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

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 19 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1255-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973

¼1974 dk vfèfu;e lañ 2½ dh èkjk 24 dh mi&èkjk ¼8½ }kjk

iznÙk 'kfDr;kas dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] psUubZ] rfeyukMq jkT; esa dsUnzh;

vUos"k.k C;wjks }kjk lkSais x, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼lhchvkbZ½

}kjk laLFkkfir ekeyksa dk ijh{k.k U;k;ky;ksa rFkk fofè }kjk LFkkfir

iqujh{k.k ;k vihyh; U;k;ky;ksa esa vihyksa@iqujh{k.kksa ;k muls mRiUu

vU; ekeyksa ds vfHk;kstu dk lapkyu djus ds fy, fuEufyf[kr

vfèoDrkvksa dks fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

loZJh

1- chñ eksgu

2- ,uñ HkkLdju

3- ,uñVhñ eksgEen bczkfge

4- ihñ fl)kFkZuk

5- MkWñ vkjñ mek

[Qkñ lañ 225@7@2015&,ñohñMhñ-II]

vftr dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015

S.O. 1255.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

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

hereby appoints following Advocates as Special Public

Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of cases instituted

by Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) in the State of

Tamil Nadu at Chennai as entrusted to them by the Central

Bureau of Investigation in the trial courts and appeals/

revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in

revisional or appellate courts established by law.

S/Shri

(1) B. Mohan

(2) N. Baaskaran

(3) N.T. Mohamed Ibrahim

(4) P. Sidharthan

(5) Dr. R. Uma

[F. No. 225/7/2015-AVD-II]

AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 26]

ubZ fnYyh] twu 21—twu 27] 2015] 'kfuokj@T;s"B 31—vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

No. 26]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 21—JUNE 27, 2015, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 31—ASADHA 6, 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)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

2609 GI/2015

(2615)

2616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 19 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1256-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973

¼1974 dk vfèfu;e lañ 2½ dh èkjk 24 dh mi&èkjk ¼8½ }kjk

iznÙk 'kfDr;kas dk iz;ksx djrs gq, flyoklk fLFkr ekuuh; U;k;ky;

fo'ks"k U;k;kèh'k] nknjk ,oa uxj gosyh esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk

¼lhchvkbZ½ dh vksj ls ekeyk lañ vkjlh 1¼,½@2012@lhchvkbZ@

,lh&III ubZ fnYyh rFkk blls lEc) ,oa izklafxd vU; ekeyksa esa

vihyksa@iqujh{k.kksa esa mifLFkr gksus ds fy, Jh vt; dqekj xqIrk]

vfèoDrk dks fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 225@53@2014&,ñohñMhñ-II]

vftr dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015

S.O. 1256.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

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

hereby appoints Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocates as

special Public Prosecutor for appearing in Case No. RC

1(A)/2012/CBI/AC-III/New Delhi in the Hon'ble Court of

Special Judge, Dadra Nagar Haveli at Silvasa on behalf of

(CBI) Delhi Special Police Establishment and appeals/revi-

sions or other matters connected therewith and incidental

thereto.

[F. No. 225/53/2014-AVD-II]

AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1257-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973

¼1974 dk vfèfu;e lañ 2½ dh èkjk 24 dh mi&èkjk ¼8½ }kjk

iznÙk 'kfDr;kas dk iz;ksx djrs gq, lqJh fefu ,eñ uk;j ,oa Jh ,lñ,lñ

thou] vfèoDrkvksa dks fr:ouariqje fLFkr dsjy jkT; esa dsUnzh;

vUos"k.k C;wjks }kjk mUgsa lkSais x, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk

¼lhchvkbZ½ }kjk laLFkkfir ekeyksa dk fopkj.k U;k;ky;ksa esa vfHk;kstu

lapkyu djus rFkk fofè }kjk laLFkkfir iqujh{k.k vFkok vihyh;

U;k;ky;ksa esa mu ekeyksa ls mRiUu izklafxd vU; ekeyksa esa

vihy@iqujh{k.k gsrq fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh

gSA

[Qkñ lañ 225@4@2015&,ñohñMhñ-II]

vftr dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015

S.O. 1257.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

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

hereby appoints Ms. Mini M. Nair and Shri S.S. Jeevan,

Advocates as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting

prosecution of cases instituted by Delhi Special Police

Establishment (CBI) in the State of Kerala at

Thiruvananthapuram as enstrusted to them by the Central

Bureau of Investigation in the trial courts and appeals/

revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in

revisional or appellate courts establsihed by law.

[F.No. 225/4/2015-AVD-II]

AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.

foÙk ea=ky;

¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 18 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1258-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh

daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh

èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk 3 ds [kaM ¼x½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] uhps nh xbZ lkj.kh ds dkye ¼3½ esa

fofufnZ"V O;fDr dks mDr lkj.kh ds dkye ¼2½ esa fofufnZ"V O;fDr

ds LFkku ij dkye ¼1½ esa fofufnZ"V cSad esa rRdky izHkko ls vkSj

vxys vkns'k gksus rd] funs'kd ukfer djrh gS%—

Øe cSad dk uke

orZeku funs'kd dk uke

izLrkfor O;fDr dk uke

lañ

1

2

3

4

1- ;qukbVsM cSad

Jherh ikoZrh oh- lqUnje] Jh vuZc jkW;] eq[; egkizcaèd

vkQ bafM;k

eq[; egkizcaèd

,oa {ks=h; funs'kd] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ

cSad] jkeckx ldZy] Vksad jksM]

ih-ch-ua- 12] t;iqj&302052

[Qkñ lañ 6@3@2011&chvks-I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 18th June, 2015

S.O. 1258.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (c) of the sub-section (3) Section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of the

Nationalized Banks (Management & Miscellaneous

Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government,

hereby nominates the persons specified in column (3) of

the table below as Director of United Bank of India

specified in column (1) thereof in place of the person

specified in column (2) of said Table, with immediate effect

and until further orders:—

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2617

Sl.

Name of

Name of the

Name of the Persons

No.

the Bank

Existing Director

proposed

1

2

3

4

1.

United

Smt. Parvathy V

Shri Arnab Roy, CGM

Bank of

Sundaram, CGM

and Regional Director,

India

Reserve Bank of India,

Rambagh Circle, Tonk

Road, P.B. No. 12,

Jaipur- 302052

[F. No. 6/3/2011-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1259-—Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad vfèfu;e] 1955 ¼1955

dk 23½ dh èkjk 19 ds [kaM ¼[k½ vkSj èkjk 20 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]

Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds mi&izcaè funs'kd Jh jtuh'k dqekj ¼tUe

frfFk % 14-01-1958½ dks Jh ,- d`".k dqekj ¼tks fnukad 30-11-

2014 dks lsokfuo`Ùk gks pqds gSa½ ds fjDr gq, in ij muds inHkkj

xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls 31-01-2018 rd] vFkkZr vfèof"kZrk dh

vk;q izkIr djus rd vFkok vxys vkns'k gksus rd] tks Hkh igys gks]

Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad esa izcaè funs'kd fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 2@7@2013&chvks-I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th May, 2015

S.O. 1259.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (b) of section (19) and Sub-section (1) of Section 20

of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the Central

Government, hereby appoints Shri Rajnish Kumar (DOB:

14.01.1958), Deputy Managing Director, State Bank of India

as Managing Director, State Bank of India against the

vacancy of Shri A. Krishna Kumar (who superannuated on

30.11.2014), from the date of his taking over the charge of

the post and up to 31.01.2018 i.e. the date of his attaining

the age of superannuation or until further orders, whichever

is earlier.

[F. No. 2/7/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 15 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1260-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh

daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh

èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk 3 ds [kaM ¼[k½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] uhps nh xbZ lkj.kh ds dkye

¼2½ esa fofufnZ"V O;fDr;ksa dks mDr lkj.kh ds dkye ¼3½ esa fofufnZ"V

O;fDr;ksa ds LFkku ij dkye ¼1½ esa fofufnZ"V cSadksa esa rRdky izHkko

ls vkSj vxys vkns'k gksus rd] ljdkjh ukfefr funs'kd ukfer djrh

gS%—

1

2

3

;wdks cSad

Jh ohñ,yñohñ,lñ,lñ lqCck jko]

Jh izoh.k jkoy

vkfFkZd lykgdkj] foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx

vksfj;aVy cSad Jh v#uhl pkoyk] la;qDr lfpo]

Jh jktu dqekj

vkQ dkelZ

O;; foHkkx

LVsV cSad vkQ Jherh ,Wuh tktZ eSF;w] la;qDr lfpo]

fjDr

gSnjkckn

O;; foHkkx

LVsV cSad vkQ Jh lqèhj ';ke] funs'kd] foÙkh; lsok,a

Jh fot; eYgks=k

ifV;kyk

foHkkx

LVsV cSad vkQ Jh ,lñ lsYodqekj] la;qDr lfpo]

Jh tsñ ,lñ QkSxkV

eSlwj

vkfFkZd dk;Z foHkkx

[Qkñlañ 6@3@2012&chvks-I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 15th June, 2015

S.O. 1260.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of the

Nationalized Banks (Management & Miscellaneous

Provision) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government,

hereby nominate the persons specified in column (2) of the

table below as Government Nominee Director of the Banks

specified in column (1) thereof, in place of the persons

specified in column (3) of the said Table, with immediate

effect and until further orders:—

1

2

3

UCO Bank

Shri V.L.V. .S.S. Subba Rao,

Shri Praveen

Economic Adviser, Department

Rawal

of Financial Services

Oriental

Shri Arunish Chawla,

Shri Rajan

Bank of

Joint Secretary,

Kumar

Commerce

Department of Expenditure

State Bank

Smt. Annie George Mathew,

Vacant

of

Joint Secretary, Department of

Hyderabad

Expenditure

State Bank

Shri Sudhir Shyam, Director,

Shri Vijay

of Patiala

Department of Financial Services Malhotra

State Bank

Shri S. Selvakumar, Joint Secretary, Shri J S Phaugat

of Mysore

Department of Economic Affairs

[F. No. 6/3/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

2618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½

ubZ fnYyh] 11 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1261-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk

vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] dks ykblsal iznku fd, x, gSa%&

vuqlwph

Øe

ykbZlsal uañ

Lohd`r

ykbZlsalèkjh dk uke ,oa

Hkkjrh; ekud dk

Hkkjrh;

Hkkx

vuqñ

o"kZ

lañ

djus dh frfFk

irk

'kh"kZd

ekud lañ

o"kZ@ekg

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

01-

5746683

20140301

f'kokyh m|ksx ¼vkbZ½ fyñ

daØhV izcyu ds fy,

1786

2008

IykWV uañ 3 ,oa 4] lsDVj&Mh]

mPp 'kfDr fo:fir

mykZ baMfLVª;y dkWEIysDl]

bLikr lfj, ,oa rkj&

ljksjk] ftyk& jk;iqj]

fof'kf"V

NÙkhlx<+&493221

02-

5752173

20140305

jkek ikWoj ,.M LVhy izkñ fyñ

lkekU; lajpuk bLikr

2830

2012

[kljk uañ 344@1] ih,p uañ

gsrq iquosZYyu ds fy,

101] lh,lbZch lc LVs'ku ds

dkcZu <yok¡ bLikr

lehi] cksj>kjk] jk;iqj]

baxV] fcysV] Cywe ,oa

NÙkhlx<+&493221

LySc & fof'kf"V

03-

5752678

20140310

x.kirh bLikr

lkekU; lajpuk bLikr

2830

2012

IykWV uañ 144] lsDVj&lh]

gsrq iquosZYyu ds fy,

mykZ baMfLVª;y ,fj;k]

dkcZu <yok¡ bLikr

jk;iqj]

baxV] fcysV] Cywe ,oa

NÙkhlx<+&493221

LySc & fof'kf"V

04-

5752779

20140310

QkWpqZu esVYl fyñ

lajpukRed iz;ksx ds

4923

1997

xzke&lksanzk fp[kkbZ]

fy;s bLikr ds [kks[kys

flyrkjk baMfLVª;y xzksFk

dkV&fof'kf"V

lsaVj] Qst+ II] flyrkjk]

jk;iqj]

NÙkhlx<+&493221

05-

5752880

20140310

vfouk'k bLikr izkñ fyñ

lkekU; xq.krk ds

15911

2010

200,] baMfLVª;y ,fj;k]

lajpuk bLikr&fof'kf"V

mykZ] jk;iqj]

NÙkhlx<+&493221

06-

5753267

20140313

ckykth LVªDpjYl ¼bafM;k½ fyñ

lkekU; xq.krk ds

15911

2010

fjax jksM+ uañ 2] VkVhckaè]

lajpuk bLikr&fof'kf"V

jk;iqj] NÙkhlx<+

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2619

07-

5753377

20140313

Jh guqeku yksgk izkñ fyñ

lkekU; xq.krk ds

15911

2010

vxzlsu pkSd] ctjax uxj]

lajpuk bLikr&fof'kf"V

jk;iqj] NÙkhlx<+&492001

08-

5753478

20140313

jkès gqdZr bLikr izkñ fyñ

QkoM+k & fof'kf"V

1759

1986

IykWV uañ 735@ch] mykZ

baMfLVª;y ,fj;k] jk;iqj]

NÙkhlx<+&493221

09-

5754783

20140314

tqustk fcojsTl

iSdstcan is;

14543

2004

vxzoky ykSt ds lkeus]

ty ¼iSdstcan izkd`frd

cLrj jksM+] èerjh]

fefujy ty ds vykok½

NÙkhlx<+&493773

10-

5757284

20140402

jkès xksfoan LVhy ,.M

lkekU; lajpuk bLikr

2830

2012

,ykW;t+ izkñ fyñ

gsrq iquosZYyu ds fy,

102] ftany baMfLVª;y ikdZ]

dkcZu <yokW bLikr

iqathiFkjk]

baxV] fcysV] Cywe ,oa

ftyk& jk;x<+]

LySc & fof'kf"V

NÙkhlx<+&496001

11-

5757385

20140304

g"kZ fofue; izkñ fyñ

lkekU; lajpuk bLikr

2830

2012

IykWV uañ 121] ftany

gsrq iquosZYyu ds fy,

baMfLVª;y ikdZ] iqathiFkjk]

dkcZu <yokW bLikr

ftyk& jk;x<+]

baxV] fcysV] Cywe ,oa

NÙkhlx<+&496001

LySc & fof'kf"V

12-

5757486

20140402

Jh vkse eSU;qQDpfjax ¼vkbZ½

iksVZySaM ikstksykuk lhesaV&

1489

1

1991

izkñ fyñ

fof'kf"V

xzke&deyiqj] }kjk

flyfQfy;k deyiqj]

ftyk&lqjxqtk] NÙkhlx<+

13-

5757890

20140403

xzkhu xksYM bZjhxs'ku izkñ fyñ

flapkbZ midj.k & flapkbZ

12786

1989

[kSjkx<+ jksM] Mksaxjx<+]

ysVjy ds fy, ikWyhFkhu

ftyk&cLrj]

ikbi

NÙkhlx<+&491445

14-

5757991

20140403

xzhu xksYM bZjhxs'ku izkñ fyñ

flapkbZ miLdj&

13488

2008

[kSjkx<+ jksM+] Mksaxjx<+]

mRltZdh ikbi i)fr;ka&

ftyk& cLrj]

fof'kf"V

NÙkhlx<+&491445

15-

5758791

20140403

xzhu xksYM bZjhxs'ku izkñfyñ

flapkbZ miLdj&

13487

1992

[kSjkx<+ jksM+] Mksaxjx<+]

mRltZd&fof'kf"V

ftyk& cLrj]

NÙkhlx<+&491445

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

16-

5760879

20140411

fiz;adk baMfLVªht+

iSdstcan is;

14543

2004

xzke&xaxiqj] iksLV&

ty ¼iSdstcan izkd`frd

fiifj;k] rglhy& doèkZ

fefujy ty ds vykok½

ftyk& doèkZ]

NÙkhlx<+&491995

17-

5763077

20140423

;w ch osaplZ izkñ fyñ

daØhV izcyu ds fy,

1786

2008

IykWV uañ 94 ls 115] baMfLVª;y

mPp 'kfDr fo:fir

,fj;k] fxjokjxat] lwjtiqj]

bLikr lfj, ,oa rkj&

ftyk& lqjxqtk]

fof'kf"V

NÙkhlx<+&497229

18-

5763178

20140423

ftany LVhy ,.M ikoj fyñ

¶ySat dk;Z ,oa lajpuk

5986

2002

iksLV ckWDl uañ 16]

vfHk:i.k gsrq rIr

[kjfl;k jksM+]

csfYyr bLikr ds ¶ySV

ftyk& jk;x<+]

mRikn & fof'kf"V

NÙkhlx<+&496001

19-

5763279

20140428

fj;y bLikr ,.M ikWoj fyñ

lkekU; bathfu;jh

280

2006

mykZ&csaMªh jksM] cksj>kjk]

vuqiz;ksxksa ds fy, e`nq

ftyk& jk;iqj]

bLikr dh rkj&

NÙkhlx<+&493221

fof'kf"V

20-

5764079

20140501

xzSfoVh Qsjl izkñ fyñ

daØhV izcyu ds fy,

1786

2008

259@9] dUgsjk jksM] xzke&

mPp 'kfDr fo:fir

vNksyh] èjlhok eaMy] mykZ]

bLikr lfj, ,oa rkj&

jk;iqj]

fof'kf"V

NÙkhlx<+&492023

21-

5764887

20140506

flaFky ikWyhelZ

is;ty vkiwfrZ ds fy,

4985

2000

1@, chjdksuh]

vIykfLVd`r ihohlh

ftyk& egkleaqn]

ikbi& fof'kf"V

NÙkhlx<+&493445

22-

5764988

20140506

flaFky ikWyhelZ

cksj&uydwiksa ds fy,

12818

2010

1@, chjdksuh]

vuE;d`r ih oh lh

ftyk& egkleaqn]

tkyh vkSj vkojd ikbi&

NÙkhlx<+&493445

fof'kf"V

23-

5767388

20140516

vkse Jh :is'k LVhy izkñfyñ

lajpuk bLikr ¼lkèkj.k

2831

2012

xzke& fpjk;ikuh] rglhy&

xq.krk½ ds iquosZYyu gsrq

jk;x<+]

dkcZu <yokW bLikr

ftyk& jk;x<+]

baxV] fcysV] Cywe ,oa

NÙkhlx<+

LySc & fof'kf"V

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2621

24-

5768592

20140520

ØsLV LVhy ,.M ikWoj izkñ

lajpuk bLikr ¼lkèkj.k

2831

2012

fyñ

xq.krk½ ds iquosZYyu gsrq

xzke& tksjkrjbZ]

dkcZu <yoka bLikr

iksLV& eaxêk]

baxV] fcysV] Cywe ,oa

ftyk& jktuanxkao]

LySc & fof'kf"V

NÙkhlx<+&491441

25-

5768693

20140520

VkWioFkZ LVhYl ,.M ikWoj

lajpuk bLikr ¼lkèkj.k

2831

2012

fyñ

xq.krk½ ds iquosZYyu gsrq

cksj;h baMfLVª;y xzksFk lsaVj]

dkcZu <yoka bLikr

xzke& jlenk]

baxV] fcysV] Cywe ,oa

ftyk& nqxZ]

LySc & fof'kf"V

NÙkhlx<+&491001

26-

5768996

20140505

ekW e.kh baMLVªht+ izkñ fyñ

lajpuk bLikr ¼lkèkj.k

2831

2012

xzke& uVojiqj] rglhy&

xq.krk½ ds iquosZYyu gsrq

jk;x<+]

dkcZu <yoka bLikr

ftyk& jk;x<+]

baxV] fcysV] Cywe ,oa

NÙkhlx<+&496001

LySc & fof'kf"V

27-

5769089

20140530

fj;y bLikr ,.M ikWoj fyñ

rIr csfYyr e/;e ,oa

2062

2011

mykZ fMfotu] IykWV uañ 317

mPp rU;rk ds lajpuk

ls 321 ,oa 356&360] lsDVj&lh]

bLikr& fof'kf"V

mykZ baMfLVª;y ,fj;k]

ftyk& jk;iqj]

NÙkhlx<+&493221

28-

5769695

20140616

ekyrh baMLVªht

iSdstcan is;

14543

2004

ikWoj gkml ds lkeus]

ty ¼iSdstcan izkd`frd

jkuh nqxkZorh pkSd] isaMªkjksM]

fefujy ty ds vykok½

fcykliqj] NÙkhlx<+&495117

29-

5771076

20140616

ftany LVhy ,.M ikWoj fyñ

lkèkj.k iksVZySaM lhesaV]

12269

1987

iksLV ckWDl uañ 16]

53 xzsM& fof'kf"V

[kjfl;k jksM] ftyk& jk;x<+]

NÙkhlx<+&496001

30-

5771177

20140616

ftany LVhy ,.M ikWoj fyñ

lkèkj.k iksVZySaM lhesaV]

8112

2013

iksLV ckWDl uañ 16]

43 xzsM& fof'kf"V

[kjfl;k jksM] ftyk& jk;x<+]

NÙkhlx<+&496001

31-

5771379

20140509

bfid ,ykW; LVhy izkñ fyñ

lkekU; lajpuk bLikr

2830

2012

132 Mh] ftany baMfLVª;y

gsrq iquosZYyu ds fy,

ikdZ] iqathiFkjk]

dkcZu <yokW bLikr

ftyk& jk;x<+]

baxV] fcysV] Cywe ,oa

NÙkhlx<+&496111

LySc & fof'kf"V

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

32-

5778595

20140807

vatuh LVhYl fyñ

lkekU; lajpuk bLikr

2830

2012

xzke&mtkyiqj] iksLV&

gsrq iquosZYyu ds fy,

xsjokuh] rglhy& ?kjxksjk]

dkcZu <yokW bLikr

ftyk& jk;x<+]

baxV] fcysV] Cywe ,oa

NÙkhlx<+&496001

LySc & fof'kf"V

33-

5778696

20140725

ckykth LVªDpjYl ¼bafM;k½

lkekU; lajpuk bLikr

2830

2012

fjax jksM uañ 2] VkVhckaè]

gsrq iquosZYyu ds fy,

ftyk& jk;iqj]

dkcZu <yokW bLikr

NÙkhlx<+

baxV] fcysV] Cywe ,oa

LySc & fof'kf"V

34-

5782990

20140807

ihñ,lñ LVhy V~;wCl fyñ

;kaf=d vkSj lkekU;

3601

2006

xzke& rsnsljk] iksLV& lkeuh]

bathfu;fjax iz;kstuksa ds

ftyk& jktuanxkao]

fy, bLikr dh ufy;ka

NÙkhlx<+&491441

35-

5785087

20140825

oanuk Xykscy fyñ

daØhV izcyu ds fy,

1786

2008

flyrkjk baMfLVª;y ,fj;k]

mPp 'kfDr fo:fir

Qst+ II] flyrkjk]

bLikr lfj, ,oa rkj&

ftyk& jk;iqj]

fof'kf"V

NÙkhlx<+&493221

36-

5786190

20140827

Jh ctjax ikWoj bLikr fyñ

daØhV izcyu ds fy,

1786

2008

xzke& cj>kjk] xqek jksM]

mPp 'kfDr fo:fir

baMfLVª;y ,fj;k] jk;iqj

bLikr lfj, ,oa rkj&

NÙkhlx<+&493221

fof'kf"V

37-

5786796

20140828

Jh gjnso baMLVªht+

bZekjrksa ds Hkhrj ,oa

14735

1999

ihñ,pñ uañ 39] [kljk uañ

ckgj laokru vkSj o"kkZ

400@1] 400@2] 401@1] 401@2]

ds ikuh ds lkFk ey ,oa

401@3] 401@4]

vif'k"V foltZu ds

xzke& cjksaMk] rglhy& frynk]

fy, vuE;d`r

ftyk& jk;iqj]

ikWyhfoukMy DyksjkbM

NÙkhlx<+&493885

¼;wñihñohñlhñ½ vUr%

{ksi.k lapfdr fQfVaXl&

fof'kf"V

38-

5786897

20140826

vxzoky pSuy ehYl izkñfyñ

rIr csfYyr e/;e ,oa

2062

2011

IykWV uañ 34&35] Qst+&II]

mPp rU;rk ds lajpuk

baMfLVª;y xzksFk lsaVj]

bLikr& fof'kf"V

flyrkjk] èjlhok CykWd]

ftyk& jk;iqj]

NÙkhlx<+&493111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2623

39-

5787697

20140828

xk;=h baMLVªht+

iSdstcan is;

14543

2004

xzke& in~eh] iksLV& csesrjk]

ty ¼iSdstcan izkd`frd

rglhy&Fkku [kefj;k]

fefujy ty ds vykok½

ftyk& doèkZ]

NÙkhlx<+&491335

40-

5787798

20140901

J)k lcqjh baVjizkbZtst+

iSdstcan is;

14543

2004

dR;e fcgkj] jk;iqj]

ty ¼iSdstcan izkd`frd

NÙkhlx<+&492013

fefujy ty ds vykok½

41-

5792084

20140826

Jhjke jksfyax ehy

lkekU; lajpuk bLikr

2830

2012

IykWV uañ 13&ch ¼ikVZ½]

gsrq iquosZYyu ds fy,

baMfLVª;y ,fj;k] jkokHkkVk]

dkcZu <yokW bLikr

èjlhok CykWd] ftyk& jk;iqj]

baxV] fcysV] Cywe ,oa

NÙkhlx<+&492001

LySc & fof'kf"V

42-

5796799

20140901

xzSfoVh Qsjl izkñfyñ

lajpuk bLikr ¼lkèkj.k

2831

2012

259@9] dUgsjk jksM] xzke&

xq.krk½ ds iquosZYyu gsrq

vNksyh] èjlhok eaMy] mykZ]

dkcZu <yokW bLikr

ftyk& jk;iqj]

baxV] fcysV] Cywe ,oa

NÙkhlx<+&492023

LySc & fof'kf"V

43-

5797094

20140917

Jh gjnso baMLVªht+

is;ty vkiwfrZ ds fy,

4985

2000

ihñ,pñ uañ 39] [kljk uañ

vIykfLVd`r ihohlh

400@1] 400@2] 401@1] 401@2]

ikbi& fof'kf"V

401@3] 401@4]

xzke& cjksaMk] rglhy& frynk]

ftyk& jk;iqj]

NÙkhlx<+&493885

44-

5798403

20140915

oanuk Xykscy fyñ

rIr csfYyr e/;e ,oa

2062

2011

flyrkjk baMfLVª;y ,fj;k]

mPp rU;rk ds lajpuk

Qst+ II] flyrkjk

bLikr& fof'kf"V

ftyk& jk;iqj]

NÙkhlx<+&493221

45-

5798908

20140917

bZ'oj bLikr baMLVªht+ ¼izkñ½ fyñ

rIr csfYyr e/;e ,oa

2062

2011

IykWV uañ 168] mykZ

mPp rU;rk ds lajpuk

baMfLVª;y dkWEIysDl] mykZ]

bLikr& fof'kf"V

ftyk& jk;iqj]

NÙkhlx<+&493221

46-

5799910

20140924

LVhy vFkkWfjVh vkWQ bafM;k

lkekU; bathfu;jh

8952

1995

fyñ

iz;kstuksa dh e`nq bLikr

fHkykbZ LVhy IykWV] fHkykbZ]

rkj NM+ksa ds mRiknu ds

ftyk& nqxZ]

fy, bLikr baxV] Cywe

NÙkhlx<+&490001

vkSj fcysV& fof'kf"V

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

47-

5801665

20140924

vejpan x.ks'key

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

lnj ckt+kj] jk;iqj]

feJèkrq,a]

NÙkhlx<+&492001

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

,oa eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V

48-

5803568

20141009

fodkl baMLVªh

iSdstcan is;

14543

2004

32@2] eqds'k fudqat] chtsih

ty ¼iSdstcan izkd`frd

vkWfQl ds ihNs] ckyksnk

fefujy ty ds vykok½

cktkj]

NÙkhlx<+&493332

49-

5804570

20141013

Jh th feujYl ,.M

dks;yk] dksd vkSj

12981

1991

U;wfVªaV~l

fyXukbV HkLe dh

nkmns&[kqnZ] ckyksnk cktkj]

laxyuh;rk Kkr djus

NÙkhlx<+&493332

dh i)fr

50-

5812468

20141020

ftvkWu LikWt ,.M ikWoj

lkekU; lajpuk bLikr

2830

2012

¼izkñ½ fyñ

gsrq iquosZYyu ds fy,

xzke& vEyhMhg]

dkcZu <yokW bLikr

iksLV&Hkkyqej]

baxV] fcysV] Cywe ,oa

ftyk&jk;x<+]

LySc & fof'kf"V

NÙkhlx<+&496001

51-

5812670

20141111

lqizhe baMLVªht+

usQFkyhu& fof'kf"V

539

1974

IykWV uañ 12@,Q ,oa ,Q1]

gSoh baMfLVª;y ,fj;k]

gkFk[kkst] fHkykbZ]

ftyk& nqxZ] NÙkhlx<+&490024

52-

5812771

20141112

xqtjkr fVacj baMLVªht+ izkñ fyñ

CykWdcksMZ& fof'kf"V

1659

2004

80] baMfLVª;y ,fj;k] mykZ]

jk;iqj] NÙkhlx<+&493221

53-

5812872

20141112

xqtjkr fVacj baMLVªht+ izkñ fyñ

lkekU; iz;kstuksa ds fy,

303

1989

80] baMfLVª;y ,fj;k] mykZ]

IykbZoqM& fof'kf"V

jk;iqj] NÙkhlx<+&493221

54-

5819482

20141128

jhxk ihohlh baMLVªht+

fo|qr foLFkkiu ds fy,

9537

3

1983

IykWV uañ 27&28 ¼ikVZ½

ukyh& fof'kf"V

Hkkuiqjh baMfLVª;y ,fj;k]

jk;iqj] NÙkhlx<+&492001

55- 5900000107 20141203

v'kksd ftany IykbZoqM izkñ fyñ

lkekU; iz;kstuksa ds fy,

303

1989

ihñ,pñ uañ 10@13]

IykbZoqM& fof'kf"V

[kljk uañ 160] 161] 162]

163@1] 163@2] 164] 165] 167

,oa 168] xzke& eksgdk[kqnZ]

rglhy& ikVu] fHkykbZ]

ftyk& nqxZ]

NÙkhlx<+&490006

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2625

56- 5900000208 201401203 jhxy izksMDV~l

iSdstcan is;

14543

2004

835@61] jke uxj] xyh

ty ¼iSdstcan izkd`frd

uañ 2] jk;iqj]

fefujy ty ds vykok½

NÙkhlx<+&492001

57- 5900000309 20141203

jfo TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

lh&203] ugkrk ekdsZV]

feJèkrq,a]

lnj cktkj] jk;iqj]

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

NÙkhlx<+&492001

,oa eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V

58- 5900000410 20141205

in~ehuh TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

128] ,lñ,lñ Iyktk]

feJèkrq,a]

ihñ,pñ jksM] dksjck]

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

NÙkhlx<+&495678

,oa eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V

59- 5900000511 20141218

'kqHk fMtk;uj Tosyjh

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

cSn ekdsZV] lnj cktkj]

feJèkrq,a]

jk;iqj]

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

NÙkhlx<+&492001

,oa eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V

60- 5900000612 20141217

lq;kZ feujYl

iSdstcan is;

14543

2004

xzke& ck;ax] iksLV& ukaunsyh]

ty ¼iSdstcan izkd`frd

ftyk& jk;x<+]

fefujy ty ds vykok½

NÙkhlx<+&496001

61- 5900000705 20141219

euq HkkbZ TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

dksrokyh pkSd] lnj cktkj]

feJèkrq,a]

jk;iqj]

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

NÙkhlx<+

,oa eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V

62- 5900000806 20141219

vfjgar TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

xkaèh okMZ] egkohj Lokeh

feJèkrq,a]

pkSd] eqaxsyh

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

NÙkhlx<+&495334

,oa eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V

63- 5900000907 20141230

y{eh fcojsTl

iSdstcan is;

14543

2004

xzke& Hkkdqjk] iksLV& ijlk]

ty ¼iSdstcan izkd`frd

rglhy& vfEcdkiqj]

fefujy ty ds vykok½

ftyk& ljxqtk]

NÙkhlx<+& 497001

64- 5900001008 20141219

HkkX;y{eh iEIl ,.M ,xzks

fueTtuh; iEilsV&

8034

2002

lkWY;wlu

fof'kf"V

iap'khy xyh] czãk jksM]

vfEcdkiqj]

ftyk& ljxqtk]

NÙkhlx<+& 497001

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

65- 5900001109 20150101

Jh ckyeqdqan ikWyhiSd izkñ fyñ

oL=kfn&50 fdxzk@25 fdxzk 14887

2000

IykWV uañ 1 ls 7] baMfLVª;y

[kk|ku iSd djus ds fy,

,fj;k] mykZ ,DlVsalu]

mPp ?kuRo

rsanqvk Ldwy jksM]

¼,pñMhñihñbZñ½@iksyhizksikb

ftyk& jk;iqj]

yhu ¼ihñihñ½ ds cksjs&

NÙkhlx<+& 492099

fof'kf"V

66- 5900001210 20150105

chñihñ okVj IykWV

iSdstcan is;

14543

2004

xzke& dksdkMh] rglhy&

ty ¼iSdstcan izkd`frd

cyksnk cktkj]

fefujy ty ds vykok½

ftyk& cyksnk cktkj]

NÙkhlx<+& 493332

67- 5900001311 20150106

d`".kk vk;ju LVªhIl ,.M

lajpukRed iz;ksx ds

4923

1997

V~;wCl izkñ fyñ

fy;s bLikr ds [kks[kys

IykWV uañ 813&821,] mykZ

dkV&fof'kf"V

baMfLVª;y ,fj;k] ljksjk] jk;iqj]

NÙkhlx<+&493221

68- 5900001412 20150107

ckykth yksgk izkñ fyñ

lkekU; xq.krk ds

15911

2010

239@248lh] mykZ baMfLVª;y

lajpuk bLikr&fof'kf"V

,fj;k] jk;iqj] NÙkhl<+&493221

69- 5900001505 20150112

Jh gjnso baMLVªht

laokru vkSj o"kkZ ds

13592

2013

ihñ,pñ uañ 39] [kljk uañ

ikuh ds ra= lfgr

400@1] 400@2] 401@1]

Hkouksa ds vanj dh feêh

401@2] 401@3] 401@4]

rFkk vif'k"V fujkos'ku

xzke&cjksaMk] rglhy&frynk]

ra= ds fy, vuE;d`r

ftyk&jk;iqj]

ihohlh ikbisa&fof'kf"V

NÙkhlx<+&493885

70- 5900001606 20150109

Jh jke TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

th&10] thch Iyktk ¼fxjèj

feJèkrq,a]

Hkou½ lnj cktkj] jk;iqj]

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

NÙkhlx<+&492001

,oa eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V

71- 5900001707 20150123

fØLVy ikWyhoDlZ izkñ fyñ

fo|qr foLFkkiu ds fy,

9537

3

1983

IykWV uañ 638] baMfLVª;y

ukyh&fof'kf"V

,fj;k] mykZ] jk;iqj]

NÙkhlx<+&493221

72- 5900001808 20150218

ctjax fcojsTl

iSdstcan is;

14543

2004

xzke&iaMjhikuh] iksLV&dksM

ty ¼iSdstcan izkd`frd

rjk;] ftyk&jk;x<+]

feujy ty ds vykok½

NÙkhlx<+&496001

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2627

73- 5900001909 20150219

'kSys'k dqekj ,.M czkst+

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

lnj cktkj] jk;iqj]

feJèkrq,a

NÙkhlx<+&492001

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

,oa eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V

74- 5900002010 20150220

ihñ ,lñ LVhy fyñ

lajpukRed iz;ksx ds

4923

1997

xzke&Vsnsljk] iksLV&lkeuh]

fy;s bLikr ds [kks[kys

ftyk&jktuanxkao]

dkV&fof'kf"V

NÙkhlx<+&491441

75- 5900002111 20150223

flaFky ikWyhelZ izkñ fyñ

laokru vkSj o"kkZ ds

13592

2013

46&47] lh,lvkbZMhlh]

ikuh ds ra= lfgr

baMfLVª;y ,LVsV] fcjdksuh]

Hkouksa ds vanj dh feêh

ftyk&egkleqan]

rFkk vif'k"V fujkos'ku

NÙkhlx<+&493445

ra= ds fy, vuE;d`r

ihohlh ikbisa&fof'kf"V

76- 5900002212 20150218

,lñ vkjñ lqjs'k TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

lqehr TosylZ ds ikl]

feJèkrq,a]

ekyoh; jksM] jk;iqj

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

NÙkhlx<+&492001

,oa eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V

77- 5900002305 20150226

tsñ dsñ y{eh lhesaV fyñ

lkèkj.k iksVZySaM lhesaV &

8112

2013

xzke&ekyiqjh [kqnZ] [klkMhg]

43 xzsM&fof'kf"V

iksLV&vfgokjk] rglhy&èkeèk]

ftyk&nqxZ] NÙkhlx<+&490036

78- 5900002406 20150226

ts ds y{eh lhesaV fyñ

iksVZySaM èkrqey lhesaV

455

1989

xzke&ekyiqjh [kqnZ] [klkMhg]

iksLV&vfgokjk] rglhy&èkeèk]

ftyk&nqxZ] NÙkhlx<+&490036

79- 5900002507 20150226

ts ds y{eh lhesaV fyñ

iksVZySaM ikstksykuk lhesaV &

1489

1

1991

xzke&ekyiqjh [kqnZ] [klkMhg]

fof'kf"V

iksLV&vfgokjk] rglhy&èkeèk]

ftyk&nqxZ] NÙkhlx<+&490036

80- 5900002608 20150305

uwru bLikr ,aM ikWoj ¼izkñ½

daØhV izcyu ds fy,

1786

2008

fyñ

mPp 'kfDr fo:fir

xzke&tjkSMk] iksLV&tjkSMk]

bLikr lfj, ,oa rkj&

[kjksjk jksM] CykWd èjlhok]

fof'kf"V

ftyk&jk;iqj] NÙkhlx<+&493111

81- 5900000270 20150325

,ñ ihñ vkbZñ bLikr ikWojVsd

lajpuk bLikr ¼lkèkj.k

2831

2012

¼izkñ½ fyñ

xq.krk½ ds iquosZYyu gsrq

baMfLVª;y xzksFk lsaVj] Qst&II]

dkcZu <yoka bLikr

flyrkjk jk;iqj]

baxV] fcysV] Cywe ,oa

NÙkhlx<+&493111

LySc&fof'kf"V

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

82- 5900000281 20150325

,ñ ihñ vkbZñ bLikr ikWojVsd

lkekU; lajpuk bLikr

2830

2012

¼izkñ½ fyñ

gsrq iquosZYyu ds fy,

baMfLVª;y xzksFk lsaVj] Qst&II]

dkcZu <yoka bLikr

flyrkjk] jk;iqj]

baxV] fcysV] Cywe ,oa

NÙkhlx<+&493111

LySc&fof'kf"V

83- 5900002911 20150323

,ñ ,lñ TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

ch&201] ugkrk ekdsZV]

feJèkrq,a]

lnj cktkj] jk;iqj]

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

NÙkhlx<+&492001

,oa eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V

84- 5900003012 20150331

banzk ihñ ohñ lhñ izkñ fyñ

cksj&uydwiksa ds fy,

12818

2010

xzke&Hkxokuiqj] rglhy&

vuE;d`r ihñ ohñ lhñ

vfEcdkiqj] IykWV uañ 127]

tkyh vkSj vkojd ikbi&

ftyk&ljxqtk] NÙkhlx<+&497001

fof'kf"V

85- 5900003105 20150331

ek:rh Qsjl ¼izkñ½ fyñ

lkekU; lajpuk bLikr

2830

2012

xzke&ljksjk] èjlhok]

gsrq iquosZYyu ds fy,

jk;iqj]

dkcZu <yoka bLikr

NÙkhlx<+&493221

baxV] fcysV] Cywe ,oa

LySc&fof'kf"V

[lañ dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11]

,l- Hkkoky] oSKkfud&bZ ,oa izeq[k

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2015

S.O. 1261.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

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

in the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence No.

Grant

Name and Address of the

Title of the Standard

IS No.

Part.

Sec.

Year

No.

Date

party

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

01.

5746683

20140301

Shivali Udyog (I)

High strength

1786

2008

Limited

deformed steel bars

Plot No. 3 and 4,

and wires for concrete

Sector D, Urla

reinforcement

Industrial Complex, Sarora,

District: Raipur

Chhattisgarh-493221

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2629

02.

5752173

20140305

Rama Power and Steels

Carbon steel cast billet

2830

2012

Pvt. Ltd.

ingots, billets, blooms

Khasra No. 344/1,

and slabs for re-rolling

PH No. 101, Near

into steel for general

CSEB Sub-Station,

structural purposes

Borjhara, Raipur,

Chhattisgarh-493221

03.

5752678

20140310

Ganpati Ispat

Carbon steel cast billet

2830

2012

Plot No. 144, Sector

ingots, billets, blooms

C, Urla Industrial

and slabs for re-rolling

Area, Raipur

into steel for general

Chhattisgarh-493221

structural purposes

04.

5752779

20140310

Fortune Metals

Hollow steel sections

4923

1997

Limited

for structural use

Village Sondra Chikhali,

Siltara Industrial Growth Centre,

Phase II, Siltara, Raipur,

Chhattisgarh-439221

05.

5752880

20140310

Avinash Ispat Private

Structural Steel

15911

2010

Limited

(Ordinary Quality)-

200 A, Industrial

Specification

Area, Urla, Raipur,

Chhattisgarh-493221

06.

5753267

20140313

Balajee Structurals

Structural Steel

15911

2010

(India) Ltd.

(Ordinary Quality)-

Ring Road No. 2,

Specification

Tatibandh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

07.

5753377

20140313

Shree Hanuman Loha

Structural Steel

15911

2010

Pvt. Ltd.

(Ordinary Quality)-

Agrasen Chowk,

Specification

Bajrang Nagar, Raipur,

Chhattisgarh-492001

08.

5753478

20140313

Radhe Hurkat Ispat

Powrahs

1759

1986

Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 735/B,

Urla Industrial Area, Raipur,

Chhattisgarh-493221

09.

5754783

20150314

Juneja Beverages

Packaged drinking

14543

2004

Opp. Agrawal Lodge,

water (other than

Bastar Road,

packaged natural

Dhamtari

mineral water)-

Chhattisgarh-493773

10.

5757284

20140402

Radhe Govind Steel

Carbon steel cast billet

2830

2012

and Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

ingots, billets, blooms

102, Jindal Industrial

and slabs for re-rolling

Park, Punjipathra,

into steel for general

District-Raigarh,

structural purposes

Chhattisgarh-496001

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11.

5757385

20140304

Harsh Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.

Carbon steel cast billet

2830

2012

Plot No. 121, Jindal

ingots, billets, blooms

Industrial Park,

and slabs for re-rolling

Punjipathra,

into steel for general

District-Raigarh

structural purposes

Chhattisgarh-496001

12.

5757486

20140402

Shri Om

Portland pozzolana

1489

1

1991

Manufacturing (I) Pvt.

cement part flyash

Ltd.

based

Vill Kamalpur, Vis Silphilia

Kamalpur District: Surguja,

Chhattisgarh

13.

5757890

20140403

Green Gold Irrigation

Irrigation equipment-

12786

1989

Pvt. Ltd.

polyethylene pipes for

Khairagarh Road

irrigation laterals

Dongargarh, District-Bastar,

Chhattisgarh-491445

14.

5757991

20140403

Green Gold Irrigation

Emitting pipes system

13488

2008

Pvt. Ltd., Khairagarh Road,

Dongargarh, District-Baster,

Chhattisgarh-491445

15.

5758791

20140403

Green Gold Irrigation

Irrigation equipment-

13487

1992

Pvt. Ltd.

emitters-

Khairagarh Road, Dongargarh,

Distrct-Baster,

Chhattisgarh-491445

16.

5760879

20140411

Priyanka Ind.

Packaged drinking

14543

2004

Vill-Gangpur,

water (other than

P.O.-Pipriya,

packaged natural

Tehasil-Kawardha,

mineral water)-

District-Kawardha,

Chhattisgarh-491995

17.

5763077

20140423

UB Ventures Pvt. Ltd.

High strength

1786

2008

Plot No. 94 to 115,

deformed steel bars

Industrial Area,

and wires for concrete

Nayanpur, Girwarganj,

reinforcement

Surajpur, District-Surguja,

Chhattisgarh-497229

18.

5763178

20140423

Jindal Steel and

Hot rolled steel flat

5986

2002

Power Ltd.

products for structural

Post Box No. 16,

forming and flanging

Kharsia Road

purposes-

District-Raigarh,

Chhattisgarh-496001

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2631

19.

5763279

20140428

Real Ispat and Power

Mild Steel wire for

280

2006

Limited

general engineering

Urla-Bendri Road,

purposes

Borjhara, District-Raipur,

Chhattisgarh-493221

20.

5764079

20140501

Gravity Ferrous Pvt.

High Strength

1786

2008

Ltd.

deformed steel bars

259/9, Kanhera

and wires for concrete

Road, Vill-Achholi,

reinforcement

Dharsiva Mandal, Urla,

Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492023

21.

5764887

20140506

Sinthal Poolymers

Unplasticized PVC

4985

2000

I/A, Birkoni,

Pipes for Potable

District-Mahasamund

Water Supplies-

Chhattisgarh-493445

Specification

22.

5764988

20140506

Sinthal Poolymers

Specification for

12818

2010

I/A, Birkoni,

unplasticized PVC

District-Mahasamund

screen and caring

Chhattisgarh-493445

pipes for

bore/tubewell

23.

5767388

20140516

Om Shree Rupesh

Carbon steel cast billet

2831

2012

Steel Pvt. Ltd.

ignots, billets, blooms

ViII-Chiraipani,

and slabs for re-rolling

Tehasil-Raigarh,

into low tensile

District-Raigarh

structural steel-

Chhattisgarh

Specification

24.

5768592

20140520

Crest Steel and Power

Carbon steel cast billet

2831

2012

Pvt. Ltd.

ignots, billets, blooms

Vill-Joratarai,

and slabs for re-rolling

P.O. Mangatta,

into low tensile

District,

structural steel-

Rajnanadgaon,

Specification

Chhattisgarh-491441

25.

5768693

20140520

Topworth Steel and

Carbon steel cast billet

2831

2012

Power Ltd.

ignots, billets, blooms

Boral, Industrial

and slabs for re-rolling

Growth Centre,

into low tensile

Village Rasmada,

structural steel-

District-Durg,

Specification

Chhattisgarh-491001

26.

5768996

20140505

Maa Mani Industries

Carbon steel cast billet

2831

2012

Pvt. Ltd.

ignots, billets, blooms

Vill-Natwarpur,

and slabs for re-rolling

Tehasil-Raiarh,

into low tensile

District-Raigarh

structural steel-

Chhattisgarh-496001

Specification

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

27.

5769089

20140530

Real Ispat and Power

Hot Rolled Medium

2062

2011

Limited, Urla Division

and High Tensile

Plot No. 317 to 321

Structural Steel-

and 356-360, Sector C,

Specification

Urla Industrial Area, Raipur,

Chhattisgarh-493221

28.

5769695

20140616

M/s Malti Industries

Packaged drinking

14543

2004

In Front of Power

water (other than

House Rani

packaged natural

Durgawati Chowk,

mineral water)-

Pendra Road, Bilaspur,

Chhattisgar-495117

29.

5771076

20140616

Jindal Steel and Power

53 grade ordinary

12269

1987

Limited

portland cement

Post Box No. 16,

Kharsia Road, District-Raigarh,

Chhattisgarh-496001

30.

5771177

20140616

Jindal Steel and Power

43 grade ordinary

8112

2013

Limited

portland cement

Post Box No. 16,

Kharsia Road, District-Raigarh,

Chhattisgarh-496001

31.

5771379

20140509

Epic Alloy Steel Pvt.

Carbon steel cast billet

2830

2012

Ltd.

ingots, billets, blooms

132 D, Jindal

and slabs for re-rolling

Industrial Park,

into steel for general

Punjipathra,

structural purposes

District-Raigarh,

Chhattisgarh-496111

32.

5778595

20140807

Anjani Steels Ltd.,

Carbon steel cast billet

2830

2012

Vill-Ujalpur,

ingots, billets, blooms

Post-Gerwani,

and slabs for re-rolling

Tehasil-Ghargora,

into steel for general

District-Raigarh,

structural purposes

Chhattisgarh-496001

33.

5778696

20140725

Balajee Structurals

Carbon steel cast billet

2830

2012

(India) Limited

ingots, billets, blooms

Ring Road No. 2,

and slabs for re-rolling

Tatibandh

into steel for general

District-Raipur

structural purposes

Chhattisgarh

34.

5782990

20140807

P.S. Steel Tubes

Steel tubes for

3601

2006

Ltd.,

mechanical and

Vill. Tedesara,

general engineering

P.O. Somni,

purposes

Distict: Rajnandgaon,

Chhattisgarh-491441

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2633

35.

5785087

20140825

Vandana Global Ltd.

High strength

1786

2008

Siltara Industrial

deformed steel bars

Area, Phase II,

and wires for concrete

Siltara,

reinforcement

District: Raipur

Chhattisgarh-493221

36.

5786190

20140827

Shri Bajrang Power

High strength

1786

2008

Ispat Ltd.

deformed steel bars

Vill-Barjhara, Guma

and wires for concrete

Road, Industrial

reinforcement

Area, Raipur,

Chhattisgarh-493221

37.

5786796

20140828

Shri Hardeo

Unplasticized

14735

1999

Industries

polyvinyl chloride

P.H. No. 39, Khasra

(upvc) injection

No. 400/1, 400/2,

moulded fittings for

401/1, 401/2, 401/3,

soil and waste

401/4, Vill-Baronda,

discharge system for

Tehsil-Tilda, Raipur

inside and outisde

Chhattisgarh-493885

buildings including

ventilation and rain

water system

38.

5786897

20140826

Agrawal Channel

Hot Rolled Medium

2062

2011

Mills Pvt. Ltd.

and High Tensile

Plot No. 34-35,

Structural Steel-

Phase-II, Industrial

Specification

Growth Centre, Siltara,

Dharsiva Block, Raipur,

Chhattisgarh-493111

39.

5787697

20140828

Vaytree Industries

Packaged drinking

14543

2004

Vill-Padmi,

water (other than

Post-Bemetara,

packaged natural

Tahsil-Than

mineral water)-

Khamriya, District-Kawardha,

Chhattisgarh-491335

40.

5787798

20140901

Sradha Saburi

Packaged drinking

14543

2004

Enterprises

water (other than

Satyam Bihar, Raipur

packaged natural

Chhattisgarh-492013

mineral water)-

41.

5792084

20140826

Shriram Rolling Mill

Carbon steel cast billet

2830

2012

Plot No. 13-B (Part),

ingots, billets, blooms

Industrial Area,

and slabs for re-rolling

Rawabhata, Block

into steel for general

Dharsiva, Raipur,

structural purposes

Chhattisgarh-492001

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

42.

5796799

20140901

Gravity Ferrous Pvt.

Carban steel cast billet

2831

2012

Ltd.

ignots, billets, blooms

259/9, Kanhera

and slabs for re-rolling

Road, Vill-Accholi

into low tensile

Dharsiva Mandal,

structural steel-

Urla, Raipur,

Chhattisgarh-492023

43.

5797094

20140917

Shri Hardeo

Unplasticized PVC

4985

2000

Industries

Pipes for Potable

P.H. No. 39, Khasra

Water Supplies-

No. 400/1, 400/2,

Specification

401/1, 401/2, 401/3, 401/4,

Vill.-Baronda, Tehsil-Tilda,

District-Raipur,

Chhattisgarh-493885

44.

5798403

20140915

Vandana Global Ltd.

Hot Rolled Medium

2062

2011

Siltara Industrial

and High Tensile

Area, Phase II,

Structural Steel-

Siltara, Raipur

Specification

Chhattisgarh-493221

45.

5798909

20140917

Ishwar Ispat

Hot Rolled Medium

2062

2011

Industries (P) Ltd.

and High Tensile

Plot No. 168,Urla

Structural Steel-

Industrial Complex,

Specification

Urla, Raipur,

Chhattisgarh-493221

46.

5799910

20140924

Steel Authority of

Steel ingots, blooms

8952

1995

India Ltd.

and billets for

Bhilai Steel Plant,

production of mild

Bhilai,

steel wire rods for

District-Durg,

general engineering

Chhattisgarh-490001

purposes

47.

5801665

20140924

Amarchand

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Ganeshmal Sadar

jewellery/artefacts-

Bazar, Raipur

fineness and marking-

Chhattisgarh-492001

48.

5803568

20141009

Vikas Industry

Packaged drinking

14543

2004

32/2, Mukesh Nikunj,

water (other than

Behind BJP Office,

packaged natural

Civil Line, Baloda

mineral water)-

Bazar,

Chhattisgarh-493332

49.

5804570

20141013

Shree Ji Minerals &

Common salt - iron

12981

1991

Nutrients

fortified

At - Doude-Khurd,

Baloda Bazar Road,

Chhattisgarh-493332

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2635

50.

5812468

20141020

Zeon Sponge &

Carbon steel cast billet

2830

2012

Power (P) Ltd.

ingots, billets, blooms

Vill.- Amlidih, Post-

and slabs for re-rolling

Bhalumar,

into steel for general

District-Raigarh

structural purposes

Chhattisgarh-496001

51.

5812670

20141111

Supreme Industries

Naphthalene

539

1974

Plot No. 12/F & F1,

Heavy Industrial

Area - Hathkhoj, Bhilai,

District-Durg,

Chhattisgarh-490024

52.

5812771

20141112

Gujarat Timber

Block boards

1659

2004

Industries Pvt Ltd

80, Industrial Area,

Urla, Raipur

Chhattisgarh-493221

53.

5812872

20141112

Gujarat Timber

Plywood for general

303

1989

Industrial Pvt. Ltd.

purposes

80, Industrial Area,

Urla, Raipur,

Chhattisgarh-493221

54.

5819482

20141128

Rigga PVC Industries

Conduits for electrical

9537

3

1983

Plot No. 27-

installations: part 3

28 (Part),

rigid plain conduits of

Bhanpuri Industrial

insulating materials

Area, Raipur

(susperseding is: 2509)

Chhattisgarh-492001

55.

5900000107 20141203

Ashok Jindal Plywood

Plywood for general

303

1989

Pvt. Ltd.

purposes

Ph. No. 10/13,

Khasra No. 160,161

162, 163/1, 163/2,16

4, 165 167 & 168

Vill.-Mohkakhurd,

Tehsil - Patan,

Bhilai District- Durg,

Chhattisgarh-490006

56.

5900000208 20141203

Regal Products

Packaged drinking

14543

2004

835/61, Ram Nagar,

water (other than

Gali No.2, Raipur

packaged natural

Chhattisgarh-492001

mineral water)-

57.

5900000309 20141203

Ravi Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

C-203, Nahata

jewellery/artefacts-

Market, Sadar Bazar,

fineness and marking-

Raipur,

Chhattisgarh-492001

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

58.

5900000410 20141205

Padmini Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

128, S.S. Plaza,

jewellery/artefacts-

P.H. Road, Korba,

fineness and marking-

Chhattisgarh-495678

59.

5900000511 20141218

Shubh Designer

Gold and gold alloys.

1417

1999

Jewellery, Baid

jewellery/artefacts-

Market, Sadar Bazar,

fineness and marking-

Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492001

Specification

60.

5900000612 20141217

Surva Minerals

Packaged drinking

14543

2004

Vill.- Bayang,

water (other than

Post. - Nandeli,

packaged natural

District-Raigarh

mineral water)-

Chhattisgarh-496001

61.

5900000705 20141219

Manu Bhai Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Kotwali Chowk,

jewellery/artefacts-

Sadar Bazar, Raipur

fineness and marking-

Chhattisgarh

Specification

62.

5900000806 20141219

Arihant Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Gandhi War,

jewellery/artefacts-

Mahaveer Swami

fineness and marking-

Chowk, Mungeli,

Specification

Chhattisgarh-495334

63.

5900000907 20141230

Laxmi Beverages

Packaged drinking

14543

2004

Vill.- Bhakura,

Water (other than

P.O. - Parsa,

packaged natural

Tehsil-Ambikapur,

mineral water)-

District-Surguja,

Chhattisgarh-497001

64.

5900001008 20141219

Bhagyalaxmi Pumps

Submersible pumpsets

8034

2002

& Agro Solution

Specification

Panchsheel Gali,

Bramha Road,

Ambikapur District - Surguja,

Chhattisgarh-497001

65.

