5136GI/2014

(91)

foÙk ea=kky;

(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 44.—dkS'ky fodkl .k xkjaVh dks"k dh LFkkiuk

ds fy, eaf=keaMy ds vuqeksnu (ekeyk la- 364) ds vuqlj.k esa

foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx] fuf/ ds O;oLFkkid ds :i esa ,rn~}kjk Jh

oh- ds- 'kqDyk] la;qDr funs'kd] izf'k{k.k] fu;kstu rFkk izf'k{k.k

egkfuns'kky;] Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky; dks fuf/ izca/u lfefr ds

lnL; ds :i esa fu;qDr djrk gSA

[iQk- la- 1@12@2011&vkbZ,iQ&II (ikVZ)]

mn; Hkku ¯lg] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2014

S.O. 44.—Pursuant to the Cabinet approval (Case

No. 364) for establishment of a Credit Guarantee Fund for

Skill Development, The Department of Financial Services

as a Settlor of the Fund hereby appoints Shri V. K. Shukla,

Joint Director of Training, Directorate General of

Employment and Training, Ministry of Labour and

Employment as Member in the Management Committee of

the Fund as an expert from labour sector.

[F. No. 1/12/2011-IF-II (Pt.)]

UDAI BHAN SINGH, Under Secy.

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la-

ubZ fnYyh] tuojh 4—tuojh 10] 2015] 'kfuokj@ikS"k 14—ikS"k 20] 1936

No. 2]

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 4—JANUARY 10, 2015, SATURDAY/PAUSA 14—PAUSA 20, 1936

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

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(jktLo foHkkx)

(dsUæh; izR;{k dj cksMZ)

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 45-—tcfd dsUæ ljdkj us vk;dj vf/fu;e]

1961 (1961 dk 43) (ftls blesa blds ckn esa mDr vf/fu;e

dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 80>d dh mi&/kjk (4) ds [k.M (iii)

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjr ljdkj dh vf/lwpuk

la[;k dk-vk- 50(v) fnukad 8 tuojh] 2008 ftls ckn esa

vfèklwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 1605(v) fnukad 2 tqykbZ] 2008 vkSj

vf/lwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 1210(v) fnukad 21 ebZ] 2010 ds rgr

la'kksf/r fd;k x;k gS] ds }kjk vkS|ksfxd ikdZ ds fy, ,d Ldhe

rS;kj o vf/lwfpr dh gS_

vkSj tcfd eSllZ ,ysMsdks flMdqy vkS|ksfxd ikdZ fyfeVsM

ftldk iathÑr dk;kZy; irk 201&202] nwljh eafty] LiSayMj

iQksje] fMfLVªLV lsaVj] tlksyk] ubZ fnYyh&110025 esa fLFkr gS]

xkao&pkjxfy;ka] tsy dSai flrkjxat] m/e¯lg uxj] #æiqj]

mÙkjk[akM&262605 esa ,d vkS|ksfxd ikdZ fodflr dj jgk gS A

vr% vc mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 80>d dh mi&/kjk

(4) ds [k.M (iii) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUæ

ljdkj ,rn~}kjk bl vf/lwpuk ds vuqca/ esa mfYyf[kr 'krks± ,oa

fuca/uksa ds v/hu mDr [k.M (iii) ds iz;kstukFkZ eSllZ ,ysMsdks

flMdqy vkS|ksfxd ikdZ fyfeVsM }kjk fodflr xkao&pkjxfy;ka]

tsy dSai flrkjxat] m/e¯lg uxj] #æiqj] mÙkjk[akM&262605 esa

fLFkr miØe dks blds izkjaHk gksus dh rkjh[k vFkkZr~ 30-3-2009 ls

,d miØe vkSj ifj;kstuk ds :i esa vf/lwfpr djrh gS A

vuqca/

os 'krs± vkSj fuca/u ftu ij eSllZ ,ysMsdks flMdqy vkS|ksfxd

ikdZ fyfeVsM] ubZ fnYyh }kjk ,d vkS|ksfxd ikdZ dh LFkkiuk ds

fy, Hkkjr ljdkj dk vuqeksnu iznku fd;k x;k gS A

1- (i)

vkS|ksfxd miØe

eSllZ ,ysMsdks flMdqy

dk uke

vkS|ksfxd ikdZ fyfeVsM

(ii)

izLrkfor voLFkku

xkao&pkjxfy;ka] tsy dSai

flrkjxat] m/e¯lg uxj]

#æiqj] mÙkjk[akM&262605

(iii)

fu£er U;wure

15]000 oxZ ehVj

iQ'khZ {ks=k

(iv)

izLrkfod vkS|ksfxd %

tSlk fd vkS|ksfxd ikdZ

dk;Zdyki

Ldhe] 2008 esa ifjHkkf"kr

(v)

vkS|ksfxd mi;ksx

75 izfr'kr vFkok mlls

ds fy, fu/kZfjr

vf/d

vkcaVu ;ksX; {ks=kiQy

dh izfr'krrk

(vi)

okf.kfT;d mi;ksx

10 izfr'kr vFkok mlls

ds fy, fu/kZfjr

vkcaVu ;ksX; {ks=kiQy

dh izfr'krrk

(vii)

vkS|ksfxd bdkb;ksa

55 bdkb;ka

dh U;wure la[;k

(viii)

vkS|ksfxd ikdZ ds

30-03-2009

izkjaHk gksus dh frfFk

vkS|ksfxd ikdZ dks miØe }kjk izLrqr vkSj mÙkjk[akM jkT;

volajpuk ,oa vkS|ksfxd fodkl fuxe }kjk tkjh izek.ki=k esa ;Fkk

mfYyf[kr izkjaHk gksus dh rkjh[k vFkkZr~ 30-03-2009 dks fodflr

gqvk ekuk tk,xk A

vkS|ksfxd ikdZ dk Lokeh ,d gh miØe gksuk pkfg, A

vf/fu;e ds varxZr miØe dks dj ykHk vkS|ksfxd ikdZ

esa U;wure rhl ;wfuVksa ds voLFkkfir gksus ds ckn gh miyC/ gksxk A

vkS|ksfxd ;wfuVksa dh U;wure la[;k dh lax.kuk ds fy, fdlh

O;fDr rFkk mlds lac¼ m|eksa dh lHkh m|eksa dks ,d bdkbZ ekuk

tk,xk A

lac¼ m|e dh bdkb;ksa lfgr dksbZ Hkh vkS|ksfxd bdkbZ

vkcaVu ;ksX; {ks=kiQy ds iPphl izfr'kr ls vf/d txg ugha

?ksjsxh A

vf/fu;e ds varxZr dj ykHk bl vf/lwpuk ds rgr

vfèklwfpr miØe dks gh miyC/ gksxk u fd fdlh vU; O;fDr

dks tks ckn esa fdlh dkj.ko'k vf/lwfpr vkS|ksfxd ikdZ fodflr

djsa] ;k fodflr rFkk izpkyu djrk gS vFkok vuqj{k.k rFkk

izpkfyr djrk gS A

miØe vU; 'krks± dks iwjk fd, tkus ds v/hu bl vfèklwpuk

esa mfYyf[kr vkS|ksfxd ikdZ ds izkjaHk gksus dh rkjh[k ds laxr

dj&fu/kZj.k o"kZ ls 'kq# gksus okys iaæg o"kks± esa ls fdlh fujarj nl

o"kks± ds fy, vk;dj vf/fu;e] 1961 dh /kjk 80>d 4(iii) ds

rgr vius fodYi ij dVkSrh dk nkok dj ldrk gS A

vkS|ksfxd ikdZ esa fLFkr vkS|ksfxd bdkb;ka dsoy ogh

dk;Zdyki djsaxh ftUgsa vkS|ksfxd ikdZ Ldhe] 2008 esa fofu£n"V

fd;k x;k gS A

miØe dks vkS|ksfxd ikdZ ds fy, vyx [kkrk&cgh j[ksxk

rFkk fu;r frfFk rd vk;dj foHkkx dks viuh vk;dj fooj.kh

nkf[ky djsxk A

10-

;g vf/lwpuk rc vekU; gks tk,xh rFkk eSllZ ,ysMsdks

flMdqy vkS|ksfxd ikdZ fyfeVsM] ubZ fnYyh ,slh vekU;rk dh

fdlh vizR;{k ifj.kkeksa ds fy, iwjh rjg mÙkjnk;h gksxk] ;fn

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

(i)

vkosnu ftlds vk/kj ij dsUæ ljdkj }kjk LohÑfr

nh xbZ gS] esa xyr lwpuk@feF;k tkudkjh ikbZ tkrh

gS vFkok dqN oLrqxr lwpuk blesa ugha nh xbZ gS A

(ii)

;g vkS|ksfxd ikdZ ds voLFkkiu ds fy, gS ftlds

fy, fdlh vU; miØe ds uke ij igys gh LohÑfr

tkjh dh tk pqdh gS A

11-

miØe izi=k vkbZih,l&II esa ,d ok£"kd fjiksVZ dsUæh;

izR;{k dj cksMZ dks izLrqr djsxk A

12-

bl vf/lwpuk esa mfYyf[kr 'krks± ds lkFk&lkFk vkS|ksfxd

ikdZ Ldhe] 2008 esa 'kkfey 'krks± dk ml vof/ ds nkSjku ikyu

fd;k tkuk pkfg, ftlds fy, bl Ldhe ds varxZr ykHk mBk,

tkus gSa A dsUæ ljdkj mi;qZDr LohÑfr dks okil ys ldrh gS] ;fn

miØe fdlh Hkh 'krks± dk ikyu djus esa vleFkZ jgrk gS A

13-

dsUæ ljdkj dh LohÑfr ds fcuk ifj;kstuk Iyku esa fdlh

la'kks/u vFkok Hkfo"; esa irk pyus vFkok vkosnd dh vksj ls

fdlh oLrqxr rF; dks izdV djus esa vleFkZrk ds dkj.k vkS|ksfxd

ikdZ dh LohÑfr vekU; gks tk,xh A

14-

;g vf/lwpuk eSllZ ,ysMsdks flMdqy vkS|ksfxd ikdZ

fyfeVsM }kjk fu/kZj.k vf/dkjh dks iQ'khZ {ks=kiQy ds laca/ esa nh

xbZ lwpuk ds vuqlkj mlds }kjk lR;kiu@irk yxkus ds v/hu

gksxh A

¹vf/lwpuk la- 2@2015@iQk- la- 178@121@2009&vk-dk-fu-&Iº

nhif'k[kk 'kekZ] funs'kd (vk-dk-fu-&I)

(Department of Revenue)

(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)

New Delhi, the 8th January, 2015

S.O. 45.—Whereas the Central Government in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause(iii) of sub-

section (4) of section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43

of 1961 ) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has framed and

notified a scheme for industrial park, by the notifications

of Government of India vide number S.O. 50(E), dated the

8th January, 2008 subsequently amended vide Notification

No. S.O. 1605(E), dated the 2nd July, 2008 and vide

Notification S.O. No. 1210(E) dated 21.5.2010.

And whereas M/s. Eldeco SIDCUL Industrial Park

Ltd., having its registered office at 201-202, 2nd Floor,

Splendor Forum, District Center Jasola, New Delhi-110025

is developing an Industrial Park placed at Village Chargalia,

Jail Camp, Sitarganj, Udham Singh Nagar, Rudrapur,

Uttarakhand, 262605.

Now, therefore the Central Government, in exercise

of the powers conferred by clause (iii) of sub-section (4)

of section 80-IA of the Act, the Central Government hereby

notifies the undertaking from the date of commencement

i.e. 30.03.2009, being developed by M/s. Eldeco SIDCUL

Industrial Park Ltd. as an undertaking for the Industrial

Park located at Village Chargalia, Jail Camp, Sitarganj,

Udham Singh Nagar, Rudrapur, Uttarakhand, 262605 for

the purposes of the said clause (iii) subject to the terms

and conditions mentioned in the annexure to the

notification.

ANNEXURE

The terms and conditions on which the approval of

the Government of India has been accorded for setting up

of an industrial park by M/s. Eldeco SIDCUL Industrial

Park Ltd., Uttarakhand.

1. (i) Name of the Industrial

: Eldeco SIDCUL

Undertaking

Industrial Park Ltd.

(ii) Location

: Village Chargalia, Jail

Camp, Sitarganj, Udham

Singh Nagar, Rudrapur,

Uttarakhand, 262605.

(iii) Minimum Constructed : 15,000 Square Meters

Floor Area

(iv) Proposed industrial

: As defined in Industrial

activities

Park Scheme, 2008

(v) Percentage of allocable : 75% or more

area earmarked for

Industrial use

(vi) Percentage of allocable : 10% or less

area earmarked for

commercial use

(vii) Minimum number of

: 55 Units

industrial units

(viii) Date of commence-

: 30.03.2009

ment of the

Industrial Park

The Industrial Park shall be construed as developed

on the date of commencement i.e. 30.03.2009 as mentioned

in the Certificate furnished by the undertaking and issued

by the State Infrastructure and Industrial Development

Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd.

The industrial park should be owned by only one

undertaking.

The tax benefits under the Act will be available to

the undertaking only .after minimum number of thirty units

are located in the Industrial Park. For the purpose of

computing the minimum number of industrial units, all units

of a person and his associated enterprises will be treated

as a single unit.

No industrial unit, along with the units of an

associated enterprise, shall occupy more than twenty five

per cent of the allocable area.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The tax benefits under the Act will be available only

to the undertaking notified vide this notification and not

to any other person who may subsequently develop,

develops and operates or maintains and operates the

notified industrial park, for any reason.

The undertaking subject to the fulfillment of other

conditions, may at its option claim deduction under section

80 lA (4)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for ten consecutive

assessment years out of fifteen years beginning from the

date of commencement of industrial park mentioned in

this notification.

The Industrial units located in the industrial park

shall undertake only those activities as specified in

Industrial Park Scheme, 2008.

The undertaking must keep separate books of

accounts for the industrial park and must file its income

tax returns by the due date to the Income-tax department.

10.

The notification will be invalid and M/s. Eldeco

SIDCUL Industrial Park Limited shall be solely responsible

for any repercussions of such invalidity, if

(i)

the application on the basis of which the

notification is issued by the Central

Government contains wrong information/

misinformation or some material information

has not been provided in it.

(ii)

it is for the location of the industrial park for

which notification has already been issued in

the name of another undertaking.

11.

The undertaking shall furnish an annual report to

the Central Board of Direct Taxes in Form IPS-II.

12.

The conditions mentioned in this notification as well

as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme, 2008

should be adhered to during the period for which benefits

under this scheme are to be availed. The Central

Government may withdraw the above approval in case the

undertaking, fails to comply with any of the conditions.

13.

Any amendment of the project plan without the

approval of the Central Government or detection in future,

or failure on the part of the applicant to disclose any material

fact, will invalidate the approval of the industrial park.

14.

This approval is subject to verification/ascertainment

by Assessing officer of correctness of figures pertaining

to floor area as informed by M/s. Eldeco SIDCUL Industrial

Park Ltd.

[Notification No. 2/2015/F. No. 178/121/2009-ITA-I]

DEEPSHIKHA SHARMA, Director (ITA-I)

fons'k ea=kky;

(lh ih oh izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 24 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 46-—jktuf;d vkSj dkSalqyj vkWfiQlj ('kiFk

vkSj iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 dh /kjk 2 ds [kaM (d) ds

vuqlj.k esa dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Jh lh- ,e- 'kekZ] futh lgk;d

dks 24 fnlEcj] 2014 ls Hkkjr ds dksalqykokl] c²e?ke esa dkSalqyj

lsokvksa ds fy, lgk;d dkSalqyj vf/dkjh izkf/d`r djrh gS A

¹la- Vh- 4330@01@2014º

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo (dkSalqyj)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 24th December, 2014

S.O. 46.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the

Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths

and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government

hereby authorises Shri C.M. Sharma, Personal Assistant

in Consulate General of India, Birmingham to perform the

Consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect

from 24th December, 2014.

[No. T. 4330/01/2014]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 47-—jktuf;d vkSj dkSalqyj vkWfiQlj ('kiFk

vkSj iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 dh /kjk 2 ds [kaM (d) ds

vuqlj.k esa dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk (1) Jh fxjh'k mizsrh] futh

lgk;d (2) Jh f'ko izlkn] fuEu Js.kh fyfid rFkk (3) Jh vkse

izdk'k] fuEu Js.kh fyfid] dks 1 tuojh] 2015 ls Hkkjr ds

dksalqykokl] tn~nk esa dkSalqyj lsokvksa ds fy, lgk;d dkSalqyj

vf/dkjh izkfèkÑr djrh gS A

¹la- Vh- 4330@01@2014º

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo (dkSalqyj)

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2015

S.O. 47.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the

Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths

and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government

hereby authorises (1) Shri Girish Upreti, Personal Assistant

(2) Shri Shiv Prasad, LDC and (3) Shri Om Prakash, LDC in

Consulate General of India, Jeddah to perform the Consular

services as Assistant Consular Officers with effect from

1 January, 2015.

[No. T. 4330/01/2014]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

lapkj vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ea=kky;

(bysDVªkWfudh vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 48-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 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] bysDVªkWfudh vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh

foHkkx ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k ds varxZr vkus okys izxr lax.ku

fodkl dsaæ (lh&MSd) uked Lok;Ùk laLFkk ds osy;kEcye]

fr#ouariqje (dsjy) fLFkr dk;kZy;] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/

d deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks

vf/lwfpr djrh gS A

¹la- 7(2)@2005&¯g-v-º

jktdqekj xks;y] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(Department of Electronics and

Information Technology)

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2015

S.O. 48.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of

the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies

the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-

DAC), an autonomous sociey under the administrative

control of the Department of Electronics and

Information Technology located at Vellayambalam,

Thrivananthapuram (Kerala) whereof more than 80% staff

have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. 7(2)/2005-H.S.]

R. K. GOYAL, Jt. Secy.

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

(LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 49-—Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn vf/fu;e] 1956

(1956 dk 102) dh /kjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUnz ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls

ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh izFke

vuqlwph esa vgZrk ds uke esa ifjorZu ds dkj.k vkSj la'kks/u djrh

gS] vFkkZr~ %—

(d) mDr izFke vuqlwph esa ^^nhu n;ky mikè;k; xksj[kiqj

fo'ofo|ky;@xksj[kiqj fo'ofo|ky;] mÙkj izns'k** ds lkeus

^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk ¹blds ckn dkye (2) ds :i esa

lUnfHkZra] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr vafre izfof"V rFkk mlls lEcf/r izfof"V

ds ckn ^iathdj.k ds fy;s lf{kIr :i* ¹blds ckn dkye (3)

ds :i esa lanfHkZr] 'kh"kZd ds rgr fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k

tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

(2)

(3)

ekLVj vkWiQ ltZjh

,e-,l- (us=k jksx foKku)

(us=k jksx foKku)

(;g 1981 esa ;k mlds ckn ch-vkj-Mh-

esa esfMdy dkWyst] xksj[kiqj esa izf'kf{kr

fd, tk jgs Nk=kksa ds laca/ esa MkW- nhu

n;ky mikè;k; xksj[kiqj fo'ofo|ky;@

xksj[kiqj fo'ofo|ky;] mÙkj izns'k }kjk

LohÑr fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh) A

lHkh ds fy, uksV% 1- fdlh LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe dks bl izdkj

iznÙk ekU;rk vf/dre 5 o"kZ dh vof/

ds fy, gksxh vkSj mlds ckn mldk

uohdj.k djuk gksxk A

2- mi&[k.M 4 esa ;Fkkisf{kr le; ij

ekU;rk dk uohdj.k u gksus ij lacaf/r

LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe esa nkf[kyk #d

tk,xk A

¹la- ;w- 12012@54@2013&,ebZ (ih&II)º

vfurk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2013

S.O. 49.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government,

after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule

to the said Act, due to change of nomenclature of the

qualification namely :—

In the said Schedule—

(a) against “Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur

University/Gorakhpur University, Uttar Pradesh” under the

heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter

referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry

relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for

Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the

following shall be inserted, namely :—

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(2)

(3)

“Master of Surgery

MS (Ophthalmology)

(Ophthalmology)”

(This shall be a recognized

medical qualification when

granted by Deen Dayal

Upadhyaya

Gorakhpur

U n i v e r s i t y / G o r a k h p u r

University, Uttar Pradesh in

respect of students being

trained at B.R.D. Medical

College, Gorakhpur on or after,

1981.

Note to all :

1. The recognition so granted to a

Postgraduate Course shall be for a

maximum period of 5 years, upon which

it shall have to be renewed.

2. Failure to seek timely renewel of

recognition as required in sub-clause 4

shall invariably result in stoppage of

admission

the

concerned

Postgraduate Course.

[No. U. 12012/54/2013-ME (P-II]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 9 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 50-—dsUæh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn

vfèkfu;e] 1956 (1956 dk 102) dh /kjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (2)

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls

ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk lac¼ djus okys fo'ofo|ky;

esa cnyko ds dkj.k mDr vf/fu;e dh igyh vuqlwph esa fuEufyf[kr

vkSj la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %—

mDr izFke vuqlwph esa %—

(d) ^^egkjk"Vª LokLF; ,oa foKku egkfo|ky;] ukfld]

egkjk"Vª** ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¹vc ds ckn

LraHk (2) ds :i esa lanfHkZra] ds varxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls

lacaf/r izfof"V ds ckn ^iathdj.k ds fy;s lais{k.k* ¹vc ds ckn

LraHk (3) ds :i esa lanfHkZr] ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr var%LFkkfir

fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

(2)

(3)

¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esMhlu

,eMh (fiQft;ksykWth)

(fiQft;ksykWth)¸

(;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxh ;fn ;g MkW- 'kadj jko pkSgku

ljdkjh fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;] ukansM+]

egkjk"Vª esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs

fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa egkjk"Vª LokLF;

,oa foKku fo'ofo|ky;] ukfld]

egkjk"Vª }kjk 2013 esa vFkok mlds

i'pkr iznku dh xbZ gks)A

¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esMhlu@

,eMh@,e,l (,ukVkseh)

ekLVj vkWiQ ltZjh

(;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

(,uksVkseh)¸

gksxh ;fn ;g ljdkjh fpfdRlk

egkfo|ky;] ykrwj] egkjk"Vª esa izf'kf{kr

fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa

egkjk"Vª LokLF; ,oa foKku

fo'ofo|ky;] ukfld] egkjk"Vª }kjk

2013 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr iznku

dh xbZ gks)A

¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esMhlu@

,eMh@,e,l (vkschth)

ekLVj vkWiQ ltZjh

(;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

(vkClVsfVªDl o

gksxh ;fn ;g ljdkjh fpfdRlk

xk;uksdksykWth)¸

egkfo|ky;] ykrwj] egkjk"Vª esa izf'kf{kr

fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa

egkjk"Vª LokLF; ,oa foKku

fo'ofo|ky;] ukfld] egkjk"Vª }kjk

2013 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr iznku

dh xbZ gks)A

¶vkClVsfVªDl o

Mhthvks

xk;uksdksykWth esa

(;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

fMIyksek¸

gksxh ;fn ;g ljdkjh fpfdRlk

egkfo|ky;] ykrwj] egkjk"Vª esa izf'kf{kr

fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa

egkjk"Vª LokLF; ,oa foKku

fo'ofo|ky;] ukfld] egkjk"Vª }kjk

2013 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr iznku

dh xbZ gks)A

¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMlhu@

,eMh (iQkWjsafld esfMlhu)

(iQkWjsafld esfMlhu)¸

(;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxh tc ljdkjh fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;]

ykrwj] egkjk"Vª esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk

jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa egkjk"Vª LokLF;

,oa foKku fo'ofo|ky;] ukfld]

egkjk"Vª }kjk 2013 esa vFkok mlds

i'pkr iznku dh xbZ gks)A

¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMlhu@

,eMh (fiQft;ksykWth)

(fiQft;ksykWth)¸

(;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxh tc ljdkjh fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;]

ykrwj] egkjk"Vª esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa egkjk"Vª LokLF;

,oa foKku fo'ofo|ky;] ukfld]

egkjk"Vª }kjk 2013 esa vFkok mlds

i'pkr iznku dh xbZ gks)A

([k) ¶Lokeh foosdkuan lqHkkjrh egkfo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj

izns'k¸ ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¹vc ds

ckn LraHk (2) ds :i esa lanfHkZra] ds varxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj

mlls lacaf/r izfof"V ds ckn 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy;s lais{k.k*

¹vc ds ckn LraHk (3) ds :i esa lanfHkZr] ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr

var%LFkkfir fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

(2)

(3)

¶ekLVj vkWiQ ltZjh

,e,l (bZ,uVh)

(vksVksfjfguksy¯jxksykWth)¸ (;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxh ;fn ;g lqHkkjrh fpfdRlk

egkfo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj izns'k esa

izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/

esa Lokeh foosdkuan lqHkkjrh

fo'ofo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj izns'k }kjk

2013 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr iznku

dh xbZ gks)A

¶ekLVj vkWiQ ltZjh

,e,l (vksiQFkkseksykWth)

(vksiQFkkseksykWth)¸

(;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxh ;fn ;g lqHkkjrh fpfdRlk

egkfo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj izns'k esa

izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/

esa Lokeh foosdkuan lqHkkjrh

fo'ofo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj izns'k }kjk

2013 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr iznku

dh xbZ gks)A

¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMlhu

,eMh (tujy esfMlhu)

(tujy esfMlhu)¸

(;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxh ;fn ;g lqHkkjrh fpfdRlk

egkfo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj izns'k esa

izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/

esa Lokeh foosdkuan lqHkkjrh

fo'ofo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj izns'k }kjk

2013 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr iznku

dh xbZ gks)A

¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMlhu

,eMh (Mhoh,y@fLDu o ohMh)

(MekZVksykWth] osujksykWth

(;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

o ysizlh@fLdu o

gksxh ;fn ;g lqHkkjrh fpfdRlk

osujksykWth] MekZVksykWth)¸ egkfo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj izns'k esa

izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/

esa Lokeh foosdkuan lqHkkjrh

fo'ofo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj izns'k }kjk

2013 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr iznku

dh xbZ gks)A

¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMlhu

,eMh (isfM;kfVªDl)

(isfM;kfVªDl)¸

(;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxh ;fn ;g lqHkkjrh fpfdRlk

egkfo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj izns'k esa

izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/

esa Lokeh foosdkuan lqHkkjrh

fo'ofo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj izns'k }kjk

2013 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr iznku

dh xbZ gks)A

¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMlhu

,eMh (,fufLFkfl;k)

(,fufLFkfl;k)¸

(;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxh ;fn ;g lqHkkjrh fpfdRlk

egkfo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj izns'k esa

izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/

esa Lokeh foosdkuan lqHkkjrh

fo'ofo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj izns'k }kjk

2013 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr iznku

dh xbZ gks)A

¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMlhu

,eMh (lkbdsVªh)

(lkbdsVªh)¸

(;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxh ;fn ;g lqHkkjrh fpfdRlk

egkfo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj izns'k esa

izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/

esa Lokeh foosdkuan lqHkkjrh

fo'ofo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj izns'k }kjk

2013 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr iznku

dh xbZ gks)A

¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMlhu@

,eMh@,e,l (,ukVkWeh)

ekLVj vkWiQ ltZjh

(;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

(,ukVkWeh)¸

gksxh ;fn ;g lqHkkjrh fpfdRlk

egkfo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj izns'k esa

izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/

esa Lokeh foosdkuan lqHkkjrh

fo'ofo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj izns'k }kjk

2013 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr iznku

dh xbZ gks)A

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

lHkh ds fy, fVIi.kh % 1- LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe ds fy, LohÑr

ekU;rk 5 o"kZ dh vf/dre vof/

ds fy, gksxh ftlds ckn bldk

uohdj.k fd;k tk,xk A

2- ekU;rk ds ^uohdj.k* ds izfØ;k

ekU;rk iznku djus ds fy, ykxw

'krZ ds vuqlkj gksxh A

3- mi&[k.M 4 esa visf{kr vuqlkj

ekU;rk dks le; ij uohdj.k ugha

djokus ds iQyLo:i lacaf/r

LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe esa fujiokn

:i ls nkf[kyk can gks tk,xk A

¹la- ;w- 12012@710@2014&,ebZ (ih&II)º

nsokuan ih- osBs] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2014

S.O. 50.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government,

after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule

to the said Act, namely :—

In the said Schedule—

(a)

against “Maharashtra University of Health Sciences,

Nashik, Maharashtra” under the heading ‘Recognized

Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column

(2)] and after the last entry relating thereto under the

heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter

referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted,

namely :—

(2)

(3)

“Doctor of Medicine

MD (Physiology)

(Physiology)”

(This shall be a recognized

medical qualification when

granted by Maharashtra

University of Health Sciences,

Nashik, Maharashtra in respect

of students being trained at Dr.

Shankarrao Chavan Govt.

Medical College, Nanded,

Maharashtra on or after 2013).

“Doctor of Medicine/

MD/MS (Anatomy)

Master of Surgery

(This shall be a recognized

(Anatomy)”

medical qualification when

granted by Maharashtra

University of Health Sciences,

Nashik, Maharashtra in respect

of students being trained at

Govt. Medical College, Latur,

Maharashtra on or after 2013).

“Doctor of Medicine/

MD/MS (OBG)

Master of Surgery

(This shall be a recognized

(Obstetrics &

medical qualification when

Gynaecology”

granted by Maharashtra

University of Health Sciences,

Nashik, Maharashtra in respect

of students being trained at

Govt. Medical College, Latur,

Maharashtra on or after 2013).

“Diploma in Obstetrics

DGO

& Gynaecology”

(This shall be a recognized

medical qualification when

granted by Maharashtra

University of Health Sciences,

Nashik, Maharashtra in respect

of students being trained at

Govt. Medical College, Latur,

Maharashtra on or after 2013).

“Doctor of Medicine

MD (Forensic Medicine)

(Forensic Medicine)”

(This shall be a recognized

medical qualification when

granted by Maharashtra

University of Health Sciences,

Nashik, Maharashtra in respect

of students being trained at

Govt. Medical College, Latur,

Maharashtra on or after 2013).

“Doctor of Medicine

MD (Physiology)

(Physiology)”

(This shall be a recognized

medical qualification when

granted by Maharashtra

University of Health Sciences,

Nashik, Maharashtra in respect

of students being trained at

Govt. Medical College, Latur,

Maharashtra on or after 2013).

(b)

against “Swami Vivekanand Subharti University,

Meerut, Uttar Pradesh” under the heading ‘Recognized

Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column

(2)] and after the last entry and entry relating thereto under

the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter

referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted,

namely :—

“Master of Surgery

MS (ENT)

(Otorhinolaryngology)”

(This shall be a recognized

medical qualification when

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

granted by Swami Vivekanand

Subharti University, Meerut,

Uttar Pradesh in respect of

students being trained at

Subharti Medical College,

Meerut, Uttar Pradesh on or

after 2013).

“Master of Surgery

MS (Ophthalmology)

(Ophthalmology)”

(This shall be a recognized

medical qualification when

granted by Swami Vivekanand

Subharti University, Meerut,

Uttar Pradesh in respect of

students being trained at

Subharti Medical College,

Meerut, Uttar Pradesh on or

after 2013).

“Doctor of Medicine

MD (General Medicine)

(General Medicine)”

(This shall be a recognized

medical qualification when

granted by Swami Vivekanand

Subharti University, Meerut,

Uttar Pradesh in respect of

students being trained at

Subharti Medical College,

Meerut, Uttar Pradesh on or

after 2013).

“Doctor of Medicine

MD (DVL/Skin & VD)

(Dermatology, Venerology

(This shall be a recognized

& Leprosy/Skin &

medical qualification when

Venerology, Dermatology)”

granted by Swami Vivekanand

Subharti University, Meerut,

Uttar Pradesh in respect of

students being trained at

Subharti Medical College,

Meerut, Uttar Pradesh on or

after 2013).

“Doctor of Medicine

MD (Paediatrics)

(Paediatrics)”

(This shall be a recognized

medical qualification when

granted by Swami Vivekanand

Subharti University, Meerut,

Uttar Pradesh in respect of

students being trained at

Subharti Medical College,

Meerut, Uttar Pradesh on or

after 2013).

“Doctor of Medicine

MD (Anaesthesia)

(Anaesthesia)”

(This shall be a recognized

medical qualification when

granted by Swami Vivekanand

Subharti University, Meerut,

Uttar Pradesh in respect of

students being trained at

Subharti Medical College,

Meerut, Uttar Pradesh on or

after 2013).

“Doctor of Medicine

MD (Psychitry)

(Psychitry)”

(This shall be a recognized

medical qualification when

granted by Swami Vivekanand

Subharti University, Meerut,

Uttar Pradesh in respect of

students being trained at

Subharti Medical College,

Meerut, Uttar Pradesh on or

after 2013).

“Doctor of Medicine/

MD/MS (Anatomy)

Master of Surgery

(This shall be a recognized

(Anatomy)”

medical qualification when

granted by Swami Vivekanand

Subharti University, Meerut,

Uttar Pradesh in respect of

students being trained at

Subharti Medical College,

Meerut, Uttar Pradesh on or

after 2013).

Note to all :

1. The recognition so granted to a

Postgraduate Course shall be for a

maximum period of 5 years, upon which

it shall have to be renewed.

2. The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of

recognition shall be same as applicable

for the award of recognition.

3. Failure to seek timely renewel of

recognition as required in sub-clause 4

shall invariably result in stoppage of

admission

the

concerned

Postgraduate Course.

[No. U. 12012/710/2014-ME (P-II)]

DEWANAND P. WETHE, Under Secy.

100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 51-—dsUæh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn

vfèkfu;e] 1956 (1956 dk 102) dh /kjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (2)

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls

ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh igyh vuqlwph

esa fuEufyf[kr vkSj la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %—

mDr igyh vuqlwph esa ^^rfeyukMq MkW- ,ethvkj fpfdRlk

fo'ofo|ky;] psUubZ] rfeyukMq** ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¹blds ckn dkWye (2) ds :i esa lanfHkZr] ds

varxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/r izfof"V ds ckn 'kh"kZd

^iathdj.k ds fy;s lais{k.k* ¹blds ckn dkWye (3) ds :i esa lanfHkZr]

ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr var%LFkkfir fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

(2)

(3)

¶cSpyj vkWiQ esfMlhu

,echch,l

vkSj cSpyj vkWiQ ltZjh¸ (;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxh ;fn ;g djixk fou;kxk fpfdRlk

foKku laLFkku] inqjaFkxe rkyqd]

rfeyukMq esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs 100

,echch,l fo|k£Fk;ksa ds laca/ esa

rfeyukMq MkW- ,ethvkj fpfdRlk

fo'ofo|ky;] psUubZ] rfeyukMq }kjk

iQjojh 2014 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr

iznku dh xbZ gks)A

lHkh ds laca/ esa uksV%1- ,echch,l fMxzh iznku djus ds fy,

fdlh iwoZ&Lukrd ikB~;Øe ds fy, iznÙk

,slh ekU;rk 5 o"kks± dh vf/dre vof/

ds fy, gksxh vkSj ftlds mijkar bldk

uohuhdj.k djokuk iM+sxk A

2- ekU;rk ds uohdj.k dh izfØ;k ekU;rk

iznku djus ds fy, ykxw fd, tkus ds

leku gksxh A

3- iwoZ mi&[k.M (d) esa visf{kr vuqlkj

ekU;rk dks le; ij uohdj.k ugha djkus

ds iQyLo:i lacaf/r mDr dkWyst esa

,echch,l ds iwoZ&Lukrd ikB~;Øe esa

fujiokn :i ls nkf[kyk can gks tk,xk A

¹la- ;w- 12012@553@2014&,ebZ (ih&II)º

nsokuan ih- osBs] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 15th July, 2014

S.O. 51.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government,

after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule

to the said Act, namely :—

In the said First Schedule after “The Tamilnadu Dr.

M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai, Tamilnadu” and under

the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter

referred to as column (2)] and after the last entry and entry

relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for

Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the

following shall be inserted, namely :—

(2)

(3)

“Bachelor of Medicine

M.B.B.S.

and Bachelor of Surgery”

(This shall be a recognized

medical qualification when

granted by The Tamilnadu Dr.

M.G.R. Medical University,

Chennai, Tamilnadu in respect

of 100 MBBS students being

trained at Karpaga Vinayaga

Institute of Medical Sciences,

Maduranthagam

Taluk,

Tamilnadu on or after, February,

2014).

Note to all :

1. The recognition so granted to an

undergraduate Course for award of

MBBS degree shall be for a maximum

period of 5 years, upon which it shall

have to be renewed.

2. The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of

recognition shall be same as applicable

for the award of recognition.

3. Failure to seek timely renewel of

recognition as required in sub-clause (a)

supra shall invariably result in stoppage

of admission to the concerned

undergraduate Course.

[No. U. 12012/553/2014-ME (P-II)]

DEWANAND P. WETHE, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2014

dk-vk- 52-—dsUæh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn

vfèkfu;e] 1956 (1956 dk 102) dh /kjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (2)

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls

ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh igyh vuqlwph

esa fuEufyf[kr vkSj la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %—

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

101

mDr igyh vuqlwph esa ^^MkW- ,uVhvkj LokLF; foKku

fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k** ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk ¹blds ckn dkWye (2) ds :i esa lanfHkZra] ds varxZr

vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/r izfof"V ds ckn 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k

ds fy;s lais{k.k* ¹blds ckn dkWye (3) ds :i esa lanfHkZr] ds

varxZr fuEufyf[kr var%LFkkfir fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

(2)

(3)

¶cSpyj vkWiQ esfMlhu

,echch,l

vkSj cSpyj vkWiQ ltZjh¸ (;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxh ;fn ;g v:yh lhrkjke jktw

fpfdRlk foKku vdkneh] byq:] vkaèzk

izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs

,echch,l fo|k£Fk;ksa ftudh la[;k 100

ls c<+kdj 150 dj nh xbZ gS] ds laca/

esa MkW- ,uVhvkj LokLF; foKku

fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k }kjk iQjojh

2014 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr iznku

dh xbZ gks)A

lHkh ds laca/ esa uksV%1- ,echch,l fMxzh iznku djus ds fy,

fdlh iwoZ&Lukrd ikB~;Øe ds fy, iznÙk

,slh ekU;rk 5 o"kks± dh vf/dre vof/

ds fy, gksxh vkSj ftlds mijkar bldk

uohuhdj.k djokuk iM+sxk A

2- ekU;rk ds uohdj.k dh izfØ;k ekU;rk

iznku djus ds fy, ykxw fd, tkus ds

leku gksxh A

3- iwoZ mi&[k.M (d) esa visf{kr vuqlkj

ekU;rk dks le; ij uohdj.k ugha djkus

ds iQyLo:i lacaf/r mDr dkWyst esa

,echch,l ds iwoZ&Lukrd ikB~;Øe esa

fujiokn :i ls nkf[kyk can gks tk,xk A

¹la- ;w- 12012@550@2014&,ebZ (ih&II)º

nsokuan ih- osBs] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2014

S.O. 52.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government,

after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule

to the said Act.

In the said First Schedule after “Dr. NTR University

of Health Sciences, Vijayawada” and under the heading

‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to

as column (2)] and after the last entry and entry relating

thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’

[hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall

be inserted, namely :—

(2)

(3)

“Bachelor of Medicine

MBBS

and Bachelor of Surgery”

(This shall be a recognized

medical qualification when

granted by Dr. NTR University

of Health Sciences, Vijayawada

in respect of students being

trained at Alluri Sitarama Raju

Academy of Medical Sciences,

Eluru, Andhra Pradesh against

the increased intake from 100

to 150 MBBS students on or

after, February, 2014).

Note to all :

1. The recognition so granted to a

undergraduate Course for award of

MBBS degree shall be for a maximum

period of 5 years, upon which it shall

have to be renewed.

2. The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of

recognition shall be same as applicable

for the award of recognition.

3. Failure to seek timely renewel of

recognition as required in sub-clause (a)

supra shall invariably result in stoppage

of admission to the concerned

undergraduate Course of MBBS at the

said college.

[No. U. 12012/550/2014-ME (P-II)]

DEWANAND P. WETHE, Under Secy.

102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)

Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 53-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

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

vuqlwph

Ø- ykblsal

LohÑfr djus dh

ykblsal/kjh dk uke

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

Hkkek

Hkkx

vuq

o"kZ

la- la[;k

frfFk o"kZ@ekg

,oa irk

la-

1- 2936471

12 uoEcj] 2014

eSllZ vkj-ds- iksyhelZ

fueTth; iEilsV dh

8034

2002

IykWV ua- th&1097]

fof'kf"V

jksM 1lh] eksUthuhl csdjh

ds lkeus] dh'kku xsV]

esVksMk] rkyqdk yks/hdk]

ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360 003

2- 2938172

14 uoEcj] 2014

eSllZ vsMyj bZysDVªksfuDl

250 oksYV rd dh jsfVr

1293

2005

izk- fy-] IykWV ua- th&1935@4$

oksYVrk okys vkSj 16 ,Eih;j

5@3] vyekbVh xsV]

rd dh jsfVr djaV okys Iyx

yks/hdk thvkbZMhlh]

vkSj lkWdsV fudkl dh

dkykoM jksM] esVksMk]

fof'kf"V

ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360 021

3- 2939477

18 uoEcj] 2014

eSllZ vk'kh bathfu;¯jx oDlZ

vfXu gkst iznk; ;qxeu

903

1993

n'kZu ikdZ] jkts'k e'khu

'kk[kk ikbZi uksty vkSj

VqYl ds lkeus] osjkoy

uksty iku dh fof'kf"V

yks/hdk thvkbZMhlh]

('kkij)] rkyqdk dksVMk

lkaxuh] ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360 024

4- 2939578

18 uoEcj] 2014

eSllZ fØ"uk ,UVjizkbt

iSdstcUn is; ty

14543

2004

esbu cktkj] guqeku pkSd]

(iSdstcUn izkÑfrd

tke & dY;kuiqj]

feujy ty ds vykok)

ftyk tkeuxj]

xqtjkr&361 320

5- 2940765

19 uoEcj] 2014

eSllZ vkfgj csojsthl

iSdstcUn is; ty

14543

2004

okMZ ua- Mhlh 2]

(iSdstcUn izkÑfrd

IykWV ua- 244]

feujy ty ds vykok)

xq:dqy ds ikl]

rkyqdk xka/h/ke

ftyk dPN]

xqtjkr&370 201

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

103

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8) (9)

6- 2940866

19 uoEcj] 2014

eSllZ dslj iSdstM fMª¯dx

iSdstcUn is; ty

14543

2004

okWVj] C/o [kksMh;kj vkW;y

(iSdstcUn izkÑfrd

baMLVªht] IykWV ua- 20&21]

feujy ty ds vykok)

losZ ua- 269] xkao jhc]

rkyqdk xksaMy]

ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360 311

7- 2941262

20 uoEcj] 2014

eSllZ vfjgUr baMLVªht

rIr csfYyr eè;e ,oa

2062

2011

losZ ua- 108ih] 109ih]

mPp rU;rk ds lajpuk

110ih ,oa 214ih]

bLikr fof'kf"V

flgksj ?kka?kyh jksM+]

?kka?kyh] rkyqdk flgksj]

ftyk Hkkouxj]

xqtjkr&364 002

8- 2942163

21 uoEcj] 2014

eSllZ vsMyj bysDVªksfuDl

?kjsyw vkSj leku dk;ks± ds

3854

1997

izk- fy-] IykWV ua- th&1935@4$

fy, fLop fof'kf"V

5@3] vyekbVh xsV]

yks/hdk thvkbZMhlh]

dkykoM jksM] esVksMk]

ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360 021

9- 2943670

25 uoEcj] 2014

eSllZ fØ'k bysfDVªd da-

[kwys dq,a ds fy, fueTt;

14420

1994

12] vkth olkgr]

iEilsV & fof'kf"V

ds- ,l- Mhty ds ihNs]

nhun;ky baMLVªh;y ,LVsV]

80 fiQV jksM] jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360 003

10- 2944268

28 uoEcj] 2014

eSllZ ';ke baMLVªht

okVjÝykbZ okYo] lkekU;

13095

1991

losZ uEcj 31] f'koe

dk;ks± ds fy,

baMLVªh;y esbu jksM]

jkt iQkbcj ds ikl]

ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360 002

¹la- dsUæh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11º

,l- prqosZnh] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 26th December, 2014

S.O. 53.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certificate)

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

in the following schedule :

104

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant

Name and address

Title of the Standard

IS No.

Part Sec.

Year

No.

Date

of the party

2936471

12.11.2014

M/s. R. K. Polymers

Submersible Pumpsets-

8034

2002

Plot No. G-1097, Road 1C,

Opp. Monginis Bakery,

Kishan Gate, Metoda,

Taluka Lodhika,

District-Rajkot,

Gujarat-360024

2938172

14.11.2014

M/s. Adler Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Plugs and socket outlets

1293

2005

Plor No. G-1935/4 + 5/3,

of 250 volts and rated

Almighty Gate, Lodhika GIDC,

current up to 16 amperes

Kalavad Road, At Metoda,

Distt. Rajkot,

Gujarat-360021

2939477

18.11.2014

M/s. Aashi Engineering Works

Fire hose delivery coup-

903

1993

Darshan Park, Opp. Rajesh

lings, branch pipe, nozzles

Machine Tools, At Veraval

and nozzle spanner

(Shaper), Distt. Rajkot,

Gujarat-360024

2939578

18.11.2014

M/s. Krishna Enterprise

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Main Bazar, Hanuman Chowk,

(other than packaged

At Jam - Kalyanpur,

natural mineral water)

Distt. Jamnagar,

Gujarat-361320

2940765

19.11.2014

M/s. Ahir Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Ward No. DC-2, Plot No. 244,

(other than packaged

Near Gurukul, Taluka Gandhidam,

natural mineral water)

Distt. Kachchh,

Gujarat-370201

2940866

19.11.2014

M/s. Kesar Packaged Drinking

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Water, C/o Khodiyar Oil Ind.,

(other than packaged

Plot No. 20-21, Survey No. 269,

natural mineral water)

At Village Rib, Taluka Gondal,

Distt. Rajkot,

Gujarat-360311

2941262

20.11.2014

M/s. Arihant Industries,

Steel for general structural

2062

2011

Survey No. 108P, 109P, 110P

purposes-

& 214P, Sihor Ghanghali Road,

Ghanghali, Taluka Sihor,

Distt. Bhavnagar,

Gujarat-364002

2942163

21.11.2014

M/s. Adler Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Switches for domestic

3854

1997

Plot No. G-1935/4 + 5/3,

and similar purposes

Almighty Gate, Lodhika GIDC,

Kalavad Road, At Metoda,

Distt. Rajkot,

Gujarat-360021

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

105

2943670

25.11.2014

M/s. Krish Electric Co.

Openwell Submersible

14220

1994

12, Aji Vasahat, B/h K.S. Diesel,

Pumpsets-

Dindayal Industrial Estate,

80 Feet Road, Rajkot,

Gujarat-360003

10.

2944268

28.11.2014

M/s. Shyam Industries

Butterfly valves for

13095

1991

Survey No. 31, Shivam

general purposes

Industrial Main Road,

Near Raj Fiber, Rajkot

Gujarat-360002

¹No. CMD/13%11º

S. CHATURVEDI, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 54-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mi&fofu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

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

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal la[;k

ykblsal/kjh dk uke ,oa irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe

jn~nhdj.k frfFk

la[;k

lac¼ Hkkjrh; ekud dk

'kh"kZd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

3779587

fo'kky dseiqQM baMLVªht

vk;ksMhu;qDr ued fuokZr

11 uoEcj] 2014

losZ ua- 228] 229]

okf"ir vk;ksMhu;qDr ued

IykWV ua- 1] 2] 5] 6] 7] 8]

vkSj fjiQkbaM vk;ksMhu;qDr

CykWd ua- I] xkao pqMok]

ued

rkyqdk xka/h/ke] ftyk dPN]

xqtjkr&370201

¹,l- dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11º

,l- prqosZnh] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 26th December, 2014

S.O. 54.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certificate)

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

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

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence No.

Name and address of the

Article/Process with relevant

Date of Cancellation

No.

CM/L

Licensee

Indian Standards covered by

licence cancelled/suspension

3779587

M/s.Vishal Chemfood Industries

Iodized Salt, Vacuum Evaporated

11.11.2014

Survey No. 228, 229,

Iodized Salt and Refined Iodized

Plot No. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8

Salt - Specification

Block No. I, Village Chudva,

Taluka Gandhidham,

Distt. : Kachchh,

Gujarat-370201

[No. CMD/13:11]

S. CHATURVEDI, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dks;yk ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk-

55-&dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds

i'pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu Hkkjr ljdkj esa dks;yk ea=ky; ds }kjk tkjh dh xbZ

vf/klwpuk la[;k dk- vk- 1187 rkjh[k 24 twu] 2013 tks Hkkjr ds jkti= ds Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi[kaM ¼AaAa½] rkjh[k 29 twu] 2013

esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] ml vf/klwpuk lsa layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa ftldk eki 63-996 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k

158-13 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ gS] dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nh Fkh;

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V mDr Hkwfe ds ,d Hkkx

esa dks;yk vfHkizkIr gS A

vr%] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, blls layXu

vuqlwph esa of.kZr 60-779 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 150-18 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki dh mDr Hkwfe dk vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk

nsrh gS:

fVIi.k 1 % bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu vkus okys {ks= ds js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e¼Ikh,yth½@Hkwfe@457] rkjh[k

16 flrEcj] 2014 dk fujh{k.k dyDVj] ftyk vuwiiqj ¼e/; izns'k½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly

gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM ¼jktLo vuqHkkx½] lhir jksM]

fcykliqj &495006 ¼NRrhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gSA

fVIi.k 2 % mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 8 ds mica/kksa dh vksj /;ku vkd`"V fd;k tkrk gS] ftlesa fuEufyf[kr mica/k gS%&

vtZu dh ckcr~ vkifRr;kWa-&

8 ¼1½

dksbZ O;fDr tks fdlh Hkwfe esa ftldh ckcr~ /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu vf/klwpuk fudkyh xbZ gS] fgrc)

gS] vf/klwpuk ds fudkys tkus ls rhl fnu ds Hkhrj lEiw.kZ Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds fdUgha vf/kdkjkas

dk vtZu fd, tkus ds ckjs esa vkifRr dj ldsxkA

Li"Vhdj.k]&

¼1½ bl /kkjk ds vUrxZr ;g vkifRr ugha ekuh tk,xh fd dksbZ O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa dks;yk mRiknu ds fy, Lo;a [kuu

lafØ;k,a djuk pkgrk gS vkSj ,slh lafØ;k,a dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k fdlh vU; O;fDr dks ugha djuh pkfg,A

¼2½ mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu izR;sd vkifRr l{ke vf/kdkjh dks fyf[kr :i esa dh tk,xh vkSj l{ke vf/kdkjh] vkifRrdrkZ

dks Lo;a lqus tkus] fof/k O;olk;h }kjk lquokbZ dk volj nsxk vkSj ,slh lHkh vkifRr;ksa dks lquus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ,slh vfrfjDr

tk¡p] ;fn dksbZ gks] djus ds i'pkr] tks og vko';d le>rk gS] og ;k rks /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu vf/klwfpr Hkwfe dk

;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa ,d fjiksVZ ;k ,slh Hkwfe ds fofHkUu VqdM+s ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds

vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa vkifRr;ksa ij viuh flQkfj'kksa vkSj mlds }kjk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ds vfHkys[k lfgr fofHkUu fjiksVZa dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks mlds fofu'p; ds fy, nsxkA

¼3½ bl /kkjk ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, og O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa fgrc) le>k tk,xk tks izfrdj esa fgr dk nkok djus dk

gdnkj gksxk] ;fn Hkwfe ;k fdlh ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkj bl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vftZr dj fy, tkrs gSA

fVIi.k 3 % dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001 dks mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 ds

v/khu vf/klwpuk la[;k dk- vk- 905] rkjh[k 20 ekpZ] 1987 }kjk Hkkjr ds jkti= ds Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi&[kaM ¼ii½]

rkjh[k 4 vizSy]1987 dks l{ke izkf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k x;k gSA

vuqlwph

fctqjh Hkwfexr [kku] glnso {ks=]

ftyk& vuwiiqj ¼e/; izns'k½

¼js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e¼Ikh,yth½@Hkwfe@457] rkjh[k 16 flrEcj] 2014½

Hkw&lrg vf/kdkj%

dze

xzke dk uke

iVokjh gYdk

cankscLr

rglhy

ftyk

{ks= gsDVj esa

fVIif.k;ka

la[;k

yksgljk

929

dksrek

vuwiiqj

49.733

Hkkx

fctqjh

734

dksrek

vuwiiqj

4.978

Hkkx

dksjtk

126

dksrek

vuwiiqj

6.068

Hkkx

dqy %& 60-779 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 150-18 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

107

xzke yksgljk ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykWV la[;k%&

156(Hkkx), 157] 158] 160 ls 164] 187(Hkkx), 188(Hkkx), 189 ls 198] 199(Hkkx), 200(Hkkx), 201] 202(Hkkx), 216(Hkkx), 217

ls 221] 222(Hkkx), 223 ls 225] 226(Hkkx), 227(Hkkx), 228(Hkkx), 228@1082(Hkkx), 230(Hkkx), 448@1091] 272(Hkkx), 273]

274(Hkkx), 275(Hkkx), 276 ls 282] 441(Hkkx), 448@1091] 451 ls 458] 460 ls 470] 475 ls 491] 492(Hkkx), 493(Hkkx), 495(Hkkx),

499] 500(Hkkx), 501(Hkkx), 502 ls 511] 512(Hkkx), 540(Hkkx), 548(Hkkx), 549] 550(Hkkx), 551(Hkkx), 552 ls 563] 565 ls 571] 574]

590(Hkkx), 988(Hkkx),1030(Hkkx) A

xzke fctqjh ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykWV la[;k%&

5 ls 14] 14@883] 15 ls 27] 28(Hkkx) ls 35(Hkkx), 36 ls 39] 41(Hkkx), 48(Hkkx), 79(Hkkx) A

xzke dksjtk ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykWV la[;k%&

63¼Hkkx½ ls 66¼Hkkx½] 80¼Hkkx½ A

lhek o.kZu %

Cykd & I %

d&[k

js[kk fcUnq **d** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke yksgljk ds IykV la[;k 158 ds if'peh lhek] 156] 202] 200] 199] 216] 222]

226] 227] 228] 230] 1082] 226] 272] 274] 275] 495] 493] 492] 500] 501] 512] 548] 550] 551 ls gksdj] xzke

fctqjh&yksgljk ds Hkkxr% lfEefyr lhek ls gksrh gqbZ xzke fctqjh&yksgljk ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq **[k** ij feyrh

gSA

[k&x

js[kk fcUnq **[k** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke fctqjh ds IykV la[;k 5] 6] 7] 8] 9] 79 ds mRrjh lhek] 79] 28] 29] 30] 31]

32] 33] 34] 35] 48 ls gksdj] 38] 39 ds nf{k.kh lhek] xzke fctqjh&yksgljk ds Hkkxr% lfEefyr lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke

fctqjh&yksgljk ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq **x** ij feyrh gSA

x&?k

js[kk fcUnq **x** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke yksgljk ds IykV la[;k 590 ls gksdj] 571 ds if'peh] 570] 569] 567] 574

ds nf{k.kh] 574] 565] 564 ds if'peh] 561] 563] 475] 476 ds nf{k.kh] 470] 451 ds iwohZ] 451] 455] 456] 457] 458] 460

ds nf{k.kh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **?k** ij feyrh gSA

?k&d

js[kk fcUnq **?k** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke yksgljk ds IykV la[;k 460 ds if'peh lhek] 462 ds nf{k.kh] 441 ls gksdj]

281] 282 ds nf{k.kh] 187] 188 ls gksdj] 194] 164 ds nf{k.kh] 164] 163] 161 ds if'peh] 160 ds nf{k.kh] 157] 158 ds

iwohZ] 158 ds nf{k.kh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq **d** ij feyrh gSA

Cykd & II %

³&p

js[kk fcUnq **³** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke yksgljk ds IykV la[;k 988] 1030 ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **p** ij feyrh gSA

p&N

js[kk fcUnq **p** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke dksjtk ds IykV la[;k 65 ds iwohZ lhek] 66 ds mRrjh vkSj Hkkxr% iwohZ lhek]

66 ls gksdj] 66 ds nf{k.kh lhek] 80] 65] 64] 63 ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke dksjtk&yksgljk ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq **N**

ij feyrh gSA

N&t

js[kk fcUnq **N** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke dksjtk&yksgljk ds Hkkxr% lfEefyr lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **t** ij feyrh

gSA

t&³

js[kk fcUnq **t** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke yksgljk ds IykV la[;k 1030] 988 ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq **³** ij feyrh

gSA

[Qk-la- 43015@02@2013&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]

nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo

108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2015

S.O. 55.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 1187,

dated the 24th June, 2013 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development)

Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-

section (ii), dated the 29th June, 2013, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to prospect for coal in 63.996

hectares (approximately) or 158.13 acres (approximately) of the lands in the locality specified in the Schedule annexed to

that notification;

And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in a part of the said lands prescribed in

the Schedule appended to this notification.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire the land measuring 60.779 hectares (approximately) or 150.18

acres (approximately) as surface rights in or over the said lands as described in the Schedule appended hereto:

Note 1 :

The plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/ 457, dated the 16th September, 2014 of the area covered

by this notification may be inspected in the office of the Collector, District Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh) or in

the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata - 700001 or in the office of the South Eastern

Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur- 495006 (Chhattisgarh).

