the year 1996; then at

Jeenagora OCP in the existing capacity following his

transfer from Bhowra OCP, so he is legally entitled to get

promotion of Excv.Gr.A in the year 2000 but the

Management has deviated from it by providing him SLU

upgradation of Gr.A from Gr.B , as the benefit of SLU is not

at all promotion, despite having his high skilled

qualification for it with more than eight years experience

in the operation of wheel Type Dozer of 450 HP and more

than three years below the Gr.B since 1996, so he is entitled

to get promotion in next Grade -A with the proper wages

of it as per the Nomenclature of the job description of

Excv. of Sr.Dozer Operator as under I.I.No.16. Further

submitted that he has been performing the job of Dozer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

5015

Operator 450 HP since 1988 at Bhowra OCP as well as at

Jeenagora OCP at transfer, so the action of the

Management of M/s. BCCL is not providing him promotion

in Sr. Dozer Operator Gr. A is not legal and justified.

6. In response to it, Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate for

the O.P./Management has contended that in the reference

Md. Sattar Khan has claimed for promotion to Operator in

Excv. Gr.A, the workman is already in Excv. Gr.B but the

promotion next to it holds as per Cadre Scheme through

DPC subject to vacancy; though the workman was not

promoted to Excv. Gr.A, he was given SLU (Grade Pay)

w.e.f. 2005; no rule provides such promotion on the basis

of the operation of 385 HP Dozer which is not existent at

Jeenagora Colliery; so the case has no merits at all.

7. On perusal and consideration of the materials made

available by both the parties on the case record, I find the

facts as under:

(i) The workman has fairly accepted his promotion in

Gr.B as per the recommendation of DPC as per the office

order dt.6.6.1996 of BCCL, Bhowra Area (Ext.W.1).the

workman has also accepted the upgradation with SLU for

Excv Gr.A w.e.f. 1.1.2005 as per office order dt 24/21. 03.2005

of the BCCL,Jeenagara Colliery (Ext.W.2) despite the

representations of the workman dt 9.10.2000 (Ext.W.3),as

there was no Machine (Dozer) of 385/41o HP Class at

Jeenagora Colliery at the relevant time. Now aforesaid

machine/Dozer of the said capacity existent as one of the

qualifications for Excavation Grade A has been abolished

w.e.f. 31.08.2007 (Ext.M.2- NCWA VII-I.I.NO.21 replacing

NCWA IV: - I.I.NO.42 dt.7.5.93); thereafter the workman

has been promoted to the Excv.Gr.A w.e.f. 1.11.2011.

In such circumstance, the claim of the workman for

promotion Excv.Gr.A since 1999 being inapplicable to

Jeenagora colliery appears to be unjustified.

In result, it is hereby in the terms of the reference

responded and accordingly awarded that the action of the

Management of BCCL Jeenagora colliery in denying the

promotion of workman Md. Sattar Khan to the post of

Sr.Operator in Excv. Gr.A, is legal and justified at the

relevant time, because the workman has no such aforesaid

qualification for the operation of the aforesaid Machine at

the relevant time, and the Jeenagora Colliery had no such

machine of that capavity. Hence the workman is not entitled

to any relief from any date, moreover he has got his

promotion later on at due time.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1930

dk-vk- 1930.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /kuckn ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 04@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 01@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012@84@2006&vkbZ- vkj- (lh,e-1 )]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2014

S.O. 1930.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2007)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.

2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

01/07/2014.

[No. L-20012/84/2006 - 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. 04 OF 2007

PARTIES : The Working President,

Janta Mazdoor Sangh, B-25, Murlidih

20/21 Pits, Post- Mohuda Dhanbad

Vs.

General Manager, W.J.Area of

M/s. BCCL, Post: Moonidih, Dhanbad.

Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/84/06-IR(CM-I)

dt. 24.1.2007.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman/

Mr. C. K. Jha,

Union

Rep. of the workman

On behalf of the Management :

Mr. D. K. Verma,

Ld.Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 8th May, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise

of the powers conferred on then under Sec.10(1)(d) of the

I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/84/

06-IR (CM-I) dt.24.1.2007.