5900001109 20150101

Sri Balmukund

Textiles-high density

14887

2000

Poly pack Pvt. Ltd.

polyethylene

Plot No. 1 to 7,

(hdpe)/polypropylene

Industrial Area, Urla

(pp) woven sacks for

Extension, Tendua

packing 50 kg/25 kg

School Road, Tendua

foodgrains-Specification

School road,

District, Raipur-

Chhattisgarh-492099

66.

5900001210 20150105

B.P. Water Plant

Packaged drinking

14543

2004

Vill. - Kokadi, Tehsil-

water (other than

Baloda Bazar,

packaged natural

District-Baloda

mineral water)-

Bazar, Chhatthsgarh-493332

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2637

67.

5900001311 20150106

Krihna Iron Strips

Hollow steel sections

4923

1997

and Tubes Pvt. Ltd.

for structural use-

Plot No. 813-821A,

Specification

Urla Insdustrial Area,

Sarora, Raipur

Chhattisgarh-493221

68.

5900001412 20150107

Balajee Loha Pvt Ltd

Structural Steel

15911

2010

239/248C, Urla,

Ordanery Quality

Industrial Area Raipur,

Specification

Chhatthsgarh-493221

69.

5900001505 20150112

Shri Hardeo

Specification for

Industries

UPVC pipes for soil

13592

2013

P.H. No. 39, Khasra

and waste discharge

No. 400/1, 400/2

systems inside

401/1, 401/2, 401/3,

building including

401/4,

ventilation and

Vill.- Baronda,

rainwater system

Tehsil-Tilda, Raipur,

Chhattisgarh-493885

70.

5900001606 20150109

Shri Ram Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

G-10, G B Plaza

jewellery/artefacts-

(Girdhar Bhawan),

fineness and marking-

Sadar Bazar, Raipur,

Specification

Chhattisgarh-492001

71.

5900001707 20150123

Crystal Polyworks Pvt.

Conduits for electrical

9537

3

1983

Ltd.

installations: part 3

Plot No. 638,

rigid plain conduits of

Industrial Area, Urla,

insulating materials

Raipur,

(superseding is:2509)

Chhattisgarh-493221

72.

5900001808 20150218

Bajrang Beverages

Packaged drinking

14543

2004

Vill.-Pandripani,

water (other than

Post-Kond Tarai,

packaged natural

District - Raigarh

mineral water)-

Chhattisgarh-496001

73.

5900001909 20150219

Shailesh Kumar &

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Bros

jewellery/artefacts-

Sadar Bazar, Raipur

fineness and marking-

Chhattisgarh-492001

Specification

74.

5900002010 20150220

P.S. Steel Tubes Ltd.

Hollow steel sections

4923

1997

Vill.-Tedesara,

for structural use-

Post. - Somni,

Specification

District-Rajnandgaon

Chhattisgarh-491441

75.

5900002111 20150223

Sinthal Poolymers

Specification for

13592

2013

Pvt. Ltd.

UPVC pipes for soil

46-47, CSIDC

and waste discharge

Industrial Estate,

systems inside

Birkoni, District-

buildings including

Mahasamund,

ventilation and

Chhattisgarh-493445

rainwater system

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2638

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

76.

5900002212 20150218

SR Suresh Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Near, Sumeet

jewellery/artefacts-

Jewellers, Malviya

fineness and marking-

Road, Raipur

Specificaties

Chhattisgarh-492001

77.

5900002305 20150226

JK Lakshmi Cement

43 grade ordinary

8112

2013

Ltd

portland cement

Vill.-Malpuri Khurd,

Khasadih,

Post-Ahiwara, Tehsil-Dhamdha,

District-Durg,

Chhattisgarh-490036

78.

5900002406 20150226

JK Lakshmi Cement

Specification for

455

1989

Ltd

Portland slag cement

Vill.-Malpuri Khurd,

Khasadih,

Post-Ahiwara, Tehsil-Dhamdha,

District-Durg,

Chhattisgarh-490036

79.

5900002507 20150226

JK Lakshmi Cement

Portland pozzolana

1489

1

1991

Ltd

cement part 1 flyash

Vill.-Malpuri Khurd,

based

Khasadih, Post-Ahiwara,

Tehsil-Dhamdha, District-Durg,

Chhattisgarh-490036

80.

5900002608 20150305

Nutan Ispat & Power

High strength

1786

2008

(P) Ltd.

deformed steel bars

Village-Jarouda,

and wires for concrete

Post Jarouda,

reinforcement

Kharora Road, Block

Dharshiwa District: Raipur,

Chhattisgarh-493111

81.

5900002709 20150325

API Ispat and

Carbon steel cast billet

2831

2012

Powertech (P) Ltd.

ignots, billets, blooms

Industrial Growth

and slabs for re-rolling

Centre, Phase-II

into low tensile

Siltara, Raipur

structural steel-

Chhattisgarh-493111

82.

5900002810 20150325

API Ispat and

Carbon steel cast billet

2830

2012

Powertech (P) Ltd

ingots, billets, blooms

Industrial Growth

and slabs for re-rolling

Centre, Phase-II,

into steel for general

Siltara, Raipur

structural purposes

Chhattisgarh-493111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2639

83.

5900002911 20150323

A.S. Jwellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

B-201, Nahata

jewellery/artefacts-

Market,

fineness and marking-

Sadar Bazar, Raipur

Chhattisgarh-492001

84.

5900003012 20150331

Indra PVC Pvt. Ltd.

Specification for

12818

2010

Village Bhagwanpur,

unplasticized PVC

Tehsil-Ambikapur,

Screen and casing

Plot No. 127,

pipes for

District-Surguja

bore/tubewell

Chhattisgarh-497001

85.

5900003105 20150331

Maruti Ferrous (P) Ltd.

Carbon steel cast billet

2830

2012

Gram-Sondra,

ingots, billets, blooms

Dharsiva,

and slabs for re-rolling

Raipur,

into steel for general

Chhattisgarh-493221

structural purpose

[No. CMD/13:11]

S. BHOWAL, Scientist-E & Head

ubZ fnYYkh] 11 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1262-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk

vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] dks ykblsal jí fd, x, gSa%

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

ykblsalèkjh dk uke ,oa

ykblsal ds varxZr

jí@LFkfxr djus

lañ

uañ

irk

oLrq@izØe lEc) Hkkjrh;

dh frfFk

ekud dk 'kh"kZd

NIL

NIL

NIL

NIL

NIL

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

,l Hkkoky] oSKkfud&bZ ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2015

S.O. 1262.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

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

been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each.

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences

Name & Address of the

Article/Process with

Date

No.

No.

Licensee

relevant Indian Standards

Cancellation

CML-

covered by the licence

cancelled/suspension

NIL

NIL

NIL

NIL

NIL

[No. CMD/13:11]

S. BHOWAL, Scientist-E & Head

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYYkh] 19 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1263-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`fr djus

ykblsalèkjh dk uke ,oa irk

Hkkjrh; ekud

Hkkek lañ@

la[;k

la[;k

dh frfFk

dk 'kh"kZd

Hkkx@[k.M@

o"kZ@ekg

o"kZ

1

2

3

4

5

6

1-

7800000908 02@03@2015

xq:d`ik bjhxs'ku izkñfyñ

flapkbZ miLdj & flapkbZ ySVjyksa gsrq

Hkkñekñ 12786% 1989

IykWV lañ Mh & 102] ,evkbZMhlh ,fj;k]

ikWyhfFkyhu ikbZi

voèku] èqys & 424001

2-

7800001009 02@03@2015

xq:d`ik bjhxs'ku izkñfyñ

mRltZu ikbZi iz.kkyh

Hkkñekñ 13488%2008

IykWV lañ Mh & 102] ,evkbZMhlh ,jh;k

voèku] èqys & 424001

3-

7800001110 03@03@2015

ljLorh ok;j ,oa dscYl b.MLVªht

1100 oks rd ,oa lfgr dk;Zdkjh

Hkkñekñ 694% 1990

IykWV lañ lh & 1] Øe lañ 4712]

oksYVrk ds fy, ih oh lh jksfèr

osowj xkao] iksLV] euksj jksM]

dscy

ikyèj]iwoZ] ftyk] Bk.ks&401 404

4-

7800001211 03@03@2015

eaxy ikWyhlSd izkñfyñ

oL=kfn&ty vojksèd ijr p<+k mPp Hkkñekñ 15351% 2008

ch&144@133] LVkbl eqlyxkao]

?uo ikyhbFkkbyhu ¼,pñMhñihñbZñ½

rkyqdk% flUuj

dk cquk gqvk diM+k ¼Hkw&esEcjsu½

ftyk % ukfld & 422103

egkjk"Vª

5-

7800001312 04@03@2015

Q;wtu vIykbvWUlsl

fctyh ds ?kjsyw [kk| feDlj

Hkkñ ekñ 4250% 1980

;wfuV lañ 14 15] fcfYaMx lañ Mh 8]

¼nzohij vkSj xzkbMj½

Hkweh oMZ] fiEiykl xkao]

ukfld ck; ikl jksM] us'kuy gkbZos 3]

fHko.Mh] ftyk Bk.ks&421302

6-

7800001607 09@03@2015

jfofdj.k ekdsZfVax ,.M bUQzkLVªDpj

eykbZjfgr nwè ikoMj

Hkkñ ekñ 13334%

MsoyiesaV izkñfyñ] xV lañ 328@1]

Hkkx 1 1980

,uñ,pñ lañ 3] ljon xkao]

ftyk èqys&424307

7-

7800001413 10@03@2015

xaèkyhdj ,xzksVsd izkñfyñ

mRltZu ikbZi iz.kkyh

Hkkñ ekñ 13488 % 2008

IykWV lañVh & 15] ckHkys QkVk]

ujnksuk ,evkbZMhlh] f'kan[ksMk]

èqys 424309

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2641

8-

7800001514 10@03@2015

xaèkyhdj ,xzksVsd izkñfyñ

flapkbZ miLdj & flapkbZ ySVjyksa gsrq

Hkkñ ekñ 12786 % 1980

IykWV lañ Vh & 15] ckHkys QkVk]

ikWyhfFkyhu ikbZi

ujnksuk ,evkbZMhlh] f'kan[ksMk]

èqys 424309

9-

7800001708 17@03@2015

ekbØks vIykbvWUlsl

fctyh ds ?kjsyw [kk| feDlj

Hkkñ ekñ 4250 % 1980

1@6] iqjkuk fl)kFkZ uxj]

¼nzohij vkSj xzkbaMj½

izcksèu ØhMk ekxZ

jksM la 9] xksjsxkao if'pe

eqacbZ&400104

10- 7800001809 17@03@2015

M;wjWcy gkse vIykbvWUlsl

fctyh ds ?kjsyw [kk| feDlj

Hkkñ ekñ 4250% 1980

110&111] deyk Hkou]

¼nzohij vkSj xzkbaMj½

'kekZ b.Mñ bLVsV] xksjsxkao iwoZ]

eqacbZ&400063

11- 7800002314 17@03@2015

fot; lczs lsQVh fyñ ¼;wfuV 1½

'olu laj{kh midj.k esa iz;qDr xSl

Hkkñ ekñ 15323 % 2003

IykWV lañ 11] losZ lañ 46@1 ih]

fQYVj vkSj ;kSfxd fQYVj

neu xaxk b.M-ñ bLVsV] vFky

flyoklk fHkykM jksM

flyoklk&396230

nknjk uxj gosyh

12- 7800001910 18@03@2015

eWxue esfMds;j izkñfyñ

fpfdRlk oLrzkfn & 'kY;d

Hkkñ ekñ 16289 %2014

;wfuV lañ 21]22]23 ry eafty

eqf[kdk udkc

lqfize bLVsV] losZ lañ 14] ,pñ lañ 2]

nsony xkao] olbZ iwoZ

ftyk Bk.ks] egkjk"Vª&401203

13- 7800002011 19@03@2015

vkfnukFk dscYl

1100 oksYV rd dk;Zdkjh oksYVrk ds Hkkñ ekñ 1554

IykWV lañ 86] fnoku ,.M

ds fy, ih oh lh jksfèr ¼Hkkjh M~;wVh½ ¼Hkkx 1 1½ % 1988

lUl b.M- bLVsV] vfy;kyh xkao]

fo|qr dscy

iky?kj&401404

14- 7800002112 23@03@2015

lwjt IykLV

fo|qr laLFkkiuksa ds fy, ufydk,a

Hkkñ ekñ 9537 %

IykWV lañ 124] fp[kyksyh ,evkbZMhlh]

Hkkx 3 fo|qrjksèh lkexzh ds n`<+

Hkkx 3 1983

vacjukFk b.Mñ ,jh;k]

lkns bLikr ufydk,a

vacjukFk if'pe

ftyk Bk.ks&421505

15- 7800002213 24@03@2015

dseVªksy b.MLVªht fyñ

,DlIyksflo ,sVeWfLQvlZ & Hkkx & 1 Hkkñekñ@vk;bZlh 60079%

IykWV lañ vkj 24] ,evkbZMhlh]

QyseizwQ buDykstj ^Mh* }kjk miLdj Hkkx & 1 2007

jckys] VhVhlh b.M- ,jh;k]

laj{kk

Bk.ks csykiqj jksM]

uoh eqacbZ&400701

1

2

3

4

5

6

2642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

16- 7800002407 31@03@2015

,S'o;kZ b.MLVªht

fctyh ds ?kjsyw [kk| feDlj

Hkkñ ekñ 4250 % 1980

xkyk lañ , 18] fMflYok ckx

¼nzohij vkSj xzkbaMj½

vaèsjh ?kkVdksij ¯yd jksM]

vlYQk ?kkVdksij if'pe

eqacbZ&400 084

17- 7800002508 31@03@2015

th ukbu eksM;wyj izkñfyñ ;wfuV II

fo|qr iz;kstuksa ds fy, nkc lqxzkgh

Hkkñ ekñ 7809

IykWV lañ 11@12] losZ lañ 77@2]

vklatu'khy fo|qrjksèh Vsi & Hkkx 3% ¼Hkkx 3½ % [kaM 1% 1986

lkrhoyh jksM] b.M- bLVsV ds ihNs]

vyx vyx lkefxz;ksa dh vis{kk,a [kaM 1%

okyho QkVk olbZ] ftyk Bk.ks&401208

vrkiekih vklatu'khy okys lq?kFV;r

ikWyhfoukbyDyksjkbM Vsi

18- 7800002609 31@03@2015

vksaedkj byDVªkWfuDl]

1100 oks rd ,oa lfgr dk;Zdkjh

Hkkñ ekñ 694% 1990

ch & 62] vij vacjukFk] ,evkbZMhlh]

oksYVrk ds fy, ih oh lh jksfèr dscy

vkuanuxj] vacjukFk iwoZ

Bk.ks&421506

19- 7800002710 31@03@2015

Msdksj bysDVªhdYl

?kjsyw vkSj leku iz;kstuksa ds fy,

Hkkñ ekñ 3854 % 1997

jsM~Mh daikm.M] oyukbZ dkyksuh]

fLop

Vsjsl Ldwy ds lkeus]

ekykM if'pe

eqacbZ&400 064

[lañ dsanzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11]

Vhñ dySok.ku] izeq[k ¼,e;wchvks & bZbZbZ½

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015

S.O. 1263.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

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

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence No.

Grant

Name and address (factory)

Product

IS No./Part./Sec. Year

No.

Date

of the party

1

2

3

4

5

6

1.

7800000908

02/03/2015

Gurukripa Irrigation Pvt. Ltd.

Irrigation equipment -

IS 12786 : 1989

Plot No. S-102 MIDC Area,

polyethylene pipes for

Awadhan

irrigation laterals-

Dhule - 424001

2.

7800001009

02/03/2015

Gurukripa Irrigation Pvt. Ltd.

Emmitting pipes system

IS 13488 : 2008

Plot No. D-102, MIDC Area,

Awadhan, Dhule - 424001

3.

7800001110

03/03/2015

Saraswati Wires & Cables Industries

PVC Insulated Cables for

IS 694 : 1990

Plot No. C-1, Sl. No. 47/2,

Working Voltages upto and

Vevoor Village Post Manor Road,

including 1100 V IS 694 : 1990

Palghar (E)

Thane - 401404

1

2

3

4

5

6

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2643

4.

7800001211

03/03/2015

Mangal Ploysacks Pvt. Ltd

Textiles - laminated high density IS 15351 : 2008

B-144/133, Stice Musalgaon

polyethylene (hdpe) fabric for

Tal:Sinnar

canal lining -

Dist: Nashik - 422103

Maharashtra

5.

7800001312

04/03/2015

Fusion Appliances LLP

Domestic Electric Food-Mixers

IS 4250 : 1980

Unit No. 14/15, BLDG No. D-8,

(Liquidizes and Grinders)

Bhumi World, At pimplas Village,

Nashik by Pass Road (NH 3),

Bhiwandi Distt : Thane - 421302

6.

7800001607

09/03/2015

Ravikiran Marketing &

Skimmed milk powder - part 1:

IS 13334 : Part 1 : 2014

Infrastructurer Dev Pvt Ltd

standard grade

Gat No. 328/1/1, N.H. 3, Village

Sarvad, Distt: Dhule-424307

7.

7800001413

10/03/2015

Gandhalikar Agrotech Pvt Ltd

Emitting pipes system

IS 13488 : 2008

Plot No. T-15, Babhale Phata,

Nardana MIDC,

Shindkheda

Dhule - 424309

8.

7800001514

10/03/2015

Gandhalikar Agrotech Pvt Ltd

Irrigation equipment -

IS 12786 : 1989

Plot No. T-15, Babhale Phata,

polyethylene pipes for

Nardana MIDC,

irrigation laterals-

Shindkheda

Dhule - 424309

9.

7800001708

17/03/2015

Micro Appliances

Domestic Electric Food-Mixers

IS 4250 : 1980

1/6, Old Siddharth Nagar,

(Liquidizes and Grinders)

Prabhodhn

Krida Marg, Road No. 9

Goregaon West,

Mumbai - 400104

10. 7800001809

17/03/2015

Durable Home Appliances

Domestic Electric Food-Mixers

IS 4250 : 1980

110-111, Kamala Bhawan,

(Liquidizes and Grinders)

Sharma Indl. Estate, Goregaon (E),

Mumbai - 400063

11. 7800002314

17/03/2015

Vijay Sabre Safety Limited (Unit-1)

Gas filters and combined filters

IS 15323 : 2003

Plot No. 11, Survey No. 46/1 P,

used in Respiratory protective .

Daman Ganga Industrial Estate,

equipment

Athal, Silvassa-Bhilad Road,

Silvassa - 396230

Distt : Dadra and Nagar Haveli,

12. 7800001910

18/03/2015

Magnum Medicare Pvt. Ltd.

Medical Textiles - Surgical Face

IS 16289 : 2014

Unit No. 21,22,23, Ground Floor,

Masks

Supreme Estate,

Survey No. 14, H. No. 2,

Village Devdal, Vasai - East

Dist. Thane, Maharashtra - 401203

1

2

3

4

5

6

2644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13. 7800002011

19/03/2015

Aadinath Cables

Pvc insulated (heavy duty)

IS 1554 : Part 1:1988

Plot No. 86, Dewan & Sons,

electric cables: part 1 for working

Industrial Estate, Village Aliyali,

voltages upto and including

Palghar, Thane - 401404

1 100 v

14. 7800002112

23/03/2015

Suraj Plast

Conduits for electrical

IS 9537:Part 3:1983

Plot No. 124, Chikhloli MIDC,

installations: Part 3 Rigid palin

Ambernath Indl Area,

conduits of insulating materials.

Ambernath (W) Distt: Thane-421505

15. 7800002213

24/03/2015

Chemtrols Industries Limited

Explosive atmospheres part I

IS/IEC 60079:

Plot No. R 24, MIDC, Rabale,

equipment protection by

Part 1 2007

TTC Industrial Area, Thane-

flameproof enclosures "d"

Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai-400701

16. 7800002407

31/03/2015

Aishwarya Industries

Domestic Electric Food-Mixers

IS 4250:1980

Gala No. A/8, D-Silva Baug,

(Liquidizes and Grinders)

Andheri- Ghatkopar Link Road,

Asalfa, Ghatkopar (W)

Mumbai - 400084

17. 7800002508

31/03/2015

G. Nine Modular Pvt. Ltd. - Unit II

Pressure sensitive adhesive

IS 7809:Part 3: Sec 1

Plot No. 11/12, Survey No. 77/2,

insulating tapes for electrical

1986

Sativali Road, Behind Indl Estate,

purposes - part 3: requirements

Waliv Phata, Vasai

for individual materials -

Distt: Thane - 401208

section 1: plasticized

polyvinylchoride tapes with

non-thermosetting adhesive

18. 7800002609

31/03/2015

Omkar Electronics

PVC insulated cables for working IS 694 : 1990

B-62, Additional Ambernath MIDC, Voltages upto and including

Anandnagar, Ambernath (E)

1100 V IS 694:1990

Distt:Thane - 421506

19. 7800002710

31/03/2015

Decore Electricals

Switches for domestic and

IS 3854:1997

Reddy Compound, Valnai Colony,

similar purposes

Opp: Terace School, Malad (W),

Mumbai - 400064

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)

ubZ fnYyh] 19 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1264-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mifofu;e ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gS] os jn~n dj fn, x, gSa%µ

vuqlwph

Øe ykblsal

ykblsalèkjh dk uke ,oa irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc)

jn~n djus dh frfFk

la[;k la[;k

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

1-

3822259

xksYM vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku ¼flyoklk½

Hkkñ ekñ 335%199

04@03@2015

IykWV lañ 5] losZ lañ 207@5]

u;s fo|qr jksèu rsy

foyst mejdqy flyoklk & 396230

[lañ dsanzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%13]

Vhñ dySok.ku] izeq[k ¼,e ;w ch vks & bZbZbZ½

1

2

3

4

5

6

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2645

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015

S.O. 1264.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

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

following schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Name and address of the licensee

Article/process with relevant

Date of

No.

No.

Indian standard covered by the Licence

cancellation

1.

3822259

Gold Oil Corporation (Silvassa)

IS 335:1993

04/03/2015

Plot No. 5, Survey No. 207/5,

New insulating oils

Village Umarkul,

Silvassa - 396230

[No. CMD/13:13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)

ubZ fnYyh] 19 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1265-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gS] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%µ

vuqlwph

Øe ykblsal

Lohd`fr djus

ykblsalèkjh dk uke ,oa irk

Hkkjrh; ekud

Hkkek lañ@

la[;k la[;k

dh frfFk

dk 'kh"kZd

Hkkx@[k.M@

o"kZ@ekg

o"kZ

1

2

3

4

5

6

1- 7800002811 01@04@2015 Qkrh tujy bZfDoiesaV izkñ fyñ

,DlIyksflo ,sVeWfLQvlZ & Hkkx & 1

Hkkñek@vk;bZlh 60079%

IykWV la- 2 ,oa 3 tokgj baMfLVª;y bLVsV

QyseizwQ buDykstj ^Mh* }kjk

Hkkx & 1% 2007

deksBs] iuosy ftyk jk;x<+ & 4102209 miLdj laj{kk

2- 7800003013 13@04@2015 _`f"k VsdVsYl fy

d`f"k vkSj ckxokuh iz;kstu gsrq

Hkkñekñ 16008 % 2012

losZ lañ&381 ”kjh dkslos jksM

d`f"k&oL=knh & vkHkk tkyh

dkfpxe neu & 396210

3- 7800002912 15@04@2015 LVsyesd fy

,lh LVkVhd O;Vvoj feVj] Js.kh

Hkkñ ekñ 13779% 1999

IykWV lañ 14@15 ,u ,p lañ&8

1 ,oa 2

lrhoyh olbZ iwoZ

ftYgk Bk.ks & 401208

4- 7800003308 15@4@2015

'kkyhekj isUVl fyfeVsM

rS;kj fefJr jaxjksxu] ok;q 'kq"d]

Hkkñ ekñ 2074% 1992

ukfld & eqcabZ jksM xksUMs xkao

yky vksDlkbZM f”kad Økse izkbfeax

rkyqdk bZxriqjh

ftyk ukfld&422403

5- 7800003114 17@4@2015

Hkwoky bUL;qys'ku dscy izkñ fyñ

oSfYMax dscYl

Hkkñ ekñ 9857% 1990

xkyk lañ 4 ,oa 5 vafdr b.M bLVsV

,e ,y ds b.M bLVsV ds utnhd

lrhoyh gkbos] xkensoh] lrhoyh]

olbZ&iwoZ] Bk.ks&401208

6- 7800003207 17@4@2015

lqijVsDl oksou baMLVªht+

oL=kfn&50 fdyksxzke vukt dh

Hkkñ ekñ 14887% 2014

168@179@180] nkHksy baMfLVª;y

iSdsftax ds fy, mPp ?kuRo

dks vkijsfVo lkslkbVh fyñ] nkHksy xkao

ikWyhfFkyhu ,pMhihbZ ikWyhizksihyhu

ftyk% neu&396210

¼ihih½ cquk cksjs

2646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7- 7800003409 23@4@2015

neu ikWyhQWc

oL=kfn&50 fdyksxzke vukt dh

Hkkñ ekñ 14887% 2014

losZ lañ 331@1] 2] 3] 4 vkSj 331@1,]

iSdsftax ds fy, mPp ?kuRo

dkphxke

ikWyhfFkyhu ,pMhihbZ ikWyhizksihyhu

neu&396210

¼ihih½ cquk cksjs

8- 7800003510 24@4@2015

th&ukbZu eksnqykj ekWM~;wyj izkñ fyñ

1100 oks rd ,oa lfgr dk;Zdkjh

Hkkñ ekñ 694% 1990

IykWV lañ 11@12] losZ lañ 7712

oksYVrk ds fy, ih oh lh jksfèr dscy

lrhoyh jksM izkbZM b.M bLVsV ds ihNs

okyho QkVk] olbZ] Bk.ks&401208

9- 7800003611 30@4@2015

xzkfl;k esVy izkñ fyñ

1100 oks rd ,oa lfgr dk;Zdkjh

Hkkñ ekñ 694% 1990

IykWV lañ 8@117@,&2] lhesaV QSDVjh ds

oksYVrk ds fy, ih oh lh jksfèr dscy

utnhd vkexko b.M ,fj;k] rykljh

ftyk% Bk.ks&401106

10- 7800003712 30@4@2015

vkslfou baMLVªht+

?kjsyq vkSj leku iz;kstuksa ds fy, fLop Hkkñ ekñ 3854% 1997

thñ uañ 27@28 igyk ekyk] U;w foax iVsy

b.M bLVsV] nfglj iqfyl LVs'ku ds lkeus]

vkl] ,l Ogh jksM] nfglj iwoZ

eqacbZ & 400068

[lañ dsanzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13% 11]

Vh- dySok.ku] izeq[k ¼,e;wchvks&bZbZbZ½

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015

S.O. 1265.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certifications)

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

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant

Name and address (factory) of the party

Product

IS No./Part/Sec Year

No.

No.

Date

1

2

3

4

5

6

1.

7800002811 01/04/2015

Fati General Equipments Pvt. Ltd.

Explosive atmospheres part 1

IS/IEC 60079:

Plot No. 2 & 3, Jawahar Indl. Estate, equipment protection by

Part I: 2007

Kamothe, Panvel

flameproof enclosures "d"

Distt: Raigad-410209

2.

7800003013 13/04/2015

Rishi Techtex Ltd.

Agro Textiles-Shade Nets for

IS 16008: 2012

Survey No. 381,

Agriculture Purpose

Zari Causeway Road, Kachigam

Daman-396210

3.

7800002912 15/04/2015

Stelmec Limited

Ac static watthour meters,

IS 13779: 1999

Plot No. 14/15, N, H, No. 8,

class 1 and 2

Sativali

Vasai(E), Distt. Thane-401208

4.

7800003308 15/04/2015

Shalimar Paints Limited

Ready mixed paint, air drying,

IS 2074: 1992

Nashik-Mumbai Road,

red oxide zinc chrome, priming

Village Gonde , Tal: Igatpuri

Dist: Nashik-422403

1

2

3

4

5

6

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2647

5.

7800003114 17/04/2015

Bhuwal Insulation Cable Pvt. Ltd.

Welding cables

IS 9857: 1990

Gala No. 4 & 5, Ankit Indl. Estate,

Near M.L.K. Indl Estate,

Sativali Highway, Gamdevi,

Sativali Vasai(E) Distt-Thane-401208

6.

7800003207 17/04/2015

Supertex Woven Industries

Textiles- high density

IS14887: 2014

168/179/180, Dabhel Industrial

polyethylene (hdpe)/

Co-op. SOC. Ltd. Village Dabhel

polypropylene(pp) woven

Distt: Daman-396210

sacks for packing 50 kg/25 kg

foodgrains

7.

7800003409 23/04/2015

Daman Polyfabs

Textiles- high density

IS 14887: 2014

Survey No. 331/1, 2, 3, 4 & 331/1A,

polyethylene (hdpe)/

Kachigam Daman

polypropylene(pp) woven

Daman & Diu-396210

sacks for packing 50 kg/25 kg

foodgrains

8.

7800003510 24/04/2015

G. Nine Modular Pvt. Ltd. - Unit II

Pvc insulated cables for working

IS 694: 2010

Plot No. 11/12, Survey No. 77/2,

voltages upto and including 1100v

Sativali Road, Behind pride

Indl. Estate, Waliv Phata Vasai

Distt: Thane-401208

9.

7800003611 30/04/2015

Gracia Metals Pvt. Ltd.

Pvc insulated cables for working

IS 694: 2010

Plot No. 8/117/A-2, Near Cement

voltages upto and including 1100v

Factory, Aamgaon Indl. Area

Talasari Distt: Thane-401106

10. 7800003712 30/04/2015

Oswin Industries

Switches for domestic and similar

IS 3854: 1997

G. No. 27/28, First Floor,

purposes

New Wing, Patel Industrial Estate,

Opp Dahisar Police Station, S.V. Rd.,

Dahisar (E) Mumbai-400068

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)

ubZ fnYyh] 19 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1266-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mifofu;e ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gS] os jn~n dj fn, x, gSa%&

vuqlwph

Øe ykblsal

ykblsalèkjh dk uke ,oa irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izde lEc)

jn~n djus dh frfFk

la-

la[;k

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

1

2

3

4

5

1-

0382848

Hkkjr fctyh fyfeVsM

Hkkñekñ 335 % 199

13@4@2015

iksLV ckWDl uañ 100 Bk.ks csykiqj jksM

u;s fo|qr jksèu rsy

dyok] ftyk Bk.ks&400601

1

2

3

4

5

6

2648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2-

7638286

,aik;j bySfDVªdy baMLVªht+

Hkkñekñ 335 % 199

13@4@2015

101] 102] 104] 26 gsek baMfLVª;y bLVsV

u;s fo|qr jksèu rsy

loksZn;k uxj tksxs'ojh iwoZ] eqacbZ&400060

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

Vhñ dySok.ku] izeq[k ¼,e;wchvks&bZbZbZ½

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015

S.O. 1266.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

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

following schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Name and address of the

Article/process with relevant

Date

No.

No.

Licensee

Indian standard covered by the

cancellation

Licence

1.

0382848

Bharat Bijlee Ltd.

IS 335 : 1993

13/04/2015

P.B. No. 100, Thane-Belapur Road,

New insulating oils

Kalwa

Distt: Thane-400601

2.

7638286

Empire Electrical Industries

IS 335 : 1993

13/04/2015

101, 102, 104, 26 Hema Indl Estate,

New insulating oils

Sarvodaya Nagar,

Jogeshwari (E)

Mumbai-400060

[No. CMD/13:13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)

ubZ fnYyh] 22 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1267-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gS] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%&

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`fr djus

ykblsalèkjh dk uke ,oa irk

Hkkjrh; ekud

Hkkek lañ@

la[;k

la[;k

dh frfFk

dk 'kh"kZd

Hkkx@[k.M@

o"kZ@ekg

o"kZ

1-

7800003813

01@05@2015

yw&ehu baMLVªht

?kjsyw vkSj leku iz;kstuksa

Hkkñekñ 3854 % 1997

xkyk uañ 124 fcfYMax uañ 3

ds fy, fLop

jkt izHkk ySaM ekdZ baMfLVª;y

bLVsV HkksbZMkikM+k] lrhokyh jksM

olbZ iwoZ] ftyk% Bk.ks&401208

2-

7800003914

08@05@2015

,idksl bafM;k izkñ fyñ

,lh ikoj ra=ksa ds fy, Lor% Hkkñekñ 13585 % Hkkx 1

IykWV lañ bZ&22 ls 25 rd

Bhd gksus okys 650 oksYV

1994

,evk;Mhlh ,fj;k lkriqj

rd dh jsVhr oksYVrk ds

ftyk% ukfld&422007

fy, ikoj laèkfj=

1

2

3

4

5

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2649

3-

7800004007

12@05@2015

ohj IykfLVd izkñ fyñ

oL=kfn & 50 fdyksxzke

Hkkñekñ 14887 % 2014

Øe lañ 90@1 IykWV lañ 1 ls 4

vukt dh iSdsftax ds fy,

foyst% dqaHkkjokMh ukjksyh

?kuRo ikWyhfFkyhu ,pMhihbZ

nknjk ,oa uxj gosyh

ikWyhizksihyhu ¼ihih½ cquk

cksjs

4-

7800004108

12@05@2015

inekorh bUVjizkbZtst

fctyh ds ?kjsyw [kk| feDlj Hkkñekñ 4250 % 1980

xkyk lañ 16] igyh eafty]

¼nzohij vkSj xzkbMj½

duky b.M- bLVsV

jksM lañ 6] nkSyr uxj]

eqacbZ&400066

5-

7800004209

12@05@2015

jhok baMLVªht

fctyh ds ?kjsyw [kk| feDlj Hkkñekñ 4250 % 1980

xkyk lañ 204] HkkÅjko m|ksx uxj

¼nzohij vkSj xzkbMj½

ch ih jksM la- 2

HkkbZUnj iwoZ ftyk% Bk.ks&401104

6-

7800004310

13@05@2015

n'kZd baMLVªht+

?kjsyw vkSj leku iz;kstuksa

Hkkñekñ 3854 % 1997

16 flag dEikm.M

ds fy, fLop

tksxs'ojh if'pe

eqacbZ&4001102

7-

7800004411

13@05@2015

jkt jru vIyk;alsl

fctyh ds ?kjsyw [kk|

Hkkñekñ 4250 % 1980

Jhiy baMfLVª;y bLVsV fcfYMax

feDlj ¼nzohij vkSj xzkbMj½

lañ 3 foax lh xkyk lañ 17]

X;kunhi Ldwy ds utnhd

olbZ iwoZ ftyk% Bk.ks&401208

8-

7800004512

13@05@2015

iou vIyk;alsl

fctyh ds ?kjsyw [kk|

Hkkñekñ 4250 % 1980

xksnke lañ , 9 ds oh dEikm.M

feDlj ¼nzohij vkSj xzkbMj½

lqanj Vkoj ds utnhd] Vh ts jksM

v'kksd xkMZu ds lkeus] lhojh]

eqacbZ&400015

9-

7800004613

15@05@2015

dksey baMLVªht+

?kjsyw vkSj leku iz;kstuksa

Hkkñekñ 3854 % 1997

xkyk lañ 116] jkt izHkk ySaM ekdZ

ds fy, fLop

baMfLVª;y bLVsV igyk ekyk]

fcfYMax uañ 3] lrhokyh jksM

olbZ iwoZ] ftyk% Bk.ks&401208

10-

7800004714

22@05@2015

LikdZ bZfjxs'ku izkñ fyñ

mRltZu ikbZi iz.kkyh

Hkkñekñ 13488 % 2008

xV lañ 332 rjlksn

ftyk% tyxkao&425003

11-

7800004815

22@05@2015

Xykscy ,aVjizkbZtst+

mRltZu ikbZi iz.kkyh

Hkkñekñ 13488 % 2008

IykW lañ ts&103 ,evk;Mhlh

ftyk% tyxkao&425003

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`fr djus

ykblsalèkjh dk uke ,oa irk

Hkkjrh; ekud

Hkkek lañ@

la[;k

la[;k

la[;k

dh frfFk

dk 'kh"kZd

Hkkx@[k.M@

o"kZ@ekg

o"kZ

2650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12-

7800004916

22@05@2015

Xykscy ,aVjizkbZtst+

flapkb± miLdj&flpkabZ

Hkkñekñ 12786 % 1989

IykWV lañ ts&103 ,evk;Mhlh

ySVjyksa gsrq ikWyhfFkyhu ikbZi

ftyk% tyxkao&425003

13-

7800005009

22@05@2015

nkrkj ukSosvkS ,usjtsVsdfud fyñ

vof'k"V èkjk izpkfyr

Hkkñekñ 12640 % Hkkx 2%

bZ&56 xzkmaM ch ,evk;Mhlh vackM+ ifjiFk&lexz vfrèkjk

2008@vkbbZlh

ftyk% ukfld&422010

lqj{kk lfgr ?kjsyw

61009&1%

vkSj leku mi;ksx ds

1996

fy, czsdlZ

[lañ dsanzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11]

Vhñ dySok.ku] izeq[k ¼,e;wchvks&bZbZbZ½

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015

S.O. 1267.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

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

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant

Name and address (factory)

Product

IS No./Part/Sec/

No.

No.

Date

of the party

Year

1.

7800003813

01/05/2015

LU-min Industries

Switches for domestic

IS 3854 : 1997

Gala No. 124 Building No. 3

and similar Purposes

Raj Prabha Land Mark Industrial

Estate, Bhohida

Pada, Sativali Road

Vasai (East)

Distt: Thane-401208

2.

7800003914

08/05/2015

Epcos India Pvt. Ltd.

Shunt capacitors of non

IS 13585:

E-22 to 25, MIDC, Satpur

self healing

Part I : 1994

Distt-Nasik-422007

type for ac power systems

having a rated voltage

upto and including 650 v

3.

7800004007

12/05/2015

Veer Plastics Pvt. Ltd.

Textiles - High Density

IS 14887: 2014

Survey No. 90/1, Plot No. 1

Polyethylene (HDPE)/

to 4, Village

Polypropylene (PP) Woven

Kumbharwadi, Naroli

Sacks for packaging 50 kg.

Dadra and Nagar Haveli-396230

Food grains

4.

7800004108

12/05/2015

Padmavati Enterprises

Domestic Electric Food-Mixers

IS 4250: 1980

Gala No. 16, First Floor,

(Liquidizes and Grinders)

Kanal Indl Estate,

Road No. 6, Daulat Nagar,

Borivali (E)

Mimbai- 400066

5.

7800004209

12/05/2015

Riva Industries

Domestic Electric Food-Mixers

IS 4250: 1980

Gala No. 204, Bhaurao

(Liquidizes and Grinders)

Udyog Nagar, B.P.

Cross Road No. 2

Bhayander (E)

Distt-Thane-401104

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`fr djus

ykblsalèkjh dk uke ,oa irk

Hkkjrh; ekud

Hkkek lañ@

la[;k

la[;k

la[;k

dh frfFk

dk 'kh"kZd

Hkkx@[k.M@

o"kZ@ekg

o"kZ

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2651

6.

7800004310

13/05/2015

Darshak Industries

Switches for domestic and

IS 3854 : 1997

16, Singh Compound,

similar purposes

Jogeshwari (W)

Mumbai-400102

7.

7800004411

13/05/2015

Raj Ratan Appliances

Domestic Electric Food-Mixers

IS 4250 : 1980

Shripal Industrial Estate,

(Liquidizes and Grinders)

Bldg No. 3, Wing C,

Gala No. 17, Near

Gyandeep School

Vasai(E)

Distt. Thane-401208

8.

7800004512

13/05/2015

Pavan Appliances

Domestic Electric Food-Mixers

IS 4250 : 1980

Godown No. 9, K.V.

(Liquidizes and Grinders)

Compound, Near

Sunder Tower, T.J. Road,

Opp: Asoke Garden, Sewree

Mumbai-400015

9.

7800004613

15/05/2015

Komal Industries

Switches for domestic and similar IS 3854 : 1997

Gala No. 116, Raj Prabha

purposes

Land Mark Indl Estate,

First Floor, Bldg. No. 3,

Sativali Road

Vasai(E)

Distt. Thane-401208

10.

7800004714

22/05/2015

Spark Irrigation Pvt Ltd.

Emitting pipes system

IS 13488 : 2008

Gut No. 332, Tarsod

Distt: Jalgaon-425003

11.

7800004815

22/05/2015

Global Enterprises

Emitting pipes system

IS 13488 : 2008

Plot No. J-103, MIDC

Distt: Jalgaon-425003

12.

7800004916

22/05/2015

Global Enterprises

Irrigation equipment-

IS 12786 : 1989

Plot No. J-103, MIDC

polyethylene pipes for

Distt: Jalgaon-425003

irregation laterals

13.

7800005009

25/05/2015

Datar Nouveau

Residual current operated

IS 12640 : Part 2:

Energietechnik Limited

circuit breaking for house-

2008

E-56, Ground (B), MIDC

hold and similar

AMBAD

uses - part 2 circuit -

Distt: Nashik 422010

breakers with integral

overcurrent protection

(revos)

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)

ubZ fnYyh] 22 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1268-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mifofu;e ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gS] os jn~n dj fn, x, gSs%—

Sl.

Licence

Grant

Name and address (factory)

Product

IS No./Part/Sec

No.

No.

Date

of the party

Year

2652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

ykblslaèkjh dk uke ,oa irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izde lac)

jn~n djus dh frfFk

la[;k

la[;k

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

1-

2901856

HkSjo baVLVǻht

Hkkñ ekñ 3854% 1997

22@5@2015

IykaV la 24@ch] xksYMu baVLVǻht bLVsV

?kjsyw vkSj leku iz;kstuksa ds fy, fLop

lkseukFk jksM nkHksy

neu&396210

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

Vhñ dySok.ku] izeq[k ¼,e;wchvks&bZbZbZ½

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015

S.O. 1268.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulaitons, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given in the

following schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each.

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Name and address of the

Article/process with relevant

Date of

No.

licence

Indian standard covered by the

cancellation

Licence

1.

2901856

BHAIRAV INDUSTRIES

IS 3854: 1997

22/5/2015

Plot no. 24/B, Golden Indl. Estate,

Switches for domestic and similar

Somnath Road, DABEL,

purposes

Daman-396210

[No. CMD/13:13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)

oL= ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 19 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1269-—dsUæh; ljdkj ] ¼la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuks ds

fy,½ jktHkk"kk fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e ¼4½ ds

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

dks ftlds 80% ls vfèd deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku

izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèlwfpr djrh gS%—

Hkkjrh; dikl fuxe fyfeVsM]

IykaV uañ ,l&5] dsMCY;wlh]

dyacksyh os;j gkmflax dkWEiySDl]

dyacksyh] uoh eqEcbZ&412018 ¼egkjk"Vª½

[lañ bZ&11016@1@2011&fganh]

,ñ eèqdqekj jsM~Mh] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF TEXTILES

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015

S.O. 1269.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of

the Official Languages (Use for the official purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby noti-

fies the following offices of the Ministry of Textiles, more

than 80% staff whereof have acquired working knowledge

of Hindi:

The Cotton Corportion of India Limited,

Plot No. S-5, KWC

Kalamboli Ware Housing Complex,

Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai-410218 (Maharashtra)

[No. E-11016/1/2011-Hindi]

A. MADHUKUMAR REDDY, Jt. Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 18 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1270-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy cSad

ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k

Je U;k;ky; uñ1 paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼111@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 18@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@60@2013&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 18th June, 2015

S.O. 1270.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2653

hereby publishes the Award (Ref.111/2013) of the

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

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 18.06.2015.

[No. L-12012/60/2013-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUS-

TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 111 of 2013

Reference No. L-12012/60/2013/IR(B-II) dated 30-9-2013

Sh. Raj Kumar C/o Smt. Shashi Bala Singh, Shri Balaji em-

porium, D-329, Main Market, Sonia Vihar, 3rd Pustha

Delhi-94.

Workman

Versus

1. The Deputy General Manager, Punjab National

Bank, NIT, Faridabad.

2. The Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Bhikaji

Cama Place, 7 (IR Deptt.) HQ. New Delhi.

Respondents.

Appearances

For the workman:

None.

For the Management:

Shri N.K. Zakhmi.

Award Passed on: 19-03-2015

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification

No. L-12012/60/2013/IR (B-II) dated 30.09.2013 has referred

the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“:Whether the action of the Management of Punjab

National Bank in terminating the services of Shri Raj

Kumar son of late Shri Angad Singh, Ex-Peon w.e.f.

13-08-2007 is just and legal? What relief the workman

is entitled to?”

2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the

workman nor any claim statement has been filed. On 5.5.14

a request has been received for adjournment of the case

for two months. But even after two months none appeared

nor any claim statement has been failed. As per record

several 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

19-03-2015

S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1271-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M flaè

cSad 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; uañ 1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼66@2013½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@28@2013&vkbZvkj¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th June, 2015

S.O. 1271.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 66/2013) of the Cent.

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

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 18/06/2015.

[No. L-12012/28/2013-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRISIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR-COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Case No. ID 66 of 2013. Reference No. L-12012/28/2013-

IR(B-II) dated 24.05.2013. Sh. Nishan Singh son of Shri

Ram Singh R/o VPO Mothawali, Distt. Kapurthala. (Punjab)

Workman

Versus

1. The Chairman, Punjab and Sind Bank, Cannaught

Place, 24, Rajinder Place, New Delhi.

2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Local

H.Q. Sector-17, Chandigarh.

3. The Divisional General Manager, Punjab & Sind

Bank, Model Town, Jalandhar, Distt. Jalandhar

(Punjab).

4. The Manager Security, Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal

Office, Model Town, Jalandhar (Punjab).

5. The Deputy Director, Distt. Defence Service Wel-

fare Office, Jalandhar (Punjab).

2654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Respondents

For the workman:

Shri G.S. Raghav, Advocate

For the management:

Shri. J. S. Sathi Advocate.

AWARD

Passed on 09.04.2015

1. Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

notification L-12012/28/2013-IR(B-II) dated 24.05.2013 has

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Management of Punjab &

Sind Bank, Jalandhar in terminating the services of Sh.

Nishan Singh, son of Shri Ram Singh w.e.f. 01.08.2012 who

was engaged by Punjab & Sind Bank through Distt.

Defence Service Welfare Office, Jalandhar is just, valid and

legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for and

what directions are necessary in the matter?"

2. The case of the workman as per the claim statement is

that he is an ex-Service man from defence services and he

got his name registered at Distt. Sainik Welfare Office,

Jalandhar. The management i.e. respondent No. 3 Divisional

Zonal Manager and Manager Security wanted the service

of the Security Guard and they approached Respondent

No. 5 i.e. the Deputy Director, District Defence Service

Welfare Officer Jalandhar. The workman appeared in

interview and he was engaged as Security Guard initially in

2001 by Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Jalandhar

after checking of relevant record related with the

qualification, experience and relieving certificate issued by

the Army and an affidavit was also got executed from the

wokman by the management. It is pleaded by the workman

that he was posted in various branches of bank including

ATM machines. He also possessed armed licence and

weapon along with ammunition and he remained

continuously in the service of the management from 2001

to 31.08.2012 and completed more than 240 days service in

preceding year. It is pleaded by the workman that his

service were illegally terminated on 01.08.2012 without any

memo, show cause notice, charge-sheet and no inquiry

was conducted and termination of the workman is against

the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act as there is a

relationship of employer and employee between the

management and the workman and no retrenchment

compensation has been paid to him at the time of

termination of his service. It is further pleaded that he was

drawing Rs. 7500/- per month and he is jobless since his

termination. He prayed for direction to the management to

reinstate him in service with continuity and full back wages

with all benefits.

3. Management filed written statement. Preliminary

objection has been taken that there existed no relationship

of employer and employee between the claimant and the

management as there was no supervision and control of

the management on the workman. The applicant does not

come under the umbrella of definition of the workman. It is

pleaded by the management that the claimant was appointed

by Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Officer and he

was deputed as Guard in the bank by the District Sainik

Welfare Office, Jalnandhar and used to get salary/wages

from Deputy Director Sainik Welfare Office at the rate

offered by the Deputy Director i.e. Respondent No. 5 and

the same was accepted by the workman also. The Statutory

deduction of the workman used to be made by Sainik

Welfare Office with include provident fund and liability of

payment of gratuity. His supervision and control, sanction

of leave, disciplinary control was exercised by Deputy

Director, District Sainik Welfare Office. It is further pleaded

that engagement of Security Guard in the bank through

service provider/reputed security agency is para materia

to engagement of SPOs in the bank through Punjab Police

during the terrorism in Punjab and the claimant after his

attaining the age of retirement and getting benefits from

Government exchequer would not bestow statutes of

workman on him and he has no legal right as the bank has

wihin its prerogative to change the service provider/

contractor especially when the service provider flatly

refused to abide by the ongoing practice ever since the

inception of the arrangement. On merits it is pleaded by the

management that Security Guards are permitted by the

Central Government to engage through contractor and thus

they are engaged through agency. The claimant was

engaged as Security Guard and deputed in the bank by

respondent No. 5 on intermediate days and respondent

No. 5 was free to depute any service meant as Guard in the

Bank. The claimant was never appointed by the bank. The

bank authorities never exercise any supervision or control

over the claimant and management did not maintained any

attandance record of the Security Guard deputed by Sainik

Welfare Office. As the District Welfare Office had a liberty

to depute and serviceman on security and as such it is

denied that the claimant ever completed 240 days of

continued service in any year, therefore, there is no question

of termination of claimant by the bank and there was no

need for issuance of any show-cause notice, memorandum,

charge- sheet etc as well as payment of retrenchment

compensation. The claimant deputed at the ATM of Punjab

and Sind Bank against through Sainik Welfare Office not

the employee of the bank and therefore, there is no question

of termination of his service and need for compliance of

provisions of Industrial Dispute Act 1947. It is prayed by

the management that as the salary/allowance used to be

paid by respondent No. 5 at the rate respondent No. 5

deem fit, therefore, he is not entitled to reinstatement in the

service of the bank as he was never appointed by the bank

and nor any order of termination were passed by the bank,

therefore the reference deserved to be rejected.

5. In evidence workman filed his affidavit along with

documents. The workman was cross-examined by the

learned counsel for the management. The workman in cross-

examination admitted that he never submitted any

application to the bank for the post of Security Guard nor

he was issued any appointment letter. No arms and

ammunitions was issued by the bank to him. He also

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2655

admitted that no letter of terminating his service was issued

by the bank. He denied the suggestion that after terminating

his services, bank asked him to join the new security agency

which was engaged by the bank to provide the Security

Guard. The management in evidence submitted affidatvit

of one Sandeep Singh who also relied on documents Ex.M2

to M10. In cross-examination the witness stated that the

workman Nishan Singh joined the service on 19.02.2008

and his service were terminated on 01.08.2012 and at the

time of termination, no notice of termination was issued to

him and no departmental inquiry was conducted. His last

drawn salary was Rs. 7500/-. He stated in the cross-

examination that bank management exercises control over

the work of the workman. He also stated that salary cheque

was issued in the name of District Sainik Welfare, Jalandhar.

He also stated that bank has been paying salary to the

workman in their Saving Bank account. He further stated

that Sainik Welfare Office authorized the bank to credit the

workman salary in their respective accounts and there was

no contract of the bank with Sainik Welfare Office. He also

stated that at the time of initial appointment, affidavit was

also taken from the workman and para 3 of the affidavit

specified that services of the workman can be terminated

after paying one month notice. He further stated that para 1

of the affidavit specified that bank will pay Rs. 5500/- per

month towards wages to the workman through District

Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar, which will be accepted to

him. He further stated that in place of the workman other

persons were engaged through private agency.

6. I have heard the parties and gone through the evidence

and record of the case.

7. The learned counsel for the workman during

arguments submitted that the workman was engaged with

the management through Deputy Director District Defence

Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. He was interviewed by

the Manager Security Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office,

Jalandhar. It is further submitted by the learned counsel

that the payment by cheque made to the workman through

Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office

Jalandhar. At the time of termination on 1-8-2012 the

workman was not given any retrenchement compensation

notice for one month or pay in lieu of notice. It is further

submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that

there exists relationship of employer and employee between

the management and the workman.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

management submitted that the applicant was the employee

of Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office

Jalandhar as he was deputed by the above Agency for

security guard duty. The payment of wages used to be

made to the above security agency i.e. Duputy Director

District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar which

was responsible for deduction of provident fund and other

statutory deductions. It is further submitted that the Deputy

Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar

fixed the wages of the workman and accordingly the same

were paid to the workman. The above agency used to be

service provider and the management was within its right

to take the services of the workman through the above

service provider. In the above facts and circumstances,

there exists no relationship of employer and employee

between the management and the workman and the

workman was rightly not engaged w.e.f. 1.8.2012 and he is

not entitled to any retrenchment compensation, notice of

one month or pay in lieu thereof and provisions of Industrial

Disputes Act 1947 are not applicable.

9. From the record it is revealed that the workman never

submitted any application directly to the management for

the post of security guard. It is admitted case of the parties

that the workman was not issued any appointment letter. It

is also admitted position that workman was registered with

Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office

Jalandhar who deputed the workman for security duty with

the respondent management. He was also not issued any

arms and ammunition by the management. The witness of

the management in cross examination stated that workman

joined the services on 19-2-2008 with the management and

his services were terminated on 1-8-2012. The witness

further stated that bank management exercise control on

the workman and bank has been paying salary to the

workman in his saving bank account and sainik welfare

officer authorized the bank to credit the salary in the account

of the workman. It is further stated by the witness of the

management that at the time of initial appointment affidavit

was given by the workman, which specified that services

of the workman can be terminated after paying one month

notice.

10. Respondent No. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District

Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar did not put up

appearance before this court. However vide letter dated

25-6-2013 it is informed by the above that his office was

only sponsoring agency and usually asked by the

management to call ex-servicemen for interview and selected

by security officer of the bank.

11. From the above it is clear that the respondent No. 5

sponsored the workman for guard duty with the

management. The salary cheques issued in the name of

respondent No. 5 and on authorization the salary used to

be credit to the saving account of the workman. Vide letter

dated June 2007, it was agreed that ex-servicemen would

be paid Rs. 5500/- per month and payment. will be routed

through respondent No. 5 in the form of DD/Mgr Cheques.

12. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that workman

joined the management bank on 19-2-2008 through

respondent No. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District Defence

Service Welfare Office Jalandhar and worked till 1-8-2012.

The management failed to prove that the above respondent

No. 5 was the service provider. In the facts and

circumstances the workman worked for the respondent

management. Admittedly no notice, retrenchment

compensation was paid to the workman at the time of

termination. It is also the fact that the workman was not

issued any appointment letter and termination letter. In the

2656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

above circumstances, as the workman worked for the

management, he is entitled to be paid at least the terminal

dues at the time of his termination. The workman worked

for the management for almost four years and six months.

He is entitled for pay for one month as notice period and

retrenchment compensation as per Section 25 F (b) @ 15

days average pay for each completed year of continuous

service. Thus the amount so computed comes to Rs. 26500/-

making this amount rounded to Rs. 27000/- (twenty seven

thousand only). The workman is entitled to get this amount

from management respondent No. 1 to 4.

13. The management is directed to pay Rs. 27000/-

(twenty seven thousand only) to the workman within one

month from the date of publication. The reference is

answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as

well hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication,

Chandigarh.

09.4.2015

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1272-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M flaè

cSad 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; uañ 1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 64@2013½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@06@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@20@2013&vkbZvkj¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th June, 2015

S.O. 1272.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 64/2013) of the Cent.

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

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 18/06/2015.

[No. L-12012/20/2013-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Case No. ID 64 of 2013. Reference No. L-12012/20/2013-

IR (B-II) dated 23.05.2013.

Sh Tajinder Pal Singh, S/o Sh. Sahib Singh, R/o VPO Sudar,

Near Rayia, Distt. Amritsar (Punjab)

...Workman

Versus

1. The Chairman, Punjab and Sind Bank, Canught

Place, 24, Rajinder Palace, New Delhi.

2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Local

H.Q. Sector-17, Chandigarh.

3. The Divisional General Manager, Punjab & Sind

Bank, Model Town, Jalandhar, Distt. Jalandhar

(Punjab).

4. The Manager Security, Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal

Office, Model Town, Jalandhar (Punjab).

5. The Deputy Direcotor, Distt, Defence Service Wel-

fare Office, Jalandhar (Punjab).

Respondents

For the workman:

Shri G.S. Raghav, Advocate

For the management:

Shri J.S. Sathi, Advocate

AWARD

Passed on 09.04.2015

1. Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification L-12012/20/2013-IR (B-II) dated 23.05.2013 has

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Management of Punjab

& Sind Bank, Jalandhar in terminating the services

of Sh. Tajinder Pal Singh S/o Sh. Sahib Singh w.e.f.