Note 2 :

Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act which provides as follows:-

Objection to Acquisition.-

8(1)

Any person interested in any land in respect of which a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 7 has

been issued, may, within thirty days of the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the whole or

any part of the land or any rights in or over such land.

Explanation,-

(1) It shall not be an objection within the meaning of this section for any person to say that he himself desires to

undertake mining operations in the land for the production of coal and that such operation should not be undertaken by

the Central Government or by any other person.

(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing, and the competent

authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and shall, after

hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in

respect of the land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 or of rights in or over such land, or make

different reports in respect of different parcels of such land or of rights in or over such land, to the Central Government,

containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the

decision of the Government.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to

claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act.

Note 3 :

The Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001, has been appointed by the Central Government

as the competent authority under section 3 of the said Act, vide notification number S.O. 905, dated the

20^th March, 1987, published in Part II, Section 3, sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India, dated the 4^th April, 1987.

SCHEDULE

Bijuri U/G Mine, Hasdeo Area

District Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh)

(plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/ 457, dated the 16^th September, 2014)

Surface Rights:

Sl. No.

Name of

Patwari halka

Settlement

Tahsil

District

Area in

Remarks

Village

number

hectares

Lohsara

929

Kotma

Anuppur

49.733

Part

Bijuri

734

Kotma

Anuppur

4.978

Part

Korja

126

Kotma

Anuppur

6.068

Part

Total:- 60.779 hectares (approximately) or 150.18 acres (approximately)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

109

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Lohsara (Part):

156(P), 157, 158, 160 to 164, 187(P), 188(P), 189 to 198, 199(P), 200(P), 201, 202(P), 216(P), 217 to 221, 222(P), 223

to 225, 226(P), 227(P), 228(P), 228/1082(P), 230(P), 448/1091, 272(P), 273, 274(P), 275(P), 276 to 282, 441(P), 448/1091, 451 to

458, 460 to 470, 475 to 491, 492(P), 493(P), 495(P), 499, 500(P), 501(P), 502 to 511, 512(P), 540(P), 548(P), 549, 550(P), 551(P),

552 to 563, 565 to 571, 574, 590(P), 988(P), 1030(P).

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Bijuri (Part):

5 to 14, 14/883, 15 to 27, 28(P) to 35(P), 36 to 39, 41(P), 48(P), 79(P).

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Korja (Part):

63(P) to 66(P), 80(P).

Boundary Description:

Block-I:

A-B

Line starts from point ‘A’ and passes in village Lohsara along western boundary of plot number 158, through

156, 202, 200, 199, 216, 222, 226, 227, 228, 230, 1082, 226, 272, 274, 275, 495, 493, 492, 500, 501, 512, 548, 550, 551,

partly common boundary of villages Bijuri- Lohsara and meets at point ‘B’ on the common boundary of villages

Bijuri-Lohsara.

B-C

Line starts from point ‘B’ and passes in village Bijuri along northern boundary of plot number 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 79,

through 79, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 48, along southern boundary of plot number 38, 39, partly common

boundary of villages Bijuri- Lohsara and meets at point ‘C’ on the common boundary of villages Bijuri-

Lohsara.

C-D

Line starts from point ‘C’ and passes in village Lohsara through plot number 590, along western boundary of

plot number 571, southern boundary of plot number 570, 569, 567, 574, western boundary of plot number 574,

565, 564, southern boundary of plot number 561, 563, 475, 476, eastern boundary of plot number 470, 451,

southern boundary of plot number 451, 455, 456, 457, 458, 460 and meets at point ‘D’.

D-A

Line starts from point ‘D’ and passes in village Lohsara along western boundary of plot number 460, southern

boundary of plot number 462, through 441, along southern boundary of plot number 281, 282, through 187,

188, along southern boundary of plot number 194, 164, western boundary of plot number 164, 163, 161,

southern boundary of plot number 160, eastern boundary of plot number 157, 158, southern boundary of plot

number 158 and meets at starting point ‘A’ .

Block-II:

E-F

Line starts from point ‘E’ and passes in village Lohsara through plot number 988, 1030 and meets at point “F”

on the common boundary of villages Korja-Lohsara.

F-G

Line starts from point ‘F’ and passes in village Korja along eastern boundary of plot number 65, northern and

partly eastern boundary of plot number 66, through 66, southern boundary of plot number 66, through 80, 65,

64, 63 and meets at point “G” on the common boundary of villages Korja-Lohsara.

G-H

Line starts from point ‘G’ and passes along partly common boundary of villages Korja- Lohsara and meets at

point “H”.

H-E

Line starts from point ‘H’ and passes in village Lohsara through plot number 1030, 988 and meets at starting

point “E”.

[F. No. 43015/02/2013-PRIW-I]

DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.

110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 7 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 56-—dsUæ ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 (;Fkkla'kksf/r] 1987) ds

fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k esa] Je vkSj jkstxkj

ea=kky; ds iz'kkldh; fu;a=k.kk/hu fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa dks]

ftuds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d

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

(1) deZpkjh jkT; chek fuxe vLirky] ihU;k

(2) deZpkjh jkT; chek fuxe vkn'kZ fpfdRlky; ,oa

O;kolkf;d jksx dsUæ] uankuxj] bankSj

(3) deZpkjh jkT; chek fuxe vkn'kZ vLirky] cíh]

fgekpy izns'k

[la- bZ&11017@1@2006&jk-Hkk-uh-]

,- ds- i.Mk] vk£Fkd lykgdkj

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 7th January, 2015

S.O. 56.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Languages (Use for official purposes of the

Union) Rule, 1976 (as amended, 1987) the Central

Government hereby notifies following offices under the

administrative control of the Ministry of Labour and

Employment, more than 80% Staff whereof have acquired

working knowledge of Hindi :

(1)

ESIC Hospital, Peenya

(2)

ESIC Model Hospital & Occupational Disease

Center, Nandanagar, Indore

(3)

ESIC Model Hospital, Baddi, HP

[No. E-11017/1/2006-RBN]

A. K. PANDA, Economic Advisor

ubZ fnYyh] 7 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 57-—jk"Vªifr] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds fjDr in gsrq ¯yd

vf/dkjh ds :i esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k&lg&Je

U;k;ky;] t;iqj] ds ihBklhu vf/dkjh Jh Hkjr ikaMs dks fnukad

1-1-2015 ls N ekg dh vof/ rd vFkok fu;fer in/kj.k dh

fu;qfDr gksus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys

gks] rc rd ds fy, vfrfjDr dk;ZHkkj lksairs gSaA

[la- ,&11016@03@2009&lh,y,l&II]

lq'khy dqekj f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th January, 2015

S.O. 57.—The President is pleased to entrust the

additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad to Shri Bharat Pandey, Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jaipur with a period of six months w.e.f. 1.1.2015 or

till the post is filled on regular basis or until further orders,

whichever is the earliest.

[No. A-11016/03/2009-CLS.-II]

S. K. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 58-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

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; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

42@1998) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30&12&2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@551@1997&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2014

S.O. 58.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/1998)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 30/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/551/1997-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 42 of 1998

Employer in relation to the management of Katras

Project of M/S BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present : Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

111

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the Workman : Sri H.P.Gond, Advocate.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 3/12/2014

AWARD

By order No.-L-20012/551/97 IR-(C-I), dated. 13/08/

98 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub –Section

(1) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act.1947, referred the following disputes for

adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Katras

Project Area of M/S BCCL in dismissing Sri P.N.

Srivastava, clerk ( working as Cashier) Area Finance

Department from the service of company w.e.f.

04.08.93 under clause 26.1.2 & 26.1.11 of the certified

standing orders of the company is justified? If not,

to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

01.09.1998. After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed, the Sponsoring Union/ workman files their written

statement on 05.11.1998.The management also files written

statement –cum- rejoinder on 24.02.2000. Thereafter

rejoinder and documents by the workman.

The short point to be decided as to whether the

dismissal of the workman for alleged manipulation of

records and interpolation is justified or not.

In this case the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry

Officer is ordered to be fair and proper.

The Charge is interpolation of cash Book from 31.7.90

to 17.06.1991, appears to be interpolated and scored

through, and the allegation is the workman who was a

clerk cum cashier, was committing mistake of temporary

misappropriation of fund of the company. Such cash Book

was not filed before this Tribunal for verification nor its

authenticated photocopy is there in the domestic enquiry

record.

The workman has accepted the order of this Tribunal

as fair and proper of domestic enquiry, and not challenged

the same in higher Court. But going through the records

etc, this Tribunal finds that punishment awarded to the

workman is quite disproportionate, taking into account of

his fault.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,

I hold that the action of the management of Katras Project

Area of M/S BCCL in dismissing Sri P.N. Srivastava,

clerk ( working as Cashier) Area Finance Department from

the service of company w.e.f. 04.08.93 under clause 26.1.2

& 26.1.11 of the certified standing orders of the company

is not justified, Therefore this Tribunal orders that the

date of dismissal of the workman be treated as its premature

retirement and till that date, its legal dues be given.

This is my award

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 59-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

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; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

27@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30&12&2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@272@2004&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2014

S.O. 59.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/2005) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 30/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/272/2004-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D.Act.,1947

REFERENCE NO. 27 OF 2005

PARTIES

The Vice President,

Mine Mazdoor Union,

At & PO: Bhaga, Dhanbad

Vs.

General Manager,

P.B.Area of M/s BCCL,

PO: Kusunda, Dhanbad

Ministry’s Order No L-20012/272/04-IR

(C-I) dt. 24.03.2005

112

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Mr. M. M. Khan, Ld. Adv.

Workman/Union

On behalf of the

Mr. U. N. Lal, Ld. Adv.

Management

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 28th Nov., 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour,

in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10

(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No L-20012/272/04.IR (C-I) dt. 24.03.2005.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Pootki

Colliery M/s BCCL in dismissing Sri Shiv Prasad

Bhuia from the services of the Company w.e.f.

24.05.2004 is for and justified? If not, to what relief is

the concerned workman entitle.”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/272/04.IR (C-I)

dt. 24.03.2005 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No.27 of 2005 was registered on 26.04.2005 and

accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the Registered Posts to the parties

concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the

date fixed, and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own

respective Ld.Counsels appeared in, and contested the

case.

The case of workman Shiv Prasad Bhuia as

sponsored by the Mine Mazdoor Union,Bhaga,Dhanbad

,is that he was a permanent employee as M/Loader of

Pootkee Colliery of M/s BCCL.After returning from his

second shift job on 19.10.2001,he fell ill and he was alone

at his residence. Having seen him in precarious condition,

his neighbour shifted him to his native village in Gaya.

When treatment locally available did not improve his

conditions, he was admitted to Gaya Hospital on 21.10.2001

for treatment .On improvement ,the workman informed of

his sickness through his letter dt.6.11.2001 via under

Certificate of Posting and further letters dtt.23.11.2001 and

30.01.2002.After his prolong treatment as attended by the

physician Dr.S.Prasad,Civil Asstt.Surgeon, the workman

could recover, and found physically fit for duty on

15.09.2003.When he with the Medical Certificate of his

treatment from 21.1.2001 to 15.09.2003 and his fitness for

duty returned to the colliery to take permission for joining

his duty, the Project Offer instead of it, issued him the

charge sheet dt.1/3.0.2003 for unauthorized proceeding

on leave. Though the Postal Certificate and Medical

Certificate submitted by the workman were received by

the Office on 17.10.2003, the allegation that he did not

submit it is not at all correct. During the period of his

absence, there was no communication to the workman by

the Management. He was chargesheeted while he was

physically present fit for duty as declared by the aforesaid

physician Doctor. No second show cause spoke of any

proposed punishment as a consequence about which he

was not in a position to speak for defence.The action of

the Management in dismissing him in the facts and

circumstances is not fair and proper. So the workman is

entitled to full wage with all consequential benefits from

the date of dismissal to that of his reinstatement.

No rejoinder filed on behalf of the workman.

On the other hand, challenging the maintainability

of the reference in law and fact both, the contra case of the

OP/Management with categorical denials is that Sri Shiv

Prasad Bhuia,an employee of Pootkee Colliery, was

chargesheeted for his unathutorised absence from his

duty since 20.10.2001.After the domestic enquiry held into

it in accordance with the principle of natural justice, the

Enquiry Officer found him guilty under clause 26.1.1. of

the Certified Standing orders of the Company. The

workman was given full opportunity for his defence,but

he never complained anything against the enquiry

proceeding.Havng considered the three years past record

of the workman’s attendances ,i.e.,162,89 and 67 in the

years 1999,2000 and 2001 respectively, the Management

has issued him the dismissal order, as he was a habitual

absentee. The dismissal of the workman for his habitual

absentism is fully justified. The Management has sought

a permission for the proof the charge against the workman,

in case the enquiry is held unfair and improper by the

Tribunal.

The OP/Management in the rejoinder has specially

denied all the allegations of the workman.

FINDING WITH REASONS

In the instant reference, at the preliminary point,

having considered the evidences of both the partes, the

domestic enquiry was held in accordance with the

principles of the natural justice as per the Order No.33

dt.30.10.13 of the Tribunal. It resulted in hearing the final

arguments of both the parties on merits.

Mr. M. M. Khan, the Learned Counsel for the Union/

workman, has submitted that the workman, a permanent

M/Loader of Pootkee Colliery,P.B.Area of M/s BCCL ,but

due to his sudden illness after return from his duty on

19.10.2001, he was shifted by his neighbour to his native

village Gaya where he was admitted in the Hospital at

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

113

Gaya on 21.10.2001 for better treatment. He was too

precarious to inform of it to the Management. After

improvement, he sent the information of his sickness

through the UPC letters dtt..8.11.2001 and 23.1.2001 (the

Xerox copies of UPC letters attached on the record for

perusal); on his recovery, where he went to the colliery to

join his duty on 15.09.2003,he was illegally chargesheeted

and accordingly, was dismissed by the Management on

22.5.2004 for his absentism; and that he was punished

with the harsh punishment of dismissal for it; thus the

action of the Management in dismissing the workman is

not fair and justified.

Whereas the contention of Mr. U.N. Lal, Ld.

Advocate for the OP/Management, is that the workman

had been a habitual absentee as in his past three years’

attendances as well, and on the proof of the charge in the

domestic enquiry, and after 2nd Show Cause Notice with

the copy of the enquiry report to him (Ext.M.7)the

Disciplinary Authority considered all the facts, and passed

dismissal order dt.24.5.2004 as apparent from the

documents of the Management (Ext.M.1 to 9);as such the

dismissal order of the Management w.e.f. 24.6.2004 for the

proved misconduct of his absentism under the Certified

Standing Orders of the Company is just and proper.

On perusal of the materials available on the case

record, the facts of the U.C.P. (Under Certificate of Posting)

letters on 8.11.01 and 23.11.2011 sent by the workman

appear to be palpably false, as there is no proof of it,

rather his two undated applications to the Project Office

of the Colliery which were received on 17.09.03 and

17.10.2003 (Extt.W.1 & 2= Ext.M.2 respectively) were firstly

about his illness, treatment as well as for permission to let

join his duty.

I find the previous meagre attendances of the

workman on duty can not be a base for his first dismissal

for his instant unauthorsed absence from his duty. The

workman appears to have described his previous situation

of his illness due to frequent fever for which he had got

Medical treatment from Dr.S.Prasad at his native district

Gaya.

The status of the workman as a M/Loader since

1998 is also an acknowledged fact. Consideration of past

record of the workman appears to be a motivating factor

while imposing the punishment of dismissal upon him.

Under these circumstances, the punishment of

outright dismissal to workman Shiv Prasad Bhuia for a

single misconduct of his absentism in his career appears

to be highly shocking to the conscience; hence it is quite

disproportionate to the nature of his unavoidable

absentism misconduct. The Courts/Tribunal can interfere

with punishment only when it is disproportionate to the

misconduct or shocking to the conscience as held by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jadish Singh Vs.

Punjab Engineering College, 2009 LLR 752 (SC) .

As the dismissal punishment is liable to be set aside

under the Sec.11 A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, so

the workman deserves the relief of reinstatement under

the said provision of law.

In result, it is, in the terms of the Reference, hereby

responded and accordingly awarded that the action of the

Management of Pootki Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing

Sri Shiv Prasd Bhuia from the services of the Company

w.e.f. 24.5.2004 is absolutely unfair and unjustified. Hence,

the workman concerned is entitled to reinstatement in his

service but without back wages.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 60-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ-lh-,y- 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; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 111@1992) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30&12&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@233@1991&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2014

S.O. 60.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 111/

1992) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. ECL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

30/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/233/1991-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Reference: No 111/1992

Employer in relation to the management of Nirsa Area

M/s ECL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer.

114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances:

For the Employers

Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated- 3/12/2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/233/1991 IR (C-1)) dated

29/09/1992, the central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s ECL

Nirsa Area in relation to their Badjna Colliery. In not

regularizing S/Shri Shibu Rawani and 11 others (as

per list) water Suppliers is justified? If not, to what

relief the workman concerned are entitled?”

Name

Father’s Name

Vill

P.O.

Distt

Sibu Rawani

Baku Rawani

Pratandih

Poddardih,

Dhanbad

Balai Roy

Shri Hari Roy

Pratadih

Poddardih

Dhanbad

Fatik Rawani

Sri Baku Rawani

Poddardh

Nirsa

Dhanbad

Panu Gorai

Shri Shashi Gorai

Bhalkhuria,

Nirsa

Dhanbad

Bideshi Gope,

Sri Malnu Gope

Gargara

Gobindpur

Dhanbad

Kalipado Rawani

Sri Kinkar Rawani

Vandrapur

Nirsa

Dhanbad

Samanto Gorai

Sri Amoro Gorai

Vandrapur

Nirsa

Dhanbad

Dubas Gope,

Sri Satish Gope,

Jhilua

Dhanbad

Ratan Rawani,

Sri Satish Rawani,

Pratapdih,

Podardih

Dhanbad

10.

Santosh Mahto

Shri Sova Mahto

Kandutha

Nirsa

Dhanbad

11.

Jagdish Yadav

Shri Ritu Yadav,

Dukhadpur

Panriya

Gaya

12.

Ruplal Rawani

Sri Gobind Rawani

Dhanbad,

Nirsa

Dhanbad

After receipt of the reference, both parties are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates, none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence, No Dispute Award is passed.

Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 61-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lh-lh-,y- 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; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 78@1992) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30&12&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@334@1991&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2014

S.O. 61.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 78/1992) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of M/s. CCL and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 30/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/334/1991-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Reference: No 78/1992

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

115

Employer in relation to the management of

Arra Colliery of M/s CCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

None

For the Workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 2/12/2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/334/1991-IR (C-1)) dated

28/08/1992, the central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Arra

Colliery of M/s CCL in terminating from service to

Smt. Pyari Kamin, Ex-wagon Loader is justified? If

not, to what relief she is entitled?”

2 .

After receipt of the reference, both parties are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates, none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence, No Dispute Award is passed.

Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 62-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lh-lh-,y- 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; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 120@1992) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30&12&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@333@1991&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2014

S.O. 62.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 120/

1992) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. CCL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

30/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/333/1991-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Reference: No 120/1992

Employer in relation to the management of

Kuju Colliery of M/s. C.C. Ltd.

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

None

For the Workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 2/12/2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/333/1991 IR (C-1)) dated

18/08/1992, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Kuju

Colliery of M/S CCL. At & P.O. Kuju, Dist.

Hazaribagh in dismissing from service of Shri Raman

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

is entitled ?”

After receipt of the reference, both parties are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates, none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence, No Dispute Award is passed.

Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

116

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 63-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

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; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

32@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30&12&2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@33@2013&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2014

S.O.

63.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2013) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 30/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/33/2013-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Reference: No 32/2013

Employer in relation to the management of

Katrash Colliery of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

Sri M. Prasad, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 20/11/2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/33/2013 IR-(CM-I), dated 22/08/2013

the Central Govt. inthe Ministry of Labour has, in exercise

of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and

sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication

to this Tribunal :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Ramkanali

Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Kameshwar

Nonia from the service of the company vide order

dated 05.12.2007 is legal and justified? To what relief

is the workman concerned entitled to?”

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

04.09.2013. After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed, the workman files their written statement on

31.01.2014. Thereafter the management also files written

statement -cum- rejoinder on 16.05.2014. The management

marked the document as M-1 to M-8 as well as the workman

also marked the document as W-1 to W-5. The point

involved in the reference is that the workman has been

dismissed from his services on the ground of absenteeism.

During preliminary hearing it is revealed that the

case is dismissal of workman for long absence on duty.

But he has already out of service for 7 years. It is felt to

give another chance to the workman to serve.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,

I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee. But

the workman be kept under probation for a period of one

year and his performance report be given to the under

signed. Therefore the question of back wages does not

arise at all.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 64-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

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; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

31@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30&12&2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@27@2009&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2014

S.O. 64.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2009) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 30/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/27/2009-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

117

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Reference: No 31/2009

Employer in relation to the management of

Kustore Area of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

Sri S.C. Gour, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 8/12/2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/27/2009 IR (CM-I) dated

30/04/2009, the central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

SCHEDULE

“(i) Whether the action of the management of

Kustore Area of M/s. BCCL in not regularizing the

services of Shri Manohar Bhar as Driver in Cat-V

from April 1999 is justified and legal?” (ii) To what

relief is the workman concerned entitled?

This Case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 28.0.2009. During the pendency of the case. The

representative of workman submits that workman is not

interested to contest the case. It is felt that the dispute

between parties are resolved. Hence “No dispute” award

is passed. communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 65-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

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; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

07@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30&12&2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@179@2002&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2014

S.O.

65.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 07/2003) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 30/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/179/2002-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Reference: No. 07/2003

Employer in relation to the management of

P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

Sri R.R. Ram, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 4/12/2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/179/2002-IR-(C-I), dated, 10/

12/2002 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of P.B.

Area of M/s. BCCL in not regularizing Sri Rajendra

Paswan as Dumper Driver/Operator is fair and

justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned

workman entitled and from what date?”

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 01.01.2003. After receipt of reference, both parties

are noticed, The workman files their written statement

on 17.01.2003, and the management also files their

written statement on 18.06.2003. Both side adduce one

witness each on their behalf. The workman document’s

marked as W-l to W-4.

118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Short point to be decided in this reference is the

workman concerned is to be regularized in the post of

Dumper Driver/operator or not.

From Ext. W-2 it appears that the workman was

ordered to work as Dumper operator. As per Ext.. W-3.

the workman was ordered to under go probation for

one year in the post of Driver (T) in category I . From

another letter of the management it appears that the

Deputy Chief personal manager of. P.B.Area vide Ext.-4

ordered for regularization of the workman Rajendra

Paswan w.e.f. 06.01,1995 in the post of Dumper Driver

category V.. It is also submitted by the management that the

Dy. Personal manager had no power to pass order Ext. 4. But

for that, the workman is not responsible nor he be deprived

of his claim.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this

case. 1 hold that the action of the management of P.B.

Area of M/S BCCL in not regularizing Sri Rajendra

Paswan as Dumper Driver/Operator is not fair and

justified. Therefore the workman is to be regularized as

Dumper Driver category V from 06.01.1995 with

immediate effect accordingly prepare the seniority list.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 66-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lh-,e-ih-Mh-

vkbZ- 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; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

60@93 ,oa 49@95) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

30&12&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@348@1992&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]

la- ,y&20012@151@1992&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2014

S.O.

66.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/93

& 49/95) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

industrial dispute between the management of M/s. CMPDI

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 30/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/348/1992-IR (C-I),

No. L-20012/151/1992-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947.

REFERENCE NO. 60 OF 1993

The General Secretary,

National Coal Workers Congress,

Anne Villa, Ranchi-834008

S/Shri Shami Alam and

Mozibul Haque Hussain (workmen)

(Ministry’s Order No.L-20012/348/92-IR (Coal-I)

dt.28.05.1993

WITH

REFERENCE NO. 49 OF 1995

For S/Shri Mozibul Haque Hussain and

Shami Alam (Workmen)

(Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/151/92.IR (Coal-I)

dt.23.03.1995

Vs.

MANAGEMENT OF CENTRAL PLANING & DESIGN

INSTITUTE LTD., GONDWANA PLACE, KANKE

ROAD, RANCHI-834008

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the : Mr. C.S. Pathak, Rep. of the workmen

workmen/Union

On behalf of the : Mr.B.K.Sinha, Management’s

Management

Representatives

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Mines

Dated, Dhanbad, the 28^th Nov., 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following

disputes to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

Nos. referred to above going paras under Reference heads

as per the Schedules:

THE SCHEDULE OF REF. NO. 60 OF 1993

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s

Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Ltd.,

Ranchi is justified in terminating the services of

workmen S/Shri Shami Alam and Mozibul Haque

Hussain with effect from 24.07.92 after employing

them continuously as sweepers from 6.11.1989 and

5.5.1990 respectively without paying them notice

pay in lieu of Notice of one month and retrenchment

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

119

compensation in violation of Section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act,1947 ? If not, to what relief

the workmen are entitled ?’

THE SCHEDULE OF REF. NO. 49 OF 1995

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s

Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Ltd.,

Ranchi is justified in not regularizing the services

of S/Shri Mozibul Haque Hussain and Shami Alam

as sweepers w.e.f. 5.5.90 and 6.11.89 respectively

and not paying the wages of Cat. I as per NCWA-IV ?

If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled and

from what date?”

On receipt of the Order Nos. L-20012/348/92-IR (Coal-I)

dt.28.05.1993 and L-20012/151/92-IR (Coal-I) dt.23.03.1995

of the above aforesaid mentioned two references from

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute,

the Reference Cases No.60 of 1993 and 49 of 1995 were

registered on 30.06.93 and 30.03.93 respectively and

accordingly orders to that effect were passed to issue

notices through the Registered Posts to the parties

concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the

date fixed, and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties concerned made their appearances

through their own Representatives, filed their pleadings

and photocopies of their documents, and contested the

case.

Both the references are between the same parties

for the same workmen concerning their respective

schedules for heir illegal terminations and regularization

respectively. So at the prayer of their workmen’s

Representatives later on the Ref.No.49/1995 was made

analogous to the first Ref.No.60/93 as per the Oder No.62

dt.11.7.2001 of the Tribunal for their disposal together.

In the REFERENCE NO. 60/93 irrespective of

unnecessary facts and rulings beyond the scope of the

pleading, the case of the workmen Shami Alam and

Mozibul Haque Hussain as sponsored by the National

Coal Workers Congress concerned is that both of them

have been employed by the Central Mine Planning &

Design Institute Ltd.,Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as

CMPDIL on the perennial and regular duties of Sweeping

and cleaning of the floors of the office Building, ceilings,

windows, doors, washing of toilets of the office buildings

and Guest Houses etc. at its Gondwana Complex, Ranchi

w.e.f. 6.11.1989 and 5.5.1990 respectively, in the first

instance as contract Labour upto 31.3.1991, then as casuals

from 1.4.1991, and thereafter as Casual Muster Roll

Employees up to 24.7.1992 along with similar other

workmen. The employment of contract Labour on

sweeping and cleaning jobs is prohibited under Sec.10 of

the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition)Act 1970.The

job of cleaning etc is incidental to well being and tidy

environment. In the instant case, the engagement of the

workmen through a contractor is a fraud, as no contract

labour could be legally engaged by the CMPDI on the job

of cleaning and on or after 01.03.1977. So the CMPDI is

the employer of the workmen. The jobs of all kinds of

cleaning are performed by the regular/permanent sweepers

in Category I. The Management’s acts for employment of

contract labours are nefarious, unfair labour practices and

forced labour contrary to the Articles 14, 16, 21, 23 and

39(d) of the Constitution of India as well as against the

National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA). The NCWA is

binding upon the CMPDIL too. In December, 1990, 23

workers including both the present workmen were

employed through contractors for sweeping, but neither

any of the contractors had any license under the mandatory

provision of the Contract Labour (R & A) Act 1970 nor the

CMPDI was registered as Principal Employer. So the

alleged contractors were merely paper arrangements with

a view to deprive the workmen of their entitled wages,

benefits and service conditions of the sweepers in

Cat.I.After 31.1.1990, there were neither any contractor

nor any contract labour. Both the workmen are directly

supervised by the Dy. Estate Manager and other officials.

They were listed as casuals along with their similar

workmen w.e.f. 01.04.1991 in the Attendance Register. The

case of both the workmen is similar to that of other workmen

S/Shri Ashok Paswan and Krishna Sahu who were

regularized as per the Award dt.24.12.1991 in the Reference

No. 36 of 1991 based on their agreement dt. 7.10.1991

mainly on the ground that Sweeping and cleaning jobs are

prohibited category. After raising the Industrial Dispute

before the ALC ©, Ranchi, in Feb.,1992 which resulted in

the instant Reference due to failure in its reconciliation,

the workman concerned had filed the CWJC No.1947/1992

(R) before the Hon’ble Patna High Court for appropriate

reliefs, but it was withdrawn as per the Order dt. 2.2.1993

with the observation enabling them to seek appropriate

remedy under the Industrial Dispute Act,1947.The

management out of annoyance and bias arbitrarily and

illegally prevented, discharged or terminated both the

workmen from their duties w.e.f. 24.7.1992 till date contrary

to the provision of the Indian Constitution, and mandatory

provisions under Sec,.25 F,G & H of the I.D.Act. as well

as against the Certified Standing Orders concerned of the

CMPDIL, though the both the workmen Shami Alam and

Mozibul Haque had continuously rendered their services

for more than 240 days from 6.11.1989 and 5.5.1990

respectively prior to 31.3.1991,and even as casual from

1.4.1991, so they were permanent workmen on 24.7.1992,

the date of their illegal termination; similarly situated six

other workmen never completed 240 days working with

present ones were regularized in Cat.I, but both the

workmen have not been regularized. At last, the failure in

120

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

conciliation in the Industrial Dispute before the ALC©,

Dhanbad, resulted in the reference for an adjudication.

The action of the Management in terminating the services

of both the workmen without compliance with the Sec. 25

F of the I.D.Act, 1947 is unjustified.

The Union concerned in its rejoinder for the

workmen has categorically responded to the written

statement cum rejoinder of the OP/Management as without

proper authority as merely distorted statements which are

false, frivolous and totally irrelevant. The rejoinder of the

Union concerned appears to be nothing new except the

repeated case of both the workmen under an adjudication.

Whereas the case of the OP/Management is that

the employer is registered as per the Registration No.13798,

Ranchi under the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act,1953,

and has already applied in the year 1993 for renewal of the

certificate, as it is not the owner of any mine to run any

coal Mines or to produce coal. So it is not the Coal Industry

as a controlled one under the Controller Industry as

notified as per the Notification dt.5.1.1957 (SRO-68) of the

Ministry of Labour.The Employer does not manufacture

or produce coal, coke or other derivatives as notified as a

controlled industry. The records of the OP/Management

disclose that both Muzibul Haque and Sri Shami Alam

were working with the Up-Keep Contractor of the Employer

M/s S.K.Tiwary, the Civil Contract from 5^th May, 1990 and

6^th Nov., 1989 respectively. Factually, they were engaged

as contract labourers through the contractor for upkeep

of the employer(H.Qr.) Township of area around the

residential and non-residential building etc. The upkeep

of works include all road, roadside berms, common stairs,

drains intermittently, collection of all types of garbages,

disinfections, anti mosquito treatment, maintenance of play

ground, plantation etc around the residential or non-

residential buildings as directed by the Officer-in-charge

at times. These items of work are not prohibitory category

under the Contract Labour (R & A) Act, 1970, as

sweeping,cleaning,dusting is prohibited for buildings. The

Union has raised an Industrial Dispute before the ALC©,

Ranchi for regularization of Sri Ranjit Kumar Minz and 17

others, contract labourers engaged on upkeep of the

residential and non-residential buildings of the employer

as per their letter dt.21.8.1989. But the said dispute did not

mention the names of Sri Shami Alam and Sri Muzibul

Haque.During the pendency of the dispute, the CWJC

No.1004/1990® filed by Sri Krishna Kumar Ranjan & other

before the Hon’ble High Court, Patna, Ranchi Bench, was

withdrawn, as the matter was pending before the

Conciliation Officer. The Industrial Dispute due to failure

of its conciliation resulted in the reference for an

adjudication.

Further it is alleged that during the pendency of the

dispute, as per the memorandum of settlement was signed

by both the parties on 7.10.1991, it was agreed that except

the workmen concened,the claim of no other persons

concerning the on-going contracts for sweeping and

cleaning jobs at CMPDI (H.Q) as sweeper or otherwise

would be raided by the Union nor would be considered by

the Management for regularization/appointment. An award

in the reference No. 36/91 in view of the Memorandum of

the Settlement was passed as fair and proper by the

Tribunal. But the Union in contrary to the terms of the

aforesaid settlement raised two I.Ds. before the ALC©,

Ranchi, which ended in failure resulting in the instant

reference for an adjudication. One writ CWJC NO.1947/

1992 (R) before the Hon’ble High Court, Patna, Ranchi

Bench was also filed by the Union for regularization and

payment of alleged unpaid wages. At the time of aforesaid

Settlement dt.7.10.1991 by which the Union is bound by

the rule of estoppel and precluded from raising the present

dispute, the names of both the persons Muzibul Haque

and Shami Alam were not brought to the notice of the

Management by the Union, although at that time they

were working as contractual labourers. The contractor

concerned has the liability to maintain his contractual

labourers under Sec.75 to 77 and 67 for the aforesaid

Act,1970. No prior approval of the Competent Authority

was taken for such engagement. Necessary action has

been initiated against the officer concerned for his

aforesaid lapse.

Besides, the CMPDIL being a Government Company

within the meaning of Sec.617 of the Companies Act has

to abide by the provisions of the Employment Exchange

(Compulsory Notification of Vacancies), but it can not allow

backdoor entries into the Organization, depriving equal

opportunity to the persons already enrolled in the

Employment Exchange who are awaiting for their terms

since long, as it would amount to violation of Articles 19

and 16 of the Constitution India.

The OP/Management in their simultaneously

rejoinder has categorically denied all the allegations of

the Union/workmen, further stating that the upkeep works

of the areas around the residential and non-residential

buildings are intermittent in nature for which the employer

takes the services of the Municipal Corporation, Ranchi,

as well as of the sweepers existing on the rolls of the

Employer at H.Qr, Ranchi, for sweeping and cleaning jobs.

No fact of supervision departmentally arises in the case of

contractual workers. The provisions of the said Act 1970

are applicable to employment of twenty or more workmen

on any day of preceding 12 months as contract labourers.

Even assumedly departmental supervision and supply of

material/tools do not establish employer-employee

relationship, as it involves direction to the servant what

work the servant to do and how to do, it depends on his

skill and there is a fair clement of thought freedom. Both

the casual workmen can not be equated with the permanent

workman of the Employer, as the latter are selected out of

the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

121

and after passing the Selection Test, so they posses skill.

So far as the payment of alleged unpaid wages is

concerned, the employer in view of the obligation under

the Act, 1970, time & again offered them their wages but

they refused it. So they are bound by the estoppels rule.

Had they worked w.e.f. 1.4.1991, their names would have

been certainly brought on surface in the aforesaid

settlement by the Union. Moreover, only (P) marked against

the names of persons concerned in the present reference

appears to be a doubt over their genuine attendances.

Both the workmen were not authorizedly engaged. In such

circumstances, the question of any termination or violation

of any provisions as alleged does not arise.

An additional Written statement dateless filed on

behalf of the OP/Management dealing with a few rulings

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court can not be treated as their

further pleading in their case as also based on their

repeated facts.

The case of both the workmen as represented by

their Union in their analogous Ref.No. 49/1995 related to

their claim for regularization is rather replica of their case

as totally represented by the Union in their previous Ref.

No. 60/1993 concerning their alleged termination. Their

emphatic pleading is that since the workmen case stood

on the same footing as the case of S/Shi Ashok Paswan

and Kishna Sahu in their Ref. No. 36/91 in which an Award

dt. 24.12.91 was passed on the basis of the agreement

dt.7.10.1991 existed for rgularisation, and accordingly they

were regularised,there was no reason to deny the

regularization of both the instant workmen who were also

included therein. Further alleged is that consequent upon

the letter dt. 22.4.92 of the H.O.D.(Town Engineering /

Maintenance) M.B.Soren, as the Controlling Officer of the

workmen as per the Office Note dt.23.4.992 had also in

that aspect, recommended for initiation of absorption of

both instant workmen Mozibul Haque Hussian and Shami

Alam who were engaged as contract labour w.e.f. 5.5.1990

and 6.11.1989 respectively still working till the date,

completing more than 240 days before 1.4.1991 but due to

their names not figuring in the Settlement, so their non-

receipt of payment w.e.f. 1.4.1991, in lack of approval, as

well as for payment of their wages @ Rs.24.50 for their

engagement as casuals w.e.f. 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1992. Both

the workmen as per their letter dt. 26.6.1992 had refused

the allegations of the employment as contract labour,as

there were no contract after 1.2.1990, rather they including

other 17 workers later regularized were converted into

casual Sweepers w.e.f.1.4.1991 as evident from their

signatures/marked Attendance in the Attendance Register.

The workmen had filed the Writ CWJC NO.1947/

1992 (R) before the Hon’ble High Court, Patna (Ranchi

Bench) for their regularization and other relief. But it was

withdrawn as per the Order dt. 2.2.1993 to enable to seek a

remedy under the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. Thereafter

they were arbitrarily and illegally terminated without any

notice violating the Sec. 25 F & G of the I.D.Act 1947 and

Art. 23 of the Fundamental Right under the Constitution

of India, for which they had filed the aforesaid Industrial

Dispute which came into existence Ref.No.60/93 pending

before the CGIT cum . LC (NO.) 2, Dhanbad, following the

order dt. 23.2.95 of the said Hon’ble High Court in the

CWJC No.3288/1994 (R) which was filed in a challenge to

the Order dt.30.4.1993/4.5.1993 of the appropriate

Government declining to refer the I.D, for an adjudication.

Further it is alleged by the Union for the workmen

that the jobs of sweeping and cleaning of the buildings

and their walls to furniture, drains, floors, as well as those

of the Guest Houses and the Official residences of the

CMD and Directors were alleged to be under the paper

arrangements of contract in order to exploit them as

contract labourers .The paper arrangement of contract

labour was a deliberate fraud. Sweeping and cleaning is

neither intermittent nor casual in natue.Sweeper is a regular

and perennial post under Category I under the NCWA.

Both the workmen S/Shri Shami Alam and Mozibul Haque

Hussain continuously rendered their services w.e.f.

06.11.1989 and 5.5.1990 respectively, performing the duties

of the Sweepers in Category I initially as purported contract

Labour upto 31.3.1991, then as casual on Muster Roll upto

27.7.1992 until their arbitrary discharge from their duties.

There was neither any contract nor any contractor ever

since 1.2.1990. Even after the illegal termination of the

workmen, later on other six workmen engaged for similar

jobs on completion of their 240 days services were

promptly regularized in Category I , though they were not

included in the Man power of the CMPDIL not any

vacancy against the sanctioned post prior to 27.2.1993,

the date they were included in their Manpower, following

the recommendation of the Controlling Officer, the approval

of the C.M.D. and the sanction thereof on 17.2.93, 20.02.93

and 23.2.93 respectively, as they were at all the Ministers

‘candidates above the law. Almost 70% - 75% of the

workmen of the CMPDIL are those originally employed as

casual or on contract as contractor and they are regularized

on their job/duty employed. Such workmen 1149 and 152

in number were regularized by the orders dtt. 7.12.1981

and 5.1.1989 respectively and thereafter over 350 workmen

as well. Both the workmen Shami Alam and Muzibul worked

for more than 2 years 9 months and 2 years and two months

respectively as casuals on permanent post of Sweepers

from 1.4.1991 to 24.7.1992 directly under the CMPDIL.They

could not be legally terminated violative of Sec. 25 F of the

I.D.Act 1947, and the Certified Standing Order of the

Company. The action of the Management in not regularizing

both the workmen is malafide and unjustified. The workmen

are entitled to resentatement/regularization as Sweepers

w.e.f. 6.11.1989 and 5.5.1990 respectively with their wages

differences up to 31.3.1991 as well as well full wages of

category I and other consequential benefits w.e.f. 1.4.1991.

122

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On the other hand, the contra pleaded case of the

OP/Management irrespective of the cited rulings in the

Ref. Case No. 49/1995 (analogous to Ref. No. 60/1993) is

that the Management on notice had also represented before

the A.L.C. concerned that both the workmen Shami Alam

and Mozibul Haque Hussain were working with the upkeep

Contractor of M/s S.K.Tiwary,the Civil Contractor w.e.f.

05.05.1990 and 06.11.1989 (reversely written) respectively.

They were engaged as contractor’s labourers through the

said contractor for upkeep of the Employer’s Township of

area around residential and non-residential buildings. The

Contractor M/s S.K.Tiwary had supervision and control

over the workmen. The contractor was their employer, not

the Employer Management; they (Management) had no

control over them. Payment was made to them by the

contractor, and not directly by the Management; thus,

there never existed any Master -servant relationship

between the Management / the principal employer and

both the workmen /the contract labour.Since the workmen

were not issued any appointment letter, no matter of

recruitment process about it arises.Sec.10 of the CLR Act

provides neither expressedly or impliedly for automatic

absorption under its Sub Section 1 nor prohibiting an

employment of contract labour in any process ,operation

or other work in any establishment. Since no employer-

employee relationship existed between the Management

and both the workmen, no question of their regularization

arises. Therefore, they are not entitled to any relief.

Moreover, if a dispute was raised by the Union directly

with the Government but not with the Management, it will

be treated as a request or a demand, but not an Industrial

Dispute. So the instant reference is itself bad in law.

FINDING WITH REASONS

In the instant Reference and its analogous one,WWI

Shami Alam, WW2 Mozibul Haque Hussain, both the

workmen on their affidavited chiefs, and WW3

N.C.Choudhary ,Retd.Dy. Estate Manager, CMPDIL,

Ranchi produced on behalf of the Union have been

examined by the OP/Management, on whose behalf MWI

Bishambhar Mishra, working on lower level has been

examined.

On the perusal of the pleading, evidences and

documents of both the paries, the indisputable facts are

visible as such:

Both the workmen Shami Alam and Mozibul Haque

Hussain were engaged as casuals through contractor

M/s. S.K.Tiwary as per their Attendance Register

maintained by the contractor, and countersigned by

Mr. C.N. Chakraborty.They were never engaged against

permanent vacancy in the post of the Sweepers.

As per the Award dt.24.12.1991 (Ext.M.1) based on

the settlement dt.7.10.1991 (Ext.M2) on others Reference

No. 36/1991, out of its total 18 (never 19 as alleged by the

Union in the instant Reference), only 17 contractual casuals

were regularized as the sweepers, but neither the said

Reference nor the Award includes any name of both the

instant workmen Shami Alam and Mozibul Haque Hussain

anywhere.

But other facts of both the parties at variance with

others evolve important issues which need to be

determined for proper adjudications in both the references:

(i)

Whether there was any employer-employee

relationship between the OP/Management and

both the workmen any time.

(ii)

Whether both the workmen had continuously

worked even as casuals for 240 days at the

relevant time. Whether they are entitled to

regularization in the services of the

Management.

(iii)

Whether both the workmen were terminated

by the OP/Management from their services,

and

(iv)

Whether the References are maintainable

legally or factually.

10.

At the first issue, Mr.C.S.Pathak, the Union

Representative for the workmen has submitted that since

workmen Shami Alam (WW1) in the examination- in -chiefs

is alleged to have stated the initiation of Note sheet dt.

23.4.1992 (Ext.W.3/1 with objection) by the H.O.D. Soren

as a proof of the engagement of both the workmen by the

Management just as co-workman Mozibul Haque Hussain

(WW2) in his chief Para 8 has affirmed it for the

regularization. But I find that in view of their examination -

in-chiefs, the photocopy of the Note sheet dt. 23.4.1992

(Ext.W.3/1 with objection) is contradictory to the alleged

Note sheet dt.18.3.1992 (Ext.W.3 with objection) as

unauthenticated documents. Moreover, neither of the

alleged Note sheets proves their engagement by the

Management. Moreover, it is settled law that “internal

communications while processing a matter can not be used

to be orders issued by the Competent Authority unless

they are issued in accordance with law “AIR 2010 SC 3455

: (2010) 1 SCC (LS) 385,Union of India & Anr Vs. Kartick

Chandra Mandal & Anr.:

Further Mr.Pathak has to submit that neither license

of the alleged contractor nor Registration Certificate of

the Management has been filed by the Management and

that the payment of Wages in accordance with their

attendances as per the photocopy of the Attendance

permanent nature under control of CMPDIL implies their

working as the employee of the Management. In support

of his arguments Mr.Pathak has though cited the rulings :

1978 LAB IC Page 1264,Hussainbhai Vs. Alath Factory,

2008 AIR SCW Page 3096 (SC) and 2011 LLR Page 1079,

Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari S Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

123

On the other hand, the contention of Mr. B.K. Sinha, Dy.

Manager as the Representative for the Management is

that admittedly both the workmen were engaged through

the specified contractor for keep -up of the employer

(H.Q) Township of Area around residential building and

non-residential buildings etc; they we admittedly not

appointed by the Management against any sanctioned

posts; there is no Master and Servant relationship as held

in the case of Telco Convey Drivers Vs. Tata Steel reported

in 2001 (Vol.II) ) JCR 2001.But Mr.B.K.Sinha the

Management Representative submitted that even the

Attendance Register proves the working of the workmen

under the contractor but not under the control of the

Management ; moreover the provision of the CL (RA) Act

nowhere provides for making the admitted contractor an

agent for creating any relationship of master and servant

between the Principal Employer and the contractual labour;

as such no question arises about such relationship between

the management and the contractor workmen. Mr. Sinha,

the Management Representative has argued that “Theka

Mazadoors (Contract Labours) are not regarded as regular

workmen and their status would not be higher than that of

a temporary workman or probation on fact, so the

respondent workman having been appointed as Theka

Mazdoors have no right to regularisation or reinstatement

as regular workmen as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of Manager, Reserve Bank of India Vs. S.Mani

& Others reported in 2005 SCC (L&S)609. Further it is now

well settled,” Mr. Sinha, the Management Representative

has added, that “only because a person has been working

for more than 240 days he does not derive any legal right

to be regularized in service” (2007) I.S.C.C. 533 at page 542

(Paras 28-30) and as also earlier held by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of Secy,State of Karnataka and Ors Vs.

Uma Devi & Ors (2006)4SCC.

Considering aforesaid tangible facts, I find that there

was never any employer & employee relationship between

both the parties at any time. Finding the engagement of

both the workman as casuals by the Civil Contractor M/s

S.K.Tiwary for sweeping etc. upkeep of the Management’s

areas of their buildings, I am of the view as held by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of

India Ltd. Vs. N.U. Water Front Workers reported in (2001)

LAB I.C. 3656 (SC) that engagement of contract labour by

the contractor does not create relationship of master and

servant between the contact labour and the principal

employer (Paras 101,114 and 119).In these references ,there

was never any employer-employee relationship between

both of the parties.

11.

As regards the second issue over the continuous

working of both the workmen, according to the statements

of workmen Shami Alam and Mozibul Haque (WWI and 2

respectively),they had continuously worked as sweepers

from 6.11.1989 and 5.5.1990 respectively till 24.7.1992, the

date of their together termination illegally, so they are

entitled to their regularization as also argued by

Mr. C.S.Pathak, the Union Representative. Whereas

Mr.B.K.Sinha for the OP/Management contended that

since both the workmen were not employees of the O.P./

Management, so question of their termination does not

arise.

The perusal of the photocopies of the Daily

Attendance Register (Extt.2 and 2/1 series) respectively

for the period from August to Dec.,1990, Jan. to Nov,1991

and Jan. to April,1992 manifests no proof of their

continuances working as sweepers for more than 240 days

during a period of twelve calendar months from May 1991

to April,1992 preceding to the date with the reference to

be calculated, as there is no proof of the Daily attendance

daily casual working of both the workmen. Since the Union/

workmen fails to prove that they had a legal right under

the status or rule to enforce it, such employees employed

on temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or adhoc

basis do not have an enforceable legal right to be

permanently absorbed as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court

in the case of Secy, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi

(2000)(3)S.C.C.(L & S))753(Para 52)

12.

As to the third issue of termination, it is an

acknowledged fact that both the workmen were purely

casual workers of the Civil Contractor M/s S.K.Tiwary,

none of the them had continuous service for more than

240 days as prerequisite nor they have any termination

papers, so no question arises about the alleged termination

by the OP/Management, as they were not the regular

employees of the OP/Management. The unengagement of

both the casual workers on work of sweeping based on a

contract is not their termination. Contractual Employment

as meant under clause (bb) of Sec.2 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 always renewable or unrenewable as

well, and in case of unrenewable, there is no termination,

as the contractor workers had not continuous working for

more than 240 days at a relevant time. In such

circumstances of their temporary contractual status, no

Notice u/s 25F of the I.D.Act, 1947 by the Management is

applicable nor any question over it arises, as they were

never regular employees of the OP/Management.

13.

At the last issue as to the maintainability of the

I.D.Cases before the Tribunal, earlier this issue was raised

by the OP/Management over it on which the Tribunal as

per Order Nos. 45 and 37 both dt.21.3.2003 in both the

Reference cases respectively has instructed to raise it at

the time of final hearing. At this issue, the O.P./

Management appears to have not agitated by way of any

oral statements of their witness. At this point, Hon’ble

Supreme Court has already been pleased to hold that while

exercising power under Sec.10 (1) the function performed

by the appropriate Government is an administrative

function and not a judicial or quasi judicial function. The

124

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

only power of the Central Gvernment is to determine prima

facie whether an Industrial Dispute exists or not’, 1985

(51) FLR 71(SC) Ram Avtor Vs.State of Haryana. Once the

reference is made by the Central Governent, the jurisdiction

of Tribunal come into existence for adjudication in it. The

term “industrial dispute” 11 as defined u/s 2(k) of the I.D.

Act means any dispute or difference between employers

and workmen. Both the References as Industrial Disputes.

are maintainable in eye of law.

14.

In result, it is, in the terms of the Ref. No. 60/1993

hereby responded and awarded that in view of status of

both workmen S/Shri Shami Alam and Mozibul Haque

Hussain purely contractor labourers having no continuous

working as sweeper for more than 240 days at the relevant,

no question either for the alleged action of the Management

of M/s Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd.

(CMPDIL) for their alleged termination or for giving them

Notice, pay or compensation for it arises. None of the

workmen is entitled to any relief.

Accordingly, it is, in the terms of the Ref.No.49/

1995,hereby responded and awarded that the action of

the Central Mine Planning and Design Institute

Ltd.,Ranchi is quite justified in not regularizing the alleged

services of S/Shri Mozibul Haque Hussain and Shami Alam

as sweepers w.e.f. 5.5.1990 and 6.11.1989 respectively ,and

also justified in not paying wages of Cat-.I as per NCWA-

IV, as they were not regular employees of the management.

Hence, none of the workmen is entitled to any relief from

any date.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 67-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj iQMjy cSad

fy- 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] v:.kkdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 11@2012) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31&12&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@25@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2015

S.O.

67.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2012)

of the Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Federal Bank

Limited and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 31/12/2014.

[No. L-12012/25/2012-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

Present :

Shri D.Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B,

Presiding Officer

(Wednesday the 10th day of December, 2014/19th

Agrahayana, 1936)

ID 11/2012

Workman

Shri Hareesh V Sreejaya

Valiyil (H), West Hill PO

Kozhikode - 673005

By Advs. Shri T G Rajendran &

Shri Prakash P George

Management :

The Managing Director,

Federal Bank Limited,

Head Office Aluva - 683101

By M/s. B S Krishnan Associates

This case coming up for final hearing on 10.12.2014

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 as per Order No-

L-12012/25/2012-IR(B-I) dated 13.03.2012 referred the

industrial dispute scheduled thereunder for adjudication

to this tribunal.

The dispute is:

“Whether the action of the management of Federal

Bank Ltd., Aluva, Kerala in imposing the penalty of

‘Dismissal without Notice upon Shri Hareesh V vide

their order dated 12.5.2011, is legal and justified? To

what relief the workman is entitled?”

Workman was working as a bank man-cum-lift man

in the Regional Office of the Federal Bank at Alapuzha.

His service was terminated for the reason that the workman

had committed fraud by availing two gold loans by

pledging spurious gold ornaments. Challenge is made by

the workman about it by raising this industrial dispute.

After submission of pleadings by both parties the

case was posted in the Lok Adalat as agreed to by them.

There was a full and final settlement of the dispute and a

compromise was filed jointly by both the parties. There is

nothing illegal in accepting the compromise. Hence the

compromise is accepted and an award is passed in terms

of the compromise. The compromise will form part of the

award.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

125

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

NIL

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

ID 11/2012

Shri Hareesh V,

Sreejaya, Valiyil (H),

West Hill PO,

Kozhikode - 673005

...Workman

Vs.

The Managing Director,

Federal Bank Limited,

Head Office Aluva - 683101

...Management

The Matter was taken up in Lok Adalat and the

parties agreed to settle the dispute on the following terms :

The Management agrees to pay Rs. 81,060

(Rupees Eighty One thousand sixty only) being

the Provident Fund amount and interest, due to

him as on date, within 10 days from the date of

his executing necessary documents for releasing

the PF.

The workman agrees to accept the said amount

of Rs. 81,060 (Rupees Eighty One thousand

sixty only) towards the full satisfaction of all his

claims against the management in respect of his

employment with the Management bank and the

workman further undertakes that the would not

claim any money or raise other demands as

against the management bank in connection with

his employment or non employment.

The punishment of ‘dismissal’ imposed on the

workman vide order dated 12.05.2011 stands

modified as ‘discharge’. However, the workman

would not be entitled to any monetary or other

benefits than what has been mentioned above.

Dated this the 10th day of December, 2014

Workman

Sd/-

Management :

Sd/-

Counsel of

Sd/-

Counsel of

Sd/-

Workman

Management

Sd/-

Mediator

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 68-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

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] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 282@97) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23&12&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@236@96&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2015

S.O. 68.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 282/97) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur 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 23/12/2014.

[No. L-12012/236/96-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/282/97

Shri Hukum Singh Bagga,

S/o Shri Harbans Singh Bagga,

52, Pratap Nagar,

Indore

...Workman

Versus

Asstt. General Manager,

Region-3,

State Bank of India,

Zonal office, Bhopal

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 5th day of December, 2014

As per letter dated 1-10-97 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/

236/96-IR(B). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India, Bhopal in dismissing the services of

Shri Hukum Singh Bagga, S/o Shri Harbans Singh

Bagga, Ex. Cashier-cum-clerk w.e.f. 23-9-95 is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party submitted statement of claim at Page

2/1 to 2/7. The case of Ist party is that he was suspended

as per order dated 3-8-91. Chargesheet was issued to him

126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

on 15-5-93 alleging misconduct on his part. Workman

submitted his explanation denying alleged misconduct by

him. Enquiry was conducted against him from 12-1-94. The

written notes of argument were submitted on different

dates. Enquiry Officer found charges proved against him,

showcause notice was issued to workman on 5-6-95. He

submitted explanation to showcause notice on 27-6-95.

The punishment of dismissal was imposed against him.

Workman feeling aggrieved by order of his dismissal

preferred appeal. The appeal was dismissed on 29-1-96.

Workman raised dispute after failure report by Conciliation

Officer, dispute is referred. As per order dated 11-4-2014,

enquiry against workman is found proper and legal.

Therefore the detailed pleadings of workman on the point

is not narrated. Workman had contented that enquiry was

not properly conducted. Principles of natural justice were

not followed. Enquiry Officer had allowed examination in

chief of all witnesses and their re-examination before

completing cross-examination. Enquiry Officer did not

consider his defence. He was not given opportunity to

adduce any evidence for his defence. That workman was

punished on surmises and conjectures. Enquiry Officer

was pre-just. There is no direct oral or documentary

evidence to prove charges against him. Any charge is not

proved. Enquiry Officer held him guilty on conjectures

and surmises. It is submitted that order of dismissal is

illegal. On such ground, workman pray for his reinstatement

with backwages.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/6

opposing claim of workman. That Ist party workman was

award staff employee covered by provision of Sastri Award,

Desai Award etc. Workman was subjected to disciplinary

proceedings for major misconduct involving dishonesty

and fraud. Charge sheet was issued to workman. Reply

was submitted by him. Domestic enquiry was held by

Enquiry Officer. After showcause notice, punishment of

dismissal was imposed. That workman was guilty of

charges as per report of the Enquiry Officer. The material

witnesses were examined. Workman was given fair

opportunity for his defence. Contentions of workman that

findings of Enquiry Officer are not justified is denied.

IInd party submits that after re-appreciation by

Tribunal, only question if any survive is consideration of

quantum of punishment. IInd party referred to ratio held

in various cases submitting that the basic concept is no

real prejudice should be caused. Justice could be done.

On the point of quantum of punishment, it is submitted

that punishment is to be judged by the Disciplinary

Authority and interference by Tribunal should be made

in rare cases. IInd party denied that enquiry was conducted

violating principles of natural justice. No prejudice was

caused to the workman vitiating enquiry. That showcause

notice was issued to workman alongwith copy of findings

of Enquiry Officer. The claim of delinquent employee on

frivolous grounds is not justified. On such contentions,

IInd party prays that reference be answered in its favour.

