ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ea=ky;
¼mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx½
¼jktHkk"kk ;wfuV½
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 986-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e 4 ds
vuqlj.k esa] ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ea=ky; ¼mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx½
ds varxZr nf{k.k fcgkj dsanzh; fo'ofo|ky;] gkml lañ 16@13] okMZ
lañ 9,] U;w ,fj;k] 38] chlj] x;k&823001 ¼fcgkj½ dks ,sls dk;kZy;
ds :i esa] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkjh&o`Un us fgUnh dk
dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vf/klwfpr djrh gSA
[lañ 11011&2@2015&jkñHkkñ,ñ]
lq[kchj flag la/kq] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
(Department of Higher Education)
(O.L. UNIT)
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 986.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of
the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies
the Central University of South Bihar, House No. 16/13,
Ward No. 9A, New Area, 38, Bisar Gaya-823001 (BIHAR)
under the Ministry of Human Resource Development,
(Department of Higher Education) as office, whose more
than 80% members of the staff have acquired working
knowledge of Hindi.
[No. 11011-2/2015-O.L.U.]
SUKHBIR SINGH SANDHU, Jt. Secy.
jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 20]
ubZ fnYyh] ebZ 10—ebZ 16] 2015] 'kfuokj@oS'kk[k 20—oS'kk[k 26] 1937
No. 20]
NEW DELHI, MAY 10—MAY 16, 2015, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 20—VAISAKHA 26, 1937
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)
1975 GI/2015
(2131)
2132
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
d`f"k ea=ky;
¼d`f"k ,oa lgdkfjrk foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 987-—cgq jkT; lgdkjh lfefr vf/kfu;e] 2002
¼2002 dk 39½ ds [kaM 4 ds mi&[kaM ¼i½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq, vkSj Hkkjr ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk lañ ,y&11012@
2@2003&,y ,.M ,e fnukad 20 twu] 2014 ds vf/kØe.k esa dsanz
ljdkj ,rn}kjk Jh vk'kh"k dqekj HkqVkuh] la;qDr lfpo ¼lgdkfjrk½
dks d`f"k ea=ky;] d`f"k ,oa lgdkfjrk foHkkx esa rRdky izHkko ls
vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd lgdkjh lfefr;ksa ds dsanzh; iath;d ds
:i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
[lañ ,y&11012@2@2003&,y ,.M ,e]
fnus'k dqekj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE
(Department of Agriculture and Cooperation)
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2015
S.O. 987.—In exercise of the powers conferred vide
sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Multi-State Cooperative
Societies Act, 2002 (39 of 2002) and in supersession of the
Government of India Notification No. L-11012/2/2003-L&M
dated 20th June, 2014, the Central Government hereby
appoints Dr. Ashish Kumar Bhutani, Joint Secretary
(Cooperation) in the Ministry of Agriculture, Department
of Agriculture & Cooperation, as the Central Registrar of
Cooperative Societies with immediate effect and until
further orders. (Hindi version follows).
[No. L-11012/2/2003-L&M]
DINESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
;qok dk;ZØe vkSj [ksy ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 988-—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn}kjk jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds
'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi
fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa ;qok dk;ZØe vkSj [ksy ea=ky; ds Lok;Ùk
dk;kZy; Hkkjrh; [ksy izkf/kdj.k izf'k{k.k dsanz] tks/kiqj] jktLFkku]
ftlds 80% ls vf/kd deZpkjhc`an us fganh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr
dj fy;k gS] dks vf/klwfpr djrh gSA
[fe lañ 11011@2@2008&fgñ,ñ]
,lñ ,yñ ehuk] mi lfpo
MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2015
S.O. 988.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule of
10 of Official Language (use for official purpose of the
Union) Rule 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies
Sports Authority of India Training Centre, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan, an Autonomous office of Ministry of Youth
Affairs & Sports, whereof more than 80% staff have acquired
working knowledge of Hindi.
[F.No. E-11011/2/2008-H.U.]
S. L. MEENA, Dy. Secy.
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2014
dk-vk- 989-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsUnzh; Hk.Mkj.k
fuxe] iapdqyk ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 1 paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
277@2013½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@12@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@171@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2014
S.O. 989.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 277/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation,
Panchkula and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 22/12/2014.
[No. L-42012/171/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No. 277 of 2013, Reference no. L-42012/171/
2013/IR (DU) dated 26.2.2014
Sh. Satta Ram son of Shri banarsi Ram,
Village & PO Mohal Khera,
Tehsil Narwana, Jind (Haryana).
....Workman
Versus
1.
The Regional Manager,
Central Warehousing Corporation,
Chandigarh Region,
Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4,
Panchkula (Haryana)-134112
....Respondent
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2133
Appearances :
For the Workman
:
None.
For the Management
:
Shri N.K. Zakhmi.
AWARD
Passed on: 15.12.2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-42012/171/2013/IR (DU) dated 26.2.2014
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
Term of Reference:
"Whether the action of the Management of Regional
Manager, CWC, Panchkula in terminating the
services of Sh. Satta Ram son of Shri Banarsi Ram
workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled to?
2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per
record already three opportunities have been allowed to
file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the
workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is not
interested to pursue the present reference. In view of the
above the present reference is disposed off for want of
prosecution.
3. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent
to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
15.12.2014
S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 990-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa ,aMªw ;wy daiuh fyfeVsM ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa
Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 80@2013½ izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42011@83@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 990.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 80/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Andrew Yule Company Ltd. and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 01/05/2015.
[No. L-42011/83/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 22nd April, 2015
Present:
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 80/2013
(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 Andrew Yule and Company Ltd. and their
workman)
BETWEEN
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Andrew Yule Staff and
Workers Union
1, Rajiv Gandhi Road,
Kandanchavadi, Chennai-600096
AND
1.
The General Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
M/s Andrew Yule and
Company Ltd.
5/346, Rajiv Gandhi Salai
(Old Mahabalipuram Rd.)
Perungudi
Chennai-600096
2.
The Director
: 2nd Party/2nd Respondent
(Personnel)
M/s Andrew Yule & Company Ltd.
8, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sarani
Kolkata-700001
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
: M/s N. Ajoy Khose, Advocates
Petitioner Union
For the 2nd Party/1st
: M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.
and 2nd Management
Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-42011/83/2013-IR(DU)
dated 25.07.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to his tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the transfer of Sri P. Soundararajan by
M/s. Andrew Yule and Company Ltd. from Perungudi
factory, Chennai to Kalyani Works, Kolkata is legal
and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled
to?
2134
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 80/2013 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their
counsel and have filed their claim and counter statement
respectively. The petitioner has filed rejoinder in reply to
the Counter Statement.
3. The contention in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these:
M/s. Transformer and Switchgear Ltd., a factory at
Adyar run by private management was taken over by
Andrew Yule and Company, the Second Respondent, a
Government of India Undertaking, in the year 1987. A factory
was later started at Perungudi. Now the Adyar factory is
closed and the entire manufacturing activities are shifted
to Perungudi factory. When the factory was under the
private management the conditions of service of the
workmen were governed by Certified Standing Orders of
the then Management. Even after the factory was taken
over by the Government of India the workmen continued
to be governed by the same Certified Standing Orders.
Soundararajan who is the Secretary of the Petitioner Union
has entered service of the First Respondent as a Machinist
(Trainee) Earlier he was a member of the Union affiliated to
CITU. He has always been fighting for the cause and welfare
of the workmen. He was fighting against the policies and
management of the officials if the same were against the
interests of the Company. This was not liked by the
Management. The Management issued an order on
16.05.2011 transferring Soundararajan from Chennai to the
factory at Kalyani at West Bengal. Soundararajan filed Writ
Petition in the High Court of Madras and the order of
transfer was stayed by the High Court. Soundararajan later
withdrew the Writ Petition.
The Petitioner Union took up the issue with regard
to transfer and raised dispute before the Labour
Commissioner. There is no provision for transfer in the
Certified Standing Orders. So the transfer order is issued
without any authority and is illegal. Though the Second
Respondent has submitted a draft Stadning Order for
amendment including a clause for transfer, the same was
not certified. The clause regarding transfer in the
Appointment Order is inoperative in the absence of any
provision in the Certified Standing Orders. The Certified
Standing Orders will prevail over the Appointment Order.
The Chennai factory where Soundararajan, the concerned
workman has been working is under Electrical Division
whereas the factory to which he is sought to be transferred
is under the Engineering Division. In the Winding
Department where the concerned workman was employed,
24 employees are required. However only 16 employees
are working in the said department. When there is shortage
of manpower in the department, there was no reason to
transfer the workman concerned. the wages and conditions
of service in Chennai factory and the factory at Kalyani are
totally different. So there could not have been a transfer
without issuing notice under Section-9A of the ID Act.
The concerned workman could not have been transferred
without his consent also. the transfer amounts to unfair
labour practice in the absence of any provision for the
same. The transfer order is illegal for the above reasons.
An order may be passed holding that the action of the
Respondents in trasnferring Soundararajan is illegal and
unjustified and also directing the Respondents to permit
him to continue in service at Chennai unit with continuity
of service, back wages and other benefits.
4. The Respondents have filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The cause of the concerned workman was not
espoused by a substantial section of the workmen of the
establishment. The concerned workman was working as a
Turner-cum-Mechanist in Switchgear Operations in Adyar
factory. On closure of Adyar factory in the year 2008 the
concerned workman was shifted to Perungudi factory where
his service as Mechanist could not be utilized. He was
assigned the work of a Helper to assist the Winder in the
Transformer Operations solely to protect his employment.
The concerned workman who had contested election of
CITU in 2008 did not get elected and since then he had
resorted to confrontational attitude towards the
management. He became a member of the Petitioner Union
and got elected as the Secretary. He started showing total
defiance to the Management and was never amenable to
any discipline. He created a very chaotic and tense situation
in the factory which led to suspension of operation of the
factory from 18.01.2010. During the period of suspension
of operation a long term settlement was concluded.
On 31.12.2010 the concerned workman forcibly
brought one Ramesh, an employee who was proceeded
with by way of disciplinary action inside the factory and
disrupted the normal functioning of the factory. He never
remained in the place of his work. He used to pick up
altercation with the Engineers. He was not allowing the
external security system to carry out the checking of
employees at the factory gate. Often work was interrupted
because of the interference of the concerned workman.
The presence and absence of workman used to make all
the difference as far as orderly working of the factory was
concerned. In order to deal with the problem of the
concerned workman the Management had no option than
to take recourse to shift his place of work from Chennai to
Kolkata. By order dated 16.5.2011 he was transferred to
Kolkata. It is not a vindictive action nor as an act of
victimization for Trade Union activities. The transfer was
resorted to as there was no other manner by which the
concerned workman could be corrected and made into a
useful workman for productive purpose. It was an exigency
of business. If the concerned workman goes to Kalyani
and works there for a minimum of 150 days, the Respondent
would be willing to consider his re-transfer. Since May
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2135
2011 the factory has been working without any interruption.
An award may be passed upholding the transfer.
5. The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the
allegations made against him in the Counter Statement and
reiterating his case in the Claim Statement.
6. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence
of WW1 and WW2 and MWs 1 to 3 and documentary
evidence consisting of Ext. W1 to Ext. W27 and Ext. M1 to
Ext. M50.
7. The points for consideration are:
(i) Whether the action of the Management in
transferring Soundararajan from the factory at
Perungudi, Chennai to Kalyani, Kolkata is legal
and justified?
(ii) What is the relief, if any, to which Soundararajan
is entitled?
The Points
8. Soundararajan the concerned workmen on whose
behalf the dispute is raised was the Secretary of the Petitioner
Union. Initially he had been a member of the Union attached
to CITU. Subsequently, he had became a member of the
Petitioner Union and has been elected as the Secretary of
the Union. The concerned workman who was working in the
factory at Chennai was transferred to the factory at Kalyani,
West Bengal by order dated 16.05.2011. Rather than
proceeding to Kalyani and joining there, the concerned
workman filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court
of Madras and obtained stay of operation of order of transfer.
He later withdrew the Writ Petition and the Petitioner Union
raised the dispute on his behalf. The Petitioner has stated in
the Claim Statement that it has taken up the issue regarding
the transfer of Soundararajn, the concerned workman and
had passed a resolution in the General Body Meeting held
on 01.11.2011 and decided to raise the dispute against the
illegal transfer. In the Counter Statement the Respondents
have stated that the cause of the concerned workman was
not espoused by a substantial section of the workmen of the
establishment. It is also stated that the petitioner is to prove
that it is duly authorized in the manner known to law to take
up the cause of the concerned workman and raise an industrial
dispute. However, during the stage of trial the counsel for
the Respondents has endorsed that the objection about the
validity of the industrial dispute on the ground of
incompetence of the Union to raise the dispute is not pressed.
This amounts to admission on the part of the Respondents
that the Petitioner Union has sufficient authority to take up
the cause and raise the dispute.
9. The Respondents have justified the order of
transfer of the concerned workman from Chennai to Kolkata
stating that he was perennially creating problems in the
factory at Chennai and even the work of the factory used
to get interrupted because of the problems created by him.
The stand of the Respondents is that the Management has
the legal authority to transfer the concerned workman
since the Appointment Order itself provides for it. It has
been brought out during cross-examination of WW1 who
is the present General Secretary of the Petitioner Union
that there were other instances of such transfer also. Apart
from questioning the illegally and absence of the necessity
of transfer on other grounds, it is also contended by the
petitioner that the transfer is without any authority in the
absence of any provision for the same in the Certified
Standing Order governing the workmen of the factory. As
could be seen, the factory was originally situated at Adyar
and was under private management. It was taken over by
the Second Respondent, a Govt. of India Undertaking in
the year 1983. Later another factory was started at
Perungudi, Adyar factory was later closed and all the
manufacturing activities were shifted to the factory at
Perungudi. While the factory was under private
management it had a Certified Standing Orders governing
the conditions of service of the workman. According to the
petitioner even though amended standing order was
submitted after the factory was taken over by the Second
Respondent, it was not certified and the Certified Standing
Order of the factory while under private management
prevailed even after it was taken over by the Government.
It is not disputed by the Respondents that after taking
over the Standing Orders was not amended or certified.
MW1 who is an Officer of the Second Respondent has
also stated that the Certified Standing Orders, now
applicable is the one which was existing even before the
Respondent was taken over by the Government.
10. The Contention that is raised by the petitioner
with reference to the Standing orders is that there is no
provision in the Certified Standing orders which is
applicable to the concerned workman for transfer of a
workman and therefore the Respondents have no authority
to transfer him at all. In fact it is on the basis of the clause
in Ext.W2 the appointment order that the Respondents are
contending that they have the power of transfer. Clause-5
of the Appointment Order states that the concerned
workman is liable for transfer to any of the Company's
units or subsidiaries or associated companies anywhere in
India. Admittedly, there is no provision for transfer of a
workman in the Ext.W15—the Certified Standing orders of
the Second Respondent establishment. The counsel for
the Respondents tried to justify the order of transfer stating
that Tamil Nadu Industrial Employment Standing Order
Rules under which Ext.W15 is certified does not provide
for transfer and so there is no illegality in providing for
transfer in the Appointment Order and transferring the
employee on the basis of it. After the establishment was
taken over by a Government of India Undertaking the
Industrial Employment Standing Order Central Rules would
have been applicable and the Respondents could have
provided for transfer by amending the Standing Orders
2136
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
since the Central Rules provide for transfer. However, this
was not done. Section-3(2) of the Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Act states that provisions shall be made
in the draft Standing Order for every matter set out in the
schedule which may be applicable to the Industrial
establishment and where model Standing Orders have been
prescribed, shall be, so far as practicable in conformity
with such model. The counsel for the Respondents has
referred to Section-12(A) of the Standing Orders which
states that for the period commencing on the date on which
the Act becomes applicable to an industrial establishment
and ending with the date on which the Standing Orders as
finally certified under the Act come into operation the
prescribed Model Standing Order shall be deemed to be
adopted in the establishment. The counsel argued that the
clause in the letter of appointment will prevail in view of
this provision. However, this argument could not be
accepted since there is already a Certified Standing Order
for the establishment. The Apex Court has held in the
decision in WESTERN INDIA MATCH CO. LTD. VS.
WORKMEN reported in 1974 3 SCC 330 that as long as the
Standing Order is in force it is binding on the Company as
well as on the workman. In the establishment referred to in
the above case the Standing Orders provided for probation
of two months while the letter of appointment stated that
the employee will be on probation for a period of six months.
The Apex Court has held that the special agreement by
way of clause in the appointment order is inconsistent
with the Standing Order and he cannot be kept on probation
for six months against what is provided under the Standing
Order. The Apex Court laid down that if a prior agreement
inconsistent with the Standing Orders will not survive, an
agreement posterior to and inconsistent with the Standing
Order should also not prevail. Again, as the employer cannot
enforce two sets of Standing Orders governing the
classification of workmen it is also not open to him to
enforce simultaneously the Standing Orders regulating the
classification of workmen and a special agreement between
him and the individual workman settling his categorization,
it was also held. So in spite of a cluase in Ext.W2 providing
for transfer it was not open to the Respondents to transfer
the concerned workman in the absence of a provision for
the same in the prevailing Certified Standing Orders. For
this reason itself the transfer is illegal.
11. As per Rule-4 of the Industrial Establishment
Standing Orders (Central) Rules, the workman can be
transferred according to exigencies of work from one
department to another or from one station to another or
from one establishment to another under the same employer
provided that the wages, grade, continuity of service and
other conditions of service of the workman are not adversely
affected by such transfer. It is further provided that where
the transfer involves moving from one State to another
such transfer shall take place either with the consent of the
workman or where there is specific provision to that effect
in the letter of appointment and provided also that the
reasonable notice was given to such workman. As already
stated, in the absence of provision in the Standing Orders
the transfer itself is not legal in spite of a provision in the
Appointment Order. For transfer in such a circumstance,
the consent of the concerned workman should have been
obtained. Apparently, no such consent was obtained.
12. It has been contended on behalf of the concerned
workman that service conditions at the transferee
establishment is quite different from what exists in the
establishment at Chennai. It has been pointed out that at
Chennai he has been working in Electrical Department while
he has been transferred to Engineering Department at
Kalyani in Kolkata. In the transfer order, there is certainly a
clause that except as stated in the order the terms and
conditions of employment will remain unaltered. Probably,
this implies that there will be no difference in the pay packet
obtained by the concerned workman. However, there is no
guarantee that there is no change in the other working
conditions at Kolkata. Ext.W-6, the transfer order states
that the workman will be guided by the working hours,
weekly off days, festival and other holidays prevalent at
the factory situated at Kolkata. It is pointed out by the
counsel for the petitioner that as per Schedule-IV of the
Industrial Disputes Act, hours of work and rest intervals,
leave with wages and holidays and classification by grades
are conditions of service for change of which notice is to
be given. There is no assurance in the transfer order that
these conditions of service are protected. MW1 has stated
during his cross-examination that he does not know if wages
payable to workers in West Bengal is different from the
unit at Perungudi. He then stated that the wage conditions
and settlement in other units are different. At Perungudi
unit the concerned workman was working in Grade-V. It is
not stated in the transfer order that he will be put in the
same grade in the factory at Kalyani, Kolkata. At Perungudi
unit transformers are made and the concerned workman
who was a Mechanist was working in the Winding Section.
It is not known whether he can work in the same category
in the Engineering Department at Kalyani. Thus, there is
nothing to show that service conditions were protected on
transfer. A reading of the transfer order spells otherwise. In
spite of that notice under Section-9A of the Industrial
Disputes Act has not been given. It is pertinent to notice
that the workers including the concerned workman were
given such notice even when they were shifted from the
factory at Adyar to Perungudi. The Apex Court has held
consistently that transfer must be to an equivalent post. In
the decision in the TEJSHREE GHAG AND OTHERS VS.
PRAKASH PARSHURAM PATIL AND OTHERS reported
in 2007 6 SCC 220, it has been held that an order of transfer
cannot prejudicially affect the status of an employee in
which case it would be violative of the conditions of service
and thus illegal. It was further held that an executive order
of transfer for unauthorized purpose would amount to
malice in law. In the absence of evidence of transfer having
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2137
been effected to a post with equivalent service conditions
itself it is illegal.
13. In the order to transfer no reason has been given
for transfer. In Ext.W11 the reply filed by the Respondent
before the Assistant Labour Commissioner the stand is
that the transfer is for business exigencies. It is further
stated that on the face of no need of Machinist at the
factory and Sri Soundararajan having resorted to unfair
labour practice by unnecessarily non-complying with the
reasonable instruction of the superior transfer has become
necessary. Thus it could be seen from Ext.W11 that at that
time a vague contention that the transfer is also since the
Machinist is not required at Adyar factory is also put forth.
However, the evidence reveals that it is not the case. After
2000 settlement the classification based on trade has been
given up and workers were asked to do all jobs. The
classification was based on skill only. The concerned
workman was a Grade-V workman even when he was shifted
to Perungudi. The case in the Counter Statement is that the
concerned workman was put up as Helper only to adjust
him in the factory though the post suitable to his grade
was not available at Perungudi factory. However, it has
come out during evidence that this case of the Respondent
is not correct. MW3 has admitted during his cross-
examination that each employee in the factory was assigned
with a token number. The Helpers will not be given token
numbers. No documents are available to show the
manpower requirement at Perungudi as on the date of the
transfer of the concerned workman. MW3 has stated that
work was available at Perungudi and it is in spite of that the
concerned workman was transferred. It has been pointed
out by the counsel for the petitioner that it has come out in
evidence that trainees were taken as Helpers and this was
because sufficient hands were not available. This, as stated
by the counsel, would show that work was available at
Perungudi factory and it was not because the concerned
workman's skill was not required at Perungudi he was
transferred. Such transfer amounts to unfair labour practice.
14. In the Counter Statement the stand taken by the
Respondents is that it has become impossible to retain the
concerned workman at the factory for continuous
misconducts on his part and exigency of business has
necessitated his transfer. It is stated in the Counter
Statement that the concerned workman was showing total
defiance to the Management and was never amenable to
any discipline. He is said to have created chaotic and tense
conditions which even led to suspension of operation of
the factory from 18.01.2010. Another allegation is that on
31.12.2010 the concerned workman brought in an employee
who was under suspension and disrupted the functioning
of the factory. It is alleged that he was never remaining in
the place of work allotted to him. He is said to have been
picking up altercations with the Engineers. He was not
allowing the external security system to check the employees
at the factory gate. According to the Respondents, the
local Management had considered the question of taking
disciplinary action against the concerned workman for his
various acts of misdemeanor. But having felt that a lenient
punishment would not make him mend his way they have
resorted to the course of shifting his place of work from
Chennai to Kolkata. It is claimed that it is not a vindictive
action.
15. The Respondents have tried to justify the transfer
of the concerned workman through the evidence of MWs1
to 3 and a few documents pertaining to the past conduct of
the concerned workman. It would be relevant to examine
the evidence given by each of these witnesses. MW1 who
is working as Production-In-Charge at Perungudi factory
has given instances which according to him would show
that the concerned workman was unruly by nature and
was creating nuisance at the factory by his various
misdeeds. As a general statement it is stated that the
concerned workman had no commitment to the work. It is
then stated that on death of one Lakshmanan against whom
disciplinary action had earlier been taken the concerned
workman had attempted to trigger an industrial unrest. So
also, on one occasion, in protest to the delay in arriving at
a settlement on the charter of demands he had threatened
to immolate himself by holding a petrol can in his hand.
The concerned workman is said to have incited the workman
to boycott Ayutha Puja celebrations of 2009 as a protest
against delay in finalization of the settlement. It is also
stated that the concerned workman had instigated an
operator in the Winding Department to unwound two extra
disc of winding already completed by another workman.
Five Section Heads of the factory is said to have asserted
that so long as the concerned workman was in the factory
there was no scope to have continuous uninterrupted and
normal production activities in the factory. According to
MW1, not a day would pass without the concerned
workman bringing some issue or other to him for
discussion. If he is not available he will go and disturb the
General Manager.
16. It could be seen from the evidence of MW1 that
he has given evidence regarding many aspects which are
not specifically stated in the Counter Statement at all. Even
in the Counter Statement it has been stated that the facts
alleged were not put on record. MW1 has stated during his
cross-examination that it was because of tool down strike
on the part of the workers that operations had to be
suspended for some time in the year 2010. In that case, it is
not known how suspension of operation is attributed to
the concerned workman in the affidavit. Laskmanan against
whom disciplinary proceedings were taken is said to have
been instigated by the concerned workman. But there is
nothing to show that he has got any part in the misconduct
by Lakshmanan. MW1 admitted that regarding any of the
allegations made by him in the affidavit against the
concerned workman memo has not been issued nor was
his explanation obtained.
2138
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
17. MW2 who is the Supervisor-in-Charge of then
Insulation Department and Winding Section of the
Production Department has also stated that the concerned
workman used to approach him with some or other issue
and indulge in needless discussions. According to him, in
the year 2008 an Engineer had informed him that the
concerned workman was found exposing his body after
removing his uniform. He had been sitting in the area in the
Canteen meant for Officers and doing his Union work. This
has compelled the Management to restrict the opening of
the Canteen Hall premises during breakfast, lunch and
evening tea time only. MW1 stated during his cross-
examination that he had not given any complaint against
the concerned workman regarding the allegations made in
the affidavit. None of the Supervisors also have given any
written complaint though they have given oral complaints.
MW2 did not enquire with the concerned workman
regarding the veracity of the oral complaints. Memo was
never issued to him regarding the allegations made in the
affidavit. MW2 has further stated that if a person moves
out of the work place it would reflect in the Log Books and
from the Log Book it can be ascertained if the person has
moved out of the work place or not. However, the Log
Books were not produced. Thus the evidence given by
MW2 also is not supported by any other material.
18. MW3 is working as Officer (Personnel) at
Perungudi factory. This witness has alleged that most of
the time the concerned workman would be away from the
spot and would be disrupting work of others also. This
witness also has stated about the concerned workman
instigating one Lakshmanan to rewind the coil completed
by another workman. He has also stated that the area meant
for Officers in the Canteen was being used by the concerned
workman for his Union activities. According to this witness
the Engineers and Supervisory staff have stated that one
reason for lack of performance resulting in failure to achieve
the output as per schedule was a distraction caused by the
concerned workman. This witness has further stated that
when a surety for the loan taken by the concerned workman
retired, he could not find a substitute among the workman
since no one was prepared to stand surety for him. Even as
admitted by MW2 there is no evidence to show that the
production was slow when the concerned workman was in
the factory and it has accelerated in his absence. So far as
the failure of the concerned workman to substitute the
surety is concerned MW3 himself has admitted that once a
workman is transferred a worker of the factory will not be
accepted as surety. According to the concerned workmen,
it was for this reason he was not able to substitute the
retired surety after the transfer order was served on him.
So it is not for fault of the workman concerned that the
surety was not replaced.
19. The Management has produced certain
documents to prove that the past conduct of the concerned
workman was not satisfactory. Ext.M1 is a charge sheet
that had been issued to the concerned workman on account
of his habitual late attendance. Ext.M18 is the
communication given to the concerned workman stating
that there was no imporvement in his conduct and he
continued to come for duty later. Ext.M2 is a communication
to the concerned workman alleging that he had misused
the permission given to him to attend a funeral and had
entered the factory premises to gather workmen. The
concerned workman, even as admitted by him refused to
receive this communication. He has admitted the
endoresement in Ext.M2 by the Officer of the Respondent
to the effect that he refused to accept it stating that it was
not addressed to him in his capacity as the General
Secretary of the Union. Ext.M4 is the letter to the concerned
workman in December 2007 stating that he had forcibly
gone out of the factory main gate without movement pass.
Ex.M6 another communication alleges that he refused to
leave the Dining Hall and the Hall could not be locked.
Ext.M49 is the letter given to the concerned workman asking
him not to repeat such acts. Ext.M7 is the memo given
regarding some dispute raised by the concerned workman
on punching and Ext.M5 is the reply given by him. It is
stated that all other workers had activated the Punching
Machine but the concerned workman had refused. Ext.M8
is the charge sheet dated 18.02.2011 regarding this and
Ext.M9 is the explanation given by the concerned workman
on 21.02.2011. The above documents are brought in to
show that the concerned workman was a perennial nuisance
and trouble monger to the management and it would not
have been possible to run the factory with him at the factory.
All the above of course refer to certain misconducts on the
part of the concerned workman. But the reasons that
prompted the Management to remove the concerned
workman are some other incidents about which there is no
acceptable evidence. If the incidents referred to are true
and were incidents which could not be pardoned, the
Management should have taken action then and there. On
the other hand, no documents are available regarding the
misconducts alleged. The statement of the Management
that it has become helpless since other workman have not
been willing to support the Management as they were afraid
of the concerned workman is not one that can be accepted.
MW2 has stated that the establishment is very capable of
maintaining discipline in the factory. So there was no
question of leaving the concerned workman to himself, to
his whims and fancy in spite of allegations of such
misconducts. Even assuming that the concerned workman
had committed the misconducts alleged the proper
procedure would have been an enquiry and penalty in
accordance with the procedure. Rather than doing this, the
Management has decided to give a transfer to the concerned
workman under the cover of exigency of business which
did not exist at all. The Apex Court has laid down in the
decision in SOMESH TIWARI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS reported in 2009 2 SCC 592 that a transfer on the
basis of a non-existent facts is a malice in law and punitive
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2139
in nature. The transfer cannot be termed to be one of
business exigency. The transfer is not justifiable on facts
also. The concerned workman is entitled to continue as a
workman in the factory of the Second Respondent at
Perungudi, Chennai.
In view of my discussion above the Respondents
are directed to take back the concerned workman in service
in the factory at Perungudi, Chennai within a month of the
award with 25% back wages and other attendant benefits.
In case of failure to pay the back wages within a month of
the award it would carry interest @ 9% per annum.
The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 22nd April, 2015)
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/
:
WW1, Sri E. Elumalai
Petitioner Union
WW2, Sri P. Soundararajan
For the 2nd Party/
:
MW1, Sri G.R. Pugalendhi
Management
MW2, Sri M. Rajadurai
MW3, Sri S. Balasundaram
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner's side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
26.10.1987
Machinist trainee order
Ex.W2
30.09.1988
Appointment order
Ex.W3
30.03.1989
Confirmation order
Ex.W4
26.12.1994
Order issued to the petitioner
Ex.W5
07.04.2010
18(1) Settlement
Ex.W6
16.05.2011
Transfer Order
Ex.W7
17.05.2011
Letter given by the 1st party to the
2nd party management
Ex.W8
17.05.2011
Letter given by the 1st party to the
Assistant Labour Commissioner
(Central)
Ex.W9
19.05.2011
Letter given by the 1st party to the
Assistant Labour Commissioner
(Central)
Ex.W10 09.11.2011
2(K) petition filed by the 1st party
union before the ALC
Ex.W11 28.11.2011
Reply filed by the 2nd Party
Ex.W12 15.06.2012
Rejoinder filed by the 1st party
Ex.W13 24.01.2013
Failure report
Ex.W14 25.07.2013
Order of reference
Ex.W15
—
Certified Standing Orders
Ex.W16 26.12.1983
Copy of the Central Act No. 41, 1983
Ex.W17 21.03.1986
Certificate of training issued to the
workmen concerned by the Small
Industries
Development
Organization
Ex.W18 29.11.2000
Copy of the 18(1) settlement
Ex.W19 29.06.2007
Notice issued by the 2nd party
under Section-9A of ID Act
Ex.W20 07.04.2010
Copy of the wages settlement
Ex.W21 04.05.2011
Copy of the production report of
the winding department
Ex.W22 May 2011
Pay slip of the concerned workmen
Ex.W23 —
List of employees employed under
the 2nd party management showing
the details of education qualification
under the grade
Ex.W24 —
Copy of the family card
Ex.W25 23.04.2013
Certificate issued by the Election
Officer
Ex.W26 23.04.2013
Certificate issued by the Election
Officer
Ex.W27 08.05.2013
Order issued by the Deputy
Registrar of Cooperative Societies
On the Management's side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.M1
12.10.1991
Charge Sheet dated 12.10.1991
issued to P. Soundararajan for
habitual late attendance, his
explanation dated 24.10.1991 and
awarding him punishment of severe
warning by its letter dated 23.11.1991
Ex.M1(A) 24.10.1991
Letter from P. Soundarrajan to the
Respondent regarding reply to
memo dated 22.10.1991
Ex.M2
08.10.1998
Warning
letter
issued
by
Respondent to P. Soundararajan for
misuse of permission
Ex.M3
01.03.2004
Letter from respondent issuing
warning to P. Soundararajan not to
indulge in such acts of misconduct
in future. For not wearing uniform
and for sitting in shop floor shulter
between 09.45 to 12.40 asking for
medical treatment
Ex.M4
08.12.2007
Management letter issuign warning
to P. Soundararajan regarding his
misbehavior on 07.12.2007
2140
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.M5
17.12.2007
Letter of P. Soundararajan in respect
of the incident on 07.12.2007
Ex.M6
30.05.2008
Report from Deputy Manager—
Security to the Respondent
regarding the conduct of the P.
Soundararajan on 29.05.2008 AN
Ex.M7
11.10.2010
Memo to P. Soundararajan by the
Respondent for non-activating his
new employee number as required
by the Management
Ex.M8
18.02.2011
Charge sheet issued by the
Respondent to P. Soundararajan for
willful insubordination and
disobedience of lawful and
reasonable orders (for not activating
his new employee number in
respect of repeated advise on
several occasions)
Ex.M9
21.02.2011
Explanation of P. Soundararajan to
the charge sheet dated 18.02.2011
Ex.M10 03.01.2011
Charge sheet-cum-show cause
notice issued to P. Soundararajan
for various acts of misconducts in
terms of Standing Orders calling for
his explanation
Ex.M11 03.11.2008
Letter from Respondents to the
Inspector of Factories, Chennai
informing to treat the unit at
Perungudi as closed
Ex.M12 24.03.2009
Letter fromt he Respondent's
Perungudi Factor to Inspector of
Factories furnishing for the details
as required by Inspector of Factories
Ex.M13 02.05.2008
Letter from Andrew Yule Staff and
Workers Union, Chennai addressed
to Respondent at Perungudi
informing list of Office Bearers and
Committee Members for 2008-2009
Ex.M14 28.06.2008
Letter from Andrew Yule Staff and
Workers Union, Chennai addressed
to Deputy General Manager,
Perungudi factory regarding
appointment of new General and
Joint Secretary of the Union for the
year 2008-2009
Ex.M15 18.01.2010
Notice exhibited by Respondent at
Perungudi regarding cessation of
work at its factory at Perungudi
effective from 18.01.2010
Ex.M16 07.04.2010
Notice from respondent factory,
Perungudi advising the workmen at
Perungudi factory to report for duty
effective 09.04.2010
Ex.M17 18.12.2010
Memo issued to K. Ramesh
suspending him pending issue of
charge sheet and enquiry for
manhandling Security Supervisor
Ex.M18 23.11.1991
Memo for late coming by Senior
Manager
Ex.M19 26.04.2000
Advise letter from the Respondent
to P. Soundararajan to conduct
himself in a decent manner in future
Ex.M20 13.06.2001
Exchange of communication
between Security Staff/Respondent
factory at Perungudi dated
12.06.2001, 13.06.2001, letter dated
13.06.2001 from Ex-Servicemen
Security Bureau to the Respondent
factory at Perungudi leveling
allegations against Sundarajan and
Sundarajan's counter allegation
dated 13.06.2001 on Security Staff—
to DGM—Perungudi Factory
Ex.M21 29.12.2001
Confidential report by Security
Bureau to the Dy. General Manager,
Perungudi factory informing about
the indiscipline and interference of
P. Soundararajan
Ex.M22 09.01.2002
Report from Adyar works to the
Respondent regarding the incident
happened at the Security Gate at
Adyar works on 08.01.2002
Ex.M23 09.01.2002
Letter from Security Bureau to the
Security Officer—at Perungudi
Factory
Ex.M24 10.01.2002
Letter from Security Bureau to
DGM—Perungudi
factory
enclosing statement of K.
Manoharan—A.S.O.
Ex.M25 09.01.2002
Report to Manager (Production) on
the incident on 08.01.2002 at Adyar
Factory enclosing Manoharan's
statement
Ex.M26 10.01.2002
Charge Sheet issued to P.
Soundararajan in respect of various
allegations leveled against him
Ex.M27 10.01.2002
P. Soundararajan's letter asking the
management to take action against
the Security Officer
Ex.M28 19.01.2002
Letter from P. Soundararajan
praying time to give explanation to
the charge sheet dated 10.01.2002
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2141
Ex.M29 22.01.2002
Respondent's
reply
to
P.
Soundararajan—granting a week's
time
Ex.M30 01.02.2002
Note from the Assistant Manger—
Personnel dropping further action
in respect of the charge sheet dated
10.01.202
issued
to
P.
Soundararajan
Ex.M31 01.10.2002
Complaint of M. Edward John—
Supervisor allegation Sundararajan
hitting of the back of Subramaniam,
employee of society inside the
factory premises on 01.10.2002
Ex.M32 01.10.2002
Letter from Andrew Yule and Co.
group of employees Coop. thrift and
Credit Society Ltd., addressed to
Respondent
Ex.M33 01.10.2002
Counter
allegation
of
P.
Soundararajan addressed to
30.10.2002
Respondent at Perungudi factory
on 01.10.2002 to take action on
Subramaniam
Ex.M34 05.10.2002
Charge
Memo
issued
by
Respondent to P. Soundararajan for
hitting Subramaniam (employee of
Coop Society) in the factory
premises on 01.10.2002
Ex.M35 17.10.2002
Explanation
given
by
P.
Soundararajan to the charge memo
dated 05.10.2002
Ex.M36 25.11.2002
Proceedings of enquiry in respect
of the allegations mentioned in
charge sheet dated 05.10.2002
Ex.M37 20.01.2003
Letter from P. Soundararajan to
Enquiry Officer requesting Tamil
translation of the complaint
Ex.M38 20.01.2003
Proceedings of enquiry on
20.01.2003 and furnishing Tamil
translation of the complaint of J.
edwin John regarding hitting of
Subramanian
Ex.M39 07.02.2003
Letter fromt he Respondent to P.
Soundararajan accepting his
request to postpone the enquiry
from 07.02.2003 to 13.02.2003
Ex.M40 13.02.2003
Proceedings of enquiry and posting
the enquiry to 27.02.2003 due to
riotous
behavior
of
P.
Soundararajan in the enquiry on
13.02.2003
Ex.M41 21.02.2003
Letter from Respondent to Enquiry
Officer accepting his unwillingness
to continue as Enquiry Officer
Ex.M42 26.02.2003
Letter from Respondent to P.
Soundararajan cancelling the
enquiry fixed on 27.02.2003
Ex.M43 27.02.2003
Proceedings
of
Assistant
Manager—Personnel to the
Respondent that the enquiry could
not be completed as the Enquiry
Officer decided not to continue the
present enquiry and further enquiry
proceedings not initiated
Ex.M44 27.09.2003
Complaint letter from Nagarajan,
Quality Control Department of
Respondent Factory, Adyar
addressed to In-charge (Planning)
regarding
absence
of
P.
Soundararajan from work on
04.09.2003 AN
Ex.M45 10.10.2003
Letter from Respondent to P.
Soundararajan informing that his
absence in the afternoon will be
treated as absence on loss of pay
Ex.M46 10.09.2003
Letter from Production Supervisor
to Assistant Manager—Personnel
complaining P. Soundararajan
refusing to take back LTA leave
application as it had already lapsed
Ex.M47 26.02.2004
Complaint of the Edwin John, to the
Assistant Manager-Personnel
about P. Soundararajan not wearing
uniform and sitting near shutter in
the Factory
Ex.M48 07.12.2007
Report from Deputy Manager—
Security
against
Mr.
P.
Soundararajan trying to go out of
the factory without movement pass
Ex.M49 30.05.2008
Memo from Respondent to P.
Soundararajan advising him (not to
repeat such acts in future) regarding
his conduct on 29.05.2008 staying
in dining hall
Ex.M50 24.02.2011
Letter from Respondent to P.
Soundararajan severely warning him
in respect of charge sheet dated
18.02.2011.
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 991-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkWMZusUl DyksfFkax
2142
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
QSDVªh ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa
Je U;k;ky; y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 57@2004½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&14012@58@2003&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 991.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. Ref No. 57/
2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum
Laobur Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Ordnance Clothing Factory and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 27/04/2015.
[No. L-14012/58/2003-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. 57/2004
Ref. No. L-14012/58/2003-IR(DU) dated: 21.06.2004
BETWEEN
Sh. Amar Nath Yadav, S/o Sh. Raj Deo Yadav
Village Prasadipur, Post: Lutuhi
Distt. Sant Kabir Nagar (UP)
AND
The General Manager
Ordnance Clothing Factory
Shajahanpur
AWARD
1. By order No. L-14012/58/2003-IR(DU) dated:
21.06.2004 between Sh. Amar Nath Yadav, S/o Sh. Raj Deo
Yadav, Village Prasadipur, Post: Lutuhi, Distt. Sant Kabir
Nagar (UP) and the General Manager, Ordnance Clothing
Factory, Shajahanpur to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow for adjudication.