01.08.2012 who was engaged by Punjab & Sind Bank

through Distt. Defence Service Welfare Office,

Jalandhar is just, valid and legal? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled for and what directions are

necessary in the matter?"

2. The case of the workman as per the claim statement is

that he is an ex-Service man from defence services and he

got his name registered at Distt. Sainik Welfare Office,

Jalandhar. The management i.e. respondent No. 3 Divisional

Zonal Manager and Manager Security wanted the service

of the Security Guard and they approached Respondent

No. 5 i.e. the Deputy Director, District Defence Service

Welfare Office Jalandhar. The workman appeared in

interview and he was engaged as Security Guard initially in

2011 by Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office Jalandhar after

checking of relevant record related with the qualification,

experience and relieving certificate issued by the Army

and an affidavit was also got executed from the workman

by the Management. It is pleaded by the workman that he

was posted in various branches of bank including ATM

machines. He also possessed armed licence and weapon

along with ammunition and he remained continuously in

the service of the management from 2011 to 31.07.2012 and

completed more than 240 days service in preceding year. It

is pleaded by the workman that his services were illegally

terminated on 01.08.2012 without any memo, show cause

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2657

notice, charge-sheet and no inquiry was conducted and

termination of the workman is against the provisions of

Industrial Dispute Act as there is a relationship of employer

and employee between the management and the workman

and no retrenchment compensation has been paid to him

at the time of termination of his service. It is further pleaded

that he was drawing Rs. 7500/- per month and he is jobless

since his termination. He prayed from direction to the

management to reinstate him in service with continuity

and full back wages with all benefits.

3. Management filed written statement Preliminary

objection has been taken that there existed no relationship

of employer and employee between the claimant and the

management as there was no supervision and control of

the management on the workman. The applicant does not

come under the umbrella of definition of the workman. It is

pleaded by the management that the claimant was appointed

by Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Officer and he

was deputed as Guard in the bank by the Districtor Sainik

Welfare Office, Jalandhar and used to get salary/wages

from Deputy Director Sainik Welfare Office at the rate

offered by the Deputy Director i.e. Respondent No. 5 and

the same was accepted by the workman also. The statutory

deduction of the workman used to be made by Sainik

Welfate Office which include provident fund and liability

of payment of gratuity. His supervision and control,

sanction of leave, disciplinary control was exercised by

Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Office. It is further

pleaded that engagement of Security Guard in the bank

through service provider/reputed security agency is para

materia to engagement of SPOs in the bank through Punjab

Police during the terrorism in Punjab and the claimant after

his attaining the age of retirement and getting benefits

from Government exchequer would not bestow statutes of

workman on him and he has no legal right as the bank has

within its prerogative to change the service provider/

contractor especially when the service provider flatly

refused to abide by the ongoing practice ever since the

inception of the arrangement. On merits it is pleaded by the

management that Security Guards are permitted by the

Central Government to engage through contractor and thus

they are engaged through agency. The claimant was

engaged as Security Guard and deputed in the bank by

respondent No. 5 on intermediate days and respondent

No. 5 was free to depute any service meant as Guard in the

Bank. The claimant was never appointed by the bank. The

bank authorities never exercise any suspervision or control

over the claimant and management did not maintained any

attendance record of the Security Guard deputed by Sainik

Welfare Office. As the District Welfare Office had a liberty

to depute any serviceman on security and as such it is

denied that the claimant ever completed 240 days of

continued service in any year, therefore, there is no question

of termination of claimant by the bank and there was no

need for issuance of any show cause notice, memorandum,

charge sheet etc. as well as payment of retrenchment

compensation. The claimant deputed at the ATM of Punjab

and Sind Bank against through Sainik Welfare Office not

the employee of the bank and therefore, there is no question

of termination of his service and need for compliance of

provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It is prayed by

the management that as the salary/allowance used to be

paid by respondent No. 5 at the rate respondent No. 5

deem fit, therefore, he is not entitled to reinstatement in the

servie of the bank as he was never appointed by the bank

and nor any order of termination were passed by the bank,

therefore the reference derserved to be rejected.

5. In evidence workman filed his affidavit with

documents. The workman was cross-examined by the

learned counsel for the management. The workman in cross-

examination admitted that he never submitted any

application to the bank for the post of Secuirty Guard nor

he was issued any appointment letter. No arms and

ammunitions was issued by the bank to him. He also

admitted that no letter terminating his service was issued

by the bank. He denied the suggestion that after terminating

his services, bank asked him to join the new security agency

which was engaged by the bank to provide the Security

Guard. The management in evidence submitted affidavit of

one Sandeep Singh who also relied on documents Ex. M2

to M8. In cross-examination the witness stated that the

workman Tejinder Pal Singh joined the service on 01.01.2010

and his service were terminated on 01.08.2012 and at the

time of termination, no notice of termination was issued to

him and no departmental inquiry was conducted. His last

drawn salary was Rs. 7500/-. He stated in the cross-

examination that bank management excercise control over

the work of he workman. He also stated that salary cheque

was issued in the name of District Sainik Welfare, Jalandhar,

He also stated that bank has been paying salary to the

workman in their saving bank account. He further stated

that Sainik Welfare Office authorized the bank to credit the

workman salary in their respetive accounts and there was

no contract of the bank with Sainik Welfare Officer. He also

stated that at the time of initial appointment, affidavit was

also taken from the workman and para 3 of the affidavit

specified that services of the workman can be terminated

after paying one month notice. He further stated that para

1 of the affidavit specified that bank will pay Rs. 5500/- per

month towards wages to the workman through District

Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar, which will be accepted to

him. He further stated that in place of the workman other

persons were engaged through private agency.

6. I have heard the parties and gone through the evidence

and record of the case.

7. The learned counsel for the workman during

arguments submitted that the workman was engaged with

the management through Deputy Director District Defence

Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. He was interviewed by

2658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Manager Security Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office,

Jalandhar. It is further submitted by the learned counsel

that the payment by cheque made to the workman through

Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office

Jalandhar. At the time of termination on 1.8.2012 the workman

was not given any retrenchment compnsation notice for

one month or pay in lieu of notice. It is further submitted

by the learned counsel for the workman that there exists

relationship of employer and employee between the

management and the workman.

8. On the otherhand, the learned counsel for the

management submitted that the applicant was the employee

of Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office

Jalandhar as he was deputed by the above Agency for

security guard duty. The payment of wages used to be

made to the above security agency i.e. Deputy Director

District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar which

was responsible for deduction of provident fund and other

statutory deductions. It is further submitted that the Deputy

Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar

fixed the wages of the workman and accordingly the same

were paid to the workman. The above agency used to be

service provider and the management was within its right

to take the services of the workman through the above

service provider. In the above facts and circumstances,

there exists no relationship of employer and employee

between the management and the workman and the

workman was rightly not engaged w.e.f. 1.8.2012 and he is

not entitled to any retrenchment compensation, notice of

one month or pay in lieu thereof and provisions of Industrial

Disputes Act 1947 are not applicable.

9. From the record it is revealed that the workman never

submitted any application directly to the management for

the post of security guard. It is admitted case of the parties

that the workman was not issued any appointment letter. It

is also admitted position that workman was registered with

Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office

Jalandhar who deputed the workman for security duty with

the respondent management. He was also not issued any

arms and ammunition by the management. The witness of

the management in cross examination stated that workman

joined the services on 1.1.2010 with the management and

his services were terminated on 1.8.2012. The witness

further stated that bank management exercise control on

the workman and bank has been paying salary to the

workman in his saving bank account and sainik welfare

officer authorized the bank to credit the salary in the account

of the workman. It is further stated by the witness of the

management that at the time of initial appointment affidavit

was given by the workman, which specified that services

of the workman can be terminated after paying one month

notice.

10. Respondent No. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District

Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar did not put up

appearance before this court. However vide letter dated

25.6.2013 it is informed by the above that his office was

only sponsoring agency and usually asked by the

management to call ex-servicemen for interview and selected

by security officer of the bank.

11. From the above it is clear that the respondent no. 5

sponsored the workman for guard duty with the

management. The salary cheques issued in the name of

respondent no. 5 and on authorization the salary used to

be credit to the saving account of the workman. Vide letter

dated June 2007, it was agreed that ex-servicemen would

be paid Rs. 5500/- per month and payment will be routed

through respondent no. 5 in the form of DD/Mgr Cheques.

12. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that workman

joined the management bank on 1.1.2010 through

respondent No. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District Defence

Service Welfare Office Jalandhar and worked till 1.8.2012.

The management failed to provide that the above

respondent No. 5 was the service provider. In the facts and

circumstances the workman worked for the respondent

management. Admittedly no notice, retrenchment

compensation was paid to the workman at the time of

termination. It is also the fact that the workman was not

issued any appointment letter and termination letter. In the

above circumstances, as the workman worked for the

management, he is entitled to be paid at least the terminal

dues at the time of his termination. The workman worked

for the management for almost two years and seven

months. He is entitled for pay for one month as notice

period and retrenchment compensation as per Section 25F

(b) @ 15 days average pay for each completed year of

continuous service. Thus the amount so computed comes

to Rs. 19000/- making this amount rounded to Rs. 20000/-

(Twenty thousand only). The workman is entitled to get

this amount from management respondents No. 1 to 4.

13. The management is directed to pay Rs. 20000/-

(Twenty thousand only) to the workman within one month

from the date of publication. The reference is answered

accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as well hard

copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh

Dt. 9.4.2015

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1273-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M flaè c®d

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; uañ 1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 79@2013½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[alañ ,y&12012@22@2013&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2659

New Delhi, the 18th June, 2015

S.O. 1273.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 79/2013) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court

No. 1 Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Punjab and

Sind Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 18/06/2015.

[No. L-12012/22/2013-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 79 of 2013. Reference No. L-12012/22/2013-

IR(B-II) dated 27.05.2013. Sh. Kamal Preet Singh son of

Shri Shingara Singh, resident of Ward No. 5, House No.

153, Radha Swami Colony Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.

(Punjab)

Workman

Versus

1. The Chairman, Punjab and Sind Bank, Canaught

Place, 24, Rajinder Palace, New Delhi.

2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Local

H.Q. Sector-17, Chandigarh.

3. The Divisional General Manager, Punjab and Sind

Bank, Model Town, Jalandhar Distt. Jalandhar

(Punjab).

4. The Manager Security, Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal

Office, Model Town, Jalandhar (Punjab)

5. The Deputy Director, Distt, Defence Service Wel-

fare Office, Jalandhar (Punjab).

Respondents

For the workman

:

Shri G.S. Raghav, Advocate

For the management :

Shri J.S. Sathi, Advocate

AWARD

Passed on 09.04.2015

1. Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification L-12012/22/2013-IR(B-II) dated 27.05.2013 has

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Management of Punjab

& Sind Bank, Jalandhar in terminating the services

of Sh. Kamal Preet Singh son of Shri Shingara Singh

w.e.f. 01.08.2012 who was engaged by Punjab & Sind

Bank through Distt. Defence Service Welfare Office,

Jalandhar is just, valid and legal? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled for and what directions are

necessary in the matter?"

2. The case of the workman as per the claim statement is

that he is an ex-Service man from defence services and he

got his name registered at Distt. Sainik Welfare Office,

Jalandhar. The management i.e. respondent No. 3 Divisional

Zonal Manager and Manager Security wanted the service

of the Security Guard and they approached Respondent

No. 5 i.e. the Deputy Director, District Defence Service

Welfare Office Jalandhar. The workman appeared in

interview and he was engaged as Security Guard initially

on 6.6.07 by Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office Jalandhar

after checking of relevant record related with the

qualification, experience and relieving certificate issued by

the Army and an affidavit was also got executed from the

workman by the management. It is pleaded by the workman

that he was posted in various branches of bank including

ATM machines. He also possessed armed licence and

weapon along with ammunition and he remained

continuously in the service of the management from 2007

to 31.07.2012 and completed more than 240 days service in

preceding year. It is pleaded by the workman that his

services were illegally terminated on 01.08.2012 without

any memo, show cause notice, charge-sheet and no inquiry

was conducted and termination of the workman is against

the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act as there is a

relationship of employer and employee between the

management and the workman and no retrenchment

compensation has been paid to him at the time of

termination of his service. It is further pleaded that he was

drawing Rs. 7500/- per month and he jobless since his

termination. He prayed for direction to the management to

reinstate him in service with continuity and full back wages

with all benefits.

3. Management filed written statement. Preliminary

objection has been taken that there existed no relationship

of employer and employee between the claimant and the

management as there was no supervision and control of

the management on the workman. The applicant does not

come under the umbrella of definition of the workman. It is

pleaded by the management that the claimant was appointed

by Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Officer and he

was deputed as Guard in the bank by the District Sainik

Welfare Office, Jalandhar and used to get salary/wages

from Deputy Director Sainik Welfare Office at the rate

offered by the Deputy Director i.e. Respondent No. 5 and

the same was accepted by the workman also. The statutory

deduction of the workman used to be made by Sainik

Welfare Office which include provident fund and liability

of payment of gratuity. His supervision and control,

sanction of leave, disciplinary control was exercised by

Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Office. It is further

pleaded that engagement of Security Guard in the bank

through service provider/reputed security agency is para

2660

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

materia to engagement of SPOs in the bank through Punjab

Police during the terrorism in Punjab and the claimant after

his attaining the age of retirement and getting benefits

from Government exchequer would not bestow statutes of

workman on him and he has no legal right as the bank has

within its prerogative to change the service provider/

contractor especially when the service provider flatly

refused to abide by the ongoing practice ever since the

inception of the arrangement. On merits it is pleaded by the

management that Security Guards are permitted by the

Central Government to engage through contractor and thus

they are engaged through agency. The claimant was

engaged as Security Guard and deputed in the bank by

respondent No. 5 on intermediate days and respondent

No. 5 was free to depute any service meant as Guard in the

Bank. The claimant was never appointed by the bank. The

bank authorities never exercise any supervision or control

over the claimant and management did not maintained any

attendance record of the Security Guard deputed by Sainik

Welfare Office. As the District Welfare Office had a liberty

to depute any serviceman on security and as such it is

denied that the claimant ever completed 240 days of

continued service in any year, therefore, there is no question

of termination of claimant by the bank and there was no

need for issuance of any show cause notice, memorandum,

charge sheet etc. as well as payment of retrenchment

compensation. The claimant deputed at the ATM of Punjab

and Sind Bank against through Sainik Welfare Office not

the employee of the bank and therefore, there is no question

of termination of his service and need for compliance of

provisions of Industrial Dispute Act 1947. It is prayed by

the management that as the salary/allowance used to be

paid by respondent No. 5 at the rate respondent No. 5

deem fit, therefore, he is not entitled to reinstatement in the

service of the bank as he was never appointed by the bank

and nor any order of termination were passed by the bank,

therefore the reference deserved to be rejected.

5. In evidence workman filed his affidavit along with

documents. The workman was cross-examined by the

learned counsel for the management. The workman in cross-

examination admitted that he never submitted any

application to the bank for the post of Security Guard nor

he was issued any appointment letter. No arms and

ammunitions was issued by the bank to him. He also

admitted that no letter of terminating his service was issued

by the bank. He denied the suggestion that after terminating

his services, bank asked him to join the new security agency

which was engaged by the bank to provide the Security

Guard. The management in evidence submitted affidavit of

one Sandeep Singh who also relied on documents Ex.M2

to M7. In cross-examination the witness stated that the

workman Kamalpreet Singh joined the service on 5.6.2007

and his service were terminated on 01.08.2012 and at the

time of termination, no notice of termination was issued to

him and no departmental inquiry was conducted. His last

drawn salary was Rs. 7500/-. He stated in the cross-

examination that bank management exercises control over

the work of the workman. He also stated that salary cheque

was issued in the name of District Sainik Welfare, Jalandhar.

He also stated that bank has been paying salary to the

workman in their saving bank account. He further stated

that Sainik Welfare Office authorized the bank to credit the

workman salary in their respective accounts and there was

no contract of the bank with Sainik Welfare Officer. He also

stated that at the time of initial appointment, affidavit was

also taken from the workman and para 3 of the affidavit

specified that services of the workman can be terminated

after paying one month notice. He further stated that para

1 of the affidavit specified that bank will pay Rs. 5500/- per

month towards wages to the workman through District

Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar, which will be accepted to

him. He further stated that in place of the workman other

persons were engaged through private agency.

6. I have heard the parties and gone through the evidence

and record of the case.

7. The learned counsel for the workman during

arguments submitted that the workman was engaged with

the management through Deputy Director District Defence

Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. He was interviewed by

the Manager Security Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office,

Jalandhar. It is further submitted by the learned counsel

that the payment by cheque made to the workman through

Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office

jalandhar. At the time of termination on 1.8.2012 the workman

was not given any retrenchment compensation notice for

one month or pay in lieu of notice. It is further submitted

by the learned counsel for the workman that there exists

relationship of employer and employee between the

management and the workman.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

management submitted that the applicant was the employee

of Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office

Jalandhar as he was deputed by the above Agency for

security guard duty. The payment of wages used to be

made to the above security agency i.e. Deputy Director

District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar which

was responsible for deduction of provident fund and other

statutory deductions. It is further submitted that the Deputy

Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar

fixed the wages of the workman and accordingly the same

were paid to the workman. The above agency used to be

service provider and the management was within its right

to take the services of the workman through the above

service provider. In the above facts and circumstances,

there exists no relationship of employer and employee

between the management and the workman and the

workman was rightly not engaged w.e.f. 1.8.2012 and he is

not entitled to any retrenchment compensation, notice of

one month or pay in lieu thereof and provisions of Industrial

Disputes Act 1947 are not applicable.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2661

9. From the record it is revealed that the workman never

submitted any application directly to the management for

the post of security guard. It is admitted case of the parties

that the workman was not issued any appointment letter. It

is also admitted position that workman was registered with

Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office

Jalandhar who deputed the workman for security duty with

the respondent management. He was also not issued any

arms and ammunition by the management. The witness of

the managment in cross examination stated that workman

joined the services on 5.6.2007 with the management and

his services were terminated on 1.8.2012. The witness

further stated that bank management exercise control on

the workman and bank has been paying salary to the

workman in his saving bank account and sainik welfare

officer authorized the bank to credit the salary in the account

of the workman. It is further stated by the witness of the

management that at the time of initial appointment affidavit

was given by the workman, which specified that services

of the workman can be terminated after paying one month

notice.

10. Respondent no. 5 i.e. Deputy Director Defence

Service Welfare Office Jalandhar did not put up appearance

before this court. However vide lette dated 25.6.2013 it is

informed by the above that his officer was only sponsoring

agency and usually asked by the managment to call-ex-

servicemen for interview and selected by security officer

of the bank.

11. From the above it is clear that the respondent no. 5

sponsored the workman for guard duty with the

management. The salary cheques issued in the name of

respondent no. 5 and on authorization the salary used to

be credit to the saving account of the workman. vide letter

dated June, 2007, it was agreed that ex-servicemen would

be paid Rs. 5500/- per month and payment will be routed

through respondent no. 5 in the form of DD/Mgr. Cheques.

12. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that workman

joined the management bank on 5.6.2007 through

respondent no. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District Defence

Service Welfare Office Jalandhar and worked till 1.8.2012.

The management failed to prove that the above respondent

no. 5 was the service provider. In the facts and

circumstances the workman worked for the respondent

management. Admittedly no notice retrenchment

compensation was paid to the workman at the time of

termination. It is also the fact that the workman was not

issued any appointment letter and termination letter. In the

above circumstances, as the workman worked for the

management, he is entitled to be paid at least the terminal

dues at the time of his termination. The workman worked

for the managment for almost five years and one month. He

is entitled for pay for one month as notice period and

retrenchment compensation as per Section 25F(b)@15 days

average pay for each completed year of continuous service.

Thus the amount so computed comes to Rs. 26250/- making

this amount rounded to Rs. 27000/- (twenty seven thousand

only). The workman is entitled to get this amount from

management respondents No. 1 to 4.

13. The management is directed to pay Rs. 27000/-

(twenty seven thousand only) to the workman within one

month from the date of publication. The reference is

answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as

well hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh

09.04.2015

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1274-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,aM flaè

cSad 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; u- 1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

80@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-06-2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@23@2013&vkbZ-vkj- ¼ch&II½

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th June, 2015

S.O. 1274.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 80/2013) of the Central

Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Punjab & Sind Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

18.06.2015.

[No. L-12012/23/2013-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 80 of 2013

Reference No. L-12012/23/2013-IR(B-II) dated 30.05.2013.

Sh. Daljit Singh son of Shri Gurdarshan, resident of Village

Kattowal, P.O.

Dhaddar, District Hoshiarpur (Punjab)

...Workman

2662

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

1. The Chairman, Punjab and Sind Bank, Canaught

Place, 24, Rajinder Palace, New Delhi.

2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Local

H.Q. Sector-17, Chandigarh.

3. The Divisional General Manager, Punjab and Sind

Bank, Model Town, Jalandhar, Distt. Jalandhar

(Punjab).

4. The Manager Security, Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal

Office, Model Town, Jalandhar (Punjab).

5. The Deputy Director, Distt. Defence Service Wel-

fare Office, Jalandhar (Punjab).

...Respondents

For the workman:

Shri G.S. Raghav, Advocate

For the management:

Shri J. S. Sathi, Advocate

AWARD

Passed on 09.04.2015

1. Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification Reference No. L-12012/23/2013-IR(B-II) dated

30.05.2013 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Management of Punjab

& Sind Bank, Jalandhar in terminating the services

of Sh. Daljit Singh son Shri Gurdarshan Singh w.e.f.

01.08.2012 who was engaged by of Punjab & Sind

Bank through Distt. Defence Service Welfare Officer,

Jalandhar is just, valid and legal? If not to what relief

the workman is entitled for and what directions are

necessary in the matter?"

2. The case of the workman as per the claim statement is

that he is an ex-Serviceman from defence services and he

got his name registered at Distt. Sainik Welfare Office,

Jalandhar. The management i.e. respondent No. 3 Divisional

Zonal Manager and Manager Security wanted the service

of the Security Guard and they approached Respondent

No. 5 i.e. the Deputy Director District Defence Service

Welfare Office Jalandhar. The workman appeared in

interview and he was engaged as Security Guard initially

on 13.08.08 by Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office

Jalandhar after checking of relevant record related with the

qualification, experience and relieving certificate issued by

the Army and an affidavit was also got executed from the

workman by the management. It is pleaded by the workman

that he was posted in various branches of bank including

ATM machines. He also possessed armed licence and

weapon along with ammunition and he remained

continuously in the service of the management from 2008

to 31.07.2012 and completed more than 240 days service in

preceding year. It is pleaded by the workman that his

services were illegally terminated on 01.08.2012 without

any memo, show cause notice, charge-sheet and no inquiry

was conducted and termination of the workman is against

the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act as there is a

relationship of employer and employees between the

management and the workman and no retrenchment

compensation has been paid to him at the time of

termination of his service. It is further pleaded that he was

drawing Rs. 7500/- per month and he is jobless since his

termination. He prayed for direction to the management to

reinstate him in service with continuity and full back wages

with all benefits.

3. Management filed written statement, Preliminary

objection has been taken that there existed no relationship

of employer and employee between the claimant and the

management as there was no supervision and control of

the management on the workman. The applicant does not

come under the umbrella of definition of the workman. It is

pleased by the management that the claimant was appointed

by Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Officer and he

was deputed as Guard in the bank by the District Sainik

Welfare Office, Jalandhar and used to get salary/wages

from Deputy Director Sainik Welfare Office at the rate

offered by the Deputy Director i.e. Respondent No. 5 and

the same was accepted by the workman also. The statutory

deduction of the workman used to be made by Sainik

Welfare Office which include provident fund and liability

of payment of gratuity. His supervision and control,

sanction of leave, disciplinary control was exercised by

Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Office. It is further

pleaded that engagement of Security Guard in the bank

through service provider/reputed security agency is para

materia to engagement of SPOs in the bank through Punjab

Police during the terrorism in Punjab and the claimant after

his attaining the age of retirement and getting benefits

from Government exchequer would not bestow statutes of

workman on his and he has no legal right as the bank has

within its prerogative to change the service provider/

contractor especially when the service provider flatly

refused to abide by the ongoing practice ever since the

inception of the arrangement. On merits it is pleaded by the

management that Security Guards are permitted by the

Central Government to engage through contractor and thus

are engaged through agency. The claimant was engaged

as Security Guard and deputed in the bank by respondent

No. 5 on intermediate days and respondent No. 5 was free

to depute any service meant as Guard in the Bank. The

claimant was never appointed by the bank. The bank

authorities never exercise any supervision or control over

the claimant and management did not maintained any

attendance record lf the Security Guard deputed by Sainik

Welfare Office. As the District Welfare Office had a liberty

to depute any serviceman on security and as such it is

denied that the claimant ever completed 240 days of

continued service in any year, therefore, there is no question

of termination of claimant by the bank and there was no

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2663

need for issuance of any show cause notice, memorandum,

charge sheet etc as well as payment of retrenchment

compensation. The claimant deputed at the ATM of Punjab

and Sind Bank against through Sainik Welfare Office not

the employee of the bank and therefore, there is no question

of termination of his service and need for compliance of

provisions of Industrial Dispute Act 1947. It is prayed by

the management that as the salary/allowance used to be

paid by respondent No. 5 at the rate respondent No. 5

deem fit, therefore, he is not entitled to reinstatement in the

service of the bank as he was never appointed by the bank

and nor any order of termination were passed by the bank,

therefore the reference deserved to be rejected.

5. In evidence workman filed his affidavit along with

documents. The workman was cross-examined by the

learned counsel for the management. The workman in cross-

examination admitted that he never submitted any

application to the bank for the post of Security Guard nor

he was issued any appointment letter. No arms and

ammunitions was issued by the bank to him. He also

admitted that no letter of terminating his service was issued

by the bank. He denied the suggestion that after terminating

his services, bank asked him to join the new security agency

which was engaged by the bank to provide the Security

Guard. The management in evidence submitted affidavit of

one Sandeep Singh who also relied on documents Ex.M2

to M7. In cross-examination the witness stated that the

workman Daljit Singh joined the service on 13.8.2008 and

his service were terminated on 01.08.2012 and at the time of

termination, no notice of termination was issued to him

and no departmental inquiry was conducted. His last drawn

salary was Rs. 7500/-. He stated in the cross-examination

that bank management exercises control over the work of

the workman. He also stated that salary cheque was issued

in the name of District Sainik Welfare, Jalandhar. He also

stated that bank has been paying salary to the workman in

their saving bank account. He further stated that Sainik

Welfare Office authorized the bank to credit the workman

salary in their respective accounts and there was no

contract of the bank with Sainik Welfare Officer. He also

stated that at the time of initial appointment, affidavit was

also taken from the workman and para 3 of the affidavit

specified that services of the workman can be terminated

after paying one month notice. He further stated that para

I of the affidavit specified that bank will pay Rs. 5500/- per

month towards wages to the workman through

District Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar, which will be

accepted to him. He further stated that in place of the

workman other persons were engaged through private

agency.

6. I have heard the parties and gone through the evidence

and record of the case.

7. The learned cousel for the workman during arguments

submitted that the workman was engaged with the

management through Deputy Director District Defence

Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. He was interviewed by

the Manager Security Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office,

Jalandhar. It is further submitted by the learned counsel

that the payment by cheque made to the workman through

Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office

Jalandhar. At the time of termination on 1.8.2012 the workman

was not given any retrenchment compensation notice for

one month or pay in lieu of notice. It is furher submitted by

the learned counsel for the the workman that exists

relationship of employer and employee between the

management and the workman.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

management submitted that the applicant was the employee

of Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office

Jalandhar as he was deputed by the above Agency for

security guard duty. The payment of wages used to be

made to the above security agency i.e. Deputy Director

District Defence Service Welfare Jalandhar which was

responsible for deduction of provident fund and other

statutory deductions. It is further submitted that the Deputy

Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar

fixed the wages of the workman and accordingly the same

were paid to the workman. The above agency used to be

service provider and the management was within its right

to take the services of the workman through the above

service provider. In the above facts and circumstances,

there exists no relationship of employer and employee

between the management and the workman and the

workman was rightly not engaged w.e.f. 1.8.2012 and he is

not entitled to any retrenchment compensation, notice of

one month or pay in lieu thereof and provisions of Industrial

Disputes Act 1947 are not applicable.

9. From the record it is revealed that the workman never

submitted any application directly to the management for

the post of security guard. It is admitted case of the parties

that the workman was not issued any appointment letter. It

is also admitted position that workman was registered with

Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office

Jalandhar who deputed the workman for security duty with

the respondent management. He was also not issued any

arms and ammunition by the management. The witness of

the management in cross examination stated that workman

joined the services on 13.8.2008 with the management and

his services were terminated on 1.8.2012. The witness

further stated that bank management exercise control on

the workman and bank has been paying salary to the

workman in his saving bank account and Sainik Welfare

Officer authorized the bank to credit the salary in the account

of the workman. It is further stated by the witness of the

management that at the time of initial appointment affidavit

was given by the workman, which specified that services

of the workman can be terminated after paying one month

notice.

2664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10. Respondent No. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District

Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar did not put up

appearance before this court. However vide letter dated

25.6.2013 it is informed by the above that his office was

only sponsoring agency and usually asked by the

management to call Ex-servicemen for interview and selected

by security officer of the bank.

11. From the above it is clear that the respondent No. 5

sponsored the workman for guard duty with the

management. The salary cheques issued in the name of

respondent No.5 and on authorization the salary used to

be credit to the saving account of the workman. Vide letter

dated June 2007, it was agreed that Ex-servicemen would

be paid Rs. 5500/- per month and payment will be routed

through respondent No.5 in the form of DD/Mgr Cheques.

12. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that workman

joined the management bank on 13.8.2008 through

respondent No.5 i.e. Deputy Director District Defence

Service Welfare Office Jalandhar and worked till 1.8.2012.

The management failed to prove that the above respondent

No.5 was the service provider. In the facts and

circumstances the workman worked for the respondent

management. Admittedly no notice, retrenchment

compensation was paid to the workman at the time of

termination. It is also the fact that the workman was not

issued any appointment letter and termination letter. In the

above circumstances, as the workman worked for the

management, he is entitled to be paid at least the terminal

dues at the time of his termination. The workman worked

for the management for almost four years. He is entitled for

pay for one month as notice period and retrenchment

compensation as per Section 25 F (b) @ 15 days average

pay for each completed year of continuous service. Thus

the amount so computed comes to Rs. 22500/- making this

amount rounded to Rs. 23000/- (twenty three thousand

only). The workman is entitled to get this amount from

management respondents No. 1 to 4.

13. The management is directed to pay Rs. 23000/-

(twenty three thousand only) to the workman within one

month from the date of publication. The reference is

answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as

well hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh

09.04.2015

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1275-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; sljdkj iatkc ,.M flaè cSad

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; uñ 1- paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 78@2013½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@18@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th June, 2015

S.O. 1275.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indusrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 78/2013) of the Cent.

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

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 18/06/2015.

[No. L-12012/18/2013-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Case No. ID 78 of 2013. Reference No. L-12012/8/2013-IR

(B-II) dated 28.05.2013. Sh. Shadi Lal son of Shri Jeet Singh

R/o VPO Badala, Mohalla Rjpur, Hoshiyarpur.(Punjab)

...Workman

Versus

1. The Chairman, Punjab and Sind Bank, Cannaught

Place, 24, Rajinder Palace, New Delhi.

2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Local

H.Q.Sector-17, Chandigarh.

3. The Divisonal General Manager, Punjab & Sind

Bank,

Model Town,

Jalandhar,

Distt.

Jalandhar(Punjab).

4. The manager Security, Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal

Office, Model Town, Jalandhar(Punjab).

5. The Deputy Director, Distt, Defence Service

Welfare Office, Jalandhar(Punjab).

...Respondent

For the workman:

Shri G.S. Raghav, Advocate

For the management :

Shri J.S. Sathi, Advocate.

AWARD

Passed on 09.04.2015

1. Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification L-12012/18/2013-IR(B-III) dated 28.05.2013 has

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2665

"Whether the action of the Management of Punjab

& Sind Bank, Jalandhar in terminating the services

of Sh. Shadi Lal son of Shri Jeet Singh w.e.f. 01.08.2012

who was engaged by Punjab & Sind Bank through

Distt. Defence Service Welfare Office, Jalandhar is

just, valid and legal? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled for and what directions are necessary in

the matter?"

2. The case of the workman as per the claim statement is

that he is an ex-Service man from defence services and he

got his name registered at Distt. Sainik Welfare Office,

Jalandhar. The management i.e. respondent No. 3 Divisional

Zonal Manager and Manager Security wanted the service

of the Security Guard and they approached Respondent

No. 5 i.e. the Deputy Director, District Defence Service

Welfare Office Jalandhar. The workman appeared in

interview and he was engaged as Security Guard initially

on 7.4.2011 by Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office

Jalandhar after checking of relevant record related with the

qualification, experience and relieving certificate issued by

the Army and an affidiavit was also got executed from the

workman by the management. It is pleaded by the workman

that he was posted in various branches including ATM

machines. He also possessed armed licence and weapon

along with ammunition and he remained continuously in

the service of the management from 7.4.2011 to 31.07.2012

and completed more than 240 days service in preceding

year. It is pleaded by the workman that his services were

illegally terminated on 01.08.2012 without any memo,

showcause notice, charge-sheet and no inquiry was

conducted and termination of the workman is against the

provisions of Industrial Dispute Act as there is a relationship

of employer and employee between the managment and

the workman and no retrenchement compensation has been

paid to him at the time of termination of his service. It is

further pleaded that he was drawing Rs. 7500/- per month

and he is jobless since his termination. He prayed for

direction to the management to re-instate him in service

with continuity and full back wages with all benefits.

3. Management filed written statement. Preliminary

objection has been taken that there existed no relationship

of employer and employee between the claimant and the

management as there was no supervision and control of

the management on the workman. The applicant does not

come under the umbrella of definition of the workman. It is

pleaded by the management that the claimant was appointed

by Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Officer and he

was deputed as Guard in the bank by the District Sainik

Welfare Officer, Jalandhar and used to get salary/wages

from Deputy Director Sainik Welfare Officer at the rate

offered by the Deputy Director i.e. Respondent No. 5 and

the same was accepted by the workman also. The statutory

deduction of the workman used to be made by Sainik

Welfare Office which include provident fund and liability

of payment of gratuity. His supervision and control,

sanction of leave, disciplinary control was exercised by

Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Office. It is further

pleaded that engagement of Security Guard in the bank

through service provider/reputed security agency is

para materia to engagement of SPOs in the bank through

Punjab Police during the terrorism in Punjab and the claimant

after his attaining the age of retirement and getting benefits

from Government exchequer would not bestow statutes of

workman on him and he has no legal right as the bank has

within its prerogative to change the service provider/

contractor especially when the service provider flatly

refused to abide by the ongoing practice ever since the

inception of the arrangement. On merits it is pleaded by the

management that Security Guards are permitted by the

Central Government to engage through contractor and thus

they are engaged through agency. The claimant was

engaged as Security Guard and deputed in the bank by

respondent No. 5 on intermediate days and respondent

No. 5 was free to depute any service meant as Guard in the

Bank. The claimant was never appointed by the bank. The

bank authorities never exercise any supervision or control

over the claimant and management did not maintained any

attendance record of the Security Guard deputed by Sainik

Welfare Office. As the District Welfare Office had liberty to

depute any serviceman on security and as such it is denied

that the claimant ever completed 240 days of continued

service in any year, therefore, there is no question of

termination of claimant by the bank and there was no need

for issuance of any show cause notice, memorandum, charge

sheet etc. as well as payment of retrenchment

compensation. The claimant deputed at the ATM of Punjab

and Sind Bank against through Sainik Welfare Office not

the employee of the bank and therefore, there is no question

of termination of his service and need for compliance of

provisions of Industrial Dispute Act 1947. It is prayed by

the management that as the salary/allowance used to be

paid by respondent No. 5 at the rate respondent No. 5

deem fit, therefore, he is not entitled to reinstatement in the

service of the bank as he was never appointed by the bank

and nor any order of termination were passed by the bank,

therefore the reference deserved to be rejected.

5. In evidence workman filed his affidavit along with

documents. The workman was cross-examined by the

learned counsel for the management. The workman in cross-

examination admitted that he never submitted any

application to the bank for the post of Security Guard nor

he was issued any appointment letter. No arms and

ammunitions were issued by the bank to him. He also

admitted that no letter of terminating his service was issued

by the bank. He denied the suggestion that after terminating

his services, bank asked him to join the new security agency

which was engaged by the bank to provide the Security

Guard. The management in evidence submitted affidavit of

2666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

one Sandeep Singh who also relied on documents Ex. M2

to M8. In cross-examination the witness stated that the

workman Shadi Lal joined the service on 26.3.2011 and his

service were terminated on 01.08.2012 and at the time of

termination, no notice of termination was issued to him

and no departmental inquiry was conducted. His last drawn

salary was Rs. 7500/-. He stated in the cross-examination

that bank management exercises control over the work of

the workman. He also stated that salary cheque was issued

in the name of District Sainik Welfare, Jalandhar. He also

stated that bank has been paying salary to the workman in

their saving bank account. He further stated that Sainik

Welfare Office authorized the bank to credit the workman

salary in their respective accounts and there was no

contract of the bank with Sainik Welfare Officer. He also

stated that at the time of initial appointment, affidavit was

also taken from the workman and para 3 of the affidavit

specified that services of the workman can be terminated

after paying one month notice. He further stated that para

1 of the affidavit specified that bank will pay Rs. 5500/- per

month towards wages to the workman through District

Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar, which will be accepted to

him. He further stated that in place of the workman other

persons were engaged through private agency.

6. I have heard the parties and gone through the evidence

and record of the case.

7. The learned counsel for the workman during

arguments submitted that the workman was engaged with

the management through Deputy Director District Defence

Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. He was interviewed by

the Manager Security Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office,

Jalandhar. It is further submitted by the learned counsel

that the payment by cheque made to the workman through

Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office

Jalandhar. At the time of termination on 1-8-2012 the

workman was not given any retrenchment compensation

notice for one month or pay in lieu of notice. It is further

submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that

there exists relationship of employer and employee between

the management and the workman.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

management submitted that the applicant was the employee

of Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office

Jalandhar as he was deputed by the above Agency for

security guard duty. The payment of wages used to be

made to the above security agency i.e. Deputy Director

District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar which

was responsible for deduction of provident fund and other

statutory deductions. It is further submitted that the Deputy

Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar

fixed the wages of the workman and accordingly the same

were paid to the workman. The above agency used to be

service provider and the managment was within its right to

take the services of the workman through the above service

provider. In the above facts and circumstances, there exists

no relationship of employer and employee between the

management and the workman and the workman was rightly

not engaged w.e.f. 1.8.2012 and he is not entitled to any

retrenchment compensation, notice of one month or pay in

lieu thereof and provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947

are not applicable.

9. From the record it is revealed that the workman never

submitted any application directly to the management for

the post of security guard. It is admitted case of the parties

that the workman was not issued any appointment letter. It

is also admitted position that workman was registered with

Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office

Jalandhar who deputed the workman for security duty with

the respondent management. He was also not issued any

arms and ammunition by the managment. The witness of

the management in cross examination stated that workman

joined the services on 26.3.2011 with the management and

his services were terminated on 1.8.2012. The witness

further stated that bank management exercise control on

the workman and bank has been paying salary to the

workman in his saving bank account and sainik welfare

officer authorized the bank to credit the salary in the account

of the workman. It is further stated by the witness of the

management that at the time of initial appointment affidavit

was given by the workman, which specified that services

of the workman can be terminated after paying one month

notice.

10. Respondent No. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District

Defence Service Welfare Officer Jalandhar did not put up

appearance before this court. However vide letter dated

25-6-2013 it is informed by the above that his office was

only sponsoring agency and usually asked by the

management to call ex-servicemen for interview and selected

by security officer of the bank.

11. From the above it is clear that the respondent No. 5

sponsored the workman for guard duty with the

management. The salary cheques issued in the name of

respondent No. 5 and on authorization the salary used to

be credit to the saving account of the workman. Vide letter

dated June 2007, it was agreed that ex-servicemen would

be paid Rs. 5500/- per month and payment will be routed

through respondent No. 5 in the form of DD/Mgr Cheques.

12. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that workman

joined that management bank on 26-3-2011 through

respondent No. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District Defence

Service Welfare Office Jalandhar and worked till 1-8-2012.

The management failed to prove that the above respondent

No. 5 was the service provider. In the facts and

circumstances the workman worked for the respondent

management. Admittedly no notice, retrenchment

compensation was paid to the workman at the time of

termination. It is also the fact that the workman was not

issued any appointment letter and termination letter. In the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2667

above circumstances, as the workman worked for the

management, he is entitled to be paid at least the terminal

dues at the time of his termination. The workman worked

for the management for almost one year and four months.

He is entitled for pay for one month as notice period and

retrenchment compensation as per Section 25 F (b) @ 15

days average pay for each completed year of continuous

service. Thus the amount so computed comes to Rs. 12000/

- (twelve thousand only). The workman is entitled to get

this amount from management respondents Nos. 1 to 4.

13. The management is directed to pay Rs. 12000/-

(twelve thousand only) to the workman within one month

from the date of publication. The reference is answered

accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as well hard

copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh.

09-04-2015

S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1276-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M flaè

cSad ds izcaèr= 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; uñ 1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la-

65@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

18-06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@31@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th June, 2015

S.O. 1276.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 65/2013) of the Cent.

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

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 18/06/2015.

[No. L-12012/31/2013-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Case No. ID 65 of 2013. Reference No. L-12012/31/2013-

IR(B-II) dated 23.05.2013. Sh. Kulwant Singh, S/o

Sh. Mohinder Singh, R/o VPO Khandpur, Distt. Kapurthala.

(Punjab)

...Workman

Versus

1. The Chairman, Punjab and Sind Bank, Canaught

Place, 24 Rajinder Palace, New Delhi.

2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Local

H.Q. Sector-17, Chandigarh.

3. The Divisional General Manager, Punjab & Sind

Bank, Model Town, Jalandhar, Distt. Jalandhar

(Punjab).

4. The Manager Security, Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal

Office, Model Town, Jalandhar (Punjab).

5. The Deputy Director, Distt, Defence Service

Welfare Office, Jalandhar (Punjab).

...Respondents

For the Workman :

Shri G.S. Raghav, Advocate

For the Management :

Shri J.S. Sathi, Advocate

AWARD

Passed on 09.04.2015

1. Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification L-12012/31/2013-IR(B-II) dated 23.05.2013 has

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Management of Punjab

& Sind Bank, Jalandhar in terminating the services

of Sh. Kulwant Singh son of Shri Mohinder Singh

w.e.f. 01.08.2012 who was engaged by Punjab & Sind

Bank through Distt. Defence Service Welfare Office,

Jalandhar is just, valid and legal? If Not, to what

relief the workman is entitled for and what directions

are necessary in the matter?"

2. The case of the workman as per the claim statement is

that he is an ex-Serviceman from defence services and he

got his name registered at Distt. Sainik Welfare Office,

Jalandhar. The management i.e. respondent No. 3 Divisional

Zonal Manager and Manager Security wanted the service

of the Security Guard and they approached Respondent

No. 5 i.e. the Deputy Director, District Defence Service

Welfare Office Jalandhar. The workman appeared in

interview and he was engaged as Security Guard initially in

2008 by Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office Jalandhar after

checking of relevant record related with the qualification,

experience and relieving certificate issued by the Army

and an affidavit was also got executed from the workman

by the management. It is pleaded by the workman that he

was posted in various branches of bank including ATM

machines. He also possessed armed licence and weapon

along with ammunition and he remained continuously in

2668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the service of the management from 2008 to 31.07.2012 and

completed more than 240 days service in preceding year. It

is pleaded by the workman that his services were illegally

terminated on 01.08.2012 without any memo, show cause

notice, charge-sheet and no inquiry was conducted and

termination of the workman is against the provisions of

Industrial Dispute Act as there is a relationship of employer

and employee between the management and the workman

and no retrenchment compensation has been paid to him

at the time of termination of his service. It is further pleaded

that he was drawing Rs. 7500/- per month and he is jobless

since his termination. He prayed for direction to the

management to reinstate him in service with continuity

and full back wages with all benefits.

3. Management filed written statement. Preliminary

objection has been taken that there existed no relationship

of employer and employee between the claimant and the

management as there was no supervision and control of

the management on the workman. The applicant does not

come under the umbrella of definition of the workman. It is

pleaded by the management that the claimant was appointed

by Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Officer and he

was deputed as Guard in the bank by the District Sainik

Welfare Office, Jalandhar and used to get salary/wages

from Deputy Director Sainik Welfare Office at the rate

offered by the Deputy Director i.e. Respondent No. 5 and

the same was accepted by the workman also. The statutory

deduction of the workman used to be made by Sainik

Welfare Office which include provident fund and liability

of payment of gratuity. His supervision and control,

sanction of leave, disciplinary control was exercised by

Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Office. It is further

pleaded that engagement of Security Guard in the bank

through service provider/reputed security agency is para

materia to engagement of SPOs in the bank through Punjab

Police during the terrorism in Punjab and the claimant after

his attaining the age of retirement and getting benefits

from Government exchequer would not bestow statutes of

workman on him and he has no legal right as the bank has

within its prerogative to change the service provider/

contractor especially when the service provider flatly

refused to abide by the ongoing practice ever since the

inception of the arrangement. On merits it is pleaded by the

management that Security Guards are permitted by the

Central Government to engage through contractor and thus

they are engaged through agency. The claimant was

engaged as Security Guard and deputed in the bank by

respondent No. 5 on intermediate days and respondent

No. 5 was free to depute any service meant as Guard in the

Bank. The claimant was never appointed by the bank. The

bank authorities never exercise any supervision or control

over the claimant and management did not maintained any

attendance record of the Security Guard deputed by Sainik

Welfare Office. As the District Welfare Office had a liberty

to depute any serviceman on security and as such it is

denied that the claimant ever completed 240 days of

continued service in any year, therefore, there is no question

of termination of claimant by the bank and there was no

need for issuance of any show cause notice, memorandum,

charge sheet etc as well as payment of retrenchment

compensation. The claimant deputed at the ATM of Punjab

and Sind Bank against through Sainik Welfare Office not

the employee of the bank and therefore, there is no question

of termination of his service and need for compliance of

provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It is prayed by

the management that as the salary/allowance used to be

paid by respondent No. 5 at the rate respondent No. 5

deem fit, therefore, he is not entitled to reinstatement in the

service of the bank as he was never appointed by the bank

and nor any order of termination were passed by the bank,

therefore the reference deserved to be rejected.

5. In evidence workman filed his affidavit along with

documents. The workman was cross-examined by the

learned counsel for the management. The workman in cross-

examination admitted that he never submitted any

application to the bank for the post of Security Guard nor

he was issued any appointment letter. No arms and

ammunitions was issued by the bank to him. He also

admitted that no letter of terminating his service was issued

by the bank. He denied the suggestion that after terminating

his services, bank asked him to join the new security agency

which was engaged by the bank to provide the Security

Guard. The management in evidence submitted affidavit of

one Sandeep Singh who also relied on documents Ex. M2

to M10. In cross-examination the witness stated that the

workman Kulwant Singh joined the service on 01.02.2008

and his service were terminated on 01.08.2012 and at the

time of termination, no notice of termination was issued to

him and no departmental inquiry was conducted. His last

drawn salary was Rs. 7500/-. He stated in the cross-

examination that Bank management exercises control over

the work of the workman. He also stated that salary cheque

was issued in the name of the District Sainik Welfare,

Jalandhar. He also stated that bank has been paying salary

to the workman in their saving bank account. He further

stated that Sainik Welfare Office authorized the bank to

credit the workman salary in their respective accounts and

there was no contract of the bank with Sainik Welfare

Officer. He also stated that at the time of initial appointment,

affidavit was also taken from the workman and para 3 of the

affidavit specified that services of the workman can be

terminated after paying one month notice. He further stated

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2669

that para 1 of the affidavit specified that bank will pay

Rs. 5500/- per month towards wages to the workman

through District Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar, which

will be accepted to him. He further stated that in place of

the workman other persons were engaged through private

agency.

6. I have heard the parties and gone through the evidence

and record of the case.

7. The learned counsel for the workman during

arguments submitted that the workman was engaged with

the management through Deputy Director District Defence

Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. He was interviewed by

the Manager Security Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office,

Jalandhar. It is further submitted by the learned counsel

that the payment by cheque made to the workman through

Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office

Jalandhar. At the time of termination on 1-8-2012 the

workman was not given any retrenchment compensation

notice for one month or pay in lieu of notice. It is further

submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that

there exists relationship of employer and employee between

the management and the workman.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

management submitted that the applicant was the employee

of Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office

Jalandhar as he was deputed by the above Agency for

security guard duty. The payment of wages used to be

made to the above security agency i.e. Deputy Director

District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar which

was responsible for deduction of provident fund and other

statutory deductions. It is further submitted that the Deputy

Director District Defence Service. Welfare Office Jalandhar

fixed the wages of the workman and accordingly the same

were paid to the workman. The above agency used to be

service provider and the management was within its right

to take the services of the workman through the above

service provider. In the above facts and circumstances,

there exists no relationship of employer and employee

between the management and the workman and the

workman was rightly not engaged w.e.f. 1.8.2012 and he is

not entitled to any retrenchment compensation, notice of

one month or pay in lieu thereof and provisions of Industrial

Disputes Act 1947 are not applicable.

9. From the record it is revealed that the workman never

submitted any application directly to the management for

the post of security guard. It is admitted case of the parties

that the workman was not issued any appointment letter. It

is also admitted position that workman was registered with

Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office

Jalandhar who deputed the workman for security duty with

the respondent management. He was also not issued any

arms and ammunition by the management. The witness of

the management in cross examination stated that workman

joined the services on 1-2-2008 with the management and

his services were terminated on 1-8-2012. The witness

further stated that bank management exercise control on

the workman and bank has been paying salary to the

workman in his saving bank account and sainik welfare

officer authorized the bank to credit the salary in the account

of the workman. It is further stated by the witness of the

management that at the time of initial appointment affidavit

was given by the workman, which specified that services

of the workman can be terminated after paying one month

notice.

10. Respondent No. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District

Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar did not put up

appearance before this court. However vide letter dated

25-6-2013 it is informed by the above that his office was

only sponsoring agency and usually asked by the

management to call ex-servicemen for interview and selected

by security officer of the bank.

11. From the above it is clear that the respondent No. 5

sponsored the workman for guard duty with the

management. The salary cheques issued in the name of

respondent No. 5 and on authorization the salary used to

be credit to the saving account of the workman. Vide letter

dated June 2007, it was agreed that ex-servicemen would

be paid Rs. 5500/- per month and payment will be routed

through respondent No. 5 in the form of DD/Mgr Cheques.

12. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that workman

joined the management bank on 1-2-2008 through

respondent No. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District Defence

Service Welfare Office Jalandhar and worked till 1-8-2012.

The management failed to prove that the above respondent

No. 5 was the service provider. In the facts and

circumstances the workman worked for the respondent

management. Admittedly no notice, retrenchment

compensation was paid to the workman at the time of

termination. It is also the fact that the workman was not

issued any appointment letter and termination letter. In the

above circumstances, as the workman worked for the

management, he is entitled to be paid at least the terminal

dues at the time of his termination. The workman worked

for the management for almost four years and six months.

He is entitled for pay for one month as notice period and

retrenchment compensation as per Section 25 F (b) @ 15

days average pay for each completed year of continuous

service. Thus the amount so computed comes to Rs. 26500/-

making this amount rounded to Rs. 27000/- (twenty seven

thousand only). The workman is entitled to get this amount

from management respondents No. 1 to 4.

2670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13. The management is directed to pay Rs. 27000/-

(twenty seven thousand only) to the workman within one

month from the date of publication. The reference is

answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as

well hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh

09.04.2015

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1277-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M flaè c®d

ds izcaèra= 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; uañ 1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 81@2013½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@24@2013&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th June, 2015

S.O. 1277.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 81/2013) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court No. 1

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Punjab & Sind Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

18/06/2015.

[No. L-12012/24/2013-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 81 of 2013. Reference No. L-12012/24/2013-

IR(B-II) dated 30.05.2013. Sh. Baldev Singh son of

Shri Gurmukh Singh, resident of Village Kattowal, P.O.

Dhaddar, District Hoshiarpur. (Punjab)

Workman

Versus

1. The Chairman, Punjab and Sind Bank, Canaught

Place, 24, Rajinder Palace, New Delhi.

2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Local

H.Q. Sector-17, Chandigarh.

3. The Divisional General Manager, Punjab & Sind

Bank, Model Town, Jalandhar Distt. Jalandhar

(Punjab).

4. The Manager Security, Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal

Office, Model Town, Jalandhar (Punjab).

5. The Deputy Director, Distt, Defence Service

Welfare Office, Jalandhar (Punjab).

Respondents

For the workman:

Shri G.S. Raghav, Advocate

For the management:

Shri J.S. Sathi, Advocate

AWARD

Passed on 09.04.2015

1. Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification L-12012/24/2013-IR(B-II) dated 30.5.2013 has

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Management of Punjab

& Sind Bank, Jalandhar in terminating the services

of Sh. Baldev Singh son of Shri Gurmukh Singh w.e.f.

01.08.2012 who was engaged by Punjab & Sind Bank

through Distt. Defence Service Welfare Office,

Jalandhar is just, valid and legal? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled for and what directions are

necessary in the matter?"

2. The case of the workman as per the claim statement is

that he is an ex-Service man from defence services and he

got his name registered at Distt. Sainik Welfare Office,

Jalandhar. The management i.e.respondent No. 3 Divisional

Zonal Manager and Manager Security wanted the service

of the Security Guard and they approached Respondent

No. 5 i.e. the Deputy Director, District Defence Service

Welfare Office Jalandhar. The workman appeared in

interview and he was engaged as Security Guard initially in

2008 by Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office Jalandhar after

checking of relevant record related with the qualification,

experience and relieving certificate issued by the Army

and an affidavit was also got executed from the workman

by the management. It is pleaded by the workman that he

was posted in various branches of bank including ATM

machines. He also possessed armed licence and weapon

along with ammunition and he remained continuously in

the service of the management from 2008 to 31.07.2012 and

completed more than 240 days service in preceding year. It

is pleaded by the workman that his services were illegally

terminated on 01.08.2012 without any memo, show cause

notice, charge-sheet and no inquiry was conducted and

termination of the workman is against the provisions of

Industrial Dispute Act as there is a relationship of employer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2671

and employee between the management and the workman

and no retrenchment compensation has been paid to him

at the time of termination of his service. It is further pleaded

that he was drawing Rs. 7500/- per month and he is jobless

since his termination. He prayed for direction to the

management to reinstate him in service with continuity

and full back wages with all benefits.

3. Management filed written statement. Preliminary

objection has been taken that there existed no relationship

of employer and employee between the claimant and the

management as there was not supervision and control of

the management on the workman. The applicant does not

come under the umbrella of definition of the workman. It is

pleaded by the management that the claimant was appointed

by Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Officer and he

was deputed as Guard in the bank by the Ditrict Sainik

Welfare Office at the rate offered by the Deputy Director

i.e. Respondent No. 5 and the same was accepted by the

workman used to be made by Sainik Welfare Office which

include provident fund and liability of payment of gratuity.

His supervision and control, sanction of leave, disciplinary

control was exercised by Deputy Director, District Sainik

Welfare Office. It is further pleaded that engagement of

Security Guard in the bank through service provider/reputed

security agency is para materia to engagement of SPOs in

the bank through Punjab Police during the terrorism in

Punjab and the claimant after his attaining the age of

retirement and getting benefits from Government exchequer

woruld not bestow statutes of workman on him and he has

no legal right as the bank has within its prerogative to

change the service provider/contractor especially when

the service provider flatly refused to abide by the ongoing

practice ever since the inception of the arrangement. On

merits it is pleaded by the management that Security Guards

are permitted by the Central Government to engage through

contractor and thus they are engaged through agency.

The claimant was engaged as Security Guard and deputed

in the bank by respondent No. 5 on intermediate days and

respondent No. 5 was free to depute any service meant as

Guard in the Bank. The claimant was never appointed by

the bank. The bank authorities never exercise any

supervision or control over the claimant and management

did not maintained any attendance record of the Security

Guard deputed by Sainik Welfare Office. As the District

Welfare Office had a liberty to depute any servicemen on

security and as such it is denied that the claimant ever

completed 240 days of continued service in any year,

therefore, there is no question of termination of claimant

by the bank and there was no need for issuance of any

show cause notice, memorandum, charge sheet etc. as well

as payment of retrenchment compensation. The claimant

deputed at the ATM of Punjab and Sind Bank against

through Sainik Welfare Office not the employee of the bank

and therefore, there is no question of termination of his

service and need for compliance of provisions of Industrial

Dispute Act 1947. It is prayed by the management that as

the salary/allowance used to be paid by respondent No. 5

at the rate respondent No. 5 deem fit, therefore, he is not

entitled to reinstatement in the service of the bank as he

was never appointed by the bank and nor any order of

termination were passed by the bank, therefore the

reference deserved to be rejected.

