Ñf"k ea=kky;

(Ñf"k ,oa lgdkfjrk foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2389-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;

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

(4) ds vuqlj.k esa d`f"k ,oa lgdkfjrk foHkkx] d`f"k ea=kky; ds

lEc¼ dk;kZy; foi.ku ,oa fujh{k.k funs'kky;] iQjhnkckn ds

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

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

vf/lwfpr djrh gS%&

foi.ku ,oa fujh{k.k funs'kky;]

33] vkuUn uxj]

mi dk;kZy;] jk;iqj]

NRrhlx<+

¹la- 3&3@2011&jk-Hkk- uhfrº

vkj-ch- flUgk] la;qDr lfpo

3336 GI/2014

(6049)

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- 36]

ubZ fnYyh, vxLr 31—flrEcj 6] 2014] 'kfuokj@Hkkæ 9—Hkkæ 15] 1936

No. 36]

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 31—SEPTEMBER 6, 2014, SATURDAY/BHADRA 9—BHADRA 15, 1936

Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(Department of Agriculture and Cooperation)

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2014

S.O.

2389.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of the

Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes

of the Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby

notifies the following office which is under the

administrative control of the Directorate of Marketing and

Inspection, Faridabad an attached office of the Department

of the Agriculture & Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture,

whereof 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge

of Hindi-

Directorate of Marketing and Inspection,

33, Anand Nagar,

Sub Office, Raipur,

Chhatisgarh

[No.3-3/2011-O.L. Policy]

R.B. SINHA, Jt. Secy.

6050

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=kky;

(dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 27 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2390-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk]

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

}kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ubZ fnYyh@fnYyh fLFkr

fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk (lhchvkbZ) }kjk

laLFkkfir dks;yk CykWd vkoaVu ekeyksa rFkk muls lEc¼ ,oa

izklafxd vU; ekeyksa esa vihyksa@iqujh{k.kksa esa dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks

dh vksj ls mifLFkr gksus ds fy, Jh vkj-,l- phek] vf/oDrk dks

fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd fu;qDr djrh gSA

¹iQk- la- 225@44@2014&,-oh-Mh-&IIº

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 27th August, 2014

S.O.

2390.—In exercise of the powers conferred

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

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

hereby appoints Shri R.S. Cheema, Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution on behalf of

Central Bureau of Investigation in Coal Block allocation

Cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment

(C.B.I) in the Trial Court at New Delhi/Delhi and appeals/

revisions or other matters connected therewith and

incidental thereto.

[F. No. 225/44/2014-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2391-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk]

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

}kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, vgenkckn fLFkr xqtjkr

mPPk U;k;ky; esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk (lhchvkbZ) }kjk

tkap fd, tk jgs ekeyksa vFkok muls mRiUu vU; ekeyksa esa

vfHk;kstu] vihyksa vkSj iqujh{k.kksa dk lapkyu djus ds fy,

Jh jruyky Nukyky dksMsdj] vf/oDrk dks fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk (dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks) dk fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd fu;qDr

djrh gSA

¹iQk- la- 225@45@2014&,-oh-Mh-&IIº

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2014

S.O.

2391.—In exercise of the powers conferred

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

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

hereby appoints Shri Ratanlal Chhanalal Kodekar, Advocate

as Special Public Prosecutor of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) in the

Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad for conducting the

prosecution, appeals, revisions or other matters arising

out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police

Establishment (CBI).

[F. No.225/45/2014-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

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

t;iqj] 26 vxLr] 2014

(la- 07@2014&15)

dk-vk- 2392-—vk;dj vf/fu;e] 1962 ds fu;e 2 lh

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

dh /kjk 10 ds [k.M (23 lh) dh mi/kjk (vi) ds }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, iz/ku eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] jkTkLFkku]

t;iqj ,rn~okjk fu/kZj.k o"kZ 2013&14 ,oa vkxs ds fy, dfFkr

èkkjk ds mn~ns'; ls ¶HkkbZ fufru dqekj ,stqds'ku ,.M lksf'k;y

oSyiQs;j VªLV [kseuk jksM] lknqyiqj (jktx<+) pq:¸ 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[k.M

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

¹Øekad% izeqvkvk@vkv(rd-)@t;@10(23lh) (vi)@2014&15@3161]

LorU=k oqQekj] iz/ku eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr

OFFICE OF THE PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAX, RAJASTHAN

Jaipur, the 26th August, 2014

(No. 07/2014-15)

S.O. 2392.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

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

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

Jaipur hereby approves “Bhai Nitin Kumar Education &

Social Welfare Trust Khemana Road, Sadulpur (Rajgarh),

Churu” 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)/2014-15/3161]

SWATANTRA KUMAR, Pr. Chief Commissioner of

Income Tax

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6051

t;iqj] 27 vxLr] 2014

(la- 08@2014&15)

dk-vk- 2393-—vk;dj vf/fu;e] 1962 ds fu;e 2 lh

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

dh /kjk 10 ds [k.M (23 lh) dh mi/kjk (vi) ds }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, iz/ku eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] jkTkLFkku]

t;iqj ,rn~}kjk fu/kZj.k o"kZ 2013&14 ,oa vkxs ds fy, dfFkr

èkkjk ds mn~ns'; ls ¶Jherh eksguh nsoh ys[kjkt vks/jkuh psjhVscy

VªLV] lsDVj&4] tokgj uxj] 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[k.M

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

¹Øekad% izeqvkvk@vkv(rd-)@t;@10(23lh)

(vi)@2014&15@3159]

LorU=k oqQekj] iz/ku eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr

Jaipur, the 27th August, 2014

(No. 08/2014-15)

S.O.

2393.—In exercise of the powers conferred

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

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

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

tax, Jaipur hereby approves “Smt. Mohini Devi Lekhraj

Odhrani Charitable Trust, Sector-4, Jawahar Nagar, 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)/2014-15/3159]

SWATANTRA KUMAR, Pr. Chief Commissioner of

Income Tax

t;iqj] 27 vxLr] 2014

(la- 09@2014&15)

dk-vk- 2394-—vk;dj vf/fu;e] 1962 ds fu;e 2 lh

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

dh /kjk 10 ds [k.M (23 lh) dh mi/kjk (vi) ds }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, iz/ku eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] jkTkLFkku]

t;iqj ,rn~}kjk fu/kZj.k o"kZ 2013&14 ,oa vkxs ds fy, dfFkr

èkkjk ds mn~ns'; ls ¶lS.M nwUl ,dsMeh] 116] foosd fogkj] U;w

lkaxkusj jksM] 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[k.M

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

¹Øekad% izeqvkvk@vkv(rd)@t;@10(23lh)

(vi)@2014&15@3160]

LorU=k oqQekj] iz/ku eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr

Jaipur, the 27th August, 2014

(No. 09/2014-15)

S.O.

2394.—In exercise of the powers conferred

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

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

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

Income-tax, Jaipur hereby approves “Sand Dunes Academy,

116, Vivek Vihar, New Sanganer Road, 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)/2014-15/3160]

SWATANTRA KUMAR, Pr. Chief Commissioner of

Income Tax

t;iqj] 27 vxLr] 2014

(la- 10@2014&15)

dk-vk- 2395-—vk;dj vf/fu;e] 1962 ds fu;e 2 lh

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

dh /kjk 10 ds [k.M (23 lh) dh mi/kjk (vi) ds }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, iz/ku eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] jkTkLFkku]

t;iqj ,rn~}kjk fu/kZj.k o"kZ 2013&14 ,oa vkxs ds fy, dfFkr

èkkjk ds mn~ns'; ls ¶[k.Msyoky pSfjVh VªLV] okMZ ua- 17] fot;

dkWyksuh] t;iqj jksM+] lhdj¸ 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[k.M

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

¹Øekad% izeqvkvk@vkv(rd)@t;@10(23lh)

(vi)@2014&15@3184]

LorU=k oqQekj] iz/ku eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr

Jaipur, the 27th August, 2014

(No. 10/2014-15)

S.O. 2395.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

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

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

Jaipur hereby approves “Khandelwal Charity Trust, Ward

No. 17, Vijay Colony, Jaipur Road, Sikar” 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)/2014-15/3184]

SWATANTRA KUMAR, Pr. Chief Commissioner of

Income Tax

6052

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 28 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2396-—lkoZtfud ifjlj (vuf/Ñr dCtk/kfj;ksa dh csn[kyh) vf/fu;e] 1971 (1971 dk 40) dh /kjk 3 }kjk

izkfèkÑr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx rFkk isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=kky; Hkkjr ljdkj dh fnukad 28 ebZ] 2007 dh vf/lwpuk la[;k

25015@1@91&vks vkj&II dk izfrLFkkiu djrs gq, Hkkjr ljdkj uhps nh xbZ lkj.kh ds (dkWye 2) esa vf/dkfj;ksa dks Hkkjr ljdkj ds

jktif=kr vf/dkfj;ksa ds led{k gksus ds ukrs lEink vf/dkjh fu;qDr djrh gSA ;s vf/dkjh mDr vf/fu;e esa lEink vf/dkjh ds fy,

fu/kZfjr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx mDr lkj.kh ds dkWye 3 esa o£.kr lkoZtfud ifjljksa ds fy, lhfer LFkkuh; {ks=kkf/dkj ds varxZr vius

dk;Zikyu ds fy, djsaxs A

lkj.kh

Ø-

;wfuV@dk;kZy; dk uke

vf/dkjh dk in

lkoZtfud ifjljksa dh Jsf.k;ksa rFkk LFkkuh;

la-

{ks=kkf/dkj dh {ks=k lhek,a

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

ubZ fnYyh

eq[; izca/d (iz'kklu o dY;k.k)@eq[;

dsUnz 'kkflr izkar fnYyh] rFkk mÙkj izns'k ds

ekuo lalk/u izca/d] bafM;u vkW;y

uks,Mk (uohu vks[kyk vkS|ksfxd fodkl

dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] Ldksi dkWEIysDl]

izkf/dj.k) ds varxZr fLFkr bafM;u vkW;y

dksj&2] 7] baLVhV~;w'kuy ,fj;k] yks/h

dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k okys

jksM] ubZ fnYyh&110003

lkoZtfud ifjlj

xqokgkVh fjiQkbujh

eq[; izca/d (iz'kklu o dY;k.k)@eq[;

vle jkT; ds vanj rFkk vklikl bafM;u

ekuo lalk/u izca/d] bafM;u vkW;y

vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k

dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] xqokgkVh fjiQkbujh

okys lkoZtfud ifjlj

ihvks- uwuekVh] xqokgkVh&781020

cjkSuh fjiQkbujh

eq[; izca/d (iz'kklu o dY;k.k)@eq[;

fcgkj jkT; ds vanj rFkk vklikl bafM;u

ekuo lalk/u izca/d] bafM;u vkW;y

vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k

dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM cjkSuh fjiQkbujh]

okys lkoZtfud ifjlj

Mkd?kj cjkSuh fjiQkbujh ftyk cSxqljk;]

fcgkj&861114

xqtjkr fjiQkbujh

eq[; izca/d (iz'kklu o dY;k.k)@eq[;

xqtjkr jkT; ds vanj rFkk vklikl bafM;u

ekuo lalk/u izca/d] bafM;u vkW;y

vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k

dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM xqtjkr fjiQkbujh]

okys lkoZtfud ifjlj

Mkd?kj tokgj uxj] ftyk oMksnjk]

xqtjkr&391320

gfYn;k fjiQkbujh

eq[; izca/d (iz'kklu o dY;k.k)@eq[;

if'pe caxky jkT; ds vanj rFkk vklikl bafM;u

ekuo lalk/u izca/d] bafM;u vkW;y

vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k

dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM gfYn;k fjiQkbujh]

okys lkoZtfud ifjlj

ftyk fenukiqj] if'peh caxky&721606

eFkqjk fjiQkbujh

eq[; izca/d (iz'kklu o dY;k.k)@eq[;

uohu vks[kyk vkS|ksfxd fodkl izkf/dj.k

ekuo lalk/u izca/d] bafM;u vkW;y

uks,Mk dks NksM+dj mÙkj izns'k jkT; ds vanj

dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ikuhir fjiQkbujh]

rFkk vklikl bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM

eFkqjk&281005 (mÙkj izns'k)

ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k okys lkoZtfud ifjlj

ikuhir fjiQkbujh

eq[; izca/d (iz'kklu o dY;k.k)@eq[;

gfj;k.kk jkT; ds vanj rFkk vklikl bafM;u

ekuo lalk/u izca/d] bafM;u vkW;y

vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k

dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ikuhir fjiQkbujh]

okys lkoZtfud ifjlj

gfj;k.kk&132140

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6053

vle vkW;y fMohtu

eq[; izca/d (iz'kklu o dY;k.k)@eq[;

vle jkT; ds vanj rFkk vkl ikl bafM;u

ekuo lalk/u izca/d] bafM;u vkW;y

vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] vle vkW;y fMohtu

dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM fMxcksbZ fjiQkbujh]

ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k okys lkoZtfud ifjlj

fMxcksbZ&786171 (vle)

ikjknhi fjiQkbujh

eq[; izca/d (iz'kklu o dY;k.k)@eq[;

vksfM'kk jkT; ds vanj rFkk vkl ikl bafM;u

ekuo lalk/u izca/d] bafM;u vkW;y

vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k

dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ikjknhi fjiQkbujh]

okys lkoZtfud ifjlj

Mkd?kj % f>ekuh] ck;k&oqQtkax] txr¯lgiqj]

vksfM'kk&754141

10-

dksydkrk (leUo; dk;kZy;)

eq[; izca/d (iz'kklu o dY;k.k)@eq[;

dksydkrk 'kgj ds vanj rFkk vkl ikl bafM;u

ekuo lalk/u izca/d] bafM;u vkW;y

vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k

dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] bafM;u vkW;y Hkou]

okys lkoZtfud ifjlj

lsaVªy ¯ox] NBk ekyk&2] xfj;kgkV jksM

(nf{k.k) dksydkrk&700068

11-

ckSaxkbZxkao fjiQkbujh

eq[; izca/d (iz'kklu o dY;k.k)@eq[;

vle jkT; ds vanj rFkk vkl ikl bafM;u

ekuo lalk/u izca/d] bafM;u vkW;y

vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k

dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ckSaxkbZxkao fjiQkbujh]

okys lkoZtfud ifjlj

ihvks /kSyhxkao] ftyk&ckSaxkbZxkao&783385

vle] Hkkjr

¹iQk- la- vkj&25015@1@2007&vksvkj&1º

iou oqQekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 28th August, 2014

S.O.

2396.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised

Occupants), Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of

Petroleum & Natural Gas No. R-25015/1/91-OR. I dated Twenty Eighth May, 2007 the Central Government hereby appoints

the officers mentioned in column (2) of the table below, being officer of equivalent rank of Gazetted Officers of the

Government, to be Estate Officers for the purpose of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the

duties imposed on Estate Officers by or under the said Act within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction in respect

of the public premises specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said table.

TABLE

Sl. Name of the Unit/

Designation of the Officer

Categories of public premises and local

No. Office

limits of jurisdication

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

New Delhi

Chief Manager (Administration and Welfare)/

Public premises under the administrative

Chief Human Resource Manager, Indian Oil

control of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Corporation Ltd., Refineries HQ, Core-2,

within the Union Territory of Delhi and

Scope Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodi Road,

New Okhla Industrial Development

New Delhi-110003

Authority (NOIDA) of the State of Uttar

Pradesh.

Guwahati Refinery

Chief Manager (Administration and Welfare)/

Public premises under the administrative

Chief Human Resource Manager, Indian Oil

control of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Corporation Ltd., Guwahati Refinery, P.O.

within the State of Assam.

Noonmati, Guwahati-781020

Barauni Refinery

Chief Manager (Administration and Welfare)/

Public premises under the administrative

Chief Human Resource Manager, Indian Oil

control of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Corporation Ltd., Barauni Refinery, P.O.

within the State of Bihar.

Barauni Refinery, Distt. Begusarai,

Bihar-861114.

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

6054

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Gujarat Refinery

Chief Manager (Administration and Welfare)/

Public premises under the administrative

Chief Human Resource Manager, Indian Oil

control of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Corporation Ltd., Gujarat Refinery, P.O. Jawahar

within the State of Gujarat.

Nagar, Distt. Vadodara, Gujarat-391320

Haldia Refinery

Chief Manager (Administration and Welfare)/

Public premises under the administrative

Chief Human Resource Manager, Indian Oil

control of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Corporation Ltd., Haldia Refinery, Distt.

within the State of West Bengal.

Midnapur, West Bengal-721606

Mathura Refinery

Chief Manager (Administration and Welfare)/

Public premises under the administrative

Chief Human Resource Manager, Indian Oil

control of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Corporation Ltd., Mathura Refinery, Mathura,

within the State of Uttar Pradesh except

Uttar Pradesh-281005

for the New Okhla Industrial Development

Authority (NOIDA) area.

Panipat Refinery

Chief Manager (Administration and Welfare)/

Public premises under the administrative

Chief Human Resource Manager, Indian Oil

control of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Corporation Ltd., Panipat Refinery, P.O. Panipat

within the State of Haryana.

Refinery, Panipat, Haryana-132140

Assam Oil Division

Chief Manager (Administration and Welfare)/

Public premises under the administrative

Chief Human Resource Manager, Indian Oil

control of & Assam Oil Division, Indian

Corporation Ltd., Assam Oil Division, Digboi

Oil Corporation Ltd. within the State of

Refinery, Digboi-786171

Assam.

Paradip Refinery

Chief Manager (Administration and Welfare)/

Public premises under the administrative

Project

Chief Human Resource Manager, Indian Oil

control of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Corporation Ltd., Paradip Refinery, P.O. : Jhimani,

within the State of Odisha.

Via-Kujang, Distt. Jagatsinghpur, Odisha-754141

10. Kolkata (Liaison

Chief Manager (Administration and Welfare)/

Public premises under the administrative

Office)

Chief Human Resource Manager, Indian Oil

control of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Corporation Ltd., Indian Oil Bhavan, Central

within the city of Kolkata.

Wing, 6th Floor, 2, Gariahat Road (South),

Kolkata-700068

11. Bongaigaon Refinery Chief Manager (Administration and Welfare)/

Public premises under the administrative

Chief Human Resource Manager, Indian Oil

control of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Corporation Ltd., Bongaigaon Refinery, P.O. :

within the State of Assam.

Dhaligaon, Distt Bongaigaon 783385

(Assam) India.

[F. No. R-25015/1/2007-OR-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 3 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2397-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut

ikbiykbZu (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e]

1962 (1962 dk 50) dh /kjk 2 ds [kaM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa

mDr vf/fu;e ds v/hu egkjk"Vª jkT; ds Hkhrj xsy (bf.M;k)

fyfeVsM dh lHkh ikbiykbZuksa ds fy;s l{ke izkf/dkjh ds dk;ks± dk

fuoZgu djus ds fy;s Jherh ih- ,l- tk;rw fMIVh dysDVj]

egkjk"Vª ljdkj] dks fnukad 1&8&2014 ls izkf/Ñr djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- ,y&14014@31@*14&th-ih-]

,l- ih- vxzoky] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2014

S.O.

2397.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section

2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of

Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), Central

Government hereby authorizes Smt. P.S. Jaitu, Deputy

Collector, Maharashtra Government to perform the

functions of competent Authority for all pipelines of GAIL

(India) Limited, under the said Act, within the Territory of

Maharashtra w.e.f. 1-8-2014.

[F. No. L-14014/31/’14-G.P.]

S. P. AGARWAL, Under Secy.

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6055

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYYkh] 29 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk

2398-—dsUæh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

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

èkkjk 88 n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, baLVªwesaVs'ku

fyfeVsM] iydDM] dsjy ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer

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

NwV] 30-8-2014 ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, ykxw jgsxh A

2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/hu gS_ 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 n~okjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Rr gksus

dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ lanRr 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 izk: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 n~okjk 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 fufeRr

izkf/Ñr 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'kf"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 n~okjk ;Fkk

visf{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 n~okjk 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 miac/ izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha miacèkksa

dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k Fkk ugha] fuEufyf[kr

dk;Z djus ds fy, l'kDr gksxk%&

(d) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk

fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr

vf/dkjh ;k vU; in/kjh bl vf/fu;e

ds iz;kstukFkZ vko';d le>rk gS_ vFkok

([k) ,sls iz/ku fu;kstd ds vf/Hkksxk/hu] fdlh

dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;Zky; ;k vU;

ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij izos'k

djuk vkSj mlds izHkkjh ls 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 fujhf{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) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds

vfHkdrkZ ;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh

O;fDr dks] tks ,sls dkj[kkusa] 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;Zky; ;k vU;

ifjlj esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk]

cgh ;k vU; nLrkost dh udy rS;kj

djuk ;k m¼j.k ysuk_

(M-) ;Fkkfu/kZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA

(6) fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznRr NwV Lor% jí

gks tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrw leqfpr

ljdkj dh vuqefr ysuh gksxhA

[la[;k ,l&38014@21@2013&,l,l&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2014

S.O.

2398.—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 Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad,

Kerala from the operation of the said Act. The exemption

shall be effective w.e.f. 30.8.2014 for a period of one year.

6056

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely :—

(1)

The aforesaid establishments wherein the

employees are employed shall maintain a register

showing the name and designations of the

exempted employees’;

(2)

Not withstanding 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 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

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 copies of or take extracts from any

document maintained in such

factory, establishment, office or other

premises,

(e) exercise such other powers as may be

prescribed.

(6)

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-38014/21/2013-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2399-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkjk"Vª

fu"iknd ,oa U;klh daiuh izkbosV fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

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

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] eqacbZ

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 54@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 25@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@35@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th August, 2014

S.O. 2399.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/

2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of The

Maharashtra Executor & Trustee Co. Pvt. Ltd. and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

25/08/2014.

[No. L-12011/35/2012-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6057

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/54 of 2012

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF THE MAHARASHTRA EXECUTOR &

TRUSTEE CO. PVT. LTD.

The Chairman,

The Maharashtra Executor & Trustee Co. Pvt. Ltd.

(Subsidiary of Bank of Maharashtra)

C/o. Bank of Maharashtra

Gadkari Chowk Branch

Gokhale Road (North)

Dadar, Mumbai-400 028

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The President,

Mahabank Navnirman Sena

Rajgad Swamikripa

D.L. Vaidya Road

Shivaji Park, Dadar

Mumbai-400 028

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. Adharkar, Representative

FOR THE WORKMEN : No appearance

Mumbai, dated the 3rd July, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No.L-12011/35/2012-IR (B-II),

dated 03.12.2012 in exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred

the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

“Whether the demands of Mahabank Navnirman

Sena for wage revision and other demands as per

Annexure A against the management of Maharashtra

Executor & Trustee Co. Pvt. Ltd., Pune (A Subsidiary

of Bank of Maharashtra) is legal, just and proper?

What relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?”

After receipt of the reference notice was sent to

both the parties. Since notice sent to Union was returned

by postal authorities, again on 3/6/2013 notice was sent to

the union and served vide Ex-5. Mr. Adharkar appeared

for first party management. Second party remained absent

on all dates except on 10.02.2014 when Mr. Umakant Kotnis

appeared as representative of union but failed to file

statement of claim. Sufficient time was given to them.

However neither union remained present nor filed their

statement of claim. As the second party union failed to

file its statement of claim, the reference deserves to be

dismissed for want of prosecution. Thus, I proceed to

pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference stands dismissed for want of

prosecution. No order as to cost.

Date : 03.07.2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2400-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnfo'kuy

bathfu;j] (dksvkWfDlvy esaVsusal) ,.M vkFklZ] VsyhdkWe ,.M

vkFklZ ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lhthvkbZVh,/710@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 26@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@34@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2014

S.O.

2400.—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-

710/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of Divisional Engineer

(Coaxial Maintenance) & Others, Telecom and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 26/8/2014.

[No. L-40012/34/2000-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated : 23rd June, 2014

Reference: (CGITA) No-710/2004

Reference: (I.T.C) No-21/2000(old)

Adjudication Order No. L-40012/34/2000-IR (DU)

6058

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Divisional Engineer (Coaxial Maintenance),

2nd Floor, City Telecom Building,

Jail Road, Vadodara,

Gujarat-390001

Divisional Engineer (Microwave Project),

Microwave Building,

Near Navrangpura Telephone Exchange,

Ahmeddabad

Gujarat-380006

.....First Party

And

Their Workman

Sh. Khodabhai Devabhai Bharwad

At Palaj GIDC, Near Water Tank,

Bharuch

.....Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri Nilesh K. Trivedi, Advocate

For the Second Party : None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. 40012/34/2000- IR(DU) dated

29.05.2000, referred the dispute for adjudication to the

Industrial Tribunal, Baroda in respect of the matters

specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Telecom

in terminating the services of Sh. Khodabhai

Devabhai Bharwad is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled and from what

date?”

The case of the workman (2nd party) as per

statement of claim (Ext.7) is that he was engaged as

security guard at Palaj Microwave in the year 1997 and

was getting wages of Rs. 1,500 per month. He from 1997

to 30thNovember,1998 did not take leave and has worked

continuously. He worked for 240 days in calendar year. He

was doing work as permanent employee but was illegally

terminated from the services which amount to unfair

labour practice and without giving retrenchment notice

or one month notice pay and retrenchment compensation.

Prayer is made for reinstatement to the post of Security

Guard with back wages and also any other relief to which

the workman is found entitled.

The case of the 1st party (management) inter alia as

per written statement (Ext.11) is that the reference is devoid

of merit, not maintainable and the workman has no cause

of action. The averment made para wise in the statement

of claim are denied and are not true. It is not true that the

2nd party workman has worked as a Security Guard since

May 1997 in Palaj M.W. Station under M.T.CE and was

getting Rs. 1500 per month wages. It has been denied

that the workman completed 240 days work in calendar

year. The averment made in para 2 to 16 are not true and

correct and so denied. The case of the 1st party is that the

workman (S.P.) was engaged purely on adhoc basis as

daily wages casual labour since January 1999 to May 1999

for 121 days only. He was engaged for short duration and

contingent work and not as Security Guard. His job is

not continuous. Palaj M.W. R/R Station taken over by

maintenance staff from S.D.E. M.W. Project, Ahmedabad

on dated 30.11.1998 (A.N.) and the 2nd party was engaged

as daily wages casual labour from 01.01.1999. He was not

handed over as a casual labour along with Palaj MW/R/

R. Station during handing over of Palaj MW R/R. Station.

On these score, prayer is made for dismissal of reference

with cost.

The case is running for leading evidence by the

2nd party workman but he is absent since long and is not

attending the case. He submitted his affidavit in lieu of

examination in chief on 21.04.2006 but did not turn up for

cross-examination by the 1st party lawyer. So, the affidavit

in lieu of examination-in-chief is legally carrying no

evidentiary value. The 1st party is attending the case on

dates but the 2nd party (workman) is absent since long. It

appears that the 2nd party workman has lost interest in

this case. The statement of claim of the 2nd party is mere

pleading and not a substantive piece of evidence. So

virtually there is no evidence on the record to substantiate

the claim statement.

As such the terms of reference specified in the

schedule is answered in affirmative that the action of the

management of Telecom in terminating the services of

Sh. Khodabhai Devabhai Bharwad is legal and justified.

The 2nd party (workman) is not entitled to any relief.

The reference is dismissed. No order of any cost.

Let two copies of the award be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication u/s 17(1) of the I.D. Act.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2401-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj áweu fjlkslsZl

eSustesaV fMikVZesaV] fj”koZ cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

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

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k] ukxiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 06@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 26@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@11@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2014

S.O.

2401.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 6/2012)

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6059

Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Human Resources

Management Department, Reserve Bank of India and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

26/08/2014.

[No. L-12011/11/2012-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/06/2012

Date : 22.08.2014

Party No. 1 : The Chief General Manager,

Human Resources

Management Department,

Reserve Bank of India,

Central Office, 20th and 21st Floor,

Central Office Building,

Mumbai.

Versus

Party No. 2 : President,

Reserve Bank Employees Association,

C/o Radhika, 34, Pandit Malviya Nagar,

Kamala Nagar,

Nagpur-25.

AWARD

(Dated : 22nd August, 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 Reserve Bank of India, Human Resources

Management Department, Mumbai and their workmen, for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-12011/11/2012-IR (B-I)

dated 22.06.2012, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Reserve

Bank of India in not conducting the examination

during the panel year 2009 and 2010 for the promotion

of class III employees to the post of Assistant

Manager as per terms of settlement dated 23.06.2005

is legal and justified? Whether the employees who

were eligible for promotion, but could not be

promoted for not conducting the examination, for

the said panel years are entitled for promotion

without any examination? Whether the settlement

dated 18.08.2011 relating to the scheme of promotion

of class III employees to the post of Assistant

Managers in Grade “A” is justified? To what relief

the union is entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the union, “Reserve Bank

Employees Association,” (“the union” in short), filed the

statement of claim and the management of Reserve Bank

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

statement.

The case as presented in the statement of claim by

the union is that the party No.1 is a statutory Bank and is

an “industry” within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act

and the provisions of the Act are applicable to party No.1

and it is a registered Trade union of the class III employees

working with party No.1 and its members are “workmen”

within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act and service

conditions of class III and class IV employees of party

No.1 are governed by various Awards and Bi-partite

settlements and the cause of action in the present reference

involves community of interest and therefore, it(union)

resolved to support, espouse and champion the said

dispute and the dispute is an “industrial dispute” as per

the provision of Section 2(k) of the Act.

The further case of the union is that to its

knowledge, only two registered unions are operating in

class III cadre of party No.1 and it had neither been invited

nor had signed the settlement dated 23.06.2005 and the

union, “All India Reserve Bank Employees Association”

(“AIRBEA” in short), which had signed the said settlement

is neither a recognized union nor the said union can be

termed as recognized union by the management and this

is because, there is no provision either under the Trade

unions Act or the Act, which gives right and powers to

the management to accord reorganization to any particular

union and as such, the AIRBEA, the signatory to the

settlement dated 23.06.2005 is not a legally recognized

trade union in the party No.1 and the status given by the

party No.1 to AIRBEA is plainly arbitrary and not in

accordance with the provisions of law.

It is further pleaded by the union that the settlement

dated 23.06.2005 covers the subject-matter of promotion

of class III employees to the post of Assistant Managers

in Grade “A” and the said scheme mainly consists of two

type of promotions, namely, (i) qualifying channel (which

is mainly based on seniority of the employee in the cadre)

and (ii) merit channel and it was specifically agreed in

clause 8 of the settlement dated 23.06.2005 that,

“Qualifying and merit channel examination” shall be

conducted in every calendar year, which is popularly

termed as every panel year and as per the said settlement,

the last such examination conducted by the party No.1

was for the year 2008 and thereafter, party No.1 unilaterally

and arbitrarily decided not to conduct any examination

during the calendar year 2009 and 2010 and in its opinion,

the said action of party No.1 was to support the union,

AIRBEA, which was suffering from its membership

6060

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

position due to promotion of clerical employees to officer

cadre subsequent to the year 2005 and party No.1 did not

quote the reasons, which led it to commit breach of clause

8 of the settlement dated 23.06.2005 and as no examination

was conducted in 2009 and 2010, the right of the employees

who were eligible and qualified for the said promotional

examination came to be seriously and unreasonably

affected and they lost the chance and opportunity of

promotion and also monetary benefits arising there from

and in not conducting the examination in 2009 and 2010, in

fact, party No.1 illegally changed the service conditions

of the employees, without giving them the notice under

section 9-A of the Act and the entire action of party No.1

in not conducting the examination was in breach of the

settlement dated 23.06.2005 and the same was illegal,

arbitrary and smacked of malafide and patently unfair

labour practice as defined in item nos. 1, 2, 4 and 9 of

schedule V to the Act and therefore, the employees, who

were eligible for promotional examination for the panel

year 2009 and 2010 are required to be given promotion

without examination, retrospectively with consequential

benefits and wage benefits.

The further case of the union is that on 18.08.2011,

the party No.1 and AIRBEA signed one more settlement

on the subject of promotion of class III cadre to Assistant

Manager Grade “A”, making changes and modifications

in the settlement dated 23.06.2005 and the said settlement

having not signed by the parties under section 18(3) of

the Act, the same is not binding on its members and since

promotional examination to officer Grade “A” is

predominately based on seniority of the employees

working in the clerical cadre, there was no justification or

logic for any provision to conduct examination for the

said purpose and the employees, who want to compete

are having chance of examination provided in the merit

channel, where written examination is justified to decide

the competency and merit of the employees and for

promotion on seniority basis, the employees should be

selected on the basis of seniority and service report only

and as such, the settlement dated 22.08.2011 is required to

be quashed or cancelled or suitably modified, with a view

to protect seniority of employees in the process of

promotion to Assistant Manager Grade “A” and though

it(union) vide its notice dated 22.08.2011 raised the

demand, party No.1 paid a deaf year to the same.

The union has prayed to declare the action of party

No.1 in not conducting the examination in 2009 and 2010

for promotion of class III employees to the post of

Assistant Manager Grade “A” as per the terms of the

settlement dated 23.06.2005 as illegal and unjustified and

to declare the employees of class III cadre, who were eligible

for promotion, but could not be promoted for not

conducting the examination as promoted to officer Grade

“A”, without any examination and to declare the settlement

dated 18.08.2011 as unjustified.

The party no.1 in the written statement has pleaded

inter-alia that the union is an unrecognized minority union,

affiliated to the All India Reserve Bank Workers

Organization, having membership of only 307 employees,

out of the total working strength of 3599 employees in

class-III cadre on all India basis and the demands of the

unrecognized union had been fully considered while

negotiating and arriving at a settlement on 23.06.2005 with

the majority recognized union, the AIRBEA.

It is further pleaded by party no.1 that it exercises

various powers and discharges statutory functions under

the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the Reserve Bank of

India Act, 1934, Public Debt Act (now the Government

Securities Act) etc. and it has framed well defined policy

and guide lines for the purpose of recruitment of different

classes of employees, their service conditions, conduct,

discipline etc and the service conditions of its employees

are governed by RBI (Staff) Regulations, 1948 and in terms

of Regulation 29 of the said Regulations, all appointments

and promotions should be made at the discretion of the

Bank and not withstanding his/her seniority in a grade, no

employee shall have a right to be appointed or promoted

to any particular post or grade and Regulation 6 empowers

the Governor of the Bank to issue administrative

instructions as may be necessary to give effect to and

carry out the purposes of the provisions of these

Regulations or otherwise to secure effective control of

the staff and in addition to this, class-III and class-IV

staffs, who are “workmen” within the meaning of Section

2 (s) of the Act are also governed by various Awards

passed by the National Industrial Tribunal, such as Dighe

Award, Desai award and Bipartite settlement with the

recognized association representing workmen employees,

administrative circulars and office orders issued by it from

time to time and as per the code of discipline agreed in the

tripartite meeting held in 1966 between the Reserve Bank

of India, Ministry of Labour, Government of India and the

unions and it was agreed to recognize one trade union

each at All India level, to represent the class-III and class-

IV employees, having majority membership and minimum

membership of 25% of respective category of employees

on all India basis and similarly at the local level, in each

office, it was agreed to recognized one trade union each to

represent the class-III and class-IV employees having the

majority membership and minimum 25% membership

among the respective category of the employees in the

local office and the Bank holds discussions on wage

matters and other service conditions of the recognized all

India bodies, viz All India Reserve Bank Employees

Association and All India Reserve Bank Worker’s

Federation and local matters/problems are discussed with

the local recognized association/union.

The further case of the party no.1 is that the

settlement dated 23.06.2005 was entered into by it with

AIRBEA, which was representing the majority of class-III

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6061

employees of the Bank, in terms of which, the then existing

scheme for promotion of class-III staff to the post of

Assistant Managers in Grade-A was further liberalized by

introducing the concept of notional vacancies viz. 12.5%

of actual working strength in Grade-A as on 1st January

and the revised scheme was to be valid for three years,

after which, it was to be reviewed by mutual consent, as

mentioned in clause-11 of Memorandum of Settlement and

the scheme was operated for three penal years, 2005, 2006

and 2007, in accordance with the said settlement and

thereafter for 2008, after obtaining concurrence of AIRBEA

and as AIRBEA withdrew from the MOS dated 23.06.2005,

thereafter no examination could be conducted for the panel

years 2009 and 2010 and finally, the settlement dated

18.08.2011 for a period of two panel years i.e. 2011 and

2012 was signed and consequently, examination had been

held for the panel year 2011 and 2012 and AIRBEA

addressed a letter to it on 20.12.2007, stating that the

scheme was to be suspended and raised industrial dispute

in the matter and AIRBEA also sent notice u/s. 19 (2) of

the Act to terminate the settlement dated 23.06.2005 to the

Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi and the

Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kolkata issued

notice dated 21.02.2008 to it in respect of the scheme of

promotion in terms of the settlement dated 23.06.2005 and

since industrial dispute was raised before the Dy. Chief

Labour Commissioner (Central), Calcutta, by AIRBEA,

claiming the settlement dated 23.06.2005 to have been

terminated and expired, no examination could be held in

the years 2009 and 2010, which is evident from the letter

dated 16.10.2009, written by AIRBEA to the Chief Labour

Commissioner in reference 07.02.2008 and on 15.06.2011,

the dispute was treated as closed by the Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central), Kolkata and under such

circumstances, it was justified in not holding any

examination till signing of the settlement dated 18.08.2011

by it with AIRBEA and consequent to the said settlement,

examination for the panel year 2011 and 2012 was

conducted.

Party no.1 has also pleaded that as the dispute is

regarding granting of promotion without examination and

the same is not related to employment or non-employment

and terms of the employment or conditions of employment,

the same is not an industrial dispute and the union has no

locus- standi to raise the dispute, as it is a minority union

having membership of 307 of the total working strength of

employees of class-III staff on all India basis and in

pursuance of the code of discipline, it has recognized the

union, AIRBEA to represent the class-III staff and its policy

to strictly adhere to the understanding of recognizing only

one trade union each in class-III and class-IV having

majority membership has proved beneficial in maintaining

industrial peace and any departure from this policy may

have untoward repercussions and AIRBEA, which is

signatory to the settlement dated 23.06.2005 is the

recognized union for its class-III employees and with whom,

it has been entering into various settlement from 1935 i.e.

from the inception of the RBI till date and it was justified in

not holding the examination in the years 2009 and 2010

and it had not changed the service condition of the

employees and it is settled principle of law that promotion

cannot be demanded as a matter of right and it is for the

bank to decide on the modalities of promotion as per its

requirement and no vested right accrues in favour of any

employee for promotion, leave alone the question of

granting promotion strictly on the basis of seniority

without examination and as such, the workmen are not

entitled to any relief.

In the rejoinder, it is pleaded by the union that there

is no law at present which legally empowers the party no.1

to accord recognition to any trade union and the code of

discipline is not a law to sanction recognition to any union

and therefore, the action of the party no.1 in giving

recognition to AIRBEA is illegal and without any authority,

power or force of law and it amounts to unfair labour

practice on the part of the management and the settlements

dated 23.06.2005 and 18.08.2011 are not settlements signed

due to mediation or efforts of conciliation officer and the

settlements were unilateral and unfair and unsustainable

in the eyes of law and the same are not binding on its

members and after expiry of three years period of operation

of the settlement dated 23.06.2005, no review was made by

the parties to the said settlement and review was infact

taken in the year 2011 and not in 2008, 2009 and 2010, so

the settlement dated 23.06.2005 does not become non-est,

but continued to be binding till the new contract replaces

the same and during the pendency of the case, party no.1

has come out with another settlement dated 21.03.2013

without taking express permission as prescribed in the

Act and such action is illegal.

Both the parties have led oral evidence, besides

placing reliance on documentary evidence, in support of

their respective case.

On behalf of the union, its President, Shri Nityananda

S. Sahasrabudhe has been examined as a witness, whereas,

Shri Krishnamurthy Srinivasan has been examined as a

witness by party no.1.

The respective examination-in-chief of the witnesses

examined by the parties on affidavit is in the same line as

taken in the statement of claim and written statement.

Shri Nityananda, the witness examined on behalf of

the union in his cross-examination has stated that the

union is an unrecognized union and it is also a minority

union and he does not have any idea about the code of

discipline of the bank and if as per the code of discipline,

the RBI has to enter into any settlement with the majority

recognized union and the settlement dated 23.06.2005 was

between the RBI and AIRBEA, the recognized majority

6062

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

union and he cannot say if due to raising of the industrial

dispute by AIRBEA before the DY.CLC (C), Kolkata, the

management of RBI was not in a position to conduct the

examination for promotion in the years 2009 and 2010.