2. The Schedule of reference is as under:
"1. WHETHER THE CONTRACTS ARE GENUINE
OR MERE A CAMOUFLAGE? 2. IF THE
CONTRACT IS NOT GENUINE AND MERE A
CAMOUFLAGE, WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE
GENERAL MANAGER ORDNANCE CLOTHING
FACTORY,
SHAHJAHANPUR
IN
NOT
REGULARIZING THE SERVICES OF SH. AMAR
NATH YADAV S/O SH. RAJ DEO YADAV AND 70
OTHER WORKERS (LIST ENCLOSED) AND
TERMINATING THEIR SERVICES W.E.F. 25/5/2000
IS JUST FAIR AND LEGAL IF NOT FOR WHAT
RELIEF THEY ARE ENTITLED TO?"
3. The case of the workmen, in brief, is that the
workman Amar Nath Yadav who has filed the statement of
claim on behalf of all the workmen under dispute, has
submitted that all the workmen have been working with the
Ordnance Clothing Factory (hereinafter referred to as
Factory) management for more than 240 days since their
different date(s) of appointment and their services have
been terminated by the management w.e.f. 25.05.2000
without any rhyme or reason or without giving any notice
or notice pay in lieu thereof; or any retrenchment
compensations, in violation of the provisions of Section
25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has been
submitted by the workmen that they performed permanent
nature of work and there exists as many as 3550 vacancies
with the management as per reply of the Hon'ble Defence
Minister to the Question No. 6982 dated 11.05.2000 even
then the management of the Ordnance Clothing Factory
has not regularized their services and terminated the same
in violation of settled procedure of first come last go. It is
also submitted by the workmen that there exist no valid
contract system at Ordnance Factory prior to termination
of their services and the management of the Ordnance
Clothing Factory is their Principal Employers as there exists
no registration, of the Factory, before authorities followed
regarding registration as Principal Employer under the
Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. The
workmen have submitted that they have been paid wages
directly by the management of the factory and through
any other person, including any contractor. It has been
alleged by the workmen that the nature of work they
performed was perennial in nature and working for long
with the management and when they demanded for increase
of wages and other benefits such as Provident Fund, Bonus
etc. the management of the Factory got annoyed and
terminated their services; and engaged new hands to carry
out the work done by the workmen under dispute. It is
alleged by the workmen that they have worked with the
management directly and not under some contract as no
tender for issuance of contract was ever published by the
management in the news paper, thus, any contract if existed
was mere camouflage. It is also submitted by the workman
that they have been issued gate pass to enter into the
premises of the Factory and their attendance was recorded
by the officers of the factory the attendance registers.
Accordingly the workmen have prayed that the action of
the management of the Ordnance Clothing Factory in
terminating their services be declared illeged and they be
reinstated with full back wages.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2143
4. The management of the Ordnance Clothing Factory,
Shahjahanpur has denied the claim of the workmen by filing
its written statement; wherein it has submitted that the
Factory is indulged in manufacture of woolen Jersey for
supply of the same to Army. The management has
submitted that it has regular employees to undertake work
relating to clothing items and to meet the requirements of
the armed forces on regular basis. It is submitted that the
annual requirement of the Jersey has been varying from
year to year and in order to meet the urgent requirement,
part quantity of knitted component assistance from trade
was taken through supply order by engaging contractors
by due invitation of bids against tenders etc. It is submitted
that for such supply order the contract was made with the
various contractors viz. M/s S.M. Corporation,
Shahjahanpur, M/s Jhanda Gram Udyog, Shahjahanpur and
M/s Devi Lal, Shahjahanpur who in turn engage the
labourers to carry out the work contracted to them.
Accordingly, the management has submitted that the
workman Amar Nath & 70 others are not their regular
employees; rather they are the workmen of the contractor;
and the Factory is not the principal employer of the
workmen under the Contract Labour Act, 1970, therefore,
there arises no question of either terminating their services
nor making any retrenchment compensation to the
workmen. It is submitted by the management that the
workmen under dispute are engaged by the contractors as
per their requirement, quantum of workload and PDC of the
relevant contract, therefore, engagement or termination of
the contract labor in the purview of the contractor, as such,
the Factory management has got nothing to do in the matter
of their engagement or termination or making any notice or
notice pay etc. It is also submitted that the workmen
preformed casual jobs which was not perennial in nature. It
is specifically submitted by the management that the
workmen have not been directly engaged by the
management nor any payment was made by the Factory,
therefore, there arises no question either of their
regularization or issuance of any wage slip etc. to the
workman; rather it is submitted that a valid contract was
placed on the contractors viz. M/s S.M. Corporation,
Shahjahanpur, M/s Jhanda Gram Udyog, Shahjahanpur
and M/s Devil Lal, Shahjahanpur and payment was made
to the contractors as per terms and conditions of the
contract, therefore, there was no direct payment of wages
to the applicants/claimants. It is also submitted by the
management of the Factory that it has duly been registered
under provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Act, 1970 before the office of the Assistant
Labour Commissioner (Central) & Registering Officer,
Dehradun vide certificate of registration No. 07/2003 dated
30.04.2003. Accordingly, the management of the Ordnance
Clothing Factory has prayed that the claim of the workmen
be rejected being devoid of any merit.
5. The workman has filed its rejoinder; wherein apart
from reiterating the facts already stated in the statement of
claim, it has been submitted by the workman that the
management did not file any certified copy of the
registration of the management as a principal employer
under the Contract (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. It is
also submitted that the management has not filed the
registration of the contractors as 'contractor' whose names
have been referred by the management, therefore, the
workmen under dispute shall be treated as the employees
of the principal employer and not of the contractor.
6. The parties have filed documentary evidence in
support of their respective stands. The workman has filed
photocopy of gate pass, issued to the workmen, medical
slip and Lok Sabha Question & Answer 6982 for 11.05.2000.
In rebuttal, the management has filed a statement or
supply orders to M/s S.M. Corporation, Shahjahanpur, M/
s Jhanda Gram Udyog, Shahjahanpur and M/s Devil Lal,
Shahjahanpur, Lok Sabha unstarred question No. 6982 for
11.05.2000 and certificate of registration No. 07/2003 dated
30.04.2003 under Section 7(2) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970.
From persual of records it is evident that on
completion of pleadings, the workman moved an application
dated 24.05.2007, paper No. 144/2-144/3 for summoning the
documents from the management. After taking into
consideration, the objection of the management, this
Tribunal directed the management vide order dated
18.09.2007 to file the photocopy of relevant contract deeds
under which the workers were permitted to enter into the
premises of the opposite party; and in compliance thereof
the management filed photocopy of contract deeds vide
application dated 07.11.2007, paper No. C-147 to 147/40.
7. The workmen examined Amar Nath Yadav, Ram
Kesh, Mohammad Khalid and Devi Lal; whereas the
management examined Sri S.S. Doiphode, Dy. General
Manager/Admin in support of their respective pleadings.
The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses of each other apart from putting oral arguments.
8. Heard the authorized representatives of the parties
and perused the documents available on record.
9. The authorized representative of the workmen has
contended that the workmen have been working with the
management of Factory directly and received wages from
them; but the management is trying to prove them the
employees of contractor with the help of invalid contracts.
It has been contended by the workmen's representative
that neither the management of the Ordnance Clothing
Factory was registered as Principal Employer nor the so
called contractor was registered as contractor under
provisions of the Contract Labour (Abolition & Regulation)
Act, 1970, therefore, the alleged contract between them
was invalid one and was mere camouflage, having no force;
2144
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and accordingly, the workmen were the employees of the
Factory. It is submitted by the workmen's representative
that since the work performed by the workmen was perennial
in nature and there existed vacancy in the Factory therefore,
the workmen were liable to be absorbed; instead the
management has terminated the services of the workmen
without complying with the mandatory provisions of the
Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ignoring
this fact that the workmen had worked for more than 240
days. The workman has relied upon:
(i) Director, Fisheries Terminal Division v.
Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda 2010 AIR SCW
542.
(ii) H.D. Singh vs. Reserve Bank of India & others
(1985) 4 SCC 201.
(iii) General Manager, ONGC, Shilchar vs. ONGC
Contractual workers Union 2008 (118) FLR 942.
10. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the
management has come forward with the argument that the
workmen under question are no their employees, employed
by them directly; but are employees of the contractor who
have been given supply order under urgent demand of
clothing. It is contended that the management of the Factory
entered into a contract with the contracting firm for supply
of the clothing and in result thereof the contractor employed
the workmen to carry out the work as per terms and
conditions of the contract. It is submitted by the counsel
that the Factory never employed the workmen under
dispute; but it is contractor who employed them to execute
the work awarded to him and was paid accordingly. It is
contended that the Factory neither appointed the workman
nor made any payment to the workman directly therefore,
there arise no question of terminating their services or
making any retrenchment compensation etc. to the workman
at any point of time. The authorized representative of the
management also submitted that the management has duly
been registered before the Assistant Labour Commissioner
(Central), Dehradun under provisions of the Contract
Labour (Abolition & Regulation) Act, 1970; therefore, the
contracts entered into by the Factory are valid and not
camouflage.
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival contentions of the learned authorized representatives
of the parties and perused the evidence on record in light
thereto.
12. As per settled law, this Tribunal has to confine its
self within the four corners of the schedule of reference,
referred to this Tribunal for adjudication and to answer the
appropriate Government accordingly. The schedule of
reference dated 21.06.2004 made to this Tribunal is two
pointed. The first is regarding validity of the contracts;
and the second is regarding legality of non-regularizing of
services of the workmen and terminating their services w.e.f.
25.05.2000.
13. Thus, firstly, the validity of the contracts is to be
considered thoroughly. The management of the Factory
has come up with a case that when there is increase in the
demand of Jersey, this urgent requirement is fulfilled by
issuing tender, inviting bids and awarding supply order
through contract with different contractors. It is the case
of the management that the workmen under dispute are
being engaged by these contractors to carry out the work
assigned to them, thus, the work performed by the workmen
are not perennial in nature. It is also pleaded by the
management that the contractor are paid as per terms of
the contract by the management and thereafter they pay
their workers engaged by them, therefore, there is no direct
engagement of workers by the management. In support of
its pleadings the management has filed photocopy of the
contract and its certificate of registration No. 07/2003 dated
30.04.2003 under Section 7 (2) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970. The workman has
disputed the genuineness of the contract on the basis that
the management did not have any registration at the
relevant point of time and the contractors also did not
have any registration/license for supply of the workers;
accordingly, it is pleaded by the workman that the so called
contracts are invalid and mere camouflage.
14. The management has filed as many as three
contracts with M/s S.M. Corporation, Shahjahanpur, one
contract with M/s Jhanda Gram Udyog, Shahjahanpur and
three contracts with M/s Devil Lal, Shahjahanpur. The
management has also filed list of workmen along with letter
of request of the contractors for issuance of gate pass to
their workmen, mentioned in the list. On close scrutiny of
all these seven so called contracts bear some serious
infirmities, which drags them out of purview of a contract.
From perusal of these so called contracts, it becomes
apparent that they are not in form of a formal contract as
there is no mention of parties between whom the contract
is being executed. All the contracts do not bear signatures
of the contracting parties on each page of the contract;
also they are not sworn before any notary or Competent
Authority. However, it appears that the so called contracts,
relied upon/filed by the management vide application dated
07.11.2007 are just supply order as on the first paper of all
the contracts there is a mention of "Supply Order No. &
Date". There is description of various terms and condition
regarding work and payment etc.; but it cannot be regarded
as "Valid Contract" in the eye of law, for the want of
formalities mentioned above. However, the workman's
witness, Devi Lal who is claimed to be as a contractor has
admitted his signatures on only one of the internal page of
one of such contract; but that too is just the
acknowledgement of the supply order and that cannot be
regarded as the signature of a contracting party.
15. Further, the workman has contended that the
contract is invalid one because the management did not
have its registration as principal employer and the contract
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2145
did not have their registration too under the Contract
Labour (Abolition & Regulation) Act, 1970. In this regard
the management has field photocopy of its registration
certificate No. 07/2003 dated 30.04.2003 under Section 7(2)
of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970.
A bare perusal of the above certificate itself shows that the
management got itself registered only on 30.04.2003;
however it could not show any registration in respect of
the contractors. Therefore, the contention of the workman
got proved that the management did not have its valid
registration as principal employer and the contractors too
were not registered.
16. Thus, from pleadings of the management itself it
is evident that the management had entered into so called
contract from 1997 to 2000 with different contractors
through invalid contracts; hence, it cannot be said that
there was any genuine contract labor system prevailing
with the management of the Ordnance Clothing Factory.
Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, Haryana State Electricity
Board vs Suresh & others 1999 LLJ 1087 has observed as
under:
"When these contract workers carry out the work of
the principal employer which is of a perennial nature
and if provisions of Section 10 get attracted and such
contract labor system in the establishment gets
abolished on fulfillment of the conditions requisite
for that purpose, it is obvious that the intermediary
contractory vanishes and along with him vanishes
the term 'principal employer'. Unless there is a
contractor agent there is no principal. Once the
contractor intermediary goes the term 'principal' also
goes with it. Then remains out of this tripartite
contractual scenario only two parties — the
beneficiaries of the abolition of the erstwhile contract
labour system i.e. the workmen on the one hand and
the employer on the other who is no longer their
principal employer but necessarily becomes a direct
employer for these erstwhile contract labourers.
Hon'ble Apex Court furth observed and under:
"19. It has to be kept in view that this is not a case in
which it is found that there was any genuine contract
labor system prevailing with the Board. If it was a
genuine contract labor system, then obviously, it
has ot be abolished as per Section 10 of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act after following
the procedure laid down therein. However on the
facts of the present case, it was found by the Labour
Court and as confirmed by the High Court that the
so called contractor Kashmir Singh was a mere name
lender and had procured labor for the Board from the
open market. He was almost a broker or an agent of
the Board for that purpose. The Labour Court also
noted that the Management witness Shri A. K.
Chaudhary also could not tell whether Shri Kashmir
Singh was a licensed contractor or not. The workmen
has made a statement that Shi Kashmir Singh was
not a licensed contractor. Under these circumstances,
it has to beheld that factually there was no genuine
contract system prevailing at the relevant time
wherein the Board could have acted as only the
principal employer and Kashmir Singh as a licensed
contractor employing labour on his own account. It
is also pertinent to note that nothing was brought
on record to indicate that even the Board at the
relevant time, was registered as principal employer
under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)
Act. Once the Board was not a principal employer
and the so called contractor Kashmir Singh was not
a licensed contractor under the Act, inevitable
conclusion that had to be reached was to the effect
that the so called contract system was a mere
camouflage, smoke and screen and disguised in
almost a transparent veil which could easily be pierced
and the real, contractual relationship between the
Board, on the one hand, and the employees on the
other, could be clearly visualized."
17. In the instant case, the management of the Factory
has tried to plead and lead evidence to the effect that there
was a contract between the management of the Factory
and the various contractors to carry out the extra urgent
work; and in order to substantiate this pleading it has filed
photocopy of so called contract deed with different
contractors, including Devi Lal. Devi Lal in his cross-
examination has denied of having any contract with the
Factory from 15.-1.1997 to year 2000. However, he has
claimed to have worked as Master Crafts Man with the
Factory. He stated that he had 100 to 125 workers, who
were working with the Factory. He also stated that he and
his workers were not given any appointment letter; however
they have been given salary slip. The management has
tried to plead that Devi Lal was the contractor who entered
into as many as three contracts with the Factory but
admittedly only one of the so called contract bears
signature of Devi Lal on only one page of the so called
contract. Apart from photocopy of so called contracts the
management of the Factory could not show any
documentary evidence regarding issuance of tender notice,
bid from the contracts etc. The management also could
neither produce any reliable documentary evidence to show
that the Factory was registered as principal employer under
provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition)
Act, 1970 at the relevant point of time; nor any evidence
has been led to substantiate that the contractors were
registered or had license. However, the registration
certificate No. 07/2003 dated 30.4.2003 under Section 7 (2)
of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970,
filed by the management does not pertains to the relevant
period of time; hence unacceptable. Thus, in absence of
any registration of the Factory as principal employer and
2146
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
that of the contracts under the Act, the so called contractor,
Devi Lal seems to be just an agent who managed the supply
of the labourers to the Factory.
18. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances
of the case, and law cited hereinabove, I am of considered
opinion that the Factory was not a principal employer and
the so called contractor(s) were not a licensed contractors
under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act
1970, and accordingly, come to the conclusion that the so
called contracts are not genuine or mere a camouflage,
smoke and a screen and disguised, just to deprive the
workmen of their legitimate rights.
19. Now the second issue, involved in the schedule
of reference is taken into consideration i.e. When it is
established that the contract is not genuine and mere a
camouflage then what wold be legality of the action of the
management of the ordnance clothing factory, Shahjahanpur
in not regularizing the services of the workmen and
terminating their services w.e.f. 25/5/2000. Thus, the second
issue again involves two issues in it; firstly whether the
action of the management in nor regularizing the workmen
was legal; and secondly, the legality of action of the
management in terminating the services of the workman
instead of regularizing them.
20. Now coming to the first issue i.e. Right of the
workmen regarding regularization, from pleadings and
evidence relied upon by the parties, it is established that
the workmen were engaged by the contractor to carry out
the work of perennial in nature; therefore the contract labour
system got abolished. Further neither the factory was
registered as principal employer nor the contract had
license, making the so called contract between the factory
and the so called contractor mere camouflage. Thus, the
direct relationship of employer and employee gets
established between the management of factory and the
workmen. Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, Haryana State
Electricity Board vs Suresh & others 1999 LLJ 1087 has
relied upon the observation made by it in its decision in Air
India Statutory Corporation etc. vs United Labour Union
& others etc. 1997-I-LLJ-1113 SC as under:
"In this behalf, it is necessary to recapitulate that on
abolition of the contract labour system, by necessary
implication, the principal employer is under statutory
obligation to absorb the contract labour. The linkage
between the contractor and the employee stood
snapped and direct relationship stood restored
between principal employer and the contract labour
as its employees. Considered from this perspective,
all workmen in the respective services working on
contract labour are required to be absorbed in the
establishment of the appellant."
Also, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CWP No. 1981 of
1997 decided on 29.09.2000, 2001 (1) SCT 1943 has held
that
'in case the the contractor has not taken a license as
required under Section 12 of the Act, then the contract
labour shall be treated as direct employees of the
Principal employer.'
Thus, from the law pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme
Court, it comes out that the principal employer is under
statutory obligation to absorb/regularize the contract
labour as the linkage between the so called contractor and
the employees stood snapped and direct relationship stood
restored between principal employer and the contract
labour labour, in the present industrial dispute.
21. Coming to the last issue, under reference i.e.
validity of action of the management in terminating the
services of the workmen w.e.f. 25.05.2000. The workmen in
their statement of claim has pleaded that they have worked
continuously with the management of the Factory for more
than 240 days and the management has terminated their
services without following rule first come last go or serving
any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof or any retrenchment
compensation. Per contra, the management has come up
with the case that the workmen under dispute are not their
workmen rather they are workers of the contractors who
engaged them to carry out the supply order; and
accordingly, their services have never been terminated by
them at any point of time.
But as observed above, on the abolition of contract
labour system, there existed relationship of employer and
employee between the management of the Factory and the
contract labour, it can be well concluded that the workmen
under dispute were engaged in perennial nature of work
and they have worked for more than 240 days in preceding
year from the date of their alleged termination. Also, it could
be well inferred that the services of all the workmen have
been terminated without complying with the mandatory
provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 or giving any notice or notice pay or any retrenchment
compensation etc.
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in State of U.P. vs.
Mahendra Pal Singh & another 2012(2) ALJ 325 while
scrutinizing the validity of the award of the Labour Court
found that the findings of the Labour Court were not
perverse; wherein the Labour Court drawn out a finding
that the workman had continuously worked for more than
240 days in twelve calendar months prior to termination of
his services; and the termination of services was without
any notice and without payment of retrenchment
compensation; and accordingly, Hon'ble High Court held
that the relief of reinstatement with 60% of back wages,
awarded by the Labour Court was justified. Hon'ble High
Court in para 47-49 of its judgment, has referred decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishan Singh Vs. Executive
Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board,
Rohtak (Haryana) (2010) 3 SCC 637: (AIR 2010 SC
(Supp) 787 as under:
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2147
"47. .........................the appellant worked as a daily
wager under the respondent from 1.6.1988. His
services were terminated in December, 1993. He
served a notice of demand dated 30.12.1997 on the
respondent contended that his services were
terminated orally without complying with the
mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to
as the Act) and that he may be reinstated in service
with full back wages from the date of illegal
termination and he may be regularized according to
the Government policy. The respondent did not
respond to the demand made by the appellant and
by and order dated 23.7.1999, the State Government
referred the dispute under Section 10 of the Act to
the Labour Court. Thereupon the Labour Court
passed the award dated 18.7.2006 holding that the
appellant had admittedly completed 267 days from
1.6.1988 to 30th April, 1989 and his services were
terminated without any notice or notice pay and
without payment of retrenchment compensation and
the termination was, therefore, in violation of Section
25-F of the Act and the appellant was entitled to be
reinstated in his previous post with continuity of
service and 50% back wages from the date of demand
notice i.e. 30.12.1997.
48. The respondent challenged the award of the
labour Court before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana,
in writ petition and by order dated 9.12.2008, High Court
allowed the said writ petition and set aside the award dated
18.7.2006 of the Labour Court and directed the respondent
instead to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant.
Aggrieved by order dated 9.12.2008 of the High Court, the
appellant filed appeal before the Apex Court. By placing
reliance upon earlier decision rendered by the Apex Court
in the case of Harjinder Singh (supra), allowed the appeal
and set aside the impugned order dated 9.12.2008 passed
by the High Court and directed that the appellant will be
reinstated as a daily wager with 50% back wages forthwith.
49. While dealing with the question of discretionary
powers of the Labour Court, in para 17 of the decision,
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"17. Wide discretion is, therefore, vested in the
Labour Court while adjudicating an industrial dispute
relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman
and if the Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction
in the facts and circumstances of the case to direct
reinstatement of a workman with 50% back wages
taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties
and the evidence on record, the High Court in
exercise of its power under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India will not interfere with the
same, except on well settled principles laid down by
this Court for a writ of certiorari against an order
passed by a court or a tribunal."
22. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of
the case, discussions made hereinabove and law cited
hereinabove, it is established that the workmen under
dispute, who were employees of the principal employer i.e.
the Factory, were engaged by the Factory through an illegal
contract system which is not genuine and mere a
camouflage; and all the workmen had worked for more than
240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of their
termination; and their services have illegally been
termination on 25.05.2000 on completion of the so called
'illegal contract' by the management of the Ordnance
Clothing Factory without following the mandatory
provisions of the Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that
the workman Shri Amar Nath Yadav and others (as
provided in the list enclosed with the reference order) are
entitled for reinstatement with continuity in service along
with 60% of back wages within 08 weeks of publication of
the award, failing which; the back wages shall carry simple
interest @ 8% per annum. The workmen shall also be entitled
for absorption/regularization as observed by Hon'ble Apex
Court in 2012 (2) ALJ 325 (supra).
23. The reference under adjudication is answered
accordingly.
LUCKNOW.
17th April, 2015
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
List of workmen enclosed with the reference No.
L-14012/58/2003-IR(DU) dated: 21.06.2004
1.
Amar Nath Yadav
S/o Raj Deo Yadav
Village-Parsadipur, Post-Lutuhi
Distt. Sant Kabir Nagar
2.
Shatrudhan Mishra
S/o Ram Murat Mishra
Village-Sitauti
Post-Distt. Basti
3.
Ram Kesh S/o Sri Ram
Village-Kidhihiriya, Post-Sikari
Distt. Sant Kabir Nagar
4.
Ram Achal S/o Sri Ram Belas
Village-Kidhihiriya, Post-Sikari
Distt. Sant Kabir Nagar
5.
Ghanshyam Yadav S/o Udiyraj
Yadav Village-Husa Mau
Post-Munerwa Distt. Basti
6.
Phul Chandra S/o Sri Triveni
Village-Kidhihiriya, Post-Sikari
Distt. Sant Kabir Nagar
2148
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7.
Ram Singh S/o Sri Banvari
Village-Kidhihiriya, Post-Sikari
Distt. Sant Kabir Nagar
8.
Om Prakash S/o Sri Ram Lakhan
Village-Barparwan Post-Sahuapar,
Distt.-Gorakhpur.
9.
Awadh Narayan Singh S/o Sri Ram
Dular Singh Village-Behera Post-
Nasej Thana-Kudra Distt.-
Kaimur (Bhabhua, Bihar)
10.
Vinod Singh S/o Sri Ram Dular
Singh Village-Behera Post-Nasej
Thana-Kudra Distt.-Kaimur
(Bhabhua, Bihar)
11.
Shiv Murat S/o Jagdeo Village-
Rahunathpur Post-Hariharpur Khajani
Distt.-Gorakhpur
12.
Bhuneshwar Singh S/o Sri Ram Pujan
Singh Village-Khairwar Post-Khairwar
Distt-Chapra (Saran, Bihar)
13.
Satya Narayan S/o Sri Bideshi Ram
Village-Pursudi Post-Udiyawan Distt-
Azamgarh, U.P.
14.
Ramasray Rajbhar S/o Sri Tphani
Rajbhar Village-Bairampur Post-
Ralulpur State Distt-Mau UP
15.
Sri Kant S/o Sri Surajbali Village-
Parshurampur Post-Chhaun Gambirpur
Distt-Azamgarh
16.
Ram Hit S/o Sri Ram Karan Ram
Village-Pahilepur Post-Vindra Bazar
Thana-Gambhirpur Distt-Azamgagh
17.
Ram Bhagat Mourya S/o Sri Rajvash
Mourya Village-Jangal Thakurhi Koieri
Tal Post-Badeya Bujurg Distt-Deoria
18.
Ashok Chuhan S/o Sri Ram Prit Chuhan
Village-Chhitrua Post Majhgawan
Distt.-Deoria
19.
Rajesh Kumar Yadav S/o Sri Moshaphir
Yadav Village-Ram Hardware
(Belhadiya) Moe Tikari Post-Tikari
Thana-Tikari Distt-Gaya (Bihar)
20.
Ram Naresh Yadav S/o Sri Ram Baran
Yadav Village-Daulatpur Post-Kavar
Distt.-Gaya (Bihar)
21.
Sri Ram Yadav S/o Sri Jangi Yadav
Village-Mahilwar Post-Bhita Bans
Vawan Distt.-Gorakhpur
22.
Ram Charan Rajbhar S/o Sri
Vanna Rajbhar Village-Judiyan
Post-Sahjanwa Distt.-Gorakhpur
23.
Pradip Rai S/o Sri Ram Vrichha Rai
Village-Pagar Post-Pagar (Kajani)
Distt.-Gorakhpur
24.
Ram Darsh Kanoujiya S/o Sri
Lutawan Village-Gayaghat
(Ganpatganj) Distt.-Sant Kabir
Nagar
25.
Raj Kumar S/o Sri Kamla Prasad
Village-Beve Post-Chitrahi
(Dumariyaganj) Distt.-Sddratha
Nagar
26.
Ram Sajivan S/o Sri Asthoula Post-
Bela-Bilan (Gagha) Distt.
Gorakhpur
27.
Shurendra Chuhan S/o Sri
Jagarnath Chuhan Village-Tadwa
Post-Batraoli Pandey Distt.-Deoria
28.
Baldesh Chuhan S/o Sri Ram
Shankar Village-Chhitarua Post-
Majhgawan Distt.-Deoria
29.
Kamlesh Chuhan S/o Sri Ram
Bihari Chuhan Village-Parsa
Jangal Post-Tivai Distt.-Deoria
30.
Ram Surat Yadav S/o Sri Ram
Badan Yadav Village-Gyalpur
Post-Jamuwaha Dekaok Distt.-
Azamgarh
31.
Samsher Saroj S/o Sri Ram Nath
Village-Gajor Post-Karouti
Mahnagar Distt.-Azamgarh
32.
Ravindra Nath Prajapati S/o Sri Ram
Lakhan Prajapati Village-Dandva
Chatur Post-Pandeypura Distt.-
Gorakhpur
33.
Mahesh Chaudhary S/o Sri Ratti
Chaudhary Village-Baddan Shukali
Purwa Post-Munderwa Distt-Basti
34.
Chandrashekhar Yadav S/o Sri Ram
Paud Yadav Village-Slahabad Post-
Semardadi, Ghanghta Distt.-Sant Kabir
Nagar
35.
Ram Chandra Chaudhary S/o Sri Jai
Ram Village-Slahabad Post-
Semardadi, Ghanghta Distt.-Sant Kabir
Nagar
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2149
36.
Sarvajeet Mahato S/o Sri Ram Khilavan
Mahto Village-Kopa Sonar Patti Post-
Kopa Bazar Distt.-Chapra (Bihar)
37.
Madho Shah S/o Sri Chandrika Shah
Village-Kopa Sonar Patti Post-Kopa
Bazar Distt.-Chapra (Bihar)
38.
Shiv Charan Verma S/o Sri Ram
Khelavan Village-Nawalur Post-
Shitalaganj Distt.-Pratapgarh.
39.
Anurudh Chaudhary S/o Tilak Ram
Village-Huse Mau Post-Munderwa
Distt.-Basti
40.
Jai Chandra Yadav S/o Sri Kanheiya
Lal Yadav Village-Nuse Mau Post-
Munderwa Distt.-Basti
41.
Purushotam Chaudhary S/o Sri Ram
Kumar Chaudhary Vill+Post-Kara Pithiya
Distt.-Basti
42.
Janardan Chaudhary S/o Sri Dhodhe
Vill+Post-Kara Pithiya Distt-Basti
43.
Ram Singh Chaudhary S/o Sri Ram
Bharat Chaudhary Vill+Post-Kara
Pithiya Distt.-Basti
44.
Ashok Kumar S/o Late Sri Satiram
Village-Kukadipur Post-Dariyapur
Nevada Post-Mehnajpur Distt.-
Azamgarh.
45.
Amarika Prasad S/o Sri Shayamu
Village-Parashurampur Post-Chau
Gambhirpur Distt-Azamgarh.
46.
Udai Bhan Chaudhyary S/o Sri
Kashi Prasad Chaudhary Village-
Cholkhari Post-Padari Distt.-Basti
47.
Prem Chandra Chaudhary S/o Sri
Shiv Pujan Chaudhary Village-
Hause Mau Post-Munderwa Distt.-
Basti
48.
Ram Jee S/o Sri Ram Samujh
Village-Maner Khurd Post-Magul
Distt.-Azamgarh.
49.
Ram Bachan Yadav S/o Sri Ram
Samujh Village-Maner Khurd Post-
Magul Distt.-Azamgarh
50.
Ram Lalit Chauhan S/o Sri Ram
Awadh Village-Badhya Post-
Badhya Bujurg Distt.-Deoria
51.
Ramakant S/o Sri Ram Awadh
Village-Badhya Post-Badhya
Bujurg Distt.-Deoria
52.
Ramasray Chauhan S/o Sri Kedar
Nath Village-Dhaorpani Post-
Ranihawa Distt.-Deoria
53.
Suraj Chauhan S/o Sri Ram Awadh
Village-Dhaorapani Post-Ranihawa
Distt.-Deoria
54.
Mahendra Lal S/o Sri Ahodhya Prasad
Saxsena Mo-Eman Jaie Jlal Nagaj
near Malakhawali Masjid ke piche (Tarai)
Distt.-Shahjhanpur UP.
55.
Ram Pratap S/o Sri Godhan Lal Village-
Muridapur Post-Pareli Thana-
Shahabad Distt.-Hardoi
56.
Ashok Kumar Saxsena S/o Sri Lala
Ram Saxsena, Jayasawal Colony
Puranpur Distt.-Pilibhit
57.
Rashid Khan S/o Sadik Khan Swale
Khan ki Tal Mo-Dilejak Distt-
Shahjhanpur
58.
Sanjay Singh S/o Sri Prati pal Singh
Q.No. I/F/63 Double Story
Distt-Shahjhanpur
59.
Jitendra Pal S/o Sri Maiku Lal
Mo-Dilejak Post-Rampur Thana-
Sadar Bazar Distt.-Shahjhanpur
60.
Mukesh Kumar Saxsena S/o Sri
Mahesh Chandra Q.No. 27/3 MG Road
Cant thenha-Sadar Bazar Distt-
Shahjhanpur
61.
Moh. khlid S/o Sri Sharaphat Ullah Mo-
hathithan Jlal Nagar Near Pali Clinic
Thenha Sadar Bazar Distt.-Shahjhanpur
62.
Dipak Kumar S/o Sri Hardeo Sidhuapar
(Thanvapar) Thanha-Badahalganj Post-
Badahalganj Distt.-Gorakpur
63.
Sanjay Kumar S/o Sri Banke Lal Link
Road Q.No. 17/1 Servant Qatar Factory
State Distt.-Shahjhanpur
64.
Santosh Kumar S/o Ved Ram Q.No. 38
Single Line Factory State distt.-
Shahjhanpur
65.
Anil Kumar Mishra S/o V.B. Mishra
H.No.-HA/3/I Factory State Distt.-
Shahjhanpur
66.
Ravi Kumar S/o Lakhan J type
H.No.-224/5 Factory State Distt-
Shahjhanpur
2150
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
67.
Dinesh Kumar S/o Sri Ayodhi
Prasad Q.No.-17 Link Road Servant
Qatar Factory State-Distt.-
Shahjhanpur
68.
Ram Lakhan Chaursiya S/o Sri
Ram VrikChh Chaursiya Village-
Maharaj Jee Vakaoli Post-Paikoli
Distt.-Deoria
69.
Basant Chauhan S/o Sri Ramdhari
Chauhan Village-Gangi Post-Lonkhar
Distt-Deoria
70.
Arjun Prasad Yadav S/o Sri Ram Ratan
Yadav C/o Amar Nath Yadav Village-
Parsdipur Post-Lutuhi, Distt.-Sant
Kabir Nagar.
71.
Krishna Yadav S/o Sri Shivsharn C/o
Amar Nath Yadav Village-Parsdipur
Post-Lutuhi, Distt. Sant Kabir Nagar.
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 992-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSfud QkeZ
fcUukxqM+h Nkouh dk izca/ku ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; dksydkrk ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh&16@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 01@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@03@2015&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 992.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. CGIT-
16 of 2012) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the
Management of Military Farm, Binnaguri Contonment
and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 01/05/2015.
[No. L-42012/03/2015-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Application No CGIT-16 of 2012
(Under Section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947)
Parties: Shri Rajesh Oraon,
Vill, Pradhanpara, P.O. Gairkata,
Dist, Jalpaiguri,
Pin-735101
...Applicant
-Vs-
Management of Military Farm,
Binnaguri Cantonment,
Dist, Jalpaituri, Pin—735203.
...Opp. Party
Present: Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the
:
None.
Management
On behalf of the
:
Mr. Gautam Debnath, Ld. Advocate.
Workmen
State: West Bengal
Date: 17th April, 2015.
AWARD
This is an application filed by one Shri Rajesh Oraon
under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
against the management of Military Farm challenging that
his termination of service by the management is illegal,
invalid and void ab-initio and praying for his reinstatement
in service with back wages.
2. The Applicant is found absent when the matter is
taken up today. It appears from the record that the Applicant
is absent since 03.12.2014. Above conduct of the Applicant
goes to show that he is not at all interested to proceed with
the case further.
In view of the above, instant application is dismissed
being not moved.
Dated, Kolkata,
The 17th April, 2015.
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 993-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksydrk VsysQksusl
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
,oa Je U;k;ky; dksydkrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 22@2014½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&40011@80@2013&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 993.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby published the award (I.D. Ref. No. 22
of 2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2151
to the management of the Calcutta Telephones and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 01/05/2015.
[No. L-40011/80/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 22 of 2014
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Calcutta Telephones
AND
Their workmen.
Present : Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behlaf of the
: Mr. S.K. Karmakar, Ld. Counsel,
Management
On behalf of the
: None
Workmen
State: West Bengal
Industry : Telephone
Dated: 20th April, 2015.
AWARD
By Order No. L-40011/80/2013-IR(DU) dated
27.02.2014 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of
the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the demand of the Calcutta Telephone
Contract Labour Union (CTCLU) not to deduct
wages from their monthly salary for their Agitational
programme during April & May 2013 is justified? if
so, what relief the contract workmen are entitled to?"
2. When the case is taken up for hearing today, none
appears on behalf of the union though the management is
represented by its Ld. Counsel. It appears from the record
that the union at whose instance the present reference
case has been initiated is absent since 08.09.2014.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances, it appears
that the union is not willing to proceed with this case further.
So, no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping the matter
pending.
4. In view of the above facts and circumstances,
present reference is disposed of by passing a "No Dispute
Award".
Dated, Kolkata,
The 20th April, 2015.
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 994-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]
vkWMZusUl QSDVªh] tcyiqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 85@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
01@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&14012@38@98&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 994.—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/
LC/R/85/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the General Manager, Ordnance Factory,
Jabalpur and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 01/05/2015.
[No. L-14012/38/98-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/85/99
Shri Rajkamal,
C/o Krishanlal Sonhar,
Maharani Laxmi Ward,
Civil Lines, Katni
...Workman
Distt. Jablapur
Versus
General Manager,
Ordinance Factory,
Katni, Jabalpur.
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 15th day of April 2015)
As per letter dated 4-2-99 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-14012/
38/98/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Ordnance
Factory in terminating the services of Shri Rajkamal,
Supervisor vide their order No. 664/1 dated 28-6-97
is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled?"
2152
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim.
Case of workman is that he was dismissed from service in
pursuance of an enquiry held against him. Enquiry
conducted against him is illegal. That chargesheet supplied
to him is vague incapable of giving reply. Enquiry Officer
was biased. Enquiry was not conducted following
principles of natural justice. Finding of Enquiry Officer are
perverse and contrary to record. Workman was not supplied
relevant documents despite his request. On such ground,
workman prays for his reinstatement with consequential
benefits.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 3/1 to
3/3. Case of IInd party management is that Ist party workman
was caught with Govt property in Defence Production Unit
(Metallic Defence store) weighing 2.4 Kg. hidden in his
undergarment. That during search carried by Defence
Security Personnel on 14-9-95 at maingate, Government
Property was recovered. Workman was trying to go out of
premises with stolen material. It is further submitted that
during search operations on question by Security
Personnel, Workman was asked to go to Security Office.
He started shouting and used unparliamentary language.
After the workman was taken to security office, statement
was recorded by Duty Officer. The ceized material was
identified by Head of Stores Department. The material was
weighed and sealed in presence of duty officer.
4. It is further contented that chargesheet was issued
to workman under Rule 14 of CCS Rules, 1965. The
allegations against workman were of attempt of theft using
unparliamentary language. Workman denied charges.
Enquiry was conducted against workman. Enquiry Officer
submitted report on 28-4-97 holding charge of attempt of
theft of Government property proved. The finding of
Enquiry Officer are based on evidence. The representation
of workman dated 14-6-97 was found without merit.
Punishment of dismissal was imposed against workman on
28-6-97. It is reiterated that the findings of Enquiry Officer
are based on evidence. Enquiry was conducted properly.
The appeal preferred by workman was dismissed.
5. As per order dated 27-9-2013, enquiry conducted
against workman was found proper and legal. Considering
pleadings on record, the points which arise for may
consideration and determination are as under. My Findings
are recorded against each of them for the reasons as
below:—
(i) Whether the miscondct
In Affirmative
alleged against workman
is proved from evidence in
Enquiry proceedings?
(ii) Whether the punishment
In Affirmative
of dismissal imposed
against workman is
proper and legal?
(iii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
6. As order dated 27-9-2013, enquiry conducted
against workman is found legal. Whether charges against
workman are proved or not and quantum of punishment is
legal remains for consideration. W.r.t. Ist point, evidence in
Enquiry Proceedings needs to be considered.
Learned counsel for workman Shri R.C. Shrivstava
advanced argument that ceizure of the Government Property
was not prepared to connect workman with the guilt. That
two other charges were also held not proved. Rigorous
search of workman was taken in search now. No witness is
examined. The evidence in Enquiry Proceedings does not
connect CSE with admitted theft. The punishment of
dismissal from service is harsh as it amounts to civil death.
8. The record of Enqiry proceedings is produced.
Evidence of management's witness is devoted on the point
of legality of enquiry conducted against workman. Learned
counsel for IInd party has submitted written notes of
argument narrating the factual matrix. The record of enquiry
proceedings shows statements of management witness Shri
C.K. Mukhopadhyay, witness No. 2 V.K. Chouksey, MW-3
Ompal Singh, MW-4 Shri Prem Ballabh are recorded in detail.
All the witnesses of management were cross-exmined
extensively. As per evidence of management's witnesses,
search of workman was taken in the search row by Ompal
Singh. The evidence of other witnesses is consistent on
the point of personal search of workman was taken and
after the room was opened, the material was found on table.
MW-2 Shri V.K. Chouksey in his evidence says rigorous
search of workman was taken by Ompal Singh.
Shri Rajkumar was asked to carry the bundles to Security
Office. He denied and stated that bundles were not
recovered from these persons. Rather these were kept in
the room. After that the statement and statement of Prem
Vallabh were recorded. The weight was found approximately
3 Kg. similarly evidence is given by Witness No. 2
management witness Ompal Singh in his statement says
Rajkumar was taken to the search room and he was asked
to put off his clothes. Search was taken. At the time of
search, 3 bundles of wife was found beneath his underwear.
His evidence on the point is not shattered in cross-
examination. In reply to Question by Presenting Officer, he
says he did not tell anything. He had no rifle with him at the
time of incident. He further says that after material was
found with workman, he reported about it to Shri V.K.