As per order dated 11-4-2014, the enquiry conducted

against workman is found proper and legal.

Considering pleadings on record and findings on

preliminary issue, the points which arise for my

consideration and determination are as under. My findings

are recorded against each of them for the reasons as

below:-

(i)

Whether the charges of mis-

In Affirmative

conduct against Ist party

workman are proved from

evidence in Enquiry Proceedings?

(ii)

Whether the punishment of

In Negative

dismissal imposed against

workman is proper and legal?

(iii)

If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

7. As per Exhibit M-1, chargesheet issued to workman,

the charges against workman are on 16-4-91, two accounts

in name of Sumit construction and M/S Suprit construction

Company were opened in the Pitampur branch. Workman

had not obtained identification of Account Holders.

Cheque books were issued in name of Suprit construction-

941926-950, in name of Sumit construction – 94195-975.

The Ink was spitted over the entries in the register and it

could not be known to whom the cheque books were

issued. Charge No.2 relates to transfer of account of Dewas

Branch of suprit construction. Some person deposited

cheque of Rs. 45,000/- in said account. The payment of

cheque amount was shown on 25-4-91. Amount of

Rs.44,000/- was fraudulently withdrawn on 26-4-91 by

one Dilip Singh. Charge No.3 on 26-4-91, cheque of Rs.

1,71,000/- was issued by Suprit construction inn favour of

Sumit construction. As the account was transferred, said

cheque was sent to Dewas branch on 17-5-91, cheque was

submitted for payment. Payment of cheque was stopped

as Branch Manager found signatures were not tallying.

Learned counsel for Ist party Shri Choubey submits

that workman was not concerned with payment of

Rs. 44,000/- to Shri Dilip Singh. Workman was not

concerned with obtaining identification of signatures at

the time of opening Account. Amount of Rs. 44000/- was

paid by other employee. Workman was not concerned with

the payment of Rs.1,70,000/- by cheque. The charges

against workman on both grounds are not proved.

Counsel for both parties submitted notes of

argument pointing out relevant evidence of witnesses in

Enquiry Proceedings. Therefore evidence in Enquiry

proceedings needs to be considered. Witness No.1 Anil

Kumar Mishra in his statement at Page 8 of Enquiry

Proceedings says the cheque of Rs. 44,000/- payment

was made by him to Shri Dilip Singh. His signature was on

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

127

reverse side of cheque. As signature was not clear, he had

obtained his name on reverse side of the cheque. At Page9

of his statement, witness No.1 says PEX-19 SC7/43 Rs.

1,74,000/- was not received by him for dispatch. At Page

11, the witness says amount of Rs. 3000/- PEX 29 was

given by Shri Bagga workman for sumit construction

Account No. 2/271. Witness No.2 Swadesh Kumar Sharma

in his statement at Page 13 says that he had given receipt

for depositing cash for both Accounts. On the concerned

day, he was working at counter at Page 14 witness No.2

says on 17-5-91 cheque of Rs.1,70,000 for payment he had

not taken entry. When he came to his table, the posting of

cheque was found. On his enquiry, Shri Bagga(workman)

told that one Sardar had come for receiving payment

while drunken condition. That he had returned cheque to

him and got back the token.

10.

Witness No.3 Rishabh Kumar Jain admits he had

taken posting of cheque of Rs.44,000/-. He had issued

token. He had made postings in ledger. He had taken entries

of cheque of Rs.1,75,000/- TX-90. He had taken entry in

day book and sent to passing officer. His further statement

shows Bagga workman told him that party was desiring

to take the documents by hand. He explained that the

customer’s account was new and documents by hand are

not allowed. Bugga workman replied that previously

document by hand were allowed. Witness No.4 Rajkishore

Vyas at Page 20 in his statement says that he had not

accorded permission for opening accounts. Entire work

was done by Bugga workman. Workman told him that

party was standing in hall. When he inquired from the

party almost questions were replied by Shri Bugga

workman. When he asked workman why he was giving

reply to the question, he told that he had got full

information and reply the question, he did not suspect the

workman. When Witness No.4 asked question about

signatures of identification, Bugga told him that he would

take identify to him. At Page 23 of his statement, witness

No.4 says the cheque book issued as self was struck out

and corrected the word bearers in his absence. The witness

explained that at the time of opening account, he entitled

the cheque book given to counter clerk. At Page 24, witness

No.4 says he asked Bugga cheque book issued for self

how he had given cheque to bearer, why he did not return

back cheque book in the evening. On that workman told

him that he had kept cheque book in drawer as party had

not come till evening. On next day, the person carrying

letter called cheque book therefore he had returned bearer

pertaining the acknowledgement. At page 25, Witness No.4

says after issuing cheque book, receipts were entered.

No ink was spitted over it. At page 26 witness No.4 says

that he had asked why the account was being transferred

within short period. Bugga workman told him that the

parties did not get proper work. Large contract was

received by party at Dewas and therefore transfer of

account was sought. At Page 28, witness No.4 says SC

Dispatch register after putting his signature with Schedule

was prepared. It was kept in dispatch trey. At Page 30,

witness No.4 says cheque and SS Book, the party was

asked payment of whole amount. Account was new, party

be sent to him. After sometime Branch Manager came to

him with cheque and SS Book enquiring who was identifier.

That Shri Bugga workman had told him for about signature

of identifier were not obtained despite of reminder. Branch

Manager asked that identifier be called to him. Shri Bugga

was hearing all those talks. The evidence is clear that

Bugga had returned cheque of Rs.1,70.000 and received

back token from him. When Manager himself had found

that signature were varied payments were stopped. The

conduct of workman is not free from blemish. Workman

remained absent o subsequent dates. Enquiry Officer had

recorded his findings considering the circumstances of

evidence. Evidence discussed above certainly supports

findings of Enquiry Officer. At every point of opening

account, payment of cheque, verification of signatures

Bugga workman was taking interest for reasons not

explained by the workman.

11.

In his notes of arguments, learned counsel for

workman Shri Pranay Choubey has narrated the procedure

about payments of cheques and taking entries. Evidence

of Witness No. 2 at Page 13 that he was doing SC Dispatch

and Saving Bank on 23-4-91. That Shri R.K.Vyas

Accountant witness No.4 carried out the job of checking

details. Counter clerk enters cheque details in SC dispatch

etc. Witness No.2 with witness No.4 after making his initials

in SC dispatch register with instrument Schedule, puts in

dispatch trey. The evidence of the witnesses discussed

above clearly shows that workman shown interest at all

stages of opening account, signatures of identification,

withdrawal of amount by cheque of Rs. 1,70,000/-. He

himself returned back cheque to the person without

permission of accountant. Amount of Rs.35,000/- is

recovered from account for his lapse but evidence shows

that workman also taken interest at various stages.

Certainly Bank has suffered loss of Rs. 44,000/-. Said

amount was recovered from account has submitted during

course of argument.

12.

Learned counsel for IInd party Shri Shroti in his

notes of argument has pointed out evidence of witness

No.4 S.C.Vyas called party and asked questions, most

question were replied by workman. At Page 33Witness

No.4 says at time of payment of Rs.44,000/- to Dilip, he

asked Bugga about verification of signature of introducer

to which Bagga he will get this done later and he may

approve the payment. Witness No.5 Madanlal at Page 49

of his statement says that name and account number of

introducer is not available in specimen signatures. When

he asked Bagga about the same, he informed that payee is

not available. W.r.t. charge No.2, Witness No.4 working

as Accountant says on 20-4-91, application for transfer of

account was submitted to him by Shri Bugga and party

128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

was with him. Vyas prepared forwarding letter for transfer

of account Madanlal Sharma witness No.5 in his statement

at page 53 to 55 of Enquiry Proceedings says that account

of SPCC was never transferred to Dewas. The fact that

Bugga left the branch early at about 2 PM. He remained

absent for few days his compositing of Ist party workman

attempting to fraudulently withdraw amount of Rs.1,70,000

is clear from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. His

complexity is also that signatures of identifier were not

obtained despite of repeatedly asked.

13.

Learned counsel for workman Shri Pranay choubey

submits that Disciplinary Authority not agreeing with

findings of Enquiry Officer charges partly proved, no

showcause notice was issued. Shri Shroti submits that

said points relates to legality of the enquiry proceedings.

The order holding Enquiry Proceeding proper and legal is

final, the point cannot be argued. I agree with above

submission therefore ratio held in S.P.Malhotra versus

Punjab National Bank and others reported in 2013(7)SCC-

251 cannot be applied to case at hand.

14.

Ratio held in Ram chander versus union of India

and others relied by learned counsel for workman in Civil

appeal No. 1621/1986 on the point that natural justice has

no bearing in view of the order of preliminary issue has

received finality. Witness No.1 Anil Kumar in his statement

at Page 8 says S.C.7/36 for Rs. 45,000/- was not prepared

by him. At page 42 , he says that cheque was found in

drawer, he thought cheque must have been entered and

therefore forwarded the same. He stated that work related

to Sc 7/36 was done by shri Bugga. Witness No.2 Swadesh

Kumar Sharma clerk cum cashier says that he did not

receive SC 7/36 for Rs. 45,000/-. He did not enter cheque

and the cheque was found in his drawer. That he forwarded

cheque to accountant.

15.

The evidence shows that amount of Rs. 44,000 was

withdrawn by cheque and amount of Rs. 1,70,000 was

attempted to be withdrawn by cheque but payment was

stopped by Branch Manager. At all stages of opening

account, deposit and withdrawal amount workman was

taking interest, it shows his entire complexity in the entire

case. Even workman deposited Rs. 3000/- in the account.

He not submitted how he was concerned with those

accounts. Therefore the substantial evidence clearly

shows that workman was active in opening accounts, and

assuring to secure signatures of identifier with contract

by ALC/Manager. Because of his taking interest, one

fraudulent transaction was completed but IInd attempt of

withdrawal Rs. 1,70,000 was failed for vigilance shown by

the Branch Manager. The Tribunal cannot reappreciate

evidence as Appellate Authority. The finding of Enquiry

Officer are supported by reasonable evidence and cannot

be said perverse. For above reasons, I record my finding

on Point No.1 in Affirmative.

16.

Point No.2- as per my finding in Point No.1, charges

against workman are proved, question remains for

consideration whether punishment of dismissal imposed

against workman is proper. The evidence clearly shows

that workman has not received any amount in the

transaction as a wrongful way. He has handed over the

cheque of Rs. 1,70,000 to the concerned person receiving

back token. It is certainly serious misconduct when attempt

was made for fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.1,70,000, matter

ought to have been investigated and culprit should have

been subjected to penal action. Because of workman return

back cheque receiving the token, further inspection in the

matter were frustrated. As stated above, personally

workman has not done forgery but he was taking interest

at most of the stages of transactions. His complexities are

there. The punishment of dismissal from service appears

exorbitant and excessive. In my considered view, the facts

and evidence on record, workman did not receive any

wrongly gain, directly he has not committed forgery but

he was taking interest at all stages, the punishment

deserves to be modified. Considering length of service of

workman instead of punishment of dismissal, punishment

of compulsory retirement would be appropriate.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

17.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of State Bank of

India, Bhopal in dismissing the services of Shri

Hukum Singh Bagga, S/o Shri Harbans Singh

Bagga, Ex. Cashier cum clerk w.e.f. 23-9-95 is

not proper and legal.

(2)

Punishment of dismissal of workman is modified

to compulsory retirement.

Parties to bear their own costs.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 69-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eè; 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]

tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 121@03) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23&12&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@133@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2015

S.O. 69.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 121/03) of the Cent.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

129

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Central Railway and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 23/12/2014.

[No. L-41012/133/2001-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/121/03

Shri Nandkishore,

S/o Puttu Lal,

Vill: Khudaiganj,

PO Lavedi,

Distt. Etawah (UP)

...Workman

Versus

Divisional Railway Manager, (P),

Central Railway,

Bhopal

...Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 3rd day of December, 2014)

As per letter dated 9-7-03 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-41012/

133/2001-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Central

Railway Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri

Nandkishore S/o Shri Puttu Lal w.e.f. 19-8-85 is

justified? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled

to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist prty submitted statement of claim at Page

2/1 to 2/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

appointed on 3-2-83 under PWI, Bhopal. On 18-8-85, he

was illegally terminated from service without notice,

retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. Workman

submits that he was continuously working from 3-2-83 to

18-8-85 for more than 240 days. He acquired status of

regular employee under section 25 B of I.D.Act. His

services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F, G of

ID Act. List of retrenched employee was not displayed on

notice board. IInd party violated provisions of Section

25-G and Rule 76, 77 of ID Act. Principles of last come first

go was not followed. He was not provided re-employment.

IInd party had employed other persons Ramjit S/o Daulat

Ram, Umashankar, Raendra Kumar etc. He submitted

several representations that his grievance was not

considered. He was called for test on 21-2-00. That

appointment was not given to him only with motive for

victimization. Workman reiterates that his services are

terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation is

not paid to him. On such ground, he prays for his

reinstatement with back wages.

IInd party filed Written Statement opposing relief

claimed by workman. IInd party admits appointment of

workman as casual labour as per service card No. 31579

under PWI Bhopal. It is submitted that workman had

completed only 117 days as casual labour. Workman

himself left job. His services were not terminated as alleged

by workman. As workman himself left job and he was not

terminated by IInd party, there was no question of issuing

notice or paying retrenchment compensation. The letter

of workman for direct recruitment was not issued. Workman

himself left job. Therefore there was no question of his

victimization. Workman had not completed 120/180 days

continuous service therefore he was not entitled to status

of MRCL. On such ground, IInd party prays that reference

be answered in it is favour.

Ist party workman submitted rejoinder reiterating its

contentions in statement of claim. He denies that he himself

left job from 18-8-85. It is submitted that he was

continuously working and acquired status of employee

under Section 25 B of I.D.Act. His services were illegally

terminated without notice or paying retrenchment

compensation.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the manage-

In Negative

ment of Central Railway Bhopal in

terminating the services of

Shri Nandkishore S/o Shri Puttu Lal

w.e.f. 19-8-85 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Workman is challenging termination of his services

alleging violation of Section 25-F, G, H of I.D.Act. Affidavit

of his evidence is filed covering his contentions in

statement of claim that he was appointed under PWI,

Bhopal from 3-2-83 as casual labour. He was issued service

card. His services were terminated without notice without

paying retrenchment compensation. His affidavit is further

devoted on the point that advertisement was issued by

IInd party for direct recruitment on 21-8-87. He was called

for screening on November 2002 but he was not appointed.

In his cross-examination, workman says he was engaged

on daily wages from 3-2-83 in place of Pancham, S/o

Govindam. He admits that he started working from 24-4-85

and continued to work till 18-8-85. He denies suggestion

that he left work of his own. In his further cross-examination

130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workman says he had reported for work in 1986 but work

was not provided to him. He was unable to tell its date. He

denies that he worked only for 117 days. He denies that he

was paid weekly wages. Wage slip was not given to him.

Management’s witness Shailendra Sharma in his affidavit

of evidence has stated that as per live register of PWI,

workman worked for 117 days during 24-4-85 to 18-8-85. In

his cross-examination, management’s witness denies

workman had completed more than 240 days work.

Evidence of parties needs to be appreciated on the basis

of probabilities whether workman himself left the work.

The service card is produced by workman. Entries shows

that workman was working during the year 1983, 84, total

677 days in 1985. Workman worked from 19-12-84 to 18-8-85.

Evidence of workman shows that he was called for

screening test in 1997, 2000 for direct recruitment but he

was not appointed remained unchallenged. Workman is

pursuing his grievances for illegal termination. It is difficult

to believe that workman himself left job. Evidence of

workman is supported by entries in service card produced

on record. IInd party has not produced any documents

about the working days of workman from 1983 to 85.

Evidence of workman supported by entries in service

card cannot be discarded. Learned counsel for workman

Shri Ashok Srivastava relies on ratio held in

Case of Sanjay Kumar versus Chief Executive Officer,

Ratlam reported in 2010(3) MPLJ-457. Their Lordship

dealing with Section 25-F held the evidence

produced by the petitioner workman was sufficient

to prove that the petitioner has worked for more

than 240 days, burden of proof shifts on the

respondent employer to prove that petitioner did

not complete 240 days of service in the requisite

period to constitute continuous service.

Evidence of management’s witness is not supported

by documents therefore I accept evidence of workman

that he completed more than 240 days continuous service.

As per pleadings and evidence of management, workman

himself left job cannot be believed. Apparently services

of workman were terminated without notice not paying

retrenchment compensation is in violation of Section 25-F

of I.D.Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point

No.1 in Negative.

Point No.2- in view of my finding in Point No.1 that

service of workman are terminated in violation of Section

25-F of I.D.Act, question arises whether workman is

entitled for reinstatement with back wages. Workman has

worked on daily wages from 1983 to August 1985 for about

2 years. Learned counsel for workman relies on ratio held

Case of Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi Versus Hindalco

Industries Ltd. reported in 2014(2) SCC (L&S) 437.

In above cited case, Labour Court held appellant

entitled to reinstatement with back wages and other

consequential benefits. Hon’ble High Court

substituted with award of Rs. 1 Lakh as damages to

be paid to the appellant workman.

The facts of above case are not comparable as

workman in above cited case have completed 6 years

continuous service. In present case, workman hardly

worked for about 2 years.

Next reliance is placed n ratio held in Kishorilal

Prajapati and Others Versus State of MP and Others

reported in 2013(1) MPLJ 463. The ratio in the case is on

the point of classification of employee if an employee is

said to have remained worked in one calendar year for 240

days or more in one post, he is said to be entitled for

classification on the said post.

The ratio held in above case has no direct bearing

on the point of relief to be granted for retrenchment in

violation of Section 25-F.

Considering facts and period of working in present

case, in my considered view, workman who was engaged

on daily wages for about 3 years cannot be allowed

reinstatement with back wages. The compensation

Rs. 50,000/- would be adequate and reasonable.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The action of the management of Central Railway

Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Nandkishore

S/o Shri Puttu Lal w.e.f. 19-8-85 is not legal and proper.

(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 50,000

within 30 days from the date of publication of award.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 70-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

bankSj 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] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 39@07) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23&12&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@215@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2015

S.O.

70.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/07)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

131

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

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of State Bank of Indore and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

23/12/2014.

[No. L-12012/215/2004-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/39/07

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri Suresh Jain, Secretary,

State Bank of Indore Employees Union,

5, Yeshwant Niwas Road,

Indore (MP)

...Workman/Union

Versus

The Assistant General Manager (III),

State Bank of Indore, Zonal Office,

163, Kanchanbagh

Indore (MP)

...Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 11th day of December, 2014)

As per letter dated 9-4-07 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/

215/2004-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of Indore, Regional Office, Indore (MP) in not

granting EL, Medical Leave & increment after re-

employing the workman Shri Bhagchand Sawani in

persuance of CGIT award dated 18-10-01 passed in

Case No. R/81/92 is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled for?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Even after issuing notices, the Union did not

participate in the proceeding, no statement of claim is filed.

Ist party is proceeded exparte on 13-8-14.

IInd party management also not filed Written

Statement. From conduct of the parties, it is clear that the

parties are not pursuing or participating in the dispute.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

“ Reference is disposed off as No Dispute Award for

failure of parties to participate in reference

proceeding”.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 71-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eè; 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]

tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 74@98) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23&12&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@198@97&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2015

S.O. 71.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 74/98) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Central Railway and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 23/12/2014.

[No. L-41012/198/97-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/74/98

Shri Premlal Tirra,

Salaiya Station,

PO Amgawan Tahsil

Distt. Katni

...Workman

Versus

Divisional Railway Manager,

Central Railway,

Jabalpur

...Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 4th day of December, 2014)

As per letter dated 29-4-98 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-41012/

198/97-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the Divisional Railway

Manager, Central Railway, Jabalpur in terminating

the services of Shri Premlal Tirra, YKC, Loco, Katni

w.e.f. 10-6-85 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled for?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at

132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of workman is that he was appointed

as YKC on 1-6-78 at Loco Katni. He was working on such

post till removal of service i.e. 10-6-85. He completed

7 years service. He further submits that for guilt of

unauthorized absence during the period 9-2-83 to

14-12-84 for absence of 52 days, he was removed from

service. He further submits that one day enquiry was

conducted, he was not given opportunity for his defence,

no chance for cross-examination of management witness

was given to him. He was not given opportunity to conduct

enquiry due to removal from service. That appeal preferred

by him challenging removal from service was not replied.

He raised dispute before ALC, Jabalpur. After failure report,

matter have been referred.

Workman further submits that the punishment of

removal was imposed against him is harsh. The absence

from duty is not covered as misconduct. There is no

provision in Discipline Appeal Rules of Railway to impose

punishment of removal of absence from duty. That there

may be other lesser punishment for such act. He further

submits that enquiry was need without giving chance to

engage counsel for his defence. The punishment is illegal.

On such ground, he prays for setting aside order of removal

and reinstatement with back wages.

IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page 4/1

to 4/2 opposing claim of workman. IInd party submits that

workman cannot question his removal from service after

13 years. That workman allowed order of his removal to

receive finality. The reference is bad for latches. IInd party

submits that workman was served with chargesheet for

major penalty on 11-2-85. He was given opportunity to

nominate Defence Assistant but workman did not avail it.

Enquiry Officer was appointed. Workman appeared in the

enquiry and admitted charges of unauthorised absence.

Enquiry Officer submitted his report on the basis of

findings of Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority

imposed penalty of removal of service is illegal. Appellate

authority also did not find substance in his appeal. The

appeal was rejected. It is denied that workman was not

given opportunity for his defence. It is reiterated that the

workman admitted charges on Ist day of enquiry. On such

ground, IInd party prays that reference be answered in its

favour.

Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 6/1 to 6/4

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim. That he

was not given reasonable opportunity for his defence in

Enquiry Proceedings. That his wife was suffering from

illness. He submitted in writing before Enquiry Officer and

requested for mercy and sympathy. However his

submissions were not considered. That removal of his

service is not improper.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

“(i) Whether the action of the Divisional

In Negative

Railway Manager, Central Railway,

Jabalpur in terminating the services

of Shri Premlal Tirra, YKC, Loco,

Katni w.e.f. 10-6-85 is legal and

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Workman has challenged order of his removal from

service. Pleading that he was not given reasonable

opportunity in enquiry. Management denied those

contentions. The legality of enquiry was decided by my

predecessor vide order dated 3-7-09. Enquiry conducted

against workman was found not proper and legal.

Management of IInd party was permitted to prove

misconduct by adducing evidence. Workman Premlal had

filed affidavit of his evidence on preliminary issue. He was

also cross-examined. Issue is already decided by my

predecessor holding that enquiry is not proper and legal.

Therefore observation of evidence of workman is not

required.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness

Shri S.K.Agrawal. Management’s witness says workman

was absent from duty without reasons for 52 days during

period of one year. For such act of unbecoming of Railway

Servant, chargesheet was issued to workman on

11-2-1985. After receiving chargesheet, workman submitted

reply on 23-2-85. He further says that before Enquiry

Officer, workman unequally admitted charges of remaining

unauthorized absence. Accordingly Enquiry Officer

recorded findings. The order of removal passed by

Disciplinary Authority was confirmed in appeal. The

evidence of management’s witness is on the point of

holding enquiry and on the charge against workman.

Enquiry also held not legal and proper. Management’s

witness in his cross-examination says that chargesheet

was issued to workman in 1985. Delinquent had submitted

Medical Certificate of illness of his wife for his alleged

unauthorized absence. Witness said the documents are

not considered. Evidence of management’s witness is not

specific about the period of unauthorized absence of the

workman. Counsel for management Shri S.Mishra at the

time of argument submits the details of appointment of

workman and termination and the order of reference.

Dispute raised in 1988 after lapse of long time. Learned

counsel emphasized that considering the delay,

reinstatement may not be allowed. Age of workman was

48 years when he filed affidavit of his evidence on

23-5-07. Workman must have attained age of 55 years.

The evidence of management’s witness is not cogent that

absence of workman for 52 days was unauthorized. The

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

133

witness of management is claiming ignorance about the

medical certificate submitted by workman considered by

Disciplinary Authority or not. The punishment of removal

from service for absence of 52 days cannot be said proper.

Therefore the order of removal from service of workman

cannot be sustained. For above reasons, I record my

finding in Negative.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1,

punishment of dismissal of workman for absence from duty

for 52 days cannot be said proper. Question arises whether

workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. The

dispute is raised after 13 years after punishment of removal

was imposed. Considering those aspects, reinstatement

without backwages would be appropriate. Accordingly I

record my finding in Point No. 2.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the Divisional Railway Manager,

Central Railway, Jabalpur in terminating the services

of Shri Premlal Tirra, YKC, Loco, Katni w.e.f. 10-6-85

is legal and proper.

(2)

IInd party is directed to reinstatement with continuity

of service but without back wages.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 72-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj eè;

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] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 14@2005) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31&12&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@168@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2015

S.O. 72.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2005)

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

Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of North Central Railway and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

31/12/2014.

[No. L-41012/168/2004-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 14 of 2005

Between :

Shyam Singh,

Son of Sri Jimipal,

Village Bhandari,

PO Amour,

District Firozabad

And

The Divisional Railway Manager,

North Central Railway,

DRM Office,

Allahabad

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, New Delhi, vide

notification no.L-41012/168/2004-IR (B-1) dated 29.04.05,

has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this

tribunal :

Whether the action of the management of Divisional

Railway Manager, NCR, Allahabad in terminating the

services of Sri Shyam Singh, Gangman son of Sri Jimipal

with effect from 20.01.2000 is just and fair and legal and if

not what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?

Brief facts are –

It is an admitted fact that the claimant Sri Shyam

Singh was employed as a Gangman with gang no.96 under

Section Engineer (P.Way) Khurja Junction.

It is averred by the claimant that when he was on

duty, he got the information of serious illness of his wife,

as there was no section engineer at the spot so he informed

the mate and proceeded on leave. Reaching home he found

that his wife has suffered a serious paralytic attack so he

remained engaged in the treatment of his wife with effect

from 22.10.98 to 24.05.99. Thereafter he was permitted to

join the duty. All of a sudden he came to know that a

charge sheet SF-5 has been issued by the department date

25. 05.99, though the copy of the same has not been given

to the workman.

Opposite party has conducted a flimsy inquiry

without seeking any explanation from him as well as no

evidence was recorded in the presence of the workman.

He was not informed about the enquiry proceedings and

the inquiry was completed behind his back. Inquiry report

was submitted on 29.12.99. Based on the inquiry report

without issuance of second show-cause notice he was

removed from service on 20.01.2000. He also preferred an

appeal but appeal was failed.

It is therefore, prayed by the claimant that the

dismissal order and appellate order be set aside and he be

reinstated in service with full back wages, seniority and all

consequential benefits.

134

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The claim of the workman was refuted on a number

of grounds by the management. It is claimed by them that

the claimant was charged for remaining unauthorized

absence from duty without any information and leave

application. He was given, every information regarding

the progress of inquiry, he was given full opportunity by

the inquiry officer, but the claimant refrained from the

inquiry deliberately and did not cooperate with the inquiry.

After giving all probable opportunity for his defense the

disciplinary and the appellate authority passed a reasoned

order. Therefore, the claim of the claimant is merit less and

his claim is liable to be dismissed and accordingly he is

not entitled for any relief.

Both the parties have adduced documentary

evidence.

10.

Workman has filed 14 papers vide list 7/1. These

papers are paper no.7/2-28. These are the papers relating

to the inquiry.

11.

Opposite party has filed paper no.16/2-12, which

includes the copy of SF-5, copy of inquiry report, and

other papers.

12.

Claimant has adduced himself in evidence as W.W.1.

13.

In this case a preliminary issue regarding fairness of

inquiry was framed.

14.

This issue was decided by me vide a detailed order

dated 17.07.2012, where under it was found that the

domestic inquiry conducted by the management is not

just and fair. Even thereafter the opposite party was

permitted to prove the charges before the tribunal against

the workman.

15.

Initially the burden lies on the shoulder of the

management to prove the charges. They were given several

opportunities to produce documentary as well as oral

evidence in support of the charges and inquiry. When

they miserably failed the opportunity to lead the evidence

by the management was closed. Thereafter the workman

himself produced as a witness and he stated on oath the

whole aversion made in his claim statement stating

specifically that due to serious illness of his wife he had to

remain at his home for taking her medical care. As soon as

his wife gets cured he went at the place of his duty and he

was permitted to join his duties by the Railway

Administration. But suddenly it was made known to him

that he was removed from the service of the department

with effect from 20.01.2000. It was also stated by him that

no charge sheet was ever issued to him and that he has no

knowledge of departmental proceedings held against him.

Inquiry was held in a closed door room and he was also

not issued second show cause notice prior to termination.

His appeal was also dismissed without application of

proper mind.

16.

Opposite did not produce any evidence in support

of the charges. Opposite party did not cross examine the

workman who has given his statement on oath, therefore,

his evidence is un-rebutted.

17.

Opposite party has filed certain documents but the

original of the same have not been filed. No sanctity can

be accorded to these papers unless proved by the opposite

party producing the original as well as giving oral evidence

in support of the documents.

18.

Therefore, these papers cannot be given any

sanctity.

19.

Preliminary issue has already been decided against

the management. Therefore, considering all the facts and

circumstances of the case, I am of the view that

management has failed to establish the charges as asserted

in SF-5 against the workman.

20.

Therefore, the action of the management cannot be

termed as just and fair. In consequence the workman is

entitled for his reinstatement in service. Hence the opposite

party is directed to reinstate the workman with 25% of

back wages from the date of his removal. He will also be

entitled for all consequential benefits available to him.

However for the absence period for 22.10.98 to 24.05.99, it

is directed that if the workman has earned leave in his

credit then he may be granted earned leave.

21.

Accordingly reference is answered in favor of the

workman and against the management.

Dated : 20.11.2013

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 73-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Leky baMLVªht

MoyiesaV 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] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 55@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

31&12&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@36@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2015

S.O. 73.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/2013)

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

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Small Industries

Development Bank of India and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 31/12/2014.

[No. L-12011/36/2013-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

135

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 55/2013

Ref. No. L-12011/36/2013-IR(B-I) dated 08.08.2013

BETWEEN :

All India Small Industries Development

Bank Employees Association

Through Secretary Lucknow Unit

SIDBI Tower, 15, Ashok Marg,

Lucknow

AND

The Chairman & Manager Director

Small Industries Development Bank of India,

SIDBI Tower, 15 Ashok Marg,

Hazratganj,

Lucknow (U.P.)

General Manager (H.R. Vertical)

Small Industries Dev. Bank of India,

SIDBI Tower, 15 Ashok Marg,

Lucknow

AWARD

By order No. L-12011/36/2013-IR(B-I) dated

08.08.2013 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 All India Small Industries

Development through Secretary, Lucknow Unit, SIDBI

Tower, 15, Ashok Marg, Lucknow and the Chairman &

Managing Director and General Manager (H.R. Vertical)

Small Industries Development Bank of India, SIDBI Tower,

15, Ashok Marg, Lucknow for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER

THE

ACTION

THE

MANAGEMENT OF SIDBI, LUCKNOW IN NOT

FILLING UP VACANCIES OF CLASS III

EMPLOYEES, CONSEQUENT UPON PROMOTION

OF CLASS-III EMPLOYEES ACCORDING TO BI-

PARTITE SETTLEMENT DATED 08.09.2001 IS JUST

FAIR & LEGAL? TO WHAT RELIEF THE

CONCERNED UNION IS ENTITLED?”

The order of reference was endorsed to the

Secretary, All India Small Industries Development Bank

Employees Union, Lucknow SIDBI Tower, 15, Ashok Marg,

Lucknow with the direction to the party raising the dispute

to file the statement of claim along with relevant documents,

list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within

fifteen days of the receipt of the order of reference and

also forward a copy of such a statement to each one of the

opposite parties involved in this dispute under rule 10 (B)

of the Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957.

The order of reference was registered in the Tribunal

on 27.08.2013 and notice was issued for filing statement of

claim by the workman.

The workman did not file statement of claim. Several

dates i.e. 26.05.2014, 17.07.2014, 27.08.2014, 27.10.2014 and

05.12.2014 were fixed for filing statement of claim but parties

did not turn up. On 05.12.2014 workmen counsel Sri

Santosh Kumar Tripathi filed a application W-8 for

withdrawal of the case because grievances of the workmen

have been redressed with mutual consent.

Under the circumstances and the facts mentioned

herein, no relief is legally required to be given to the

applicants/workmen. The reference under adjudication is

answered as NO CLAIM AWARD.

Award as above

LUCKNOW

06.12. 2014

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 74-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj 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]

y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 05@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31&12&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@101@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2015

S.O. 74.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2011) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Uttar Railway and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 31/12/2014.

[No. L-41011/101/2009-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 05/2011

Ref. No. L-41011/101/2009-IR(B-I) dated : 04.01.2011

136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

BETWEEN :

Mandal Sangatan Mantri

Uttar Railways Employee Union

283/63, Kh Gadi Kannora

(Premvati Nagar), PO. Manak Nagar

Lucknow

(Espousing cause of Shri Baldev & 19 others)

AND

Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction)

Uttar Railway, Charbagh,

Lucknow

Dy. Chief Manager (Stores)

Uttar Railway Stores Dipo, Alambagh

Lucknow.

AWARD

By order No. L-41011/101/2009-IR(B-I) dated:

04.01.2011 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

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

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)

referred this industrial dispute between Mandal Sangatan

Mantri, Uttar Railways Employee Union, 283/63, Kh Gadi

Kannora, (Premvati Nagar), PO. Manak Nagar, Lucknow

and the Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction), Uttar Railway,

Charbagh, Lucknow & Dy. Chief Manager (Stores), Uttar

Railway Stores Dipo, Alambagh, Lucknow to this CGIT-

cum-Labour Court, Lucknow for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF MANAGEMENT OF

NORTHERN RAILWAY, LUCKNOW IN NOT

GIVING STATUS OF TEMPORARY WORKER TO

THE EMPLOYEES MENTIONED IN ANNEXURE-

A, FROM THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF 120

DAYS OF SERVICE IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED?

TO WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS

ENTITLED?”

The case of the workmen’s union, in brief, is that the

workmen, Baldev and 19 others, have been engaged as

casual labour with in construction unit under opposite

party No. 1 and are presently working under opposite party

No. 2. It has been alleged by the workmen’s union that the

workmen under dispute were to be given temporary status

after completion of 120 days of working as per P.S. N.

7850, Master Circular 48/92 and Rule 2304, 2501 and 2511

of Indian Railway Establishment Manual; but they were

granted temporary status after five years’ of their

engagement, which is not only unfair labour practice but

also is against Article 21 of the Constitution. Accordingly,

the workmen’s union has prayed that the workmen

concerned be granted temporary status from the date they

have completed 120 days’ working with consequential

benefits.

The management of the Northern Railways has filed

its written statement denying the allegations of the

workmen’s union with submission that the workman under

dispute were initially engaged by them as Project Casual

Labour in Construction Unit with intermittent gap. They

have been granted temporary status as per working

mentioned in their casual labour card vide Railway Board’s

letter dated 01.06.84, which was modified vide Board’s letter

dated 11.09.86 as per directions of Hon’ble Apex Court in

Inder Pal Yadav & Others Vs. Union of India & Others

(1985) 2 SCC 648. The management has given a detailed

list of date of engagement of the casual labours with their

modified/revised date of grant of temporary status. The

management has submitted that as per modified date of

grant of temporary status, the workmen were screened

and posted as Group-D employees on different posts and

are in fruitful employment of the opposite party for last

20 years, thus, raising the present industrial disputes after

lapse of 20 long years makes it time barred hence, not

maintainable in the eye of law. It is specifically submitted

by the management that the workmen have been engaged

as project casual labour and as per existing Railway Rules

360 days’ continuous service is required for grant of

temporary status, therefore, the claim of the workmen for

grant of temporary status after 120 days is not maintainable

and liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the management

has prayed that the claim of the workmen’s union be

rejected being devoid of any merit.

The workmen’s union has filed its rejoinder wherein

apart from reiterating facts already mentioned in the

statement claim has submitted that the workmen under

dispute have not been appointed in any project, therefore,

decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav case

(Supra) is not applicable on them and they should be

granted temporary status after completion of 120 days of

service.

The workmen’s union has not filed any documentary

evidence in support of his claim; rather it has stated that

the Casual Labour Card in respect of the workmen and

their service book is with the employers, in original.

The management has filed photocopy of Casual

Labour Card and Service Book in respect of all the workmen

vide application dated 09.01.2012.

The workmen’s union has examined workmen viz.

S/Sri Baldev, Sudhanshu Pandy, Ram Karan, Chatragun

Pal, Shiv Narayan, Dwarika Singh, Ram Prakash, Sudan,

Devendera Nath, Gajpal Singh, Chote Lal, Bhagwat,

Sri Krishna, Johan Lal, Kailash, Ram Awadh, Kishan

Chandra, Chedi Lal, Chet Ram, and Sri Nand; whereas the

management examined Sri Sita Ram Sonkar, APO in support

of their claim. The parties availed opportunity to cross-

examine the each other’s witnesses apart from putting oral

arguments as well as written arguments.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

137

Heard learned authorized representatives of the

parties and perused entire evidence on record.

The authorized representative of the workmen has

contended that the workmen under dispute were not

project casual labour; rather they were casual labour

engaged in construction division/unit. Therefore, they

were eligible for grant of temporary status from the date

they completed 120 days of service. The Railway

Administration instead treated them as project casual

labour and granted them temporary status after lapse of

five years which is unfair labour practice. It is also

contended that the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Indra Pal Yadav case (Supra) is not applicable on

them. The workmen have relied on:

(i)

Union of India Vs. Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-

Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar & another 2008(116)

FLR 1046.

(ii)

Union of India & others Vs. Basant Lal & others

1992 SCC (L&S) 611.

(iii)

L. Robert D’Souza Vs. Executive Engineer, Southern

Railway & another 1982 SCC (L&S) 124.

(iv)

N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy ACJ 1998

1347 SC.

(v)

Kuldeep Singh Vs. GM, Instrument Design

Development and Facilities Centre & another 2011

(128) FLR 121.

(vi)

Din Mohammed (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Union of India

& others 2002 (92) FLR 1216.

(vii)

The Union of India & another Vs. Girja Shankar &

others 2003 (96) FLR 1094.

10.

In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the

management has contended that the workmen have been

project casual labour in construction unit and worked with

intermittent gap and they were granted temporary status

as per Railway Board’s letter dated 01.06.84. It has been

submitted that the Railway Board vide its letter dated

11.09.86 modified the date of temporary status to the

workmen in view of decision given by Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Indra Pal Yadav case (Supra). The management

has contended that the workmen were not entitled for grant

of temporary status after completion of 120 days

continuous service since they were engaged as project

casual labour and as per existing Railway Rules, 360 days’

continuous services is required for grant of temporary

status to a project casual labour. The authorized

representative of the management has also contended that

the workmen have turned up after lapse of more than 20

years and their cause is not tenable in the eye of law being

time barred. The management has relied on Inder Pal Yadav

& Others Vs. Union of India (1985) 2 SCC 648.

11.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival submissions of the learned authorized representatives

of the parties and scanned entire evidence on record in

light thereto.

12.

The workman has come up with a case that he has

been engaged as casual labour in the Construction Unit

of the Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction), Northern Railway,

Lucknow and they were entitled for grant of temporary

status on completion of 120 days of service under P.S. N.

7850, Master Circular 48/92 and Rule 2304, 2501 and 2511

of Indian Railway Establishment Manual; but the

management granted them temporary status after five

years’ of their appointment, amounting to unfair labour

practice. The workmen’s union has not filed any

documentary evidence in support of their case; rather it

has pleaded that the same is in power and possession of

the Railways.

13.

The management of the Northern Railways, rebutting

the claim of the workmen’s union has come up with a clear

cut case that the workman had been engaged as Project

Casual Labour and accordingly, they were entitled for grant

of temporary status on completion of 360 days continuous

service; and accordingly, they were grated vide Railway

Board’s letter dated 01.06.84. Later on with decision of

Hon’ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav case (Supra), the

date of grant of temporary status was modified vide Railway

Board’s letter dated 11.09.86 whereby the workmen were

given temporary status from previous date. The

management has also stressed upon the facutm of delay

in raising the present industrial dispute after lapse of more

than 20 years. The authorized representative of the

management has pointed out that the workmen in the

dispute are working with the Railways for decades; but

neither they preferred any representation, on the issue;

nor moved to the court for redressal of their grievances.

Moreover, many of them have got retired; and most of

them are at the verge of retirement, when they have raised

the present industrial dispute at a highly belated stage

without any explanation to the delay. It has also been

argued that though there is no limitation in the I.D. Act,

1947; but the same should not be condoned for the want

of any explanation from the workmen’s union. He has also

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in number of its

verdicts has observed that Courts should exercise their

discretion, judiciously, while condoning the delay.

14.

The workmen’s union has adduced evidence of all

the workmen under dispute who stated in their cross-

examination that the management revised their date of grant

of temporary status and made an entry to the effect in

their service record. Also, they admitted that they have

not raised any dispute before any forum for grant of

temporary status on completion of 120 days of service.

All of the workmen admitted the photocopy of service

record and casual labour card, filed by the management,

from paper No. M-27 to 46/6.

On the contrary, the management witness in his

cross-examination has stated that the workmen under

138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

question were transferred to his unit from Construction

Unit.

15.

The workman has not filed any documentary proof

in support of their claim but has relied on the photocopy

of the service record and casual labour card of the workmen,

filed by the management. The service record of the

workman shows the entry regarding grant of temporary

status to the workman of different dates and there after

grant of revised temporary status from different dates as

per Railway Board’s circular dated 11.9.86. The photocopy

of the casual labour card, filed by the management has

details regarding working of the workmen with Permanent

Way Inspector (Construction) at different-different

stations.

Thus, both the parties have relied on the same set of

documents in support of their different stands.

16.

After going through the rival pleadings of the parties

and documentary and oral evidence relied upon by the

parties the bone of contention is as to whether the

workmen were Project casual labour or just casual labour

engaged in the Railway Administration. Had they been

Project Casual Labour then the action of the management

was right and if they were casual labour on the rolls of

railways then they ought to have been granted temporary

status on completion of 120 days continuous service.

The burden that lied upon the workmen’s union was

to come with the evidence that such and such workman

was engaged as casual labour and he completed 120 days

continuous service on such and such date, making him

entitled for grant of temporary status. Thus, it was for the

workmen’s union to lead its evidence on two points firstly

that the workmen were engaged as Casual Labour and

secondly that they completed 120 days’ of continuous

working on such and such date. But the workman failed

to comply with the above requirement. As it relied on the

documentary evidence i.e. casual labour card which was

in power and possession of the management for working

detail; but when the management filed the photocopy of

the same then it neither calculated the 120 days’

continuous working from it nor disputed its genuineness.

This goes to upheld the stand taken by the management

that the workmen were Project Casual Labour and

accordingly they were granted temporary status on

completion of 360 days’ of continuous working vide

Railway Board’s letter dated 01.06.84 and thereafter granted

them revised temporary status from a back date vide letter

dated 11.09.86 as per guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court.

17.

The workman has relied on Union of India Vs.

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar

& another which pertains to termination of services of a

workman in violation of provisions of Section 25 F, G & H

of the Act. However, the facts of the present case are

entirely different; hence not applicable in the present case.

The workman has also relied on Union of India & others

Vs. Basant Lal & others 1992 SCC (L&S) 611; wherein the

Hon’ble Apex Court has held that a workman having

completed 120 days of working becomes entitled for

regularization as temporary worker and the Railway cannot

deny them the temporary status on the ground that they

had been appointed as causal labour on a project work

and not on construction work on open line and as such

they would acquire the temporary status only after

completing 360 days of service. But in the present case

the workmen’s union failed to specify the date when the

different workmen completed 120 days’ of continuous

service, rendering them for grant of temporary status. The

workmen’s union has also relied on L. Robert D’Souza Vs.

Executive Engineer, Southern Railway & another 1982 SCC

(L&S) 124 but the fact of the case law is entirely different

from the present case hence not applicable. Likewise the

facts of the case law relied upon by the workman in the

Union of India & another Vs. Girja Shankar & others 2003

(96) FLR 1094, Kuldeep Singh Vs. GM Instrument Design

Development and Facilities Centre & another 2011 (128)

FLR 123 and Din Mhammaed (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Union of

India & others 2002 992) FLR 1216 are quite different from

the facts of the present case hence not appreciable.

18.

It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality

of an action, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of

the action; and if no evidence is produced, the party

invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail. In the present

case burden was on the workmen’s union to set out the

grounds to challenge the validity of the action of the

management in not granting the temporary status to the

workman after completion of 120 days’ of continuous

working. For this the burden of proof was on the

workman’s union to come with the evidence, that the

workmen under dispute have been engaged by the

management of Northern Railway as casual labour and

under Rules they were entitled for grant of temporary

status from completion of 120 days services with the

employers; but the workman’s union has failed to discharge

the burned that lied upon them. The workman made a

pleading, to explain the reason why they are not in position

to file any documentary evidence before this Tribunal, in

their statement of claim of the effect that the relevant

document in support of their claim i.e. Casual Labour Card

is attached in their Service Book. The workmen’s union in

its rejoineder required the management to produce Casual

Labour Card in respect of the workmen before this Tribunal,

resultantly, the management filed photocopy of Casual

Labour Card and Services Book in respect of each of the

workman under dispute. The workmen’s union did not

dispute the services details filed by the management i.e.

Casual Labour Card and extracts of Service Book.

Therefore, when the management has field the photocopy

of Casual Labour Card as desired by the workmen’s union

then it was incumbent upon the workmen’s union to come

forward and sort out the relevant extract of the Casual

Labour Card, which bears working details i.e. working

period and number of days, to show that the workmen

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

139

completed 120 days of continuous on such and such date

and they were entitled for grant of temporary status from

such date. But the workmen have utterly failed to being

any evidence to the effect before this Tribunal that the

workmen were engaged as Causal Labour and that the

workman was casual labour and it also failed to specify

the date as to when a particular workman completed

120 days’ of continuous working, making him eligible for

grant of temporary status.

19.

On the contrary the management has come with a

clear cut case that the workmen under dispute were

engaged as Project Casual Labour with Construction Unit.

It is also contended by the learned authorized

representative of opposite party that there are so many

projects which go on with the Construction Unit and the

workmen were kept engaged in different Projects. It is

also specifically pleaded and proved by the management

that the workmen were granted temporary status vide

Railway Board’s letter dated 01.06.84; but due to Supreme

Court’s direction in Indra Pal Yadav Case (supra), the

Railway Board vide its letter dated 11.09.86, changed the

date of grant of temporary status, as per modified policy

and accordingly, reduced the date of Temporary Status

through notice. The management has filed photocopy of

Service Record in respect of workmen, which bears entries

regarding grant of temporary status to each workman vide

letter dated 01.06.84 and thereafter temporary status from

modified, previous date, vide letter dated 11.09.86.

20.

The management has made a specific pleading to

the effect that the claim of the workmen’s union is stale

one and time barred as the union has preferred the case

before this Tribunal after lapse of more than 20 years. The

workman’s union in rebuttal has submitted hat there is no

provision regarding limitation in the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947; hence their claim is maintainable.

In this regard the workmen’s union has relied on N.

Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy 1998 ACJ 1347; wherein

Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the matter delay

has observed that length of delay no matter, acceptability

of the explanation is the only criterion. But the workmen’s

union has not given any explanation in its pleadings as to

what prevented them to raise an industrial dispute at an

early state. However, in the evidence it has been stated

that the workman/union wrote many letters to the opposite

parties and the same are pending with them; although no

copy of such letter/representation finds its reference either

on record or annexure with the affidavit; and also, on the

contrary all the workmen in their cross-examination hve

stated that they have not filed any case before any other

forum on this issue. Moreover, the management witness

vide para 8 of his affidavit has denied of submissions of

any such application by the workmen.

In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and

Sewerage Board & Others Vs T.T. Murali Babu 2014 (141)

FLR 772, Honble Apex Court has observed as under:

“The Court should bear in mind that it is exercising

an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a

Constitutional Court it has a duty to protect the

rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep

itself alive to the primary principle that when an

aggrieved person, without adequate reason,

approaches the Court at his own leisure or pleasure,

the Court would be under legal obligation to

scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should

be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in

the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay

and laches may be fatal but in most circumstances

inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the

litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay

reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant –

a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely,

“procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and

second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise

like a phoenix. Delay does bring a hazard and causes

injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though there

has been four years’ delay in approaching the Court,

yet the writ Court chose not to address the same. It

is the duty of the Court to scrutinize whether such

enormous delay is to be ignored without any

justification. “

Further, in Dr. Jawahar Lal Rohatgi Memorial Eye

Hospital vs State of U.P. & others 2013 (138) FLR 11

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court upholding the action of

the State Government in denying the making reference of

case after 22 years held that it is not expedient for State

government to refer against order of termination dated

26.6.1982 being old and stale case, where the workman

filed an application raising industrial dispute after 22 years

in 2004. Hon’ble High Court observed that there is nothing

to indicate as to why the workman could not approach the

authority under the ID Act.

Thus, from the face of record it is crystal clear the

workmen did not bother to approach the management or

any legal forum for redressal of their grievances for more

than 20 years; and the explanation forwarded by the

workmen’s union before this Tribunal is insufficient.

21.

Hence, from the facts and circumstances of the case

and law cited hereinabove; I am of considered opinion

that the action of the management of Northern Railway,

Lucknow in not giving temporary status to the workmen,

mentioned in the Annexure-A from the alleged date of

completion of 120 days of service is neither illegal nor

unjustified. Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that

the workmen, mentioned in Annexure-A, are not entitled

to any relief.

22.

The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

23.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

06th December, 2014

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 75-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj 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]

y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 25@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31&12&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@129@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2015

S.O. 75.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2010) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Uttar Railway and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 31/12/2014.

[No. L-41011/129/2009-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 25/2010

Ref. No. L-41011/129/2009-IR(B-I) dated: 09.11.2010

BETWEEN :

Mandal Sangatan Mantri

Uttar Railways Krmchari Union

283/63, Kh Gadi Kannora,

PO. Manak Nagar,

Lucknow

(Espousing cause of Shri Mahesh)

AND

Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction)

Uttar Railway, Charbagh,

Lucknow.

Dy. Chief Manager (Stores)

Uttar Railway, Stores Depot, Alambagh,

Lucknow.

AWARD

By order No. L-41011/101/2009-IR(B-I) dated:

09.11.2010 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

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

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred

this industrial dispute between Mandal Sangatan Mantri,

Uttar Railways Employee Union, 283/63, Kh Gadi Kannora,

PO. Manak Nagar, Lucknow and the Dy. Chief Engineer

(Construction), Uttar Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow &

Deputy Chief Manager (Stores), Northern Railway, Stores

Depot, Alambagh, Lucknow to this CGIT-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF MANAGEMENT OF

NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, ALLAHABAD/

KANPUR IN NOT GIVING SHRI MAHESH, T.NO.

580 STATUS OF TEMPORARY WORKERFROM

THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF 120 DAYS OF

SERVICE IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? TO WHAT

RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED?”

The case of the workman’s union, in brief, is that the

workman, Mahesh, has been engaged as casual labour

with in construction unit under opposite party No. 1 and

is presently working under opposite party No. 2. It has

been alleged by the workman’s union that the workman

under dispute was to be given temporary status after

completion of 120 days of working as per P.S. N. 7850,

Master Circular 48/92 and Rule 2304, 2501 and 2511 of

Indian Railway Establishment Manual; but they were

granted temporary status after five years’ of their

engagement, which is not only unfair labour practice but

also is against Article 21 of the Constitution. Accordingly,

the workman’s union has prayed that the workmen

concerned be granted temporary status from the date they

have completed 120 days’ working with consequential

benefits.

The management of the North Central Railways has

filed its written statement denying the allegations of the

workman’s union with submission that the workman under

dispute was initially engaged by them as Project Casual

Labour in Construction Unit with intermittent gap w.e.f.

24.04.79 and has been granted temporary status on

01.01.85 vide letter No. 220-E/3/Recruit dated 22/25.02.85.

It has been submitted that the railway formulated a scheme

to provide the temporary status to Project Casual Labour,

circulated vide No. E(NG)II/84/CL/41 dated 1.6.84 as per

directions of Hon’ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav &

others vs Union of India & others (1985) 2 SCC 648. The

management has submitted that as per modified date of

grant of temporary status, the workmen were screened

and posted as Gangman and is in fruitful employment of

the opposite party for last 20 years, thus, raising the

present industrial disputes after lapse of 20 long years

makes it time barred hence, not maintainable in the eye of

law. It is specifically submitted by the management that

the workman has been engaged as project casual labour

and as per existing Railway Rules 360 days’ continuous

service is required for grant of temporary status, therefore,

the claim of the workmen for grant of temporary status

after 120 days is not maintainable and liable to be rejected.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

141

Accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim of

the workman’s union be rejected being devoid of any merit.

The workman’s union has filed its rejoinder wherein

apart from reiterating facts already mentioned in the

statement claim has submitted that the workman under

dispute has not been appointed in any project, therefore,

decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav case

(supra) is not applicable on him and he should begranted

temporary status after completion of 120 days of service.

The workman’s union has not filed any documentary

evidence in support of its claim; rather it has stated that

the Casual Labour Card in respect of the workman and his

Service Book, is with the employers, in original.

The management has filed photocopy of Casual

Labour Card and Service Book in respect of workman vide

application dated 29.03.2012.

The workman’s union has examined workman;

whereas the management examined Sri Sita Ram Sonkar,

APO in support of their claim. The parties availed

opportunity to cross-examine the each other’s witnesses

apart from putting oral arguments as well as written

arguments.

Heard learned authorized representatives of the

parties and perused entire evidence on record.

The authorized representative of the workman has

contended that the workman was not project casual labour;

rather they were casual labour engaged in construction

division/unit. Therefore, he was eligible for grant of

temporary status from the date he completed 120 days of

service. The railway administration instead treated him as

project casual labour and granted him temporary status

after lapse of five years which is unfair labour practice. It

is also contended that the decisions of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Indra Pal Yadav case (supra) is not

applicable on the workman. The workman’s union has

relied on:

(i)

Union of India vs. Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-

Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar & another 2008(116)

FLR 1046.

(ii)

Union of India & others vs. Basant Lal & others

1992 SCC (L&S) 611.

(iii)

L. Robert D’Souza vs Executive Engineer, Southern

Railway & another 1982 SCC (L&S) 124.

(iv)

N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy ACJ 1998

1347 SC.

(v)

Kuldeep Singh vs. GM, Instrument Design

Development and Facilities Centre & another 2011

(128) FLR 121.

(vi)

Din Mohammed (Dead) by LRs. Vs Union of India &

others 2002 (92) FLR 1216.

(vii)

The Union of India & another vs Girja Shankar &

others 2003 (96) FLR 1094.

10.

In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the

management has contended that the workman has been

project casual labour in construction unit and worked with

intermittent gap and he was granted temporary status as

per Railway Board’s letter dated 01.06.84. It has been

submitted that the Railway Board vide its letter dated

11.09.86 modified the date of temporary status to the

workmen in view of decision given by Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Indra Pal Yadav case (supra). The management

has contended that the workman was not entitled for grant

of temporary status after completion of 120 days

continuous service since he was engaged as project casual

labour and as per existing Railway Rules, 360 days’

continuous services is required for grant of temporary

status to a project casual labour. The authorized

representative of the management has also contended that

the workman has turned up after lapse of more than 20

years and his cause is not tenable in the eye of law being

time barred. The management has relied on Inder Pal Yadav

& others vs. Union of India (1985) 2 SCC 648.

11.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival submissions of the learned authorized representatives

of the parties and scanned entire evidence on record in

light thereto.

12.

The workman has come up with a case that he has

been engaged as casual labour in the Construction Unit

of the Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction), Northern Railway,

Lucknow and he was entitled for grant of temporary status

on completion of 120 days of service under P.S. N. 7850,

Master Circular 48/92 and Rule 2304, 2501 and 2511 of

Indian Railway Establishment Manual; but the

management granted him temporary status after five years’

of their appointment, amounting to unfair labour practice.

The workman’s union has not filed any documentary

evidence in support of their case; rather it has pleaded

that the same is in power and possession of the Railways.

13.

The management of the Northern Railways, rebutting

the claim of the workman’s union has come up with a clear

cut case that the workman had been engaged as Project

Casual Labour and accordingly, he was entitled for grant

of temporary status on completion of 360 days continuous

service; and accordingly, he was grated vide Railway

Board’s letter dated 01.06.84. Later on with decision of

Hon’ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav case (supra), the

date of grant of temporary status was modified vide Railway

Board’s letter dated 11.09.86 whereby the workmen was

given temporary status from previous date. The

management has also stressed upon the facutm of delay

in raising the present industrial dispute after lapse of more

than 20 years. The authorized representative of the

management has pointed out that the workman is working

with the railways for decades; but neither he preferred

any representation, on the issue; nor moved to the court

for redressal of his grievances. It is also stressed by the

management that the workman has raised the present

142

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

industrial dispute at a highly belated stage without any

explanation to the delay. It has also been argued that

though there is no limitation in the I.D. Act, 1947; but the

same should not be condoned for the want of any

explanation from the workman’s union. He has also

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in number of its

verdicts has observed that Courts should exercise their

discretion, judiciously, while condoning the delay.