5. In evidence workman filed his affidavit along with

documents. The workman was cross-examined by the

learned counsel for the management. The workman in cross-

examination admitted that he never submitted any

application to the bank for the post of Security Guard nor

he was issued any appointment letter. No arms and

ammunitions was issued by the bank to him. He also

admitted that no letter of terminating his service was issued

by the bank. He denied the suggestion that after terminating

his services, bank asked him to join the new security agency

which was engaged by the bank to provide the Security

Guard. The management in evidence submitted affidavit of

one Sandeep Singh who also relied on documents Ex. M2

to M9. In cross-examination the witness stated that the

workman Baldev Singh joined the service on 13.8.2008 and

his service were terminated on 01.08.2012 and at the time of

termination, no notice of termination was issued to him

and no departmental inquiry was conducted. His last drawn

salary was Rs. 7500/-. He stated in the cross-examination

that bank management exervices control over the work of

the workman. He also stated that salary cheque was issued

in the name of District Sainik Welfare, Jalandhar. He also

stated that bank has been paying salary to the workman in

their saving bank account. He further stated that Sainik

Welfare Office authorized the bank to credit the workman

salary in their respective accounts and there was no

contract of the bank with Sainik Welfare Officer. He also

stated that at the time of initial appointment, affidavit was

also taken from the workman and para 3 of the affidavit

sepecified that services of the workman can be terminated

after paying one month notice. He further stated that

para 1 of the affidavit specified that bank will pay Rs. 5500/-

per month towards wages to the workman through District

Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar, which will be accepted to

him. He further stated that in place of the workman other

person were engaged through private agency.

6. I have heard the parties and gone through the evidence

and record of the case.

2672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7. The learned counsel for the workman during

arguments submitted that the workman was engaged with

the management through Deputy Director District Defence

Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. He was interviewed by

the Manager Security Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office,

Jalandhar. It is further submitted by the learned counsel

that the payment by cheque made to the workman through

Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office

Jalandhar. At the time of termination on 1-8-2012 the

workman was not given any retrenchment compensation

notice for one month or pay in lieu of notice. It is further

submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that

there exists relationship of employer and employee between

the management and the workman.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

management submitted that the applicant was the employee

for Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office

Jalandhar as he was deputed by the above Agency for

security guard duty. The payment of wages used to be

made to the above security agency i.e. Deputy Director

District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar which

was responsible for deduction of provident fund and other

statutory deductions. It is further submitted that the Deputy

Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar

fixed the wages of the workman and accordingly the same

were paid to the workman.The above agency used to be

service provider and the management was within its right

to take the services of the workman through the above

service provider. In the above facts and circumstances,

there exists no relationship of employer and employee

between the management and the workman and the

workman was rightly not engaged w.e.f. 1.8.2012 and he is

not entitled to any retrenchment compensation, notice of

one month or pay in lieu thereof and provisions of Industrial

Disputes Act 1947 are not applicable.

9. From the record it is revealed that the workman never

submitted any application directly to the management for

the post security guard. It is admitted case of the parties

that the workman was not issued any apointment letter. It

is also admitted position that workman was registered with

Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office

Jalandhar who deputed the workman for security duty with

the respondent management. He was also not issued any

arms and ammunition by the management.The witness of

the management in cross examination stated that workman

joined the services on 13.8.2008 with the management and

his services were terminated on 1-8-2012. The witness

further stated that bank management exercise control on

the workman and bank has been paying salary to the

workman in his saving bank account and Sainik Welfare

Officer authorized the bank to credit the salary in the account

of the workman. It is further stated by the witness of the

management that at the time of initial appointment affidavit

was given by the workman, which specified that services

of the workman can be terminated after paying one month

notice.

10. Respondent No. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District

Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar did not put up

appearance before this court. However vide letter dated

25-6-2013 it is informed by the above that his office was

only sponsoring agency and usually asked by the

management to call ex-servicemen for interview and selected

by security officer of the bank.

11. From the above it is clear that the respondent No. 5

sponsored the workman for guard duty with the

managment. The salary cheques issued in the name of

respondent No. 5 and on authorization the salary used to

be credit to the saving account of the workman. Vide letter

dated June 2007, it was agreed that ex-servicemen would

be paid Rs. 5500/- per month and payment will be routed

through respondent no. 5 in the form of DD/Mgr Cheques.

12. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that workman

joined the management bank on 13.8.2008 through

respondent No. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District Defence

Service Welfare Office Jalandhar and worked till 1-8-2012.

The management failed to prove that the above respondent

No. 5 was the service provider. In the facts and

circumstances the workman worked for the respondent

management. Admittedly no notice, retrenchment

compensation was paid to the workman at the time of

termination. It is also that the workman was not issued any

appointment letter and termination letter. In the above

circumstances, as the workman worked for the management,

he is entitled to be paid at least the terminal dues at the time

of his termination. The workman worked for the

management for almost four years. He is entitled for pay

for one month as notice period and retrenchment

compensation as per Section 25 F (b) @ 15 days average

pay for each completed year of continuous service. Thus

the amount so computed comes to Rs. 22500/- making this

amount rounded to Rs. 23000/- (twenty three thousand

only). The workman is entitled to get this amount from

management respondents No. 1 to 4.

13. The management is directed to pay Rs. 23000/-

(twenty three thousand only) to the workman within one

month from the date of publication. The reference is

answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as

well hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh

09.04.2015

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2673

ubZ fnYyh] 18 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1278-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M flaè cSad

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; uñ 1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼82@2013½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@33@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½ ]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th June, 2015

S.O. 1278.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indusrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 82/2013) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1 Chandigarh

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 18/06/2015.

[No. L-12012/33/2013-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 82 of 2013. Reference No. L-12012/33/2013-

IR(B-II) dated 29.05.2013. Sh. Navreet Singh son of Shri

Gurucharan Singh R/o Village Aladinpur, PO Khosropur,

District Jalandhar (Punjab).

...Workman

Versus

1. The Chairman, Punjab and Sind Bank, Canaught

Place, 24, Rajinder Palace, New Delhi.

2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Local

H.Q.Sector-17, Chandigarh.

3. The Divisonal General Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank,

Model Town, Jalandhar, Distt. Jalandhar(Punjab).

4. The Manager Security, Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal

Officer, Model Town, Jalandhar(Punjab).

5. The Deputy Director, Distt, Defence Service Welfare

Office Jalandhar(Punjab).

...Respondent

For the workman:

Shri G.S. Raghav, Advocate

For the management :

Shri J.S. Sathi, Advocate

AWARD

Passed on 09.04.2015

1.

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification L-12012/33/2013-IR(B-II) dated 29.05.2013 has

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Management of Punjab &

Sind Bank, Jalandhar in terminating the services of Sh.

Navreet Singh son of Shri Gurcharan Singh w.e.f.

01.08.2012 who was engaged by Punjab & Sind Bank

through Distt. Defence Service Welfare Office, Jalandhar

is just, valid and legal? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the

matter?"

2. The case of the workman as per the claim statement is

that he is an ex-Service man from defence services and he

got his name registered at Distt. Sainik Welfare Office,

Jalandhar. The management i.e. respondent No. 3 Divisional

Zonal Manager and Manager Security wanted the service

of the Security Guard and they approached Respondent

No. 5 i.e. the Deputy Director, District Defence Service

Welfare Office Jalandhar. The workman appeared in

interview and he was engaged as Security Guard initially in

2005 by Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office Jalandhar after

checking of relevant record related with the qualification,

experience and relieving certificate issued by the Army

and an affidiavit was also got executed from the workman

by the management. It is pleaded by the workman that he

was posted in various branches including ATM machines.

He also possessed armed licence and weapon along with

ammunition and he remained continuously in the service

of the management from 2005 to 31.07.2012 and completed

more than 240 days service in preceding year. It is pleaded

by the workman that his services were illegally terminated

on 01.08.2012 without any memo, show cause notice,

charge-sheet and no inquiry was conducted and

termination of the workman is against the provisions of

Industrial Dispute Act as there is a relationship of employer

and employee between the managment and the workman

and no retrenchement compensation has been paid to him

at the time of termination of his service. It is further pleaded

that he was drawing Rs. 7500/- per month and he is jobless

since his termination. He prayed for direction to the

management to reinstate him in service with continuity

and full back wages with all benefits.

3. Management filed written statement. Preliminary

objection has been taken that there existed no relationship

of employer and employee between the claimant and the

management as there was no supervision and control of

the management on the workman. The applicant does not

come under the umbrella of definition of the workman. It is

pleaded by the management that the claimant was appointed

by Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Officer and he

2674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

was deputed as Guard in the bank by the District Sainik

Welfare Officer, Jalandhar and used to get salary/wages

from Deputy Director Sainik Welfare Office at the rate

offered by the Deputy Director i.e. Respondent No. 5 and

the same was accepted by the workman also. The statutory

deduction of the workman used to be made by Sainik

Welfare Office which include provident fund and liability

of payment of gratuity. His supervision and control,

sanction of leave, disciplinary control was exercised by

Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Office. It is further

pleaded that engagement of Security Guard in the bank

through service provider/reputed security agency is para

materia to engagement of SPOs in the bank through Punjab

Police during the terrorism in Punjab and the claimant after

his attaining the age of retirement and getting benefits

from Government exchequer would not bestow statutes of

workman on him and he has no legal right as the bank has

within its prerogative to change the service provider/

contractor especially when the service provider flatly

refused to abide by the ongoing practice ever since the

inception of the arrangement. On merits it is pleaded by the

management that Security Guards are permitted by the

Central Government to engage through contractor and thus

they are engaged through agency. The claimant was

engaged as Security Guard and deputed in the bank by

respondent No. 5 on intermediate days and respondent

No. 5 was free to depute any service meant as Guard in the

Bank. The claimant was never appointed by the bank. The

bank authorities never exercise any supervision or control

over the claimant and management did not maintained any

attendance record of the Security Guard deputed Sainik

Welfare Office. As the District Welfare Office had liberty to

depute any serviceman on security and as such it is denied

that the claimant ever completed 240 days of continued

service in any year, therefore, there is no question of

termination of claimant by the bank and there was no need

for issuance of any show cause notice, memorandum, charge

sheet etc. as well as payment of retrenchment

compensation. The claimant deputed at the ATM of Punjab

and Sind Bank against through Sainik Welfare Office not

the employee of the bank and therefore, there is no question

of termination of his service and need for compliance of

provisions of Industrial Dispute Act 1947. It is prayed by

the management that as the salary/allowance used to be

paid by respondent No. 5 at the rate respondent No. 5

deem fit, therefore, he is not entitled to reinstatement in the

service of the bank as he was never appointed by the bank

and nor any order of termination were passed by the bank,

therefore the reference deserved to be rejected.

5. In evidence workman filed his affidavit along with

documents. The workman was cross-examined by the

learned counsel for the management. The workman in cross-

examination admitted that he never submitted any

application to the bank for the post of Security Guard nor

he was issued any appointment letter. No arms and

ammunitions were issued by the bank to him. He also

admitted that no letter of terminating his service was issued

by the bank. He denied the suggestion that after terminating

his services, bank asked him to join the new security agency

which was engaged by the bank to provide the Security

Guard. The management in evidence submitted affidavit of

one Sandeep Singh who also relied on documents Ex. M2

to M11. In cross-examination the witness stated that the

workman Navreet Singh joined the service on 01.05.2008

and his service were terminated on 01.08.2012 and at the

time of termination, no notice of termination was issued to

him and no departmental inquiry was conducted. His last

drawn salary was Rs. 7500/-. He stated in the cross-

examination that bank management exercises control over

the work of the workman. He also stated that salary cheque

was issued in the name of District Sainik Welfare, Jalandhar.

He also stated that bank has been paying salary to the

workman in their saving bank account. He further stated

that Sainik Welfare Office authorized the bank to credit the

workman salary in their respective accounts and there was

no contract of the bank with Sainik Welfare Officer. He also

stated that at the time of initial appointment, affidavit was

also taken from the workman and para 3 of the affidavit

specified that services of the workman can be terminated

after paying one month notice. He further stated that para

1 of the affidavit specified that bank will pay Rs. 5500/- per

month towards wages to the workman through District

Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar, which will be accepted to

him. He further stated that in place of the workman other

persons were engaged through private agency.

6. I have heard the parties and gone through the evidence

and record of the case.

7. The learned counsel for the workman during

arguments submitted that the workman was engaged with

the management through Deputy Director District Defence

Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. He was interviewed by

the Manager Security Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office,

Jalandhar. It is further submitted by the learned counsel

that the payment by cheque made to the workman through

Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office

Jalandhar. At the time of termination on 1-8-2012 the

workman was not given any retrenchment compensation

notice for one month or pay in lieu of notice. It is further

submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that

there exists relationship of employer and employee between

the management and the workman.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

management submitted that the applicant was the employee

of Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office

Jalandhar as he was deputed by the above Agency for

security guard duty. The payment of wages used to be

made to the above security agency i.e. Deputy Director

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2675

District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar which

was responsible for deduction of provident fund and other

statutory deductions. It is further submitted that the Deputy

Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar

fixed the wages of the workman and accordingly the same

were paid to the workman. The above agency used to be

service provider and the managment was within its right to

take the services of the workman through the above service

provider. In the above facts and circumstances, there exists

no relationship of employer and employee between the

management and the workman and the workman was rightly

not engaged w.e.f. 1.8.2012 and he is not entitled to any

retrenchment compensation, notice of one month or pay in

lieu thereof and provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947

are not applicable.

9. From the record it is revealed that the workman never

submitted any application directly to the management for

the post of security guard. It is admitted case of the parties

that the workman was not issued any appointment letter. It

is also admitted position that workman was registered with

Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office

Jalandhar who deputed the workman for security duty with

the respondent management. He was also not issued any

arms and ammunition by the managment. The witness of

the management in cross examination stated that workman

joined the services on 1.5.2008 with the management and

his services were terminated on 1.8.2012. The witness

further stated that bank management exercise control on

the workman and bank has been paying salary to the

workman in his saving bank account and sainik welfare

officer authorized the bank to credit the salary in the account

of the workman. It is further stated by the witness of the

management that at the time of initial appointment affidavit

was given by the workman, which specified that services

of the workman can be terminated after paying one month

notice.

10. Respondent no. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District

Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar did not put up

appearance before this court. However vide letter dated

25-6-2013 it is informed by the above that his office was

only sponsoring agency and usually asked by the

management to call ex-servicemen for interview and selected

by security officer of the bank.

11. From the above it is clear that the respondent no. 5

sponsored the workman for guard duty with the

management. The salary cheques issued in the name of

respondent no. 5 and on authorization the salary used to

be credit to the saving account of the workman. Vide letter

dated June 2007, it was agreed that ex-servicemen would

be paid Rs. 5500/- per month and payment will be routed

through respondent no. 5 in the form of DD/Mgr Cheques.

12. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that workman

joined that management bank on 1.5.2008 through

respondent no. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District Defence

Service Welfare Office Jalandhar and worked till 1-8-2012.

The management failed to prove that the above respondent

no. 5 was the service provider. In the facts and

circumstances the workman worked for the respondent

management. Admittedly no notice, retrenchment

compensation was paid to the workman at the time of

termination. It is also the fact that the workman was not

issued any appointment letter and termination letter. In the

above circumstances, as the workman worked for the

management, he is entitled to be paid at least the terminal

dues at the time of his termination. The workman worked

for the management for four years and two months. He is

entitled for pay for one month as notice period and

retrenchment compensation as per Section 25 F (b) @ 15

days average pay for each completed year of continuous

service. Thus the amount so computed comes to Rs. 22500/-

making this amount rounded to (twenty three thousand

only). The workman is entitled to get this amount from

management respondents No. 1 to 4.

13. The management is directed to pay Rs. 23000/- (twenty

three thousand only) to the workman within one month from

the date of publication. The reference is answered

accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as well hard

copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh

09-04-2015

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1279-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QlhvkbZ ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè eas

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; uñ 1] èuckn ds iapkV okn la[;k 2@2014 ¼lanHkZ la[;k

138@97½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@06@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@170@1996&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015

S.O. 1279.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award Complaint No. 2/2014 (Arising

out of Ref. No. 138/97) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No 1, Dhanbad as showin in the

Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of FCI and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 19/6/2015.

[No. L-22012/170/1996-IR(C-II)]

MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

2676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1) DHANBAD

In the matter of complaint U/s 33(a) of I.D. Act, 1947.

Complaint No. 2/2014

(Arising out of Ref. No. 138/97)

Ministry Order No. L 22012/170/96-IR (C-II)

VijayendraKumar, AG II (D)

Food Corporation of India, Area Officer

Firdause Building

Exhibition Raod, Patna....... ....... .....Complainant

Vs.

1.

Executive Director (EZ) F.C.I

10 A Midleton Row, Kolkata 71

2.

General Manager,

F.C.I. Arunachal Building

Exhibition Road, Patna

3.

General Manager

F.C.I. Khadya Bhawan, Bani Bihar

Bhubneshwar

4.

Area Manager

F.C.I Firdaus Building

Exhibition Road, Patna-1...................... Opp. Party

Present: Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For Complaint.

: Sri V. Kumar,

For Opp. Party No. III

: Sri D.K. Sethi,

State

: Bihar.

Industry

: Food

Dated:19/5/2015

AWARD

2. Complaint received on 23.01.2014, which arises out of

Ref. No. 138 of 1997. Admitted the same. Notice Issued to

other side. This complaint is on the ground that,

Admittedly Ref. No. 138/97 is pending, in which the present

complainant is a workman concerned, while a reference

case is pending before this Tribunal, can the workman

concerned be transferred from one region to another region.

Whether his transfer is malafide? Whether the transferred

workman was allowed time to hand over entire charge of

his office, cash, godown etc. to a proper workman notified

by the managnement or not.

3. On the other hand whether the present workman's

complaint is maintainable? Another fact that when for the

self same relief the workman became unsuccessful before

the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court, can again

he comes to this Tribunal.

4. Hon'ble Apext Court, in the case in hand said that

"the case is dismised, workman may seek relief in

appropriate forum". It is submitted by the workman that he

ultimately approached this Tribunal.

5. It is not disputed that the workman concerned is not

the Union leader. From his transfer, it appears that the

workman has been discriminated. Even no substitute was

nominated in the order as to whom the transferred would

hand over charge.

6. Food corporation of India staff has to handle bigger

responsibilty i.e. food grain storage and collection of cash.

Unless the charge is handed over to a responsible

nominated person one cannot be fully released. More over

transfer at fag end of service i.e. the superannuation is on

31.01.2014 is anti labour practice when the reference is

pending. There was no problem for the management to

take permission of this Tribunal, before transferring

workman according to law.

7. It is seen from the management of FCI that they are

spending more on litigation than on welfare of the labour

force. In just case action should be taken. This Tribunal

would not have commented like above. In the

circumstances the present complaint is bound to succeed

and the workman be placed in his place prior to his transfer

to other region, Since he has not been relived from Patna in

question of issuance of chargesheet dt. 30.01.14 for not

joining Orissa region does not arise. Complaint Succeeds..

This is my award.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1280-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chch,ech 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; uañ 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1542@2008½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@6@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[lañ ,y&23012@1@2008&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015

S.O. 1280.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1542/2008) of the

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

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2677

dispute between the management of Circle, BBMB, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

19/06/2015.

[No. L-23012/1/2008-IR(CM-II)]

MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNEMNT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

PRESENT: SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

Case I.D. No. 1542/2008

Registered on 26.5.2008

Sh. Ram Lal, S/o Sh. Sant Ram, C/o Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar,

General Secretary, Pb.INTUC, 211-L Brari, PO Partap Nagar,

Nangal Dam, Ropar.

...Petitioner

Versus

The superintending Engineer, Dehar Power House

Circule, BBMB (Power Wing), Slapper, Distt. Mandi (HP)

Mandi.

...Respondents

Appearances

For the workman

Sh. R.K. Parmar, A.R.

For the Management

Sh. Ravinder Sharma, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 29.5.2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-23012/1/

2008-IR(CM-II) Dated 19.5.2008, by exercising its powers

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

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

(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of BBMB in not

engaging Sh. Ram Lal, a retrenched workman while

engaging fresh casual labourers in November, 2006 is

legal and justified? To what relief is the claimant entitled?"

In response to the notice, the workman appeared and

submitted statement of claim pleading that he served the

respondent management from 1984 to 1993 as unskilled

worker and was retrenched. It is further pleaded that

management was making recruitments in a particular category

but he was ignored. That new hands were recruited w.e.f.

1.1.2006 but he was not re-employed. The management

adopted the method of pick and choose and caused loss to

him. That he was entitled to be re-employed as per Section

25H of the Act and the action of the management in not

providing employment to him is improper and he is entitled

to full back wages.

Management submitted a written statement on 26.5.2010

pleading that the workman from 1984 to 1993 on daily wage

basis for casual and seasonal work. It is further pleaded that

some workmen were engaged in November, 2006 on contract

basis and the workman along with others was also called for

interview, but he did not appear. He was again called for

temporary work but he refused to work stating that his case

was pending in the Court. That the claim raised by the

workman is false.

Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.

In Support of this case the workman appeared in witness

box and filed his affidavit reiterating the stand as taken in

the claim petition.

On the other hand, the management has examined

Sh. K.L. Kalra, who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand of

the management.

I have heard Sh. R.K. Parmar, AR of the workman and

Sh. Ravinder Sharma, counsel for the management.

The undisputed facts are that workman worked with the

respondent management as unskilled worker from 1984 to

1993 when his services were retrenched, though it is the

case of the management that he was engaged as daily wage

worker for casual and seasonal work. It is again in admitted

case that the management engaged some workers in

November, 2006. It is the case of the management that the

workman was called for interview but he did not appear. He

was again called for temporary work but he refused to come

stating that his case was pending in the Court. It was so

deposed by Sh. K.L. Kalra, but he did not produce any record

to establish that the workman was actually called in

November, 2006 and thereafer he has stated that the letter

was sent through registered post but no postal receipt is

placed on record or other record of the management to prove

that intimation was sent to the workman to come and work

with the management.Sh. K.L. Kalra has further deposed

during cross-examination that workman was called in 2009

and letter dated 13.10.2009 Annexure-4 is also placed on the

file showing that workman was offered employment for 30

days as Baildar. This statement on the part of Sh. K.L. Kalra

along with letter Annexure-A4 totally belies the case of the

management that workman was informed in November, 2006

when some workers were employed and he was again called

for work but he refused. Since it is the admitted case that

workman is a retrenched employee and therefore preference

should be given to him for re-employment as per Section 25F

of the Act. The management employed certain persons in

2678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

November, 2006 but preference was not given to the workman

and therefore this act of the management in not engaging

the workman while engaging fresh casual labour in

November, 2006 is not legal and justified.

Now the next question which needs determination is to

what amount the claimant is entitled to by way of

compensation.

Though, the workman pleaded that the workmen were

employed in November, 2006 who are still continuing in

service, but there is no evidence to corroborate this fact and

in the absence of the any documentary evidence, it cannot

be said that the workman re-employed in November, 2006

has been continuously working till date. There is no evidence

to establish the salary of the workman when he was employed

with the management. Therefore, the compensation payable

to the workman cannot be assessed. However, by doing the

guess work the management is to be ordered to pay Rs.

50,000/- as compensation to the workman for not giving him

employment in November, 2006.

In result, the reference is answered holding that the action

of the management in not engaging the workman while

engaging fresh casual labourer in November, 2006 is not

legal and he is entitled to Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation

from the management who shall pay the same within 2 months

from the publication of the award failing which the workman

will be entitled to get interst at the rate of 6 per cent per

annum from the date of the award till realization. Let hard

and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government

for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1281-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chch,ech 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;

uañ 2 paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 620@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@6@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk

[lañ ,y&23012@10@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015

S.O. 1281.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 620/2005) of the Cent.

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

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute betwen

the management of BBMB, and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 19/06/2015.

[No. L-23012/10/2001-IR(CM-II)]

MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

PRESENT : SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer.

Case I.D. No. 620/2005

Registered on 24.8.2005

Sh. Ajit Singh, C/o Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar, 211-L, Brari,

PO Partap Nagar, Nangal Dam, Ropar

...Petitioner

Versus

The Chief Engineer (Power Wing) Generation, BBMB,

Nangal Township, Ropar.

...Respondents

Appearances

For the workman

Sh. R.K. Parmar, A.R.

For the Management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 21/5

Central Government vide Notification No. L-23012/10/

2001-IR (CM-II) Dated 3.5.2002, by exercising its powers

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

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

(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the Chief Engineer (Power Wing)

Generation, BBMB Nangal Township, Ropar in

terminating the service of Sh. Ajit Singh S/o Sh. Puran

Singh w.e.f. 7.7.2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?"

In response to the notice, the workman appeared and

submitted statement of claim pleading that he was engaged

as Grinderman in a work charge capacity at Ganguwal and

Kotla Power Houses w.e.f. 8.5.1997 where he continuously

worked till 28.2.1999. He was again employed w.e.f. 9.2.2000

to 7.7.2000. That he has completed 240 days of continuous

service in a calendar month but his services were terminated

without giving him any compensation or seeking any

permission from the Government. Therefore his termination

is illegal and void.

Respondent management pleaded that the workman was

engaged purely on contract basis for a specific period vide

letter dated 28.4.1997 (Exhibit MW1/1) for a period of six

months, and again for another period of six months vide

letter dated 7.11.1997 (Exhibit MW1/2). After considerable

time, the workman again made a request to the management

and he was engaged vide appointment letter dated 8.2.2000

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2679

and since he was engaged for a specific period and on the

expiry of the period, his services came to an end

automatically and his case do not fall within the definition

of retrencfhment. That the workman is not entitled to any

relief.

Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.

In support of his case the workman appeared in the

witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as

set in the claim petition.

On the other hand, the management examined Sh. A.K.

Mehta, who filed his affidavit along with the documents

reiterating the stand of the management.

I have heard Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar, AR of the workman

and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.

It was argued by the learned counsel for the workman

that workman was engaged from time to time by issuing

fresh appointment letters which is an unfair labour practice

and otherwise the work was of continuous nature and his

services were not liable to be terminated.

The reference is whether the action of the management

in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 7.7.2000

is legal. As per appointment letters dated 28.4.1997

(Exhibit MW1/1), 7.11.1997 (Exhibit MW1/2), 5.6.1998

Exhibit MW1/3 and January, 1999 Exhibit MW1/6, the

workman was employed on a work charge post for a

specific period which find mention therein and it is the

case of the workman that the worked only upto 28.2.1999

and was re-engaged on 9.2.2000. An agreement was also

executed between the parties as is clear from the

photocopy of the agreement Exhibit MW1/8 and it is

clearly mentioned therein that the contract of employment

was only upto 7.7.2000 and in pursuance of the said

contract the appointment letter dated 8.2.2000 Exhibit

MW1/9 was issued. Thus, the workman was lastly

employed for a specific period and on the expiry of the

contractual period, his services came to an end and his

case do not fall within the definition of 'retrenchment'

Retrenchment is defined under Section 2(oo) which reads

as follows:-

2(oo)- Retrenchment means the termination by the

employer of the service of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment

inflicated by way of disciplinary action but does

not include-

(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of

superannuation if the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

contains a stipulation in that behalf.

Thus, as per Clause 'bb' the termination of the service

as a result of non-renewal of contract or the expiry of the

such contract, the same do not amount to 'retrenchment'.

Since in the present case the service was on contract

basis and for a specific period and on the expiry of the

period it automatically came to an end and therefore the

disengagement of the workman do not fall within the

definition of 'retrenchment' and he is not entitled to any

compensation.

In the Circumstances, the contention of the learned

counsel that the management entered into unfair labour

practice is without any basis. The provisions of Section

25G and 25H are also not applicable in the present case.

The services of the workman came to an end on 7.7.2000

and it is his own case that he was engaged only on 9.2.2000

and therefore it cannot be said that he completed 240 days

of continuous service preceding the date of his

disengagement and on that account also he cannot claim

any retrenchment compensation.

In result, the reference in answered against the workman

and he is not entitled to any relief. Let hard and soft copy

of the award be sent to the Central Government for further

necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1282-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chch,ech 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; uñ 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

207@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

19@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&23012@13@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015

S.O. 1282.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 207/

2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

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

industrial dispute between the management of BBMB,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 19/06/2015.

[No. L-23012/13/2001-IR(CM-II)]

MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

2680

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No. 207/2005

Registered on 3.8.2005

Sh. Amarjit Singh, C/o Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar, 211-L,

Brari, PO Partap Nagar, Nandal Dam, Ropar

...Petitioner

Versus

The Chief Engineer (Power Wing) Generation, BBMB,

Nangal Township, Ropar.

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

Sh. R.K. Parmar, A.R.

For the Management

Sh. Rajinder Singh,

Law Officer.

AWARD

Passed on 27/5/2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-23012/13/

2001-IR(CM-II) Dated 30.4.2002, by exercising its powers

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

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

referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the Chief Engineer (Power Wing)

Generation, BBMB Nangal Township, Ropar in

terminating the service of Sh. Amarjit Singh S/o Sh.

Rattan Singh w.e.f. 4.7.2000 is legal and justified? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

In response to the notice, the workman appeared and

submitted statement of claim pleading that he was employed

as a Rigger by the respondent management in the Ganguwal

and Kotla Power Houses w.e.f. 8.5.1997 and he

continuously worked till 28.2.1999. He was again employed

on 8.2.2000 till 4.7.2000. That his services were terminated

without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of

the Act. He completed more than 240 days of continuous

service. The provisions of Section 25G and 25H of the Act

were also not complied.

The respondent management filed written reply pleading

that the workman was employed on contract basis for a

specific period and for a specific work. He was firstly

engaged vide appointment letter dated 28.4.1997 as Rigger

for six months, and again vide appointment letter dated

7.11.1997 for another six months; and again vide letter dated

5.6.1998 for another six months; and on the expir of the

contract period his services automatically came to an end.

He again approached the respondent management and he

was issued a fresh appointment letter dated 5.2.2000 on

contract basis and the period of service was upto 4.7.2000.

On the expiry of the said period his services came to an

end. Since the workman was working on contract basis for

aspecific work and as such his case do not fall within the

definition of 'retrenchment' and he is not entitled to any

compensation. It is also denied that he completed 240 days

of continuous service in any calendar year.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

The workman appeared in the witness box and filed his

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

On the other hand, the management has examined Sh.

A.K. Mehta, who filed his affidavit along with the

documents reiterating the stand taken by the management.

It was argued by the learned counsel for the workman

that workman was engaged from time to time by issuing

fresh appointment letters which is an unfair labour practice

and otherwise the work was of continuous nature and his

services were not liable to be terminated.

I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.

It may be added that the reference is whether the

termination of the workman w.e.f. 4.7.2000 is legal and

justified. The appointment letter dated 28.4.1997 Exhibit

MW1/1, 7.11.1997 Exhibit MW1/2 and dated 5.8.1998 Exhibit

MW1/3 has been placed on the record which clearly shows

that the workman was engaged on contract basis for a

specific period i.e. for six months from time to time only and

it is his own case that his services came to an end on

28.2.1999. Again it is the case of the workman that he was

engaged w.e.f. 8.2.2000 to 4.7.2000. Thus after the

disengagement of the workman in the year 1999, he was

engaged in February, 2000. There is an appointment letter

Exhibit MW5 which was issued in pursuance of the

agreement Exhibit WW1/5 executed between the workman

and the management and perusal of the agreement and the

letter clearly shows that the workman was engaged only

upto 4.7.2000 and that too for a specific work for renovatin,

modernization etc. of machines. Since, he was engaged on

contract basis for a specific period, his services came to an

end on the expiry of the contract period i.e. 4.7.2000 and

since he worked from 8.2.2000 to 4.7.2000 as pleaded by

him, it cannot he said that he completed 240 days of

continuous service in a calendar period prior to the

termination of his services. Retrenchment is defined under

Section 2(oo) which reads as follows:-

2(oo)- Retrenchment means the termination by the

employer of the service of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment

inflicated by way of disciplinary action but does not

include-

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2681

(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of

superannuation if the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

contains a stipulation in that behalf.

Thus, as per Clause 'bb' the termination of the service

as a result of non-renewal of contract or the expiry of the

such contract, the same do not amount to 'retrenchment'.

Since in the present case the service was on contract basis

and for a specific period and on the expiry of the period it

automatically came to an end and therefore the

disengagement of the workman do not fall within the

definition of 'retrenchment' and he is not entitled to any

compensation.

In the Circumstances, the contention of the learned

counsel that the management entered into unfair labour

practice is without any basis. The provisions of Section

25G and 25H are also not applicable in the present case.

The reference is accordingly answered against the

workman and it is held that he is not entitled to any relief.

Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1283-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QlhvkbZ 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; uañ 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1305@2007½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@340@2006&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015

S.O. 1283.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1305/2007) of the

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

Chandigarh as show in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Food Corporation of

India, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19/06/2015.

[No. L-22012/340/2006-IR (CM-II)]

MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present; Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 1305/2007

Registered on 4.5.2007

Sh. Sultan Singh S/o Sh. Man Singh, resident of Village

Dadupur Rodan, P.O. Sirsi, Karnal

...Petitioner

Versus

The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Distt,

Karnal, Haryana

...Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

Sh. Jagtar Kureel, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 29.5.2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-22012/340/

2006-IR(CM-II) Dated 15.3.2007, by exercising its powers

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

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

referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following Industrial

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:–

"Whether the action of the management of FCI in

terminating the services of Sh. Sultan Singh, Security

Guard s/o Sh. Man Singh w.e.f. 9.10.2000 is legal and

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

to?"

In response to the notice, the workman appeared and

submitted statement of claim pleading that he was working

as a Security Guard since 1986 with the respondent

management who terminated his services vide letter dated

9.10.2000. It is pleaded that a case was filed for regularization

of his services and instead of regularizing his services, he

was terminated. That he has completed 240 days of service

in a calendar year and he was not paid retrenchment

compensation. That the persons junior to him were retained

in service. Thus the management contravened the

provisions of the Act and he be reinstated in service.

Responsdent management filed written reply

controverting the averments and denited that there was

any relationship of employer and employee between the

parties. That the workman was never engaged by the

respondent corporation. It is pleaded that corporation has

given contract to M/s. Ex-servicement Security Service,

2682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Kurukshetra vide agreement dated April, 1989 Annexure

M1 and it was the contractor who provided the security

guards. That some of the workers filed a writ petition No.

7999 of 1999 before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and

Haryana which was dismissed and the SLP preferred by

them was also dismissed vide order dated 19.3.2002. That

security guards were disengaged by the corporation to

avoid any further litigation. However the security guards

were not the employees of the corporation who used to

make the payment to the contractor who was also

responsible to deduct the EPF etc. That services of the

workman were not terminated by the corporation.

Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.

In support of his case, workman appeared in the witness

box and filed his affidavit reiterating the stand as taken in

the claim petiton.

On the other hand, the respondent management has

examined Dr. Rajesh Gulia, who filed his affidavit reiterating

the stand of hte management along with the documents.

I have heard Sh. Jagtar Kureel, Counsel for the workman

and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.

It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for

the workment that workman is an employee of the

corporation who was engaged since 1986 and his services

were terminated by the District Manager vide order dated

9.10.2000 without complying with the provisions of the

Act and therefore the termination of his service is illegal.

He has further submitted that the corporation who allege

that the workman was an employee of the contractor did

not examine the contractor, as much as, the corporation did

not produce the record despite moving an aplicaiton and

therefore adverse inference be also taken against it to hold

that workan is an employee of the corporation.

I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.

The corportation is a statutory body and has its rules

and regulations for appointing the persons in the

corporation. Nothing has come on the file that any

procedure was followed while giving the allgeged

appointment to the workman. Again no evidence

whatsoever has been led by the workman to prove that it

was the corporation who used to pay him salary. It was

argued that the corporation used to pay the salary to the

workan but on simple assertions, it cannot be held that it

was the corporation who was paying the salary to the

workman without maintaining any record. Since it is not

proved that any procedure was followed while appointing

the workman and he was paid any pay at any point of time

by the corporation it cannot be said that he was an employee

of the corporation as much as the respondent corporation

has taken a definite stand that it has given contract for

security guards. Since the corporation denies the

relationship with teh workman and therefore the non-

production of the record is of no consequence. It was for

the workman to prove by leading cogent and convincing

evidence on the file that he was ever employed by the

corporation and there is only his bare statement in this

respect which cannot be acted upon in the absence of any

corroborative evidence. Here the learned counsel argued

that it was the corporation who used to mark duty to the

workman. Even if it is taken that duty was marked to the

workman by officer of the corporation, the same do not

make him an employee of the corporation as the security

guards were given by the contractor and work was to be

taken for them by deploying them at different places and

simply marking of the duty by the corporation do not make

the workman as its employee. The learned counsel also

carried me through the letter dated 9.10.2000 Mark A to

submit that the workman was disengaged by the

corporation which is sufficient to hold that he was an

employee of the corporation. This letter was addressed to

Assistant Manager, karnal by the District Officer, Karnal

intimating disengagement of the security gurads and it

was not addressed directly to the workman. It can only be

said that intimation was given to the concerned office

regarding the disengagement of the security guards and

otherwise services of the security guards were not

terminated by the said letter. Otherwise also the said letter

do not prove by any stretch of imagination that workman

was ever employed by the corporation in view of the

reasons discussed above. Non-examination of the

contractor by the FCI also do not advance the case of the

workman and it was for him to prove that he was an

employee of the corporation which he has failed to prove.

Thus, it is held that workman has failed to prove that

there was any relationship of employee and employer

between the parties and being so, it cannot be said that

services were tereminated by the respondent management.

In result, the reference is answered holding that workman

is not entitled to any relief. :Let hard and soft copy of the

award be sent to the Central Government for further

necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1284-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QlhvkbZ 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;

uañ 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1123@2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@302@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2683

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015

S.O. 1284.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1123/2005) of the

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

Chandigarh as show in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Food Corporation of

India, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19/06/2015.

[No. L-22012/302/1999-IR (CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I. D. No. 1123/2005

Registered on 22.9.2005

Sh. Sultan Singh and Others, S/o Sh. Man Singh, Village

Dadupur Rodan, P.O.: Sirsi, Karnal

...Petitioner

Versus

The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Distt.

Karnal, Haryana

...Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

:

Sh. Jagtar Kureel, Adv.

For the Management

:

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 29.5.2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-22012/302/

99-IR (CM-II) Dated 24.1.2000 by exercising its powers

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

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

referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the management of FCI is not

regularizng the services of Sh. Sultan Singh and 23 others

engaged under Contract Labour (R & A) Act, 1970 in

FCI after notification No. 779 (E) dated 9.12.1976 came

into operation is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

is the workman entitled?"

In response to the notice, the workmen submitted

statement of claim pleading that workmen were working at

FCI Depots at Karnal, Jundla, Taraori and Nissing and they

have been removed from service by the Corporation. As

per Notification dated 29.11.1985 under Section 10 of the

Contract Labour Act; the employment of contract labour is

prohibited which has also been prohibited by Notification

No. 779(E) dated 9.12.1976. That the engagement of the

contractor was an eye wash to deprive the workers of their

rights. They have worked with dedication and are entitled

to regularization of their services and all the benefits.

Respondent Corporation filed written reply

controverting the averments and pleaded that workmen

were never engaged by the corporation as its employee.

The corporation has given the contract to M/s. Ex-

servicemen Security Services who used to make necessary

contribution of EPF on behalf of the workmen. That there

was no relationship of employer and employee between

the parties.

Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.

In support of their case Sh. Jai Pal, workman and

Sh. Sultan Singh, workman appeared in the witness box

and filed their respective affidavits supporting the stand

taken in the statement of claim.

On the other hand the management has examined

Sh. Girish Kumar, who filed his affidavit supporting the

stand of the respondent corporation.

I have heard Sh. Jagtar Kureel for the workman and

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.

It was argued by the learned counsel for the workmen

that Sultan Singh and Others continuously worked with

the respondent management for a sufficient long time and

as such are entitled to regularization of their services and

the contract given by the respondent management to the

contract of employing the security guards is an eye wash.

It may be added that there is nothing on the file that the

workmen were ever employed by the respondent

corporation. No appointment letter has been placed on the

file as much as nothing has come on the record that they

were ever paid wages by it. In the absence of payment of

wages by the corporation to the workmen, it cannot be

said that they were ever employed by it. When it is so, they

cannot claim regularization of their services.

Again the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of

Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 1806

has observed that the employees who are not appointed

by observing the regular procedure and rules are not entitled

to regularization of their services. There is nothing on the

file that the workmen were ever employed by the respondent

corporation by following any rules and as such they are

not entitled to regularization of their services.

In result, the reference is accordingly answered against

the workmen and they are not entitled to any relief. Let

hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

2684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 19 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1285-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QlhvkbZ 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;

uañ 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1301@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@6@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk

[lañ ,y&22012@341@2006&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015

S.O. 1285.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1301/2007) of the

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

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute betwen the management of Food Corporation of

India, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19/06/2015.

[No. L-22012/341/2006-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No.1301/2007

Registered on 4.5.2007

Sh. Jai Pal S/o Sh. Man Singh, resident of Village Dadupur

Rodan, P.O. Sirsi, Karnal.

...Petitioner

Versus

The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Distt.

Karnal, Haryana

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workmen

:

Sh. Jagtar Kureel, Adv.

For the Management

:

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 29.5.2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-22012/341/

2006-IR(CM-II) Dated 15.3.2007, by exercising its powers

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

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

referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the management of FCI in

terminating the services of Sh. Jai Pal, Security Guard

s/o Sh. Man Singh w.e.f. 9.10.2000 is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

In response to the notice, the workmen appeared and

submitted statement of claim pleading that he was working

as a Security Guard w.e.f. 1.5.1992 with the respondent

management who terminated his services vide letter dated

9.10.2000. It is pleased that as case was filed for regularizing

his services, he was terminated. That he has completed 240

days of service in a calendar year and he was not paid

retrenchment compensation. That the persons junior to

him were retained in service. Thus the management

contravened the provisions of the Act and he be reinstated

in service.

Respondent management filed written reply

controverting the averments and denied that there was

any relationship of employer and employee between the

parties. That the workman was never engaged by the

respondent corporation. It is pleased that corporation has

given contract to M/s. Ex-servicemen Security Service,

Kurukshetra vide agreement dated April, 1989 Annexure

M1 and it was the contractor who provided the security

guards. The some of the workers filed a writ petition No.

7999 of 1999 before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and

Haryana which was dismissed and the SLP preferred by

them was also dismissed vide order dated 19.3.2002. That

Security guards were disengaged by the corporation to

avoid and further litigation. However the security guards

were not the employees of the corporation who used to

make the payment to the contractor who was also

responsible to deduct the EPF etc. That services of the

workman were not terminated by the corporation.

Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.

In support of his case, workman appeard in the witness

box and filed his affidavit reiterating the stand as taken in

the claim petition.

On the other hand, the respondent management has

examined Dr. Rajesh Gulia, who filed his affidavit reiterating

the stand of the management along with the documents.

I have heard Sh. Jagtar Kureel, counsel for the workman

and Sh.N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.

It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for

the workman that workman is an employee of the

corporation who engaged him w.e.f. 1.5.1992 and his

services were terminated by the District Manager vide order

dated 9.10.2000 without complying with the provisions of

the Act and therefore the termination of his service is illegal.

He has further submitted that the corporation who allege

that the workman was an employee of the contractor did

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2685

not examine the contractor as much as the corporation did

not produce the record despite moving and application;

and therefore, adverse inference be also taken against it to

hold that workman is an employee of the corporation.

I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.

The corporation is a statutory body and has its rules

and regulations for appointing the persons in the

corporation. Nothing has come on the file that any

procedure was followed while giving the alleged

appointment to the workman. Again no evidence

whatsoever has been leg by the the workman to prove that

it was the corporation who used to pay him salary. It was

argued that the corporation used to pay him salary to the

workmen but no simple assertions, it cannot be held that it

was the corporation who was paying the salary to the

workman without maintaining any record. Since it is not

proved that any procedure was followed while appointing

the workman and he was paid any pay at any point of time

by the corporation, it cannot be said that he was an

employee of the corporation as much as the respondent

corporation has taken a definite stand that it has given

contract for Security guards. Since the corporation denies

the relationship with the workman, and therefore, the non-

production of the record is of no consequence. it was for

the workman to prove by leading cogent and convinving

evidence on the file that the was ever employed by the

corporation and there is only his bare statement in this

respect which cannot be acted upon in the absence of any

corroborative evidence. Here the learned counsel argued

that it was the corpation who used to mark duty to the

workman. Even if it is taken that duty was marked to the

workman by officer of the corporation, the same do not

make him an employee of the corporation as the security

guards were given by the contractor and work was to be

taken from them by deployin them at different places and

simply marking of the duty by the corporation do not make

the workman as its employee. The leaned counsel also

carried me through the letter dated 9.10.2000 Mark A to

submit that the workman was disengaged by the

corporation which is sufficient to hold that he was an

emplyee of the corporation. This letter was addressed to

Assistant Manager, Karnal by the District Officer, Karnal

intimating disengagement of the security guards and it

was not addressed directly to the workman. It can only be

said that intimation was given to the concerned office

regarding the disengagement of the security guards and

otherwise services of the security guards were not

terminated vide the said letter. Otherwise also the said letter

do not prove by any stretch of imagination that workman

was ever demployed by the corporation in view of the

reasons discussed above. Non-examination of the

contractor by the FCI also do not advance the case of the

workman and it was for hime to prove that he was an

employee of the corporation which he has failed to prove.

Thus, it is held that workman has failed to prove that

there was any relationship of emplyee and employer

between the parties and being so, it cannot be said that

services were terminated by the respondent management.

In result, the reference is answered holding that workman

is not entitled to any relief. Let hard and soft copy of the

award be sent to the Central Government for further

necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1286-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj ,Q lhvkbZ ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; uañ 1] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 113@97½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 19@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@102@1996&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the19th June, 2015

S.O. 1286.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 113/97) of the

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

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of FCI and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 19/06/2015.

[No. L-22012/102/1996-IR (C-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD.

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1)(D) (2A)

OF I.D. ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 113 of 1997

Employers in relation to the management of Food

Corporation of India, Patna.

AND

Their workmen.

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

:

None

For the workman

:

Sri V. Kumar, Rep.

State

:

Bihar

Industry

:

Food

Dated: 6.4.2015

2686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

By Order No. L-22012/102/1996-IR-(C-II), dated

20.5.1997, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of F.C.I, Patna

in not regularizing the service of S/Sh Nagendra and

Hari Kishore Roy casual employees, is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief are the concerned

workman entitled ?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

28.05.1997. After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed, the Sponsoring Union files their written

statement on 24.07.1997. And the management files their

written statement-cum-rejoinder on 15.02.2000. Therefore

rejoinder and document filed by the parties. Two witness

examined by the management. Documents of workman

marked as Ext. W-1 to W-6.

3. The Short point to be decided in the case is whether

the workmen, who are working as casual employee, to be

regularized as regular workmen, in the post, they are

working now.

4. The workmen representative submitted that as per

circular of management marked as Ext. W-2 the casual

employees who worked for 90 days prior to cut off date

02.05.86 they are to be regularized in their respective post.

5. Since both the workmen were not regularized, they

raised dispute before ALC Patna. Where the management

filed documents and admitted that the workman worked

for more than 90 days prior 02.05.1986. Therefore there is

no reason, to regularize them.

6. Moreover the management did not appear in the

case during argument. Both the witness of the management

submits that I have no personal knowledge regarding the

case, and he also admitted that Ext. W-1 to W-4 are F.C.I

documents submits by MW-2 .

7. MW-1 the management witness accepts that the

workmen were working from 1984, and I have been seeing

them. He also submits that I was simply watchman, I can

not say the contents of the affidavit filed from the

documents of the management it appears that the

workman worked continuously under the management,

for more than 240 days.

8. Considering the documents and evidence , as well

as facts of the cast, I hold that the action of the

management of F.C.I, Patna in not regularizing the service

of S/Sh Nagendra and Hari Kishore Roy casual employees,

is not legal and justified. Hence It is ordered to regularize

the workmen against the regular post from the date of

award, misusing the amount they have received from the

management in the meantime.

This is my award.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1287-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj dsujk cSad ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@

Je U;k;ky; uañ 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 1307@2007½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 22@06@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@86@2006&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015

S.O. 1287.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 1307/2007)

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

1I, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Canara Bank and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

22/06/2015.

[No. L-12012/86/2006-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No.1307/2007

Registered on 24.5.2007

Sh. Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Hari Singh, R/o New Vinod

Nagar, Near Hindu Public School, Mill Gate Road, Hisar,

district Hisar.

...Petitioner

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2687

Versus

The Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Red Square Market,

Hisar, District Hisar.

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. Tara Chand Dhalwal, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 27.4.15

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/86/

2006-IR(B-II) Dated 12.2.2007, by exercising its powers under

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

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

referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank

in terminating the services of Sh. Rajesh Kumar

S/o Sh. Hari Singh, Peon-cum-Coolie w.e.f. 19.10.2005 is

just and legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled

to?"

In response to the notice, the workman appeared and

submitted statement of claim pleading that he was employed

as Peon-cum-Coolie on daily wages with the respondent

management on the opening of Extension Counter at PGSD,

Senior Secondary School, Hisar on 29.9.2003. That

Chief Manager had written a letter on 21.10.2004 asking for

appointing the workman to the DGM. He was not paid wages

w.e.f. 1.4.2005 and was given an assurance for payment of

the wages and regularization of his services. He served a

legal notice dated 14.10.2005 on the management and his

services were orally terminated on 19.10.2005. That no notice

was served on him or any retrenchment compensation was

paid and as such the termination is illegal.

Respondent management filed written reply

controverting the averments and at one place pleaded that

workman was never appointed by the management nor he

worked with it; and again it is pleaded that the workman

worked intermittently during the period 29.9.2003 to

18.10.2005. That his services were utilized for miscellaneous

work as per contingency need on daily wages of Rs. 50/-

and he was paid for the day he worked. Other averments

were controverted pleading that the Chief Manager was

not competent to engage the workman and disciplinary

proceedings were taken against him. Since the workman

was a daily wager, he was not entitled to any retrenchment

compensation or notice.

Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.

In support of its case, the workman Rajesh Kumar

appeared in the witness box and examined Madan Lal,

Mukesh and Vakinder Singh.

Rajesh Kumar, workman filed his affidavit reiterating

the stand taken by him in the statement of claim.

Madan Lal has deposed in his affidavit that workman

worked with the respondent bank from 29.9.2003 to

10/2005 at Extension Counter at Hisar. To that effect

deposition has been made by Vakinder Singh and Mukesh.

On the other hand the bank has examined Sh. Anant

Jalhona, who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand taken

by the respondent bank.

His cross-examination was deferred and he brought the

original record and deposed that workman worked

intermittently from 1.4.2005 to 18.10.2005 for which he did

not take the payment.

I have heard Sh. Tara Chand Dhalwal, Counsel for the

workman and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.

It was argued by the learned counsel that the workman

continuously worked with the respondent management from

29.9.2003 to 19.10.2005 and his services were illegally

terminated without paying him any compensation and he

be reinstated in service with back wages.

I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.

As per Section 25F of the Act, a workman who has been

in continuous service for not less than one year cannot be

retrenched until he has been given one month's notice in

writing or paid wages in lieu of such notice.

Section 25B defines 'continuous service' and inter alia

provides that a workman shall be deemed to be continuous

service for one year if he during a period of 12 calendar

months preceding the date with reference to which

calculation is to be made has actually worked under the

employer for not less than 240 days.

According to the workman, his services were orally

terminated on 19.10.2005 and therefore the period of

240 days is to be calculated preceding 19.10.2005 i.e.

whether he actually worked for 240 days between 18.10.2004

to 19.10.2005. Certain vouchers Exhibit A1 to A10 has been

placed on the record which pertains to the year 2003 and

2004 and the last voucher is of 1.10.2004. It was incumbent

upon the workman to prove that he actually worked for

240 days prior to the termination of his service on

15.10.2005. A bare statement workman and the statement of

the witnesses namely Madan Lal, Vekinder and Mukesh

cannot be taken on its face value to hold the workman

actually worked for 240 days. The best evidence available

was the record of management. Sh. Anant Jalhona, a witness

of management was examined on 1.4.2013 and he has

categorically stated that workman worked intermittently

and his cross-examination was deferred and on the next

date of hearning i.e. 6.1.2014, be brought the original record

including the attendance register and nothing has been

pointed out that the workman continuously worked from

10/2004 to 10.2005 and the witness has again specifically

2688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

stated that the workman worked intermittently from 1.4.2005

to 18.10.2005. In view of the record broguth by the witness,

it cannot be said that workman completed 240 days of

service during a period of 12 calendar months preceding

the date of alleged termination i.e. 19.10.2005. Being so, the

compliance of Section 25F of the Act was not required and

his case do not fall within the definition of 'retrenchment'.

There is no denial of the fact that respondent bank is a

statutory body having its rules and regulations and nothing

has come on the file that any procedure was followed while

appointing the workman as Peon-cum-Coolie on daily

wages. Therefore the workman can not claim his

reinstatement on this ground also.

There is a letter dated 15.1.2004 written by the

Chief Manager, mentioning therein that the workman was

engaged as coolie and asked for permanent alternative but

this letter do not advance the case of the workman as it is

admitted that workman worked with the bank for some time

on daily wage basis and this letter relate to the year January,

2004 and it cannot be said that he worked with the back in

the year 2005 continuously.

Being so, the reference is answered that the workman is

not entitled to claim any relief against the respondent

management. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent

to the Central Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1288-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy cSad

ds izcaèra= 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; uañ 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1258@2006½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@06@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@83@2005&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015

S.O. 1288.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1258/2006) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management in relation to

the management of the Punjab National Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 22/06/

2015.

[No. L-12012/83/2005-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case I.D. No. 1258/2006

Registered on 14.3.2006

Sh. Satish Kumar S/o Sh. Shiv Lal workman, R/o Mohalla

Nankpura, Near Darjion Mohalla, Rampura Phul.

...Petitioner

Versus

The Management, Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office,

Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana (through its Zonal

Manager).

...Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. T.C. Sharma, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 11.5.2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/83/

2005-IR(B-II) Dated 24.2.2006, by exercising its powers under

Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub Section (2-

A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred

to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for

adjudication to this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab

National Bank, Ludhiana in imposing the punishment

of dismissal on Sh. Satish Kumar, Ex-Head Cashier, From

service w.e.f. 22.1.2004 is legal and justified? If not to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

In response to the notice, the workman appeared and

submitted statement of claim to which written reply was

filed.

The facts emerging are that the workman was posted as

Head Cashier (C) at Branch Sailbrah of the respondent

management in the year 2002-03, and it was found that he

has received cash from the customers and made entries in

their passbooks but did not deposit the same with the

bank. He was served with the charge-sheet dated 19.7.2003

which reads as follows:—

CHARGE - SHEET

On 18.3.2003, at around 9.50 a.m., one customer named

Sh. Prem Kumar S/o Sh. Faqir Chand, SF A/c No. 3689,

visited the branch for withdrawal of amount from his

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2689

aforesaid SF A/c. He presented his passbook to

Sh. S. K Garg, Officer, who found that the entries in the

passbook did not match with those in the branch computer.

On verification, it was observed that there was a credit

entry of Rs. 45000/- dated 7.12.2002 in the passbook made

in your own handwriting but no such entry was available

in bank's records/computer. On enquiring the matter from

you, you confessed having received cash from Sh. Prem

Kumar, SF A/c No. 3689 on 7.12.2002 and made the entry in

the passbook, without depositing the amount with the

bank. On further enquiry, you confessed having made

similar misappropriation in other accounts and gave a list

consisting of 32 entries involving Rs. 520240/- wherein

you pocketed money deposited by various customers but

made entries in the passbooks as per detail given below:—

A/c No.

Name S/Sh.