5016

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Bhatdee

Colliery, W.J. Area of M/s. BCCL to dismiss Sachin

Das from service on 3.12.2003 is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief is the concerned workman

entitled?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/84/06-IR (CM-I)

dt. 24.1.2007 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 04 of 2007 was registered on 20th Feb., 2007 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 and filed their

pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The Union

and the O.P./Management through their own

Representative/Advocates appeared in, and contested the

case.

2. The case of the sponsoring Union concerned for

workman Sachin Das is that while carrying the basket full

of coal to load into the coal tub, as U.G. Loader at Kendra

Mine under Lohapatti Colliery of W.J. Area, BCCL on

25.09.1996, the workman due to poor safety Management

of M/s BCCL met an accident by falling about 10 M.T.

Coal from the roof of the coal seam. He was rushed to the

Central Hospital, Dhanbad, and was admitted therein on

26.9.1996 morning, and remained under treatment till

1999.He was too unable to carry the coal basket for loading

the coal into the Coal Tub due to his fractured bones of

hand, leg and upper thai. On his application with all medical

treatment papers to the Addl.General Manager on

24.7.2007 for alternative light job, it was not considered,

and he was transferred at Bhatdee Colliery in the year

1999,without payment of injury compensation to him u/s

53 of the Workman Compensation Act 1923 and u/s 46(9)

and 49 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act 1948. In

stead of the relief, the O.P./Management awarded him with

punishment of dismissal as per the order dt. 26.11/3.12.2003,

alleging unauthorized absentism only from 31.03.2003, and

kept him in the forceful idleness from 01.07.2003.Whereas

the chargesheet No. 67 dt. 12.01.2000 was given for absent

period of 1995, 1996, 1997 and the enquiry report was held

on 02.03.2000, despite sending him by the Management

for treatment at the Central Hospital, Dhanbad for his major

injuries caused by the Mine accident. The workman was

on roll of Lohapatti Colliery in the year 1996 to 1999 but

the Management has showed his alleged absentism at

Bhatdee Colliery. So the domestic enquiry was held

improperly and dictatorially hence untenable. Therefore,

the workman is entitled to reinstatement with full back

wages and consequential benefits admissible at the

relevant time.

3. The Union/the workman in his rejoinder has

specifically denied all the allegations of the O.P./

Management,and stated that the request of the workman

for assessment of his disability and loss by an Apex

Medical Board for determining the suitability of his original

job or compensation payable to him under the provision

of the Workman Compensation Act was not considered

by the Management of Lohapatti Colliery of BCCL, rather

he was transferred to the Bhatdee Colliery as per the Office

Order No. 148 dt. 29.01.2002, by releasing him from the

former colliery on 31.01.2002. The workman was piece rated

and was accordingly paid the wages for loading coal per

tub, and his attendances ‘Hazari’ or ‘Gari’ were marked on

that basis. In the year 2002 he had loaded 164 Coal /Tubs

in 82 days during which despite getting pain in his broken

joint collar and heap, he was not allowed for any alternate

job. The employment/deployment acts on the ground of

sickness and medical treatment. He had submitted his

Medical treatment Sick Certificate dt. 31.5.2003 in course

of the domestic enquiry related to the chargesheet No.1574

dt. 2.7.2003.The Manager of Bhatdee had also endorsed

to Dy. Personnel Manager on the back of the letter for

processing to permit him to join his duty. There was no

instruction for chargesheet. He was kept in forceful

idleness in colorful exercise of the power till he was granted

by the Competent Authority to allow him for duty. The

domestic enquiry was not fair. His Medical Certificate

proves his reasonable absence. As per the Letter No.9254-

9304 dt. 28.5.2004 of the Director (Personnel) R.P. Singh,

for the BCCL, no dismissal punishment should be awarded

in the case of sickness. The dismissal of the workman is

illegal and unjustified. The workman is, therefore entitled

to relief as deemed fit under the I.D.Act.

4. Whereas with categorical denials of the allegations

as irrelevant or incorrect, the contra case of the O.P./

Management is that the present reference is unmaintainable

in law or in facts. As the workman began to absent from

duty w.e.f. 31.3.2003 unauthorisedly, he was issued the

chargesheet dt. 27.2003 for his aforesaid misconduct. He

also replied to the chargeshet. Consequent upon the

appointment of the Enquiry Officer by the Management

for it, the Enquiry Officer conducted the domestic enquiry

in accordance with the principle of natural justice in

presence of the workman, and submitted his enquiry report,

holding him guilty of the charges levelled against him.