14.

The workman’s union has adduced evidence of the

workman who stated in his cross-examination that he had

been appointed as casual labour on 24.4.79 and he was

granted temporary status w.e.f. 1.1.84. The workman

admitted the photocopy of service record and casual labour

card, filed by the management, from paper No. M-9/1 to 9/6.

15.

The workman has not filed any documentary proof

in support of their claim but has relied on the photocopy

of the service record and casual labour card of the workman,

filed by the management. The service record of the

workman shows the entry regarding grant of temporary

status to the workman of different dates and there after

grant of revised temporary status from different dates as

per Railway Board’s circular dated 11.9.86. The photocopy

of the casual labour card, filed by the management has

details regarding working of the workman with Permanent

Way Inspector (Construction) at different-different

stations.

Thus, both the parties have relied on the same set of

documents in support of their different stands.

16.

After going through the rival pleadings of the parties

and documentary and oral evidence relied upon by the

parties the bone of contention is as to whether the

workman was Project casual labour or just casual labour

engaged in the railway administration. Had they been

Project Casual Labour then the action of the management

was right and if they were casual labour on the rolls of

railways then they ought to have been granted temporary

status on completion of 120 days continuous service.

The burden that lied upon the workman’s union was

to come with the evidence that the workman was engaged

as casual labour and he completed 120 days continuous

service on this particular date, making him entitled for

grant of temporary status. Thus, it was for the workman’s

union to lead its evidence on two points firstly that the

workman was engaged as Casual Labour and secondly

that he completed 120 days’ of continuous working on

such and such date. But the workman failed to comply

with the above requirement. As it relied on the documentary

evidence i.e. casual labour card which was in power and

possession of the management for working detail; but when

the management filed the photocopy of the same then it

neither calculated the 120 days’ continuous working from

it nor disputed its genuineness. This goes to upheld the

stand taken by the management that the workman was

Project Casual Labour and accordingly he was granted

temporary status on completion of 360 days’ of continuous

working vide Railway Board’s letter dated 01.06.84 and

thereafter granted them revised temporary status from a

back date vide letter dated 11.09.86 as per guidelines of

Hon’ble Apex Court.

17.

The workman has relied on Union of India vs.

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar

& another which pertains to termination of services of a

workman in violation of provisions of Section 25 F, G & H

of the Act. However, the facts of the present case are

entirely different; hence not applicable in the present case.

The workman has also relied on Union of India & others

vs. Basant Lal & others 1992 SCC (L&S) 611; wherein the

Hon’ble Apex Court has held that a workman having

completed 120 days of working becomes entitled for

regularization as temporary worker and the Railway cannot

deny them the temporary status on the ground that they

had been appointed as causal labour on a project work

and not on construction work on open line and as such

they would acquire the temporary status only after

completing 360 days of service. But in the present case

the workman’s union failed to specify the date when the

different workmen completed 120 days’ of continuous

service, rendering them for grant of temporary status. The

workman’s union has also relied on L. Robert D’Souza vs.

Executive Engineer, Southern Railway & another 1982 SCC

(L&S) 124 but the fact of the case law is entirely different

from the present case hence not applicable. Likewise the

facts of the case law relied upon by the workman in the

Union of India & another vs. Girja Shankar & others 2003

(96) FLR 1094, Kuldeep Singh vs. GM Instrument Design

Development and Facilities Centre & another 2011 (128)

FLR 123 and Din Mhammaed (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Union of

India & others 2002 (992) FLR 1216 are quite different from

the facts of the present case hence not appreciable.

18.

It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality

of an action, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of

the action; and if no evidence is produced, the party

invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail. In the present

case burden was on the workman’s union to set out the

grounds to challenge the validity of the action of the

management in not granting the temporary status to the

workman after completion of 120 days’ of continuous

working. For this the burden of proof was on the

workman’s union to come with the evidence, that the

workman under dispute has been engaged by the

management of Railways as casual labour and under Rules

they were entitled for grant of temporary status from

completion of 120 days services with the employers; but

the workman’s union has failed to discharge the burned

that lied upon them. The workman’s union made a pleading,

to explain the reason why it is not in position to file any

documentary evidence before this Tribunal, in their

statement of claim o the effect that the relevant document

in support of their claim i.e. Casual Labour Card is attached

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

143

in their Service Book. The workman’s union in its rejoinder

required the management to produce Casual Labour Card

in respect of the workman before this Tribunal, resultantly,

the management filed photocopy of Casual Labour Card

and Services Book in respect of the workman. The

workman’s union did not dispute the service details filed

by the management i.e. Casual Labour Card and extracts

of Service Book. Therefore, when the management has

field the photocopy of Casual Labour Card as desired by

the workman’s union then it was incumbent upon the

workman’s union to come forward and sort out the relevant

extract of the Casual Labour Card, which bears working

details i.e. working period and number of days, to show

that the workman completed 120 days of continuous on

such and such date and he was entitled for grant of

temporary status from such date. But the workman has

utterly failed to bring any evidence to the effect before

this Tribunal that the workman was engaged as Causal

Labour and that the workman was casual labour and it

also failed to specify the date as to when the workman

completed 120 days’ of continuous working, making him

eligible for grant of temporary status.

19.

On the contrary the management has come with a

clear cut case that the workman was engaged as Project

Casual Labour with Construction Unit. It is also contended

by the learned authorized representative of opposite party

that there are so many projects which go on with the

Construction Unit and the workmen were kept engaged in

different Projects. It is also specifically pleaded and

proved by the management that the workman was granted

temporary status vide Railway Board’s letter dated

01.06.84; but due to Supreme Court’s direction in Indra Pal

Yadav Case (supra), the Railway Board vide its letter dated

11.09.86, changed the date of grant of temporary status,

as per modified policy and accordingly, reduced the date

of Temporary Status through notice. The management

has filed photocopy of Service Record in respect of

workman, which bears entries regarding grant of temporary

status to the workman vide letter dated 22/25.02.85.

20.

The management has made a specific pleading to

the effect that the claim of the workman’s union is stale

one and time barred as the union has preferred the case

before this Tribunal after lapse of more than 20 years. The

workman’s union in rebuttal has submitted that there is no

provision regarding limitation in the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947; hence their claim is maintainable.

In this regard the workman’s union has relied on

N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 ACJ 1347;

wherein Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the matter

delay has observed that length of delay does not matter,

acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. But

the workman’s union has not given any explanation in its

pleadings as to what prevented them to raise an industrial

dispute at an early state. However, in the evidence it has

been stated that the workman/union wrote many letters to

the opposite parties and the same are pending with them;

although no copy of such letter/representation finds its

reference either on record or annexure with the affidavit.

Moreover, the management witness vide para 9 of his

affidavit has denied of submissions of any such

application by the workmen.

In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and

Sewerage Board & Others vs. T.T. Murali Babu 2014 (141)

FLR 772, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:

“The Court should bear in mind that it is exercising

an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a

Constitutional Court it has a duty to protect the

rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep

itself alive to the primary principle that when an

aggrieved person, without adequate reason,

approaches the Court at his own leisure or pleasure,

the Court would be under legal obligation to

scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should

be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in

the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay

and laches may be fatal but in most circumstances

inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the

litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay

reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant

– a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms,

namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time”

and second, law does not permit one to sleep and

rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring a hazard and

causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though

there has been four years’ delay in approaching the

Court, yet the writ Court chose not to address the

same. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinize whether

such enormous delay is to be ignored without any

justification.”

Further, in Dr. Jawahar Lal Rohatgi Memorial Eye

Hospital vs. State of U.P. & others 2013 (138) FLR 11

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court upholding the action of

the State Government in denying the making reference of

case after 22 years held that it is not expedient for State

Government to refer against order of termination dated

26.6.1982 being old and stale case, where the workman

filed an application raising industrial dispute after 22 years

in 2004. Hon’ble High Court observed that there is nothing

to indicate as to why the workman could not approach the

authority under the ID Act.

Thus, from the face of record it is crystal clear the

workman did not bother to approach the management or

any legal forum for redressal of his grievances for more

than 20 years; and the explanation forwarded by the

workman’s union before this Tribunal is insufficient.

21.

Hence, from the facts and circumstances of the case

and law cited hereinabove; I am of considered opinion

that the action of the management of North Central Railway,

Allahabad/Kanpur in not giving temporary status to the

144

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workman, Sri Mahesh, from the alleged date of completion

of 120 days of service is neither illegal nor unjustified.

Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that the workman’s

union is not entitled to any relief.

22.

The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

23.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

06th December, 2014

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 76-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fyfeVsM] vyIiq>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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 18@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@73@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2015

S.O. 76.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 18/2014)

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 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Alappuzha and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 31/12/2014.

[No. L-40012/73/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

Present :

Shri. D.Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B,

Presiding Officer

(Wednesday the 10^th day of December, 2014/

19^th Agrahayana, 1936)

ID 18/2014

Workman

: Smt. V K Smitha (Smt. Smitha Salikumar)

Elanji Parambil Vadackal-PO Alapuzha

(Kerala)

Management

: The General Manager Telecom

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Alappuzha Kerala – 688011

By Adv. Shri Saji Varghese

This case coming up for final hearing on 10.12.2014

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 Central

Government/Ministry of Labour vide its Order No-L-40012/

73/2013-IR(DU) dated 19.03.2014 has referred the industrial

dispute scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this

tribunal.

The dispute is:

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited over the matter of dismissal

of Smt. V K Smitha from services w.e.f.16.08.2010 is

legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman

is entitled to?”

After receipt of the reference summons was issued

to the workman and the management and the same was

served on both parties. Management entered appearance

after acceptance of summons. In spite of several

adjournments workman did not appear and file any claim

statement. On account of the failure of the workman to

appear and file claim statement a “no dispute award” is

passed in this case. The reference is answered

accordingly.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX - NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 77-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; jk"Vªh;

jktekxZ izkf/dj.k] bykgkckn 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[kuÅ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 44@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 31&12&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@36@2008&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2015

S.O. 77.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 44/2008)

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 National Highways Authority of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

145

India, Allahabad and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 31/12/2014.

[No. L-42011/36/2008-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 44/2008

Ref. No. L-42011/36/2008-IR(DU) dated: 18.07.2008

BETWEEN :

Sri Surender Kumar Mishra

House No. 98/2, Shankerghat,

Teliyarganj, Allahabad.

AND

The Project Director

National Highways Authority of India

140/28-A, Sarojini Naidu Marg, Civil Lines,

Allahabad

Major V.K. Sharma (Retired)

M/s. Vriksh Services

Toll Plaza, Naini,

Allahabad

AWARD

By order No. L-42011/36/2008-IR(DU) dated:

18.07.2008 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 Sri Surender Kumar

Mishra, House No. 98/2, Shankerghat, Teliyarganj,

Allahabad and the Project Director, National Highways

Authority of India, 140/28-A, Sarojini Naidu Marg, Civil

Lines, Allahabad & Major V.K. Sharma (Retired), M/s.

Vriksh Services, Toll Plaza, Naini, Allahabad for

adjudication to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE

MANAGEMENT OF THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

LTD., ALLAHABAD, AND M/S VRIKASH

SERVICES, ALLAHABAD, WITH REGARD TO

EMPLOYMENT OF SHRI SURENDER KUMAR

MISHRA IS SHAM AND BOGUS? IF YES, THEN

WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE PRINCIPAL

EMPLOYER IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF

THE SAID WORKMAN IS LEGAL AND

JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF THE

WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”

The case of the workman, Surendera Kumar Mishra,

in brief, is that he was engaged as Toll Collector by the

opposite parties w.e.f. 19.02.2005 and continued to work

as such till 31.05.2006 when his services have terminated

w.e.f. 01.06.2006 without assigning any reason. It is stated

by the workman that his name was forwarded by the

Directorate General Resettlement to the National Highways

Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as NHAI) on

their requisition. It is alleged by the workman that during

his employment he had been paid below minimum wages

and also EPF number was not provided to him though his

EPF subscription was deducted regularly. It is stated that

the work he executed was permanent in nature but the

employers deprived him of the status of privileges of

permanent worker. It is also stated by the workman that

the agreement entered into by the management of NHAI

and opposite No. 2 is sham and bogus; and accordingly,

has prayed that his termination be set aside, be reinstated

with consequential benefits, including back wages etc.

The opposite party No. 01 has filed its written

statement in reply to the statement of claim, filed by the

workman; whereas the opposite party No. 02 viz. Major

V.K. Sharma (Retired) M/s. Vriksh Services, Allahabad did

not turn up in spite of several registered notices. However,

notice sent by this Tribunal was received back with remark

¶nfjI;kÝr djus ij irk pyk fd izkIrdrkZ Vwy Iyktk ls dgha

nwljs txg ij pys x, vr% okil¸-

The management of NHAI in its written statement

has denied the claim of the workman with submission that

it is a corporate body, established under the National

Highways Authority of India Act, 1998, with responsibility

of development, maintenance and management of the

National Highways and any other highways vested in or

entrusted to, it by the Government. It is also submitted

that the NHAI also collects fee on behalf of the Central

Government for services or benefits rendered. It is stated

that as per Rule 5 of the National Highways (Fees for the

use of National Highways Section and Permanent Bridge-

Public Funded Project) Rules, 1997 all fees levied under

these rules shall be collected by the executing agency

concerned departmentally or through private contractors

on the basis of competitive bidding on behalf of Central

Government. To assist in fee collection the NHAI appoints

User /toll Fee Collection Management agency for a fixed

period and under policy circular the agency has to be an

ex-servicemen sponsored by DGR. The NHAI pays

percentage of service/supervision charges to appointed

agency, over the personnel’s emoluments bill engaged by

User/Toll Fee Collection Management Agency. It is further

stated that the NHAI, for the Toll/user fee collection at

Naini Bridge, Allahabd, entered into an agreement on

14.2.2005 with Major (Retd), V.K. Sharma Proprietor M/s.

Vriksh Services for a fixed period which was extended from

time to time and came to an end on 29.2.2008. It is submitted

146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that the workman under question was never appointed by

the NHAI; rather he was engaged by the M/s. Vriksha

Services for toll collection work and was paid by the

Agency accordingly. Therefore, the management of the

NHAI has prayed that the claim of the applicant be rejected

being devoid of any merit.

The workman has filed its rejoinder whereby he has

introduced nothing new apart from reiterating the facts

already mentioned in the statement of claim.

The workman has not filed any documentary

support in support of his case; whereas the management

of NHAI has field photocopy of contract dated 14.02.2005,

entered between NHAI & M/s Vriksha Services; and details

of working and payment made to the workman from

19.02.2005 to 31.05.2006, in support of their pleadings. The

workman examined himself; whereas the management

examined Shri Ranjeet Kumar, Personal Secretary in support

of their respective stands. The parties availed opportunity

to cross-examine the witnesses of each other apart from

forwarding oral arguments.

Heard the authorized representatives of the parties

at length; and perused entire evidence available on record.

The authorized representative of the workman has

argued that the workman was engaged by the opposite

parties w.e.f. 19.02.2005 and he worked as such till 31.5.2006

and his services have been terminated without

retrenchment compensation or notice pay in lieu of notice,

ignoring this fact that the workman worked for more than

240 days in the preceding twelve months from the date of

termination, in violation of the provisions of Section 25 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also contended

that the work performed by the workman is perennial in

nature even then the management terminated his services,

which amounts to unfair labour practice and also that the

contract entered into by the NHAI and M/s Vriksh Services

was not valid one as the NHAI is not the competent

authority for the same.

10.

Per contra, the opposite party No. 01’s representative

has contended that the NHAI for collection of fee through

private contractors is authorized to enter into contract in

terms of Rule 5 of the National Highways (Fees for the use

of National Highways Section and Permanent Bridge-

Public Funded Project) Rules, 1997; and accordingly, the

contract between NHAI and M/s Vriksh Services is legal.

Further, it has been contended that the workman had never

been in the employment of NHAI inasmuch as he had

never been appointed by NHAI, therefore, there arise no

question of making him payment or terminating his services

at any point of time. Likewise, it is also contended that

when there was no employment/termination then there

arises no question of violation of any of the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 viz. Section 25.

11.

The workman in his cross-examination has stated

on oath that no appointment letter was given to him. The

workman also stated that Mr. V.K. Sharma used to give

him salary and he did not enter into any agreement with

NHAI. He also stated that advertisement was published

by V.K. Sharma.

On the contrary the management witness, Shri

Ranjeet Kumar stated in his cross-examination that there

is no post of Toll Collector in his department and the

workman did not work with in his office during his tenure.

12.

The reference under adjudication is two pointed.

Firstly, regarding validity of contract entered into by the

NHAI and M/s Vriksh Services and secondly, legality of

termination of the workman.

13.

As regard first issue, the sole contention from the

workman regarding validity of the contract is that since it

is executed by a party i.e. NHAI which is not competent

authority to execute the agreement, therefore the same

sham and bogus.

From pleadings, it is very much clear that the

opposite party NHAI is a body/agency established under

the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 and is

working under the administrative control of the Department

of Road Transport and Highways, Ministry of Shipping,

Road Transport and Highways, Government of India.

Under provisions of the Section 16 of the Act, 1988 the

functions of the NHAI is to develop, maintain and manage

the National Highways and many other highways vested

in or entrusted to it, by the Government. Further, it is also

its duty to collect fee on behalf of the Central Government

for services or benefits rendered, under Section 7 of the

National Highways Act, 1956, and such other fees on behalf

of the State Governments on such terms and conditions

as may be specified by such State Government. As per

Section 7 (2) of the National Highways Act, 1956, such

fees when so levied shall be collected in accordance with

the Rules made under this Act.

It is pertinent to mention here that that the Central

Government, in exercise to the powers conferred under

the National Highways Act, 1956 framed the National

Highways (Fees for the use of National Highways Section

and Permanent Bridge-Public Funded Project) Rules, 1997

and the Rule 5 of the said Fee Rules reads as under:

5. Procedure for collection. - All fees levied under

these rules shall be collected by the executive agency

concerned departmentally or through private

contractors on the basis of competitive bidding on

behalf of Central Government.”

The term ‘executing agency’ is defined in Rule 2 (b)

as under:

“2.(b) executing agency means.

(i) ……………..

(ii) In case of those national highways or part

thereof entrusted to National Highways

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

147

Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as

‘NHAI’, the National Highways Authority of

India.”

A bare perusal of Rule 5 of Fee Rules it is crystal

clear that the executive agency may collect the fee levied

either with the use of departmental men power or it may

collect the same though some private contractors; and a

private agency when some contract is executed with it, it

becomes private contractor for the purposes of above Rule.

Also, on reading the Rule 5 with Rule 2(b) it becomes clear

that NHAI is the executing agency and can enter into any

agreement with some private agency for collection of fee

levied.

Thus, from the discussions made hereinabove, I am

of opinion that the opposite party No. 1 i.e. NHAI was

competent enough to enter into a contract with the M/s

Vriksh Services within the terms of the National Highways

(Fees for the use of National Highways Section and

Permanent Bridge-Public Funded Project) Rules, 1997,

therefore, the contract between the management of the

Project Director, NHAI, Allahabad and M/s Vriksh Services,

Allahabad was legally valid.

14.

Now coming to the second part of the reference

order, the workman in his cross-examination has admitted

that he neither made any application for appointment nor

any appointment letter was issued to him. He also admitted

that he was interviewed by Mr. V.K. Sharma who used to

pay him salary initially in cash and later through cheque.

The above version of the workman himself gives support

to the pleadings of the management which has come up a

case that it never appointed the workman nor made any

payment to the workman nor terminated his services at

any point of time.

The learned authorized representative of the

workman has contended that the workman has worked for

more than 240 days in a year preceding the date of alleged

termination, therefore, the management was duty bound

to comply with the provisions of Section 25 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before terminating the

services of the workman. Hon’ble Apex Court, in

Surenderanagar Panchayat and another v. Jethabhai

Pitamberbhai 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC) came to the

conclusion that the workman could be entitled for the

protection of Section 25 – F of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 provided he is successful in establishing the

fact that he had been in employment with the employer for

a period of 240 days uninterruptedly. It was held by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court that in such cases, the scope of

the enquiry before the Labour Court was confined only to

12 months 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.

But in view of the denial of employee and employer

relationship between the workman and the NHAI, the initial

burden on the workman to prove that he was in employment

of the NHAI and his services have been terminated by the

NHAI, in violation of provisions of Section 25 F of the

Act. But, in the present case the workman during his

cross-examination himself has admitted that no

appointment letter was issued to him and he was actually

interviewed and later on paid by Major V.K. Sharma (Retd)

who was proprietor of the M/s Vriksh Services. This goes

to prove the contention of the NHAI that there was no

relationship of employee and employer between the

workman and the NHAI; hence, there arose no question

of termination of the services of the workman by the NHAI

at any point of time, therefore, there was no violation to

the Section 25 F of the Act in the part of NHAI.

15.

Since the opposite party No. 2 i.e. M/s Vriksh

Services did not turn up before this Tribunal to contest

their case and the case proceeded ex-parte against them.

From the evidence relied on by the parties, it is apparent

on the face of record that the M/s Vriksh Services was

entrusted with liability, through a contract dated 14.02.2005,

of collecting Fee on behalf of NHAI. The said contract

was extended by the management from time to time and

the same came to an end on 29.02.2008. The working chart

of the workman goes to show that he was inducted in

February, 2005 and was terminated in May, 2006 and in the

preceding twelve months from the date of his termination

he worked for 345 days.

In the instant case the workman has worked with a

contractor, who engaged the workman in view of a contract

assigned to him for specified period. Such appointments

are termed appointments and liable to cease automatically

with cessation of period of engagement. Hence, the

workman cannot claim benefits of Section 25 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in spite of the fact that he

completed 345 days of working, as the opposite party No.

2 i.e. M/s Vriksh Services is a private contractor and such

contractors does not come within the purview of definition

of ‘industry’ specified in Section 2 ‘j’ of the Act. Therefore,

the workman cannot claim compliance of provisions of

Section 25 F before termination of his services, as such no

relief can be grated to him for alleged illegal termination of

his services by the M/s Vriksh Services.

M/s Vriksh Services, the opposite party No. 2

although not covered within the definition of “Industry”

under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

and also did not turn before this Tribunal on their behalf,

therefore, if the workman wishes to move other competent

forum/court, against opposite party No. 2, he may proceed

under legal provisions.

16.

Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the

case and evidence relied upon by the parties, I come to

conclusion that the contract between the management of

the Project Director, NHAI, Allahabad and M/s Vriksh

Services, Allahabad for collection of Fee was legal; and

148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

accordingly, there is no role of the management of NHAI

in terminating the service of the workman. Therefore, I

come to conclusion that the workman, Sri Surender Kumar

Mishra is not entitled to any relief from the NHAI.

17.

The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

18.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

06th December, 2014

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 78-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; jk"Vªh;

jktekxZ izkf/dj.k] bykgkckn 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[kuÅ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 43@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 31&12&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@35@2008&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2015

S.O. 78.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 43/2008)

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 National Highways Authority of

India, Allahabad and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 31/12/2014.

[No. L-42011/35/2008-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Shri RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 44/2008

Ref. No. L-42011/35/2008-IR(DU) dated: 18.07.2008

BETWEEN :

Sri Suresh Singh

R/o Village - Chaukhata,

Post - Bagbana,

Thana - Ghoorpur,

Allahabad.

AND

The Project Director

National Highways Authority of India

140/28-A, Sarojini Naidu Marg, Civil Lines

Allahabad

Major V.K. Sharma (Retired)

M/s Vriksh Services

Toll Plaza, Naini

Allahabad

AWARD

By order No. L-42011/35/2008-IR(DU) dated:

18.07.2008 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

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

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred

this industrial dispute between Shri Suresh Singh, R/o

Village – Chaukhata, Post – Bagbana, Thana – Ghoorpur,

Allahabad and the Project Director, National Highways

Authority of India, 140/28-A, Sarojini Naidu Marg, Civil

Lines, Allahabad & Major V.K. Sharma (Retired), M/s.

Vriksh Services, Toll Plaza, Naini, Allahabad for

adjudication to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE

MANAGEMENT OF THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

LTD., ALLAHABAD, AND M/S VRIKSH SERVICES,

ALLAHABAD, WITH REGARD TO EMPLOYMENT

OF SHRI SURESH SINGH IS SHAM AND BOGUS?

IF YES, THEN WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE

PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER IN TERMINATING THE

SERVICES OF THE SAID WORKMAN IS LEGAL

AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF THE

WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”

The case of the workman, Suresh Singh, in brief, is

that he was engaged as Toll Collector by the opposite

parties w.e.f. 25.02.2005 and continued to work as such till

31.05.2007 when his services have terminated w.e.f.

01.06.2007 without assigning any reason. It is stated by

the workman that his name was forwarded by the

Directorate General Resettlement to the National Highways

Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as NHAI) on

their requisition. It is alleged by the workman that during

his employment he had been paid below minimum wages

and also EPF number was not provided to him though his

EPF subscription was deducted regularly. It is stated that

the work he executed was permanent in nature but the

employers deprived him of the status of privileges of

permanent worker. It is also stated by the workman that

the agreement entered into by the management of NHAI

and opposite No. 2 is sham and bogus; and accordingly,

has prayed that his termination be set aside, be reinstated

with consequential benefits, including back wages etc.

The opposite party No. 01 has filed its written

statement in reply to the statement of claim, filed by the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

149

workman; whereas the opposite party No. 02 viz. Major

V.K. Sharma (Retired) M/s Vriksh Services, Allahabad did

not turn up in spite of several registered notices. However,

notice sent by this Tribunal was received back with remark

¶nfjI;kÝr djus ij irk pyk fd izkIrdrkZ Vwy Iyktk ls dgha

nwljs txg ij pys x, vr% okil¸-

The management of NHAI in its written statement

has denied the claim of the workman with submission that

it is a corporate body, established under the National

Highways Authority of India Act, 1998, with responsibility

of development, maintenance and management of the

National Highways and any other highways vested in or

entrusted to, it by the Government. It is also submitted

that the NHAI also collects fee on behalf of the Central

Government for services or benefits rendered. It is stated

that as per Rule 5 of the National Highways (Fees for the

use of National Highways Section and Permanent Bridge-

Public Funded Project) Rules, 1997 all fees levied under

these rules shall be collected by the executing agency

concerned departmentally or through private contractors

on the basis of competitive bidding on behalf of Central

Government. To assist in fee collection the NHAI appoints

User /toll Fee Collection Management agency for a fixed

period and under policy circular the agency has to be an

ex-servicemen sponsored by DGR. The NHAI pays

percentage of service/supervision charges to appointed

agency, over the personnel’s emoluments bill engaged by

User/Toll Fee Collection Management Agency. It is further

stated that the NHAI, for the Toll/user fee collection at

Naini Bridge, Allahabd, entered into an agreement on

14.2.2005 with Major (Retd), V.K. Sharma Proprietor

M/s Vriksha Services for a fixed period which was extended

from time to time and came to an end on 29.2.2008. It is

submitted that the workman under question was never

appointed by the NHAI; rather he was engaged by the

M/s Vriksha Services for toll collection work and was paid

by the Agency accordingly. Therefore, the management

of the NHAI has prayed that the claim of the applicant be

rejected being devoid of any merit.

The workman has field its rejoinder whereby he has

introduced nothing new apart from reiterating the facts

already mentioned in the statement of claim.

The workman has not filed any documentary

support in support of his case; whereas the management

of NHAI has field photocopy of contract dated 14.02.2005,

entered between NHAI & M/s Vriksha Services; and details

of working and payment made to the workman from

February, 2005 to May, 2007, in support of their pleadings.

The workman examined himself; whereas the management

examined Shri Ranjeet Kumar, Personal Secretary in support

of their respective stands. The parties availed opportunity

to cross-examine the witnesses of each other apart from

forwarding oral arguments.

Heard the authorized representatives of the parties

at length; and perused entire evidence available on record.

The authorized representative of the workman has

argued that the workman was engaged by the opposite

parties w.e.f. 25.02.2005 and he worked as such till 31.5.2007

and his services have been terminated without

retrenchment compensation or notice pay in lieu of notice,

ignoring this fact that the workman worked for more than

240 days in the preceding twelve months from the date of

termination, in violation of the provisions of Section 25 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also contended

that the work performed by the workman is perennial in

nature even then the management terminated his services,

which amounts to unfair labour practice and also that the

contract entered into by the NHAI and M/s Vriksh Services

was not valid one as the NHAI is not the competent

authority for the same.

10.

Per contra, the opposite party No. 01’s representative

has contended that the NHAI for collection of fee through

private contractors is authorized to enter into contract in

terms of Rule 5 of the National Highways (Fees for the use

of National Highways Section and Permanent Bridge-

Public Funded Project) Rules, 1997; and accordingly, the

contract between NHAI and M/s Vriksh Services is legal.

Further, it has been contended that the workman had never

been in the employment of NHAI inasmuch as he had

never been appointed by NHAI, therefore, there arise no

question of making him payment or terminating his services

at any point of time. Likewise, it is also contended that

when there was no employment/termination then there

arises no question of violation of any of the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 viz. Section 25.

11.

The workman in his cross-examination has stated

on oath that he had been appointed in the year 2004 at Toll

Plaza, Naini for which he did not give any application. He

stated that he was interviewed by Mr. V.K. Sharma; and no

appointment letter was given to him. The workman also

stated that Mr. V.K. Sharma used to give him salary and he

did not enter into any agreement with NHAI. He also

stated that earlier he was paid in cash and later was given

salary through cheque and the cheques were given by

V.K. Sharma.

On the contrary the management witness, Shri

Ranjeet Kumar stated in his cross-examination that there

is no post of Toll Collector in his department and the

workman did not work with in his office during his tenure.

12.

The reference under adjudication is two pointed.

Firstly, regarding validity of contract entered into by the

NHAI and M/s Vriksh Services and secondly, legality of

termination of the workman.

13.

As regard first issue, the sole contention from the

workman regarding validity of the contract is that since it

is executed by a party i.e. NHAI which is not competent

authority to execute the agreement, therefore the same

sham and bogus.

150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

From pleadings, it is very much clear that the

opposite party NHAI is a body/agency established under

the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 and is

working under the administrative control of the Department

of Road Transport and Highways, Ministry of Shipping,

Road Transport and High ways, Government of India.

Under provisions of the Section 16 of the Act, 1988 the

functions of the NHAI is to develop, maintain and manage

the national highways and many other highways vested

in or entrusted to it, by the Government. Further, it is also

its duty to collect fee on half of the Central Government

for services or benefits rendered, under Section 7 of the

National Highways Act, 1956, and such other fees on behalf

of the State Governments on such terms and conditions

as may be specified by such State Government. As per

Section 7 (2) of the National Highways Act, 1956, such

fees when so levied shall be collected in accordance with

the Rules made under this Act.

It is pertinent to mention here that that the Central

Government, in exercise to the powers conferred under

the National Highways Act, 1956 framed the National

Highways (Fees for the use of National Highways Section

and Permanent Bridge-Public Funded Project) Rules, 1997

and the Rule 5 of the said Fee Rules reads as under:

5. Procedure for collection. - All fees levied under

these rules shall be collected by the executive agency

concerned departmentally or through private

contractors on the basis of competitive bidding on

behalf of Central Government.”

The term ‘executing agency’ is defined in Rule 2 (b)

as under:

“2.(b) executing agency means.

(i)

……………..

(ii)

In case of those national highways or part

thereof entrusted to National Highways

Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as

‘NHAI’, the National Highways Authority of

India.”

A bare perusal of Rule 5 of Fee Rules it is crystal

clear that the executive agency may collect the fee levied

either with the use of departmental men power or it may

collect the same though some private contractors; and a

private agency when some contract is executed with it, it

becomes private contractor for the purposes of above Rule.

Also, on reading the Rule 5 with Rule 2(b) it becomes clear

that NHAI is the executing agency and can enter into any

agreement with some private agency for collection of fee

levied.

Thus, from the discussions made hereinabove, I am

of opinion that the opposite party No. 1 i.e. NHAI was

competent enough to enter into a contract with the M/s

Vriksh Services within the terms of the National Highways

(Fees for the use of National Highways Section and

Permanent Bridge-Public Funded Project) Rules, 1997,

therefore, the contract between eh management of the

Project Director, NHAI, Allahabad and M/s Vriksh Services,

Allahabad was legally valid.

14.

Now coming to the second part of the reference

order, the workman in his cross examination has admitted

that he neither made any application for appointment nor

any appointment letter was issued to him. He also admitted

that he was interviewed by Mr. V.K. Sharma who used to

pay him salary initially in cash and later through cheque.

The above version of the workman himself gives support

to the pleadings of the management which has come up a

case that it never appointed the workman nor made any

payment to the workman nor terminated his services at

any point of time.

The learned authorized representative of the

workman has contended that the workman has worked for

more than 240 days in a year preceding the date of alleged

termination, therefore, the management was duty bound

to comply with the provisions of Section 25 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before terminating the

services of the workman. Hon’ble Apex Court, in

Surenderanagar Panchayat and another v. Jethabhai

Pitamberbhai 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC) came to the

conclusion that the workman could be entitled for the

protection of section 25 – F of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 provided he is successful in establishing the fact

that he had been in employment with the employer for a

period of 240 days uninterruptedly. It was held by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court that in such cases, the scope of

the enquiry before the Labour Court was confined only to

12 months 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.

But in view of the denial of employee and employer

relationship between the workman and the NHAI, the initial

burden on the workman to prove that he was in employment

of the NHAI and his services have been terminated by the

NHAI, in violation of provisions of Section 25 F of the

Act. But, in the present case the workman during his

cross-examination himself has admitted that no

appointment letter was issued to him and he was actually

interviewed and later on paid by Major V.K. Sharma (Retd)

who was proprietor of the M/s Vriksh Services. This goes

to prove the contention of the NHAI that there was no

relationship of employee and employer between the

workman and the NHAI; hence, there arose no question

of termination of the services of the workman by the NHAI

at any point of time, therefore, there was no violation to

the Section 25 F of the Act in the part of NHAI.

15.

Since the opposite party No. 2 i.e. M/s Vriksh

Services did not turn up before this Tribunal to contest

their case and the case proceeded ex-parte against them.

From the evidence relied on by the parties, it is apparent

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

151

on the face of record that the M/s Vriksh Services was

entrusted with liability, through a contract dated 14.02.2005,

of collecting Fee on behalf of NHAI. The said contract

was extended by the management from time to time and

the same came to an end on 29.02.2008. The working chart

of the workman goes to show that he was inducted in

February, 2005 and was terminated in May, 2007 and in the

preceding twelve months from the date of his termination

he worked for 292 days.

In the instant case the workman has worked with a

contractor, who engaged the workman in view of a contract

assigned to him for specified period. Such appointments

are termed appointments and liable to cease automatically

with cessation of period of engagement. Hence, the

workman cannot claim benefits of Section 25 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in spite of the fact that he

completed 292 days of working, as the opposite party No.

2 i.e. M/s Vriksh Services is a private contractor and such

contractors does not come within the purview of definition

of ‘industry’ specified in Section 2 ‘j’ of the Act. Therefore,

the workman cannot claim compliance of provisions of

Section 25 F before termination of his services, as such no

relief can be grated to him for alleged illegal termination of

his services by the M/s Vriksh Services.

M/s Vriksh Services, the opposite party No. 2

although not covered within the definition of “Industry”

under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

and also did not turn before this Tribunal on their behalf,

therefore, if the workman wishes to move other competent

forum/court, against opposite party No. 2, he may proceed

under legal provisions.

16.

Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the

case and evidence relied upon by the parties, I come to

conclusion that the contract between the management of

the Project Director, NHAI, Allahabad and M/s Vriksh

Services, Allahabad for collection of Fee was legal; and

accordingly, there is no role of the management of NHAI

in terminating the service of the workman. Therefore, I

come to conclusion that the workman, Shri Suresh Singh

is not entitled to any relief from the NHAI.

17.

The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

18.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

06th December, 2014

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 79-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ¯gnqLrku

,;jksukWfVDl fyfeVsM] dksjok 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[kuÅ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 04@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 31&12&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@136@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2015

S.O.

79.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 04/2014)

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 Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Korva

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 31/12/2014.

[No. L-42011/136/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 04/2014

Ref.No. L-42011/136/2013-IR(DUI) dated 11.02.2013

BETWEEN

General Secretary

Safai Karmchari Union

Korva Mandal, Amethi CSM Nagar (U.P.)

AND

The Chief Manager(JR)

Hindustan Aeronautices Ltd.Korva Mandal

Korva

AWARD

By order No. L-42011/136/2013-IR(DU) dated

11.02.2013 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 General Secretary, Safai

Karmchari Union, Korva Mandal Amethi CSM Nagar (U.P.)

and the Chief Manager (HR), Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.,

Korva Mandal, Korva for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“KYA PRABANDHAN HAL, KORVA MANDAL,

AMETHI DWARA SAVINDA SAFAI KARMCHARI

KO VARSH 2011-2012 ME BONUS KA BHUGTAN

NA KIYA JANA UCHIT AVAM VADHANIK HAI?

YADI NAHI TO SHRAMIKGAN KYA HIT LABH

PANE KE ADHIKARI HAI? “

152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The order of reference was endorsed to the General

Secretary, Safai Karmchari Union, Korva Mandal, Amethi

CSM Nagar (U.P.) with the direction to the party raising

the dispute to file the statement of claim along with

relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with

the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of the order

of reference and also forward a copy of such a statement

to each one of the opposite parties involved in this dispute

under rule 10 (B) of the Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules,

1957

The order of reference was registered in the Tribunal

On 03.03.2014 and notice was issued for filing statement

of claim by the workman.

The workman did not file statement of claim although

sufficient opportunity was given. It is presumed that

workman does not want to pursue this case.

Under the circumstances and the facts mentioned

herein, no relief is legally required to be given to the

applicants/workmen. The reference under adjudication is

answered as NO CLAIM AWARD.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

06.12.2014

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 80-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy ,fo;u

fjlpZ baLVhV~;wV 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[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 01@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

31&12&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@61@2008&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2015

S.O.

80.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 01/2009)

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 Central Avian Research Institute

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 31/12/2014.

[No. L-42011/61/2008-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 01/2009

Ref.No. L-42011/61/2008-IR(DU) dated 09.02.2009

BETWEEN :

The President

Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh

Regional Office, C/o Jagdish Chand Sharma

Bansmandi, Bareilly (U.P.)

(Espousing case of Shri Sushil Kumar Saxena)

AND

The Director

Central Avian Research Institute

Bareilly (U.P) – 243122

AWARD

By order No. L-42011/61/2008-IR(DU) dated:

09.02.2009, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

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

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred

this industrial dispute between the President Bhartiya

Mazdoor Sangh, Regional Office, C/o Jagdish Chand

Sharma, Bansmandi Bareilly (U.P.) and the Director, Central

Avian Research Institute, Bareilly (U.P) for adjudication

to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE DEMAND OF BHARTIYA

MAZDOOR SANGH FOR REGULARIZATION OF

SERVICES OF SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR SAXENA,

CASUAL TECHNICIAN FROM 1996 BY THE

MANAGEMENT OF CENTRAL AVIATION

RESEARCH INSTITUTE IS LEGAL AND

JUSTIFIED? IF YES, TO WHAT RELIEF THE

WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”

It is admitted case of the parties that the workman,

Sushil Kumar Saxena, was engaged as Technician against

the permanent regular vacant post as daily wager w.e.f.

14.08.1989; whose services have been terminated by the

management. The workman raised an industrial dispute;

wherein an award, directing the workman to be reinstated

with continuity in service was passed vide dated 05.08.2008;

and accordingly the workman was reinstated w.e.f.

04.01.2005, in terms of award dated 05.08.2008, which was

never challenged by the opposite party. Moreover, the

workman is working on Muster Roll as casual technician

@ Rs. 85/- per day as basic pay plus DA w.e.f. 01.01.2006

in accordance with the recommendations of the 6th Central

Pay Commission.

It is alleged by workman’s union that the Department

of Personnel and Training, Government of India has

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

153

formulated a scheme with regard to grant of temporary

status and regularization of casual workers who have

worked continuously for 240 days in a year and were in

the employment on 01.09.1993 and the employers have

adopted the scheme vide circular No. 24-15/93-Cdn Dated

23.11.1994; but the employers have not extended the

benefits of said scheme to the workman. It has specifically

been submitted by the workman that the workman had

been terminated on 25.3.1991 and the Tribunal found the

termination of the workman concerned to be illegal and

unjustified and accordingly reinstated him with continuity

in service. The award was never challenged and

implemented, therefore, it attained finality and resultantly,

the workman shall be deemed in service as on 01.09.1993

and as was entitled for benefits of circular dated 23.11.1994.

It has been alleged by the workman’s union that the

management denied the workman for the benefits of the

circular dated 23.11.1994; but has given temporary status

and later on regularized the services of S/Sri P.K. Bajpai,

U.S. Tripathi and Ravi Kumar Goel who were junior to him.

Accordingly, the workman’s union has prayed that the

workman be given temporary status and be regularized

with consequential benefits at par with other junior

employees.

The management in its written statement has

submitted that the case of the workman for appointment

on regular basis does not fall within the jurisdiction of this

Tribunal in as much as the scheme of DoPT, Government

of India for grant of temporary status to the Casual Labour

was a onetime scheme, which provided that a casual labour

worked continuously for 240 days only will be entitled for

grant of temporary status and subsequently for

regularization. It has been submitted by the management

that since there is no vacancy in the technical cadre

available in the Institute therefore, there arises no question

of considering the workman for absorption in the said

post in light of rules and regulations. As regard regularizing

the other workmen junior to the workman, it is submitted

by the management that Sri Ravi Kumar Goel and P.N.

Bajpai were not given temporary status and had been

appointed through direct recruitment only on the basis of

Judgment of Hon’ble Court; whereas Sri U.K. Tripathi was

never given post of Technician as he is still working as

S.S. Gr. I (Mazdoor) in the institute. Accordingly, the

management has prayed that the claim of the workman’s

union is liable to be rejected being devoid of any merit.

The workman’s union has filed its rejoinder wherein

apart from reiterating the statements already submitted in

the statement of claim it has introduced nothing new.

The parties have filed documentary proof in support

of their respective cases. The workman’s union has

examined the workman in support of their stand. The

opportunity of the management to cross-examine the

workman was closed vide order dated 04.01.2012; and date

was fixed for management evidence. When the

management did not file any evidence, the date was fixed

for argument vide order dated 10.04.2012. Although the

management was present on few dates thereafter; but it

did not bother to recall the ex-parte orders against it. On

assumption of charge by the new Presiding Officer to this

Tribunal, the management was issued notice by registered

post to appear before this Tribunal and forward its

argument on 24.11.2014; but none turned up from the

management nor moved any adjournment seeking date.

Accordingly, heard the authorized representative of the

workman’s union alone.

Heard authorized representative of the workman’s

union and gone though evidence available on record as

well as respective pleadings of the parties.

The authorized representative of the workman has

submitted that the workman had been appointed engaged

as casual labour w.e.f. 14.08.1989, who had been terminated

w.e.f. 25.3.1991; but the Tribunal vide its award dated

5.08.2005 held the termination to be illegal and unjustified

and award reinstatement to the workman with continuity

in service. It is also contended by the workman that the

scheme for grant of temporary status to the workman as

applicable for those casual labours who on the rolls of the

opposite party as on 01.09.1993 and had completed 240

days’ continuous working in a year. Since the workman

had been reinstated with continuity in service, therefore,

he was entitled for grant of temporary status assuming

him in service by the virtue of award dated 05.8.2005 at par

with other juniors.

10.

The management of the Central Avian Research

Institute has come up with the case that the workman was

engaged intermittently and the scheme was for the casual

labour who worked continuously for 240 days were entitled

for grant of temporary status and subsequently for

regularization. It is also pleaded by the management that

since there is no vacancy in the technical cadre available

in the Institute therefore, there arises no question of

considering the workman for absorption in the said post

in light of rules and regulations.

11.

I have scanned the entire evidence, in the light of

the rival stands of the parties.

12.

Coming to the merit of the case, admittedly, the

workman had been engaged as Technician on daily wages

w.e.f. 14.08.1989 and was terminated w.e.f. 25.03.1991;

which was held illegal; and the workman had been

reinstated with continuity in service w.e.f. 04.01.2005, in

terms of award dated 05.08.2008 dlivered by this Tribunal,

which was never challenged by the opposite party giving

finality to the award dated 05.08.2008.

In the mean time, during pendency of the industrial

dispute against alleged illegal termination dated 25.03.2008,

a scheme was floated vide DoPT’s OM No. 512016/2/90-

Estt (C) dated 10.09.1993, which was circulated vide letter

dated 23.11.1994 of the opposite party regarding grant of

temporary status and regularization of casual workers –

154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

adoption of scheme formulated by the Department of

Personnel & Training. The above circular dated 23.11.1994

required that temporary status be given to those casual

labours, strictly in accordance with the scheme and it was

to be ensured that the temporary status is granted only to

casual laburers who were eligible in accordance with the

guidelines. The salient features of the said scheme was

provided in the appendix which reads as under:

“Appendix

Department of Personnel & Training, casual Laburers

(Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme

This Scheme shall be called “Casual Labourers (Grant

of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of

Government of India, 1993”.

This scheme will come into force w.e.f. 1.9.1993.

This scheme is applicable to casual labourers in

employment of the Ministries/Departments of

Government of India and their attached and

subordinate offices, on the date of issue of these

orders. But it shall not be applicable to casual

workers

Railways,

Department

Telecommunication and Department of Posts who

already have their own Schemes.

Temporary status

(i)

Temporary status would be conferred on all

casual laburers who are in employment on the

date of issue of this O.M. and who have

rendered a continuous service of at least one

year, which means that they must have been

engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206

days in the case of offices observing 5 days

week).

(ii)

Such conferment of temporary status would

be without reference to the creation/

availability of regular Group ‘D’ posts.

(iii)

…………..

(iv)

Such casual labourers who acquire temporary

status will not however, be brought on the

permanent establishment unless they are

selected through regular selection process for

Group ‘D’ posts.

(v)

8. Procedure for filling up of Group D posts.

(i)

Two out of every three vacancies in

Group ‘D’ cadres in respective offices where

the casual laburers have been working would

be filled up as per extant recruitment rules and

in accordance with the instructions issued by

Department of Personnel & Training from

amongst casual workers with temporary

status…………………………”

A bare perusal of appendix to the letter dated

23.11.1994, it becomes clear that the above scheme of grant

of Temporary Status and Regularization was applicable to

those casual workers who were engaged as on 01.09.1993

and have completed 240 days continuous working a year.

From the facts pertaining to his industrial dispute, it is

apparent that the workman was initially engaged on

14.08.1989; but on the date of introduction of the scheme

for grant of temporary status was out of service due to his

illegal termination by the opposite party. But the relief

extended to the workman by the virtue of award dated

05.08.2008 made in the services as the Tribunal while

holding the alleged termination dated 25.03.1991 illegal

extended benefit of reinstatement with continuity in

service to the workman. Thus, the workman on the crucial

date of determination of eligibility i.e. on 01.09.1993 would

be deemed in service and having worked for 240 days in a

year; hence he was eligible for grant of temporary status.

Accordingly, the management was required to

extend the benefits of scheme dated 10.09.1993; but the

management neither challenged the award dated 05.08.2008

nor granted the workman temporary status.

13.

The management of the CARI has come up with the

pleading that there is no vacancy in the Technical cadre in

the institute and the post of the workman was not

permanent in nature, therefore, he cannot be considered

for absorption. But from clause 4 (ii) of the scheme it is

very much clear that availability of regular Group ‘D’ posts

had nothing to do with the grant of temporary status to

the workman.

14.

Further, as regards regularization of the services of

the workman, the workman in his examination-in-chief, has

stated that the workmen viz. Ravi Kumar Goyal, Pradip

Narayan Bajpai and Umesh Tripathi who were junior to

him and presently Sri Ravi Kumar Goel is Lab Technician

Grade – 2 and Sri Pradip Narayan Bajpai is working as

Technician Grade-5. He also stated that these workmen

did not undergo any procedure for fresh recruitment; but

were regularized as per Court’s order. He also stated that

the post of Technician is vacant in the department at

present.

The management has not cross-examined the

workman on above statements. Hon’ble Apex Court in

State of U.P. vs. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava & others

(2006) 3 SCC 276 has laid down that “the statement of the

witness, having not been controverted would be deemed

to be admitted”.

The management has also failed to prove its

pleadings by oral evidence. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court

in Gyanendra Pal Singh & others vs Cane Commissioner

& others 2009 (123) FLR 201 has observed as under:

“6. Since no counter affidavit has been filed till date,

the ground taken in the writ petition are taken to be

correct in view of the decisions rendered in Choksi

Tube Company Limited v. Union of India, Naseem

Bano v. State of U.P. and others.”

15.

Thus, from the cited and discussions made

hereinabove, it is quite clear that the workman who was

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

155

out of service on the date of introduction of scheme i.e.

01.09.1993 for grant of temporary status and regularization;

but became eligible for consideration as he was reinstated

by the management, accepting the Award of the Tribunal.

The reinstatement of the workman with continuity in service

changes the picture as if there was no termination of the

workman; and if the workman have continued from his

admitted date of engagement i.e. from 14.08.1989 then he

was well on the roll on 01.09.1993 and had completed 240

days continuous service; and hence was entitled for grant

of temporary status. Further, as per requirement of the

scheme, for regularization, the workman was to undergo

regular selection procedure. And also keeping in view

vacancy in the Technical staff and regularization of the

other junior workmen, the workman is also entitled for

regularization and other consequential benefits, subject

to suitability as per existing Recruitment Rules, from the

date juniors to the workman were regularized.

16.

The reference is answered accordingly.

LUCKNOW

06th December, 2014

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 81-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj fo'kk[kkiVue

iÙku U;kl 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (ds-l-vkS-v- 27@2013)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01&01&2015 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&34011@2@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2015

S.O. 81.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/2013)

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

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Visakhapatnam Port

Trust and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 01.01.2015.

[No. L-34011/2/2012-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present :

Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI,

Presiding Officer

Dated the 4th day of July, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 27/2013

Between :

The General Secretary,

VisakhapatnamPort Employees Union,

D.No. 26-15-204, Dharmasakthi Bhawan,

Visakhapatnam-530 001

...Petitioner

AND

The Chairman,

Visakhapatnam Port Trust,

Port Area, Visakhapatnam-530 005

...Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

Party in person

For the Respondent

Party in person

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its

order No. L-34011/2/2012—IR(B-II) dated 6.2.2013 referred

the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D.

Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the

management of Visakhapatnam Port Trust and their

workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of

Visakhapatnam Port Trust in not fixing the seniority

of Sri P. Nooka Raju, Driver Ist Class F.C. Section (a

member workman of Visakhapatnam Port Employees

Union) above Sri B. Madhava Rao is in order? What

relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.

No. 27/2013 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

The case stands posted for filing of claim statement

to 4.7.2014.

At this stage, Petitioner called absent. Claim

statement not filed. No representation for Petitioner. In

spite of giving fair opportunity Petitioner is not taking

interest in the proceedings. In the circumstances, taking

that no claim to be made for the Petitioner, ‘Nil Award’ is

passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 82-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u

vksojflt 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@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

83@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01&01&2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@57@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2015

S.O. 82.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 83/2013)

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

Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Indian Overseas Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 01.01.2015.

[No. L-12012/57/2013-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 4th December, 2014

Present :

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 83/2013

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

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

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

the Management of Indian Overseas Bank and their

workman)

BETWEEN :

Sri S. Thangavel

1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Regional Manager-

2nd Party/Respondent

Central Office

Indian Overseas Bank,

Personnel Department

762, Anna Salai

Chennai-600002

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/

: M/s. K.M. Ramesh, Advocates

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/

: M/s. N.G.R. Prasad, Advocates

Respondent

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/57/2013-IR (B.II)

dated 12.08.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The Schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the Management of Indian

Overseas Bank in dismissing from service Sri S.

Thangavel, Clerk is legal and justified? What relief

the concerned workman is entitled to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 83/2013 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides entered appearance through their counsel

and filed Claim Statement and Counter Statement. The

petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter

Statement.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are as below:

The petitioner was appointed as Messenger in the

Respondent Bank in the year 2000. He rose to the position

of Clerk/Shroff and was posted to work in Poolambadi

branch. He had been discharging his duties faithfully,

efficiently and sincerely. While working at Poolambadi

branch the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated

24.07.2011. It was alleged in the charge sheet that the

petitioner had stealthily removed a cheuue book from the

custody of the bank, made fictitious entry in the Cheque

Book Issue Register as if the book was issued to

Nattuchalai Village Panchayat Office, forged the signature

of an official of Nattuchalai village Panchayat Office in

order to appear that the official had received the cheque

book, filled-up one of the cheque leaves forging the

signature of an account holder of the bank who had

deceased, filled up the particulars in the pay-in-slip for

crediting Rs. 90,000/- the amount entered in the cheque

leaf to the account of Cholamma Devi an account holder

of the bank and forged the signature of Cholamma Devi in

the remitter’s column of the pay-in-slip, that he perpetrated

the above acts of forgery in order to fraudulently transfer

of Rs. 90,000/- from the deceased borrower’s account and

thus had committed gross misconduct within the meaning

of Clause-5(d) and 5(j) of the Memorandum of Settlement

entered into between the bank and its workmen. The

petitioner had submitted an explanation denying the

charges. The Respondent did not accept the explanation

offered by the petitioner but appointed an Enquiry Officer

to inquire into the charges. During the enquiry the Enquiry

Officer did not accept the objections raised by the defense

representative. Only the Investigating Officer was examined

by the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was not conducted in

a fair and proper manner or in accordance with the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

157

procedure. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report finding

the petitioner guilty of the charges. The Disciplinary

Authority had imposed the punishment of dismissal from

service on the petitioner. The petitioner is not guilty of the

charges alleged against him. He has been made a

scapegoat. The petitioner has raised the dispute

accordingly. The petitioner has not committed any

misconduct alleged against him. The Disciplinary Authority

had acted wrongly in imposing the punishment of dismissal

from service on the petitioner. The Respondent shall be

directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with

continuity of service, back wages and other attendant

benefits.

The Respondent has filed counter statement

contending as follows:

The petitioner has been charge sheeted by the

Disciplinary Authority for certain omissions and

commissions on his part while he was working as

messenger at Nattuchalai Branch. He had attempted to

defraud the bank by fraudulently transferring the amount

of Rs. 90,000/- from one SB account to another SB Account

through cheque which was written by him and fictitiously

signed by him as true account holder. On 03.10.2009 the

petitioner has debited account of Vinayathirthan a retired

Tahsildar (deceased) and transferred the proceeds to the

account of Cholamma Devi. The entries were posted by

Lakshmipathy, Special Cadre Assistant. While the Senior

Manager was passing the cheque he observed that the

drawer’s signature appearing on the cheque did not tally

with the specimen signature on record. No one came to

the branch for collecting the cheque also. The Branch

Manager complained about the incident to the Regional

Manager. The cheque book bearing Nos. 074361 to 370

issued in the name of Nattuchalai Village Panchayat Office

was not delivered to the Panchayat. One cheque leaf from

the cheque book was used to make fraudulent transfer of

amount from Vinayathirthan’s account. The entry regarding

delivery of cheque book was not authenticated by the

Senior Manager. The remaining cheque leaves in the

cheque book were not used also. The Investigator

compared the signatures of the petitioner and

Lakshmipathy and observed that the petitioner’s

handwriting resembled with that of the signature appearing

in the cheque for Rs. 90,000/-. The handwriting appearing

in the Cheque Book Issue Register pertaining to the issue

of the cheque book in question was also that of the

petitioner. The signature of Sudha, Panchayat Assistant

of Nattuchalai Village Panchayat Office was also found

forged by the petitioner. Accordingly, a charge sheet was

issued to the petitioner. On departmental enquiry the

charges were found proved. The petitioner had removed

the cheque book bearing Nos. 074361 to 074370 from the

custody of the branch officials. He had made fictitious

entry in the Cheque Book Issue Register as if the cheque

book was issued to the Panchayat Office, by forging the

signature of Assistant of the Panchayat Office. The

Forensic Science Department had opined that the entries

in the cheque leaf and in the Cheque Book Issue Register

are written in the hand of the petitioner. There is no merits

in the contention of the petitioner that he was not given

sufficient opportunity in the departmental proceedings.

The misconduct committed by the petitioner is very serious

in nature. He has attempted to misappropriate amount.

The petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The claim is

liable to be rejected. An order may be passed accordingly.

The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the

allegations in the Counter Statement and reiterating his

case in the Claim Statement.

Though there is a contention in the Claim Statement

that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to

put forth his case in the departmental proceedings and

that the enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper

manner, this contention has not been pressed by the

petitioner. Adjudication is based on the proceedings in

the enquiry. The petitioner has given evidence before this

Court only to state that he was not gainfully employed

after he was dismissed from service by the Respondent.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W20

and Ext.M1 to Ext.M3

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether there is any justification in the action of

the Respondent in dismissing the petitioner from

service?