Date of

Amount Date of

entry

(Rs.)

deposit

made in

in the

passbook

Bank

A/C

1

2

3

4

5

S/F-3086

Yadvinder Singh

31.12.2002

9500

21.3.2003

S/F-755

Jarnail Singh

22.1.2003

12000

21.3.2003

S/F-2939

Manjit Singh

21.2.2003

10000

21.3.2003

S/F-4094

Ramandeep Kaur

25.2.2003

2000

21.3.2003

S/F-2666

Jarnail Singh

9.8.2002

14000

21.3.2003

S/F-2666

Jarnail Singh

24.1.2003

6000

21.3.2003

S/F-2447

Roop Singh

15.1.2003

10000

21.3.2003

S/F-2050

Hardev Singh

21.2.2003

2600

21.3.2003

S/F-2050

Hardev Singh

10.3.2003

2500

1.03.2003

S/F-619

Krishan

14.3.2003

5000

21.3.2003

S/F-3073

Manjit Kaur

18.1.2003

5000

21.3.2003

S/F-751

Ajit Kaur

1.2.2003

11800

21.3.2003

S/F-2784

Mohinder Singh

17.2.2003

2500

21.3.2003

S/F-649

Darshan Singh

12.3.2003

12000

21.3.2003

S/F-3957

Sukhdeep Kaur

20.11.2002

11000

21.3.2003

S/F-2603

Darshan Singh

28.6.2002

26000

21.3.2003

S/F-2107

Sukhdev Singh

6.11.2002

45000

21.3.2003

S/F-2618

Baljit Kaur

29.11.2002

8340

21.3.2003

S/F-4142

Jeet Singh

15.11.2002

30000

21.3.2003

S/F-2569

Jaswinder Singh

16.11.2002

28000

21.3.2003

21.1.2003

50000

Rs. 78000/-

S/F-3665

Sukhdev Singh

7.1.2003

54000

7.1.2003

Rs. 34000/-

21.3.2003

Rs. 20000/-

1

2

3

4

5

S/F-870

Ajmer Singh

27.1.2003

6000

21.3.2003

S/F-4186

Gurdev Singh

20.12.2002

10000

21.3.2003

S/-F-2196 Paramjit Kaur

20.8.2002

22000

20.8.2002

Rs. 2000/-

21.3.2003

Rs. 20000/-

S/F-4030

Gurmit Kaur

27.9.2002

15000

21.3.2003

S/F-4060

Sukhminder Singh 10.3.2003

35000

10.3.2003

Rs. 20500/-

21.3.2003

Rs. 14500/-

S/F-1806

Ajaib Singh

26.8.2002

40000

21.3.2003

30.10.2002

30000

Rs. 70000/-

S/F-3689

Prem Kumar

7.12.2002

45000

21.3.2003

Prev. Diff.

2000

Rs. 47000/-

S/F-2399

Jaspal Singh

29.1.2003

3000

21.3.2003

RD-75

Sinder Singh

1.7.2002

10000

21.3.2003

RD-118

Hardev Singh

10.3.2003

1500

21.3.2003

The amount pocketed as above was deposited by you

with the bank for credit to respective accounts on 21.3.2003

under your own signatures. Thus, you pocketed

Rs. 5,20,240/- for the period mentioned above.

The workman submitted reply and after considering the

same as not satisfactory, an Inquiry Office was appointed.

Due to administrative reasons the Inquiry officer was

changed and the inquiry was entrusted to another officer

before whom the workman admitted the charges and

confessed that he has embezzled the amount. However,

evidence was also led before the Inquiry Officer who after

considering the confession of the workman and the

evidence led before him submitted a report dated 31.10.2003

holding that charges are proved against the workman.

On the basis of the inquiry report, a show cause notice

was issued to him along with the Inquiry report to which

he submitted reply and the disciplinary authority dismissed

him from service w.e.f. 22.1.2004. The appeal preferred by

him was also dismissed.

Now, according to the workman, the inquiry was not

conducted as per procedure and the Inquiry Officer was

changed during the proceedings which is unwarranted by

law. That the Inquiry Officer did not base his report on any

evidence and no witness was examined before him. That

2690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the inquiry report is biased and is liable to be set aside and

accordingly the punishment order is not also sustainable.

On the other hand the management has taken the stand

in his written statement that the inquiry was held as per

procedure. Though the workman admitted the charges, but

still the evidence was led before the Inquiry Officer who

based his report not only on the confession of the workman

but also on the basis of the evidence produced. The

workman was given due opportunity to cross-examine the

witnesses and lead his defence evidence. That there is no

defect in the Inquiry proceedings and the punishment order

based on the inquiry report is legal and valid.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, the inquiry

was held to be fair and proper vide order dated 28.5.2014.

I have heard Sh. Tek Chand Sharma, Counsel for the

workman and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.

It was argued by the learned counsel for the workman

that workman has deposited the amounts in the bank and

as such no loss has been caused either to the bank or to

the account-holders and therefore the penalty of dismissal

from service is harsh and a lenint view be taken.

Suffice it to say that banks deals with the public money

and its officers are required to discharge their functions

with utmost diligence and honesty. The workman in the

present case embezzled the amount of not only one

customer but of several customers from the year 2002 to

2003. If he deposited the amount on detection of the

embezzlement, the same cannot exonerate him of the

misconduct committed by him. since he is guilty of

misappropriating the amount of account-holders who

deposit the amount with him in good faith, no other view

can be taken except the one taken by the punishing

authority and the punishment order do not call for any

interference by using the powers under Section 11 of the

Act.

In result, it is held that the action of the management in

imposing the penalty of punishment of dismissal on the

workman is legal and justified and he is not entitled to any

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

Central Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1289-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ bafM;k 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; uañ 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 776@2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y & 12012@55@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015

S.O. 1289.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 776/2005) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Chandigarh as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 22/06/2015.

[No. L-12012/55/2001 - IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 776/2005

Registered on 5.0.2005

Sh. Suresh Chand Kaushal son of Sh. Madan Lal,

Ex-Clerk-cum-Typist, Bank of India, Sector 17C, Chandigarh,

C/o Pt. Aditya Kumar Sharma, Labour Law Advisor, K.No.

3007, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh.

... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Zonal Manager, Bank of India, N.W. Zone, SCO

181-182, Sector 17C, Chandigarh.

2. Bank of India, Bank Square, Sector 17, Chandigarh,

through its Chief Manager.

... Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. Aditya Kumar Sharma, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Ranjan Loha, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 27.5.2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/55/

2001-IR(B-II) Dated 10/16.07.2001, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub-Section (1) Caluse (d) and Sub-

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

referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India,

Chandigarh in imposing the punishment of Compulsory

Retirement on Sh. Suresh Chand Kaushal S/o Sh. Madan

Lal, wef 15.01.2000 is just and legal? If not, what relief

the workman is entitled to?"

In response to the notice, the workman appeared and

submitted statement of claim to which written reply was filed.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2691

The facts emerging are that workman was posted as

Clerk-cum-Typist with the respondent Management. He

was served with a charge-sheet dated 1.11.1995 for

unauthorized absence; and again charge-sheeted on

14.11.1998 for unauthorized absence and separate penalty

was imposed by passing separate order. He was again

served the charge-sheet 14.10.1999 which is as follow:—

CHARGE-SHEET

During the course of your position and working at the

Bank's Chandigarh Branch, you are alleged to have

committed following acts of misconduct:—

"You have been remaining absent from your duties since

1.11.1998 without any intimation to the Competent

Authority. The period of your aforesaid continous

absence has exceeded 30 days."

2. Prior to this, you remained absent from your duties

from 24.8.1998 to 25.9.01998 without any intimation, for

which disciplinary action for gross misconduct was initiated

against you by issuing charge-sheet Ref No. CHD: CM:

961 dated 14.11.1998. After holding departmental enquiry

in accordance with the prescribed procedure and after

completing other requirments, you were awarded

punishment of withdrawal of special allowance of Telex

Operator vide Punishment Order Ref. No. CHD:CM:1243

dated 10.2.1999. However, it is observed that even after

issuance of aforesaid punishment order, you did not report

for duties and have been remaining unauthorizealy absent

without any intimation.

He filed reply. Feeling not satisfied with the same, the

disciplinary authority appointed an Inquiry Officer. The

workman appeared before him on 22.11.1999 and admitted

the charges in the presence of his defence representative

and on an admission, the Inquiry Officer submitted the

report of the same date holding that charges are proved

against the workman.

One the basis of the Inquiry report, he was compulsorily

retired on 15.1.2000.

Though the workman has challenged the proceedings

in all the inquiries, but as per reference the court is to see

whether the action of the management in imposing the

penalty of compulsory retirement vide order dated 15.1.2000

is just and legal and therefore the other inquires relating to

the order 1995 and 1996 are of no consequence.

The only ground taken by the workman is that during

the course of inquiry he was coerced to sign the documents

on the pretext that workman would be given voluntary

retirement but he was compulsory retired and this act of

the management is illegal and he is entitled to get voluntary

retirement as per rules of the bank.

The management has denied the allegations and pleaded

that the workman himself made the statement voluntarily

and without any pressure and that too in the presence of

his defence representative and the disciplinary authority

rightly acted on the report of the Inquiry Officer and passed

the impugned order which is legal ande valid.

I have heard Sh. Aditya Kumar Sharma, counsel for the

workman and Sh. Rajan Lohan, counsel for the management

and perused the inquiry proceedings.

As per the proceedings dated 22.11.1999, the workman

appeared before the Inquiry Officer and adimtted the

charges and at that time his defence representative was

also present. Workman has pleased that his signatures

were taken on the pretext of giving him voluntary retirement

but there is noting on the file that his signatures were

obtained by any misrepresentation, and since the workman

admits his signatures on the proceedings, it cannot be said

in the absence of any evidence on the file that his signatures

were obtained on a false pretext for giving him voluntary

retirement. On the basis of his admission, the Inquiry Officer

submitted and inquiry report which is of the same date i.e.

22.11.1999. The punishment is based on this inquiry report

which in turn is based on the admission of the workman

and therefore is cannot be said that the inquiry conducted

in the present case is illegal.

The learned counsel for the workman also raised

arguments regarding the quantum of penalty imposed and

being so, there is no use of further adjourn the proceedings

for hearing the parties regarding the penalty imposed. It

was argued by the learned counsel that workman simply

seeks voluntary retirement as compulsory retirement' is

stigmatic and therefore the penalty imposed accordingly

be amended. Suffice it to say that the workman was charge-

sheeted for remaining absent in the year 1995 and again for

his absence in the year 1998 and even after the awarding of

punishment vide order dated 10.2.1999, he did not join the

duty. Thus he remained willfully absent from his duty. In

the circumstances, no other view can be taken for awarding

the punishment then taken by the disciplinary authority

and the punishment order do not call for any interference

and the same is upheld.

In result the reference is answered accordingly holding

that the workman in not entitled to any relief. Let hard and

soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government

for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1290-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 1947 dk

14 dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj l®Vy c®d vkWQ bafM;k

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] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1563@2008½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-06-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[ la- ,y&12011@75@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

2692

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015

S.O. 1290.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 1563/2008) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 22/06/2015.

[No. L-12011/75/2008-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 1563/2008

Registered on 17.10.2008

Sh Sukhdev Singh, CTO, Central Bank of India, Moga

Branch, Moga, Resident of House No. 610, Bassi

Gobindgarh, Moga.

...Petitioner

Versus

Central Bank of India through its Zonal Manager, Zonal

Office, SCO 58-59, Bank Square, Sector 17B, Chandigarh.

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

Sh. D.C. Mittal, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on14.11.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12011/75/

2008-IR(B-II) Dated 22.9.2008, by exercising its powers under

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

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

referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial

Dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank

of India, in awarding punishment of Sh. Sukhdev Singh,

C.T.O. as brought down to two stages in the scale of

pay for three years with cumulative effect is in

proportionate to the misconduct committed by the

workman and what relief he is entitled to and from which

date?"

In response to the notice, the workman appeared and

submitted statement of claim to which the management

filed reply.

The facts emerging are that workman Sh. Sukhdev Singh

was posted as C.T.O. with the management at Moga on

6.5.2002. On that day he was working on Cash Payment

seat. He received two vouchers/pay-in-slips for Rs. 1500/-

each of Sh. B.S. Sidhu, Branch Manager and Account

No. 17208 of Sh. Gulab Singh. According to the

management he entered the voucher of Sh. B.S. Sidhu in

the cash receipt register whereas, of Gulab Singh was not

entered. However he released both the pay-in-slips on that

day in token of having received the cash. Both these

vouchers were mentioned in the supplementary/cash book,

a difference of Rs. 1500/- was found in the Cash Book.

However the workman destroyed both the vouchers and

pocketed this amount of Rs. 1500/- of Gulab Singh. When

the Cash Book was tallied on 8.5.2002. He prepared fresh

voucher of Sh. B.S. Sidhu and after making alterations in

the cash book and scroll, he has shown the deposit of

Rs. 1500/- and thus tampered the bank record.

The workman was charge-sheeted and regular inquiry

was conducted. Finding him guilty, the competent authority,

awarded him punishment by bringing him down to two

stages in the scale of pay for three years with cumulative

effect.

Now according to the workman the inquiry conducted

was not fair and proper and it was Mr. B.S. Sidhu who did

not deposit Rs. 1500/- on 6.5.2002. Though the mistake

came to notice in the year 2002, but inquiry proceedings

were started only in the year 2004 which itself shows that

the action of the management is mala fide. That the appeal

preferred by him was dismissed. That both the order by the

punishing authority and Appellate Authority are illegal and

he did not commit any misconduct.

On the other hand the management has pleaded that

workman has embeszzled Rs. 1500/- and even tampered

with the bank record and these facts were proved by

conducting a regular inquiry which was joined by the

workman who was given an opportunity to cross-examine

witnesses as well as to lead evidence. There was no defect

in the conduct of the inquiry and the punishing authority

has rightly awarded the punishment after going through

the entire proceedings of the case which is legal and valid.

Similarly the order passed by the Appellate Authority is

also valid.

I have heard Sh. D.C. Mittal, counsel for the workman

and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2693

The following charge-sheet was served on the

workman:—

CHARGE-SHEET

CHARGES—

1. While working on cash receipt/payment seat on dated

6.5.2002 Sh. Sukhdev Singh received two vouchers/pay in

slips for Rs. 1500/- each, on (dully scrolled) in respect of

VIP A/C Sh. B.S. Sidhu staff and other (which was

unscrolled) in respect of HSS A/C 17208 of Sh. Gulab Singh.

While the voucher/pay in slips in respect of VIP A/C

Sh. B.S. Sidhu was entered in his cash receipt register where

as he did not enter the other voucher/pay in slip for

Rs. 1500/- related to HSS A/C 17208 of Sh. Gulab Singh in

his cash receipt for the day. Both of the pay in slips were

released by him on that day. i.e. 6.5.2002, as a token of

having received the cash. Since both these vouchers were

written in respective supplementary/cash book, a different

for Rs.1500/- in cash book in its cash received column was

crept in. Subsequently, both these vouchers were

destroyed.

2. Sh. Sukhdev Singh on 8.5.2002, prepared a fresh pay

in slip/voucher for Rs. 1500/- in dated 6.5.2002 of HSS A/C

17208 of Sh. Gulab Singh and sent it to scroll clerk for scroll

which was scrolled at Sr. No.43 of cash scroll book for

dated 8.5.2002. He also entered this voucher in his cash

receipt for dated 8.5.2002 at Sr. No. 43. To treat this voucher

for dated 6.5.2002, he got marked scroll No. 28 on this

voucher/pay in slip scroll No. 28 for dated 6.5.2002 was of

VIP A/C Sh. B.S. Sidhu Staff.

Thereafter entry made in cash scroll book and cash

receipt register dated 6.5.2002 of VIP A/C Sh. B.S. Sidhu

was altered to HSS A/C 17208 of Sh. Gulab Singh. Similarly

entry made on 8.5.2002 in cash scroll book and cash receipt

register of HSS A/C 17208 of Sh. Gulab Singh for Rs.1500/-

was altered by him to VIP A/C Sh. B.S. Sidhu and he prepared

and released a fresh voucher/pay in slip for Rs. 1500/- for

VIP A/C Sh. B.S. Sidhu.

Thus Sh.Sukdev Singh CTO/Clerk Pocketed Rs. 1500/-

6.5.2002 which was deposited in the HSS A/C 17208 of

Sh. Gulab Singh. When the matter came into light on 8.5.2002

while tallying the cash book he destroyed the bank's

vouchers himself tempered the bank record and also arranged

to temper the bank record to make the entry dated 6.5.2002 of

VIP A/C Sh. B.S. Sidhu to HSS A/C 17208 of Gulab Singh. He

also deposited Rs. 1500/- on 8.5.2002 in VIP A/C Sh. B.S.

Sidhu Staff which was pocketed by him on 6.5.2002.

The above acts of Sh. Sukhdev Singh constitute Gross-

Misconduct under para 5(j) of the Memorandum of

Settlement dated 10.1.2002. Sh. K.L. Batra Sr. Manager B.O

S.T. Ludhiana will hold departmental inquiry against him

and the date, time and place of inquiry will be communicated

to him by the inquiry officer. Sh. Sukhdev Singh CTO/Clerk

will be permitted to be defended by a representative of a

Registered Trade Union of the bank employees of which he

is a member. At inquiry he should keep ready with him, all

oral and documentary evidence which he may tender or

produce on his behalf and he will be allowed to cross-examine

the witnesses who may be produced by the management

during the inquiry proceedings.

He should inform the inquiry officer, the name of his

representative and the name of the witnesses he intends to

produce at the inquiry on his behalf. He is also informed that

if he fails to present himself at the inquiry on the appointed

date or on the adjourned date, the inquiry will be held

ex parte and my findings of the inquiry officer will be

conclusive and binding upon him.

It may be added here that the reference in the present

case is whether the punishment awarded to the workman is

proportionate to the misconduct and to what relief he is

entitled.

A lengthy argument was advanced by Mr. N.K. Zakhmi,

Learned Counsel for the management to show that the inquiry

conducted in the case is fair and proper. But in view of the

terms of the reference, this Tribunal is not to go into the said

question and it is simply to see whether the punishment

awarded to the workman is proportionate to alleged

misconduct.

It was contended by learned counsel for the management

that bank employees are required to take all steps to protect

in interest of the bank and of its customers and since the

workman in the present case pocketed Rs. 1500/-, the same

amounts to gross misconduct and the punishing authority

by taking a lenient view has rightly awarded the punishment

in question.

I have considered the contention of the Learned Counsel.

There is hardly any dispute that a bank officer is required

to exercise high standards of honesty and integrity and is

required to take all possible steps to protect the interest of

the bank and of the customers. Even if the case of the

management is taken as such that the workman did not

account Rs. 1500/- which he received on 6.5.2002, whether

the same is sufficient to award the punishment in question.

There is nothing on the file or came in the inquiry

proceedings that the workman used the money for his own

purpose at any stage or had any criminal intention to

misappropriate the same by not mentioning the pay-in-

slips in the required registers. It is the case of the bank

itself that both the pay-in-slips of s. 1500/- each of Sh. B.S.

Sidhu, Branch Manager and of Sh. Gulab Singh were

released by the workman after stamping the same and these

were even entered in the supplementary cash book and

accordingly a discrepancy was found when the cash book

was tallied on 8.5.2002. Had the workman has any criminal

intention to misappropriate the sum of Rs. 1500/-, he would

2694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

not have released the pay-in-slips and even not bothered to

enter the same in the supplementary cash book. It does not

appeal to mind that a person working on the cash receipt

register would go for embezzling a petty sum of Rs. 1500/-

only. Though it was argued that he pocketed money on

6.5.2002 and deposited the same on 8.5.2002 and the same

amounts to gross misconduct, but this argument is not

sustainable for the obvious reason that such an officer

working on the cash receipt register would not pocket such

a small amount and that too after issuing the receipts having

received the same and also knowing fully well that such an

act is to be discovered at the end of they day. A cash book is

to be tallied in routine daily. It seems that the voucher was

not entered in the relevant registers inadvertently or due to

some negligence; and no mala fide can be attributed to him

if in order to correct the mistake, some cuttings or additions

were made in the record. It cannot be said that he tempered

with the bank record or destroyed any valuable document.

The punishment awarded is of bringing down the

workman to two stages in the scale of pay for three years

with cumulative effect; and the punishment, as stated above,

is inflicted only on account of the mistake committed by the

workman inadvertently or negligently; and therefore the same

cannot be held to be proportionate to the alleged misconduct

committed by the workman and is set aside and workman is

entitled to all the arrears of pay which were withheld on

account of the passing of the impugned order dated 18.5.2005.

The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the

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

Central Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer.

ubZ fnYyh] 22 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1291-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy cSad ds

izcaèr= 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; uañ 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼431@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@230@97&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015

S.O. 1291.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 431/2015) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Punjab National Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 22/06/2015.

[No. L-12012/230/97-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No. 431/2005

Registered on 19.8.2005

Sh. Moti Lal Mandiya, S/o Sampat Ram Mandiya, R/o

Mulodi, Bhangarka (PO), Tehsil Narnaul, Mahendergarh.

...Petitioner

Versus

Punjab National Bank through its Zonal Manager, Sector

17, Chandigarh.

Punjab National Bank through its Regional Manager,

Rohtak, Haryana.

...Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

Sh. Arun Batra, Adv.

For the Management

Ex parte.

AWARD

Passed on 4.11.2014.

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/

230/97-IR(B-II) Dated 13.1.1998, by exercising its powers

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

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

(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab

National Bank in dismissing Sh. Moti Lal Mandiya,

Clerk/Cashier from the service of the bank vide order

dated 15.1.96 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the said workman is entitled?"

The fact in brief are that the workman was working as

Clerk/Cashier in New Bank of India at Kamania which was

later on amalgamated with Punjab National Bank on

4.9.1993. While working in New Bank of India, it is alleged,

he committed acts of gross-misconduct and he was served

with a charge-sheet dated 28.7.1993. After considering his

reply, regular inquiry was initiated. The Inquiry Officer

conducted the inquiry and submitted a report finding the

workman guilty. Acting on the report of the Inquiry Officer,

a show cause notice was issued to the workman along with

the copy of the report and consequently his services were

terminated vide order dated 15.1.1996. The appeal preferred

by the workman was also dismissed.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2695

According to the workman, the charge-sheet served on

him was not legal and valid as the documents relied upon

was never supplied to him and he was not allowed to

inspect the record. That the Inquiry Officer conducted the

inquiry in a haste manner without supplying him list of

witnesses and list of documents and that too without

following the rules for conducting the inquiry. That he was

not given an opportunity to defend himself. Since the

inquiry is not legal and valid, the punishment passed on its

basis is also illegal and he is entitled to be reinstated in

service with all the benefits.

Respondent management filed written reply pleading

that the inquiry conducted is legal and valid and the

punishment order cannot be set aside.

Initially the bank appeared and submitted written

statement but later on none appeared on behalf of the bank

and registered notice was again sent on 30.9.2013 but again

none appeared on behalf of bank and ex parte proceedings

were taken against it vide order dated 19.11.2013.

In support of its case the workman appeared in the

witness box and filed his affidavit.

I have heard Sh. Arun Batra, counsel for the workman.

The following charge-sheet dated 28.7.1993 was served

on the workman:—

1. Sh. Amar Singh, on 1.10.90 deposited Rs. 2000/- in

Bank for credit in his saving bank account 145. Sh. M.L.

Mandiya received the money while performing his duty as

Cashier. He did not deposit the amount in the bank. He

kept the money with himself for his own use. He entered

the transaction of Rs. 2000/- in the pass book in credit side

and initiated it. On 5.10.90 Sh. M.L. Mandiya deposited the

amount of Rs. 2000/- in the saving bank account of

Sh. Amar Singh. He misappropriated the bank's money for

4 days, for his own benefit.

On 3.11.90, Sh. Amar Singh deposited Rs. 2000 for credit

in his saving bank account 145. Sh. M.L. Mandiya received

the amount while performing his duties as a Cashier. He

entered the transaction of Rs. 2000/- in the pass book in

credit side and initiated it. He did not deposit the amount in

the bank and kept the money for his own use.

On 17.11.90, Sh. M.L. Mandiya deposited Rs. 2000/- in

the bank for credit in saving bank account No. 145 of

Sh. Amar Singh. He also signed the deposit slip. He

misappropriated the bank's money for 14 days. Sh. M.L.

Mandiya has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest

of bank, besides lowering the image of bank in the eyes of

general public.

2. On 4.8.90, Sh. Chhaju Ram Nahria deposited Rs. 3000/-

for credit in his S.B. account 289. Sh. M.L. Mandiya received

the money while performing his duties as a Cashier. He

entered the transaction of Rs. 3000 in the credit side of the

pass book and initiated it. He did not deposit the amount in

the Bank and kept the money with himself for his won use.

On 2.2.91 Sh. Chhaju Ram Nahria deposited Rs. 75.00 for

credit in his S.B. Account 289. Sh. M.L. Mandiya received

the amount while performing his duties as a Cashier. He

entered the transaction of Rs. 75/- in the pass book on

credit side and initiated it. Again on 2.2.91 he deposited

Rs. 3075/- in the bank instead of Rs. 75/- received from

Sh. Chhaju Ram Nahria. In this way Sh. M.L. Mandiya

misappropriated the bank's money of Rs. 3000/- for about

six months. Sh. Mandiya has acted in a manner prejudicial

to the interest of bank, besides lowering the image of the

bank in the eyes of general public.

3. On 1.8.89 Sh. Nathu Ram deposited Rs. 3800/- in his

S.B. Account No. 477. Sh. Mandiya received the money

while performing his duties as a Cashier. He entered the

transaction of Rs. 3800/- in the pass book on the credit side

and initiated it. Sh. Mandiya did not deposit the amount in

the bank and kept the money with himself for his own use.

On 3.8.89 Sh. M.L. Mandiya deposited Rs. 3800/- in the

saving bank account of Sh. Nathu Ram. Sh. Mandiya has

misappropriated the bank's money for two days for his

own use. Sh. Mandiya has acted in a manner prejudicial to

the interest of bank, besides lowering the image of bank in

the eyes of general public.

4. On 9.4.90, Sh. Hari Ram Yadav, deposited Rs. 3100/- in

his SB account 511. Sh. Mandiya received the money while

performing his duties as a Cashier. He entered the

transaction of Rs. 3100/- in the pass book in the credit side

and initiated it. He did not deposit the amount in the bank

and kept the money with himself for his own use. On 21.5.90

Sh. M.L. Mandiya deposited Rs. 3100/- in the bank for

credit of saving bank account No. 511/- of Sh. Hari Singh

Yadav by a deposit slip signed by him. He misappropriated

the bank's money for about 42 days.

On 22/24.6.91 Sh. Hari Ram Yadav deposited Rs. 7000/-

for credit in a saving bank account 511. Sh. Mandiya

received the money while performing his duties as a Cashier.

He entered the transaction of Rs. 7000/- in the pass book

on the credit side and initiated it. He kept the money with

himself for his own use and he did not deposit it in the

bank. On 27.6.91, Sh. Mandiya deposited Rs. 7000/- for

credit in the account of Sh. Har Ram Singh Yadav SB

Account No. 511. He misappropriated the bank's money

for about 3 to 5 days for his own benefit.

On 30.4.92, Sh. Hari Ram Yadav deposited Rs. 4500/- for

credit in his SB account No. 511, Sh. Mandiya received the

money while performing his duties as a Cashier. He entered

the transaction of Rs. 4500/- in the pass book on the credit

side. He did not deposit the amount in the bank and kept

the money with himself.

On 8.6.92, Sh. Hari Ram Yadav, again visited the bank

and requested Sh. Mandiya a payment of Rs. 24000/- from

2696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

his SB account 511. Sh. Mandiya got his signature on the

blank withdrawal form. He made the payment of Rs. 24000/-

to him. He also entered the transaction of Rs. 24000/- in the

pass book on the debit side. Sh. Mandiya filled the

withdrawal form with Rs. 19500/- and entered the transaction

in the bank books and ledger. In this way he misappropriated

the bank's money of Rs. 4500/- for about one month six

days for his own benefit. Sh. Mandiya acted in a manner

prejudicial to the interest of bank besides lowering the

image of bank in the eyes of general public.

5. On 26.2.90, Smt. Anarli Devi deposited Rs. 1800/- in

her saving bank account 662. Sh. Mandiya received the

money while working as a Cashier. He entered the

transaction in the pass book in credit side. He kept the

money with himself for his own use. On 3.3.90 Sh. Mandiya

deposited Rs. 1800/- in the bank for credit in the SB account

662 of Smt. Anarli Devi. He misappropriated the bank's

money for five days.

On 28.8.92, Smt. Anarli Devi deposited Rs. 500/- in her

saving bank account 662. Sh. Mandiya received the money

and kept with himself for his own use. He entered the

transaction of Rs. 500/- in the pass book in the credit side

and also initiated it. On 15.9.92 Sh. Mandiya deposited

Rs. 500/- in the bank to the credit of SB account 662 of Smt.

Anarli Devi. He signed the deposit slip also. He

misappropriated the bank's money of Rs. 500/- for 15 days

for his own benefit.

On 8.9.92 Smt. Anarli Devi, deposited Rs.1500/- in her

SB account 662. Sh. M.L. Mandiya received the money

while performing his duties as a Cashier. He did not deposit

the money with the bank and kept it with himself for his

own use. He entered the transaction of Rs. 1500/- in the

pass book of Smt. Anarli Devi on credit side and also

initiated it. On 15.9.92 Sh. Mandiya deposited Rs. 1500/- in

the bank for credit in SB account 662 of Smt. Anarli Devi.

He misappropriated the bank's money for 7 days. These

acts of Sh. Mandiya are in a manner prejudicial to the interest

of bank and have lowered the image of the bank in the yes

of general public.

6. On 23.5.91, Smt. Santosh deposited Rs. 600/- in her

SB account No. 711. Sh. Mandiya received the money while

performing his duties as a Cashier. He entered the

transaction in the pass book on the credit side and initiated

it. He did not deposit Rs. 600/- in the bank and kept the

money with himself for his own use. On 13.7.92. Sh. Mandiya

deposited Rs. 600/- in the SB account 711 of Smt. Santosh.

He also signed the deposit-slip. Sh. Mandiya

misappropriated the bank's money for about one year, one

month and twenty days. This act of Sh. M.L. Mandiya is in

a manner prejudicial to the interest of the bank and has

also lowered the image of bank in the eyes of general public.

7. On 2.7.91, Smt. Champa Devi deposited Rs. 2000/- in

the bank for credit in her SB account 764. Sh. Mandiya

received the money while performing his duties as a cashier

in the branch. He entered the transaction of Rs. 2000/- in

the pass book on credit side and initiated it. He did not

deposit the money in the bank and kept it with himself for

his own use. On 6.7.91 he deposited Rs. 2000/- in the SB

account of Smt. Champa Devi by signing the deposit slip.

He misappropriated the bank's money for four days.

On 7.3.92, Smt. Champa Devi deposited Rs. 2200/- in her

SB account 764. Sh. Mandiya received the money and

entered the transaction in the pass book on the credit side

and initiated it. He did not deposit the money in the bank

and kept it with himself for his own use. He deposited

Rs. 2200/- on 2.5.92 in the account of Smt. Champa Devi.

He misappropriated with bank's money for about one month

25 days.

On 26.11.92, Smt. Champa Devi deposited Rs. 4000/- in

her SB account 764. Sh. Mandiya received the money while

performing his duties as a cashier in the branch. He entered

the transaction in the pass book and also initiated it. He

did not deposit the amount in the bank and kept the money

with himself for his own use. Sh. Mandiya deposited

Rs. 4000/- in the bank for credit in SB account no. 764 of

Smt. Champa Devi. He misappropriated the bank's money

for nine days. Sh. M.L. Mandiya has acted in a manner

prejudicial to the interest of bank besides lowering the

image of bank in the eyes of general public.

8. 3.1.92 Smt. Bhagwani w/o Nand Ram deposited

Rs. 1000/- in her SB account No. 1009. Sh. Mandiya received

the money while performing his duties as a cashier. He

entered the transaction in the pass book on the credit side

and initiated it. He did not deposit the money with the bank

and kept with himself for his own use. On 15.5.92 Smt.

Bhagwani visited the bank and requested for the payment

of Rs. 500/- from her account. Sh. Mandiya paid Rs. 500/-

from his own pocket to Smt. Bhagwani Devi and entered

the transaction in the pass book on the debit side and

initiated it. He also deposited Rs. 500/- on 15.5.92 in the

bank for credit in SB account 1009. In this way he

misappropriated Rs. 1000/- being the bank's money for

about four months 12 days. By this act, Sh. Mandiya has

acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank besides

lowering the image of the bank in the eyes of general public.

9. On 26.11.92, Sh. Sube Singh deposited Rs. 7300/- for

credit in his SB account 1145. Sh. Mandiya received the

money while performing his duties as a Cashier. He entered

the transaction in the pass book in the credit side and

initiated it. He did not deposit the amount in bank and kept

the money with himself for his own use. On 30.11.92, Sh.

Mandiya deposited Rs. 7300/- in the account of Sh. Sube

Singh, SB No. 1145. He misappropriated the bank's money

for 4 days. Sh. Mandiya has acted in a manner prejudicial

to the bank's interest besides lowering the image of bank in

the eyes of general public.

10. On 7.11.91, Sh. Ravinder Kumar deposited Rs. 3000/-

in his SB account 426. Sh. Mandiya received the money

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2697

while performing his duties as a cashier. He entered the

transaction in the pass book on the credit side and initiated

it. He did not deposit the amount in the bank and kept the

money with himself. On 13.1.92 Sh. Ravinder Kumar visited

the bank and demanded a payment of Rs. 4500/- from his

account. Sh. Mandiya got the blank withdrawal form signed

from him and paid Rs. 4500/-. He entered the transaction of

Rs. 4500/- in the pass book and initiated it. Later on the

same date Sh. Mandiya filled the blank withdrawal form

with Rs. 1500/- and debited the SB account 426. In this

way, he misappropriated the bank's money of Rs. 3000/- for

about two months six days. Sh. Mandiya has acted in a

manner prejudicial to the interest of bank, besides lowering

the image of bank in the eyes of general public.

11. On 29.11.92, Sh. Mandiya had himself disclosed to

Sh. N.K. Sharma, Branch Manager regarding an amount of

Rs. 600/-, he kept with himself. He informed that this money

belonged to Smt. Murti Devi SB account No. 570, which

she had deposited in the bank to the credit in her SB

account. On being persuaded by Sh. N.K. Sharma, Branch

Manager, Sh. Mandiya deposited Rs. 600/- in the bank for

credit in SB account 577 of Smt. Murti Devi. The deposit

slip was filled by him. Sh. M.L. Mandiya has

misappropriated the bank's money. He acted in a manner

prejudicial to the interest of bank, besides lowering the

image of bank in the eyes of general public.

12. On 2.12.91, Sh. Vijay Pal, S/o Jagmal deposited

Rs. 950/- in the bank for credit in his SB account No. 564.

Sh. Mandiya received the money while performing his

duties as a Cashier. He entered the transaction of Rs. 950/

- in the pass book on the credit side and initiated it. Sh.

Mandiya did not deposited the amount in bank and kept

the money with himself for his own use. On 6.12.91, Sh.

Vijay Pal visited the branch and requested for a payment of

Rs. 500/- from his SB account 564. Sh. Mandiya got the

withdrawal form of Rs. 500/- signed from Sh. Vijay Pal. He

did not debit the SB account 564 and paid Rs. 500/- from

his own pocket. He entered the transaction in the pass

book on debit side and initiated it. On 13.4.92 Sh. Vijay Pal

again visited the bank and requested for a payment of Rs.

500/- from his SB account No. 564. Sh. Mandiya got the

blank withdrawal form signed from him and paid him Rs.

500/-. He entered the transaction of Rs. 500/- in the pass

book on debit side and initiated it. Later on the same date,

he filled the withdrawal form with Rs. 50/- and debited the

SB account 564. In this way he misappropriated the bank's

money of Rs. 500/- for four days and Rs. 450/- for about 4

months 12 days for his own use.

On 15.5.92, Sh. Vijay Pal deposited Rs. 500/- in the bank

for credit in his SB account No. 564. Sh Mandiya received

the money while performing his duties as Cashier. He

entered the transaction of Rs. 500/- in the pass book on

credit side and initiated it. He did not deposit the amount in

the bank and kept the money with himself for his own use.

On 27.7.92 Sh. Vijay Pal deposited Rs. 500/- for credit in his

SB account 564. Sh. Mandiya received the ammount while

performing his duties as a cashier and entered the

transaction of Rs. 500/- in the pass book on credit side and

initiated it. He did not deposit the amount in the bank and

kept the money with himself for his own use. On 30.11.92

Sh. Vijay Pal deposited Rs. 350/- in the bank for credit in his

SB account No. 564. Sh. Mandiya received the money while

performing his duties as a cashier. He entered the transaction

of Rs. 350/- in the pass book on the credit side and initiated

it. He did not deposit the amount in the bank and kept the

money with himself for his own use. On 26.12.92 Sh.

Mandiya deposited Rs. 1350/- in the bank for credit in SB

account 564 of Sh. Vijay Pal by filling the deposit slip

himself. In this way Sh. Mandiya has misappropriated the

bank's money of Rs. Rs. 500/- for about 7 months 11 days

other Rs. 500/- for about five months and Rs. 350/- for

about 26 days. Sh. Mandiya has acted in a manner

prejudicial to the interest of bank, besides lowering the

image of bank in the eyes of general public.

13. On 9.8.91, Smt. Santosh Devi deposited Rs. 2200/- in

the bank for credit in the SB account No. 838. Sh. Mandiya

received the money while performing his duties as a cashier.

He entered the transaction in the pass book on credit side

and initiated it. He did not deposit the money with the bank

and kept it with himself for his own use. On 28.11.91 Smt.

Santosh Devi visited the branch for a payment of Rs. 5000/-

from her SB account No. 838. Sh. Mandiya got the blank

withdrawal signed from Smt. Santosh Devi. He paid

Rs. 5000/- to her and entered the transaction in her pass

book on debit side and initiated it. On the same date he

filled the withdrawal from with Rs. 2800/- and debited her

SB account No. 838. In this way he misappropriated the

bank's money of Rs. 2200/- for about three months 20 days

for his own use.

On 9.1.92 Smt. Santosh Devi deposited Rs. 2000/- in the

bank for credit in the SB account No. 838. Shri M.L. Mandiya

received the cash while performing his duties has a cashier;

he entered the transaction of Rs. 2000/- in the pass book

on the credit side and initialed it. He did not deposit the

amount in the bank and kept it with himself for his own use.

On 17-2-1992, Smt. Santosh Devi visited the bank and

requested for a payment of Rs. 2000 from her SB account

No. 838. Sh. M.L. Mandiya got the withdrawal form signed

from her and paid her Rs. 2000/-. He also entered the

Transaction of Rs. 2000/- in the pass book on the debit

side and initialed it. Shri M.L. Mandiya did not debit her SB

account No. 838 and paid the amount from his own pocket.

In this way, Shri M.L. Mandiya misappropriated the banks

money for about one month eight day for his own use. He

acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank, besides

lowering the image of bank in the eyes of general public.

14. On 7-12-92, Smt. Krishana Devi deposit Rs. 350/- for

credit in her SB account No. 1025. Shri M.L. Mandiya

received the money while performing his duties has a

2698

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

cashier. He entered the transaction of Rs. 350/- in pass

book on the credit side and initialed it. He did not deposit

the money with the bank and kept it himself for his own

use. He had defrauded the bank with by Rs. 350/- he has

act in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank besides

lowering the image of bank the eyes of general public.

15. On 02/01/92, Shri Som Dutt, S/o Shri Phool Chand

deposited Rs. 100/- in the bank as a installment towards his

loan account RT 70. Shri M.L. Mandiya received the money,

while performing his duties has a Cashier. He entered the

transaction in the pass book on the credit side. He did not

deposit the money with the bank and kept with himself for

his own use. He has defrauded the bank with Rs. 100/-.

This act of Shri M.L. Mandiya in a manner prejudicial to

the interest of bank, besides lowering the image of bank in

the eyes of general public.

16. On 20-06-92, Shri Sanwal Ram deposited Rs. 2000/-

in the bank as a installment towards his loan account Camel

Cart 31. Shri M.L. Mandiya received the money, while

performing his duties has a Cashier. He entered the

transaction of Rs. 2000/- in the pass book on the credit side

and initialed it. He did not deposit the money with the bank

and kept the money with himself for his own use. Shri M.L.

Mandiya has defrauded the bank with Rs. 2000/-. He has

acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank besides

lowering the image of bank in the eyes of general public.

17. Shri Tara Chand deposited Rs. 500/- in the month of

October towards installment in his pronote account. Shri M.L.

Mandiya received the money, while performing his duties has

a Cashier. He entered the transaction of Rs. 500/- in the pass

book on the credit side and initialed it. He did not deposit the

money with the bank and kept the money with himself for his

own use. He deposited Rs. 500 on 29-12-92, by filling the

deposit slip himself. Shri M.L. Mandiya has misappropriated

the bank money for about 3 months. He has acted in a manner

prejudicial to the interest of bank besides lowering the image

of bank in the eyes of general public.

18. On 15-10-92, Shri Rajesh deposited Rs. 50/- for credit

in his JD account 7/36. Shri M.L. Mandiya received the

money, while performing his duties has a Cashier. He

entered the transaction in the pass book on the credit side

and initialed it. He did not deposit the money with the bank

and kept the money with himself for his own use. Mr. M.L.

Mandiya has defrauded the bank with Rs. 50/-. He has

acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank besides

lowering the image of bank in the eyes of general public.

19. On 15-10-92, Shri Mukesh deposited Rs. 50/- for

credit in his JD account 8/36. Shri M.L. Mandiya received

the money, while performing his duties has a Cashier. He

entered the transaction of Rs. 50/- in the pass book on the

credit side and initialed it. He did not deposit the money

with the bank and kept it with himself for his own use. Shri

M.L. Mandiya has defrauded the bank with Rs. 50/-. By

this act, Shri M.L. Mandiya has acted in a manner prejudicial

to the interest of bank besides lowering the image of bank

in the eyes of general public.

20. On 15-10-92, Shri Rakesh deposited Rs. 50/- for credit

in his JD account 9/36. Shri M.L. Mandiya received the

money, while performing his duties as a Cashier. He entered

the transaction of Rs. 50/- in the pass book on the credit

side and initialed it. He kept the money with himself and

did not deposit the money with the Bank. He has defrauded

the bank with Rs. 50/-. By this act, Shri M.L. Mandiya has

acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank besides

lowering the image of bank in the eyes of general public.

21. Shri Sita Ram deposited Rs. 2000/- for his SB account

No. 23 during the month of October, 92. Shri M.L. Mandiya

received the money while performing his duties has a

Cashier. He entered the transaction of Rs. 2000/- in the

pass book on the credit side and initialed it. He did not

deposit the money with the bank and kept it himself for his

own use. Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Sita Ram during the 1st

week of Jan. 1993 visited the bank along with the pass

book of account No. 23 to inquire the balance in the account.

Sh. M.L. Mandiya took the pass book with plea to complete

it and tore it away. He issued a new pass book to Smt.

Kamla Devi mentioning all the transactions from the ledger

since the inception of account. He even did to got the pass

book signed from the manager. He also returned Rs. 2000/

- to Sh. Sita Ram at his home during the last week of Jan.

1993. He also misappropriated the bank's money of

Rs. 2000/- for about 3 months. Shri M.L. Mandiya has acted

in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank besides

lowering the image of bank the eyes of general public. He

has also tempered/damage the property of the bank.

22. On 24-11-1992, Sh. Sant Lal deposited Rs. 600/- in

the SB account 1097. Shri M.L. Mandiya received the money

while performing his duties has a Cashier. He did not

deposit the amount and kept the money with himself for

his own use. Branch Manager N.K. Sharma received the

complaint while checking all the accounts and reported the

matter to LBO on 30-04-93. After persuation, Shri M.L.

Mandiya deposited Rs. 600/- in the SB account 1097 on

11-05-93. He has misappropriated the money for about

5 months and 17 days. He has acted in a manner prejudicial

to the interest of bank besides lowering the image of bank

the eyes of general public.

It shows that the workman was using the bank money

and sometimes he used to deposit the same after several

days. It is not denied that the workman joined the inquiry

proceedings and there is nothing on the file that the workman

ever agitated having not received the documents before the

Inquiry Officer at any stage. Now it is too late to say that he

did not receive the documents or the list of witneses. There

is no denial of the fact that a proper charge-sheet was served

to him to which he submitted reply and finding the same as

not satisfactory, a regular inquiry was ordered. During the

inquiry the management produced six witnesses besides

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2699

tendering 163 documents. The workman was given

opportunity to lead its defence evidence but he did not

examine any witness and perusal of the inquiry report shows

that he even did not challenge the testimony of the witnesses

examined by the management. Considering the evidence,

the Inquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that charges

against the workman are proved. The learned counsel for

the workman did not point out any rules and regulations

which were violated while conducting the inquiry. Thus a

proper charge sheet was served on the workman and the

witnesses were examined by the management in his presence

and he was given an opportunity to lead his defence

evidence and in the cirumstances, it cannot be said that

there is any defect in the conduct of the inquiry and the

same is held to be fair and proper.

It was argued by the learned counsel for workman that

no loss of money has occurred to the bank as the workman

used to deposit the money later on, and, in the

circumstances, the punishment awarded is not proper.

Suffice it to say that the workan was charge sheeted under

22 heads showing that he was dealing with the money of

the custmoers as well as of the bank as per his own will and

used to make the entries in the relevant record at his

convenience. The bank officers are required to exercise

higher standards of honesty and integrity while dealing

with the money of the depositors and in the present case

the workman is not guilty of keeping the money of

depositors with him once or twice but he was found doing

so in 22 cases and even in few cases he misappropriated

the amount and the conduct of the workman shows that it

was not safe for the bank to keep him in service to safeguard

the interest of the customers as well as of the bank. In the

circumstances, no interference is called for with the

punishment inflicted on the workman. In result, considering

the entire facts of the case, it is held that the action of the

management in dismissing the workman is legal and justified

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

answered accordingly against the workman. Let hard and

soft copy of the copy be sent to the Central Government

for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1292-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy cSad

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k Je U;k;ky; uñ 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la-

1025@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

22-06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@80@99&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015

S.O. 1292.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1025/2005) of the

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

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

22/06/2015.

[No. L-12012/80/99-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

PRESENT: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case I.D. No. 1025/2005

Registered on 17.9.2005

Sh. Uttam Pal, S/o Sh. D.S. Chauhan, R/o Kirti Nagar, Prem

Gali Begu Road, Sirsa.

...Petitioner

Versus

The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Chandni

Chowk, Sirsa.

...Respondents

Appearances :

For the workman

Sh. R.K. Singh, A.R.

For the Management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 6-11-2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/80/

99-IR(B-II) Dated 25.8.1999, by exercising its powers under

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

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

referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the Branch Manager, Chandi

Chowk Sirsa Branch of Punjab National Bank and

Regional Manager, Regional Office, Punjab National

Bank, Hisar in terminating the services of Sh. Uttam

Pal S/o Sh. D.S. Chauhan w.e.f. 15.5.97 is just and

legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

In response to the notice, the workman appeared and

submitted statement of claim pleading that he was

appointed as Peon on 1.12.1994 by the respondent

management at Sirsa and his last drawn wages were

2700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Rs.1400/- per month. His services were illegally terminated

on 15.5.1997 without service of any notice. It is also pleaded

that management used to pay him the salary under the

name of some other person. That the Manager of the Sirsa

Branch wrote a letter to the Regional Manager on 3.6.1997

regarding the discontinuance of his services showing that

the workman worked with the management. Since his

termination is in violation of the provisions of the Act, he

is entitled to be reinstated in service.

Respondent management filed written reply

controverting the averments and denied that the workman

was ever employed by it. That he did not work for the

management at any stage nor he was paid any salary.

Parties were given opportunities to lead its evidence.

In support of its case, workman appeared in the witness

box and filed his affidavit reiterating his case as set out in

the claim petition.

On the other hand the management has examined Sh.

L.D. Batra who filed his affidavit supporting the case of the

respondent management as find mentioned in the written

statement.

I have heard Sh. R.K. Parmar, AR of the workman and

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.

It was vehemently argued by the AR of the workman

that workman was employed by the bank as Peon on

1.12.1994 and his services were terminated illegally on

15.5.1997 and since the bank has not produced the record

including the payment vouchers, an inference be drawn

that he actually worked for the respondent management

continuously from 1.12.1994 to 15.5.1997.

I have considered the contentions.

It is the case of the workman that he was appointed as

Peon on 1.12.1994 and therefore, it was for the workman to

prove this fact by leading cogent evidence. But no evidence

has come on the file to show that he was ever appointed by

the respondent management as alleged by the workman.

Workman himself has stated that no appointment letter

was issued to him. No record has come on the file that the

workman was ever appointed as per Rules and Regulations

governing the respondent management. Again nothing has

come on the file to establish that the workman has ever

received any salary from the management. Though the bank

has not produced the record relating to payment of wages

from the year 1994 to 1997 but no adverse inference can be

taken against it to the effect that workman was actually an

employee of the bank and he has received the salary from

it. However the bank has placed on record the photocopies

of the attendance registers which are on the file and the

name of the workman do not find therein for the period in

question. Since there is no cogent evidence that workman

was ever appointed and that too as per Rules and

Regulations of the bank, it cannot be said by any stretch of

imagination that he actually served the bank and being so,

it cannot be said that his services were terminated by the

respondent.

In result, it is held that the workman is not entitled to

any relief and the reference is answered accordingly. Let

hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1293-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy

cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vf/kdj.k Je U;k;ky; uñ 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la-

1026@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

22-06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@73@99&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015

S.O. 1293.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1026/2005) of the

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

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

22/06/2015.

[No. L-12012/73/99-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case I.D. No. 1026/2005

Registered on 17.9.2005

Sh. Vikas Sethi, C/o Smt. Asha Sethi, Arya Girls High School,

Arya Samaj Road, Sirsa (Haryana).

...Petitioner

Versus

The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Regional

Office, Delhi Road, Hisar.

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

Sh. R.K. Singh, A.R.

For the Management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2701

AWARD

Passed on 6.11.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/73/

99 IR(B-II) dated 18.6.1999, by exercising its powers under

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

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

referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the Branch Manager, Chandi

Chowk Sirsa Branch of Punjab National Bank and

Regional Manager, Regional Office, Punjab National

Bank, Hissar in terminating the services of Sh. Vikas

Sethi w.e.f. 15.5.97 is just and legal? If not, what relief

the workman is entitled to?"

In response to the notice, the workman appeared and

submitted statement of claim pleading that he was

appointed as Peon on 17.12.1993 by the respondent

management at Sirsa and his last drawn wages were

Rs.1400/- per month. His services were illegally terminated

on 15.5.1997 without service of any notice. It is also pleaded

that management used to pay him the salary under the

name of some other person. That the Manager of the Sirsa

Branch wrote a letter to the Regional Manager on 3.6.1997

regarding the discontinuance of his services showing that

the workamn worked with the management. Since his

termination is in violation of the provisions of the Act, he

is entitled to be reinstated in service.

Respondent management filed written reply

controverting the averments and denied that the workman

was ever employed by it. That he did not work for the

management at any stage nor he was paid any salary.

Parties were given opportunities to lead its evidence.

In support of its case, workman appeared in the witness

box and filed his affidavit reiterating his case as set out in

the claim petition.

On the other hand the management has examined Sh.

L.D. Batra who filed his affidavit supporting the case of the

respondent management as find mention in the written

statement.

I have heard Sh. R.K. Parmar, AR of the workman and

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.

It was vehemently argued by the AR of the workman

that workman was employed by the bank as Peon on

17.12.1993 and his services were terminated illegally on

15.5.1997 and since the bank has not produced the record

including the payment vouchers, an inference be drawn

that he actually worked for the respondent management

continuosly from 17.12.1993 to 15.5.1997. I have considered

the contentions.

It is the case of the workman that he was appointed as

Peon on17.12.1993 and therefore, it was for the workman to

prove this fact by leading cogent evidence. But no evidence

has come on the file to show that he was ever appointed by

the respondent management as alleged by the workman.

Workman himself has stated that no appointment letter

was issued to him. No record has come on the file that the

workman was ever appointed as per Rules and Regulations

governing the respondent management. Again nothing has

come on the file to establish that the workman has ever

received and salary from the management. Thought the

bank has not produced the record relating to payment of

wages from the year 1993 to 1997, but no adverse inference

can be taken against it to the effect that workman was

actually an employee of the bank and he has received the

salary from it. However the bank has placed on record the

photocopies of the attendance registers which are on the

file and the name of the workman do not find mention therein

for the period in question. Since there is no cogent evidence

that workman was ever appointed and that too as per Rules

and Regulations of the bank, it cannot be said by any

stretch of imagination that he actually served the bank and

being so, it cannot be said that his services were terminated

by the respondent.

In result, it is held that the workman is not entitled to

any relief and the reference is answered accordingly. Let

hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1294-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

izcaèra= 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;y;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 108@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@200@98&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015

S.O. 1294.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 108/99) of the Central.

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of UCO Bank and their workman,

received by the Central Government on 22/06/2015.

[No. L-12012/200/98-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

2702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/108/99

Shri Munnalal Chakradhary,

S/o Ramadhin Chakradhari,

P.O. Hardibazaar,

Tehsil Katkhera,

Bilaspur (MP)

...Workman

Versus

Regional Manager,

UCO Bank

Divisional Office,

No. 97, Anandnagar,

Raipur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 14th day of May 2015

1. As per letter dated 28-2/8-3/99 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-12012/200/98-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference

ralates to:

"Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank

Divisional Office, Raipur (MP) in terminating the

services of Shri Munnalal Chakradhary, Messenger

of UCO Bank Branch Gevra Distt. Bilaspur MP w.e.f.

10.5.97 without following the provisions of the ID

Act, 1947 is justified? If not, to what relief are the

workmen entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Workman sbumitted to claim at Page 11/1 to 11/2.

Case of Ist party is workman is that he was engaged on

daily wages in UCO Bank Gevra Branch from 2-8-88. He

was initially paid wages Rs. 12,25, revised wages Rs. 62/-

per day. The wages were deposited in Account No. 2344/

09 of workman. He was doing work of arranging files. The

work related to the post office and bank was done by him.

He had written various letters to the Branch Manager, Gevra

Branch. He completed 240 days continuous service as per

circular dated 19-10-89. He was working 8 hours per day.

Documents are not available with him. He had repeatedly

asked management reasons for his termination but no reply

was given. He was honestly working in the Bank. His

services are illegally terminated. On such ground workman

prays for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement on 3-4-2013

opposing claim of workman. IInd party submits that

workman has not mentioned period of his working in the

Bank. The statement of claim is filed on 16-5-07 claiming

that he was working on daily wages as messenger from

2-8-88. Bank has no documents. As per available record,

workman was never working as peon in Gevra Project. There

was no vacancy of messenger. Notification of vacancy

was not issued. Workman did not submit application for

any job. Workman was never appointed on vacant post

following recruitment rules. Attendance register was not

maintained. Workman has not produced salary receipt,

contingency record voucher, record of payment vouchers.

He has not produced documents in support of his claim.

That he worked more than 240 days preceding termination

of his service. That as per settled legal position for claiming

benefit under Section 25-F of ID Act, workman has to submit

evidence. Documents on record like salary sheet,

attendance register to establish working more than 240

days. It is reiterated that the management had submitted

applicaiton under Rule 10(B) on 29th March, 2010

requesting production of document by workman. Workman

has not responded to it. On such ground, II party prays for

rejection of claim.

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

Termination of

management of UCO Bank

workman is not

Divisional Office, Raipur (MP)

proved.

in terminating the services of

Shri Munnalal Chakradhary,

Messenger of UCO Bank

Branch Gevra Distt. Bilaspur MP

w.e.f. 10.5.97 is legal and justifed?

(ii)If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entttled to?"

entitled to

any relief.

REASONS

5. The terms of reference relates to legality of termination

of services of workman by IInd party for violation of Section

25-F of ID Act. Workman has filed statement of claim.

Thereafter he did not participate in reference proceeding.

Workman failed to adduce any evidence in support of his

claim. The evidence of workman was closed on 23-1-2014.

6. Management filed affidavit of his witness Shri Dharam

Singh supporting contentions of IInd party in Written

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2703

Statement. That workman was not appointed following

recruitment rules as messenger on vacant post. Workman

had not completed 240 days continuous service. Workman

was never engaged as peon in the Bank. The evidence of

management's witness remained unchallenged. From

evidence of management's witness documetns Exhibit M-

1, M-2 are admitted in evidence. Document Exhibit M-1 is

copy of Certificate dated 19-10-89 dealing with empanelment

and absorption of persons engaged on daily wages. Exhibit

W-2 is copy of circular dated 31-3-90 pertaining to

empanelment and absorption of persons engaged in daily

wages in terms of settlement dated 12-10-89. As workman

has not participated in reference, no evidence is adduced

by workman to support his claim or termination of his

service by IInd party, I record my finding in Point No. 1 that

engagement and termination of services of workman by

IInd party is not proved.

7. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1)

The action of the management of UCO Bank

Divisional Office, Raipur (MP) in terminating the

services of Shri Munnalal Chakradhary, Messenger

of UCO Bank Branch Gevra Distt. Bilaspur MP w.e.f.

10-5-97 is not proved.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1295-—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/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 19@2012½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@50@2012&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015

S.O. 1295.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 19/2012) of the Central.

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the management of Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 22/06/2015.