Shri Krishnamurthy, the witness for the party No.1

in his cross-examination has also categorically stated that

AIRBEA is the only recognized union for class III

employees.

After perusal of the materials on record, including

the pleadings of the parties and taking into consideration

the submissions made by the learned advocate for the

petitioner and the representative of the management, it is

found that the union has tried to breath hot and cold at

the same time. At one hand, it has challenged the legality

of the action of the party no.1 in not conducting the

examination during the panel years 2009 and 2010 for

promotion of class-III employees as per the terms of

Settlement dated 23.06.2005 and on the other hand it has

claimed that the settlement dated 23.06.2005 and so also

dated 18.08.2011 were not signed by it and the same are

not binding on its members. The union has also claimed

that the union AIRBEA, which is a signatory to the

settlements is not a recognized union and the status given

by party no.1 to AIRBEA as recognized union is plainly

arbitrary and not in accordance with the provisions of law.

In other words, the union has tried to raise the issue that

the denial of party no.1 of giving it the status at par with

AIRBEA to be unjust and illegal.

However, it will not be out of place to mention that

the party no.1 in terms of code of discipline has recognized

the union, AIRBEA, being the majority union as the

representative union for its class-III employees and the

party no.1 uses to enter into various settlements from time

to time and party no.1 does not invite the union for

discussion and also does not enter into any settlement

with the same, the union being unrecognized minority

union. Such fact has been admitted by the witness

examined on behalf of the union. It is also to be mentioned

that the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble Bombay High

Court in different judgments have found no fault in the

action of the party no.1 to deal with, negotiate and enter

into settlements with the union, AIRBEA as a matter of

policy, which has the support of overwhelming largest

majority employees belonging to class-III. It is also held

by the Hon’ble Apex Court in different judgments that

once there is a representative union, there can be no role

of any other union and if there are a number of trade unions

registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 not entitled

to be registered as representative unions and they raise

disputes, industrial peace would be a far cry and where

the management and a representative union reached a

settlement the settlement became binding on all workmen

of the establishment including those belonging to a

dissenting minority union.

It is the admitted case of the parties that the party

no.1 entered into the agreement dated 23.06.2005. The

copy of the said agreement had been marked as Ext. W-I

from the side of the union and Ext. M-III from the side of

the party no.1. As per clause 8 of the said settlement, it

was agreed between the parties to conduct the qualifying

and merit channel examination during every calendar year.

It is also found that as per clause 11 of the settlement, it

was stipulated by the parties that the changes in the

scheme as agreed upon in the said settlement would be

effective from the year 2005 and would be in force till

panel year 2007, after which the scheme would be reviewed

by mutual consent. It is also the admitted case of the parties

that in terms of the said settlement, party no.1 conducted

the examination till 2008 and no examination was conducted

in 2009 and 2010.

It is found from the evidence on record that the

union, AIRBEA addressed a letter dated 20.12.2007, Ext.

M-IV for review of the settlement and to treat the said

letter as notice under section 19 (2) of the Act. It is also

found from Ext. M-V that the union, AIRBEA served a

notice under section 19 (2) of the Act to the Chief Labour

Commissioner (Central), New Delhi for termination of the

settlement and to keep the said scheme of promotion in

abeyance till the issues raised by them are mutually and

amicably settled. It is also found from Ext. M-VI that the

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C), Kolkota issued

the notice dated 21.02.2008 to the party No.1 for joint

discussion on the issue of Scheme of Promotion of class

III employees to the posts of Assistant Manager Grade

“A” on 04.03.2008. It is also found from record that the

examination for promotion for the year 2008 was conducted

by the party No.1 as per the terms of the settlement dated

23.06.2005 with consultation of the union AIRBEA and

the settlement dated 23.06.2005 was treated to be

terminated, after the expiry of the notice period. From the

evidence on record, it is found that the industrial disputes

raised by AIRBEA were subjudiced till 15.06.2011.In view

of the termination of the settlement dated 23.06.2005 after

the expiry of the notice period of the notice given by

AIRBEA on 20.12.2007, Ext. M-VI and in view of pendency

of the disputes raised by AIRBEA in respect of the said

settlement before the conciliation officer, there was no

question of conducting of the examination for promotion

of class III employees to the post of Assistant Manager

Grade “A” for the year 2009 and 2010 in terms of the

settlement dated 23.06.2005. Hence, it is found that there

is no illegality in the action of the party No.1 in not

conducting the examination in 2009 and 2010 and therefore,

there is also no question of giving of promotion to the

eligible employees, without any examination.

The settlement dated 18.08.2011 has been claimed

to be illegal by the union on the ground that since

promotional examination to officer grade A is

predominately based on seniority of the employees

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6063

working in the clerical cadre, there is no justification or

logic for any provision to conduct examination for the

said purpose and as provision for examination has been

made for the employees for qualifying channel, the

settlement dated 18.08.2011 is illegal. It is to be mentioned

here that the settlement dated 18.08.2011 has already been

replaced by another settlement dated 21.03.2013, after the

expiry of the period of operation of the said settlement.

More ever, it is found from the record that in the settlement

dated 23.06.2005 also, there was provision for examination

for qualifying channel and the only change made in the

settlement dated 22.08.2011 was that the paper on “RBI

Act” and “RBI Functions and Working” was made

descriptive paper instead of objective in nature as per the

settlement dated 23.06.2005. It is found that examination

for promotion in qualifying channel was not introduced

for the first time in the settlement dated 18.08.2011.For

modification of one written paper, from objective type to

descriptive type, in the settlement dated 18.08.2011, the

said settlement cannot be held to be illegal. Hence it is

ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of Reserve Bank of

India in not conducting the examination during the panel

year 2009 and 2010 for the promotion of class III employees

to the post of Assistant Manager as per terms of settlement

dated 23.06.2005 is legal and justified. The employees who

were eligible for promotion, but could not be promoted for

not conducting the examination, for the said panel years

are not entitled for promotion without any examination.

The settlement dated 18.08.2011 relating to the scheme of

promotion of class III employees to the post of Assistant

Managers in Grade “A” is justified. The union is not

entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2402-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj caxh; xzkeh.k

fodkl cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k] dksydrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 20@2013)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@08@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@49@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2014

S.O.

2402.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2013)

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

Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Bangiya Gramin Vikas Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 26/08/2014.

[No. L-12011/49/2012-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 20 of 2013

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Bangiya Gramin Vikas Bank

A N D

Their workman

Present : Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

Appearance :

On behalf of the Management : None

On behalf of the Workman

: None

State : West Bengal

Industry : Banking

Dated: 13th August, 2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-12011/49/2012-IR(B-I) dated

14.03.2013 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 is justified

by transferring the members of the Union as per

Annexure-V without following guidelines of Posting

& Transfer/placement for officers’ clerks and sub-

staff are legal and/or justified? If not, what relief the

workmen are entitled to?”

When the case is taken up today for hearing, none

appears on behalf of the any of the parties. It appears from

the record that one joint petition alongwith the

memorandum of settlement between the parties is kept

with the record which was received by post. The record

further goes to show that the union is absent for the last

four consecutive dates. The management is also found

absent since 03.03.2014. Perhaps the parties to the present

reference do not find any interest to proceed with the case

after filing the memorandum of settlement.

Considering the above facts and circumstances it

appears that the parties do not want to proceed with the

case further as the dispute has been settled between the

parties. Accordingly, the instant reference case is disposed

of by passing a “No Dispute Award”.

Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

The 13th August, 2014.

6064

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2403-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ

ifV;kyk ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1572@2009) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@82@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2014

S.O.

2403.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1572/

2009) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

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

industrial dispute between the management of State Bank

of Patiala and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 26/08/2014.

[No. L-12012/82/2008-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present : Sri KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No.1572/2009

Registered on 21.1.2009

Sh. Rajesh Joshi,

S/o Sh. Tak Chand Sharma,

Sr. Vice-president,

INBEC 25m Sant Nagar,

Civil Lines, Ludhiana

.....Petitioner

Versus

The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of Patiala,

Regional Office-III, (HP),

Sauli Khad, Mandi (HP)

The Deputy General manager,

Region-III, State Bank of Patiala,

SCO 103-107, Sector 8C,

Chandigarh

.....Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

: Ex parte.

For the Management

: Sh. N. K. Zakhmi, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on- 25.7.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/

82/2008 (IR(B-I)) Dated 2.1.2009, by exercising its powers

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

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

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

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of Patiala, Mandi in imposing the penalty of

dismissal w.e.f. 22.5.2005 on Sh. Rajesh Joshi,

Special Assistant, is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the workman concerned is entitled?”

In response to the notice the workman appeared

and submitted statement of claim pleading that while

posted as Special Assistant in the respondent bank at

Kullu, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him

by appointing an Inquiry Officer. A criminal complaint

was also filed on the basis of the same allegations with

CBI, Chandigarh. However, the Inquiry Officer proceeded

with the inquiry and recorded a finding against him and

on the basis of the illegal inquiry, he was dismissed from

service vide order dated 17.11.2005.

The workman assailed the inquiry proceedings on

the ground that charge-sheet was not served as per rules

and presenting offer was allowed to put leading questions

to the witness and he was not given any opportunity to

cross-examine the witness. That the disciplinary authority

passed a non-speaking order. The appeal preferred by

him was also dismissed. The said orders are illegal.

Respondent management filed written reply pleading

that the workman while posted in the Kullu Branch

committed serious irregularities and was charge-sheeted

vide charge-sheet dated 22.2.2005. He submitted reply

which was not satisfactory and thereafter regular inquiry

was ordered. The proceedings were adjourned on the

request of the workman to engage the co-worker. That the

workman failed to produce any co-worker and the Inquiry

Officer proceeded with the inquiry. The workman was

allowed to lead evidence in defence and he examined two

witnesses besides producing documents. After

considering the evidence, the Inquiry officer submitted

the inquiry report and on its basis, the disciplinary

authority issued a notice to the workman along with the

report to which the workman filed reply. He was also given

an opportunity of personal hearing and after considering

the entire facts the impugned order dated 17.11.2005 was

passed. The appeal preferred by the workman was also

dismissed. That the inquiry was conducted as per rules

and there is no illegality or infirmity in the proceedings.

The claim of the workman be dismissed.

None was appearing on behalf of the workman except

on few dates. The workman was proceeded against ex

parte vide order dated 16.12.2013.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6065

I have heard Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the

management and have perused the photocopies of the

proceedings.

As per Annexure 1, the workman was charge-sheeted

on the following grounds:-

That you while handling Foreign Demand

Negotiation (FDN) Seat at the branch, fraudulently

prepared vouchers for purchase of FDNs aggregating

Rs.20,06,096.00 (Rupees Twenty lacks six thousand

ninety six only) as per detail given in Annexure ‘A’)

in the current account of M/s Nirman Forex Pvt. Ltd.

and managed to get the relevant debit/credit

vouchers passed by the authorized officer of the

branch without entering the instruments in the FDN

transpired that:

(a)

Smt. Aarti Joshi, who is the Managing Director

of M/s Nirman Forex Pvt. Ltd., is your wife

and other directors of the company are also

your close relatives.

(b)

The said instrument aggregating Rs.

20,06,096.00 purchased in FDN were never

dispatched for realization to the concerned

authorized branch i.e.., our Sector 17-C

Chandigarh. Since you were also looking after

the despatch of FDNs, you managed

detention of relevant instruments with ulterior

motive. You, thus, managed to unduly

accommodate M/s Nirman Forex Pvt. Ltd., your

family concern in an unauthorized and in a

fraudulent manner to the detriment of Bank’s

interest.

(2)

You deposited cash in the current account of M/s

Nirman Forex Pvt. Ltd maintained at the branch under

your signatures on the following dates:-

Date

Amount (Rs.)

7.8.2003

678000.00

6.8.2003

1000000.00

2.8.2003

700000.00

1.8.2003

600000.00

10.5.2003

600000.00

You thus acted unauthorizedly which clearly

indicates your involvement in the affairs of the

Company.

(3)

That you prepared relevant debit/credit vouchers

for purchase of FDNs from M/s Nirman Forex Pvt.

Ltd., aggregating Rs.443114.00 (Rupees four lacs

forty three thousand one hundred fourteen only)

without receipt of any foreign currency instruments

as per detail given in Annexure ‘B’ and managed to

get the same passed by the authorized officers for

credit of Rs.33005.00 (Rupees thirty three thousand

five only) on 20.3.2003 to the current account

No.01050060376 of M/s Universal Express, a firm

where your wife Smt. Aarti Joshi is the sole proprietor

and remaining amount of Rs.410109.00 (Rupees four

lacs ten thousand one hundred nine only) to the

current account of M/s Nirman Forex Pvt. Ltd., with

the ulterior motive to unduly accommodate your said

family concerns and in a fraudulent manner.

(4)

That subsequently, on 23.1.2004 you prepared debit/

credit vouchers for purchase of FDNs favouring

aggregating Rs.481909.00 on behalf of M/s Nirman

Forex Pvt. Ltd. as per details given in Annexure C

and got the same passed from the authorized officers

of the branch for credit of Rs.443114.00 to FDNs

account in order to adjust the aforesaid fake

outstanding entries raised on various dates as per

Annexure B and the remaining proceeds of

Rs.38795.00 credited into Current Account

No.015006033 titled ‘Post and Telegram’ instead of

crediting the entire proceeds to the beneficiary’s

account.

(5)

That whereas you were not authorized to purchase

any instrument in FDN, yet in violation of the Bank’s

instructions, you purchased foreign currency

instruments as per details given below and passed

the relevant vouchers yourself in an unauthorized

manner.

Date of purchase

Amount in

Value in IRS.

foreign Currency

20.5.2003

US$ 500

23,175.00

23.5.2003

US$ 1000

46,000.00

9.7.2003

US$ 180

8,375.00

(6)

That while looking after the despatch seat, you

detained the Foreign currency instruments

purchased in FDNs from M/s Nirman Forex Pvt. Ltd.,

and did not ensure their immediate despatch to the

authorized branch for realization as per extant

instructions of the Bank, thereby causing loss of

interest on the said purchase of FDNs to the bank to

the tune of Rs.863274/- which has been detailed in

Annexure ‘D’.

(7)

That on 21.7.2004 when you were on leave, foreign

currency instruments aggregating Rs.6863137.00

already purchased in FDN on different dates as per

details given in Annexure E have been found by

branch Manager lying in the unlocked drawer of

your office table which were not dispatched to the

concerned authorized branch for their realization.

You did not discharge your duties with devotion

and diligence and hence jeopardized bank’s interest.

6066

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The workman submitted reply (Annexure M2).

Finding the same not satisfactory, an inquiry was order

and Sh. D.D. Aggarwal was appointed as Inquiry officer.

The workman denied the charges and the case was

adjourned to 13.5.2005 for production of documents by

the bank. On that day the documents were produced and

the copies were given to the workman. The perusal of the

inquiry report shows that the bank filed several documents

besides examining three witnesses. The workman also

filed documents and examined two witnesses. After

considering the evidence, the Inquiry officer submitted a

detailed report dated 14.7.2005 holding that charges are

proved against him. Since the workman was attending the

inquiry proceedings and even led evidence, it cannot be

said that he was not given an opportunity to defend his

case. The copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to him

and he submitted a reply and it cannot be said that the

charge-sheet was illegal in any way.

After considering the inquiry report, a show cause

notice was served on the workman along with copy of the

report to which the workman filed reply (Annexure M6).

After going through the entire evidence and facts of the

case, the punishing authority passed the impugned order

dated 17.11.2005 (Annexure M7).

Thus there is no illegality in the inquiry and imposing

the penalty on the workman and it is also held that the

inquiry conducted in the case is fair and proper.

The bank officers are supposed to discharge their

duties with utmost honesty and integrity and to protect

the public money but the workman did not act with due

diligence and rather wrongly prepared the record as find

mentioned in the charge-sheet and as reproduced above

which tantamount to gross misconduct on his part.

Considering the misconduct on the part of the workman,

no ground is made out to interfere in the penalty imposed

by the disciplinary authority which cannot be said to be

excessive. The reference is accordingly answered against

the workman and he is not entitled to any relief. Let hard

and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2404-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ chih,e

fMikVZesaV@LVsV cSad vkWiQ bafM;k izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 8@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

26@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@15@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2014

S.O.

2404.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 8/2014) of

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

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BPM

Department/State Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 26/08/2014

[No. L-12012/15/2014-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No. 8/2014

Registered on 3.5.2014

Sh. Aakash Dhawan,

S/o Sh. Pradeep Dhawan,

R/o H. No. 1193, First Floor,

Sector 15-B, Chandigarh.

.....Petitioner

Versus

The Assistant General Manager,

M/s BPM Department,

Local Head Office,

Sector 17A, Chandigarh

.....Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

: Sh. Ravi Khanna Adv.

For the Management

: Sh. S.K. Gupta Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 10.7.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/

15/2014-IR(B-I) Dated 23.4.2014, by exercising its powers

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

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

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

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India in terminating the services of

Sh. Aakash Dhawan S/o Sh. Pradeep Dhawan w.e.f.

27.7.2013 is valid, just and legal? If not, to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from

which date?”

In response to the notice, the workman appeared

with Sh. Ravi Khanna, Advocate. He did not file statement

of claim and rather made statement for not pressing the

reference which has been recorded separately.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6067

Since the workman himself did not press the present

reference, and therefore, it cannot be said that the action

of the management in terminating his services is illegal

and he is not entitled for any relief. The reference is

accordingly answered against the workman.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2405-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

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

vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 04@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@89@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2014

S.O.

2405.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 04/2011) of

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

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Western Railway and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

26/08/2014.

[No. L-41011/89/2009-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 21st May,2014

Reference adjudication order No. L-41011/89/2009-IR(B-I)

Reference : (CGITA) No-4/2011

The General Manager,

Western Railway,

Churchgate,

MUMBAI

The Divisional Manager,

Western Railway,

Near Chamunda Bridge, Asarwa,

AHMEDABAD(GUJARAT)

The Dy. Chief Electric Engineer (construction)

Western Railway,

Near Reservation office,

Kalupur,

AHMEDABAD (GUJARAT)

......First Parties

And

The General Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

28/B, Narayan Park, Behind Railway Station,

Chandkheda,

AHMEDABAD (GUJARAT)

.....Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri Vinod K. Bhatt, Advocate

For the Second Party

: Shri Raghuvir Singh Sisodia,

President, (P.R.K.P)

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. L-41011/89/2009/IR(B-I) dated

01.02.2011, referred the dispute for adjudication to this

Tribunal in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Western

Railway in not giving the compassionate

appointment to Shri Niramal Ganpat Tomar S/o Late

Ganpat Babusingh Tomar and in not giving legal

dues to the widow Smt. Kamala Devi of the deceased

employee, is legal and justified? If not, what relief

the workman is entitled to?”

The case of the 2nd party (Union) as per statement

of claim (Ext.7) is that late Ganpat B. Tomar was working

in group D under electrical foreman and he was initially

appointed in Ahmedabad on 28.07.1980. He was lastly

working at Bhuj Railway station on 02.01.1984. on that

day he was working on the electric pole and due to

receiving short circuit current he expired on that date

02.01.1984. under the provision of workman’s

compensation Act,1923, the widow of deceased Ganpat

Babubhai Tomar was granted compensation by Bhuj

labour court and the 1st party employer (W.Rly) paid

compensation of Rs. 21,000/- to widow. Thereafter the 1st

party has not paid any other legal dues admissible under

service rules. According to Railway Rules, a workman

who has completed one year service and during course

of employment., if he meet with accident and expires, his

widow is entitled for pensionary benefits. The deceased

workman had completed about 4 years continuous service.

Without considering this aspect the 1st party employer

did not grant family pension or any other benefits.

Because of demise of Ganpat and also due to illiteracy,

his widow was not in a position to submit application

seeking for compassionate appointment. At the time of

death of Ganpat, his son Nirmal Ganpat Tomar was minor

and the widow of Ganpat and mother of minor Niramal

6068

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

could not submit an application for compassionate

appointment of son. When Niramal attained the age of 18,

he submitted application in the office of the 1st party

employer on 04.02.2001 which was received in the office.

As per Rule and regulation of Railway circular dated

07.01.1997 there is provision for compassionate

appointment with provision for relaxation of time limit

and the son/daughter of Deceased Rly employee can

submit applicaton within two years of attaining age of

majority. The 1st party has not given reason nor rejected

the applicaton of Nirmal Son of deacesed employee. More

so, the widow of deceased workman is also entitled for

pensionary benefits but it was also not provided. There is

no delay in raising dispute by the 2nd party union. The

1st party have violated the rule and G.S.O. dated

07.01.1997. On these grounds, prayer is made for directing

the 1st party to give compassionate appointment to the

son of deceased workman Ganpat and also for grant of

family pension to widow of deceased workman and also

for any other relief to which the son and widow of

deceased workman are found entitled.

As against this the case of the 1st party inter alia as

per written statement (Ext.16) is that the dispute raised

through the Union (P.R.K.P.) under this reference is not

maintainable since the persons claiming the relief are not

made party applicant. Objection has been taken the D.R.M.

Ahmedabad is not necessary party since deceased

workman was not working under D.R.M. Ahmedabad when

he died. Further case is that as per record of deceased, his

surname is ‘Sharma’ and not ‘Tomar’. More so, deceased

Ganpat was working on temporary basis with temporary

status and was not regularly employed by the Railway

administration. Death of deceased workman Ganpat on

02.01.1984 has been admitted. But it has been contended

that application for compassionate appointment has been

filed on 02.04.2001 which is time barred and not tenable.

More so, seeking for compassionate appointment is not a

matter of right. Neither he widow nor the son of Ganpat

(Deceased workman) has made any application or

communication to the 1st parties. The alleged application

of widow of deceased made in the year 2001 is addressed

to Dy. C.E.E. (C) Ahmedabad, whereas there was no such

post at Ahmedabad and so no such communication is

received by the 1st party. Dispute by Niramal Singh Tomar,

son of deceased and Kamala Devi, widow of deceased

have not been separately raised for entitlement rather the

dispute has been raised through Union. Para 1,2,3,4, of

the statement of claim are not correct and so have been

denied. It has been denied that widow of Ganpat was not

in a position due to illiteracy that she could not make

application soon after death of her husband either for the

compassionate appointment or for family pension. The

averment of Para 5 to 7 of S/c are not correct. There is no

right for getting compassionate appointment and there is

no provision to condone such long delay of 18 years in

making application for compassionate appointment.

Railway service pension Rules 1993 is not applicable in

this case and so widow of deceased Ganpat is not

entitled for family pension. The reference is barred by

delay and latches since the dispute has been raised at

much belated stage. Para-8 of S/c has also been denied.

On these scores, prayer is to dismiss the reference.

In view of the pleadings of the parties the following

issues are taken for determination:

ISSUE

(i)

Is the reference maintainable?

(ii)

Whether the 2nd party (Union) has valid cause of

action to raise dispute seeking for reliefs for the son

and widow of the deceased workman?

(iii)

Whether the action of the management of western

Railway (1st party) in not giving the compassionate

appointment to Mr. Nirmal Ganpat Tomar, son of

late Ganpat Babusingh Tomar is legal and justified?

(iv)

Whether the action of the management of Western

Railway (the 1st parties) in not giving legal dues

and family pension to Smt. Kamaldevi , widow of

late Ganpat Babusingh Tomar is legal and justified?

(v)

To what relief the 2nd party is entitled?

FINDINGS

ISSUE No.:- (iii):- some admitted facts in this case

are as follows. Deceased Ganpat Babusingh Tomar was

a group (iv) (D) railway employee and he joined the

service on 28.07.1980. He was working in Rly. Electricity

wing at Bhuj Railway station on 02.01.1984. In course of

duty in the employment of Railway (the 1st party) he met

with accidental death due to severe electric shock and

died. Further admitted position is this that Smt. Kamala

Devi is the widow of deceased workman Late Ganpat

Babusingh Tomar. This is also not disputed that Nirmal

Ganpat Tomar is the son of deceased workman and Smt.

Nirmala Devi is her mother. Admitted position is that

deceased workman had already been given temporary

status by the 1st party and he served the 1st party

employer for 3 years 4 months & 5 days.

The bone of contention in this case between the

parties is that according to 2nd party the widow and son

of deceased workman have submitted application for

appointment on compassionate ground on 02.04.2001 in

the office of the 1st party at Ahmedabad which was

received by clerk with endorsement. The case of the 2nd

party is that as per Railway rules application for

compassionate appointment was submitted within two

years of attaining age of 18 years by Niramal since at the

time of death of his father he was very minor. On the other

the plea of the 1st party is that no such application dated

02.04.2001 was received by any Railway staff with

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6069

endorsement of forwarding and that on 02.04.2001 there

was no post of Dy. CEC(C) at Ahmedabad and so the so

called application dated 02.04.2001 was wrongly

addressed to Dy. CEC (C) Ahmedabad.

The second bone of contention in this case between

the parties is that according to the 2nd party as per Railway

service pensionary Rules, 1993, Rules-3 before the

completion of one year of continuous service provided

the deceased railway servant is concerned immediately

prior to his appointment to the service or post was

examined by the appropriate medical authority and declare

fit by the Authority for Railway Service , family pension

and legal dues has to be granted to widow whereas the

pea of the 1st party is that the deceased was casual

worker with temporary status and so as per rule his widow

is not entitled for family pension or any legal dues.

Two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the

2nd party by filing affidavit in lieu of examination in chief.

Ext.10 is affidavit of Kamala Devi widow of late

Ganpatsingh Babusingh Tomar. Vide para 2 she states

that his son Nirmal Ganpat has submitted application for

his compassionate appointment in place of deceased

husband and vide Para 3 she states she has no objection

if her son is given compassionate appointment. She was

cross examined by the 1st party lawyer at length. She states

vide par 5 that only son born to her from her late husband

and she has no daughter . Vide para8 this case has been

filed for purpose of getting compassionate appointment

to her son. Vide para-9 she was no living at the working

place (Bhuj) of her late husband, rather she lived at

Ahmedabad, she states that application for compassionate

appointment was filed mentioned her husband’s surname

“Tomar” and not “Sharma”. Vide Para 10 her son Nirmal is

unemployed. Vide para-10 she is illiterate and used to put

thumb impression on paper. She in her evidence has put

thumb impression. Vide para 11 she has no personal

knowledge whether application was submitted in the Rly

dept. at Bhuj or where. It is admitted position that cause

has been taken by the Union(P.R.K.P.) by making demand

and not by the aggrieved person-Nirmal or Kamaladevi

(Son and Widow of deceased ) in individual capacity

second witness of the 2nd party is retired Railway

employee Mr. Mahendra kumar Omprakash Vashist who

was senior clerk in the establishment of the1st party. He

in his affidavit (Ext.25) says he was working as senior

clerk in the office of senior section Engineer (Electrical

Construction) Ahmedabad from 21.02.2000 and vide para-

2 he had received application submitted by widow of

Ganpatsingh Babusingh on 02.04.2001 and as part of duty

he forwarded the application to Divisional Electrical

Engineer (construction) Ahmedabad for further necessary

action. He retired from services in the year 2011 as per

para-1 (last line) Ext.25/1 is Xerox copy of Resumption

report of this witness M.O. Vashishtha to DEE (C) A.D.I.

dated 21.02.2000 in proof that he was working as senior

clerk from 21.02.2000 at the office of senior section Engineer

(Electrical Ahmedabad. Ext. M-25/2 is Xerox copy of

D.E.E.(C) ‘s office Ahmedabad-2 memorandum dated

22.02.2000 that Shri M.O. Vashishtha joined in this office

on 21.02.2000 (BN) and posted under SSE (E) S&C /ADI

with notes the employee will be sent back to his parent

division when project works completed. The 1st party

has not disputed and has no reason to make dispute that

Shri M.O. Vashishtha was not posted as Sr. Clerk in the

office of Sr. section Engineer Ahmedabad on 02.04.2001.

Vide para-5 in cross examination he says he had forwarded

the application since on that day 02.04.2001 saheb [S.S.E.

(E) ] A.D.I. was not in the office. Vide para-8 office of Dy.

Electrical Engineer is situated at Saraspur. He deposed

that application received by him on 02.04.2001 was handed

over to office superintended at Kalupur. In his office,

there was no facility of making inward/outward of any

papers and that he has not make inward entry of the

application dated 02.04.2011. He identified the copy of

that application (Ext.9/2) was submitted on that day by

son of deceased workman who had come with his mother

for submitting application and that he had forwarded the

application to Junior Electrical Engineer with enclosure.

He identified his signature on forwarding endorsement of

Ext. 9/2. He denied to have given false evidence. Nothing

could have been gained by the 1st party to discredit the

testimony of the 2nd party witness M.O. Vashishtha

(Ext.25).

The 2nd party has submitted nine documents as

per list Ext.9 which are M 9/1 to 9/9. The papers at Ext. 9/1

are regarding payment of compensation of Rs. 21,000/- to

deceased’s widow by way of two F.D. of Rs. 10,000/-

each and cheque of Rs. 1000/- for expenses as per order

of workman compensation commissioner, Bhuj by the Rly.

Dept. that go to prove relation of Nirmal and Kamaladevi

as son and widow of deceased Ganpatsingh Babusingh

Tomar. Ext.9/2 is Xerox copy of application of Nirmalsingh

Ganpatsingh dated 02.04.2001 addressed to Dy. Chief

Electrical Engineer (construction) W.Rly Ahmedabad on

the subject of for giving compassionate appointment. At

the foot of application there is forwarding endorsement-

”forwarded to D.E.E. (C) Ahmedabad for next necessary

action please” containing signature of M.O. Vashishtha

Sr. clerk dated 02.04.2001 that go to support the evidence

of M.O. Vashishtha (Ext.25). Ext.9/3 is Xerox copy of

application of Kamaladevi addressed to Dy. C.E.E.

(construct) Ahmedabad dated 02.04.2001. On the subject

compassionate appointment praying there in for giving

service to her son on compassionate ground since her

husband died in course of duty and at the time of death

her son was only one year old and that she had also

given application at that time that on attaining age of 18

years her son be given appointment. Ext.9/3 is copy of

letter dated 15.03.1984 of the 1st party(financial Advisor)

and chief accounts officer (S&C) W.Rly Ahmedabad

6070

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

addressed to the commissioner of workman’s

compensation & Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Bhuj (Kutch)

regarding payment of death compensation to late

Ganpatsingh Babusingh Khalasi under electrical charge

man (construction) Bhuj forwarding with affidavit (Ext.9/

4 of Smt. Kamaladevi Widow of Ganpatsingh Tomar with

enclosure of Xerox of service record of deceased sowing

his name Ganpat Singh Kshatry S/o Babusingh Kshatriya.

At that time the 1st party (W.Rly) had not made objection

of having surname ‘Kshatry’ or surname which has been

taken now in w.s (Ext.16). Ext. 9/5 is Xerox copy of order of

Head quarter churchgate, Mumbai dated 07.1.1997 on the

subject-appointment on compassionate grounds-

relaxation of time limit which clearly says that the

application for appoint is submitted within 2 years of

attaining the age of majority by the candidate. Para-3 of

letter clearly indicate that request for compassionate

ground appointment received within 20 years from the

date of death of employee….. the same should be decided

at the G.M.’s level and should not be referred to the Railway

Board. Ext.M-9/8 is copy of reminder letter of Kamala

Devi widow of Ganpatsingh Tomar addressed to D.R.M.

Ahmedabad dated 11.12.2004 with reference to earlier

letter dated 02.04.2001 requesting for giving

compassionate appointment to her son Nirmal Singh

Ganpatsingh Tomar whose birth date is 30.12.1983 also

narrating the fact that after death of her husband on

02.01.1984 she had gone to sasural at Village Ladra post,

sarsed, Dist. Chhatarpur(M.P) along with infant child.

The 2nd party filed three documents with list Ext.31 on

28.11.2013. Ext.31/1 is Xerox copy of post-mortem report

showing name of deceased employee Ganpatsingh S/o

Babusingh. Ext.31/2 is Xerox copy of accident report by

the 1st party Western Railway in printed form under

workman’s compensation Act,1923 in which the 1st party

has mentioned name of deceased employee Ganpat Singh

S/o Babusingh. There is nowhere mention as to surname

‘Sharma’ as incorporated in W.s (Ext.16) and also coming

in evidence of 1st party witness Rajesh Vadilal Shah

(Ext.19) vide para 6 saying deceased Ganpat reflects as

“Sharma”and not as “Tomar” on the basis of Ext. 21/1

copy of memorandum dated May,1981 of the office of

DEE (Construction) Ahmedabad-2. This is not service

record of the deceased Ganpat rather in office

memorandum in which at Sl. No. 6 name Shri Ganpat b.

Sharma date of appointment on 27.09.1980 and date of

completion of 6 months continuous service 26.03.1981,

date of eligibility of scale 27.03.1981 etc. has been

indicated. On the other hand form perusal of Xerox copy

of service record filed by the 2nd party in the Annexure of

9/4 shows name Ganpatsingh Chhatri S/o Babusingh

Chhatri and date of appointment 22.09.1980 and the I.

Card issued to deceased also show Ganpat Singh Tomar

(Chhatri) S/o Babusingh Tomar (Chhatri) and not surname

‘Sharma’. The 1st party witness did not submit the original

service record/personal filed deceased Ganpat purposely.

Only for highlighting the typical error of surname ‘Sharma’

instead of Tomar/Chhatri. More so, the second document

of the 1st party Ext.21/2 go to show Ganpatsingh

Babusingh Khalasi 5/61 with endorsement transfer from

SBE(C) ADI’s (D. of Appt.27.09.1980 date of grant of T.S.

27.03.1981. So apparently at Ext.21/1 there is typing mistake

in typing surname ‘Sharma’ which has been rectified

vide Ext.21/2. So the own documents of the 1st party go

to falsify the contention that in the service record surname

is ‘Sharma’ and not Tomar/Chhatri. In view of the matter

the evidence of the 1st party witness (Ext.19) denying the

claim of the 2nd party does not inspire confidence. Ext.31/3

is Xerox copy of secondary school examination certificate

showing date of birth of Nirmalsingh Tomar, mother’s name

Kamala, father’s name Ganpatsingh to be 30.12.1983. He

passed supplementary 10th exam,2000 from Govt. Model

Hr. Sec. School, Nowganj, Chhetarpur(M.P).

10.

On behalf of the 1st party Shri V.K. Bhatta, Learned

Lawyer has relied upon case law reported in A.I.R. 2012

S.C. 2294-claim for compassionate appointment has to be

considered in accordance with rules, regulations taking

into consideration financial condition of family of

deceased. In the given case law, it was held compassionate

appointment can be refused to the claimant if his family

gets terminal benefits exceeding Rs. 3 lakh. This case law

does not appear to be applicable in the instant case because

due to death of the workman Ganpat in course of

employment of the 1st party he me accidental death due

to electric shock while working on electric pole of rly

construction department at Bhuj Railway station and a

meagre amount of Rs. 21,000/- was allowed to widow

Kamala from Bhuj court and the 1st party only paid it and

no other legal dues were paid to widow and at the time of

death claimant Nirmal S/o deceased Ganpat was very minor

and on attaining age of 18 he and his mother Kamala

submitted application on 02.04.2001 for giving

compassionate appointment and that application had

been filed within two years of attaining the age of 18

(majority) by Niramal which was forwarded for

consideration by receiving Sr. clerk but thereafter due to

own fault of railway officials the application with attached

annexure were not sent to the G.M./1st party No.1 for

consideration and the matter remained in abeyance due to

own mistake of the 1st parties. It has also to be taken into

account that deceased’s widow Kamala was having an

infant (Nirmal) in her lap so she cannot be free to have

compassionate appointment for herself rather she went

to her native place Sasural with infant for nourishing

anyhow and the amount of compensation under W.C.

Act, 1923 and monthly remittance of some money from

the fixed deposit was not sufficient towards up keeping

of widow and infant in absence of legal dues like

deceased’s P.F. money, gratuity and non-grant of family

pension etc. More so, even the reminder application of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6071

widow Kamala with reference to early application dated

02.04.2001 (vide Ext. M 9/8) no heed was paid by the 1st

party as to consideration of compassionate appointment

of Nirmal Singh Tomar in class IV according to his

qualification or even as casual labourer.

11.

So as per discussion and consideration in the

foregoing paras of the entire evidence oral and

documentary of the parties, I am of the considered view

and therefore find and hold that the action of the

management of Western Railway (1st party) in not giving

the compassionate appointment to Shri Niramal Ganpat

Tomar, Son of late Ganpat Babusingh Tomar is illegal and

unjustified. This issue is answered in negative and decided

against the 1st party.

12.

ISSUE NO. (iv) :- As per Family pension Scheme for

Railway Servants, 1964 (Ext.9/6) (a) After completion of

one year of continuous service…. The family of the

deceased shall be entitled to a family pension 1964 as per

rate of family pension indicated in the table. It is admitted

position that deceased Ganpat Babusingh Tomar (Chhatri)

had completed 3 years 4 months and 5 days of continuous

service and has been granted T.S. and had been given

regular scale of class iv. So it was boundent duty of the

1st party from instructing welfare Inspector to make

contact and to collect relevant papers with application

of widow Kamala for allowing her family pension since

after death of workman Ganpat Babusingh Tomar in course

of duty at Bhuj Rly. station. It was also duty of the 1st

party to clear all the legal dues to the family of deceased

but those were denied payment of amount of Rs. 21,000/-

under W.C. Act, 1923 cannot be said to be payment of

legal dues. The 2nd party has relied upon a case law of

Prabhavti Devi vs. Union of India and others (1996 (1)

Supreme 14 where in it has been held-where deceased had

acquired a temporary status and on his demise, his widow

and children would acquire the right to claim family pension

under sub rule 3(b) of Rule 23/1 of Rules applicable to

Railway Establishments. More so, as per Railway services

(pension) Rules, 1983 Rule 18(3) .In the event of death in

harness of a temporary railway servant his family shall be

eligible to family pension and death gratuity on the same

scale as admissible to families to permanent railway

servants under these rules. The accidental death of Ganpat

in course of employment of the 1st party due to electric

shock received by him on electric pole, resulting in his

death can be said to be death in harness. In the case law of

S.K. Mastan Be vs. G.M. South Central Railway and another

(2003 Supreme Court cases (L&S) 93 it has been held –

where a gang man under railway died while in service

and his widow was illiterate and unaware of her right to

family pension and the remedy to enforce that right held

it was obligatory for Railway to compute the payable

family pension and offer the same to the widow even

without the making of a claim or initiation of litigation on

her part. In the instant case when the Railway

Administration failed to take initiative then the Union

swung into action for redressal by raising dispute for the

cause of widow not getting legal dues including family

pension and son of deceased not getting compassionate

appointment since after attaining the age of majority.

13.

As per discussion and consideration made above, I

am also of the considered view and therefore find and

hold that the action of the management of Western Railway

(the 1st parties) in not giving legal dues and family pension

to Smt. Kamala Devi, widow of late Ganpat Babusingh

Tomar is illegal and unjustified. This issue is also answered

in negative and is decided against the management of the

1st parties.

14.

ISSUE NO.(i) & (ii) :- As per findings to issue No.

(iii) & (iv) in the foregoing paragraphs, I further find and

hold that the reference is maintainable and the 2nd party

(union PRKP) has valid cause of action to raise dispute

seeking for reliefs for the son and widow of the deceased

workman.

15.

ISSUE NO. (v) :- As per findings above, the

claimants Niramal Ganpat Tomar- son of deceased Ganpat

Babusingh Tomar is entitled for compassionate

appointment in this case. The widow Kamala Devi is also

entitled to get legal dues including family pension since

after death of her husband workman on 02.01.1984. This

issue is answered in affirmative and decided in favour of

the 2nd party.

The reference is accordingly allowed. However, no

order of cost.

The management of the 1st parties are directed to

give compassionate appointment to Nirmal Ganpat Tomar

and to provide family pension to Smt. Kamala Devi, the

son and widow of deceased workman Ganpat Babusingh

Tomar, within two months of receipt of copy of award. The

arrear amount of family pension to Kamala Devi will carry

interest @ 9% P.A.

This is my award

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2406-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk

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

vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 07@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@07@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

6072

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2014

S.O.

2406.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 07/2012) of

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

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Western Railway and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

26/08/2014.

[No. L-41011/07/2011-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 21st July, 2014

Reference (CGITA) No. 07/2012

Adjudication order No. L-41011/07/2011-IR(B-I)

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Near Chamunda Bridge,

Asarwa,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

..... (1st party)

And

Their workman

Through the President,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

28/3, Narayan Park,

Behind Chandkheda Railway Station,

Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

.....(2nd party)

For the First Party

: Shri Navin S. Vaghela, Advocate

For the Second Party

: Shri Raghuvir Singh Sisodia,

President (P.R.K.P.)