The Disciplinary Authority issued him the Show-cause

Notice, supplying him the copy of the enquiry report. Then

the Management had rightly dismissed the workman from

the services of the Company for his proved misconduct.

The dismissal of the workman is legal and justified, as he

had been a habitual absentee as evident from his last four

years attendance Nil, 10, 82 and 17 days in the years 2000

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

5017

to 2003 separately prior to his dismissal. The O.P./

Management has sought permission for substantiating

the charges as a preliminary issue, in case the domestic

enquiry found unfair. The workman is not entitled to any

relief.

FINDING WITH REASONS

5. In the instant reference, after hearing the MWI

Akhilash Kumar Chand, the Clerk in the Personnel

Department of Bhatdee Colliery at the preliminary issue,

but at the declination of the Union Representative for the

workman to produce any witness at the issue, the Tribunal

as per the Order No. 27 dt. 25.2.2013 held the fairness of

the domestic enquiry in accordance with the principle of

natural justice. It resulted in hearing the final arugments

of both the parties on merits.

Mr. H.C. Jha, the Union Representative for the workman

has vociferously argued that though the workman had

justified his sick absentism by filing his reply (Ext.M.2) as

well as treatment and fitness Certificate( Ext.W.1) after

one month on his chargesheet for it without mention of

past absentism the alleged enquiry was held, and the

workman after keeping in his forceful idleness was illegally

dismissed despite the circular/letter No. 2015 dt. 01.09.1994

of the Management forbidding to do so towards the

workman absented for a short period, so the dismissal

was not justified. In response to it, the contention of

Mr. D. K.Verma, the Learned. Counsel for the O.P./

Management is that the workman himself in his statement

accepted the charge of his unauthorized absentism from

31.03.to 18.07.2003, and sought an apology for the

misconduct under clause 26.1.1. of the certified Standing

Orders of the Company, so his dismissal as the letter dt.

26.11.2003 (Ext.M.8) following the Show Cause (Ext.M.9)

was legal and justified. Mr. Verma has further submitted

that the Award dt.04.03.2013 passed by the Presiding

Officer of the CGIT-LC NO. 1, Dhanbad, in Ref. No. 41/

2009 as its copy filed on behalf of the workman for his

case is not binding upon this Tribunal.

6. On the perusal and consideration of the materials

made available on the case, it appears that the workman

had indisputably got unauthorizedly absented from his

duty for three months and seventeen days due to his

sickness as the M/Loder,but his dismissal for it as also

separately based on his past attendances unaccounted in

the instant chargesheet and the enquiry proceeding, seems

to be harsher and disproportionate to the nature of his

misconduct. It is in no way sustainable legally.

In result, it is, hereby, awarded that the action of the

Management of Bhatdee Colliery, W.J. Area of M/s. BCCL

to dismiss Shri Sachin Das from service of the Company

on 3.12.2003 with immediate effect is illegal and unjustified.

Hence, the workman concerned is entitled to reinstatement

in service but without back wages. The O.P./Management

is directed to implement it within one month from the date

of its receipt, following its publication by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi in

the Gazette of India.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1931

dk-vk- 1931.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua0- 2] /kuckn ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 25@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 01@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012@98@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e-I)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2014

S.O. 1931.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2012)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.

2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

01/07/2014.

[No. L-20012/98/2011 - 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. 25 OF 2012

PARTIES: The Vice President,

Janta Mazdoor Sangh, Vihar Building, Jharia,

Dhanbad.

Vs.

The Chief General Manager,

Bastacolla Area of M/s BCCL,

PO: Dhansar, Dhanbad,

Order No. L-20012/98/2011-IR (CM-I) dt. 20.03.2012.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/

: Mr. K. N. Singh,

Union

Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management : Mr. D. K. Verma,

Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

5018

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st May, 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-20012/98/

2011-IR (CM-I) dt. 20.03.2012.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Bastacolla

Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Shri Ram Briccha

Singh from the services of the Company vide order

dated 20/26.8.2005 is fair and justified? To what relief

the workman concerned is entitled to?”