[No. L-12012/50/2012-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 19 of 2012

Parties:

Employers in relaiton to the mangement of

Bank of India

AND

Their workmen

Present : Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCE:

On behalf of the :

Mr. S. Chakraborty, Ld. counsel

Mangement

On behalf of the :

None

Workmen

State : West Bengal

Industry: Banking

Dated: 23rd April, 2015,

AWARD

By Order No. L-12012/50/2012-IR(B-II) dated 23.11.12

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of

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

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of

India in imposing the punishment of compulsory

retirement with superannuation benefits upon

Shri Badhu Ram Murmu, Ex-Staff-Clerk-Cashier vide

Order dated 30.06.2009, is legal and justified? What

relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

2. When the case is taken up for hearing today, none

appears on behalf of the workman though the management

is represented by its Ld. Counsel.

3. From the record it appears that the concerned

workman has already passed away. No application has yet

been filed by the heir(s) of the deceased workman for

substitution. Considering the above facts and

circumstances, it appears that the heirs of the deceased

workman is/are not interested about this case. So, no fruitful

purpose will be served by keeping the present reference

pending further.

In view of the above, present reference is disposed of

by passing a "No Dispute" Award.

Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

The 23rd April, 2015

2704

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 22 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1296-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj bafM;k xsVos VfeZuy

fyñ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa 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; v:ukdqye ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 41@2014½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 22@06@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&35025@01@2014&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015

S.O. 1296.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 41/2014) of

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

Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of India Gateway

Terminal Limited and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 22.06.2015.

[No. L-35025/01/2014-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-

TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: SHRI D. SREEVALLABHAN, B.SC., LLB,

Presiding Officer

(Thursday the 23rd day of April, 2015/3rd Vaisakha, 1937)

ID 41/2014

Union

:

Swathanthra Container Lorry

Thozhilali Union C/23/1573,

Kizhakke Ayyamveliparambu

KMP Nagar, Palluruthy

COCHIN-682006

By Adv. Shri C. Anilkumar

Management

:

India Gateway Terminal Limited

Regd. Office, Administration

Building

ICTT, Vallarpadam. SEZ

Ernakulam-682504

By M/s Menon & Pai

This case coming up for final hearing on 23.04.2015 and

this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the same day passed

the following:

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section(I) 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-35025/

01/2014-IR(B-II) dated 22.08.2014 referred the industrial

dispute scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this

tribunal.

2. The dispute is:

"Whether the demand of Swathanthra Container Lorry

Thozhilali Union for regularization of services of

Shri Amal Babu. K.B., Andral Stessel Faria, George,

K.M., Antony Resil C.J., Sarush. T.S. Sijoy George

working as reefer technicians and Shri Kannan. AR,

Nikhil, KP, Arun Jacob Junior reefer technicians en-

gaged by M/s. India Gateway Terminal Private Ltd.

through contractors is justified or not? What relief the

workers are entitled.

3. After receipt of summons both union and

management entered appearance. When the case stood

posted for claim statement learned counsel for both sides

have submitted that the workmen involved in this

industrial dispute were absorbed in the regular service of

the contractor after the reference and as they are satisfied

with their present position it is not necessary to further

proceed with the I.D. Union has also filed a memo stating

that as those workmen were already absorbed in service

no adjudication is necessary. As there exists no dispute,

the ID is disposed of by passing 'no dispute award.'

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1297-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj dksphu iru U;kl

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa 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; v:ukdqye ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 3@2013½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 22@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&35011@02@2012&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015

S.O. 1297.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 3/2013) 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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2705

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

22.06.2015.

[No. L-35011/02/2012-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-

TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: SHRI D. SREEVALLABHAN, B.SC., LL.B,

Presiding Officer

(Thursday the 30th day of April, 2015/10th Vaisakha,

1937)

ID 3/2013

Union

:

The General Secretary

Cochin Port Staff Association

Wellingdon Island

Cochin-682006

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 final hearing on 29.04.2015 and

this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the 30.4.2015 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/

2012-IR(B-II) dated 03.12.2012 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 the request of three mazdoors in the

patch work section for regularisation in the black smith

section, if no regular and substantive post of basic

tradesman (Tinsmith) is available in the workshop, is

legal and justified? What relief workmen concerned are

entitled to?"

3. At the time when the case stood posted for evidence

after submission of the respective pleadings by both

parties learned counsel for the Union has submitted that it

is not necessary to have any adjudication as there exists

no dispute between the parties and the workmen

involved in the ID do not want any relief. Union has filed

a statement stating that out of the three workmen Shri E.C.

Thilodharan and Shri P L Jospeh had already retired from

service and Shri K V Suresh Babu left the union

abandoning the relief sought through this dispute and

hence there is no existing dispute to be adjudicated for

granting any relief to them. A copy of the same was served

to management. Learned Counsel for the management has

submitted that as there exists no dispute between the

parties a 'no dispute award' can be passed in this case. As

the union does not want any adjudication since there is no

existing dispute a 'no dispute award' is passed in this case.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1298-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj chñlhñvkbZñ ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa 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;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 28@2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 23@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@220@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd June, 2015

S.O. 1298.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 28/2005) of

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

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of Broadcasting Corporation of

India, Doordarshan and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 23.06.2015.

[No. L-42012/220/2004-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT: Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 28/2005

Ref. No. L-42012/220/2004-IR(CM-II) dated: 04.08.2005

Between

Shri Amrit Lal Yadav S/o Late Shri Bhawandin

Vill. Sikanderpur (Jankipur)

Lucknow.

2706

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

And

1. The Director, Prasar Bharati

Broadcasting Corporation of India

Doordarshan Kendra

Lucknow

2. The Director General (Doordarshan).

Doordarshan Broadcasting Corporation of India

Prasar Bharati, Directorate of Doordarshan

New Delhi.

AWARD

1. By order No. L-42012/220/2004-IR(CM-II) dated:

04.08.2005 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this

industrial dispute between Shri Amrit Lal Yadav S/o Late

Shri Bhawandin, Vill. Sikanderpur (Jankipur), Lucknow and

the Director, Prasar Bharati, Broadcasting Corporation of

India, Doordarshan Kendra, Lucknow & the Director

General (Doordarshan), Doordarshan Broadcasting

Corporation of India, Prasar Bharati, Directorate of

Doordarshan, New Delhi for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Kya Prabandhan, Doordarshan Kendra, Lucknow/New

Delhi Dwara Shri Amrit Lal Yadav Putra Sw. Shri

Bhagwandeen Casual Programme Staff Shreni C Ko

Seewa Main Niyamitikaran N Kar Ke Dinank 11.07.2001

Se Naukari Se Nikal Diya Jana Uchit Tatha Nayaysangat

Hai? Yadi Nahi, to Karmkaar Kis Anutosh Ko Pane ka

Adhikaari Hai?"

3. The case of the workman Amrit Lal Yadav in brief, is

that he was engaged by the opposite party as Casual

Programme Staff in Group 'C' category on 07.07.1986 and

he worked regularly up to 10.07.2001. It has been submitted

by the workman that there had been a scheme for

regularization of the casual employees dated 09.06.1992,

17.03.1994 and 05.07.1994; but the management did not

regularize his services stating that the workman is over age

by one year three months and eight days. It has been alleged

by the workman that the management contained in Section

25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Accordingly, the workman has

prayed that the action of the management in denying him

regularization be declared illegal and he be regularized into

the services.

4. The management of the Doordarshan has denied the

claim of the workman by filing its written statement; wherein

it was submitted that the workman had never been

appointed as a casual artist adhoc or otherwise, no

appointment letter was issued to the workman, therefore,

there is no question of termination or retrenchement of his

services w.e.f. 10.07.2001. It was submitted that the workman

was engaged for short spells to carryout casual nature of

work purely on the basis of actual requirement of programme

production for not more than 10 days in a month. It was

further submitted that the workman's case was considered

for regularization, it terms of regularization scheme dated

09.06.1992 as well as the modified scheme dated 17.03.1994

and 05.07.1994, but he was found ineligible being over age

in terms of scheme dated 09.06.1992, therefore, he could

not be regularized. It is also submitted that all those who

were regularized by the management were regularized in

accordance with regularization scheme dated 09.06.1992

and 17.03.1994. Accordingly, the management of the

Doordarshan has prayed that the claim of the workman be

rejected being devoid of merit.

5. The workman has filed its rejoinder wherein he has

stated that his date of birth is 10.03.1959 as per his

matriculation certificate and as per Rules the age limit for

the post of Production Assistant is 21-30 years. It was

further stated that the case of Smt. Dixit whose date of

birth and date of initial engagement was 26.07.61 and

12.02.91 respectively, was considered for regularization, in

terms of scheme dated 09.06.92, as per direction of Hon'ble

CAT, Lucknow in O.A. No. 500/95 vide order dated

08.11.2001 and she was given age relaxation of one year.

Rest is mere reiteration of the averments already made in

the statement of claim.

6. The parties have adduced documentary as well as

oral evidence in support of their respective cases. The

workman has examined himself whereas the management

has examined Shri G.P. Pandey, Senior Administrative Officer

in support of their pleadings. The parties availed

opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of each other.

The workman forwarded its oral arguments; but the

management refrained to argue its case in spite of ample

opportunities have been forwarded to them; accordingly,

the case was heard ex-parte against the management.

7. Heard the authorized representative of the workman

alone and gone through entire evidence available on record.

8. The workman's representative has submitted that the

workman has been engaged as Casual Programme Staff by

the opposite party on 07.07.1986 and worked as such till

10.07.2001 regularly when his services have been terminated

by the opposite party without assigning any rhyme or

reason or any notice pay or any notice pay in lieu thereof

in contravention to the provisions contained in the Section

25 F of the I.D. Act. He has also argued that when he was in

service the management devised a scheme for regularizing

the casual artists, vide dated 09.06.92 and thereafter modified

scheme vide dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.94, who worked as

casual artists with the opposite party as on 31.12.1991, but

the management did not regularize his services in spite of

the fact that he was fully eligible within the terms and

conditions of the said regularization schemes. The workman

has argued that the management did not extend the benefits

of the regularization to him taking excuse that he was over

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2707

age; but he was well under age when joined the opposite

party and also after giving him age relaxation as provided

in the regularization scheme his services would have

regularized. It is also argued that the management was

required to regularized the seniors first and for this the

management was ought to maintain seniority list/muster

roll as envisaged under the provisions contained in the

Section 25 D of the Act; but the management not only

failed to comply with the provisions of the Section 25 D of

the Act; but also regularized many juniors viz. Shri Umesh

Chandra Mishra, Mo. Nasir, Rakesh Kumar Kukreti, Ramesh

Chandra Shukla, Mueen Ansari, Sishir Kumar Singh, Atul

Mishra, Smt. Rekha Gupta, Smt. Seem Kazmi and Anjali

Dixit, ignoring the workman. In this regard the workman

has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Union

of India vs. Rakesh Kumar Kukreti and others in Civil Appeal

No. 1122-1136 of 1999.

9. Per contra, the management's case is that the workman

was never appointed by it; rather he was engaged by the

management to perform the work of casual nature as and

when required, in short spells. His engagement ended with

the end of work/engagement period; therefore, there is no

question of terminating his services at any point of time. It

was further pleaded that the case of the workman was

considered for regularization, within the terms and

conditions provided under the regularization schemes dated

09.06.92, 17.03.94 and 05.07.94; but he could not qualify for

the same, even after giving him permissible age relaxation.

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival submissions of the parties and scanned entire evidence

available on record.

11. In the present case, admittedly, there was no regular

appointment of the workman and he was engaged by the

opposite party management on casual basis to work as

Casual Programme Staff for specified time period on fixed

payment. He was also given breaks and or his engagement

used to come to an end with the end of the specified work/

period.

It has come into the pleadings and evidence of the parties

that in pursuance to the directions of the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi vide

their order dated 14.02.92 in O.A. No. 563/86 between Anil

Kumar Mathur vs. Union of India, a scheme for

regularization of casual artists in Doordarshan was launched

vide Office Memorandum dated 09.06.1992, which was

further modified vide Office Memorandum dated 17.03.94

and 05.07.94. All the Casual Artists who were employed on

casual basis on 31.12.1991, including those who were on

the rolls of the Doordarshan, though they may not be in

services at that time were eligible for consideration. In this

regard the workman's case is that the management

regularized other juniors, sparing him in spite of the fact

that he fulfilled the eligibility criteria of the scheme; and in

rebuttal the management witness has stated that the

Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20.03.2002 in Civil

Appeal No. 1122-1136 directed the management to decide

the cases of the casual artists in accordance with the

regularization scheme dated 09.06.92 and thereafter

modified scheme vide dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.94. The

workman was a party in the said SLP; and accordingly, his

case was taken up by the management in terms of scheme

dated 09.06.92; but he was found eligible for regularization

even after giving him age relaxation.

12. The workman has relied on order of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Civil Appeal No. 1122-1136 of 1999 between Union

of India & others vs. Rakesh Kumar Kukreti & others;

wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the

questions raised in the appeals are squarely covered by a

decision of the Court in Director, Doordarshan Kendera,

Trivandrum and others vs. S. Kuttan Pillai and others (1998)

8 SCC 736. Hon'ble Apex Court in Kuttan Pillai case, while

deciding the case, where norms for relaxation of age for the

purpose of regularization and for the purpose of recruitment

were different in respect of respondent Floor Assistants

engaged on casual basis in the Doordarshan Kendra,

Trivandrum seeking regularization, held that the relaxation

in age could be granted to the respondents only in

accordance with the scheme notified by the OM dated

09.06.1992 as modified by OMs dated 17.03.1994 and

05.07.2004.

13. Thus, the point for consideration is whether the

workman was eligible for regularization in terms of the

regularization scheme dated 09.06.92 and thereafter

modified vide dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.94. For apt

appreciation of the case of the workman regularization on

merit it would be necessary to quote the salient features of

the relevant regularization schemes dated 09.06.92, 17.03.94

and 05.07.94.

"No. 1516/2(3)

Dated: 09.06.1992

Office Memorandum

Subject: Scheme for Regularization of Casual Artists in

Doordarshan.

Annexure to the above OM.

Scheme for regularization of casual erstwhile staff

Artists in Doordarshan as per the judgement in OA No.

563/86, dated 14.2.1992 in M/s. Anil Kumar Mathur vs. Uol

case.

1.

This scheme would be applicable to all those Casual

Artists who were employed on Casual basis on

31.12.1991 including those who were on the rolls of

the Doordarshan, though they may not be in services

now will be eligible for consideration. Those who are

engaged on casual basis after 31.12.1991 will not be

eligible for consideration.

2708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2.

Only those Casual who had been engaged for an

aggregate period of 120 days in a year (calendar year)

will be eligible for regularization. The broken period in

between the engagement and disengagement will be

ignored for the purpose. The number of days is to be

computed on the basis of actual working days in the

muster rolls or attendance sheets or Q-sheets.

3.

Separate eligibility panels will be prepared for each

category of posts, Kendra-wise, depending upon the

length of service of Casual Artists. They will be

considered for regularization in the order of their

seniority against the available vacancies in that

particular Kendra. The seniority will be determined

from the date of their initial engagemnet by the Kendra.

4.

The persons who are in the eligibility panel of one

Kendra will have no right for claiming regularization in

another Kendra as these are generally Group 'C' posts

and selection is made Kendra-wise.

5.

The Casual Artists who are to be regularized should

possess the requisite educational requisite

qualification and/or experience as stipulated in the

Recruitment Rules of other administrative insturctions

(in the absence of Recruitment Rules) existing for the

post when the casual worker was initially engaged.

6.

The upper age limit would be relaxed to that extent of

service rendered by the Casual Artists at the time of

regularization. A minimum of 120 days service in the

aggregate, in one year, shall be treated as one year's

service rendered for this purpose. The service rendered

for less than 120 days in a year will not qualify for age

relaxation.

7.

The regularization of Casual Artists would be from

prospective date and the Casual Artists on the

eligibility panel who fail to qualify for regularization in

accordance with the recruitment rules and instructions

issued there under the post, shall be removed from the

panel.

8.

If a Casual Artist on an eligibility panel commits a

misconduct and the same is...........................would not

be eligible for regularization.

9.

Till all the Casual Artists.............................no panel of

eligible "Casual Artists."

"No. 2(J)/ -S.1

Dated: 17.03.1994

Office Memorandum

Sub: Scheme for regularization of Casual Artists in

Doordarshan

The undersigned is directed to invite attention to DG:

D.O.M. of even number dated 09.06.92 on the above

subject, with which a copy of the scheme for regularization

of Casual Artists of Doordarshan was circulated. According

to condition in para 2 of the scheme, the number of days

for the purpose of regularization is to be computed on the

basis of actual working days in the Muster Rolls or

Attendance Sheets or 'Q' sheets.

2. It has been brought to the notice of this Directorate

that although these Casual Staff Artists were engaged for

10 days or have been working on 2-3 assignments in a

month on a consolidated amount of Rs. 400-500 per

assignment, but in actual practice, they have been working

throughout the month. This aspect has been examined by

the Directorate in consultation with Ministry of I&B and

procedure to be followed for arriving at the number of days

of casual working will be as under.

3. The number of days for the purpose of regularization

will be computed on the basis of actual wages given to the

prevalent in the state during the relevant time of working.

For example, if a Casual Staff Artists has been paid an

aggregate sum of Rs. 1500 in a month whether for working

for 10 days or for 2-3 assignments in a month and the

minimum wage prevalent in the State at the relevant time

was Rs. 50, the staff artists would be deemed to have

worked for 30 dyas in a month (i.e. Rs. 1500 divided by 50)

subject to the condition that the days so computed would

not exceed 25 days in a month.

4. It has also been noticed that certain staff artists were

engaged initially when there were over-age according to

the Recruitment Rules. All such cases, with the number of

days they worked on casual basis accoding to the formula

laid down in Para 3, should be referred to the Directorate

for taking a decision on merit."

"No. 4(1)/94-S.I.

Dated: 05.07.94

Office Memorandum

Sub: Regularization of Casual Artists as per revised Scheme

dtd. 13.0.94

The attention of all Doordarshan Kendras in invited to

this Directorate; Memo No. 2(3)/86-S.I., dated 17.03.1994,

copy enclosed, on the above subject. Various Doordharsan

Kendras have sought certain clarifications on a number of

points in regard to Revised Scheme, these points are

clarified as under:—

(a) Kendras are competent to prepare the eligibility list

of Casual Artist in accordance with Para 3 of the

Revised Scheme and regularize them against

available vacancies in their respective category on

the basis of seniority.

(b) .....................

(c) The crucial date for the purpose of calculation of

age is the same as in 1992 Scheme, i.e. 09.06.92 and

there is no change in it.

(d) For the purpose of age relaxation, the number of

days engagement should be taken into account up

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2709

to 09.06.92. The period of engagement, if any,

beyond 09.06.92 in the year 1992 should not be

counted for the purpose of age relaxation.

(e) Casual Artists who have worked for 120 days in

any calendar year as per revised scheme too up to

the period ending on 31st December, 1991 should

be considered for regularization. The casuals who

have completed 120 days after 31.12.1991 are not

currently counted for regularization.

(f) ..............

(g) ..............

(h) The rates of wages prevalent by the State

Government from time to time by way of minimum

wage Act in which Kendra concerned falls, are to

be taken for calculation of number of days of Casual

Artists at that Kendra. The total amount paid to an

individual Casual Artist during the month are to be

devided by per day rate of payment of minimum

wage for calculation of number of days in a month.

The classification in different scales of pay/fee in

Group 'C' and 'D' etc. is not required. The maximum

number of days so calcualted should be restricted

to 25 days in a month.

(i) ..............

(j) Where the minimum wage Act prior to 01.05.1989

are not prescribed and available, the computation

of number of days should be done by the following

formula:—

Total amount paid during the month/30 = Amount

for one day.

The maximum number of days so arived at should

be restricted to 25 days in month only."

A bare perusal of the above office memorandums shows

that the benefit of the regularization scheme dated 09.06.92

was available to those casual artists who were employed

on casual basis as on 31.12.1991 and were engaged for an

aggregate period of 120 days in a calendar year. Also, the

casual artist should have been in possession of requisite

education qualification and experience. Also, they should

have been within the upper age limit, which was relaxable

to the extent of services rendered by the casual Artist at

the time of relaxation i.e. on 31.12.1991. However, the

modifications to the scheme dated 09.06.92 were issued

vide scheme dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.1994; but the crucial

date for eligibility and for the purpose of calculation of age

and age relaxation etc. remained same as that in the scheme

dated 09.06.92.

14. Now, entering into the merit of the case, the matter

has to be examined as to whether the workman was eligible

for regularization within the terms and conditions of the

above quoted schemes. In this regard the case of the

workman is that he was engaged on 07.07.1986 as Casual

Programme Staff, when he was well within the age as

prescribed in the Ruels, He has filed photocopy of his

matriculation certificate wherein his date of birth is

mentioned as 01.03.1959. He has also filed photocopy of

advertisement seeking application for the post of

Production Assistant; wherein the prescribed age limit for

the post has been mentioned as 21-30 years. Therefore, it

comes out that when the workman was engaged initially he

was well within the prescribed age for the post; but when

the scheme for regularization dated. 09.06.92 came into force

he had become over age on the crucial date of eligibility i.e.

on 31.12.91 when he was approximately of 32 years and 09

months' age. Moreover, it is the case of the management

that the case of the workman was considered within the

terms of scheme dated 09.06.92, 07.03.94 and 05.04.94; but

he could not get the benefit of regularization being overage

by one year three months and eight days. In this connection,

it is pertinent to mention here that as per age relaxation

clause provided in the scheme, a casual artist can get age

relaxation with respect to the upper age limit, to the extent

of services rendered by him at the time of regulaization. As

per scheme, for upper age relaxation, a minimum of 120

days service in the aggregate, in one year, was required to

be treated as one year's service rendered for this purpose,

service rendered for lesss than 120 days in year were not

be considered for age relaxation. The workman as alleged

that the management did not give any weightage for the

services rendered by him for considering age relaxation,

which resulted in to his disqualification for the

regularization. In this respect, the management of the

Doordarshan in its evidence has stated that the workman

was provided age relaxation of two years even than he

could not qualify the terms of regularization being over

age.

15. The workman his pleadings, pleaded that he was

within the age limit when initially engaged; but got over

age during his engagement. He has further pleaded that

had he been given age relaxation, he would have come

within the ambit of the regularization scheme. This pleading

of the workman has been denied by the management

through pleadings as well as in its evidence with specific

statement that the workman was given two years age

relaxation since he had completed 120 days in the year

1987 and 1988; even then he failed to qualify for

regularization as per regularization schemes. As per settled

law, the initial burden was on the workman to prove before

this Tribunal that he was eligible for age relaxtion and for

this he was required to prove, through cogent evidence,

that he actually worked for 120 days in aggregate in a

calendar year for seeking age relaxation in order to come

within the purview of terms of regularization scheme.

In this regard it is noteworthy to mention that from the

advertisement of the post it is clear that the prescribed

2710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

upper age limit for the post is 30 years and as per

matriculation certificate, filed by the workman, his date of

birth is 01.03.1959, which goes to show that his age on the

cutoff date as per regularization scheme i.e. 31.12.1991 was

32 years and 09 months. Therefore, it is apparent that the

workman was over age by 02 years and 09 months only.

Also, as per pleadings and statement of the management

witness, the workman was permitted 02 years age relaxation

as he worked for 120 days in the years 1987 and 1988. As

per O.M. dated 05.07.94. Thus, it comes out that the

workman fell short of relaxation for 09 months only.

16. Admittedly, the workman worked with the

management, intermittently; but the workman has neither

given any detail for his working nor any reliable proof for

payments made to him during different calendar years of

engagement as contended by him. For calculating 120 days

working a formula has been enumerated in the scheme dated

17.03.1994 vide para 03 as under:

"3. The number of days for the purpose of regularization

will be computed on the basis of actual wages given to

the prevalent in the State during the relevant time of

working. For example, if a Casual Staff Artist has been

paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 1500 in a month whether

for working for 10 days or for 2-3 assignments in a month

and the minimum wage prevalent in the State at the

relevant time was Rs. 50, the Staff Artists would be

deemed to have worked for 30 days in a month (i.e. Rs.

1500 divided by 50) subject to the condition that the

days so computed would not exceed 25 days in a month.

The above method of calculating the working days is

based on the monthly payment made to a casual artist

divided by minimum wages prevalent in the State at the

relevant time. The workman has not provided the details

of his working days or monthly payment made to him the

management. He has not even tried to summon the relevant

documents from the management i.e. engagement letters,

payment slips or vouchers or attendance sheets or 'Q'

Sheets as envisaged in the scheme itself. Since the

workman has not filed any details regarding the payments

received by him in different years of his engagement it is

not possible to calculate the number of working days in a

calendar year to grant age relaxation to the workman.

Per contra, the case of the management is quite clear in

this regard; whereby it has pleaded in para 04 of its written

statement that the services of the workman were obtained

indifferent spells as per details given hereunder:

Year

No. of days worked

1986

15

1987

121 days

1988

187 days

1989

17 days

From perusal of the above working details given by the

management, it comes out that the management has granted

two years age relaxation in terms of scheme for

regularization. Hence, in view of the specific pleading and

evidence of the management, regarding working of the

workman, which makes him entitled for age relaxation for

only two years, it was incumbent upon the workman to

prove, through cogent evidence that he actually worked

for 120 days in successive years of his engagement to

grant him further age relaxation as proved in the schemes

dated 09.06.92 specifically the scheme dated 17.03.94.

The workman utterly failed to established that he

actually worked for 120 days in aggregate in more than two

calendar years to given him benefit of age relaxation as per

scheme dated 09.06.92; and in the absence of any proof it

is hard to carve any finding that the workman was entitled

for regularization in terms of scheme dated 17.03.94, after

giving age relaxation of approximately more than two years.

16. As regard termination of the workman on 10.07.2001,

the management has pleaded that the workman was never

appointed by the opposite party; rather he was engaged

for short spells on casual basis as and when required by it.

This fact is admitted by the workman in pleadings as well

as in his evidence. Moreover, the workman himself has

filed offer letters which goes to show that he had been

engaged by the management for specified time, therefore,

the end of engagement on completion of task or engagement

period does not amounts to termination of services.

17. The workman pleaded that the management has

terminated his services without complying with the

provisions of Section 25F of the Act. In this regard the

burden lies upon the workman to prove that he has worked

for 240 days in preceding one years from the date of alleged

termination as per provision of the Act and as per law laid

down in 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC) Surenderanagar

Panchayat and another vs. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai; wherein

Hon'ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that where the

workman failed to prove that he had been in employment

with the employer for a period of 240 days uninterruptedly,

he is not entitled to the protection, in compliance of section

25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scope of the enquiry before

the Labour Court was confined only to 12 months preceding

the date of termination to decide the question of the

continuous service for the purpose of section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court

has observed as under:

"The claimant, apart his oral evidence has not produced

any proof in the form of receipt of salary or wages for

240 days or record of his appointment or engagement

for that year to show that he has worked with the

employer for 240 days to get the benefit under section

25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is now well settled

that it is for the claimant to lead evidence to show that

he in fact worked for 240 days in a year preceding his

termination."

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2711

Therefore, in view of the above referred case law, in

order to take any relief for non-compliance of manadatory

provisions contained in section 25-F of the Act, it is

necessary for the claimant to lead evidence to the effect

that he was actually in employment of the opposite party

for 240 days in the year preceding his termination and he

was actually paid for it. In the instant case although there

is pleading that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, have

not been complied with, there is no piece of evidence to

show that the workman worked for 240 days with the

management of Doordarshan in twelve calendar months

preceding the date of termination. It is pertinent to mention

here that the workman has failed to substantiate this fact

that the workman worked for 240 days in a year preceding

the date of termination.

18. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the

case and the case laws laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court. I am of considered opinion that the workman's claim

for regularization in the services of the Doordarshan not

sustainable in the eye of law being beyond the ambit of

regularization schemes dated 09.06.1992 and the modified

schemes dated 17.03.1994 and 05.07.1994. Accordingly, the

reference is adjudicated against the workman, Amrit Lal

Yadav; as such he is not entitled for any relief.

19. Award as above.

LUCKNOW

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

05th May, 2014.

ubZ fnYyh] 23 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1299-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chñlhñvkbZñ ds izcaèra=

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

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]

y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 34@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@183@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II)]

eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd June, 2015

S.O. 1299.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2005) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Broadcasting Corporation of India and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 23/

06/2015.

[No. L-42012/183/2004-IR (CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present :

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 34/2005

Ref. No. L-42012/183/2004-IR (CM-II) dated: 04.08.2005

Between

Shri Akhilesh Kumar Saxena

S/o Late N.L. Saxena

240, Phoolbagh

Lucknow

And

1. The Director, Prasar Bharati

Broadcasting Corporation of India

Doordarshan Kendra

Lucknow

2. The Director General, Prasar Bharti

Broadcasting Corporation of India

Doordarshan, Directorate General of Doordarshan

New Delhi.

AWARD

1. By order No. L-42012/183/2004-IR(CM-II) dated:

04.08.2005 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this

industrial dispute between Shri Akhilesh Kumar Saxena,

S/o Late N.L. Saxena, 240, Phoolbagh, Lucknow and the

Director, Prasar Bharati, Broadcasting Corporation of India,

Doordarshan Kendra, Lucknow & the Director General,

Prasar Bharati, Broadcasting Corporation of India,

Doordarshan, Directorate General of Doordarshan, New

Delhi for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Kya Prabandhan, Doordarshan Kendra, Lucknow/New

Delhi Dwara Shri Akhilesh Kumar Saxena putra Sw. Shri

N.L. Saxena, akasmik floor sahayak ko Sewa Main

Niyamiti Na Kar Ke Dinank 11.07.2001 Se Naukari se

nikal diya jana uchit tatha nayaysangat hai? Yadi nahi,

to Karmkaar kis anutosh pane ka adhikaari hai?"

3. The case of the workman, Akhilesh Kumar Saxena, in

brief, is that he was engaged by the opposite party as

Casual Floor Assistant on 14.12.1984 and he worked

regularly up to 20.07.2001. It has been submitted by the

workman that there had been a scheme for regularization of

the casual employees dated 09.06.1992, 17.03.1994 and

05.07.1994; but the management did not regularize his

2712

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

services stating that the workman is over age. It has been

alleged by the workman that the management terminated

his services on 20.07.2001 without following the due

procedure as contained in Section 25 F of the I.D. Act,

1947. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that the action

of the management in denying him regularization be declared

illegal and he be regularized into the services.

4. The management of the Doordarshan has denied the

claim of the workman by filing its written statement; wherein

it was submitted that the workman had never been

appointed as a casual artist adhoc or otherwise, no

appointment letter was issued to the workman, therefore,

there is no question of termination or retrenchment of his

services w.e.f. 20.07.2001. It was submitted that the workman

was engaged for short spells to carryout casual nature of

work purely on the basis of actual requirment of programme

production for not more than 10 days in a month. It was

further submitted that the workman's case was considered

for regularization, in terms of regularization scheme dated

09.06.1992 as well as the modified scheme dated 17.03.1994

and 05.07.1994, but he was found ineligible being over age

by four years nine months and six days, in terms of scheme

dated 09.06.1992, therefore, he could not be regularized. It

is also submitted that all those who were regularized by the

management were regularized in accordance with

regularization scheme dated 09.06.1992 and 17.03.1994.

Accordingly, the management of the Doordarshan has

prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being

devoid of merit.

5. The workman had filed its rejoinder wherein he has

stated that his date of birth is 03.09.1956 as per his

matriculation certificate and as per Rules the age limit for

the post of Production Assistant is 21-30 years. It was

further stated that the case of Smt. Dixit whose date of

birth and date of initial engagement was 26.07.61 and

12.02.91 respectively, was considered for regularization, in

terms of scheme dated 09.06.92, as per direction of Hon'ble

CAT, Lucknow in O.A. No. 500/95 vide order dated

08.11.2001 and she was given age relaxation of one year.

Rest is mere reiteration of the averments already made in

the statement of claim.

6. The parties have adduced documentary as well as

oral evidence in support of their respective cases. The

workman has examined himself whereas the management

has examined Shri G.P. Pandey, Senior Administrative

Officer in support of their pleadings. The parties availed

opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of each other.

The workman forwarded its oral arguments; but the

management refrained to argue its case in spite of ample

opportunities have been forwarded to them; accordingly,

the case was heard ex-parte against the management.

7. Heard the authorized representative of the workman

alone and gone through entire evidence available on record.

8. The workman's representative has submitted that the

workman has been engaged as Casual Floor Assistant by

the opposite party on 14.12.1984 and worked as such till

20.07.2001 regularly when his services have been terminated

by the opposite party without assigning any rhyme or

reason or any notice pay or any notice pay in lieu thereof

in contravention to the provisions contained in the Section

25 F of the I.D. Act. He has also argued that when he was in

service the management devised a scheme for regularizing

the casual artists, vide dated 09.06.92 and thereafter modified

scheme vide dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.94, who worked as

casual artists with the opposite party as on 31.12.1991; but

the management did not regularize his services in spite of

the fact that he was fully eligible within the terms and

conditions of the said regularization shcemes. The workman

has argued that the management did not extend the benefits

of the regularization to him taking excuse that he was over

age, but he was well under age when joined the opposite

party and also after giving him age relaxation as provided

in the regularization scheme his services would have

regularized. It is also argued that the management was

required to regularized the seniors first and for this the

managment was ought to maintain seniority list/muster roll

as envisaged under the provisions contained in the Section

25 D of the Act; but the management not only failed to

comply with the provisions of the Section 25 D of the Act;

but also regularized many juniors viz. Shri Umesh Chandra

Mihra, Mo. Nasir, Rakesh Kumar Kukreti, Ramesh Chandra

Shukla, Mueen Ansari, Sishir Kumar Singh, Atul Mishra,

Smt. Rekha Gupta, Smt. Seem Kazmi and Anjali Dixit, ignoring

the workman. In this regard the workman has relied on the

decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Rakesh

Kumar Kukreti and others in Civil Appeal No. 1122-1136 of

1999.

9. Per contra, the case of the management is that the

workman was never appointed by it; rather he was engaged

by the management to perform the work of casual nature as

and when required, in short spells. His engagement ended

with the end of work/engagement period; therefore, there

is no question of terminating his services at any point of

time. It was further pleaded that the case of the workman

was considered for regularization, within the terms and

conditions provided under the regularization schemes

dated 09.06.92, 17.03.94 and 05.07.94; but he could not

qualify for the same, even after giving him permissible age

relaxation.

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival submission of the parties and scanned entire evidence

available on record.

11. In the present case, admittedly, there was no regular

appointment of the workman and he was engaged by the

opposite party management on casual basis to work as

Casual Floor Assistant for specified time period on fixed

payment. He was also given breaks or his engagement

used to come to an end with the end of the specified work/

period.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2713

It has come into the pleadings and evidence of the parties

that in pursuance to the directions of the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi vide

their order dated 14.02.92 in O.A. 563/86 between Anil

Kumar Mathur vs. Union of India, a scheme for regularization

of casual artists in Doordarshan was launched vide Office

Memorandum dated 09.06.1992, which was further modified

vide office memorandum dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.94. All

the Casual Artists who were employed on casual basis on

31.12.1991, including those who were on the rolls of the

Doordarshan, though they may not be in services at that

time were eligible for consideration. In this regard the

workman's case is that the management regularized other

juniors, sparing him in spite of the fact that he fulfilled the

eligibility criteria of the scheme; and in rebuttal the

management witness has stated that the Hon'ble Supreme

Court vide order dated 20.03.2002 in Civil Appeal No. 1122-

1136 directed the management to decide the cases of the

casual artists in accordance with the regularization scheme

dated 09.06.92 and thereafter modified scheme vide dated

17.03.94 and 05.07.94. The workman was a party in the said

SLP; and accordingly, his case was taken up by the

management in terms of scheme dated 09.06.92; but he was

not found eligible for regularization even after giving him

age relaxation.

12. The workman has relied on order of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Civil Appeal No. 1122-1136 of 1999 between Union

of India & others vs. Rakesh Kumar Kukreti & others;

wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the question

is raised in the appeals are squarely covered by a decision

of the Court in Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Trivandrum

and others vs. S. Kuttan Pillai and others (1998) 8 SCC

736. Hon'ble Apex Court in Kuttan Pillai case, while deciding

the case, where norms for relaxation of age for the purpose

of regularization and for the purpose of recruitment were

different in respect of respondent Floor Assistants engaged

on casual basis in the Doordarshan Kendra, Trivandrum

seeking regularization, held that the relaxation in age could

be granted to the respondents only in accordance with the

scheme notified by the OM dated 09.06.1992 as modified

by OMs dated 17.03.1994 and 05.07.1004.

13. Thus, the point for consideration is whether the

workman was eligible for regularization in terms of the

regularization scheme dated 09.06.92 and thereafter

modified vide dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.94. For apt

appreciation of the case of the workman regularization on

merit it would be necessary to quote the salient features of

the relevant regularization schemes dated 09.06.92, 17.03.94

and 05.07.94.

"No. 1516/2(3)

Dated: 09.06.1992

Office Memorandum

Subject: Scheme for Regularization of Casual Artists in

Doordarshan.

Annexure to the above OM.

Scheme for regularization of casual erstwhile staff Artists

in Doordarshan as per the judgement in OA No. 563/86,

dated 14.2.1992 in M/s Anil Kumar Mathur vs. UoI case.

1.

This scheme would be applicable to all those Casual

Artists who were employed on Casual basis on

31.12.1991 including those who were on the rolls of

the Doordarshan, though they may not be in services

now will be eligible for consideration. Those who are

engaged on casual basis after 31.12.1991 will not be

eligible for consideration.

2.

Only those Casual who had been engaged for an

aggregate period of 120 days in a year (calendar year)

will be eligible for regularization. The broken period in

between the engagement and disengagement will be

ignored for the purpose. The number of days is to be

computed on the basis of actual working days in the

muster rolls or attendance sheets or Q-sheets.

3.

Separate eligibility panels will be prepared for each

category of posts, Kendra-wise, depending upon the

length of service of Casual Artists. They will be

considered for regularization in the order of their

seniority against the available vacancies in that

particular Kendra. The seniority will be determined

from the date of their initial engagement by the Kendra.

4.

The persons who are in the eligibility panel of one

Kendra will have no right for claiming regularization in

another Kendra as these are generally Group 'C' posts

and selection is made Kendra-wise.

5.

The Casual Artists who are to be regularized should

possess the requisite educational qualification and/or

experience as stipulated in the Recruitment Rules of

other administrative instructions (in the absence of

Recruitment Rules) existing for the post when the

casual worker was initially engaged.

6.

The upper age limit would be relaxed to that extent of

service rendered by the Casual Artists at the time of

regularization. A minimum of 120 days service in the

aggregate, in one year, shall be treated as one year's

service rendered for this purpose. The service rendered

for less than 120 days in a year will not qualify for age

relaxation.

7.

The regularization of Casual Artists would be from

prospective date and the Casual Artists on the

eligibility panel who fail to qualify for regularization in

accordance with the recruitment rules and instructions

issued there under for the post shall be removed from

the panel.

8.

If a Casual Artist on an eligibility panel commits a mis-

conduct and the same is..................................would not

be eligible for regularization.

2714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

9.

Till all the Casual Artists........................no panel of eli-

gible Casual Artists."

"No. 2(J)/ S.1

Dated: 17.03.1994

Office Memorandum

Sub: Scheme for regularization of Casual Artists in

Doordarshan

The undersigned is directed to invite attention to DG:D

O.M. of even number dated 09.06.92 on the above subject,

with which a copy of the scheme for regularization of Casual

Artists of Doordarshan was circulated. Accordings to

condition in para 2 of the scheme, the number of days for

the purpose of regularization is to be computed on the

basis of actual working days in the Muster Rolls or

Attendance Sheets or 'Q' sheets.

2.

It has been brought to the notice of this Directorate

that although these Casual Staff Artists were engaged

for 10 days or have been working on 2-3 assignments

in a months on a consolidated amount of Rs. 400-500

per assignment, but in actual practice, they have been

working throughout the month. This aspect has been

examined by the Directorate in consultation with

Ministry of I&B and procedure to be followed for

arriving at the number of days of casual working will

be as under.

3.

The number of days for the purpose of regularization

will be computed on the basis of actual wages given

to the prevalent in the State during the relevant time

of working. For example, if a Casual Staff Artist has

been paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 1500 in a month

whether for working for 10 days or for 2-3

assignments in a month and the minimum wage

prevalent in the State at the relevant time was Rs. 50,

the staff artists would be deemed to have worked for

30 days in a month (i.e. Rs. 1500 divided by 50) subject

to the condition that the days so computed would

not exceed 25 days in a month.

4.

It has also been noticed that certain staff artists were

engaged initially when they were over-age according

to the Recruitment Rules. All such cases, with the

number of days they worked on casual basis

according to the formula laid down in Para 3, should

be referred to the Directorate for taking a decision on

merit."

No. 4(1)/94-S.I.

Dated: 05.07.94

Office Memorandum

Subject: Regularization of Casual Artist as per revised

scheme dtd. 13.-.94

The attention of all Doordarshan Kendras is invited to

this Directorate's Memo No. 2(3)/86-S.I., dated 17.03.1994,

copy enclosed, on the above subject. Various Doordarshan

Kendras have sought certain clarifications on a number of

points in regard to revised scheme, these points are clarified

as under:-

(a) Kendras are competent to prepare the eligibility list

of Casual Artist in accordance with para 3 of the

Revised Scheme and regularise them against

available Vacancies in their respective category on

the basis of seniority.

(b) ...........................

(c) The cruical date for the purpose of calculation of

age is the same as in 1992 Scheme, i.e. 09.06.92 and

there is no change in it.

(d) For the purpose of the age relaxation, the number

of days engagement should be taken into account

up to 09.06.92. The peroid of engagement, if any,

beyond 09.06.92 in the year 1992 should not be

counted for the purpose of age relaxation

(e) Casual Artist who have worked for 120 days in any

calendar year as per revised scheme too up to the

period ending on 31st December, 1991 should be

considered for regularization. The casuals who have

completed 120 days after 31.12.1991 are not

currently counted for regularization.

(f) ...........

(g) ..........

(h) The rates of wages prevalent by the state

Government from time to time by the way of

minimum wage Act in which Kendra concerned falls,

are to be taken for calculation of number of days of

Casual Artists of that Kendra. The total amount

paid to an individual Casual Artist during the month

are to be divided by per day rate of payment of

minimum wage for the calculation of number of days

in a month. The classification in the differnece scales

of pay/fee in Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ etc. is not required.

The Maximum numbers of days so calculated

should be restricted to 25 days in a month.

(i) ............

(j) Where the minimum wage Act prior to 01.05.1989

are not prescibed and available, the computation

of number of days should be done by the following

formula:—

Total amount paid during the month/30= Amount for

one day.

The maximum number of days so arrived at should be

restricted to 25 days in a month only."

A bare persual of the above office memorandum shows

that the benefit of the regularization scheme dated 09.06.92

was available to those casual artists who were employed

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2715

on casual basis as on 31.12.1991 and were engaged for an

aggregate period of 120 days in a calendar year. Also, the

casual artists should have been in possession of requisite

education qualification and experience. Also, they should

have been within the upper age limit, which was relaxable

to the extent of services rendered by the casual Artists at

the time of relaxation i.e. on 31.12.1991. However, the

modifications to the scheme dated 09.06.92 were issued

vide scheme dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.1994; but the crucial

date for eligibility and for the purpose of calculation of age

and age relaxation etc. remained same as that in the scheme

dated 09.06.92

14. Now, entering into the merit of the case, the matter

has to be examined as to whether the workman was eligible

for regularization within the terms and conditions of the

above quoted schemes. In this regard the case of the

workman is that he was engaged on 14.12.1984 as Casual

Floor Assistant, when he was well within the age as

prescribed in the Rules. He has filed photocopy of his

matriculation certificate wherein his date of birth is

mentioned as 03.09.1956. He has also filed photocopy of

advertisement seeking application for the post of

Production Assistant; wherein the prescribed age limit for

the post has been mentioned as 21-30 years. Therefore, it

comes out that when the workman was engaged initially he

was well within the prescribed age for the post; but when

the scheme for regularization dated 09.06.92 came into force

he had become over-age on the crucial date of eligibility

i.e. on 31.12.92; then he was approximately of 35 years 03

month and 28 days' age. Moreover, it is the case of the

management that the case of the workman was considered

within the terms of scheme dated 09.06.92, 17.03.94 and

05.07.94; but he could not get the benefit of regularization

being overage. In this connection, it is pertinent to mention

here that as per age relaxation clause provided in the

scheme, a casual artist can get age relaxation with respect

to the upper age limit, to the extent of services rendered by

him at the time of regularization. As per scheme, for upper

age relaxation a minimum of 120 days service in the

aggregate, in one year, was required to be treated as one

year's service rendered for this purpose, service rendered

for less than 120 days in a year were not be considered for

age relaxation. The workman has alleged that the

management did not give any weightage for the services

rendered by him for considering age relaxation, which

resulted into his disqualification for the regularization. In

this respect, the management of the Doordarshan in its

evidence has stated that the workman was provided age

relaxation of two years even then he could not qualify the

terms of regularization being over-age.

15. The workman has pleaded that he was within the

age limit when initially engaged, but got over age during

his engagement. He has further pleaded that had he been

given age relaxation, he would have come within the ambit

of the regularization scheme. This pleading of the workman

has been denied by the management through pleadings as

well as in its evidence with specific statement that the

workman was given age relaxation since he had completed

260 days in the year 1985; even then he failed to qualify for

regularization as per regularization schemes. As per

settlement law, the initial burden was on the workman to

prove before this Tribunal that he was eligible for age

relaxation and for this he was required to prove, through

cogent evidence, that he actually worked for 120 days in

aggregate in a calendar year for seeking age relaxation in

order to come within the purview of terms of regularization

scheme.

In this regard it is noteworthy to mention that from the

advertisement of the post it is clear that the prescribed

upper age limit for the post is 30 years and as per

matriculation certificate, filed by the workman, his date of

birth is 03.09.1956, which goes to show that his age on the

cutoff date as per regularization scheme i.e. 31.12.1991 was

35 years 03 month and 28 days. Therefore, it is apparent

that the workman was over-age by 05 years 03 month and

28 days only. Also, as per pleadings and statement of the

management witness, the workman was permitted only one

year's age relaxation as he worked for 25 days in 1984 and

for 260 days in the years 1985.

16. For calculating 120 days working a formula has been

enumerated in the scheme dated 17.03.1994 vide para 03 as

under:

"3. The number of days for the purpose of regularization

will be computed on the basis of actual wages given to

the prevalent in the State during the relevant time of

working. For example, if a Casual Staff Artist has been

paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 1500 in a month whether

for working for 10 days or for 2-3 assignments in a month

and the minimum wage prevalent in the State at the

relevant time was Rs. 50, the staff artists would be

deemed to have worked for 30 days in a month (i.e. Rs.

1500 divided by 50) subject to the condition that the

days so computed would not exceed 25 days in a month.

The above method of calculating the working days is

based on the monthly payment made to a casual artist

divided by minimum wages prevalent in the State at the

relevant time. Admittedly, the workman worked with the

management, intermittently; but the workman has not given

any details of his working. However, he has given details

of payment received by him vide paper No. C-9, which

reflects the payment received by him from the management

since his initial date of engagement i.e. from 14.12.1984 to

20.07.2001; as under:

Year

Amount paid

Remarks

14.12.1984

Rs. 414/-

25 days admitted by the employer

No. 2

1985

Rs. 5149/-

260 days admitted by the employer

No. 2

2716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1996

Rs. 8750/-

No comments by the employer

No. 2

1997

Rs. 3500/-

-"-

1998

Rs. 22,000/-

-"-

1999

Rs. 24,000/-

-"-

2000

Rs. 34,200/-

-"-

20.07.2001

Rs. 19,950/-

-"-

Per contra, management has pleaded in para 07 of its

written statement that the services of the workman were

obtained in different spells as per details given hereunder:

Year

No. of days worked

1984

25

1985

260 days

From perusal of the above working details given by the

management, it comes out that the management has granted

one year's age relaxation in terms of scheme for

regularization. The above working details given by the

management matches the payment/working details

provided by the workman vide paper No. C-9; wherein he

has stated that he worked for 25 days in 1984 and 260 days

in 1985. Moreover, he has also given details of payment in

successive years i.e. from 1996 to 20.07.2001 (alleged date

of termination). Here it is pertinent to mention that the

terms of regularization scheme dated 09.06.1992 vide para

01 provides that the scheme shall cover only those artists

who were on the rolls of Doordarshan, though they may

not be in service then will be eligible for consideration. It

was specifically mentioned therein that those who are

engaged on casual basis after 31.12.1991 will not be eligible

for consideration. The relevant para is reproduced as under:

1. This scheme would be applicable to all those Casual

Artists who were employed on Casual basis on

31.12.1991 including those who were on the rolls of the

Doordarshan, though they may not be in services now

will be eligible for consideration. Those who are engaged

on casual basis after 31.12.1991 will not be eligible for

consideration.

Moreover, the provisions of age relaxation were further

clarified vide scheme dated 05.07.1994 which provided that

any working/period of engagement after 09.06.1992 should

not be counted for the purpose of age relaxation. The above

provision vide scheme dated 05.07.1994 is as under:

d) For the purpose of age relaxation, the number of days

engagement should be taken into account up to 09.06.92.

The period of engagement, if any, beyond 09.06.92 in

the year 1992 should not be counted for the purpose of

age relaxation.

Hence, it is crystal clear that for considering the working

for seeking age relaxation under regularization scheme, the

working up to 09.06.1992 was relevant and rest working, if

any, was of no use. It is clear that the workman worked for

only two year i.e. in the year 1984 and 1985 in the relevant

period. Thus, from the pleadings and evidence relied on

by the parties it is apparent that the management rightly

did not considered the working of the workman in the years

from 1996 to 20.07.2001, as claimed by him. It is also

established that the management was just in giving one

year's age relaxation to the workman on the basis of his

working with the Doordarshan and its action in not

regularizaing the services of the workman in terms of

regularization schemes dated 09.06.1992 and the modified

schemes dated 17.03.1994 and 05.07.1994 being over-age

does not appears to be illegal.

17. As regard termination of the workman on 20.07.2001,

the management has pleaded that the workman was never

appointed by the opposite party; rather he was engaged

for short spells on casual basis as and when required by it.

This fact is admitted by the workman in pleadings as well

as in his evidence. Moreover, the workman himself has

filed offer letters which goes to show that he was engaged

by the management for specified time, therefore,

disengagement on completion of task does not amounts to

termination of services.

18. The workman pleaded that the management has

terminated his services without complying with the

provisions of Section 25F of the Act. In this regard the

burden lies upon the workman to prove that he has worked

for 240 days in preceding one years from the date of alleged

termination as per provision of the Act and as per law laid

down in 2005 (107 FLR 1145 (SC) Surenderanagar Panchayat

and another v. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai; wherein Hon'ble

Apex Court came to the conclusion that where the workman

failed to prove that he had been in employment with the

employer for a period of 240 days uninterruptedly, he is not

entitled to the protection, in of section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court that the scope of the enquiry before the Labour Court

was confined only to 12 months preceding the date of

termination to decide the question of the continuous service

for the purpose of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as

under:

"The claimant, apart his oral evidence has not produced

any proof in the form of receipt of salary or wages for

240 days or record of his appointment or engagement

for that year to show that he has worked with the

employer for 240 days to get the benefit under Section

25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is now well settled

that it is for the claimant to lead evidence to show that

he in fact worked for 240 days in a year preceding his

termination."

Therefore, in view of the above referred case law, in

order to take any relief for non-compliance of mandatory

Year

Amount paid

Remarks

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2717

provisions contained in section 25-F of the Act, it is

necessary for the claimant to lead evidence to the effect

that he was actually in employment of the opposite party

for 240 days in the year preceding his termination and he

was actually paid for it. In the instant case although there

is pleading that provisions of Section 25 F of the Act, have

not been complied with, there is no piece of evidence to

show that the workman worked for 240 days continuously

in the twelve preceding months from the date of his alleged

termination with the management of Doordarshan. It is

pertinent to mention here that the workman has failed to

substantiate this fact that he worked for 240 days in a year

preceding the date of termination.

19. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the

case and the case laws laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court, I am of considered opinion that the workman's claim

for regularization in the services of the Doordarshan not

sustainable in the eye of law being beyond the ambit of

regularization schemes dated 09.06.1992 and the modified

schemes dated 17.03.1994 and 05.07.1994. Accordingly,

the reference is adjudicated against the workman, Akhilesh

Kumar Saxena; as such he is not entitled for any relief.

20. Award as above.

Lucknow,

07 May, 2014

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1300-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dacksfM;k feYl]

dksbEcVksj 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 lañ 1@2015½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&42011@108@2014&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd June, 2015

S.O. 1300.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 1/2015)

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 Cambodia Mills, Coimbatore and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 16.06.2015

[No. L-42011/108/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 10th June, 2015

Present :

K. P. Prasanna Kumari, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 1/2015

[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 Cambodia Mills and their workman]

BETWEEN

The General Secretary:

1st Party/Petitioner Union

Coimbatore and Periyar District Dravida

Panchalai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam

Coimbatore

AND

The General Manager:

2nd Party/Respondent

Cambodia Mills, Trichy Road

Ondipudur

Coimbatore-641016

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner:

M/s K. Venkatapathy,

G. Desingu,

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/Respondent :

Sri T. Jeeva,

Authorized

Representative

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour and

Employment, vide its Order No. L-42011/108/2014-IR(DU)

dated 22.12.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether denial of employment from 09.12.2013 to

06.01.2014 in respect of Sri Shekar, Ticket No. 06-9354

after transfer by the Management of Cambodia Mills,

Coimbatore is justifiable or not? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 1/2015 and issued notices to both

sides. Both saides have entered appearance through their

counsel and have filed Claim and Counter Statement

respectively.

2718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. The petitioner and the Respondent have filed joint

memo in which it is stated that the Respondent had

conceded to the demand of the petitioner and so the claim

petition can be disposed as settled out of Court.

4. It is clear from the joint memo that the petitioner has

already received the relief he has claimed, as conceded by

the Respondent.

5. In the circumstance, the reference is answered against

the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitoner Union

:

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

:

None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

On the Management Side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1301-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

losZ vkWQ bafM;k] jktLFkku ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

lañ 45@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24-06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@24@2007&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015

S.O. 1301.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 45/2007) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

the Archaeological Survey of India, Rajasthan and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 24.06.2015

[No. L-42012/24/2007-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

Bharat Pandey,

Presiding Officer

I.D. 45/2007

Reference No. L-42012/24/2007-IR(DU) dated: 23.07.2007

Sh. Wahid Mohammed

S/o Shri Haneef Mohammed

R/o Kachhi Basti, Rajbagh,

Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)

V/s

The Regional Officer

Archaeological Survey of India

Ranthambhor Durg,

Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)

For the Applicant

:

Sh. M.F. Beig, Advocate.

For the Non-applicant

:

Sh. T.P. Sharma, Advocate.

AWARD

18.05.2015

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section 1 and 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred

the following Industrial Dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:—

"Whether the action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India, in terminating the

services of their workman Shri Wahid Mohammed, w.e.f.

30.08.2006, without following the provisions of Sections

25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is

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

entitled to?"

2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant

workman was appointed as daily wager on 08.06.2003. He

was discharging his duty since appointment honestly and

there was no complaint by opposite party against his work.

Whatever work was assigned to the applicant he completed

that work to best of his ability. Applicant was never served

with any notice and no charge was ever proved against

him.

3. He was appointed on daily wage but his period of

appointment was not fixed. The work for which he was

appointed by opposite party is still existing and the nature

of work is permanent. The applicant is 'workman' and the

opposite party is 'employer' according to the definition of

'workman' and 'employer' provided in Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. The applicant had worked for more than 240

days in a calender year immediately preceding the date of

termination and his services were terminated on 30.08.2006

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2719

without giving any notice or any payment in lieu of notice

or retrenchment compensation in violation of section 25-F

of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. His termination is unfair

labour practice and victimisation adopted by opposite party.

4. Before the termination of the workman seniority list

was neither prepared nor published by the opposite party

which is violation of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes Rules,

1958. At the time of termination of the service workmen

junior to the applicant were retained in service by the

opposite party in violation of section 25-G of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The opposite party has made new

appointment after termination of the services of the

applicant workman but no priority was given to the applicant

which is violation of section 25-H of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 & Rule 78 of Industrial Dispute Rule, 1958. It has

been further alleged by the applicant that applicant

requested the opposite party to take the applicant in his

employment but he was not taken back & due to non-co-

operation of opposite party conciliation also filed before

the Conciliation Officer. The opposite party has accepted

before the Conciliation Officer that applicant was kept on

work & work was taken from him, hence, the relation of

employer & workman has not been denied by the opposite

party but to escape from the liability of illegal termination it

has been denied that opposite party is 'Industry' within the

meaning of definition provided in Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. The true position is that according to the activities &

work the opposite party is an 'Industry' according to the

defintion of industry provided under Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

have not been followed by opposite party, hence, the

termination of the services of the workman is illegal & unfair.