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi after reconsidering the matter in S.C.A. No. 13548/

2011 that an Industrial dispute exist between the

employers in relation to the management of Western

Railway and their workman then 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,

by order No. L-41011/07/2011 (IR(B-I)), New Delhi dated

27.12.2011, referred the dispute for adjudication to this

Industrial Tribunal, (C.G.I.T.-cum- Labour Court,

Ahmedabad) for adjudication in relation to the matters

specified in the Schedule:-

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the president Paschim

Railway Karmachari Parishad, Ahmedabad for

changing the cadre of licenced Porter to Gangman

by the management of Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Ahmedabad is justified? To what

relief the Union/workman is entitled?”

The case of the 2nd party Union as per statement of

claim (Ext.3) is that Union raised a charter of demand

against the employer (1st party) seeking relief that the

ten number of workman involved in this case are entitled

to go back to their original cadre of Gangman where their

lien exist, which was not considered. The grievances of

Union was that the workman involved in this present

dispute were initially appointed as Gangman. The Railway

Board issued an Office order/circular informing that if any

Gangman wants to become coolie, he can do so.

Accordingly the workman involved in this case shown

their willingness to become coolie. Thereafter, the workman

continuously worked for a period of one year as coolie

but on account of facing difficulties in working as coolie,

they decided to come back to their original cadre of

Gangman. The involved ten workman submitted

applications to the management of the 1st party showing

their desire to revert back to their original cadre of

Gangman, but no response made by the 1st party employer.

As per service Rues of Railway, if any workman changes

his cadre then upto period of two years he can come back

to his original cadre and his lien exist for two years in the

original cadre. The lien of two years in the original cadre

of the ten involved workman has not expired and same

exist and so they have right to come back to their original

cadre. Since the claim of the 2nd party workman was not

considered by the 1st party employer, so the dispute was

raised by the 2nd party. Several numbers of posts of

Gangman are vacant and the claim of the 2nd party

workman is required to be considered in the interest of

W.Rly Dept. On these grounds, prayer is made to allow

the reference and to direct the 1st party to consider the

request of the 2nd party workman for coming back to the

cadre of Gangman and to grant the difference of wages

arising out of change of cadre.

The case of the 1st party (W. Rly) as per written

statement (Ext. 8) pleading inter alia is that contents of

para 1 and 2 of statement of claim are factual in nature and

needs no reply. The contents of para-3 of S/c is denied

and not admitted because licenced porters were absorbed

as Gangman on the one time measures according to Railway

Board Policy vide No. E (NG) II/2008/RR-3/1dated

01.04.2008. The 2nd party workman had shown their

willingness to become porters/coolie accordingly they

were reverted back to their feeder cadre of coolie/licence

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6073

porter from Gangman in pursuant to the policy issued by

Railway Board vide No. E (NG) 11/2008/RR-3/1 dated

25.09.2013. As soon as they (workman involved) given

consent and resigned from the service of Gangman they

are ceased to be Railway servant and no rules and policy

is applicable to them which is framed for railway servants.

The policy of lien is also not applicable to the license

porters because they are not railway servants as defined

in Railway Act. para 4 of S/c is denied and not admitted

because all the vacancies in the railway whether it is

group ‘D’ fill up according to the extent rules, policy laid

down by the Railways. The appointment of licenced porters

to the post of Gangman has been given as a onetime

measure as per policy. On these scores, prayer is to reject

the reference since the 2nd party/Union/workman is not

entitled to get relief as claimed.

In view of the pleadings of parties the following

issues are taken for determination.

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference maintainable?

(ii)

Whether the 2nd party has cause of action to raise

dispute against the employer (W. Rly.)?

(iii)

Whether the demand of the President Paschim

Railway Karmachari Parishad, Ahmedabad for

changing the cadre of licenced porter to Gangman

by the management of Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, and Ahmedabad is justified?

(iv)

What relief the union/workman is entitled? What

directions are to be issued?

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. (iii) :- The 2nd party (Union) submitted

three documents with a list (Ext.5). Ext. 5/1 copy of charter

of demand raised by P.R.K.P. Vide letter dated 25-5.2010

addressed to the General Manager, Western Railway,

Churchgate, Mumbai-20 and the D.R.M. Western Railway,

Ahmedabad and its copy also forwarded to A.L.C. (Central)

Ahmedabad, R.L.C. (Central), Ahmedabad and Chief

Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi. The demand

raised was as to taking back ten workmen as Gangman

which have been reverted back to coolie and reason is

given that these workmen due to not being aware of the

rules came back to coolie from the post of Gangman where

they worked for about two years. The names of ten

involved workman is as follow, (1) Ramsingh Khilari

Ramjogi, (2) Amarsingh Babulal Gogi, (3) Ramsingh B, (4)

Radhesham Ramswarup, (5) Kaamal Chhotalal, (6)

Imrankhan Abdul Rashid, (7) Mhd. Farookh BadarAli, (8)

Hamid Allanoor, (9) Babloo Rameshwar Jogi, and (10) Amar

Singh Harfool. These workmen individually submitted

applications to the D.R.M. Ahmedabad on the subject of

recall of their resignation from the post of Gangman since

they had no knowledge of railway rules and they could

not have got correct advise at the time of tendering

resignation and they are willing to go back to work as

Gangman for which there are lot of vacant posts of

Gangman. Ext. 5/2 is copy of application of Mohd. Farookh

Badar Ali, one of the involved workmen out of ten. Ext. 5/3

is copy of circular dated 10.09.1999/12.10.1999 of Western

Railway Head Quarter Office, Churchgate Mumbai. Under

the existing rules 2 (1) para 6 of master circular No. 30 has

been substitute- “6 retention of lien of Railway servants

who get selected for post in other Central Government

Departments and termination of lien and severing

connection…..”This is not disputed that the above ten

involved workmen who were earlier working as coolie had

applied for the post of Gangman and they had been

selected and were appointed as Gangman and they worked

in the gang for about two years. This is also admitted

position that much before expiry of lien period of two

years as Gangman those ten involved workmen and others

who were reverted back to coolie/porter with their

respective badges gave second thought after being aware

of rules and applied for recall of their resignation from

the post of Gangman and to send them back to the post of

Gangman. Such applications were submitted by the

workman much within two years of expiry of lien where

they can come back to their original cadre of Gangman as

per substituted circular para-6 narrated above.

The stand of the 1st party (Management of W.R.

D.R.M., Ahmedabad) is that appointment of licensed

porters to the post of Gangman has been given as a onetime

measure as per Railway Board’s Letter No. (NG) 11-2008/

RR-3/1 dated 01.04.2008 marked Ext. 8/1 /R/ 1 and mark R/2

attached with w.s is now Ext. 8/2. This is Head quarter

office, Churchgate, Mumbai letter dated 07.10.2009

circulated to all concerned on the sub appointment of

licenced porters to the post of Gangman. This was

reproduction of Railway Board’s letter No…… dated

25.09.2009 for information and taking action. The salient

features of this letter is …….”Subsequently,

representations have been received from various quarters,

forwarding the requests of some licenced porters, who

have been screened but have not yet joined the post, for

return of their badges/licences as they are reluctant to

work as Gangman……. Who now want to revert back as

licenced porters at the same where there were working

before subject to the condition that there is need for

licenced porters at the same station….. In the case of

licenced porters who have joined the post of Gangman,

they are required to resign from Railway service, subject

to usual terms and conditions, before they are allowed to

revert back as licenced porters. As per letter it was a

onetime measure for licenced porters for allowing them to

revert back as licenced porter.

One of the involved workman namely Hamid

Allaanoor representing other 9 involved workman in his

affidavit examination in chief (Ext.9). He state at para-11

6074

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

during cross examination that he and other 9 persons were

appointed as Gangman in May 2008 and June 2008 and

they had worked as Gangman for 19-20 months. Vide para-

2 he states while working as Gangman, the railway

administration had no grievance against them. Vide para-

3 he deposed that due to having not aware of rules the

railway administration reverted them back to licenced

porter/coolie and within one month of reverting back to

coolie they again filed application requesting for sending

to original cadre of Gangman. Vide para 4 he also states

that he/they requested to railway administration to treat

the period of reverting back to coolie as leave and to allow

him/them to work as Gangman, Vide para-5 states he/they

since served as Railway servants in the capacity of

Gangman so his/their lien will remain there for two year for

reverting back to the post of Gangman. During cross

examination on behalf of the 1st party he stated vide para-

16 that they (involved workman) and others had submitted

applications for again reverting them some of the person

who were reverted to coolie from Gangman have again

been sent to the cadre of Gangman on submitting

application but they were denied that opportunity. He

volunteers that those are working presently in the side of

Palanpur as Gangman. He showed ignorance that railway

used to recruit as Gangman on fresh application.

Now coming to examine whether there are material

to show that any person who was appointed as Gangman

from licenced porter as one time measure even on

submitting resignation to be reverted to licenced porter,

have been retained again as Gangman on submitting

application praying therein to recall resignation and to

send back to original cadre of Gangman. The witness of

the 1st party namely Shri Omprakash Upadhyay serving

in the office of D.R.M. W.R.Ahmedabad during cross

examination on his affidavit (Ext.11) vide para-8 those

Gangman who had submitted application to be reverted

back to coolie, they again had submitted applications

that they be sent back to the post of Gangman and that a

departmental noting was moved and he serving as Asst.

Personal Officer (Eng.) had assented in the noting for

sending them/repatriating them as Gangman. However

denied that some person who reverted back to coolie have

been taken again as Gangman. On behalf of the 1st party

the application of one Nemisingh dated 23.11.2009

addressed to D.R.M. Ahmedabad has also been submitted

marked Ext.12/1 which is for recall of his resignation from

the post of Gangman and there is noting endorsement on

top of his application (Nemisingh willing not to resign).

On behalf of the 2nd party three documents with list Ext.12

has been submitted and mark Ext. 12/1, 12/2 and 12/3. Ext.

12/1 is copy of letter dated 11.11.2009 of Western Railway

Divisional Office, Ahmedabad on the subject of returning

of Badges to the Gangman posted from licensed porters.

Through this letter resignation of 22 Gangman were

accepted who were earlier appointed from licence porters

were allowed to revert back as licence porter and for return

of the Badges of coolie. The name of Nemisingh S/o

Surajsingh is at Sl. No. 5 having Badges No. 1588/117.

Ext. 12/2 is identity card No. 393463 of Nemisingh working

as gangman. Ext. 12/3 is salary slip No. 00021 month of

September 2013 of Nemisingh S/o Surajsingh showing

him still working as Gangman and getting salary per

months. Ext. 14/1 is money receipt in the name of Nemisingh

S/o Surajsingh for renewal of his coolie licence fee of

Rs. 60 dated 13.02.2007, speak a volume to show that

this Nemisingh S/o Surajsingh had also resigned from

Gangman as per order of divisional office, Ahmedabad

dated 11.11.2009 and return of Badges No. 1588/117 and

he renewed his Badge of licence porter video Ext.14/1.

The attention of the 1st party witness (Ext.11) was drawn

at para 8 by showing Ext. 12/1 to which he stated that this

letter was issued with his signature in which at Sl. No. 5

name of Nemisingh is mentioned who was reverted back

to coolie from Gangman. He admits to Ext. 12/2 as to identity

card of Nemisingh as Gangman. He also admitted Ext.12/3

which is pay/salary slip of Nemisingh who is working as

Gangman at Mehsana. He admitted that workman involved

in this case was not taken back in the cadre of Gangman.

From Ext.12/1 it appears that involved workman Mohd

Farookh at Sl. No. 1, Amarsingh S/o Babulal at Sl. No. 11,

Amarsingh S/o Harfool at Sl. No. 20 who had also

submitted applications as that of Nemisingh S/o

Surajsingh for recall of resignation and to send back them

as Gangman were not sent back and case of Nemisingh S/o

Surajsingh was considered who also returned back his

badge and who also renewed his porter licence and even

then he was sent back to the post of Gangman and is

drawing salary of Gangman presently but the workman

involved were denied opportunity to be repatriated as

Gangman and were rendered in the capacity of private

coolie job and were deprived of their right to go back and

to be repatriated within two years of lien period. So it go

to show that the railway administration has not adopted

impartial attitude towards the demand raised by the Union

taking cause of the ten workman involved in this case.

The question is when the resignation of Nemisingh

S/o Surajsingh was considered as not voluntary in view

of his application dated 23.11.2009 (Ext.14/1) even on

getting back his Badge with renewal porter licence (Ext.13/1)

then why not resignation of Hamid Allanoor (Ext.13/2),

Ramsingh Khilari Ram (Ext.13/3), Imrankhan (Ext.13/4).

Babloo Jogi Rameshwar (Ext.13/5), Radhesham (Ext.13/6)

and so on so of other involved workman were considered

as not voluntary as that of Nemisingh S/o Surajsingh in

view of their submitting separate application Ext. 13/3

Hamid Allanoor, Babloo Jogi, Rameshwar, RamSingh S/o

Khilari Ram, Amarsingh S/o Harfool, Kamal Jogo,

Radhesham, Mohd. Farookh Badar Ali, Imran Khan as per

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6075

Xerox of application for recall of resignation to allow to

work as Gangman and of Amarsingh S/o Babulal (Ext.14/2-1)

to allow him to work as Gangman by recall of resignation.

More so, one Ramhans Jogi S/o Manmal Jogi as Gangman

had been issued S.F. of memorandum of charge as Ext. 14/

3/1 & 3/2 dated 04.02.2010. That go to show that one of

the involved workman Ramhans Jogi working as licence

porter after reversion but was issue chargesheet on his

Gangman address other involved workman were not

allowed to go back to work as Gangman after submitting

application within a month of reverting back to licence

porters. As per Ext. 14/3 the workman Ram Hans Jogi had

prayed vide application dated 15.03.2010 that he should

be kept on work as Gangman but was not taken back even

issuing SF charge on address of Gangman at Gandhidham.

10.

Thus as per discussion and consideration of the

materials on the record by way of oral and documentary

evidence of the parties, I am of the considered view and

therefore, find and hold that the demand of the president

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Ahmedabad for

changing the cadre of ten licenced porter to Gangman by

the management of Divisional Railway Manager, Western

Railway, Ahmedabad is justified? The main issue is

answered in the affirmative in favour of the 2nd party.

11.

ISSUE NO. (i) & (ii):- In view of the findings to the

main issue No. (iii) in the foregoing paras, I further find

and hold that the reference is maintainable and the 2nd

party has valid cause of action to raise dispute against

the management of W.R. D.R.M. Ahmedabad (1st party).

12.

ISSUE NO. (iv):- In view of the findings above, the

Union/workman involved are entitled for repatriation to

the original appointment of Gangman with continuity of

service but without back wages. The management of the

1st party is directed to comply with this award within two

months of receipt of the copy of award by issuing

appropriate letter/order as to repatriation of the involved

workman as Gangman.

The reference is allowed. No order of cost.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2407-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

483@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@08@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@174@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2014

S.O.

2407.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 483/

2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Western Railway and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

26/08/2014.

[No. L-41012/174/2001-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 4th July, 2014

Reference: (CGITA) No. 483/2004

Reference: (I.T.C) No. 33/2002(old)

1. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Rajkot,

RAJKOT-360001 (GUJARAT)

2. Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer,

Western Railway, Diesel Shed,

New Railway Colony, Sabarmati,

AHMEDABAD (GUJARAT)-380019

......First Party

AND

Their Workman

Through General Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

E/209, Sarvottam Nagar,

Near New Railway Colony, Sabarmati,

AHMEDABAD (GUJARAT)-380019

....Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri Mukesh Pandit, Advocate

For the Second Party : Shri Raghuveer Singh Sisodia,

President, P.R.K.P.

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. 41012/174/2001-IR(B-I) dated

19.04.2002, referred the dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of Western Railway, Rajkot

and their workman for adjudication to the Industrial

Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matters

specified in the Schedule:

6076

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the employees of the Canteen run by the

elected secretary from amongst the employees of

the Diesel Shed, Sabarmati shall be deemed to be

employees of Railway? If yes, then whether the

action of the management of Divisional Railway

Manager, Western Railway, Rajkot in denying

Temporary status to Shri Mahendrabhai Vallbhai,

Kantibhai Pithbhai Ishwarbhai Kantilal Dave,

Prakashbhai Ashokbhai, Jeevanbhai Jerambhai,

Vishwanathan Genubhai, Mansukbhai Mavjibhai is

justified? If not, what relief the concerned employees

are entitled?”

The case of the 2nd party Union P.R.K.P. as per

statement of claim (Ext.6) filed on 22.10.2002 by Shri B.K.

Sharma, Union representative having with his verification

is that a staff canteen of Diesel Shed, Sabarmati under

Rajkot Division , Western Railway is running. The Diesel

Shed is under control of senior Divisional Mechanical

Engineer, Diesel Shed, Sabarmati, whose controlling

authority is Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway,

Rajkot. The canteen is only for the staff of Diesel Shed,

Sabarmati and is run and maintained by elected secretary

from employees of Diesel Shed, Sabarmati. Further case is

that this canteen is a Railway establishment and workers

of canteen are appointed by Railway authority. The workers

engaged to run canteen whose names mentioned in the

schedule are denied right of temporary status (T.S.) from

the date they completed 120 days service and have been

deprived of all privileges of Railway employees and have

suffered heavy financial loss. As per judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court canteen staff also should be

treated as employees of Railway. Further stand is that

before engaging those workers in canteen they were

medically examined by Railway Doctor at Railway Hospital.

On these grounds prayer is made to treat those canteen

workers as Railway employee and they be awarded

temporary status from the date they competed 120 days

as canteen works and they be also granted consequential

benefits with compensation and cost of this case.

Again the 2nd party (Union P.R.K.P.) under the

verification of Shri R.S. Sisodia, President submitted

amended statement of claim given Ext. No. 11 on 24.02.2010

while this case was pending before Industrial Tribunal,

Ahmedabad and its copy received by Shri S.S. Shevde, Ex

Railway Advocate. This S/C was filed to amend the

statement of claim filed by the 2nd party on 27.08.2002/

20.10.2002. But no order was passed regarding acceptance

of new statement of claim by the Industrial Tribunal,

Ahmedabad. Thereafter the record of this reference case

received in C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court as per order of

Ministry of Labour on 25.11.2010. The 2nd party did not

also move before this tribunal for acceptance of new

statement of claim by way of amendment and the case

proceeded as if newly submitted S/C (vide Ext.11) was

allowed. However the 1st party submitted written statement

(Ext.15) covering also the amended S/C vide Ext.11.

Further case has been made out by the 2nd party

vide para 4 of Ext.11 that the canteen where the workman

are working is being run for the last 20 years and the canteen

is run by the officers of Railway Board and the total control

and supervision over the canteen workers is of senior

officers of Railway Board. For leave, permission is given

by officers of Railway Board wage rise of canteen worker

is also given by the officers of Railway Board. The wages

of canteen workers are being paid by Railway Board.

Further case made out that where there are more than 500

employees working at one place. Provision of canteen is

must. So it is obligatory on part of employer to grant status

of permanency to the concern workman. Further case is

that Govt. of India/Ministry of Railway vide notification

dated 04.02.2003 Railway has considered to grant the

status of permanency to the canteen workers. Under the

fresh/amended statement of claim (Ext.11) prayer is made

for grant of benefits of permanency to concerned canteen

workers.

As against this the case of the 1st party interlia as

per written statement (Ext.15) is that the reference is not

maintainable, the 2nd party Union/workman has no cause

of action and the statement of claim of the 2nd party are

not fully true and are not admitted. The case of the 1st

party is that staff canteen of Diesel Shed , Sabarmati is

run by the staff elected committee and there is no provision

of staff or engagement of staff from Railway point of view.

The so called contractor run the Railway canteen is

baseless. The details of contactor should be furnished

by the 2nd party. The contents of para-1 to 3 of claim

statement need no remarks. The contents of para 4 to 7

are not true and are not admitted. The staff canteen is not

Railway establishment run by the elected Secretary. The

said staff canteen is run by the staff and is not Railway

establishment. The staff canteen is not run by the Railway

Board and no labour is engaged by Railway administration.

The case of the 1st party is that canteen is not run by

Railway Board rather run by the committee democratically

elected by the staff. It is denied that the committee is

elected by the officers. The work in the canteen is of causal

nature for which no regular staff is required. The

management and running of canteen is purely done by

the aforesaid committee and has nothing to do with

Railway Board or any officer as alleged. These is no

relation of employer and employee between 1st party and

the concerned canteen workers. The 1st party No. 1 D.R.M.

W. Rly., Rajkot is not a necessary party. 1st party No. 2

Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Western Railway

Sabarmati is now not under Rajkot Division but is under

Ahmedabad Division after formation of new Ahmedabad

Division w.e.f. 01.04.2003. On these grounds, prayer is to

dismiss the reference with costs.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6077

In view of rival contention of the parties the following

issues are taken for determination:-

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference maintainable?

(ii)

Have the 2nd party valid cause of action to raise

dispute?

(iii)

Is this case suffers for non joinder and misjoinder of

the party?

(iv)

Is there exist relation of master and servant between

the 1st party and the concerned canteen workers?

(v)

Whether the concerned workers named in the

schedule of reference comes under the definition of

“workman” defined under Section 2(s) of the

I.D.Act?

(vi)

Whether the canteen in the campus of Diesel Shed,

Sabarmati is run and managed by Railway Board or

is it run by staff committee elected by the staff of

Diesel Shed, Sabarmati?

(vii)

Whether the concerned canteen workers had

worked as Railway recruited employee or had

worked as privately kept helpers by staff committee

of Diesel Shed , Sabarmati for running canteen

having no control of Railway Board?

(viii) Whether the concerned canteen workers are entitled

to get temporary status and permanency as claimed?

What directions if any are necessary?

FINDINGS

Issue Nos. (VI) & (VII) :- As per pleadings in

subsequent statement of claim (Ext.11) it has been asserted

by the 2nd party union (PRKP) that the canteen in the

premises of Diesel Shed, Sabarmati is run and managed by

Railway Board is under direct control and supervision of

the officers of the Railway Board. The 1st party(W.Rly)

have categorically denied it and stated that this canteen

is privately managed by the Diesel Shed Staff Elected

Committee. So the heavy onus lies upon the 2nd party/

Union/Canteen workers to prove that this canteen is run

under control of Railway Board.

Out of the seven canteen workers involved whose

names find place in the schedule of the terms of reference

the affidavits of two of them namely Vishwanathan

Ghenubhai (Ext.14) and Ishwar Kantilal (Ext.19) have been

filed in lieu of examination in chief. Other five involved

canteen workers- Mahendrabhai Vallbhai, Kantibhai

Pithabhai, Prakashbhai Ashokbhai, Jevanbhai Jerambhai

and Manshukhbhai Mavjibhai have not come to depose

in the court nor their affidavit in lieu of examination in

chief have been filed by 2nd party (Union). However,

Vishwanathan (Ext.14) at para 1 of affidavit stated the

names of their six canteen workers who were also working

in the canteen with him and were working continuously

from January 1999 till 05.05.2001. There is no pleading in

any of the S/C (Ext.6) or Ext.11 as to completing 240 days

work in all calendar years but in absence of pleadings this

witness vide para 2 stated that we all without any break

competed 240 days work in every calendar year.

Apparently such statement by way of affidavit is beyond

the pleadings. In the S/C (Ext.6) it has been pleaded and

prayed for T.S. (temporary status) since canteen workers

were denied the right of T.S. from the date they completed

120 days service where as in the subsequent S/C (Ext.11)

it was pleaded and prayed for regularisation and permanent

status and the prayer of grant of T.S along with prayer for

benefit of permanency as railway workman was introduced

and also provision of section 25B of I.D. Act of

continuous service and violation of section 25F of the I.D.

Act. was taken. Vide para-8 he claims that Railway Board

had hung notice on notice board for requirement of person

in the canteen. He says that notice was hung in R.P.F.

office Sabarmati and he had given application in R.P.F.

office addressing to Diesel shed, Sabarmati. What was

nexus between R.P.F. office and Diesel shed it has not

come in evidence of witness. This witness appears to have

stated irrelevant why R.P.F. office will entertain application

in response to notice of so called Railway Board according

to version of this witness. Vide para-10 he deposed that

he and other seven persons were given appointment letter.

His appointment letter is at his house, but alleged

appointment letter has not been produced in this case. He

admitted that he and others were working on daily wages

of Rs. 56 vide para-11 he stated during cross-examination

by 1st party lawyer that said canteen was run by

Umiashankar and four others. He says vide para-12 that

he was working under Umiashankar and he was taking

work from him and that thereafter another Diesel shed

employee began to run canteen. Vide para-13 he says

that he and other canteen workers were removed from

canteen works from 05.05.2001 by Shaileshbhai Patel and

they submitted application addressed to senior Diesel

Mechanical Engineer (D.M.E). He was shown Ext.17/1 by

the 1st party lawyer and he admitted that he and other

canteen workers had submitted this application marked

pucca exhibits 18. He admitted that in the application

they have written Shaileshbhai has removed them. He

also admitted vide para 17 that Railway had not issued

any interview letter to them. He stated, it is not true that

he and other canteen workers were kept by elected staff

committee on daily wages. Vide para 19 he does not

possess any documents to show that Railway Dept. has

given them temporary status. Vide para 20 he admitted

that there is no factory in Sabarmati Diesel Shed rather

there is workshop for Engine repairing and that no other

works are performed. Vide para 22 he admitted that no P.F.

was deducted from his wages. Though he claimed that

wages was provided by Railway but no salary slip or

other relevant papers submitted.

6078

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ishwar Kantilal in his affidavit in chief (Ext.19)

claimed that he is permanent employee of the Railway

Dept. but admitted that he was getting Rs. 56 per day. He

claimed that he was working on permanent sanctioned

post. He claimed that he worked from January, 1999 till

05.05.2001 and completed 240 days in each year . He was

not given any legal benefit in view of compliance of

section 25F of I.D. Act. Alternative claim has also been

made vide para 5 that he and other worker completed 120

days continuously works and so he is to be given

temporary status and all benefits of permanent employee.

During cross-examination by the lawyer of the 1st party

he admits (para-8) he has no paper that he was appointed

by D.R.M. for work in canteen. There was no written exam

or interview . Vide para 8 he admits that co-worker

Mahendra Baljibhai is suffering from mental illness after

removal from work he has no occasion to meet him. He

also admitted that Mahendrabhai Baljibhai for the last four

year has went away from his home. He admitted that he

has not named Kantibhai Pithbhai in his affidavit as

concerned workman. Vide para 9 he admits that diesel

shed, Sabarmati is established from before. He shows

ignorance that Diesel shed was established in the year

1981 and canteen is started from 1985. He shows

ignorance that he and other workers were engaged after

termination of previous worker. Though he denied that

this canteen is not run by Railway but did not produce

relevant paper to connect that this canteen is not privately

run by elected staff member committee rather run by

Railway Dept./Rly Board. He admits vide para-10 that

when he was working in the canteen Umiashankar was

managing the canteen. He has no idea that in his affidavit

it has been incorporated that he and others were removed

and new canteen workers were kept. Vide para 11 he claimed

that he was not getting leave and he made complaint to

D.R.M. office in writing but copy of complaint is no

available to him. Vide para.13 he was not getting leave,

pass and I card. Vide para 14 he shows ignorance how he

got letter of Umiashankar (Ext.20/1). He says that in Ext.

20/6 there is signature of Umiashankar on their attendance

sheet. He admits that name of Dabhi Kanji Pandit, Praful

Thakor and Dahiabhai are also in attendance sheets but

they have not raised dispute in this reference case. There

is also name of Shivalal in attendance register but he has

not raised dispute in this case, name of Ashok Dave does

not find place in the attendance register. He cannot say

how this attendance register (Ext.20/6) was obtained by

him/them. Vide para-16 he admits that the joint application

(Ext.18) was addressed to M.E. Sabarmati containing the

fact that staff secretary Shri Shailesh Patel have removed

then without notice.

10.

The second party through a list Ext.20 submit 6

documents. Ext-20/1 is Xerox copy of letter of Umiya

Shankar dated 30.09.2000 advised to D.M.E. Sabarmati on

the subject of providing relief to staff of diesel shed in

staff canteen. This letter is to the effect that in the training

centre in diesel shed our staff used to provide tea as per

order but due to shortage of canteen staff there is difficulty

in arranging tea timely. Through this letter permission was

intended for upkeeping of one Jivanbhai Jerambhai Desai

in the canteen and if given order to keep him then direction

for his medical examination may be given. Ext-20/4 is letter

dated 18.07.2000 of Sr. D.M.E. Diesel Shed, Sabarmati

addressed to medical officer Sabarmati for medical

examination of non Rly employee Ishwarbhai Kantilal Dave

working in Railway canteen. This letter goes to show that

this non Rly employee has been also examined last year

medical report valid up to 01.07.2000. This paper referring

to medical officer Sabarmati is regarding periodical medical

check-up of canteen worker for the purpose of having not

suffering from contaminated disease like T.B. Asthma etc.

for taking precaution of hygiene in tea preparation etc.

This is not alike medical examination of new railway

employee because at the time of recruitment of railway

employee there is no need for periodical medical check-

up. Generally in the food, tea making in big shop restaurant

the canteen boys engaged for supposed to be neat and

clean hygienically and free from suffering from

contaminated disease. Ext.20/1 is medical examination

report of vendor Ishwarbhai Kantilal Dave a non-Railway

staff valid up to 24.07.2000. This itself speaks that this is

not medical examination report of Railway employee

because recruited Railway employees are not given medical

fitness / check-up up to for a short specified period. Ext

20/3 is Xerox of prescription of medical Dept. of Railway

regarding canteen boy (non Railway staff) dated

22.07.2000. The learned lawyer of the 1st party strongly

argued that these papers do not connect that Ishwarbhai

Dave was a Railway Board/ Dept. recruited staff, having

relation of matter and servant. On the other hand it has

been simply argued that had Ishwar not been railway

recruited staff why he was referred for medical

examination. Answer is simple since Ishwar was canteen

boy engaged for making tea etc. for diesel shed staff so he

being non-railway staff was being periodically examined

by medical dispensary/ hospital Sabarmati for hygiene

purpose and nothing else. Ext.20/5 series are Xerox copies

of loose attendance sheets of canteen workers of diesel

staff canteen from June 1999 to January 2001 showing

engagement of canteen boys and their daily attendance

and absenteeism and also showing whom of canteen boys

left the job. In attendance sheet of August 1999 there were

nine canteen workers out of whom three left the job also

shown each day absence or presence of other canteen

boys. These attendance sheets are though on printed form

of attendance register usually should be used for

attendance of Railway recruited employee but was used

by Secretary of Staff Elected Committee in very

unauthorised manner and use of such Railway stationary

and printed form ought to have been dealt with firm hand

by the Railway officer/ administration. From April 2000

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6079

and onward up to January 2001 there are signature of

SSO(A/c) also that go to show that for 10 months

attendance sheet was sent by the canteen secretary

Umiyashankar with his initials for verification. Ext.20/6

are Xerox of wages payment forms in loose sheets from

the period June 1999 to December 2000. Showing payment

of wages daily rates to different canteen worker/boys

including also to some of workers involved in this case

under the signature of secretary diesel staff canteen, Diesel

shed, Sabarmati.

11.

On behalf of the 1st party original letter written by

seven involved workers of this case addressed to Sr. D.M.E

diesel shed Sabarmati has been filed with list Ext.17. This

has been given pucca Ext.18 on admission of witness of

2nd party. This letter of concerned workman speak

volumes that they were removed from private jobs in the

canteen by new secretary Shri Shaileshbhai Patel without

notice. This go to prove that the status of the concerned

seven workman of this case were working in private

canteen situated in the premises of Diesel Shed, Sabarmati

and not working in Railway Board managed canteen. This

does not clearly prove that staff canteen of Diesel shed

Sabarmati is controlled by Railway Board but this mmuch

is proved thatthis canteen is being run under patronage

Sr. D.M.E. though having no approval of Rly. Dept/ Railway

Board.

12.

It has been argued on behalf of lawyer of the

1st party that workman are worker cook etc. engaged by

canteen management committee and are not Railway

employees and there is no relation of master and servant

between 1st party and 2nd party and the concerned

workmen do not come under the definition of section 2(s)

of I.D.Act. He further argued that Ext. 20 series documents

do not go to establish employers –employee’s relation.

He further argued that on Ext.20/5 and 20/6 series there is

no certificate issued by Railway dept. that the register

muster roll and wage register contain how many pages

and there are no seal and signature as to certificate of

authorised officer.

13.

On behalf of the 1st party witness Charansingh,

Senior Engineer (Diesel) Diesel shed Sabarmati has filed

affidavit examination in chief vide Ext.26 he deposed vide

para 6 the canteen of diesel shed, Sabarmati is run by the

staff elected committee and there is no provision of staff

or engagement of staff from railway point of view. Vide

para 7 & 8, this staff canteen in question is run by the

staff and is not a railway establishment or not run by

Railway Board and no labour is engaged by Railway

Board. Vide para 10 management and running of canteen

is purely done by staff elected committee and this

committee is not elected by the railway officer. Vide para

11 no relationship of employer and employee between

parties in proceedings and vide para 12 work in the canteen

in question is of casual nature for which no regular staff is

required. Vide para 18 the canteen in question does not

fall within criteria of Railway Board circular letter no E

(WEL) 90 CNI-7(II) dated 18.05.1990. Vide para 27 of cross

examination he shows ignorance that canteen workers

working in diesel shed , Batwa has been regularised by

railway. He stated by seeing ext. 20/5 that such loose

attendance sheet is not used for regular Railway staff in

rly department and that these are Xerox copy and not

original. Vide para 28 he was not member of canteen

committee. He proved Ext.27 which is a letter of D.R.M.

Baroda. From perusal of Ext.27 it appears that employees

of the subsidised statutory canteen are to be treated as

railway servant’s w.e.f. 01.04.1990 as per Railway boards

letter dated 18.05.1990. It shows that four staff of the

canteen of VTA Diesel Shed were treated as Railway

servants. On behalf of the 2nd party on 16.11.2011. Xerox

copy of railway boards letter no E (WEL) 90 CNL-7 (II)

dated 18.05.1990 addressed to GMS all India Rlys and

others on the subject implementation of Supreme Court

Judgement regarding canteen Employees- non statutory

(recognised) has been filed .That clearly reveals the

criterion for treating the canteen staff as Railway

employees as per S.C judgment in case of M.M. Khan &

others vs. Union of India and others that employees of

the subsidised (recognized) Non-statutory canteen

should be treated as railway servants with effect from

01.04.1990. para-5 of this Railway boards circular clearly

speaks that employer of a few non-recognized

(nonsubsidised) non-statutory canteens which have

sprung up without the approval of the Railway Board

....... and in some cases with the approval and patronage

of local authorities, for grant of status of Railway servants

has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Now

coming to examine the case law M.M. R. Khan and others-

petitioner vs. Union of India and others (A.I.R. 1990 S.C

937) as relied upon by the 2nd party even in written

argument at para 3 how far it helps the 2nd party. As per

Railway establishment manual, chap XXVII, para 2829, para

2832, para 2830- Railway employees in statutory and non-

statutory recognised Railway canteen are entitled to be

treated as railway employees. But not employees in non-

statutory, non-recognized canteen. It has been held by

their lordship vide para 30 that “non-statutory non-

recognised canteen are not started with the approval of

the Railway Board as required under paragraph 2831 of

R.E. manual. Though they are started in the premises

belonging to the Railways they are so started with the

permission of local officers. They are not required to be

managed either as per the provisions of the Railway

establishment manual or the Administrative Instruction.

There is no obligation on the Railway Administration to

provide them with any facilities including the furniture,

utilities, electricity and water. These canteens are further

not entitled to nor are they given any subsidies or loans.

They are run by private contractors and there is no

continuity either of the contractors or the workers engaged

6080

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

by them...... The canteens are run more or less ton adhoc

basis, the railway administration having no control on their

working..... We are of the view that the workers engaged

in these canteens are not entitled to claim status of railway

servants.” The 2nd party has failed to establish that the

canteen run in the premises of diesel shed, Sabarmati is

either statutory canteens or non-statutory recognised

canteens in the Railway establishment. On the contrary

Ext.18 and Exr. 20/1, 20/2, 20/3, 20/4, 20/5 and 20/6 go to

show that canteen run in the premises of diesel shed

Sabarmati is non-statutory non-recognised canteen and

having no control of railway board. So the case law of

A.I.R. 1990 S.C 937 does not go to help the 2nd party. The

learned lawyer of the 1st party has argued that the case

law (Supra) relied upon by the 2nd party has been over

ruled by subsequent case law reported in A.I.R. 1996 S.C.

289. The case law of A.I.R. 1196 S.C. 289 (Union of India &

others (railway board) appellant vs. J.V. Subhaiat & others)

was Railway Establishment code para 108- railway

cooperative store/societies officers, employees. Their

status, promotions scale of pay increments cannot be

treated at par with Railway servants. Their services are

not regulated by Railway Administration. They are

governed by bye-laws of societies subject to control and

sanction by Registrar under state Act. The next case law

of Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Association of

Engineering workers (2008 LLR 509) S.C. (D.B) is also not

applicable in the instant case in true sense since the

judgment of A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 937 is by three judges where

in canteen employees working in non-statutory- non

recognised canteen cannot be treated as Railway servant,

cannot be changed by the judgment of Division Bench

2008 LLR S.C. 509 Facts of the case law 2008 LLR 509 is

regarding absorption of workers working in statutory

canteen through contractor and regarding application of

provision of factories Act 1948 and fact was that

contractors were changed but workers remained the same.

Whereas in the instant case the concerned workers had

hardly worked for two year from June 1999 , August 1999

or January 2001 to 05.05.2001 and before them other

canteen boys workers were engaged and removed by

secretary/ president of staff elected committee for the

non-statutory non-recognised canteen of Diesel shed

Sabarmati and as per own admission of concerned seven

workers as per Ext. 18 they were removed from works private

service of canteen . So, neither the case laws reported in

A.I.R. 1990 SC 937 nor the case law reported in 2008 LLR

509 (S.C) come to rescue of the canteen workers involved

in the instant case. In other words these case laws as

relied upon by the 2nd party are not applicable in the facts

and circumstances of the instant case. More so, Ext. M 29/1

the Xerox copy of letter of Sr. D.M.E (diesel) Diesel Shed

Sabarmati addressed to A.L.C (Central) Ahmedabad on

the subject of management of staff canteen by elected

committee consists of officers, senior supervisor , two

representative of recognised union and one woman

representative does not change the status of said canteen

from non-statutory canteen to non-statutory recognised

canteen as per judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 937 (Supra) followed by letter dated

18.05.1990 of Railway Board.

14.

Thus, as per discussion and consideration in the

foregoing and oral evidence adduced by the parties

together with the case laws also discussed above, I am of

the considered view and therefore find and hold that the

canteen in question running in the premises of Diesel

Shed, Sabarmati is not run and controlled by Railway

Board rather the same is run by staff committee elected

by the staff of diesel shed, Sabarmati. I further find and

hold that the concerned seven canteen workers has never

worked as railway employee or they never be treated as

railway employee rather as per own admission of them as

per Ext.18 they were working as privately kept helpers in

the canteen by president/ secretary of committee having

no control of Railway Board as per letter dated 18.05.1990.

So these two issues are answered accordingly and are

decided against the 2nd party.

15.

ISSUE NO. (iv) & (v):- In view of the findings to

Issue No. (vi) & (vii) in the foregoings, I further find and

hold that there exist no relation of master and servants

between the 1st party and the concerned canteen workers

and that the2nd party (concerned workers) do not come

under definition of workman in true sense under section

2(s) of the I.D. Ac, 1947. These issues are also decided

against the 2nd party.

16.

ISSUE NO. (iii) :- As per contention of the 1st party

at para 7 of w.s. (ext.15) the 1st party no. 1 D.R.M. W.rly,

Rajkot is not necessary party since new Ahmedabad

division came into existence w.e.f. 01.04.2003 and the 1st

party No. Sr. Divisional mechanical Engineer, W.Rly

Sabarmati is now not under Rajkot Division rather is under

Ahmedabad Division. Though the 2nd party has not

impleaded D.R.M. Ahmedabad as necessary party in this

case. But ipsofacto this reference case would not suffer

from non-joinder of necessary party because when the

dispute was referred for adjudication Diesel Shed ,

Sabarmati was under jurisdiction of D.R.M., Rajkot.

17.

ISSUE NO. (i) & (ii):- As per findings given in

foregoings ,I am of the considered view and therefore

find and hold that this reference is not maintainable in the

present context, but the 2nd party, the concerned workers

of the case have valid cause of action that they were

removed illegally from the canteen works by the elected

secretary of the staff committee of Diesel Shed, Sabarmati.