On receipt of the Order No L-20012/98/2011-IR

(CM-I) dt. 20.03.2012 of the above mentioned reference

from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute,

the Reference Case No. 25 of 2012 was registered on

09.04.2012. 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 and filed their

pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The Union

and the O.P./Management through their own

Representative/Advocates appeared in, and contested the

case.

2. The case of workman Ram Briccha Singh as

sponsored by the sponsoring Union is that he was a

permanent employee as a Shovel Operator of Bastacolla

Colliery. He was served with a chargesheet No. 945 dt.

5.4.20005 for alleged unauthorized absence from duty

since 07.02.2005. He had submitted in his reply all the

reasonable causes and facts of his absence, but

unfortunately he was dismissed from service as per the

Order dt. 20./26.08.2005 merely on the basis of the enquiry

report, without considering his reasonable justification.

In fact, he was granted the leave since 07.02.2005 during

which he had gone his native place, but he fell ill, for

which he remained under treatment till 13.02.2005 at

Military Hospital, Jhansi, under the intimation to the

management through postal letter under its receipt. The

charge sheet without precise nature of misconduct is

vague and groundless. He has been wrongly dismissed

from service of the company based on perverse findings

of the Enquiry Officer. On several representations to the

Management, when the Management did not reinstate the

workman in service, the Union raised the Industrial dispute

before the A.L.C. (C), Dhanbad, but the conciliation

proceeding in it failed, resulting in the reference for an

adjudication. The action of the Management in dismissing

the workman from service is unjustified, so he is entitled

for reinstatement with full back wages and benefits.

The Union in the rejoinder for the workman has

specifically denied all the allegations of the O.P./

Management, and stated that the charge sheet was never

sent by the Management on the permanent address of the

workman just as the workman never received it. The

Management has wrongly conducted the domestic enquiry

into the alleged charge without any information of it to the

workman. Just as the Enquiry Officer, has wrongly

submitted the report, holding him guilty of the charge as

the enquiry was unfair, and improper contrary to the norms

of the natural justice.

3. Whereas categorically denying the allegations of

the Union/workman, challenging the maintainability of the

reference, the case of the O.P./Management is that workman

Ram Briccha Singh was not posted at Basatcolla colliery,

though he was an employee of the said colliery working

as the Shovel Operator. He began to absent from his duty

w.e.f. 15.07.2005 unauthorizedly.The Management issued

him the charge sheet dt. 18/25.4.2005 for his conduct which

was served upon him through registered posts at his

present and permanent home addresses. Even after the

receipt of the chargesheet, the workman did not reply to it,

so the management appointed Sri B. Bandhopadhyay, the

then Sr. Personnel Officer of Bastacolla Colliery for

domestic enquiry. On the several enquiry notices having

issued by the Enquiry Officer for the enquiry on several

dates, when the workman did not appear, the Enquiry

Officer finding no alternative conducted the ex-parte

enquiry, and submitted his report, holding he workman

guilty of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority issued

him the Second show Cause Notice with the copy of the

enquiry report, even then he has not submitted any

explanation to it.Thereafter,the Disciplinary Authority

dismissed the workman for his proved misconduct. The

dismissal is proportionate to the misconduct. It is legal

and justified. The enquiry by the enquiry Officer was

fair,proper and in accordance with the principle of natural

justice. So the workman is not entitled to any relief.

FINDING WITH REASONS

4. In the instant case, Mr. K.N. Singh, Ld. Advocate

cum Union Representative for the workman by filing a

petition has accepted the fairness of the domestic enquiry

at the preliminary point, so the Tribunal as per Order No.

15 dt. 20.11.2013 has held the enquiry accordingly according

to the principle of natural justuice.The documents of both

the parties as per their respective lists on their consensus

have been marked as their respective exhibits for proper

appreciation of the main issue of the workman’s dismissal

as involved in the case.

Mr. K. N. Singh, the Union Representative-cum-Ld.