5. It has been further alleged that allegation of the

opposite party before the Conciliation Officer is that the

applicant workman was absent from duty from 15.3.2006 to

8.6.2006 but workman was not given any show cause notice.

Neither any charge sheet was served upon him regarding

absence from place of duty nor any charge was proved.

The applicant had made his stand clear before the

management that he has not remained absent during above

said period & instead of absence he has been working in

that period. The applicant had completed more than two

years of service & he was demanding from the opposite

party to declare him semi permanent employee. As a result

of above demand of the applicant the opposite party instead

of making him semi permanent terminated the services of

the applicant. The applicant is jobless since the date of

termination. It is therefore, requested that termination order

dated 30.8.2006 be declared illegal & applicant reinstated

with all pay & emoluments along with continuity in service.

6. In reply statement in para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,

12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 of the statement of claim

have been specifically denied. In additional reply it has

been alleged in para 2 that the applicant labourer was not

appointed by the opposite party & he was engaged as

casual labourer for carrying out casual work on the basis

of part time contract & such engagement was coming to

end immediately after completion of the work. It has also

been alleged that the applicant labourer has never completed

240 days in any year & applicant is under an obligation to

prove this fact by document. Statement of para 5 of

statement of claim has been said to be baseless & nature of

the work for which applicant was engaged is alleged to be

casual. Against para 7 it has been alleged that to succeed

in his sinister design applicant has fabricated the statement.

7. It has been alleged against para 8 of the statement of

claim that applicant was called for a fixed works & his

services were coming to end after completion of the work.

Relation between applicant & opposite party as workman

& employer has been specifically denied against para 9 of

the statement of claim & has been alleged that since he

was never appointed the question of such relationship

does not arise. The applicant does not fall within the

definition of workman & the department of the opposite

party does not fall within the definition of Industry.

Applicant was never engaged permanently & he was called

only when there was work. He was neither appointed on

any post after following the rules of appointment nor any

appointment letter was issued to him, therefore, question

of termination of his services does not arise. It has been

alleged in para 11 of reply that it is pertinent to note that

applicant was not removed from the institution of opposite

party & the fact that the work was over hence, his services

automatically came to an end. It was not necessary to give

notice to the applicant because such notice is issued only

to such workman who permanently work for a period of

more than 240 days & the department is not satisified with

work of such workman, in that event such workman may be

removed after serving one months notice. In case of

applicant after completion of work he himself had gone

elsewhere.

8. Against para 13 of statment of claim it has been alleged

that workmen like applicant are not given any appointment

letter neither they are deemed regular workmen of the

department. Workman like applicant are engaged on daily

wage basis according to need of a particular work for its

execution & they are removed after completion of work or

at the end of financial year or on other technical ground on

suspension or stoppage of work. Against para 14 of

statement of claim it has been alleged that nature of the

new recruitment by the department whose nature is

permanent is done by following the legal procedure &

selection is made out of person who possess the prescribed

eligibility. Applicant was not appointed on any vacant post

udner grade 'D'. At the time of engaging the applicant

workman he was briefed orally that he is engaged against a

specific work & nature of the work is purely termporary &

2720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

casual in which applicant is not entitled to derive benefit of

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The allegation of

the applicant is wrong that he was removed out of

animosity. In absence of casual work the services of the

workman automatically comes to an end. In last paragraph

of the reply it has been prayed that order of dismissal be

passed against the statement of claim.

9. In rejoinder dated 3.6.2010 filed by applicant, statement

of claim has been reiterated & statement of reply submitted

by the opposite party has been alleged to be wrong.

10. In preliminary objection against statement of claim

filed by opposite party it has been alleged that applicant

was neither given any appoinment not there was any

sanctioned or vacant post. Deparment of opposite party is

not covered within the definition of industry as provided

in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. In B-40/97,

Gobardhan Lal Meena vs. Archaeological Survey of India,

it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its award dated

18.1.2001 that Archaeological Survey of India is not

coverad within the definition of industry. Industrial

Tribunal, Jabalpur in its award dated 9.6.2003 has held that

Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within

the meaning of section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. It

has also been alleged that the applicant was engaged for

completion of casual work for fixed period of time & he has

not worked for 240 days is any of the year, hence, he is not

entitled to the benefit of Industrial Dispute Act. It has also

been alleged that the applicant left the work on his own

even before the completion of the work, hence, he is not

entitled to any relief.

11. Against preliminary objection it has been alleged by

the applicant that preliminary objections are not tenable at

belated stage. It has also been alleged that various

precedents it has been alleged that preliminary objections

are to be decided along with other issued on merits. It has

also been alleged that preliminary objections are evidence

based, hence, opposite party be directed to file the reply to

the statement of claim.

12. Under mentioned issues were framed on 27.7.2011

by the then learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based

on pleadings of both the parties:—

(1)

Whether the workman had worked for more than 240

days as daily wager during period 8.6.03 to 30.8.06

preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged

termination & whose service was terminated in

violation of section 25-F of the Act?

(2)

At the time of terminating the service of the workman

the juniors person to him were retained by the

management in contravention of section 25-G of the

I.D. Act?

(3)

Whether subsequent to the termination of the

workman fresh hands were engaged by the non-

applicant management in violation of section 25-H

of the I.D. Act.

(4)

Whether non-applicant establishment is in 'industry'

within the meaning of section 2-J of the I.D. Act.

13. Applicant has filed document W-1 which is reply of

opposite party before conciliation proceeding, affidavit of

the applicant in evidence and statement of number of

working days in calender year 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006.

Applicant has been cross examination by opposite party

on his affidavit.

14. In documentary evidence, opposite party has filed

statement of payment made to applicant & other workmen

which is 29 page. This document has been filed on direction

of tribunal given on application of the applicant. Opposite

party has filed affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh in evidence. Sh.

Brijraj Singh has been cross examined on 28.10.14 by

applicant side.

15. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for

both the parties & perused the file. Written argument have

been filed by both the parties which is on record.

16. Following citations have been referred on behalf of

applicant:—

(i) 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India...

Appellant Vs. N. Sundaramoney.... Respondent.

(ii) Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal

No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply &

Sewerage Board etc. etc. Vs. A/ Rajappa & others

etc. etc.

(iii) 1983 LAB I.C. 1629 (Supreme Court), D.P.

Maheshwari ... Appellant Vs. Delhi Administration

& others... Respondent.

(iv) Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial

Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen

through the President, Archaeological Survey

Mazdoor Union, New Dlehi Vs. The Director General,

Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi.

(v) RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of

Commerce... Appellant Vs. Presiding Officer, Central

Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others (23).

(vi) RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma,

Petitioner Vs. Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur &

other (122)....Respondent.

(vii) Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial

Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending

Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India,

Tajmahal Agra Vs. Suresh Chandra.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2721

17. Following citations have been referred on behalf of

opposite party:—

i. Award dated 26.11.1986 passed by Central

Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in O.A. No.

33/86, Govind Kanji Parmar & others... Petitioner

Vs. Union of India & others.... Respondent.

ii. Award dated 30.10.1996 passed by Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur

in O.A. No. 331 to 334/1993, Devi Singh & others...

petitioner Vs. Union of India & others... Respondent.

iii. Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,

Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal

Meena Vs. Director (Science), Archaeological

Survey of India, Science Branch, Dehradun.

18. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the

applicant that applicant has completed continuous 240 days

of service in every year but he has removed from service

by opposite party in violation of section 25-F, 25G & 25-H

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been argued

that contention of the opposite party is against the law

that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry'

within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. Against this it

has been argued by learned counsel for the opposite party

that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' &

there is not violation of section 25-F, G & H of the Act, It

has also been argued that applicant was neither appointed

nor any appointment letter was issued. There was no

advertisement for recruitment. It has also been argued that

applicant was engaged on part time contract for casual

work of repair and soon after completion of the work

engagement of the applicant was over. It has been alleged

that his engagement was on daily wage and as the work of

repair of the wall was of temporary character hence, on

account of end of job and none availability of further job

the applicant himself had left the place of job. It has been

argued that whenever there is availability of work, workmen

are engaged on daily wage basis for the job. Reference has

been made by both the parties towards precedents

submitted by them in favour of their respective claim.

19. Before issue no. 1 is decided it appears desirable to

take up issues 2,3, and 4 for decision because decision of

these issues are important & having relevance in decision

of issue no. 1.

Issue no. 2

20. This issue relates to violation of section 25-G of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of

applicant. Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

reads as under:—

"Section 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment.—Where

any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a

citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a

particular category of workmen in that establishment, in

the absence of any agreement between the employer

and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall

ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person

to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to

be recorded the employer retrenches any other

workman."

21. From perusal of the provision contained in section

25-G, it appears that whenever in ordinary course of

business a workman is required to be retrenched then the

last person employed by the employer shall be retrenched

first unless there is special reason for retrenchment of a

person other than the last employed person. From perusal

of statement of claim it is evident that in para 13 it has been

alleged that there has been violation of section 25-G of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of

the applicant and junior to the applicant was retained in

service at the time of removal but no one has been named

in statement of claim that who is the person junior to the

applicant who was retained. In the affidavit also filed by

applicant as evidence there is no mention of a person

junior to him who was retained in the service at the time of

his removal. In the cross examination of the applicant on

page 2 this question has been placed before him and he

has alleged that when he was removed at that time all other

workmen were also removed. This statement of the

applicant during cross examination obviously indicates that

no one junior to him was retained & removal of all the

workman together is also indicative of the fact of Cessation

or completion of a particular work for which they are

engaged. Here, it is also pertinent to note that it has been

repeatedly argued by learned counsel for opposite party

that in fact there has been no appointment, therefore, the

question of removal of the applicant from employment does

not arise. From the perusal of the cross examination of Sh.

Brijraj Singh, Deputy Superintendent (Archaeology) it is

clear that no assistance can be taken on this point from his

cross examination. Bases on above discussion, it is clear

that the applicant has failed to prove that at the time of

termination of the service of applicant workman, juniors to

him were retained by the management in contravention of

section 25-G of the I.D. Act. Issue no. 2 is accordingly

decided in negative against the applicant.

Issue No. 3

22. This issue is to the effect that whether subsequent

to the termination of the workman fresh workmen were

engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of

section 25-H of the I.D. Act. For convenience provision of

Section 25-H is reproduced below which reads as under:—

"Sec. 25-H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen—

Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer

purposes to take into his employ any persons he shall, in

such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity

to the retrenched worken who are citizens of India to

2722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched

workmen, who offer themselves for re-employment shall

have preference over other persons.

23. The above mentioned section 25-H provides that a

retrench employee shall have preference in appointment

over rest, if management, intends to employ a workman &

the management is under an obligation to give opportunity

to retrench workman so that he can offer himself for

employment. If opportunity is not given by management it

will amount to violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Para 14

of statement of claim indicates that after termination of the

services of applicant new appointments were made without

preference given to applicant. In reply to para 14 of

statement of claim non-applicant has denied the

appointment. There is no documentary evidence on record

about new appointment. Para 6 of affidavit of applicant

filed in evidence indicates that new appointments were

made with no preference to applicant but in cross-

examination applicant has admitted that in his affidavit he

has not given any statement that after his removal who

was appointed & what was the place of appointment. The

applicant has also admitted that in statement of claim also

he has not given detail of newly appointede persons. He

has also admitted that he had not submitted any written

application for re-employment with the management. In

para 11 of affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh witness for opposite

party violation of section 25-G & H has been specifically

denied. In cross-examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there is

nothing significant to draw an inference about violation of

section 25-H of I.D. Act. Based on above discussion &

appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties I am of

the view that the applicant has failed to prove the violation

of section 25-H of the I.D. Act regarding appointment of

fresh hands subsequent to termination of his service. Issue

No. 3 is accordingly decided against the applicant.

Issue no.4

24. This issue is to the effect that whether establishment

of the non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an

Industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the I.D. Act.

A preliminary objection has been raised by non-applicant

that establishment of the non-applicant is not covered under

definition of 'Industry' as indicated in section 2(j) of the

I.D. Act. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on

Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case

No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science),

Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch,

Deharadun. Against this, it has been argued by learned

counsel for the applicant that establishment of non-

applicant is covered by the definition of 'Industry'. Reliance

has been palced by non-applicant on Judgement & order

dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975,

Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc v/s A.

Rajappa & others etc. etc., Award dated 21.10.1988 passed

by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No.78/84 in Workmen

through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor

Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General,Archaeological

Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi & Award dated

17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy

Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of

India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra. I have very

carefully gone through cases cites by both the parties.

Judgement dated 9.6.03 by CGIT, Jabalpur has not been

filed by opposite party.

25. In Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s

Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science

Branch, Deharadun, cited by learned counsel for the

opposite party it has been held in decision of issue No. 4

that provision of I.D. Act, 1947 apply to the case. Issue

No.4 has dealt with that fact that provisions of I.D. Act

apply to the opposite party or not. Cases cited by learned

counsel for the applicant indicate that Archaeological

Survey of India is covered within the definition of 'Industry'

as provided in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. In Award dated

21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No.

78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological

Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General,

Archaeological Survey of India, Janapath, New Delhi,

discussing the case of Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978

in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Bangalore Water

Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc v/s A. Rajappa & others

etc. etc., it has been held by the CGIT, Delhi that

Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. In Award

dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy

Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of

India,Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra, it has been held

by CGIT, Kanpur that Archaeological Survey of India is an

'Industry'. From decision of the case cited on behalf of

both the parties & from the fact & circumstances of the

present case, I am of the view that establishment of non-

applicant, Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'

within the meaning of section 2(J) of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. Issue no. 4 is accordingly decided in affirmative

against the non-applicant.

Issue No. 1

26. This issue is to the effect whether the workman had

worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period

8.6.03 to 30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of

his alleged termination & whether his service was

terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act? It has

been argued by learned counsel for the applicant & has

also been alleged in the written argument that the applicant

has worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during

period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2723

termination on 30.8.06 & termination of the services of

applicant is in violation of section 25-F of Industrial

Disputes Act, hence, the order of termination is fit to be

aside with continuity in service along with back wages.

Against this, it has been argued by the learned counsel for

the opposite party & has also been alleged in the written

argument that applicant was not appointed by non-

applicant, no appointment letter was issued, there was no

advertisement for any appointment. It has also been argued

that applicant was engaged on daily wage basis for repair

of the walls of the fort which is a work of temporary nature.

It has also been argued that applicant voluntarily left the

place of work on account of none availability of work. It

has also been said that on availability of work engagement

is made on daily wage basis for the period of work only &

provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of

applicant. It has also been alleged that in view of case of

the applicant covered under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D.

Act, compliance of provision of section 25-F is not required.

27. According to statement of claim applicant was

appointment on daily wage on 8.6.03 & was terminated on

30.8.06 without notice or pay in lieu of notice or

retrenchment compensation in violation of section 25-F of

I.D. Act. What was the post held by the applicant during

employment has not been alleged in statement of claim.

About the nature of the work the applicant has alleged that

whatever work was assigned by the opposite party

applicant was performing that work. It has also been alleged

that his engagement was neither for a fix work nor for a fix

period. The applicant has alleged that he has worked for

more than 240 days in every year. In affidavit filed in

evidence in support of above statement of claim the

applicant has repeated the allegation of statement of claim.

No other co-worker has been produced as witness in

evidence to support the allegation of statement of claim. In

written statement it has been specifically denied by

opposite party that applicant has worked for more than 240

days in a year instead it has been alleged that applicant

has not worked for 240 days in any of the year. Sh. Brijraj

Singh has specifically denied in para 3 of his affidavit that

the applicant has worked for 240 days in any of the year. In

above fact & circumstances, the burden of proof lies on

applicant to prove that he has worked for more than 240

days in a year immediately preceding the date of his

termination on 30.8.06 as alleged in statement of claim. The

applicant has alleged in his cross-examination that he has

not stated in his affidavit in evidence or in statement of

claim that for how many days he has worked in any

corresponding year. He has also admitted that he has not

field any document which can indicate that for how many

days he has worked from 2003 to 2006. He has also alleged

in page 3 of cross-examination that he has not filed any

document which indicates that for how many days he has

worked in the year from 2003 to 2006. He has admitted that

he has filed document W-1 & in W-1 nature of work has

been mentioned for which he was engaged & in W-1 it has

also been mentioned that the nature of work includes

'special repair work' & such mention in W-1 is correct. The

applicant has admitted that document W-2 has been filed

by him in which the number of days of work in year 2006 is

83 & that is correct. Thus, it shall appear that two

documents relating to total number of days of work has

been filed by the applicant which is W-1 & W-2. W-2 is the

document which appeared to be prepared by workman

whereas W-1 is the document which appears to be reply

submitted by management during conciliation proceedings.

From document W-2 if taken into consideration for

calulating the period of 240 days immediately preceding

the date of termination on 30.08.06 then total number of

days on which the workman has worked between 30.8.05

to 30.8.06 comes out to be 185 days. From document W-1 it

comes out to be 231 days. Thus, workman has failed to

prove that he has continuously worked for more than 240

days in the year immediately preceding the date of his

termination. It shall also appear from both the documents

W-1 & W-2 that there is no continuous work in the year.

28. Document regarding period & corresponding

working days filed by management on order of the tribunal

passed on application of the applicant provides following

detail:—

Period of work

Number of working days.

19.2.2003 to 20.3.2003

28 days

13.4.2004 to 13.5.2004

26 days

9.6.2004 to 9.7.2004

26 days

13.9.2004 to 12.10.2004

26 days

14.10.2004 to 31.10.2004

17 days

19.3.2005 to 13.4.2005

24 days

14.5.2005 to 29.8.2005

NIL

30.8.2005 to 7.9.2005

NIL

8.9.2005 to 6.10.2005

27 days

9.11.2005 to 9.12.2005

28 days

11.1.2006 to 10.2.2006

29 days

12.2.2006 to 14.3.2006

29 days

9.6.2006 to 6.7.2006

25 days

Total number of days between

30.8.2005 to 30.8.2006

138 days.

29. The above table submitted by opposite party

regarding statement of work done by workman indicates

2724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that from the date of termination on 30.8.06 applicant has

worked only for 138 days in a year immediately preceding

the date of termination on 30.8.06. Thus, it is evident that

the workman has not worked continuously for 240 days

immediately preceding the date of termination. From the

above discussion it is clear that applicant has failed to

prove that he has worked for more than 240 days immediately

preceding the date of termination. From the entire cross-

examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there appears nothing to

derive in favour of applicant that he has worked for more

than 240 days in a year preceding the date of termination.

From the above discussion it is clear that applicant has

failed to prove that he has continuously worked for more

than 240 days in a year immediately preceding the date of

his termination.

30. As far as the question of violation of section 25-F of

Industrial Dispute is concerned it has been argued by the

learned councel for the applicant that there has been

violation of section 25-F in terminating the service of the

applicant, against this learned counsel for the opposite

party has argued that there is no violation of section 25-F

of I.D. Act & section 25-F does not apply in the case of

applicant who was neither employed nor terminated & his

engagement has been only for specific period & specific

work & he has left the workplace on his own accord. It has

also been argued that as the question of terminating the

services of the applicant does not arise, because he was

not given any employment & there was no advertisement

for employment, hence, section 25-F does not apply to the

case of the applicant. Section 25-F reads as under:-

"25-F.Conditions precedent to retrenchment of

workmen. No workman employed in any industry who

has been in continuous service for not less than one year

under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer

until----

(a) The workman has been given one month's notice

in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment

and the period of notice has expired, or the workman

has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the

period of the notice:

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of

retrenchment, compensation (which shall be

equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every

completed year of continuous service) or any part

thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the

appropriate Government ( or such authority as may

be specified by the appropriate Government by

notification in the Official Gazette.)

31. Continuous service as indicated in section 25-F(1)

has been defined in section 25-B (1) (ii) which reads as

under:—

Section 25-B. Definition of continuous service. —For

the purposes of this Chapter----

(1)

a workman shall be said to be in continuous service

for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted

service, including service which may be interrupted

on account of sickness or authorised leave or an

accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out

or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault

on the part of the workman.

(2)

where a workman is not in continuous service within

the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year or

six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous

service under an employer.....

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during

a period of twelve calendar months preceding

the date with reference to which calculation is

to be made, has actually worked under the

employer for not less than :

(i) one hundered and ninety days in the case

of a workman employed below ground in

a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other

case;

32. Section 2 (oo) provides meaning of retrenchment

which reads as under:—

"2(oo)......... "retrenchment" means the termination by

the employer of the service of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted

by way of disciplinary action but does not include.........

(a) Voluntary retrenchment of the workman; or

(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of

superannuation if the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

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

of the non-renewal of the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concered

on its expiry or of such contract being terminated

under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein;

or

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the

ground of continued ill-health;

33. In 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranagar District Panchayat ........ Appellant V/s.

Dahyabhai Amarsinh....... Respondent, taking together &

analyzing the integrated impact of section 2(oo), section

25-B & section 25-F in paragraph 7 page 43, it has been

held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, "........................... To attract

provisions of Section 25-F, the workman claiming protection

under it, has to prove that there exists relationship of

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2725

employer and employee; that he is a workman within the

meaning of section 2(s) of the Act; the establishment in

which he is employed is an industry within the meaning of

the Act and he must have put in not less than one year of

continuous service as defined by section 25-B under the

employer. These conditions are cumulative. If any of these

conditions is missing the provisions of section 25-F will

not be attracted. To get relief from the court the workman

has to establish that he has right to continue in service and

that his service has been terminated without complying

with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The section

postulates three conditions to be fulfilled by an employer

for getting a valid retrenchment, namely:—

(i) one month’s clear notice in writing indicating

the reasons for retrenchment or that the

workman has been paid wages for the period

of notice in lieu of such notice;

(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which

shall be equivalent to 15 day's average pay for

every completed year of continuous service

or any part thereof, in excess of six months;

(iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the

prescribed manner.

34. Looking in to the above provisions & the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to attract the provision

of section 25-F, it is clear that the applicant has failed to

prove that he has worked continuously for more than 240

days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of

his termination, thus, provision of section 25-F is not

attaracted in the case of applicant. From above discussion.

I am of the view that the applicant has not worked for more

then 240 days as daily wager immediately preceding 12

months from the date of his alleged termination on 30.08.06

& his services were not terminated in violation of section

25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. Issue No. 1 is accordingly

decided in negative against the applicant.

35. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the

applicant that even if section 25-F is not attracted in case

of applicant, he is entitled to the benefits of section 25-G &

25-H which are independent of section 25-F. Reliance has

been placed on RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank

of Commerce.........Appellant V/s. Presiding Officer, Central

Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others & RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur

Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma ....... Petitioner V/s. Rajasthan

Text Book Board, Jaipur & other (122) ........... Respondent.

Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for

opposite party that provision of section 25-G & 25-H is not

attracted in the case of applicant. I have carefully gone

through both the above reported cases.

36. In case of Oriental Bank of Commerce V/s. Presiding

Officer respondent 2 was employed in the bank of petitioner

from 23.5.85 to 28.5.85 for a period of 79 days. He was said

to be appointed for leave period only & his engagement

came to end after expiry of period of leave. The respondent

raised industrial dispute relating to section 25-G & 25-H

which was referred for adjudication. After the evidence of

both the parties tribunal came to the conclusion that there

was violation of section 25-G & section 25-H, hence,

respondent was directed to be reinstated & it was also

directed that he will entitled to pay from the date of joining

because respondent was said to be on the job in some

other place. On the basis of evidence tribunal came to

conclusion that management had failed to indicate that

who was on leave in whose place respondent was employed

during leave vacancy, hence, this fact was not admitted by

tribunal that engagement of respondent was for the period

of leave vacancy. It was admitted by the witness of the

management that when respondent was removed from

service employee Sh. Virendra Singh junior to the

respondent was working. It was also admitted by

management witness that after removal of respondent

Sh. Mulan Rasool & Sh. Narendra Bhatt were appointed

on the post of peon but respondent was not given

opportunity. Thus, there was violation of section 25-G &

25-H. Petition against the order of tribunal was dismissed

by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court & award of the

tribunal was confirmed.

37. In RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma

....... Petitioner V/s. Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur &

others (122) ...... Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble

High Court that section 25-G, 25-H and 25-F are independent

of each other & section 25-G & 25-H are not dependent on

section 25-F. It has also been held that section 25-G & 25-

H are applicable irrespective of the fact that the workman

has completed 240 days of service or not. It has been further

held that rule 76 to 78 of Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 are

independent of each other & mandatory in nature. Violation

of these rules will give a cause of action in favour of

workman to claim compensation, damages & re-

employment. To derive the benefits of these rules

continuous service is not necessary & workmen not having

completed 240 days of service are also entitled to the

benefits of Rule 76 to 78. In this case petitioner Sh. Surya

Prakash Sharma was retrenched from service before

completion of 240 days & was not entitled for the benefits

u/s 25 of I.D. Act. The only question involved in this case

was about applicability of section25-H of I.D. Act read

with Rule 77 & 78. The case of the respondent was that

after discharge of petitioner on 1.11.88 they had employed

few persons although persons who employed were

discharged on 19.8.89. The petition of the petitioner was

allowed & he was held entitled to claim wages by way of

compensation for the period during which his junior remain

in employment.

38. In 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India

......... Appellant v/s. N. Sundaramoney.......... Respondent,

it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that read with

2726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

section 25-B(2) if provision of section 25-F of Industrial

Dispute Act is attracted in case of the workman, he cannot

be retrenched without payment of compensation at the

time of retrenchment as prescribed therein. It is pertinent

to mention that facts & circumstances of the present case

are different comparing to the facts of State Bank of India

V/s. N. Sundarmoney, hence, law laid down by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State Bank of India V/s. N. Sundarmoney

is not attracted in the present case.

39. From decision of Issue No. 2 & 3 it is clear that

applicant is not entitled to the benefit for violation of section

25-G & 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act because violation of

these two sections have not been proved by the applicant.

It is also clear from the evidence on record that no seniority

list is in existence as the case of opposite party is that there

was no employment in respect of applicant & he was only

engaged casually as & when there was existence of work.

Applicant has not proved his appointment or termination

by filing any documentary evidence in this behalf who was

engaged as daily wager. It has been held by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranagar District Panchayat ......... Appellant V/s.

Dahyabhai Amarsinh..... Respondent, in para 18 of the

judgement in relation to section 25-G & section 25-H as

under:—

"................ In the absence of regular employment of the

workmen, the appellant was not expected to maintain

seniority list of the employees engaged on daily wages

and in the absence of any proof by the respondent

regarding existence of the seniority list and his so-called

seniority, no relief could be given to him for non-

compliance with provisions of the Act. The courts could

have drawn adverse inference against the appellant only

when seniority list was proved to be in existence and

then not produced before the court. In order to entitle

the Court to draw inference unfavourable to the party,

the court must be satisfied that evidence is in existence

and could have been proved." Finding of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranagar District Panchayat ......... Appellant V/s.

Dahyabhai Amarsinh ......... Respondent, is relevant &

applies to the case of applicant.

40. Bases on the findings related to issue No. 1 to 4 &

from the discussions as above, I am of the view that

applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the

statement of claim & action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India in terminating the services

of the workman Wahid Mohammed w.e.f. 30.08.06 without

following the provisions of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal & justified.

41. Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh 25 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1302-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkfdZ;ksykWftdy

losZ vkWQ bafM;k jktLFkku ds izca/kr= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ lañ 46@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@32@2007&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

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

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015

S.O. 1302.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 46/2007) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

the Archaeological Survey of India Rajasthan and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 24/06/2015.

[No. L-42012/32/2007-IR-(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

I.D. 46/2007

Reference No. L-42012/32/2007-IR(DU)

dated 23.7.2007

Sh. Hanuman Mali

S/o Shri Sitaram Mali

R/o 6 Ghar, Ramsingh Pura,

Post Sherpur, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).

V/s

The Regional Officer

Archaeological Survey of India

Ranthambhor Durg,

Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).

For the Applicant

:

Sh. M.F. Beig, Advocate.

For the Non-applicant

:

Sh. T.P. Sharma, Advocate.

AWARD

18.5.2015

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of Sub-Section 1 & 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred

the following Industrial Dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:-

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2727

"Whether the action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India, in terminating the

services of their workman Shri Hanuman Mali, w.e.f.

08.7.2006, without following the provisions of Sections

25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is

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

entitled to?"

2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant

workman was appointed as daily wager on 25.5.2003. He

was discharging his duty since appointment honestly &

there was no complaint by opposite party against his work.

Whatever work was assigned to the applicant he completed

that work to best of his ability. Applicant was never served

with any notice & no charge was ever proved against him.

3. He was appointed on daily wage but his period of

appointment or nature of work was not fixed. The work for

which he was appointed by opposite party is still existing

& the nature of work is permanent. The applicant is

'workman' & the opposite party is 'employer' according to

the definition of 'workman' & 'employer' provided in

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The applicant had worked

for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately

preceding the date of termination & his services were

terminated on 8.7.2006 without giving any notice or any

payment in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in

violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

His termination is unfair labour practice & victimization

adopted by opposite party.

4. Before the termination of the workman seniority list

was neither prepared nor published by the opposite party

which is violation of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes Rules,

1958. At the time of termination of the service workmen

junior to the applicant were retained in service by the

opposite party in violation of section 25-G of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The opposite party has made new

appointment after termination of the services of the

applicant workman but no priority was given to the applicant

which is violation of section 25-H of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 & Rule 78 of Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. It

has been further alleged by the applicant that applicant

requested the opposite party to take the applicant in his

employment but he was not taken back & due to none

cooperation of opposite party conciliation also failed before

the Conciliation Officer. The opposite party has accepted

before the Conciliation Officer that applicant was kept on

work & work was taken from him, hence the relation of

employer & workman has not been denied by the opposite

party but to escape from the liability of illegal termination it

has been denied that opposite party is 'Industry' within the

meaning of definition provided in Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. The true position is that according to the activities &

work the opposite party is an 'industry' according to the

definition of industry provided under Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. The provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

have not been followed by opposite party, hence, the

termination of the services of the workman is illegal & unfair.

5. It has been further alleged that allegation of the

opposite party before the Conciliation Officer is that the

applicant workman was absent from duty from 15.3.2006 to

8.6.2006 but workman was not given any show cause notice.

Neither any charge sheet was served upon him regarding

absence from place of duty nor any charge was proved.

The applicant had made his stand clear before the

management that he has not remained absent during above

said period & instead of absence he has been working in

that period. The applicant had completed mor than two

years of service & he was demanding from the opposite

party to declare him semi permanent employee. As a result

of above demand of the applicant the opposite party instead

of making him semi permanent terminated the services of

the applicant. The applicant is jobless since the date of

termination. It is, therefore, requested that termination order

dated 8.7.2006 be declared illegal & applicant reinstated

with all pay & emoluments along with continuity in service.

6. In reply statement in para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,

12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 of the statement of claim

have been specifically denied. In additional reply it has

been alleged in para 2 that the applicant labourer was not

appointed by the opposite party & he was engaged as

casual labourer for carrying out casual work on the basis

of part time contract & such engagement was coming to

end immediately after completion of the work. It has also

been alleged that the applicant labourer has never completed

240 days in any year & applicant is under an obligation to

prove this fact by document. Statement of para 5 of

statement of claim has been said to be baseless & nature of

the work for which applicant was engaged is alleged to be

casual. Against para 7 it has been alleged that to succeed

in his sinister design applicant has fabricated the statement.

7. It has been alleged against para 8 of the statement of

claim that applicant was called for a fixed works & his

services were coming to end after completion of the work.

Relation between applicant & opposite party as workman

& employer has been specifically denied against para 9 of

the statement of claim & has been alleged that since he

was never appointed the question of such relationship

does not arise. The applicant does not fall within the

definition of workman & the department of the opposite

party does not fall within the definition of Industry.

Applicant was never engaged permanently & he was called

only when there was work. He was neither appointed on

any post after following the rules of appointment nor any

appointment letter was issued to him, therefore, question

of termination of his services does not arise. It has been

alleged in para 11 of reply that it is pertinent to note that

applicant was not removed from the institution of opposite

party & the fact is that the work was over hence, his services

automatically came to an end. It was not necessary to give

notice to the applicant because such notice is issued only

2728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to such workman who permanently work for a period of

more than 240 days & the department is not satisfied with

work of such workman, in that event such workman may be

removed after serving one month notice. In case of applicant

after completion of work he himself had gone elsewhere.

8. Against para 13 of statement of claim it has been

alleged that workmen like applicant are not given any

appointment letter neither they are deemed regular workmen

of the department. Workman like applicant are engaged on

daily wage basis according to need of a particular work for

its execution & they are removed after completion of work

or at the end of financial year or on other technical ground

on suspension or stoppage of work. Against para 14 of

statement of claim it has been alleged that nature of the

new recruitment by the department whose nature is

permanent is done by following the legal procedure &

selection is made out of person who possess the prescribed

eligibility. Applicant was not appointed on any vacant post

under grade 'D'. At the time of engaging the applicant

workman he was briefed orally that he is engaged against a

specific work & nature of the work is purely temporary &

casual in which applicant is not entitled to derive benefit of

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The allegation of

the applicant is wrong that he was removed out of

animosity. In absence of casual work the services of the

workman automatically comes to an end. In last paragraph

of the reply it has been prayed that order of dismissal be

passed against the statement of claim.

9. In rejoinder dated 3.6.2010 filed by applicant, statement

of claim has been reiterated & statement of reply submitted

by the opposite party has been alleged to be wrong.

10. In preliminary objection against statement of claim

filed by opposite party it has been alleged that applicant

was neither given any appointment nor there was any

sanctioned or vacant post. Department of the opposite

party is not covered within the definition of industry as

provided in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. In B-40/

97, Gobardhan Lal Meena v/s Archaeological Survey of

India, it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its award

dated 18.1.2001 that Archaeological Survey of India is not

covered within the definition of industry. Industrial

Tribunal, Jabalpur in its award dated 9.6.2003 has held that

Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within

the meaning of section 2(j) if Industrial Disputes Act. It has

also been alleged that the applicant was engaged for

completion of casual work for fixed period of time & he has

not worked for 240 days in any of the year, hence, he is not

entitled to the benefit of Industrial Dispute Act. It has also

been alleged that the applicant left the work on his own

even before the completion of the work, hence, he is not

entitled to any relief.

11. Against preliminary objection it has been alleged by

the applicant that preliminary objections are not tenable at

belated stage. It has also been alleged that various

precedents it has been alleged that preliminary objections

are to be decided along with other issues on merits. It has

also been alleged that preliminary objections are evidence

based, hence, opposite party be directed to file the reply to

the statement of claim.

12. Under mentioned issues were framed on 27.7.2011

by the then learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based

on pleadings of both the parties :—

(1)

Whether the workman had worked for more than 240

days as daily wager during period 25.5.2003 to

8.7.2006 preceding twelve months from the date of

his alleged termination & whose service was

terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act?

(2)

At the time of terminating the service of the workman

the juniors person to him were retained by the

management in contravention of section 25-G of the

I.D. Act?

(3)

Whether subsequent to the termination of the

workman fresh hands were engaged by the non-

applicant management in violation of section 25-H

of the I.D. Act?

(4)

Whether non-applicant establishment is an 'industry'

within the meaning of section 2-J of the I.D. Act?

13. Applicant has filed document W-1 which is reply of

opposite party before conciliation proceeding, affidavit of

the applicant in evidence and statement of number of

working days in calendar year 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006.

Applicant has been cross examination by opposite party

on his affidavit.

14. In documentary evidence, opposite party has filed

statement of payment made to applicant & other workmen

which is 17 page. This document has been filed on direction

of tribunal given on application of the applicant. Opposite

party has filed affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh in evidence. Sh.

Brijraj Singh has been cross examined on 28.10.14 by

applicant side.

15. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for

both the parties & perused the file. Written argument have

been filed by both the parties which is on record.

16. Following citations have been referred on behalf of

applicant:—

i. 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India......

Appellant v/s. N. Sundaramoney....Respondent.

ii. Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal

no. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply &

Sewerage Board etc.etc. v/s. Rajappa & others etc.

etc.

iii. 1983 LAB.I.C. 1629(Supreme Court), D.P.

Maheshwari...Appellant v/s Delhi Administration

& other....Respondents.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2729

iv. Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial

Tribunal, Delhi in I.d. No.78/84 in Workman through

the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor

Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General,

Archaeological Surveyof India, Janpath, New Delhi.

v. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of

Commerce....Appellant v/s Presiding Officer, Central

Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others (23).

vi. RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash

Sharma...Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board,

Jaipur & other (122)....Respondent.

vii. Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial

Dispute no. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending

Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India,

Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra.

17. Following citations have been referred on behalf of

opposite party:—

i. Award dated 26.11.1986 passed by Central

Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in O.A.No.33/

86, Govind Kanji Parmar & others....Petitioner v/s

Union of India & other....Respondents.

ii. Award dated 30.10.1996 passed by Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur

in O.A.No.331 to 334/1993, Devi Singh &

others...petitioners v/s Union of India & others ....

Respondents.

iii. Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jaipur in CGIT case no. B- 40/97 in Goverdhan Lal

Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological

Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun.

18. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the

applicant that applicant has completed continuous 240 days

of service in every year but he has removed from service

by opposite party in violation of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been argued

that contention of the opposite party is against the law

that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry'

within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. Against this it

has been argued by learned counsel for the opposite party

that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' &

there is no violation of section 25-F, G & H of the Act. It has

also been argued that applicant was neither appointed nor

any appointment letter was issued. There was no

advertisement for recruitment. It has also been argued that

applicant was engaged on part time contract for casual

work or repair & soon after completion of the work

engagement of the applicant was over. It has also been

alleged that his engagement was on daily wage & as the

work of repair of the wall was of temporary character hence,

on account of end of job & none availability of further job

the applicant himself had left the place of job. It has also

been argued that whenever there is availability of work,

workmen are engaged on daily wage basis for the job.

Reference has been made by both the parties towards

precedents submitted by them in favour of their respective

claim.

19. Before issue no.1 is decided it appears desirable to

take up issues 2,3, & 4 for decision because decision of

these issues are important & having relevance in decision

of issue no.1.

Issue no.2

20. This issue relates to violation of section 25-G of

industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of

applicant. Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

reads as under:—

"Section 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment.—

Where any workman in an industrial establishment,

who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he

belongs to a particular category of workmen in that

establishment, in the absence of any agreement

between the employer and the workman in this behalf,

the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman

who was the last person to be employed in that

category, unless for reasons to be recorded the

employer retrenches any other workman."

21. From perusal of the provision contained in section

25-G it appears that whenever in ordinary course of

business a workman is required to be retrenched then the

last person employed by the employer shall be retrenched

first unless there is special reason for retrenchment of a

person other than the last employed person. From perusal

of statement of claim it is evident that in para 13 it has been

alleged that there has been violation of section 25-G of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of

the applicant & junior to the applicant was retained in

service at the time of his removal but no one has been

named in statement of claim that who is the person junior

to the applicant who was retained. In the affidavit also filed

by applicant as evidence there is no mention of a person

junior to him who was retained in the service at the time of

his removal. In the cross examination of the applicant on

page 2 this question has been placed before him & he has

alleged that when he was removed at that time all other

workmen were also removed. This statement of the applicant

during cross examination obviously indicates that no one

junior to him was retained & removal of all the workman

together is also indicative of the fact of Cessation or

completion of a particular work for which they are engaged.

Here, it is also pertinent to note that it has been repeatedly

argued by learned counsel for opposite party that in fact

there has been no oppointment, therefore, the question of

removal of the applicant from employment does not arise.

From the perusal of the cross examination of Sh Brijraj

2730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Singh, Deputy Superintendent (Archaeology) it is clear

that no assistance can be taken on this point from his

cross examination Bases on above discussion, it is clear

that the applicant has failed to prove that at the time of

termination of the service of applicant workman, juniors to

him were retained by the management in contravention of

section 25-G of the I.D. Act. issue no.2 is accordingly

decided in negative against the applicant.

Issue No. 3

22. This issue is to the effect that whether subsequent

to the termination of the workman fresh workman were

engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of

section 25-H of the I.D.Act. For convenience provision of

Section 25-H is reproduced below which reads as under:—

"Sec. 25-H Re-employment of retrenched

workmen—Where any workmen are retrenched, and

the employer purposes to take into his employ any

persons he shall, in such manner as may be

prescribed, give an oportunity to the retrenched

workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves

for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen,

who offer themselves for re-re-employment shall have

preference over other persons.

23. The above mentioned section 25-H provides that a

retrench employee shall have preference in appointment

over rest, if management, intends to employ a workman &

the management is under an obligation to give opportunity

to retrench workman so that he can offer himself for

employment. If opportunity is not given by management it

will amount to violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. para 14

of statement of claim indicates that after termination of the

services of applicant new appointment were made without

preference given to applicant. In reply to para 14 of

statement of claim non-applicant has denied the

appointment. There is no documentary evidence on record

about new appointment. Para 6 of affidavit of applicant

filed in evidence indicates that new appointment were made

with no preference to applicant but in cross examination

applicant has admitted that in his affidavit & statement of

claim he has not alleged that after has removal who was

appointed & when. The applicant has also admitted that in

statement of claim also he has not given detail of newly

appointed persons. In para 11 of affidavit of Sh. Brijraj

Singh witness for opposite part violation of section 25-G &

H has been specifically denied. In cross examination of

Sh. Brijraj Singh there is nothing significant to draw an

inference about violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Based

on above discussion & appreciation of evidence adduced

by the parties I am of the view that the applicant has failed

to prove the violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act

regarding appointment of fresh hands subsequent to

termination of his service. Issue no.3 is accordingly decided

against the applicant.

Issue no. 4

24. This issue is to effect that whether establishment

of the non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an

Industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the I.D.

Act. A preliminary objection has been raised by non-

applicant that establishment of the non-applicant is not

covered under definition of 'Industry' as indicated in

section 2(j) of the I.D.Act. Reliance has been placed by

non-appliacant on Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jaipur in CGIT case no. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal

Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of

India, Science Branch, Deharadun. Against this, it has

been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that

establishment of non-applicant is covered by the

definition of 'Industry'. Reliance has been placed by non-

applicant on Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil

appeal no. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply &

Sewerage Board etc.etc v/s A. Rajappa & other etc.etc.,

Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Ttibunal,

Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President,

Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s

The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India,

Janpath, New Delhi & Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, In

Industrial Dispute no. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending

Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal

Agra v/s Suresh Chandra. I have very carefully gone

through cases cited by both the parties.

25. In Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

in CGIT case no. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s

Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India,

Science Branch, Deharadun, cited by learned counsel for

the opposite party it has been held in decision of issue

no.4 that provision of I.D.Act, 1947 apply to the case.

Issue no.4 has dealt with the fact that provisions of

I.D.Act. apply to the opposite party or not. Cases cited

by learned counsel for the applicant indicate that

Archaeological Survey of India is covered within the

definition of 'Industry' as provided in section 2(j) of the

I.D.Act. In Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial

Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No.78/84 in Workmen through the

President,Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New

Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of

India, Janpath, New Delhi, discussing the case of

Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal no.

753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage

Board etc.etc v/s A. Rajappa & others etc.etc., it has been

held by the CGIT, Delhi that Archaeological Survey of

India is an 'Industry'. In Award dated 17.11.2008 passed

by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in

Industrial Dispute no.9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending

Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal

Agra v/s Suresh Chandra, it has been held by CGIT, Kanpur

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2731

that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. From

decision of the cases cited on behalf of both the parties

& from the fact & circumstances of the present case, I am

of the view that establishment of non-applicant

Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry' within the

meaning of section 2(J) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Issue no.4 is accordingly decided in affirmative against

the non-applicant.

Issue No. 1

26. This issue is to the effect whether the workman

had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during

period 25.5.03 to 8.7.06 preceding twelve months from the

date of his alleged termination & whether his service was

terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act? It has

been argued by learned counsel for the applicant & has

also been alleged in the written argument that the applicant

has worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during

period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of

termination on 8.7.06 & termination of the services of

applicant is in violation of section 25-F of Industrial

Disputes Act, hence, the order of termination is fit to be

set aside with continuity in service along with back

wages. Against this, it has been argued by the learned

counsel for the opposite party & has also been alleged in

the written argument that applicant was not appointed by

non-applicant, no appointment letter was issued, there

was no advertisement for any appointment. It has also

been argued that applicant was engaged on daily wages

basis for repair of the walls of the fort which is a work of

temporary nature. It has also been argued that applicant

voluntarily left the place of work on account of non

availability of work. It has also been said that on

availability of work engagement is made on daily wages

basis for the period of work only & provision of section

25-F is not attracted in the case of applicant. It has also

been alleged that in view of case of the applicant covered

under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D.Act, compliance of

provision of section 25-F is not required.

27. According to statement of claim applicant was

appointted on daily wages on 25.5.03 & was terminated on

8.7.06 without notice or pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment

compensation in violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act. What

was the post held by the applicant during employment has

not been alleged in statement of claim. About the nature of

the work the applicant has alleged that whatever work was

assigned by the opposite party applicant was performing

that work. It has also been alleged that his engagement

was neither for a fix work or for a fix period. The applicant

has alleged that he has worked for more than 240 days in

every year. In affidavit filed in evidence in support of above

statement of claim the applicant has repeated the allegation

of statement of claim. No other co-worker has been

produced as witness in evidence to support the allegation

of statement of claim. In written statement it has been

specifically denied by opposite party that applicant has

worked for more than 240 day in a year instead it has been

alleged that applicant has not worked for 240 days in any

of the year. Sh. Brijraj Singh has specifically denied in para

3 of his affidavit that the applicant has worked for 240 days

in any of the year. In above fact & circumstances, the burden

of proff lies on applicant to prove that he has worked for

more than 240 days in a year immediately preceding the

date of his termination on 8.7.06 as alleged in statement of

claim. The applicant has alleged in his cross examination

that he has not stated in his affidavit in evidence or in

statement of claim that for how many days he has worked

in any corresponding year. He has admitted that he has

filed document w-1 & in w-1 nature of work has been

mentioned for which he was engaged & in w-1 it has been

mentioned that the nature work includes 'special repair work'

& such mention in w-1 is correct. Thus, it shall appear that

two documents relalting to total number of days of work

has been filed by the applicant which is w-1 & w-2. W-2 is

the document which appeared to be prepared by workman

whereas w-1 is the document which appears to be reply

submitted by management during conciliation proceedings.

From document w-2 if taken into consideration for

calculating the period of 240 days immediately proceding

the date of termination on 8.7.06 then total number of days

on which the workman has worked between 8.7.05 to 8.7.06

comes out to be 220 days. From document w-1 it comes out

to be 250 days but lacks continuity. Thus, workman has

failed to prove that he has continuously worked for more

than 240 days in the year immediately preceding the date

of his termination. It has also appear from both the

documents w-1 & w-2 that there is no continuous work in

the year.

28. Document regarding period & corresponding

working days filed by management on order of the tribunal

passed on application of the applicant provides following

details:—

Period of work

Number of working days.

19.2.03 to 20.3.03

NIL

17.1.04 to 16.2.04

28

13.4.04 to 13.5.04

NIL

15.5.04 to 14.6.04

NIL

11.7.04 to 10.8.04

NIL

12.8.04 to 11.9.04

NIL

13.9.04 to 13.10.04

NIL

14.10.04 to 31.10.04

17

3.12.04 to 2.1.05

NIL

4.1.05 to 3.2.05

NIL

6.2.05 to 8.3.05

NIL

2732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

9.3.05 to 17.3.05

NIL

9.11.05 to 9.12.05

NIL

10.12.05 to 9.1.06

NIL

11.1.06 to 10.2.06

NIL

12.2.06 to 14.3.06

NIL

9.6.06 to 7.7.06

NIL

Total number of days between

8.7.2005 to 8.7.2006

NIL

29. The statement of above table submitted by opposite

party regarding statement of work done by workman

indicates that from the date of terminationon 8.7.06 aplicant

has worked only for Nil days in a year immediately preceding

the date of termination on 8.7.06. Thus, it is evident that

the workman has not worked continuously for 240 days

immediately preceding the date of termination. From the

above discussion its clear that applicant has failed to prove

that he has worked for more than 240 days immediately

preceding the date of terimiantion. From the entire cross

examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there appears nothing to

derive in favour of applicant that he has worked for more

than 240 days in a year preceding the date of termination.

From the above discussion it is clear that applicant has

failed to prove that he has contionously worked for more

than 240 days in a year immediately preceding the date of

his termination.

30. As far as the question of violation of section 25-F of

Industrial Dispute is concerned it has been argued by the

learned counsel for the applicant that there has been

violation of section 25-F in terminating the services of the

applicant, against this learned counsel for the opposite

party has argued that there is no viloation of section 25-F

of I.D.Act & section 25-F does not apply in the case of

applicant who was neither employed nor termination & his

engagement has been only for specific period & specific

work & he has left the workplace on his own accord. It has

also been argued that as the question of terminating the

services of the applicant does not arise, because he was

not given any employment & there was no advertisement

for employment for employment, hence, section 25-F does

not apply to the case of the applicant. Section 25-F reads

as under:—

"25-F. Condition precedent to retrenchment of

workmen.—No workman, employed in any Industry who

has been in continous service for not less than one year

under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer

until—

(a) The workman has been given on month's notice in

writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and

the period of notice has expired, or the workman

has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the

period of the notice:

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of

retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every

completed year of continuous service) or any part

thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the

appropriate Government (or such authority as may

be specified by the appropriate Government by

notification in the Official Gazette.)

31. Continuous service as indicated in section 25-F(1)

has been defined in section 25-B(1) (ii) which reads as

under:—

Section 25-B. Definition of continuos service.———

For the purposes of this Chapter———

(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service

for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,

including service which may be interrupted on account of

sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which

is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is

not due to any fault on the part of the workman.

(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within

the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year or six

months, he shall be deemed to be in continuos sevrice

under an employer———

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a

period of twelve calendar months preceding the

date with reference to which calculation is to be

made, has actually worked under the employer for

not less than———

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a

workman employed below ground in a mine;

and

(ii) two hundered and forty days, in any other

case;

32. Section 2 (oo) provides meaning of retrenchment

which reads as under:—

"2(oo)——"retrenchment" means the termination by the

employer of the service of a workman for any reason

whatsover, otherwise than as punishment inflicted by way

of disciplinay action but does not include——

(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of

superannuation if the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

contained a stipulation in that behalf; or

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

of the non-renewal of the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

on its expiry or of such contract being terminated

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2733

under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein;

or

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the

ground of continued ill-health;

33. In 2006 Supreme Court cases (L&S) 38, Surendrangar

District Panchayat..................Appellant V/s Dahyabhai

Amarsinh.....Respondent, taking together & analyzing the

integrated impact of section 2(oo), section 25-B & section

25-F in paragraph 7 page 43, it has been held by Hon'ble

Supreme Court, "................To attract provision of Section

25-F, the workman claiming protection under it, has to prove

that there exists relationship of employer,and employee;

that he is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of

this Act; the establishment in which he is employed is an

industry within the meaning of the Act and he must have

put in not less that one year of continuous service as

defined by section 25-B under the employer. These

conditions are cumulatiave. If any of these conditions is

missing the provisions of section 25-F will not be attracted.

To get relief from the court the workman has to establish

that he has right to continue in service and that this service

has been terminated without complying with the provisions

of section 25-F of the Act. The section postulates three

condiitons to be fulfilled by an employer for getting a valid

retrenchment, namely:—

(i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating the

reasons for retrenchment or that the workman has

been paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of

such notice;

(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which shall

be equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every

completed year of continuous service or any part

thereof, in excess of six months;

(iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the

prescribed manner.

34. Looking into the above provisions & the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to attract the provision

of section 25-F, it is clear that the applicant has failed to

prove that he has worked continuously for more than 240

days in calendar year immediately preceding the date of

his termination, thus provision of section 25-F is not

attracted in the case of applicant. From above discussion,

I am of the view that the applicant has not worked

continuously for more than 240 days as daily wager

immediately preceding 12 months from the date of his

alleged termination on 8.7.06 & his services were not

terminated in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes

Act. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in negataive against

the applicant.

35. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the

applicant that even if section 25-F is not attracted in case

of applicant, he is entitled to the benefits of section 25-G &

25-H which are independent of section 25-F. Reliance has

been placed on RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank

of Commerce...Appellant v/s Presiding Officer, Central Govt.

Industrial Tribunal & others & RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench,

Surya Prakash Sharma....Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book

Board, Jaipur & other (122).....Respondent. Against this it

has been argued by learned counsel for opposite party

that provision of section 25-G and 25-H is not attracted in

the case of applicant. I have carefully gone through both

the above reported cases.

36. In case of Oriental Bank of Commerce v/s Presiding

Officer respondent 2 was employed in the bank of petitioner

from 23.5.85 to 28.5.85 for a period of 79 days. He was said

to be appointed for leave period only & his engagement

came to end after expiry of period of leave. The respondent

raised industrial dispute relating to section 25-G & 25-H

which was referred for adjudication. After the evidence of

both the parties tribunal came to the conclusion that there

was violation of section 25-G & section 25-H, hence,

respondent was directed to be reinstated & it was also

directed that he will entitled to pay from the date of joining

because respondent was said to be on the job in some

other place. On the basis of evidence tribunal came to

conclusion that management had failed to indicate that

who was on leave in whose place respondent was employed

during leave vacancy, hence, this fact was not admitted by

tribunal that engagement of respondent was for the period

of leave vacancy. It was admitted by the witness of the

management that when respondent was removed from

service employee Sh. Virendra Singh junior to the

respondent was working. It was also admitted by

management witness that after removal of respondent Sh.

Mulan Rasool & Sh. Narendra Bhatt were appointed on

the post of peon but respondent was not given opportunity.

Thus, there was violation of section 25-G & 25-H. Petition

against the order of tribunal was dismissed by Division

Bench of Hon'ble High Court & award of the tribunal was

confirmed.

37. In RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash

Sharma...Petitioner v/s Rajsthan Text Book Board, Jaipur &

others (122).....Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble

High Court that section 25-G & 25-H & 25-F are independent

of each other & section 25-G & 25-H are not dependent on

section 25-F. It has also been held that section 25-G & 25-

H are applicable irrespective of the fact that the workman

has completed 240 days of service or not. It has been further

held that rule 76 to 78 of Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 are

independent of each other & mandatory in nature. Violation

of these rules will give a cause of action in favour of

workman to claim compensation, damages & re-

employment. To derive the beneifts of these rules

continuous service is not necessary & workmen not having

completed 240 days of service are also entitled to the

benefits of Rule 76 to 78. In this case petitioner Sh.

Suryaprakash Sharma was retrenched from service before

2734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

completion of 240 days & was not entitled for the benefits

u/s 25 of I.D. Act. The only question involved in this case

was about applicability of section 25-H of I.D. Act read

with Rule 77 & 78. The case of the respondent was that

after discharge of petitioner on 1.11.88 they have employed

few persons although persons who employed were

discharged on 19.8.89. The petition of the petitioner was

allowed & he was held entitled to claim wages by way of

compensation for the period during which his junior remain

in employment.

38. In 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of

India....Appellant v/s N. Sundaramoney...Respondent, it

has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that read with

section 25-B(2) if provision of section 25-F of Industrial

Dispute Act is attracted in case of the workman, he cannot

be retrenched without payment of compensation at the

time of retrenchment as prescribed therein. It is pertinent

to mention that facts & circumstances of the present case

are different comparing to the facts of State Bank of India

v/s N. Sundarmoney, hence, law laid down by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State Bank of India v/s N Sundarmoney

is not attracted in the present case.

39. From decision of issue No. 2 & 3 it is clear that

applicant is not entitled to the benefit for violation of section

25-G & 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act becasue violation of

these two sections have not been proved by the applicant.

It is also clear from the evidence on record that no seniority

list is in existence as the case of opposite party is that there

was no employment in respect of applicant & he was only

enegaged casually as & when there was existence of work.

Applicant has not proved his appointment or termination

by filing any documentary evidence in this behalf who was

engaged as daily wager. It has been held by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranager District Panchayat....Appellant V/s

Dahyabhai Amarsinh....Respondent, in para 18 of the

judgement in relation of section 25-G & section 25-H as

under:—

".....In the absence of regular employment of the

workmen, the appellant was not expected to maintain

seniority list of the employees engaged on daily

wages and in the absence of any proof by the

respondent regarding existence of the seniority list

and his so-called seniority, no relief could be given

to him for non-compliance with provisions of the

Act. The courts could have drawn adverse inference

against the appellant only when seniority list was

proved be in existence and then not produced before

the court. In order to entite the court to draw inference

unfavourable to the party, the court must be satisfied

that evidence is in existence and could have been

proved." Finding of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006

Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar

District Panchayat..... Appellant V/s Dahyabhai

Amarsinh....Respondent, is relevant & applies to the

case of applicant.