Chouksey, Duty Officer. In his cross-examination,
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2153
Shri Ompal Singh says at the time of Prem Vallabh was
deputed in metal detector room and he was no duty in
search room, he was deputed to take search of workman as
Prem Vallabh expressed inability to take his search. MW-3
in his further cross-examination says that some register is
being used for both purpose. MW-3 in his further cross-
examination says that only Shri Raj Kumar was trying to
take out the material. He did not know the procedure and
details of it. In reply to question- how many other persons
were in rigorous search, the management's witness says
none else. The evidence of Witness No. 4 Prem Vallabh
corroborates his evidence. The evidence of witness Shri
M.P. Tiwari is devoted on the point he had seen BSE
persons taking Rajkumar out of search room holding his
hand. He claimed ignorance about any conversation by
workman. His evidence on above point is not challoenged
in his cross examination.
9. The argument advanced by Shri R.C. Shrivastava
for workman that as ceizure memo was not prepared,
workman is not connected with incident cannot be accepted.
Only witnesses have narrated that workman was taken to
search room and Ompal Singh in his evidence says on
search of workman, material were found weighing
approximately 3 kg the scope of judicial review under
Section 11-A of ID Act is limited whether the findings of
Enquiry Officer are not supported by any evidence and as
such perserse. In present case, all the witnesses have seen
workman taken to search room and Ompal Says that he had
taken personal search of the workman and found the
material. The evidence cannot be re-appreciated. The
burden of proof, the matters of DE is on the principles of
probabilites and not of the degree of proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Considering the evidence of witnesses
of management discussed above, the findings of enquiry
officer cannot be said perverse. The evidence of
management's witness proves charge of attempt to theft of
Government property by workman. For above reasons, I
record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
10. Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No. 1,
charge against workman is proved from evidence in Enquiry
Proceedings, question remains for consideration is whether
the punishment of dismissal imposed against workman is
proper and legal. The evidence discussed above shows
that Government Property was bundles approximately
weighing 3 kg were admitted to be stolen by workman. the
charge is proved. The act attempting to commit theft of
Government property working with IInd Party Ordnance
Factory certainly is a misconduct of serious nature.
Therefore the punishment of dismissal imposed against
workman cannot be said excessive, disproportionate,
punishment of dismissal imposed against workman appears
proper, reasonable no interference is justified. for above
reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 2 in Affirmative.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Ordnance
Factory in terminating the services of Shri
Rajkamal, Supervisor vide their order No. 664/1
dated 28-6-97 is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 995-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]
xouZesaV vQhe vYdykWbM oDlZ] ealwj ds izca/kra= ds lac)
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;
tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@302@97½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsnzhU; ljdkj dks 01@05@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@151@96&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 995.—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/LC/R/
302/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute betweeen the employers in relation
to the management of the General Manager, Govt Afeem &
Alkaloid Works, Mansour and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 01/05/2015.
[No. L-42012/151/96-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/302/97
Shri Purushottam,
S/o Shri Jagdishchandra Mangal,
86-Hudco colony,
Neemuch,
Distt. Mandsour
...Workman/Union
Versus
The General Manager,
Govt. Afeem & Alkaloid Works
Neemuch,
Distt. Mansour
... Management
2154
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Passed on this 13th day of April, 2015
1. As per letter dated 8-23/10/97 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-42012/
151/96-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
'Whether the action of the General Manager, Govt.
Afeem & Alkaloid Works, Neemuch, Distt. Mandsaur
(MP) in terminating the services of Shri Purshottam,
S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra Mangal, Ex. Lower Division
Clerk w.e.f. 10-4-95 is legal and justified? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled for?
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at page 3/1/ to 3/6. Case of workman is that he was
intermittently working as LDC on 13-4-77 to 31-8-77, 1-9-77
to 7-10-77, 1-5-78 to 28-12-78, 11-1-79 to 18-12-80 with IInd
party. That termination of his service from 18-12-80 was
challenged in R/2/83 before this Tribunal. The award was
passed on 12-11-1984 in favour of Ist party workman for
reinstatement with backwages. Said award was challenged
before Hon'ble High Court Indore bench. Workman was
reinstated from 6-2-87. Writ Petition was dismissed and
review applications were also dismissed.
3. On 5-1-94, chargesheet was issued by General
Manager of IInd party alleging unauthorized absence from
duty, habitual absence from duty etc. He submitted reply
to chargesheet on 15-2-94. Shri S.L. Arya was appointed as
Presenting Officer, Mr. A. Ajiz was appointed as Enquiry
Officer. Lateron Shri B.R. Verma was appointed as Enquiry
Officer in place of Mr. Ajiz. It is submitted that workman
had requested chargesheet in Hindi. Management refused
to supply chargesheet in Hindi. The enquiry was initiated.
Enquiry was fixed on various dates. Enquiry could not be
conducted. Statement of any witness was not recorded in
Enquiry Proceedings. Workman had contented that his
services are not covered by Central Service Rules. The
enquiry was stayed on 18-1-95, workman received letter
claiming that management was not bound to follow
particular rules. the date of enquiry was not informed. It is
reiterated that workman was not given opportunity for his
defence. His services were terminated from 10-04-95.
Workman submits that charges were not proved from
evidence of any management's witnesses. Dismissal of
workman is illegal. Workman prays for reinstatement with
backwages.
4. IInd party submitted Written Statement at page
8/1 to 8/3 opposing claim of workman in para-1 of Written
Statement, IInd party has admitted intermittent employment
of workman on contractual/temporary basis. IInd party
contented that workman never appointed on regular basis
following prescribed procedure. The Appointing Authority
of LDC is Dy. Commissioner, Narcotics. Workman was not
issued appointment letter by said authority. IInd party has
admitted earlier dispute referred by order dated 19-12-90.
The Tribunal had directed management to reinstate
workman in service. Award was challenged in W.P. 310/85.
Said petition was dismissed. On 22-6-95, the LPA filed by
management was also dismissed.
5. IInd party submits that workman is habitual of
remaining absent without prior intimation or getting leave
sanctioned. Workman was issued show cause notice on
5-1-94. He denied allegation against him, management
appointed Enquiry Officer. Enquiry Officer submitted his
report on 16-3-95 holding charges agaisnt workman are
proved. It is reiterated that workman was asked to submit
his representation against report of Enquiry Officer. The
Disciplinary Authority General Manager did not find
substance in the reply submitted by workman, he was
removed from service on 10-4-95. Action of management is
legal. Enquiry conducted against workman is legal. It does
not suffer from any infirmity. On such ground, IInd party
prays for rejection of claim of workman.
6. As per order dated 14-6-2013, enquiry conducted
against workman is vitiated. Considering pleadings on
record, the points which arise for my consideration and
determination are as under. My findigns are recorded
against each of them for the reasons as below:—
"(i) Whether the action of the
In Negative
General Manager, Govt.
Afeem & Alkaloid Works,
Neemuch,
Distt. Mandsaur (MP) in
terminating the services
of Shri Purushottam, S/o
Shri Jagdish Chandra Mangal,
Ex. Lower Division Clerk w.e.f.
10-4-95 is legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what releif the
As per final order,
workman is entiteld?''
REASONS
7. Point No. 1 As per order dated 14-6-2013, enquiry
is found vitiated, the case was fixed for evidence of
management on 19-11-2013,. Management did not adduce
any evidence to prove charges alleged against Workman.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence on 6-5-2014
supporting his contentions in statement of claim. Workman
has stated that charges alleged against him were baseless.
He had not committed any misconduct. Since termination
of his service, he was unemployed, he is not working at
other place. It is unfortunate that even after enquiry again
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2155
workman found vitiated. Management of IInd party did
not take care of the matter. The cousel for IInd party
remained absent. Workman was not cross examined. His
evidence remained unchallenged . To conclude, after
enquiry is found vitiated, management of IInd party has
not taken care to adduce evidence to prove charges alleged
against workman. Therefore order of removal against
workan is illegal. Therefore, I record my finding in point
No. 1 in Negative.
8. Point No. 2—workman in his affidavit to evidence
has stated that he is unemployed, his evidence remained
unchallenged. Management failed to adduce evidence. I
find no reason to deny reinstatement of workman with
backwages when charges are not proved and there is no
evidence that workman is in gainful employment after
termination of his service therefore workman is entitled for
his reinstatement with back wages. Accordingly, I record
my finding in Point No. 2.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the General Manager, Govt. Afeem
& Alkaloid Works, Neemuch, Distt. Mandsaur
(MP) in terminating the service of Shri Purshottam,
S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra Mangal, Ex. Lower
Division Clerk w.e.f. 10-4-95 is not proper.
(2) IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with
continuity of service and full back wages.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 996-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]
c®d uksV izsl ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@73@05½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 01@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&16012@1@2005&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 996.—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/LC/R/73/05) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of the General Manager, Bank
Note Press and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 01/05/2015.
[No. L-16012/1/2005-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/73/05
Smt. Sumitra Bohare,
Manoj Bohare,
Jitendra Bohare &
Ku. Sheela Bohare-LRs of
Shri Ramchandra Bohare,
H.No. 70, Subhash Marg, Kannod,
Distt. Dewas,
... Workman
Dewas MP
Versus
General Manager,
Bank Note Press,
... Management
Dewas (MP)
AWARD
Passed on this 15th day of April, 2015
1. As per letter dated 15-7-05 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-16012/
1/2005-IR (DU). The dispute under reference relates to:—
"Whether the action of the management of General
Manager, Bank Note Press, Dewas in terminating the
services of Shri Ramchandra Bohare w.e.f. 15-3-83 is
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at Pages 2/1 to 2/3. Case of workman is that he was
appointed as temporary mazdoor by IInd party on 27-7-79
on daily wages. His services were regularised on 23.11.79
in Pay Scale of Rs. 196-3-220-EB-272. His services were
confirmed on probation of one year as per order dated
24-11-79. That workman had participated in National Family
Planning Programme on 18-6-81. Thereafter he was not
keeping good health. He was absent from duty. Workman
has shown his absence from duty, LWP, HPL during 1980
to 1983. Workman was served one months notice on
8-3-83, his services were terminated paying salary for period
found less to one month notice. Workman had received
card from Employment Exchange office for his employment.
Though workman was allowed to work during 9-2-89 to
14-5-89, he was not paid wages. He had filed original
application 326/99 before CAT, Jabalpur which was decided
on 21-1-03. Workman was allowed liberty to approach
competent forum.
3. Workman submits that his services were orally
terminated. Any chargesheet was not issued to him. The
2156
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
CCS CS Rules 1965 are deliberately violated, terminating
his services without hearing. Workman reiterates his
services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID
Act is not paid 3 months pay, retirement allowance are not
paid to him. Though workman worked for 3 months in IInd
party, he was not paid wages for said period. Services were
orally terminated. On such ground, workman prays for his
reinstatement with backwages.
4. IInd party filed Written statement at Pages 6/1 to
6/5 opposing claim of workman. IInd party did not dispute
appointment on daily wages of Ist party workman from
24-9-79. The condition of appointment was services could
be terminated by both side giving one months notice.
Workman was remaining unauthorisely absent.
Chargesheet was issued to him on 1-9-82. Increment of
workman was withheld for 3 months. Workman did not
show improvement in his conduct. Appointment Authority
invoking Rule 5(1) of CCS temporary services dismissed
workman, one months pay was paid to the workman. The
appeal filed by workman challenging order of his dismissal
was also dismissed on 15-4-83.
5. A drive was initiated for filling post of SC. Workman
was called for interview on 19-7-89. 32 candidates were
interviewed. The performance of workman was found lower
than other candidates therefore he could not be selected.
The workman had filed Writ Petition 326/99 challenging his
dismissal. As per order dated 22-7-99, Hon'ble High Court
had directed to consider representation of workman after
workman submits his grievances. Workman did not submit
his application rather workman filed review application
against said order. It is reiterated that workman was
appointed on temporary basis. As workman was remaining
unauthorisedly absence, his services were terminated
under CCS Temporary Rule 5(1). The Opportunity was given
to workman. Though he was interviewed, his performance
was found low therefore workman could not be appointed.
Above contentions are reiterated by IInd party. It is
submitted that workman is not entitled to any relief.
6. Workman filed rejoinder at Pages 10.4 to 10/7
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
7. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
"(i) Whether the action of
In Negative
the management of
General Manager,
Bank Note Press,
Dewas in terminating
the services of
Shri Ramchandra Bohare
w.e.f. 15-3-83 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
8. The workman died during pendency of reference.
His LRs Smt. Sumitra Bohare, Manoj Bohare, Jitendra
Bohare & Ku. Sheela Bohare are allowed to be brought on
record. In support of his claim, workman filed affidavit of
his evidence supporting his claim that he was appointed
as tempoary labour on 10-7-79. His services were regularised
by order dated 23-11-79 on Pay Scale of Rs. 196 from
30-11-79, he was allowed benefit of Pay Scale of Rs. 196-3-
220-232. The memo prior to 30-4-79 relating to strike was
withdrawn. He was operated of tubectomy (Family Planning)
on 8-9-81, allowing increment Rs. 3/-. He was served with
chargesheet on 1-9-82, alleging unauthorized absence from
duty. The chargesheet was replied by him denying
allegations. By order dated 15-10-82, his increment was
stopped for 3 months without cumulative effect. Workman
has also narrated his absence from duty claiming that he
was granted leave of different types including commuted
leave. Workman in his cross-examination says he was
appointed on 10-7-79 though he was called on work from
5-7-79. As per order dated 30-9-79, he was appointed on
probation. On 9-2-82, chargesheet was issued to him. Any
chargesheet was not issued to him before termination of
his service. His 3 increments were withheld for 3 months
on chargesheet issued earlier to him, the show cause notice
issued to him was in respect of strike. He was not served
with any notice.
9. Management's witness Shri K.K. Pandit filed
detailed affidavit supporting contentions of management
that in offer of appointment, the light of terminating service
of workman paying one months salary in lieu of notice.
Ist party workman is tempoary employee. The chargesheet
was issued to him on 16-8-82, the increment of workman
was withheld for 3 months. Workman did not show any
improvement. The services of workman were terminated
under Rule 5(1) of Temporary Service Rules 1965 from
15-3-83. Workman had filed original application 326/99
before CAT. Said petition was dismissed with liberty to the
workman to approach proper forum. Management's witness
in his cross-examination denies that workman was
sanctioned leave. However management's witness agrees
that no DE was held against workman before terminating
his services. Management's witness denies that services
of workman are terminated for Union activities.
Management's witness admits that Appellate Authority
remanded the matter. He further explains that direction was
given by RLC.
10. Documentary evidence on record Exhibit M-1 is
copy of order dated 23-11-79 workman was appointed
tempoary as labour. Condition of appointment are given in
para-2 that the services of workman were terminable giving
one months notice or salary in leiu of notice. Annexure R-2
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2157
though admitted has not been exhibited. Order dated
10-10-82 was passed withholding increment of Ist party
workman for 3 months. R-3 is order of dismissal dated
15-3-83. Identical documents are produced by workman
also. Exhibit W-1 is appointment order dated 30-6-79 as
daily wage employer. Exhibit W-2 is also order of
appointment on daily wages Rs. 4/- per day. Exhibit W-3 is
copy of appointment order dated 23-11-79. Service of
workman was terminable giving one months notice. Exhibit
W-4 is workman along with others were appointed on
probation period. The period of probation is not mentioned
in the order. Exhibit W-5 is article of charges relating to
unauthorized absence of workman. Exhibit W-6 is reply
given by workman that he could not attend duties as he
was suffering from illness. Exhbit W-7 is copy of order
withholding increment for 3 months. Exhibit W-8 is notice
dated 8-3-83 for termination of service of workman after
one month. However without waiting for one month period,
the order of termination was issued on 15-3-83 Exhibit W-9.
In order Exhibit W-9 working days of workman is enclosed.
Exhibit W-10 is order dated 15-3-83 rejecting representation
of workman. Exhibit W-11 is memorandum dated 1-6-83.
That matter pertaining to workman was considered with
sympathy. As per Exhibit W-2, workman was informed, his
services were terminated for unauthorized absence. As per
Exhibit W-13, the representation of workman was rejected
as per Exhibit W-14, appeal of workman was dismissed.
Exhibit W-15 is copy of notice issued by ALC. Exhibit W-16
is reply given by IInd party.
11. Documents on record clearly shows that workman
was appointed on probation without mentioning period of
probation. When chargesheet was issued to workman, his
increment was stopped for 3 months without cumulative
effect on the basis of chargesheet issued earlier. Before
terminating his service, workman was not served with
chargesheet, no enquiry was conducted against him under
the guys that workman was in temporary service. His
services are terminated under CCS Rule 5(c) of Temporary
Service. When workman is granted increment, his increment
was withheld, the contention of management that workman
was in temporary service cannot be accepted. Earlier the
workman was treated as regular employee and chargesheet
was issued to him. IInd party has admitted that workman
was not temporary employee therefore chargesheet was
issued to him. Workman was appointed in June 1979. His
services are terminated on 15-3-83. The payment of one
months pay is not supported by cogent evidence. The
reasons for termination of workman are not given. For the
reasons discussed above, action of management of IInd
party cannot be said legal. Therefore I record my finding in
Point No. 1 in Negative.
12. Point No. 2- the termination of services of
workman under Rule 5(c) CCs Temporary Service Rules is
found legal. Workman died during pendency. He had
completed service of about 4 years. His LRs are brought
on record, workman cannot be reinstated. Considering the
length of service of workman rendered, reasonable
compensation to his LRs would be appropriate. In my
considered view considering facts of the case,
compensation Rs. One Lakh would be reasonable.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
13. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of General Manager,
Bank Note Press, Dewas in terminating the
services of Shri Ramchandra Bohare w.e.f. 15-3-83
is not proper and legal.
(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. One Lakh to the widow of the deceased
workman Smt. Sumitra Bohare within 30 days from
the date of publication of this 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] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 997-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj VsyhdkWe e/;
izns'k ljdy ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@59@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 01@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@111@2003&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 997.—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/LC/R/59/2004) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the Telecom
MP Circle and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 01/05/2015.
[No. L-40012/111/2003-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/59/04
Shri L.D. Sharma, Secretary,
Akhil Bhartiya Doorsanchar Karamchari Sangh Line
2158
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Staff & Class IV,
O/o Sub Division Telephone Officer,
Madanmahal Premnagar,
Jabalpur (MP)
...Workman/Union
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Telecom Bhawan,
Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of April 2015
As per letter dated 5-5-04 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-40012/111/2003-
IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Chief
General Manager, MP Telecom Circle, Bhopal MP in
terminating the services of Shri Bharat Lal S/o
Shri Amarnath and other 116 casual workers (list
enclosed) and not regularizing their service is legal?
If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. The case of Ist party Union Akhil Bhartiya
Doorsanchar Karamchari Sangh Line Staff & Class IV
submitted statement of claim at Page 2/1 to 2/3. Case of
Ist party Union is that the workman related to the dispute
Bharat Lal and 116 others were employed as casual labour
by the management of IInd party. Those workers worked
more than 240 days in calendar year preceding their
termination. The Union challenged termination of services
of those workmen. Union contented that all those workmen
continuously worked for more than 240 days in calendar
year preceding their termination. Those workers are deemed
to be in continuous service under Section 25B of ID Act.
That section 25-F, H of ID Act were not complied by
IInd party, the workers were not paid retrenchment
compensation prior to termination of their service. The
termination of service is illegal. Principles of last come first
go was not followed while terminating services by
management, permission under Section 25N of ID Act was
not obtained by the management. Instead of terminating
services of concerned workman, they should have been
regularised as per scheme framed by the management in
pursuance of directions given by Hon’ble Apex Court.
3. By amendment, Union has further pleaded that the
Supreme Court had given directions in case of Daily Rated
Casual Labour Employed under P&T Department versus
Union of India and other issued a direction to the
government to frame a scheme for giving temporary status
to the casual employees working in the department and
pursuant of the said judgement the P&T department framed
the scheme for purpose of giving temporary status to the
workmen. In said scheme there is a provision for
regularization of casual labour who put more than one year
service before 30-3-85 thereafter the Telecommunication
department framed another scheme and worked out cases
for absorption of casual labour who have been confirmed
temporary status from 25-6-93 i.e. in respect of person
engaged after 30-3-85 and prior to 22-6-88. That CAT
Jabalpur had allowed temporary status to the casual
employees who were working along with the concerned
workmen in the reference. The action of IInd party not
giving temporary status to workman concerned with
dispute is arbitrary, illegal. Those workman should have
been regularised by IInd party. On such ground, Union
prays that reference be answered in its favour.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/
9 opposing claim of Union. IInd party raised objection that
Shri L.D. Sharma President of Akhil Bhartiya Doorsanchar
Karamchari Sangh Line Staff & Class IV is not competent
to raise dispute as Ist party Union is not recognized Union.
Ist party claims that he is labour/office bearer of the
employees Association. BSNL was established in the year
2000. The staff was absorbed in BSNL as per the option
given by the employees. The meeting with Federation/
association of Union was called on 27-2-01 by management
in Chairmanship of MP BSNL. On 4-10-02, the BSNL has
declared the recognized Union to NFTE BSNL. After
2 years, NFTE BSNL membership was verified and BSNL
Employees Union was found eligible Union. It is reiterated
that Union has no locus standi to raise the dispute. It is
further contended that Ist party Association challenged
order of retrenchment of workers for violation of Section
25 F, H of ID Act contending managment not paid
retrenchment compensation to the workers shown in the
enclosed list. It is alleged that their termination is void.
IInd party submits that contentions of Union are not tenable.
The Telecom department was merged in BSNL. Ist party
Union has not carried the amendments. His claims suffers
from non-joinder of parties. It is further contented that MP
Telecom Circle having largest areas in the country, the
telephonic facilities were less in comparison to other rural
areas. In order to complete the project works, casual labours
were engaged by Telecom Department, now called BSNL
at various places. Those casual workers were engaged on
daily payment basis for specific work. The work was
discontinued after completion of projects. Workman
appearing in the list submitted with statement of claim were
also engaged for works as per requirements and that is for
specific work on daily wages. Workman concerned with
dispute are not entitled for reinstatement.
5. Ist party Association has not supplied details of
the workman related to the nature of work under which
authority they were working, the duration of work, the
period of work therefore the claim of Ist party is not tenable.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2159
6. IInd party submits that the penal of list attached
with statement of claim shows workman worked during
1977 to 1990. After 1990, they were not enrolled on daily
wages casual labour. They were engaged for specific work
as per requirement. Those who have not completed 240
days continuous service during any of the year. The dispute
is raised after long lapse of time. Claim is highly belated
and barred by time is not tenable. The Association failed to
establish whether worker's names appear in the list attached
with statement of claim are still unemployed or without any
job. It is submitted that workman retrenched by IInd party
were paid compensation. Management submits that
sufficient opportunity was given to Ist party Association
to supply particulars in the interest of workman.
7. IInd party further submits that as per directions
issued by Supreme Court, casual labour grant of temporary
status and regularisation scheme 1989 was introduced.
(a) The workers engaged prior to 30-3-85, (b) continuing as
casual worker as on 7-11-89, (c) have completed 240 days
in a year. The benefit of said scheme was extended to casual
workers engaged in project and electrification works on
the condition that — (a) they have been engaged between
31-3-85 to 22-6-88, (b) they are continuing as on the date of
respective orders i.e. 25-6-93, (c) they have not remained
absent for more than 365 days w.e.f. the issuance of the
respective orders. IInd party further submits that the
discontinuation of workmen is covered under Section
2(oo)(bb) of ID Act and the same does not amount to
retrenchment.
8. 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 Chief
General Manager, MP
Telecom Circle, Bhopal
MP in terminating the
services of Shri Bharat Lal
S/o Shri Amarnath and
other 116 casual workers
(list enclosed) and not
regularizing their service
is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workmen are not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
9. The terms of reference relates to legality of
termination of Bharat Lal S/o Amarnath and 116 casual
labours name shown in list enclosed with order of reference.
Ist party Union is challenging termination of those casual
labours claiming regularization as per the scheme framed
by the department. Parties are not in dispute about scheme
framed as per directions given by the Supreme Court in
case daily rated casual labours employed in P&T Dett.
Versus Union of India. There is serious dispute between
parties about completion of 240 days continuous service
by all those casual labours and violation of Section 25-F of
ID Act. The parties are also in dispute about benefit of
Casual Labour Regularisation Scheme 1989. The benefit of
said scheme could be extended to casual labours engaged
prior to 30-3-85 continuing as casual workers on 7-11-89
and completing 240 days in a year. The affidavit are filed by
IInd party of Shri S.A. Khan, Arun Mehto, J.P. Thakur, S.K.
Singh, R.K. Tiwari, A.K. Yadav, Manoj Kumar, N.K. Mitra,
Hamit Khan, A.N. Singh, M.K. Jharia, B.S. Sakarwar, Johrilal
Satya, N.D. Sharma. That documents related to casual
workers are not available. As per rules in Appendix V, the
documents like muster rolls are preserved for period of 5
years.
10. Identical affidavit of evidence are filed by
workmen Shri Arun Tiwari, B.L. Verma, Sohanlal, Manoj
Kapoor. All of them are cross-examined. Shri Arun Tiwari
has stated that he was engaged as casual labour from 1986
to 1990. He worked more than 240 days. His services were
terminated without paying retrenchment compensation. In
his further cross-examination, he says his name was not
sponsored through Employment Exchange. He was not
orally interviewed. He was working as per muster roll. He
was looking the work of telephone fault. He had not
received any training. He was receving pay for his working
days. He was not member of All India Telephone Employees
Union. He worked from May 1986 to 1990. Sunday was
holiday, Saturday was working day. He was not availing
leave. He denied suggestion that he not completed 240
days during any of the year. Shri B.L. Verma has deposed
statement of claim is filed in English not in Hindi. It was
explained by counsel in Hindi. his name was registered in
Employment Exchange. He did not receive any letter from
Employment Exchange. Once he was orally examined, he
was working as per muster roll. Appointment letter was not
given to him. He was engaged at different places after the
work was completed at Rewa, Chhattarur, Katni, Jabalpur.
He denies that he was engaged for specific work. He denies
that he had not completed 240 days continuous service.
Shri Sohanlal says he was engaged in 1986 to 1990. He has
also denied suggestion that he not completed 240 days
continuous service. He claims ignorance whether for same
labours, Union filed case before this Tribunal was dismissed.
Shri Manoj Kumar has also denied suggestion that he not
completed 240 days continuous service. In his further
cross-examination, he says he knows only one Union, he
claims ignorance whether the Union is recognized or not?
He reiterates that he was working 365 days in a year. He
had received letter from Employment Exchange but it is not
produced in the case.
11. Affidavit of Riyaz Ahmed, Ghansham Pasi, Aftab
Kosa, Ramsingh, Keshav Das, Ramadhar, Rubilal are filed
2160
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
in the case but they were not available for cross-
examination. Their evidence cannot be considered.
Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri D.S. Thakur
supporting its contentions. In para-4 of his affidavit, he
syas that workman shown in the list never worked for
department. That after 1990, those casual labours were not
engaged. He refers to statement of claim that workers were
claiming to have been engaged as casual labors during
1977 to 1990. The dispute is raised after long lapse of time
is barred. In para-7 of his affidavit, the department had
prepared scheme for regularization of casual labours
engaged prior to 31-3-85 continuing as casual labours as
on 7-11-89 completing 240 days in any year. Management's
witness in his cross-examination says that the workman
was paid wages for working days in the department. In
1990, workman left work. There was no need to give notice.
He claims ignorance whether wages were paid monthly or
weekly. The benefit of scheme for regularization of
temporary employees was given to the employees who
were fulfilling the conditions.
12. The evidence of Ist party workman about
completion of 240 days continuous service by them is not
supported by any document. As discussed above,
management has filed affidavit that the documents are not
available. The dispute pertains to the year 1990. The dispute
is referred as per order dated 5-5-04 i.e. after 14 years.
Management could not produce the documents after such
long lapse of time. Any of the office bearer of Union is not
examined as witness. All witnesses of Ist party have given
evidence in their individual capacity. Various applications
were filed by IInd party requesting details about identity
of workman, the period of work etc. The details submitted
by Ist party Union is not substantiated by evidence of any
of the witnesses.
13. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri R.C.
Shrivastava produced copy of judgement by CAT Jabalpur
in OA 411/90 and others. From reading of said judgment, it
is clear that most of the labours who were appointed have
completed more than 240 days and chart have been filed in
each case showing the actual days of work performed by
each of the petitioner. These charts are not disputed by the
department. The position in present case is different. The
parties ar ein serious dispute about completion
240 days continuous service by all 117 casual labours. In
Para-6 the working days of petitioner are shown during the
year 1985 to 1990.
In present case, there is no cogent evidence about
completion of 240 days service by all those casual labours
except their worn affidavit. Therefore common judgment
by CAT cannot be followed even for persuasive purpose.
14. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri R.C.
Shrivastava relies on ration held in catin of cases—
In case of Employer versus President, Rajhara Colliery
Mazdoor Sangh reported in 2014-II-LLJ-333. Her Lordship
of Jharkhand High Court dealing with regularization of
casual labours and the question whether Tribunal Labour
Court have power to issue directions for creation of post
for regularization of workmen.
In para-22 of the judgment, it was observed that WW-
1 and WW-2 have consistently stated that the casual wagon
loaders have individually completed 240 days in a calendar
year. To substantiate the oral evidence, on behalf of the
workmen, the statement prepared by the Union as Exhibit
W-3 in respect of production in the colliery and number of
days and attendance put in per head was produced.
Workmen have discharged the burden cast upon them
establishing that the workmen worked for more than
240 days.
In present case, the evidence of witnesses of Ist
party is not supported by any documents like Exhibit W-3
in above cited case. Therefore the ratio cannot be applied
to present case at hand.
In case of H.D. Singh versus Reserve Bank of India
and other reported in 1985 4(SCC)201. Their Lordship of
the court dealing with Section 25(B)(2)(a)(ii) had actual
working for not less than 240 days in a year. Employer's
failure to produce attendance register to controvert
workman's claim. On facts held workman's claim acceptable.
In present case, the dispute relates to working of
casual employees during the period 1977 to 1990. The
dispute is referred in 2004. The documents relating to work
of casual labours are not available. The ratio held in above
cited case cannot be applied to case at hand.
In case between BSNL versus Bhurimal reported in
2014(14o) FLR 901. Their Lordship dealing with the question
of reinstatement with backwages considering the facts
workman had worked almost 15 years as daily wage lineman,
management could not prove any agreement with the
contractor to prove that he was a contract employee. The
finding record by CGITS upheld by the single Judge that
respondent directly worked under the appellant for almost
15 years as a lineman on daily wage basis. Their Lordship
held termination rightly held to be legal in view of ID Act.
Compensation Rs. 3 Lakh was directed to be paid.
The facts of present case are not comparable. The
evidencde of witnesses of Ist party shows they were
working as casual labours around 1985 to 1990. Their
evidence is not supported by any documents.
In case between Surendra Singh versus Executive
Engineer HPSEB Division Shimla reported in 2013(138)FLR
1048. Their Lordship of Himachal Pradesh held rules of
evidence in its strict sense not required to be applied in a
proceeding before the Labour Court which as a matter of
fact conducts an inquiry summarily under the ID Act.
In case of Buchbai versus Nagpur University
reported in AIR(83)1946 Nagpur 377. Their Lordship held
statements recorded on orders passed by Income Tax
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2161
Officers are public documents. Certified copies thereof are
admissible in evidence. The mere fact that the document is
produced is not sufficient for its rejection.
Considering facts and evidence in the case, ratio
held in the case has no bearing to the controversy between
parties.
In case of Gautam Sarup versus Leela Jetly reported
in 2008(4) MPLJ 113. Their Lordship held the admission
made by a party to the list is admissible against him proprio
vigore. A categorical admission cannot be resiled from but
in a given case, it may be explained or clarified.
in present case, IInd party has not admitted
completion of 240 days continuous service rather it is case
of idspute betwen parties therefore the ratio cannot be
applied to present case.
In case of Sudarshan Rajpoor versus UP State Road
Transport Corporation reported in 2015(144)FLR-7 their
Lordship considering finding of fact recorded by the Labour
Court that termination of the appellant was illegal. Finding
of Labour Court that appellant was not appointed on
contract basis as Driver. Work extracted for several years
of permanent nature alleged employment on contract basis
wholly impermissible and amounts to unfair labour practice
as defined under Section 2(ra) of ID Act, 1947.
The ratio held in the case cannot be applied to present
case as the evidence of Ist party witnesses is that they
were engaged as casual labours on daily wages. The period
of theire working as casual labour is not established by
cogent evidence. The self serving evidence of workman is
different to be relied wen dispute is raised after long lapse
of time rather the legal position is settled that the disputes
raised after 7 years cannot be said proper.
15. Though President of Union bhas raised dispute,
any of the office bearer of the Union has not appeared as
witness to support claim of all casual labours related to
present dispute. That dispute is raised after lapse of about
14 years. The documents were not available with IInd party
about working of all those casual labours. For lapse of
long time, dispute is raised. IInd party cannot be blamed.
The claim of Ist party Union for regularization of casual
labours or completion of 240 days continuous service
preceding 12 months termination of services cannot be
accepted. Even details of all those casual labours, place
and period of their working is not supported by cogent
evidence by the Ist party Union therefore I record my
finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
16. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Chief General
Manager, MP Telecom Circle, Bhopal MP in
terminating the services of Shri Bharat Lal S/o
Shri Amarnath and other 116 casual workers and
not regularizing their service is proper and legal.
(2) Workmen are not entitled to any relief. Parties to
bear their respective costs.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 998-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj VsyhdkWe e/;
izns'k ljdy ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lh th
vkbZ Vh@,y lh@vkj@57@2004½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 01@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@110@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 998.—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/
LC/R/57/2004) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the Telecom
MP Circle and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 01/05/2015.
[No. L-40012/110/2003-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/57/04
Shri L.D. Sharma, Secretary,
Akhil Bhartiya Doorsanchar Karamchari Sangh Line
Staff & Class IV,
O/o Sub-Division Telephone Officer,
Madanmahal Premnagar,
Jabalpur (MP)
...Workman/Union
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Telecom Bhawan,
Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of April, 2015
1. As per letter dated 5-5-04 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
2162
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-40012/
110/2003-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"whether the action of the management of Chief
General Manager, MP Telecom Circle, Bhopal MP in
terminating the services of Shri Sureshchand Korav
S/o Bhagwat Singh and other 34 casual workers (list
enclosed) and not regularizing their service is legal?
If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. The case of Ist party Union Akhil Bhartiya
Doorsanchar Karamchari Sangh Line Staff & Class IV
submitted statement of claim at Page 2/1 to 2/3. Case of Ist
party Union is that the workman related to the dispute
Bharat Lal and 116 others were employed as casual labour
by the management of IInd party. Those workers worked
more than 240 days in calendar year preceding their
termination. The Union challenged termination of services
of those workmen. Union contented that all those workmen
continuously worked for more than 240 days in calendar
year preceding their termination. Those workers are deemed
to be in continuous service under Section 25B of ID Act.
That section 25-F, H of ID Act were not complied by IInd
party. The workers were not paid retrenchment
compensation prior to termination of their service. The
termination of service is illegal. Principles of last come first
go was not followed while terminating services by
management. Permission under Section 25 N of ID Act was
not obtained by the management. Instead of terminating
services of concerned workman, they should have been
regularised as per scheme framed by the management in
pursuance of directions given by Honble Apex Court.
3. By amendment, Union has further pleaded that the
Supreme court had given directions in case of Daily Rated
Casual Labour Employed under P&T Department versus
Union of India and others issued a direction to the
Government to frame a scheme for giving temporary status
to the casual employees working in the department and
pursuant of the said judgment the P & T department framed
the scheme for purpose of giving temporary status to the
workmen. In said scheme there is a provision for
regularization of casual labour who put more than one year
service before 30-3-85 thereafter the Telecommunication
department framed another scheme and worked out cases
for absorption of casual labour who have been confirmed
temporary status from 25-6-93 i.e. in respect of person
engaged after 30-3-85 and prior to 22-6-88. That CAT
Jabalpur had allowed temporary status to the casual
employees who were working along with the concerned
workmen in the reference. The action of IIIrd party not
giving temporary status to workman concerned with
dispute is arbitrary, illegal. Those workman should have
been regularised by IInd party. On such ground, Union
prays that reference be answered in its favour.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/9
opposing claim of Union. IInd party raised objection that
Shri L.D. Sharma President of Akhil Bhartiya Doorsanchar
Karamchari Sangh Line Staff & Class IV is not competent
to raise dispute as Ist party Union is not recognized Union.
Ist party claims that he is labour/office bearer of the
employees Association. BSNL was established in the year
2000. The staff was absorbed in BSNL as per the option
given by the employees. The meeting with Federation/
association of Union was called on 27-2-01 by management
in Chairmanship of MP BSNL. On 4-10-02, the BSNL has
declared the recognized Union to NFTE BSNL. After 2
years, NFTE BSNL membership was verified and BSNL
Employees Union was found eligible Union. It is reiterated
that Union has no locus standi to raise the dispute. It is
further contented that Ist party Association challenged
order of retrenchment of workers for violation of Section
25-F, H of ID Act contending management not paid
retrenchment compensation to the workers shown in the
enclosed list. It is alleged that their termination is void.
IInd party submits that contentions of Union are not tenable.
The Telecom department was merged in BSNL. Ist party
Union has not carried the amendments. His claims suffers
from non-joinder of parties. It is further contended that MP
Telecom Circle having largest area in the country, the
telephonic facilities were less in comparison to other rural
areas. In order to complete the project works, casual labours
were engaged by Telecom Department, now called BSNL
at various places. Those casual workers were engaged on
daily payment basis for specific work. The work was
discontinued after completion of projects. Workman
appearing in the list submitted with statement of claim were
also engaged for works as per requirements and that is for
specific work on daily wages. Workman concerned with
dispute are not entitled for reinstatement.
5. Ist party Association has not supplied details of
the workman related to the nature of work under which
authority they were working, the duration of work, the
period of work therefore the claim of Ist party is not tenable.
6. IInd party submits that the penal of list attached
with statement of claim shows workman worked during
1977 to 1990. After 1990, they were not enrolled on daily
wages casual labour. They were engaged for specific work
as per requirement. Those who have not completed 240
days continuous service during any of the year. The dispute
is raised after long lapse of time. Claim is highly belated
and barred by time is not tenable. The Association failed to
establish whether worker's names appear in the list attached
with statement of claim are still unemployed or without any
job. It is submitted that workman retrenched by IInd party
were paid compensation. Management submits that
sufficient opportunity was given to Ist party Association
to supply particulars in the interest of workman.
7. IInd party further submits that as per directions
issued by Supreme Court, casual labour grant of temporary
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2163
status and regularisation scheme 1989 was introduced. (a)
The workers engaged prior to 30-3-85, (b) continuing as
casual worker as on 7-11-89, (c) have completed 240 days
in a year. The benefit of said scheme was extended to casual
workers engaged in project and electrification works on
the condition that—(a) they have been engaged between
31-3-85 to 22-6-88, (b) they are continuing as on the date of
respective orders i.e. 25-6-93, (c) they have not remained
absent for more than 365 days w.e.f. the issuance of the
respect orders. IInd party further submits that the
discontinuation of workmen is covered under Section
2(oo)(bb) of ID Act and the same doesnot amount to
retrenchment.
8. 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 Affirmative
ment of Chief General Manager, MP
Telecom Circle, Bhopal MP in
terminating the services of
Shri Sureshchand Korav S/o
Bhagwat Singh and other
34 casual workers and not
regularizing their service is legal?
(ii)
if not, what relief the workman
Workmen are
is entitled to?"
not entitled to
any relief.
REASONS
9. The terms of reference relates to legality of
termination of Bharat Lal S/o Amarnath and 116 casual
labours name shown in list enclosed with order of reference.
Ist party Union is challenging termination of those casual
labours claiming regularization as per the scheme framed
by the department. Parties are not in dispute about scheme
framed as per directions given by the Supreme court in
case daily rated casual labours employed in P&T Dett.
Versus Union of India. There is serious dispute between
parties about completion of 240 days continuous service
by all those casual labours and violation of Section 25-F of
ID Act. The parties are also in dispute about benefit of
Casual Labour Regularisation Scheme 1989. The benefit of
said scheme could be extended to casual labours engaged
prior to 30-3-85 continuing as casual workers on 7-11-89
and completing 240 days in a year.
10. The affidavit are filed by IInd party of Shri M.K.
Jharia, S.K. Singh, P.S. Jhabra that documents are required
to be retained only for a period of 5 years. Muster roll
records for the period from 90 to 97 might have been
destroyed, the same are not available.
11. Witness of Ist party Shri Rajaram filed affidavit of
his evidence claiming that he worked with management as
mazdoor during 1985 to 1990 under supervision of DE
Mandla at Jabalpur. He completed 240 days continuous
service prior to 1988. In original application 411/90,
Dhanuram Tiwari and others were given temporary status
by CAT, Jabalpur. In his cross-examination, he admits that
since 1990, he is working at other places. He denies that he
himself left job. He admits that he has no decuments about
completion of 240 days working. He was paid wages on
daily wage basis for the casual working days. Other casual
workmen not filed affidavit of evidence in the case failed to
appear for cross-examination.
12. Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri
D.S. Thakur supporting its contentions. In his cross-
examination, management's witness says that annual
budget prepared shows the number of labours required.
He claims ignorance about the budget prepared during
relevant period. He claims ignorance whether attendance
of those casual labours are not in muster roll, whether the
wages were paid monthly or weekly. The scheme for
regularization of casual labours was introduced by the
department. He claims ignorance whether claim of workman
for regularization was accepted or rejected. He says that
the record is not available.