Advocate for the workman has submitted that the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

5019

workman was granted leave since 7.2.2005 and had gone

to his native place where he fell ill and remained at Military

Hospital, Jhansi under treatment for ailment on 13.02.2005

and its intimation was also given to the Management

despite the facts the workman was wrongly dismissed for

an alleged misconduct of absentism though he has justified

it . Whereas Mr. D.K. Verma, the Ld.Advocate for the O.P./

Management contended that the workman was dismissed

from his service for his long unauthorized absentism, so

his dismissal was quite justified.

5. After hearing the Ld.Counsels for the respective

parties and on the perusal of the materials available on the

case record, I find following facts:

The workman has not any documentary proof of

the fact that he had gone home after taking leave

from the Management on 07.02.2005;

So far as his alleged treatment for his illness is

concerned, the photocopies of his treatment

(Ext.W.2 series) relate to his treatment by Doctor

concerned at Barachhatti (Gaya) and lastly, at

Military Hospital, Jhashi on Feb.13, June, 26,

August, 07 and September, 15, 2005 respectively

for which he had sent his information through

Regd. Posts (Ext.W.1) to the Management.

As a matter of fact, the workman man appears to

have committed the misconduct of prima facie

under clause 26.1.1. of the Certified Standing

Order of the BCCL for his unauthorized absentism.

After due enquiry ex- parte, he was dismissed from his

service in view of his past three years poor attendances

as per the letter dt. 20/26.8.2005 of the Management

(Ext.M.9). Keeping in view the nature of misconduct of

the workman his dismissal by the Management appears to

be too harsh.

In result, it is hereby awarded that the action of the

Management of Bastacolla of M/s BCCL in dismissing

Ram Briccha Singh from the service of the Company as

per order dt. 26/28.08.2005 is unfair and unjustified. Hence,

the workman is entitled to the relief of his reinstatement in

his service but without wages.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1932

dk-vk- 1932.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua0- 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

30@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

01@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012@242@2004&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh-I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2014

S.O. 1932.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2005)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 01/07/2014.

[No. L-20012/242/2004 - IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 30 OF 2005

PARTIES : The Vice President,

Coal Mines Engineers & Workers

Association, At No.19, Bekar Bandh,

Dhanbad

Vs.

The General Manager

Sijua Area of M/s BCCL, PO: Sijua,

Dhanbad

Order No. L-20012/242/2004-IR(C-I) dt. 24.03.2005.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/:

Mr. B. B. Pandey,

Union

Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management :

Mr. D. K. Verma,

Ld. Advocate

State

: JHARKHAND

Industry :

Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 12th May, 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/

242/2004-I.R. (C-I) dt. 24.03.2005.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Nichitpur

Colliery of M/s BCCL in denying the promotion to

Shri Ram Nandan Laldev from Mech Fitter Cat. IV to

5020

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Cat.V is fair and legal? If not, to what relief is the

concerned workman entitled and from what date.”

On receipt of the Order No. L20012/242/04-IR(C-I)

dt.24.03.2005.of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 30 of 2005 was registered on 26.04. 2005 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 and filed their

pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The Union

and the O.P./Management through their own

Representative/Advocates appeared in, and contested the

case.

2. The case of the sponsoring Union from workman

Ramnandan Lal Dev is that consequent upon the

promotion of the workman from the post of Mechanical.

Fitter Helper Cat.II to that of Mechanical fitter Cat.IV he

has been working accordingly since 03.10.1998 as per the

Office Order dt.12.01.1998 based on the D.P.C

Recommendations at Nichitpur Colliery. Though he had

stood first out of the 13 participants by securing 93.5.the

highest total marks in 3(three) different heads at his

appearance before the D.P.C. on 1.12.2003 for his promotion

to the post of Mechanical fitter Cat.-V as specified in the

Promotional Channel of E.M.Personnel (Mechanical Cat

Fitters),to utter surprise, he was not promoted, and Shri

Abdul Sattar was illegally promoted from Mechanical Fitter

Category-IV to Mechanical fitter Cat-.V w.e.f. 11.12.2004

as per the Office Order dt.21.3.2004.Whereas the workman

is a Matriculate and holder of the National Trade Certificate

from the I.T.I.Dhanbad,as well as of National

Apprentenship Certificate. The list of seniority prepared

by the Management is meritless and unjustified. The

management by violating and discarding its own rules

and principle of promotion has made a hoax. The fair and

genuine Trade Union activities of the workman as the

Branch President are disliking for the management, so he

was become a victim of its unfair labour practice and

malafide intenton.The action of the Management in

denying his due promotion to Cat-.V is unfair and illegal.