(ii)

What if any is the relief to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The Points

The petitioner who was working as Messenger in

Nattuchalai Branch of the Respondent Bank has allegedly

attempted to misappropriate a sum of Rs. 90,000/- by

fabricating documents. The petitioner is said to have made

entries in the Cheque Issue Register as if a cheque book

has been issued to Nattuchalai Village Panchayat Office

forging the signature of an official of the office, used one

of the cheque leaves to draw Rs. 90,000/- from the account

holder who was no more at the time of the incident and

tried to transfer the amount to the account of another

account holder. The entry in the Cheque Book Issue register

was made on 17.09.2009. According to the Respondent,

entries regarding the cheque was posted by Lakshmipathy,

a Special Cadre Assistant who sent the same to the Sr.

Manager for passing the cheque. The Manager found out

that the signature in the cheque is quite different from the

specimen signature of the account holder. This along with

the fact that nobody came to the bank to claim the cheque

made him suspicious and he reported the matter to the

higher authorities. An investigation was ordered and MW1

158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

who investigated the matter found out that the entries in

the Cheque Book Issue Register were in the handwriting

of the petitioner. So also the cheque of Rs. 90,000/- drawn

on the account of Vinayathirthan, the deceased account

holder was also detected by him to be in the handwriting

of the petitioner. To assert whether the handwriting and

the signature in the Cheque Issue Register and signature

in the cheque were that of the petitioner itself, these were

sent to the Forensic Expert along with admitted handwriting

of the petitioner and the handwriting experts have opined

that the disputed writings are in the hand of the person

who has written the specimen handwriting. A departmental

enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. He was

found guilty and was dismissed from service.

10.

The petitioner challenges the finding of the Enquiry

Officer that he has committed the alleged misconduct.

According to the petitioner, the Respondent did not

establish before the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner

has committed any misconduct. The counsel for the

petitioner has pointed out in support of his contention

that the Management has not examined any witnesses

other than the Investigating Officer in the enquiry

proceedings. The fact that the opinion of the handwriting

expert was relied upon even though the concerned expert

has not been examined before the Enquiry Officer has also

been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner.

Certainly it is a drawback on the part of the Management

that none of the staff of Nattuchalai Branch of the

Respondent where the incident has taken place have been

examined. The only person who is examined is the

Investigating Officer and submitted the report.

Lakshmipathy who posted the entry regarding the cheque,

the Sr. Manager to whom the cheque was taken and other

staffs of the bank were also questioned by MW1 in the

process of investigation. The finding that the petitioner

has done the misconduct and attempted misappropriation

has been arrived at by the Investigating Officer on the

basis of the disclosure made by these persons and also

by examining the documents of the bank covering the

incident. The relevant documents are of course produced

by the Management. However, those persons who were

questioned by the Enquiry Officer were not examined in

the enquiry proceedings.

11.

However, to make up for the lacunae in the evidence

of the Management there is the explanation given by the

petitioner, which contains an admission of most of the

facts alleged against him. Ex.W3 is the explanation

submitted by the petitioner in answer to the charge sheet.

In this he has stated that Nattuchalai Branch being a rural

area, most of the customers being illiterate, they used to

approach him for filling withdrawals / pay-in-slips and as

a matter of rendering assistance he used to help them.

According to him it was as instructed by the Manager he

was filling up the instruments and this was known to the

Manager also. He has also stated that the cheque books

used to be under the custody of the Manager and he

never had access to them but the entries in the Cheque

Book Issue Register would be made by him as handed

over to him by the Manager who was the custodian and it

thus happened that he made entries for the items in the

in respect of the allegation that he had forged the signature

of Sudha, the Assistant NattuchalaiPanchayat Office. He

has further stated in his explanation that he had filled up

the particulars in the withdrawal slip, but he was unable to

identify the person who approached him in connection

with this. Thus there is sufficient admission in Ext.W3

that the petitioner himself made entry in the Cheque Book

Issue Register, though he would not admit that he had put

the signature of the recipient, and also that he filled up the

particulars in the cheque leaf and to make it an instrument

of Rs. 90,000/-. There is also the investigation report of

MW1 which states that the petitioner had told him that he

is the one who made the entries.

12.

The Investigating Officer who had closely examined

the Cheque Book Issue Register and the entries in the

relevant cheque and compared them with the handwriting

of the petitioner had come to the conclusion that the

petitioner is the one who made the entries. The

Management has produced the Cheque Book Issue

slip, etc. in the enquiry proceedings.

13.

The counsel for the petitioner has vehemently

argued that the report of the expert should not have been

relied upon by the Enquiry Officer in the absence of the

examination of the person concerned. No doubt, expert

opinion is only corroborative in nature. However, the

argument of the counsel that the expert opinion should

not have been looked into at all in the absence of

examination of the expert could not be accepted. Section-

293 of the Criminal Procedure read with Section-73 of the

Evidence Act would show that this argument has no force.

The expert opinion was rendered by the Deputy Director

of Forensic Science Department, Chennai. The report

prepared by him is marked as Ext.M2. Section-293 of the

Criminal Procedure Code states that any document

purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt.

Scientific Expert to whom the Section applies upon any

matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or

analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under

the Court may be used as evidence in any enquiry, trial or

other proceeding under the code. True a departmental

proceeding is not a proceeding under the code. Still the

nature of the proceeding is such since criminal imputation

is attributed to the petitioner in the sense that he has

forged documents in his attempt of misappropriation. So

it was not necessary for the Management to examine the

forensic expert before the report itself was relied upon.

14.

It could be seen from the evidence of MW1 that

sufficient material was available to him to come to the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

159

conclusion that the petitioner is the author of the forgery

for which he was facing enquiry. It could be seen from the

report that even without disclosing anything about the

suspicion regarding the forgery he has made

Lakshmipathy, the Clerk who posted the entry regarding

the cheque as well as that of the petitioner and had

compared the suspected writings and the signatures with

these and had come to the conclusion that the handwriting

of the petitioner is similar to the writings in the cheque

Book Issue Register, the cheque and the withdrawal slip.

In fact the Manager himself has immediately on

examination detected that the signature in the cheque is

totally different from the specimen signature and it was

only because of this he did not pass the cheque.

15.

Even as admitted by the petitioner he has made entry

in the Cheque Book Issue Register regarding the issue of

the cheque book containing the relevant cheque leaf. MW1

has gathered from NattuchalaiPanchayat Assistant that

she did not get the cheque book in question. In fact only

a few days ago two cheque books were issued to the

Panchayat and there would not have been any necessity

for her to get one more cheque book within such a short

period. It could be noticed from the Cheque Book Issue

Though the cheque book was shown as issued to the

Panchayat Office, except the disputed cheque leaf no other

cheque leaves were used. MW1 has found that the

signature in the cheque issue register as that of Panchayat

Assistant Sudha is totally different from the signatures

put by her earlier while receiving cheque books. MW1

has found that the handwriting in the signature itself is

similar to the handwriting of the petitioner. This conclusion

arrived at by MW1 is corroborated by the Forensic Report

which states that the handwriting used for the signature

is that of the petitioner whose admitted handwritings were

compared for the purpose. This itself would show that the

fact that the petitioner was sometimes asked to make entry

in the Cheque Book Issue Register was misused by the

petitioner to make entry to look as if the Panchayat Office

Assistant has obtained another cheque book.

16.

It is admitted by the petitioner that the cheque in

question also was filled by him though he would not admit

that the signature was put by him. There are circumstances

which would clearly establish that the petitioner might

have attempted to transfer Rs. 90,000/- from the account

of Vinayathirthan to the account of Cholamma Devi. There

was no question of Vinayathirthan issuing the cheque as

he was not alive at the time of the incident. He could not

have used cheque book issued to NattuchalaiPanchayat

also. Probably because the account was lying inoperative

for some time the petitioner has selected Vinaythirthan’s

account for his operation. The account of Cholamma Devi

was also lying inoperative for some time. What the

petitioner has stated in his explanation is that a person

who is known to him had approached him and he himself

had filled up the cheque and placed it in front of

Lakshmipathy for posting entries. He had placed the

withdrawal slip alongwith this. What mainly betrayed the

petitioner is the fact that the signature of Cholamma Devi

in the withdrawal slip is totally different from her specimen

signature. Though the name of the account holder is

Cholamma Devi, as could be seen from the specimen

signature form and other documents contained in the

signature she used to sign as Solamma Devi and not

Cholamma Devi. On the other hand, in the withdrawal slip

the signature was in the spellings of Cholamma Devi itself

and not Solamma Devi. The petitioner seems to have raised

a contention that he has just written the name of the

Account Holder and did not put the signature However,

this contention can be rejected in view of the very

admission by the petitioner in his explanation that he

himself had placed the withdrawal slip at the counter of

Lakshmipathy. If somebody else had handed over the

cheque to him he would have given the withdrawal slip to

the person for putting his signature and only after this he

would have placed the documents before Lakshmipathy.

There is the report of the Forensic Expert that the signature

on the withdrawal slip also is in the hand of the petitioner

itself. This is sufficient corroboration to the conclusion

drawn by MW1 during his investigation. It is very much

clear that in his attempt to debit Rs. 90,000/- from the

account of Vinayathirthan the petitioner had committed

all the forgeries and fabrications.

17.

An attempt is seen made during cross-examination

of MW1 that since the cheque is in favour of Cholamma

Devi, in any case transfer of the amount from the account

of Vinayathirthan would not have benefited the petitioner.

I do not think this contention is attractive. The petitioner

was only at the initial stage of his fabrication in his attempt

of misappropriation and one does not know what was the

method intended by him to get at the amount.

18.

The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the

decision of the Apex Court in ROOP SINGH NEGI VS.

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS reported in

2009 2 SCC 570 and argued that on the basis of mere

suspicion a finding of guilt could not be entered into. So

far as the present case is concerned it is not mere

suspicion. It is very much clear from the evidence that the

petitioner had committed the misconduct alleged in the

charge memo. The Enquiry Officer had sufficient reasons

to find him guilty of the charges.

19.

I do not think there is any necessity to interfere with

the punishment imposed on the petitioner also. That the

bank did not lose any amount is not a reason to reduce the

punishment to the petitioner. The petitioner was working

in a post where utmost confidence was required and this

confidence was betrayed by the petitioner by his attempted

misappropriation. So the petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

20.

In view of my findings above the reference is

answered against the petitioner.

An award is passed accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1st Party/

WW1, Sri S. Thangavel

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/

None

Management

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

15.10.2009

Xerox copy of the Investigation

Report given by the Investigation

Officer

Ex.W2

22.07.2011

Xerox copy of the charge sheet

issued to the petitioner

Ex.W3

20.08.2011

Xerox copy of reply/explanation

given by the petitioner to the charge

sheet

Ex.W4

24.08.2011

Xerox copy of letter from the

Respondent appointing enquiry

officer and presenting officer

Ex.W5

27.09.2011

Xerox copy of letter from the

enquiry officer notifying the date

of enquiry enclosing the list of

documents and witnesses of the

Respondent Bank

Ex.W6

11.10.2011

Xerox copy of enquiry proceedings

19.12.2011

Ex.W7

27.01.2012

Xerox copy of the letter from the

Enquiry Officer enclosing the

Presenting Officer’s written brief

Ex.W8

28.02.2012

Xerox copy of defense brief

submitted to the enquiry officer

Ex.W9

13.03.2012

Xerox copy of the letter from the

Respondent enclosing findings of

the enquiry officer

Ex.W10 13.03.2012

Xerox copy of the findings of the

enquiry officer

Ex.W11 11.04.2012

Xerox copy of Petitioner’s

comments over the enquiry officer’s

findings

Ex.W12 15.05.2012

Xerox copy of notice issued by the

Respondent proposing punishment

and for personal hearing

Ex.W13 06.06.2012

Xerox copy of reply given by the

petitioner regarding proposal of

punishment

Ex.W14 12.06.2012

Xerox copy of proceedings of the

personal hearing before the

Disciplinary Authority

Ex.W15 22.06.2012

Xerox copy of the final order passed

by the Respondent Bank imposing

punishment of dismissal from

service.

Ex.W16 11.08.2012

Xerox copy of petitioner’s appeal

to the appellate authority

Ex.W17 18.09.2012

Xerox copy of letter from Appellate

Authority of the Respondent Bank

calling the petitioner for personal

hearing.

Ex.W18 28.09.20121

Xerox copy of the proceedings of

personal hearing before the

appellate authority

Ex.W19 12.11.2012

Xerox copy of the order passed by

the appellate authority rejecting the

appeal and confirming the

punishment

Ex.W20 17.12.2012

Letter from petitioner to the

Respondent Bank.

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

Investigation report dated 13

&15.10.2009 with its enclosures

(ME-21). The enclosures to the

investigation report contains other

management exhibits (2 to 7, 9 to 19

marked in the departmental

proceedings)

Ex.M2

Report of Forensic Sciences

Department, Chennai (ME-20)

Ex.M3

Lot cancelled sheet (ME-8).

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 83-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u 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@Je U;k;ky;&2] eaqcbZ ds iapkV (ds-l-vkS-v- 10@2010)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01&01&2015 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@77@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

161

New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2015

S.O. 83.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2010)

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 Union Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 01.01.2015.

[No. L-12012/77/2009-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/10 of 2010

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF UNION BANK OF INDIA

The General Manager

Union Bank of India

60/80, Mumbai Samachar Marg

Fort, Mumbai 400 023.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Shri R.K. Palande

At Port -Acholi

Taluka Mahad

Distt. Raigad

Maharashtra

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

: Ms. Prafulla Shetty,

Advocate.

FOR THE WORKMAN

: Ms. Kunda Samant,

Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 20thNovember, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour&

Employment by its Order No.L- 12012 /77 /2009-IR (B-II),

dated 12.01.2010 in exercise of the powers conferred by

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

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred

the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of Union

Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri R.K.

Palande, Ex-Peon-cum-Hamal w.e.f. 25/03/2000 by

way of treating him having voluntarily retired from

service of the Bank and not giving him pension as

per the provisions of 5th Bi-partite settlement is just,

legal and proper? What relief the workman is entitled

to?”

After receipt of the reference, notices were sent to

both parties. In response to the notice, second party,

appeared before this Tribunal and filed Statement of Claim

at Ex-5. According to the second party workman, he was

the permanent employee of Union Bank of India working

at Samachar Marg Branch, Mumbai. He was recruited as

Peon cum Hamal since 4/7/1978. He was permanent resident

of Village Acoli, Tal. Mahad, Distt. Raigad, Maharashtra.

The father of the workman was taken ill at his native place

and there was nobody to look after his bed ridden father

who was seriously ill. Therefore on 19/11/1999 the

workman had to rush to his native place. He was required

to stay there to look after his father and to provide him

medical aid. He informed about it to the management vide

his letter dt. 22/4/2000. The first party did not consider the

request of the second party and retired him voluntarily

w.e.f. 27/03/2000 under Clause 17 of 5th Bi- partite

settlement. They had invoked the said clause 17 just two

days prior to signing of 7th Bi partite settlement signed on

27/3/2000. In the new Bi partite Settlement Clause 17 of

5th Bi-Partite settlement was deleted.

The workman had opted for pension in terms of

Union Bank of India Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995.

He had approached the management and submitted letter

with a request to reinstate him in service or at least pay

him his legitimate pension. However management neither

reinstated him nor paid him any pension. Therefore the

workman has raised industrial dispute before ALC ©

Mumbai. As the conciliation failed, as per the report of

ALC ©, the Central Labour Ministry sent the reference to

this Tribunal. The workman therefore prays that the order

of voluntary retirement be set aside and he be reinstated

with back wages or the first party be directed to pay him

legitimate pension since April 2000.

The first party resisted the statement of claim vide

their written Statement at Ex-6. According to them the

workman remained absent from 19.11.1999. Therefore they

sent show cause notice to the known residential address

as well as native place address of the workman. In-spite

of that neither workman joined his duties within a period

of 30 days nor offered any explanation for remaining

absence. As workman remained absent, for more than 90

days and looking into his habitual absenteeism and

previous record, the first party thought it fit to invoke

Clause 17 of 5th Bi partite settlement, to declare him retired

voluntarily w.e.f. 25/03/2000. Said voluntary retirement

under Clause 17 amounts to termination of services.

Therefore workman is not entitled to the pension. It was

not voluntary retirement on application of the employee

under Regulation 29 of Union Bank of India Employee’s

Pension Regulation 1995. Therefore the second party was

162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

not entitled to get any pension. There is in ordinate delay

of 9 years in raising the dispute and the reference is hit by

delay and latches. For all these reasons the first party

prays that the reference be dismissed for cost.

Following are the issues for my determination. I

record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Sr.

Issues

Findings

No.

Whether action of management

Yes.

of Union bank of India in termi-

nating the services of Shri R.K.

Palande, Ex-Peon cum Hamal

by way of treating him having

voluntarily retired and not

giving him pension as per the

provisions of 5th Bi-partite

settlement is just legal and

proper?

Whether the workman under

Workman

reference is entitled to get

entitled to get

pension/reinstatement with

pension.

back wages?

What relief the workman is

As per order.

entitled to?

What order?

As per order.

REASONS

Issues nos. 1 :-

In the case at hand few facts are not disputed such

as the workman was the permanent employee of the first

party. Secondly he was absent from duty from 19.11.1999

for more than 90 days. Therefore the first party issued

show cause notice to the workman. The show cause notice

was sent on the registered address of the workman as well

as to his permanent address at his native place. The fact

is also not disputed that as workman was continuously

absent for more than 90 days and looking to his previous

record and as he did not send any explanation, the first

party invoked Clause 17 of 5th Bi Partite settlement and

retired the workman voluntarily w.e.f. 25/03/2000 as

prescribed under the said Clause. In this respect it was

pointed out on behalf of the workman that the said Clause

No.17 of Bi partite Settlement was arbitrary and improper,

therefore it was dropped or deleted from the 7th Bi partite

settlement which was signed only 2 days after the

retirement of the second party. In this respect it was also

argued on behalf of the second party that no opportunity

was given to the workman and he was made to retire

voluntarily without any inquiry. Therefore it was submitted

that the said order passed by the first party violates the

principles of natural justice.

In this respect the ld. Adv. for the first party

submitted that Bi-partite settlement has effect of Statute.

Therefore Clause 17 of 5th Bi partite settlement cannot be

called arbitrary or unjust. Furthermore she submitted that

on the relevant date said Clause 17 was very well in force.

Therefore neither it can be called unjust nor the order of

voluntary retirement passed there under, can be

challenged. The ld. Adv for the first party further submitted

that, when action is taken as per the provisions of Bi partite

settlement, inquiry is not necessary.

In support of her argument, the ld. Adv. resorted to

Bombay High Court ruling in State Bank of India V/s. M.N.

Jivnani&Anr 2014 I CLR 224 (BOM). In that case the

workman was absent for more than 90 days. Therefore

first party therein served the workman with notice to report

his duty and to explain for his unauthorised absence. The

workman therein neither report for duty nor even bothered

to furnish any explanation for his pretty long absence

from duty. In the circumstances the bank invoked Clause

15 of Bi Partite Settlement and voluntarily retirement order

was passed. The point was raised as to whether the

punishment was without any inquiry was just and proper.

On the point the Hon’ble Court observed that;

“Bank has followed the requirements of Clause 16

of the Bi partite settlement. It rightly held that

Dayananda has voluntarily retired from the service

of the Bank. Under these circumstances it was not

necessary for the Bank to hold any inquiry before

passing the order. An inquiry would have been

necessary if Dayananda had submitted his

explanation which was not acceptable to the Bank

or contended that he did report for duty but was not

allowed to join by the bank.”

This ruling is based on the ratio laid down by

Honb’le Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank V/s. General

Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association &anr. 2000 II

CLR 472.

In the case at hand the bank had sent telegram on

16/11/99 to the workman at his known address at Kalyan

given by him. The workman has stated in his cross at Ex-

23 that on that day he was at his native place at Mahad.

He has further stated that he had not given intimation to

the Bank that he had gone to Mahad. Two Registered

letters were sent by the Bank, one at his address at Mahad

and the other at his address at Kalyan. He admitted that

till 21/12/1999 he had not given intimation to the Bank that

he had left Kalyan and started residing at Mahad. The

Registered letters Ex-37 were sent on the addresses given

by the workman. Both the envelopes returned with remark

that addressee has left address. Another two registered

letters at Ex-38 & 39 were returned with same remark. It

shows that First party Bank had made every effort to serve

the workman with show cause notice and calling upon

him to join his duties and explain about his absence.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

163

10.

In this respect ld. Adv for the first party also referred

to Apex court ruling in Punjab and Sind Bank &Ors. V/s.

Sakattar Singh 2001(I) CLR 468. In this case the services

of workman were terminated by the Bank for unauthorized

absence for about 190 days. Bank had asked him to explain

his unauthorized absence. As he failed to offer any

explanation, the bank terminated his services by invoking

the provisions of Bi-partite settlement. High Court held

termination to be illegal due to patent violation of Principles

of Natural Justice. The matter was taken before Hon’ble

Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex court on the point observed

that;

“We do not find any material on record to show that

he had reported for duty within the period indicated

in the notice issued in terms of Clause XVI of IV Bi

partite settlement. In the circumstances, we find the

High Court had proceeded on an erroneous basis of

non-compliance with the principles of natural justice,

whereas the true content of the principles of natural

justice should have been borne in mind, particularly

when there was an agreement between the parties

as to the manner in which the situation should be

dealt with and the consequence that would ensue

thereof.”

The ld. Adv. on the point also referred following

rulings:

(1)

Syndicate Bank V/s. General Secretary,

Syndicate Bank Staff Association &anr. 2000

II CLR 472.

(2)

Vivekanad Shetty V/s. Chairman, J & K. Bank

Ltd. &ors 2005 II CLR 527 wherein same ratio

is reiterated by Hon’ble Apex Court.

11.

In the case at hand though notices were sent to the

workman, neither he joined his duties nor submitted his

explanation for remaining absent. Therefore the first party

herein has rightly invoked Clause 17 of 5th Bi-partite

settlement and voluntarily retired the workman as

prescribed under the said Clause. In such circumstances

no inquiry was necessary and the order of voluntarily

retiring the workman cannot be said in violation of

Principles of Natural Justice, as has been claimed on behalf

of the workman. In the light of the ratio laid down in the

above rulings, I hold that inquiry was not necessary when

the action was taken under Clause 17 of the Bi partite

Settlement. Thus there was no violation of Principles of

Natural Justice. Accordingly I decide this issue No.1 in

the affirmative that, the action of the management is just

and legal.

Issue No.2 & 3:-

12. In this respect as workman herein was voluntarily

retired by the order passed by the management under

Clause 17 of the 5th Bipartite Settlement and the said order

is held just, legal and proper, thus the question of

reinstatement of the workman with back-wages does not

arise. Now the only question before me is whether the

workman is entitled to the pension benefit. In this respect

it was submitted on behalf of the first party that voluntary

retirement as per order under Clause 17 of the 5th Bipartite

Settlement amount to termination of services, therefore

the workman is not entitled to get any pension. In this

respect the ld. Adv. for the second party submitted that

though workman was voluntarily retired, it was not on the

basis of any inquiry report. The ld. Adv. further submitted

that the workman was retired under Clause 17 without any

inquiry merely as he was absent for a long period. Therefore

no stigma is attributed thereto. Thus he is entitled to get

all the pensionary benefits. In support of her argument

the ld. Adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling in R. Kapoor V/s.

Director of Inspection (Painting and Publication) Income

Tax and another 1994 II CLR 885 wherein the Hon’ble Court

referred its earlier judgment wherein it was observed that;

“Pension and gratuity are no longer bounty to be

distributed by the Govt to its employees on their

retirement but have become under decisions of this

Court, valuable right and property in their hands

and culpable delay in settlement and disbursement

thereof must be visited with penalty of payment of

interest at current market rate till actual payment.”

13.

The ld. Adv. further submitted that voluntary

retirement cannot be termed as termination of services.

Therefore the workman cannot be deprived of his valuable

right of getting pension. She further submitted that, the

legislations in the field of Labour laws are beneficial

legislations for the welfare of the workman and should be

interpreted accordingly. In support of her argument, the

ld. Adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling in Harjinder Singh

V/s. Punjab State Warehouse Corporation 2010 I CLR 884

wherein the Hon’ble Court on the point observed that;

“……High Courts are duty bound to interpret all

these social welfare legislations, keeping in view

foals set out in the preamble of the Constitution and

provisions contained in part-IV thereof (iii) Approach

of Courts must be compatible with constitutional

philosophy contained in directive Principles of State

Policy and workmen not to be denied the benefits,

entertaining specious and untenable grounds put

forward by employers.”

14.

In this respect the very word retirement used

indicates that, it is not dismissal, termination or removal

from service which deprive the employee from getting the

retirement benefits. Furthermore I would also like to point

out that, in number of cases, various High Courts and

even Apex Court has held that even compulsory retirement

without inquiry is not a stigma in the career of the employee.

In the circumstances voluntary retirement cannot be termed

164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

as termination or dismissal from service and there is no

reason to withhold or refuse the pensionary benefits to

the workman. The word retirement indicate something

different than dismissal, termination or removal. The

voluntary retirement was prescribed under Clause 17 only

for continuous absence for a period 90 days or more and

not for any other misconduct. The intention behind framing

this Clause was; the workman who remain absent from

duty continuously for number of days and did not assign

any reason for his unauthorized absence can be treated as

a person voluntarily retired. Neither it can be called

punishment nor any stigma can be attributed thereto. Thus

I hold that the workman herein is entitled to get pension

from the date of his retirement i.e. 25/03/2000. He is also

entitled to the interest on the arrears @ 10% p.a.

Accordingly I decide this issue No.2 partly in the

affirmative and proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

(i)

The reference is partly allowed with no order as to

cost.

(ii) The first party is directed to pay pension to the

second party workman w.e.f. 26/03/2000 as per the

Rules of the Bank.

(iii) The first party is also directed to pay interest on the

arrears from the due date @ 10% p.a. till the date of

payment.

Date: 20/11/2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 84-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eaqcbZ iksVZ VªLV

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; la[;k 1] eaqcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

45@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01&01&2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&31011@11@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2015

S.O. 84.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2007)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.

1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Mumbai Port Trust

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 01.01.2015.

[No. L-31011/11/2007-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 AT MUMBAI

Present :

Justice Satya Poot Mehrotra,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-45 OF 2007

Employers in relation to the management of :

The Chairman, Mumbai Port Trust, Mumbai

The Director, M/s. Darabshaw B. Cursetjee’s Sons

(Bombay), Mumbai

And

Their workman Shri Yaar Mohd. Khan

Appearances :

For the first party/

Mr. Umesh Nabar, Advocate

Management No.1

For the first party/

Mr. B.K. Ashok, Advocate

Management No.2

For the second

Mr. A. M. Koyande, Advocate

party/Workman

Mumbai, dated this the 04th day of December, 2014

AWARD

By the Order dated 01/10/2007 passed in exercise of

the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and

sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, the Central Government has made the present

Reference to this Tribunal. The terms of Reference as per

the Schedule to the said Order are as under:

“ Whether the demand of the union for correction/

rectification of the date of confirmation as 01.04.1979,

instead of 05.11.1979 in respect of ShriYaarMohd.

Khan, GPM working in the establishment of Mumbai

Port Trust, Mumbai is proper and justified? If so, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

Pleadings were exchanged between the parties. At

present, the case is at the stage of evidence.

The case was lastly put up on 17/11/2014 when it

was directed to be put on 4th December, 2014.

Pursuant to the order dated 17/11/2014, the case is

put up today.

Shri Umesh Nabar, learned counsel for the first party/

Management No.1 is present.

Shri B.K. Ashok, learned counsel for the first party/

Management No.2 is present. Shri D.J. Kapadia,

Representative for the first party/Management No.2 is also

present.

Shri S.T. Nikam, holding brief for Shri A.M. Koyande,

learned counsel for the second party/Workman is present.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

165

Shri Yaar Mohd. Khan, second party/Workman is

also present.

Joint application has been filed on behalf of the

second party/Workman, the first party/Management No.1

and the first party/Management No. 2. It is, inter-alia, stated

in the said application that both the parties have amicably

settled the dispute out of Court. It is prayed in the said

application that the Reference be finally disposed of in

view of the settlement.

The application has been signed by the learned

counsel for the second party/Workman as well as by the

learned counsel for the first party/Management No.1 and

the learned counsel for the first party/Management No.2.

Learned counsel for the parties state that in view of

the averments made in the aforesaid application, the

dispute forming the subject-matter of the Reference no

longer survives, and the Reference may be disposed of

accordingly.

Shri Yaar Mohd. Khan, second party/Workman, who

is personally present before this Tribunal, states that the

dispute in the present Reference has been settled out of

Court and he has received an amount of Rs.28,623.45 and

he is satisfied with the said payment, and he does not

wish to pursue the Reference any further.

In view of the averments made in the aforesaid

application and in view of the statements made by the

learned counsel for the parties as well by the second party/

Workman, as mentioned above, it is evident that the

dispute forming the subject-matter of the Reference no

longer survives.

The Reference is therefore, answered by stating that

the dispute forming the subject-matter of the Reference

no longer survives.

Award is passed accordingly.

Justice SATYA POOT MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 85-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy 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@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 21@2013)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01&01&2015 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@17@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2015

S.O. 85.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2013)

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

Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Central Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 01.01.2015.

[No. L-12012/17/2012-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 3rd December, 2014

Present :

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 21/2013

(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 Central Bank of India and their

workman)

BETWEEN :

Sri M. Balakrishnan

1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The General Manager

2nd Party/Respondent

Central Bank of India

48/49, Montieth Road

Chennai-600008

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/

M/s K.M. Ramesh, Advocates

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/

M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

Respondent

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/17/2012-IR (B.II)

dated 28.01.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the Management in

dismissing Sri M. Balakrishnan, Daftary of Neyveli

Gangaikondan branch is legal and justified? To what

relief the workman concerned is entitled?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 21/2013 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their

Counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement

respectively. The petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer

to the Counter Statement.

166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner has joined the service of the

Respondent Bank in 1984 as Part-Time Safai Karamchari.

He was elevated to full time staff cadre in the year 1982

and thereafter he has been working at Gangaikondan

branch of the Bank. The petitioner has been working with

sincerity and loyalty for about 24 years. The petitioner’s

wife was a chronic cancer patient and required continuous

medical investigation, monitoring and treatment. Her

disease aggravated in the year 2007. During 2007-2008 he

had to take her to different hospitals such as JIPMER

Hospital, Stanley Hospital, Adyar Cancer Institute at

Chennai, etc. for investigation and treatment. The

petitioner also became sick due to mental agony and

physical strain of wandering from hospitals to hospitals.

The house of the petitioner remained locked for days

together. During this period the house was looted and the

household articles were removed. The wife of the petitioner

succumbed to cancer and died in the year 2008. On the

30th day ceremony of the death of his wife the petitioner

lost his younger brother in a fatal road accident. During

this time the petitioner had to take leave from duty from

the Bank from time to time either on leave available to his

credit or even on loss of pay. The petitioner had been

regularly informing the Branch Manager over phone and

by telegrams regarding the plight of his wife and his need

to take leave from duty. Whenever the petitioner

resumed duty, he had been submitting leave application

to the Manager. The Manager had been granting leave

for the periods of his leave. The Manager and Staff

Members of Gangaikondan branch were aware of the

difficulty of the petitioner. They had visited the house of

the petitioner in condolence of the death of his wife and

his brother. On 26.03.2008, while the petitioner was working

at the Bank, a charge sheet was delivered to him by the

Manager acting as a Disciplinary Authority. Since the

charge sheet was in English, the petitioner requested for

15 days time to submit his explanation and also requested

for translation of the charge sheet in Tamil. On 25.09.2008

when he was at the branch he was delivered with a copy

of the enquiry proceedings, Enquiry Officer’s letter,

Disciplinary Authority’s letter with the copy of the Enquiry

Officer’s findings, etc. The petitioner submitted a letter on

25.09.2008 alongwith copy of the Medical Reports and

Medical Certificates from various hospitals and explaining

the tragic events that haunted his family. He also requested

for Tamil translation of the above documents. The

petitioner did not receive any reply to this. The Respondent

served a Show Cause Memo dated 03.10.2008 on the

petitioner asking him to show cause why penalty of removal

from service proposed in the Show Cause Notice be not

imposed on him. The petitioner appeared before the

Respondent and explained his position. The Respondent

did not give due consideration to the explanation of the

petitioner. The penalty of removal from service was

imposed on the petitioner. Though the petitioner preferred

an appeal, this was rejected on the ground that it was not

within time. It is accordingly the petitioner had raised the

dispute. There is no justification in terminating the service

of the petitioner. The enquiry against the petitioner was

conducted ex-parte in violation of the principles of natural

justice. The Enquiry Officer had not taken into

consideration the leave applications, medical certificates,

etc. produced by the petitioner from time to time. An order

may be passed directing the Respondent to reinstate the

petitioner in service with back wages, continuity of service

and all other attendant benefits.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

The Award Staff of the Respondent are being

granted very liberal leave benefits - 12 days Casual Leave,

Privilege Leave of one day for every 11 days, sick leave

calculated at 30 days per year, etc. Besides the leave

benefits, the Bank observes national and festival holidays.

An Award Staff can stay away from work without losing

his earnings for 60 days in a calendar year. The petitioner

who was posted to Gangaikondan branch in the year

1992 was highly irregular in his attendance. Between

January 2004 and March 2008 he stayed away from work

unauthorizedly for 42 days in 2004, 104 days in 2005, 98

days in 2006 and 54 days in 2007, Between 01.01.2008 and

25.03.2008 he had absented without leave for 85 days. The

letters directing him to report for duty were not responded

to. On 20.02.2008 a memo was issued to the petitioner

pointing out his unauthorized absence for 71 days between

12.12.2007 and 20.02.2008 and directing him to report for

duty. He was also asked to Show Cause why disciplinary

action shall not be taken against him for his unauthorized

absence. Still he did not report for duty. On 12.03.2008

charge sheet was issued to the petitioner with regard to

his unauthorized absence from 12.12.2007 to 12.03.2008.

Then he submitted a letter requesting for leave covering

the period. He was directed to appear for an enquiry on

10.06.2008. However, the letter was returned unserved and

he did not appear for enquiry. The enquiry was adjourned

but on this second day of enquiry also he did not appear.

Another notice was sent to him stating that enquiry will

be held on 18.08.2008. In fact he received the notice on

18.08.2008 but did not appear for enquiry. On this date the

enquiry was held in the absence of the petitioner. The

Enquiry Officer gave report holding that the charge against

the petitioner was proved. A second show cause notice

was issued to the petitioner proposing the punishment of

removal from service with superannuation benefits. On

14.10.2008, the Disciplinary Authority passed order

confirming the punishment. Even after issue of the charge

sheet the petitioner had absented without leave for 84

days between 01.04.2008 and 03.08.2008. The enquiry held

into the charges against the petitioner was fair and proper.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

167

The findings of the Enquiry Officer is supported by material

available on record. The notice fixing the enquiry on

18.08.2008 was refused by the petitioner when he was

working in the Bank so the Enquiry Officer was justified in

proceeding to hold the enquiry in his absence. The

petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the

contentions in the counter statement and also reiterating

his case in the Claim statement.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to

Ext.W18 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M32.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Respondent in removing

the petitioner from service is justified?

(ii)

What if any is the relief to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The Points

The petitioner has been working in Gangaikondan

Branch at Neyveli as Daftary. The charge sheet alleging

that he has remained absent from duty unauthorizedly

during the period from 12.12.2007 to 12.03.2008 for 92 days

and habitually been remaining absent unauthorizedly in

the past also has been served on the petitioner. Even

though Show Cause Memorandum is said to have been

issued prior to this, he is said to have not given any

explanation, as seen from the Charge Sheet. An enquiry

was ordered on the charge. According to the Respondent,

even though notice was issued to the petitioner he has

failed to attend the enquiry proceedings and so the Enquiry

Officer was constrained to proceed ex-parte. The Enquiry

Officer had entered a finding that the charges against the

petitioner is established. On the basis of this finding, the

petitioner was removed from service with superannuation

benefits.

The petitioner has raised a contention in the Claim

Statement that the enquiry was not conducted in a fair

and proper manner but was conducted against the

principles of natural justice, the same having been

conducted ex-parte. In the Claim Statement as well as

affidavit of Chief Examination filed by the petitioner he

has refuted the contention in the Counter Statement that

notice of enquiry was taken to him but he has refused to

receive the notice. The stand of the petitioner is that notice

was not served on him and so it was not proper for the

Enquiry Officer to set him ex-parte and conduct the

proceedings.

10.

It is not in dispute that the copy of the charge sheet

has been issued to the petitioner. It was served on the

petitioner through the Branch Manager and he has signed

a copy of the charge sheet in token of the receipt of the

Charge Sheet. Ext.M2 the copy of the Charge Sheet

produced by the Respondent contains the signature of

the petitioner. It was admitted by the petitioner during the

examination also that he has put his signature in the

original of Ext.M2 on receipt of the Charge Sheet.

11.

The dispute is regarding the method adopted by the

Enquiry Officer for the conduct of the enquiry. The case

of the Respondent is that twice, on 10.06.2008 and

24.07.2008 enquiry had to be postponed since the petitioner

failed to appear for the enquiry and subsequently the

enquiry was held on 18.08.2008 ex-parte since the petitioner

has refused to receive the notice of enquiry or to appear

for the enquiry. There is no case for the Respondent that

notices prior to enquiry scheduled on 10.06.2008 and

24.07.2008 were received by the petitioner. The dispute is

regarding the notice of enquiry scheduled for 18.08.2008

said to have been served on him. The case of the

Respondent is that notices were taken to the residential

address as well as branch address of the petitioner and

these were returned as the petitioner refused to accept

them. This is what is written in Ext.M5, the letter dated

19.08.2008 sent to the petitioner after the enquiry was held

on 18.08.2008. By Ext.M5 the petitioner was asked to

furnish his written submission to the enquiring authority

within 8 days of the receipt of the letter. Before this Tribunal

the Respondent had no case at the time of the enquiry

that the notice taken to the residential address of the

petitioner was served on him. The letter seems to have

been returned as the petitioner was not available. However,

the Respondent very much relies upon Ex.M30 the notice

that was taken to the Bank, the cover of which contains

the endorsement “refused”. It has been brought out on

cross-examination of the petitioner that he was very much

present at the Bank on the particular date also. On the

basis of this it has been argued by the counsel for the

Respondent that the petitioner has deliberately refused

the notice and has not been willing to defend the domestic

enquiry proceedings initiated against him also. On the

other hand, the stand of the petitioner is that in spite of

the endorsement in the cover of the notice no such notice

has been taken to him at all. As could be seen, apart from

the endorsement itself there is no evidence to show that

the notice was actually taken to the petitioner. It has been

argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the document

is a fabricated one and the same has never been taken to

the petitioner. According to him there was no reason for

the petitioner to refuse the notice. It could be seen that

the notice sent to the petitioner after the enquiry

proceedings was closed has been received by the

petitioner at Bank’s address itself. If this notice that was

offered at the branch while he was in duty was accepted

by the petitioner, there was no probability that the earlier

notice was refused by him. More so because the petitioner

has already been served with a Charge Memo and he was

working at the Bank while notice informing him of an

enquiry has already been received by him. It could be

seen from the enquiry proceedings that the petitioner who

168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

received Ex.M5 notice after evidence in the enquiry was

closed and he asked to submit his written submission

before the Enquiry Officer has appeared and presented

his case before the Enquiry Officer. This also raises doubt

regarding the correctness of the endorsement in the notice

of enquiry scheduled to be held on 18.08.2008. It is always

probable that notice for the enquiry for 18.08.2008 was not

taken to him at all in view of the failed earlier attempts to

serve notice on him. As could be seen from the report of

the Enquiry Officer the petitioner who has appeared before

him at the last stage of proceedings has pleaded that he

was not able to attend the office because of the illness

and death of his wife and other family problems. But this

fact also is not seen considered by the Enquiry Officer.

His enquiry was only to verify if the petitioner has

overstayed his leave at the branch and has been absent

during the period stated in the Charge Sheet. Part of the

enquiry having been conducted after setting the petitioner

ex-parte without proper service of notice to him, to this

extent the enquiry could be said to be vitiated so far as it

is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

12.

It is not disputed by the petitioner that he was absent

during the period mentioned in the Charge Sheet. There is

also no case for him that he has submitted any leave

application in advance for this period. The petitioner seems

to have submitted an application for leave accompanied

by Medical Certificate after he was served with the Charge

Sheet. In fact the petitioner seems to have started to attend

duty consequent to the notice that was received asking

him to report for duty. It has been pointed out by the

counsel for the Respondent that the petitioner has not

cared even to submit an application for leave and it was

utmost dereliction from duty on his part. It has also been

pointed out by the counsel that in the past also the

petitioner has been unauthorizedly absent on several

occasions.

13.

In fact in the Charge Sheet contains also a charge

that the petitioner has been habitually remaining absent

from duty unauthorizedly in the past. However, this charge

is not seen pointedly probed by the Enquiry Officer, except

entering finding based on a notice (Ext.M2) issued for

absence for some days. In the Counter Statement the

Respondent has stated that the petitioner was

unauthorizedly absent from duty for 42 days in 2004, 104

days in 2005, 98 days in 2006 and 54 days in 2007. However,

these facts were not put before the Enquiry Officer or

attempted to be proved. Certainly, the petitioner has not

disputed his absence during this period. But the fact

remains that the absence of the petitioner for the above

period has been condoned by the Bank and he has been

allowed to continue in duty. The probability is that the

Bank was satisfied by the explanation given by the

petitioner. In the decision STATE OF PUNJAB VS. P.L.

SINGLA reported in 2008 8 SCC 469 the Apex Court has

held that by accepting the explanation and sanctioning

leave for the period of unauthorized absence of the

employee stood condoned. In such a case the charge of

misconduct cannot be served and proceedings initiated

for the same misconduct which has already been

condoned. There is no evidence as to what was the reason

for the absence of the petitioner for the previous periods

mentioned in the Counter Statement. In any case it is clear

that absence, even if unauthorized has been condoned by

the Respondent. So the charge of habitual unauthorized

absenteeism would not stand against the petitioner.

14.

The question that now remains for consideration is

whether the charge that the petitioner was unauthorizedly

absent for the period from 12.12.2007 to 12.03.2008 is

established and whether the punishment that is imposed

on the petitioner is proportionate to the gravity of the

misconduct allegedly committed by him. As already stated,

it is not disputed by the petitioner that he was absent

during the period and that application for leave has been

submitted by him only after he joined duty later. The case

that is put forth by the petitioner is that the circumstances

prevented him from attending duty. He has got a further

case that he has been informing the Branch Manager about

his inability to attend duty. According to the petitioner his

wife has been suffering from the illness of cancer during

the period. He had been running from hospitals to

hospitals for her treatment. Ultimately his wife had

succumbed of illness and died at the end of 2007.

According to him, during this period his house had to be

kept locked and while in the locked stage his house was

broke open and was looted also. He had given evidence

that the Branch Manager and other staff of the Branch

were well aware of his plight. He had stated in his Claim

Statement as well as in his Affidavit that they had visited

his house by way of condolence on the death of his wife.

To add to the misery, his brother had met with a road

accident on the 30th day of death of his wife and had

succumbed to the accident. According to the petitioner,

all these incidents which had fatally affected him made it

impossible for him to attend to his work. The petitioner

has also produced Ext.W1 to Ext.W4 which shows that

his wife was treated at different hospitals. During cross-

examination it was not challenged that the Branch Manager

and other staff had been to the house of the petitioner to

join him in his misery and console him on the death of his

wife. So it is clear that the Manager of the Branch was

very much aware of the reasons for the absence of the

petitioner from duty.

15.

It has been repeatedly held that if the absence from

duty, even if unauthorized, is due to compelling

circumstances it cannot be held to be willful. The decision

KRUSHNAKANT B. PARMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA

AND ANOTHER reported in Civil Appeal 2106/2012

decided on 15.02.2012 it has been held that absence due

to compelling circumstances under which it was not

possible to report or perform duty cannot be held to be

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

169

willful. It has also been held here that in a departmental

proceeding if allegation of unauthorized absence from duty

is made the Disciplinary Authority is required to prove

that the absence is willful and in the absence of such

finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct. In the

decision in GEETABEN RATHILAL PATEL VS. DISTRICT

PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER reported in 2013

7 SCC 182 continuous absences of 1360 days on account

of mental illness was found to be under the particular

circumstances and reinstatement was ordered. In the

decision in CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR

VS. MUKUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY AND OTHERS

reported in 2010 2 SCC 499 where there was unauthorized

absence for six months and the same was admitted,

reinstatement was ordered.

16.

The counsel for the Respondent has referred to the

decision in CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY

AND SEWERAGE BOARD AND OTHERS VS. MURALI

BABU

reported in 2014 4 SCC 108 where the Apex Court

has held that it is not an absolute proposition in law that

whenever there is long unauthorized absence it is

obligatory on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to

record finding of willful absence even when employee

failed to show compelling circumstances while remaining

absent. It was a case where the employee of unauthorizedly

absented for a period of one year and seven months and

had “exhibited adamant attitude in not responding to

repeated communications from employer”. What the Apex

Court has stated in the above case is not that it is not an

absolute proposition in law that whenever there is long

unauthorized absence the Disciplinary Authority is to

record finding that the said absence is willful even if the

employee fails to show the compelling circumstances to

remain absent. The Apex Court has further stated that the

unauthorized absence by an employee as a misconduct

cannot be put into straight jacket formula for imposition

of punishment but it would depend on many a factors as

has been laid down in Singla case referred to earlier. While

considering the absence of the employee the Apex Court

has again pointed out in the above case that by remaining

unauthorizedly absent for such a long period with

inadequate reason had not only shown indiscipline but

also made an attempt to get away with it and such conduct

is not permissible. It was in such circumstance the Apex

Court favoured the punishment of dismissal from service.

It could be seen from the very observation of the Apex

Court that unauthorized absence without adequate reason

was the reason for the imposition of extreme punishment.

There is an indication in the decision that when the

employee explains the compelling circumstances for his

remaining absent it can be considered by the Enquiry

Officer or by the Tribunal as the case may be.

17.

In the present case, even when the petitioner

appeared before the Enquiry Officer though at the final

stage he has been trying to convince the Officer that he

had to meet several unfortunate incidents including two

deaths and this was the reason for his unauthorized

absence. In the findings the Enquiry Officer has stated

that though the petitioner has not refuted any of the

argument of the Presenting Officer or objected any of the

documents admitted as Management exhibits, he has

narrated the illness of his wife which cost her death and

has further stated that due to miseries in his life he could

not attend the office. Thus the petitioner seems to have

even then tried to place the compelling circumstances

under which he was absent, before the Enquiry Officer.

18.

In the Singla case the Apex Court has held that the

extent of penalty imposed on the employee will depend

upon the nature of service, the position held by him, the

period of absence and the cause/explanation for the

absence. The petitioner was absent for a period of 92 days

as could be seen from the Charge Sheet. However, this

was under compelling circumstances as explained by the

petitioner during his evidence. While imposing the

punishment one of the tests to be applied is whether any

reasonable employer would have imposed such

punishment in like circumstances taking into consideration

the magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other

relevant circumstances, as held by the Apex Court in

MURALI BABU’s case referred to earlier. When such a

test is applied it is difficult to accept the argument on

behalf of the Respondent that the punishment imposed

on the petitioner is in proportion to the gravity of the

misconduct. Except for the absence for sometime on some

earlier occasions there is no case of any misconduct

against the petitioner. It is very much clear that the absence

for the relevant period was on account of circumstances

beyond the control of the petitioner. When this is taken

into account I find that the punishment is not in proportion

to the degree of the misconduct.

19.

The petitioner deserved a lesser punishment than

removal from service for the unauthorized absence.

However, the petitioner has been out of employment for a

long period and withholding of pay of 75% for this period

would be sufficient punishment.

20.

In view of my discussion above, an award is passed

as follows:

The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner

in service within one month of the award with back

wages of 25% and continuity of service. If the back

wages is not paid within a month of the award it

would carry interest @ 9% per annum.

The reference is answered accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/

WW1, Sri M. Balakrishnan

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/

MW1, Sri P. Richard

Management

170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

14.11.2007

Copy of Jipmer Hospital,

Pondicherry case summary and

discharge Card of petitioner’s

wife.

Ex.W2

19.11.2007

Copy of Govt. Stanley Hospital,

Chennai O.P. Case Sheet of

petitioner’s wife

Ex.W3

08.12.2007

Copy of Govt. Stanley Hospital,

Chennai report of CT Scan

Abdomen of petitioner’s wife

Ex.W4

22.12.2007

Copy of Cancer Institute, Chennai

Patient Diagnosis of petitioner’s

wife

Ex.W5

19.03.2008

Copy of letter from Respondent

to the Petitioner

Ex.W6

12.03.2008

Copy of charge sheet issued to

the petitioner

Ex.W7

02.08.2008

Copy of Medical Certificate issued

to the petitioner

Ex.W8

04.08.2008

Copy of leave application

submitted by the Petitioner

Ex.W9

25.09.2008

Copy of letter from petitioner to

the Respondent

Ex.W10

03.10.2008

Copy of Show Cause Memo

issued to the petitioner

Ex.W11

14.11.2008

Copy of Administrative Order

removing the petitioner from

service

Ex.W12

21.05.2009

Copy of letter from Respondent

to the petitioner

Ex.W13

15.10.2009

Copy of letter from Respondent

to the petitioner

Ex.W14

28.10.2009

Copy of Administrative Order

rejecting the appeal of the

petitioner

Ex.W15

27.12.2010

Copy of representation from

petitioner to the Respondent

Ex.W16

Xerox copy of returned cover

Ex.W17

27.03.2008

Xerox copy of letter from

petitioner to the Regional

Manager,

Trichy

the

Respondent Bank

Ex.W18

17.02.2012

Minutes of the conciliation

proceedings held before Asstt.

Labour Commissioner (Central),

Chennai

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

11.07.2014

Muster Roll copies from

28.07.2008 to 30.08.2008

Ex.M2

12.03.2008

Charge Sheet issued to the

petitioner – received by the

petitioner on 26.03.2008 vide his

endorsement in the copy of the

charge sheet

Ex.M3

19.03.2008

Letter from Bank informing the

petitioner that as no explanation

offered decided to hold enquiry –

letter received by petitioner vide

his endorsement in the copy of

the letter

Ex.M4

26.03.2008

Letter from the petitioner to the

Bank requesting for leave

covering his absence from

12.12.2007 to 25.03.2008

Ex.M5

19.08.2008

Letter from Inquiring Authority to

the petitioner enclosing copy of

proceedings of ex-parte enquiry

held on 18.08.2008 and copies of

exhibits MEX-1 to MEX-6 marked

in the enquiry and calling for

petitioner’s written submission

within 8 days – with the

acknowledgement

the

petitioner dated 21.08.2008

Ex.M6

19.08.2008

Letter from Bank to the CSE (M.

Balakrishnan enquiry conducted

by Bank was ex-parte to submit

your explanation within 8 days

Ex.M7

30.05.2008

Notice of enquiry by IA (Inquiring

Authority) sent to the petitioner

– enquiry on 10.06.2008 – sent by

RPAD and by Courier to his office

address at Gangaikondan branch

Ex.M8

Both the above covers returned

undelivered – covers un-opened

Ex.M9

10.06.2008

Proceedings of enquiry

Ex.M10

15.07.2008

Notice of enquiry by IA sent to

the

petitioner

his

Gangaikondan branch address

and to his residential address by

RPAD No. RL 25593 and RL 2550

on 17.07.2008 – Posting enquiry

on 24.07.2008

Ex.M11

Both the above covers returned

undelivered – covers unopened

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

171

Ex.M12

24.07.2008

Proceedings of enquiry

Ex.M13

05.08.2008

Notice of enquiry by IA – Posting

enquiry on 18.08.2008 – sent to

the

petitioner

his

Gangaikondan branch address by

RPAD RL 2644 dated 06.08.2008.

Returned undelivered - as

“Refused to Receive” – and the

notice sent to his residential

address by RPAD RL 2642 dated

06.08.2008 returned undelivered –

two covers unopened – cover

sent by courier – returned

undelivered – but opened by Bank

Ex.M14

18.08.2008

Proceedings of enquiry

Ex.M15

12.12.2007

Attested copy of Muster roll of

Gangaikondan branch – 29 sheets

– covering 12.12.2007 to 12.03.2008

(MEX-1)

Ex.M16

07.02.2007

Copy of Gangaikondan branch

letter addressed to charge-

sheeted employee (CSE – the

petitioner) (MEX-2)

Ex.M17

10.01.2008

Copy of Gangaikondan branch

telegram addressed to CSE

(petitioner) (MEX-3)

Ex.M18

28.01.2008

Copy of Gangaikondan Branch

letter dated 28.01.2008 addressed

to HRD-RO, Trichy, enclosing

copy of telegram dated 28.01.2008

addressed to the CSE (MEX-4)

Ex.M19

14.02.2008

Copy of Gangaikondan branch

letter dated 14.02.2008 addressed

to CSE (MEX-5)

Ex.M20

14.02.2008

Copy of Gangaikondan branch

central gram dated 14.02.2008

addressed to CSE (MEX 6)

Ex.M21

28.08.2008

Letter from KVS Narayanan,

Presenting Officer to – EO –

enclosing his (PO’s) written

submission in respect of M.

Balakrishnan – CSE (petitioner)

Ex.M22

27.08.2008

Written submission of the CSE

30.08.2008

petitioner dated 27.08.2008

received by IA on 30.08.2008

Ex.M23

02.09.2008

Letter from IA addressed to

Gangaikondan branch requesting

to handover PO’s written

submission to the CSE (petitioner)

and calling for his further

submission, if any. Received by

the CSE (Petitioner) on 05.09.2008

Ex.M24

12.09.2008

Letter from IA to Gangaikondan

Branch enclosing his (EO’s)

findings to the Disciplinary

Authority, R.O., Trichy

Ex.M25

03.10.2008

Letter from Regional Office,

Trichy u/r RO-TRY-HRD-DAD-

08/09 - 30 & 31 enclosing send

show cause notice dated

03.10.2008 – received by CSE on

04.10.2008 (SSC notice [RO-TRY-

HRD-DAD-08-09-31] = Ex.W10)

Ex.M26

2004

Details of wages paid to the

2007

petitioner between Jaunary 2004

and October 2008

Ex.M27

Oct. 2008

The pension payable to the

July 2013

petitioner for the period October

2008 and July 2013

Ex.M28

Undelivered cover RL No. 2553

Ex.M29

Undelivered cover RL No. 2550

Ex.M30

Undelivered cover RL No. 2644

Ex.M31

Undelivered cover RL No. 2642

Ex.M32

Opened cover & courier slip.

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 86-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u 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@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (ds-l-vkS-v- 53@06)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01&01&2015 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@37@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2015

S.O. 86.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/06) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as

shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between

the management of Union Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 01.01.2015.

[No. L-12012/37/2006-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/53/06

172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Shri Rakh Singh Dabur,

S/o Shri Jangal Singh,

Village Mauja,

PO Tada,

Distt. Dhar (MP)

...Workman

Versus

Regional General Manager (IR),

Union Bank of India,

Vidhan Bhawan Marg,

239, Nariman Point,

Mumbai

...Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 2nd day of December, 2014)

As per letter dated 7-8-2006 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-12012/37/2006-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference

relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Regional

Manager, Union Bank of India, Mumbai in

terminating the services of ShriRakh Singh w.e.f.

31-12-2004 is justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled for?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Statement of claim is submitted on behalf of

workman by Shri Ram Nagwanshi, General Secretary, Daily

Wage Bank Employees Union at Page 2/2 to 2/5. Case of

Ist party workman is that he was engaged from 1-8-96 on

post of permanent peon on daily wages Rs. 10/- by Branch

Manager Shri B.S. Chouhan in Tanda Branch. He was

working with devotion. Wages were increased from Rs. 10

to 20,30,40,50, 60. He was paid wages after deducting

weekly holidays. Branch Manager was paying wages

drawing bogus bills in the name of persons not in existence

for example Ramesh, Raju, Teju, Bhuresingh etc. he

completed 240 days continuous service during each of

the year, his services were terminated without notice or

retrenchment compensation from 31-12-04. Name of Branch

Managers under whom workman was working is given in

Para-5 of statement of claim. Workman raised dispute

before ALC, Bhopal. After failure report, dispute was

referred by Govt. workman submits as he completed more

than 240 days continuous service, he is covered as an

employee under Section 25(B) of I.D.Act. that his services

are terminated after 8 years in violation of Section 25-F.

Principles of first come last go was not followed thereby

violated Section 25 G of I.D.Act. he was not re-employed

as retrenched employee. IInd party violated provisions of

Section 25-F of I.D.Act. On such ground, workman prays

for reinstatement with back wages.

IInd party submitted application for declaration that

Ram Nagwanshi is not eligible to represent workman. That

it is not pressed. Workman has filed Written statement at

Page 8/1 to 8/10. Preliminary objection is raised that there

is no Union of Daily Wage Bank Employees .said Union

has no membership in Bank. It has no locus to raise

dispute. Workman is not covered under Section 2(s) of

I.D.act as he was not appointed by Bank. The dispute

under Section 2(k) of I.D.Act is not existing. The reference

made by govt. is not maintainable. There is no employer

employee relationship between workman and Bank. Any

of the employees of Bank are not members of the so called

Union. Workman was also not member of said Union

therefore Union has no locus to represent workman. It is

further submitted that as per Section 22 of Trade union

Act, atleast 50 % employees are required to be members of

Union. The Union has not produced documents about

registration under Trade Union Act. The resolution filed

by Union to raise dispute of workman and authorizing

office bearer for prosecuting the reference. That IInd party

bank is undertaking of Govt. of India. The recruitment in

the Bank is carried as per guidelines and rules, policies

etc. names of candidates are called through Employment

Exchange. After interview, the candidates used to be

selected and appointed. No such procedure was followed

in case of workman. That workman and his wife, father

had taken loan of various kinds. The Ist party was not

employee of Bank. There is no employer employee

relationship. It is reiterated that the workman had not

completed 240 days continuous service. There was no

question of terminating his service in violation of Section

25-F of I.D.Act.