13. The evidence of Ist party workman about
completion of 240 days continuous service by them is not
supported by any document. As discussed above,
management has filed affidavit that the documents are not
available. The dispute pertains to the year 1990. The dispute
is referred as per order dated 5-5-04 i.e. after 14 years.
Management could not produce the documents after such
long lapse of time. Any of the office bearer of Union is not
examined as witness. All witnesses of Ist party have given
evidence in their individual capacity. Various applications
were filed by IInd party requesting details about identity
of workman. the period of work etc. The details submitted
by Ist party Union is not substantiated by evidence of any
of the witnesses.
14. Learned Counsel for Ist party Shri R.C.
Shrivastava produced copy of judgement by CAT Jabalpur
in OA 411/90 and others. From reading of said judgment, it
is clear that most of the labours who were appointed have
completed more than 240 days and chart have been filed in
each case showing the actual days of work performed by
each of the petitioner. These charts are not disputed by the
department. The position in present case is different. The
parties are in serious dispute about completion of 240 days
continuous service by all 117 casual labours. In Para-6 the
working days of petitioner are shown during the year 1985
to 1990.
In present case, there is no evidence about
completion of 240 days service by all those casual labours
except their own affidavit. Therefore common judgment by
CAT cannot be followed even for persuasive purpose.
2164
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri R.C.
Shrivastava relies on ratio held in catin of cases—
In case of Employer versus President, Rajhara colliery
Mazdoor Sangh reported in 2014-II-LLJ-333. Her Lordship
of Jharkhand High Court dealing with regularization of
casual labours and the question whether Tribunal Labour
court have power to issue directions for creation of post
for regularization of workmen.
In para-22 of the judgment, it was observed that WW-
1 and WW-2 have consistently stated that the casual wagon
loaders have individually completed 240 days in a calendar
year. To substantiate the oral evidence, on behalf of the
workmen, the statement prepared by the Union as Exhibit
W-3 in respect of production in the colliery and number of
days and attendance put in per head was produced.
Workmen have discharged the burden cast upon them
establishing that the workmen worked for more than 240
days.
In present case, the evidence of witnesses of Ist
party is not supported by any documents like Exhibit W-3
in above cited case. Therefore the ratio cannot be applied
to present case at hand.
In case of H.D. Singh versus Reserve Bank of India
and others reported in 1985 4(SCC)201. Their Lordship of
the Court dealing with Section 25(B)(2)(a)(ii) had actual
working for not less than 240 days in a year. Employer's
failure to produce attendance register to controvert
workman's claim. On facts held workman's claim acceptable.
In present case, the dispute relates to working of
casual employees during the period 1977 to 1990. The
dispute is referred in 2004. The documents relating to work
of casual labours are not vailable. The ratio held in above
cited case cannot be applied to case at hand.
In case between BSNL versus Bhurimal reported in
2014 (14o) FLR 901. Their Lordship dealing with the question
of reinstatement with backwages considering the facts
workman had worked almost 15 years as daily wage lineman,
management couldnot prove any agreement with the
contractor to prove that he was a contract employee. The
finding record by CGIT upheld by the single Judge that
respondent directly worked under the appellant for almost
15 years as a lineman on daily wage basis. Their Lordship
held termination rightly held to be illegal in view of ID Act.
Compensation Rs. 3 Lakh was directed to be paid
The facts of present case are not comparable. The
evidence of witnesses of Ist party shows they were working
as casual labours around 1985 to 1990. Their evidence is
not supported by any documents.
In case between Surendra Singh versus Executive
Engineer HPSEB Division Shimla reported in 2013 (138)
FLR 1048. Their Lordship of Himachal Pradesh held rules
of evidence in its strict sense not required to be applied in
a proceeding before the Labour Court which as a matter of
fact conducts an inquiry summarily under the ID Act.
In case of Buchbai versus Nagpur University
reported in AIR(83) 1946 Nagpur 377. Their Lordship held
statements recorded on orders passed by Income Tax
Officers are public documents. Certified copies thereof are
admissible in evidence. The mere fact that the document is
produced is not sufficient for its rejection.
Considering facts and evidence in the case, ratio
held in the case has no bearing to the controversy between
parties.
In case of Gautam sarup versus Leela Jetly reported
in 2008(4) MPLJ 113. Their Lordship held the admission
made by a party to the lis is admissible against him proprio
vigore. A categorical admission cannot be resiled from but
in a given case, it may be explaned or clarified.
In present case, IInd party has not admitted
completion of 240 days continuous service rather it is case
of dispute between parties therefore the ratio cannot be
applied to present case.
In case of Sudarshan Rajpoot versus UP State Road
Transport Corporation reported in 2015(144)FLR-7 their
Lordship considering finding of fact recorded by the Labour
Court that termination of the appellant was illegal. Finding
of Labour Court that appellant was not appointed on
contract basis as Driver. Work extracted for several years
of permanent nature alleged employment on contract basis
wholly impermissible and amounts to unfair labour practice
as defined under Section 2(ra) of ID Act 1947.
The ratio held in the case cannot be applied to
present case as the evidence of Ist party witnesses is
that they were engaged as casual labours on daily
wages. The period of their working as casual labour is
not established by cogent evidence. The self serving
evidence of workman is different to be relied when
dispute is raised after long lapse of time rather the legal
position is settled that the disputes raised after 7 years
cannot be said proper.
16. Though President of Union has raised dispute,
any of the office bearer of the Union has not appeared
as witness to support claim of all casual labours related
to present dispute. That dispute is raised after lapse of
about 14 years. The documents were not available with
IInd party about working of all those casual labours.
For lapse of long time, dispute is raised. IInd party
cannot be blamed. The claim of Ist party Union for
regularization of casual labours or completion of 240
days continuous service preceding 12 months
termination of services cannot be accepted. Even details
of all those causal labours, place and period of their
working is not supported by cogent evidence by the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2165
Ist party Union therefore I record my finding in Point
No. 1 in Affirmative.
17. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Chief General
Manager, MP Telecom Circle, Bhopal, MP in
terminating the services of Shri Sureshchand
Korav S/o Bhagwat Singh and other 34 casual
workers and not regularizing their service is proper
and legal.
(2) Workmen are not entitled to any relief. Parties to
bear their respective costs.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 999-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj VsyhdkWe e/;
izns'k ljdy ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@58@2004 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 01@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@112@2003&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 999.—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/LC/R/58/2004) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of the Telecom MP Circle
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 01/05/2015.
[No. L-40012/112/2003-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/58/04
Shri L.D. Sharma, Secretary,
Akhil Bhartiya Doorsanchar
Karamchari Sangh Line
Staff & Class IV,
O/o Sub Division Telephone Officer,
Madanmahal Premnagar,
Jabalpur (MP)
...Workman/Union
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Telecom Bhawan,
Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of April 2015
As per letter dated 5.5.04 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-40012/112/2003-
IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Chief
General Manager, MP Telecom Circle, Bhopal, MP in
terminating the services of Shri Dhanraj Singh, S/o
Shri Onkar Prasad and other 57 casual workers (list
enclosed) and not regularizing their service is legal?
If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were isued to
the parties. The case of Ist party Union Akhil Bhartiya
Doorshanchar Karamchari Sangh Line Staff & Class IV
submitted statement of claim at Page 2/1 to 2/3. Case of Ist
party Union is that the workman related to the dispute
Bharat Lal and 116 others were employed as casual labour
by the management of IInd party. Those workers worked
more than 240 days in calendar year preceding their
termination. The Union challenged termination of services
of those workmen. Union contented that all those workmen
continuously worked for more than 240 days in calendar
year preceding their termination. Those workers are deemed
to be in continuous service under Section 25B of ID Act.
That section 25-F, H of ID Act were not complied by IInd
party. The workers were not paid retrenchment
compensation prior to termination of their service. The
termination of service is illegal. Principles of last come first
go was not followed while terminating services by
management. Permission under Section 25 N of ID Act was
not obtained by the management. Instead of terminating
services of conerned workman, they should have been
regularised as per scheme framed by the management in
pursuance of directions given by Hon'ble Apex Court.
3. By amendment, Union has further pleaded that the
Supreme Court had given directions in case of Daily Rated
Casual Labour Employed under P&T Department versus
Union of India and others issued a direction to the
government to frame a scheme for giving temporary status
to the casual employees working in the department and
pursuant of the said judgment the P&T Department framed
the scheme for purpose of giving temporary status to the
workmen. In said scheme there is a provision for
regularization of casual labour who put more than one year
service before 30-3-85 thereafter the Telecommunication
department framed another scheme and worked out cases
for absorption of casual labour who have been confirmed
2166
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
temporary status from 25-6-93 i.e. in respect of person
engaged after 30-3-85 and prior to 22-6-88. That CAT
Jabalpur had allowed temporary status to the casual
employees who were working along with the concerned
workmen in the reference. The action of IInd party not
giving temporary status to workman concerned with
dispute is arbitrary, illegal. Those workman should have
been regularised by IInd party. On such ground, Union
prays that reference be answered in its favour.
4. Shri Ram Vinay Tiwari has submitted separate
statement of claim at Page 2 to 4. Case of Ram Vinay Tiwari
is that he was engaged as a labour at Betul and Itarsi, Bina.
He was working under Assistant Engineer, the details were
given in muster roll. He was working during the period
April 87 to July 89 for a period of 2 years 3 months. Monthly
payment was made to him. He was discontinued without
notice in July 1989 he was told that the work was closed, he
would be called whenever the work is started, no intimation
was given to him that he completed 240 days continuous
service prior to 1984.
5. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/9
opposing claim of Union. IInd party raised objection that
Shri L.D. Sharma President of Akhil Bhartiya Doorsanchar
Karamchari Sangh Line Staff & Class IV is not competent
to raise dispute as Ist party Union is not recognized Union.
Ist party claims that he is labour/office bearer of the
employees Association. BSNL was established in the year
2000. The staff was absorbed in BSNL as per the option
given by the employees. The meeting with Federation/
Association of Union was called on 27-2-01 by management
in Chairmanship of MP BSNL. On 4-10-02, the BSNL has
declared the recognized Union to NFTE BSNL. After 2
years, NFTE BSNL membership was verified and BSNL
Employees Union was found eligible Union. It is reiterated
that Union has no locus standi to raise the dispute. It is
further contented that Ist party Association challenged
order of retrenchment of workers for violation of Section
25-F, H of ID Act contending management not paid
retrenchment compensation to the workers shown in the
enclosed list. It is alleged that their termination is void.
IInd party submits that contentions of Union are not tenable.
The Telecom department was merged in BSNL. Ist party
Union has not carried the amendments. His claims suffers
from non-joinder of parties. It is further contented that MP
Telecom Circle having largest area in the country, the
telephonic facilities were less in comparison to other rural
areas. In order to complete the project works, casual labours
were engaged by Telecom Department, now called BSNL
at various places. Those casual workers were engaged on
daily payment basis for specific work. The work was
discontinued after completion of projects. Workman
appearing in the list submitted with statement of claim were
also engaged for works as per requirements and that is for
specific work on daily wages. Workman concerned with
dispute are not entitled for reinstatement.
6. Additional Written Statement is submitted by IInd
party contending that the workman was working in Railway
Electrification Project. The claim of Ist party Union deserves
to be dismissed.
7. Ist party Asociation has not supplied details of
the workman related to the nature of work under which
authority they were working, the duration of work, the
period of work therefore the claim of Ist party is not tenable.
8. IInd party submits that the penal of list attached
with statement of claim shows workman worked during
1977 to 1990. After 1990, they were not enrolled on daily
wages casual labour. They were engaged for specific work
as per requirement. Those who have not completed 240
days continuous service during any of the year. The dispute
is raised after long lapse of time. Claim is highly belated
and barred by time is not tenable. The Association failed to
establish whether worker's names appear in the list attached
with statement of claim are still unemployed or without any
job. It is submitted that workman retrenched by IInd party
were paid compensation. Management submits that
sufficient opportunity was given to It party Association to
supply particulars in the interest of workman.
9. IInd party further submits that as per directions isued
by Supreme Court, casual labour grant of temporary status
and regularisation scheme 1989 was introduced. (a) The
workers engaged prior to 30-3-85, (b) continuing as casual
worker as on 7-11-89, (c) have completed 240 days in a year.
The benefit of said scheme was extended to casual workers
engaged in project and electrification works on the condition
that—(a) they have been engaged between 31-3-85 to
22-6-88, (b) they are continuing as on the date of respective
orders i.e. 25-6-93, (c) they have not remained absent for more
than 365 days w.e.f. the issuance of the respective orders.
IInd party further submits that the discontinuation of workmen
is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act and the same
doenot amount to retrenchment.
10. 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 Affirmative
ment of Chief General Manager,
MP Telecom Circle, Bhopal, MP
in terminating the services of
Shri Dhanraj Singh, S/o Shri Onkar
Prasad and other 57 casual workers
and not regularizing their service
is legal?
(ii)
If not, what relief the workman is
Workmen are
entitled to?"
not entitled
to any relief.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2167
REASONS
11. The terms of reference relates to legality of
termination of Bharat Lal s/o Amarnath and 116 casual
labours name shown in list enclosed with order of reference.
Ist party Union is challenging termination of those casual
labours claiming regularization as per the scheme framed
by the department. Parties are not in dispute about scheme
framed as per directions given by the Supreme Court in
case daily rated casual labours employed in P&T Dett.
Versus Union of India. There is serious dispute between
parties about completion of 240 days continuous service
by all those casual labours and violation of Section 25-F of
ID Act. The parties are also in dispute about benefit of
Casual Labour Regulariation Scheme 1989. The benefit of
said scheme could be extended to casual labours engaged
prior to 30-3-85 continuing as casual workers on 7-11-89
and completing 240 days in a year.
12. Witness of Ist party Shri Rajaram filed affidavit of
his evidence claiming that he worked with management as
mazdoor during 1985 to 1990 under supervision of DE
Mandla at Jabalpur. He completed 240 days continuous
service prior to 1988. In original application 411/90,
Dhanuram Tiwari and others were given temporary status
by CAT, Jabalpur. In his cross-examination, he admits that
since 1990, he is working at other places. He denies that he
himself left job. He admits that he has no documents about
completion of 240 days working. He was paid wages on
daily wage basis for the casual working days. Any other
casual workmen have not filed affidavit of evidence in the
case.
13. Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri
B.S. Thakur supporting its contentions. In his cross-
examination, management's witness says that annual
budget prepared shows the number of labour required. He
claims ignorance about the budget prepared during relevant
period. He claims ignorance whether attendance of those
casual labours are not in muster roll, whether the wages
were paid monthly or weekly. The scheme for regularization
of casual labours was introduced by the department. He
claims ignorance whether claim of workman for
regularization was accepted or rejected. He says that the
record is not available.
14. The evidence of Ist party workman about
completion of 240 days continuous service by them is not
supported by any document. As dicussed above,
management has filed affidavit that the documents are not
available. The dispute pertains to the year 1990. The dispute
is referred as per order dated 5-5-04 i.e. after 14 years.
Management could not produce the documents after such
long lapse of time. Any of the office bearer of Union is not
examined as witness. All witnesses of Ist party have given
evidence in their individual capacity. Various applications
were filed by IInd party requesting details about identity
of workman the period of work etc. The details submitted
by Ist party Union is not substantiated by evidence of any
of the witnesses.
15. Learned counel for Ist party Shri R.C. Shrivastava
produced copy of judgment by CAs Jabalpur in OA 411/90
and others. From reading of said judgment, it is clear that
most of the labours who were appointed have completed
more than 240 days and chart have been filed in each case
showing the actual days of work performed by each of the
petitioner. These charts are not disputed by the department.
The position in present case is different. The parties are in
serious dispute about completion of 240 days continuous
service by all 117 casual labours. In Para-6 the working
days of petitioner are shown during the year 1985 to 1990.
In present case, there is no evidence about
completion of 240 days service by all those casual labours
except their own affidavit. Therefore common judgment by
CAT cannot be followed even for persuasive purpose.
16. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri R.C.
Shrivastava relies on ratio held in catin of cases—
In case of Employer versus President, Rajhara Colliery
Mazdoor Sangh reported in 2014-II-LLJ-333. Her Lordship
of Jharkhand High Court dealing with regularization of
casual labours and the question whether Tribunal Labour
court have power to issue directions for creation of post
for regularization of workmen.
In para-22 of the judgment, it was observed that WW-
1 and WW-2 have consistently stated that the casual wagon
loaders have individually completed 240 days in a calendar
year. To substantiate the oral evidence, on behalf of the
workmen, the statement prepared by the Union as Exhibit
W-3 in respect of production in the colliery and number of
days and attendance put in per head was produced.
Workmen have dicharged the burden cast upon them
establishing that the workmen worked for more than 240
days.
In present case, the evidence of witnesses of Ist
party is not supported by any document like Exhibit W-3 in
above cited case. Therefore the ratio cannot be applied to
present case at hand.
In case of H.D. Singh versu Reserve Bank of India
and others reported in 1985/4(SCC) 201. Their Lordship of
the court dealing with Section 25(B)(2)(a)(ii) had actual
working for not less than 240 days in a year. Employer's
failure to produce attendance register to controvert
workman's claim. On facts held workman's claim acceptable.
In present case, the dispute relates to working of
casual employees during the period 1977 to 1990. The
dispute is referred in 2004. The documents relating to work
2168
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of casual labours are not available. The ratio held in above
cited case cannot be applied to case at hand.
In case between BSNL versus Bhurimal reported in
2014 (14o) FLR 901. Their Lordship dealing with the question
of reinstatement with backwages considering the facts
workman had worked almost 15 years as daily wage lineman,
management could not prove any agreement with the
contractor to prove that he was contract employee. The
finding record by CGIT upheld by the single Judge that
respondent directly worked under the appellant for almost
15 years as a lineman on daily wage basis. Their Lordship
held termination rightly held to be illegal in view of ID Act.
Compensation Rs. 3 Lakh was directed to be paid.
The facts of present case are not comparable. The
evidence of witnesses of Ist party shows they were working
as casual labours around 1985 to 1990. Their evidence is
not supported by any documents.
In case between Surendra Singh versus Executive
Engineer HPSEB Division Shimla reported in 2013(138) FLR
1048. Their Lordship of Himachal Pradesh held rules of
evidence in its strict sense not required to be applied in a
proceeding before the Labour Court which as a matter of
fact conducts an inquiry summarily under the ID Act.
In case of Buchbai versus Nagpur University reported
in AIR (83) 1946 Nagpur 377. Their Lordship held
statements recorded on orders passed by Income Tax
Officers are public documents. Certified copies thereof are
admissible in evidence. The mere fact that the document is
produced is not sufficient for its rejection.
Considering facts and evidence in the case, ratio
held in the case has no bearing to the controversy between
parties.
In case of Gautam Sarup versus Leela Jetly reported
in 2008(4) MPLJ 113. Their Lordship held the admission
made by a party to the list is admissible against him proprio
vigore. A categorical admission cannot be resiled from but
in a given case, it may be explaned or clarified.
In present case, IInd party has not admitted
completion of 240 days continuous service rather it is case
of dispute between parties therefore the ratio cannot be
applied to present case.
In case of Sudarshan Rajpoot versus UP State Road
Transport Corporation reported in 2015 (144) FLR-7 their
Lordship considering finding of fact recorded by the Labour
Court that termination of the appellant was illegal. Finding
of Labour Court that appellant was not appointed on
contract basis as Driver. Work extracted for several years
of permanent nature alleged employment on contract basis
wholly impermissible and amounts to unfair labour practice
as defined under Section 2(ra) of ID Act 1947.
The ratio held in the case cannot be applied to present
case as the evidence of Ist party witnesses is that they
were engaged as casual labours on daily wages. The period
of their working as casual labour is not established by
cogent evidence. The self serving evidence of workman is
different to be relied when dispute is raised after long lapse
of time rather the legal position is settled that the disputes
raised after 7 years cannot be said proper.
17. Though President of Union has raised dispute,
any of the office bearer of the Union has not appeared
as witness to support claim of all casual labours related
to present dispute. That dispute is raised after lapse of
about 14 years. The documents were not available with
IInd party about working of all those casual labours.
For lapse of long time, dispute is raised. IInd party
cannot be blamed. The claim of Ist party Union for
regularization of casual labours or completion of 240
days continuous service preceding 12 months
termination of services cannot be accepted. Even details
of all those causal labours, place and period of their
working is not supported by cogent evidence by the Ist
party Union therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1
in Affirmative.
18. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Chief General
Manager, MP Telecom Circle, Bhopal MP in
terminating the services of Shri Dhanraj Singh,
S/o Shri Onkar Prasad and other 57 casual workers
and not regularizing their service is proper and
legal.
(2) Workmen are not entitled to any relief. Parties to
bear their respective costs.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1000-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj VsyhdkWe e/;
izns'k ljdy ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@167@2001½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 01@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@205@2001&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 1000.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2169
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. Case
No.CGIT/LC/R/167/2001) of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of the Telecom
MP Circle and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 01/05/2015.
[No. L-40012/205/2001-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/167/2001
Shri Mangilal Bagri,
Vill : Kodkiya,
Machalpur, Tehsil : Jeerapur,
Rajgarh
..... Workman
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Telecom, MP Circle,
Telecom Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal
TDE, Rajgarh,
At Biaora, Rajgarh
.... Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 6th day of April, 2015)
1. As per letter dated 1.11.2001 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Trbiunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/
205/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom
District Engineer, Biaora in terminating the services
of Shri Mangilal Bagri S/o Shri Purelal Bagri w.e.f.
December 1997 is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of
claim at Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of workman is that in January
1990, he was appointed as casual labour in Telecom
Department. He was working in different Telephone
Exchanges. He was continuously working from 1990 to
1997. He was appointed on permanent vacant post of
labour. He completed 240 days continuous service during
each of the calendar year. His services were not regularised,
rather his services were dispensed with illegally from
31.12.97. He as terminated without any reasons violating
law. Termination of his services amounts to unfair labour
practice ad victimization. He was not regularised in
services. Any chargesheet was not issued to him that
termination of his service is in violation of Section 25-F of
ID Act. On such ground, workman prays for his
reinstatement with back wages.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement on 6.4.2011
opposing claim of workman. IInd party contends that
workman was never engaged on muster roll. Appointment
letter was not issued to him. Workman had not completed
240 days during any of the year. As workman is not regular
employee of the management, provisions of ID Act is not
applicable.
4. 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 Telecom
District Engineer, Biaora in
terminating the services of
Shri Mangilal Bagri
S/o Shri Purelal Bagri w.e.f.
December 1997 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
5. Workman is challenging termination of his service
for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman filed
affidavit of his evidence at Page 7/1 to 7/2 supporting his
contentions in statement of claim. However he remained
absent for his cross-examination. His evidence cannot be
considered.
6. Management's witness Ramjani Khan filed affidavit
of his evidence denying workman completing 240 days
continuous service. The working days are narrated in Para-
4 of his affidavit. Ist party remained absent, witness could
not be cross-examined. As workman has not adduced any
evidence, the evidence of management's witness remained
unchallenged. Therefore claim of workman cannot be
accepted. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point
No. 1 in Affirmative.
7. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Telecom District
Engineer, Biaora in terminating the services of Shri
Mangilal Bgri S/o Shri Purelal Bagri w.e.f. December
1997 is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
2170
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1001-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj VsyhdkWe e/;
izns'k ljdy ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@116@00½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 01@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@121@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 1001.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. Ref. Case
No. CGIT/LC/R/116/00) of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of the Telecom
MP Circle and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 01/05/2015.
[No. L-40012/121/2000-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/116/00
Shri Premnarayan Prajapati,
S/o Shri Jagannath Prajapati,
Vill Ginyari,
Tehsil Narsinghgarh,
Distt. Rajgarh
..... Workman
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Telecom, MP Circle,
Telecom Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal
TDE, Rajgarh,
At Biaora, Rajgarh
.... Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 6th day of April, 2015)
1. As per letter dated 21.06.00 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Trbiunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-
40012/121/2000-IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Chief
General Manager, Telecom in terminating the services
of Shri Premnarayan Prajapati S/o Shri Prajapati w.e.f.
December 1996 is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of workman is that he was initially
appointed as casual labour in Telecom Department in
October 1987. He was working under control of Sub
Divisional Officer, Biaora, distt. Rajgarh. He was doing his
service with atmost honesty. His service record was
unblemished. He was continuously working from 1987 to
December 1996. That he was appointed on permanent
vacant post of labour. He completed more than 240 days
service during calendar year. However his services were
not regularised on post of labour. As he completed 240
days service, he was entitled to be regularised. Instead he
discontinued from December 1996. The action of IInd party
is discriminatory contrary to the law. Principles of natural
justice were not followed.
3. Ist party workman further submits that he was posted
at Narsinghgarh Sub Division. He was entrusted duty of
maintaining testing and recording register. That he was
engaged for work of permanent nature. He continously worked
more than 10 years. Inspite of directions and circulars of Central
Govt., Telecommunication department, he was denied
regularization. Any chargesheet was not served on him it is
reiterated that termination of his service is in violation of Section
25-F of ID Act. It also amounts to unfair labour practice. On
such ground workman prays for his reinstatement with back
wages. He has contented that he is not gainfully employed
anywhere, his family is in starving condition. On such ground,
he prays for reinstatement with backwages.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement on 6th April, 2011
opposing claim of Ist party workman. IInd party has denied
engagement of workman since 1987. That workman was never
appointed by the management workman does work in Sub
Division. Question of regularization doesnot arise. It is also
contented that workman never worked in the Division. He
was not appointed by management. Termination of his service
is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act is denied. IInd party
submits workman is not entitled to any reliefs.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
management of Chief
In Negative
General Manager, Telecom
in terminating the services of
Shri Premnarayan Prajapati
S/o Shri Prajapati w.e.f.
December 1996 is justified?
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2171
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
6. Workman is challenging termination of his
service for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Claim of
workman is denied by IInd party workman filed affidavit
of his evidence. Workman has stated in his affidavit that
he has worked as casual labor form 1987 to 1996 in the
department. He was working under Sub Division Bijura.
He worked more than 240 days during each of the year.
He was terminated without notice, he was not paid
retrenchment compensation. His request for employment
was not considered. In his cross-examination, workman
says the post on which he was working was not published.
He claimed ignorance whether his name was sponsored
through Employment Exchange. He denies suggestion that
he never worked in establishment of IInd party.
7. Management filed affidavit of witness Ramjani
Khan. The witness of management says workman was not
appointed in 1987. He has not done any work in the
department. Workman not completed 240 days service in
any calendar year. Workman was not appointed. In his
cross-examination, witness of management denies workman
was working as labour in the department. He denied the
documents referred to him. Lineman and other supporting
officials are not competent to issue any circular about
working of any labour. He denied suggestion that workman
was continuously working more than 6 years in department,
that workman was not paid compensation neither
termination notice was served on him.
8. The evidence of Ist party and management's
witness is on oath. Any co-employee is not examined by
workman. Ist party workman has produced copies of
documents 10/3 to 10/25. Learned counsel for Ist party
further did not take any steps for proving those documents.
9. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri M.P. Kapoor
submits that completion of 240 days service burden lies on
workman is not discharged. Reliance is placed on ratio
held in—
Case of R.M. Yellatti versus Assistant Executive
Engineer reported in 2006(1) SCC 106. Their Lordship
dealing with question of evidence and burden of
proof held burden of proof lies on workman. It is for
workman to adduce cogent evidence, both oral and
documentary. Mere affidavits or self serving
statements made by workman will not suffice.
Evidence Act not applicable to proceeding under
Section 10 of ID Act. In cases involving daily wages,
workman can only call upon employer to produce
before court nominal muster roll for the given period,
and other documents if in existence. Drawing of
adverse inference would ultimately depend thereafter
on facts of each case.
Learned counsel for Ist party workman submitted
written synopsis of argument submitting that
workman worked more than 10 years. The notes of
argument also refers to working days of workman
that workman was not regularised for long period
amounts to unfair labour practice.
10. Learned counsel relies on ratio held in—
Case of Officer Incharge, Defence standardization
Cell versus Mukesh Kumar reported in 2013-LAB.I.C.
3329. His Lordship of Delhi High Court considering
Practice of giving appointment to workman on
monthly basis and renewing it every month for a
period of 3 years to defeat rights of workman amounts
to unfair labor practice.
In present case, evidence of workman is not shattered
on material points. Contrary suggestions by counsel
for IInd party are denied. Management's witness
denies certificates of working days referred to him. I
find evidence of workman working more than 240
days is cogent. His services are terminated without
notice in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act and
therefore I record my finding in Point No. 2 in
Negative.
11. Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No. 1
services of workman are terminated without notice, question
arises whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with
back wages. In case 2013-LAB.I.C. 3329 cited above, their
Lordship considering working more than 3 years upheld
reinstatement with back wages. The facts of present case
are not comparable. Ratio cannot be applied to case at
hand.
In case of Devendra Singh versus Municipal Council
Sanaur reported in 2011 (130)FLR-337. Their Lordship
restored award passed by Labour Court for reinstatement.
In present case, name of workman was not sponsored
through Employment Exchange, was not engaged following
selection process. The reading of para-3 of above cited
case shows that the employee was terminated because the
Director, Local Self Govt. did not give approval to the
resolution passed for his employment. The order of
Industrial Court for regularization was upheld.
In present case, the workman was not appointed
following selection process. As such compensation Rs.
One Lakh would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my
finding in Point No. 2.
12. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Chief General
Manager, Telecom in terminating the services of
Shri Premnarayan Prajapati S/o Shri Prajapati w.e.f.
December 96 is not proper and legal.
(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.
One Lakh to the workman.
2172
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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] 5 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1002-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj VsyhdkWe e/;
izns'k ljdy ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k dsl uañ
lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@150@00½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 01&05&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@258@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O. 1002.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. Ref Case
No. CGIT/LC/R/150/00) of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of the Telecom
MP Circle and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 01-05-2015.
[No. L-40012/258/2000-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/150/00
Shri Lakshmichand Sen,
S/o Bhanwar Lal Sen,
Vill Barkheda,
PO Barkheda, Tehsil Biaora,
Rajgarh (MP)
....Workman
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Telecom, MP Circle,
Telecom Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal
TDE, Rajgarh,
At Biaora, Rajgarh
....Management
AWARD
Passed on 6th day of April 2015
As per letter dated 29-8-2000 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.
L-40012/258/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the Management of Chief
General Manager (Telecom)/TDE in terminating the
services of Shri Lakshmichand Sen S/o Shri
Bhanwarlal Sen w.e.f. 1995 is justified? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued
to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at
page 6/1 to 6/4. Case of workman is that he was working
with IInd party No. 4 as casual labour during 1987 to 1995.
He was terminated without notice. IInd party No. 1, 2 are
Controlling Authorities. That in AIR 1987-SCC-2342.
Apex Court directed to frame scheme for regularization
of casual labours. Scheme for regularization of casual
labours were introduced by IInd party on 7-11-89. The
benefit of scheme was extended to the casual labours
working till 30th March, 1985. Workman was not given
benefit of regularization scheme, instead his services were
terminated in 1995.
3. Ist party workman submits he had completed 240
days continuous service. He was not given benefit of
regularization and pay scale. Minimum wages were also
not paid to him. IInd party engaged him paying Rs. 1200
p.m. His services were orally terminated in violation of
law. On such ground, he prays for reinstatement and
regularizaton of his service.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement on 6-4-2011
opposing claim of workman. That the workman was
engaged as per availability of work when ever required.
Ist party workman was never engaged on muster roll.
Appointment letter was not issued to him. Workman had
not completed 240 days continuous service. The claim
of workman for reinstatement/regularization is fabricated.
Violation of provisions of ID Act is denied.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideration and determination are
as under. My findings are recorded against each of them
for the reasons as below:—
‘‘(i) Whether the action of the In Negative
management of Chief
General Manager
(Telecom)/TDE in
terminating the services
of Shri Lakshmichand Sen
S/o Shri Bhanwarlal Sen
w.e.f. 1995 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.’’
workman is entitled to?
REASONS
6. The terms of reference does not include claim
for regularization of service to workman. Workman filed
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2173
affidavit of his evidence stating that he was working with
IInd party from 1987 to 1995. He completed 240 days
working during each of the year. He was terminated without
notice. Retrenchment compensation was not paid to him.
His request for reemployment were not considered Jr.
employees are engaged after his termination. Since 1995,
he is unemployed. That he worked more than 9 years. In
his cross-examination, workman says post on which he
was working was not advertised. His name was not
sponsored through Employment Exchange. He was not
interviewed. He was doing work of digging ditches, laying
lines. He was paid wages for the days he was working. He
denies that he had not completed 240 days during any of
the year.
7. Management's witness Ramjani Khan filed affidavit
of his evidence. Management's witness says that workman
was engaged purely as casual labour for specific work and
specific period. After work was finished, his service
automatically discontinued. There is no question of issuing
notice or paying retrenchment compensation.
Management's witness in his cross says Ist party was
working as casual labour during 1987 to 1992. He had not
worked more than 240 days during any of the year.
Workman was not paid compensation, notice was not
issued to him as he was not regularly appointed.
Management's witness denied suggestion that workman
was continuously working from 1987 to 1992.
Management's witness says that if muster registers are
traced, the same will be produced. That he has copy of
muster. Management's witness has admitted Ist party
workman was working as casual labour from 1987 to 1992.
Notice was not issued, compensation was not paid to
workman. Application for production of document was
submitted by workman. Management has not produced
any document. Therefore evidence of workman deserves
to be accepted that he completed 240 days continuous
service. His services are terminated without notice,
retrenchment compensation is not paid to him. Termination
of services of workman is in violation of Section 25-F of ID
Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1
in Negative.
8. Point No. 2—In view of my finding in Point No.1,
termination of workman as per evidence of workman in
cross-examination, he was not sponsored through
Employment Exchange, post was not advertised, workman
was not interviewed. Though initially workman pleaded
that he was working from 1987 to 1995, management's
witness in cross-examination suggested that workman was
regularly working from 1987 to 1995. Any documents are
not produced by either parties. Considering the period of
working, compensation Rs. One Lakh would be appropriate.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Chief General
Manager (Telecom)/TDE in terminating the
services of Shri Lakshmichand Sen S/o Shri
Bhanwarlal Sen w.e.f. 1995 is legal and proper.
(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.
One Lakh to the workman.
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] 6 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1003-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,;jiksVZ vFkkWfjVh
vkWQ bafM;k ,oa vU; ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2] eqacbZ ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 19@2004½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
27&04&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11011@17@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2015
S.O. 1003.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (REf. I.D. No.19/
2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Airport Authority of India and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 27-04-2015.
[No. L-11011/17/2004-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT
K.B. KATAKE,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/19 OF 2004
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT
OF
(1) AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
(2) SECURITY GUARDS BOARD FOR GREATER
BOMBAY & THANE DISTRICTS
2174
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1.
The Airport Director
Airports Authority of India
Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport
Domestic Terminal 1-B, Mumbai 400 099.
2.
The Secretary
Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay &
Thane Districts
Rollers Pvt. Ltd. Compound
L.B.S. Marg,
Bhandup (W)
Mumbai-400 078.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
The General Secretary
Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sangathana
180-C, Ist Floor, Dharavi Koliwada
J.J. Keni Gali, Dharavi Road
Mumbai-400 017
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER NO. 1: Ms. Geeta Raju,
Advocate
i/b M/s. M.V. Kini & Co.
FOR THE EMPLOYER NO. 2: Mrs. M.P. Joshi
Advocate
FOR THE WORKMEN:
No appearance.
Mumbai, dated the 27th March, 2015
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No. L-11011/17/2004-IR (M), dated
29.04.2004 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the
following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
"Whether the Airports Authority of India (IAD),
Mumbai or Security Guards Board for Greater
Mumbai and Thane District is the employer in the
case of Shri V.D. Suryavanshi? Whether Shri V.D.
Suryavanshi has worked on 5th, 17th, 21st, 24th &
30th June 2000 and for 17 days in the month of July
2002 in the establishment of Airports Authority of
India (IAD) Mumbai through the Security Guards
Board? If so, to what relief Shri Suryavanshi is
entitled for?"
2. After receipt of the reference notice was sent to
both the parties. Second party Workman appeared before
this Tribunal on 24-08-2004 and filed his Statement of Claim
at Ex-6. According to the Second party he is a member of
the Krantikari Suraksha Sanghatana Registered under the
Trade Union Act, 1926. He is registered with the Security
Guards Board and the Security Guard Board allotted him to
the Airport Authority of India. The AAI is arbitrarily
transferring and posting the workman. On
1-5-2000 he has been assigned to a Security Supervisor to
harass the workman. Union protested this action of AAI
vide their letter dt. 5-5-2000. The workman worked on the
new post in the month of June 2000. First party Management
no. 1 marked the workman absent and deducted his wages
for the days 5th, 17th, 21st, 24th, 29th & 30th June 2000 on
which dates he has worked. Workman demanded the
illegally deducted wages of 6 days by letter dt. 17-7-2000
but the management did not reply. In the month of July
2000 the workman has worked for 29 days but he was paid
wages of only 12 days. Workman demanded the illegally
deducted wages of balance days by letter
dt. 17-9-2000 but the management did not reply. According
to the workman he was being victimized for his union
activities. Workman therefore prays to direct the
management no. 1 to refund the amount illegally deducted
in June 2000 to the tune of Rs. 1146 & July 2000 Rs. 1571/-
and also prays for interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of
June 2000 and also prays for cost.
3. Management resisted the statement of claim of the
workman vide its Written statement at Ex.-11. According to
the management no. 1, the reference is bad in law as the
union does not represent the workmen employed in its
establishment. In order to become the individual dispute
as an industrial dispute under Section 2 (k) of the I.D. Act
it has to be established either by a resolution or otherwise
that it had been taken up by the union of workmen or by an
appreciable number of workmen employed by it: who must
have a direct and substantial interest in espousing the
cause of Mr. Suryavanshi who is not the workman as defined
under Section 2 (s) of the Act. Thus the industrial dispute
cannot be raised in respect of money claim for which there
is a provision under Section 33 C (2) of the Act. According
to the first party no. 1, the concerned workman was never
employed by it. He is a registered Security Guard of the
Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Thane Distt.
who allotted him to the Authority. It is an admitted fact that
the Board makes payment of wages and other dues to the
workman. Under these circumstances, first party submits
that the reference is not maintainable in law against it. First
party no. 1 has denied all the allegations made by the
workman in the statement of claim. According to the first
party no. 1, it did not effect payment of wages for the
months of June 2000 and July 2002 or July 2000 and hence
question of refunding of the allegedly deducted amounts
of Rs. 1,146 & Rs. 1571 for the months of June and July
2000 respectively does not arise. Therefore the workman is
not entitled to any relief.
4. Issues were framed and re-casted at Ex-12.
Thereafter the matter was fixed for recording evidence of
Second party Union. Second party union neither attended
this Tribunal nor filed Affidavit in lieu of examination-in-
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2175
chief. Order "No affidavit from Union" was passed on 6-3-
2012. Management filed Affidavit of Shri P.D. Koli (MW-1)
at Ex-23. Since union remained absent "no cross of MW-1
was passed on 27/2/2013. Thereafter management filed their
Written Arguments. Matter was adjourned for arguments
by Union on number of dates, but they remained absent.
Sufficient time was given to Second party union to prove
their case. On the other hand managemnet has led their
evidence. It remained unchallenged. Therefore I hold that
the second party union failed to prove their case by leading
evidence. Thus the reference deserves to be dismissed.
Hence I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The reference stands dismissed with no order as to cost.
Date: 27.03.2015
K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1004-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vk;y
dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2] èuckn ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 58@2006½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
27@4@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&30011@13@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2015
S.O. 1004.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. I.D. No. 58/
2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 27/4/2015.
[No. L-30011/13/2006-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
Shri Kishori Ram,
Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
REFERENCE NO. 58 OF 2006
Parties : The Dy. General Secretary,
B.T.M.U., Suraj Bhawan, Refinery Township Begusarai
Vs.
The Exec. Director,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Refinery Division
Barauni Refinery, Begusarai-851114 (Bihar).
Order No. L-30011/13/2006-IR(M) dt. 24.08.2006
& 26.11.2007
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the workman/Union : Mr. V.N. Sahay
Ld. Advocate
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. K.N. Gupta,
Ld. Advocate
State
:
Bihar
Industry
:
Petroleum & Natural Gas
Dated, Dhanbad, the 26th March, 2015
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-30011/
13/2006-IR(M) dt. 24.08.2006 & 26.11.2007.
SCHEDULE
‘‘Whether the action of the Management is justified
in not providing employment to the next of kin of
Shri Ugandeo Choudhary & if not, what relief the
workman is entitled to?"
On receipt of the Order No. L-30011/13/2006-IR(M)
dt. 24.08.2006 & 26.11.2007 of the above mentioned
reference from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour
& Employment, New Delhi, for adjudication of the dispute,
the Reference Case No. 58 of 2006 was registered on
21.09.2006 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
Workman and the O.P./Management through their Ld.
Advocates appeared respectively, and contested the case.