18.

ISSUE NO. (viii):-This could not have been

established by the 2nd party that the canteen in Diesel

Shed, Sabarmati is run by the approval and concurrence

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6081

of Railway Board. The 2nd party has not produced

relavant documents that either D.R.M. Rajkot or D.R.M.,

Ahmedabad has had issued any direction to treat canteen

workers of Diesel Shed, Sabarmati as railway employee

in view of Railway Board’s letter dated 18.05.1990. So the

canteen workers involved in this case have not been

treated as railway employee and so they had not been

given T.S. (temporary status) by D.R.M. Western Railway,

Rajkot. However, out of the seven canteen workers

involved in this case. Only two-Shri Vishwanathan

Ganubhai and Shri Ishwar Kantilal Dave are fighting out

this case by deposing in support of their claim that they

should be treated as Railway employee. Whereas out of

remaining five one Shri Mahendrabhai Vallbhai has left

the place for the last several years and is suffering from

mental disease as admitted by Ishwarbhai Kantilal in

cross examination and other four have not appeared

personally in this case to show their any eagerness due

to their removal from canteen works by the secretary

elected by staff committee of Diesel Shed, Sabarmati on

05.05.2001. More so, out of them one was engaged only

in January 2001. So those five canteen workers have very

weak case. However, Vishwananthan Genubhai and Ishwar

Kantilal Dave have better case for their reengagement as

canteen workers in Diesel Shed, Sabarmati by the elected

secretary/president of the staff elected committee who

used to run the canteen in Diesel Shed, Sabarmati since

1985. So a direction is given to the 1st party No. 2 Sr.

Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Western Railway, Diesel

Shed, Sabarmati to direct the elected Secretary of the

staff committee of Diesel Shed, Sabarmati to keep them as

canteen workers since they had been illegaly removed

from canteen works. This much relief the two workers

Vishwanathan and Ishwar Kantilal Dave are entitled in

this case with continuity of service as canteen helper but

without any back wages.

The reference is allowed in part so far as claim of

two workers Vishwanathan and Ishwar Kantilal are

concerned.No order as to any cost.

This is my award.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2408-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

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

vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 16@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@23@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2014

S.O.

2408.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 16/2011) of

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

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Western Railway and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

26/08/2014.

[No. L-41011/23/2010-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 1st August, 2014

Reference: (CGITA) No.16/2011

Adjudication order No. L-41011/23/2010-IR(B-I)

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Near Chamunda Bridge,

Asarwa,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

..... (1st party)

And

Their workman

Through the President,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

28/3, Narayan Park,

Behind Chandkheda Railway Station,

Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

........(2nd party)

For the First Party

: Shri Navin S. Vaghela, Advocate

For the Second Party : Shri Raghuvir Singh Sisodia,

President (P.R.K.P.)

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. L-41011/23/2010- IR (B-I) dated

09.03.2011, referred the dispute for adjudication to this

Tribunal in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of

Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway,

Ahmedabad in terminating the services of Shri

Jayendra D. Vaghela, Ex Bunglow Peon w.e.f.

05.04.2006 is legal and justified? To what relief the

workman is entitled?”

6082

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The case of the 2nd party as per statement of claim

(Ext.3) is that the services of Ex Bunglow peon Shri Jayendra

D. Vaghela, the member of (Union P.R.K.P.) was illegally

and arbitrary terminated on 05.04.2006. The fact of the

case in narrow compass is that Jayendra D. Vaghela was

appointed as Bunglow peon in the month of January, 2005

and he worked continuously and uninterruptedly up to

03.04.2006. On 03.04.2006 he asked for two days leave i.e.

for 03.04.2006 and 04.04.2006 due to illness of his wife and

for this requested to D.R.M. and verbally the D.R.M.

allowed him to go on leave for two days. Then after taking

prior permission of superior employer Divisional Railway

Manager, he had gone for leave for two days i.e. 03.04.2006

and 04.06.2006. After leave he (workman Jayendra)

resumed his duty on 05.04.2006, but his officer Divisional

Railway Manager terminated his service without giving

any written order or any instruction and orally workman

Jayendra was told that from today you have not to come

on duty and you are hereby terminated from services.

Further case of 2nd party (union) is that the so called

inquiry was initiated in absence of workman Jayendra.

Neither show show cause notice nor any notice informing

to workman that inquiry proceedings is to be held. So

actually no inquiry has ever been held against the workman

Jayendra D. Vaghela. Even though so called inquiry

proceeding has been recorded by the inquiry officer and it

was found that he (workman) has committed misconduct

of unauthorised absence from duty for two days in such

view of the matter punishment order of termination from

the services is very much disproportionate to the gravity

of misconduct and the 1st party employer has arbitrarily

and abruptly passed termination order of workman w.e.f.

05.04.2006. Such action on part of the 1st arty employer is

illegal, perverse and contrary to the principles of natural

justice and also against the violation of mandatory

provisions of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

After termination of the workman Jayendra, the D.R.M.

appointed another fresh Bunglow peon in place of

workman Jayendra which is also violation of section 25G

and 25H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. More so, the

concerned workman Jayendra D. Vaghela had completed

one year continuous service with the 1st party employer

and so he was entitled for temporary status and the benefit

of temporary servant at the time of termination the services

of Jayendra. The concerned workman Jayendra was not

given reasonable opportunity of hearing in the so called

inquiry. Further case is that Jayendra had completed 240

days continuous service before last twelve preceding

month and he was not given notice or notice pay and so

termination of his services is against the mandatory

provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 and so the workman is entitled for reinstatement

with full back wages and continuity of service. The

workman is still ready and willing to resume his duty at the

place of residence of D.R.M.

As against this the case of the 1st party interlia as

per written statement (Ext.5) is that the workman Jayendra

Vaghela was not maintaining his duty properly and he had

not given any leave application to his superior officer on

03.06.2006. The D.R.M. having full right for termination of

duty for improper service. The D.R.M. on many occasions

had given verbal notices to Jayendra Vaghela for his

improper service but Jayendra was not performing his duty

properly. Further case is that the 1st party verbally had

given information to Jayendra to come in inquiry but he

did not come then 1st party officer passed order in so

called inquiry for termination of services of Jayendra

Vaghela. The 1st party has passed proper order of

termination. The 1st party has followed departmental

inquiry against Jayendra but he intentionally not joined

departmental inquiry. In reply to para-5 and 6 of the S/c it

is stated that Jayendra if continuously worked 120 days

service with employer and even he is entitled for temporary

status (T.S) and even if he completed one year of

continuous service with the 1st party employer and even

he continuously and uninterruptedly worked for a period

of one and half year with the 1st party employer, but the

said workman Jayendra was not maintaining his duty

faithfully and in proper way and he misbehaved with his

superior authority in such way so main authority having

fully rights for termination of the services of workman

Jayendra. The 1st party employer followed all legal

procedure against workman, but workman not followed

the legal procedure adopted by the employer. In reply to

para-7 of the S/c it is stated that during service period the

workman (2nd party) was not performing proper service

and so for that purpose the 1st party has not given

alternative employment to him (workman) and so the 1st

party has not violated either section 25F or 25G or 25H of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On these scores prayer

is to dismiss the reference since the 2nd party is not entitled

to get any relief.

The following issues are taken for determination:

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference maintainable?

(ii)

Whether the 2nd party (union) has valid cause of

action to raise dispute?

(iii)

Whether proper and valid domestic inquiry was

conducted for the alleged misconduct of two days

absenteeism?

(iv)

Whether the punishment of termination awarded to

the workman Jayendra Vaghela is proper or is

disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct?

(v)

Whether the workman Jayendra D. Vaghela is entitled

for reinstatement with continuity of service and back

wages?

(vi)

What orders and directions are to be passed?

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6083

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. (iii) & (iv):- on behalf of the 1st party

entire domestic inquiry file has not been submitted. Only

the copy of statement of Jayendra Vaghela (R/1) has been

attached with the affidavit of the 1st party witness namely

Om Prakash Upadhyay. The entire onus is upon the 1st

party to prove that a fair, proper and valid domestic inquiry

was held against the delinquent Jayendra observing the

principles of natural justice. Entire statement of Jayendra

recorded on 31.08.2006 is in question and Answer form

who asked questions to the delinquent it is not proved. It

is not established whether presenting officer was duly

appointed by the management. It is also not proved

whether inquiry officer was duly appointed. It is also not

proved whether delinquent Jayendra was allowed to keep

his defence representative in the so called inquiry. It is

also not established as to how many sitting of inquiry

committee was held. The 1st party has not produced the

charge sheet issued to the delinquent. The S.F.V. has not

been produced by the 1st party. The inquiry proceedings

and the inquiry report have also not been produced by

the 1st party. Before start of inquiry whether or not any

show cause notice was issued to the delinquent it has not

been shown on behalf of the 1st party management.

The 1st party witness has admitted in his oral

evidence (Ext.8) during cross examination at para-4 that

Jayendra was appointed as Bunglow Peon at the Bunglow

of D.R.M., A.D.I. by order of general Manager, Mumbai

on 23.09..2005 and he had been given T.S. (Temporary

Status) after working continuously for 120 days. The

duty of Jayendra was to do work at Bunglow and house

works at D.R.M., Kothi. Vide para-5 he also admits that the

works of Jayendra was being supervised by Mrs D.R.M.

at Kothi.

The delinquent workman Jayendra in his affidavit

in lieu of examination in chief (Ext.6) has stated at para-2

that he was given T.S. after 120 days and subsequently he

was regularised vide para-3 02.04.2006 was Sunday

holiday. On 03.04.2006 his wife had suddenly fell ill and

she was taken to rail Hospital. He at 15:00 hour went to

Mrs. D.R.M. at Bunglow for grant of two day C.L. On

03.04.2006 and 04.04.2006 and on 05.04.2006 he went to

Bunglow for duty in the morning but he was refused to be

taken on duty on 05.04.2006. In the statement of (question

& Ans. series dated 31.08.2006 (R/1) it has come that duty

hours of Jayendra starts from 7:00 a.m. and he continuously

worked from 3.09.2005 to 02.04.2006 without taking any

leave and that after two days leave 03.04.2006 and

04.04.2006 he came for duty on 05.04.2006 at 7:30 a.m. but

he was refused to be taken on duty. He had neither been

suspended for unauthorised absent on 03.04.2006 and

04.04.2006 nor any show cause notice had been issued

to him and when his service had been regularised after

grant of T.S. then how he can be prevented from doing

Bunglow duty from 05.04.2006. If he was half an hour late

on 05.04.2006 then as per admission of the 1st party

witness (Ext.8) at para-5 during cross examination if any

railway staff came for duty late on three occasion then his

one C.L. is deducted. In that view of the matter when

delinquent Jayendra went on leave on 03.04.2006 and

04.04.2006 after taking verbal permission of Mrs D.R.M.

at Bunglow and when he reported for duty on 05.04.2006

only half an hour late at 7:30 a.m. then a regular railway

workman who had not been suspended cannot be

prevented from discharge of his duty as Bunglow peon

for which he had been duly appointed vide order/

memorandum dated 23.09.2005 Ext. 11/1. On behalf of the

2nd party Xerox copy of attendance sheet. Ext. 11/3 of the

month of April 2006 has been filed that go to show name

of Jayendra at Sl. No. 11 and on 03.04.2006 and 04.04.2006

he was marked on ‘L’ (leave) but it was cut and show ‘A’

(absent) This fact has also been admitted by the 1st party’s

witness at para-9 of his evidence during cross examination

that Jayendra had been shown on leave on 03.04.2006 and

04.04.2006 but subsequently he was marked ‘absent’.

Ext. 11/2 is Xerox copy of punishment order dated

26.06.2007 passed by Sr. Divisional Material Manager A.D.I.,

has been submitted by the 2nd party Union. From perusal

of speaking order it reveals that departmental action was

initiated on 05.04.2006 for the following charge

“unauthorised absence from duty”. But there is no

document on behalf of the 1st party to connect that

departmental action was actually initiated on 05.04.2006.

For the sake of argument it can be said that if actually

departmental action was initiated on 05.04.2006 there is

absence of suspension order the so called chargesheeted

person can be presumed to be on duty during whole of

the inquiry proceeding but in the case of Jayendra it was

not done so rather he was ousted from duty on 05.04.2006

when he had reported for duty at Bunglow at 7:30 a.m.

Whereas he was removed from service with immediate

effect i.e. from date of passing of punishment order dated

26.06.2007. In the speaking order there is mention of

appointment of inquiry officer Shri D.P. Patthak (A.O. /L

A.D.I.) but there is no inquiry report. Speaking order itself

reveals about lacuna that no presenting officer was

appointed. The so called inquiry report dated 09.02.2007

has not been submitted by the 1st party in this case. The

copy of so called representation dated 10.03.2007 of

Jayendra has also not been submitted by the 1st party.

More so, the speaking order does not deal the sick

certificates produced by Jayendra for 03.04.2006 and

04.04.2006 as it reveals from his statement (R-1) in his

cross examination by D.C. where he stated in answer to

question that he along with his application had gone to

submit sick/fit certificate at D.R.M.’s Kothi but it was not

taken that sick/fit certificate is produced today (31.08.2006)

to be taken on record. The speaking order of D.A. does

not appear to have dealt with the delinquent’s sick/fit

6084

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

certificate with application. That goes to show that the

enquiry officer failed to consider those papers of

delinquent and likewise the disciplinary authority D.M.M.

A.D.I. also failed to take into account as to cause of

absenteeism on 03.04.2006 and 04.04.2006 of delinquent

Jayendra. Even it is presumed that Jayendra committed

misconduct of two days absenteeism – 03.04.2006 and

04.04.2006 it was a minor misconduct for which punishment

of warning or censure or even held up of increment could

have been passed rather than to award extreme

punishment of removal from service with immediate effect

that has caused economic death of delinquent Jayendra.

It is quite clear that economic death of Jayendra was caused

not only by awarding punishment of removal with effect

from 26.06.2007 rather his economic death was caused from

05.04.2006 when he reported for duty virtually in time at

7:30 a.m. for the only fault that he had not applied for leave

on 03.04.2006 and 04.04.20006.

So on consideration of the materials discussed

above, I am of the considered view and therefore find and

hold that no proper and valid domestic inquiry was

conducted against the 2nd party (delinquent workman

Jayendra D. Vaghela) for the alleged misconduct of two

days absenteeism. I further find and hold that the

punishment of termination with immediate effect dated

26.06.2007 awarded to the delinquent Jayendra is not at all

proper rather is totally disproportionate to the gravity of

misconduct and so, invoking the provision of section 11-A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Punishment order

dated 26.06.2007 passed by the Disciplinary Authority is

fit to be set aside. So Issue No. (iii) and (iv) are decided

against the 1st party.

10.

ISSUE NO. (v): In view of the findings to issue No.

(iii) & (iv) in the foregoing paras, I further find and hold

that the delinquent workman Jayendra D. Vaghela is

entitled for reinstatement as Bunglow peon with continuity

of service and consequential benefits with 75% back

wages.

11.

ISSUE NO. (i) & (ii): In view of the findings to

Issue No. (iii), (iv), & (v) in the foregoings, the reference is

maintainable and the 2nd party (Union P.R.K.P) has valid

cause of action to raise industrial against the management

of the 1st party.

12.

ISSUE NO. (vi): The order of punishment passed by

the Disciplinary Authority dated 26.06.2007 as to removal

of Jayendra from services with immediate is set aside

invoking the jurisdiction by this tribunal under section

11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The 1st party is

directed to reinstate Shri Jayendra D. Vaghela within thirty

days of receipt of copy of award failing which the back

wages (75%) will carry interest @ 9% P.A.

The reference is accordingly allowed. However, no

order of cost.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2409-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ

lkSjk"Vª izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 84@2004) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@261@1997&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2014

S.O.

2409.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 84/2004) of

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

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of State Bank of Saurastra

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 26/08/2014.

[No. L-12012/261/1997-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 10th July, 2014

Reference: (CGITA) No-84/2004

Reference: (I.T.C.) No-39/1998(old)

Adjudication Order No. L- 12012/261/97-IR(B-I)

Assistant Personnel Manager

State Bank of Saurastra

(Now State Bank of India)

Head office, New Adm, Building,

Neelam Buag Chowk,

Bhavnagar -364001

The Manager

State Bank of Saurastra

(Now State Bank of India)

Naroda Road Branch,

Naroda, Ahmedabad

......First Party

AND

Their Workman

Smt. Arunaben Chimanbhai Dalwadi,

Dharamnath Society,

Opp. Satyam School,

Adiswarnagar,

Naroda , Ahmedabad

.....Second Party

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6085

For the First Party

: Ms. Meenaben Shah, Advocate

(Gandhi Associates )

For the Second Party : None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. L- 12012/261/97-IR (B-I) dated

05.06.1998, referred the dispute for adjudication to this

Tribunal, Ahmedabad in respect of the matters specified

in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of state Bank of Saurastra,

Naroda Road Branch, Ahmedabad in terminating,

the services of Smt. Arunaben Chimanbhai Dalwadi

w.e.f. 27.02.1994 is justified? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

The case of the 2nd party workman as per statement

of claim (Ext.3) is that she was appointed as a part time

sweeper at Naroda Road Branch of Bank on 17.04.1993 by

the 1st party No. 2 and she worked faithfully and there

was no complaint against her. She on several time

requested to 1st party No. 2 to pay wage and other

benefits at par with bank’s regular employee. Thereafter

suddenly 1st party No. 2 orally terminated her on 27.04.1994

from the services. No notice or notice pay and retrenchment

compensation was paid. In her place a new person was

appointed by the 1st party No. 1 and 2. The 1st party has

violated the provisions of section 25F, 25 G and 25H of the

I.D. Act. She after termination tried for job elsewhere but

she could not get and she remained unemployed. On these

grounds, prayer is made for her reinstatement with

continuity of services and full back wages and also to

grant relief to which she is found entitled and also for the

cost of litigation.

As against this the case of the 1st party inter alia

as per written statement (Ext.5) is that contents of the

statement of claim are not true and are not admitted by

the 1st party (Bank), the reference is not maintainable,

the 2nd party (workman) has no cause of action. The

case of the 1st party (Bank) is that the 2nd party had

worked as a temporary part time sweeper from 17.04.1993

to 10.02.1994 and had worked only for 102 days during the

aforesaid period. Since the permanent sweeper-cum-peon

had attended the Bank, it was not necessary for bank to

retain the 2nd party and so she was not provided with

work after 10.02.1994. The Bank had not terminated her

services for any misconduct and so question of issuing

charge sheet and holding departmental inquiry does not

arise at all. The Bank has not appointed new employee in

place of 2nd party on temporary basis on lump sum amount

and so, the averment of para-4 of S/c are denied. The 1st

party has denied para—2 to 6 and with regard to para-1

it is stated that 2nd party was engaged as a temporary

sweeper on daily wages and she was given work as and

when permanent sweeper-cum-peon was not available. She

was working from 9 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. For which she was

paid by vouchers. On these scores, prayer is to reject, the

reference, since the 2nd party is not entitled to any relief.

In view of the pleadings the following issues are

taken for determination:

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference maintainable?

(ii)

Has the 2nd party valid cause of action?

(iii)

Whether the 2nd party completed 240 days work in

calendar year preceding her alleged oral termination

w.e.f. 27.02.1994?

(iv)

Whether the action of the management of the 1st

party is justified?

(v)

Whether the 2nd party is entitled to any relief in this

case?

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. (iii) - The 1st party submitted 8 Xerox

copies of vouchers with list Ext.6 and its copy received on

behalf of the 1st party. Those are for payment of daily

rated wages to the 2nd party workman who had been

deployed for part time sweeping work at Naroda Road

branch of Bank. The 2nd party Smt. Arunaben Chimanbhai

Dalwadi deposed in oral evidence vide Ext.11 stating

that she was engaged for part-time sweeping at Naroda

Branch from 17.04.1993 on Rs. 50/- as daily rated wages

and that she was terminated/discontinued from 27.02.1994

and that action of the 1st party in terminating her is illegal

violating the provision of law. Her cross examination at

length was done by the 1st party’s lawyer and she (the

2nd party Arunaben) admitted that she was being paid

through vouchers and she used to put her signature on

back of vouchers .She further admitted that she had not

submitted any written application for job of sweeper.

However, she stated that this fact is not true that during

the period 17.04.1993 to 27.02.1994 she worked only for

142 days.

On behalf of the 1st party original 8 vouchers with

list (Ext.12) was filed on 29.03.2001 i.e. on the date of

cross-examination of 2nd party and on admission of 2nd

party during cross-examination those eight original

vouchers which are dated 27.04.1993, 18.05.1993,

05.06.1993, 25.06.1993, 09.07.1993, 27.07.1993, 10.02.1994

and 10.02.1994 were marked puce exhibits No. 13 to 20

respectively. These vouchers go to prove the works done

by Arunaben from 17.04.1993 to 27.04.1993 for 9 days and

charges of sweeping daily @ Rs. 25/- (total Rs. 225/-)

sweeping charges from 28.04.1993 to 18.05.1993-21 days

6086

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and 2/5, 9/5, 16/5 Sunday and 30.04.1993 leave and payment

of Rs. 425/- was made to Arunaben. She was paid

Rs. 325@ Rs. 25 per day sweeping works from 19.05.1993

to 05.06.1993 (23/5, 30/5, Sunday, 2/6 Id holding i.e. 18-

3=15 days, she was paid Rs. 400@ Rs. 25/- per day

sweeping charge for 16 days 07.06.1993 to 12.06.1993 ,

14.06.1993 to 19.06.1993 and 22.06.1993 to 25.06.1993 vide

Ext.16. Vide Ext.17 she was paid Rs. 100/- for 4 days work

10, 12, 13, 14.07.1993. Vide Ext. 18 she was paid Rs. 100/-

for four days work 10,12,13 and 14.07.1993. Vide Ext.19

she was paid Rs. 550/- for 22 days of sweeping works @

Rs. 25/- from 15.01.1994, 17.01.1994 to 22.01.1994,

24.01.1994 to 25.01.1994, 27.01.1994 to 29.01.1994 to

29.01.1994, 31.01.1994 to 05.02.1994 and 07.07.1994 to

10.02.1994 .She signed on the back of 20 paisa revenue

stamp. Vide Ext.20 dated she was paid misc. charge of Rs.

375/- for sweeping and other miscellaneous works from

24.12.1993, 27.12.1993 to 31.12.1993, 01.01.1994, 03.01.1994

to 05.01.1994, 17.01.1994 to 18.01.1994 for 15 dyes @ Rs.

25/- on calculating the days of works her entire works as

part-time sweeper in Naroda branch of Bank comes to 106

days and she had accepted the charges @ Rs. 25/- per

day on the back of all eight vouchers.

Thus the 1st party (Bank) has successfully

discharged the onus shifted on it that she (Arunaben)

worked much less than 240 days work from 17.04.1994 to

10.02.1994. The 1st party has proved that she was engaged

up to 10.02.1994 only since regular sweeper of Bank had

joined and so there was no need to keep her for any

further days. On the other hand the claim of the 2nd party

Arunaben is also discarded through Ext. 13 to 20 the

eight vouchers that she was orally terminated on

27.02.1994. Because there was no question of her oral

termination on 27.02.1994 she worked as casual worker till

10.02.1994 and she was paid thereafter there no work for

her due to joining of regular sweeper of Bank.

Thus on consideration of the evidence discussed

above, I find and hold that the 2nd party Arunaben

Chimanbhai Dalwadi has not completed 240 days’ work as

part-time sweeper in Naroda branch of Bank. During the

period of works as alleged from 17.04.1993 to 27.02.1994.

So this issue is answered in negative and decided against

the 2nd party.

ISSUE NO. (iv):- Since the 2nd party did not complete

240 days work at Naroda branch of Bank so, it was not

incumbent upon the 1st party (Bank) to give retrenchment

notice or one month notice pay and retrenchment

compensation to the 2nd party and so there is no question

of violation of the provision of section 25F, 25G, 25H of the

I.D. Act, 1947. The 1st party Bank had not engaged a new

person as sweeper on remuneration rather Bank’s regular

sweeper had joined and so there was no need of work of

Arunaben to which she was doing part-time work in

absence of regular sweeper. The 1st party’s lawyer

Ms. Meenaben Shah has cited two case laws:

(1)

2010-II-LLJ SC 293 (State of Karnataka & other vs.

Ganpati Chaya and others) where in it has been held

appointment a daily wagers on temporary basis claim

for regularisation not maintainable.

(2)

2011-II-LLJ SC 295 (Union of India & others vs.

Vartak Labour Union) where in it has been held

temporary or casual workers would not get any right

for absorption, however long be their service if the

original appointment was not by due process of

selection under relevant rules.

10.

Thus as per consideration above, and also in view

of findings to Issue no. (iii) In the forgoing, I am of the

considered view and therefore, find and hold that the action

of the management of the 1st party is justified in terminating/

discontinuing the 2nd party for works. This issue is

answered in affirmative.

11.

ISSUE NO. (I), (ii), & (v):- In view of the findings to

issue No. (iii) & (iv) in the foregoings, I find and hold that

the reference is not maintainable and the 2nd party has

no cause of action and so the 2nd party Arunaben

Chimanbhai Dalwadi is not entitled to any relief in this

case.

The reference is accordingly dismissed. No order of

any cost.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2410-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

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

vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 983@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@152@91&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2014

S.O.

2410.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. N0. 983/

2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Western Railway and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

26/08/2014.

[No. L-41012/152/91-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6087

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad. Dated : 19th May, 2014

Reference : (CGITA) No-983/2004

Reference: (I.T.C) No-60/1995(old)

Chief Engineer (Construction)

Western Railway, Station Building,

Kalupur,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

... First Party

AND

Their Workman

Shri Devendra Chandulala Vyas

Through Western Railway Kamdar Sangh,

T.B. I -17, Gurunagar,

Gandhidham (Kutch)

... Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri H.B. Shah, Advocate

For the Second Party : Shri O.P. Vashishtha,

General Secretary,

Western Railway Kamdar Sangh,

Gandhidham

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide its Order No. L-41012/152/91/IR(B-I) dated

16.10.1995, referred the dispute for adjudication to the

Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in respect of the matters

specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Chief

Engineer(C) W.Rly, Ahmedabad in termination the

services of Shri Devendra Chandulal Vyas, causal

labour w.e.f.24.05.1978 and in not giving the benefit

under section 25H of I.D.Act, 1947 is legal and

justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled

to?”

The case of the workman (2nd party) as per

statement of claim(Ext.3) dated 19.12.1995 is that Devendra

Chandulal was appointed as a causal labour under

permanent way Inspector(Construction) Western Railway,

Gandhidham Shri Gopal Krishna on 09.02.77 by the

Executive Engineer(Construction) II Western Railway,

Ahmedabad. He worked for more than one year in the

Railway service. His services were terminated w.e.f.

24.05.78 without following the provisions of the I.D.Act

under section 25F. No notice had been given to workman.

No notice pay equal to one month’s wages and

retrenchment compensation was given to him. No seniority

list of the workman was notified before his retrenchment

violating the I.D. Rules No.77. No notice was on form “P”

to the authority concerned. Whereas listed persons were

recruited after this workman and one junior to him are

retained is the service. ——— (a) Sattar Jamal (b) Ullash

(f) Navghan Shikar (g) Babooli Bhimsen under the

provision of section 25G, the person last recruited was to

be retrenched first but this principle was not followed in

this case and the management has violated section 25G

and 25H of I.D.Act and the I.R. Rules 76,77,78 have also

been violated. The workman was making inquiry from the

management for his re-engagement and he was advised

verbally that he will be given the job whenever the new

work will come and thus workman kept hopes for longer

time. Further case is that as per order of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court dated 23.02.1987 in W.P. No. 332 the

seniority list of all the project causal labour was to be

prepared but no such list was ever prepared to include the

name of this workman. Whereas the workman made a

representation to the management vide his application

dated 24.02.87, giving his full details of service for re-

engagement but there is no action from the side of the

management. The management was prejudiced with the

trade union activities of workman so he was retrenched

from the service is legally to teach him a lesson. There

after being tired from all sources, the workman raised

dispute through the union. On these grounds prayer is to

declare the action of management in retrenching the

workman as illegal and to direct the management to take

the workman on duty with back effect and with back wages

and to grant any other relief to which the workman is

found entitled.

As against this the case of the 1st party (management

of W.Rly.) inter alia as per written statement (Ext.8) is that

the reference is not maintained since dispute raised after

17 years, the workman has no causes of action and the

reference is barred by delay and latches. The contention

of the 1st party is that workman was engaged on 09.02.1977

as a daily rated casual labour under P.W.I. (Construction)

Gandhidham and his services was terminated w.e.f

24.05.1978 after following the provision of I.D.Act and

Rules. The workman had accepted his retrenchment/

termination without any dispute. Thereafter a long lapse

of 17 years dispute has been raised before A.L.C. (C)

Ahmedabad without giving justifiable reasons. The

workman remained in gainful employment since after

termination on 24.05.1978 and so he has no need of job in

Railway. The services of the workman are terminated before

01.01.1981 and so judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the Indrapal Yadav case is not applicable. Further case is

that as per policy framed by Railway Board vide letter

dated 02.03.1987 instruction has been given that the

6088

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

labourers whose services were terminated before

01.01.1981 should send their representations to the

concerned Divisional Railway Manager before 31.03.1987

for including the name in the live register maintained by

the Divisional Manager. So the concerned workman should

have to submit representation to D.R.M. Ajmer before

31.03.1987. But the workman failed to submit the same to

D.R.M. Ajmer before 31.03.1987. But instead of making

representation to D.R.M. Ajmer before 31.03.1987 the

workman approached Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central) Adipur on 13.04.1992 i.e. after a lapse of long

time of 17 years after retrenchment. The workman has

named some labour in claim statement but they have not

been made necessary parties in the reference order. The

1st party management did not receive any notice in the

year 1987 from the workman side. The 1st party have not

violated the provision section 25F, 25G, 25H and that the

judgment of Supreme Court cited by the workman in para 3

of statement of claim is not applicable to the facts of this

case. The workman letter dated 24.02.1987 has not been

received in the office of the 1st party. On these scores

prayer is to dismiss the reference with cost.

In view of the pleading of the parties the following

issues are taken for determination :-

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference maintainable?

(ii)

Whether the workman has valid cause of action to

raise dispute?

(iii)

Whether the reference is barred by delay and latches?

(iv)

Whether the action of the management of Chief

Engineer(C) Western Railway, Ahmedabad in not

giving the benefit under section 25H of I.D.Act even

after submitting the application dated 24.02.1987 for

inclusion of his name in the live register of

retrenched project causal labourer Shri Devendra

C. Vyas is legal and justified?

(v)

What relief the workman Shri Devendra Chandulal

Vyas is entitled to and what directions are

necessary?

FINDINGS

ISSUES No.(iv):- The workman (2nd party) has

adduced oral as well documentary evidence. He deposed

vide Ext.9 supporting the claim statement that he was

engaged by Railway in project work under P.W.I

Ghandhidham on 02.09.1977 and was retrenched on

24.05.1978 but seniority list was not prepared and notice

or notice pay and retrenchment compensation was not

given and that in view of direction of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court submitted representation but he was not called for

work and that he is Pujari in temple and he is not getting

any remuneration. He stated in cross examination but

nothing could have been gained to discredit his testimony.

The 1st party (Railway Dept.) has not adduced oral

evidence. The 2nd party workman has submitted three

documents with list Ext.13. Ext.13/1 copy of order dated

22.06.1995 passed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in

S.C.A. No. 559/94 is case filed by the workman (petitioner)

against union of India by which the impugned order dated

26.03.1993 of Central Govt. refusing to refer the dispute

between the parties was quashed and set a side and the

authority directed to re-consider the matter for referring

the dispute. It is as per order of the Hon’ble High Court

that dispute was referred for adjudication vide order dated

16.10.1995 of Central Govt. Ext.13/2 in Xerox copy of

representation dated 24.02.1987 of the workman Devendra

Chandulal Vyas addressed to D.R.M. Ajmer through the

proper channel Executive Engineer (Construction) A.D.I.

Ext.13/2 clearly goes to show that original representation

was received by the Executive Engineer(C) Ahmedabad.

So it was bound any duty of the 1st party officer to forward

the representation of the workman which was containing

full details as per Railway Board’s directive/ circular dated

02.03.1987 on the subject project causal labour- terms of

employment regarding. So clearly the ball had been returned

in the court of the 1st party with due compliance and now

the ball was in the Court of the 1st party for entering the

name of the workman Devendra Chandulal Vyas a

retrenched project worker is the live register according to

his seniority. Ext.13/3 is copy of directive/ circular of

Railway Board dated 02.03.1987. Para 4 of the circular

clearly speaks ………. “Project Officers receiving

representations in terms of these instructions should insure

that they forward them to and get them received by their

Division latest by 1st April, 1987. Verification of the

genuineness of the claim and thereafter processing of the

application will be done by the Division in the jurisdiction

of which the applicant was initially engaged as project

causal labour”. In Ext. 13/2 contains 16 columns as per

instruction contained in para 3 of Railway Board circular.

Ext.13/2 is nicely filled with all details including date of

appointment as causal labour in project 09.02.1977, date

of discharged 24.05.1978, name, father’s name, Date of

birth, permanent address, present Address, personal mark

of identification, office from which last discharged P.W.I.(C)

W.Rly, Gandhidham also attached original causal labour

card attested copy of photo, attested L.IT of application

attached mention idle to the date against columns 13 (now

employed) after discharge etc. In such view of the matter

such written argument of Shri H.B. Shah vide Ext.15 that

there is pretty long time i.e. after 14 years delay in raising

demand in the year 1992 before A.L.C.(C) from his date of

discharge 24.5.1978 has no leg to stand in view of Ext.

13/2 in compliance to Ext.13/3. In such view of the matter

the case law relied upon by Shri H.B. Shah, learned

Advocate for the 1st party reported in 1993 Lab I.C.

S.C.1672 and A.I.R. 1993 S.C.2276 on point of delay have

got no application in the instant case to defeat the claim of

the workman.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6089

It is true that prior to the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Indrapal Yadav. Causal

labours on project have no security for their services nor

their seniority counted. It was as per directive of Hon’ble

Apex Court, the Railway Administration had farmed a

scheme to safeguard the condition of services of the

project causal labours also who were discharged from work

prior to 01.01.1981 vide circular of Railway Board dated

02.03.1987 (Ext.13/3) of the 2nd party and Annexure ‘D’

filed by the 1st party. But such written argument of Shri

H.B. Shah learned Advocate at para.14 of ext.15 that the

2nd party did not make any application or endeavor to

Railway authority to prepare live register is not in

consonance with the material/evidence on the record

adduced on behalf of the 2nd party workman. It is

manifestly clear that vide Ext.13/2 the workman Devendra

Chandulal Vyas had made application/representation filling

all necessary columns 1 to 16 as per direction contained

in Ext.13/3/ Annexure–D addressed to D.R.M.Ajmer

though proper channel Executive Engineer (c) A.D.I. It is

admitted fact that the workman Devendra Chandulal Vyas

was appointed as project causal worker under P.W.I(c)

Gandhidham and was also discharged from project work

from Gandhidham and Gandhidham Rly was falling under

D.R.M.Ajmer jurisdiction since Ahmedabad was not

created as separate Divisional office rather that come into

being from 01.04.2003. It is also not disputed that at that

time there was no post of Chief Engineer(Construction)

W.R. Kalupur, Ahmedabad rather office of Executive

Engineer(c) A.D.I was functioning and so application

Ext.13/2 was sent to D.R.M.Ajmer via media Executive

Engineer(c) A.D.I. much before expiry of last date

31.03.1987 so clearly it was sheer inaction on part of the

1st party in not including the name of concerned workman

in live register for providing work to him according to

seniority and there was no inaction or latches on part of

workman as it has been tried to be convinced through the

written argument. The 1st party has not adduced any oral

evidence in support of written statement (Ext.8) rather

annexure C & D attached with written argument (Ext.15)

go to support the case of the workman coupled with oral

evidence of workman (Ext.9), Ext.13/1, 13/2 and 13/3. It can

be very well said that the concerned workman had availed

opportunity to submit application (Ext-13/2) but the 1st

party due its own laches failed to enter the name of

workman in the live register and thus deprived the workman

to take benefit under section 25H of the I.D.Act from the

date 31.03.1987.

Such argument of the 1st party as per ext.15 has to

be accepted that previously seniority list of causal labour

in project work were not prepared for their reengagement

because of coming to end of project work resulting in

discharge/ termination of project workers in gang in mass

scale and their interest of project workers was not being

safeguarded until direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

case of Indrapal Yadav followed by issue of circular of

Railway Board (Ext.-13/3)/ Annexure D. So the concerned

workman cannot alleged as to contravention of section

25F of I.D.Act and so the oral evidence of workman (Ext-9)

that he was not given notice or notice pay and retrenchment

compensation on one hand and contention of the 1st party

that all legal dues had been clear to him on retrenchment /

discharged on 24.05.1978 remained not an issues in this

case. Rather main point is whether the 1st party employer

has acted in right way to justify its action in not giving

benefit under section 25H of the I.D. Act. The answer is

certainly negativing the action on part of the 1st party as

per discussion and consideration made in the forgoing to

issue No(III). Such plea of the 1st party that workman

after discharge was not sitting idle rather was earning by

way of Pujari of temple is immaterial in the context that the

workman had effectively within time had complied with

circular dated 02.03.1987 of Railway Board (Ext.-13/3/

Annexure-D ) but due to own in action on part of the 1st

party the workman was deprived from taking the

opportunity of his names to be entered in the live register

for giving him work and thus violated section 25H of the

I.D. Act.

Thus I find and hold that the action of the

management of chief engineer (c) W.Rly, Ahmedabad in

not giving the benefit under section 25 H of the I.D. Act,

1947 and even after submitting the application dated

24.02.1987 for inclusion of name in the live register of

retrenched/discharged project labour Shri Devendra

Chandulal Vyas is illegal and unjustified.

Issue no.(i), (ii), (iii): in view of the finding to issue

No.(iv) in the foregoings para. 5 to 8, I further find and

hold that the reference is maintainable and the workman

Shri Devendra C. Vyas has valid cause of action to raise

this industrial dispute and which is not at all barred by

delay and latches.

10.

Issue No.(v) : In view of above findings to issue

No. (i), (ii), (iii) & (iv) in the foregoing I am of the considered

view and therefore find and hold that the workman Shri

Devendra Chandulal Vyas (2nd party) is entitled for

inclusion of his name as project worker in the live register

prepared by the railway department and the workman is

entitled to get T.S. (temporary status) w.e.f. 31.3.1987 in

view of his previous service record of project casual worker.

Since concerned workman was deprived of taking benefit

u/s. 25 H of I.D. Act, 1947 by not entering his name in the

live register. So he is also found entitled to 50% back

wages w.e.f.31.03.1987. He is also entitled for cost of

litigation from the 1st party.

The references is accordingly allowed with cost of

Rs. 5000/-.

The 1st party (Railway Dept. W.Rly) is directed to

comply with the award within two months of receipt of

copy of award failing which 50% back wages will carry

interest @ 9% P.A.

This is my award.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

6090

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2411-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV

cSad vkWiQ bafM;k izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 167@2004)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@08@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@361@1998&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2014

S.O.

2411.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 167/2004)

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

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of State Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 26/08/2014

[No. L-12012/361/1998-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR

COURT, AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 8th July, 2014

Reference : (CGITA) No-167/2004

Reference: (I.T.C) No-62/1999(old)

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Sumangalam Complex,

Vyaswadi, Nawa Wadaj,

Ahmedabad(GUJARAT)

......First Party

AND

Their Workman

Shri Dahyabhai P. Chamar

141 Ratna and Popat chawl,

Kalapinagar, Asarwa,

AHMEDABAD (GUJARAT)

.....Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri B.K. Oza, Advocate

For the Second Party: Shri H.K. Rathod, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. L-12012/361/98- IR(B-I) dated

17.02.1999, referred the dispute to Industrial Tribunal,

Ahmedabad(Gujarat) for adjudication in respect of the

matters specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India is justified in terminating/

discontinuing the services of Shri Dahyabhai P.

Chamar w.e.f. 08.10.1996? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

The case of the workman (2nd party) as per

statement of claim (ext.4) is that he joined in the service

as messenger cum peon on 15.12.1986 at Bapunagar

branch of State Bank of India. Though he was temporarily

kept in the branch for work but actually he was working

as permanent sub staff and his service was clean and

blotless. He was kept also as armed Guard (watchman)

in the bank and then he was engaged as peon, messenger

Faras cum messenger at Ashram Road branch, thereafter

he was engaged for those works at Nawa Wadaj branch.