As per IInd party, workman was engaged on daily

wages for fetching water in the Bank for two hours. He

was paid agreed wages. Workman was never appointed

by the bank. There was no employer employee relationship.

Workman was not terminated by IInd party. Workman is

not entitled to any relief claimed by him.

Ist party filed rejoinder at Page 12/1 to 12/3 reiterating

his contentions in statement of claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below :-

(i) Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Regional

Manager, Union Bank of

India, Mumbai in termi-

nating the services of

Shri Rakh Singh w.e.f.

31-12-2004 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is

workman is entitled to?”

not entitled to

any relief.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

173

REASONS

Workman is challenging termination of his service

for violation of Section 25-F, G, H of I.D.Act. IInd party

had denied employer employee relationship as workman

was not appointed neither terminated by the Bank.

Workman has filed affidavit of his evidence covering his

contentions in statement of claim. That he was working

on post of permanent peon in IInd party from 1-8-96. He

was initially paid wages Rs. 10/- per day which was

increased to Rs. 20,30,40,50,60. That he completed 240 days

continuous service. When he was sent to Regional Office

for taking stationery, he was paid Rs.50/- per day. He was

paid Rs.2/- per day for service of notice, Rs.4/- per day for

distribution of dak. He continuously worked more than

240 days till 31-12-04. In his cross-examination, workman

says he is not carrying business. He has taken loan of

Rs. 50,000/- for purchasing buffallows, 3 buffallows were

purchased by him. He was getting 6 litres milk from those

buffallows, he was selling milk. That his wife had taken

loan of Rs. 45,000, his father had taken loan of Rs. 50,000/-.

Except loan of Rs.36,000 taken by my wife, remaining loan

is repaid. Grocery shop is closed. The well and pump are

still existing. He was not issued appointment order. He

admits his signature on document D-1 to D-20. He was

called through Employment Exchange for post of Part time

sweeper on 14-10-04. He was interviewed on 25-10-04 as

he was found disqualified, he was not selected. The

documents produced by workman Exhibit W-1 shows that

workman was paid charges for water supply during the

year 2002-03. W-2 shows that workman was engaged for

fetching drinking water from handpump at long distance.

However he was not appointed by Bank. Exhibit W-30

letter issued by Chief Manager calling information in the

matter of dispute raised by workman. Exhibit W-4 is not

legible. W-5 is letter issued by Chief Manager calling

information w.r.t. dispute raised by workman. W-6 is also

letter issued by Asstt. General Manager calling information

about dispute raised by workman. W-7 is letter issued by

branch manager requesting guidance in the matter of

dispute raised by workman. W-8 is also letter on the same

matter. Exhibit W-9 is letter given by General Manager

informing that workman was not appointed. He was

engaged on daily wages intermittently. W-10 shows

working days of workman. In 2004, his working days are

shown 210 and his working days in earlier year till 86 are

shown much less than 240 days. The documents produced

by workman donot show he completed 240 days

continuous service during any of the year.

Evidence of management witness Sanjay Prasad

Singh is on the point that workman was not appointed by

the Bank neither he was terminated. Workman was

engaged two hours for fetching drinking water from

handpump. Workman was paid agreed wages for said work.

His evidence in cross-examination shows he has not

brought any record about the workman. That he seen record

of the period 96 to 04 but he was unable to tell which

record he has seen related to workman. That he has no

enmity with Ram Nagwanshi. He reaffirms that the contents

of his affidavit are correct. He admits that workman was

doing work of fetching water is correct. Workman was

paid daily wages. Management’s witness denies workman

was continuously working from 1995 to 2004. He denies

the suggestion that he is giving false evidence.

The documents received under RTI Act produced

by management Exhibit W-10 alongwith the annexures

shows maximum working days of workman 210 in the year

2004. He had not completed 240 days continuous service

therefore the evidence of workman cannot establish that

workman was working more than 240 days before

terminating his service. Workman is not entitled to

protection under Section 25-F of I.D.Act. For above

reasons, I record my finding in point No.1 in Affirmative.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Regional Manager,

Union Bank of India, Mumbai in terminating the

services of Shri Rakh Singh w.e.f. 31-12-2004 is

proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 87-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vk;qDr]

fnYyh uxj fuxe] 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 19@12) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 05&01&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@16@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2015

S.O. 87.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 19/12)

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 workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 05/01/2015.

[No. L-42011/16/2011-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI

Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 19/12

Sh. Maha Singh, S/o Late Balbir,

C/o Nagar Nigam Karmchari Sangh,

Delhi Pradesh

P/2/264, Sultan Puri Delhi.

Versus

The Commissioner,

MCD, Town Hall,

Chandni Chowk

Delhi-110006

No. DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L-42011/16/2011-IR(DU)) dated

29/12/2011 referred the following industrial Dispute to this

tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of Municipal

Corporation of Delhi, in denying the regular

appointment on compassionate grounds to

Sh. Maha Singh S/o Late Balbir w.e.f. 25.02.2004 is

legal and justified? What relief the workman is

entitled to?”

On 10.01.2012 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D No. 19/2012 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:-19/12/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 88-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj uhacw ds fy,

jk"Vªh; vuqla/ku dsUæ] ukxiqj 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 lhthvkbZVh@,uthih 41@2005) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02&01&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@227@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2015

S.O. 88.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No.

CGIT/NGP/41/2005) 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 National Research

Centre for Citrus, Nagpur and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 02/01/2015.

[No. L-42012/227/2000-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/41/2005

Date : 18.12.2014

Party No.1

The Director,

National Research Centre for Citrus,

Amravati Road, Nagpur.

Versus

Party No.2

Smt. Alkabai W/o Dhanpal Gajbhiye,

C/o. Ramvati Kanhayalal Ram,

Samart Ashok Chowk, Ambedkar

Nagar, Control Wadi, Nagpur-440 010.

AWARD

(Dated: 18th December, 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 N.R.C.C. and their workman, Smt. Alkabai

Gajbhiye, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-42012/227/

2000-IR (DU) dated 18.05.2005, with the following

schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of National

Research Centre for Citrus, Nagpur in terminating

the services of Smt. Alkabai W/o. Dhanpal Gajbhiye

w.e.f. 03.02.2000 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, Smt. Alkabai,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

175

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

the management of N.R.C.C., (“Party No. 1” in short) filed

their written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the

statement of claim is that the party No.1 is an institute

controlled by the Central Government and is engaged in

the activities of research and development of Citrus fruits

and for the purpose of research and development, party

No.1 is required to cultivate citrus plants and party No.1 is

having 250 acres of agricultural land for such cultivation

and for the purpose of carrying out cultivation, research

and development activities, party No.1 needs workforce

including skilled, semiskilled and unskilled workman and

the activities of cultivation, research and development are

carried out throughout the year by party No.1 by

employing more than 100 workers regularly and party No.

1 sells the improved varieties of the Citrus plants to the

farmers of the Area and the party No.1 is an industry within

the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act.

The further case of the workman is that she was

working with the party No.1 as an unskilled workman since

the year 1996 continuously and uninterruptedly and she

had completed continuous service of more than 240 days

in the preceding calendar year prior to her illegal

termination from services by party No.1 and she is a

workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act

and the work which she was performing was continuously

available throughout the year and accordingly, she was

performing the same continuously without any break and

in order to defeat her righteous and just claim and in order

to deny her the benefits of permanency and other ancillary

benefits, the party No.1 deliberately and intentionally made

a paper arrangement showing her as the workman of the

contractor, Yogesh Bangre and infact she was employed

by the partyNo.1 and her work was supervised by the

party No.1 and she was never allotted any work by the

said contractor, and the contractor was never in picture as

far as her work is concerned and in case of existing of any

contract between the party No.1 and the contractor, then

the same was merely a camouflage and paper arrangement,

in order to deny the poor workman, like her from their just

and legal rights and the party No.1 was the Chief employer

and the contractor was a dummy.

The workman has also pleaded that she was being

paid Rs. 910/- per month towards her wages, which was

far below than the rates of the minimum wages prescribed

for the industry and the minimum wages enforcement

officer visited the establishment of the party No. 1 on

17.12.1999, when it was noticed that the party No.1 and

the contractor were grossly violating the provisions of

the Minimum Wages Act and her statement and statement

of her co-workers were taken by the Labour Enforcement

Officer and after such inspection, the party No.1 and the

contractor were required to pay her and other co-workers

as per the provisions of Minimum Wages Act and therefore,

the party No.1 became annoyed and decided to terminate

her services and accordingly, her services were terminated

on 02.03.2000 orally and her such oral termination is illegal

and violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F

and 25-G of the Act and the same is totally unsustainable

and party No.1 did not exhibit any seniority list and no

notice of retrenchment was offered to her and she was

also not given any retrenchment compensation prior to

her termination and party No.1 retained the juniors, namely,

Smt. Baby Ramaji Yadav, Sakhubai Pawar, Baby Vaske,

Kokila Katamede, Nanda Ingole and Sita Ivanate, while

terminating her services and as such, her oral termination

dated 02.03.2000 is illegal and the same amounts to unfair

labour practice and the same is liable to quash and set

aside and from the date of her termination, she is not

gainfully employed and after termination of her services,

she sent a notice dated 05.03.2000 to the party No.1 and

the same was replied by the party No.1 without complying

any demand.

The workman has prayed for her reinstatement in

service with continuity and full back wages and all other

attending benefits thereof.

The party No.1 in the written statement, after

denying all the adverse allegations in the statement of

claim, has pleaded inter-alia that it serves as a National

Laboratory for applied agricultural research on Citrus Fruits

in its Orchards and farm on Amravati Road, Nagpur and

its objectives are to device ways and means to create

different varieties of new citrus fruits and the research

work is conducted by eminent scientists for resolving

problems of fundamental research, on their own and it is

under the control of its parent body, the Indian Council of

Agricultural Research, New Delhi (ICAR) and it is wholly

financed by the Central Government and it is not directly

or indirectly carrying on any trade or business and it is

engaged in developing the need based technologies on

various aspects of citriculture and for that, day to day

requirement of maintenance of plant material, different

culture practices have to be performed, which are seasonal

in nature and needs performance of unskilled, semi-skilled

and skilled types of jobs and the knowledge acquired as a

result of research growers in India and also aboard and it

is more in the nature of a governmental or sovereign

function and therefore, it is outside the purview of the

definition of “industry” under section 2 (j) of the Act.

It is further pleaded by party No.1 that most of the

works in its experimental orchards are seasonal in nature

are not available for the whole year and as such, the works

are done through casual laborers and since, no regular

posts are sanctioned by the government for carrying out

the works, contracts are given to labour contractors by

inviting quotations from different contractors, who are

registered under the contract labour Act for getting the

work done through casual labourer and the contractor

employs his own casual labour for executing the required

176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

work and at the end of every month raises a total bill on

the basis of man days worked during the month and the

bill is paid by it by cheque, as per the terms and conditions

of the contract and the works are totally controlled and

supervised by the contractor and the contractor maintains

his register of workers.

It is also pleaded by the party No.1 that it had called

for quotations from registered contractors vide circular

dated 05.04.1999, in response to which eight contractors

submitted their quotations and after scrutiny of job wise

rates, the quotations of contractor, Yogesh Bangre dated

16.04.1999 was accepted and vide its letter dated

21.06.1999, Bangre was intimated about award of the

contract to him for the period from 17.06.1999 to 16.06.2000,

i.e. for a period of one year and the necessary expenditure

was sanctioned by the competent authority vide order

dated 29.06.1999 and thereafter, as and when there was

requirement of different types of work, the contractor

Bangre was asked to get the same done and Bangre had

raised monthly bills giving details of the work executed on

job rate basis and after scrutiny and sanction, he was paid

the amount by cheque and the names of the casual labourer

employed by Bangre to execute the works were never

submitted to it and it was never aware of the names of the

casual labourer employed between it and the workman.

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

workman did not work with it as an unskilled labourer

since the year 1996 and alleged and it was no knowledge

that the workman was employed by the contractor and the

visit of the minimum wages Enforcement Officer was for

the purpose of checking as to whether the casual labourer

engaged by the contractor were being paid as per the

prescribed rates of minimum wages and when the same

was pointed out, the contractor complied with the

directions and that was all and the service of the workman

was never terminated by it and Bangre, the contractor

had submitted in his reply before the conciliation officer,

wherein, he had stated that he was given the contract to

perform the work of grass cutting by employing casual

labourer and the said work was completed on 29.01.2000

and as no work was available thereafter, he could not

provide any work to the workman and in view of the matter,

the claim of the workman is liable to be dismissed.

In support of their respective claims, both the parties

have led oral evidence, besides placing reliance on

documentary evidence. The workman has examined herself

as a witness to prove her case, whereas, Yogesh D. Bangre,

the contractor has been examined as a witness by party

No.1.

In her examination-in-chief on affidavit, the workman

has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim.

However, in her cross-examination, she has admitted that

she was engaged in the nursery to clean the lands and to

prepare the soil for plantation and she had made a

complaint in writing before the ALC (C), Nagpur alongwith

three others and Ext. M-II is the copy of her application

before the ALC (C) and the contents of Ext. M-II are true.

She has further admitted that the Labour Enforcement

Officer inspect the NRCC office on 16.12.1999 and there

was a meeting between the management, labour

Enforcement Officer and the contractor, Yogesh Bangde

and the contractor had submitted a written submission

and she alongwith Devangana, Alkabai and Ramvati Ram

had sent a legal notice through their advocate, Subhash

Kalbande and the contents of the legal notice sent by

their advocate were true and correct. The workman has

further admitted in her cross-examination that the Labour

Enforcement Officer found that the contractor was paying

them less than the minimum wages and directed the

contractor to pay the differential wages and accordingly,

the contractor paid them the differential wages and a sum

of Rs. 1920/- was paid to her by the contractor towards the

differential wages and she has not filed any document to

show that she was engaged by NRCC and her name was

not sponsored by the Employment Exchange for

engagement in NRCC and NRCC did not issue any

appointment order. The workman has denied the

suggestions that she was engaged by the contractor,

Yogesh Bangde and her work was being supervised by

the contractor.

The witness, Yogesh D. Bangde examined on behalf

of the party No.1 in his examination-in-chief on affidavit

has fully supported the case of the party No.1 and has

stated that his quotation dated 16.04.1999 was accepted

by the party No.1 and he was awarded work order dated

01.07.1999 for digging pits and filling them and he submitted

his bill for that work on 06.09.1999 for Rs. 5760/- and the

said amount was paid to him by party No.1 by cheque No.

431457 dated 09.07.1999 and he was given work orders

dated 17.07.1999, 24.07.1999 and 31.08.1999 of basin

cleaning and after completion of the said work he

submitted his bills and was paid by party No.1 by cheques

and he was also given work order dated 15.11.1999 and he

had engaged the workman on daily wages to carry out the

work orders for different periods, as and when required

depending upon the period of work orders and availability

of work and she had never been engaged continuously

and she had not worked for 240 days before she was

discontinued. This witness has further stated that he had

never given the names of the labourers engaged by him to

party No.1 and the workman was paid wages at the rate of

minimum wages by him and on the complaint of the

workman, the Enforcement Officer visited his establishment

and prepared the enquiry report dated 20.12.1999 and as

per the direction of the Enforcement Officer, he paid a sum

of Rs. 1920/- to the workman towards the differential wages

for the period from 18.10.1999 to 11.12.1999 and after

completion of the contract work order, he had no work, so

the workman and other labourers were discontinued and

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

177

her services were never terminated by him and her services

were discontinued, because his contract was not renewed

further.

This witness has also proved the documents relating

to the contract and work orders given to him by party No.

1 and other documents relating to the same as Exts. M-V

to M-XXIV.

In his cross-examination also, Bangde has stated

that from 1999, he worked as a contractor with party No.1

and the workman was engaged by him in NRCC for doing

the job works.

On perusal of the evidence of the witness examined

by party No.1, it is found that though he was cross-

examined at length on different aspects, there was no cross-

examination in regard to the plea taken by the workman

that there was never any contract between the party No.1

and Bangde and if there was any such contract, the same

was merely a camouflage and paper arrangement in order

to deny her just and legal right. Even no suggestion was

given to the witness in that regard.

At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman that the party No.1 is

an industry as defined in the act, as it sells the improved

verities of citrus plants to the farmers of the area and the

workman was working with party No.1 since 1996

continuously and uninterruptedly as an unskilled labourer

and the work which the workman was performing was

available throughout the year and on 03.02.2000, the

services of the workman were terminated by the party No.1

orally and the workman had completed more than 240 days

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

her termination and the workman was never engaged as a

contract labourer by the contractor, Bangde and only to

deny the workman her just and legal rights of permanency

and other benefits, the party No.1 intentionally made paper

arrangement to show her to be a contract labourer under

the contractor and it was the party No.1, who was

supervising the work of the workman and before

termination of the services of the workman, the mandatory

provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not complied

with and as such, the termination of the workman is illegal

and there was also violation of the provisions of Sections

25-G and 25-H of the Act by the party No.1, as no seniority

list was exhibited and juniors to the workman in service

were retained by the party No.1 and therefore, the workman

is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and

full back wages.

In support of the submissions, the learned advocate

for the workman placed reliance on the decisions reported

in 2014 I CLR-159 (BSNL Vs. Bhurumal ), 2014 II CLR-783

(Ita Ram Vs. P. Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal and

Another), 2013 (137) FLR-122 (State of Rajsthan Vs.

Kaluram Gurjar) and 2012(132) FLR-746 (Oil and Natural

Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Petroleum Employees’ Union).

Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate

for the party No.1 that the party No.1 serves as a National

Laboratory for applied agricultural research on citrus fruits

and the knowledge acquired as a result of the research is

not sold, but is utilized for the benefit of the Orange or

citrus fruits growers in India and aboard and it is more in

the nature of a Government or sovereign function, other

than a commercial venture and therefore, it is not an

industry as defined in the Act.

It was further submitted by the learned advocate for

the party No.1 that it is clear from the cross-examination of

the workman and the documents submitted by party No.1

and specifically, Exts. M-III and M-IV that the workman

was engaged by the contractor, Bangde, who had been

given contract to execute different works on contract basis,

after following the due procedure and the workman was

never employed by party No.1 and she did not work

continuously from 1996 or completed 240 days of work in

the preceding 12 calendar months of the alleged date of

her termination and there was no employer employee

relationship between party No.1 and the workman and as

such, application of the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G

and 25-H of the Act does not arise and the reference is

liable to be answered against the workman.

Before delving into the merit of the matter, I think it

necessary to mention here that in the letter of reference

sent by the Central Government for adjudication of the

dispute to the Tribunal, Yogesh Bangde, the contractor

had not been made a party by the Government. However,

in the statement of claim, the workman has mentioned the

name of Bangde as respondent No.2. It is well settled that

a party cannot add somebody else as a party in the

reference own his/her own, unless such person has been

named as a party in the letter of reference. The workman

also did not ask for permission of this Tribunal by making

an application to make the above named contractor as a

party. No order was passed or permission was granted by

this Tribunal to the workman to add Yogesh Bangde as a

party. As, the addition of Yogesh Bangde as a party is not

legal, he will not be bound by the award passed in this

reference.

10.

Perused the record including the evidence adduced

by the parties. The first contention raised by the learned

advocate for the party No.1 is that party no1 is not an

industry. However, after taking into consideration the

pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record

and applying the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply Vs.

Rajappa, reported in 1978 LAB IC-467, to the present case

in hand, it is found that the party No.1 is an industry and

there is no force in the contention raised by the learned

advocate for the party No.1 on that score.

11.

Perused the record including the evidence produced

by the parties. Considered the submissions made by the

178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

learned advocates for the parties. In this case, though, it

is the claim of the workman that she was employed by the

party No.1 as an unskilled worker and she worked

continuously from 1996 till the date of her termination on

03.02.2000 and she had worked for more than 240 days in

the preceding 12 months of 03.02.2000, except her own

evidence, she has not produced any document or adduced

any other evidence in support of such claim. It is found

from the materials on record that the workman was not

engaged by the party No.1, but she was engaged by the

contractor, who had been given different works on contract

basis for execution by party No.1 after following the due

process prescribed for the same. The documents, Exts.

M-I to M-IV have been admitted into evidence on behalf

of the management on admission of the same by the

workman. Ext M-II is the copy of the application filed by

the workman and three others, before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Nagpur for initiation of the

conciliation proceeding and Ext M-III is the copy of the

legal notice sent by the workman and three others to the

party No.1and so also to the contractor, Yogesh Bangde,

through their advocate, Subhash Kalbande. The workman

in her cross-examination has admitted that the contents of

Exts. M-II and M-III are true. In Exts. M-II and M-III, it has

been mentioned by the workman that she was working

with the party No.1 continuously and regularly for last

three years and getting the wages of Rs. 35/- per day

through the contractor, Yogesh Bangde. Ext. M-VII is the

copy of the report submitted by the Labour Enforcement

Officer (Central), after her inspection of the establishment

of the contractor, Yogesh Bangde on 20.12.1999. Ext.

M-VII shows that the workman was engaged as a labourer

by the contractor and the contractor was paying her lesser

wages than the minimum wages fixed by the Government

and the said contractor was directed to pay the differential

wages of Rs. 1920/- to the workman and accordingly, the

contractor paid the amount of Rs. 1920/- to the workman

in presence of the Labour Enforcement Officer. The

workman in her evidence has admitted such facts. It is

clear from the evidence on record that the workman was

never engaged by party No.1 and she was engaged by the

contractor.

At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention about

the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court

regarding contract labours, in the two decisions reported

in 1985-II L.L.J-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food

Corporation of India Vs M/s Food Corporation of India)

and 2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd.

and Others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and

Others), which are squarely applicable to the case at hand.

In the decision reported in 1985-II L.L.J-4 (supra)

the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that:-

“Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a

contractor for handling foodgrains at Siliguri Depot,

the corporation had nothing to do with the manner

of handling work done by the contractor, the labour

force employed by him, payments made by him etc.

In such a fact situation, there was no privity of

contract of employer and workmen between the

corporation and the workmen. “Workmen” has been

defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the

Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person

including an apprentice) employed in any industry

to do ……….”. ‘The expression’ employed has at

least two known connotations, but as used in the

definition, the context would indicate that it is used

in the sense of a relationship brought about by

express or implied contract of service in which the

employee renders service for which he is engaged

by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in

cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily

prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command

and obedience. The essential condition of a person

being a workman within the terms of the definition is

that he should be employed to do the work in that

industry and that there should be, in other words,

an employment of his by the employer and that there

should be a relationship between the employer and

employee or master and servant unless a person is

thus employed there can be no question of his being

a “workman” within the definition of the term as

contained in the Act.

Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of

Saurashtra (1957 – I – LLJ – 477). Now where a

contractor employs a workman to do the work which

he contracted with a third person to accomplish on

the definition as it stands, the workman of the

contractor would not without something more

become the workman of that third person. Therefore,

when the workmen employed by the contractor were

certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no

claim to that effect has been made by the union.”

In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC – 3656

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

“The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to

be constructed liberally in favour of the class for

whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to

reading in the provisions of the Act what the

legislature has not provided whether expressly or

by necessary implication, or substituting remedy or

benefits for that provided by the legislature. The

intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the

conditions of service of the contract labour and to

authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract

labour system by the appropriate Government on

consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section

(2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant

factors. But, the presence of some or all those

factors, provide no ground for absorption of contract

labour on issuing notification under Section 10(1)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

179

by the appropriate Government, is not alluded to

either in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act

and the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and

12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections

23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High

Courts or the Supreme Court to read in some

unspecified remedy in Section 10 or substitute for

penal consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25

a different sequel be it absorption of contract labour

in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser

or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of

the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the

principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of

interpretative legislation and as such clearly

impermissible.

Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under

S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of

contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute

brought before it by any contract in regard to

conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will

have to consider the question whether the contractor

has been interposed either on the ground of having

undertaken to produce any given result for the

establishment or for supply of contract labour for

work of the establishment under a genuine contract

or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of

various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the

workers of the benefit there under. If the contract is

found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the

so called contract labour will have to be treated as

employees of the principal employer who shall be

directed to regularize the services of the contract

labour in the concerned establishment. If the

contract is found to be genuine and the principal

employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall

give preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It

otherwise found suitable, and, if necessary, by

relaxing the condition as to maximum age

appropriately taking into consideration the age of

the workers at the time of their initial employment by

the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to

academic qualifications other than technical

qualifications.

Air India’s case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled

prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999,

D/ - 12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/ -

9-5-1997(Cal): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997m D/ -

17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/ -

2-8-2000 (Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/ -

23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.

It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of

contract labour by the contractor in any work of or

in connection with the work of an establishment,

the relationship of master and servant is created

between the principal employer and the contract

labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of

the terms “Contract labour”, “Establishment” and

“Workman” does not show that the legal

relationship between the person employed in any

industry and the owner of the industry is created

irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about

such relationship. The word “Workman” is defined

in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract

labour is a species. It is true that combined reading

of the terms “Establishment” and “Workman” shows

that a workman engaged in any establishment would

have direct relationship with the principal employer

as a servant of master. But what is true of a workman

could not be correct of contract labour. When the

provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation

of direct relationship of master and servant between

the principal employer and the contract labour nor

can such relationship be implied from the provisions

of the action issuing notification under Section 10(1)

of the CLRA Act. A fortiori much less can such a

relationship be found to exist from the rules and the

forms made there under.”

So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above,

the present case in hand is to be considered.

It is found from the materials on record that the

appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for

execution of different works on contract was genuine and

the same was not only on papers as claimed by the

workman. The workman has failed to prove such claim by

adducing cogent or reliable evidence. The engagement of

labor contractor by Party No. 1 was not a mere ruse or

camouflage to evade compliance of the various beneficial

legislations, so as to deprive the workman of the benefits

there under. The workman has not been able to produce

any document to show that at any point of time, Party No.

1 paid her wages as their employee. It is clear from the

evidence on record that the workman was engaged as a

contract labour with Party No. 1, by the contractor and as

such, it can be held that there was no relationship of master

and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman.

Hence, there was no question of termination of the services

by the Party No. 1 or compliance of the provisions of

Sections 25-F of the Act or violation of the provisions of

Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act.

From the materials on record and the discussions

made above, it is found that the facts and circumstances

of the case in hand are quite different from the facts and

circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions cited

by the learned advocate for the workman, with respect, I

am of the view that the said decisions have no clear

application to this case.

In view of the materials on record and the discussions

made above, the reference cannot be answered in favour

of the workman. Hence, it is ordered:-

180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and

against the workman. The workman is not entitled to any

relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 89-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj uhacw ds fy,

jk"Vªh; vuqla/ku dsUæ] ukxiqj 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 lhthvkbZVh@,uthih 39@2005) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02&01&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@229@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2015

S.O.

89.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No.

CGIT/NGP/39/2005) 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 National Research

Centre for Citrus, Nagpur and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 02/01/2015.

[No. L-42012/229/2000-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/39/2005

Date: 18.12.2014

Party No. 1 :

The Director,

National Research Centre for Citrus,

Amravati Road, Nagpur.

Versus

Party No. 2 :

Smt. Devangana W/o Dilep Gaikwad,

C/o. Ramvati Kanhayalal Ram,

Samrat Ashok Chowk, Ambedkar

Nagar, Control Wadi, Nagpur-440 010.

AWARD

(Dated: 18th December, 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 N.R.C.C. and their workman, Smt.

Devangana Gaikwad, for adjudication, as per letter No.

L-42012/229/2000-IR (DU) dated 16.05.2005, with the

following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of National

Research Centre for Citrus, Nagpur in terminating

the services of Smt. Devangana W/o. Dilip Gaikwad

w.e.f. 03.02.2000 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, Smt. Devangana,

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

the management of N.R.C.C., (“Party No. 1” in short) filed

their written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the

statement of claim is that the party No.1 is an institute

controlled by the Central Government and is engaged in

the activities of research and development of Citrus fruits

and for the purpose of research and development, party

No.1 is required to cultivate citrus plants and party No.1 is

having 250 acres of agricultural land for such cultivation

and for the purpose of carrying out cultivation, research

and development activities, party No.1 needs workforce

including skilled, semiskilled and unskilled workman and

the activities of cultivation, research and development are

carried out throughout the year by party No.1 by

employing more than 100 workers regularly and party No.1

sells the improved varieties of the Citrus plants to the

farmers of the Area and the party No.1 is an industry within

the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act.

The further case of the workman is that she was

working with the party No.1 as an unskilled workman since

the year 1996 continuously and uninterruptedly and she

had completed continuous service of more than 240 days

in the preceding calendar year prior to her illegal

termination from services by party No.1 and she is a

workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act

and the work which she was performing was continuously

available throughout the year and accordingly, she was

performing the same continuously without any break and

in order to defeat her righteous and just claim and in order

to deny her the benefits of permanency and other ancillary

benefits, the party No.1 deliberately and intentionally made

a paper arrangement showing her as the workman of the

contractor, Shri Yogesh Bangre and infact she was

employed by the partyNo.1 and her work was supervised

by the party No.1 and she was never allotted any work by

the said contractor, and the contractor was never in picture

as far as her work is concerned and in case of existing of

any contract between the party No.1 and the contractor,

then the same was merely a camouflage and paper

arrangement, in order to deny the poor workman, like her

from their just and legal rights and the party No.1 was the

Chief employer and the contractor was a dummy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

181

The workman has also pleaded that she was being

paid Rs. 910/- per month towards her wages, which was

far below than the rates of the minimum wages prescribed

for the industry and the minimum wages enforcement

officer visited the establishment of the party No. 1 on

17.12.1999, when it was noticed that the party No.1 and

the contractor were grossly violating the provisions of

the Minimum Wages Act and her statement and statement

of her co-workers were taken by the Labour Enforcement

Officer and after such inspection, the party No.1 and the

contractor were required to pay her and other co-workers

as per the provisions of Minimum Wages Act and therefore,

the party No.1 became annoyed and decided to terminate

her services and accordingly, her services were terminated

on 02.03.2000 orally and her such oral termination is illegal

and violative of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F

and 25-G of the Act and the same is totally unsustainable

and party No.1 did not exhibit any seniority list and no

notice of retrenchment was offered to her and she was

also not given any retrenchment compensation prior to

her termination and party No.1 retained the juniors, namely,

Smt. Baby Ramaji Yadav, Sakhubai Pawar, Baby Vaske,

Kokila Katamede, Nanda Ingole and Sita Ivanate, while

terminating her services and as such, her oral termination

dated 02.03.2000 is illegal and the same amounts to unfair

labour practice and the same is liable to quash and set

aside and from the date of her termination, she is not

gainfully employed and after termination of her services,

she sent a notice dated 05.03.2000 to the party No.1 and

the same was replied by the party No.1 without complying

any demand.

The workman has prayed for her reinstatement in

service with continuity and full back wages and all other

attending benefits thereof.

The party No.1 in the written statement, after

denying all the adverse allegations in the statement of

claim, has pleaded inter-alia that it serves as a National

Laboratory for applied agricultural research on Citrus Fruits

in its Orchards and farm on Amravati Road, Nagpur and

its objectives are to device ways and means to create

different varieties of new citrus fruits and the research

work is conducted by eminent scientists for resolving

problems of fundamental research, on their own and it is

under the control of its parent body, the Indian Council of

Agricultural Research, New Delhi (ICAR) and it is wholly

financed by the Central Government and it is not directly

or indirectly carrying on any trade or business and it is

engaged in developing the need based technologies on

various aspects of citriculture and for that, day to day

requirement of maintenance of plant material, different

culture practices have to be performed, which are seasonal

in nature and needs performance of unskilled, semi-skilled

and skilled types of jobs and the knowledge acquired as a

result of research growers in India and also aboard and it

is more in the nature of a governmental or sovereign

function and therefore, it is outside the purview of the

definition of “industry” under section 2 (j) of the Act.

It is further pleaded by party No.1 that most of the

works in its experimental orchards are seasonal in nature

are not available for the whole year and as such, the works

are done through casual laborers and since, no regular

posts are sanctioned by the government for carrying out

the works, contracts are given to labour contractors by

inviting quotations from different contractors, who are

registered under the contract labour Act for getting the

work done through casual labourer and the contractor

employs his own casual labour for executing the required

work and at the end of every month raises a total bill on

the basis of man days worked during the month and the

bill is paid by it by cheque, as per the terms and conditions

of the contract and the works are totally controlled and

supervised by the contractor and the contractor maintains

his register of workers.

It is also pleaded by the party No.1 that it had called

for quotations from registered contractors vide circular

dated 05.04.1999, in response to which eight contractors

submitted their quotations and after scrutiny of job wise

rates, the quotations of contractor, Shri Yogesh Bangre

dated 16.04.1999 was accepted and vide its letter dated

21.06.1999, Shri Bangre was intimated about award of the

contract to him for the period from 17.06.1999 to 16.06.2000,

i.e. for a period of one year and the necessary expenditure

was sanctioned by the competent authority vide order

dated 29.06.1999 and thereafter, as and when there was

requirement of different types of work, the contractor Shri

Bangre was asked to get the same done and Shri Bangre

had raised monthly bills giving details of the work executed

on job rate basis and after scrutiny and sanction, he was

paid the amount by cheque and the names of the casual

labourer employed by Shri Bangre to execute the works

were never submitted to it and it was never aware of the

names of the casual labourer employed between it and the

workman.

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

workman did not work with it as an unskilled labourer

since the year 1996 and alleged and it was no knowledge

that the workman was employed by the contractor and the

visit of the minimum wages Enforcement Officer was for

the purpose of checking as to whether the casual labourer

engaged by the contractor were being paid as per the

prescribed rates of minimum wages and when the same

was pointed out, the contractor complied with the

directions and that was all and the service of the workman

was never terminated by it and Shri Bangre, the contractor

had submitted in his reply before the conciliation officer,

wherein, he had stated that he was given the contract to

perform the work of grass cutting by employing casual

labourer and the said work was completed on 29.01.2000

and as no work was available thereafter, he could not

182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

provide any work to the workman and in view of the matter,

the claim of the workman is liable to be dismissed.

In support of their respective claims, both the parties

have led oral evidence, besides placing reliance on

documentary evidence. The workman has examined herself

as a witness to prove her case, whereas, Shri Yogesh D.

Bangde, the contractor has been examined as a witness

by party No.1.

In her examination-in-chief on affidavit, the workman

has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim.

However, in her cross-examination, she has admitted that

she was engaged in the nursery to clean the lands and to

prepare the soil for plantation and she had made a

complaint in writing before the ALC (C), Nagpur alongwith

three others and Ext. M-II is the copy of her application

before the ALC (C) and the contents of Ext. M-II are true.

She has further admitted that the Labour Enforcement

Officer inspect the NRCC office on 16.12.1999 and there

was a meeting between the management, labour

Enforcement Officer and the contractor, Shri Yogesh

Bangde and the contractor had submitted a written

submission and she alongwith Devangana, Alkabai and

Ramvati Ram had sent a legal notice through their

advocate, Shri Subhash Kalbande and the contents of the

legal notice sent by their advocate were true and correct.

The workman has further admitted in her cross-examination

that the Labour Enforcement Officer found that the

contractor was paying them less than the minimum wages

and directed the contractor to pay the differential wages

and accordingly, the contractor paid them the differential

wages and a sum of Rs. 1920/- was paid to her by the

contractor towards the differential wages and she has not

filed any document to show that she was engaged by

NRCC and her name was not sponsored by the Employment

Exchange for engagement in NRCC and NRCC did not

issue any appointment order. The workman has denied

the suggestions that she was engaged by the contractor,

Shri Yogesh Bangde and her work was being supervised

by the contractor.

The witness, Shri Yogesh D. Bangde examined on

behalf of the party No.1 in his examination-in-chief on

affidavit has fully supported the case of the party No.1

and has stated that his quotation dated 16.04.1999 was

accepted by the party No.1 and he was awarded work

order dated 01.07.1999 for digging pits and filling them

and he submitted his bill for that work on 06.09.1999 for Rs.

5760/- and the said amount was paid to him by party No.1

by cheque No. 431457 dated 09.07.1999 and he was given

work orders dated 17.07.1999, 24.07.1999 and 31.08.1999 of

basin cleaning and after completion of the said work he

submitted his bills and was paid by party No.1 by cheques

and he was also given work order dated 15.11.1999 and he

had engaged the workman on daily wages to carry out the

work orders for different periods, as and when required

depending upon the period of work orders and availability

of work and she had never been engaged continuously

and she had not worked for 240 days before she was

discontinued. This witness has further stated that he had

never given the names of the labourers engaged by him to

party No.1 and the workman was paid wages at the rate of

minimum wages by him and on the complaint of the

workman, the Enforcement Officer visited his establishment

and prepared the enquiry report dated 20.12.1999 and as

per the direction of the Enforcement Officer, he paid a sum

of Rs. 1920/- to the workman towards the differential wages

for the period from 18.10.1999 to 11.12.1999 and after

completion of the contract work order, he had no work, so

the workman and other labourers were discontinued and

her services were never terminated by him and her services

were discontinued, because his contract was not renewed

further.

This witness has also proved the documents relating

to the contract and work orders given to him by party

No. 1 and other documents relating to the same as Exts.

M-V to M-XXIV.

In his cross-examination also, Shri Bangde has stated

that from 1999, he worked as a contractor with party No.1

and the workman was engaged by him in NRCC for doing

the job works.

On perusal of the evidence of the witness examined

by party No.1, it is found that though he was cross-

examined at length on different aspects, there was no cross-

examination in regard to the plea taken by the workman

that there was never any contract between the party No.1

and Shri Bangde and if there was any such contract, the

same was merely a camouflage and paper arrangement in

order to deny her just and legal right. Even no suggestion

was given to the witness in that regard.

At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman that the party No.1 is

an industry as defined in the act, as it sells the improved

verities of citrus plants to the farmers of the area and the

workman was working with party No.1 since 1996

continuously and uninterruptedly as an unskilled labourer

and the work which the workman was performing was

available throughout the year and on 03.02.2000, the

services of the workman were terminated by the party No.1

orally and the workman had completed more than 240 days

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

her termination and the workman was never engaged as a

contract labourer by the contractor, Shri Bangde and only

to deny the workman her just and legal rights of

permanency and other benefits, the party No.1 intentionally

made paper arrangement to show her to be a contract

labourer under the contractor and it was the party No.1,

who was supervising the work of the workman and before

termination of the services of the workman, the mandatory

provisions of section 25-F of the Act were not complied

with and as such, the termination of the workman is illegal

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

183

and there was also violation of the provisions of Sections

25-G and 25-H of the Act by the party No.1, as no seniority

list was exhibited and juniors to the workman in service

were retained by the party No.1 and therefore, the workman

is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and

full back wages.

In support of the submissions, the learned advocate

for the workman placed reliance on the decisions reported

in 2014 I CLR-159 (BSNL Vs. Bhurumal ), 2014 II CLR-783

(Ita Ram Vs. P. Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal and

another), 2013 (137) FLR-122 (State of Rajsthan Vs. Kaluram

Gurjar) and 2012(132) FLR-746(Oil and Natural Gas

Corporation Ltd. Vs. Petroleum Employees’ Union).

Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate

for the party No.1 that the party No.1 serves as a National

Laboratory for applied agricultural research on citrus fruits

and the knowledge acquired as a result of the research is

not sold, but is utilized for the benefit of the Orange or

citrus fruits growers in India and aboard and it is more in

the nature of a Government or sovereign function, other

than a commercial venture and therefore, it is not an

industry as defined in the Act.

It was further submitted by the learned advocate for

the party No.1 that it is clear from the cross-examination of

the workman and the documents submitted by party No.1

and specifically, Exts. M-III and M-IV that the workman

was engaged by the contractor, Shri Bangde, who had

been given contract to execute different works on contract

basis, after following the due procedure and the workman

was never employed by party No.1 and she did not work

continuously from 1996 or completed 240 days of work in

the preceding 12 calendar months of the alleged date of

her termination and there was no employer employee

relationship between party No.1 and the workman and as

such, application of the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G

and 25-H of the Act does not arise and the reference is

liable to be answered against the workman.

10.

Before delving into the merit of the matter, I think it

necessary to mention here that in the letter of reference

sent by the Central Government for adjudication of the

dispute to the Tribunal, Shri Yogesh Bangde, the contractor

had not been made a party by the Government. However,

in the statement of claim, the workman has mentioned the

name of Shri Bangde as respondent No.2. It is well settled

that a party cannot add somebody else as a party in the

reference own his/her own, unless such person has been

named as a party in the letter of reference. The workman

also did not ask for permission of this Tribunal by making

an application to make the above named contractor as a

party. No order was passed or permission was granted by

this Tribunal to the workman to add Shri Yogesh Bangde

as a party. As, the addition of Shri Yogesh Bangde as a

party is not legal, he will not be bound by the award passed

in this reference.

11.

Perused the record including the evidence adduced

by the parties. The first contention raised by the learned

advocate for the party No.1 is that party No. 1 is not an

industry. However, after taking into consideration the

pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record

and applying the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply Vs.

Rajappa, reported in 1978 LAB IC-467, to the present case

in hand, it is found that the party No.1 is an industry and

there is no force in the contention raised by the learned

advocate for the party No.1 on that score.

12.

Perused the record including the evidence produced

by the parties. Considered the submissions made by the

learned advocates for the parties. In this case, though, it

is the claim of the workman that she was employed by the

party No.1 as an unskilled worker and she worked

continuously from 1996 till the date of her termination on

03.02.2000 and she had worked for more than 240 days in

the preceding 12 months of 03.02.2000, except her own

evidence, she has not produced any document or adduced

any other evidence in support of such claim. It is found

from the materials on record that the workman was not

engaged by the party No.1, but she was engaged by the

contractor, who had been given different works on contract

basis for execution by party No.1 after following the due

process prescribed for the same. The documents, Exts.

M-I to M-IV have been admitted into evidence on behalf

of the management on admission of the same by the

workman. Ext. M-II is the copy of the application filed by

the workman and three others, before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Nagpur for initiation of the

conciliation proceeding and Ext. M-III is the copy of the

legal notice sent by the workman and three others to the

party No.1and so also to the contractor, Shri Yogesh

Bangde, through their advocate, Shri Subhash Kalbande.

The workman in her cross-examination has admitted that

the contents of Exts. M-II and M-III are true. In Exts. M-II

and M-III, it has been mentioned by the workman that she

was working with the party No.1 continuously and

regularly for last three years and getting the wages of

Rs. 35/- per day through the contractor, Shri Yogesh

Bangde. Ext. M-VII is the copy of the report submitted by

the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), after her

inspection of the establishment of the contractor, Shri

Yogesh Bangde on 20.12.1999. Ext. M-VII shows that the

workman was engaged as a labourer by the contractor

and the contractor was paying her lesser wages than the

minimum wages fixed by the Government and the said

contractor was directed to pay the differential wages of

Rs. 1920/- to the workman and accordingly, the contractor

paid the amount of Rs. 1920/- to the workman in presence

of the Labour Enforcement Officer. The workman in her

evidence has admitted such facts. It is clear from the

evidence on record that the workman was never engaged

by party No.1 and she was engaged by the contractor.

184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention about

the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court

regarding contract labours, in the two decisions reported

in 1985-II L.L.J-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food

Corporation of India Vs. M/s. Food Corporation of India)

and 2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd.

and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and

others), which are squarely applicable to the case at hand.

In the decision reported in 1985-II L.L.J-4 (Supra)

the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that:-

“Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a

contractor for handling foodgrains at Siliguri Depot,

the corporation had nothing to do with the manner

of handling work done by the contractor, the labour

force employed by him, payments made by him etc.

In such a fact situation, there was no privity of

contract of employer and workmen between the

corporation and the workmen. “Workmen” has been

defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the

Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person

including an apprentice) employed in any industry

to do ……….”. ‘The expression’ employed has at

least two known connotations, but as used in the

definition, the context would indicate that it is used

in the sense of a relationship brought about by

express or implied contract of service in which the

employee renders service for which he is engaged

by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in

cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily

prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command

and obedience. The essential condition of a person

being a workman within the terms of the definition is

that he should be employed to do the work in that

industry and that there should be, in other words,

an employment of his by the employer and that there

should be a relationship between the employer and

employee or master and servant unless a person is

thus employed there can be no question of his being

a “workman” within the definition of the term as

contained in the Act.

Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of

Saurashtra (1957 – I – LLJ – 477). Now where a

contractor employs a workman to do the work which

he contracted with a third person to accomplish on

the definition as it stands, the workman of the

contractor would not without something more

become the workman of that third person. Therefore,

when the workmen employed by the contractor were

certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no

claim to that effect has been made by the union.”

In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC – 3656

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

“The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to

be constructed liberally in favour of the class for

whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to

reading in the provisions of the Act what the

legislature has not provided whether expressly or

by necessary implication, or substituting remedy or

benefits for that provided by the legislature. The

intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the

conditions of service of the contract labour and to

authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract

labour system by the appropriate Government on

consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section

(2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant

factors. But, the presence of some or all those

factors, provide no ground for absorption of contract

labour on issuing notification under Section 10(1)

by the appropriate Government, is not alluded to

either in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act

and the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and

12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections

23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High

Courts or the Supreme Court to read in some

unspecified remedy in Section 10 or substitute for

penal consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25

a different sequel be it absorption of contract labour

in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser

or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of

the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the

principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of

interpretative legislation and as such clearly

impermissible.

Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under

S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of

contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute

brought before it by any contract in regard to

conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will

have to consider the question whether the contractor

has been interposed either on the ground of having

undertaken to produce any given result for the

establishment or for supply of contract labour for

work of the establishment under a genuine contract

or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of

various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the

workers of the benefit there under. If the contract is

found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the

so called contract labour will have to be treated as

employees of the principal employer who shall be

directed to regularize the services of the contract

labour in the concerned establishment. If the

contract is found to be genuine and the principal

employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall

give preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It

otherwise found suitable, and, if necessary, by

relaxing the condition as to maximum age

appropriately taking into consideration the age of

the workers at the time of their initial employment by

the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

185

academic qualifications other than technical

qualifications.

Air India’s case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled

prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999,

D/ - 12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/ -

9-5-1997(Cal): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997m D/ -

17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/ -

2-8-2000 (Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/ -

23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.

It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of

contract labour by the contractor in any work of or

in connection with the work of an establishment,

the relationship of master and servant is created

between the principal employer and the contract

labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of

the terms “Contract labour”, “Establishment” and

“Workman” does not show that the legal

relationship between the person employed in any

industry and the owner of the industry is created

irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about

such relationship. The word “Workman” is defined

in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract

labour is a species. It is true that combined reading

of the terms “Establishment” and “Workman” shows

that a workman engaged in any establishment would

have direct relationship with the principal employer

as a servant of master. But what is true of a workman

could not be correct of contract labour. When the

provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation

of direct relationship of master and servant between

the principal employer and the contract labour nor

can such relationship be implied from the provisions

of the action issuing notification under Section 10(1)

of the CLRA Act. A fortiori much less can such a

relationship be found to exist from the rules and the

forms made there under.”

So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above,

the present case in hand is to be considered.

It is found from the materials on record that the

appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for

execution of different works on contract was genuine and

the same was not only on papers as claimed by the

workman. The workman has failed to prove such claim by

adducing cogent or reliable evidence. The engagement of

labor contractor by Party No. 1 was not a mere ruse or

camouflage to evade compliance of the various beneficial

legislations, so as to deprive the workman of the benefits

there under. The workman has not been able to produce

any document to show that at any point of time, Party

No. 1 paid her wages as their employee. It is clear from the

evidence on record that the workman was engaged as a

contract labour with Party No. 1, by the contractor and as

such, it can be held that there was no relationship of master

and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman.

Hence, there was no question of termination of the services

by the Party No. 1 or compliance of the provisions of

Sections 25-F of the Act or violation of the provisions of

sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act.

From the materials on record and the discussions

made above, it is found that the facts and circumstances

of the case in hand are quite different from the facts and

circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions cited

by the learned advocate for the workman, with respect, I

am of the view that the said decisions have no clear

application to this case.

In view of the materials on record and the discussions

made above, the reference cannot be answered in favour

of the workman. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and

against the workman. The workman is not entitled to any

relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 90-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj uhacw ds fy,

jk"Vªh; vuqla/ku dsUæ] ukxiqj 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 lhthvkbZVh@,uthih 40@2005) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02&01&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@228@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2015

S.O. 90.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No.

CGIT/NGP/40/2005) 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 National Research

Centre for Citrus, Nagpur and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 02/01/2015.

[No. L-42012/228/2000-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/40/2005

Date: 18.12.2014

186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Party No.1

The Director,

National Research Centre for Citrus,

Amravati Road, Nagpur.

Versus

Party No.2

Smt. Devkibai W/o Ramdas Talmale

C/o. Ramvati Kanhayalal Ram,

Samart Ashok Chowk, Ambedkar

Nagar, Control Wadi, Nagpur-440 010.

AWARD

(Dated: 18th December, 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 N.R.C.C. and their workman, Smt. Devkibai

Talmale, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-42012/228/

2000-IR (DU) dated 18.05.2005, with the following

schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of National

Research Centre for Citrus, Nagpur in terminating

the services of Smt. Devkibai W/o. Ramdas Talmale

w.e.f. 03.02.2000 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, Smt. Devkibai,

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

the management of N.R.C.C., (“Party No. 1” in short) filed

their written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the

statement of claim is that the party No.1 is an institute

controlled by the Central Government and is engaged in

the activities of research and development of Citrus fruits

and for the purpose of research and development, party

No.1 is required to cultivate citrus plants and party No.1 is

having 250 acres of agricultural land for such cultivation

and for the purpose of carrying out cultivation, research

and development activities, party No.1 needs workforce

including skilled, semiskilled and unskilled workman and

the activities of cultivation, research and development are

carried out throughout the year by party No.1 by

employing more than 100 workers regularly and party No.1

sells the improved varieties of the Citrus plants to the

farmers of the Area and the party No.1 is an industry within

the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act.

The further case of the workman is that she was

working with the party No.1 as an unskilled workman since

the year 1996 continuously and uninterruptedly and she

had completed continuous service of more than 240 days

in the preceding calendar year prior to her illegal

termination from services by party No.1 and she is a

workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act

and the work which she was performing was continuously

available throughout the year and accordingly, she was

performing the same continuously without any break and

in order to defeat her righteous and just claim and in order

to deny her the benefits of permanency and other ancillary

benefits, the party No.1 deliberately and intentionally made

a paper arrangement showing her as the workman of the

contractor, Shri Yogesh Bangre and infact she was

employed by the party No.1 and her work was supervised

by the party No.1 and she was never allotted any work by

the said contractor, and the contractor was never in picture

as far as her work is concerned and in case of existing of

any contract between the party No.1 and the contractor,

then the same was merely a camouflage and paper

arrangement, in order to deny the poor workman, like her

from their just and legal rights and the party No.1 was the

Chief employer and the contractor was a dummy.

The workman has also pleaded that she was being

paid Rs. 910/- per month towards her wages, which was

far below than the rates of the minimum wages prescribed

for the industry and the minimum wages enforcement

officer visited the establishment of the party No. 1 on

17.12.1999, when it was noticed that the party No.1 and

the contractor were grossly violating the provisions of

the Minimum Wages Act and her statement and statement

of her co-workers were taken by the Labour Enforcement

Officer and after such inspection, the party No.1 and the

contractor were required to pay her and other co-workers

as per the provisions of Minimum Wages Act and therefore,

the party No.1 became annoyed and decided to terminate

her services and accordingly, her services were terminated

on 02.03.2000 orally and her such oral termination is illegal

and violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F

and 25-G of the Act and the same is totally unsustainable

and party No.1 did not exhibit any seniority list and no

notice of retrenchment was offered to her and she was

also not given any retrenchment compensation prior to

her termination and party No.1 retained the juniors, namely,

Smt. Baby Ramaji Yadav, Sakhubai Pawar, Baby Vaske,

Kokila Katamede, Nanda Ingole and Sita Ivanate, while

terminating her services and as such, her oral termination

dated 02.03.2000 is illegal and the same amounts to unfair

labour practice and the same is liable to quash and set

aside and from the date of her termination, she is not

gainfully employed and after termination of her services,

she sent a notice dated 05.03.2000 to the party No.1 and

the same was replied by the party No.1 without complying

any demand.

The workman has prayed for her reinstatement in

service with continuity and full back wages and all other

attending benefits thereof.

The party No.1 in the written statement, after

denying all the adverse allegations in the statement of

claim, has pleaded inter-alia that it serves as a National

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

187

Laboratory for applied agricultural research on Citrus Fruits

in its Orchards and farm on Amravati Road, Nagpur and

its objectives are to device ways and means to create

different varieties of new citrus fruits and the research

work is conducted by eminent scientists for resolving

problems of fundamental research, on their own and it is

under the control of its parent body, the Indian Council of

Agricultural Research, New Delhi (ICAR) and it is wholly

financed by the Central Government and it is not directly

or indirectly carrying on any trade or business and it is

engaged in developing the need based technologies on

various aspects of citriculture and for that, day to day

requirement of maintenance of plant material, different

culture practices have to be performed, which are seasonal

in nature and needs performance of unskilled, semi-skilled

and skilled types of jobs and the knowledge acquired as a

result of research growers in India and also aboard and it

is more in the nature of a governmental or sovereign

function and therefore, it is outside the purview of the

definition of “industry” under section 2 (j) of the Act.

It is further pleaded by party No.1 that most of the

works in its experimental orchards are seasonal in nature

are not available for the whole year and as such, the works

are done through casual laborers and since, no regular

posts are sanctioned by the government for carrying out

the works, contracts are given to labour contractors by

inviting quotations from different contractors, who are

registered under the contract labour Act for getting the

work done through casual labourer and the contractor

employs his own casual labour for executing the required

work and at the end of every month raises a total bill on

the basis of man days worked during the month and the

bill is paid by it by cheque, as per the terms and conditions

of the contract and the works are totally controlled and

supervised by the contractor and the contractor maintains

his register of workers.

It is also pleaded by the party No.1 that it had called

for quotations from registered contractors vide circular

dated 05.04.1999, in response to which eight contractors

submitted their quotations and after scrutiny of job wise

rates, the quotations of contractor, Shri Yogesh Bangre

dated 16.04.1999 was accepted and vide its letter dated

21.06.1999, Shri Bangre was intimated about award of the

contract to him for the period from 17.06.1999 to 16.06.2000,

i.e. for a period of one year and the necessary expenditure

was sanctioned by the competent authority vide order

dated 29.06.1999 and thereafter, as and when there was

requirement of different types of work, the contractor Shri

Bangre was asked to get the same done and Shri Bangre

had raised monthly bills giving details of the work executed

on job rate basis and after scrutiny and sanction, he was

paid the amount by cheque and the names of the casual

labourer employed by Shri Bangre to execute the works

were never submitted to it and it was never aware of the

names of the casual labourer employed between it and the

workman.

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

workman did not work with it as an unskilled labourer

since the year 1996 and alleged and it was no knowledge

that the workman was employed by the contractor and the

visit of the minimum wages Enforcement officer was for

the purpose of checking as to whether the casual labourer

engaged by the contractor were being paid as per the

prescribed rates of minimum wages and when the same

was pointed out, the contractor complied with the

directions and that was all and the service of the workman

was never terminated by it and Shri Bangre, the contractor

had submitted in his reply before the conciliation officer,

wherein, he had stated that he was given the contract to

perform the work of grass cutting by employing casual

labourer and the said work was completed on 29.01.2000

and as no work was available thereafter, he could not

provide any work to the workman and in view of the matter,

the claim of the workman is liable to be dismissed.

In support of their respective claims, both the parties

have led oral evidence, besides placing reliance on

documentary evidence. The workman has examined herself

as a witness to prove her case, whereas, Shri Yogesh D.

Bangre, the contractor has been examined as a witness by

party No.1.

In her examination-in-chief on affidavit, the workman

has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim.

However, in her cross-examination, she has admitted that

she was engaged in the nursery to clean the lands and to

prepare the soil for plantation and she had made a

complaint in writing before the ALC (C), Nagpur alongwith

three others and Ext. M-II is the copy of her application

before the ALC (C) and the contents of Ext. M-II are true.

She has further admitted that the Labour Enforcement

Officer inspect the NRCC office on 16.12.1999 and there

was a meeting between the management, labour

Enforcement Officer and the contractor, Shri Yogesh

Bangde and the contractor had submitted a written

submission and she alongwith Devangana, Alkabai and

Ramvati Ram had sent a legal notice through their

advocate, Shri Subhash Kalbande and the contents of the

legal notice sent by their advocate were true and correct.

The workman has further admitted in her cross-examination

that the Labour Enforcement Officer found that the

contractor was paying them less than the minimum wages

and directed the contractor to pay the differential wages

and accordingly, the contractor paid them the differential

wages and a sum of Rs. 1920/- was paid to her by the

contractor towards the differential wages and she has not

filed any document to show that she was engaged by

NRCC and her name was not sponsored by the Employment

Exchange for engagement in NRCC and NRCC did not

issue any appointment order. The workman has denied

the suggestions that she was engaged by the contractor,

Shri Yogesh Bangde and her work was being supervised

by the contractor.