2. The case of the workman Ugandeo Choudhary as
sponsored by the BTMU, Begusarai, is the workman, an
employee of the Management of the Indian Oil Corporation,
Barauni Refinery under the M/s Indian Oil Corporation, a
Public Sector, met an accident on 01.10.2001 while going
from Refinery Township to Factory for duty on bicycle
which was dashed by an unknown Vehicle. On his report
to Refinery Hospital on the same day for treatment, the
Doctors Diagnosed his case intra-capsular fracture of right
2176
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
femur neck. Considering his condition serious, he was
referred by the Refinery Doctors to Kurjee Holy Family
Hospital, Patna where he was under treatment therefrom,
he was referred by the Refinery Doctor to Sri Ganga Ram
Hospital, Delhi, wherefrom without any fruitful result, he
was discharged. The workman represented in his
application on 18.07.2002 to the Management, that the
Doctor had declared him totally permanent disabled. He
also submitted his application to the Executive Director in
the prescribed form of the Company for appointment of his
dependant son/daughter on the ground of his permanent
100% total disablement under clause 3(b) of the Tripartite
Agreement dated 19.1.1989 (Annexure 1) and the
Rehabilitation Scheme. But the Management did not
consider it, though Ram Kumar Rai, S/o Raj Dev Rai and
C.B. Mishra were employed under the Rehabilitation Scheme
in the last five years as per the said agreement. It is also
alleged it a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India and the Tripartite Agreement. The workman already
retired from service on 30th June, 2005. Even then, no
medical and other benefits were made available to him. The
Memorandum of Settlement under the Rehabilitation of
the Family of the workman dying/suffering permanent total
disablement during service provides for an option for
employment of his ward eligible suitable and dependant
son/daughter. Hence the Industrial Dispute arose.
3. The Representative Union in its rejoinder on behalf
of the workman has also categorically denied the relevant
allegations of OP/Management as incorrect, further stating
the Management had not been discharging the legal
liability as per the law. When the management was informed
about the accident, it took not any steps for payment of
compensation under the Compensation Act, 1923; the
workman filed a case for compensation which was a separate
claim independent of the present Reference. The workman
had informed of the Management about his total
disablement as per his letter dt. 18.07.2002. The
Management had provided the Medical treatment to him
even at Delhi.
4. Whereas the contra pleaded case of the OP/
Management is that the Refernece being unrelated to the
Indian Oil Corporation, Barauni Refinery not maintainable,
though later on, as per corrigendum of the Under Secretary
concerned, it has been added the IOCL, Refinery Division,
Barauni Refinery as a party to it as per letter dt. 26.11.2007.
Even then the Reference is not maintainable in facts and
law as well. The case of the workman Ugandeo Choudhary
never came under the category of total permanent
disablement. Factually, the Barauni Refinery Management
being a Public Sector of the Government of India has been
complying the provisions of the Law of the Land just as in
the terms of Tripartite Agreement dt. Jan. 19, 1989. by
implementing the scheme of Rehabilitation of the family of
the workman dying or suffering permanent total disablement
due to an injury arising out of and in course of employment
while in service. The workman had also filed the case No.
WC:07/2006 before the Dy. Labour Commissioner-cum-
Workman Compensation Commissioner, Mungyr Division,
Begusarai, for compensation under the Compensation Act,
1923. Sri Sitaram Choudhary, S/o workman had also filed a
Writ application before the Hon'ble High Court, Patna, in
respect of his appointment under the Scheme of the
aforesaid Rehabilitation. As per the Memorandum of
Settlement known as "Superannuation Benefits Fund
Scheme" arrived on Jan. 19, 1989 between the IOCL, Barauni
and Barauni Tel Sodhak Mazdoor Union. There is also a
provision for rehabilitation of the family of the workman
dying/suffering permanent disablement due to an injury
arising out of/in course of employment while in service.
One of the Rehabilitation options is for employment of
otherwise eligible, suitable and dependant son/daughter
(Annexure-D). Further alleged is that the workman who
joined his service on 13.09.1969 in the regular scale of
Barauni Refinery, retired at his sixty years from the service
of corporation on 30.06.2005 as per the policy of the
Corporation.
5. The workman is alleged to have informed the
Management as per his letter dt. 18.07.2002 after more than
nine months (Annexure-E) about his accident to have taken
place near Bio-treatment plant of Barauni on 1st Oct., 2001
while going on bicycle from Refinery Township about seven
Kms. away to the refinery for duty due to dash by unknown
Vehicle at about 1.45 p.m., seeking employment for his son
under the Scheme of the Corporation on the ground of his
permanently disablement. But he had not submitted any
documentary/legal proof of it with details of its time and
place, nor any FIR usually required in such accident. Even
he had not reported the First Aid Centre of Refinery nearer
(less than half kilometer) to the alleged place of occurrence.
In fact, the workman was absenting from duty without any
intimation from 28.09.2001 to 01.10.2001 (the date of alleged
accident); the Certified Standing Order of the Barauni
Refinery under its Clause 5 (a) applicable to the workman
lays down:
‘‘Any employee who meets with an accident in course
of his employment shall immediately report the accident,
however, slight it may be, to his Sectional/Departmental
Head who shall arrange to him at once to the Company's
first Aid Station for such treatment as may be necessary."
However, the workman did not abide by the rules
governing his service in the Corporation and subsequently,
he filed it to take unfair and under advantage of it. However,
the workman as per the Medical rules of the Corporation
was also provided the required Medical treatment as per
the Medical record of the Corporation, the workman
reported to the Refinery Hospital on 01.10.2001 without
mentioning the time of his reporting. The Doctor diagnosed
his case as intra capsular fracture neck of right femur, and
referred to Kurjee Holy Family Hospital, Patna, for further
treatment. In spite of specialized best medical treatment
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2177
provided to Shri Choudhary at Delhi and Patna, whenever
required during his service period, ever since his alleged
accident claim till his retirement on 30.06.2005, he did not
join his duty even after Doctor's advice for treatment and
rest. Provision of medical facility is a welfare measure
provided as per rule of the Corporation having been granted
on the ground of the clinical note of Doctor's advice for
treatment/rest does not justify the claim of the workman.
The Reference letter of Barauni Refinery Hospital and the
letter dt. 21.12.2004 to join his duty as Annexure-H series
are attached. There was nothing on the record to show any
casual connection between his alleged accident and his
employment, as he had been absenting since 28.09.2001
without any intimation. Neither the claim of the workman
arose for the alleged accident nor any liability can be
fastened against the Management, as the alleged personal
injury was not a cause to the workman by an accident
arising out of and in course of employment. Thus, the
claimed accident does not come even under purview of
Workman's Compensation Act, 1923.
6. Further it is alleged that even after his retirement
from 30.06.2005 till the date, his staying in the Corporation's
Quarter unauthorizedly despite repeated advice for vacating
it also shows his conduct and intention to get undue
advantage (Annexure-I). The Memorandum of Settlement
provides for pension to the retired employee, but despite
frequent advice for submissions of the forms duly filled in
process of pension, i.e., superannuation Benefits Fund
Scheme, Medical Facilities Self and spouse under post
retirement Medical Attendance Scheme, he did not submit
the same perhaps in order to strengthen his case. The
workman is also eligible for another pension under the
Employees Pension Scheme-1995, PF amount at his credit,
Superannuation Award of 25 grams Gold Coin (24 ct) etc.
The Gratuity Amount due to him has been released into his
Bank Account but the Management in lack of his necessary
forms, declaration and nomination could not release the
aforesaid Benefits unless and until they are submitted by
the workman. The aforesaid settlement at point 3 prescribes:
"No provision of this Scheme will be deemed to constitute
any claim/right, entitlement on the part of any body". There
is no rationale of the aforesaid accident claim, as such the
management can not be held liable for providing an
employment under the Tripartite Agreement dated 19th Jan.,
1989.
FINDINGS WITH REASONS
7. In the instant reference, WW1 Asutosh Kumar
Singh, the Union Representative, WW.2 Jitendra Kumar,
the third son of the workman concerned on behalf of the
Union, and MW1 Ritesh Kumar, the Sr. Employee Relation
Officer (SERO) of Barauni Refinery, for the Management
have been respectively examined.
Mr. V.N. Sahay, Ld. Counsel for the Union/workman
has strenuously submitted that the workman Ugandeo
Choudhary was an employee of the Management of Indian
Oil Corporation, Barauni Refinery; while he was going by a
bicycle from refinery Township to Factory to join his duty
on 01.10.2001, he met with an accident due to dash by
unknown Vehicle; he was hospitalized immediately in the
Refinery Hospital for treatment, and the Doctors diagnosed
his case of "Intra capsular fracture of neck of right femur",
so considering his case serious, he was referred by the
Refinery Doctor to the Kurjee Family Hospital, Patna,
wherefrom he was referred to Sri Ganga Ram Hospital, New
Delhi, due to no improvement in his condition; even after
his medical treatment from 01.10.2001 to 09.07.2006, he was
unable to perform his duty as per the Certificate issued by
Sri Ganga Ram Hospital about his inability to walk, advising
for minimum exertion and sedentary life style resulting in
his permanent total disablement (Extt. W.1/1 & 1/7). But
the former Certificate dt. 30.09.2001 (Ext. WVI) prima facie
appears to be issued by the Medical Officer, State
Dispensary Nagdah, Begusarai (Govt. of Bihar) for his only
three days' treatment from 28.09.2001. None of the
Certificates certifies the total disablement of the workman
concerned as contended by Mr. K.N. Gupta, Ltd. Advocate
for the OP/Management.
It is also further submitted on behalf of the workman
that the workman had informed the Management as per his
letter dt. 8.07.2002 (Ext. W.2) that he had become total disabled
in spite of his specialized treatment provided by the
Management, so he had urged for the employment of his
son as per the Tripartite Agreement (Rehabilitation Scheme
for the family of the workman) dt. 19,1928 (Ext.M.1) which
lays down under its para 5 & 6 ‘‘workman dying and suffering
from permanent total disablement while in service, female
spouse and dependant Male spouse may opt within six
months; employment of eligible son/daughter must be
sought within six months of the death or permanent total
disablement of the workman in a prescribed format,
employment under scheme will offer within a period of three
years, but the OP/Management on his application for
appointment of his dependant ward violated the aforesaid
clauses of the Tripartite Agreement, though the Management
had provided such employment 17 wards of the other
workmen in the last five years, who either died or became
total permanent disabled during their service periods under
aforesaid Rehabilitation Scheme. It is also alleged on behalf
of the workman that Management had tried to convert the
case under the Workmen Compensation Act, not offering
any employment by denying their liability beyond the scope
of the said agreement; in spite of full knowledge of all along
treatment to the workman by the Management at their
expenses from Patna to New Delhi no case of his absence
from duty from the date of his accident could be made out,
and that in course of the harassment to the totally disabled
workman for long years, he lastly died on 11.1.2014 and his
first son had pre-deceased on 25.1.2012, so his second son
is eligible for appointment under the said Agreement; under
2178
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
such circumstances the OP/Management can not
discriminate the workman as contrasted with the other
employees whose wards were given employment in the
similar situations. Lastly, Mr. Sahay, the Learned Counsel
for the workman has acknowledged that the withdrawal of
the CWJC No. 9985/2006 by the workman on 13.02.2014 which
was accordingly dismissed.
8. On the other hand, in quite denial to the alleged
occurrence of the accident as concocted, Mr. K.N. Gupta,
Ld. Advocate, for the OP/Management has contended that
alleged accident is said to have taken place on 01.10.2001
but for the first time the information was given on 18.07.2002
(Ext. M.2). There is no FIR of it. The place of the accident is
just half Km. away from the Refinery Gate, but none gave
any information about the accident. Neither of two
witnesses; MW1 Ashutosh Kumar Singh, the Union
Representative and WW2 Jitendra Kumar, the third son of
the workman Ugandeo Choudhary, could admittedly have
an occasion to see any accident nor an independent witness
could be examined in discharging the onus of proof at the
point. Mr. Gupta has emphatically to submit that the
Superannuation Fund Scheme (In short the Scheme)
(Annexure I) to Memorandum of Settlement dt. 19.01.1998
(Ext.M.1) was meant for the Rehabilitation of the family of
the workman dying or suffering a permanent total
disablement (in short PTD) due to an injury arising out of
and in course of employment while in service; the option-
3 of the Rehabilitation is also for employment of otherwise
eligible suitable and dependent son/daughter, but in the
instant case, the workman joined the service on 13.09.1969
and continuously remained in service till his retirement
from his service on 30.06.2005 at his superannuation age.
The workman had, as submitted by Mr. Gupta, also filed
his claim application WC Case No. 7/06/4/06 under the
Workmen Compensation Act, before the Labour Court,
Begusarai, for compensation of Rs. 3,10,680/- based on the
same ground of his personal injury out of the accident
allegedly arising out of and in course of his employment
resulting in his permanent Total disablement.
Mr. Gupta has argued that the workman allegedly to
have become a Permanent Total Disablement during the
employment in one case and he pleaded his PTD (Permanent
Total Disablement) due to the accident arising out of an
accident during the course of employment in another case;
as such the claim of the workman is directly contradictory
as well as over doubtful. In the instant case, no nexus
between the accident and the employment of the workman
has been established by the workman; neither the road
accident to the employee on way to his employment said
to have its origin in dashing by unknown Vehicle in his
employment in the factum can be presumed, nor any of the
relevant Certificates of the workman proves his loss of
100% earning capacity or Permanent Total Disability;
moreover the workman has availed almost all of his retrial
benefits. Further contention of Mr. Gupta is that the
workman as employee was provided medical treatment while
in his service till 30.06.2005 as per the Medical Rules of the
Corporation; despite his Medical Certificates not justifying
his unfitness to join his duty, the workman did not join his
duty even at the advice of the OP/Management. Mr. Gupta
has submitted the instant case has no proof of any
discrimination with the workman as contrasted with the
other employees of the Corporation, as the Settled principle
is that the discrimination arises when two are equal but the
workman failed to produce or prove of any document to
that effect specifically even apart from non-examination of
the workman himself; and lastly likewise not any economic
crisis of the workman on account of his PTD (Permanent
Total Disablement) has been proved; besides residing of
his family in the Refinery Quarter, availing of all the facilities
thereof without any payment of rent since long contrary to
the Refinery's rules makes the family of the workman liable
to pay penal rent; under these curcumstances, the
Management is in no way liable to provide any relief of
employment to the dependent son of the workman.
9. On perusal and consideration of all the materials
on the case record, I find that the existence of workman
Ugandeo Choudhary as the employee of the OP/
Management appears to be beyond any dispute. It also
appears no doubt that the two cases: the CWJC No. 9985/
2006 filed by Sita Ram Choudhary, (now deceased) son of
the workman, before the Hon'ble High Court, Patna and the
Case No. WC 4/06 by the workman before the Labour Court,
Begusarai, for compensation under the Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923 have been filed on the same ground
of alleged Medical Treatment and claim for employment for
his son as in the instant Reference. But later on, the said
Writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.12.2014 by
the Hon'ble High Court, Patna, as submitted by the Learned
Counsel for the workman. In the instant reference, there
was neither F.I.R. nor any information by the workman to
the OP/Management about his accident taken place on
01.10.2001, rather the application of the workman dt.
18.07.2002 (after more than nine months) (Ext. W.2) to the
Executive Director, Barauni Oil Refinery, Begusarai is about
the said accident as well as for consideration of his ward
Sita Ram Choudhary's employment under the Rehabilitation
Scheme as per his dateless application (Ext.W.2/1) which
was also unwitnessed, nor supported with any substantial
documents. None of the Medical Certificates (Extt. W.1/2
dateless and W.1/7 dt. 19.07.2006) establishes the Permanent
Total Disablement (PTD) of the workman, rather the Medical
Certificate (Ext.W1/2) issued by the Kurji Holy Family
Hospital, Patna refers the advice to the workman to walk
without walking stick. Moreoever the Certificate dt.
30.09.2001 (Ext.W1/1 issued by the Medical Officer,
Dispensary, Nagdah, Begusarai (Government of Bihar)
denotes the only three days treatment of the workman there
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2179
from 28.09.2001 earlier than the alleged occurance. It makes
the case of the workman vague, hence doubtful.
10. The acknowledged fact is that in process of his
such claim for employment of his ward on the alleged ground
of his Permanent Total Disablement (P.T.D.) the workman
retired from service on 30.06.2005, after which he was paid
almost all dues including his gratuity, and later on, he
expired on 11.01.2014. So far as alleged accident to the
workman is concerned, there is no proof of it resulting in
his Permanent Total Disablement (commonly known as
PTD), which is the pre-requisite for the employment of his
ward under the aforesaid Scheme. Moreover, the words
"Arising out of and in the course of his employment"
indicate, as held by the hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Regional Director, E.S.I. Corpn. Vs. Francis De Costa, (1996)
6 SCC. 1, 6. that any accident which occurred while going
to the place of employment or for the purpose of
employment, cannot be said to have arisen out of his
employment, there being no casual connection between
the accident and the employment.
Considering all the aforesaid factum and legum of
the case, it is awarded that the action of the Management
of Barauni Oil Refinery, Begusarai, is quite justified in not
providing employment to the next of kin of workman
Ugandeo Coudhary. So, the workman neither was nor is
entitled to any relief.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1005-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,pñihñlhñ,yñ
ck;ksQq,Yl fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2] èuckn ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 42@2014½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
27@4@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&30011@13@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2015
S.O. 1005.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D. No. 42/
2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of HPCL Biofuels Limited and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on
27-4-2015.
[No. L-30011/13/2014-IR(M)]
JOHN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD.
PRESENT
Shri Kishori Ram
Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.
REFERENCE NO. 42 OF 2014
Parties : The President
Bihar Sugar Workers Federation,
Boring Road, Pani Tanki. Distt:Patna,
Vs. The General Manager,
HPCL Biofuels Ltd.
Lauriya, Bettaih, Bihar.
Ministry Order No. L-30011/13/2014-IR(M)
dt.11-8-14.
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the workman/Union : None
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. R. K.Tiwari,
Ld. Advocate
State
:
Bihar
Industry
:
Petroleum & Natural Gas
Dated, Dhanbad, the 2nd March, 2015
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-30011/
13/2014-IR(M) dt. 11.08.14.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of HPCL
Biofuels Ltd., Lauriya to transfer the services of 235
workmen from the muster roll of the Company to the
roll of the Contractor M/s Sugauli Chini Mill Shramik
Swawlambi Sahkari Samiti, Lauriya is valid? If not,
what relief the workman are entitled for?"
2. Mr. R.K. Tiwari, Ld. Advocate for the OP/
Management's present but none appeared on behalf of
Bihar Sugar Workers Federation/workmen. Mr. Tiwari, Ld.
Advocate for the OP/Management submits that in view of
the joint petition filed on 09.02.2015 on behalf of the both
the parties under the signatures of the President of the
Bihar Sugar Works Federation, Patna and the General
Manager, R.K. Mishra, for passing a 'No Dispute award' as
both the parties have amicably resolved this dispute as
referred for an adjudication.
2180
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
On perusal of the case record, I find that since both
the parties have amicably settled their dispute by filing a
joint petition under the signatures of both the
representatives, so there is no longer an Industrial Dispute;
hence, it is closed as "no Industrial Dispute"; and
accordingly it is passed an No Dispute Award.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1006-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,pñihñlhñ,yñ
ck;ksQq,Yl fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2] /kuckn ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 43@2014½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
27&04&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&30011@12@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi the 6th May, 2015
S.O. 1006.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby published the award (Ref. I.D. No. 43/
2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of HPCL Biofuels Limited and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 27-04-2015.
[No. L-30011/12/2014-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
REFERENCE NO. 43 OF 2014
Parties : The President
Bihar Sugar Workers Federation,
Boring Road, Pani Tanki. Distt:Patna,
Vs.
The General Manager,
HPCL Biofuels Ltd.
Sugauli, East Champaran (Bihar)
Ministry Order No. L-30011/12/2014-IR(M)
dt.13-8-14.
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the workman/Union : None
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. R. K.Tiwari,
Ld. Advocate
State
:
Bihar
Industry
:
Petroleum & Natural Gas
Dated, Dhanbad, the 2nd March, 2015
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)
of the I.D.Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No-L-30011/
12/2014-IR(M) dt. 13.08.14.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of HPCL
Biofuels Ltd., Sugauli to transfer the services of 235
workmen from the muster roll the Company to the
roll of the Contractor M/s Sugauli Chini Mill Shramilk
Swawlambi Sahkari Samiti, Sugauli is valid? If not,
what relief the workman are entitled for?"
2. Mr. R.K. Tiwari, Ld. Advocate for the OP/
Management of HPCL Bio-Fuel Ltd., Sugauli, East
Champaran (Bihar), but none appeared on behalf of the
President of Bihar Sugar Workers Federation/workmen,
Patna. Mr. Tiwary by drawing my attention, to the joint
petition filed on 09.03.2015 on behalf of the both the parties,
submits that since both the parties as per the joint petition
under the signatures of Ratan Shankar Jha, the General
Manager of the Management and the President concerned
of the aforesaid Federation have amicably settled the
dispute in issue, so there is no dispute; hence it may be
passed as 'No Dispute Award' in this case.
On perusal of the case record, I find the reference
relates to an issue over the transfer of services of 235
workmen from the Muster Roll of the Company to the roll
of the Contractor M/s Sugauli Chini Mill, Sharmilk
Swawlambi Sahkari Samiti, Sugauli which which appears to
have been resolved amicably by both the parties. Under
these circumstances, it is not longer an Industrial Duispute;
hence it is passed an No Industrial Dispute existing.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1007-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,;jiksVZ vFkkWfjVh
vkWQ bafM;k ,oa vU; ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2181
¼lanHkZ la[;k 43@2014½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
27&04&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11011@2@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi the 6th May, 2015
S.O. 1007.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D. No. 43/
2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Airport Authority of India and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 27-04-2015.
[No. L-11011/2/2014-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 43 of 2014
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Airport
Authority of India
AND
Their workmen.
Present: Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the :
Mr. Sushil Kumar Karmakar, Ld.
Management
Counsel for Airport
Authority of India.
Mr. Rahul Ghosh, Ld. Counsel for
M/s. Bhadra
International India Ltd.
On behalf of the :
None.
Workmen
State : West Bengal
Industry : Civil Aviation
Dated: 9th April, 2015
AWARD
By Order No. L-11011/2/2014-IR(M) dated 16. 05. 2014 the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of its
powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication.
"Whether the demand of the Union for ex-gratia/
bonus @ 20% on the management of M/s. Bhadra
International contractor of Airports Authority of
India, Kolkata is legal and/or justfied? if not, what
relief the workmen are entitled?"
2. When the case is taken up for hearing today, Lt.
Counsel for the Director, Airports Authority of India, NSCBI
Airport, Dum Dum is present, M/s. Bhadra International
India Ltd. Also Appears through its Lt. Counsel but none
appers on behalf of the General Secretary, NSCBI Airport
Casual & Contractual Workmen’s Union even this day in
spite of service of notice, It appears from the record that
the union never appeared in this case.
3. Considering the conduct of the union, it may
reasonably be presurned that the union is not all interested
to proceed with this case. So, No fruitful purpose will be
served by keeping the matter pending further.
4. In such view of the matter, present reference is
disposed of by passing a "No Dispute Award".
JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
Dated: Kolkata,
The 9th, April, 2015.
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1008-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksphu iÙku
U;kl ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; v:ukdqye ds iapkV ¼6@2013½ izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27&05&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&35011@3@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th May, 2015
S.O. 1008.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby published the Award (Ref. 6/2013) of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Cochin Port Trust
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
27-04-2015.
[No. L-35011/3/2012-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B,
Presiding Officer
(Friday, the 19th day of December, 2014/28th
Agrahayana, 1963)
2182
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ID 6/2013
Union
: The General Secretary
Cochin Port Staff Association
Wellingdon Island
Cochin-682009
By M/s. A.V. Xavier
Management
: The Chairman
Cochin Port Trust
W/Island
Cochin-682009
By M/s. B.S. Krishnan Associates
This case coming up for hearing on 18.12.2014 and
this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 19.12.2014 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-L35011/3/2012-
IR(B-II) dated 07.12.2012 referred the industrial dispute
scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this tribunal.
2. The dispute is:
"Whether the action of the management of Cochin
Port Trust in denying special casual leave as per
Central Govt. Rules to its employees on the days
when there was breakdown of public transport system
due to bandh etc., is legal and justified? What relief
the employees are entitled to?"
3. After submission of pleadings by both parties the
case was posted in the Lok Adalath 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.
The award will come into force one month after its
publication in the Official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and
typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 19th
day of December, 2014.
D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
I.D. No. 6 of 2013
Cochin Port Trust
: Management
Cochin Port Staff Association
: Union
The Matter was taken up in Lok-Adalath and the
parties agreed to settle the dispute on the following terms.
1. The management agrees to grant Special Casual
Leave to the following persons on 2.3.2010 :—
11.
4320
N. Pradeep Kumar, Dy. Chief Acctt.
12.
7174
Rugmini K, Sr. Acctt.
13.
2747
K. Valsalakumari, Sr. Acctt.
14.
5858
T.R. Kunjappan, Sr. Acctt
15.
5564
P.P. Geetha, Acctt.
16.
7817
C.F. Elizabeth, Acctt.
17.
9540
K.A. Xavier, Acctt.
18.
7059
P.K. Karunanidhi, Acctt.
19.
122
V. Padmajakumari, Sr. Acctt.
10.
5082
C.N. Baby, Sr. Actt.
11.
7197
Saheeba, M.V. Sr. Acctt.
12.
7602
T.C. Thambi, Sr. Acctt.
13.
739
M.P. Geethakumari, Sr. Acctt.
14.
7650
V. Sudhakaran, Acctt.
15.
8018
B.A. Sangeetha
16.
596
V.B. Ganga Devi, Manager
17.
4533
Merlin L. Lopez. Sr. Acctt.
18.
4350
Elizabeth K. Paul, Acctt.
19.
13087
Shammy Rose T.X. Acctt.
20.
7981
Suma Sachit K. Acctt.
21.
7002
K.V. Sasi, J.E. (M)
22.
3121
K.S. Mary Manager
23.
9020
T.S. Vinoy, Acctt.
24.
7149
M. Bihin, MM
2. The Management agrees to grant Special Casual
Leave to the following persons on 27.4.2010 :—
Sl. No. Staff No.
Name & Designation
1.
616
V.R. Ravindran Pillai, Gl. Superviser
2.
5731
C.R. Vijayalakshmi, Sr. Acctt.
3.
7353
M. Rajasree, Acctt.
4.
9074
Smitha N. Chellappan, Acctt.
5.
4322
P.K. Shahul Hameed, Acctt.
16.
555
A.P. Vijayan, Manager
17.
732
V.M. Mary, Sr. Acctt.
18.
113
K.S. Aleyamma, Sr. Acctt.
19.
7963
P.V. Vary, Acctt.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2183
10.
829
T.A. Syrabanu, Acctt.
11.
9640
K. Lathika, Steno Gr. I
12.
574
P.A. George, Manager
13.
550
Philip Bency, Manager
14.
3354
T.K. Padmanabhan, Sr. Acctt.
15.
5075
K.P. Grija, Sr. Acctt.
16.
5033
V.B. Girija Devi, Sr. Acctt.
17.
2372
T.S. Usha, Acctt.
18.
641
Faustine peter, Acctt.
19.
12021
M.R. Sunilkumar, Acctt.
20.
12041
K.S. Manoj, Acctt.
21.
642
A. Vijayam, R/Asstt.
22.
15053
T.R. Sreedevi, UDC
23.
9090
V.P. Sindhu, Statistical Asstt.
24.
185
V.G. Padmajam, Acctt.
25.
5548
M.J. Stella, R/Asstt.
26.
5040
A.S. Latha, Acctt.
27.
190
B.K. Mrithunjayan, Acctt.
28.
736
T.K. Anilkumar, Acctt.
29.
592
T. Mumtas, Sr. Acctt.
30.
5057
M.K. Santhakumari, Manager
31.
6919
P.K. Sindhu, R/Asstt
32.
4213
M.S. Mariamma, Acctt.
33.
9581
A.A. Arifa, Hd. Sweeper
34.
843
T.V. Subramanian, Gl. Superviser
35.
3147
P.A. Sebastine Agustine, Sr. Acctt.
36.
9830
P.G. Mohanan, Acctt.
37.
4321.
C.P. Rajee, L/Asstt.
38.
0082
V.N. Muraleedharan, Steno (SG)
39.
126
Antony John Correa, Acctt.
40.
5851
K. Pnakajakshi, Manager
41.
3359
Radha Pattalur, Sr. Acctt.
42.
830
P.G. Suresh, Acctt.
43.
173
C.K. Girijappan, Gl. Supvr
44.
5042
I.E. Xavier, Acctt.
45.
7864
P. Vanajakumari, Sr. Acctt.
46.
575
Susamma P.O. Oomman,
47.
7023
A.A. Sherly Margarat, Acctt.
48.
15066
T.H. Sulfath, LDC
49.
189
M. Rajalakshmi, Sr. Hindi Translator
50.
12032
Susan Varghese, Hindi Translator
51.
7174
Rugmini K., Sr. Accountant
52.
2747
K. Valsalakumari, Sr. Acctt.
53.
7059
P.K. Karunanidhi, Acctt.
54.
9785
T.K. Sivankutty, Acctt.
55.
4279
Smt. Latha Bai, Steno (S.G)
56.
5082
C.N. Baby, Sr. Acctt.
57.
7602
T.C. Thambi, Sr. Acctt.
58.
5512
T.N. Suresh
59.
8018
B.A. Sangeetha
60.
7105
T.V. Mohankumar, Acctt.
61.
596
V.B. Ganga Devi, Manager
62.
4533
Merlin L.Lopez, Sr. Acctt.
63.
4350
Elizabeth K. Paul, Acctt.
64.
13087
Shammy Rose T.X. Acctt.
65.
7981
Suma Sachit K, Acctt.
66.
167
C.V. Surendran, G/S
67.
3121
K.S. Mary, Manager
68.
9020
T.S. Vinoy, Acctt.
69.
7130
A.M. Siraj Hussain, Acctt.
70.
7618
E.G. Xavier, Electrician HSK
3. Both the parties hereby agrees that no person,
other than those mentioned above, will be entitled for the
benefit of this settlement.
4. Both the parties hereby agree that the terms of this
settlement shall not be treated as a precedent, under any
circumstances. It is also agreed that the terms of this
settlement shall not affect in any manner the terms and
conditions of the circular No. Secy/5/2011/S dated 13.6.2011.
It is also agreed between the parties that no person shall
use the terms of this settlement, in any manner, in any
further demand/dispute.
5. Union hereby agrees that they are fully satisfied
with the terms and conditions of this settlement and shall
not make any further claim with respect to the above
dispute.
6. Both the parties hereby to pass an award in the
above dispute, in terms of this settlement.
Dated this the 18th day of December 2014.
Union
Sd/-
Management Sd/-
Counsel for the union Sd/- Counsel for the Management
Sd/-
Sd/-Mediator
2184
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1009-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksphu iÙku U;kl
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; v:ukdqye ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 14@2013½ izdkf'kr djrh
gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&35011@01@2012&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th May, 2015
S.O. 1009.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 14/2013) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Cochin Port Trust
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
07/05/2015.
[No. L-35011/01/2012-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, 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 25th day of March, 2015/04th
Chaitra, 1937)
ID 14/2013
Union
: The General Secretary
Cochin Port Trust Staff Association
Wellington Island
Cochin-682009
Additional Parties : 1. Smt. Bhasini
W/o Late Samikutty Nandanam
Chembakaserry Parambu
Nedungadu Nayarambalam PO
Pin-682509
2. Smt. C.S. Nisamol
W/o Shri Aneesh KV Narikolly,
Ambalamula PO
Presently residing at Nandanam
Chembakaserry Parambu
Nedungadu
Nayarambalam PO, Pin-682509
(Union and Addl. Parties 1 & 2- By M/s. A. V. Xavier)
Management
: The Chairman
Cochin Port Trust
W/Island, Cochin, COCHIN
By M/s B S Krishnan Associates
This case coming up for final hearing on 18.03.2015
and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 25.03.2015 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-35011/
01/2012-IR(B-II) dated 04.02.2013 referred the industrial
dispute scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this
tribunal.
2. The dispute is:
'Whether the action of the management of Cochin
Port Trust in not considering the grievance of
Shri C. Smaykutty for pay equivalent to the pay of
his junior is justified? What relief he is entitled to?'
3. On receipt of summons the union and the
management entered appearance and submitted their
respective pleadings. During the pendency of the
proceedings the workman died and his legal representatives
were impleaded at the instance of the union as additional
parties 1 and 2 vide order dated 18.02.2015 on IA 33/2015.
4. After submission of pleadings by both parties the
ID was posted in the Lok Adalath for an amicable settlement.
It was settled between the parties and a compromise petition
was jointly filed by the union and the management along
with the legal heirs of the deceased workman. As there is
nothing illegal in accepting the compromise an award is
passed in terms of the compromise which will form part of
the award.
The award will come into force one month after its
publication in the Official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and
typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 25th
day of March, 2015.
D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX-NIL
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
ID No. 14 of 2013
The General Secretary,
Cochin Port Staff Association
Wellington Island, Cochin-682009
...Petitioner/Union
Vs
The Chairman, Cochin Port Trust,
Wellington Island, Cochin-682009
...Management
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2185
The matter was taken up in Lok Adalath and the
parties agreed to settle the dispute on the following terms.
1. The management agrees to pay the difference of
Rs. 410/- in the family pension, by notionally equalizing
the pay with that of Shri P.V. Babu, by revising the Family
Pension of (late) Shri. Samikutty, at Rs. 17,845/- (Rupees
Seventeen thousand eight hundred and forty five only)
within one month from the date of publication of this award.
2. The management agrees to pay the said difference
of Rs. 410/- from the date of his death.
3. Smt. Bhasin, w/o late Shri Samikutty and Smt. C. S.
Nisamol, D/o late Shri Samikutty, who are the only legal
heirs of late shri Samikutty and the Union and agrees that
they are fully satisifed with the terms and conditions of
this settlement and shall not make any further claim with
respect to the above dispute and shall not make any claim
for back arrears with respect to the arrears of salary of
(late) Shri Samikutty, due to pay equilization.
4. All the parties hereby agree to pass an award in
the above dispute, in terms of this settlement.
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2015
Union: Sd/-
Management: Sd/-
Counsel for the union: Sd/-
Counsel for the
Management: Sd/-
Smt. Bhasini Sd/-
(Additional Claimant No. 1)
Smt. C.S. Nisamil Sd/-
Counsel for Additional
(Addtional claiment No. 2)
Claiment Nos. 1 and 2: Sd/-
Sd/-
Mediator
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1010-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vksojflt
cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; v:ukdqye ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 2@2011½
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@58@2010&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th May, 2015
S.O. 1010.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 2/2011) of the
Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam 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 07/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/58/2010-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present:
Shri D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding
Officer
(Thursday the 28th day of August, 2014/06th
Bhadrapada, 1936)
ID 2/2011
Workman
: Shri M Shajeevan
S/o Bhaskaran
Puthuvayalil House.
Post West Hill, CALICUT-5
By Adv. Shri C. Anil Kumar
Management
: The Regional Manager
Indian Overseas Bank
Cherootty Road
CALICUT-673001
By Adv. Shri George Varghese
This case coming up for final hearing on 20.08.2014
and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 28.08.2014 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-12012/
58/2010-IR(B-II) dated 09.12.2010 referred the industrial
dispute scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this
tribunal.
2. The dispute is:
"Whether the action of the management of Indian
Overseas Bank in not regularizing the services of
Shri M. Shajeevan in the post of and his subsequent
termination from its services 26.12.2008 without
complying with the provision of ID Act is fair and
justifiable, what relief is he entitled?"
3. The allegations in the claim statement filed by the
workman, in brief, are that the workman joined the services
of the management bank as a temporary messenger/sub-
staff on 28.5.1996 in its Calicut branch and afterwards he
was assigned with that work in the Mavoor Road branch,
Chevayoor branch and in the Regional Office at Calicut.
He was paid daily wages after obtaining vouchers from
him. He was called for an interview conducted for filling up
2186
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the vacancies for messenger/sub-staff available in the
different branches of the management bank. It was held on
13.08.2008 at the Regional Office of the management bank
at Calicut. He was continuing in service after the interview
awaiting the result. In the meanwhile he had submitted a
representation to the management on 30.10.2008 with the
request for regularisation of his service. After the receipt
of the representation his service was orally terminated w.e.f.
26.12.2008. He was having continuous service of 240 days
in the year of his termination. The termination was effected
by the management without complying with the
requirements under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes
Act. At that time there were existing vacancies in various
branches and in the Regional Office. Person who were
junior to him were retained in service. He was fully qualified
to hold the post of messenger and was having sufficient
experience. Even then his service was terminated without
any justifiable reason violating the mandatory provisions
of the Industrual Disputes Act. Hence he is entitled for
reinstatement with back wages and other consequential
benefits.
4. The contentions put forward in the written
statement filed by the management are that the workman
was not an employee in the rolls of the management and he
is not entitled to make the claims. The allegation that he
had joined services of the management bank as a temporary
messenger/sub-staff on 28.05.1996 and worked at various
branches of the bank is baseless and incorrect. He was
utilized for attending coolie work and was paid daily wages
for the work through vouchers. He was called for interview
but was found not suitable in the selection process. He
was not continuing in service after the interview as alleged
by him. There was no question of termination of his service
as he was not in the service of the bank. No representation
for regularisation of service was submitted by him on
30.10.2008. Merely for the reason that an employee worked
for 240 days or more on daily wage basis he cannot claim
regularisation of service as a matter of right. There must be
need for retention of the employee according to the
requirement of work. The workman was not having service
or experience. The workman was engaged in some of the
branches of the bank in the Kozhikode region as a coolie
for cleaning the premises, shifting of all records, packing
and loading of stationary etc. along with other coolies
intermittently and was being paid daily on voucher. He
was not engaged in any permanent vacancy or regular
work. He was not in the rolls of the bank and was not
signing attendance register. There is no question of
termination of his employment in violation of mandatory
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the
engagement of a daily wager comes to an end on every
day. Since the vacancies were filled up through selection
process the workman was not engaged in the miscellaneous
works. If he is allowed to enter the services of the bank for
the reason that he had worked in the branches on adhoc
basis it would amount to back door entry into the bank's
services. Hence the dispute is devoid of merits and is liable
to be dismissed.
5. Workman filed rejoinder denying the contentions
in the written statement and reaffirming the allegations in
the claim statement.
6. For the purpose of deciding this case evidence,
both oral and documentary, was adduced from either side.
For the workman he was examined as WW1 and Exts. W1
to W6 were got marked. From the side of the management
one witness was examined as MW1 and Exts. M1 to M4
were got marked. After closing the evidence the arguments
for both sides were heard.
7. The points for determination are:
(i) Whether the workmean in this case comes within
the purview of the definition of Section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act?
(ii) Whether termination of his service is to be in
accordance with Section 25F of the ID Act?
(iii) Whether the action of the management is not
regularizing the services of the workman and the
subsequent termination from service on 20.06.2008
is fair and justifiable?
(iv) To what relief he is entitled to?
8. Point No. (i):- It is the case of the workman that he
was working as a temporary messenger/sub-staff in the
various braches and the Regional Office of the management
bank at Calicut from 28.05.1996 onwards. After denying it
management would contend that he was engaged only as
a coolie on daily wage basis along with other coolies and
he was not enegaged in any permanent vacancy or for any
regular work. There is absolutely no evidence in this case
except the interested testimony of WW1 to prove that he
was working as a temporary messenger/sub-staff in the
management bank.
9. There is no order appointing him as messenger/
sub-staff. WW1 has stated that he was appointed orally
by the management. Exts. M1, M2 and M4 will go to show
that he was paid coolie charges for the days he attended
work. Even if it be said that he had attended the duties of a
messenger/sub-staff then also it cannot be said that it was
for a particular period on temporary basis. From Ext. W3
and Ext. M3 it can be seen that he was not regularly engaged
by the management bank. But it can very well be held that
he was engaged as a casual labour by the management
bank on daily wage basis. A casual labourer will also come
within the purview of the definition of workman under
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence it can be
held that he is a workman coming within the definition of
workman under the Industrial Disputes Act.
10. Point No. (ii):- Now it is to be considered whether
it is nessesary to comply with the procedural requirements
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2187
under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act for
termination of his service. As far as a casual labourer is
concerned it is incumbent upon him to prove that he had
worked for 240 days during the proceding 12 months of his
termination from service.
11. In the decision reported in Surendranagar District
Panchayat Vs. Dahyabhai Amarsinh (2005) 8 SCC 750 it
was held that the onus to prove the requirement of 240
days of continuous service lies on the workman and it is
for him to adduce evidence apart from examining himself or
filing an affidavitg to prove the said factum.
12. In this case there is no reliable evidence to prove
that he had worked for 240 days within a period of 12 months
prior to the date of termination. The date of termination is
stated to be on 26.12.2008. The workman has to prove that
he had worked for 240 days during the period of 12 months
prior to 26.12.2008. The details of the engagement during
the period from October, 2007 to October, 2008 was marked
as Ext. M3. The details of engagement during that period
furnished to the workman was marked as Ext W3. In both
those documents the number of days he had worked during
October, 2007 to October, 2008 is given as 240 days. But as
the termination was on 26.12.2008 the number of days is to
be counted from the 12 months proceding the date of
terminatin. The number of days he had worked in the month
of November, 2008 is shown to be two days and in the
month of December, 2008 to be seven days in Ext. M4. The
number of days during the 12 months proceding the date
of termination will not come to 240 days if it will be
calculated on the basis of Exts. W3, M3 and M4. Workman
has stated during his cross examination that he was engaged
only for 3 to 5 days in a month and he was receiving the
wages after issuing voucher. There was no regular
engagement during the period of one year prior to the date
of termination. There is no satisfactory evidence to prove
that he was having a continuous service of 240 days the 12
months prior to the date of termination. There is no
necessity to comply with the requirements under Section
25F of the Industrial Disputes Act for termination of his
service. Hence it can be hald that the termination of his
service does not require the compliance of the requirements
under Section 25F of the ID Act.