He was performing works of sub staff independently and

not in absence of any body. But bank was not giving all

benefits like regular/permanent sub staff. He in every year

works more than 240 days but bank was not granting

certificates for actual dates of works rather giving

certificate of less dates of work. He was not given overtime

work though he was performing; Bank was not giving

bonus, not deducting P.F., not giving loan benefits,

medical benefits etc. Which amounts to unfair labour

practice. Further case is that Bank had prepared a

common waiting list of temporary workers as per general

circular of the year 1987 after inviting application and

continuing interview and he had also applied and was

successful in interview and his name was also included

in W. List but inspite of his long service tenure he was

not given permanent post and junior to him were

absorbed in service and he was left and the bank authority

has acted against the motto of circular. Thereafter the

bank officer illegally terminated/discontinued him from

08.10.1996 from work to which he was not given notice

of retrenchment nor one month notice pay and

retrenchment compensation by the bank and thus

mandatory provision of section 25F has been contravened

by the Bank. He tried for job elsewhere after alleged

oral termination by the 1st party but he could not get

engagement and is sitting unemployed since then. He

filed S.C.A. No. 7872/1996 before Gujarat High Court

against the 1st party Bank for making him permanent

and the Bank filed its reply on 13.01.1996 before the

Hon’ble Gujarat High Court to the effect that his

(petitioner) name in waiting list and when his turn will

come he will get the chance accordingly. Thereafter

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6091

S.C.A. was withdrawn by the workman/petitioner and

the S.C.A. was disposed of by order dated 27.07.1997.

Further case is that the 1st party bank had prepared a

separate waiting list of the candidates who were

interviewed for temporary messnegerial staff in August/

September 1989 and said waiting list was lapsed with

effect from 01.04.1997. He came to know about it and

contacted the officers of the Bank and the bank officers

were giving assurance that you will be given work as

per your turn in waiting list. But actually Bank had

cancelled the waiting list w.e.f. 01.04.1997. The Bank

has not informed the Hon’ble High Court regarding

cancellation of waiting list and thus the 1st party (bank)

had concealed the true fact of scrapping of wait list from

the Hon’ble Court. Then Advocate notice was given to

the 1st party on 11.02.1998 for keeping him in bank

service but all efforts went in vain and then dispute was

raised against the management of Bank before A.L.C.

(Central) Ahmedabad on conciliation failure followed by

this reference for adjudication. On these grounds prayer

is made that the action of the 1st party in oral termination

of workman w.e.f. 08.10.1996 is illegal, improper,

malafide and for his reinstatement in service with full

back wages with benefits of permanent sub staff and also

with cost and also to grant relief to which he is found

entitled.

As against that the case of the 1st party (S.B.I.)

interlia as per written statement (Ext.7) is that the

reference is no maintainable, the 2nd party (workman)

has no cause of action. The claim statement of the

workman from para-1 to 8 is not true and not accepted

by the 1st party. It has been stated in para-6, it is true

that the bank in affidavit before Gujarat High Court in

S.C.A. has in corporated that the workman (petitioner)

will get chance of employment as and when his turn in

waiting list will come prepared in the year 1989. The

said waiting list was to be in force up to 1994 but

management had continued the said waiting list till

01.04.1997. It is not true that S.P. workman was

performing permanent work in the bank on permanent

basis rather he was performing duties temporarily in

different branches of Bank as and when necessity had

arisen. Bank was not sending him to different branches

for work rather he was himself enquiring as to work in

other branches. He was a daily rated worker or temporary

worker if permanent sub staff is absent or there is shortage

of permanent staff. In this way, the branch managers of

Bapunagar, GIDC, Odhav, Shahpur, and Nawa Wadaj

branches were engaging him as per requirement to work

temporarily as messenger/messenger cum Faras

watchman. The 2nd party never worked for 240 days

continuously in any year. He was working as a stopgap

arrangement. He was engaged for 13 days in Nawa Vadaj

branch due to transfer of permanent sub staff to Dholka

branch and when permanent sub staff Shri J.D. Bhagat

joined the duties in Nawa Vadaj branch the 2nd party

was relieved. The 2nd party had also applied pursuant to

the advertisement and he also faced interview and in

waiting list prepared his serial No. was at 570. The

waiting list was cancelled w.e.f. 01.04.1997 but till that

the turn of 2nd party could not reach and so he could not

avail opportunity of permanent recruitment in subordinate

cadre in different branches of Gujarat state. So the Bank

has not kicked him from the service rather as per circular

of the Bank not to engage any temporary workman as

stopgap arrangement from 01.04.1997., the 2nd party

could not be given any work in any branches of Bank.

On these scores, prayer is made to dismiss the reference

since the 2nd party (workman) is not entitled to any relief.

In view of the rival contention of the parties in

respective pleadings, the following issues are taken for

determination:-

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference maintainable?

(ii)

Has the workman Shri Dahyabhai P. Chamar any

valid caused of action in this case?

(iii)

Whether the 2nd party (workman) has completed

240 days work in calendar years while performing

services in different branches of the Bank?

(iv)

Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India is justified in terminating/

discontinuing the services of the concerned

workman Shri Dahyabhai P. Chamar w.e.f.

08.10.1996? If not, what the relief the workman is

entitled to?

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. (iii):- The concerned workman has

deposed in oral evidence vide Ext.17 where as witness of

the 1st party (Bank) has given oral evidence vides Ext.19.

The workman in oral evidence says that he had joined

the service on 18.12.1986 at Bapunagar branch. He

further deposed that Bank had given advertisement for

the post of messenger and he had also applied and he

passed in interview further deposed the employee whose

name was below his name in the waiting list was made

permanent Chamar Dilipkumar Samebhai vide Ext.13/

9 is after him and his name in the waiting list is below

him was made permanent, The 2nd party submitted 38

documents with list (Ext.13) which have been given

exhibits No. 30 to 68. Ext. 30 is Bank certificate of

Bapunagar branch dated 04.09.1987 go to show that

concerned workman worked for 64 days in the year 1986-

87. Ext. 31 is Bank’s advertisement notice. Ext.32 is

duplicate copy of filled up application form of the

workman Dahyabhai P. Chamar, mentioning worked for

64 days at Bapunagar branch. Ext. 33 is circular No.

Par: IR 19/88 dated 26.04.1989 by which bipartite

agreement was signed on 17.11.1989 and the temporary

6092

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

candidates who completed temporary works were also

made illegible for applying for post of messenger and

thus workman concerned had also applied. Ext.34 is

interview letter dated 31.08.1989 in the name of

concerned workman for appearing at interview on

19.09.1989 at 10:00 a.m. Ext.35 is certificate of

Bapunagar branch dated 11.04.1990 as to performance

of work. Ext. 36 is appointment of concerned workman

as temporary messenger for 2 months w.e.f. 16.11.1991.

Ext.37 is appointment letter dated 20.02.1992 of D.P.

Chamar as temporary Faras cum messenger from

20.02.1992 to 18.03.1992 on salary of Rs. 815 per

mensem plus allowance. Ext. 38 is appointment letter

date 21.04.1992 as part time sweeper cum Hemel @ 1/3

salary from, 01.04.1992 on substantive salary of Rs.

271.67 at Data processing centre Ahmedabad. Ext, 39 is

certificate of Bapunagar Industrial estate branch of S.B.I.

As to 147 days work by the workman Dahyabhai from

11.11.1991 to 22.04.1992. Ext.40 is copy of interview

letter dated 22.08.1992 given to Parmar Ashwin Kumar

Dulebhai to appear for interview on 07.09.1992. Ext.41

is certificate of Bank’s Saraspur branch dated 15.10.1992

that Dahyabhai has worked as a temporary arm guard in

the year 1990-91 & 1991-92 for 51 days. Ext. 42 is

another certificate dated 15.10.1999 of Saraspur branch

of S.B.I. that Dahyabhai has worked as temporary

messenger at this branch for 71 days in the year 1992-93

from 29.04.1992 to 08.07.1992 and he also worked

temporarily as arm guard for 13 days in the year 1992-

93 from, 12.08.1992 to 10.10.1992 that go to show total

working days 71+13=84 days in the calendar year. Ext.43

is certificate granted by Branch manager Nava Vadaj

branch, Ahmedabad dated 10.09.1994 that Dahyabhai P.

Chamar worked as temporary messenger for 246 days in

the year 1993 and 218 days in the year 1994 at Nava

Vadaj branch. Ext. 45 is certificate of chief manager,

Bapunagar Industrial sate branch dated 01.03.1995 that

go to show that from 01.09.1994 to 28.02.1995 for 181

days Dahyabhai worked for 327 in the year 1994. Thus

for two consecutive calendar year 1993 and 1994 the

workman Dahyabhai P. Chamar has worked for more

than 240 days as temporary messenger. As per Ext.44

the action of chief manager Bapunagar I.E. Branch was

confirmed by Zonal Office vide letter dated 12.11.1994.

As per Ext.46 which is letter of Branch manager Nava

Vadaj branch to A.G.M. S.B.I., Ahmedabad regarding

keeping Dahyabhai P. Chamar as Water sprinkler from

15.04.1995 @ of 1/3 of basic pay. Ext.47 is copy of

demand and propose to go on one day strike of All Bank

of India Staff federation which is not relevant document

to be discussed. Ext.48 is extract of seniority No. 570 of

Shri Dhayabhai P. Chamar is ex-temporary employee’s

waiting list with seal and signature Bank officer. Ext. 49

is certificate dated 27.11.1995 granted by branch

manager, Shahpur branch, Ahmedabad to the effect that

Shri Dahyabhai P. Chamar has worked as temporary

Faras cum messenger from 17.04.1995 to 11.08.1995

for 117 days. Ext.50 is copy of affidavit in reply of

respondent No. 3 (Bank) in S.C.A. No. 7872 of 1996.

Ext. 51 is letter dated 10.04.1990 of Dy. Managing

Director & Corporate Development officer S.B.I.,

Mumbai addressing to chief General manager, S.B.I.

Local Head office, Ahmedabad informing as to extending

the period of waiting list up to 31st March,1997 for filling

the vacancies existing as on 31st December 1994. Ext.52

is letter of A.G.M. S.B.I. Zonal office, Ahmedabad dated

03.07.1996 addressed to the branch manager S.B.I.

Dharmanagar branch, Ahmedabad on the subject of

conversion of part time employees to full time. Ext.53 is

copy of letter dated 05.08.1996 of Dy. Managing Director

& corporate Development officer, Mumbai addressed to

Chief General manager, S.B.I., Head office, Ahmedabad

on the subject, Industrial dispute raised of ex temporary

employees. Ext. 54 is certificate dated 10.08.1996 to

Dahyabhai P. Chamar as to working for 142 days

(12.08.1995 to 31.12.1995) and 33 days from 01.01.1996

to 02.02.1996 at Nava Vadaj branch, Ahmedabad. From

counting the days of work of the workman Shri Dahyabhai

at Shaper branch and at Nava Wadaj branch vide Ext.49

and Ext.54 in calendar year 1995 it comes to 259 days

work in continuity. That means the workman had also

completed more than 240 dates work in the year 1995.

Thus for three consecutive calendar year 1993, 1994

and 1995 Shri Dahyabhai P. Chamar had worked for

more than 240 days in the branches of S.B.I. Situated

at Ahmedabad. From the certificate Ext.54, Ext.56 it

appears that workman Dahyabhai had worked in

continuity from 01.01.1996 to 02.02.1996 (33 days) at

Nava Vadaj branch and then from 03.02.1996 to

03.08.1996 (183 days) at G.I.D.C. Odhav branch and

also for 13 days as per affidavit of Bank filed before the

Hon’ble Gujarat High court from 26.09.1996 to

08.10.1996 comes to 229 days in calendar year 1996.

But the workman, 2nd party has claimed that he worked

for more days but he was granted certificate for less

dates has much weightage to infer that he in consecutive

four years 1993,1994,1995 and 1996 worked for more

than 240 days. It appears that the workman was quite

known face in the organisation of S.B.I. that he is

working temporarily since 1986 and is also ex temporary

employee and his name is in waiting list to be absorbed

in permanent recruitment and when the waiting list

kept alive up to 31st march, 1997, then it put a big

question mark upon the action of the management of

S.B.I. that when workman’s temporary services were

being utilised in different branches without any break

then why he was discontinued from the temporary

messengerial work from 08.10.1996 and why not he was

provided temporary works up to 31st March, 1997 as

usual in different branches of S.B.I. At Ahmedabad. The

corporate office of S.B.I., Mumbai office’s direction was

not to engage casual daily rated worker from 01.04.1997

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6093

and not form before. In the affidavit in reply by the Bank

(respondent No .3) in S.C.A. 7872 of 1996 has informed

to the Hon’ble Court that name of petitioner workman

Shri D.P. Chamar is in waiting list and when his turn

will come he will be absorbed. In such view of the matter

of counter affidavit of Bank, the S.C.A. No. 7872 of 96

was disposed of vide oral order dated 21.07.1997—” In

view of the reply dated 13.01.1996 of respondent No. 3

wherein it has been categorically stated that the

petitioner’s name is there in the waiting list and he has

to wait for his turn and he will also be given due benefits

of his position in the operating waiting list and

according to his merit position in the said list Mr. Mishra,

Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw this

special Civil Application. The same is accordingly

dismissed as with drawn at this stage.” When the order

of the Hon’ble Court dated 21.07.1997 was passed by

that time the waiting list had already been cancelled by

Bank w.e.f. 01.04.1997 but this position was not informed

by the Bank by filing fresh counter affidavit before the

Hon’ble Court. Thus the present 1st party Bank appears

to have concealed the true facts from the Hon’ble Court

before passing of oral order dated 21.07.1997. So there

is every reason to believe that the management of the

1st party was very much annoyed with the workman

Shri Dahyabhai P. Chamar in filing of S.C.A. before the

High Court and So, much before the waiting list’s life

come to end w.e.f. 01.04.1997, the management of Bank

discontinued him (the workman) from temporary

messnegerial works to which he was being performed

efficiently and delinquently in different branches of S.B.I.

at Ahmedabad in continuity. SO actually the 1st party

Bank by its own biased action discontinued him (the

workman) from temporary work’s w.e.f. 08.10.1996 in

order to complete 240 days work in the calendar year

1996 but considering his continuity of works in previous

calendar year 1993, 1994, 1995 in the different branches

of Bank, he the workman notionally have completed 240

days work in the calendar year 1996.

With a list (Ext.8) the 1st party produced five

documents .Ext. 8/1 is copy of settlement dated

17.11.1987 between state Bank of India and All India

State Bank of India staff Federation which is regarding

providing service to temporary employee by giving them

chance to apply as per advertisement of Bank to be

followed. Ext. 8/2 is circular dated 25.04.1986 of Bank

in view of bipartite agreement. Ext. 8/3 is extract of one

page selection of ex-temporary employees (messenger

interview sheet) with seniority and that go to show the

name of Shri Dahyabhai P. Chamar (SC) at seniority list

570. Form perusal of this seniority list it clearly go to

show that ex-employee Madanlal R. Meena at seniority

list 571 having only temporary service of 63 days was

preferred to be regularly appointed then the workman

at Seniority list 570 having temporary service of 64

days at Bapunagar Ind. Estate branch. Ext. 8/4 is letter

dated 05.08.1996 of corporate office, Mumbai to the chief

General Manger, S.B.I. Local Head Office, Ahmedabad.

This document has also been filed on behalf of the 2nd

party and has already been discussed.

Ext. 60 is legal notice dated 11.02.1998 given to

the Branch manager, Nava Vadaj, Ahmedabad on behalf

of the 2nd party workman. Ext. 61 is registration receipt

and Ext.62 acknowledgement receipt of legal notice. Ext.

63 is reply to the final legal notice dated 17.02.1998 of

branch manager, Nawa Vadaj to Shi N.V. Bhatt, Advocate

of the workman. Ext. 64 is o/c of claim for reinstatement

dated 27.02.1998 from Dahyabhai P. Chamar to A.L.C.

(central) Ahmedabad. Ext. 65 is reply dated 25.06.1998

of Branch Manager, Nava Vadaj to A.L.C. (central) in

the conciliation matter. Ext. 66 is order of Chief General

Manager dated 25.02. 2000 on the joint application of

45 petitioners in view of order dated 24.08.1999 passed by

the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in S.C.A. No. 5073 of

1999 and 5080 of 1999….. etc. ordering that the petitioner

have no case for permanent absorption in the service of

Bank. This order is not connected with this case. The

2nd party demanding production of certain documents

by the 1st party in ref. I.T.C. 22/99 in the case of S.B.I>

vs. Ishwarbhai M. Wala which is not connected with

this case. Ext. 68 is pursis filed for production of certain

documents in reference case no. (I.T.C.) 24/99 (State Bank

of India vs. Ishwarbhai Makwana, which is not connected

with this reference case.

The 1st party has produced three documents with

a list Ext.14 which are given exhibits No. 27, 28 and 29.

Ext.27 is zerox copy of application from of the workman

which has also been submitted by the 2nd party. Ext.28

is copy of certificate dated 04.09.1987 given by branch

manager, Bapunagar Industrial Estate branch;

Ahmedabad that Shri Dahyabhai P. Chamar has worked

for 64 days a temporary messenger. This certificate has

also been filed by the 2nd party. Ext.29 is Xerox copy of

advertisement notice given by Local Head office,

Ahmedabad.

However vide Ext. 16 the application filed by the

2nd party workman for production of certain documents

on 13.12.2000 was not pressed by the 2nd party and so

pursis as to production of documents by the 1st party

(Ext.9) was disposed of by passing order (below Ext.9).

10.

The 2nd party has submitted five documents with

a list Ext.20 on 10.04.2008 which are exhibits- 69, 70,

71, 72, 73 after order as to production allowed. Ext. 69 is

Bank circular dated 05.06.1995 not relevant document

for the instant case. Ext. 70 is Xerox copy of the

termination order dated 19.11.1997of Shri Kantibhai S.

Parmar sending him salary up to 19.11.1997,

retrenchment Allowance up to 19.11.1997 and notice pay

19.11.1997 by A.G.M. (OD). This document has been

filed to show that the Bank had given Notice pay, Salary

6094

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and retrenchment allowance to Kantibhai following the

mandatory section 25F of the I.D. Act but the bank has

not followed it in case of termination/discontinuation of

the concerned workman Dahyabhai P. Chamar. Ext.71 is

copy of reply of Bank to R.L.C. (central) in the matter of

complaint of Kantibhai which is not relevant documents

to be discussed in details. Ext. 72 is Xerox copy of list of

subordinate staff designation wise which contain the name

of 198 sub staff. From perusal of this list it appears that

there are several candidates who temporarily worked for

lesser period than that of workman Dahyabhai P. Chamar

64 days in the category of General, S.C., S.T. and were

recruited as subordinate staff after preparation of waiting

list in the year 1987 that continued in operation up to

31.03.1994 but case of concerned workman was not

considered for regular appointment even considered for

regular appointment even after successful interview and

his name find place in seniority list. The question would

also be how the candidate who worked temporarily or

for zero period can be place above in the seniority list.

Ext. 73 is not connected document for the instant

reference case.

11.

The 1st party’s witness Parwati Pillai, Chief

Manager of Nava Wadaj branch of S.B.I. has simply

supported the stand of the 1st party but during cross

examination has admitted that notice or notice pay and

retrenchment compensation was not given to Dahyabhai

P. Chamar, on his oral termination/ discontinuation from

08.10.1996.

12.

Thus as per discussion and consideration made

above, I am of the considered view and therefore find

and hold that the 2nd party has completed 240 days

work in calendar year 1993, 1994, 1995 and also will be

deemed to have completed 240 days work notionally in

view of performing continuous and uninterrupted works

in different branches being temporary employee and name

find place in the waiting list/seniority list as S.C.

candidate. So this ISSUE No. (iii) Is decided in

affirmative in favour of the 2nd party.

13.

ISSUE NO. (iv):- In view of the findings to issue

no. (iii) in the foregoing paras, I also find and hold that

the management of the 1st party have contravened the

mandatory provision of section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947

in not giving notice to the concerned workman or one

month pay in lieu of notice and the retrenchment

compensation before terminating/ discontinuing the

workman Dahyabhai P. Chamar. So the action of the

management of State Bank of India (1st party) is not

justified in terminating/discontinuing the services of the

concerned workman Shri Dahyabhai P. Chamar w.e.f.

08.10.1996.

14.

Previously due to violation of the mandatory

provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act

by the employer, usually the casual workman who

completed 240 days work in calendar year were being

granted relief for reinstatement to work with back

wages to any percentage according to the merit of each

case. But in the recent years there have been change in

the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court that since casual

worker even completing 240 days work in some calendar

do not hold a post as that of regular employees, so, as a

matter of right casual workers cannot claim

reinstatement, rather reasonable compensation should

be awarded to them. In the case of senior superintended

Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal vs. Santosh Kumar Seal &

others reported in 2010 III CLR 17=2010 (6) SCC 773.

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 wages in case

of termination of service is found illegal will sub serve

the ends of justice.” In the instant case the 2nd party

workman Shri Dahyabhai P. Chamar has not been able

to prove that he performed continuous and uninterrupted

service right from 1986 to 08.10.1996. Rather it is proved

that he performed more than 240 days work in some years

and so his termination/discontinuation is illegal and

unjustified action on part of the 1st party employer. So

he (the 2nd party) is found entitled for reasonable

compensation in this case considering his decade long

temporary service rendered by him in different branches

of Bank though not is continuity and uninterruptedly.

So a lump sums compensation of Rs. Two Lakh only (Rs.

2, 00,000/-) is awarded to the 2nd party which has to be

paid by the management of the 1st party.

15.

ISSUE NO. (i) & (ii):- In view of the findings to

issue no, (iii) & (iv) in the foregoings, I find that the

reference is maintainable and the 2nd party workman

has valid cause of action to raise industrial dispute against

the management of the 1st party.

As per findings above the reference is allowed in

part. No order as to any cost.

The 1st party is directed to implement the award

within two months of receipt of copy of award failing

which the amount of compensation will carry interest of

9% per annum.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2412-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phiQ

tujy eSustj] bZLVuZ VsyhiQksu l£dy] VsyhdkWe] g”kjrxat ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

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

,oa Je U;k;ky; y[kumQ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1@2005) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@08@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@66@2004&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6095

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2014

S.O.

2412.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 1/2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum

Labour Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of the Chief General

Manager, Eastern Telephone Circle, Telecom, Hazratganj

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 26/08/2014.

[No. L-40012/66/2004-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT

LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 01/2005

Ref. No. L-40012/66/2004 – IR(DU) dated: 24.11.2004

BETWEEN

Sh. Laxman Prasad

Village Bhawani Bari

PO Nahiya

Varanasi (U.P.)

AND

The Chief General Manager

Eastern Telephone Circle, Telecom

Hazratganj

Lucknow.

AWARD

By order No. L-40012/66/2004 – IR(DU) dated:

24.11.2004 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of

1947) referred this industrial dispute between Sh. Laxman

Prasad, Village Bhawani Bari, PO Nahiya, Varanasi (U.P.)

and the Chief General Manager, Eastern Telephone

Circle, Telecom, Hazratganj, Lucknow for adjudication

to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow which was

adjudicated vide order dated 18.08.2011. The workman

moved an application to recall the order dated 18.08.2011,

which was registered as Misc. Case No. 02/2011. This

Tribunal after considering the facts narrated in the

application for recall, recalled the order dated 10.08.2011

and revived the present industrial dispute on its original

number vide order dated 29.03.2012 in Misc. Case No.

02/2011.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE CHIEF

GENERAL

MANAGER

BSNL

TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF SH.

LAXMAN PRASAD S/O SH. KANAHAIYA LAL

W.E.F. 1/5/99 FROM THE POST OF

CHOWKIDAR IS JUSTIFIED AND LEGAL?

AND IF NOT, FOR WHAT RELIEF THE

WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”

The case of the workman, Laxman Prasad, in brief

is that he was duly selected and appointed as class

Chowkidar and worked continuously with the opposite

party since June, 1987 up to April, 1999 when his services

have been terminated by the management without any

notice or notice pay in lieu thereof or any retrenchment

compensation in violation of the provisions contained in

Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has

been alleged by the workman that several juniors are still

working with the opposite party and the management of

the opposite party instead of regularizing him, terminated

his services and retained others, therefore, it is prayed

that his termination be declared illegal and he be

reinstated with consequential benefits including

continuity in service and back wages.

The management of the BSNL has filed its written

statement; wherein it has denied the claim of the workman

had never went through the prescribed procedure for

appointment nor was appointed by any competent

authority. It is submitted that the workman was engaged

as casual labour on daily rate basis, in the exigencies

and his services come to an end automatically with the

end of the work; as such, there was no termination of his

services at any point of time. The management has

submitted that since there was no formal termination,

therefore, there arises no question of violation of any of

the provisions of the I.D. Act. The management has

denied retention of any junior and termination of the

workman in violation to the provisions of the Act.

Accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim

of the workman be rejected being devoid of any merit.

The workman has field rejoinder whereby he has

only reiterated his averments already made in the

statement of claim and has introduced nothing new.

The parties have filed documentary proof in support

of their respective cases. The workman has examined

himself whereas the management examined Shri J.

Prasad, Assistant General Manager in support of their

case. The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine

the each other’s witnesses apart from putting oral

arguments.

Heard representative of both the opposite party and

perused evidence on record.

6096

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The authorized representative of the workman has

argued that the management of the BSNL has terminated

the services of the workman without complying the

mandatory provisions of the section 25 F of the Act,

though the workman has completed 240 days continuous

working in each year. It has also argued that the

management has retained the juniors while has

terminated the workman instead of regularizing him for

no reason.

Per contra, the representative of the BSNL has

argued that the workman was never appointed by the

BSNL following prescribed procedures for the recruitment

in the BSNL nor was appointed by any competent

authority, making him eligible for regularization. It is

also contended that the workman did not complete

mandatory 240 days in a year to comply with the

provisions of 25 F of the Act.

10.

The workman has photocopy of various certificate

showing working details with the BSNL. The

management has not filed any document in rebuttal.

11.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival contentions of the authorized representatives of the

parties and scanned entire evidence on record.

12.

It is the case of the workman that he worked with

the opposite party continuously for the period June, 1987

to April, 1999; but the management of BSNL instead of

regularizing his services, terminated his services without

any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof in contravention

of the provisions contained in the section 25 F of the I.D.

Act, 1947 instead of fact that he worked for more than

240 days in each calendar year. It is also the case of the

workman that the management retained juniors while

terminated him in contravention to the provisions of the

Act.

13.

It is settled law that when the workman comes

forward with the case that his services have been

terminated without following the provisions of section

25 F of the Act, then burden of proof heavily lies upon

him that he had worked for 240 days in the preceding

twelve months from the alleged date of his termination.

In his cross-examination the workman has stated that he

has not been given any appointment letter and he has

been appointed by DET department.

In rebuttal, the management witness stated that the

workman worked from August, 1990 to December, 1990

in Amethi TRC Project and they have been terminated

after end of the project. In cross-examination, it was

stated that the management could not file any paper

relating to the workman for reasons that the matter is

10-12 years’ old one.

14.

Although the workman has claimed to having

worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year

and has photocopy of certain certificates, which are

regarding his working, detailed as under:

(i)

From June, 87 to July, 89, paper No. 3/5.

(ii)

From Aug, 89 to Oct, 89, paper No. 3/6.

(iii)

From November, 89 to February, 90, paper No.

3/7.

(iv)

From March, 90 to June, 90, paper No. 3/8.

(v)

From Jan, 91 to Dec, 91 for 254 days, paper No.

3/9.

(vi)

From Jan, 92 to Aug, 92 for 244 days, paper No.

3/10.

(vii) From Sep, 1995 to December, 95 for 92 days, paper

No. 3/10A.

(viii) From March, 96 to Dec, 96 for 216 days, paper

No. 3/11.

(ix)

From Jan, 97 to Dec, 97 for 345 days, paper No.

3/12.

(x)

From Jan, 98 to Dec, 98 for 246 days, paper, No.

3/13.

(xi)

From Jan, 99 to April, 99 for 120 days, paper No.

3/15.

The management has neither admitted not denied

the above photocopy of the certificates in support of his

working details filed by the workman. However, the

management witness, Shri J. Prasad admitted the paper

No. 3/6 & 3/7. He could not state about other documents

for reasons his posting was elsewhere. The management

has not filed any documents to curtail the claim of the

workman. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Director,

Fisheries Terminal Division vs. Bhakubhai Meghajibhai

Chavda 2010 AIR SCW 542; has observed that for

proving 240 days’ continuous working, the workman

would have difficulty in having access to all official

documents, muster rolls etc., in connection with his

service, therefore, the burden of proof shifts to the

employer to prove that he did not complete 240 days of

service in requisite period to constitute continuous service.

15.

It is the case of the workman that he worked for

more than 240 days in each year even then the

management of BSNL has terminated his services, in

violation to the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. In Surenderanagar Panchayat and

another v. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai 2005 (107) FLR 1145

(SC) Hon’ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that in

order to claim the benefits of provisions of Section 25 F

of the Act, the burden is on the workman to prove by

cogent evidence that he was actually in employment for

240 days in twelve months preceding the date of alleged

termination; and where the workman failed to prove that

he had been in employment with the employer for a period

of 240 days uninterruptedly in a year preceding the date

of termination, he is not entitled to the protection of

section 25 – F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6097

was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above case

that the scope of the enquiry before the Labour Court

was confined only to 12 months preceding the date of

termination to decide the question of the continuous

service for the purpose of Section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. Further, Hon’ble Apex Court has

observed as under:

“The claimant, apart his oral evidence has not

produced any proof in the form of receipt of salary

or wages for 240 days or record of his appointment

or engagement for that year to show that he has

worked with the employer for 240 days to get the

benefit under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes

Act. It is now well settled that it is for the claimant

to lead evidence to show that he in fact worked for

240 days in a year preceding his termination.”

16.

Thus, in view of the case cited hereinabove, the

scope of scrutiny before this Court is limited to twelve

preceding months from the date of termination i.e. from

May, 1998 to April, 1999 and see as to whether the

workman worked for 240 days in that time period to arrive

at any conclusion as to whether the management of BSNL

violated the provisions contained in the Section 25 F of

the Act while terminating the services of the workman

in April, 1998. The workman has number of papers in

support of his contention but the papers which are relevant

for proper adjudication of the case are paper No. 3/13

and 3/14, the details of which as under:

S. No.

Month

No. of days worked

May, 98

June, 98

Sept, 98

Oct, 98

Nov, 98

Dec, 98

Jan, 99

Feb, 99

March, 99

10.

April, 99

Total

303

17.

Thus, there is ample evidence to record this finding

that the workman had actually worked for 303 days in

preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged

termination i.e. April, 99; and termination of his services,

without any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof was in

violation of the Section 25 F of the I.D. Act.

18.

Now, it is to be considered as to whether the

workman is entitled for reinstatement. From the evidence

produced by the workman it is not proved that his

appointment was as a regular worker. But from the

certificates of working filed by the workman it is clear

that he was engaged as on daily wages. In Haryana

Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh (2005) 5 SCC 591; 2005

SCC (L&S) 716 Hon’ble Apex Court while considering

the question regarding award of back wages has observed:

“There is no rule of thumb that in every case where

the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the

termination of service was in violation of Section

25 F of the Act, entire back wages should be

awarded

…………………………………..

However, where the total length of service rendered

by a workman is very small, the award of back

wages for the complete period i.e. from the date of

termination till the date of the award, which our

experience shows is often quite large, would be

wholly inappropriate. Another important factor,

which required to be taken into consideration, is

the nature of employment. A regular service of

permanent character cannot be compared to short

or intermittent daily wage employment though it

may be for 240 days in a calander year.”

19.

In 2008 (119) FLR 877 Deepak Ganpat Tari vs.

N.E. Theater Pvt. Ltd. Hon’ble Bombay High Court

relying on the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment in 2008

(117) FLR 1086 (SC) A P V K Brahmandandam 2008

(118) FLR 376 (SC) Telephone DM vs. Keshab Deb 2006

(111) FLR 1178 (SC) JDA vs. Ram Sahai, while awarding

compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the concerned workman

considering his daily wages as Rs. 45/- in view of the

fact that the workman had put in about 3 years of service,

has observed as under:

“It is apparent that termination of services of a daily

wager does not amount to retrenchment and for

violation of Section 25 F in such circumstances,

the employee cannot be given benefit of

reinstatement with continuity and back wages.

Hon’ble Apex Court has hold that in such

circumstance employee is entitled to benefit of

compensation only.”

20.

Also, in Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture

Mktg. Board (2009) 15 SCC 327 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S)

545: Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal

v. Santosh Kumar Seal and Others (2010) 2 SSC (L&S)

309 Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:

“However, in recent past, there has been a shift in

the legal position and in a along line of cases, this

Court has consistently taken the view that relief by

way of reinstatement with back wages is not

automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a

given fact situation even though the termination of

an employee is in contravention of the prescribed

procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement

has been held to meet the ends of justice.

6098

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.”

21.

In the light of principle laid down in

aforementioned case laws, it would not be just and proper

to direct that the workman be reinstated in service. The

ends of justice would meet by paying compensation to

the workman instead in place of relief of reinstatement

in service.

22.

Having regards to these facts that the workman has

worked as daily wager from June, 87 to April, 99 and he

was getting Rs. 25/- per day and keeping in view the

entire facts of the case and the law, the interest of justice

would be subserved, if, management is directed to pay

lump sum amount of compensation only.

23.

Accordingly, the management is directed to pay a

sum of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) to the

workman as compensation for termination of his services

in violation of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. The said

amount shall be paid to the workman within 08 weeks of

publication of the award, failing which; the same shall

carry simple interest @ 8% per annum.

24.

The reference is answered accordingly.

LUCKNOW

20th August, 2014

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2413-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

VsyhdkWe fMfLVªDV bathfu;j] VsyhxzkÝl] ch,l,u,y ;oreky ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

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

,oa Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@

,uthih@30@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

26@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@165@2002&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2014

S.O.

2413.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. Case

No. CGIT/NGP/30/2003) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Nagpur now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of the

Telecom District Engineer, Telegraphs, BSNL, Yavatmal

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 26/08/2014.

[No. L-40012/165/2002-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/30/2003

Date: 07.08.2014.

Party No. 1: The Telecom District Engineer,

Telegraphs, BSNL, Yavatmal,

Yavatmal (MS).

Versus

Party No. 2: Shri Nandraj Gopalrao Nagarale,

At. Vithalwai, Near Sandip Talkies,

Vithalwadi.

AWARD

(Dated: 7th August, 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 Telegraphs, BSNL, Yavatmal and their

workman, Shri Nandraj Gopalrao Nagrale, for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-40012/165/2002-IR (DU)

dated 09.01.2003, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management in relation

to Telecom District Engineer, Yavatmal under the

erstwhile Department of Telecomunication and

present Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. in terminating

the services of Shri Nandraj Gopalrao Nagarale on

10.11.1988 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Nandraj

Gopalrao Nagrale, (‘the workman” in short), filed the

statement of claim and the management of Telecom

District Engineer (“Party No. 1” in short) filed their

written statement.

The claim of the workman is that he passed S.S.C.

in 1974 and in March, 1980, he was engaged as a casual

mazdoor by the Party No.1, on nominal muster roll

(NMR) and wages was used to be paid to him on monthly

basis and the work that was taken from him was that of a

Telephone Mazdoor and in that capacity, he worked

continuously from March, 1980 till 10.11.1988, without

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6099

any break and his work was satisfactory during the entire

period and no superior had any complaint about his work

and on 12.11.1988, a criminal case bearing Crime No.92/

88 was registered against him, under sections 306 and

498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegations that

he was responsible for the death of his wife and that he

had ill-treated her and he was arrested by the Police on

10.11.88 and was in judicial custody for a period of one

month, where after, he was released on bail and a charge-

sheet was filed against him and he faced sessions trial

No.24/89, in the Court of Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, under

sections 302, 306, 498(A) and 201 of the India Penal

Code and vide order dated. 22.02.1995, he was acquitted

by the learned sessions judge of the charges and the Party

No.1 had issued guidelines dated 07.06.1990 regarding

the grant of temporary status to the casual Mazdoors and

the eligibility criteria required for the same and the said

guidelines prescribe that those who had completed 240

days of work during 12 calendar months prior to

30.03.1985 are eligible for confirmation and according

to the Party No.1, he had worked for 2835 days up to

31.03.1990 and he was also sponsored by the Employment

Exchange vide letter No.227/82 dt.25.08.1982 and the

Telecom District Engineer, Amravati prepared a list of

casual mazdoors under TDE, Yavatmal, wherein, he had

been placed at Sl.No.11 in order of seniority, having

completed 2835 days during bifurcation of casual

mazdoor under Telecom District Engineer, Amravati and

on 30.04.1985, the SDO, Yavatmal issued a certificate

in his name, showing the number of days he had worked

as on 31.03.1985 and according to the said certificate,

he had already worked for 1540 days from March, 1980

and on 21.09.1982, a letter was also issued to him,

directing to attend duty with the working party of Shri

V.P.Gunjal and by letter dated. 25.07.1983, he was asked

to work at Vasco, Goa and on 10.02.1989, he made an

application for release of his salary from November, 1988,

which was withheld and on 05.01.1989, he applied for

grant of work of regular mazdoor and he repeated his

request on 14.04.1989 and again he applied for work on

10.02.1989 and on 12.05.1989 and 09.10.1989, he

repeated the said request and after his acquittal in the

criminal case on 22.02.1995, on 09.03.1995, he made

an application intimating the Party No.1 about his

acquittal and to allow him to resume duty and thereafter,

he repeated the request on many occasions, but despite

his repeated requests, the Party No.1 did not take any

action and did not provide him any employment, even

though, he should have been made regular in service, as

per the guidelines dated.07.06.1990 and as the Party No.1

avoided to employ him, he approached the Conciliation

Officer and on failure of the conciliation, failure report

was submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central), Chandrapur to the Central Government and

he had never abandoned the service and during the

pendency of the proceedings filed by him, some workers,

junior to him, namely, V.T.Ambuikar, S.T.Lachme,

R.D.Tondare, G.C.Lokhande, K.R.Nakwal, V.R.Dhenge,

B.U.Telang, V.L.Kewaikar and P.S.Sarode at serial Nos.

355 to 363 in the list were made regular Mazdoors on

18.06.2001, in violation of the provisions of Section 25-

H of the Act and not only that, the persons from serial

Nos. 12 to 70 in the said list of TDE, Yavatmal circle

were retained in service and made regular Telephone

Mazdoors, even though they were juniors to him.

It is also pleaded by the workman that despite the

repeated request made by him in writing, party No.1 did

not allow him to resume duty and therefore, it is a case

of otherwise termination of his services and he had

completed 240 days of work in each year of service

including the preceding year of the date of his such

termination within the meaning of Section 25-B of the

Act and Party No.1 was obliged in Law to give him one

month’s notice, with intimation to the appropriate

Government and retrenchment compensation, but nothing

of that sort was done, so his termination was illegal and

the noncompliance of the mandatory provisions vitiated

the termination and his termination was in colourable

exercise of power of the employer and unfair labour

practice.

The further case of the workman is that from the

date of his illegal termination from service, he is not

gainfully employed and in spite of his efforts, he could

not able to get another job and he is facing hard days in

his life and he is entitled for reinstatement in service

with continuity and full back wages w.e.f. 11.11.1988 or

at the most, a month thereafter, i.e. the period he had

spent in jail or at least from 10.02.1989, when he first

applied for resuming duty, after his release on bail and

in view of the guide lines of party No.1, he is also entitled

for regularisation w.e.f. 30.03.1985 and all consequential

benefits.

The Party No.1 in its written statement has pleaded

inter-alia that the workman was engaged as a casual

mazdoor by it and he was allowed to do the work of casual

labour only and the engagement of the workman was on

daily wages basis on muster roll and not on monthly basis

and special work orders were being issued in which,

number of days and nature of work were mentioned by

the competent authority of the section and records were

maintained accordingly and by issuing work order to the

Mustering Officer, the services of the workman were

being utilized and it was not aware about the initiation

of the criminal case against the workman by the Police

and the workman had never intimated it or the mustering

officer about the registration of the case against him and

as the workman did not come to work, the mustering

officer vide letter dt.25.11.1988 and dated 09.12.1988

asked the workman to come and join duties within three

days of the receipt of the letter or else to remove his name

from the list of casual labours of Yavatmal Division and

6100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the workman did not turn up to join his duty within the

stipulated period and in the mean time, the department

issued notification regarding recruitment of Group D post

in the year 1991. Vide notice dt.26.11.1991, by giving

wide publicity in all the units of Yavatmal Division and

the said notice was also placed on the notice board of the

Division Office and in spite of such notification and

publicity of the notice, the workman did not submit any

application for employment and the letters issued by the

workman were not considered, since it was not in need

of extra casual labourers at that relevant time and as the

workman left the work without intimating anything to it

and remained absent for a long time, he was treated as

absconding, since his whereabouts was not known and

as his name was removed from the list, the letters received

from him were not taken into consideration and the name

of the workman was not considered further and juniors,

who have been named in the petition by the workman,

were continuously working in the Yavatmal Division at

the time of publication of the notification dated

14.08.1991 for regularization of Group D post in

Yavatmal Division and there is no master-servant

relationship between it and the workman.