He is entitled to it from 11.12.2004 with all the consequential

benefits.

3. In the rejoinder of the Learned Counsel for the

workman, all the allegations of the O.P./Management have

been specifically denied as wrong and misleading. Further

stated that the D.P.C. was held on 1.12.2003, but not on

3.12.2003; if seniority is only the basis of the promitoon,

what is the use of Cadre Scheme, its criteria, and giving

marks under different heads for such selection? Other facts

are also considered for such promotion. The Management

has dealt with the workman unjustly. Though Shri Abdul

Satter may be Senior to him, he had secured only 72 marks

only as contrasted with highest marks of the workman.

The Management has vindictively ignored his rightful

claimed for it.

4. Whereas categorically denying the allegation of the

Union Representative for the workman, the O.P./

Management has challenged the preset reference as

unmainainable in law and in facts, stating that the

Sponsoring Union has no locus standi to raise the

Industrial dispute for promotion of any workman, as the

matter of promotion of any workman being a managerial

function of the Management is not an Industrial dispute

within the meaning the Sec. 2K of the I.D. Act,1947. As per

the Cadre System, the promotion from one Cat. to other

higher one is always subject to fulfillment of eligibility

criteria through D.P.C. on the basis of seniority, experience

and availability of vacancy. The workman was eligible for

consideration in the DPC, so the Management allowed

him to participate in the D.P.C. held on 3.12.2003.After the

DPC, the committee recommended the name of Shri Abdul

Sattar for promotion from Cat-.IV to Cat-.V against the

vacancy in order of seniority., so the aforesaid Sattar was

given promotion as a Senior to the workman because the

promotion is based on seniority.Mr.Abdul Sattar was

working as a Fitter in Cat-IV w.e.f. 14.1.1989 after his

appointment on 4.9.1972 as contrasted with the

appointment of the workman on 1.2.1990 and his working

as Cat.IV Fitter w.e.f. 3.10.1998.Moreover the workman is

under Sl.No.10 of the Seniority position. The action of the

Management is legal and justified. Hence the workman

concerned is not entitled to any relief.

5. In its rejoinder, it has been categorically denied the

allegations of the workman, stating further that the

distribution of total marks was just to assess the qualifying

marks for promotion, but the promotion is being effected

according to the seniority from amongst the qualified

candidates. Promoton of the Sr. Most workman is effected

according to the provision and policy of the Company.

FINDING WITH REASONS

6. In the instant Reference, WWI Ramnandan Lal Dev,

the workman concerned for the Union, has been examined.

At the acceptance of the Union Representative about the

admission of the documents of the O.P./Management as

proposed by Mr.D.K.Verma,who had submitted that there

was no need to adduce any evdene. Accordingly the

relevant documents of the O.P./Management related to

DPC proceedings have been marked as Extt. M.1 series.

Mr.B.B.Pandey, the Ld.Advocate for the O.P./

Management has submitted that the Management has

failed to justify the violation of the rule of the DPC, the

workman standing at Sl.No.1 in order of the merits was

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

5021

byepassed and one Junior Abdul Sattar was promoted to

the post of Mechanical fitter Cat-.V on the ground of

Seniority only as apparent from the documents of the

workman (Extt.W.1 to 5)whereas the workman was entitled

to it as per his statement but he was not promoted despite

his better qualification and five representations (Ext.5 and

6 series respectively) . So the claim of the workman for his

due promotion is quite justified. Whereas the contention

of Mr.D.K.Verma, the Ld.Advocate for the O.P./

Management is that though the petitioner has scored the

highest marks in his written examination, the Management

as per its decision based on the criteria for promotion has

rightly allowed the other successful candidate who was

very seniority to the workman, for promotion to the single

post vacant for Mechanical fitter Cat-V ; as such the action

of the Management is quite bonafide and justified.