13. Point No. (iii):- As it is found that the workman
was engaged only as a casual labourer and was not having
continuous service of 240 days in a year he is not entitled
to make the claim for regularisation and does not require
the compliance of the provisions of the ID Act for the
termination. Hence the action of the management is not
regularizing his service and his subsequent termination
w.e.f 26.12.2008 is fair and justifiable.
14. Point No. (iv):- In the result an award is passed
holding that the action of the management bank in not
regularizing the services of the workman and his termination
from service on 26.12.2008 without complying with the
provisions of the ID Act is fair and justifiable. Hence he is
not entitled to any relief.
The award will come into force one month after its
publication in the Official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and
typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 28th
day of August, 2014.
D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the workman
WW1 24.10.2013
Shri M. Shajeevan
Wintness for the management
MW1 05.05.2014
Shri K. Rajiv
Exhibits for the workman
W1
-
Copy of letter dated 30.10.2008 addressed to the
Assistant General Manager P & D, 10B, Central
Office, Chennai by the workman
W2
-
Copy of letter dated 27.12.2008 addressed to the
Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),
Kakkanad, Kochi by the workman
W3
-
Details of engaement of the workman at the
Regional Office, Indian Overseas Bank,
Kozhikode
W4
-
Acknowledgement card addressed to the
Assistant General Manager P & D, Indian
Overseas Bank, Central Office, Chennai
W5
-
Copy of letter dated 03.09.2002 addressed to the
Assistant General Manager (PAD), Indian
Overseas Bank, Central Office, Chennai by the
workman
W6
-
Copy of the forwarding letter dated 05.09.2002
addressed to the Manager/Chief Manager by the
Senior Manager, Indian Overseas Bank,
Kozhikode Branch
Exhibits for the management
W1
-
Copy of Voucher dated 09.09.2008 as to the
payment of ` 1,650/- to the workman by the
management bank
W2
-
Copy of Voucher dated 09.09.2008 as to the
payment of ` 450/- to the workman by the
management bank
W3
-
Details of engagement of the workman in the
management bank dated 18.07.2012
W4
-
Copy of statement showing payment of coolie
charges from November, 2008 to December, 2008
to the workman by the management bank.
2188
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1011-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; thou
chek fuxe ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k @Je U;k;ky; v:ukdqye ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
280@2006½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@05@2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&17012@45@96&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th May, 2015
S.O. 1011.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 280/2006) of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court
Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of the LIC of India and their
workman, received by the Central Government on 07/05/2015.
[No. L-17012/45/96-IR(B-II]
RAVI KUMAR, 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 27th day of August, 2014/
5th Bhadrapada, 1936)
ID 280/2006
Workman
: Shri Sajimon T.T. (died)
Thandel House
W. Kodikulam (PO)
Thodupuzha-685582
Additional 2nd workman
: Smt. Jeeja Sajimon
W/o late Sajimon T.T.
Thandel House
West Kodikulam PO
Thodupuzha
Additional 3rd workman
: Master Vaisakhan T.S.
(Minor)
S/o Late Sajimon T.T.
Thandel House
West Kodikulam PO
Thodupuzha
Additional 4th workman
: Ms Vaisali TS
(Minor)
D/o late Sajimon TT
Thandel House
West Kodikulam PO
Thodopuzha
Additional 5th workman
: Smt. Bharathi Thankappan
W/o Shri Thankappan
Thandel House
West Kodikulam PO
Thodupuzha
Additional 6th workman
: Shri Thankappan TM
S/o Mundan
Thandel House
West Kodikulam PO
Thodupuzha
(Additional workmen 2 to
6 were impleaded as legal
heirs of the deceased
workman)
By Adv. Shri C. Anil Kumar
Management
: The Divisional Manager
LIC of India
Divisional Office
PB No. 1133, MG Road
Ernakulam
Cochin-682011
By M/s. A.V. Xavier
This case coming up for final hearing on 13.08.2014
and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 27.08.2014 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 by its Order No.-L-17012/
45/96/IR (B-II) dated 29.08.1997 had referred the industrial
dispute scheduled thereunder for adjudication to the Labour
Court, Cochin. There it was numbered as ID 24/1997(C) of
the Labour Court, Ernakulam. Later after formation of this
Tribunal it was transferred to this Tribunal as per Order
dated 24.01.2006 in WP(C) No. 1069/2006 of the Hon'ble
High Court of Kerala. After receipt of the records in this
tribunal from the Labour Court, Ernakulam, the case was
renumbered as ID 280/2006 of this tribunal.
2. The dispute referred for adjudication is:
"Whether the action of the management of LIC of
India, Muvattupuzha branch in dismissing the
services of Shri Sajimon TT w.e.f. 1.8.94 is legel and
justified? if not, to what relief the said workman is
entitled?"
3. After submission of the pleadings the validity of
the enquiry was considered by the Labour Court, Ernakulam
treating it as a preliminary issue. The enquiry was set aside
as per its order dated 15.02.2006. Challenging that order
management filed WP (C) No. 17083/2007(H) before the
Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam. It was dismissed
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2189
vide order dated 01.08.2013. After producing the certified
copy of that order IA No. 54/2013 was filed to implead the
wife of the deceased workman as his legal heir. It was allowed
as per order dated 18.03.2014 and she was impleaded as
additional second workman. Subsequently his two minor
children being his legal heirs were allowed to be impleaded
as additional workmen Nos. 3 and 4 as per order dated
18.03.2014 on IA 33/2014. Afterwards the mother and father
of the deceased workman were also impleaded as his legal
heirs as per order dated 13.08.2014 on IA 116/2014.
4. As per the request made by the learned counsel
for both sides the case was posted in the Lok Adalat. There
was a full and final settlement between the parties and a
compromise petition was filed. In the compromise additional
workman 2 to 6 in the ID were arrayed as legal heirs 1 to 5
and the management as the counter petitioner. As per the
compromise the management agreed to pay a sum of Rs.
32,03,305/- as back wages due to the deceased workman to
legel heirs 1 to 4 (additional Workmen 2 to 5 in the ID) in
equal shares subject to deduction of income tax and the
gratuity amount of Rs. 8,34,462/- to legal heir No. 5
(additional Workman No. 6) being the nominee. The share
due to each of the two minor children arrayed as legal heir
Nos. 2 and 3 in the compromise petition and additional
workmen 3 & 4 in the ID is agreed to be deposited in Fixed
Deposit in a nationalized bank by the management until
they will attain the age of maturity and to hand over the
fixed deposit receipts to their mother, the 1st legal heir
(additional 2nd workman).
5. As there is nothing illegal which affects the validity
of the compromise the same is accepted. Hence this ID is
disposed of in terms of the compromise which will form
part of this award.
The award will come into force one month after its
publication in the Official Gazette.
Dictated to the personal Assistant, transcribed and
typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 27th
day of August, 2014.
D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX -NIL
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
I.D. No. 280/2006
TT Sajimon (Died)
:
Workman
(1)
Jeeja Sajimon, W/o Late T T Sajimon,
Thandel House, West Kodikulam, Thodupuzh
(2)
Vaisakhan T S, S/o Late T T Sajimon,
-do-
Legal Heirs of deceased arrayed as additional
(3)
Vaisali T S, D/o Late TT Sajimon,
-do-
workers 2 to 6.
(4)
Bharathi W/o Thankappan,
(Mother of Late Sajimon T T)
-do-
(5)
Thankappan T M, S/o Mundan,
(F/o Late Sajimon T.T.)
-do-
Vs
Life Insurance Corporation of India
:
Management
The matter was taken up in Lok Adalat and the
parties agreed to settle the dispute on the following
terms:—
1. In the discussion, the 5th among the above 5 legal
heirs (Thankappan F/o Sajimon. T.T. of the deceased
workman) agreed to accept Rs. 8,34,462/- the gratuity
amount being the nominee of Shri Sajimon. T.T.
2. The Management agrees to pay a sum of Rs.
32,03,305/- (Rupees Thirty two lakh Three Thousand Three
Hundred and Five only) towards back wages to the 1 to 4
legal heirs of the workman from the date of dismissal to the
date of his death i.e. 07.03.2013 tobe paid to the 1 to 4 legal
heair of Sajimon T.T. subject to deduction of Income Tax at
the rate applicable at the time of release of amount. The
amount of Rs. 800826/- (1/4th share of Rs. 32,03,305/-)
subject to deduction of income Tax applicable will be paid
to the 1 to 4 legal heirs of deceased Sajimon T.T.
Smt. Jeeja Sajimon shall give valid discharge for
herself and on behalf of her children for receiving their
share Rs. 800826/- each and Rs. 800827/- shall be paid to
Smt. Bharathi Thankappan (Mother) separately after getting
valid discharge.
3. The amount pertaining to minor children of Late
Sajimon T.T. has to be managed by Smt. Jeeja Sajimon,
being the Natural Guardian till they attain the age of
maturity and the Management is not responsible for
2190
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
managing the amount pertaining to the minor children. The
amount due to the minors will be deposited in fixed deposit
in a nationalized bank by the management until they will
attain the age of maturity and the fixed deposit receipts will
be handed over to their mother, the additional 2nd workman
(1st legal heir).
4. The amounts will be payable by the Management
as shown above, upon production of Legal Heirship
Certificate of Sajimon T.T. from a Competent Authority.
5. Upon payment of the agreed amount of backwages
among the 1 to 4 legal of Sajimon T.T., and gratuity to
Shri Thankkapan being the nominee for receiving the
gratuity, they will not have any further monetary claim or
claim for Compassionate appointment against the
management in connection with the employment of
Sajimon T.T. with Life Insurance Corporation of India.
6. The legal heirs of Sajimon T.T., 1 to 5 have agreed
to accept Rs. 32,03,305/- towards back wages subject to
deduction of Income Tax applicable and Rs. 834462/-
towards Gratuity in full and final settlement of all their claims
against the Management in connection with employment
of Sajimon T.T.with Life Insurance Corporation of India
and has agreed to close I.D. No. 280/2006 pending before
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam as settled.
7. Management agrees to hand over the TDS
Certificate to the 1 to 4 legal heirs with liberty to get refund
of it as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
Dated this the 13th day of August 2014
Legal Heirs of the deceased Workmen Management: Sd/-
(1) Jeeja Sajimon
Sd/-
(2) Vaisakhan TS (Minor)
Sd/-
(3) Vaisali TS (Minor)
Sd/-
(4) Bharathi Thankappan
Sd/-
(5) Thankappan TM
Sd/-
Counsel for Workman/Legal Heirs: Sd/-
Counsel of Management: Sd/-
Sd/-
Mediator
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1012-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nsuk cSad ds izca/
kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 10@98½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@181@97&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th May, 2015
S.O. 1012.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 10/98) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of Dena Bank and their workman,
received by the Central Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/181/97-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/10/98
Indian National Bank Employees Federation,
9, Sanwer Road,
Hardev Niwas,
Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
Dena Bank, Zonal Office,
107, Berasia Road,
Bhopal
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 22nd day of April 2015
1. As per letter dated 13-1-98 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribuanl under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/
181/97/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Dena
Bank in terminating the services of Shri Om Prakash
Suman Lal Agarwal w.e.f. 29-6-96 is legal and justified?
If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
through General Secretary, Daily Wages Bank Employees
Union Ujjain at Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of Ist party is that he
was engaged on 8.9.87 for sweeping, cleaning, dusting
work in Navlakha branch, Indore. He was continuously
working till 29-6-96. His working days are shown in para-7
of statement of claim. That he completed 290 days in 1992-
93. Though he completed 240 days continous service,
bonus was not paid to him. His services were terminated
without notice, 3 months pay was not paid before
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2191
termination. He is emplyee as defined under Section 25 B
of ID Act. While IInd party has violated Section 33 of ID
Act terminating his services during pendency of
conciliation proceedings. On such contentions, workmen
is praying for reinstatement with back wages.
3. IInd party filed Written statement at Page 6/1 to
6/5 opposing claim of workman. IInd party denies workman
was continuously working from 8-9-87 and he was working
from 10.30 to 6 PM in the Navlakha branch. It is denied that
workman completed 240 days continuous services.
Workman was engaged temporarily as per exigency of work.
Workman was not continuously working as contented by
him. Workman is not covered under Section 25 B of ID Act.
It is denied that services of workman are terminated in
violation of Section 25-F Para 507, 524 of Sastry Award.
Section 25-G, N are not applicable to the workman. It is
denied that workman was denied reemployment and
thereby IInd party violated Section 25-H of ID Act. The
claim of workman for bonus is not tenable under Section 41
of Payment of Bonus Act. It is submitted that workman is
not entitled to any relief.
4. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/6
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of
In Affirmative
the management of
Dena Bank in terminating
the services of
Shri Om Prakash Suman
Lal Agarwal w.e.f. 29-6-96
is legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
6. Workman is challenging termination of his service
for violation of Section 25-F, G,N of ID Act. In support of
his claim, workman filed affidavit of his evidence. Workman
has stated that he was engaged for cleaning, sweeping
work from 8-9-87. He was working under different Branch
Managers. As per letter dated 11-8-93, IInd party had
submitted information in the matter of regularization of his
service. The working days of workman are shown in Para-5
of his affidavit. Only in the year 1992, working days are
shown 290. During rest of the year, 1987 to 1991 and 1993
working days are shown less than 240 days. In his cross-
examination, workman says he was working as peon.
Appointment letter was not issued to him, any post not
advertised. His name was not sponsored through
Employment Exchange. He was not interviewed. Payment
vouchers where given to him. Payment was made weekly.
He was unable to tell his working days in any of the year.
He did not remember in whose name payment vouchers
were prepared. That his sign was obtained on payment
vouchers. Workman claimed ignorance what documents
about his service were with IInd party.
7. Despite repeated chances were granted, IInd party
did not adduce any evidence. Workman has not examined
any co-employee. Document are not proved to
substantiate his claim. The evidence of workman cannot
established that workman was continuously working for
240 days, 12 months before termination of his services.
Therefore termination of service of workman in violation of
Section 25-F of ID Act cannot be established. For above
reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 Affirmative.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Dena Bank in
terminating the services of Shri Om Prakash Suman
Lal Agarwal w.e.f. 29-6-96 is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1013-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;qukbVsM bafM;k
baU';ksjsa'k da- fy- ds izcaèra= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 105/08½
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&16014@5@2008&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th May, 2015
S.O. 1013.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 105/08) of
the Central Government Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute
between the management of the United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-16014/5/2008-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
2192
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/105/08
Shri Prem Chand Raikwar,
S/o Shri Ganeshram Raikwar,
R/o SAIT College Quarter,
Durga Nagar, Vidisha
... Workman
Versus
Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch office Vidisha,
Ward No. 14, Guru Nanak Colony,
Vidisha
... Management
AWARD
Passed on this 30th day of March, 2015
1. As per letter dated 30-9-2008 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-Z-
16014/5/2008-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates
to:
"Whether the action of the Management of United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vidisha Branch in terminating
the services of Shri Prem Chand Raikwar w.e.f.
16-5-89 is legal and justified? What relief the the
concerned workman is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
on 27-5-2010. Case of workman is that he was engaged on
daily wages from 8-5-88 in Vidisha branch of IInd party.
That workman performed his duty with honesty. His service
record was unblemished. That workman was engaged by
management to perform duty of Group D employee. He
was working from 10.30 to 5 PM every day. Workman was
initially paid Rs. 8/- per day. Wages were increased to
Rs. 15/- per day. Workman was continuously working till
15-5-89. Instead of regularizing his services, IInd party
terminated his services without assigning reasons. That
he completed more than 240 days continuous service. His
discontinuation from service amounts to illegal
retrenchment as IInd party had not complied Section 25-F
of ID Act. He was not served with notice, retrenchment
compensation was not paid to workman on such ground,
workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement opposing claim
of workman. It is submitted that IInd party is subsidiary
of General Insurance Corporation of India and is
established as limited company registered under Companies
Act 1956. Head office of IInd party is at Chennai. Branch of
IInd party is at Bhopal & Vidisha in Madhya Pradesh. That
workman was employed on casual basis for 2 hours before
closing of the branch total 4 hours per day intermittently.
Workman was paid wages Rs. 8/- per day from 18-10-88,
wages were increased to Rs. 15/- per day. Workman had
not completed 240 days continuous service under Section
25 B of ID Act. IInd party has not appointed workman
following recruitment policy. The post was not advertised,
his name was not sponsored through Employment
Exchange. Workman has completed 212 days work. It is
reiterated that workman is not entitled to protection of
Section 25-F of ID Act. Violation of section 25-F, G and ID
Act is denied. IInd party prays for rejection of claim.
4. Rejoinder is filed by workman reiterating his
contentions in statement of claim.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of
In Affirmative
the management of
United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vidisha Branch
in terminating the services
of Shri Prem Chand Raikwar
w.e.f. 16-5-89 is legal and
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
6. Workman has challenged termination of his service
for violation of Section 25-F, G of ID Act. He also contends
that he completed more than 240 days continuous service
as per Section 25 B of ID Act. All material contentions are
denied by IInd party. Workman failed to participate in
reference. No evidence is adduced by workman. His
evidence is closed on 20-6-2014.
7. Document produced by workman is admitted by
management and marked Exhibit W-1. IInd party has
admitted 212 days working of Ist party workman.
8. Affidavit of evidence supporting contentions of
IInd party is filed by witness Shri Rakesh Dixit.
Management's witness in his cross denied that workman
had completed 240 days cotinuous service rather the
affidavit of management's witness para-6 shows that
workman had not completed 240 days working as casual
mazdoor.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2193
9. As workman has failed to participate in reference,
there is no evidence that he completed 240 days continuous
service. There is no evidence that workman was entitled to
Government Holidays. In absence of such evidence, the
discontinuation of workman cannot be said illegal.
Therefore 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 United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vidisha Branch in terminating
the services of Shri Prem Chand Raikwar w.e.f.
16-5-89 is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1014-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wdks cSad ds
izcaèra= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 70/98½ izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@292@97&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th May, 2015
S.O. 1014.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 70/98) of the
Central Government Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure in the industrial Dispute between
the management of the UCO Bank and their workman,
received by the Central Government on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/292/97-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/70/98
Shri Kamlesh Rao,
S/o Shri Chironji Lal, Guna,
Kamla Travels, AB Road,
Guna (MP)
... Workman
Versus
Zonal Manager,
UCO Bank, Zonal Office,
E-5, Arera Colony,
Bhopal (MP)
... Management
AWARD
Passed on this 31st day of March, 2015
1. As per letter dated 21-4-98 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-12012/292/97-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the Management of United
Commercial Bank in terminating the service of
Shri Kamlesh Rao, S/o Chironjilal w.e.f. 26-12-90 is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said
workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Initially workman was proceeded exparte and
management submitted exparte Written Statement and
evidence exparte order was set aside. Then workman
submitted statement of claim. Case of Ist party is that he
belongs to backward caste. His educational qualification
is middle school pass. Workman holds registration in
employment exchange Guna bearing No. 2116/85 02-10. He
submits that he was engaged as peon on daily wages from
28-8-89 through Employment Exchange. He worked with
IInd party with honesty. His services were illegally
terminated on 26-12-90. That he completed 240 days
continuous service. His services were terminated without
issuing notice or paying retrenchment compensation. He
was appointed through Employment Exchange. He was
orally terminated. He was given assurance that he will be
permitted to work after few days. The application submitted
to IInd party were not replied. Management kept him waiting
for long time from 1990 to 1997. In reply to legal notice and
reply that he will not be re-employed. That as per statement,
the employees working for 240 days during period of
3 years are entitled for regularization. On such ground,
workman prays for reinstatement with back wages.
IInd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of
workman. IInd party raised preliminary objection that
workman was not employed as per policy and procedure.
There was no notification of vacancies for post of peon.
Name of workman was not sponsored through Employment
Exchange. Ist party workman was never selected by the
Board. He was engaged purely on pick and choose on
daily wage basis. There is no employer employee
relationship. Workman is not covered under Section 2(s)
of ID Act. It is denied that name of workman was registered
in Bank. It is denied that workman continuously worked
from 28-8-89 to 26-9-90. It is denied that workman completed
more than 240 days continuous service. That the provisions
of ID Act are not violated. Claim of workman is not
supported by any documents. Workman is not entitled for
absorption as per notification dated 19-10-89.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
2194
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of
United Commercial Bank
in terminating the services
of Shri Kamlesh Rao,
S/o Chironjilal w.e.f. 26-12-90
is legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
5. Workman has challenged termination of his service
for violation of Section 25-F, G of ID Act. That he was not
issued notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid
before termination of his service. Ist party produced
documents Exhibit W-1 & W-2-Copy of marksheet and
caste certificate. Exhibit W-3 is notice issued to Bank
Authorities. W-4 is reply given to workman. W-5 is copy of
reply filed before ALC, W-6 is copy of Circular dated
19-10-89. The claim of workman for regularization on the
ground of completing 240 days continuous service is not
covered by Notification Exhibit W-6. Para-2 of said
notification provides—
"Completion of 240 days or more without intimation
during period of 3 years immediately preceding the
settlement. Workman himself claims that he was
working with IInd party Bank from 28-8-89 to
26-12-90. Therefore he does not fulfil eligibility
criteria as per circular Exhibit W-6.
6. Workman in his affidavit of evidence has stated
that he was continuously working from 28-8-89 to
26-12-90. In his cross-examination, his evidence on the
point was not challenged. Management's witness Anup
Srivastava filed affidavit supporting contentions of IInd
party that workman is not entitled to absorption as per
circular dated 19-10-89. That workman had not completed
240 days continuous service. Workman could not be
considered for empanelment for which his name did not
appear in the seniority list of daily wage workers. In his
cross-examination, management witness says workman
was not engaged on daily wages in 1989. There was not
vacancy of peon, appointment letter is not issued to daily
wage employees. Exhibit M-1 circular was not amended.
Seniority list of daily wage employees was not prepared.
Management's witness explained that seniority list was
prepared as per the applications received. The details of
the work assigned to Ist party workman are not shown in
Written Statement filed by IInd party. The attendance
register of daily wage employees is not maintained. The
daily wage employees are paid wages under voucher
considering his working days. The vouchers relating to
payments made to workman are not produced. If evidence
of workman is appreciated in light of evidence of the
management's witness, it is clear that when evidence of
workman continuously working from 28-8-89 to 26-12-90 is
not challenged therefore I do not find any reason to reject
his evidence. Workman has established that he was
continuously working more than 240 days. His services
are terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation
was not paid to him. Exhibit M-2 produced by management
pertains to the empanelment of employees engaged on
daily wage basis. The evidence on record shows services
of Ist party are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID
Act.
7. Learned counsel for workman Shri Arun Patel on
the point of burden of proof relies on ratio held in case of
Director, Fisheries Terminal Division versus Bhikubhai
Meghajibhai Chavda reported in AIR 2010 SC-1236. Their
lordship held workman had on daily wages would have
difficulty in having access to all official documents, muster
rolls etc. in connection with his service. Burden of proof
shifts to employer to prove that he did not complete 240
days of service in requisite period to constitute continuous
service.
Learned counsel of IInd party Shri Bhattacharya
produced copies of award in R/157/01. The observation
made that workman failed to prove by cogent evidence. He
was illegally appointed following prescribed procedure.
Each case needs to be decided as per evidence adduced
by parties. The award passed in R/157/01 cannot be treated
binding president.
Next reliance is placed in ratio held incase of
Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi versus State of Bihar reported
in 1997 SCC (L&S) 1079. I am aware that the ratio held inthe
case has been set-aside by subsequent judgements.
Learned counsel for IInd party further relied on ratio
held incase of Karur Vysya Bank Employees Union versus
M.P. Handrakantaraj Urs reported in 1988 LAB.I.C. 1746.
Their Lordship considering services of bank employees
failure of employee to prove that he worked for 240
continuous days in a year section 25-F is not attracted.
In present case, evidence discussed above is
sufficient to hold that Ist party workman has completed
240 days continuous service. The ratio cannot be applied.
For same reasons, ratio relied by learned counsel for IInd
party in case of Surendranagar District Panchayat versus
Dahyabhai Amar Singh reported in 2006-SCC (L&S) 38
cannot be applied to case at hand.
For reasons discussed above, I record my finding in
Point No. 1 in Negative.
8. Point No. 2—workman is not entitled for absorption
as per circular dated Exhibit W-1 as workman was not
working 3 years before the settlement. Workman has
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2195
completed 240 days continuous service long back. His
services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID
Act. Considering the period of working of Ist party workman
for more than one year, compensation Rs. 40,000 would be
appropriate. Accordintly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of United
Commercial Bank in terminating the services of
Shri Kamlesh Rao, S/o Chironjilal w.e.f. 26-12-90
is not proper and legal.
(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.
40,000 to workman within 30 days from the date of
publication 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] 7 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1015-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ bafM;k
ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@
Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 157@03½ izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsnzhU; ljdkj dks 05@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@50@2003&vkbZ vkj¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th May, 2015
S.O. 1015.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award Ref. 157/03 of the
Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur
now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
betweeen the management of Bank of India and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 05/05/2015.
[No. L-12011/50/2003-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/157/03
General Secretary,
Nationalised Bank Karmachari Sangathan,
hardev Niwas, 9, Sanwer Road,
Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
Regional Manager,
Bank of India,
Zonal Office, 18, Sjanku Marg,
Freeganj,
Ujjain
... Management
AWARD
Passed on this 20th day of April 2015
1. As per letter dated 11-9-03 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-12011/
50/2003-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
‘‘Whether the action of the management of Regional
Manager, Bank of India, Indore in not providing
appointment on compassionate ground to Shri
Sanjay Sarode S/o Late Shri Namdeo Rao Sarode is
justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled
for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party dependent submitted statement of
claim at page 8/1/ to 8/5. Case of Ist party workman is that
his father Namdev Rao was working in IInd party Bank
from 19-1-66 against permanent post of peon. His father
died on 26-10-97 while working at Rambagh branch Indore.
His father left widow Nirmala Bai, son Sanjay, Deepak and
Rajeev. That as per circular dated 25-9-97, Dependent
Employment Scheme has been introduced in the Bank. It is
further submitted that Ist party was looking after his two
brother and mother. On 13-5-99, he submitted representation
to General Manager claiming employment on
compassionate ground. Bank did not inform any decision
in the matter therefore he approached Union. The dispute
was raised before ALC which is referred for adjudication
by the Government. Ist party further submits that he had
also approached National Commission for SC, ST for
providing dependent employment to him. As per letter dated
28-6-01, the National Commission for association had
written letter for redressal in the matter. The claim of Ist
party for dependent employment was rejected by the Bank
as per letter dated 18-7-01 on the ground that last income
of the family was more than 60% of the income of the
deceased. In conciliation proceedings, IInd party did not
produce documents why income of family was found more
than 60% of income of the deceased. As per documents
produced in conciliation proceedings, the income of Rs.
171495.15 received towards gratuity, loan of Rs. 19528 was
adjusted, amount of Rs. 1,51,967.15 was paid. Interest of
Rs. 1266 was shown, pension of Rs. 1934 total income of
the family was shown Rs. 3200/-. Last pay of deceased was
shown 5031.-, its 60% was shown 3078.73. Ist party submits
that claim for dependent employment was not properly
considered. He prays direction to the IInd party for
providing compassionate employment.
2196
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 11/1 to
11/10 opposing claim of Union. IInd party did not dispute
father of Ist party was ex-employee. The objection is raised
that the Union was not operating with IInd party. Deceased
Namdev Rao was not member of the Union. Union has no
locus to raise the dispute. Ist party is not covered as
workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act. There is no employer
employee relationship. Compasionate appointment cannot
be claimed as of right. As per circular dated 29-5-97, the
scheme for dependent employment was introduced for
clerical and subordinate cadre. The revised scheme was
circulated on 17-3-99. The scheme came into force effect
from 13-1-99.
4. That Late Namdev was employer in the Bank. He
was posted in Rambagh branch. Late Namdev died on
20-10-97. The widow of deceased employee did not
approach for compassionate appointment. Ist party
claiming to be son of late Namdeo submitted application
for appointment. Considering circumstances and facts, the
claim of Ist party was not accepted. Said decision was
informed to Ist party as per letter dated 20-04-01. The basic
wages of deceased employee were Rs. 5131.23, DA-Rs.
2636.33, 60% of basic is shown 3078.73. It is reiterated that
family of deceased was paid Rs. 1,51,967.15, Rs. 1,80,000
on account of BSB. The widow had not approached for
compassionate appointment. The family is granted benefit
of appointment. The family is able to survive more than 5
years is itself indicative that compassionate appointment
is not required, the family can survive. In absence of
positive material to establish claim for dependent
employment cound not be accepted. The general rule is to
be followed strictly exception is in favour of dependents of
employee dying in harness, leaving family in penury without
any means of livelihood. IInd party referred to ratio held in
various cases.
5. IInd party denies that Ist party Sanjay had to look
after the family member of deceased. That management
had considered application for compassionate ground. As
per letter dated 20-4-01, Ist party was intimated. It is
submitted that Ist party is not entitled to dependent
employment under the scheme.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) ‘‘Whether the action of
In Negative
the managemenr of
Regional Manager,
Bank of India, Indore in
not providing appointment
on compassionate ground
to Shri Sanjay Sarode
S/o Late Shri Namdeo Rao
Sarode is justified?
(ii) If not, what releif the
As per final orders.
workman is entiteld?''
REASONS
7. IInd party has contented that Union has no locus
standi. The order of reference shows that dispute was raised
by General Secretary, Nationalised Bank Karmchari
Sangathan. The order of reference is not challenged. The
statement of claim is signed by Ist party as well as Union
representative Shri Ram Nagwanshi. Copy of death
certificate, copy of the scheme for compassionate
employment Exhibit W-1 are admitted by IInd party, copy
of application for compassionate appointment. The
application dated 13-5-99 reply submitted before ALC, letter
issued by National Commission for SC, ST, letter dated
18-7-01 issued by Asstt. General Manager, Bench Clerk is
directed to give separate exhibit of those documents. As
per letter dated 18-7-01, the National Commission for SC,
ST was informed that income of the family of deceased was
more than 60%. Compassionate Appointment could not
be allowed to Ist party. Copy of reply filed before ALC is
also admitted. The documents produced by workman copy
of failure report sent to Govt is admitted.
8. Ist party filed affidavit of his evidence supporting
his claim for employment on compassionate ground. In his
cross-examination, Ist party says he has two brothers and
one sister. His sister and one brother are married. His mother
resides at Indore along with his younger brother. He admits
receipt of Rs. 1,71,495 towards gratuity and amount of
Rs. 1,80,000 under GSIR.
9. Management's witness Shri Mahendra Singh in
his affidavit of evidence admits death of late Namdeo Rao
on 20-10-97. The widow did not approach management for
compassionate appointment. Ist party was informed
decision in the matter as per letter dated 20-4-01. That Bank
decided not to provide dependent employment. That one
of the family member widow of deceased did not ask for
employment. That daughter is married, two sons have
been married and well settled. In his cross-examination,
management's witness says he was not working in the
branch. He was unable to tell how amount of interest
received by widow was calculated. The documents admitted
by witness are marked Exhibit W-4 in the court. In Written
Statement of IInd party and affidavit of management'
witness DA Rs. 2536.33 is shown. However while calculating
60%, the DA was not considered. If total amount of pay is
considered, the same comes to Rs. 7667.56, the amount of
60% is wrongly calculated considering only basic pay of
the deceased. The copy of scheme produced Annexure A
does not exclude amount of DA from salary of deceased
employee for calculation of his income for dependent
employment. The evidence of management's witness is
silent about income of family members. It is surprise to say
that while rejecting claim of Ist party for dependent
employment, the amount of DA was excluded while
calculating 60% income.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2197
10. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri A.K. Shashi
relies on ratio held in case of Union of India versus
Bhangwan Singh reported in 1996-1-LLJ-1127. Their
Lordship considering employee left behind besides the
respondent two major sons and his wife. They did not
apply for job on compassionate ground. Plea of the
respondent for compassionate employment held therefore
not to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis to
the family resulting from the employee's death in harness.
In present case, the claim of Ist party workman was
rejected on the ground that income of family was above
60% of the pay of deceased employee. Claim of Ist party
was not rejected on the ground that other principles have
not applied for dependent employment. All the dependent
left by deceased employee could not be provided
dependent employment and therefore the ratio held in above
cited case cannot be beneficially applied to present case.
Reliance is also placed on ratio held in case of Bank
of Maharashtra versus Manoj Kumar Deharia reported in
2010(3) MPLJ-213. Their Lordship held that exceptional
nature of appointment as it is granted under a special scheme
cared out de hors the normal mode of recruitment, the same
has to be governed as per the policies or provisions
governing such appointment prevalent at a particular point
of time when consideration is to be made and not on the
basis of a policy which was in vogue and has been given
up by the employer due to changed circumstances.
IInd party has not alleged any change in policy in
the circumstances therefore the ratio in above cited case
cannot be applied to case at hand.
In case of General Manager (D&PB) and others
versus Kunti Tiwari and another reported in 2004(7) SCC
271, Their Lordship dealing with compassionate
appointment held terminal benefits received and other
movable and immovable property possessed by the family
of the deceased employee showing that its financial
condition was not penurious. The denial of compassionate
appointment by the Bank was upheld.
In present case, there is no evidence about property
or any other source of income of the deceased. Therefore
ratio cannot be applied to case at hand.
11. Union Representative Shri Ram Nagwanshi has
produced copy of award in R/87/04. Each case required to be
decided on evidence adduced by parties. Award passed in
other matter is not binding as precedent. The copy of award
in R/48/01 submitted by Shri Ram Nagwanshi does not
advance claim of Ist party as the claim of workman in said
case for employment on compassionate ground was rejected.
12. Considering evidence that while calculating 60%
amount for deployment employment, the amount of DA
was excluded. The denial of dependent employment to Ist
party is not proper. For above reasons, I record my finding
in Point No. 1 in Negative.
13. In the result, Award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Regional
Manager, Bank of India, Indore in not providing
appointment on compassionate ground to Shri
Sanjay Sarode S/o Late Shri Namdeo Rao Sarode
is not proper and legal.
(2) IInd party is directed to provide compassionate
employment to Ist party as per the scheme within
two months from date of publication of Award. Ist
party shall not be entiteld to any back wages.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1016-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj nsuk cSad ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstudksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 12@98½ izdkf'kr djrh gS
tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@198@97&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th May, 2015
S.O. 1016.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref.12/98 of the
Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Dena Bank and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 05.05.2015.
[No. L-12012/198/97-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/12/98
Indian National Bank Employees Federation,
9, Sanwer Road,
Hardev Niwas,
Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
Dena Bank, Zonal Office,
107, Berasia Road,
Bhopal
...Management
2198
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Passed on this 22nd day of April, 2015
1. As per letter dated 13-1-98 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-12012/
198/98/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
‘‘Whether the action of the management of Dena
Bank in terminating the services of Shri Madanlal
Ramlal Jakhad w.e.f. 1.7.96 is legal and justified ? If
not, to what relief the said workman is entitled ?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of
claim at Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of workman is that from
10.3.85 he was engaged for cleaning, sweeping work in
Siyarganj branch, Indore by Branch Manager Anil Joshi.
He was continuously working in the branch under different
Branch Manager. As per letter dated 19.9.90, Regional
office had called information about temporary/badly peon
working in the branch. Information was submitted by
Branch Manager about his working and payment under
voucher. Information was called by Regional office as per
letter dated 11.8.93. Ist party workman has shown his
working days in para-10 of statement of claim. His working
days were 1985-52 days, in 1986-38 days, in 1987-164 days,
in 1988-158 days, in 1989-95 days, in 1990-227 days, in
1991-289 days, in 1992-269 days and in 1993-181 days.
Though he completed 240 days continuous service, he
was not paid bonus as per Section 8 of Payment of Bonus
Act. IInd party terminated his services on 1.7.96 without
notice or paying 3 months pay. Workman submits that
termination of his service is in violation of Section 25-F, G,
N of ID Act. He was not given opportunity for re-
employment thereby IInd party violated Section 25 H of
ID Act. On such ground, workman prays for his
reinstatement and payment of bonus. Claim for bonus of
Ist party is beyond the terms of reference.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to
6/3 opposing claim of workman. IInd party denied
workman was continuously working from10.3.85 on pay
scale. Workman was not continuously working. There
was no question of paying wages as per pay scale.
Workman was engaged temporarily as casual worker as
per exigencies. Wages were paid as per prevailing rates.
Workman has not completed 240 days continuous service
in any of the year. He is not covered as employee under
Section 5 B of ID Act. It is denied that termination of his
service is in violation of Section 25-F, G, N of ID Act.
Violation of Section 33 of ID Act is also denied. On such
contentions, it is submitted that workman is not entitled
to any relief.
4. Ist party submitted rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/5
reiterating its contentions in statement of claim.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below :-
(i) Whether the action of
In Affirmative
the management of
Dena Bank in terminating
the services of
Shri Madanlal Ramlal
Jakhad w.e.f. 1.7.96 is
legal and justified ?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to ?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
6. Ist party workman is challenging termination of
his service for violation of Sectrion 25-F, G, H of ID Act. In
support of his claim, workman filed affidavit of his evidence.
Workman in his affidavit of evidence says he was engaged
for cleaning, sweeping work from March 85 at Indore. He
was engaged on daily wages. He was working under
different Branch Managers. His working days are
reproduced in para-8 of his affidavit. Workman reiterates
that he completed 240 days continuous service during each
of the year. He was not paid bonus. In his cross-
examination, workman says he has not submitted any
affidavit, he was working as peon. Appointment letter was
not issued to him. His name was not sponsored through
Employment Exchange. Manager called him orally and
conducted his interview. The documents received by him
from head Office are produced. He started working in the
Bank from 10.3.85. In 1987, he was paid weekly wages. The
amount was deposited in his account. The extract of his
account is not produced.He was unable to tell his working
days during each of the year since 1985 to 1993. He denied
that he was engaged as part time. Workman has not proved
any document to substantiate his claim. IInd party has not
adduced evidence. The evidence of workman is not
supported by any documents to corroborate his evidence.
Any other employee is not examined that he was
continuously working during the relevant period. The zerox
copy of documents produced by workman are not proved
by adducing evidence. Therefore termination of services
of workman in violation of Section 25-F cannot be
established. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point
No. 1 in Affirmative.
7. In the result, Award is passed as under :-
(1) The action of the management of Dena Bank in
terminating the services of Shri Madanlal Ramlal
Jakhad w.e.f. 1.7.96 is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2199
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1017-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj c®d vkWQ bafM;k
ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 161@03½ izdkf'kr djrh
gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05&05&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12011@124@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th May, 2015
S.O. 1017.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 161/03) of the
Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now
as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the Management of Bank of India and their workman, received
by the Central Government on 05-05-2015.
[No. L-12011/124/2003-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/161/03
General Secretary,
Daily Wages Bank Employees Association,
Hardev Niwas, 9,
Sanwer Road, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
Zonal Manager,
Bank of India,
Zonal Office, 22,
Yashwant Niwas Road,
Indore
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 22nd day of April 2015)
1. As per letter dated 23-09.03 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-12011/
124/2003-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of
India in terminating the services of Shri Pradeep
Kumar Paliwal and not paying him the bonus is
justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled
for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at Page 3/2 to 3/7. Case of workman is that he was working
as peon on vacant post from April 1990. He was paid wages
as per pay scale. The record of pay of wages is in custody
of IInd party. His signatures were obtained on payment
vouchers. Since March 1991, wages as per pay scale were
discontinued. Workman was paid monthly pay Rs. 175/-.
From 5-7-94, his was increased to Rs. 550/- per month. On
26-7-97, one Bane Singh was transferred to Dhabla Hurdu.
6 years continuous service of workman was terminated
without notice. He was not paid retrenchment
compensation. Ist party workman reiterates that he
completed 245 days continuous service during April 1990
to March 1991. After termination of his service, other
persons were engaged by IInd party. When dispute was
raised before ALC, Bhopal, IInd party filing reply had
admitted engagement of workman intermittently. Death of
Umrao Singh was admitted on 27-4-02. Workman had
submitted rejoinder reiterating his contentions. Workman
has shown working days 229+64 holidays total 292 days.
He was paid wages for six days in a week. Workman also
alleges violation of Section 25-G,N of I.D. Act, principles of
last come first go was not followed. His services are
terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. On such
ground, workman is praying for reinstatement with back
wages.
3. IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page
10/1 to 10/12 opposing claim of Ist party workman. IInd
party submits that Shri Ram Nagwanshi claiming General
Secretary of the Union is not employee of the Bank of
India, he is not competent to raise dispute. The order of
reference is vague. The particulars of employment and
termination of workman are not given. That Ist party is not
covered as workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act as he
was not appointed by IInd party. The reference made by
Govt. is not tenable. The appointments in Bank are covered
by statutory rules and regulations. Person seeking
employment in the Bank has to go through the prescribed
procedure for appointment. Workman was engaged
temporarily as per exigencies. His engagement was casual.
Branch Manager is not Appointing Authority of any staff
in the Bank. The Regional Manager with prior approval of
Head office is competent to appoint sub staff. The
appointment of sub staff are made only eligible candidates
through Employment Exchange in order to secure guarantee
of employment under Article 16 of the Constitution. The
reservation policy of Government of India is also required
to be followed. The Branch Manager required to engage
the person whenever there is temporary increase in work
during leave vacancy.