It is also pleaded by party no.1 that issuance of

guidelines dated 07.06.1990 has no relevance to the case

of the workman and the said guidelines are not applicable

to his case and the nine casual labourers, whose names

have been mentioned in the statement of claim were part-

time labourers working with it since long and even prior

to the workman and those labourers were paid wages

equal to the number of hours of duties performed by them

and as per the direction of the Chief General Manager,

Telecom, the services of the said nine labourers were

regularized and as the workman was engaged as a casual

mazdoor, he cannot be considered as a part time employee

and accordingly cannot be considered for regularisation

and the workman had not completed 240 days of work

and he was not entitled for retrenchment compensation.

The further case of party no.1 is that after his

termination w.e.f. 10.11.1988, the workman was driving

LMV Minidor (Bajaj Tempo) for his survival and the

said vehicle has been registered in the name of the

workman as the owner with RTO, Yavatmal, bearing

registration no. MH 29-1979 and as such, the contention

of the workman that he had no source of income after

termination has no force and the workman is not entitled

to any relief.

It is necessary to mention here that on 11.03.2011,

award was passed in the reference directing the party

no.1 to reinstate the workman in service with seniority

and to regularize his service as per his juniors, who have

already been regularized. Being aggrieved by the said

award, party no.1 approached the Hon’ble High Court of

Judicature of Bombay, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in writ

petition no. 3246/2011, for redress. The Hon’ble High

Court was pleased to allow the writ petition and passed

the following orders:-

“Considering all these facts, I find that interest of

justice can be met with by extending the parties a

fresh opportunity to lead proper evidence to

substantiate their contentions, so as to enable the

CGIT to find out the entitlement of the respondent

to reinstatement and other consequential benefits

in accordance with Law.

The facts show that even after his apprehension

by the police machinery, name of the respondent

continued in muster roll and it has been removed

sometime thereafter. In this situation, the interest

of justice can also be met with by directing

petitioner to provisionally pay to the respondent

an amount equal to the minimum wages at current

rate, every month commencing from 15th January,

2012 onwards for a period of 7 months. In view of

the statement made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, that recruitment on daily wages is totally

discontinued, the petitioners are directed to pay an

amount equal to current minimum wages to the

respondent every month. This payment is ordered

in terms of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes

Act. The respondent shall collect the amount

payable to him for the period from 15.01.2012 to

30.01.2012 by approaching the office of petitioner

at Yavatmal by 10th day of February, 2012. He will

collect the said amount payable for subsequent

months similarly by 10th of each succeeding month.

The parties are at liberty to amend their pleadings,

if they are so advised and lead additional evidence

on record.

After giving parties necessary opportunity, the

CGIT shall prounce fresh award in the matter. xxx

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx

Subject to this, the impugned award is quashed

and set aside. Petition is thus partly allowed. Rule

is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no

orders as to cost.”

It is also necessary to mention here that on

09.03.2012, an application for amendment of the

statement of claim was filed by the workman. After

hearing of the parties, the application for amendment of

the statement of claim was rejected on 07.05.2012. Being

aggrieved by the said order, the workman filed writ

petition no. 2695/2012 before the Hon’ble High Court,

Nagpur Bench and the Hon’ble High Court by order dated

25.09.2012 allowed for amendment of the statement of

claim in respect of the claim of the workman that he was

not gainfully employed after his termination and in view

of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in writ

petition no. 2695/2012 dated 25.09.2012, the workman

made amendment of the statement of claim and inserted

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6101

the facts that he was not gainfully employed after his

termination from services and he is entitled for full back

wages. The party no.1 also refuted such pleadings made

in the statement of claim, by making necessary

amendment in the written statement.

At this juncture, I think it necessary to mention

that in order to prove his case, the workman had examined

himself as a witness, besides placing reliance on

documentary evidence. The party no.1 had also examined

one Shri Vithoba Kaoduji Bhagat as a witness in support

of its case. After remand of the reference by the Hon’ble

High Court, with liberty to the parties to lead proper

evidence to substantiate their contentions, the workman

filed his evidence afresh on affidavit on 10.01.2013. Party

no.1 examined another witness, namely, Shri Ashok N.

Bende as a witness in support of its case.

The workman in his evidence on affidavit has

reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim.

The workman has also proved the documents filed on

his behalf as Exts. W-II to W-XXI. In his cross-

examination, the workman has stated that he had

intimated the department regarding his arrest on

10.11.1988 in a criminal case, by the police and he was

in custody for one month under the letter Ext. W-IX. He

has however admitted that in Ext. W-IX, nothing has

been mentioned by him regarding his arrest in a criminal

case by the police and his detention in custody for one

month and he has not filed any document to show that

he worked for 240 days in any calendar year. It is also

admitted by the workman that Ext. M-I is the copy of the

letter given by the ALC, Chandrapur to the party no.1 to

allow him to join duty, but he was not allowed to join

duty by the management, as per the direction of the ALC,

so he raised the dispute.

In his cross-examination, the workman has further

admitted that Auto no. MH-29-1979 is registered in his

name and he maintains his family from the income of

the said auto and Exts M-II and M-III are the copies

relating to the registration of the auto, MH-29-1979 in

his name.

The previous witness, Shri Vithoba K. Bhagat

examined on behalf of the party no.1 had reiterated the

facts mentioned in the written statement in his evidence

in affidavit. This witness in his cross-examination had

admitted that the circular dated 07.06.1990 was in respect

of the absorption of the casual labourers after giving them

temporary status and clause 10 of the said circular

prescribed the procedure of dealing with the case of a

worker, who did not attend the work and remained

absconding. This witness had categorically admitted that

the workman had worked continuously from 1980 to 1988

and juniors to the workman were already regularized and

the workman had not been paid retrenchment

compensation or notice of termination of his services.

The evidence of the witness, Shri Ashok N. Bende,

who has been examined by party no.1, after remand of

the reference by the Hon’ble High Court, is on affidavit.

This witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in

the written statement, in his examination-in-chief. This

witness has also proved the office copy of the letters dated

25.11.1988 and 09.12.1988 issued to the workman as

Exts M-V and M-VI respectively and the notification

issued by party no.1 regarding the eligibility of the casual

labourers as Ext. M-VII.

In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted

that the workman did not work under him directly and

he has no personal knowledge about the engagement of

the workman and a seniority list was being maintained

by the department for the casual labourers and Ext. W-V

is the said list and the name of the workman was at serial

no.11 in Ext. W-V, the list of casual mazdoors under TDE

Yavatmal and the document, Ext. W-VI was issued by

the S.D.O., Telegraph, Yavatmal in favour of the

workman. This witness for the party no.1 has further

admitted that he has no personal knowledge about

sending of the letters Exts. M-V and M-VI to the

workman and no document has been filed to show that

Exts. M-V and M-VI were served on the workman and

the dispatch register showing the dispatch of Exts. M-V

and M-VI to the workman has not been filed and no action

was taken by the management to remove the name of the

workman from the seniority list, even though it is alleged

that the workman did not join duty, even after issuance

of Ext. M-VI and he cannot say if the workman had

approached the management in writing as per Exts.W-X

to W-XIX to provide work to him, in between 10.02.1989

to 21.02.2002. It is admitted by this witness that as per

Ext. W-XX, the S.D.O., Telegraphs, Yavatmal, on

28.03.1995 had requested the T.D.E., Yavatmal to accord

sanction, for reinstatement of the workman and no letter

was sent to the workman by registered post.

At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman that the workman was

engaged as a casual mazdoor by party no.1 in March,

1980 and his name was in the muster roll and he was

paid wages on monthly basis and the work, which was

being performed by the workman was of regular nature

and the same was and is available round the year and the

workman was in continuous employment of party no.1

from March, 1980 to 10.11.1988 and on 10.11.1988, he

was arrested by the police in crime no. 92/1988, registered

under section 306 and 498-A of I.P.C. and he was in

judicial custody in the said case for one month and

thereafter, he was released on bail and he faced his trial

in the court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal

in sessions Trial no. 24/89 and was acquitted on

22.02.1995 and due to his arrest by the police and

detention in Judicial custody, the workman could not able

to attend his duty from 10.11.1988 and the workman had

6102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

completed more than 240 days of continuous service and

as per the circular dated 07.06.1990, the workman was

entitled to get temporary status and regularisation and

such fact has not been disputed by the party no.1 and the

workman made several representations as per Exts. W-

IX to W-XIX to take him back on duty, but party no.1 did

not take any action in the matter, inspite of receipt of the

representations and party no.1 never issued any notice to

the workman about his remaining absent from duties and

though Exts. M-V and M-VI were produced by the

management, no document has been filed by the party

no.1 to show that the same were received by the workman

and the name of the workman was also not removed from

the roll of the party no.1 and except the workman, other

employees enlisted in the list were regularized by the

party no.1 and from Ext. XX, it is clear that the workman

had approached the party no.1 to take him back in service

and the SDO, Yavatmal recommended the matter to

higher authority for sanction and as the workman had

completed 240 days of work, it was incumbent for party

no.1 to comply with the mandatory provisions of sections

25-F and 25-G of the Act, but such mandatory provisions

were not complied with, so the termination of the

workman was illegal and the workman is entitled for

reinstatement in service with continuity, full back wages

and for regularisation in service.

In support of the contentions, the learned advocate

for the workman placed reliance on the decisions reported

in (1980) 4 SCC-443 (Surendra Kumar Vs. CGIT), (2009)

9 SCC-129(Anil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer), (2001) 2

SCC-423(Vikramaditya Vs. Industrial Tribunal), (2003)

12 SCC-548 (U.P. State Vs. Rajesh Kumar), (2005) 9

SCC-365 (Union of IndiaVs. Ramchander), (2005) 12

SCC-181 (Executive Engineer Vs. Lekhraj), (2005) 12

SCC-283 (Executive Engineer Vs. Pargat Singh), (2005)

13 SCC-578 (Sonepath Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs.

Rakesh Kumar), (2006) 4 SCC-733 (UPSRTC ltd. Vs.

Sarada Prasad), (2007) 15 SCC-524 (State of Haryana

Vs. Saminder Singh), (2007) 15-SCC-536 (Ranjit Kumar

Vs. UB Engineering Ltd.), (2010) 1 SCC-47 (Director

Fisheries terminal Dept. Vs. Bhikubhai), (2010) 3 SCC-

192 (Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing

Corporation), (2010) 3 SCC-637 (Krishan Singh Vs.

Executive Engineer), (2010) 5 SCC-497 (Anoop Sharma

Vs. Executive Engineer PHD), (2001) 10 SCC-606

(Deepchandra Vs. State of U.P.), (2010) 12-SCC-487

(Manager KVSS Vs. Mukesh Kumar), 2013 (2) Bom CR-

749 (Laxmi Bharat Babise Vs. Permanent Magnets Ltd.)

and (2013) 10 SCC-324 (Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs.

Kranti Junior Adhayapak Mahavidhyalay.

So, now, keeping in view the principles enunciated

by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions cited by the

learned advocate for the workman, the present case in

hand is to be considered.

10.

In reply, it was submitted by the learned advocate

for the party no.1 that the workman has voluntarily

abandoned his services and there is no work available

with it for engaging casual labourers and the workman

has filed twenty documents and it has filed seven

documents and the workman in his cross-examination

has admitted that Ext. W-IX does not show that under

the said letter, he had intimated the party no.1 about his

arrest in a criminal case and his detention in judicial

custody in that case for one month and he has also

admitted that he has not filed any document to show that

he had worked for 240 days in one calendar year and

that there is no official seal on Exts W-X, W-XI and W-

XII and the workman had admitted that Auto no. MH-

29-1929 is registered in his name and he maintains his

family from the income of the auto and since the workman

is gainfully employed, he is not entitled for back wages

and reinstatement in service and it is clear from the

unshattered evidence of the witness, Mr. Ashok that letters

were issued to the workman to join duties within 3 days,

but he failed to join duties, for the reasons best known to

him and workman has failed to prove that Exts. M-V

and M-VI were not received by him and as the workman

is gainfully employed, he is not entitled to back wages

and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

11.

Perused the record and the evidence adduced by

the parties. It is found from the materials on record

including the documents, Exts. W-V and W- VI that the

workman had worked from March, 1980 to 10.11.1988

with Party No.1. The witness No.1 examined on behalf

of the Party No.1 in his evidence has also admitted that

the workman was working from 1980 to 1988

continuously. The case of the Party No.1 is that the

workman remained absent for a long time, so two notices

dated.25.11.1988 and 09.12.1988 were issued as per

Exhibits M-V and M-VI, directing him to resume duties

immediately or else, his name would be removed from

the seniority list of casual labourers.. However, there is

nothing on record to show as to how the notices were

sent to the workman. There is also nothing on record to

show that the said notices were on the workman. The

party No.1 has failed to produce any evidence to show

that the two letters were delivered to the workman or

served on him. Even the dispatch register showing the

dispatch of the said letters has not been filed at-least to

show that the same were sent to the workman. The witness

for the party No.1 has admitted such facts in his cross-

examination. Moreover, there is nothing on record to

show that basing on those letters, the name of the

workman was removed from the list of casual labourers

of Yavatmal.

The party No.1 has claimed that the workman had

never intimated it about his arrest by the police and his

detention in jail custody for one month in connection

with the criminal case registered against him, due to the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6103

death of his wife and it did not have any intimation about

such facts. However, the own document of the party No.1

shows that the said contention not to be correct. Ext. W-

III is the copy of the list prepared by the party No.1 in

respect of the casual labourers working under the SDO

(T), Yavatmal. In the said list, the name of the workman

has been entered at serial no. 41. In the remarks column

against the name of the workman, it has been mentioned

that, “He was arrested by the police in a criminal case in

Nov. 89. Since then absent on duty until now.” Ext. W-

III clearly shows that party No.1 knew very well about

the arrest of the workman and for that he remained absent

from duty.

Party No.1 has not denial the issuance of the letters

by the workman including the letter dated 05.01.1989. It

is pleaded by the party No.1 that the letters issued by the

workman were not considered, since it was not in need

of extra casual labourer at the relevant time. In view of

such facts and admission of party No.1 about receipt of

the letters given by the workman, it is clear that the claim

of party No.1 that the workman left the work without

intimation and remained absent for long time and he was

treated as absconding since where-about was not known,

is not true. It is also clear that the workman had not

absconded and he did not attend duty for some days due

to his arrest by the police and detention in jail custody

for about one month. It is also found from the document,

Ext. W-II that the workman was acquitted in the sessions

case registered against him on the allegation of

committing the murder of his wife. So the claim of the

Party No.1 that the workman abandoned the work and

remained absent for a long time cannot be believed.

Admittedly, the workman had worked for more than 240

days, preceding the 12 months of the date of termination,

i.e. 11.11.1988 and as such, his termination can be treated

as retrenchment. Due to non-compliance of the

mandatory provisions of sections 25-F and 25-G, the

termination of the service of the workman becomes illegal.

Hence, it is held that the termination of the services of

the workman without compliance of the provisions of

sections 25-F and 25-G is illegal and not justified.

12.

It is clear from the circular No. Recct.-III/7/orders/

III dt.07.06.1990, Ext. W-III that the Chief General

Manager (Telecom), Maharashtra Circle, Bombay had

issued the said circular containing the guidelines to grant

of temporary status to the casual mazdoors and according

to that guidelines, all the casual mazdoors were eligible

for conferring temporary status who were employed before

30.3.85 and completed continuous service of 240 days

during any 12 calendars months before 30.03.1985,

without any consideration of break up service either due

to departmental or own reasons. Accordingly to Ext. W-

III, a list of such casual labourers had been prepared by

the Telecom District Manager, Amravati on 14.8.90,

which was much after the letters, Exts. M-V and M-VI,

alleged to be sent by the Party No.1 to the workman and

in that list, the name of the present workman is found to

be at Sl.No.11 in the list of the casual mazdoors under

TDE, Yavatmal and the number of working days of the

workman was shown to be 2838 days. According to clause

10 of the circular mentioned above, “If a temporary

mazdoor is found absconding, he should be served with

a notice under registered cover by post for reporting for

duty immediately. If he does not turn up, another notice

should be sent giving 10 days time mentioning definite

date to join. If he does not report again, one more notice

should be sent indicating that his services will be

terminated and his name will be struck off from the

seniority list of temporary mazdoors, if he continuous to

abscond any further. After 10 days, if he does not report

action should be taken to terminate his services. All

correspondences should be made with intimation to

Labour Commissioner.”

In the present case, Party No.1 has admitted about

the workman making correspondence with it for his

engagement. There is nothing on record to show that the

procedures given clause 10 of the circular mentioned

above were complied with. Hence, it is found that the

action of the management in not reinstating the workman

as per the said circular is not justified.

13.

Now, the question remains for consideration is as

to what relief or reliefs, the workman is entitled. It is

now well settled that to claim back wages, it is necessary

for the workman to plead and prove that he is not gainfully

employed from the date of the alleged termination of his

service. As already mentioned above, the workman by

way of amendment to the statement of claim has pleaded

that he is not gainfully employed from the date of his

termination of his service. In his evidence on affidavit

also, he has stated so. However, in his cross-examination,

the workman has admitted that Auto no. MH-29-1979 is

registered in his name and he maintains his family from

the income of the said auto and Exts M-II and M-III are

the copies relating to the registration of the auto, MH-

29- 1979 in his name. It is clear from the own admission

of the workman that he is gainfully employed. Hence the

workman is not entitled for any back wages. However,

in view of the circular of the Chief General Manager

dated 07.06.1990, Ext. W-III and list of the casual

mazdoors prepared by the Telecom District Manager,

Amravati dated 14.08.1990, basing on Ext. W-III, the

workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with

seniority and regularization as per his juniors, who have

admittedly been regularized by the Party No. 1. Hence, it

is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management in relation to

Telecom District Engineer, Yavatmal under the erstwhile

Department of Telecommunication and present Bharat

6104

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sanchar Nigam Limited in terminating the services of

Shri Nandraj Gopalrao Nagarale on 10.11.1988 is

unjustified and illegal. The workman, Shri Nandraj

Gopalrao Nagarale is entitled for reinstatement in service

with seniority. However, the workman is not entitled for

back wages. The Party No.1 is directed to reinstate the

workman in service with seniority and to regularize his

service as per his juniors, who have already been

regularized, within a month from the date of publication

of the award in the Official gazette.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2414-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lqifjUVsUMsUV

vkWiQ iksLV vksfÝiQlsl ,.M vkFklZ ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh,@1194@ 2004) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@441@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2014

S.O.

2414.—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/1194/2004) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown

in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Supdt.

of Post Offices & Other and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 26/08/2014.

[No. L-40012/441/2000-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 15th May, 2014

Reference : (CGITA) No-1194/2004

Reference : (I.T.C) No-06/2002(old)

Reference Order No. 40012/441/2000-IR(DU)

The Supdt. Of Post Offices,

Deptt.of Posts, Jamnagar Division,

JAMNAGAR-361001

The Sub Post Master,

Sub Post Offices, Near Bal Mandir,

Jam-Jodhpur, Jamnagar-360530

......First Party

AND

Their Workman

Shri Kamlesh Vishwanathan Bhatt,

Near Old Apsara, Jam-Jodhpur,

Jamanagar-360530

....Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri Prakashchandra M. Rami,

Asst. Govt. Pleader

For the Second Party: Shri R.C. Pathak, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of labour, New

Delhi vide its order No.-L-40012/441/2000-IR (DU) dated

12.02.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to

Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, in respect of the matters

specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Supdt.

of Post offices, Jamnagar in terminating the services

of Sh. KamlesVishwananthan w.e.f. 01.03.1996 is

just and legal? If not, to what relief the work is

entitled?”

The case of the workman (2nd party) as per

statement of claim (Ext.6) is that he was working on the

post of E.D.A. since 1982. But his services were

terminated by the 1st party by its letter dated 29.02.1996

w.e.f. 01.03.1996. He was working in various department

of post as EDA till 1989. The 1st party gave break in his

work. Again he was appointed as Night Guard w.e.f.

29.01.1992 and his duty period was from 8 a.m. to 8

p.m. He was paid about Rs.920/- He was thereafter

arbitrary terminated by the 1st party whereas there was

no complain against his work. The 1st party has violated

the provision of section 25F of the I.D. Act by not giving

retrenchment notice or notice pay in lieu of notice and

retrenchment compensation. Juniors were continuing and

new employees were engaged for doing duties which were

being performed by him (2nd party) workman and thus

1st party have also violated the provision of section 25G

and 25H of the I.D. Act. In spite of repeated request to

the 1st party they did not consider to keep him (workman)

for work. Further case is that he completed about three

years of continuous service as night Guard each year he

completed more than 240 days. He is unemployed since

after his termination. On these grounds prayer is made

to declare his oral termination illegal and to reinstate

him to work with full back wages and cost.

As against this the case of the 1st party inter alia

as per written statement (Ext.7) is that the claim of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6105

workman is false, frivolous and against the provision of

law and is fit to be dismissed. The averment of para-1 of

S/c is baseless and far away from the truth. Shri Kamlesh

Bhatt had never been selected as ED employee on regular

base rather he had worked as substitute ED employee in

leave vacancy of different ED employee at different places

for total 57 days only. He was allowed to work on

contingent allowance paid post at Jam-jodhpur post office.

Para 2 of S/c is denied Shri Bhatt was working on leave

arrangement vice ED BPM Kotda Bavisi branch P.O.

during 01.05.1985 to 13.05.1985 and indulged in one

saving Bank fraud case and his integrity was doubtful

and so he was not allowed to work on substitute base. He

never worked continuously for 240 days in any year or

preceding 12 months. The Govt. has decided to dispense

contingently paid Night Guard Post in view of saving to

the government from very effect from 01.03.1996 Shri

Bhatt was never appointed on regular base. The 1st party

department has neither appointed any contingent paid

night guard after removing Shri Bhatt from his service.

He is not entitled to get notice pay or retrenchment

compensation according to law. Shri Bhatt moved to the

CAT at Ahmedabad and at the High Court of Gujarat by

filing Civil Application No. 1576/2001 application has

been rejected by the High Court and asked for adjudication

under Industrial Dispute Act and so the 2nd party

Shri Bhatt has raised dispute. The 1st party department

has never breached provision of Section 25F, G & H of

I.D. Act. The reference is not maintainable. On these

scores, prayer is made to dismiss the reference.

In view of the rival contention in the pleadings,

the following issues are taken for determination:

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference maintainable?

(ii)

Has the workman (2nd party) valid cause of action?

(iii)

Has Shri KamleshVishwanathan Bhatt completed

240 days work in calendar year preceding his

termination w.e.f.01.03.1996?

(iv)

Whether the action of the management of Supdt.

of Post Offices, Jamnagar in terminating the

services of Shri Kamlesh Bhatt is just and proper?

(v)

What relief Shri Bhatt is entitled to? What

directions if any are necessary?

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. (iii):- Both parties- second party

(workman side) and the 1st party (management side) have

adduced evidence in this case. The 2nd party has

submitted 10 documents with list (Ext.10) on 05.04.2005.

Ext.10/1 is papers showing (1) memo of application (2)

copy of order dated 29.02.1996 submitted before CAT,

Ahmedabad in OA No. 210/96. Present the 2nd party

had filed O.A. No. 210/96 before CAT, Ahmedabad

against Union of India through Chief Postmaster and

others, challenging the order dated 29.02.1996 of sub

postmaster, Jam-Jodhpur addressed to Kamlesh Bhatt

Night Guard.Written reply of respondent filed in O.A.

No. 210/96 reiterating the stand that Shri Kamlesh Bhatt

was working as substitute EDA employee in leave

resultant vacancies of different ED. Employees total

working period from 01.05.1983 to 19.05.1983-19 days,

22.06.1983 to 29.06.1983-08 days, 01.07.1983 to

01.07.1983- 01 days and 03.07.1983 to 31.07.1983-29

days total 57 days. The copy of rejoinder of 2nd party

also filed in O.A. No. 210/96. Ext. 10/2 is original copy

of application for leave of Extra-departmental Agents of

one Gulaboha for the period of 29 days-01.02.1988 to

29.02.1988 giving the name of Kamlesh Bhatt as

substitute. This does not go to show that Kamlesh was

working as EDA. on regular base. Ext.10/3 is copy of

order of CAT, Ahmedabad dated 12.08.1999 disposing

of the O.A. 210/96 filed by Shri Kamlesh on the ground

the CAT has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter and

returning the application for presenting before

appropriate forum. This does not help to the 2nd party.

Ext.10/4 is copy of letter dated 14.12.1987 of Sr. Supdt.

Of Post Offices, Jamnagar to Kamlesh to appear for

interview on 30.12.1987 at 10a.m. with all original

testimonials/certificates. Ext. 10/5 is true copy of

certificate dated 19.09.1983 of Sub Post Master Jam-

Jodhpur to the effect that Shri K.V. Bhatt has worked as

a.p. man EDA and class iv in leave arrangement during

1982-83. This does not go to connect that the 2nd party

was working as regularly appointed EDA rather go to

show that he worked in leave arrangement. This Ext.10/5

is neither original nor Xerox copy rather it is true typed

copy having attested by medical officer Govt. Dispensary,

Jam-Jodhpur. This is secondary evidence and no

explanation given by the 2nd party what happened with

primary/original certificate. More so, Ext.10/5 does not

go to show that Kamlesh worked for 240 days in the year

1982-83. Ext. 10/6 is carbon copy of letter dated

29.02.1996 of sub postmaster that as per Govt. of India

instruction contingent paid night guard is not to be kept

and informing him that he is not required from

01.03.1996. Ext. 10/7 is certificate of Sub Post master,

JamJodhpur dated 25.05.1990 that Shri Kamlesh has

worked for scattered period as substitute in leave vacancy

of E.D.A. Postman. This does not also go to provide a

right that he was working as regular staff EDA. Ext. 10/8

is letter dated 27.07.1994 of Sub Postmaster; Jam Jodhpur

addressed to Kamlesh to S.P. Jamnagar putting his certain

grievances which is not relevant in this case. Ext. 10/10

copy of application off Kamlesh Bhatt to Sub postmaster,

Jam Jodhpur post office dated 02.08.1994 requesting to

keep him in night guard and not to remove him. The 2nd

party has filed the Xerox copy of order below Ext.5 in

Regular Civil Suit (RCS) 365/89 in connection with

application under order 39 rule 1 &2 of C.P.C directing

the postal authorities to proceed with the selection and

6106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

posting keeping the right of plaintiff/applicant Kamlesh

Bhatt open subject to final disposal of suit. It appears

from the written argument submitted on behalf of the

2nd party (Ext.38) that the Civil Suit was withdrawn by

Kamlesh when he was engaged as contingent/night guard.

So there remained no force of order passed below Ext.5

in Civil Suit nor this helped the 2nd party to prove his

claim. Ext.11/1 is letter of intimation to supdt. of post

office dated 15.04.2005 and Ext. 11/2 is also letter

intimation to Supdt. of Post offices dated 14.07.2005.

On 21.07.2005 the 2nd party workman Shri

Kamlesh disposed vide Ext.12 and his cross examination

was deferred. Again workman filed fresh affidavit in lieu

of examination in chief vide Ext.21 in view of order that

he was not cross examined on his previous examination

in chief (Ext.12) . He was cross examined by Shri P.M.

Rami, Advocate of the 1st party on 26.06.2011. In

affidavit he claimed that he was engaged in the year 1982

and worked upto 29.02.1996 continuously and completed

240 days work in every calendar year. His such evidence

that he worked continuously from 1982 to 29.02.1996 is

beyond pleading as per statement of claim. In statement

of claim (Ext.6) vide para-1 he says that he was continued

in various department of post as EDA till 1989 and the

1st party gave him break that means he was terminated.

Thereafter he was engaged/appointed as night guard on

29.01.1992. So it’s crystal clear that the workman

Kamlesh had not worked either as substitute EDA in the

year 1990 and 1991 and did not work on any day. Thus

his claim as per affidavit (Ext.21) or earlier deposition

in chief (Ext.12) that he continuously worked a EDA.

and then as night guard from 1982 to 29.02.1996 is belied

and such stand falls to the ground as to continuity of

service and completing 240 days work in every calendar

year. The 2nd party has also failed to discharge the initial

onus that he had completed 240 days work in calendar

year when he was appointed as contingent night guard.

On the other hand the contents of documents as per

Ext.10/1 in connection with O.A case No. 210/96

particularly written reply of respondent Post Office go to

show that Kamlesh over all worked as substitute EDA

employee in leave resultant vacancies from the period

01.05.1983 to 31.07.1983. Ext. 34 is a list as to filing of

two documents on behalf of the 2nd party. Ext.34/1 is

Xerox copy of order of the High Court of Gujarat passed

in S.C.A. 1576/01 dated 26.12.2001 whereby and where

under the impugned order dated 20.1.2000 of appropriate

Government rejecting to make reference was set aside

and the Government directed to reconsider the matter.

In the reference order there is mention as to direction of

High Court of Gujarat in S.C.A. Ext. 34/1 has nothing to

do with proof/non-proof of the 2nd party case. Ext. 34/2

is statement as to work by Kamlesh Bhatt as substitute

class iv staff and postman form 25.10.1982 to 06.06.1985

in different period containing signature and seal of

substitute it is clear that Shri Kamlesh Bhatt never worked

for 240 days either in the year 1982 or in the year 1983

or in the year 1984 or in the year 1985. So Ext. 34/2

rather disprove the claim of workman Shri Kamlesh that

he continuously and uninterruptedly worked as class iv

or postman in substitute before he was giving break in

the year 1989 by the 1st party.

On behalf of the 1st party Shri Satyawadi Vishwal

Suptd. of Post offices, Jamnagar deposed in oral evidence

vide Ext.32 that Kamlesh was never appointed as EDA

by our Dept. Rather he was working as substitute (Badlee)

worker whenever regular staff of post office went on

leave and he was getting wages after deducting from

the salary of staff who went on leave. He was getting

wage for the period of work as substitute. Kamlesh was

not given any appointment letter and he worked for the

total period of 57 days as substitute. He was not appointed

either temporary or regular in postal Dept. Vide para 4

he deposed that Kamlesh had given application for

keeping him as Extra Departmental Employee (EDE) but

he was not selected since he was working from before as

substitute. He further deposed that as per interim direction

of Civil Court Kamlesh was kept as part time night guard

contingently paid and that his duty as contingent paid

night guard was stopped from 01.03.1996 and there

remained no need for his keeping in night guard. Vide

para-8 he says Kamlesh was paid from contingent fund/

allowance through vouchers. Vide para-9 he denied that

at Kotda Bavisi Postal branch Kamlesh was working as

EDA. Vide Para-11 during cross examination it has come

that the post of night guard in post office has been

abolished w.e.f. 01.03.1996 as per government direction.

The 2nd party has not challenged by giving any

suggestion that post of night guard has not been abolished

by the Government. It was suggested to the 1st party

witness in the last sentence of para-11 that one Dev

Morani was working in substitute and has been appointed

in EDA to which witness has denied. The 2nd party has

failed to submit any iota of relevant paper/documentary

evidence that DevMorani a substitute was kept as EDA.

in order to show any discriminating attitude of the

management of the 1st party.

Both sides have submitted written argument in

support of respective case. Ext. 36 is written argument of

the 1st party whereas Ext.38 is written argument of the

2nd party. The 2nd party on the basis of written argument

could not have been able to prove that the workman

Kamlesh completed 240 days work in every calendar year

or in the calendar year preceding termination of Kamlesh

with effect from 01.03.1996. On the other hand, the 1st

party has justified its case as per written argument.

Thus as per discussions and consideration made

above, I am of the considered view and therefore find

and hold that the 2nd party Shri Kamlesh Bhatt never

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6107

completed 240 days work in calendar year and also in

the calendar year preceding his termination w.e.f.

01.03.1996. So, Issue No.(iii) is answered in negative.

10.

ISSUE NO.(iv):- In view of the findings to issue

No. (iii) in the foregoings, I further find and hold that

the 1st party has not contravened the provision of section

25F of the I.D. Act or Section 25G or H of the I.D. Act

and so the action of the management of Suptd. of Post

Offices, Jmanagar in terminating the services of Shri

Kamlesh Bhatt as night guard is just and proper. So this

issue is answered in affirmative.

11.

ISSUE NO. (i) & (ii) :- The reference is not

maintainable and the 2nd party Shri Kamlesh Bhatt has

no valid cause of action in this case.

12.

ISSUE NO. (v):- In view of the findings to issue

no. (i), (ii), (iii) & (iv) in the foregoing paras, I further

find and hold that the 2nd party Shri Kamlesh

Vishwananthan Bhatt is not entitled to the relief of

reinstatement with back wages or alternative relief of

compensation from the 1st party. So there is no need to

give any direction to the 1st party. This issue is decided

against the 2nd party.

Accordingly the reference is dismissed. No order

of any cost.

Let two copies of the award be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication u/s. 17 of the

I.D. Act.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2415-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj okbZl

pkalyj] bXuks ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 32@10) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

29@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@87@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 1st September, 2014

S.O.

2415.—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/

10) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of the Vice Chancellor,

IGNOU and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 29/08/2014

[No. L-42012/87/2010-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-II, KARKARDOOMA COURT

COMPLEX, DELHI

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 32/10

Smt. Mukesh,

W/o Shri. Inderjit Singh,

H. No. 157, Near Shiv Mandir,

Maidan Garhi, New Delhi

Versus

The Vice Chancellor,

IGNOU, Maidan Garhi,

New Delhi-110092

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No L-42012/87/2010-(IR(DU)) dated

23.09.2010 referred the following industrial Dispute to

this tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of IGNOU

in terminating the services of Smt. Mukesh W/o

Shri Inderjit Singh w.e.f 01.11.2007 is legal and

justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled

to?

On 15.10.2010 reference was received in this

tribunal. Which was register as ID No. 32/10 and claimant

was called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen

days from date of service of notice. Which was required

to be accompanied with relevant documents and list of

witnesses.

Several opportunities given to workman as well as

management but neither workman nor management filed

claim statement/Response to the reference.

In this background there is no option to this tribunal

except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not

interested to file their respective pleadings.

On the basis of which none of the parte can be

directed to adduce its evidence.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 11/08/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2416-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy

eSustj vyxIik VsDlVkbYl] fFkzLlwj (Vh bu) ds izcaèkra=k ds

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

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky; ,.kkZoqQye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 15@2014) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@11@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

6108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 1st September, 2014

S.O.

2416.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 15/

2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-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, Thrissur (TN) and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

29/08/2014.

[No. L-42011/11/2014-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

(Thursday the 31st day of July, 2014/9th Shravana, 1936)

ID 15/2014

Union

: The SecretaryTextiles Workers Union

Alagappa Nagar, Amballur Kerala

Management : The General ManagerAlagappa

Textiles Thrissur (TN)

By Adv. Shri P Ramakrishnan

This case coming up for final hearing on

31.07.2014 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the

same day 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 vide its Order

No-L-42011/11/2014-IR(DU) dated 10/12.03.2014

referred the industrial dispute for adjudication to this

tribunal.

The dispute is:

‘Whether the action of the management of M/s.

Alagappa Mills in terminating the services of

Shri U L Jose is correct? If not, what relief he is

eligible to get?’

After receipt of the reference in this Tribunal

summons was issued to both parties. After acceptance of

the summons management entered appearance. In spite

of several adjournments union did not appear and file

any claim statement. Hence the union was set ex-parte.

Management filed affidavit with the averments that

it was because of the chronic absenteeism of the workman

he was terminated from service w.e.f.06.03.2013 by

invoking the provisions under Order No.17(F) of the Mill

Standing Orders after conducting a domestic enquiry with

due compliance of the principles of natural justice and

hence an award can be passed holding that the

termination of the services of the workman is just and

proper and he is not entitled to any relief.

As the union has failed to appear and participate

in the proceedings an award can be passed holding that

the termination of the services of the workman is correct

and hence he is not entitled to any relief.

In the result an award is passed holding that the

action of the management of M/s.Alagappa Mills in

terminating the services of the workman is correct and

hence he 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 31st

day of July, 2014.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX-NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 1 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2417-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy

os;jgkm¯lx dkjiksjs'ku] paMhx<+ jhtu ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 241] 242] 243] 244] 245] 246] 247]

248] 249] 250] 251] 252] 253] 254] 255 ,.M 256@2013)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@08@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@111&126@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 1st September, 2014

S.O.

2417.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 241,

242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252,

253, 254, 255 & 256/2013) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.-1, Chandigarh

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

the Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh

Region and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 29/08/2014.

[No. L-42012/111-126/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6109

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 241 of 2013,

Reference No. L-42012/111/2013/IR(DU) dated 3.3.2014

Sh. Sanjay Yadav

S/o Sh. Baleshar

R/o Birbal Nagar,

Narwana, Jind (Haryana)

.....Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Chandigarh Region,

Bay No. 35-38, Sector -4,

Panchkula (Haryana)-134112

.....Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

: None.

For the Management

: Shri N. K. Zakhmi

AWARD

Passed on : 26.08.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No.L-42012/111/2013/IR(DU) dated

3.3.2014 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference :

“Whether the action of the Management of

Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkula in

terminating the services of Sh. Sanjay Yadav S/o

Sh. Baleshar workman of Narwana Depot is just

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

entitled to ?”

Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the

workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per

record already three opportunities have been allowed to

file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the

workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is

not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of

the above the present reference is disposed off for want

of prosecution.

Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.

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

Central Govt. for publication.

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh

26-08-2014

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 242 of 2013

Reference No. L-42012/112/2013/IR(DU) dated 3.3.2014

Sh. Jadoo S/o Sh. Munshi

R/o Gandhi Nagar,

Narwana, Jind

(Haryana)

.....Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Chandigarh Region,

Bay No. 35-38, Sector -4,

Panchkula (Haryana)-134112

.....Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

: None.

For the Management

: Shri N. K. Zakhmi

AWARD

Passed on:- 26.08.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No.L-42012/112/2013/IR(DU) dated

3.3.2014 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the Management of

Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkula in

terminating the services of Sh. Jadoo son of shri

Munshi workman of Narwana Depot is just and

legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

to ?”

Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the

workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per

record already three opportunities have been allowed to

file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the

workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is

not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of

the above the present reference is disposed off for want

of prosecution.

Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.

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

Central Govt. for publication.

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh

26-08-2014

6110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 243 of 2013

Reference No. L-42012/113/2013/IR(DU) dated 3.3.2014

Sh. Manoj son of Shri Kalar Singh

R/o Birbal Nagar,

Narwana, Jind (Haryana)

.....Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Chandigarh Region,

Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4,

Panchkula (Haryana)-134112

.....Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

None.

For the Management : Shri N. K. Zakhmi

AWARD

Passed on : 26.08.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No.L-42012/113/2013/IR(DU) dated

3.3.2014 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the Management of

Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkula in

terminating the services of Sh. Manoj son of Shri

Kalar Singh workman of Narwana Depot is just

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

entitled to ?”

Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the

workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per

record already three opportunities have been allowed to

file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the

workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is

not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of

the above the present reference is disposed off for want

of prosecution.

Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.

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

Central Govt. for publication.

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh

26-08-2014

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 244 of 2013

Reference No. L-42012/114/2013/IR(DU) dated 3.3.2014

Sh. Mithoon son of Shri Subodh

R/o Gandhi Nagar,

Narwana, Jind (Haryana).

.....Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Chandigarh Region,

Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4,

Panchkula (Haryana)-134112

......Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

: None.

For the Management : Shri N. K. Zakhmi

AWARD

Passed on : 26.08.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No.L-42012/114/2013/IR(DU) dated

3.3.2014 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the Management of

Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkula in

terminating the services of Sh. . Mithoon son of

Shri Subodh workman of Narwana Depot is just

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

entitled to ?”

Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the

workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per

record already three opportunities have been allowed to

file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the

workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is

not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of

the above the present reference is disposed off for want

of prosecution.

Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.

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

Central Govt. for publication.