7. On perusal and consideration of the materials

available on the case, it explicitly appears the admission

of the workman (WWI) in his very cross examination about

the status of Abdul Sattar,the senior most to him and

qualified at the same D.P.C. ,so the promotion of Abdual

Sattar to the only vacant post of the Mech.Fitter Cat.IV as

recommended by the D.P.C as per the proceeding of the

promotion (Extt.M.1 series) and the official order

dt.31.3.2004 appears to be just and proper. There is not

any legal irregularity in it.

In view of the aforesaid crystal clear findings, it is

hereby awarded that the action of the Management of

Nichitpur Colliery of M/s BCCL in denying promotion to

Sri Ram Nandan Laldev from Mech.Fitter Cat.IV to Cat.V

at the relevant time is quite fair and legal. Hence the

concerned workman is not entitled to any relief in that

regard from any date.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1933

dk-vk- 1933.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-

,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua0- 2] /kuckn ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 115 of 2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 01@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y- 20012@94@2005&vkbZ- vkj- (lh-1 )]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2014

S.O. 1933.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 115/2005 of

the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/07/

2014.

[No. L-20012/94/2005-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 . 115 OF 2005

PARTIES : The Working President,

Bihar Mines Lal Jhanda Mazdoor Union,

At/PO: Bhowra, Distt:Dhanbad,

Vs.

The General Manager,

E. J. Area of M/s BCCL, PO: Bhowra,

Dhanbad,

Order No. L-20012/94/05-IR(C-I)

dt.19.12.2005.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/

: Mr.Raghunandan Rai,

Union

Union Representative

On behalf of the Management : Mr. U. N. Lal,

Ld.Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 28th May, 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-20012/94/

05-IR(C-I) dt.19.12.2005.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Bihar Mines Lal Jhanda

Mazdoor Union from the management of BCCL,

E.J.Bhowra Area that Sh.Parishit Roy dependent

son of Late Aklu Roy, workman may be given

employment on compassionate ground justified ? If

so, to what relief the said dependent entitled?

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/94/05-IR(C-I)

dt.19.12.2005 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 115 of 2005 was registered on 30.12.2005 and

5022

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 5, 2014/ASADHA 14, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 and filed their

pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The Union

and the O.P./Management through their own

Representative/Advocates appeared in, and contested the

case.

2. The case the sponsoring Union for petitioner Parishit

Roy is that ex-workman Aklu Roy was a working employee

at O.B.R, Bhowra (North), Chandan O.C.P. of M/s BCCL in

the East Jharia Area. On 10^th Jan, 1990,Aklu Roy was

admitted in the BCCL Central Hospital, Dhanbad, for

treatment of his illness, he died on the same day as per his

Death certificate No.283 dt.same.After his death, his wife

Smt.Sarala Roy applied to the Management for her

employment, she could not get employment because of

her ailment in her eye found on her medical examination

by the Medical Board organized by the Management.

Then,Parshit Roy, the petitioner, as the son of the deceased

workman applied to the Management for his employment

in place of his father, and as per the office letter dt.19.1.1997

of the Personnel Manager, Bhowra O.CP ,he was medically

examined at the BCCL Regional Hospital,Jealgora,yet the

O.P./Management provided none of them any employment

on compassionate ground in accordance with the

provision of the NCWA-4,though the petitioner had kept

on requesting the Management as per his application dt.

6.7.2001 (Under receipt of its carbon copy) to the Project

Officer concened.He has right to employment on

compassionate ground under the said provision of the

NCWA-4.Hence, the Industrial Dispute for it has been

raised against the O.P./Management, urging for an Award

to that effect.

The Union in its rejoinder for the petitioner has

specifically denied, and stated that as per clause 9.4.3 of

the NCWA-IV maximum age limit is prescribed upto

45 years, but it has no such limitation for the employment

of the dependant; employment is practically being given

to the minor dependant on his majority, without giving

any importance to the age of the dependant at the death

time of the workman. It is also alleged that the Management

treats the age of the dependant on the date of employment,

but not on the date of the workman’s death.

3. Whereas Categorically denying the allegations of

the union, the contra case of the Management as also

Aklu Roy,Ex-OBR,was a permanent employee of Bhowra

(N) Colliery-Chandan O.C.P.He died at the Central Hospital,

Dhanbad,on 10.01.1990 during his service period (Ext.W.1).