188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The witness, Shri Yogesh D. Bangde examined on

behalf of the party No.1 in his examination-in-chief on

affidavit has fully supported the case of the party No.1

and has stated that his quotation dated 16.04.1999 was

accepted by the party No.1 and he was awarded work

order dated 01.07.1999 for digging pits and filling them

and he submitted his bill for that work on 06.09.1999 for

Rs. 5760/- and the said amount was paid to him by party

No.1 by cheque No. 431457 dated 09.07.1999 and he was

given work orders dated 17.07.1999, 24.07.1999 and

31.08.1999 of basin cleaning and after completion of the

said work he submitted his bills and was paid by party

No.1 by cheques and he was also given work order dated

15.11.1999 and he had engaged the workman on daily wages

to carry out the work orders for different periods, as and

when required depending upon the period of work orders

and availability of work and she had never been engaged

continuously and she had not worked for 240 days before

she was discontinued. This witness has further stated

that he had never given the names of the labourers engaged

by him to party No.1 and the workman was paid wages at

the rate of minimum wages by him and on the complaint of

the workman, the Enforcement Officer visited his

establishment and prepared the enquiry report dated

20.12.1999 and as per the direction of the Enforcement

Officer, he paid a sum of Rs. 1920/- to the workman towards

the differential wages for the period from 18.10.1999 to

11.12.1999 and after completion of the contract work order,

he had no work, so the workman and other labourers were

discontinued and her services were never terminated by

him and her services were discontinued, because his

contract was not renewed further.

This witness has also proved the documents relating

to the contract and work orders given to him by party No.

1 and other documents relating to the same as Exts. M-V

to M-XXIV.

In his cross-examination also, Shri Bangde has stated

that from 1999, he worked as a contractor with party No.1

and the workman was engaged by him in NRCC for doing

the job works.

On perusal of the evidence of the witness examined

by party No.1, it is found that though he was cross-

examined at length on different aspects, there was no cross-

examination in regard to the plea taken by the workman

that there was never any contract between the party No.1

and Shri Bangde and if there was any such contract, the

same was merely a camouflage and paper arrangement in

order to deny her just and legal right. Even no suggestion

was given to the witness in that regard.

At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman that the party No.1 is

an industry as defined in the act, as it sells the improved

verities of citrus plants to the farmers of the area and the

workman was working with party No.1 since 1996

continuously and uninterruptedly as an unskilled labourer

and the work which the workman was performing was

available throughout the year and on 03.02.2000, the

services of the workman were terminated by the party No.1

orally and the workman had completed more than 240 days

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

her termination and the workman was never engaged as a

contract labourer by the contractor, Shri Bangde and only

to deny the workman her just and legal rights of

permanency and other benefits, the party No.1 intentionally

made paper arrangement to show her to be a contract

labourer under the contractor and it was the party No.1,

who was supervising the work of the workman and before

termination of the services of the workman, the mandatory

provisions of section 25-F of the Act were not complied

with and as such, the termination of the workman is illegal

and there was also violation of the provisions of sections

25-G and 25-H of the Act by the party No.1, as no seniority

list was exhibited and juniors to the workman in service

were retained by the party No.1 and therefore, the workman

is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and

full back wages.

In support of the submissions, the learned advocate

for the workman placed reliance on the decisions reported

in 2014 I CLR-159 (BSNL Vs. Bhurumal ), 2014 II CLR-783

(Ita Ram Vs. P. Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal and

another), 2013(137) FLR-122(State of Rajsthan Vs. Kaluram

Gurjar) and 2012(132) FLR-746(Oil and Natural Gas

Corporation Ltd. Vs. Petroleum Employees’ Union).

Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate

for the party No.1 that the party No.1 serves as a National

Laboratory for applied agricultural research on citrus fruits

and the knowledge acquired as a result of the research is

not sold, but is utilized for the benefit of the Orange or

citrus fruits growers in India and aboard and it is more in

the nature of a Government or sovereign function, other

than a commercial venture and therefore, it is not an

industry as defined in the Act.

It was further submitted by the learned advocate for

the party No.1 that it is clear from the cross-examination of

the workman and the documents submitted by party No.1

and specifically, Exts. M-III and M-IV that the workman

was engaged by the contractor, Shri Bangde, who had

been given contract to execute different works on contract

basis, after following the due procedure and the workman

was never employed by party No.1 and she did not work

continuously from 1996 or completed 240 days of work in

the preceding 12 calendar months of the alleged date of

her termination and there was no employer employee

relationship between party No.1 and the workman and as

such, application of the provisions of sections 25-F, 25-G

and 25-H of the Act does not arise and the reference is

liable to be answered against the workman.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

189

10.

Before delving into the merit of the matter, I think it

necessary to mention here that in the letter of reference

sent by the Central Government for adjudication of the

dispute to the Tribunal, Shri yogesh Bangde, the contractor

had not been made a party by the Government. However,

in the statement of claim, the workman has mentioned the

name of Shri Bangde as respondent No.2. It is well settled

that a party cannot add somebody else as a party in the

reference own his/her own, unless such person has been

named as a party in the letter of reference. The workman

also did not ask for permission of this Tribunal by making

an application to make the above named contractor as a

party. No order was passed or permission was granted by

this Tribunal to the workman to add Shri Yogesh Bangde

as a party. As, the addition of Shri Yogesh Bangde as a

party is not legal, he will not be bound by the award passed

in this reference.

11.

Perused the record including the evidence adduced

by the parties. The first contention raised by the learned

advocate for the party No.1 is that party no1 is not an

industry. However, after taking into consideration the

pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record

and applying the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply Vs.

Rajappa, reported in 1978 LAB IC-467, to the present case

in hand, it is found that the party No.1 is an industry and

there is no force in the contention raised by the learned

advocate for the party No.1 on that score.

12.

Perused the record including the evidence produced

by the parties. Considered the submissions made by the

learned advocates for the parties. In this case, though, it

is the claim of the workman that she was employed by the

party No.1 as an unskilled worker and she worked

continuously from 1996 till the date of her termination on

03.02.2000 and she had worked for more than 240 days in

the preceding 12 months of 03.02.2000, except her own

evidence, she has not produced any document or adduced

any other evidence in support of such claim. It is found

from the materials on record that the workman was not

engaged by the party No.1, but she was engaged by the

contractor, who had been given different works on contract

basis for execution by party No.1 after following the due

process prescribed for the same. The documents, Exts. M-

I to M-IV have been admitted into evidence on behalf of

the management on admission of the same by the workman.

Ext M-II is the copy of the application filed by the workman

and three others, before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Nagpur for initiation of the

conciliation proceeding and Ext M-III is the copy of the

legal notice sent by the workman and three others to the

party No.1and so also to the contractor, Shri Yogesh

Bangde, through their advocate, Shri Subhash Kalbande.

The workman in her cross-examination has admitted that

the contents of Exts. M-II and M-III are true. In Exts. M-II

and M-III, it has been mentioned by the workman that she

was working with the party No.1 continuously and

regularly for last three years and getting the wages of

Rs. 35/- per day through the contractor, Shri Yogesh

Bangde. Ext. M-VII is the copy of the report submitted by

the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), after her

inspection of the establishment of the contractor, Shri

Yogesh Bangde on 20.12.1999. Ext. M-VII shows that the

workman was engaged as a labourer by the contractor

and the contractor was paying her lesser wages than the

minimum wages fixed by the Government and the said

contractor was directed to pay the differential wages of

Rs. 1920/- to the workman and accordingly, the contractor

paid the amount of Rs. 1920/- to the workman in presence

of the Labour Enforcement Officer. The workman in her

evidence has admitted such facts. It is clear from the

evidence on record that the workman was never engaged

by party No.1 and she was engaged by the contractor.

At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention about

the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court

regarding contract labours, in the two decisions reported

in 1985-II L.L.J-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food

Corporation of India Vs M/s Food Corporation of India)

and 2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd.

and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and

others), which are squarely applicable to the case at hand.

In the decision reported in 1985-II L.L.J-4 (Supra)

the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that:-

“Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a

contractor for handling foodgrains at Siliguri Depot,

the corporation had nothing to do with the manner

of handling work done by the contractor, the labour

force employed by him, payments made by him etc.

In such a fact situation, there was no privity of

contract of employer and workmen between the

corporation and the workmen. “Workmen” has been

defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the

Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person

including an apprentice) employed in any industry

to do ……….”. ‘The expression’ employed has at

least two known connotations, but as used in the

definition, the context would indicate that it is used

in the sense of a relationship brought about by

express or implied contract of service in which the

employee renders service for which he is engaged

by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in

cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily

prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command

and obedience. The essential condition of a person

being a workman within the terms of the definition is

that he should be employed to do the work in that

industry and that there should be, in other words,

an employment of his by the employer and that there

should be a relationship between the employer and

employee or master and servant unless a person is

thus employed there can be no question of his being

190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

a “workman” within the definition of the term as

contained in the Act.

Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of

Saurashtra (1957 – I – LLJ – 477). Now where a

contractor employs a workman to do the work which

he contracted with a third person to accomplish on

the definition as it stands, the workman of the

contractor would not without something more

become the workman of that third person. Therefore,

when the workmen employed by the contractor were

certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no

claim to that effect has been made by the union.”

In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC – 3656

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

“The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to

be constructed liberally in favour of the class for

whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to

reading in the provisions of the Act what the

legislature has not provided whether expressly or

by necessary implication, or substituting remedy or

benefits for that provided by the legislature. The

intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the

conditions of service of the contract labour and to

authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract

labour system by the appropriate Government on

consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section

(2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant

factors. But, the presence of some or all those

factors, provide no ground for absorption of contract

labour on issuing notification under Section 10(1)

by the appropriate Government, is not alluded to

either in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act

and the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and

12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections

23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High

Courts or the Supreme Court to read in some

unspecified remedy in Section 10 or substitute for

penal consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25

a different sequel be it absorption of contract labour

in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser

or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of

the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the

principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of

interpretative legislation and as such clearly

impermissible.

Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under

S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of

contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute

brought before it by any contract in regard to

conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will

have to consider the question whether the contractor

has been interposed either on the ground of having

undertaken to produce any given result for the

establishment or for supply of contract labour for

work of the establishment under a genuine contract

or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of

various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the

workers of the benefit there under. If the contract is

found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the

so called contract labour will have to be treated as

employees of the principal employer who shall be

directed to regularize the services of the contract

labour in the concerned establishment. If the

contract is found to be genuine and the principal

employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall

give preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It

otherwise found suitable, and, if necessary, by

relaxing the condition as to maximum age

appropriately taking into consideration the age of

the workers at the time of their initial employment by

the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to

academic qualifications other than technical

qualifications.

Air India’s case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled

prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999,

D/ - 12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/ -

9-5-1997(Cal): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997m D/ -

17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/ -

2-8-2000 (Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/ -

23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.

It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of

contract labour by the contractor in any work of or

in connection with the work of an establishment,

the relationship of master and servant is created

between the principal employer and the contract

labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of

the terms “Contract labour”, “Establishment” and

“Workman” does not show that the legal

relationship between the person employed in any

industry and the owner of the industry is created

irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about

such relationship. The word “Workman” is defined

in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract

labour is a species. It is true that combined reading

of the terms “Establishment” and “Workman” shows

that a workman engaged in any establishment would

have direct relationship with the principal employer

as a servant of master. But what is true of a workman

could not be correct of contract labour. When the

provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation

of direct relationship of master and servant between

the principal employer and the contract labour nor

can such relationship be implied from the provisions

of the action issuing notification under Section 10(1)

of the CLRA Act. A fortiori much less can such a

relationship be found to exist from the rules and the

forms made there under.”

So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above,

the present case in hand is to be considered.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

191

It is found from the materials on record that the

appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for

execution of different works on contract was genuine and

the same was not only on papers as claimed by the

workman. The workman has failed to prove such claim by

adducing cogent or reliable evidence. The engagement of

labor contractor by Party No. 1 was not a mere ruse or

camouflage to evade compliance of the various beneficial

legislations, so as to deprive the workman of the benefits

there under. The workman has not been able to produce

any document to show that at any point of time, Party No.

1 paid her wages as their employee. It is clear from the

evidence on record that the workman was engaged as a

contract labour with Party No. 1, by the contractor and as

such, it can be held that there was no relationship of master

and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman.

Hence, there was no question of termination of the services

by the Party No. 1 or compliance of the provisions of

Sections 25-F of the Act or violation of the provisions of

sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act.

From the materials on record and the discussions

made above, it is found that the facts and circumstances

of the case in hand are quite different from the facts and

circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions cited

by the learned advocate for the workman, with respect, I

am of the view that the said decisions have no clear

application to this case.

In view of the materials on record and the discussions

made above, the reference cannot be answered in favour

of the workman. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and

against the workman. The workman is not entitled to any

relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 91-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj uhacw ds fy,

jk"Vªh; vuqla/ku dsUæ] ukxiqj 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 lhthvkbZVh@,uthih 42@2005) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02&01&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@226@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2015

S.O. 91.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No.

CGIT/NGP/42/2005) 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 National Research

Centre for Citrus, Nagpur and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 02/01/2015.

[No. L-42012/226/2000-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/42/2005

Date: 18.12.2014

Party No. 1 :

The Director,

National Research Centre for Citrus,

Amravati Road, Nagpur.

Versus

Party No. 2 :

Smt. Ramvati W/o Kanhayyalal Ram

C/o. Ramvati Kanhayalal Ram,

Samart Ashok Chowk, Ambedkar

Nagar, Control Wadi, Nagpur-440 010.

AWARD

(Dated: 18th December, 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 N.R.C.C. and their workman, Smt. Ramvati,

for adjudication, as per letter No.L-42012/226/2000-IR (DU)

dated 16.05.2005, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of National

Research Centre for Citrus, Nagpur in terminating the

services of Smt. Ramvati W/o. Kanhayyalal Ram w.e.f.

03.02.2000 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, Smt. Ramvati,

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

the management of N.R.C.C., (“Party No. 1” in short) filed

their written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the

statement of claim is that the party No.1 is an institute

controlled by the Central Government and is engaged in

the activities of research and development of Citrus fruits

and for the purpose of research and development, party

No.1 is required to cultivate citrus plants and party No.1 is

having 250 acres of agricultural land for such cultivation

and for the purpose of carrying out cultivation, research

and development activities, party No.1 needs workforce

192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

including skilled, semiskilled and unskilled workman and

the activities of cultivation, research and development are

carried out throughout the year by party No.1 by

employing more than 100 workers regularly and party No.1

sells the improved varieties of the Citrus plants to the

farmers of the Area and the party No.1 is an industry within

the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act.

The further case of the workman is that she was

working with the party No.1 as an unskilled workman since

the year 1996 continuously and uninterruptedly and she

had completed continuous service of more than 240 days

in the preceding calendar year prior to her illegal

termination from services by party No.1 and she is a

workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act and

the work which she was performing was continuously

available throughout the year and accordingly, she was

performing the same continuously without any break and

in order to defeat her righteous and just claim and in order

to deny her the benefits of permanency and other ancillary

benefits, the party No.1 deliberately and intentionally made

a paper arrangement showing her as the workman of the

contractor, Shri Yogesh Bangre and infact she was

employed by the party No.1 and her work was supervised

by the party No.1 and she was never allotted any work by

the said contractor, and the contractor was never in picture

as far as her work is concerned and in case of existing of

any contract between the party No.1 and the contractor,

then the same was merely a camouflage and paper

arrangement, in order to deny the poor workman, like her

from their just and legal rights and the party No.1 was the

Chief employer and the contractor was a dummy.

The workman has also pleaded that she was being

paid Rs. 910/- per month towards her wages, which was

far below than the rates of the minimum wages prescribed

for the industry and the minimum wages enforcement

officer visited the establishment of the party No. 1 on

17.12.1999, when it was noticed that the party No.1 and

the contractor were grossly violating the provisions of

the Minimum Wages Act and her statement and statement

of her co-workers were taken by the Labour Enforcement

Officer and after such inspection, the party No.1 and the

contractor were required to pay her and other co-workers

as per the provisions of Minimum Wages Act and therefore,

the party No.1 became annoyed and decided to terminate

her services and accordingly, her services were terminated

on 02.03.2000 orally and her such oral termination is illegal

and violative of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F

and 25-G of the Act and the same is totally unsustainable

and party No.1 did not exhibit any seniority list and no

notice of retrenchment was offered to her and she was

also not given any retrenchment compensation prior to

her termination and party No.1 retained the juniors, namely,

Smt. Baby Ramaji Yadav, Sakhubai Pawar, Baby Vaske,

Kokila Katamede, Nanda Ingole and Sita Ivanate, while

terminating her services and as such, her oral termination

dated 02.03.2000 is illegal and the same amounts to unfair

labour practice and the same is liable to quash and set

aside and from the date of her termination, she is not

gainfully employed and after termination of her services,

she sent a notice dated 05.03.2000 to the party No.1 and

the same was replied by the party No.1 without complying

any demand.

The workman has prayed for her reinstatement in

service with continuity and full back wages and all other

attending benefits thereof.

The party No.1 in the written statement, after

denying all the adverse allegations in the statement of

claim, has pleaded inter-alia that it serves as a National

Laboratory for applied agricultural research on Citrus Fruits

in its Orchards and farm on Amravati Road, Nagpur and

its objectives are to device ways and means to create

different varieties of new citrus fruits and the research

work is conducted by eminent scientists for resolving

problems of fundamental research, on their own and it is

under the control of its parent body, the Indian Council of

Agricultural Research, New Delhi (ICAR) and it is wholly

financed by the Central Government and it is not directly

or indirectly carrying on any trade or business and it is

engaged in developing the need based technologies on

various aspects of citriculture and for that, day to day

requirement of maintenance of plant material, different

culture practices have to be performed, which are seasonal

in nature and needs performance of unskilled, semi-skilled

and skilled types of jobs and the knowledge acquired as a

result of research growers in India and also aboard and it

is more in the nature of a governmental or sovereign

function and therefore, it is outside the purview of the

definition of “industry” under section 2 (j) of the Act.

It is further pleaded by party No.1 that most of the

works in its experimental orchards are seasonal in nature

are not available for the whole year and as such, the works

are done through casual laborers and since, no regular

posts are sanctioned by the government for carrying out

the works, contracts are given to labour contractors by

inviting quotations from different contractors, who are

registered under the contract labour Act for getting the

work done through casual labourer and the contractor

employs his own casual labour for executing the required

work and at the end of every month raises a total bill on

the basis of man days worked during the month and the

bill is paid by it by cheque, as per the terms and conditions

of the contract and the works are totally controlled and

supervised by the contractor and the contractor maintains

his register of workers.

It is also pleaded by the party No.1 that it had called

for quotations from registered contractors vide circular

dated 05.04.1999, in response to which eight contractors

submitted their quotations and after scrutiny of job wise

rates, the quotations of contractor, Shri Yogesh Bangre

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

193

dated 16.04.1999 was accepted and vide its letter dated

21.06.1999, Shri Bangre was intimated about award of the

contract to him for the period from 17.06.1999 to 16.06.2000,

i.e. for a period of one year and the necessary expenditure

was sanctioned by the competent authority vide order

dated 29.06.1999 and thereafter, as and when there was

requirement of different types of work, the contractor

Shri Bangre was asked to get the same done and Shri

Bangre had raised monthly bills giving details of the work

executed on job rate basis and after scrutiny and sanction,

he was paid the amount by cheque and the names of the

casual labourer employed by shri Bangre to execute the

works were never submitted to it and it was never aware of

the names of the casual labourer employed between it and

the workman.

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

workman did not work with it as an unskilled labourer

since the year 1996 and alleged and it was no knowledge

that the workman was employed by the contractor and the

visit of the minimum wages Enforcement officer was for

the purpose of checking as to whether the casual labourer

engaged by the contractor were being paid as per the

prescribed rates of minimum wages and when the same

was pointed out, the contractor complied with the

directions and that was all and the service of the workman

was never terminated by it and Shri Bangre, the contractor

had submitted in his reply before the conciliation officer,

wherein, he had stated that he was given the contract to

perform the work of grass cutting by employing casual

labourer and the said work was completed on 29.01.2000

and as no work was available thereafter, he could not

provide any work to the workman and in view of the matter,

the claim of the workman is liable to be dismissed.

In support of their respective claims, both the parties

have led oral evidence, besides placing reliance on

documentary evidence. The workman has examined herself

as a witness to prove her case, whereas, Shri Yogesh D.

Bangre, the contractor has been examined as a witness by

party No.1.

In her examination-in-chief on affidavit, the workman

has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim.

However, in her cross-examination, she has admitted that

she was engaged in the nursery to clean the lands and to

prepare the soil for plantation and she had made a

complaint in writing before the ALC (C), Nagpur alongwith

three others and Ext. M-II is the copy of her application

before the ALC (C) and the contents of Ext. M-II are true.

She has further admitted that the Labour Enforcement

Officer inspect the NRCC office on 16.12.1999 and there

was a meeting between the management, labour

Enforcement Officer and the contractor, Shri Yogesh

Bangde and the contractor had submitted a written

submission and she alongwith Devangana, Alkabai and

Ramvati Ram had sent a legal notice through their

advocate, Shri Subhash Kalbande and the contents of the

legal notice sent by their advocate were true and correct.

The workman has further admitted in her cross-examination

that the Labour Enforcement Officer found that the

contractor was paying them less than the minimum wages

and directed the contractor to pay the differential wages

and accordingly, the contractor paid them the differential

wages and a sum of Rs. 1920/- was paid to her by the

contractor towards the differential wages and she has not

filed any document to show that she was engaged by

NRCC and her name was not sponsored by the Employment

Exchange for engagement in NRCC and NRCC did not

issue any appointment order. The workman has denied

the suggestions that she was engaged by the contractor,

Shri Yogesh Bangde and her work was being supervised

by the contractor.

The witness, Shri Yogesh D. Bangde examined on

behalf of the party No.1 in his examination-in-chief on

affidavit has fully supported the case of the party No.1

and has stated that his quotation dated 16.04.1999 was

accepted by the party No.1 and he was awarded work

order dated 01.07.1999 for digging pits and filling them

and he submitted his bill for that work on 06.09.1999 for

Rs. 5760/- and the said amount was paid to him by party

No.1 by cheque No. 431457 dated 09.07.1999 and he was

given work orders dated 17.07.1999, 24.07.1999 and

31.08.1999 of basin cleaning and after completion of the

said work he submitted his bills and was paid by party

No.1 by cheques and he was also given work order dated

15.11.1999 and he had engaged the workman on daily wages

to carry out the work orders for different periods, as and

when required depending upon the period of work orders

and availability of work and she had never been engaged

continuously and she had not worked for 240 days before

she was discontinued. This witness has further stated

that he had never given the names of the labourers engaged

by him to party No.1 and the workman was paid wages at

the rate of minimum wages by him and on the complaint of

the workman, the Enforcement Officer visited his

establishment and prepared the enquiry report dated

20.12.1999 and as per the direction of the Enforcement

Officer, he paid a sum of Rs. 1920/- to the workman towards

the differential wages for the period from 18.10.1999 to

11.12.1999 and after completion of the contract work order,

he had no work, so the workman and other labourers were

discontinued and her services were never terminated by

him and her services were discontinued, because his

contract was not renewed further.

This witness has also proved the documents relating

to the contract and work orders given to him by party No.

1 and other documents relating to the same as Exts. M-V

to M-XXIV.

In his cross-examination also, Shri Bangde has stated

that from 1999, he worked as a contractor with party No.1

194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and the workman was engaged by him in NRCC for doing

the job works.

On perusal of the evidence of the witness examined

by party No.1, it is found that though he was cross-

examined at length on different aspects, there was no cross-

examination in regard to the plea taken by the workman

that there was never any contract between the party No.1

and shri Bangde and if there was any such contract, the

same was merely a camouflage and paper arrangement in

order to deny her just and legal right. Even no suggestion

was given to the witness in that regard.

At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman that the party No.1 is

an industry as defined in the act, as it sells the improved

verities of citrus plants to the farmers of the area and the

workman was working with party No.1 since 1996

continuously and uninterruptedly as an unskilled labourer

and the work which the workman was performing was

available throughout the year and on 03.02.2000, the

services of the workman were terminated by the party No.1

orally and the workman had completed more than 240 days

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

her termination and the workman was never engaged as a

contract labourer by the contractor, Shri Bangde and only

to deny the workman her just and legal rights of

permanency and other benefits, the party No.1 intentionally

made paper arrangement to show her to be a contract

labourer under the contractor and it was the party No.1,

who was supervising the work of the workman and before

termination of the services of the workman, the mandatory

provisions of section 25-F of the Act were not complied

with and as such, the termination of the workman is illegal

and there was also violation of the provisions of sections

25-G and 25-H of the Act by the party No.1, as no seniority

list was exhibited and juniors to the workman in service

were retained by the party No.1 and therefore, the workman

is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and

full back wages.

In support of the submissions, the learned advocate

for the workman placed reliance on the decisions reported

in 2014 I CLR-159 (BSNL Vs. Bhurumal ), 2014 II CLR-783

(Ita Ram Vs. P. Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal and

another), 2013(137) FLR-122(State of Rajsthan Vs. Kaluram

Gurjar) and 2012(132) FLR-746(Oil and Natural Gas

Corporation Ltd. Vs. Petroleum Employees’ Union).

Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate

for the party No.1 that the party No.1 serves as a National

Laboratory for applied agricultural research on citrus fruits

and the knowledge acquired as a result of the research is

not sold, but is utilized for the benefit of the Orange or

citrus fruits growers in India and aboard and it is more in

the nature of a Government or sovereign function, other

than a commercial venture and therefore, it is not an

industry as defined in the Act.

It was further submitted by the learned advocate for

the party No.1 that it is clear from the cross-examination of

the workman and the documents submitted by party No.1

and specifically, Exts. M-III and M-IV that the workman

was engaged by the contractor, Shri Bangde, who had

been given contract to execute different works on contract

basis, after following the due procedure and the workman

was never employed by party No.1 and she did not work

continuously from 1996 or completed 240 days of work in

the preceding 12 calendar months of the alleged date of

her termination and there was no employer employee

relationship between party No.1 and the workman and as

such, application of the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G

and 25-H of the Act does not arise and the reference is

liable to be answered against the workman.

10.

Before delving into the merit of the matter, I think it

necessary to mention here that in the letter of reference

sent by the Central Government for adjudication of the

dispute to the Tribunal, Shri yogesh Bangde, the contractor

had not been made a party by the Government. However,

in the statement of claim, the workman has mentioned the

name of Shri Bangde as respondent No.2. It is well settled

that a party cannot add somebody else as a party in the

reference own his/her own, unless such person has been

named as a party in the letter of reference. The workman

also did not ask for permission of this Tribunal by making

an application to make the above named contractor as a

party. No order was passed or permission was granted by

this Tribunal to the workman to add shri Yogesh Bangde

as a party. As, the addition of Shri Yogesh Bangde as a

party is not legal, he will not be bound by the award passed

in this reference.

11.

Perused the record including the evidence adduced

by the parties. The first contention raised by the learned

advocate for the party No.1 is that party No. 1 is not an

industry. However, after taking into consideration the

pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record

and applying the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply Vs.

Rajappa, reported in 1978 LAB IC-467, to the present case

in hand, it is found that the party No.1 is an industry and

there is no force in the contention raised by the learned

advocate for the party No.1 on that score.

12.

Perused the record including the evidence produced

by the parties. Considered the submissions made by the

learned advocates for the parties. In this case, though, it

is the claim of the workman that she was employed by the

party No.1 as an unskilled worker and she worked

continuously from 1996 till the date of her termination on

03.02.2000 and she had worked for more than 240 days in

the preceding 12 months of 03.02.2000, except her own

evidence, she has not produced any document or adduced

any other evidence in support of such claim. It is found

from the materials on record that the workman was not

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

195

engaged by the party No.1, but she was engaged by the

contractor, who had been given different works on contract

basis for execution by party No.1 after following the due

process prescribed for the same. The documents, Exts. M-

I to M-IV have been admitted into evidence on behalf of

the management on admission of the same by the workman.

Ext M-II is the copy of the application filed by the workman

and three others, before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Nagpur for initiation of the

conciliation proceeding and Ext M-III is the copy of the

legal notice sent by the workman and three others to the

party No.1and so also to the contractor, Shri Yogesh

Bangde, through their advocate, Shri Subhash Kalbande.

The workman in her cross-examination has admitted that

the contents of Exts. M-II and M-III are true. In Exts. M-II

and M-III, it has been mentioned by the workman that she

was working with the party No.1 continuously and

regularly for last three years and getting the wages of Rs.

35/- per day through the contractor, Shri Yogesh Bangde.

Ext. M-VII is the copy of the report submitted by the Labour

Enforcement Officer (Central), after her inspection of the

establishment of the contractor, Shri Yogesh Bangde on

20.12.1999. Ext. M-VII shows that the workman was

engaged as a labourer by the contractor and the contractor

was paying her lesser wages than the minimum wages

fixed by the Government and the said contractor was

directed to pay the differential wages of Rs. 1920/- to the

workman and accordingly, the contractor paid the amount

of Rs. 1920/- to the workman in presence of the Labour

Enforcement Officer. The workman in her evidence has

admitted such facts. It is clear from the evidence on record

that the workman was never engaged by party No.1 and

she was engaged by the contractor.

At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention about

the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court

regarding contract labours, in the two decisions reported

in 1985-II L.L.J-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food

Corporation of India Vs M/s Food Corporation of India)

and 2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd.

and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and

others), which are squarely applicable to the case at hand.

In the decision reported in 1985-II L.L.J-4 (supra)

the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that:-

“Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a

contractor for handling foodgrains at Siliguri Depot,

the corporation had nothing to do with the manner

of handling work done by the contractor, the labour

force employed by him, payments made by him etc.

In such a fact situation, there was no privity of

contract of employer and workmen between the

corporation and the workmen. “Workmen” has been

defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the

Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person

including an apprentice) employed in any industry

to do ……….”. ‘The expression’ employed has at

least two known connotations, but as used in the

definition, the context would indicate that it is used

in the sense of a relationship brought about by

express or implied contract of service in which the

employee renders service for which he is engaged

by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in

cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily

prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command

and obedience. The essential condition of a person

being a workman within the terms of the definition is

that he should be employed to do the work in that

industry and that there should be, in other words,

an employment of his by the employer and that there

should be a relationship between the employer and

employee or master and servant unless a person is

thus employed there can be no question of his being

a “workman” within the definition of the term as

contained in the Act.

Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of

Saurashtra (1957 – I – LLJ – 477). Now where a

contractor employs a workman to do the work which

he contracted with a third person to accomplish on

the definition as it stands, the workman of the

contractor would not without something more

become the workman of that third person. Therefore,

when the workmen employed by the contractor were

certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no

claim to that effect has been made by the union.”

In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC – 3656

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

“The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to

be constructed liberally in favour of the class for

whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to

reading in the provisions of the Act what the

Legislature has not provided whether expressly or

by necessary implication, or substituting remedy or

benefits for that provided by the Legislature. The

intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the

conditions of service of the contract labour and to

authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract

labour system by the appropriate Government on

consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section

(2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant

factors. But, the presence of some or all those

factors, provide no ground for absorption of contract

labour on issuing notification under Section 10(1)

by the appropriate Government, is not alluded to

either in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act

and the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and

12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections

23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High

Courts or the Supreme Court to read in some

unspecified remedy in Section 10 or substitute for

196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

penal consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25

a different sequel be it absorption of contract labour

in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser

or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of

the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the

principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of

interpretative legislation and as such clearly

impermissible.

Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under

S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of

contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute

brought before it by any contract in regard to

conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will

have to consider the question whether the contractor

has been interposed either on the ground of having

undertaken to produce any given result for the

establishment or for supply of contract labour for

work of the establishment under a genuine contract

or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of

various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the

workers of the benefit there under. If the contract is

found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the

so called contract labour will have to be treated as

employees of the principal employer who shall be

directed to regularize the services of the contract

labour in the concerned establishment. If the

contract is found to be genuine and the principal

employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall

give preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It

otherwise found suitable, and, if necessary, by

relaxing the condition as to maximum age

appropriately taking into consideration the age of

the workers at the time of their initial employment by

the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to

academic qualifications other than technical

qualifications.

Air India’s case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled

prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999,

D/ - 12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/ -9-

5-1997(Cal): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997m D/ - 17-4-

1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/ - 2-8-2000

(Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/ - 23-12-1999

(Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.

It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of

contract labour by the contractor in any work of or

in connection with the work of an establishment,

the relationship of master and servant is created

between the principal employer and the contract

labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of

the terms “Contract labour”, “Establishment” and

“Workman” does not show that the legal

relationship between the person employed in any

industry and the owner of the industry is created

irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about

such relationship. The word “Workman” is defined

in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract

labour is a species. It is true that combined reading

of the terms “Establishment” and “Workman” shows

that a workman engaged in any establishment would

have direct relationship with the principal employer

as a servant of master. But what is true of a workman

could not be correct of contract labour. When the

provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation

of direct relationship of master and servant between

the principal employer and the contract labour nor

can such relationship be implied from the provisions

of the action issuing notification under Section 10(1)

of the CLRA Act. A fortiori much less can such a

relationship be found to exist from the rules and the

forms made there under.”

So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above,

the present case in hand is to be considered.

It is found from the materials on record that the

appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for

execution of different works on contract was genuine and

the same was not only on papers as claimed by the

workman. The workman has failed to prove such claim by

adducing cogent or reliable evidence. The engagement of

labor contractor by Party No. 1 was not a mere ruse or

camouflage to evade compliance of the various beneficial

legislations, so as to deprive the workman of the benefits

there under. The workman has not been able to produce

any document to show that at any point of time, Party No.

1 paid her wages as their employee. It is clear from the

evidence on record that the workman was engaged as a

contract labour with Party No. 1, by the contractor and as

such, it can be held that there was no relationship of master

and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman.

Hence, there was no question of termination of the services

by the Party No. 1 or compliance of the provisions of

Sections 25-F of the Act or violation of the provisions of

sections 25-G and25-H of the Act.

From the materials on record and the discussions

made above, it is found that the facts and circumstances

of the case in hand are quite different from the facts and

circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions cited

by the learned advocate for the workman, with respect, I

am of the view that the said decisions have no clear

application to this case.

In view of the materials on record and the discussions

made above, the reference cannot be answered in favour

of the workman. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and

against the workman. The workman is not entitled to any

relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

197

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 92-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

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; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

34@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05&01&2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@764@1997&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2015

S.O. 92.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/1999)

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

No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

05.01.2015.

[No. L-20012/764/1997-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947.

REFERENCE NO. 34 OF 1999

PARTIES

The Jt. General Secretary,

Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh,

Rajender Path, Dhanbad

Vs.

General Manager,

Sijua Area of M/s BCCL, PO : Sijua,

Dhanbad.

Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/764/97-IR

(C-I) dt.18.1.1999

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Mr. N.G.Arun, Union Rep-cum-

workman/Union

Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the

Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Adv.

Management .

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 25th Nov., 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10 (1)

(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.

L-20012/764/97-IR(C-I) dt.18.1.1999.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Loyabad

Colliery of M/s BCCL in not providing employment

to the dependant son-in-law Sh.Lakhan Chere of

Smt Rajmatia Cherin Ex-Crusher Mazdoor is legal &

justified? If not, to what relief Sh.Lakhan Chero,

dependant son-in-law of Smt.Rajmatia Cherin is

entitled?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/764/97-IR(C-I)

dt.18.1.1999 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No.34 of 1999 was registered on 02.02.1999 and

accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the Registered Posts to the parties

concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the

date fixed, and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own

respective Ld.Counsels appeared in, and contested the

case.

The case of petitioner Lakhan Chero as sponsored

by the Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh is that his mother-

in-law workwoman Rajmatia Cherin had been working as a

crusher Mazdoor at Loyabad Colliery of M/s BCCL.She

had opted for resignation under the Voluntary Retirement

Scheme (herein after referred as to V.R.S.) on 3.12.1991 at

the offer of an employment to her dependant son-in-law

petitioner in lieu of his service, as she had not any male

member of her family as also per her family detail family

Certificate which was granted by the Mukhiya,the Gram

Sevak and the B.D.O. after due investigation. The

petitioner was also granted by them the Certificate of his

relationship with the workwoman. All the relevant papers

of her resignation under the V.R.S were finally

recommended and forwarded to the Dy.Chief Personnel

Manager,Sijua Area.As per the Letter No. 87B/2/92 dt.

20.1.1992 of the Dy. Personnel Manager, Loyabad Colliery.

The approval for the appointment of the petitioner as per

the H.Qr.’s Letter NO.BCCL/PA-II/VRS/(F) Ar./V/92/4148-

49 dt. 24.4.1992, the Dy.Chief Personnel Manager, Sijua

Area, had informed of it to the Management of all

concerned collieries through his letter No. GM/SA/PD/

198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

VRS(F)/3279/92 dt.18.5.1992 also twice communicated as

per his letter dt.4.6.92 about the acceptance of her

resignation and approval of the proposal for offering the

employment to the petitioner as her dependant. Later on,

the Dy.Chief Mining Engineer of the Loyabad Colliery had

published on the Notice Board affixing the photographs

of the petitioner as son-in-law of Smt.Rajmativ Cherin with

a view to confirm the relationship between them. Both of

them were also communicated about it as per the letter

No.87/B/10/92 dt.9.6.1992 of the aforesaid Dy.Chief Mining

Engineer

Thereafter the Management referred the petitioner

to the Area Medical Board for his medical fitness. The

Medical Board found him medically fit for employment.

Despite the fulfillment of all the criteria fixed for acceptance

of resignation by Smt.Rajmatia Cherin, her dependant son-

in-law petitioner was not offered by the Management an

employment whereas many dependants of other female

workers under the V.R.S. were offered employment in lieu

of their services, though her resignation could not be

accepted during the service tenure due to the faults of the

Management. This discriminatory action of the

Management is a violation of the Certified Standing Order

applicable to M/s BCCL.The action of the Management is

not justified.Hence,the demand of the Union petitioner is

legal and justified.Lastly,the Industrial dispute was raised

conciliation resulted in the reference for an adjudication.

The Union in its rejoinder has specifically denied all

the allegations of the OP/management as wrong, justifying

the maintainability of the reference, as the workwoman/

Union had raised it more earlier than her retirement, so her

dependant is entitled to get an employment.Moreover,the

workwoman had opted for her resignation under the

V.R.S(F) prior to her age of 58 years.

Whereas in challenge to it, the contra case of the

OP/Management with categorical denials is that

workwoman Smt.Rajmatia Cherin,the employee of Loyabad

Colliery, retired from her service at her age 60 years on

01.07.1994.No provision either in the NCWA or in the

Certified Standing Order of the Company provides any

employment to the dependant of a retired employee.

Smt. Rajmatia Cherin had submitted her application under

V.R.S. (F) as well as for employment of her dependent son-

in-law petitioner Lakhan Chero.But as at the time of

approval of her V.RS. (F) Application, she was more than

58 years, her application was not accepted by the

Management according to the said scheme. The

Management had communicated their all decisions to her.

After her superannuation, the Union raised the industrial

dispute as a belated and stale one while she was not

working.

In the rejoinder, the OP/Management has

categorically denied all the allegations as incorrect or

irrelevant, further stating that the application of the

workwoman for Voluntary Retirement was considered, but

it was not competent according to the V.R.S(F).So it was

not accepted. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to get

an employment in M/s BCCL which is not an Industrial

dispute. Moreover, Smt.Rajmatia Cherin has not suffered

any loss for non-acceptance of her VRS application.

FINDING WITH REASONS

In the instant case, WWI Sri Kumar Dusad,the

Welder,and WW2 Rajmatia Cherin on behalf of the Union

concerned have been examined, but not a single witness

in behalf of the OP/Management despite more than ample

opportunity for it could be examined.

On going though the materials on the case record, I

find that WW2 Rajmatia Cherin,Ex-Crusher Mazdoor

appeared to have offered to retire voluntarily from the

service of the Company on the condition that her son-in-

law Lakhan Chero would be given an employment in her

place by submitting all the papers (Ext.W.1 series) for

employment of her son-in-law. In fact, the Management

appears to have admitted in their letter dt.21..8.1993 of the

Project Officer, Loyabad Colliery, which was submitted to

the A.LC.(C),Dhanbad (Ext.W.3) in the I.D. that though

petitioner Lakhan Chero was referred to Area Medical

Board for medical Examination, and was also fund medically

fit for employment, following the approval for his

appointment under the VRS(F) as per the H.Qr. Letter

N.BCCL/PA/II/VRS(F)/Ar.V/92/4148-49 dt.24.04.1992,yet

the petitioner was not given an employment under the

Scheme merely on the ground :

“ by the time the medical examination report was

available for offering an employment to Shri Lakhan

Chero,Smt.Rajmatia Cherin (workwoman) crossed the age

of 58 years which necessitated the fresh approval of Head

Quarter’s and as per direction of the Company

communicated under Letter No..BCCL/PA-II/VRS/(F)/93/

364-424(H) dt. 2.3.1993,the female workwomen who were

not stopped from duty are not to be allowed to retire

under V.R.S.(F).As such workwoman was not stopped

from duty in pursuance of above offer order, Shri Lakhan

Chero has not been offered an employment.”

Laying emphasis on the aforesaid points,

M.D.K.Verma, Learned Counsel for the OP/Management

has to argue that Smt.Rajmatia Cherin (WW2) has silently

admitted the non acceptance of her resignation under the

VRS (F) due to crossing her statutory age of the V.R.S (F),

so the claim of the petitioner for employment is legally

unjustified.

In the instant case, the acknowledged facts are that

Smt.Rajmatia Cherin, Ex-Crusher Mazdoor, had duly applied

on 3.12.1991(Ext.W 1/1) under the V.R.S.(F) at her due age

57 years for the employment of her dependant son-in-law

petitioner Lakhan Chero in her place after her resignation

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

199

as evident from the very letter dt.20.1.1992 of the Vice

Personnel Manager,Loyabad Colliery to the Vice Chief

Personnel Manager, Sijua Area (Ext.W.1), the approval for

appointment of petitioner Lakhan Chero as her dependant

son-in-law as communicated to her through the

Management’s letter dt.24.4.1992 and the Medically fitness

of the petitioner son-in-law found by the Medical Board.

Even then the petitioner Lakhan Chero was denied his

employment in place of her mother-in-law, Ex-Crusher

Rajmatia Cherin,though she appears to have resigned her

service for it at the relevant time while she was 57 years

old. So the plea of the Management in lack of any proof

that the workman had crossed her age of 58 years by the

time the Medical Examination appears to be nothing but

an arbitrary and malafide design to deprive of an

employment of her dependant son-in-law petitioner, as

the OP/Management appears to have intentionally

adopted a prolong processing of the workwoman’s

application.Besides, the OP/Management could not

establish the retirement of the workwoman Rajmatia Chrine

from service. The OP/Management in these circumstance

can not retract from their legal obligation under the said

VRS(F) to provide her dependant son-in-law petitioner

an employment.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

it is, in the terms of the reference, hereby responded and

awarded that the action of the Management of Loyabad

Colliery of M/s BCCL in not providing an employment to

the dependant son-in-law Lakhan Chero of Smt.Rajmatia

Cherin,Ex-Crusher Mazdoor is neither legal nor

justified.Hence,petitioner Lakhan Chero,depdendant son-

in-law of Smt.Rajmatia Cherin is entitled to his employment

under the VRS(F) concerned, as her resignation was

accepted and the approval for his appointment was made

by the OP/Management at due time.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 93-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

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; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

04@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05&01&2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@146@2004&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2015

S.O.

93.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2005)

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

No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

05.01.2015.

[No. L-20012/146/2004-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947.

REFERENCE NO. 04 OF 2005

PARTIES

The General Secretary,

Jharkhand Colliery Shramik Union,

At New Colony, Muraidih,

PO : Nawagarh, Dhanbad

Vs.

Chief General Manager,

Katras Area of M/s BCCL, PO : Sijua,

Distt. : Dhanbad.

Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/146/2004-IR

(C-I) dt.15.12.2004

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Mr. S.N.Goswami, Ld.Adv.

workman/Union

On behalf of the

Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Adv.

Management

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 12th Nov., 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10 (1)

(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No L-

20012/146/2004-IR(C-I) dt.15.12.2004

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Jharkhand Colliery Shramik

Union from the Management of Ramkanali Colliery

of M/s BCCL for regularizing Sri Lakhan Pd.Mahato

in clerical Grade is justified? If so, to what relief is

the concerned workman entitled and from what

date?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/146/2004-IR

(C-I) dt.15.12.2004 of the above mentioned reference from

200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute,

the Reference Case No.04 of 2005 was registered on

13.01.2005 and accordingly an order to that effect was

passed to issue notices through the Registered Posts to

the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court

on the date fixed, and to file their written statements along

with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said

order, notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the

parties concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own

respective Ld.Counsels appeared in, and contested the

case.

The case of workman Lakhan Pd. Mahato as stated

in his written statement under his signature only, but not

under that of the General Secretary, Jharkhand Colliery

Sharamik Union, Muraidih, Dhanbad,is that he is a

permanent employee of Ramkanali Colliery, Katras Area

No.IV of M/s. BCCL working as the Clerk. He was initially

appointed as the General Mazdoor on 05.07.1994.He has

been performing his duty as Auto Electric Helper, though

no technical training provided by the Management, and

thereafter as Assistant in vacant sanctioned post of the

clerk in clerical Grade in different in sections including

Dispensary of the colliery as per the office order dt.

05/06.08.2002 as forwarded to other Authorities such as

the Manager and others concerned. Since then, he has

put more than 240 days attendances as the clerk, of which

his existing capacity of the jobs has been confirmed and

appreciated by the Management as per the Office Order

dt.23.09.2002.The Management has virtually admitted the

performing jobs of the workman as the clerk Grade III on

vacant and sanctioned post of clerk by establishing his

relationship with the Management under Section 25 B of

the I.D.Act, 1947.He has passed the Matriculation

Examination. The job of the clerk is permanent and

perennial nature, as he has been doing the jobs as assigned

as the clerk on permanent basis.Thereafore, the workman

is legally entitled for regularsation in the clerical Grade III

under the clause 7.2. of the Certified Standing Orders of

M/s. BCCL applicable to its employees. Since the workman

had been working as the clerk, the Management transferred

the workman from the assigned clerical job to work as the

Auto Elec. Helper in Transport Section as per the Office

Order dt.07/09.06.2003 of the Project Officer ,instructing

him to report for duty to the SE ( & M),Ramkanali Colliery.

The Project Officer is not the Competent Authority nor to

deploy any PR/TR to work as Monthly Rated. The jobs of

the Auto Elec. Helper and the Clerk are Monthly Rated.

The matter has been considered at the C.CC. Meeting on

16.7.2003.The workman had represented to the

Management to recall the aforesaid office order as invalid,

and he has been performing clerical jobs as the clerk. The

demand of the sponsoring Union for regularization of the

workman in clerical Cadre is legal and justified. Likewise is

the rejoinder of the workman under his own signature

wherein he appears to have specifically denied all the

allegations of the OP/Management as vague false and

misleading.

Whereas with categorical denials, the contra pleaded

case of the OP/Management is that the instant reference

is unmaintainable in facts and law, as the Union has no

locus standi to raise it. No provision provides for

regularization of a General Mazdoor in clerical grade. The

Clerk Grade III as per the Cadre Scheme of Clerical Grade is

a selection post, which is filled ,if any vacancy, through

Departmental Selection Committee, (hereinafter referred

to as D.P.C.) duly constituted by the Competent Authority

according to manpower budget. After giving equal

opportunity to all eligible candidates in the Trade Test

conducted by it, the D.P.C. selects successful candidates,

and recommends for selection for the post of the Clerk

Grade III subject to vacancy. The workman was appointed

as the General Mazdoor on 15.7.1994 at Ramkanali Colliery,

and he was promoted as Sr. E.P. Trainee, and then as the

Auto Electric Helper. The workman was working in the

Excavation Department. He was transferred from Ramkanali

Colliery to Ramkanali Dispensary for a temporary period.

The Project Officer had issued an Office Order without

any authority, and directed the workman to work as a clerk.

The matter as soon as came to the knowledge of the

Management, the management again transferred the

workman back to the colliery where he is working as the

Auto Electric Helper in Transport Section of Ramkanali

Colliery. The demand of the Union for regularization of the

workman as a clerk through backdoor is neither legal nor

justified.)

The OP/Management in their rejoinder has

specifically denied the allegations of the workman as

incorrect and misleading, further alleging that the Office

Order of the Project Officer was subsequently cancelled,

and the workman was deployed to work according to his

designation.

FINDING WTH REASONS

In the instant case, WW-I Lakhan Prasad Mahato,

the workman himself on behalf of the Union concerned

only has been examined, but no witness on behalf of the

OP/Management could be examined despite ample

opportunity for it.

Keeping in view the materials as proved by the

workman (Ext.WWI) Mr.S.N.Goswami, Ld. Advocate for

the workman as per his written argument has submitted

that admittedly the workman has been performing the duty

as a clerk since 1994 as the job assigned by the

Management against the vacant and sanctioned post

which is permanent; that the workman has continuously

rendered his service in Clerical Gr.II by putting his

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

201

attendances more than 240 days in each calendar year and

his existing capacity till now was also confirmed by the

Management, the workman is entitled to his regularization

in the Clerk Grade III in the year 1992-97 and G.II in 1997-

2000 and Gr.I in 2003; and as such the demand of the Union

concerned for regularization of the workman is justified.

But the particular facts of the years for his regularization

of the workman appear to be unpleaded.

On the other hand, the contention of Mr. D.K.Verma,

Ld.Advocate for the OP/Management in the terms of

reference is that the workman was admittedly engaged as

General Mazdoor/Time Rated worker, then he was

promoted as the then as the Auto Elec.Helper Sr. E.P.

Trainee who is not a daily Rated worker. But, the Clerical

workers are Monthly Rated Workers; and the post of

Clerical Gr. is of the Cadre which is filled up through the

Selection Committee, namely, the Departmental Promotion

Committee. It is also contended the workman was working

as the Assistant in clerical job at Ramkanali Colliery.

Dispensary as per the Office Order dt. 23/25.09.2002 of the

Project Officer concerned. But admittedly he was not

selected for working as a clerk in Clerk Gr. through the

DPC, as there is no provision for it directly. It is also beyond

any dispute that at present the designation of the workman

is the Auto Electrician Helper Gr.II and accordingly he

was transferred to Auto workshop as he had refused his

promotion to the post of Auto Electrician Cat.II, so his

promotion was withdrawn as per the office letter

dt.30.12.2009 (Ext.W.5); under these circumstances, the

claim of the workman or of the Union concerned for the

promotion in clerk Gr. is baseless and unjustified.

On perusal of the materials as adduced on behalf of

the Union/workman on the case record, I find the workman,

the Matriculate (Ext.W.1) was appointed as the General

Mazdoor Cat.I under Land Looser Scheme. He had also

the certificate of Computer Training (Ext.W.2) under the

Computer Literacy Drive vide letter dt. 7.3.2010 of the Area

Manager (Transport-Katras Area).Earlier he was

transferred to the aforesaid Colliery Dispensary (Ext.W.3)

as the Auto Elec.Helper as per the letter 5/6.08.2012

(Ext.W.4), and accordingly from RamKanali Dispensary to

Ramkanali OCP as per the letter dt.26/29.03.2003

(Ext.W.4/2). During that period, the workman was

authorized to work as the Asstt. In Clerical job at aforesaid

colliery/Dispensary as per the order dt.23/25.03.2002 of

the Project Officer of the Colliery (Ext.W.4/1) which appears

to be quite illegal, as the Project Officer is not the competent

Authority to authorize any such workman to work as an

Assistant in clerical Grade, because the post of the clerk

has its own Cadre.

In result, it is herby, in the terms of the reference,

responded and accordingly awarded that the demand of

the Jharkhand Colliery Shramik Union from the

Management of Ramkanali Colliery of M/s. BCCL for

regularization of the workman Lakhan Pd. Mahato in

Clerical Grade is not only illegal and but also unjustified

on account of the category different from the category of

the workman.Hence,the workman is not entitled to any

relief from any date.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 94-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

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; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

76@1998) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05&01&2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@105@1997&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2015

S.O.

94.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 76/1998)

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

No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

05.01.2015.

[No. L-20012/105/1997-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947

REFERENCE NO. 76 OF 1998

PARTIES

The Secretary,

Dhanbad Colliery Karmchari Sangh,

Dhanbad

Vs.

General Manager,

Pootki Balihari Area of M/s. BCCL,

PO : Kusunda, Dhanbad

Ministry’s Order No L-20012/105/97-

IR(C-I) dt. 12/17.3.1998

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

: Mr. U.P. Sinha, Ld. Advocate

workman/Union

On behalf of the

: Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate

Management

202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 24th Nov., 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10 (1)

(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.

L-20012/105/97-IR(C-I) dt. 12/17.3.1998

SCHEDULE

“Whether the denial of regularization of the services

of Shri Govind Prasad Srivastava and 89 others(as

per list enclosed) by the Management of Balihari

Colliery,BCCL is justified? If not so, to what relief

these workmen are entitled to?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/105/97-IR(C-I)

dt. 12/17.3.1998 of the above mentioned reference from

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute,

the Reference Case No.76 of 1998 was registered on

16.04.1998 and accordingly an order to that effect was

passed to issue notices through the Registered Posts to

the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court

on the date fixed, and to file their written statements along

with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said

order, notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the

parties concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own

respective Ld.Counsels appeared in, and contested the

case.

The case of workmen Govind Pd. Srivastava & 89

others (as per lit enclosed) as sponsored by the Secretary,

Dhanbad Colliery Karmachari Sangh,is that the BCCL is a

Public Sector Undertaking owned by the Government of

India. So it owes to the Central Government to abide by

the policies, guidelines and statutes framed by the Central

Government from time to time towards the workmen. In

the categories of works: raising-selling of coal, coal loading

& unloading, or unloading of raw coal ,over burden removal

and earth cutting, soft coak manufacture,drving of store

drifts and is miscellaneous store cutting of jobs

underground, cleaning dust and watering of buildings,

charging of magnetitic ,plant clearing including removal

of spilage,wastes, muck, mangnetits in the washeries,and

removal of slurry and transportation of middlngs,the

employment of contract labour has been prohibited as

per the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regularization/

Abolition) Act,1970.The process operation of the

aforesaid categories of work is incidental to the coal

industry..The jobs are perennial in nature and are done by

regular workmen. These works are sufficient to employ

considerable number of whole time permanent workmen.

Further case of the workmen is that the employers

engaged these workmen in the jobs of tyndels,

underground supporting, cutting, drifting and loading of

coal, packing and fitting of lines and underground

screaming - all under prohibited categories as under the

said Act. The workmen concerned have been regularly

and continuously working with the necessary tools

supplied by the employers directly under the supervision

and control of the Management since 1990, having put

more than their attendances for 190 and 240 days

underground and asurface respectively. The Management

had introduced a contract system in the garb of a Co-

operative system named Kaylaanchal Shramik Sahayog

Samittee under which the workmen are alleged to be

working in various jobs of the prohibited categories on

contract basis. The alleged contract with the Co-operative

Society is a camouflage to exploit and deprive the workmen

of their legal dues of the wages under Cat.IV, V, VI , Group

V and VA of the NCWA with consequential benefits. The

workmen are not paid their legal dues despite the

membership of CMPF. Since the contract awarded to the

Co-operative for prohibited categories of work is illegal,

the workmen are deemed to have been working directly

under the employers; hence, they are entitled to

regularization in their jobs as they have acquired the status

of permanent workmen as per the Certified Standing Order

of the Company. Even their representation through the

Union did not bear any result, an Industrial Dispute was

same due to failure of conciliation resulted in the reference

for an adjudication.

The Union concerned in the rejoinder for the

workman has specifically denied the allegations of the

OP/Management as baseless, further stating that the

alleged formation of the Co-operative Society never

conferred any right on the employer to violate the

mandatory provisions of the Central Labour (R & A) Act.

On the other hand, challenging the maintainability

of the I.D. in law, the case of the O.P./Management with

categorical denials is that consequent upon the

incorporation of Sec.13A in the Bihar Co-operative

Societies Act 1935 by the Amendment Act No.5 of 1989,

the Distract Authorities of the State Government

encouraged the formation of Co-operative Societies for

various purposes in the Coalfield Area of Dhanbad

District. In that regard, one Co-operative Society named

Koyla Anchal Shramik Sahayog Samitee was formed and

registered in the year 1990 under the provision of the

aforesaid Act,1935.The Co-operative Society after its

formation and registration became the body Corporate

under the provision of Sec.13 of the aforesaid Act with

perpetual succession and a common seal with power to

acquire and hold property to enter into a contract and to

do all the other things in the capacity of body

Corporate.The Managing Committee was formed for the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

203

running the aforesaid Co-operative Society, and the

President, the Secretary and other members of the

Committee took all the steps as per the provisions of law.