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh

26-08-2014

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6111

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 245 of 2013

Reference No. L-42012/115/2013/IR(DU) dated 3.3.2014

Sh. Toofan

Son of shri Madav Singh

R/o Birbal Nagar,

Narwana, Jind (Haryana)

.....Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Chandigarh Region,

Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4,

Panchkula (Haryana)-134112

.....Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

: None.

For the Management : Shri N. K.Zakhmi

AWARD

Passed on : 26.08.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No.L-42012/115/2013/IR(DU) dated

3.3.2014 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference :

“Whether the action of the Management of

Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkula in

terminating the services of Sh. Toofan Son of shri

Madav Singh workman of Narwana Depot is just

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

entitled to ?”

Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the

workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per

record already three opportunities have been allowed to

file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the

workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is

not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of

the above the present reference is disposed off for want

of prosecution.

Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.

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

Central Govt. for publication.

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh

26-08-2014

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 246 of 2013

Reference No. L-42012/116/2013/IR(DU) dated 3.3.2014

Sh. Ankleshwar son of Dev Sharma

R/o Gandhi Nagar, Narwana,

Jind (Haryana).

.....Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Chandigarh Region,

Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4,

Panchkula (Haryana)-134112

.....Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

: None

For the Management : Shri N. K. Zakhmi

AWARD

Passed on : 26.08.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No.L-42012/116/2013/IR(DU) dated

3.3.2014 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference :

“Whether the action of the Management of

Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkula in

terminating the services of Sh. Ankleshwar son of

Dev Sharma workman of Narwana Depot is just

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

entitled to ?”

Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the

workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per

record already three opportunities have been allowed to

file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the

workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is

not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of

the above the present reference is disposed off for want

of prosecution.

Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.

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

Central Govt. for publication.

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh

26-08-2014

6112

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 247 of 2013

Reference No. L-42012/117/2013/IR(DU) dated 3.3.2014

Sh. Janardan son of shri Brahm Dev

R/o Birbal Nagar, Narwana,

Jind (Haryana)

.....Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Chandigarh Region,

Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4,

Panchkula (Haryana)-134112

.....Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

: None.

For the Management : Shri N. K. Zakhmi

AWARD

Passed on : 26.08.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No.L-42012/117/2013/IR (DU) dated

3.3.2014 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication :

Term of Reference :

“Whether the action of the Management of

Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkula in

terminating the services of Sh. Janardan son of

Shri Brahm Dev workman of Narwana Depot is

just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to ?”

Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the

workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per

record already three opportunities have been allowed to

file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the

workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is

not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of

the above the present reference is disposed off for want

of prosecution.

Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.

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

Central Govt. for publication.

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh

26-08-2014

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 248 of 2013

Reference No. L-42012/118/2013/IR(DU) dated 3.3.2014

Sh.Ranjit Son of Parshu Ram

R/o Gandhi Nagar, Narwana,

Jind (Haryana)

.....Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Chandigarh Region,

Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4,

Panchkula (Haryana)-134112

.....Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

: None.

For the Management : Shri N. K. Zakhmi

AWARD

Passed on : 26.08.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No.L-42012/118/2013/IR (DU) dated

3.3.2014 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference :

“Whether the action of the Management of

Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkula in

terminating the services of Sh. Ranjit Son of Parshu

Ram workman of Narwana Depot is just and

legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

to ?”

Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the

workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per

record already three opportunities have been allowed to

file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the

workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is

not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of

the above the present reference is disposed off for want

of prosecution.

Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.

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

Central Govt. for publication.

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh

26-08-2014

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6113

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 249 of 2013

Reference No. L-42012/119/2013-IR(DU) dated 5.3.2014

Sh. Jai Ram

Son of Dhar Singh

R/o Gandhi Nagar, Narwana,

Jind (Haryana).

.....Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Chandigarh Region,

Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4,

Panchkula (Haryana)-134112

Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

: None.

For the Management : Shri N. K. Zakhmi

AWARD

Passed on : 26.08.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

Notification No.L-42012/119/2013-IR(DU) dated

5.3.2014 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference :

“Whether the action of the Management of

Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkula in

terminating the services of Sh. Jai Ram son of Dhar

Singh workman of Narwana Depot is just and

legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

to ?”

Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the

workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per

record already three opportunities have been allowed to

file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the

workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is

not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of

the above the present reference is disposed off for want

of prosecution.

Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.

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

Central Govt. for publication.

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh

26-08-2014

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 250 of 2013

Reference No. L-42012/120/2013-IR(DU) dated 5.3.2014

Sh. Sanjivan

Son of Shri Ram Dulare

R/o Gandhi Nagar, Narwana,

Jind (Haryana)

.....Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Chandigarh Region,

Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4,

Panchkula (Haryana)-134112

.....Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

: None

For the Management : Shri N. K. Zakhmi

AWARD

Passed on : 26.08.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

Notification No.L-42012/120/2013-IR (DU) dated

5.3.2014 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference :

“Whether the action of the Management of

Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkula in

terminating the services of Sh. Sanjivan Son of

Shri Ram Dulare workman of Narwana Depot is

just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to ?”

Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the

workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per

record already three opportunities have been allowed to

file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the

workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is

not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of

the above the present reference is disposed off for want

of prosecution.

Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.

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

Central Govt. for publication.

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh

26-08-2014

6114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 251 of 2013

Reference No. L-42012/121/2013-IR(DU) dated 5.3.2014

Sh. Chhote Lal

Son of Shri Nirdhan

R/o Gandhi Nagar, Narwana,

Jind (Haryana)

.....Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Chandigarh Region,

Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4,

Panchkula (Haryana)-134112

.....Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

: None.

For the Management : Shri N. K. Zakhmi

AWARD

Passed on : 26.08.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

Notification No.L-42012/121/2013-IR (DU) dated

5.3.2014 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference :

“Whether the action of the Management of

Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkula in

terminating the services of Sh. Chhote Lal Son

of Shri Nirdhan workman of Narwana Depot is

just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to ?”

Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the

workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per

record already three opportunities have been allowed to

file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the

workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is

not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of

the above the present reference is disposed off for want

of prosecution.

Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.

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

Central Govt. for publication.

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh

26-08-2014

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 252 of 2013

Reference No. L-42012/122/2013-IR(DU) dated 5.3.2014

Sh. Shree Ram

Son of Shri Uchit Paswan

R/o Gandhi Nagar, Narwana,

Jind (Haryana)

.....Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Chandigarh Region,

Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4,

Panchkula (Haryana)-134112

.....Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

: None.

For the Management : Shri N. K. Zakhmi

AWARD

Passed on : 26.08.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

Notification No.L-42012/122/2013-IR (DU) dated

5.3.2014 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference :

“Whether the action of the Management of

Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkula in

terminating the services of Sh. Shree Ram Son of

Shri Uchit Paswan workman of Narwana Depot is

just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to ?”

Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the

workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per

record already three opportunities have been allowed to

file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the

workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is

not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of

the above the present reference is disposed off for want

of prosecution.

Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.

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

Central Govt. for publication.

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh

26-08-2014

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6115

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 253 of 2013

Reference No. L-42012/123/2013-IR(DU) dated 5.3.2014

Sh. Upender

Son of Shri Suraj Singh

R/o Birbal Nagar, Narwana,

Jind (Haryana)

.....Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Chandigarh Region,

Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4,

Panchkula (Haryana)-134112

.....Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

: None

For the Management : Shri N. K. Zakhmi

AWARD

Passed on : 26.08.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No.L-42012/123/2013-IR (DU) dated

5.3.2014 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference :

“Whether the action of the Management of

Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkula in

terminating the services of Sh. Shree Ram Son of

Shri Uchit Paswan workman of Narwana Depot

is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled to ?”

Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the

workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per

record already three opportunities have been allowed to

file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the

workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is

not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of

the above the present reference is disposed off for want

of prosecution.

Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.

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

Central Govt. for publication.

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh

26-08-2014

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 254 of 2013

Reference No. L-42012/124/2013-IR(DU) dated 5.3.2014

Sh. Arvind

Son of Shri Suresh Ram

R/o Gandhi Nagar, Narwana,

Jind (Haryana)

.....Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Chandigarh Region,

Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4,

Panchkula (Haryana)-134112

....Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

: None

For the Management : Shri N. K. Zakhmi

AWARD

Passed on : 26.08.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No.L-42012/124/2013-IR (DU) dated

5.3.2014 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference :

“Whether the action of the Management of

Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkula in

terminating the services of Sh. Arvind Son of

Shri Suresh Ram workman of Narwana Depot is

just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to ?”

Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the

workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per

record already three opportunities have been allowed to

file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the

workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is

not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of

the above the present reference is disposed off for want

of prosecution.

Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.

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

Central Govt. for publication.

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh

26-08-2014

6116

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 255 of 2013

Reference No. L-42012/125/2013-IR(DU) dated 5.3.2014

Sh. Somnath

Son of Shri Roshan,

Vill. & P.O: Balerkha,

Teh. Narwana, Jind (Haryana)

.....Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Chandigarh Region,

Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4,

Panchkula (Haryana)-134112

.....Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

: None.

For the Management : Shri N. K. Zakhmi

AWARD

Passed on : 26.08.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

Notification No.L-42012/125/2013-IR (DU) dated

5.3.2014 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the Management of

Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkula in

terminating the services of Sh. Som Nath Son of

Shri Roshan workman of Narwana Depot is just

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

entitled to ?”

Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the

workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per

record already three opportunities have been allowed to

file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the

workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is

not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of

the above the present reference is disposed off for want

of prosecution.

Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.

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

Central Govt. for publication.

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh

26-08-2014

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 256 of 2013

Reference No. L-42012/126/2013-IR(DU) dated 5.3.2014

Sh. Vijay

Son of Shri Jai Parkash,

Vill.& P.O. : Balerkha, Teh. Narwana,

Jind (Haryana)

.....Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Chandigarh Region,

Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4,

Panchkula (Haryana)-134112

.....Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

: None.

For the Management : Shri N. K. Zakhmi

AWARD

Passed on : 26.08.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

Notification No.L-42012/126/2013-IR (DU) dated

5.3.2014 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the Management of

Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkula in

terminating the services of Sh. Vijay Son of

Shri Jai Parkash workman of Narwana Depot is

just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the

workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per

record already three opportunities have been allowed to

file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the

workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is

not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of

the above the present reference is disposed off for want

of prosecution.

Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.

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

Central Govt. for publication.

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh

26-08-2014

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6117

ubZ fnYyh] 1 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2418-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

lkbafVLV~l bapktZ] lheSi iar uxj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 10@13) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 29@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@38@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 1st September, 2014

S.O.

2418.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 10/

13) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of the Scientists Incharge,

CIMAP, Pant Nagar and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 29/08/2014.

[No. L-42011/38/2011-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-II, DELHI

Present : Shri HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA,

Presiding Officer

ID No. 10/13

Sh. Jagdish Kashyap & Others

The Tarai Mazdoor & Uthan Samiti,

941, Sector, Pant Nagar,

Versus

The Scientists Incharge, CIMAP,

Field Section Pant Nagar, Nagala Distt.,

Udham Singh Nagar (UK)

Udham Singh Nagar

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L-42011/38/2011-IR(DU) dated

12.02.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute to

this tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of CIMAP

of not fulfilling statutory obligation of 48 contractor

workers (list enclosed) under Payment of Bonus

Act on contractors failure to pay bonus for the year

2006-2007 is illegal and unjustified? If so what

relief the workmen are entitled to ?”

On 28.02.2013 reference was received in this

tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 10/2013 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.

Several opportunities given to workmen as well as

management but neither workman nor management filed

claim statement / Response to the reference.

In this background there is no option to this tribunal

except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not

interested to file their respective pleadings.

On the basis of which none of the party can be directed

to adduce its evidence.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 26.08.2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2419-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy

eSustj] vkWIVks bysDVªkWfuDl iSQDVªh] nsgjknwu ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

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

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

fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 91@13) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14011@04@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 1st September, 2014

S.O.

2419.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 91/

13) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum

Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of the General Manager, Opto

electronics Factory, Dehradun and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 29/08/2014

[No. L-14011/04/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-II, KARKARDOOMA, DELHI-110032

Present : Shri HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA,

Presiding Officer

ID No. 91/13

General Manager,

Opto Electronics Factory, Raipur Road, Dehradun.

6118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

General Secretary,

All India Central Govt. Employees Association,

F-48, Lado Sarai, New Delhi -110030

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L-14011/04/2013-IR(DU) dated

10.07.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute to

this tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Electronics Ltd. Kotdwar Unit in non payment of

Plant Performance incentive for the year 2011-12

for the non executive employees of Kotdwar Unit

is unjustified? What relief the workmen are entitled

to?

On 23.07.2013 reference was received in this

tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 91/2013 and

claimant was called upon to file claim statement with in

fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was

required to be accompanied with relevant documents and

list of witnesses.

Several opportunities given to workman as well as

management but neither workman nor management filed

claim statement / Response to the reference.

In this background there is no option to this tribunal

except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not

interested to file their respective pleadings.

On the basis of which none of the party can be

directed to adduce its evidence.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 26.08.2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2420-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj okbZl

pkalyj] bXuks ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 24@11) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

29@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@153@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 1st September, 2014

S.O.

2420.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 24/

11) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of the Vice Chancellor,

IGNOU and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 29/08/2014

[No. L-42012/153/2010-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-II, DELHI

Present : Shri HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA,

Presiding Officer

ID No. 24/11

Sh. Radhey Shyam

R/o 137, Balmiki Basti,

Maidan Garhi, New Delhi

Versus

The Vice Chancellor,

IGNOU, Maidan Garhi,

New Delhi-110092

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L-42012/153/2010-(IR(DU)) dated

10.03.2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute to

this tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of IGNOU

in terminating the services of Sh. Radhey Shyam

S/o Sh. Ram Saran w.e.f 01.11.2007 is just fair and

legal? If not, to what relief the workman concerned

is entitled to and from which date?

On 31.03.2011 reference was received in this

tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 24/11 and

claimant was called upon to file claim statement with in

fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was

required to be accompanied with relevant documents and

list of witnesses.

Several opportunities given to workman as well as

management but neither workman nor management filed

claim statement / Response to the reference.

In this background there is no option to this tribunal

except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not

interested to file their respective pleadings.

On the basis of which none of the party can be

directed to adduce its evidence.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 11.08.2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6119

ubZ fnYyh] 1 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2421-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;spsach

xjoky lsaVªy ;wfuo£lVh] Jh uxj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 95@11) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 29@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@48@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 1st September, 2014

S.O.

2421.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 95/

11) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of the HNB Garhwal Central

University, Sri Nagar and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 29/08/2014

[No. L-42011/48/2011-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-II, KARKARDOOMA, COURT

COMPLEX, DELHI

Present : Shri HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA,

Presiding Officer

ID No. 95/11

Sh. Vinod Singh,

S/o Ranjit Singh Negi

Village–Chaplodi, PO Chaplodi, Distt, Pauri,

Garhwal (UK)

Versus

HNB Garhwal Central University,

Sri Nagar, Garhwal (UK)

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No L-42011/48/2011-IR(DU) dated

10.10.2011 referred the following industrial Dispute to

this tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of HNB

Garhwal Central University, in terminating the

services of workman Sh. Vinod Singh , S/o Ranjit

Singh Negi w.e.f . 11.10.2001, without complying

with Sections 25 F, G & H is legal and justified ?

What relief the workman is entitled to ?”

On 11.11.11 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D No. 95/11 and claimant was

called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days

from date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of

witnesses.

After service of notice workman/claimant Sh. Vinod

Singh not filed claim statement but management in

response to reference filed response wherein it mentioned

as follows:-

That the deponent is the duly authorized person on

behalf of the respondent/management in the present

case as such he is well acquainted with the facts

deposed to below. Authority letter of Register HND

Garhwal University is marked and Annexed as

Annexure No. R1.

That the claimant has failed to file any statement

of claim till date and on account of that only the

present reference before the Ld. Tribunal is liable

to be dismissed.

That for the convenience of the Ld. Court certain

facts with regard to the contractual employees in

the university are being brought on record as under:

(i)

That the University was a state university

upto 14 Jan., 2009 and was ungraded as a

Central University under the Central

Universities Act, 2009 w.e.f. 15.01.2009.

(ii)

That it is submitted that at the time of said

up gradation of the university there were 171

contractual/daily wager employees, engaged

by the Head of the Department/Project

Incharge/Section’s Heads of the university

which are not the appointing authority nor

any order of engagement /said appointments

was ever issued by the university to the said

daily wager/contractual employees. In the

said list the name of the claimant was not

available. These petitioners were not engaged

by the University.

(iii)

That during the tenure of the State University

some of the departments may have engaged

daily wages without the approval of the vice-

chancellor, the competent authority hence

illegal and void ab initio.

(iv)

That it is submitted the said daily wager

contractual labours may have been engaged

for a period of one to three months showing

some urgency of the section without following

any provisions of law and with a view to

provide a back door entry in the university.

(v)

That it is also worth mentioning here neither

any permission or approval was ever obtained

6120

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

from the university for such illegal

engagement nor the said engagement was

ever extended with permission or approval

of the university but it seems that under some

connivance with the officers of the university

this category of employees were illegally

provided the wages without any permission

or approval from the university.

That under these circumstances it is expedient in

the interest of justice that the Hon’ble Court may kindly

dismiss the reference petition with costs.

I, The deponent named above do hereby solemnly

affirm and state on oath and verify that the contents of

Paragraph No. 1 of the response are true to my own

knowledge and those of Paragraphs Nos. 2,3 of the

application are based on perusal of records those of

paragraphs No. 4 of the application are based on legal

advice which also the deponent believe to be true that

nothing material has been concealed and that no part of

this affidavit is false.

On the basis of non-interestedness of workman. The

proceeding of this case is not liable to be proceeded

further. Hence proceedings of the case are liable to be

dropped and no dispute award is liable to be passed.

Which is liable to be passed.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 14.08.2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2422-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj okbZl

pkalyj] bXuw ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2 fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 25@11) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

29@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@154@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 1st September, 2014

S.O.

2422.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 25/

11) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of the Vice Chancellor,

IGNOU and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 29/08/2014.

[No. L-42012/154/2010-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-II, DELHI

Present : Shri HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA,

Presiding Officer

ID No. 25/11

Smt. Vimlesh

R/o J-II 177, Madanagir,

New Delhi

Versus

The Vice Chancellor,

IGNOU, Maidan Garhi,

New Delhi-110092

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No L-42012/154/2010-IR(DU) dated

11.03.2011 referred the following industrial Dispute to

this tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of IGNOU

in terminating the services of Smt. Vimlesh W/o

Shri Kali Charan w.e.f . 01.11.2007 is just fair and

legal? If not, to what relief the workman concerned

is entitled to and from which date?”

On 31.03.2011 reference was received in this

tribunal. Which was register as I.D. No. 25/11 and

claimant was called upon to file claim statement within

fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was

required to be accompanied with relevant documents and

list of witnesses.

Several opportunities given to workman as well as

management but neither workman nor management filed

claim statement/Response to the reference.

In this background there is no option to this tribunal

except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not

interested to file their respective pleadings.

On the basis of which none of the party can be

directed to adduce its evidence.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2423-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj okbZl

pkalyj] bXuw ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2 fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 26@11) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

29@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@155@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6121

New Delhi, the 1st September, 2014

S.O.

2423.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 26/

11) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of the Vice Chancellor,

IGNOU and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 29/08/2014

[No. L-42012/155/2010-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-II, KARKARDOOMA, COURT

COMPLEX, DELHI

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 26/11

Smt. Kela

R/o A-45, Harijan Basti

Neb Sarai, New Delhi

Versus

The Vice Chancellor,

IGNOU, Maidan Garhi,

New Delhi-110092

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L-42012/155/2010-IR(DU) dated

10.03.2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute to

this tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of IGNOU

in terminating the services of Smt. Kela W/o Shri

Babu Lal w.e.f . 01.11.2007 is just fair and legal?

If not, to what relief the workman concerned is

entitled to and from which date?

On 31.03.2011 reference was received in this

tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 26/11 and

claimant was called upon to file claim statement with in

fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was

required to be accompanied with relevant documents and

list of witnesses.

Several opportunities given to workman as well as

management but neither workman nor management filed

claim statement / Response to the reference.

In this background there is no option to this tribunal

except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not

interested to file their respective pleadings.

On the basis of which none of the parte can be

directed to adduce its evidence.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 11.08.2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2424-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj okbZl

pkalyj] bXuks ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 28@10) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

29@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@80@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 1st September, 2014

S.O.

2424.—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/

10) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of the Vice Chancellor,

IGNOU and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 29/08/2014

[No. L-42012/80/2010-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-II, KARKARDOOMA, COURT

COMPLEX, DELHI

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 28/10

Sh. Sunil Kumar, S/o Sh. Jagdish

House No. 123, Balmik Basti, Maidan Garhi,

New Delhi-110068

Versus

The Vice Chancellor,

IGNOU, Maidan Garhi,

New Delhi-110092

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L-42012/80/2010-IR(DU) dated

18.08.2010 referred the following Industrial Dispute to

this tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of IGNOU,

in terminating the services of Sh. Sunil kumar w.e.f

01.11.2007 is just fair and legal? If not, what relief

the workman is entitled to?”

On 01.09.2010 reference was received in this

tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 28/10 and

claimant was called upon to file claim statement with in

fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was

required to be accompanied with relevant documents and

list of witnesses.

6122

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Several opportunities given to workman as well as

management but neither workman nor management filed

claim statement / Response to the reference.

In this background there is no option to this tribunal

except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not

interested to file their respective pleadings.

On the basis of which none of the parte can be

directed to adduce its evidence.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 11.8.2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2425-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj okbZl pkalyj]

bXuks ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2 fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

31@10) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@08@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@105@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 1st September, 2014

S.O.

2425.—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/

10) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of the Vice Chancellor,

IGNOU and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 29/08/2014

[No. L-42012/105/2010-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-II, KARKARDOOMA, COURT

COMPLEX, DELHI

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 31/2010

Sh. Amit, S/o Sh. Naresh

H. No. 125, Balmik Basti,

Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110068

Versus

The Vice Chancellor,

Indira Gandhi National Open University,

R. No. 1, Block No. 8,

Maidan Garhi.

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No L-42012/105/2010-IR(DU) dated

23.09.2010 referred the following Industrial Dispute to

this tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of IGNOU,

in terminating the services of their workman Sh.

Amit S/o Sh. Naresh w.e.f. 01.11.2007 is legal and

justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled

to ?”

On 15.10.2010 reference was received in this

tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 31/2010 and

claimant was called upon to file claim statement with in

fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was

required to be accompanied with relevant documents and

list of witnesses.

Several opportunities given to workman as well as

management but neither workman nor management filed

claim statement / Response to the reference.

In this background there is no option to this tribunal

except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not

interested to file their respective pleadings.

On the basis of which none of the parte can be

directed to adduce its evidence.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 26.8.2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2426-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj okbZl pkalyj]

bXuks ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2 fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

32@10) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@08@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@153@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 1st September, 2014

S.O.

2426.—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/

10) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of the Vice Chancellor,

IGNOU and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 29/08/2014

[No. L-42012/153/2010-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6123

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-II, KARKARDOOMA, COURT

COMPLEX, DELHI

Present : Shri HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA

ID No. 32/10

Smt. Mukesh,

W/o Shri. Inderjit Singh,

H. No. 157, Near Shiv Mandir,

Maidan Garhi, New Delhi

Versus

The Vice Chancellor,

IGNOU, Maidan Garhi,

New Delhi-110068

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No L-42012/153/2010-(IR(DU)) dated

23.09.2010 referred the following industrial Dispute to

this tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of IGNOU

in terminating the services of Smt. Mukesh W/o

Shri Inderjit Singh w.e.f 01.11.2007 is legal and

justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled

to?

On 15.10.2010 reference was received in this

tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 32/10 and

claimant was called upon to file claim statement with in

fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was

required to be accompanied with relevant documents and

list of witnesses.

Several opportunities given to workman as well as

management but neither workman nor management filed

claim statement / Response to the reference.

In this background there is no option to this tribunal

except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not

interested to file their respective pleadings.

On the basis of which none of the parte can be

directed to adduce its evidence.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 11.8.2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2427-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj okbZl pkalyj]

bXuks ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2 fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

34@10) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@08@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@106@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 1st September, 2014

S.O.

2427.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 34/

10) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of the Vice Chancellor,

IGNOU and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 29/08/2014

[No. L-42012/106/2010-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-II, KARKARDOOMA, COURT

COMPLEX, DELHI

Present : Shri HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA

ID No. 34/2010

Smt. Maya,

W/o Sh. Naresh.

H. No. 125, Balmik Basti,

Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110068

Versus

The Vice Chancellor,

Indira Gandhi National Open University,

R. No. 1, Block No. 8,

Maidan Garhi.

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No L-42012/106/2010-IR(DU) dated

23.09.2010 referred the following Industrial Dispute to

this tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of IGNOU,

in terminating the services of their workman Smt.

Maya W/o Sh. Naresh w.e.f. 01.11.2007 is legal

and justified? If not, what relief the workman is

entitled to ?”

On 15.10.2010 reference was received in this

tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 34/2010 and

claimant was called upon to file claim statement with in

fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was

required to be accompanied with relevant documents and

list of witnesses.

Several opportunities given to workman as well as

management but neither workman nor management filed

claim statement / Response to the reference.

In this background there is no option to this tribunal

except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not

interested to file their respective pleadings.

6124

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On the basis of which none of the parte can be

directed to adduce its evidence.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 26/08/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2428-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dfe'uj

,elhMh fnYyh ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 18@12) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

29@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@15@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 1st September, 2014

S.O.

2428.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 18/

12) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of the Commissioner, MCD,

Delhi and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 29/08/2014.

[No. L-42011/15/2011-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-II, KARKARDOOMA COURT

COMPLEX, DELHI

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 18/2012

Smt. Sha, W/o Late Sh. Suraj Bhan,

C/o Nagar Karamchari Sangh, Delhi Pradesh

Versus

The Commissioner, MCD, Town Hall,

Chandni Chowk

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No L-42011/15/2011-IR(DU) dated

29.12.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute to

this tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of

Muncipal Corporation of Delhi, in denying the

regular appointment on compassionate grounds to

Smt. Asha W/o Late Suraj Bhan w.e.f. 01.03.1994

is legal and justified? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to ?”

On 10.01.2012 reference was received in this

tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 18/12 and

claimant was called upon to file claim statement with in

fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was

required to be accompanied with relevant documents and

list of witnesses.

After service of notice workman/claimant Smt. Asha

not filed claim statement but management in response

to reference filed response wherein it mentioned as

follows:-

That the present dispute is not an Industrial

Dispute, as it is not espoused by any management’s

recognized union therefore reference is bad in law

and as such the claim of the claimant is liable to be

rejected.

That no demand notice has been served upon the

management and as such the present dispute is not

an industrial dispute and therefore reference is bad

in law and liable to be rejected.

that the reference has been made Mechanically

without due application of mind and as such the present

dispute is bad in law and the claim is liable to be rejected.

That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has

already held that the cases for appointment on

compassionate ground cannot be entertained by the

Industrial Tribunal as the applicant who claim for

appointment on compassionate ground are not covered

under the definition of “workmen’ as given in Section

2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such, they have

no right to claim the appointment on compassionate

ground by raising as Industrial Dispute. In view of the

same, the claim is liable to be dismissed.

That even otherwise, the present dispute is contrary

to the rules and regulations of the Govt. of India framed

in respect of appointment on compassionate ground. It is

submitted that as per the rules and regulations laid down

by the Govt. of India for the appointment on

compassionate ground, there is only a very limited quota

of 5% and there is a huge back log waiting for such

appointments. It is submitted that as per the said Govt.

of India rules and regulations meant for the purpose of

appointment on compassionate ground, no Govt.

organization can make appointments on compassionate

ground beyond the fixed quota of 5%. Hence, the Hon’ble

Tribunal has no jurisdiction to direct the management to

make appointment on compassionate ground in contrary

to the Govt. of India rules. It is submitted that the

appointment on the compassionate ground cannot be

claimed as a matter of right. It is submitted that as per

the aforesaid Govt. of India Instructions, the appointment

on compassionate ground is to be given to one of the

condition that the said family should be in distress. It is

submitted that for filing up the 5% quota, the management

has to examine and screen out the most deserving cases.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6125

The present claim is no claim and has been filed with

malafide intentions.

That as the claimant was not covered under 5%

quota for appointment on compassionate ground, the

claimant was engaged as daily wager on Humanitarian

Ground w.e.f 01.03.1994 as per policy of the DEMS Head

Quarter for the post of Safai Karamcharies. It is submitted

that the claimant has been regularized as per Phase

Manner Regularization Policy of the management vide

office order no. 1766/DC /CSE /01/III dated 26.06.2006,

copy of which annexed herewith as Annexure A. Before

regularization of the claimant, the management has given

offer letter bearing no. 1330/DC/CSC/DA-III dated

15.06.2006 to the claimant, regarding her regularization

on certain terms and conditions. Copy of the offer letter

dated 15.06.2006 is annexed herewith as Annexure B.

The claimant has accepted the terms and conditions of

the offer letter and thereafter she was regularized on the

post of Safai Karamchari . The relevant pages of Service

Book of the claimant are annexed herewith as Annexure C.

That the claimant is not entitled for any relief from

this Hon’ble Court and the claim of the claimant is false,

frivolous & baseless and the same is liable to be dismissed.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the

reference may kindly be answered in favour of the

management and against the claimant.

On the basis of non-interestedness of workman. The

proceeding of this case is not liable to be proceeded

further. Hence proceedings of the case are liable to be

dropped and no disput award is liable to be passed.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 22.8.2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2429-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xkMZu jhp

f'kifcYMlZ ,.M ,ufxuhlZ fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 23@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14011@12@2005&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2014

S.O.

2429.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23 of

2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Garden Reach

Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd. and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 02/09/2014.

[No. L-14011/12/2005-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 23 of 2006

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd.

AND

Their workmen.

Present : Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the

: Mr. Dipak Kumar Ghosh,

Management

Ld. Advocate with Mr. Ranjay De,

Ld. Advocate.

On behalf of the

: None

Workmen

State : West Bengal

Industry : Shipbuilding.

Dated: 25^th August, 2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-14011/12/2005-IR(DU) dated

22.05.2006 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 M/s.

Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd. in

dismissing the Security Watcher T. No. SW 42 Shri

Durjadhan Sarkar w.e.f. 30.09.1991 is legal and

justified? If not, whether the ex-workman is entitled

for reinstatement with back wages or not? If not, to

what relief he is entitled?”

When the case is taken up today for hearing, none

appears on behalf of the workman though the

management is represented by its Ld. Counsel. It appears

from the record that the substituted workman is absent

for the last two consecutive dates i.e. on 05.06.2014 and

26.06.2014. Considering the above facts and

circumstances it may be presumed that the substituted

workman does not want to proceed with the case further.

In view of the above, instant reference is disposed

of by passing a “No Dispute Award”.

Dated : Kolkata, the 25th August, 2014

Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

6126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 3 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2430-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lc fMfotuy

vkWfiQlj] nwj lapkj fifyHkhr ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kumQ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 86@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 29@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@29@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2014

S.O.

2430.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 86/

2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

Cum Labour Court Lucknow now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Sub-Divisonal

Officer, Door Sanchar, Philibhit and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

29/08/2014.

[No. L-40012/29/2001-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT,

LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 86/2001

Ref. No. L-40012/29/2001–IR(DU) Dated : 27.04.2001

BETWEEN

Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Nanku Chand Saxena

H. No. 132, Bhoodh Kanoon Goyan

Bareilly (U.P.) 243 001.

AND

The Sub Divisional Officer

Door Sanchar,

Distt. Pilibhit (UP)

AWARD

By order No. L-40012/29/2001-IR(DU) dated:

27.04.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of

1947) referred this industrial dispute between Sh. Ashok

Kumar S/o Nanku Chand Saxena, H.No. 132, Bhoodh

Kanoon Goyan, Bareilly (U.P.) and the Sub Divisional

Officer, Door Sanchar, Distt. Pilibhit (UP)for adjudication

to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER

THE

ACTION

THE

MANAGEMENT OF TELECOM DEPTT.

PILIBHIT IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES

OF SH. ASHOK KUMAR, PEON W.E.F. 7.10.97

IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, TO WHAT

RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED?”

The case of the workman, Ashok Kumar, in brief

is that he was duly selected and appointed/engaged on

01.08.1996 as Peon on daily wage basis for an indefinite

period till attaining the age of superannuation; and was

paid salary/wages @ Rs. 40/- per day by ACG-17 voucher.

It is alleged by the workman that although his

appointment was on regular basis, yet no appointment

order was issued to him with intention to deprive him of

legitimate benefits available to regular employees. It is

stated that he continued to work as such till 07.10.1997

when he was not allowed to work without any rhyme or

reason or any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof or any

retrenchment compensation in violation to the provisions

contained in Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. It has been alleged by the workman that though

he worked from 01.04.97 to 05.04.1997 to but was made

payment in the name of one Dilip Kumar S/o Ram Kumar.

Accordingly, it has been prayed that his oral termination

be declared illegal and he be reinstated with consequential

benefits including full back wages.

The management of the Door Sanchar has filed its

written statement; wherein it has denied the claim of the

workman and has submitted that the workman had ever

been appointed by the Department on any regular post,

as such, there was no termination of his services at any

point of time. The management has submitted that since

there was no formal termination, therefore, there arises

no question of violation of any of the provisions of the

I.D. Act. The management has denied making payment

to the workman in any form and he was neither appointed

nor worked with the department at any point of time.

Accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim

of the workman be rejected being devoid of any merit.

The workman has field rejoinder whereby he has

only reiterated his averments already made in the

statement of claim and has introduced nothing new.

The workman has filed photocopy of ACG-17

vouchers w.e.f. 01.08.96 to 07.10.97 and attendance

case. The workman has examined himself whereas the

management examined Shri Nathhu Lal, SDO in support

of their case.

The workman has filed photocopy of ACG-17

vouchers w.e.f. 01.08.96 to 07.10.97 and attendance

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6127

details with the Door Sanchar. The management has not

filed any document in rebuttal.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival pleadings of the parties and scanned entire evidence

on record.

It is the case of the workman that he was duly

selected and appointed as Peon by the opposite party; but

was not given any appointment letter; and he worked

with the opposite party continuously for the period

01.08.1996 to 06.10.1997 and he services were

terminated orally w.e.f. 07.10.1997 without any notice

or notice pay in lieu thereof in contravention of the

provisions contained in the Section 25 F of the I.D. Act,

1947 instead of fact that he worked for more than 240

days in each calendar year. He has filed photocopy of

ACG-17 vouchers w.e.f. 01.08.96 to 07.10.97 and

attendance register of on duty and off duty staff to

corroborate his contentions.

10.

Per contra, the single pointed case of the

management is that the workman was never selected or

appointed against any regular post nor has ever worked

with the department; therefore, there arise no question

of making any payment or terminating his services or

violation of any of the provision of the Act. It has also

disputed the genuineness of the ACG-17 payment

vouchers filed by the workman. In its evidence the

management witness has stated that the ACG-17, filed

by the workman are forged one, inasmuch as the format

of the ACG-17 itself is forged as the same ought to have

been printed on both sides but the ACG-17 filed by the

workman is printed on one side only.

11.

It is settled law that when the workman comes

forward with the case that his services have been

terminated without following previsions of the Section

25 F of the Act, then burden of proof heavily lies upon

him to prove that he had worked for 240 days in the

preceding twelve months from the alleged date of his

termination. For this the workman has field photocopy

of ACG-17 vouchers w.e.f. 01.08.96 to 07.10.97, the

genuineness of which has been disputed by the

management. In this regard it is noteworthy that although

the management has disputed the format of the ACG-17

vouchers filed by the workman but has not filed any

format of the ACG-17 to corroborate its stand that actually

the ACG-17 filed by the workman is forged one.

12.

The management in order to check the workman

has taken, the best recourse of denying the appointment/

engagement of the workman in any format any point of

time. It is worthwhile to point out that in the present

case, the conciliation file before Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central) No. LKO-8(2-43)/2000 has been

summoned by this Tribunal, which reveals that the

management in its reply/written statement before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) vide para 01

has pleaded that the applicant had worked for very short

periods as daily wager when there existed such work in

the department for which he was paid daily wages as per

rules of the department.

Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Director, Fisheries

Terminal Division vs. Bhakubhai Meghajibhai Chavda

2010 AIR SCW 542; has observed that for proving 240

days’ continuous working, the workman would have

difficulty in having access to all official documents,

muster rolls etc., in connection with his service, therefore,

the burden of proof shifts to the employer to prove that

he did not complete 240 days of service in requisite period

to constitute continuous service and further that the ACG-

17 vouchers filed by the workman were forged by filing

the actual format of ACG-17.

Therefore, in view of the law cited hereinabove and

pleadings of the management before Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central) regarding working of the

workman as daily wager and payment as per rules, it was

expected from the management that it should have come

forward with the details of payment through ACG-17

vouchers; but the management has opted to take entirely

different recourse by denying the appointment/

engagement of the workman altogether at any point of

time, before this Tribunal. Moreover, it also disputed

the genuineness of the ACG-17 filed by the workman.

However, it was expected from the management to come

forward with the clean hands by giving details of

engagement of the workman on daily wage basis and

payment made to him; but the management did not do

so, leaving no option but to rely on the photocopy of the

ACG-17 filed by the workman in support of his working/

payment details.

13.

In Surenderanagar Panchayat and another v.

Jethabhai Pitamberbhai 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC)

Hon’ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that in order

to claim the benefits of provisions of Section 25 F of the

Act, the burden is on the workman to prove by cogent

evidence that he was actually in employment for 240 days

in twelve months preceding the date of alleged

termination; and where the workman failed to prove that

he had been in employment with the employer for a period

of 240 days uninterruptedly in a year preceding the date

of termination, he is not entitled to the protection of

Section 25 – F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It

was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the scope of

the enquiry before the Labour Court was confined only

to 12 months preceding the date of termination to decide

the question of the continuous service for the purpose of

Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Further, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:

“The claimant, apart his oral evidence has not

produced any proof in the form of receipt of salary

or wages for 240 days or record of his appointment

6128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

or engagement for that year to show that he has

worked with the employer for 240 days to get the

benefit under Section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act. It is now well settled that it is for the

claimant to lead evidence to show that he in fact

worked for 240 days in a year preceding his

termination.”

The workman has pleaded that he worked with the

management of Door Sanchar from 01.08.1996 to

06.10.1997 on daily wages @ Rs. 40/- per day and his

services have been terminated orally w.e.f. 07.10.1997,

therefore, in view of the case law cited hereinabove, the

burden was on the workman to prove that he had actually

worked for 240 days in twelve months preceding the date

of termination i.e. between 05.10.1996 to 06.10.1997.

The workman has filed photocopy of ACG-17 vouchers

which goes to show that he worked for 337 day during

05.10.1996 to 06.10.1997 and received payment

accordingly @ Rs. 40/- per day.

14.

Thus, there is ample evidence to record this finding

that the workman had actually worked for 337 days in

preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged

termination i.e. 07.10.1997; and oral termination of his

services, without any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof

was in violation of the Section 25 F of the I.D. Act.

15.

Now, it is to be considered as to whether the

workman is entitled for reinstatement. From the evidence

produced by the workman it is not proved that his

appointment was as a regular worker. Even the statement

of workman himself as well management’s pleadings

before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) it is clear

that he was engaged as on daily wages. Admittedly, the

services of the workman were terminated orally on

07.10.1997. In Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh

(2005) 5 SCC 591; 2005 SCC (L&S) 716 Hon’ble Apex

Court while considering the question regarding award

of back wages has observed:

“There is no rule of thumb that in every case where

the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the

termination of service was in violation of Section

25 F of the Act, entire back wages should be

awarded ….....………………………….. However,

where the total length of service rendered by a

workman is very small, the award of back wages

for the complete period i.e. from the date of

termination till the date of the award, which our

experience shows is often quite large, would be

wholly inappropriate. Another important factor,

which required to be taken into consideration, is

the nature of employment. A regular service of

permanent character cannot be compared to short

or intermittent daily wage employment though it

may be for 240 days in a calander year.”

16.

In 2008 (119) FLR 877 Deepak Ganpat Tari vs.

N.E. Theater Pvt. Ltd. Hon’ble Bombay High Court

relying on the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment in 2008

(117) FLR 1086 (SC) A P V K Brahmandandam 2008

(118) FLR 376 (SC) Telephone DM vs. Keshab Deb 2006

(111) FLR 1178 (SC) JDA vs. Ram Sahai, while awarding

compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the concerned workman

considering his daily wages as Rs. 45/- in view of the

fact that the workman had put in about 3 years of service,

has observed as under:

“It is apparent that termination of services of a daily

wager does not amount to retrenchment and for

violation of Section 25 F in such circumstances,

the employee cannot be given benefit of

reinstatement with continuity and back wages.