4. IInd party further submits that workman was
engaged for 50 days in April 1990 to March 91. IInd party
denies workman had completed 240 days continuous
service. On all such ground, it is prayed that workman is
not entitled to any relief.
2200
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
‘‘(i) Whether the action of
In Affirmative
the management of
Bank of India in
terminating the services of
Shri Pradeep Kumar Paliwal
and not paying him the
bonus is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?
entitled to any relief.’’
REASONS
Workman is challenging order of his termination for
violation of Section 25-F of ID Act contending that he had
completed 240 days continuous service during April 1990
to March 91. In support of his claim, workman filed affidavit
of his evidence covering his contentions in statement of
claim. That his services are terminated without notice,
retrenchment compensation is not paid to him. He had
completed 7 years service. In his cross, workman says he
knows English. He was working in the Bank from 1990 to
1997. After 1991, he was working as sweeper. He was
engaged by Branch Manager Shri C. L. Jain. He further
says that he submitted application in 1981 and correct it as
1988. Post was not advertised. He was not interviewed,
appointment letter was not given to him. When he was
working in the Bank, other person was working as peon.
He was unable to tell for how many days he worked in
1990. He do not interrupt in it. He further says he was not
member of any Union, he was not knowing who was
President of the Union.
7. Management of IInd party has produced Bipartite
settlement Exhibit M-1, Recruitment Policy Exhibit
M-2. From evidence in cross-examination of workman, it is
clear that he was not engaged following recruitment rules.
8. Management's witness Chhaganlal Jain filed
affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions of IInd
party in Written Statement. That during 1990-91, workman
had completed 50 days work as badly/ad hoc part time for
2 hours in a day. Management's witness in his cross says
appointment letter was not given to the workman. Exhibit
M-1 was not followed. He was working in Dhabla branch
from 1-9-88 to 3-7-91. He had not received any information
from other Branch Manager. During my working period,
Umrao Singh died and after his death, Banesh Singh was
working in the Bank, he was unable to tell his working
period. Ist party workman was engaged during leave period
of Chhaganlal Singh. Workman was paid wages by Branch
Manager. He was subsequently reimbursed. Management's
witness was unable to tell who was doing sweeping,
cleaning work since 1997. The evidence of workman is not
supported by any documents. Workman has not examined
Shri Charan Singh or any other co-employee.
Learned counsel for IInd party Shri A. K. Shashi relies
on ratio held in case of—
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and
another versus S. G. Kotturappa and another reported in
2005(3) SCC-406. Their Lordship considering Badli
workers included in wait list and not select list, their service
if found not suitable can be discontinued. Badli enjoys no
status, his service not protected by any statute, holds no
civil post. Termination of Badli workers services in present
case held proper as it was not one attracting compliance
with section 25-F of ID Act.
In case of UPSEB Vrs Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Kanpur reported in 1998 LAB.I.C. 1702, his Lordship of
Allahabad High Court held raising Industrial dispute after
delay of 8 years of passing order, no relief can be granted
to such workman.
In case of Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. versus
Prahlad Singh reported in 2001(a) SCC 424, their Lordship
of Supreme Court considering Industrial dispute raised after
13 long years of termination of service, no reasonable
explanation given for such delay. In such circumstances,
the Industrial Tribunal rightly refused to grant any relief.
In present case as per Statement of claim, services
of Ist party workman were terminated in 1997, the dispute
is raised in 2003. Claim of workman cannot be rejected
on ground of delay as dispute is raised within 5-6 years.
10. IInd party admitted document P-4 reply by IInd
party before ALC. The claim of workman was denied in
said document. To be precise, the evidence of workman
about completion of 240 days continuous service is not
supported by document or evidence of co-employee. His
evidence cannot establish completion of 240 days service
termination of service of workman in violation of Section
25-F is not established. Therefore I record my finding in
Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of management of Bank of India in
terminating the services of Shri Pradeep Kumar
Paliwal and not paying him the bonus is legal and
proper.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1018-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksphu iÙku
U;kl ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2201
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; v:ukdqye ds iapkV ¼6@2012½ izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&35011@2@2011&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th May, 2015
S.O. 1018.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 6/2012) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Cochin Port Trust
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
07-05-2015.
[No. L-35011/2/2011-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding
Officer
(Monday the 23rd day of March, 2015/2nd Chaitra, 1937)
ID 6/2012
Unions
:
1. The General Secretary
Cochin Port Harbour Workers Union
Venkitaraman Road
W/Land
COCHIN-3
(ex-parte)
2. The General Secretary
Cochin Port Staff Association
Wellingdon Island
COCHIN-682009
By M/s. S Sreekumar Associates
3. The General Secretary
Cochin Port Employees Organisation
Venkitaraman Road
Wellingdon Island
COCHIN-682009
By M/s. M M Cherian Law Chambers
Management
:
The Chairman
Cochin Port Trust
W/Island
COCHIN-682009
By M/s. B S Krishnan Associates
This case coming up for final hearing on 03.03.2015
and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 23.03.2015 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 Order No. L-35011/
2/2011-IR(B-II) dated 18.01.2012 referred the industrial
dispute scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this
tribunal.
2. The dispute is:
'Whether the action of the management of Cochin
Port Trust in computation of 13 months salary for
calculation of income tax putting additional burden
on its employees is justified? What relief the
workers are entitled to?'
3. The change in the payment of salary for the month
of March in April to the month of March itself resulted in
computation of 13 months' salary in the financial year 2009-
2010 for payment of income tax causing loss to the workers
of the Cochin Port Trust and hence the unions raised the
dispute.
4. After service of summons on all the three unions
first union did not enter appearance and hence set ex-parte.
Unions 2 and 3 after appearance filed separate claim
statements with almost identical allegations. The
allegations, in a nutshell, are that the Cochin Port Trust
was having its financial year from 1st March to February
28/29 every year and had been following the practice of
computing income tax from March to February for an
assessment year as in the case of other government
institutions. The assessment year of income tax is the 12
months from 1st April to 31st March. No salary was paid to
the workers in the month of March and salary for the months
of March and April were paid in the month of April. There
were two salary payments in every April. Hence the salary
for 13 months i.e., from March to February was reckoned
for the assessment year of 2009-2010 for calculation of
income tax. With the introduction of the new computer
system by which Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) was made
from the salaries and wages paid from 1st April to 31st
March, paying salary every month including the month of
March. The salary for the month of March, 2009 was
therefore debited in the bank account of the workers in the
month of March itself instead of 1st April. So there was
payment of 13 months' salary for the assessment year of
2009-2010. The trade unions wrote a letter to the FAC &
CAO, Cochin Port Trust, well in advance on 25.01.2010,
informing the distress of the employees in being unduly
taxed for 13 months' salary due to the introduction of a new
computer system. In the previous assessing years they
were assessed for income tax for the salary they had
received for 12 months and they were bound to be assessed
for the income tax payable for the coming year (2010-2011)
for the salary they had received for 12 months. They were
2202
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
assessed for an additional one month's salary only in the
assessment year 2009-2010. Computation of 13 months'
salary for an assessment year may shift the income tax slab
to the next higher slab which requires payment of more
amount as tax. The employees were being penalized for no
reason but for the sake of the change brought in the system
unilaterally by the management. As a result the workers
had been levied with an excess payment of income tax
amounting to `50 lakhs. The Cochin Port Trust disregarding
the objections of the trade unions computed income tax for
13 months and remitted the excess amount of `50 lakhs.
The payment was made accounting an advance to the
workers without their consent and it was later deducted
from the arrears of salary paid to them while implementing
the wage revision without any notice to the workers or the
trade unions. It is unjust, arbitrary and illegal. Hence they
are entitled to get it reimbursed together with interest.
5. Management filed written statement admitting the
allegation in the claim statements that Tax Deduction at
Source (TDS) from salaries of employees was effected
earlier by reckoning the income from the month of March
to February as followed in government department and
there was a change over in the financial year from March to
February to April to March during the year 2009-2010
consequent on implementation of a new computerized
system called SAP in the management. It is contended that
with the introduction of SAP system of pay roll from October
2009 onwards it became necessary to calculate income tax
for the salary from April to March. The SAP India Version
was implemented taking into account the TDS provisions
of the Finance Act enacted by the Government of India
from time to time. SAP system generates TDS forms
pertaining to the period from April to March and no other
modification is acceptable in the system. So the system
prevalent in the management calculating TDS from March
to February had to be changed to April to March. It resulted
in reckoning salaries and allowances from March, 2009 to
March, 2010 actually paid during the financial year 2009-
2010. It caused additional tax burden only to a negligible
number of employees on account of the change in the slab
for calculation. As a result of the change in the financial
year the additional tax on the additional income to the
individual employees was paid by the management and
subsequently recovered from their salary arrears. Since
the Port is an autonomous body, following commercial
accounting system, financial accounts are prepared
reckoning the expenses including expenditure on salaries
and wages from April to March. Prior to the introduction of
the new system the salary for the month of March was paid
on the first day of April and the salary for the month of
April was paid on the last working day of that month. 12
months' wages for the purpose of payment of tax was
calculated on that basis on account of the switch over to
the new system. Tax deduction was made treating the
accounting year as April to March and hence the salary for
the month of March was paid in that month itself. The TDS
was deducted only the actual salary earned by the
employees. There is no basis for the allegation that ` 50
lakhs had to be paid by the employees on account of the
change in the financial year for deduction of tax. As per the
provisions of the Income Tax Act recipient of the income
has to pay the tax. There is no justification in the claim of
the unions that the burden of payment of additional tax is
to be borne by the management. There is no need to have
the consent of the employees before switching over to the
new system. Since the financial year was changed following
the provisions of the Income Tax Act it is the duty of the
drawing officer to deduct the tax from the salary. Hence the
unions are not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the
claim statements.
6. Unions 2 and 3 did not file any rejoinder in spite of
the opportunity given for that purpose.
7. For the purpose of deciding the reference one
witness was examined from the side of unions 2 and 3 as
WW1 but no exhibit was marked. No evidence, either oral
or documentary, was adduced from the side of the
management. After closing the evidence the arguments for
both sides were heard.
8. The points for determination are:
(i) Whether the computation of 13 months salary
for calculation of income tax for the assessment
year 2009-2010 is justifiable?
(ii) What relief, if any, the workmen are entitled to?
9. Point No.(i): Payment of salary for the month of
March, 2009 on the 31st March, 2009 in that year resulted
in calculation of income by computing 13 months' salary
for payment of income tax. It is not in dispute that the
salary for the month of March was being paid on the 1st
April and the salary for the subsequent months was paid
in the respective months itself. The workers were getting
the salary for the month of March and April in the month of
April. The computation for the purpose of payment of
income tax was made by taking the salary for the month
from March to February. According to the management it
had to be changed with the introduction of a new computer
system by which the Tax Deduction at Source was made
from the salaries and wages paid from 1st April to 31st
March. Since the employees were given salary for the month
of March, 2009 in that month itself it necessitated the
computation of 13 months salary for the payment of income
tax for the assessment year 2009-2010. Management cannot
be blamed for the payment of the salary for the month of
March in that month itself. It will become part of the income
for assessment for the purpose of payment of income tax
for that assessment year.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2203
10. Assessment year is defined under Section 2(9) of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the period of twelve months
commencing on the 1st day of April every year. The income
for the previous year is being assessed in every assessment
year. Section 3 of the said Act defines previous year as the
financial year immediately preceding the assessment year.
Financial year is not defined in the said Act. It is defined in
Section 3(21) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which says
that "financial year" shall mean the year commencing on
the first day of April. It cannot be said that the financial
year as far as the Cochin Port Trust is concerned is from
March to February for the purpose of assessment of income
tax. There is nothing to show that the salary for the month
of March is to be paid in the month of April. There is no
quarrel with regard to the fact that the salary for the
remaining months were being paid in the respective months.
The change in the reckoning of salary from the month of
March to February to April to March cannot be said to be
illegal as the financial year is to be from the 1st April to 31st
March. Nothing was pointed out by the learned counsel
for unions 2 and 3 to satisfy that the salary for 13 months
cannot be computed for the purpose of calculation of
income tax for an assessment year. There is no prohibition
for making payment of salary for the month of March in
March itself. Hence it cannot be said that the action of the
management in computation of 13 months salary for
calculation of income tax is not justifiable. In such a case if
there is any grievance the workmen are provided with the
remedy under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act. It reads
thus:
"89. Relief when salary, etc., is paid in arrears or in
advance.—Where an assessee is in receipt of a sum in the
nature of salary, being paid in arrears or in advance or is in
receipt, in any one financial year, of salary for more than
twelve months or a payment which under the provisions of
clause (3) of section 17 is a profit in lieu of salary, or is in
receipt of a sum in the nature of family pension as defined
in the Explanation to clause (iia) of section 57, being paid in
arrears, due to which his total income is assessed at a rate
higher than that at which it would otherwise have been
assessed, the Assessing Officer shall, on an application
made to him in this behalf, grant such relief as may be
prescribed:
Provided that no such relief shall be granted in
respect of any amount received or receivable by an assessee
on his voluntary retirement or termination of his service, in
accordance with any scheme or schemes of voluntary
retirement or in the case of a public sector company referred
to in sub-clause (i) of clause (10C) of section 10, a scheme
of voluntary separation, if an exemption in respect of any
amount received or receivable on such voluntary retirement
or termination of his service or voluntary separation has
been claimed by the assessee under clause (10C) of section
10 in respect of such, or any other, assessment year."
11. In order to have the financial year as April to
March the management made the change in the payment
of salary for the month of March in April to the month of
March itself with the introduction of SAP. It has resulted in
computation of 13 months salary for the purpose of income
tax for the assessment year 2009-2010. Though some of the
workers had to pay more tax they are not remedyless. Hence
it cannot be held that the action of the management in the
computation of 13 months salary for the assessment year
2009-2010 is not justifiable.
12. Point No. (ii): Workmen cannot be granted any
relief as against the management but the workmen can seek
appropriate relief by resorting to Section 89 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961.
The award will come into force one month after its
publication in the Official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and
typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the
23rd day of March, 2015.
D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the unions
WW1
26.11.2014
Shri Muthu P B
Witness for the management
-
NIL
Exhibit for the unions
-
NIL
Exhibit for the management
-
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1019-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bf.M;u
,vjykbZul fyfeVsM ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj+ ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 72@06½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
07@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11012@55@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&1½]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th May, 2015
S.O. 1019.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 72/06 of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of M/s. Indian Airlines Limited
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
07-05-2015.
[No. L-11012/55/2006-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
2204
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/72/06
Shri Chhotelal Shivhare,
Sevagram Bard No. 11,
Khajuraho,
Distt. Chhattarpur, MP
....Workman
Versus
General Manager (P),
Indian Airlines Ltd. (N. Region),
I.G.I. Airport, Terminal-I,
New Delhi.
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 27th day of February 2015
1. As per letter dated 10-11-06 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-11012/
55/2006-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Indian
Airlines Ltd. in doing away with the services of
Shri Chhote Lal Shivhare, Staff Bus Driver w.e.f.
20-6-05 instead of regualarizing him is just, fair and
legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at
page 5/1 to 5/4. Case of workman is that he was holding
driving licence for heavy vehicles issued by RTO Rewa. He
belongs to SC. Workman was initially engaged on 1-1-1979 as
Driver on staff bus. In 1980, workman submitted application
for regular appointment from 6-6-80. He was appointed by
IInd party on post of staff bus driver on monthly salary Rs.
700/-. He continuously worked till 20-6-05. his salary was
increased to Rs. 1000/-, 1500, 4000, 3500 per month. He was
also paid overtime wages Rs. 15/- per over. He worked
sincerely and honestly.
3. It is alleged that since February 1981, IInd party
shown him as contractor Chhotelal and sons without
changing nature of duty. It is unfair labour practice to
vicitimize him. That statutory contribution of PF was not
deducted from his salary. He had completed 25 years
continuous service. Workman was thrown out of
employment without notice in violation of Section 25-F of
ID Act. He was not issued notice. Workman prays for his
reinstatement with back wages.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 10/1 to
10/4 opposing claim of workman. IInd party submits that it
had entered in contract with Chhotelal and sons for
providing service of Driver at Khajuraho. Workman was
engaged by contractor at Khajuraho. Workman is not
directly engaged by IInd party. He is not entitled for
regularization of service. In conciliation proceeding dated
3-2-94, it was disclosed that Chhotelal and sons was
providing Driver services as contractor. In his
representation dated 22-7-82, age of workman was shown
38 years. Workman had crossed age of superannuation.
IInd party reiterated that workman was not directly
employed by IInd party. He was employee of contractor.
Therefore workman is not entitled for protection of Section
25-F of ID Act. Workman is not covered under Section 25B
of ID Act. Workman is not covered under Section 25B of ID
Act. It is denied that workman was illegally terminated. On
such ground, IInd party prays for rejection of claim.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) whether the action of the
In Negative
management of Indian
Airlines Ltd in doing away
with the services of
Shri Chhote Lal Shivhare,
Staff Bus Driver
w.e.f. 20-6-05 instead of
regularizing him is legal
and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final orders.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
6. Workman is challenging termination of his service
for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. IInd party submits
that workman was not directly employed. He was employee
of contractor M/s Chhotelal and sons therefore he is not
entitled to protection of Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman
filed affidavit of his evidence supporting his contentions
in statement of claim. Workman has stated that he was
working as Driver on coach of Indian Airlines from 1979 to
2005. His services are terminated without notice instead of
regularizing him. from evidence of workman, documents
Exhibit W-1 to W-24 are proved. Workman in his cross-
examination says initially he was given appointment orders
for driving the coach of Indian Airlines. He has produced
those documents on record. His signature was obtained
on payment vouchers. In Exhibit W-8, it is shown Chhotelal
and sons is signed by him. He claims ignorance about the
contents. From June 2005, he had not submitted bill about
his working. He denies that he was working as contractor
in the name Chhotelal and sons. Management's witness
Madanlal filed affidavit of his evidence covering
contentions of IInd party in Written Statement that
workman was engaged by M/s Chhotelal and sons with
whom IInd party had entered encounter. Management's
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2205
witness in his cross-examination says he cannot produce
registration certificate for the year 1982. Chhotelal and sons
have no licence under CL (R&A) Act 1970. Chhotelal and
sons did not submit halfyearly annual returns to IInd party.
There is no record available with IInd party about annual
returns submitted to Controlling Authority. From 16, 17 are
not available with IInd party. The record are misplaced
during shifting. Agreement was not found. The wageslips
were not given to workman as required under CL(R&A)
Act. The witness of management denies that there was no
contract with Chhotelal and sons. Workman had not
produced any documents about his age. Amount shown in
Exhibit W-2 was paid by IInd party. Witness of management
says he did not knows whether medical examination of
workman was carried. The witness of management admits
that workman was engaged for driving tractor and coach at
Aerodrome at the time of flying operations. Workman was
required to stay at Aerodrome for his work. Mr. Swatantra
and Mr. Sidharth might have been the Station Manager.
From evidence in cross-examination of management witness
it is clear that his evidence is not supported by any
documents about contract entered between Chhotelal and
sons and IInd party.
7. Learned counsel for Ist party workman Shri P.C.
Chandak pointed out my attention to definition of
contractor under CL (R&A) Act, 1970 reproduced below.
Contractor in relation to an establishment, means a
person who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods of
articdles of manufacture to such establishment, through
contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any
work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor.
The evidence on record clearly shows that workman
was himself working as Driver. He did not supply any
contract labour to IInd party therefore the workman is not
covered as contractor or contract labour. The documents
of contract are not produced. In absence of such
documents, workman become direct employee of the IInd
party. His services are terminated without notice though
workman was working as Driver from 1980 to 2005. The
documents produced by workman Exhibit W-1 Driving
Licence, Exhibit W-2 Daily permit and other documnets
produced shows that management had requested approval
to engage workman as part time wager, increase of salary
etc. The services of workman are terminated without notice
in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act therefore I record my
finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
8. Point No. 2 - In view of my finding in Point No 1,
services of workman are terminated in violation of Section
25-F of ID Act, learned counsel for IInd party alongwith his
notes of arguments relies on ratio held in Case of A. Umarani
versus Registrar Cooperative societies reported in AIR-
2004-SC-4504. The facts of the present are not comparable.
Employees in above cited case were appointed dehors the
rules ignoring the qualifications, it was held that their
services could not be regularized.
In present case, no evidence is brought on record
that workman was not fulfilling any clarification for post of
Driver, Driving Licence is produced at Exhibit W-1 by
workman. Workman was working as Driver with IInd party
since 1980 to 2005 for long about 25 years. Question is
whether workman is entitled for reinstatement. The age of
workman in his affidavit is shown 59 years. Affidavit was
filed on 4-10-10. As such workman has attained age of
superannuation. Therefore relief of reinstatement cannot
be granted to him. Workman is terminated in violation of
Section 25-F of ID Act in the 2005. Considering his age in
affidavit of evidence, workman would have attained age of
superannuation in the year 2011. Thus workman could have
worked for about 6 years. Considering said period and
wages paid to workman, in my considered view,
compensation Rs. 2 Lakh would be appropriate.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Indian Airlines
Ltd is doing away with the services of Shri Chhote Lal
Shivhare, Staff Bus Driver w.e.f. 20-6-05 instead of
regularizing him is not proper and legal.
(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 2
Lakh within 30 days from the date of publication of award.
In case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per
annuam from the date of award till its realization.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1020-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa
Je U;k;ky;] uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 148@2000½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07&05&2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@267@2000&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th May, 2015
S.O. 1020.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 148/2000 of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL
and their workman, received by the Central Government on
07-05-2015.
[No. L-20012/267/2000-IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
2206
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. 148 OF 2000.
PARTIES
: The Vice President,
Mazdoor Sangthan Samitee
At: Pachgarhi Bazar,
PO: Katrasgrh, Distt: Dhanbad.
Vs. General Manager,
Kustore Area of M/s BCCL,
PO: Kustore, Distt: Dhanbad..
Ministry's Order No. L-20012/267/2000-(C-1)
dt 25.10.2000.
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the workwoman/Union : None.
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. Nitish Sahay,
Ld. Adv.
State
: Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 31st March, 2015
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/
267/2000-(C-1) dt. 25.10.2000.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of BCCL,
Kustore Area is denying promotion to Krishna Nand
Singh while his juniors were promoted is just and
fair? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman
entitled and from what date?"
2. Neither any Representative for the Mazdoor
Sangthan Samittee, Pachgarhi Bazar nor workman Krishna
Nand Singh appeared just as none appeared for the OP/
Management, Kustore Area of M/s BCCL nor any witness
produced on behalf of the OP/Management.
On perusal of the case record, I find the evidence of
the workman was already closed on 28th Sept., 2004, since
then it has been running for evidence of the OP/
Management which appears to be quite useless, as the
Reference relates to an issue about the promotion of the
workman. Evenafter the registered notice dt. 24.11.2014 to
the Vice President of the Union concerned on his address
noted in the reference itself, none could respond to the
notice in this case. It is the oldest case of the year 2000.
The Union Representative and the workman by their
reluctant acts appear to be quite unwilling or uninterested
to contest the case.
Under these circumstances, it seems no longer the
Industrial Dispute; hence the case is closed as no I.D. and
accordingly it is passed an order of 'No Dispute Award.'.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer.
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1021-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa
Je U;k;ky;] uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 40@2007½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@64@2007&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th May, 2015
S.O. 1021.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 40/2007 of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
07-05-2015.
[No. L-20012/64/2007-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947
REFERENCE NO. 40 OF 2007
PARTIES
:
The Vice President,
Janta Mazdoor Sangh
At: Vihar Building Jharia, Dhanbad
Vs.
Area Manager,
B.T.A of M/s BCCL, PO: Bhuli, Dhanbad
Ministry's Order No. L-20012/64/2007-
IR(CM-I) dt 23.7.2007
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2207
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the workwoman/
:
K.N. Singh
Union
Ld. Representative
On behalf of the Management
:
Mr. U. N. Lal
Ld. Adv.
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 24th March, 2015
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/
64/2007-(CM-1) dt. 23.07.2007.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of Regional
Hospital, Bhuli of M/s BCCL, in denying
regularization as Accounts Clerk to Smt. Dipa Bose,
General Mazdoor, is justified and legal? If not, to
what relief is the concerned workman entitled and
from which date?"
2. None appeared for the Janta Mazdoor Sangh,
Jharia, nor the workwoman Dipa Bose, but Mr. U.N. Lal Ld.
Counsel for the Area Manager, BTA of M/S BCCL appeared
and filed a petition dt. 21.03.2015 under the signature
workwoman Dipa Bose along with the photocopy of the
Office Order No. 163 dt. 28.0.2009 bearing her signature
and the receipt of its copy under the initial of Mr. U. N. Lal
dt. 24.03.2015. The workwoman by her application has
stated that she has been regularized to the post of Clerk as
per the aforesaid Office order, so she no longer wants to
contest the case. The Office Order also bears her name
under Sl.No. 4 denoting her continuous working on the job
of the Ministerial/Clerical ones till date has been regularized
in Clerical Gr. III with pay protection.
Under these circumstances, I find that the reference
as per its Schedule which refers to an issuer of regularization
to workwoman Smt. Dipa Bose, the General Mazdoor, as
the Accounts Clerk is no longer in Industrial Dispute, as
she has been regularized in the Clerk Gr. III with pay
protection. Hence it is passed an order of "No Dispute
Award".
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1022-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 218@2001½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@240@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th May, 2015
S.O. 1022.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 218/
2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s.
BCCL and their workman, received by the Central
Government on 07/05/2015.
[No. L-20012/240/2001-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
Shri Kishori Ram, President Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)
(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947
REFERENCE NO. 218 of 2001
PARTIES
: The Vice President,
Mazdoor Sangthan Samitee
At: Pachgarhi Bazar,
PO: Katrasgrh, Distt: Dhanbad.
Vs.
General Manager,
Block II Area of M/s BCCL,
PO: Nawagarh, Distt: Dhanbad..
Ministry's Order No. L-20012/240/2001-I.R.(C-1)
dt 10.08.2001.
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the workwoman/Union : Mr. S.N. Goswami,
Ld. Adv.
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. D.K. Verma,
Ld. Adv.
State
: Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 30th March, 2015
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the power 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-20012/240/2001-IR (C-I) dt. 10.08.2001.
2208
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of BCCL,
Block-II Area in non regularization of Sri Doman
Mahato as Loading Munshi and reverting him back
to the original job as Fireman after 16 to 17 years is
justified, legal & proper? If not, to what reflief is the
workman entitled and from what date?"
2. Neither any Representative for the Mazdoor
Sangthan Samittee, Pachgarhi Bazar nor workman Doman
Mahato appeared nor any withness for the evidence of the
workman produced despite the last chance for it. Mr.
D.K.Verma, the Ld. Advocate for the OP/Management of
Block II Area of M/s BCCL, Nawagrah is present. After
going through the case record, it appears that the case has
been all along pending for the evidence of the workman at
the issue of his non-regularization as Loading Munshi.
Though three Regd. Notices dt. 2 5.08.2014, 20.11.2014 and
lastly 02.02.2015 have been issued to the Vice President of
the Union concerned on the same address as noted in the
Reference itself, yet non response whatsoever to any notice
issued by the Tribunal. The perusal of the case records
also reveals that it has been pending for the evidence of
the workman since 18.09.2007. The Union representative
and the workman by their own conducts appear to be not
at all interested to contest the case for its finality in
adjudication.
Under these circumstances, it seems no longer an
Industrial Dispute; hence the case is accordingly closed,
and I is passed an order of "No Dispute Award".
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1023-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k @a
Je U;k;ky; uñ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 44@1996½
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@103@1995&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th May, 2015
S.O. 1023.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award Ref. No. 44/1996
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL
and their workman, received by the Central Government on
07/05/2015.
[No. L-20012/103/1995-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947
REFERENCE NO. 44 of 1996
PARTIES
: The Joint Area Secretary,
Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,
Bhowra Colliery,
PO: Bhowre, Distt: Dhanbad.
Vs.
The General Manager,
Bhowra Area of M/s BCCL
PO: Bhowra, Distt: Dhanbad..
Ministry's Order No. L-20012/103/95-I.R.
(C-1) dt 19.03.1996.
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the workwoman/Union : None
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. U.N. Lal,
Ld. Adv.
State
: Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 10th March, 2015
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 Trinunal for adjudication vide their Order No.
L-20012/103/95.I.R. (Coal-I) dt. 19.03.1996.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bhowra
Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing from service of
Shri Nepal Hari, Ex-Sweeper is justified? If not, to
what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"
2. Neither any Union Representative for Bihar Colliery
Kamgar Union, Bhowra Colliery, Dhanad nor workman
Nepal Hari Ex-Sweeper appeared nor any witness on behalf
of the Management produced though Mr. U.N. Lal, the Ld.
Advocate for the OP/Management of Bhowra Area present
with his authority.
On perusal of the case record, I find this is the oldest
case of the year 1990, which has been pending for ex-party
evidence of the Management all along since 04.11.2003.
Even thereafter despite three Regd. Notices dt. 10.04.14,
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2209
12.05.2014 and 25.11.2014 to the Joint Regional Secretary
as well as to the Management on their respective addresses
as noted in the reference itself, none could appear on behalf
of the workman in the reference which is related to an issue
of dismissal. Under these circumstances, it seems no longer
an Industrial Dispute; hence the case is closed as No
Industrial Dispute existing, and accordingly it is passed an
order of 'No Industrial Dispute'.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1024-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k @a
Je U;k;ky; uñ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 257@1999½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@469@1998&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th May, 2015
S.O. 1024.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 257/
1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in
the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s.
BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 07-05-2015.
[No. L-20012/469/1998-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
Shri Kishori Ram, President Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
REFERENCE NO. 257 of 1999
PARTIES
: The General Secretary,
Koyla Ispat Mazdoor Panchayat,
P.O. : Jharia (Dhanbad)
Vs.
The General Manager,
Govindpur Area No. III of M/s BCCL
PO : Sonardih, Dhanbad
Ministry's Order No. L-20012/469/98.I.R.
(C-1) dt 4.6.1999.
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the workwoman/Union : Mr. S.C. Gaur,
Ld. Adv.
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. D.K. Verma,
Ld. Adv.
State
: Jharkhand
Industry
: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 27th March, 2015
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-20012/469/98-IR(C-I) dt. 4.6.1999.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of
Govindpur Area No. III of M/s BCCL to deny
reinstatement in services with full back wages and
all consequential benefits to Shri Kedar Singh is
justified? if not, what relief the concerned workman
is entitled to?"
2. Neither the Union Representaitve for the Koyla
ispat Mazdoor Panchayat nor workman Kedar Singh
appeared nor any witness for the evidence of the workman
produced, despite the last chance Mr. D.K. Verma, Lt.
Advocate for the OP/Managewment of Govindpur Area-
III is present.
On perusal of the case record, it is quite clear that the
case has been pending for the evidence of the workman all
along since 01.11.2004, for which three registered notices
dt. 13.06.2014, 02.08.2014 and 27.01.2015 apart from the
earlief ones were issued to the General Secretary of the
Union on his address noted in the Reference itself. But till
now, no response came from the Union Representative or
the workman. Such the conducts of the Union
Representative and the workman concerned prima facie
denote the fact that they are not willing to contest the case
for final adjudication over the issue of the action of the
Management denying the reinstatement of the workman in
his service with full back wages etc.
Under these circumstances, it is held that it is no
longer an industrial Dispute; hence an order of 'No Dispute
Award' is passed .
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1025-—jk"Vªifr] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] caxykSj ds fjDr in gsrq fyad
vf/kdkjh ds :i esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] fnYyh ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh Jh gjca'k dqekj lDlsuk
2210
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dks rhu ekg dh vof/k rd vFkok fu;fer in/kkj.k dh fu;qfDr gksus
rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks rc rd ds fy, vfrfjDr dk;ZHkkj
lkSairs gSaA
[la- ,&11016@03@2009&lh,y,l&II]
,lñ dsñ flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2015
S.O. 1025.—The President is pleased to entrust
the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Bangalore to Shri Harbans Kumar Saxena,
Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. 2, New Delhi for a period
of three months or till the post is filled on regular basis,
whichever is earlier.
[No. A-11016/03/2009/CLS-II]
S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1026-—jk"Vªifr] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds fjDr in gsrq fyad vfèdkjh
ds :i esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uañ
2] /kuckn ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh Jh fd'kksjh jke dks rhu ekg dh
vof/k rd vFkok fu;fer in/kkj.k dh fu;qfDr gksus rd] buesa ls tks
Hkh igys gks rc rd ds fy, vfrfjDr dk;ZHkkj lkSairs gSaA
[la- ,&11016@03@2009&lh,y,l&II]
,lñ dsñ flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2015
S.O. 1026.—The President is pleased to entrust the
additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Hyderabad to Shri Kishori Ram Presiding Officer, Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. 2,
Dhanbad for a period of three months or till the post is
filled on regular basis, whichever is earlier.
[No. A-11016/03/2009/CLS-II]
S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1027-—jk"Vªifr] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] ,jukdqye ds fjDr in gsrq fyad
vf/kdkjh ds :i esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je
U;k;ky; psUUkbZ ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh lqJh ds- ih- izlUUkk dqekjh
dks Ng ekg dh vof/k rd vFkok fu;fer in/kkj.k dh fu;qfDr gksus
rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks rc rd ds fy, vfrfjDr dk;ZHkkj
lkSairs gSaA
[la- ,&11016@03@2009&lh,y,l&II]
,lñ dsñ flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2015
S.O. 1027.—The President is pleased to entrust the
additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Ernakulum w.e.f. 25.05.2015 to Ms. K. P. Prasanna Kumari
Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Chennai for a period of six months or
till the post is filled on regular basis, whichever is earlier.
[No. A-11016/03/2009/CLS-II]
S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1028-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,u,ylh ds
izcaèra= ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k @Je
U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 52@2013½dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22013@1@2015&vkbZvkj ¼lh&2½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2015
S.O. 1028.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court Chennai
(52/2013) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the NLC and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 11/05/2015.
[No. L-22013/1/2015-IR (C-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Monday, the 1st December, 2014
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 52/2013
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause
2 (A) (2) (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended
by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010) between the
Management of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., and Two
Others and their workman)
BETWEEN
Sri S. Ulaganathan
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Chief General Manager
: 2nd Party/1st Respondent
Administrative Officer, Mines-II
Neyveli Lignite Corporation
Neyveli
Cuddalore District
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2211
2. Thirumurugan Enterprises
: 2nd Party/2nd Respondent
NLC Register Contractor,
G.P. Nagar Periyakurichi
Neyveli-607802
3. The Special Offier
: 2nd Party/3rd Respondent
Management of Indco-Serve
Opp. Themal Station
Neyveli-607807
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
: M/s T. Sivagnanasambandam,
Petitioner
V. Rajeshwari, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/
: M/s NAK Sarma & N. Nithianandam,
1st Management
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/
: Sri D. Muthukumar, Advocate
2nd Management
For the 2nd Party/
: M/s T.S. Gopaian & Co. Advocates
3rd Management
AWARD
This is an Industrial Dispute taken for adjudication
on the file under Sub-Section 2A (2) of Section-10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. The prayper of the petitioner in the Claim
Statement is to direct the Respondents to implement certain
demands raised by him in his demand letter dated 02.02.2012
and to reinstate him with back wages. The Respondents
have entered appearance and filed counter statements.
3. The petition which was filed as early as in May
2013 has reached the stage of enquiry long ago. The
petitioner has been getting adjournment of the matter
requesting time for adducing evidence. In spite of repeated
postponements, the petitioner has not been ready to lead
evidence in the case. He seems to be not interested in
proceeding with the matter. There is no meaning in going
on postponing the case. In the absence of any material in
support of the case of the petitioner, the petition is to be
answered against the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(Dictated to the P.A. transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced of me in the open court on this
1st day of December, 2014)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: None
For the 2nd Party/1st, 2nd &
: None
3rd Management
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1029-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,Qñ lhñ vkbZñ
ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 92@2011½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22011@21@2011&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2015
S.O. 1029.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 92/2011) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Food Corporation of India, TC/3C, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
11/5/2015.
[No. L-22011/21/2011-IR(CM-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
CUM LABOUR COURT, KANPUR.
Present : Sri Shubhendra Kumar, HJS
Industrial Dispute No. 92 of 2011
Between—
The General Secretary,
Food Corporation of India Handling Workers Union,
8651, Arakashan Road,
Pahar Ganj,
New Delhi—55.
And
The General Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
TC/3C, Vibhuti Khand,
Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow-206010.
AWARD
1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide
notification No. L-22011/21/2011-IR(CM-II) dated
13.10.2011, has referred the following dispute for
adjudication to this tribunal—
2. Where the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Lucknow, in not regularizing the
services of contract labourers working in the notified
2212
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
depots as per notification No. 947(E) dated 23.04.2010 is
just & fair? To what relief the concerned labourers are
entitled to?
3. In the instant case after exchange of pleadings
between the parties when the case was taken up for hearing
on 29.07.2013, neither the union nor their workers were
present nor did file any further documents in the case
whereas the opposite party has filed their documents,
hence opportunity of workers union for filing documents
was closed by the tribunal and the case was fixed for
evidence of parties. The instant case was again taken up
for hearing on 30.12.2013, neither any one on behalf of
the union appeared before the tribunal nor any evidence
was adduced by the union in support of their claim,
therefore, the opportunity for adducing evidence by the
union was closed. Being so the opposite party also
submitted before the tribunal that they too did not willing
to file any evidence in the case.
4. It may be pointed out above that from the facts
and circumstances of the case it would hardly be necessary
to give full details of the case set up by the contesting
parties as apparently it is quite obvious that the union
raising the present dispute is not willing to contest the
case. Documents filed by the parties cannot be accepted
to be a valid piece of evidence unless proved by the witness
before the tribunal.
5. Therefore, the case was fixed for hearing arguments
and finally arguments in the case were heard on behalf of
the opposite party. During the course of arguments the
representative for the management has placed heavy
reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of judicature
at Allahabad, reported 1981(29) V.K. Raj industries v. Labour
Court, wherein the Hon'ble Court has held—workman not
appearing nor producing evidence before Labour Court-
Labour Court had no jurisdiction to hold order illegal-Award
of Labour Court set aside.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case in its entirty coupled with the decision of the Hon'ble
High Court, Allahabad (supra), it is held that the union has
failed to establish its case before the tribunal, therefore,
the union cannot be held entitled for any relief as claimed
by them in the present reference for want of evidence and
proof.
7. Therefore, the claim of the union fails and as such
the reference is decided against the union holding that the
union is not entitled to seek any relief pursuant to the
present reference order.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1030-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wñ lhñ ,yñ
ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 3@2014½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk
[lañ ,y&22012@143@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 11 May, 2015
S.O. 1030.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 3/2014) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Western Coal Limited,
Mahadevpuri, Khan, and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 11/05/2015.
[No. L-22012/143/2013-IR(C-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/3/2014
General Secretary,
Joint Coal Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC),
Iklahra,
Distt. Chhindwara (MP)
....Workman/Union
Versus
Manager,
Western Coalfields Limited,
Mahadevpuri Khan,
Pench Region, Parasia,
Chhindwara (MP)
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of April 2015
As per letter dated 9-12-2013 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-22012/
143/2013-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Western
Coalfields Limited in terminating the services of
Shri Vinit Kumar, s/o Late Shri Hiralal, Tokan No. 917
is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
concerned workman is entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. However General Secretary of Union Mahendra
Chatterjee instead of filing statement of claim submitted
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2213
application that workman Vinit Kumar doesnot want to
prosecute his claim. The application signed by Vinit Kumar
is enclosed with the application.
3. Management has given no objection. As such the
dispute between parties could not be adjudicated regarding
their evidence.