Negotiation with various managemens of the colliery

establishments and other ones running industries in the

Coalfield area and securing contracts on various jobs for

gainful employment of its members through such contracts

were the aims and objects of the aforesaid Society. The

M/s. BCCL as per the provisions of Sec.13 A of the Bihar

Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 took initiatives for

awarding various contracts to different Co-operative

Samittee for miscellaneous works at different colliery

establishments. Likewise, the aforesaid Co-operative

Society was awarded the contract by the Management of

Balihari Colliery for miscellaneous jobs on the surface and

the underground. But the contract works were never

continuous, rather intermittently. The aforesaid Co-

operative could engage few persons on such jobs.

The Co-operative Society of hardly 25 members was

a contractor as represented by Sri Gobind Pd Srivastavaas

as the Secretary thereof. The Government Authorities in

course of inspections had also found that they were being

paid less wages than fixed under NCWA-IV in the year

1994 as demanded for payment of their wages thereafter

as per the letter dt.22.2.1994 to the Agent and the Secretary

of the Society. The complaint of the Central Government

Labour Department manifested only few persons Govind

Pd.Srivastava, Ramakand Srivastava, Kashinath Lal,Ram

Raksha Mahato and Mahangu Mahato others as genuine

members of the Co-operative Society who out of 90

persons as the list enclosed had worked on the contract

jobs of Balihari Colliery. But the Co-operative Society has

malafide included the rest strangers in the list in search of

their employment through litigation.

Further it is alleged that on enforcement of the

Contract Labour (R &A) Act, 1970,and incorporation of

Sec.13 A in the Bihar Co-operative SocietyAct,1935,the

members of Co-operative Societies could themselves

secure their employment by taking a contract in the name

of the societies so as to earn their wages and dividends

from the profits made by the Co-operative Society. As

such the members of the Co-operative Society who worked

on the basis of the contract awarded to their society can

not demand for their regularization by the Management of

the Principal Employer. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction

to entertain such claim and to abolish the contract system.

The Central Government, the appropriate Authority, has

accordingly issued u/s 10 of the said Act the notification

in 1988 prohibiting the engagement of contract labour on

some of the jobs available in coal mine .But the aforesaid

society was never awarded any contract on any job of the

prohibited categories. The case of the alleged workmen

for regularization is meritless. The persons concerned are

not entitled to any relief.

The OP/Management in their simultaneous rejoinder

has categorically denied all the allegations of the persons

concerned as totally incorrect and baseless.

FINDINGS WITH REASONS

In the instant reference,WWI Gobind Pd Srivastava

for all workmen on behalf of the Union concerned, and

MWI Sunil Kr Roy, the Sr.Surveyor from the OP/

Management respectively.

On perusal of the pleadings and evidences/materials

of both the parties, the facts appear to be evidently beyond

dispute that Sri Govind Prasad Srivastava (WWI), one of

the workmen, was the Secretary of the Co-operative

Society: Koyalanchal Shramik Sahyog Samittee formed by

them as per its Bye laws (ExtW.1) and its Registration

Certificate(ExtW.3). Admittedly on the basis of the work

orders (Extt.W.4 series)issued by the Management to their

Co-operative Society, they used to work as per the work

order for miscellaneous jobs .Their bills (Extt.W.5 series)

were submitted by the Co-operative Society as a contactor

to the Management. Aforesaid witness (WWI) as the

contractor on behalf of the Society used to sign all these

bills. It cannot be denied that the Management used to

release payment in the name of the aforesaid Society

following its sanction. As such in the fact of both the

parties at variance with other facts, the following issues

evolve and need to be determined for proper adjudication:

(i)

Whether there was employer-employee relationship

between the workmen and the OP/Management.

(ii)

Whether the alleged workers have continuously

worked for 190 and 240 days underground and on

the surface of the Balihari Colliery at relevant time.

Over the first issue of the employer-employee

relationship, Mr. U.P. Sinha, Learned Counsel for the

Union/workmen in view of the pleaded evidences, oral

and documentary available on the case record has

submitted that all these workmen are the members of the

Koyla Anchal Shramik Sahyog Samitee,a Regd. Co-

operative Society (Extt.W.1 to 3), they were continuously

engaged to work on the jobs:cleaming of dust, slurry, etc.

as noted in the work orders (Exty.W.4 Series) with the

tools supplied by the Management under the direct

supervision of the manager of Balihari Colliery, though all

the jobs were admittedly of perennial in nature, though

the prohibited category under Sec.10 of the CLRA

Act,1970. Mr.Sinha has emphatically submitted that

admittedly they were being paid for their work lesser than

their due wages as per the letter dt 22.2.1994 of the

Government Authority to the Agent of the Colliery as well

as to the Secretary of the Society, but when they raised an

issue for correct payment and regularisation,they were

stopped from working since the year 2002. According to

Mr. Sinha, the failure to produce the aforesaid letter, the

Attendance Register in Form- C or any copy of license

204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

given to the Co-operative Society, or a report to the

Licensing Authority about the status of the Co-operative

Society as a contractor for it as required under Sec.12 of

the said Act implies nothing but the camouflage and paper

arrangement to show the workman as contractor workers;

the absence or non-production of such Registration

Certificate u/s 7 and the license of the contractor for

Contract Labour u/s 12 of the CL (RA) Act 1970 and its

Rules disproves the alleged existence of the aforesaid Co-

operative Society as a contractor, rather it establishes

negatively that these workmen are not the employees of

the contractor, but they are the employees of the

Management of the Ballihari Colliery of M/s BCCL, as

there is direction relationship of Employer and Employee

between the OP/Management and the workmen as also

held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the similar case of

B.D.V.S. Sangh Vs. V.K. Sharma (2011(131)FLR 759 SC (DB),

and lastly 2014(141)FLR 1101(Cal H.C.)(SB), Ashish Dey

Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal wherein the

Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to hold that in the

matter of contract labour, if the contract is not genuine,

Industrial Tribunal would have jurisdiction to decide the

issue whether a contract between the principal Employer

and the contractor is genuine or camouflage (Para 17).

Whereas in response to it, Mr D.K.Verma,

Ld.Counsel for the OP/Management has contended that

as per the photo copy of Registration of the Koyalanchal

Shramik Sahyog Samitee with the copy of its bye laws and

that of their membership of it (Ext.t.W.3,1 &2 respectively)

and even the very list of the workmen manifests that they

are the workmen employees of the Regisrated Co-

operative Society, not of the Management. It also stands

corroborated by the work orders and their bills (Extt.W.4

and 5 series respectively). Mr.Verma has pleaded that all

these admissions of the workmen are enough to show

negatively that they were not employees of the OP/

Management, and it is settled law that contractor’s workers

are not the employees of the OP/Management as there

was no relationship of employer-employee between the

OP/Management and the alleged workmen.

In the light of the arguments of both Learned

Counsels for the respective parties, I find that in the face

of the admitted facts about the status of the workmen as

well as the members of their Registered Co-operative

Society, they virtually worked as contractor as well as

members of their aforesaid Regd. Co-operative not only

for their wages but also for their dividend earned by their

co-operative as a contractor for miscellaneous works done

on the basis of the work orders issued to their Co-operative

Society. The works as per the work orders clearly appear

to be unperrenial only, such situation does not call for

proof for the license of the Contract etc. for contract work.

Nor any question about the genuinity of the contract

arises. At the point, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was

pleased to hold that…

“contract Labour engaged by the contractor does

not create relationship of Master and servant

between the Contract Labour and Principal employer

as held in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd.,

V.N.U. Water Front Workers reported in 2001 LAB.

I.C.3656 SC (C.B) (Paras 101,114,117)”. In these

circumstances, none of the rulings cited by Mr. U.P.

Sinha, Ld. Adv. for the Union/workmen appears to

be applicable to the case as it stands.

As to the second point over the continuous working

of the workmen as contractor Labour,the oral statement of

Sri Govind Pd.Srivastava,as the then Secretary of the

Registered Cooperatives discloses the fact that the

workmen have been working since 1990.But their

contractors’ 16 bills for the irregular period from 24.07.93

to 31.08.95 impliedly indicate/concern with their

intermittently casual workings underground and on surface

as well. There is no proof of the continuous working for

requisite period during any twelve calendar months

preceding to the date with reference as required under

Sec. 25 B (2)(a)(i) or (ii) of the I.D.Act,1947. In result, it is

held that the workmen have not continuously worked for

190 or 240 days underground and on the surface of the

Balihari Colliery .

Hence, it is, hereby responded and accordingly

awarded that the denial of regularization of the services of

Sri Govind Prasad Srivastava & 89 others (as per list

enclosed) by the Management of Balihari Colliery of M/s

BCCL is quite justified. Hence, these workmen are not

entitled to any relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

LIST OF THE WORKMEN

Govind Pd.Srivastava

Anil Kr. Srivastava

Ramakant Srivastava

Upendra Kumar

Kashinath Saw

Ramesh Kumar Sinha

Ramrastha Mahato

Rameshwar Mahato

Mahango Mahato

10.

Suresh Mahato

11.

Sri Bhagwan Singh

12.

Jitendra Kumar Pd.

13.

Uday Yadav

14.

Rajdev Yadav

15.

Ramkrishna Yadav

16.

Md.Kallimuddim

17.

Upendra Kumar

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

205

18.

Sushil Mahato

19.

Naresh Yadav

20.

Ajay Yadav

21.

Bripastav Pd. Kamal

22.

Ram Kumar Yadav

23.

Surendra Kumar

24.

Uday Singh

25.

Ranvijay Singh

26.

Nagendra Kumar

27.

Sanjay Kumar

28.

Ramdhyan Yadav

29.

Ramvijay Yadav

30.

Surendra Yadav

31.

Diyanand Yadav

32.

Vijay Yadav

33.

Sri Prasad

34.

Awadesh Prasad

35.

Naresh Yadav

36.

Mahendra Mehta

37.

Ramchandra Yadav

38.

Brahmdeo Yadav

39.

Mohan Prasad

40.

Shivnarayan Singh

41.

Om Prakash

42.

Birendra Giri

43.

Ashok Kumar

44.

Shivbachan Ram

45.

Munna Yadav

46.

Ajit Kumar Singh

47.

Surendra Chauan

48.

Radhya Shyam Chauan

49.

Upendra Kumar Singh

50.

Jitendra Paswan

51.

Laljee Chauan

52.

Ramchabila Harijan

53.

Pradumen Chauan

54.

Chotta Lal Ram

55.

Bishundhari Ram

56.

Rajesh Kumar

57.

Ramnaresh Yadav

58.

Md. Bashar Kha

59.

Sudershan Sandhu

60.

Nagendra Kumar Ram

61.

Anil Kumar Gupta

62.

Satendra Prasad

63.

Ram Prasad Mahto

64.

Ram Uday Singh

65.

Trivwan Kumar

66.

Rabindra Kumar Singh

67.

Ashok Kumar Malakar

68.

Rajkumar Prasad

69.

Ramsewak Paswan

70.

Promod Kumar Sinha

71.

Manoj Kumar Singh

72.

Mahendra Prasad

73.

Satendra Yadav

74.

Aahhsar Ahmad

75.

Janarden Prasad

76.

Ramdinesh Prasad

77.

Kameshwar Pd. Singh

78.

Ramprakash Harijan

79.

Prabhakar Yadav

80.

Ramashraya Yadav

81.

Ramashraya Yadav

82.

Ram Ratan Yadav

83.

Mithlesh Kumar Mehta

84.

Arpit Singh

85.

Jayant Kumar Singh

86.

Ambuj Prasad

87.

Vijay Kumar Verma

88.

Nand Kumar Singh

89.

Daya Rout

90.

Shashi Pd. Sinha

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 95-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

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; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

110@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05&01&2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@14@2013&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2015

S.O.

95.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 110/

2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their

206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workmen, received by the Central Government on

05.01.2015.

[No. L-20012/14/2013-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947

REFERENCE NO. 110 OF 2013

PARTIES

The Jt.General Secretary,

Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress

PO : Nudkhurkee Distt: Dhanbad

Vs.

General Manager,

W.J. Area Moonidih of M/s. BCCL

PO : Moonidih, Dhanbad

Ministry’s Order No L-20012/14/2013-

IR(C-I) dt. 09.04.2013

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

: None

workman/Union

On behalf of the

: Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate

Management .

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dhanbad, the 10th Nov., 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10 (1)

(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.

L-20012/14/2013-IR (C-I) dt. 09.04.2013.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of

W.J.A.Moonidih of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri

Sanichar Bhuia from the services of the Company

vide order letter dated 10.03.2000 is legal and

justified? To what relief the concerned workman is

entitled to?”

Neither the Union Representative of RCMC nor

workman Sanichar Bhuia appeared and nor any written

statement with the documents filed on behalf of the

workman despite several opprtunities. Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld.

Advocate for the OP/Management is present.

On going through the case record, I find the case

has been all along been pending since 22.7.2013 for filing

written statement with the documents on behalf for the

workman. The case is related to the dismissal of the

workman. Three Regd. Notices dt. 20.5.2013, 26.02.2014

and 06.06.2014 through Registered posts were sent to the

Union Representative on his address noted in the

Reference itself for it, but the Union Representative for

the workman or the workman himself did not respond to

any of the notices, the Union Representative and the

workman by their such conducts appear to be quite

uninterested in pursuing the case. Under these

circumstances, the instant reference appears to be no

longer Industrial Dispute.Hence, the case is closed, and

accordingly an ‘Award of No Dispute’ is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 96-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,;j bafM;k

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; ua- 2] eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 64@2001)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05&01&2015 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@13@2001&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2015

S.O.

96.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 64/2001)

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 M/s. Air India Ltd.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 05.01.2015.

[No. L-11012/13/2001-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/64 of 2001

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF AIR INDIA LTD.

The Managing Director

Air India Ltd.

Old Airport

Santacruz (E)

Mumbai 400 029.

AND

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

207

THEIR WORKMEN.

Shri Suresh Kumar Yadav

C/o. Navneet M. Yadav

C-1/303, Nikash Lawns

Off sus Road

Pashan, Pune 411 021.

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mr. L. L. D’Souza,

Representative.

FOR THE WORKMEN

Mr. Mohan Bir Singh,

Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 17th November 2014.

AWARD PART-I

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No.L- 11012/13/2001-IR (C-I),

dated 30.04.2001 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:

¶D;k ,vj bafM;k ds izca/ra=k }kjk Jh lqjs'k dqekj ;kno]

ekLVj VsDuhf'k;u dks fnukad 09-01-1997 ls c[kkZLr fd;k

tkkuk fof/or] U;k;ksfpr ,oa lgh gS A ;fn ugha] rks deZdkj

fdl jkgr ds ik=k gSa\¸

After receipt of the reference, notices were issued

to both the parties. Second party workman filed his

statement of claimEx-8. According to the workman he was

employee of the first party. He was charge-sheeted for an

act of misconduct under model standing order Central 1.14

(3)(g) breach of any law for the establishment, 2.14 (3) (h)

Act subversive of discipline. The substratum of the

allegation was that the workman had remained absent from

13/1/1993 to 25/6/1993 without leave and that Assistant

Collector of Customs (Preventive M & PV) Mumbai had

reported that the workman was primarily concerned with

clandestine clearance of goods (Electronic goods) valued

at Rs.18,50,000 as well as Rs.26,01,000/- which were seized

by custom authorities. The workman was dismissed from

service and an approval application was filed before NIT-

1, Mumbai. While granting approval application it is

provided that the right of the workman to raise industrial

dispute and get is adjudicated by competitive forum is

kept intact and also all other defences are kept intact for

adjudication of this Tribunal. The workman is therefore

entitled to challenge the punishment awarded to him.

According to the workman inquiry conducted

against him was against the principles of natural justice

and in violation of statutory rules. The inquiry was

conducted in the language not understood by the

workman. The statements of witnesses were recorded

behind the back of the workman. These witnesses were

neither produced as witnesses nor made available for

cross- examination. The findings of the inquiry committee

are perverse as not supported by any reasoning and they

are not rational. The Inquiry committeehas relied on the

order passed by collector of customs. The said order itself

is based on conjectures and surmises and not logical.

Leave was granted to the workman w.e.f.15/1/193 to 26/5/

1993. However as no paid leave was at his credit, the leave

was sanctioned without pay. Therefore it cannot be treated

as absence or misconduct as has been alleged. The inquiry

was not fair and proper and findings of the Inquiry Officer

are perverse. Therefore the workman prays that his

dismissal be declared as illegal. He be paid damages to

the tune of Rs.50 lakhs for such unfair, improper treatment

and he be reinstated with full back wages. The workman

is not gainfully employed anywhere.

The first party management resisted the statement

of claim vide its written statement vide Ex-9. According to

them the reference is hit by delay and laches. The workman

was dismissed from service w.e.f. 9/1/1997. He has raised

the present dispute in June 2000 after delay of almost three

and half years. There was also approval application

pending before CGIT-1, Mumbai which came to be allowed.

They further contended that collector customs (Preventive)

Mumbai in adjudication proceedings under the Customs

Act had levied a penalty of Rs.18,00,000/- on the workman

under Sec112 (a) (ii) of Customs Act 1962. While working

as a Master Technician in the Civil Work and Prop.

Deptt.the workman remained absent on following days:

15/1/1993 to 25/6/1993.The said period was treated as leave

without pay. The Assistant Collector or Customs

(Preventive M & PV) Mumbai vide his letter dt. 2/5/1995

informed the first party that the workman was primarily

concerned with clandestine clearance of goods (electronic

goods) valued 18,50,000/- as well as Rs.26,01,000/ which

were seized by customs authority on 2/3 March 1993 as

well as on 4th March 1993. Therefore the customs authority

imposed penalty to the tune of Rs.18,00,000 on the

workman. Therefore workman was charge sheeted under

Model Standing Orders 14 (3) (g) and14 (3) (h).

Workman submitted his reply to the charge sheet

and denied the allegations. Inquiry committee was

constituted and the inquiry was conducted on 12 occasions

from 26/06/1995 to 08/01/1996. The workman participated

in the inquiry proceedings. He was defended by defence

representative. Three witnesses were examined by

management. They were offered for cross-examination.

The workman also examined one witness. The copies of

the documents were provided to the workman during the

course of inquiry proceeding. The inquiry was conducted

in Hindi with the help of interpreter as per the request of

the workman. He was provided with the inquiry

proceeding in Hindi. The inquiry Committee held the

workman guilty. They submitted their report to the

disciplinary authority. On the basis of report of inquiry

208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

committee the Disciplinary Authority issued showcause

notice to the workman. He was given hearing. The

Disciplinary Authority after taking into consideration the

gravity of the misconduct, awarded the punishment of

dismissal from service. They denied that the workman

was not given fair and proper opportunity to defend

himself. They denied all the allegations made in the

statement of claim. They also contended that the workman

was found guilty for misconduct of major nature.

Therefore his services were rightly terminated by the

Disciplinary Authority. The workman is not entitled to

any relief. Therefore they pray that the reference be

dismissed with cost.

Following are the preliminary issues for my

determination. I record my findings thereon for the

reasons to follow:-

Sr.

Issues

Findings

No.

Whether the reference suffers

No.

from delay and laches?

Whether the domestic inquiry

Yes.

conducted against the workman

was as per the Principles of

Natural Justice?

Whether the findings of the

No.

Inquiry Officer are perverse?

REASONS

Issue No. 1 :

In the case at hand fact is not disputed that the

workman was terminated from services w.e.f. 11/11/1996

and he has raised the industrial dispute four- five years

thereafter in the year 2000-2001. Therefore it was submitted

on behalf of the first party that the reference suffers from

delay and laches. In this respect Ld. Adv. for the second

party submitted that the provisions of Limitation Act are

not applicable to the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore

question of limitation does not arise and the claim cannot

be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. In support

of his argument, Ld. Adv. for the second party resorted to

Apex Court ruling in Ajaib Singh V/s. Srihind Co-op

Marketing-cum-processing Service Society Ltd. &Anr.

1999 I CLR 1068 wherein on the point of delay the Hon’ble

Court observed that;

“The provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to

the limitation Act 1963 are not applicable to the

proceedings under the Act and that the relief under

it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the

ground of delay.”

The Hon’ble Court in para 10 of the judgement further

observed that;

“No reference to the labour court can generally be

questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a

case where the delay is shown to be existing, the

Tribunal, Labour Court or the Board delaying with

the case can appropriately mold the relief by

declining to grant back wages to the workman till

the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal

retrenchment/termination/ or dismissal.”

The Ld. Adv. also relied Andhra Pradesh High Court

ruling on the same ratio. In the light of ratio laid down by

the Apex Court I come to the conclusion that the reference

is neither hit by delay and laches nor can be said time

barred. Accordingly I decide this issue No.1 in the

negative.

Issue No. 2 :

In respect of the inquiry proceeding, the Ld. Adv.

for the second party contended that wrong standing order

was quoted while framing the charge against the workman.

It is further submitted that inspite of request of the

workman to record the proceeding in Hindi, the Inquiry

Officer recorded it in English. Therefore it was submitted

on behalf of the workman that the Inquiry Committee

violated the principles of natural justice. In this respect

the Ld. Adv. for the first party submitted that clear charges

were properly explained to the workman and he had also

filed his written reply thereto. The workman has admitted

the same in his cross Ex-15 page 8 thereof. Therefore

question of framing wrong or defective charge does not

arise.

10.

In respect of proceeding written in English, the Ld.

Adv. for the first party pointed out that copy of Hindi

translation was supplied to the workman. He has admitted

the same in his cross examination at Ex-15. It is further

submitted by the Ld. Adv. for the first party that the inquiry

was conducted in Hindi. Proceeding thereof was recorded

in English and copy of Hindi translation was also given to

the workman. In the circumstances there was no violation

of Principles of Natural Justice. In support of his argument

Ld. Adv. cited Kerala High Court ruling in Chief Security

Commissioner, Southern Railway, Madras &ors. V/s. V.K.

Shridharan 1998 Lab. I.C. 1753.In that case the IO was not

knowing Malayalam. The inquiry was held in English. A

graduate officer translated the depositions etc. to and from

English. In the circumstances, the Hon’ble Court held

that Principle of Natural Justice not violated. In this respect

I would like to point out that understanding the proceeding

by the delinquent employee is essential. In this respect

Bombay High Court ruling also can be resorted to in

National Organic Chemicals Ltd. &Ors. V/s. Pandit Ladaku

Patil 2008 III CLR 716 wherein the inquiry was conducted

in Marathi and the evidence was recorded in English. The

Hon’ble Court held that, the inquiry cannot be quashed

merely for recording evidence in English.

11.

The Ld. Adv. for the first party submitted that the

inquiry officer has followed the proper procedure as

contemplated by law. He further submitted that the Hon’ble

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

209

Apex Court in respect of fair and proper inquiry resorted

to Apex Court ruling in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works

Ltd. V/s. Workmen AIR 1963 SC 1914 wherein Hon’ble

Apex Court has laid down the points to be complied with

in the inquiry proceeding. In para 4 of the judgement the

Hon’ble Court observed that;

“An inquiry cannot be said to have been properly held

unless;

(1) The employee proceeded against has been

informed clearly of the charges leveled against

him.

(2) The witnesses are examined-ordinarily in the

presence of the employee in respect of the charges.

(3) The employee is given a fair opportunity to cross-

examine witnesses.

(4) He is given a fair opportunity to examine

witnesses including himself in his defence if he

so wishes on any relevant matter, and

(5) The inquiry officer records his findings with

reasons for the same in his report.

12.

In the case at hand the Ld. Adv. for the first party

submitted that the charges were informed and framed in

clear words against the workman. The witnesses were

examined in presence of the workman. He was given fair

opportunity to cross-examine them. The workman was

also given fair opportunity to examine witnesses including

himself in his defence. The workman has admitted all these

facts in his cross-examination at Ex-15. The Inquiry Officer

has recorded findings with reasons for the same in his

report. In this back drop I come to the conclusion that the

Inquiry Officer has followed the norms set out by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred ruling. Thus in

the light of the guidelines given by Hon’ble Apex Court,

the inquiry is found to be fair and proper. Accordingly I

decide this issue No.2 in the affirmative that the inquiry is

fair and proper.

Issue No. 3 :

13.

In respect of the findings on the charges of alleged

absenteeism and involvement in the activities of

smuggling, the Ld. Adv. categorically pointed out that

though the workman was charged for absenteeism, infact

in the record it was shown that the workman was on leave

without pay. The Ld. Adv. submitted that leave without

pay means leave was sanctioned. However as there was

no leave at the credit of the workman, it was leave without

pay. In the circumstances, it was submitted that the charge

of absenteeism was not proved. In this respect from the

record it is revealed that the workman was on privileged

leave up to 13/1/1993. Thereafter he was absent for more

than six months till 25/6/1993. It is revealed that as the

workman was absent, his absence is treated as without

pay and the word was loosely used by the concerned

office bearer as ‘leave without pay’. Infact it was period

of absence of the workman. Neither there is any record to

show that workman had applied for the leave nor there is

any order passed by the concerned authority to the effect

that he was granted leave without pay. His absence was

treated as without pay. However the concerned office

bearer seems to have mentioned it as leave without pay.

Had it been a leave without pay, question of initiating any

action for unauthorized absence would not have arose

and the workman would have produced the order of

sanctioning his leave. Infact there was no leave granted

to the workman.In the circumstances use of word

inadvertently by the concerned office bearer in the register

as leave without pay does not extend any help to the

workman as infact he was absent and there is no record to

show that any leave was granted to him. Therefore the

workman cannot take advantage of the word loosely used

in the attendance register as leave without pay. Therefore

the finding of the Inquiry Officer cannot be called perverse.

14.

In respect of the charges of smuggling of electronic

goods, it is argued on behalf of the workman that it is

alleged that on 2nd and 4th March, 1993 the workman was

involved in smuggling activities. In this respect Ld. Adv.

for the workman submitted that, workman had attended

the Court at Agra on 3rd March, 1993. The workman has

produced copy of roznama of the proceeding wherein it is

shown that workman was present on 3rd March, 1993 at

Agra Court. The Inquiry Officer has rejected this evidence

by saying that it was not trustworthy record as it is

maintained by a Clerk in the Court. The Ld. Adv. further

pointed out that workman has also examined witness

Mr. Dharam Singh who is brother-in-law of the workman.

He stated before the I.O. that workman was at Agra on

3/3/1993 and he attended the Court.Though he is close

relative, the Ld. Adv. submitted that under Evidence Act

there is no bar to accept the evidence of close relative.

According to him the I.O. erroneously rejected his

evidence. He further submitted that in 1993 there was no

direct flight from Mumbai to Agra and it was not possible

for the workman to be in Mumbai on 02/03/1993 as he was

at Agra on 03/03/1993. It was also not possible for the

workman again to come back and involve in the smuggling

activities on 04/03/1993. Therefore he submitted that the

finding of the I.O. in respect of involvement of the workman

in the smuggling activities on 2nd and 4th March, 1993 is

perverse.

15.

In this respect I would like to point out that reference

in roznama in respect of presence of party in the Court

cannot be relied upon. Even some friend or relative also

can say that the party is present. No authentication can

be attributed to such evidence. Many times the roznamas

are written mechanically after the closing of the proceeding

of the day. Therefore such evidence cannot be relied upon

and the Inquiry Officer has rightly rejected the same.

210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

16.

In respect of evidence of Dharam Singh, admittedly

he is brother-in-law of the workman and has every reason

to save the workman. Evidence of relativeis relied upon in

criminal proceedings when they are eye witnesses and

their presence on the spot is natural. In such circumstances

the evidence of witnesses need not be discarded merely

they being relatives of the injured or victim. The said

analogy is not applicable in the cases like the case in

hand. Furthermore in this respect fact is not disputed

even by the workman that as per the order of Collector of

Customs dated 22/03/1995 and 31/03/1995, personal

penalty of Rs.18,00,000/- was imposed on him for smuggling

of electronic goods. The orders passed by Collector of

Customs were placed on record before the Inquiry Officer.

The I.O. also relied upon the evidence of Mr. P.T. Shikhare,

Superintendent of Central Excise, Mumbai and the evidence

of Mr. S.M. Sawant, Vigilance Officer, Air India. The Inquiry

Officer found the oral and documentary evidence sufficient

to hold the workman guilty for his involvement in the

smuggling activities. He rightly rejected the evidence of

alibi put forth by the workman. As against the evidence of

workman the I.O. found the evidence of the management

was quite convincing and reliable. It includes the order of

Collector of Customs imposing huge penalty against the

workman for his involvement in the smuggling activities.

Therefore I found that findings of the Inquiry Officer are

based on the cogent evidence on record. Therefore they

cannot be called perverse.

17.

Furthermore in the case at hand the workman has

not examined himself before the Inquiry Officer. Therefore

adverse inference is required to be drawn against him. On

the point Ld. Adv. for the first party relied on Bombay

High Court ruling in S.K. Awasti V/s. M.R. Bhoge, Presiding

Officer, First Labour Court &Ors. 1994 I CLR 254 wherein

the Hon’ble High Court on the point observed that;

“The Labour Court was bound to draw an adverse

inference against the petitioner for not examining

himself and submitting to cross-examination.”

18.

Furthermore the Ld. Adv. for the first party submitted

that proof in domestic inquiry is not as high as in the

criminal proceeding. Therefore even a person acquitted

in criminal proceeding does not get any advantage in the

domestic inquiry. On the point the Ld. Adv. resorted to

Division Bench ruling of Bombay High Court in Air India

CorporationV/s. Richard Rashid Khan 1983 I LLJ 125 BOM

HC wherein the Hon’ble Court on the point observed that;

“The acquittal by the criminal court did not relieve

the respondent of the liability which he had incurred

as a result of the order of the Additional Collector of

customs. He was bound to pay that penalty and

that penalty was based on the finding that he was

concerned in the smuggling of diamond.”

19.

In the case at hand the Ld. Adv. submitted that in

the case at hand the Collector of Customs has imposed

penalty of Rs.18 Lakhs on the workman and the Inquiry

Officer relied on the said evidence along with documents

and oral evidence.On the point law is also well settled in

respect of findings of the Inquiry Officer i.e. when the

inquiry is held fair and proper and findings of Inquiry

Officer are based on evidence on record, the Tribunal is

not supposed to interfere therein. The Tribunal is not

sitting as an appellate authority to replace its own view in

respect of the findings. On the point Apex Court ruling

can be resorted to in UP State Road Transport Corporation

& Ors V/s. Musais Ram &Ors. 1999 (83) FLR 226 (SC)

wherein on the point Hon’ble Court observed that;

“The Court does not sit in appeal over the findings

of the I.O. If the findings are based on

uncontroverted material placed before the I.O., it

cannot be said that these findings are perverse.”

20.

In short the findings of the Inquiry Officer are based

on evidence before him. They are not contrary to the

evidence on record and cannot be called perverse. Thus

I hold that the findings of the I.O. are not perverse.

Accordingly, I decide this issue No. 2 in the negative and

proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

(i) The inquiry is held fair and proper.

(ii)

Findings of the Inquiry Officer are not perverse.

(iii)

The parties are directed to argue/lead evidence on

the point of quantum of punishment.

Date: 17/11/2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 97-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

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; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

5@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05&01&2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20013@2@2015&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2015

S.O. 97.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/2011) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 05.01.2015.

[No. L-20013/2/2015-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

211

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an application under Sub -section (2) of

the Sec 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and the

Industrial Disputes (amendment) Act. 2010 (24 of 2010).

I.D. CASE NO. 5 OF 2011

PARTIES

Ghosia B. P.

...Applicant

Vs.

The General Manager,

PBhowra Area of M/s BCCL,

Dhanbad

...O.P. Party

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

: None

workman/Union

On behalf of the

: Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate

Management .

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dhanbad, the 14th Nov., 2014

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Bhowra

(N) U.G.Mine of M/s BCCL in dismissing he services

of Sri Ghosia B.P.,M/Loader w.e.f. 07.11.2006 is

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

concerned workman entitled?”

Neither workman Ghosia B.P. appeared nor any

Representative for the Rastriya Mazdoor Union nor any

rejoinder of the workman filed. Mr. D.K.Verma,

Ld.Advocate, for the OP/Management is present.

From the perusal of the case record, it appears that

the case has been pending for fling a rejoinder on behalf

of the wokman, for which three Registered Notices

including the Union Representative were issued on

27.11.2013, 13.03.2014 and 07.08.2014 on their addresses

noted in the Instant I.D.Case which is related to an issue

of his dismissal. But neither the workman nor the Union

Representative responded to any of the Registered Notices

issued to them. Both of them by their negligent conducts

appear to be not at all willing to pursue the case for its

finality. In such circumstances, it appears to be no longer

an Industrial Dispute; hence the case is closed as no ID.;

accordingly an order of ‘No Dispute’ is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 98-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bafnjk xka/h

jk"Vªh; eqDr fo'ofo|ky;] psUubZ 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 115@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 01&01&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@141@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2015

S.O. 98.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 115/

2014) 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 Indira Gandhi National Open

University, Chennai and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 01/01/2015.

[No. L-42012/141/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 16th December, 2014

Present :

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 115/2014

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

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

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

the Management of Indira Gandhi National Open

University and their workman]

BETWEEN :

Sri V. Thennarasu

1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Regional Director

2nd Party/Respondent

Indira Gandhi National

Open University

Regional Centre, G.R. Complex

IIIrd Floor, 407-408, Anna Salai

Chennai-600035

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/

: None

Petitioner

212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the 2nd Party/

: None

Management

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour and

Employment vide its Order No. L-42012/141/2014-IR(DU)

dated 17.11.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of Indira

Gandhi National Open University in terminating the

services of Sri V. Thennarasu w.e.f. 28.6.2013 is jus-

tified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled

to ?”

On receipt of the notice the petitioner has appeared

in person. He has stated that he does not want to proceed

with the ID 104/2014 which directly filed by him regarding

the same issue is pending before this Court. This petitioner

has endorsed that since the other case is pending he does

not want to proceed with this case and this can be closed.

Accordingly, the reference is closed.

An award is passed accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1st Party/

None

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/

None

Management

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

N/A

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

N/A

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 99-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,aMª;w ;wy

fyfeVsM] psUubZ 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 108@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

07&01&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@14@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 8th January, 2015

S.O.

99.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 108/

2014) 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 Andrew Yule and Co. Ltd.,

Chennai and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 07/01/2015.

[No. L-42012/14/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 23rd December, 2014

Present :

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 108/2014

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

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

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

the Management of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. and their

workman]

BETWEEN :

Sri K. Ramesh

1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The General Manager

2nd Party/Respondent

Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd

Electric Division

5/346, Old Mahabalipuram Road

Perungudi

Chennai-600096

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

Nil

For the 2nd Party/Respondent

Nil

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-42012/14/2013-IR (DU)

dated 03.07.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of M/s Andrew Yule and Co.

Ltd. in respect of dismissal from service of Sri K.

Ramesh, a workman of the Company w.e.f. 18.12.2010

is justified or not? To what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

213

Notice was issued to the petitioner and he has failed

to enter appearance even though he has received notice.

On the second hearing date notice was sent to the

petitioner again and this time also he has received notice,

as seen from the postal acknowledgement card. However,

the petitioner has not appeared before this Tribunal.

The conduct of the petitioner in not responding to

the notice received by him would show that he is not

interested in proceeding with the case. In the absence of

any material, adjudication on merits is not possible so the

reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is

passed accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1st Party/

None

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/

None

Management

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

N/A

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

N/A

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 100-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fyfeVsM] lgkjuiqj 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[kuÅ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 42@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 07&01&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@74@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 8th January, 2015

S.O.

100.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 42/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Luncknow now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Saharanpur and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 07/01/2015.

[No. L-40012/74/2010-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 42/2011

Ref.No. L-40012/74/2010-IR(DU) dated 22.03.2011

BETWEEN :

Sh. Bablu S/o Sri Ram Lal

Vill. Lakhnauti Kalan, PO Puvarika

Saharanpur (U.P.)

AND

The General Manager

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Mission Compound

Saharanpur (U.P.)

The Sub Divisional Officer

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Telephone Exchange, Behat Road

Chowdhary Vihar, Near Kotwali Dehat

Saharanpur (U.P.)

AWARD

By order No. L-40012/74/2010-IR(DU) dated

22.03.2011 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 Sri Bablu S/o Sri Ram Lal,

Vill. Lakhnauti Kalan, PO Puvarika, Saharanpur and the

General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Mission

Compound, Saharanpur & the Sub Divisional Officer,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Telephone Exchange, Behat

Road, Chowdhary Vihar, Near Kotwali Dehat, Saharanpur

for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER

THE

ACTION

THE

MANAGEMENT OF BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM

LIMITED IN TERMINATING/DISENGAGING THE

SERVICES OF SRI BABLU S/o SRI RAM LAL W.E.F.

01.08.2007 WITHOUT ANY NOTICE AND

COMPENSATION IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED?

WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED

TO?”

Applicant Sh. Bablu Kumar has submitted a claim

statement dated 30.04.2012 before this Tribunal, stating

therein that he was appointed as CABLE JOINTER in the

year 2001 under the subordination of opposite party. He

was paid salary on ACG 17 which was much less than

minimum wages. The workman further stated that he was

terminated on 01.08.2007 without assigning any reason.

He had worked more than 240 days. No notice, notice-pay,

214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

gratuity or compensation was paid to him. Several verbal

and written request was made but he was not paid salary

from January 2007 to 31st July 2007 which comes under

unfair labour practice. Applicant worked under Sub

Divisional Officer. He made several requests to SDO but

he has given assurances only. Applicant requests he may

be reinstated with back wages. The said workman has

prayed to set aside the order whereby his services were

terminated. He has also requested for his reinstatement in

continuous service with all the back wages and other due

benefits alongwith cost of the proceedings.

On behalf of the opposite party no. 1 & 2 written

statement M-9 dated 18.06.2012 was filed before this

Tribunal. The facts mentioned in the written statement

and the specific averments emphasize that the claim

statement is absolutely false and fabricated without any

substantive evidence. The opposite parties have also

pleaded that workman has never been engaged in the post

of Cable Jointer, and the post of Cable Jointer is neither

available in the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. nor any SDO is

competent to engage any labour. The opposite parties

have submitted that BSNL exchange Behut Road,

Chauddhari Vihar was started on 1st April 2003 and on

Sept. 2002 the generator was provided to the said exchange

then how can the workman be engaged in the year 2001.

The opposite parties have pleaded that workman was not

engaged in any activities of the exchange then how can

the services of the workman be terminated without notice

and why the workman is able to get his salary. The opposite

parties have also stated that workman through Advocate

has sent a notice which was replied to him. The opposite

parties have pleaded that SDO can not engage any labour,

he can not appoint Cable Jointer and neither can he do

any retrenchment of labour. It has been stated that this

workman has never been engaged for any sort of work

then how he can be terminated from the work without

notice.

It has also been pleaded in the written statement

that the workman was not engaged in any sort of work so

the question related to payment of his salary does not

arise.

6. The opposite parties have stated that the relief sought

is ambiguous and can not be given by the Tribunal, per

contra it has been emphasized by opposite parties that

the relief requested is misconceived and liable to be

rejected in the interest of justice.

After filing of written statement before this Tribunal

by the opposite party, sufficient opportunity was given to

the workman for filing rejoinder. Although several

opportunities were given but none was present on several

dates. It appears that the workman does not want to pursue

his claim on the basis of so called present industrial

dispute. Resultantly no relief is legally required to be given

to the workman Sri Bablu Kumar. The reference under

adjudication is answered as NO CLAIM AWARD

accordingly.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

07.11. 2014

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 101-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj

foHkkx] vgenkckn 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 ¹lanHkZ la[;k (lhthvkbZVh,) 709@2004º dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07&01&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@33@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 8th January, 2015

S.O. 101.—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)

709/2004] 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 Telecom Department,

Ahmedabad and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 07/01/2015.

[No. L-40012/33/2000-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 2nd December, 2014

Reference : (CGITA) No-709/2004

Reference : (I.T.C.) No. 20/2000 (old)

1. Divisional Engineer (Coaxial Maintenance)

2nd Floor, City Telecom Building, Jail Road,

Vadodara (Gujarat) - 390001

2. Divisional Engineer (Microwave Project)

Microwave Building,

Nr. Navrangpura Telephone Exchange,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)- 380006

(management) ...First Party

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

215

And

Their Workman

Devabhai Malabhai Bharwad,

At. Palej GIDC,

Nr. Water Tank,

Bharuch

(workman) ...Second Party

For the first party

Shri N. K. Trivedi, Advocate

For the second party

None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide Order No. L-40012/33/2000-IR(DU) dated

29.05.2000, 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 Telecom

Dept. in terminating the services of Sh. Devabhai

Malabhai Bharwad is legal and Justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled and from what

date?”

Parties to the case appear on notice and filed

respective pleadings. The 2nd party workman filed S/c

(Ext.7) and the 1st party its W/s (Ext.12) attached with

necessary documents.

The case of the 2nd party as per S/c is that he was

engaged as security guard by the 1st party no . 2 of his

Palej M/w station for the year 1997 to 30.11.1998 on monthly

payment of Rs. 1,500/- and that the 2nd party has worked

for 240 days in 12 calendar month. But without any reason,

he was removed from the service of security guard with

effect from 01.12.1998.Such action on part of the 1st party

is illegal and improper since no retrenchment notice was

given to him and no retrenchment compensation was given

and the 1st party has contravened the provision of section

25 (F) of the industrial Dispute Act. The 2nd party has

sought for relieve for his reinstatement with full back wages

and to grant any other relief for which he is found entitled.

As against this the contention of the 1st party

interalia as per W/s is that the reference is not

maintainable, the concern workman has no cause of action.

It has been denied that the concern person Devabhai has

worked as security guard since May- 1997 at Microwave

Palej under 1st party No. 2 and he was getting Rs. 1500/-

per month. It has been contended that the concern person

Sh. Devabhai Malabhai Bharwad has never worked for

240 days in 12 months it is also denied that he worked for

360 days in 1st party department. Para 1 to 16 of the S/c

has been denied.The case of the 1st party is that the

concerned person Devabhai was engaged as daily rated

labour since January-1999 to May-1999 for 121 days of

only and he was not given duty of security guard. He was

engaged as casual labour and for work only to Palej

Microwave. The concern person was being paid daily

wages. The case is that the1st party, Microwave R/R station

was taken over by maintenance staff from SDE Microwave

Project, Ahmedabad on 30.11.1998 and the concern person

Shri Devabhai was engaged from 01.01.1999. His job is not

continuous, as a fresh casual labour he was given work

on need based basis. On these, scores, prayer is made to

dismiss the reference since the 2nd party is not entitled to

get any relief.

The 2nd party Devabhai M. Bharawad in his

examination in chief at Ext.35 on 14.02.2006 and his cross

examination was adjourned for next date was partly

performed by the lawyer of the 1st party and it was fixed

for next date for cross examination but there after the 2nd

party workman did not appear on dates. However cross

examination could not be completed by the 1st party lawyer,

the case record transferring from one court to another

since post of Presiding officer of C.G.I.T. was vacant and

case record by the order of MOL, New Delhi were

transferred where it remained pending till November, 2010

there after the case record was sent to this C.G.I.T. by

order of MOL and fresh notice was issued to the parties

and the 1st party through lawyer Shri N.K Trivedi appeared

and is making proper pairvi on behalf of the 1st party

whereas inspite of notice, the 2nd party failed to appear.

On 03.04.2014, an application was filed on behalf of the 1st

party that oral evidence of the 2nd party be expunged

since he failed to appear for cross examination on the last

date. The affidavit in lieu of cross examination in chief of

witness of the 1st party namely, Sh. Saji Samuel, Divisional

Engineer Telecom Project, Division-1, Microwave division

at (Ext. 38) is filed but the 2nd party or his representative

failed to appear for cross examination of the 1st party

witness. On 27.11.2014 an application Ext. 39 has been

filed on behalf of the 1st party that the 2nd party failed to

appear since long whereas the 1st party is making pairvi

on dates to close the stage of evidence of 2nd party prayer

has been made for dismissing the reference.

Consider the situation that on earlier occasion the

2nd party appeared in the case and as S/c his oral evidence

failed to appear for cross examination. The oral evidence

of workman at Ext. 35 has got no evidentiary value rather

it is fit to be expunged. 1st party witness has also filed his

affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. But there is no

need for going through the affidavit examination of the

1st party witness because onus is upon the 2nd party

workman Sh. Devabhai M. Bharwad to prove his case that

he completed 240 days work in 12 calendar of month and

he was not given notice under section 25F of the ID Act

one month notice pay, the 2nd party has failed to prove

his case as per S/c, there is clear contention of the 1st

party as per W/s that the 2nd party was engaged at daily

rated casual worker for 121 days which has to be accepted

216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and it is proved that the 2nd party has not completed 240

days in any calendar year and so there was no need for

giving retrenchment notice or 1 month pay in lieu of notice

or retrenchment compensation under the provision of

section 25 (f) of the I.D. Act.

On such consideration, the terms and reference is

adjudicated that the action of management of Telecom

Department in terminating the services of Devabhai is legal

and justified the concern workman is not entitled to any

relief in this case.

As such this reference is dismissed. No order as to

cost.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 102-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj v/h{kd]

Mkd dk;kZy;ksa vkSj nwljksa 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 62@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 07&01&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@25@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 8th January, 2015

S.O.

102.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 62/2014)

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 Superintendent of Post Offices

and Others and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 07/01/2015.

[No. L-40012/25/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 24th December, 2014

Present :

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 62/2014

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

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

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

the Management of Department of Posts and their

workman]

BETWEEN

Smt. J. Manimegalai

1st Party/

Petitioner

AND

1. Superintendent of Post Offices :

2nd Party/

Ramanathapuram Division

1st Respondent

Ramanathapuram-623501

2. Assistant Superintendent of

2nd Party/2nd

Post Offices

Respondent

Paramakudi Sub-Division

Paramakudi-623707

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/

M/s. R. Malaichamy,

Petitioner

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/

Sri M. Liagatali, Advocate

Respondents

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-40012/25/2014-IR (DU)

dated 15.07.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of

Department of Posts in terminating the services of

Smt. J. Manimegalai without following the principles

of natural justice and provisions of Section-25F of

the ID Act is justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 62/2014 and issued notice to both

sides. Both sides entered appearance through their counsel

and filed their Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

Jayapandian was the Gramin Dak Sevak Mail

Deliverer/Mail Carrier in the Second Respondent’s Office

at Thaduthalankottai Branch Office. During the period

from 01.01.2006 to 31.08.2009 Jayapandian was officiating

as Postman of Paramakudi H.O. The petitioner was ordered

to carry out the duties of Gramin Dak Sevak during this

period and the same was approved by the Second

Respondent. Jayapandian was promoted to the post of

Postman on permanent basis w.e.f. 16.10.2009. After this,

the petitioner was permitted to continue to work as Gramin

Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer at Thaduthalankottai till

01.11.2012. She worked against a clear vacant post from

16.10.2009 and completed more than 240 days of work.

The stop-gap arrangement were extended from time to time

by the Second Respondent. The appointment of the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

217

petitioner was approved by the Second Respondent. After

01.11.2012 the petitioner was denied work without prior

notice. The Postal Department is an industry. The

Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and

Engagement) Rules has not been framed under Article-

309 of the Constitution of India. The service condition of

GDS are deemed to be governed by industrial laws of the

country. The action of the Respondent in removing the

petitioner from service without passing an order and to

deny work to the petitioner amounts to violation of

Section-25F of the ID Act. The dispute is raised

accordingly. The petitioner is entitled to an order of

reinstatement in service with continuity of service, back

wages and all other attendant benefits.

The Respondents have filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

The petitioner, W/o Jayapandian was permitted to

perform the work of GDS, Thaduthalankottai Branch Office

as outsider. When Jayapandian officiated as Postman at

Paramakudi he substituted his wife to work as GDS without

any permission from the Respondents. In the meantime,

Jayapandian was promoted as Postman on regular basis

from 16.10.2009 and thus the post of GDS at

Thaduthalankottai Branch Office has fallen vacant. The

petitioner was engaged as GDS on stopgap arrangement

from 16.10.2009 to 01.11.2012 with occasional breaks by

the Sub-Divisional Head. In the meanwhile permission was

issued by the competent authority to fill up the post and

notification was issued for this purpose. Candidates

including the petitioner have applied for the post. After

conducting interview, the most meritorious candidate was

selected for the post. The petitioner was only engaged on

stop-gap arrangement and she was paid only for those

days for which she was engaged except Sundays and

Postal Holidays. The petitioner was neither appointed to

the post nor was terminated. The claim of the petitioner

that she had rendered more than 240 days work is not

correct as she was paid only for those days she worked.

As the petitioner was only an outsider and was engaged

only as a substitute notice under Section-25F of the ID

Act does not arise. The section is applicable only to the

regular employees. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W19.

No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the

side of the Respondents.

The points for consideration are :

(i)

Whether the action of the respondents in terminating

the service of the petitioner is justified?

(ii)

What, if any, is the relief to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The Points

The petitioner had worked as Gramin Dak Sevak at

Thaduthalankottai Branch Office of the Respondents

for some time. Her husband was the Gramin Dak Sevak of

Thaduthalankottai. When he was asked to officiate as

Postman at Paramakudi, he engaged his wife as Gramin

Dak Sevak at Thaduthalankottai. It is seen from the Counter

Statement itself that this engagement claimed by the

petitioner is true, even though she has not produced any

documents showing this. The Respondents have stated

in the Counter Statement that when Jayapandian started

to officiate as Postman he substituted his wife to work as

GDS, even though according to the Respondents it was

without permission. It is also admitted by the Respondents

that from 16.10.2009 on which date Jayapandian was

permanently posted as Postman, the Sub-divisional Head

had engaged the petitioner as GDS on stop-gap

arrangement. As seen from Ext.W1 to Ext.W9, the petitioner

had worked for the period from 01.01.2010 to 28.02.2010,

01.03.2010 to 30.04.2010, 01.05.2010 to 30.06.2010,

02.07.2010 to 31.08.2010, 01.09.2010 to 31.10.2010,

01.01.2011 to 28.02.2011 and from 01.07.2011 to 31.08.2011.

Thus it could be seen that during the period from 16.10.2009

to 31.08.2012 the petitioner was working as GDS even

though with a gap on certain occasions. As seen from the

Counter Statement the engagement had extended upto

01.11.2012 even though document is not seen produced

by the petitioner for the engagement after 31.08.2012. The

engagement after 16.10.2009 is certainly on a clear vacant

post as Jayapandian who was the one earlier working in

this post was promoted and the post had fallen vacant

from 16.10.2009.

According to the petitioner she was terminated from

service after 01.11.2012 without any prior notice in violation

of Section-25F of the ID Act. According to the petitioner,

she having worked for more than 240 days in a clear post

she should not have been terminated. According to her,

she is to be reinstated in service.

It could be seen from the evidence that even though

the petitioner was engaged on a clear vacant post, her

engagement was only as a stop-gap arrangement. Ext.W1

to Ext.W9 refer to her engagement as stop-gap

arrangement only. Ext.W10 which shows payment of arrears

to the petitioner refers to her as outsider. It could be seen

from the evidence that the vacant post was subsequently

filled-up as per the Recruitment Rules. A notification has

been issued calling applications for filling up the post.

The petitioner has admitted during his examination that

she was also a candidate for the post and she had attended

the interview that was held on 29.11.2012. Another

candidate who stood above the petitioner in merits was

selected for the post and was given appointment also.

According to the petitioner it was because she failed in

218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2015/PAUSA 20, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the interview held for the post that she raised the dispute

claiming reinstatement. Thus it could be seen the

engagement of the petitioner even after 16.10.2009 was

not as per law and the post was later filled-up by a proper

recruitment process. This being the case the petitioner is

certainly not entitled to an order of reinstatement in service.

10.

As already stated the petitioner seems to have

worked with the Respondents during the period from 2006

till the end of 2012, from 16.10.2009 as engaged by the

Sub-Divisional Head itself. It is clear from the evidence

and documents and also the admission of the

Respondents that she was working as GDS all along even

though with some breaks. She was a workman coming

under the definition of Section-2(s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, the Apex Court having held that Post Office

is an industrial establishment coming under the definition

of the Act. It could be seen from the Counter Statement

itself that the petitioner was not given any notice as

contemplated under Section-25f of the Industrial Disputes

Act. She was not given any compensation also. The Apex

Court has held repeatedly that in such cases reinstatement

is not the relief but compensation is liable to be given.

Considering the fact that the petitioner had worked with

the Respondents for considerable period though only as

an outsider on stop-gap arrangement she is entitled to be

compensated because of her termination in violation of

Section-25f of the Act. The compensation amount payable

to the petitioner is fixed as Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Respondents

are liable to pay this amount to the petitioner. Accordingly,

an order is passed as follows:

The Respondents are directed to pay Rs. 1.00 lakh

to the petitioner as compensation, within one month

of the award. The amount will carry interest @ 9%

per annum if not paid within the prescribed time.

An award is passed accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/

WW1, Sri J. Manimegalai

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/

None

Respondents

Documents marked:

On the side of the Petitioner

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

31.10.2009

Order of the 2nd Respondent

Ex.W2

11.02.2010

Order of the 2nd Respondent

Ex.W3

09.04.2010

Order of the 2nd Respondent

Ex.W4

07.06.2010

Order of the 2nd Respondent

Ex.W5

30.07.2010

Order of the 2nd Respondent

Ex.W6

05.10.2010

Order of the 2nd Respondent

Ex.W7

01.02.2011

Order of the 2nd Respondent

Ex.W8

03.08.2011

Order of the 2nd Respondent

Ex.W9

20.06.2012

Order of the 2nd Respondent

Ex.W10 10.01.2013

Receipt of payment of arrears

Ex.W11 13.04.2013

Claim petition

Ex.W12 21.05.2013

Letter of ALC/Puducherry

Ex.W13 21.10.2013

Reply Statement (parawise

comments)

Ex.W14 28.11.2013

Letter of ALC/Madurai

Ex.W15 20.11.2013

Rejoinder of the petitioner

Ex.W16 29.01.2014

Reply to rejoinder by the 1st

Respondent

Ex.W17 21.02.2014

Failure report

Ex.W18 15.07.2014

Order of the Government

Ex.W19 25.07.2014

Notice of this Hon’ble Tribunal

On the side of the Management

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 103-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fyfeVsM]] vgenkckn 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 ¹lanHkZ la[;k (lhthvkbZVh,) 585@2004º dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07&01&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@47@2003&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 8th January, 2015

S.O. 103.—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)

585/2004] 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 Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Ltd., Ahmedabad and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 07/01/2015.

[No. L-40012/47/2003-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 10] 2015@ikS"k 20] 1936

219

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 8th December, 2014

Reference: (CGITA) No-585/2004

Reference: (I.T.C) No- 1 of 2004 (old)

Order No. L-40012/47/2003-IR (DU)

1. The Chief General Manager,

Telecom Dept.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Khanpur,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)- 380001

2. The General Manger,

Telecom Distt. , Telecom Dept.,

Palanpur Telecom District,

Joravar Palace,

Palanpur (Banaskantha)- 385001

(management) ...First Party

And

Their Workman

Through the organising Secretary,

The Association of Railway and Post Employees,

15, Shashi Apartment,

Near Anjalee Cinema,

Vasna Road,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380007

(workman) …….Second Party

For the first party:

Shri N.K. Trivedi, Advocate

For the Union/

None

Second party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide Order No. L-40012/47/2003-IR (DU) dated

20.06.2003, referred the dispute for adjudication in respect

of the matters specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Association of Railway

& Post employees, Ahmedabad for regularisation

of services of the workman mentioned in Annexure

-1 (containing list of ten workman with

consequential benefits at par with the regular

employees of the Telecom Department by the

management of General Manager, Palanpur Telecom

District, BSNL (Telecom Dept.), Palanpur is proper

and justified? If so, what the concern workman is

entitled for and since when?”

In spite of notice the union/2nd party failed to submit

statement of claim in this case. Though on some dates ,

the 2nd party did pairvi but failed to submit S/c to show

any intention to contest in this case. Whereas , the 1st

party through Lawyer appeared filed Vakilpatra on

15.03.2004 awaiting filing of S/c by the Union/S.P. The

case was earlier pending before Industrial Court as

Reference I.T.C. 1 of 2004 thereafter received back in this

C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court in the year 2004. Fresh notice

was issued but S.P. did not appear and filed S/c.

Subsequently, post of P.O., C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court

remained vacant for long time and the record was

transferred to Industrial State Tribunal by the order of

M.O.L. Fresh notice was issued therein but all went

invain. S.P. Did not appear and did not file statement of

claim. Thereafter, in the month of November 2010 the record

of the case reverted back to C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court.

Again fresh notice was issued to parties. The 1st party

remained present on dates but the S.P./Union again failed

to appear.

On behalf of the 1st party’s lawyer pursis at Ext.6

and 7 were filed that S.P. are not taking interest. Again a

pursis at Ext.10 was filed on 02.12.2014 for dismissing

the reference since the 2nd party have lost interest and

not appeared to make contest and to substantiate their

demand as per terms of reference.

In deed the 2nd party/Union has lost interest in

this case so it is not desirable to keep this reference

case pending any further. As such the terms of reference

is decided against the Union/workman involved in this

case that the demand of the Union for regularisation of

services of the workman mentioned in Annexure- A-1

with consequential benefits at par with the regular

employees of the Telecom Department by the

management of general manager, Palanpur Telecom District,

BSNL (Telecom Dept.) , Palanpur is not proper and

justified. So, the Union/workman is not entitled to any

relief. The order dated 16.08.2005 passed in the reference

directing O.P. No. 1 & 2 not to transfer the complainant

shall have no force now and is recalled.

Accordingly the reference is dismissed. No order of

cost.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.