Hon’ble Apex Court has hold that in such

circumstance employee is entitled to benefit of

compensation only.”

17.

Also, in Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture

Mktg. Board (2009) 15 SCC 327 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S)

545: Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal

v. Santosh Kumar Seal and others (2010) 2 SSC (L&S)

309 Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:

“However, in recent past, there has been a shift in

the legal position and in a along line of cases, this

Court has consistently taken the view that relief by

way of reinstatement with back wages is not

automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a

given fact situation even though the termination of

an employee is in contravention of the prescribed

procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement

has been held to meet the ends of justice.

The award of reinstatement with full back wages

in a case where the workman has completed 240

days of work in a year preceding the date of

termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been

found to be proper by this Court and instead

compensation has been awarded.”

18.

In the light of principle laid down in

aforementioned case laws, it would not be just and proper

to direct that the workman be reinstated in service. The

ends of justice would meet by paying compensation to

the workman instead in place of relief of reinstatement

in service.

19.

Having regards to these facts that the workman has

worked as daily wager from 01.08.1996 to 06.10.1997

and he was getting Rs. 40/- per day at the time of his

alleged termination and keeping in view the entire facts

of the case and the law, the interest of justice would be

subserved, if, management is directed to pay lump sum

amount of compensation only.

20.

Accordingly, the management is directed to pay a

sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the

workman as compensation for termination of his services

in violation of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. The said

amount shall be paid to the workman within 08 weeks of

publication of the award, failing which; the same shall

carry simple interest @ 8% per annum.

21.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

LUCKNOW

22nd August, 2014

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6129

ubZ fnYyh] 3 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2431-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tkWbaV dfe'uj

vkWiQ bude VSDl ,.M vflLVsaV dfe'uj vkWiQ bude VSDl

flypj l£dy ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 13@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

29@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@111@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2014

S.O.

2431.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 13/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Guwahati now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Joint Commissioner

of Income Tax and Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax,

Silchar Circle and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 29/08/2014.

[No. L-42012/111/2011-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

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

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati

Ref. Case No. 13 of 2012

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :-

The Management of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,

Silchar Range & Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax,

Silchar Circle.

-Vrs-

Their Workman Smt. Babli Sinha.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

: Mr. S.N.Sarma, Sr. Advocate

Mr. A. Jahid, Advocate

For the Management : Mr. P. Saikia, Advocate

Mr. S.Sarma, Advocate

Date of Award: 25.07.2014

AWARD

This Reference has been initiated on an Industrial

Dispute between the Management of Joint Commissioner

of Income Tax, Silchar Range & Asstt. Commissioner of

Income Tax, Silchar Circle, which was referred by the

Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for

adjudication vide their order No. L-42012/111/2011-

IR(DU) dated 23/02/2012. The Schedule of this Reference

is as under.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Joint

Commissioner of Income Tax, Silchar Range and

the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Silchar

Circle in terminating the services as well as denial

to re-instate Smt. Babli Sinha is legal and justified?

What relief the workman is entitled to?”

On receipt of the order of the Ministry as aforesaid

this reference case was registered and notices were served

upon both the sides. Accordingly the workman submitted

her claim statement and the management also submitted

their W.S. along with a petition raising objection that

the present reference is not maintainable in law as the

Income Tax Department is not an Industry within the

meaning of the I.D.Act,1947. Upon hearing both the sides

at length and on perusal of the documents available on

record the petition filed by the Management challenging

the maintainability of the proceeding has been disposed

of and the following issues were framed vide order dated

24.6.2014.

(1)

Whether the Income Tax Department is an Industry

within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of Industrial

Dispute Act;

(2)

Whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate

the reference?

After framing the above mentioned preliminary

issues both the parties were allowed to adduce evidence,

if any, but both of them declined to adduce any evidence.

However, both the parties made their respective oral

submission on the issues at length.

The claimant Smt. Babli Singha was employed as

part time/contingent workman in the Office of the Joint

Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department,

Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Silchar Range,

Silchar in January,2004. Thereafter she was made a full

time workman in the said establishment from January,

2005 and her appointment was made in the same manner

and procedure according to which her other colleagues

namely Shri Alok Roy, Shri Dipak Deb, Smt. Rumila

Chakrabarty, Shri Pappu Singh, Shri T. Das, Sri Sujit

Chakrabarty and Sri Kamal Paul Purkeystha who are

still in service in the establishment under the

Management of Income Tax Department at Silchar. The

petitioner being, a workman as defined in Section 2 (s)

of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 had been performing

the duties of writing of Order Sheet date wise, File Cover

writing, Bell attendance, Alphabet Xeroxing, to carry

documents, impress seal over Govt. Stamp on letters to

be dispatched, cleaning official furniture of the office,

6130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

water carriers etc. and she was paid @ Rs.221.56 per

day. The petitioner contended that she worked under the

management continuously without any break or complain

as a full time workman from January,2005 to December,

2009. Unfortunately her services were terminated and

illegally without any reason or cause from January,2010.

Notwithstanding her termination, she continued to attend

office of the Management in the hope that she might be

reinstated and allowed to work as before. She also made

several appeal and representations but all those were in

vain. The workman mentioned that her pre-nuptial name

was Babli Mallik and she belongs to Schedule Caste

Community. In support of her contention the claimant

submitted the copy of Schedule Cast Certificate and some

zerox copies of some bills. Hence, the petitioner prayed

for reinstating her to her service under the management

along with all financial benefits attached thereto.

The claimant by filing additional claim statement

pleaded that the averment made in the W.S. submitted

by the management that the Income Tax Department is

not an Industry within the meaning of Section 2 (i) of

the I.D.Act and hence, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction

to adjudicate the reference is not true and correct. She

also stated that she was appointed and employed by the

authority having power and jurisdiction of appointing

her as a part time casual worker for which no process of

recruitment Rules is required to be followed and adhered

to. She also denied the contention of the management

that she was engaged in another job with the State Bank

of India, Silchar Park Road Branch during the period

from April,2005 drawing wages of Rs.4190/-. However,

she mentioned that she did part time job in State Bank of

India, Park Road Branch, Silchar as casual part time

worker after completing her duty in the office of the O.P.

The case of the management, inter-alia, is that the

present reference is not maintainable as the Office of the

Joint Commissioner, Income Tax is under the Ministry

of Finance, Government of India, is not an Industry within

the meaning of Section 2(i) of I.D.Act, 1947 and the

instant dispute is also not an Industrial dispute; hence,

this Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to decide the issues

framed by the government. The management stated that

the workman was engaged in the month of January, 2005

in the office of the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax,

Silchar as part time casual worker and the wages are

fixed by the Government from time to time, and she was

paid for the work done on no work no pay basis. The

workman was engaged in the job of cleaning table, chair,

telephone set, computers, attending bell calls of the office

to carry file, serve drinking water, impressing office stamp

on envelop, etc. The engagement of the workman was

purely on temporary as part time casual workers which

is evident from the fact that she was engaged in another

job with the State Bank of India, Silchar Park Road from

the period from April,2005 to January, 2010 drawing

wage of Rs. 4,190/- . It is also added by the management

that the workman was found negligent in her job since

2009. It is also added by the Management that the

workman was found negligent in her job and was irregular

in attending the office since 2009. She was also found

leaving the office early without any intimation or

permission of the officer under whom she was working

and inspite of verbal caution she failed to improve herself.

Further the workman did not turn up for her duties in

the Month of February, 2010 after receiving her wages

earned in the month of January, 2010 and thereby she

deserted the office and did not come for work till the end

of April, 2010. Thereafter the management decided not

to engage the workman anymore since the workman was

engaged as a part time casual worker she had not acquired

any right of continuous engagement as a result of her

disengagement need not precede any procedural

formalities. The management denied the averments made

in paragraphs-2,5,6,7,and 8 of the claim statement

submitted by the workman. It is also mentioned by the

management that the workman was never a full time

worker and there was no continuity in service as she was

engaged in SBI, Silchar, Park Road Branch while she

was working on part time basis and the workman never

worked 240 days in a year. Since she left office by

attending here duty from February, 2010 and remained

away till April, 2010 for which she was disengaged in

May,2010 and she was not terminated from January,2010.

Under the above circumstances the management pray for

rejecting the reference.

During argument Mr. S.Sarma, Learned Advocate

for the management of Joint Commissioner for Income

Tax, Silchar Range submitted that the Income Tax

Department is not department carrying out any business,

trade, undertaking manufacture or calling of employers

and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft

or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen. He

mentioned that as per the amended Section 2(j) of I.D.Act

defines Industry as follows:

“(j) ‘industry’ means any systematic activity carried

on by co-operation between the employer and his

workmen (whether such workmen are employed by

such employer, directly or by or through any agency,

including a contractor) for the production, supply

or distribution of goods or service with a view to

satisfy human wants or wishes (not being wants or

wishes which are merely spiritual or religious in

nature), whether or not—

(i)

any capital has been invested for the purpose

of carrying on such activity; or

(ii)

such activity is carried on with a motive to

make any gain or profit. ************* but

does not include ******************

***************************** ******

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6131

(6)

any activity of the Government relatable to the

sovereign functions of the Government including

all the activities carried on by the departments of

the Central Government dealing with the defence

research, atomic energy and space; or *********

As such, Mr. Sarma contended that since the

Income Tax Department does not falls within the

definition of Industry and it is discharging sovereign

function of the State the present reference is not

maintainable in law.

Mr. A. Jahid, Learned Advocate for the workman,

on the other hand, assailing the argument of Mr.S.Sarma,

Learned Advocate for the Management submitted that

the Income Tax Deptt is doing certain systematic activities

with special emphasis on the employee and employer

relation, & hence it is an industry within the meaning of

Section 2 (j) of the I.D.Act. He relied upon the Bangalore

Water Supply and Sewerage Board—Vs.—A. Rajappa

reported in ( AIR 1978 SC 161), wherein the Hon’ble

SC has given the definition of industry as :

(a)

Where(i) systematic activity (ii) organized by

cooperation between employer and ( the direct and

substantial element is chimeral) (iii) for the

production and/or distribution of goods and services

calculated to satisfy human wants and services (not

spiritual or religious but inclusive of material things

or services geared to, celestial bliss e.g. making on

a large scale prased or food) or prima facie, there

is an industry in that enterprise.

(b)

Absence of profit motive or gainful objective is

irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint private

or other sector.

(c)

The true focus is functional and the decisive test is

the nature of activity with special emphasis on the

employer-employee relations.

(d)

If the Organisation is a trade or business, it does

not cease to, be one because of philanthropy

animating the undertaking.

He pointed out that in the said judgment the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has observed that even in discharge of

sovereign functions, if there are units which are industries

and are substantially severable, then they can be

considered to come within the section 2 (j) of the I.D.Act.

As such, according to Mr. Jahid, Learned Advocate for

the workman, the Income Tax Department is Industry

within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the I.D.Act and

hence, the present reference is maintainable. This crucial

test to decide whether the establishment of Income Tax

Department is an Industry or not, is the nature of activity,

systematic production, distribution of materials, services

though not discharging sovereign function in the industry,

where absence of profit motive is immaterial.

In the case of Bangalore Water Supply and

Sewerage Board—Vs.—A Rajappa and Ors. ( AIR 1978

SC 548 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Act

would not apply to sovereign functions of the State and

that where Articles 309 to 311 of the Constitution were

applicable the operation of the Act might be excluded.

The only exception is in the case of industrial units, if

any, severable from the essential function and possessing

an entity of their own. In such cases it may be plausible

to hold that the employees of those units are workmen

and those undertakings are industries. While the function

of the Income Tax Department is to collect tax. It is a

Government agency in charge of monitoring the income

tax collection by the Government of India, which is

responsible for administering following Direct Taxation

Act passed by the Parliament. It is also responsible for

enforcing the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement &

deals with various functions of international aspects of

taxation such as Transfer pricing, which has been held

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be sovereign function.

In this connection I am to rely upon the ratio of the case

of New Delhi Municipal Corporation—vs—State of

Punjab published in AIR 1997 SC 2847.

In Secretary, Assam PWD Welfare Union –vs—

Labour Court, and Ors reported in (1986) 1 GLR 351,

the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court decided that the Public

Works Department of the Government of Assam, may,

however, discharge a dual function, it may structurally

so called and it may also perform function connecting

with the activities undertaken in pursuance with their

welfare policy & progress of the country, therefore , it is

not an industry.

Thus function of the Income Tax Department is

not only to collect taxes but it has got the power to tax &

to combat aggressive Tax avoidance by enforcing Anti

Avoidance Rule and deals with various function of

international aspect of taxation, being obviously in the

nature of sovereign or regal function of the State which

are the primary and inalienable rights of Constitutional

Government. From the above discussion and having

regard to the ratio of the case as discussed it can safely

be held that the Income Tax Department is not an

Industry. As such, the issue No.1 is decided in negative

against the workman.

In view of the above discussion and the findings

on the Issue No.1 it is decided that since the Income Tax

Department is not an Industry within the meaning of

Section 2(j) of I.D.Act, the present reference is not

maintainable. Accordingly this reference is disposed of.

The case is disposed of without granting any relief

to the claimant. Send a copy of the no relief award to the

Ministry as per procedure.

Send the no relief Award to the Ministry as per

procedure.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on

this 25th day of July,2014, at Guwahati.

L. C. DEY, Presiding Officer

6132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 3 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2432-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,XthD;wfVo

Mk;jsDVj] Hkkjr gSoh bysfDVªdYl fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

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

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

psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 77 vkSj 78@2013) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@35@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42012@36@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2014

S.O.

2432.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 77 &

78/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

Cum Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Executive Director,

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 2/9/2014.

[No. L-42012/35/2013-IR(DU),

No. L-42012/36/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHENNAI

Monday, the 25^th August, 2014

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 77 & 78 of 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 Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and

their workman)

BETWEEN

Sri K. Naresh

: 1st Party/1st Petitioner

Sri A. Venkatesh

: 1st Party/2nd Petitioner

AND

The Executive Director

: 2nd Party/Respondent

M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.

Tiruchirapalli-620014

Tamil Nadu

Appearance :

For the 1st & 2nd Party/

: M/s Aiyar & Dolia,

Petitioners

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/Respondent : M/s T.S. Gopalan &

Co., Advocates

I.D. No.

Reference No.

Name of the

Name of the II Party

Appearance

Appearance for

No.

& Date

I Party S/Sri

for Workman

Respondent

77/2013

L-42012/35/2013-IR(DU)

K. Naresh

The Executive Director,

M/s Aiyar &

M/s T.S. Gopalan

dated 17-7-2013

BHEL, Trichy

Dolia, Advocates

& Co., Advocates

78/2013

L-42012/36/2013-IR(DU)

A. Venkatesh

The Executive Director,

M/s Aiyar &

M/s T.S. Gopalan

dated 17-7-2013

BHEL, Trichy

Dolia, Advocates

& Co., Advocates

COMMON AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide the order of references referred detailed

below referred the IDs mentioned above to the Industrial

Tribunal, Madras for adjudication. The IDs were

numbered as ID 77/2013 and 78/2013 respectively. In

the above IDs the petitioners and the Respondent have

appeared through the counsel and filed claim and counter

statement respectively.

The schedule mentioned in the orders of reference

in the above IDs are as under:

ID 77/2013

“Whether the action of the Management of Bharat

Heavy Electricals Ltd., Tiruchirapalli in removing

Sri K. Naresh from the rolls of the Company w.e.f.

18.10.2010 is legal and justified? To what relief

the workman is entitled to?”

ID 78/2013

“Whether the action of the Management of Bharat

Heavy Electricals Ltd., Tiruchirapalli in removing

Sri A. Venkatesh from the rolls of the Company

w.e.f. 18.10.2010 is legal and justified? To what

relief the workman is entitled to?”

The averments in the Claim Statement in ID 77/

2013 in brief are these :

The petitioner was appointed by the Respondent

as DR Artisan (Temporary Employee/Artisan) w.e.f.

05.02.2009 by order dated 17.02.2009. After completion

of 6 months of temporary service, the petitioner

was placed on consolidated wage of Rs. 5,500/- per

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6133

month w.e.f. 05.08.2009 for a period of 6 months. While

working so, the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet

dated 30.01.2010 by the Deputy Manager (PFP-BPN)

alleging that the experience certificate produced by the

petitioner claiming age relaxation for employment was

not genuine. The petitioner was directed to Show Cause

why disciplinary action should not be taken against him.

The petitioner had submitted an explanation, but this

was found not satisfactory and an enquiry was ordered.

The Enquiry Officer submitted report holding that the

charges against the petitioner are proved. By proceedings

dated 18.10.2010 penalty advice was issued to the

petitioner intimating that the punishment of removal from

service with immediate effect was being imposed on the

petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner was removed from

service. Though the petitioner submitted appeal

challenging the order of removal, there was no response

to the appeal. The name of the petitioner was deleted

from the rolls of the Respondent Company w.e.f.

18.10.2010. Though the petitioner sought a review of

the penalty order, he was informed that there is no reason

to review the same. The dispute was raised accordingly.

The action of the management in imposing the

punishment of removal from service on the petitioner is

illegal and is in violation of principles of natural justice.

The Charge Sheet to the petitioner was not issued by the

competent authority. The enquiry was conducted in a

biased manner without following the principles of natural

justice. The Enquiry Officer has not taken into account

the explanation given by the petitioner. The Management

did not examine any witnesses to substantiate the charge.

The signatory to the charge sheet has assumed the role

of Disciplinary Authority, ordering enquiry and

appointing Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. The

Charge Sheet having not been issued by proper authority,

the enquiry is vitiated on this ground itself. The petitioner

has submitted final statement enclosing the postal cover

sent to him showing that he was working in sub-contract

of M/s VKN Enterprises during the relevant period. The

Enquiry officer has submitted report without looking into

these aspects. There is no justification for the order

removing the petitioner from service. An award may be

passed that the removal of the petitioner from service is

illegal and also directing the Respondent to reinstate the

petitioner in service with back wages, continuity of service

and other attendant benefits.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

The plant of the Respondent at Trichy is engaged

in the manufacture of Boilers, Valves, Soot Blowers and

Seamless Steel Tubes. The lowest cadre in the workman

category is temporary employees (artisan). Upper age

limit for the post of artisan is 27 years. For OBC

candidates relaxation of three years is given. Upper age

limit is relaxable to 84 months to candidates possessing

experience in organization engaged in the manufacture

of Boiler Components. On 11.10.2008, the Respondent

had issued employment notice inviting application for

the post of Temporary Employee (Artisan) in various

trades. The petitioner had applied for the post of Welder

Trade. He was above the age limit by 10 months and 22

days as on the cut-off date. In the application he has shown

work experience of more than 2 years with M/s VKN

Enterprises, Trichy for claiming relaxation in age. The

petitioner who passed the test and interview was given

appointment on the condition that furnishing of false

information or suppression of any factual information in

the attestation form furnished by him would render him

unfit for employment. If any false information comes to

the notice of the Management subsequently, his service

would be terminated. The petitioner whose original name

was Purushothaman had changed his name by notifying

in the Gazette on 16.04.2008. The petitioner had

submitted a certificate dated 18.10.2008 from M/s VKN

Enterprises to the effect that he was working in the said

firm from February 2006 to October 2008. When the

Respondent sought information about the genuineness

of the Certificate from M/s VKN Enterprises they gave

reply that the certificate was not issued by them. A Charge

Sheet was issued to the petitioner and an enquiry was

conducted. Since the facts were not disputed by the

petitioner before the Enquiry Officer, there was no

necessity to examine any witnesses. The Enquiry Officer

submitted report holding that the charge of giving false

information to get age relaxation was proved.

Accordingly, the petitioner was awarded the punishment

of removal from service. The petitioner is not entitled to

any relief.

The petitioner in ID 78 of 2013 was also appointed

by the Respondent as DR Artisan (Temporary Employee/

Artisan) and was placed on consolidated wages after 6

months temporary service, for a further period of six

months. For getting age relaxation for appointment in

the post the petitioner had submitted three experience

certificates. The Management alleged by the charge sheet

issued by it that two of the experience certificates, that of

M/s City Enterprises and of M/s Shreeram Engineering

Industry are not genuine. The third certificate form M/s

Kumar Enterprises was found to be overlapping since

the period mentioned in it included 6 months during

which period the petitioner was undergoing training with

the Respondent. On enquiry and the charge, the Enquiry

Officer found that the charge is proved and this petitioner

was also removed from the service of the Respondent,

by order dated 18.10.2010. The petitioner has raised the

dispute after the appeal filed by was rejected. The

petitioner has contended that the enquiry was not

conducted in a fair and proper manner and that the Charge

Sheet, order of removal, etc. were not issued by the

Competent Authority. It is also contended by the petitioner

6134

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that he has not submitted fake experience certificates.

The Respondent has filed counter statement stating that

on enquiry the petitioner was found to have submitted

fake certificates and he was rightly removed from service

on account of this. The Respondent has further contended

that enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner.

The Respondent in both IDs being the same

establishment and the nature of issue to be decided in

both IDs being the same these were heard jointly. ID 77/

2013 was treated as the main case and evidence was

recorded in this.

The evidence consists of the documentary evidence

of Ext.W1 and Ext.W31 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M47. No

oral evidence was adduced by any of the parties.

The petitioners in both IDs have contended that

the enquiry was not done in a fair and proper manner.

The issued was heard as a Preliminary Issue and this

Tribunal has entered a finding on 03.07.2014 that the

enquiry was done fairly and properly.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the management in removing

the petitioners in the two IDs from their rolls w.e.f.

18.10.2010 is legal and justified?

(ii)

What is the relief to which they are entitled?

THE CASE OF K. NARESH, THE PETITIONER IN

ID 77/2013

10.

The facts of the case are mostly admitted. The

petitioner who had applied for the post of Artisan

(Temporary) was given offer of appointment by the

Respondent as per Ext.W1. Ext.W2 is the Office Order

by which he was appointed w.e.f. 05.02.2009 on

temporary basis at a wage of Rs. 121/- per day. By

Ext.W3-Office Order dated 24.09.2009 the petitioner was

declared to have successfully completed his temporary

service on daily wage basis and was placed on

consolidated wages of Rs. 5,500/- p.m. w.e.f. 05.08.2009

for a further period of six months. Ext.M7 is the

attestation form filled up and submitted by the petitioner

on his joining the service of the Respondent. This among

others contained a condition that if the fact of false

information having been furnished or if any suppression

of any factual information in the attestation form comes

to notice during the service of person, his service is liable

to be terminated. It is the case of the Respondent that

subsequently on verification with M/s VKN Enterprises,

Trichy it was revealed that the said establishment did

not issue any experience certificate to the petitioner on

the basis of which he had claimed relaxation in age for

getting appointment with the Respondent. The Charge

Sheet is said to have been issued by the petitioner for the

reason of furnishing a false certificate. On enquiry the

charge was found proved and the petitioner was removed

from service.

11.

Ext.W5 is the Charge Sheet issued to the petitioner

in which it is stated that on verification with M/s VKN

Enterprises it has denied issuance of any work experience

certificate in favour of the petitioner and the signatory to

the certificate dated 18.10.2008 is not the authorized

person in the firm to issue the certificate. Ext.W5 is the

explanation submitted by the petitioner to the Charge

Sheet. Ext.W10 is the communication given to the

petitioner asking him to offer his views on the enquiry

officer’s report alongwith the report. The explanation of

the petitioner, the copy of the certificate said to have

been issued by M/s VKN enterprises furnished by the

petitioner to the Respondent and also the copy of letter

signed by the Manager of M/s VKN Enterprises were

produced in the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer

has taken into account the fact that the petitioner has

submitted before him that he has worked on sub-contract

of M/s VKN Enterprises. The Enquiry Officer has referred

to a document produced by the petitioner indicating that

he has actually worked with one Arivalan Contracts

which was the Contractor of M/s VKN Enterprises. The

Management has not examined any authorities of M/s

VKN Enterprises to prove that the experience certificate

produced by the petitioner before it is not genuine. It has

relied upon the letter written by the Manager of M/s VKN

Enterprises to prove this aspect. It has been argued by

the counsel for the petitioner that because of non-

examination of the authority concerned the Respondent

has not proved the case that a false experience certificate

was issued by the petitioner.

12.

Ext.M8 is the experience certificate submitted by

the petitioner to the Respondent. This is in the letter head

of M/s VKN Enterprises and is signed by a Senior

Inspection Engineer. The certificate which is seen signed

by the Engineer of 18.10.2008 states that the concerned

person was working is as Welder in Arc Welding in the

Company from the month of February 2006 to till date.

During the enquiry proceedings the petitioner has

admitted and even produced a document showing that

he has actually worked not directly under VKN

Enterprises but was working with a Contractor of VKN

Enterprises only. However, there is no reference to this

in Ext.M8 at all. If the petitioner was actually working

under some other concern it was not proper on his part

to furnish an experience certificate purported to be that

of VKN Enterprises putting forth a claim that he was

working with M/s VKN Enterprises as its direct employee.

From the very admission given by the petitioner, it is

seen that the certificate is a false one. Ext.M13 is the

reply from M/s VKN Enterprises stating that they did

not issue the certificate in question. In view of the

admission of the petitioner that he did not work with

VKN Enterprises but under another establishment, the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6135

non-examination of the authority who gave Ext. M13

letter is not of any consequence. Even otherwise, by the

admission of the petitioner it is proved that the certificate

is not genuine.

13.

The counsel for the Respondent has referred to the

Gazette Notification showing change of name of the

petitioner from Purushothaman to Naresh. By this

notification, after 16.04.1008 he was known by the name

Naresh. It is pointed out by the counsel for the Respondent

that in spite of this notification Ext. M8, the experience

certificate furnished by the petitioner is in the name of

Purushothaman and not Naresh. In his application to the

Respondent and other papers he has given his name as

Naresh and not Purushothaman. In the normal course

the certificate should have shown the changed name

rather than the original one. In any case it is clear that

the petitioner had no experience directly with M/s VKN

Enterprises and yet he had furnished a certificate claiming

so obtaining the signature of somebody who has no

authority to sign on behalf of the M/s VKN Enterprises.

So the case of the Respondent that the petitioner has

furnished false certificate has been established before the

enquiry proceedings.

14.

It has been argued by the Counsel for the Petitioner

that the Charge Sheet has not been issued by the

competent authority and so also the order of enquiry, the

order of removal from service, etc. are also not by the

competent authority. This matter has been raised by the

counsel during his argument in the Preliminary Issue

regarding fairness of enquiry and has been found against

the petitioner. So there is no necessity to consider this

aspect again. I have already found while dealing with

the Preliminary Issue that the orders are issued by

authorities who are competent to do it.

15.

From the discussion above, it is clear that there is

no perversity in the finding of the Enquiry Officer so

this Tribunal could not interfere with the finding or the

punishment imposed on the basis of that finding.

THE CASE OF A. VENKATESH, THE

PETITIONER IN ID 78/2013

16.

The petitioner in this ID was aged 35 years, 11

months and 25 days as on the cut-off date for

submitting the application. As per the Recruitment

Rules of the Respondent the upper age limit for

recruitment is 27 years. Being an OBC the petitioner was

entitled to 3 years relaxation in age limit. He being the

ward of a deceased employee of the Respondent he was

eligible for a further age relaxation of 5 years still he was

in excess age of 11 months and 25 days. The upper age

limit is relaxable upto 84 months to candidates possessing

experience in organization engaged in the manufacturing

of Boiler Components. In order to get the benefit of this

relaxation, the petitioner had submitted the experience

certificates of three establishments by name M/s City

Enterprises, Shreeram Engineering Industry and Kumar

Industries. On the basis of these experience certificates,

Ext.W16, the offer of appointment was given to petitioner

after written test and interview. Ext.W17 is the Office

Order appointing him in the Respondent Organization.

By Ext.W18 he was declared to have completed his

temporary service and was placed on consolidated wages

of Rs. 5,500/- per month for a period of six months w.e.f.

02.09.2009. It was while continuing under the

employment of the Respondent consequently, the Charge

Sheet marked as Ext.W19 was served on the petitioner

alleging that the experience certificates submitted by him

as that of City Enterprises and Shreeram Engineering

industry are not genuine. Regarding the third certificate,

that is the one issued by Kumar industries, the Respondent

has stated in the Counter Statement that out of the period

from August 2000 to 01.11.2008 for which period

certificate was issued the petitioner had attended multi-

skill training program with it between January 2002 and

June 2002 and so there was an overlapping in the

employment claimed by him during this period. The

Respondent has also stated in the Counter Statement that

the petitioner has not taken any permission nor informed

the Respondent about his employment at M/s Kumar

Industries during the period of training undergone with

it. Ext. M28 to Ext. M30 are the experience certificates

issued by Sriram Engineering Industries, M/s Kumar

Industries and City Enterprises respectively to the

petitioner. As stated there is no case for the Respondent

that Ext. M29 is not genuine except for the case that for

part of the period the certificate overlapped as the

petitioner had been undergoing on the job training with

the Respondent.

17.

Ext. M35 to Ext. M37 are the letters said to have

been written by the Respondent to the three concerns that

have issued experience certificates. Ext.M38 is the reply

from M/s Sriram Engineering Industries and Ext.M39 is

the reply from City Enterprises, both stating that the

certificates were not issued by them. In Ext.M38 which

is a copy of the certificate issued by Shreeram Engineering

Industry it is seen endorsed by a partner that the concern

is a partnership concern, that it is not a proprietorship

and the certificate is not issued by the firm. The

experience certificate is seen signed by someone as

Proprietor. Ext.M39 the letter purported to be from City

Enterprises states that the certificate was not issued by

the enterprises. It is not clear from the document who

has signed the same.

18.

The consistent stand of the petitioner is that he had

experience with all the three concerns who had issued

certificates. Ext.W4 is the explanation submitted by the

petitioner to the Charge Sheet. Even in this explanation

the petitioner has asserted that the fact that he had worked

with City Enterprises and Shreeram Engineering Industry

is true. So also he has asserted that he had worked with

6136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Kumar Industries also. In Ext.W24 a statement given to

the Enquiry Officer on 10.04.2010 also he has asserted

the truth of his claim of work with the concerned

enterprises. In spite of this stand of the petitioner, the

Respondent has not taken any steps to prove the letters

said to have been written on behalf of City Enterprises

and Shreeram Engineering Industry. In view of the

assertion by the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the

Respondent to prove that the certificates are not genuine.

Production of mere letters without examining the authors

of these letters are not sufficient to prove them. So the

authenticity of Ext.M38 and Ext.M39 were not

established in the enquiry proceedings.

19.

So far as Ext.M29, a certificate issued by Kumar

Industries is concerned, it is very much clear from the

Counter Statement of the Respondent itself that the

genuineness of the letter was vouchsafed by M/s Kumar

Industries in reply to the letter written by the Respondent.

The Respondent has stated in the Counter Statement that

Kumar Industries had confirmed that the petitioner was

in employment with it from August 2000 to 01.11.2008.

20.

The only reason for the Respondent to reject

Ext.M29 is that a short period out of the period mentioned

in this overlaps with the period during which the

petitioner was on job training with the Respondent.

Regarding this also the petitioner had referred to in

Ext.W20 the explanation. He has stated in this that even

while undergoing training with the Respondent he has

worked as a part-time contract employee with Kumar

Industries. It is very much clear from Ext.M29 that the

petitioner had long experience with Kumar Industries. It

must have been while working with Kumar Industries,

the petitioner was chosen for training by the Respondent.

This training, as could be seen from the Counter

Statement of the Respondent was for a short-period from

January 2002 to June 2002. Being only a short training

it is only probable that the petitioner did not give up the

job at Kumar Industries for fear of losing the job. It is

clear from the certificate that even after the training with

the Respondent he continued to work with Kumar

Industries until he was selected by the Respondent. There

is nothing to show that anything prevented the petitioner

from working in another establishment while he was

undergoing training with the Respondent. After all it was

only a training and the petitioner could not have expected

to be employed by the Respondent at that time. So the

petitioner could not be found fault with for continuing

his job with Kumar Industries even while he was

undergoing training with the Respondent. It was not

proper on the part of the Respondent to disregard the

experience certificate issued by Kumar Industries on the

pretext that it overlapped for some period. After all the

petitioner was the ward of a previous employee of the

Respondent and he deserved better consideration from

the Respondent.

21.

Ext.M28 and Ext.M30 having not been proved false

and the genuineness of Ext.M29 being beyond doubt, it

was not proper on the part of the Respondent to turn out

the petitioner from job alleging that he had produced

false certificates. The Enquiry Officer had not considered

these aspects. The finding of the Officer is to be treated

as perverse only. It was not proper to remove the petitioner

from service on the basis of the enquiry report against

the petitioner. I find that the order of the Enquiry Officer

and the order of removal of the petitioner from service

by the Respondent are liable to be set aside.

22.

On the basis of my discussion above, an award is

passed as follows:

(i)

The reference in ID 77/2013 is answered against

the petitioner.

(ii)

The order of removal from service of the petitioner

in ID 78/2013 is set aside. The Respondent is

directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within

one month with 50% back wages, continuity of

service and other attendant benefits. If back wages

are not paid within a month, it would carry interest

@ 9% per annum.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on

this day the 25th August, 2014)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1st Party/Petitioners

: None

For the 2nd Party/Management : None

Documents Marked:

On the side of the petitioner

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

30.01.2009 Offer of Appointment

Ex.W2

17.02.2009 Office Order

Ex.W3

24.09.2009 Office Order

Ex.W4

30.01.2010 Charge Sheet issued to petitioner

Ex.W5

08.02.2010 Explanation submitted by

petitioner

Ex.W6

25.02.2010 Notice regarding domestic

enquiry

Ex.W7

10.03.2010 Proceedings of Enquiry

Ex.W8

08.04.2010 Proceedings of Enquiry

Ex.W9

Written reply for petitioner

Ex.W10

15.07.2010 Second Show Cause Notice

alongwith EO’s report

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 6] 2014@Hkkæ 15] 1936

6137

Ex.W11

18.10.2010 Penalty advice issued to

petitioner

Ex.W12

27.10.2010 Appeal preferred by petitioner

Ex.W13

04.11.2010

Office Order on deletion of

petitioner’s name from rolls

Ex.W14

Review filed by the petitioner

Ex.W15

16.05.2012 Order of Reviewing Authority

Ex.W16

28.01.2009 Offer of appointment

Ex.W17

06.03.2009 Office Order

Ex.W18

24.09.2009 Office Order

Ex.W19

30.01.2010 Charge Sheet issued to the

petitioner

Ex.W20

02.02.2010 Explanation submitted by the

petitioner

Ex.W21

25.02.2010 Notice regarding domestic

enquiry

Ex.W22

10.03.2010 Proceedings of Enquiry

Ex.W23

08.04.2010 Proceedings of Enquiry

Ex.W24

10.04.2010 Written reply by petitioner

Ex.W25

15.07.2010 Second Show Cause Notice

alongwith EO’s report

Ex.W26

18.10.2010 Penalty advice issued to

petitioner

Ex.W27

27.10.2010 Appeal preferred by petitioner

Ex.W28

01.11.2010

Order of Appellate Authority

Ex.W29

04.11.2010

Office Order on deletion of

petitioner’s name from rolls

Ex.W30

Review filed by petitioner

Ex.W31

Copy of relevant provision of the

Certified Standing Orders of

Respondent

On the side of the Respondent

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

Extract of Personal Manual –

Recruitment Policy

Ex.M2

Respondent’s

Employment

Notice 283

Ex.M3

24.10.2008 Application by the petitioner

Ex.M4

25.01.2008 Permission Slip for Written Test

and declaration by the Candidate

Ex.M5

29.01.2009 Letter from Respondent to

Petitioner

for

medical

examination and Medical Report

Ex.M6

05.02.2009 Joining Report by petitioner

Ex.M7

02.02.2009 Attestation form executed by the

petitioner

Ex.M8

18.10.2008 Alleged experience certificate

issued by VKN Enterprises to K.

Purushothaman

Ex.M9

National

Apprenticeship

Certificate issued by Government

in Welder Trade (Gas and

Electric) – December 1998 and

Provisional Certificate to K.

Purushothaman

Ex.M10

29.01.2009 Self-Undertaking for OBC

candidate executed by the

petitioner–K. Naresh

Ex.M11

23.04.2008 Tamil Nadu Government Gazette

regarding change of name by the

petitioner (16.04.2008 – K.

Purushothaman to K. Naresh)

Ex.M12

22.05.2009 Letter from Respondent to VKN

Enterprises

Ex.M13

25.05.2009 Reply from VKN Enterprises to

Respondent stating that it had

NOT issued the certificate

Ex.M14

04.03.2010 Notice

enquiry

from

Respondent to petitioner –

enquiry on 10.03.2010

Ex.M15

08.03.2010 Letter from petitioner to

Respondent requesting to permit

his co-employee R. Ethiraj to

assist him in the enquiry

Ex.M16

29.03.2010 Notice

enquiry

from

Respondent to petitioner –

Enquiry-II on 08.04.2010

Ex.M17

22.07.2010 Letter from petitioner to

Respondent requesting one

month time to give his comments

on the findings of the Enquiry

Officer

Ex.M18

03.12.2010 Letter from petitioner to ALC

(C), Puducherry against his non-

employment.

Ex.M19

Reply by Respondent to ALC (C),

Puducherry

Ex.M20

10.04.2013 Conciliation Failure Report by

ALC (C).

Ex.M21

BHEL Recruitment Policy

(Extract from Personnel Manual)

Ex.M22

Employment notice (No. 282) for

ARTISANS (Petitioner got the

job in response to this notice)

6138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 6, 2014/BHADRA 15, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.M23

25.01.2009 Permission Slip for written test

to be conducted on 25.01.2009

and declaration by candidate

Ex.M24

27.01.2009 Call Letter dated 27.01.2009 –

For examination and medical

examination

report

dated

28.01.2009

Ex.M25

02.03.2009 Joining report dated 02.03.2009 –

by A. Venkatesh

Ex.M26

02.03.2009 Attestation form filled up by A.

Venkatesh

Ex.M27

12.02.2009 National

Apprenticeship

Certificate of A. Venkatesh –

Electrician Trade – Dec. 1999

Ex.M28

28.07.2000 Experience certificate issued by

M/s Shreeram Engineering

Industry to A. Venkatesh

Ex.M29

01.11.2008

Experience certificate issued by

M/s Kumar Industries to A.

Venkatesh

Ex.M30

15.10.1997 Experience certificate issued by

City Enterprises

Ex.M31

10.02.2009 Community Certificate (OBC)

issued to A. Venkatesh by

Tahsildar

Ex.M32

27.01.2009 Self-Undertaking

Venkatesh for OBC candidate

Ex.M33

23.04.1998 Certificate issued by Senior

Maintenance Engineer – BHEL

Tiruchirapalli to A. Venkatesh –

Apprentice Act- Electrician

Ex.M34

02.03.2009 Declaration by candidates

seeking

employment

compassionate grounds by A.

Venkatesh

Ex.M35

22.05.2009 Letter dated 22.05.2009 sent by

BHEL to Shree Ram Engineering

Industry

confirm

the

genuineness of the experience

certificate of A. Venkatesh

Ex.M36

22.05.2009 Letter dated 22.05.2009 sent by

BHEL to Kumar Industries to

confirm the genuineness of the

experience certificate of A.

Venkatesh

Ex.M37

22.05.2009 Letter dated 22.05.2009 sent by

BHEL to City Enterprises to

confirm the genuineness of the

experience certificate of A.

Venkatesh

Ex.M38

01.09.2009 Reply

from

Shree

Ram

Engineering

Industry

Respondent in respond to letter

dated 28.07.2009

Ex.M39

11.06.2009

Reply from City Enterprises to

Respondent

Ex.M40

04.03.2010 Notice of Enquiry dated

04.03.2010 – Enquiry on

10.03.2010

Ex.M41

08.03.2010 Letter of employee informing the

name

his

Defence

Representative Mr. K. Sakthivel,

Assistant Engineer – Q.C.

Ex.M42

29.03.2010 Notice of enquiry notifying the

date of second sitting on

08.04.2010

Ex.M43

20.07.2010 Letter of the petitioner to the

Enquiry Officer

Ex.M44

23.07.2010 Letter from petitioner to the

Enquiry Officer requesting one

month’s time to give his reply

Ex.M45

03.12.2012 Review petition of the petitioner

addressed to ALC (C) against

penalty advice dated 18.10.2010

and order on his appeal dated

01.11.2010

Ex.M46

Reply submitted by BHEL before

ALC (C)

Ex.M47

10.04.2013 Failure of conciliation report by

ALC (C) addressed to Ministry –

New Delhi

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.