After his death his wife Smt.Sarla Roy had applied for her

employment vice his deceased husband, but she was found

medically unfit for the employment as also intimated by

the letter No.1047 dt.15.4.91;thereafter, the claim for the

employment to petitioner Parishit Roy was regretted, as

he was a minor aged only 09 years at the time of death of

his deceased father. The wife of Late Aklu Roy was not

eligible to get monetary benefits, as the monetary scheme

was not in vogue at the death time of the deceased

workman as also intimated to the claimant. The same stand

was taken before the Conciliation Officer, the industrial

dispute in lack of conciliation failed resulting in the

reference. So the demand of the Union for employment of

petitioner Parishit Roy is not fair, and justified, as the

provisions of the NCWA prevalent at the death-time of

the deceased employee did not cover the case.

FINDING WITH REASONS

4. In the instant case,WWI Parishjt Roy,the petitioner

himself ,and WW2 Sarala Roy ,the son and the widow/

wife of the deceased workman Aklu Roy, respectively on

behalf of the Union, and MWI Rahul Kr.Mandal,the

Asstt.Manager (Pers.),Bhowra (S)/OCP for the O.P./

Management have been respectively examined.

Mr. Raghunandan Rai, the Union Representative for

the petitioner as per his written argument has submitted

that the O.P./Management as per their alleged official

letter dt.16.12.2001 beyond the knowledge of the petitioner

has failed to prove the fact that petitioner Parishit Roy the

son of the deceased workman, was juvenile at the death

time of the latter, whereas as WW2 Sarala Roy, the mother

of the petitioner has evidently stated the age of the

petitioner as about 13 years old at the death time of his

father; moreover the NCWA- IV provides nowhere for the

fact that the petitioner must be adult at the time of the

death of the workman concerned, so the petitioner is

entitled to employment on compassionate ground.

5. Just contrary to it,Mr.U.N.Lal,the Learned Counsel

for the O.P./Management, has contended that after the

death of deceased workman Aklu Roy in harness on

10.01.1990,his wife Smt.Sarala Roy had applied for her

employment vice her deceased husband, but as per the

Management’s Office Letters dt.15.4.1991and 15/16.11.2001

(Extt.M.1 and 1/1 respectively)she was medically found

unfit by the Medical Board; after much later petitioner

Parishit Roy claimed for his employment as the son of the

deceased workman, it was also regretted on his being minor

aged only 9(nine)years at the time of his father’s death as

per the office letter dt.15/16.11.2001 (Ext.M.1/1)),so the

claim of the petitioner for his employment is not justified

in view of the NCWA-IV prevalent at the relevant time.

6. Having gone through the materials, oral and

documentary, of both the parties available on the case

record, it appears that the death of deceased workman

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 5] 2014@vk"kk<+ 14] 1936

5023

Aklu Roy in harness on 10.01.1990 is indisputable just as

regretting the employment of his wife Smt.Sarala Devi on

the ground of her medically unfit due to her total blindness.

So far as the employment matter of the petitioner as claimed

under clause 9.4.2. of the N.C.W.A -IV is concerned, the

O.P./Management after consideration of the petitioner’s

claim for his employment appears to have rightly regretted,

as he on his medical examination (as called for as per the

letter dt.19.1.1997-Ext.W.2) was found a minor aged only 9

(nine) years old at the time of his father’s death as per the

Office letter 15/16.11.2001 (Ext.M.1/1).The provision under

the clause 9.4.2. applicable to this case in view of the

death of the workman does not provide for employment of

a dependent, minor at the relevant time, rather its clause

(ii) provision of the said clause presupposes ‘ physically

fit and suitable for employment of the dependant not more

than 35 years’.It undoubtedly but impliedly implies that

the petitioner was factually not an adult for employment

vice his father at the time of his death in harness.

In result, it is, in the terms of the reference, hereby

responded, and accordingly awarded that the demand of

the Bihar Mines Lal Jhanda Mazdoor Union from the

Management of BCCL, E.J .Bhowra Area, for the

employment of petitioner Parishit Roy, dependant son of

Late workman Aklu Roy, on compassionate ground is

totally unjustified as baseless.Hence, the dependant/

petitioner is no entitled to any relief.

KISHORI RAM, 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.