4. In the result, No Dispute Award is passed.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1031-—tcfd eSllZ tqfcfy;UV ,xzh ,.M daT;wej
izksM~DVl fyfeVsM ¼mi {ks=h; dk;kZy;] uks,Mk ds dksM la[;k
;wih@55698 ds varxZr½ ¼blds i'pkr mDr izfr"Bku ds :i esa
mfYyf[kr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k vkSj izdh.kZ mica/k vf/kfu;e]
1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ ¼blds i'pkr mDr vf/kfu;e ds :i esa
mfYyf[kr½ dh /kkjk 17 dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr
NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA
2- vkSj tcfd dsUnz ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku dh njksa ds
laca/k esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/k fu;e mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk
6 esa mfYyf[kr dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de vuqdwy ugha gS
vkSj deZpkjh vU; Hkfo"; esa deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/k esa mDr vf/kfu;e
ds varxZr vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k Ldhe] 1952 ¼blds i'pkr
mDr Ldhe ds :i esa mfYyf[kr½ ds varxZr iznku fd, tk jgs ykHkksa
dh rqyuk esa de vuqdwy ugha gSA
3- vr%] dsUnz ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17 dh mi
/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk iznku 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] bl
vf/klwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds v/;k/khu mDr izfr"Bku dks vxyh
vf/klwpuk rd 01-02-2012 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh mica/kksa ds izHkko
ls NqV iznku djrh gSA
[lañ ,l&35015@103@2014&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
vuqca/k
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k ;kstuk] 1952 ds mica/kksa ls NwV iznku djus
laca/kh 'krs±
1- fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUnzh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh;
Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] }kjk fn, tkus okys ,sls
funs'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fuf/k ds izca/ku gsrq viuh v/;{krk esa ,d
U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fuf/k U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr gksxh tks
vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k laxBu ds izfr Hkfo";
fuf/k esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa vkSj mudh
vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mÙkjnk;h gksxkA bl iz;kstukFkZ] ^^fu;ksDrk**
ls%&
¼i½ fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds laca/k esa]
dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vf/k"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk( vkSj
¼ii½ fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds laca/k esa] og O;fDr] vFkok
izkf/kdkjh vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt
ij vafre fu;a=.k gksA
2- U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj cSBd
djsxk vkSj og dsUnz ljdkj@dsUnzh; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr ¼lhih,Qlh½
vFkok mlds }kjk izkf/kd`r fdlh vf/kdkjh }kjk le; le; ij tkjh
fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj dk;Z djsxkA
3- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼p½ esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks Hkfo"; fuf/k ds lnL; cuus ds ik= jgs gSa] ;fn izfr"Bku dks NwV
iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;ksa ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k tk,xkA
4- tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr
izfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k vFkok Hkfo"; fuf/k dk
lnL; gks] mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks fu;ksDrk
mls rRdky fuf/k ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA fu;ksDrk ,sls
deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fuf/k [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk ls lap; jkf'k;ka
varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxkA
5- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/k dks mlds }kjk vkSj deZpkjh ds }kjk
le;≤ ij vf/kfu;e ds varxZr fu/kkZfjr nj ls ns; va'knku
dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg dh
15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;sDrk U;klh cksMZ dks
fdUgha ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk
7Fk ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj lk/kkj.k C;kt vnk djus dk nk;h gksxkA
6- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/k ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu djsxk
vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nqfoZfu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k ls
Hkfo"; fuf/k dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxkA
7- U;klh cksMZ }kjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh fu;ksDrk
}kjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksxk vkSj mls lkafof/kd lhek rd ykuk gksxkA
8- fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksf/kr fd, tk,a] leqfpr
izkf/kdkjh }kjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fuf/k ds vu;eksa dh ,d izfr
vf/kla[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku ds
lwpuk iV ij iznf'kZr djsxkA
9- izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/k fu;eksa ds varxZr fu/kkZfjr ns'k
va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=k rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj
lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ }kjk ?kksf"kr]
izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vf/kfu;e vkSj mlds
varxZr fufeZr ;kstuk esa fu/kkZfjr fofHkUu mica/kksa ds varxZr dsUnz
ljdkj }kjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxkA
10- ;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kks/ku] tks izfr"Bku ds fo|eku fu;eksa dh
rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vf/kd ykHknk;d gks] mls U;kl ds fu;eksa
esa vkSipkfjd la'kks/ku ds yfacr jgrs mu ij Lor% ykxw fd;k tk,xkA
11- fu;ksDrk }kjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kks/ku {ks=h; Hkfo";
fuf/k vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=h;
2214
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks viuk
:[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxkA
12- fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos dezpkjh Hkfo";
fuf/k laxBu }kjk fu/kkZfjr vf/kdre le; lhek ds Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk ls
fuiVk, tk,axsA
13- U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds laca/k esa tek fd, x,
va'knku] fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko
djsxkA ,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vf/kekur% bySDVªksfud :i ls
j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkof/kd :i ls tc dHkh dsUnzh; Hkfo"; fufè
vk;qDr@{ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr }kjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds
ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls lEiszf"kr djsaxsA
14- U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foÙkh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr gksus
ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk okf"kZd
fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjDr
fizaVvkWmV ukeek= ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyC/k djk, tk ldrs gSaA
iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls izLrqr fd, tkus
ij U;kfl;ksa }kjk vkof/kd :i ls v|;ru fd;k tk,xkA
15- fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
VfeZuyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus ds
fy, vko';d izko/kku djsaxsA
16- U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k laxBu
}kjk ;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofufnZ"V le; lhek ds Hkhrj
ekfld@okf"kZd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd ekuk
tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj vyx&vyx]
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k laxBu }kjk dh tkus okyh mi;qDr nkf.Md
dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxsA
17- U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fuf/k ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vlQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj la;qDr
:i ls dsUnzh; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfu/k }kjk ;Fkk
vfèjksfir vf/k'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xkA
18- ¼d½ izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl
izdkj izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd ¼MhesV½ :i esa gksuh pkfg,
rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=ksa esa visf{kr lqfo/kk ds miyCè
u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr
dks bldh lwpuk nsaxsA
¼[k½ U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh
le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxkA
¼x½ MhesV [kkr bl laca/k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk tkjh vuqns'kksa
ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vuqeksfnr
fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ek/;e ls [kksyk tk,A
¼?k½ MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl }kjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k dk
izklafxd O;; O;; ekuk tk,A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn dh nykyh
tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh U;kl }kjk fd, tkus okys
fuos'k dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk,xkA
19- izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,slh lHkh fuos'k
Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj
izfrHkkfx;ksa dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd
gksaxsA LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k] 1952
ls NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s
fuos'k dks lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds]
vuqjks/k ij lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr dks lh/ks varfjr
djsxkA
20- LFkkiuk lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr dks mu
fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ¼Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk
vuqeksfnr½ ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftlds ikl rFkk ftudh
lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa U;kl ds uke ij fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSaA
rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml /kujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa ds
fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok NksM+us
dh fLFkfr esa lnL; ds Hkfo"; fuf/k lap;u ds varj.k vkSj izfrHkwfr;ksa
dh fcØh }kjk vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr
ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds 'krksZ/khu fuf/k ds uke esa iM+s vU; fuos'kksa tSls
ck/;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr gksaA
21- U;kl }kjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foÙkh; ;k vU;
laLFkkvksa }kjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu] cksul ;k vU;
vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,aA
22- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus
dh lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSf/kd :i ls fu;ksDrk
vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mÙkjkf/kdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'krksa ij muds lkFk&lkFk
ck/;dkjh gksxkA
23- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus dh fLFkfr esa
lacafèr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr }kjk fofgr le; lhek ds Hkhrj
rRdky fuf/k;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxkA ;g mu ij dkuwuh
:i ls ck/;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fuf/k;ksa ds varj.k esa dksbZ foyac gksus
dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xkA
24- ¼d½ U;klh }kjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fuf/k [kkrk fdlh ;ksX;
Lora= pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj }kjk okf"kZd :i ls ys[kk&ijh{kk djus ds
'krksZèhu gksxkA tgka Hkh vko';d le>k tk,] ogka deZpkjh Hkfo";
fuf/k laxBu dks vf/kdkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd
}kjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl izdkj gq, [kpZ fu;ksDrk
}kjk ogu fd, tk,axsA
¼[k½ ys[kk&ijh{kdksa }kjk foÙkh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls
31 ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj ys[kk&ijh{khr
rqyu&i= lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ dh izfr lh/ks bl dk;kZy;
esa izLrqr dh tk,A rqyu&i= dk izk:i vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr dh
tkus okyh tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k laxBu }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2215
tk,xh rFkk lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa
bySDVªkWfud izk:i ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyC/k djkbZ tk,xhA
¼x½ ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vf/kd ds fy, fu;qDr
u fd;k tk,A
25- yxkrkj rhu foÙkh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vk/kkj esa
dVkSrh dks vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr gksxhA
26- fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj
fujh{k.k gsrq ,slh lqfo/kkvksa dk izko/kku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k
izHkkjksa dk Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk
17 ds mi&[k.M ¼3½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr le;≤ ij fn,
funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj gksaA
27- U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk }kjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds fdlh
mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacaf/kr O;fDr dks bl laca/k esa
dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh tk,xhA
28- fdlh Hkh /kks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds
QyLo:i VªLV dks gqbZ fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr esa fu;ksDrk
uqdlku iwjk djus dk Hkkxh gksxkA
29- fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k]
lgk;d daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha bR;kfn
ds QyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh cnyko
gksrk gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds
fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg,A
30- ,d gh Hkfo"; fuf/k VªLV esa ,d ls vf/kd bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa
ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkbZ;ksa ds fdlh Hkh
VªLVh@fu;ksDrk }kjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls ,oa
vyx ls ftEesnkj@mÙkjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,Qlh vke Hkfo";
fuf/k VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo:) mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ djsxkA
31- NwV izkIr U;kl fuf/k ds vf/kxzg.k ds ekeys esa] varjh;
C;kt ds dkj.k gkfu ds vuqekfur fuoy orZeku ewY; dh olwyh
izfr"Bku ls dh tkuh pkfg,A
32- dsUnz ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy, 'krks±
dks c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s izfr"Bku
bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ck/; gksaxsA
New Delhi, the 14th May, 2015
S.O. 1031.—Whereas M/s Jubilant Agri &
Consumer Products Limited [under Code No. UP/55698 in
Sub-Regional Office, Noida] (hereinafter referred to as the
establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a)
of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Employees' Provident
Funds and Miscellaneus Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952)
(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are
also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided
under the said Act or under the Employees' Provident Funds
Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in
relation to the employees in any other establishment of
similar character.
3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said
Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this
notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions
of the said Scheme with effect from 01.02.2012 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/103/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM
THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1. The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directins as may be given
by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time. The
provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees who will
be responsible for and accountable to the Employees'
Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for proper
accounts of the receipts into and payment from the
Provident Fund and athe balance in their custoty. For this
purpose, the "employer" shall mean:—
(i) In relation to an establishment, which is a factory,
the owner or occupier of the factory; and
(ii) In relation to any other establishment, the person
who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control
over the affairs of the establishment.
2. The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
Central Government/Central Provident Commissioner
(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3. All employees' as defined in section 2(f) of the act,
who have been eligible to become members of the Provident
Fund' had the establishment not been granted exemption,
shall be enrolled as members.
4. Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees' Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
2216
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5. The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees
the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from
time to time by the 15th of each month following the month
for which the contributions are payable. The employer shall
be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of
Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues
toward the Board of Trustees.
6. The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
7. Any deficiency in the interest declared by the
Board of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to
bring it up to the statutory limit.
8. The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9. The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down
under the provident fund rules of the establishment and
the interest credited to the account of each member,
calculated on the monthly running balance of the member
and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower
than those declared by the Central government under the
various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme framed
thereunder.
10. Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial tothe employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
11. No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give
a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12. All claims for withdrawals, advances and
transfers should be settled expeditiously, within the
maximum time frame prescribed by the Employees'
Provident Fund Organisation.
13. The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records should preferably be done electronically.
The establishments should periodically transmit the details
of members' accounts electronically as and when directed
by the Central Provident Commissioner/Regional Provident
Commissioner.
14. The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or pass books to every employee
within six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject to
nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain
in custody of employee to be updated periodically by the
Trustees when presented to them.
15. The employer shall make necessary provisions
to enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by them.
16. The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file
such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by
the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation within the
specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation.
17. The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of
the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
from time to time. Failure to make investments as per
directions of the Government shall make the Board of
Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may
be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner
or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of
Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the required
facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates
the Board of Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script
wise register and ensure timely realizationof interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India
and Central Government in accordance with the
instructions issued by the Central Government in this
regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should
be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust.
Also all types of cost of investments like brokerage for
purchage of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental
cost of investment by the Trust.
19. All such investments made like purchase of
securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody
of depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2217
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing inits credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned direcly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that effect.
20. The establishment shall intimate to the Regional
P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money
as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such
as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules and
transfer of member's PF accumulations in the event of his/
her leaving service of the employer and any other receipts
byt sale of the securities or other investments standing in
the name of the Fund subject to the prior approval of the
Regional PF Commissioner.
21. Any commission, incentive, bonus or other
pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other
institutions for the investments made by the Trust should
be credited to its account.
22. The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23. The employer and the Board of Trustees shall
also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly
within the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in
the event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally
binding on them and will make them liable fore prosecution
in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained
by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a
qualified independent chartered accountant annually.
Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right
to have the accounts re-audited by any other qualified
auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by the
employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor's report alongwith the
audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office
by the Auditors directly within six months after the closing
of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The
format of the balance sheet and the information to be
furnished inthe report shall be prescribed by the Employees'
Provident fund Organisation and made available with the
RPFC office in electronic format as well as a signed hard
copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for
two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial
year.
25. Any loss for the three consecutive financial years
or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial
year.
26. The employer shall provide for such facilities for
inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
Government may from time to time direct under clause (a)
of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15 days
from the close of every month.
27. In the event of any violation of the conditions for
grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28. In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of
any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc.
the employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29. In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition,
sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether
wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand
revoked and the establishment should promptly report the
matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30. In case there are more than one unit/establishment
participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all the
trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/responsible
for any default committed by any of the trustees/employer
of any of the participating units and the RPFC shall take
suitable legal action against all the trustees of the common
Provident Fund Trust.
31. In case of takeover of the exempted Trust Fund,
estimated net present value of the loss due to differential
interest should be recovered from the establishment.
32. The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communicated.
ubZ fnYyh] 14 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1032-—tcfd eSllZ ftfu;l dalyVsaV~l fyfeVsM
[mi {ks=h; dk;kZy;] ikdZ LVªhV ds dksM la[;k MCY;wch@34609 ds
varxZr] ¼blds i'pkr mDr izfr"Bk ds :i esa mfYyf[kr½ us deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fuf/k vkSj izdh.kZ mica/k vf/kfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½
¼blds i'pkr mDr vf/kfu;e ds :i esa mfYyf[kr½ dh /kkjk 17 dh
mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA
2218
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2- vkSj tcfd dsUnz ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku dh njksa ds
laca/k esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/k fu;e mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk
6 esa mfYyf[kr dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de vuqdwy ugha gS
vkSj deZpkjh vU; Hkfo"; fuf/k ykHkksa dk Qk;nk mBk jgs gSa dqy
feykdj blh izdkj ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/k
esa mDr vf/kfu;e ds varxZr vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k Ldhe]
1952 ¼blds i'pkr mDr Ldhe ds :i esa mfYyf[kr½ ds varxZr
iznku fd, tk jgs ykHkksa dh rqyuk esa de vuqdwy ugha gSA
3- vr%] vc] dsUnz ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17 dh
mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk iznku 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,]
bl vf/klwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds v/;k/khu mDr izfr"Bku dks
vxyh vf/klwpuk rd 01-01-2008 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh mica/kksa
ds izHkko ls NqV iznku djrh gSA
[lañ ,l&35015@86@2014&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
vuqca/k
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k ;kstuk] 1952 ds mica/kksa ls NwV iznku djus
laca/kh 'krs±
1- fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUnzh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh;
Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] }kjk fn, tkus okys ,sls
funs'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fuf/k ds izca/ku gsrq viuh v/;{krk esa ,d
U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fuf/k U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr gksxh tks
vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k laxBu ds izfr Hkfo";
fuf/k esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa vkSj mudh
vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mÙkjnk;h gksxkA bl iz;kstukFkZ] ^^fu;ksDrk**
ls%&
¼i½ fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds laca/k esa]
dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vf/k"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk( vkSj
¼ii½ fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds laca/k esa] og O;fDr] vFkok
izkf/kdkjh vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt
ij vafre fu;a=.k gksA
2- U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj cSBd
djsxk vkSj og dsUnz ljdkj@dsUnzh; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr ¼lhih,Qlh½
vFkok mlds }kjk izkf/kd`r fdlh vf/kdkjh }kjk le;≤ ij tkjh
fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj dk;Z djsxkA
3- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼p½ esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks Hkfo"; fuf/k ds lnL; cuus ds ik= jgs gSa] ;fn izfr"Bku dks NwV
iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;ksa ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k tk,xkA
4- tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr
izfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k vFkok Hkfo"; fuf/k dk
lnL; gks] mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks fu;ksDrk
mls rRdky fuf/k ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA fu;ksDrk ,sls
deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fuf/k [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk ls lap; jkf'k;ka
varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxkA
5- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/k dks mlds }kjk vkSj deZpkjh ds }kjk
le;≤ ij vf/kfu;e ds varxZr fu/kkZfjr nj ls ns; va'knku
dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg dh 15 rkjh[k
rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;sDrk U;klh cksMZ dks fdUgha ns;ksa
ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 Fk ds
micaèksa ds vuqlkj lk/kkj.k C;kt vnk djus dk nk;h gksxkA
6- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/k ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu djsxk
vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nqfoZfu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k ls
Hkfo"; fuf/k dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxkA
7- U;klh cksMZ }kjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh fu;ksDrk
}kjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksxk vkSj mls lkafof/kd lhek rd ykuk gksxkA
8- fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksf/kr fd, tk,a] leqfpr
izkf/kdkjh }kjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fuf/k ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr vf/kla[;d
deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku ds lwpuk iV ij
iznf'kZr djsxkA
9- izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/k fu;eksa ds varxZr fu/kkZfjr ns;
va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=k rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj
lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ }kjk ?kksf"kr]
izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vf/kfu;e vkSj mlds
varxZr fufeZr ;kstuk esa fu/kkZfjr fofHkUu mica/kksa ds varxZr dsUnz
ljdkj }kjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxkA
10- ;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kks/ku] tks izfr"Bku ds fo|eku fu;eksa
dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vf/kd ykHknk;d gks] mls U;kl ds
fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kks/ku ds yfacr jgrs mu ij Lor% ykxw fd;k
tk,xkA
11- fu;ksDrk }kjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kks/ku {ks=h; Hkfo";
fuf/k vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=h;
Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks viuk
:[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxkA
12- fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh Hkfo";
fuf/k laxBu }kjk fu/kkZfjr vf/kdre le; lhek ds Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk ls
fuiVk, tk,axsA
13- U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds laca/k esa tek fd, x,
va'knku] fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko
djsxkA ,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vf/kekur% bySDVªksfud :i ls
j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkof/kd :i ls tc dHkh dsUnzh; Hkfo"; fufè
vk;qDr@{ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr }kjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds
ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls lEiszf"kr djsaxsA
14- U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foÙkh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr gksus
ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk okf"kZd
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2219
fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjDr
fizaVvkWmV ukeek= ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyC/k djk, tk ldrs gSaA
iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls izLrqr fd, tkus
ij U;kfl;ksa }kjk vkof/kd :i ls v|;ru fd;k tk,xkA
15- fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
VfeZuyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus ds
fy, vko';d izko/kku djsaxsA
16- U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k laxBu
}kjk ;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofufnZ"V le; lhek ds Hkhrj
ekfld@okf"kZd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd ekuk
tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj vyx&vyx]
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k laxBu }kjk dh tkus okyh mi;qDr nkf.Md
dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxsA
17- U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fuf/k ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vlQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj la;qDr
:i ls dsUnzh; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfu/k }kjk ;Fkk
vf/kjksfir vf/k'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xkA
18- ¼d½ izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl
izdkj izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd ¼MhesV½ :i esa gksuh pkfg,
rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=ksa esa visf{kr lqfo/kk ds miyCè
u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr
dks bldh lwpuk nsaxsA
¼[k½ U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh
le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxkA
¼x½ MhesV [kkr bl laca/k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk tkjh vuqns'kksa
ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkjk }kjk vuqeksfnr
fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ek/;e ls [kksyk tk,A
¼?k½ MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl }kjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k dk
izklafxd O;; O;; ekuk tk,A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn dh nykyh
tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh U;kl }kjk fd, tkus okys
fuos'k dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk,xkA
19- izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,slh lHkh fuos'k
Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj
izfrHkkfx;ksa dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd
gksaxsA LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k] 1952
ls NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s
fuos'k dks lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds]
vuqjks/k ij lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr dks lh/ks varfjr
djsxkA
20- LFkkiuk lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr dks mu
fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ¼Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk
vuqeksfnr½ ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftlds ikl rFkk ftudh
lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa U;kl ds uke ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr izfrHkwfr;ksa]
ck.Mksa vkfn esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSaA rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ
ml /kujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj
vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL; ds
Hkfo"; fuf/k lap;u ds varj.k vkSj izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh }kjk vU;
fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds
'krksZ/khu fuf/k ds uke esa iM+s vU; fuos'kksa tSls ck/;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk
djus ds fy, visf{kr gksaA
21- U;kl }kjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foÙkh; ;k vU;
laLFkkvksa }kjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu] cksul ;k vU;
vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,aA
22- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus
dh lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSf/kd :i ls fu;ksDrk
vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mÙkjkf/kdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'krksa ij muds lkFk&lkFk
ck/;dkjh gksxkA
23- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus dh fLFkfr esa
lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr }kjk fofgr le; lhek ds Hkhrj
rRdky fuf/k;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxkA ;g mu ij
dkuwuh :i ls ck/;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fuf/k;ksa ds varj.k esa dksbZ
foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xkA
24- ¼d½ U;klh }kjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fuf/k [kkrk fdlh ;ksX;
Lora= pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj }kjk okf"kZd :i ls ys[kk&ijh{kk djus ds
'krksZèhu gksxkA tgka Hkh vko';d le>k tk,] ogka deZpkjh Hkfo";
fuf/k laxBu dks vf/kdkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd
}kjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl izdkj gq, [kpZ fu;ksDrk
}kjk ogu fd, tk,axsA
¼[k½ ys[kk&ijh{kdksa }kjk foÙkh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls 31
ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj ys[kk&ijh{khr
rqyu&i= lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ dh izfr lh/ks bl dk;kZy;
esa izLrqr dh tk,A rqyu&i= dk izk:i vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr dh
tkus okyh tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k laxBu }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh
tk,xh rFkk lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa
bySDVªkWfud izk:i ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyC/k djkbZ
tk,xhA
¼x½ ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vf/kd ds fy, fu;qDr
u fd;k tk,A
25- yxkrkj rhu foÙkh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vk/kkj esa
dVkSrh dks vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr gksxhA
26- fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj
fujh{k.k gsrq ,slh lqfo/kkvksa dk izko/kku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k
izHkkjksa dk Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk
17 ds mi&[k.M ¼3½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr le;≤ ij fn,
funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj gksaA
2220
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
27- U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk }kjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds fdlh
mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacaf/kr O;fDr dks bl laca/k esa
dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh tk,xhA
28- fdlh Hkh /kks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds
QyLo:i VªLV dks gqbZ fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr esa fu;ksDrk uqdlku
iwjk djus dk Hkkxh gksxk
29- fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k]
lgk;d daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha bR;kfn
ds QyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh cnyko
gksrk gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds
fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg,A
30- ,d gh Hkfo"; fuf/k VªLV esa ,d ls vf/kd bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa
ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkbZ;ksa ds fdlh Hkh
VªLVh@fu;ksDrk }kjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls ,oa
vyx ls ftEesnkj@mÙkjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,Qlh vke Hkfo";
fuf/k VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo:) mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ djsxkA
31- NwV izkIr U;kl fuf/k ds vf/kxzg.k ds ekeys esa] varjh;
C;kt ds dkj.k gkfu ds vuqekfur fuoy orZeku ewY; dh olwyh
izfr"Bku ls dh tkuh pkfg,A
32- dsUnz ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy, 'krks±
dks c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s izfr"Bku
bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ck/; gksaxsA
New Delhi, the 14th May, 2015
S.O. 1032.—Whereas M/s Genius Consultants
Limited [under Code No. WB/34609 in Sub-Regional Office,
Park Street] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment)
has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section
(1) of section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and
Miscellaneus Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter
referred to as the Act).
2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are
also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided
under the said Act or under the Employees' Provident Funds
Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in
relation to the employees in any other establishment of
similar character.
3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said Act and
subject to the conditions annexed with this notification, the
Central Government, hereby, exempts the said establishment
from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with
effect from 01.01.2008 until further notification.
[No. S-35015/86/2001-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM
THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1. The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directions as may be
given by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time. The
provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees who will
be responsible for and accountable to the Employees'
Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for proper
accounts of the receipts into and payment from the
Provident Fund and the balance in their custoty. For this
purpose, the "employer" shall mean:—
(i) In relation to an establishment, which is a factory,
the owner or occupier of the factory; and
(ii) In relation to any other establishment, the person
who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control
over the affairs of the establishment.
2. The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
Central Government/Central Provident Commissioner
(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3. All employees' as defined in section 2(f) of the act,
who have been eligible to become members of the Provident
Fund' had the establishment not been granted exemption,
shall be enrolled as members.
4. Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees' Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5. The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees
the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from
time to time by the 15th of each month following the month
for which the contributions are payable. The employer shall
be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of
Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues
toward the Board of Trustees.
6. The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2221
7. Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board
of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it
up to the statutory limit.
8. The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9. The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down under
the provident fund rules of the establishment and the interest
credited to the account of each member, calculated on the
monthly running balance of the member and declared by the
Board of Trustees shall not be lower than those declared by
the Central government under the various provisions
prescribed in the Act and Scheme framed thereunder.
10. Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial tothe employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
11. No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give a
reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12. All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers
should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees' Provident Fund
Organisation.
13. The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records should preferably be done electronically.
The establishments should periodically transmit the details
of members' accounts electronically as and when directed
by the Central Provident Commissioner/Regional Provident
Commissioner.
14. The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or pass books to every employee
within six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject to
nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain
in custody of employee to be updated periodically by the
Trustees when presented to them.
15. The employer shall make necessary provisions
to enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by them.
16. The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file
such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by
the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation within the
specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation.
17. The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of
the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
from time to time. Failure to make investments as per
directions of the Government shall make the Board of
Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may
be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner
or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of
Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the required
facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates
the Board of Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script
wise register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India
and Central Government in accordance with the
instructions issued by the Central Government in this
regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should
be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust.
Also all types of cost of investments like brokerage for
purchage of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental
cost of investment by the Trust.
19. All such investments made like purchase of
securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody
of depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned direcly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that effect.
20. The establishment shall intimate to the Regional
P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money
as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such
as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules and
transfer of member's PF accumulations in the event of his/
2222
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
her leaving service of the employer and any other receipts
by sale of the securities or other investments standing in
the name of the Fund subject to the prior approval of the
Regional PF Commissioner.
21. Any commission, incentive, bonus or other
pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other
institutions for the investments made by the Trust should
be credited to its account.
22. The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23. The employer and the Board of Trustees shall
also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly
within the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in
the event of cancellation of relaxation. This be legally
binding on them and will make them liable fore prosecution
in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained
by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a
qualified independent chartered accountant annually.
Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right
to have the accounts re-audited by any other qualified
auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by the
employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor's report alongwith the
audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office
by the Auditors directly within six months after the closing
of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The
format of the balance sheet and the information to be
furnished in the report shall be prescribed by the
Employees' Provident fund Organisation and made available
with the RPFC office in electronic format as well as a signed
hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for
two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial
year.
25. Any loss for the three consecutive financial years
or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial
year.
26. The employer shall provide for such facilities for
inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
Government may from time to time direct under clause (a)
of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15 days
from the close of every month.
27. In the event of any violation of the conditions for
grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28. In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of
any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc.
the employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29. In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition,
sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether
wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand
revoked and the establishment should promptly report the
matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30. In case there are more than one unit/establishment
participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all the
trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/responsible
for any default committed by any of the trustees/employer
of any of the participating units and the RPFC shall take
suitable legal action against all the trustees of the common
Provident Fund Trust.
31. In case of takeover of the exempted Trust Fund,
estimated net present value of the loss due to differential
interest should be recovered from the establishment.
32. The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communicated.
ubZ fnYyh] 14 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1033-—tcfd eSllZ Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad uksV
eqnz.k izkbosV fyfeVsM [{ks=h; dk;kZy;] dukZVd ds dksM la[;k
ds,u@19774 ds varxZr] ¼blds i'pkr mDr izfr"Bk ds :i esa
mfYyf[kr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k vkSj izdh.kZ mica/k vf/kfu;e]
1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ ¼blds i'pkr mDr vf/kfu;e ds :i esa
mfYyf[kr½ dh /kkjk 17 dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr
NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA
2- vkSj tcfd dsUnz ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku dh njksa ds
laca/k esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/k fu;e mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk
6 esa mfYyf[kr dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de vuqdwy ugha gS
vkSj deZpkjh vU; Hkfo"; fuf/k ykHkksa dk Qk;nk mBk jgs gSa dqy
feykdj blh izdkj ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/k
esa mDr vf/kfu;e ds varxZr vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k Ldhe]
1952 ¼blds i'pkr mDr Ldhe ds :i esa mfYyf[kr½ ds varxZr
iznku fd, tk jgs ykHkksa dh rqyuk esa de vuqdwy ugha gSA
3- vr%] dsUnz ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17 dh mi&
èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk iznku 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] bl
vf/klwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds v/;k/khu mDr izfr"Bku dks vxyh
vf/klwpuk rd 01-03-1997 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh mica/kksa ds
izHkko ls NqV iznku djrh gSA
[lañ ,l&35015@4@2001&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2223
vuqca/k
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k ;kstuk] 1952 ds mica/kksa ls NwV iznku djus
laca/kh 'krs±
1- fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUnzh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh;
Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] }kjk fn, tkus okys ,sls
funs'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fuf/k ds izca/ku gsrq viuh v/;{krk esa ,d
U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fuf/k U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr gksxh tks
vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k laxBu ds izfr Hkfo";
fuf/k esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa vkSj mudh
vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mÙkjnk;h gksxkA bl iz;kstukFkZ] ^^fu;ksDrk**
ls%&
¼i½ fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds laca/k esa]
dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vf/k"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk( vkSj
¼ii½ fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds laca/k esa] og O;fDr] vFkok
izkf/kdkjh vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt
ij vafre fu;a=.k gksA
2- U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj cSBd
djsxk vkSj og dsUnz ljdkj@dsUnzh; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr ¼lhih,Qlh½
vFkok mlds }kjk izkf/kd`r fdlh vf/kdkjh }kjk le; le; ij tkjh
fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj dk;Z djsxkA
3- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼p½ esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks Hkfo"; fuf/k ds lnL; cuus ds ik= jgs gSa] ;fn izfr"Bku dks NwV
iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;ksa ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k tk,xkA
4- tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr
izfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k vFkok Hkfo"; fuf/k dk
lnL; gks] mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks fu;ksDrk
mls rRdky fuf/k ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA fu;ksDrk ,sls
deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fuf/k [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk ls lap; jkf'k;ka
varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxkA
5- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/k dks mlds }kjk vkSj deZpkjh ds }kjk
le;≤ ij vf/kfu;e ds varxZr fu/kkZfjr nj ls ns; va'knku
dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg dh 15
rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;sDrk U;klh cksMZ dks
fdUgha ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7
Fk ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj lk/kkj.k C;kt vnk djus dk nk;h gksxkA
6- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/k ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu djsxk
vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nqfoZfu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k ls
Hkfo"; fuf/k dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxkA
7- U;klh cksMZ }kjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh fu;ksDrk
}kjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksxk vkSj mls lkafof/kd lhek rd ykuk gksxkA
8- fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksf/kr fd, tk,a] leqfpr
izkf/kdkjh }kjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fuf/k ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr vf/kla[;d
deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku ds lwpuk iV ij
iznf'kZr djsxkA
9- izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/k fu;eksa ds varxZr fu/kkZfjr ns'k
va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=k rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj
lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ }kjk ?kksf"kr]
izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vf/kfu;e vkSj mlds
varxZr fufeZr ;kstuk esa fu/kkZfjr fofHkUu mica/kksa ds varxZr dsUnz
ljdkj }kjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxkA
10- ;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kks/ku] tks izfr"Bku ds fo|eku fu;eksa
dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vf/kd ykHknk;d gks] mls U;kl ds
fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kks/ku ds yfacr jgrs mu ij Lor% ykxw fd;k
tk,xkA
11- fu;ksDrk }kjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kks/ku {ks=h; Hkfo";
fuf/k vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=h;
Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks viuk
:[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxkA
12- fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh Hkfo";
fuf/k laxBu }kjk fu/kkZfjr vf/kdre le;&lhek ds Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk ls
fuiVk, tk,axsA
13- U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds laca/k esa tek fd, x,
va'knku] fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko
djsxkA ,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vf/kekur% bySDVªksfud :i ls
j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkof/kd :i ls tc dHkh dsUnzh; Hkfo"; fufè
vk;qDr@{ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr }kjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds
ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls lEiszf"kr djsaxsA
14- U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foÙkh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr gksus
ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk okf"kZd
fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjDr
fizaVvkWmV ukeek= ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyC/k djk, tk ldrs gSaA
iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls izLrqr fd, tkus
ij U;kfl;ksa }kjk vkof/kd :i ls v|;ru fd;k tk,xkA
15- fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
VfeZuyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus ds
fy, vko';d izko/kku djsaxsA
16- U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k laxBu
}kjk ;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofufnZ"V le;&lhek ds Hkhrj
ekfld@okf"kZd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd ekuk
tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj vyx&vyx]
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k laxBu }kjk dh tkus okyh mi;qDr nkf.Md
dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxsA
17- U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fuf/k ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vlQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj la;qDr
:i ls dsUnzh; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfuf/k }kjk ;Fkk
vf/kjksfir vf/k'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xkA
2224
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
18- ¼d½ izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl
izdkj izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd ¼MhesV½ :i esa gksuh pkfg,
rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=ksa esa visf{kr lqfo/kk ds miyC/k
u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr
dks bldh lwpuk nsaxsA
¼[k½ U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh
le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxkA
¼x½ MhesV [kkrk bl laca/k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk tkjh vuqns'kksa
ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkjk }kjk vuqeksfnr
fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ek/;e ls [kksyk tk,A
¼?k½ MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl }kjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k dk
izklafxd O;; ekuk tk,A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn dh nykyh tSls
fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh U;kl }kjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k
dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk,xkA
19- izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,slh lHkh fuos'k
Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj
izfrHkkfx;ksa dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd
gksaxsA LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k] 1952
ls NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s
fuos'k dks lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds]
vuqjks/k ij lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr dks lh/ks varfjr
djsxkA
20- LFkkiuk lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr dks mu
fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ¼Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk
vuqeksfnr½ ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftlds ikl rFkk ftudh
lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa U;kl ds uke ij fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSaA
rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml /kujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa ds
fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok NksM+us
dh fLFkfr esa lnL; ds Hkfo"; fuf/k lap;u ds varj.k vkSj izfrHkwfr;ksa
dh fcØh }kjk vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr
ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds 'krksZ/khu fuf/k ds uke esa iM+s vU; fuos'kksa tSls
ck/;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr gksaA
21- U;kl }kjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foÙkh; ;k vU;
laLFkkvksa }kjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu] cksul ;k vU;
vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,aA
22- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus
dh lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSf/kd :i ls fu;ksDrk
vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mÙkjkf/kdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'krksa ij muds lkFk&lkFk
ck/;dkjh gksxkA
23- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus dh fLFkfr esa lacaf/kr
{ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr }kjk fofgr le; lhek ds Hkhrj rRdky
fuf/k;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxkA ;g mu ij dkuwuh :i ls
ck/;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fuf/k;ksa ds varj.k esa dksbZ foyac gksus dh
fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xkA
24- ¼d½ U;klh }kjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fuf/k [kkrk fdlh ;ksX;
Lora= pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj }kjk okf"kZd :i ls ys[kk&ijh{kk djus ds
'krksZèhu gksxkA tgka Hkh vko';d le>k tk,] ogka deZpkjh Hkfo";
fuf/k laxBu dks vf/kdkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd
}kjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl izdkj gq, [kpZ fu;ksDrk
}kjk ogu fd, tk,axsA
¼[k½ ys[kk&ijh{kdksa }kjk foÙkh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls 31
ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj ys[kk&ijh{khr
rqyu&i= lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ dh izfr lh/ks bl dk;kZy;
esa izLrqr dh tk,A rqyu&i= dk izk:i vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr dh
tkus okyh tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k laxBu }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh
tk,xh rFkk lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa
bySDVªkWfud izk:i ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyC/k djkbZ tk,xhA
¼x½ ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vf/kd ds fy, fu;qDr
u fd;k tk,A
25- yxkrkj rhu foÙkh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vk/kkj esa
dVkSrh dks vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr gksxhA
26- fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj
fujh{k.k gsrq ,slh lqfo/kkvksa dk izko/kku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k
izHkkjksa dk Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk
17 ds mi&[k.M ¼3½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr le;≤ ij fn,
funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj gksaA
27- U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk }kjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds fdlh
mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacaf/kr O;fDr dks bl laca/k esa
dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh tk,xhA
28- fdlh Hkh /kks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds
QyLo:i VªLV dks gqbZ fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr esa fu;ksDrk uqdlku
iwjk djus dk Hkkxh gksxk
29- fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k]
lgk;d daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha bR;kfn
ds QyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh cnyko
gksrk gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds
fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg,A
30- ,d gh Hkfo"; fuf/k VªLV esa ,d ls vf/kd bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa
ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkbZ;ksa ds fdlh Hkh
VªLVh@fu;ksDrk }kjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls ,oa
vyx ls ftEesnkj@mÙkjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,Qlh vke Hkfo"; fuf/k
VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo:) mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ djsxkA
31- NwV izkIr U;kl fuf/k ds vf/kxzg.k ds ekeys esa] varjh;
C;kt ds dkj.k gkfu ds vuqekfur fuoy orZeku ewY; dh olwyh
izfr"Bku ls dh tkuh pkfg,A
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2225
32- dsUnz ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy, 'krks±
dks c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s izfr"Bku
bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ck/; gksaxsA
New Delhi, the 14th May, 2015
S.O. 1033.—Whereas M/s Bharatiya Reserve Bank
Note Mudran Pvt. Ltd. [under Code No. KN/19774 in
Karnataka Region] (hereinafter referred to as the
establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a)
of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Employees' Provident
Funds and Miscellaneus Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952)
(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are
also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided
under the said Act or under the Employees' Provident Funds
Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in
relation to the employees in any other establishment of
similar character.
3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said
Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this
notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions
of the said Scheme with effect from 01.03.1997 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/4/2001-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM
THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1. The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directions as may be
given by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time.
The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees who
will be responsible for and accountable to the Employees'
Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for proper
accounts of the receipts into and payment from the
Provident Fund and the balance in their customy. For this
purpose, the "employer" shall mean:—
(i) In relation to an establishment, which is a factory,
the owner or occupier of the factory; and
(ii) In relation to any other establishment, the person
who, or the authority, that has the ultimate
control over the affairs of the establishment.
2. The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
Central Government/Central Provident Commissioner
(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3. All employees' as defined in section 2(f) of the act,
who have been eligible to become members of the Provident
Fund' had the establishment not been granted exemption,
shall be enrolled as members.
4. Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees' Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5. The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees
the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from
time to time by the 15th of each month following the month
for which the contributions are payable. The employer shall
be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of
Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues
toward the Board of Trustees.
6. The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
7. Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board
of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it
up to the statutory limit.
8. The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9. The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down
under the provident fund rules of the establishment and
the interest credited to the account of each member,
calculated on the monthly running balance of the member
and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower
than those declared by the Central Government under the
various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme framed
thereunder.
10. Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
2226
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 16, 2015/VAISAKHA 26, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11. No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give a
reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12. All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers
should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees' Provident Fund
Organisation.
13. The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records should preferably be done electronically.
The establishments should periodically transmit the details
of members' accounts electronically as and when directed
by the Central Provident Commissioner/Regional Provident
Commissioner.
14. The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or pass books to every employee
within six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject to
nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain
in custody of employee to be updated periodically by the
Trustees when presented to them.
15. The employer shall make necessary provisions
to enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by him.
16. The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file
such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by
the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation within the
specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation.
17. The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of
the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
from time-to-time. Failure to make investments as per
directions of the Government shall make the Board of
Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may
be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner
or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of
Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the required
facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates
the Board of Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script
wise register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India
and Central Government in accordance with the
instructions issued by the Central Government in this
regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should
be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust.
Also all types of cost of investments like brokerage for
purchage of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental
cost of investment by the Trust.
19. All such investments made like purchase of
securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody
of depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned direcly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that effect.
20. The establishment shall intimate to the Regional
P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money
as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such
as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules and
transfer of member's PF accumulations in the event of his/
her leaving service of the employer and any other receipts
byt sale of the securities or other investments standing in
the name of the Fund subject to the prior approval of the
Regional PF Commissioner.
21. Any commission, incentive, bonus or other
pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other
institutions for the investments made by the Trust should
be credited to its account.
22. The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23. The employer and the Board of Trustees shall
also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly
within the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC
in the event of cancellation of relaxation. This be legally
binding on them and will make them liable for
prosecution in the event of any delay in the transfer of
funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained
by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a
qualified independent chartered accountant annually.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 16] 2015@oS'kk[k 26] 1937
2227
Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right
to have the accounts re-audited by any other qualified
auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by the
employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor's report alongwith the
audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office
by the Auditors directly within six months after the closing
of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The
format of the balance sheet and the information to be
furnished in the report shall be prescribed by the
Employees' Provident fund Organisation and made
available with the RPFC office in electronic format as well
as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for
two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial
year.
25. Any loss for the three consecutive financial years
or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial
year.
26. The employer shall provide for such facilities for
inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
Government may from time-to-time direct under clause (a)
of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15 days
from the close of every month.
27. In the event of any violation of the conditions for
grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28. In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of
any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc.
the employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29. In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition,
sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether
wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand
revoked and the establishment should promptly report the
matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30. In case there are more than one unit/establishment
participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all the
trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/responsible
for any default committed by any of the trustees/employer
of any of the participating units and the RPFC shall take
suitable legal action against all the trustees of the common
Provident Fund Trust.
31. In case of takeover of the exempted Trust Fund,
estimated net present value of the loss due to differential
interest should be recovered from the establishment.
32. The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communiated.
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.