40. Bases on the findings related to issue No. 1 to 4 from

the discussions as above, I am of the view that applicant is

not entitled to any relief as prayed in the statement of claim

& action of the management of Archaeological Survey of

India in terminating the services of the workman Sh.

Hanuman Mali w.e.f. 8.7.06 without following the provisions

of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 is legal & justified.

41. Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1303-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkfdZ;ksykWftdy

losZ vkWQ bafM;k jktLFkku ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ lañ 47@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@25@2007&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñdsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015

S.O. 1303.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 47/2007) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

the Archaeological Survey of India, Rajasthan and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 24/06/2015.

[No. L-42012/25/2007-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

I.D. 47/2007

Reference No. L-42012/25/2007-IR (DU) dated 23.7.2007

Sh. Kamlesh Mali

S/o Shri Kajor Mali

R/o Village &

Post Sherpur,

Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)

V/s

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2735

The Regional Officer

Archaeological Survey of India

Ranthambhor Durg,

Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).

For the Applicant

:

Sh. M.F. Beig, Advocate.

For the Non-applicant

:

Sh. T.P. Sharma, Advocate.

AWARD

18.5.2015

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section 1 & 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred

the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:—

"Whether the action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India, in terminating the

services of their workman Shri Kamlesh Mali, w.e.f.

30.8.2006, without following the provisions of Sections

25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is

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

entitled to?''

2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant

workman was appointed as daily wager on 19.5.03. He was

discharging his duty since appointment honestly & there

was no complaint by opposite party against his work.

Whatever work was assigned to the applicant he completed

that work to best of his ability. Applicant was never served

with any notice & no charge was ever proved against him.

3. He was appointed on daily wage but his period of

appointment or nature of work was not fixed. The work for

which he was appointed by opposite party is still existing

& the nature of work is permanent. The applicant is

'workman' & the opposite party is 'employer' according to

the definition of 'workman' & 'employer' provided in

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The applicant had worked

for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately

preceding the date of termination & his services were

terminated on 30.8.06 without giving any notice or any

payment in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in

violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

His termination is unfair labour practice & victimisation

adopted by opposite party.

4. Before the termination of the workman seniority list

was neither prepared nor published by the opposite party

which is violation of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes Rules,

1958. At the time of termination of the service workmen

junior to the applicant were retained in service by the

opposite party in violation of section 25-G of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The opposite party has made new

appointment after termination of the services of the

applicant workman but no priority was given to the

applicant which is violation of section 25-H of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 & Rule 78 of Industrial Disputes Rule,

1958. It has been further alleged by the applicant that

applicant requested the opposite party to take the applicant

in his employment but he was not taken back & due to non

co-operation of opposite party conciliation also failed

before the Conciliation Officer. The opposite party has

accepted before the Conciliation Officer that applicant was

kept on work & work was taken from him, henece, the

relation of employer & workman has not been denied by

the opposite party but to escape from the liability of illegal

termination it has been denied that opposite party is

'Industry' within the meaning of definition provided in

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The true position is that

according to the activities & work the opposite party is an

'industry' according to the definition of industry provided

under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have not been followed by

opposite party, hence, the termination of the services of

the workman is illegal & unfair.

5. It has been further alleged that allegation of the

opposite party before the Conciliation Officer is that the

applicant workman was absent from duty from 15.3.2006 to

8.6.2006 but workman was not given any show cause notice.

Neither any charge sheet was served upon him regarding

absence from place of duty nor any charge was proved.

The applicant had made his stand clear before the

management that he has not remained absent during above

said period & instead of absence he has been working in

that period. The applicant had completed more than two

years of service & he was demanding from the opposite

party to declare him semi permanent employee. As a result

of above demand of the applicant the opposite party instead

of making him semi permanent terminated the services of

the applicant. The applicant is jobless since the date of

termination. It is, therefore, requested that termination order

dated 30.8.06 be declared illegal & applicant reinstated with

all pay & emoluments along with continuity in service.

6. In reply statement in para 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,

12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19 & 20 of the statement of claim have

been specifically denied. In additional reply it has been

alleged in para 2 that the applicant labourer was not

appointed by the opposite party & he was engaged as

casual labourer for carrying out casual work on the basis

of part time contract & such engagement was coming to

end immediately after completion of the work. It has also

been alleged that the applicant labour has never completed

240 days in any year & applicant is under an obligation to

prove this fact by document. Statement of para 5 of

statement of claim has been said to be baseless & nature of

the work for which applicant was engaged is alleged to be

casual. Against para 7 it has been alleged that to succeed

in his sinister design applicant has fabricated the statement.

7. It has been alleged against para 8 of the statement of

claim that applicant was called for fixed work & his services

were coming to end after completion of the work. Relation

2736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

between applicant & opposite party as workman &

employer has been specifically denied against para 9 of the

statement of claim & has been alleged that since he was

never appointed the question of such relationship does

not arise. The applicant does not fall within the definition

of workman & the department of the opposite party does

not fall within the definition of Industry. Applicant was

never engaged permanently & he was called only when

there was work. He was neither appointed on any post

after following the rules of appointment nor any

appointment letter was issued to him, therefore, question

of termination of his services does not arise. It has been

alleged in para 11 of reply that it is pertinent to note that

applicant was not removed from the institution of opposite

party & the fact is that the work was over hence, his services

automatically came to an end. It was not necessary to give

notice to the applicant because such notice is issued only

to such workman who permanently work for a period of

more than 240 days & the department is not satisfied with

work of such workman, in that event such workman may be

removed after serving one months notice. In case of

applicant after completion of work he himself had gone

elsewhere.

8. Against para 13 of statement of claim it has been

alleged that workmen like applicant are not given any

appointment letter neither they are deemed regular workmen

of the department. Workman like applicant are engaged on

daily wage basis according to need of a particular work for

its execution & they are removed after completion of work

or at the end of financial year or on other technical ground

on suspension or stoppage of work. Against para 14 of

statement of claim it has been alleged that nature of the

new recruitment by the department whose nature is

permanent is done by following the legal procedure &

selection is made out of person who possess the prescribed

eligibility. Applicant was not appointed on any vacant post

under grade 'D'. At the time of engaging the applicant

workman he was briefed orally that he is engaged against a

specific work & nature of the work is purely temporary &

casual in which applicant is not entitled to derive benefit of

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The allegation of

the applicant is wrong that he was removed out of

animosity. In absence of casual work the services of the

workman automatically comes to an end. In last paragraph

of the reply it has been prayed that order of dismissal be

passed against the statement of claim.

9. In rejoinder dated 3.6.2010 filed by applicant, statement

of claim has been reiterated & statement of reply submitted

by the opposite party has been alleged to be wrong.

10. In preliminary objection against statement of claim

filed by opposite party it has been alleged that applicant

was neither given any appointment nor there was any

sanctioned or vacant post. Department of the opposite

party is not covered within the definition of industry as

provided in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. In B-40/

97, Gobardhan Lal Meena v/s Archaeological Survey of

India, it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its award

dated 18.1.2001 that Archaeological Survey of India is not

covered within the definition of industry. Industrial

Tribunal, Jabalpur in its award dated 9.6.2003 has held that

Archaeological Survey of Indian is not an 'Industry' within

the meaning of section 2(j) if Industrial Disputes Act. It has

also been alleged that the applicant was engaged for

completion of casual work for fixed period of time & he has

not worked for 240 days in any of the year, hence, he is not

entitled to the benefit of Industrial Dispute Act. It has also

been alleged that the applicant left the work on his own

even before the completion of the work, hence, he is not

entitled to any relief.

11. Against preliminary objection it has been alleged by

the applicant that preliminary objections are not tenable at

belated stage. It has also been alleged that various

precedents it has been alleged that preliminary objections

are to be decided along with other issues on merits. It has

also been alleged that preliminary objections are evidence

based, hence, opposite party be directed to file the reply to

the statement of claim.

12. Under mentioned issues were framed on 27.7.2011

by the then learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based

on pleadings of both the parties:—

(1)

Whether the workman had worked for more than 240

days as daily wager during period 25.5.03 to 30.8.06

preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged

termination & whose service was terminated in

violation of section 25-F of the Act?

(2)

At the time of terminating the service of the workman

the juniors person to him were retained by the

management in contravention of section 25-G of the

I.D. Act?

(3)

Whether subsequent to the termination of the

workman fresh hands were engaged by the non-

applicant management in violation of section 25-H

of the I.D. Act?

(4)

Whether non-applicant establishment is an 'industry'

within the meaning of section 2-J of the I.D. Act?

13. Applicant has filed document w-1 which is reply of

opposite party before conciliation proceeding, affidavit of

the applicant in evidence and statement of number of

working days in calendar year 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006.

Applicant has been cross examination by opposite party

on his affidavit.

14. In documentary evidence, opposite party has filed

statement of payment made to applicant & other workmen

which is 24 page. This document has been filed on direction

of tribunal given on application of the applicant. Opposite

party has filed affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh in evidence.

Sh. Brijraj Singh has been cross-examined on 28.10.14 by

applicant side.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2737

15. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for

both the parties & perused the file. Written argument have

been filed by both the parties which is on record.

16. Following citations have been referred on behalf of

applicant:-

i. 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India......

Appellant v/s. N. Sundaramoney....Respondent.

ii. Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal

No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply &

Sewerage Board etc.etc. v/s. A. Aajappa & others

etc. etc.

iii. 1983 LAB.I.C. 1629(Supreme Court), D.P.

Maheshwari...Appellant v/s Delhi Administration

& others....Respondents.

iv. Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial

Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No.78/84 in Workmen

through the President, Archaeological Survey

Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director

General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath,

New Delhi.

v. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of

Commerce....Appellant v/s Presiding Officer, Central

Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others (23).

vi. RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash

Sharma...Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board,

Jaipur & others (122)....Respondent.

vii. Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial

Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending

Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India,

Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra.

17. Following citations have been referred on behalf of

opposite party:-

i. Award dated 26.11.1986 passed by Central

Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in O.A. No.

33/86, Govind Kanji Parmar & others....Petitioner

v/s Union of India & others....Respondents.

ii. Award dated 30.10.1996 passed by Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur

in O.A. No.331 to 334/1993, Devi Singh &

others...petitioners v/s Union of India &

others....Respondents.

iii. Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court,

Jaipur in CGIT case No. B- 40/97 in Goverdhan Lal

Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological

Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun.

18. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the

applicant that applicant has completed continuous 240 days

of service in every year but he has removed from service

by opposite party in violation of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been argued

that contention of the opposite party is against the law

that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry'

within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. Against this it

has been argued by learned counsel for the opposite party

that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' &

there is no violation of section 25-F, G & H of the Act. It has

also been argued that applicant was neither appointed nor

any appointment letter was issued. There was no

advertisement for recruitment. It has also been argued that

applicant was engaged on part time contract for casual

work of repair & soon after completion of the work

engagement of the applicant was over. It has also been

alleged that his engagement was on daily wage & as the

work of repair of the wall was of temporary character hence,

on account of end of job & none availability of further job

the applicant himself had left the place of job. It has also

been argued that whenever there is availability of work,

workmen are engaged on daily wage basis for the job.

Reference has been made by both the parties towards

precedents submitted by them in favour of their respective

claim.

19. Before issue no.1 is decided it appears desirable to

take up issues 2, 3 & 4 for decision because decision of

these issues are important & having relevance in decision

of issue No.1.

Issue No. 2

20. This issue relates to violation of section 25-G of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of

applicant. Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

reads as under:-

"Section 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment.—Where

any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a

citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a

particular category of workmen in that establishment, in

the absence of any agreement between the employer

and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall

ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person

to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to

be recorded the employer retrenches any other

workman."

21. From perusal of the provision contained in section

25-G it appears that whenever in ordinary course of

business a workman is required to be retrenched then the

last person employed by the employer shall be retrenched

first unless there is special reason for retrenchment of a

person other than the last employed person. From perusal

of statement of claim it is evident that in para 13 it has been

alleged that there has been violation of section 25-G of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of

the applicant & junior to the applicant was retained in

service at the time of his removal but no one has been

2738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

named in statement of claim that who is the person junior

to the applicant who was retained. In the affidavit also filed

by applicant as evidence there is no mention of a person

junior to him who was retained in the service at the time of

his removal. In the cross examination of the applicant on

page 2 this question has been placed before him & he has

alleged that when he was removed at that time all other

workmen were also removed. This statement of the applicant

during cross examination obviously indicates that no one

junior to him was retained & removal of all the workman

together is also indicative of the fact of Cessation or

completion of a particular work for which they are engaged.

Here, it is also pertinent to note that it has been repeatedly

argued by learned counsel for opposite party that in fact

there has been no appointment, therefore, the question of

removal of the applicant from employment does not arise.

From the perusal of the cross examination of Sh. Brijraj

Singh, Deputy Superintendent (Archaeology) it is clear

that no assistance can be taken on this point from his

cross examination Bases on above discussion, it is clear

that the applicant has failed to prove that at the time of

termination of the service of applicant workman, juniors to

him were retained by the management in contravention of

section 25-G of the I.D. Act. issue No. 2 is accordingly

decided in negative against the applicant.

Issue No. 3

22. This issue is to the effect that whether subsequent

to the termination of the workman fresh workmen were

engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of

section 25-H of the I.D. Act. For convenience provision of

Section 25-H is reproduced below which reads as under:-

"Sec. 25-H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen—

Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer

purposes to take into his employ any persons he shall,

in such manner as may be prescribed, give an

oportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens

of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and

such retrenched workmen, who offer themselves for

re-employment shall have preference over other

persons.

23. The above mentioned section 25-H provides that a

retrench employee shall have preference in appointment

over rest, if management, intends to employ a workman &

the management is under an obligation to give opportunity

to retrench workman so that he can offer himself for

employment. If opportunity is not given by management it

will amount to violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. para 14

of statement of claim indicates that after termination of the

services of applicant new appointments were made without

preference given to applicant. In reply to para 14 of

statement of claim non-applicant has denied the

appointment. There is no documentary evidence on record

about new appointment. Para 6 of affidavit of applicant

filed in evidence indicates that new appointment were made

with no preference to applicant but in cross-examination

applicant has admitted that in his affidavit & statement of

claim he has not alleged that after has removal who was

appointed & when. The applicant has also admitted that in

statement of claim also he has not given detail of newly

appointed persons. In para 11 of affidavit of Sh. Brijraj

Singh witness for opposite part violation of section 25-G &

H has been specifically denied. In cross examination of Sh.

Brijraj Singh there is nothing significant to draw an inference

about violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Based on above

discussion & appreciation of evidence adduced by the

parties I am of the view that the applicant has failed to

prove the violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act regarding

appointment of fresh hands subsequent to termination of

his service. Issue no. 3 is accordingly decided against the

applicant.

Issue No. 4

24. This issue is to effect that whether establishment of

the non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an

Industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the I.D. Act.

A preliminary objection has been raised by non-applicant

that establishment of the non-applicant is not covered under

definition of 'Industry' as indicated in section 2(j) of the

I.D.Act. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on

Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case

No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science),

Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch,

Deharadun. Against this, it has been argued by learned

counsel for the applicant that establishment of non-

applicant is covered by the definition of 'Industry'. Reliance

has been placed by non-applicant on Judgement & order

dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975,

Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc.etc v/s A.

Rajappa & others etc.etc., Award dated 21.10.1988 passed

by Industrial Ttibunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen

through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor

Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological

Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi & Award dated

17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court,

Kanpur, In Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy

Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of

India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra. I have very

carefully gone through cases cited by both the parties.

Judgement dated 9.6.03 by CGIT, Jabalpur has not been

filed by opposite party.

25. In Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jaipur

in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s

Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science

Branch, Deharadun, cited by learned counsel for the

opposite party it has been held in decision of issue No. 4

that provision of I.D. Act, 1947 apply to the case. Issue

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2739

No. 4 has dealt with the fact that provisions of I.D. Act.

apply to the opposite party or not. Cases cited by learned

counsel for the applicant indicate that Archaeological

Survey of India is covered within the definition of 'Industry'

as provided in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. In Award dated

21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No.78/

84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological

Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General,

Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi,

discussing the case of Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978

in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water

Supply & Sewerage Board etc.etc v/s A. Rajappa & others

etc.etc., it has been held by the CGIT, Delhi that

Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. In Award

dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No.9 of 2005 in Deputy

Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of

India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra, it has been held

by CGIT, Kanpur that Archaeological Survey of India is an

'Industry'. From decision of the cases cited on behalf of

both the parties & from the fact & circumstances of the

present case, I am of the view that establishment of non-

applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'

within the meaning of section 2(J) of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. Issue No. 4 is accordingly decided in affirmative

against the non-applicant.

Issue No.1

26. This issue is to the effect whether the workman had

worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period

25.5.03 to 30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of

his alleged termination & whether his service was

terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act? It has

been argued by learned counsel for the applicant & has

also been alleged in the written argument that the applicant

has worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during

period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of

termination on 30.8.06 & termination of the services of

applicant is in violation of section 25-F of Industrial

Disputes Act, hence, the order of termination is fit to be set

aside with continuity in service along with back wages.

Against this, it has been argued by the learned counsel for

the opposite party & has also been alleged in the written

argument that applicant was not appointed by non-

applicant, no appointment letter was issued, there was no

advertisement for any appointment. It has also been argued

that applicant was engaged on daily wages basis for repair

of the walls of the fort which is a work of temporary nature.

It has also been argued that applicant voluntarily left the

place of work on account of none availability of work. It

has also been said that on availability of work engagement

is made on daily wage basis for the period of work only &

provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of

applicant. It has also been alleged that in view of case of

the applicant covered under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D.

Act, compliance of provision of section 25-F is not required.

27. According to statement of claim applicant was

appointment on daily wages on 25.5.03 & was terminated

on 30.8.06 without notice or pay in lieu of notice or

retrenchment compensation in violation of section 25-F of

I.D. Act. What was the post held by the applicant during

employment has not been alleged in satement of claim.

About the nature of the work the applicant has alleged that

whatever work was assigned by the opposite party

applicant was performing that work. It has also been alleged

that his engagement was neither for a fix work nor for a fix

period. The applicant has alleged that he has worked for

more than 240 days in every year. In affidavit filed in

evidence in support of above statement of claim the

applicant has repeated the allegation of statement of claim.

No other co-worker has been produced as witness in

evidence to support the allegation of statement of claim. In

written statement it has been specifically denied by

opposite party that applicant has worked for more than 240

days in a year instead it has been alleged that applicant

has not worked for 240 days in any of the year. Sh. Brijraj

Singh has specifically denied in para 3 of his affidavit that

the applicant has worked for 240 days in any of the year. In

above fact & circumstances, the burden of proof lies on

applicant to prove that he has worked for more than 240

days in a year immediately preceding the date of his

termination on 30.8.06 as alleged in statement of claim. The

applicant has alleged in his cross examination that he has

not stated in his affidavit in evidence or in statement of

claim that for how many days he has worked in any

corresponding year. He has admitted that he has filed

document w-1 & in w-1 nature of work has been mentioned

for which he was engaged & in w-1 it has also been

mentioned that the nature of work includes 'special repair

work' & such mention in w-1 is correct. Thus, it shall appear

that two documents relalting to total number of days of

work has been filed by the applicant which is w-1 & w-2.

W-2 is the document which appeared to be prepared by

workman whereas w-1 is the document which appears to

be reply submitted by management during conciliation

proceedings. From document w-2 if taken into consideration

for calculating the period of 240 days immediately proceding

the date of termination on 30.8.06 then total number of

days on which the workman has worked between 30.8.05

to 30.8.06 comes out to be 170 days. From document w-1 it

comes out to be 233 days but lacks continuity. Thus,

workman has failed to prove that he has continuously

worked for more than 240 days in the year immediately

preceding the date of his termination. It has also appear

from both the documents w-1 & w-2 that there is no

continuous work in the year.

28. Document regarding period & corresponding

working days filed by management on order of the tribunal

2740

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

passed on application of the applicant provides following

details:—

Period of work

Number of working days.

25.5.2003 to 24.6.2003

27

25.7.2003 to 24.8.2003

09

25.8.2003 to 1-9-2003

08

13.4.2004 to 12.5.2004

27

15.5.2004 to 14.6.2004

27

9.6.2004 to 9.7.2004

24

18.7.2004 to 27.7.2004

09

11.7.2004 to 10.8.2004

19

12.8.2004 to 11.9.2004

27

13.9.2004 to 12.10.2004

28

14.10.2004 to 31.10.2004

16

1.11.2004 to 1.12.2004

26

3.12.2004 to 2.1.2005

27

4.1.2005 to 3.2.2005

28

6.2.2005 to 8.3.2005

28

9.3.2005 to17.3.2005

09

19.3.2005 to 13.4.2005

24

6.6.2005 to 6.7.2005

28

8.10.2005 to 7.11.2005

28

8.11.2005 to 8.12.2005

29

10.11.2005 to9.1.2006

28

11.1.2006 to 10.2.2006

29

12.2.2006 to 14.3.2006

28

9.6.2006 to 7.7.2006

28

Total number of days between

30.8.05 to 30.8.06

170 days.

29. The statement of above table submitted by opposite

party regarding statement of work done by workman

indicates that from the date of terminationon 30.8.06

aplicant has worked only for 170 days in a year immediately

preceding the date of termination on 30.8.86. Thus, it is

evident that the workman has not worked continuously for

240 days immediately precedingthe date of termination.

From the above discussion its clear that applicant has failed

to prove that he has worked than 240 days immediately

preceding the date of terimiantion. From the entire cross

examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there appears nothing to

derive in favour of applicant that he has worked for more

than 240 days in a year preceding the date of termination.

From the above discussion it is clear that applicant has

failed to prove that he has contionously worked for more

than 240 days in a year immediately preceding the date of

his termination.

30. As far as the question of violation of section 25-F of

Industrial Dispute is concerned it has been argued by the

learned counsel for the applicant that there has been

violation of section 25-F in terminating the services of the

applicant, against this learned counsel for the opposite

party has argued that there is no viloation of section 25-F

of I.D.Act & section 25-F does not apply in the case of

applicant who was neither employed nor termination & his

engagement has been only for specific period & specific

work & he has left the workplace on his own accord. It has

also been argued that as the question of terminating the

services of the applicant does not arise, because he was

not given any employment & there was no advertisement

for employment for employment, hence, section 25-F does

not apply to the case of the applicant. Section 25-F reads

as under:—

"25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of

workmen.—No workman, employed in any Industry who

has been in continous service for not less than one year

under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer

until—

(a) The workman has been given on month's notice in

writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and

the period of notice has expired, or the workman

has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the

period of the notice:

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrench-

ment, compensation which shall be equivalent to

fifteen days' average pay for every completed year

of continuous service) or any part thereof in ex-

cess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the

appropriate Government (or such authority as may

be specified by the appropriate Government by

notification in the Official Gazette.)

31. Continuous service as indicated in section 25-F(1)

has been defined in section 25-B(1) (ii) which reads as

under:—

Section 25-B. Definition of continuos service.———

For the purposes of this Chapter———

(1)

a workman shall be said to be in continuous service

for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted

service, including service which may be interrupted

on account of sickness or authorised leave or an

accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out

or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault

on the part of the workman.

(2)

where a workman is not in continuous service within

the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year or

six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuos

sevrice under an employer———

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2741

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during

a period of twelve calendar months preceding

the date with reference to which calculation is

to be made, has actually worked under the

employer for not less than———

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case

of a workman employed below ground in

a mine; and

(ii) two hundered and forty days, in any other

case;

32. Section 2 (oo) provides meaning of retrenchment

which reads as under:—

"2(oo)——"retrenchment" means the termination by the

employer of the service of a workman for any reason

whatsover, otherwise than as punishment inflicted by way

of disciplinay action but does not include——

(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of

superannuation if the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

contained a stipulation in that behalf; or

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

of the non-renewal of the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

on its expiry or of such contract being terminated

under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein;

or

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the

ground of continued ill-health;

33. In 2006 Supreme Court cases (L&S) 38, Surendrangar

District Panchayat..................Appellant V/s Dahyabhai

Amarsinh.....Respondent, taking together & analyzing the

integrated impact of section 2(oo), section 25-B & section

25-F in paragraph 7 page 43, it has been held by Hon'ble

Supreme Court, "................To attract provision of Section

25-F, the workman claiming protection under it, has to prove

that there exists relationship of employer,and employee;

that he is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of

this Act; the establishment in which he is employed is an

industry within the meaning of the Act and he must have

put in not less that one year of continuous service as

defined by section 25-B under the employer, These

conditions are cumulatiave. If any of these conditions is

missing the provisions of section 25-F will not be attracted.

To get relief from the court the workman has to establish

that he has right to continue in service and that this service

has been terminated without complying with the provisions

of section 25-F of the Act. The section postulates three

condiitons to be fulfilled by an employer for getting a valid

retrenchment, namely:-

(i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating the

reasons for retrenchment or that the workman has

been paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of

such notice;

(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which shall

be equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every

completed year of continuous service or any part

thereof, in excess of six months;

(iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the

prescribed manner.

34. Looking into the above provisions & the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to attract the provision

of section 25-F, it is clear that the applicant has failed to

prove that he has worked continuously for more than 240

days in calendar year immediately preceding the date of

his termination, thus provision of section 25-F is not

attracted in the case of applicant. From above discussion,

I am of the view that the applicant has not worked

continuously for more than 240 days as daily wager

immediately preceding 12 months from the date of his

alleged termination on 30.8.06 & his services were not

terminated in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes

Act. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in negataive against

the applicant.

35. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the

applicant that even if section 25-F is not attracted in case

of applicant, he is entitled to the benefits of section 25-G &

25-H which are independent of section 25-F. Reliance has

been placed on RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank

of Commerce...Appellant v/s Presiding Officer, Central Govt.

Industrial Tribunal & others & RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench,

Surya Prakash Sharma....Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book

Board, Jaipur & other (122).....Respondent. Against this it

has been argued by learned counsel for opposite party

that provision of section 25-G and 25-H is not attracted in

the case of applicant. I have carefully gone through both

the above reported cases.

36. In case of Oriental Bank of Commerce v/s Presiding

Officer respondent 2 was employed in the bank of petitioner

from 23.5.85 to 28.5.85 for a period of 79 days. He was said

to be appointed for leave period only & his engagement

came to end after expiry of period of leave. The respondent

raised industrial dispute relating to section 25-G & 25-H

which was referred for adjudication. After the evidence of

both the parties tribunal came to the conclusion that there

was violation of section 25-G & section 25-H, hence,

respondent was directed to be reinstated & it was also

directed that he will entitled to pay from the date of joining

because respondent was said to be on the job in some

other place. On the basis of evidence tribunal came to

conclusion that management had failed to indicate that

who was on leave in whose place respondent was employed

during leave vacancy, hence, this fact was not admitted by

tribunal that engagement of respondent was for the period

of leave vacancy. It was admitted by the witness of the

management that when respondent was removed from

2742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

service employee Sh. Virendra Singh junior to the

respondent was working. It was also admitted by

management witness that after removal of respondent Sh.

Mulan Rasool & Sh. Narendra Bhatt was appointed on the

post of peon but respondent was not given opportunity.

Thus, there was violation of section 25-G & 25-H. Petition

against the order of tribunal was dismissed by Division

Bench of Hon'ble High Court & award of the tribunal was

confirmed.

37. In RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash

Sharma...Petitioner v/s Rajsthan Text Book Board, Jaipur &

others (122).....Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble

High Court that section 25-G & 25-H & 25-F are not

dependent of each other & section 25-G & 25-H are not

dependent on section 25-F. It has also been held that

section 25-G & 25-H are applicable irrespective of the fact

that the workman has completed 240 days of service or

not. It has been further held that rule 76 to 78 of Industrial

Dispute Rules, 1957 are independent of each other &

mandatory in nature. Violation of these rules will give a

cause of action in favour of workman to claim

compensation, damages & re-employment. To derive the

beneifts of these rules continuous service is not necessary

& workmen not having completed 240 days of service are

also entitled to the benefits of Rule 76 to 78. In this case

petitioner Sh. Suryaprakash Sharma was retrenched from

service before completion of 240 days & was not entitled

for the benefits u/s 25 of I.D. Act. The only question

involved in this case was about applicability of section 25-

H of I.D. Act read with Rule 77 & 78. The case of the

respondent was that after discharge of petitioner on 1.11.88

they have employed few persons although persons who

employed were discharged on 19.8.89. The petition of the

petitioner was allowed & he was held entitled to claim wages

by way of compensation for the period during which his

junior remain in employment.

38. In 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of

India....Appellant v/s N. Sundaramoney...Respondent, it

has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that read with

section 25-B(2) if provision of section 25-F of Industrial

Dispute Act is attracted in case of the workman, he cannot

be retrenched without payment of compensation at the

time of retrenchment as prescribed therein. It is pertinent

to mention that facts & circumstances of the present case

are different comparing to the facts of State Bank of India

v/s N. Sundarmoney, hence, law laid down by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State Bank of India v/s N Sundarmoney

is not attracted in the present case.

39. From decision of issue No. 2 & 3 it is clear that

applicant is not entitled to the benefit for violation of section

25-G & 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act becasue violation of

these two sections have not been proved by the applicant.

It is also clear from the evidence on record that no seniority

list is in existence as the case of opposite party is that there

was no employment in respect of applicant & he was only

enegaged casually as & when there was existence of work.

Applicant has not proved his appointment or termination

by filing any documentary evidence in this behalf who was

engaged as daily wager. It has been held by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranager District Panchayat....Appellant V/s

Dahyabhai Amarsinh....Respondent, in para 18 of the

judgement in relation of section 25-G & section 25-H as

under:-

".....In the absence of regular employment of the

workmen, the appellant was not expected to maintain

seniority list of the employees engaged on daily wages

and in the absence of any proof by the respondent

regarding existence of the seniority list and his so-called

seniority, no relief could be given to him for non-

compliance with provisions of the Act. The courts could

have drawn adverse inference against the appellant only

when seniority list was proved be in existence and then

not produced before the court. In order to entite the

court to draw inference unfavourable to the party, the

court must be satisfied that evidence is in existence and

could have been proved." Finding of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranagar District Panchayat.....Appellant V/s

Dahyabhai Amarsinh....Respondent, is relevant &

applies to the case of applicant.

40. Bases on the findings related to issue No. 1 to 4 &

from the discussions as above, I am of the view that

applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the

statement of claim & action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India in terminating the services

of the workman Sh. Kamlesh Mali w.e.f. 30.8.06 without

following the provisions of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal & justified.

41. Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1304-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

losZ vkWQ bafM;k jktLFkku ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ lañ 48@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24-06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@27@2007&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2743

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015

S.O. 1304.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 48/2007) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

the Archaeologial Survey of India, Rajasthan and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 24.06.2015.

[No. L-42012/27/2007-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

I.D. 48/2007

Reference No. L-42012/30/2007-IR (DU) dated 23.07.2007

Sh. Mitha Lal Mali

S/o Shri Sita Ram Mali

R/o 6 Ghar, Ramsingh Pura

Post Sherpur,

Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)

V/s

The Regional Officer

Archaeological Survey of India

Ranthambhor Durg,

Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).

For the Applicant

:

Shri M.F. Beig, Advocate.

For the Non-applicant :

Sh. T.P. Sharma, Advocate.

AWARD

18.05.2015

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 and 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred

the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:—

"Whether the action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India, in terminating the

services of their workman Shri Mitha Lal, w.e.f.

30.08.2006, without following the provisions of

Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute

Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled to?"

2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant

workman was appointed as daily wager on 19.08.03. He

was discharging his duty since appointment honestly and

there was no complaint by opposite party against his work.

Whatever work was assigned to the applicant he completed

that work to best of his ability. Applicant was never served

with any notice and no charge was ever proved against

him.

3. He was appointed on daily wage but his period of

appointment or nature of work was not fixed. The work for

which he was appointed by opposite party is still existing

and the nature of work is permanent. The applicant is

'workman' and the opposite party is 'employer' according

to the definition of 'workman' and 'employer' provided in

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The applicant had worked

for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately

preceding the date of termination and his services were

terminated on 30.08.06 without giving any notice or any

payment in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in

violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

His termination is unfair labour practice and victimisation

adopted by opposite party.

4. Before the termination of the workman seniority list

was neither prepared nor published by the opposite party

which is violation of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes Rules,

1958. At the time of termination of the service workmen

junior to the applicant were retained in service by the

opposite party in violation of section 25-G of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The opposite party has made new

appointment after termination of the services of the

applicant workman but no priority was given to the applicant

which is violation of section 25-H of Industrial Disputes

Act. 1947 and Rule 78 of Industrial Disputes Rule, 1958. It

has been further alleged by the applicant that applicant

requested the opposite party to take the applicant in his

employment but he was not taken back and due to non co-

operation of opposite party conciliation also failed before

the Conciliation Officer. The opposite party has accepted

before the Conciliation Officer that applicant was kept on

work and work was taken from him, hence, the relation of

employer and workman has not been denied by the opposite

party but to escape from the liability of illegal termination it

has been denied that opposite party is 'Industry' within the

meaning of definition provided in Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. The true position is that according to the activities

and work the opposite party is an 'industry' according to

the definition of industry provided under Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The provisions of Industrial Disputes

act, 1947 have not been followed by opposite party, hence,

the termination of the services of the workman is illegal

and unfair.

5. It has been further alleged that allegation of the

opposite party before the Conciliation Officer is that the

applicant workman was absent from duty from 15.03.2006

to 08.06.2006 but workman was not given any show cause

notice. Neither any charge sheet was served upon him

regarding absence from place of duty nor any charge was

proved. The applicant had made his stand clear before the

2744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management that he has not remained absent during above

said period and instead of absence he has been working in

that period. The applicant had completed more than two

years of service and he was demanding from the opposite

party to declare him semi permanent employee. As a result

of above demand of the applicant the opposite party instead

of making him semi permanent terminated the services of

the applicant. The applicant is jobless since the date of

termination. It is, therefore, requested that termination order

dated 30.08.06 be declared illegal and applicant reinstated

with all pay and emoluments along with continuity in

service.

6. In reply statement in para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,

12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the statement of claim

have been specifically denied. In additional reply it has

been alleged in para 2 that the applicant labourer was not

appointed by the opposite party and he was engaged as

casual labourer for carrying out casual work on the basis

of part time contract and such engagement was coming to

end immediately after completion of the work. It has also

been alleged that the applicant labourer has never completed

240 days in any year and applicant is under an obligation

to prove this fact the document. Statement of para 5 of

statement of claim has been said to be baseless and nature

of the work for which applicant was engaged is alleged to

be casual. Against para 7 it has been alleged that to succeed

in his sinister design applicant has fabricated the statement.

7. It has been alleged against para 8 of the statement of

claim that applicant was called for a fixed works and his

services were coming to end after completion of the work.

Relation between applicant and opposite party as workman

and employer has been specifically denied against para 9

of the statement of claim and has been alleged that since

he was never appointed the question of such relationship

does not arise. The applicant does not fall within the

definition of workman and the department of the opposite

party does not fall within the definition of Industry.

Applicant was never engaged permanently and he was

called only when there was work. He was neither appointed

on any post after following the rules of appointment nor

any appointment letter was issued to him, therefore,

question of termination of his services does not arise. It

has been alleged in para 11 of reply that it is pertinent to

note that applicant was not removed from the institution of

opposite party and the fact is that the work was over hence,

his services automatically came to an end. It was not

necessary to give notice to the applicant because such

notice is issued only to such workman who permanently

work for a period of more than 240 days and the department

is not satisfied with work of such workman, in that event

such workman may be removed after serving one months

notice. In case of applicant after completion of work he

himself had gone elsewhere.

8. Against para 13 of statement of claim it has been

alleged that workmen like applicant are not given any

appointment letter neither they are deemed regular workmen

of the department. Workman like applicant are engaged on

daily wage basis according to need of a particular work for

its execution and they are removed after completion of

work or at the end of financial year or on other technical

ground on suspension or stoppage of work. Against para

14 of statement of claim it has been alleged that nature of

the new recruitment by the department whose nature is

permanent is done by following the legal procedure and

selection is made out of person who posses the prescribed

eligibility. Applicant was not appointed on any vacant post

under grade 'D'. At the time of engaging the applicant

workman he was briefed orally that he is engaged against a

specific work and nature of the work is purely temporary

and casual in which applicant is not entitled to derive

benefit of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The

allegation of the applicant is wrong that he was removed

out of animosity. In absence of casual work the services of

the workman authomatically comes to an end. In last

paragraph of the reply it has been prayed that order of

dismissal be passed against the statement of claim.

9. In rejoinder dated 03.06.2010 filed by applicant,

statement of claim has been reiterated and statement of

reply submitted by the opposite party has been alleged to

be wrong.

10. In preliminary objection against statement of claim

filed by opposite party it has been alleged that applicant

was neither given any appointment nor there was any

sanctioned or vacant post. Department of the opposite

party is not covered within the definition of industry as

provided in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. In

B-40/97, Gobardhan Lal Meena v/s Archaeological Survey

of India, it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its

award dated 18.1.2001 that Archaeological Survey of India

is not covered within the definition of industry. Industrial

Tribunal, Jabalpur in its award dated 9.6.2003 has held that

Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within

the meaning of section 2(j) if Industrial Disputes Act. It has

also been alleged that the applicant was engaged for

completion of casual work for fixed period of time and he

has not worked for 240 days in any of the year, hence, he is

not entitled to the benefit of Industrial Dispute Act. It has

also been alleged that the applicant left the work on his

own even before the completion of the work, hence, he is

not entitled to any relief.

11. Against preliminary objection it has been alleged by

the applicant that preliminary objections are not tenable at

belated stage. It has also been alleged that various

precedents it has been alleged that preliminary objections

are to be decided along with other issues on merits. It has

also been alleged that preliminary objections are evidence

based, hence, opposite party be directed to file the reply to

the statement of claim.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2745

12. Under mentioned issues were framed on 27.7.2011

by the then learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based

on pleadings of both the parties:—

(1) Whether the workman had worked for more than 240

days as daily wager during period 19.8.03 to 30.8.06

preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged

termination and whose service was terminated in violation

of section 25-F of the Act?

(2) At the time of terminating the service of the workman

the juniors person to him were retained by the management

in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act?

(3) Whether subsequent to the termination of the

workman fresh hands were engaged by the non-applicant

management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act?

(4) Whether non-applicant establishment is an 'industry'

within the meaning of section 2-J of the I.D. Act?

13. Applicant has filed document W-1 which is reply of

opposite party before conciliation proceeding, affidavit of

the applicant in evidence and statement of number of

working days in calendar year 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006.

Applicant has been cross-examination by opposite party

on his affidavit.

14. In documentary evidence, opposite party has filed

statement of payment made to applicant & other workmen

which is 24 page. This document has been filed on

directionof tribunal given on application of the applicant.

Opposite party has filed affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh in

evidence. Sh. Brijraj Singh has been cross examined on

28.10.14 by applicant side.

15. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for

both the parties & perused the file. Written argument have

been filed by both the parties which is on record.

16. Following citations have been referred on behalf of

applicant:—

(i) 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of

India......Appellant v/s N. Sundaramoney...... Re-

spondent.

(ii) Judgement and order dated 21.2.1978 in civil ap-

peal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Bangalore Water Sup-

ply and Sewerage Board etc.etc. v/s A. Rajappa and

others etc.etc.

(iii) 1983 LAB.I.C. 1629 (Supreme Court), D.P.

Maheshwari...Appellant v/s Delhi Administration

& others......Respondents.

(iv) Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tri-

bunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through

the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor

Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Ar-

chaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi.

(v) RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of

Commerce......Appellant v/s/ Presiding Officer, Cen-

tral Govt. Industrial Tribunal and others (23).

(vi) RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash

Sharma......Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board,

Jaipur and other (122)......Respondent.

(vii) Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tri-

bunal-Cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dis-

pute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horti-

culturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal

Agra v/s Suresh Chandra.

17. Following citations have been referred on behalf of

opposite party:—

(i) Award dated 26.11.1986 passed by Central Admin-

istrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in O.A. No. 33/86,

Govind Kanji Parmar and others......Petitioner v/s

Union of India and others......Respondents.

(ii) Award dated 30.10.1996 passed by Central Admin-

istrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in O.A.

No. 331 to 334/1993, Devi Singh and

others......petitioners v/s Union of India and

others......Respondents.

(iii) Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Govern-

ment Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena

v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of

India, Science Branch, Deharadun.

18. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the

applicant that applicant has completed continuous 240 days

of service in every year but he has removed from service

by opposite party in violation of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been argued

that contention of the opposite party is against the law

that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry'

within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. Against this it

has been argued by learned counsel for the opposite party

that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry'

and there is no violation of section 25-F, G & H of the Act.

It has also been argued that applicant was neither appointed

nor any appointment letter was issued. There was no

advertisement for recruitment. It has also been argued that

applicant was engaged on part time contract for casual

work of repair and soon after completion of the work

engagement of the applicant was over. It has also been

alleged that his engagement was on daily wage and as the

work of repair of the wall was of temporary character hence,

on account of end of job and none availability of further

job the applicant himself had left the place of job. It has

also been argued that whenever there is availability of work,

workmen are engaged on daily wage basis for the job.

Reference has been made by both the parties towards

precedents submitted by them in favour of their respective

claim.

2746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

19. Before issue No. 1 is decided it appears desirable to

take up issues 2, 3 & 4 for decision because decision of

these issues are important and having relevance in decision

of issue No. 1.

Issue No. 2

20. This issue relates to violation of section 25-G of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of

applicant. Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

reads as under:—

"Section 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment.—

Where any workman in an industrial establishment,

who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he

belongs to a particular category of workmen in that

establishment, in the absence of any agreement

between the employer and the workman in this behalf,

the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman

who was the last person to be employed in that

category, unless for reasons to be recorded the

employer retrenches any other workman."

21. From perusal of the provision contained in section

25-G it appears that whenever in ordinary course of

business a workman is required to be retrenched then the

last person employed by the employer shall be retrenched

first unless there is special reason for retrenchment of a

person other than the last employed persons. From perusal

of statement of claim it is evident that in para 13 it has been

alleged that there has been violation of section 25-G of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of

the applicant & junior to the applicant was retained in

service at the time of his removal but no one has been

named in statement of claim that who is the person junior

to the applicant who was retained. In the affidavit also filed

by applicant an evidence there is no mention of a person

junior to him who was retained in the service at the time of

his removal. In the cross-examination of the applicant on

page 2 this question has been placed before him & he has

alleged that when he was removed at that time all other

workmen were also removed. This statement of the applicant

during cross-examination obviously indicates that no one

junior to him was retained & removal of all the workman

together is also indicative of the fact of Cessation or

completion of a particular work for which they are engaged.

Here, it is also pertinent to note that it has been repeatedly

argued by learned counsel for opposite party that in fact

there has been no appointment, therefore, the question of

removal of the applicant from employment does not arise.

From the perusal of the cross-examination of Sh. Brijraj

Singh, Deputy Superintendent (Archaeology) it is clear

that no assistance can be taken on this point from his

cross examination. Bases on above discussion, it is clear

that the applicant has failed to prove that at the time of

termination of the service of applicant workman, juniors to

him were retained by the management in contravention of

section 25-G of the I.D. Act. Issue No. 2 is accordingly

decided in negative against the applicant.

Issue No. 3

22. This issue is to the effect that whether subsequent

to the termination of the workman fresh workmen were

engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of

section 25-H of the I.D. Act. For convenience provision of

section 25-H is reproduced below which reads as under:

"Sec. 25-H. Re-employment of retrenched

workmen——Where any workmen are retrenched,

and the employer purposes to take into his employ

any persons he shall, in such manner as may be

prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched

workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves

for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen,

who offer themselves for re-employment shall have

preference over other persons.

23. The above mentioned section 25-H provides that a

retrench employee shall have preference in appointment

over rest, if management, intends to employ a workman &

the management is under an obligation to give opportunity

to retrench workman so that he can offer himself for

employment. If opportunity is not given by management it

will amount to violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act, Para 14

of statement of claim indicates that after termination of the

services of applicant new appointments were made without

preference given to applicant. In reply to para 14 of

statement of claim non-applicant has denied the

appointment. There is no documentary evidence on record

about new appointment. Para 6 of affidavit of applicant

filed in evidence indicates that new appoitments were made

with no preference to applicant but in cross-examination

applicant has admitted that in his affidavit & statement of

claim he has not alleged that after his removal who was

appointment & when. The applicant has also admitted that

in statement of claim also he has not given detail of newly

appointed persons. In para 11 of affidavit of Sh. Brijraj

Singh witness for opposite party violation of section 25-G

& H has been specifically denied. In cross-examination of

Sh. Brijraj Singh there is nothing significant to draw an

inference about violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Based

on above discussion & appreciation of evidence adduced

by the parties I am of the view that the applicant has failed

to prove the violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act.

regarding appointment of fresh hands subsequent to

termination of his service. Issue no. 3 is accordingly decided

against the applicant.

Issue No. 4

24. This issue is to the effect that whether establishment

of the non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an

Industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the I.D. Act.

A preliminary objection has been raised by non-applicant

that establishment of the non-applicant is not covered under

definition of 'Industry' as indicated in section 2(j) of the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2747

I.D. Act. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on

Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government

Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case

no. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science),

Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch,

Deharadun. Against this, it has been argued by learned

counsel for the applicant that establishment of non-

applicant is covered by the definition of 'Industry'. Reliance

has been placed by non-applicant on Judgement & order

dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal no. 753-754(T) of 1975,

Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc. v/s A.

Rajappa & others etc. etc., Award dated 21.10.1988 passed

by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen

through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor

Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological

Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi & Award dated

17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute no. 9 of 2005 in Deputy

Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of

India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra. I have very

carefully gone through cases cited by both the parties.

Judgement dated 9.6.03 by CGIT, Jabalpur has not been

filed by opposite party.

25. In Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

in CGIT case no. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s

Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science

Branch, Deharadun, cited by learned counsel for the

opposite party it has been held in decision of issue no. 4

that provision of I.D. Act, 1947 apply to the case. Issue no.

4 has dealt with the fact that provisions of I.D. Act apply to

the opposite party or not. Cases cited by learned counsel

for the applicant indicate that Archaeological Survey of

India is covered within the definition of 'Industry' as

provided in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. In Award dated

21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. Act.

No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President,

Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The

Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath,

New Delhi, discussing the case of Judgement & order dated

21.2.1978 in civil appeal no. 753-754(T) of 1975, Bangalore

Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc. v/s A. Rajappa &

others etc. etc., it has been held by the CGIT, Delhi that

Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. In Award

dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute no. 9 of 2005 in Deputy

Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of

India, Tajmahal Agra v/s. Suresh Chandra, it has been held

by CGIT, Kanpur that Archaeological Survey of India is an

'Industry'. From decision of the cases cited on behalf of

both parties & from the fact & circumstances of the present

case, I am of the view that establishment of non-applicant

Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry' within the

meaning of section 2(J) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Issue no. 4 is accordingly decided in affirmative against

the non-applicant.

Issue no. 1

26. This issue is to the effect that whether workman had

worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period

19.8.03 to 30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of

his alleged termination & whether his service was

terminated in violation of section 25-H of the Act? It has

been argued by learned counsel for the applicant & has

also been alleged in the written argument that the applicant

has worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during

period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of

termination on 30.8.06 & termination of the services of

applicant is in violation of section 25-F of Industrial

Disputes Act, hence, the order of termination is fit to be set

aside with continuity in service along with back wages.

Against this, it has been argued by the learned counsel for

the opposite party & has also been alleged in the written

argument that applicant was not appointed by non-

applicant, no appointment letter was issued, there was no

advertisement for any appointment. It has also been argued

that applicant was engaged on daily wage basis for repair

of the walls of the fort which is a work of temporary nature.

It has also been argued that applicant voluntarily left the

place of work on account of non availability of work. It has

also been said that on availability of work engagement is

made on daily wage basis for the period of work only &

provision of section 25-H is not attracted in the case of

applicant . It has also been alleged that in view of case of

the applicant covered under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D.

Act, compliance of provision of section 25-F is not required.

27. According to statement of claim applicant was

appointed on daily wage on 19.8.03 & was terminated on

30.8.06 without notice or pay in lieu of notice or

retrenchment compensation in violation of secton 25-F of

I.D. Act. What was the post held by the applicant during

employment has not been alleged in statement of claim.

About the nature of the work of the applicant has alleged

that whatever work was assigned by the opposite party

applicant was performing that work. It has also been alleged

that his engagement was neither for a fix work nor for a fix

period. The applicant has alleged that he has worked for

more than 240 days in every year. In affidavit filed in

evidence in support of above statement of claim the

applicant has repeated the allegation of statement of claim.

No other co-worker has been produced as witness in

evidence to support the allegation of statement of claim. In

written statement it has been specifically denied by

opposite party that applicant has worked for more than 240

days in a year instead it has been alleged that applicant

has not worked for 240 days in any of the year. Sh. Brijraj

Singh has specifically denied in para 3 of his affidavit that

the applicant has worked for 240 days in any of the year. In

above fact & circumstances, the burden of proof lies on

applicant to prove that he has worked for more than 240

days in a year immediately preceding the date of his

termination on 30.8.06 as alleged in statement of claim. The

2748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

applicant has alleged in his cross examination that he has

not stated in his affidavit in evidence or in statement of

claim that for how many days he has worked in any

corresponding year. He has admitted that he has filed

document W-1 & in W-1 nature of work has been mentioned

for which he was engaged & in W-1 it has also been

mentioned that the nature of work includes 'special repair

work' & such mention in W-1 is correct. Thus, it shall appear

that two documents relating to total number of days of

work has been filed by the applicant which is W-1 & W-2.

W-2 is the document which appeared to be prepared by

workman whereas W-1 is the document which appears to

be reply submitted by management during conciliation

proceedings. From document W-2 if taken into consideration

for calculating the period of 240 days immediately preceding

the date of termination on 30.8.06 then total number of

days on which the workman has worked between 30.8.05

to 30.8.06 comes out to be 171 days. From document W-1 it

comes out to be 233 days but lacks continuity. Thus,

workman has failed to prove that he has continuously

worked for more than 240 days in the year immediately

preceding the date of his termination. It shall also appear

from both the documents W-1 & W-2 that there is no

continuous work in the year.

28. Document regarding period & corresponding

working days filed by management on order of the tribunal

passed on application of the applicant provides following

detail:—

Period of work

Number of working days

19.2.2003 to 20.3.2003

26

25.8.03 to 1.9.03

07

17.1.04 to 16.2.04

28

13.4.04 to 13.5.04

25

15.5.04 to 14.6.04

23

9.6.04 to 9.7.04

27

18.7.04 to 27.7.04

10

11.7.04 to 10.8.04

18

12.8.04 to 11.9.04

26

13.9.04 to 13.10.04

28

14.10.04 to 31.10.04

17

1.11.04 to 1.12.04

26

3.12.04 to 2.1.05

27

4.1.05 to 3.2.05

27

19.1.05 to 18.2.05

13

6.2.05 to 8.3.05

16

9.3.05 to 17.3.05

09

19.3.05 to 13.4.05

24

6.6.05 to 6.7.05

27

7.10.05 to 6.11.05

29

8.11.05 to 8.12.05

30

10.12.05 to 9.1.06

28

11.1.06 to 10.2.06

29

12.2.06 to 14.3.06

27

Total number of days between

30.8.05 to 30.8.06

143 days.

29. The statement of above table submitted by opposite

party regarding statement of work done by workman

indicates that from the date of termination on 30.8.06

applicant has worked only for 143 days in a year

immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06.

Thus, it is evident that the workman has not worked

continuously for 240 days immediately preceding the date

of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that

applicant has failed to prove that he has worked for more

than 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination.

From the entire cross examination Sh. Brijraj Singh there

appears nothing to derive in favour of applicant that he

has worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding the

date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear

that applicant has failed to prove that he has continously

worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately

preceding the date of his termination.

30. As far as the question of violation of section 25-F of

Industrial Dispute is concerned it has been argued by the

learned counsel for the applicant that there has been

violation of section 25-F in terminating the services of the

applicant, against this learned counsel for the opposite

party has argued that there is no violation of section 25-F

of I.D. Act & section 25-F does not apply in the case of

applicant who was neither employed nor terminated & his

engagement has been only for specific period & specific

work & he has left the workplace on his own accord. It has

also been argued that as the question of terminating the

services of the applicant does not arise, because he was

not given any employment & there was no advertisement

for employment, hence, section 25-F does not apply to the

case of the applicant. Section 25-F reads as under:—

"25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of

workmen.— No workman employed in any industry

who has been in continuous service for not less than

one year under an employer shall been retrenched

by that employer until:—

(a) The workman has been given on month's notice in

writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and

the period of notice has expired, or the workman

has been paid in lieu such notice, wages for the

period of the notice:

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of

retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2749

completed year of continous service) or any part

thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the

appropriate Government (or such authority as may

be specified by the appropriate Government by

notification in the Oficial Gazette.)

31. Continuous service as indicated in section 25-F(1)

has been defined in section 25-B(1) (ii) which reads as

under:—

Section 25-B. Definition of continuous service.— For

the purposes of this Chapter

(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service

for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrrupted service,

including service which may be interrupted on account of

sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which

is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is

not due to any fault on the part of the workman.

(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within

the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year or six

months, he shall be deemed to be in continous service

under an employer:—

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a

period of twelve calendar months preceding the

date with reference to which calculation is to be

made, has actually worked under the employer for

not less than:—

(i)

one hundred and ninety days in the case of a

workman employed below ground in a mine;

and

(ii) two hundered and forty days, in any other

case;

32. Section 2 (oo) provides meaning of retrenchment

which reads as under:—

"2(oo)-----------"retrenchment" means the termination

by the employer of the service of a workman for any

reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment

inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not

include—

(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of

superannuation if the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

contains a stipulation in that behalf: or

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

of the non-renewal of the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

on its expiry or of such contract being terminated

under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein;

or

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the

ground of continued ill-health;

33. In 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranagar District Panchayat .......Appellant V/s.

Dahyabhai Amarsing ....... Respondent, taking together &

analyzing the integrated impact of section 2(oo), section

25-B section 25-F in paragraph 7 page 43, it has been helf

by Hon'ble Supreme Court, "............. To attract provisions

of Section 25-F, the workman claiming protection under it,

has to prove that there exists relationship of employer and

employee; that he is a workman within the meaning of

section 2(s) of the Act; the establishment in which he is

employed is an industry within the meaning of the Act and

he must have put in not less than one year of continuous

service as defined by section 25-B under the employer.

The conditions are cumulative. If any of these conditions

is missing the provisions of section 25-F will not be

attracted. To get relief from the court the workman has to

establish that he has right to continue in service and that

his service has been terminated without complying with

the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The section

postulates three conditions to be fulfilled by an employer

for getting a valid retrenchment, namely:—

(i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating the

reasons for rtrenchment or that the workman has

been paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of

such notice;

(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which shall

be equivalent to 15 days average pay for every

completed year of continuous service or any part

thereof, in excess of six months;

(iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the

prescribed manner.

34. Looking into the above provisions & law laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to attract the provision of

section 25-F, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove

that he has worked continuously for more than 240 days in

a calendar year immediately preceding the date of his

termination, thus, provision of section 25-F is not attracted

in the case of applicant. From above discussion, I am of the

view that the applicant has not worked continuously for

more than 240 days as daily wager immediately preceding

12 months from the date of his alleged termination on

30.08.06 & his services were not terminated in violation of

section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. Issue No. 1 is

accordingly decided in negative against the applicant.

35. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the

applicant that even if section 25-F is not attracted in case

of applicant, he is entitled to the benefits of section 25-G &

25-H which are independent of section 25-F. Reliance has

been placed on RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank

of Commerce ........ Appellant v/s. Presiding Officer, Central

Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others & RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur

2750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma ........Petitioner v/s. Rajasthan

Text Book Board, Jaipur & other (122).........Respondent.

Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for

opposite party that provision of section 25-G & 25-H is not

attracted in the case of applicant. I have carefully gone

through both the above reported cases.

36. In case of Oriental Bank of Commerce v/s. Presiding

Officer respondent 2 was employed in the bank of petitioner

from 23.5.85 to 28.5.85 for a period of 79 days. He was said

to be appointed for leave period only & his engagement

came to end after expiry of period of leave. The respondent

raised industrial dispute relating to section 25-G & 25-H

which was referred for adjudication. After the evidence of

both the parties tribunal came to the conclusion that there

was violation of section 25-G & section 25-H, heance,

respondent was directed to be reinstated & it was also

directed that he will entitled to pay from the date of joining

because respondent was said to be on the job in some

other place. On the basis of evidence tribunal came to

conclusion that management has failed to indicate that

who was on leave in whose place respondent was employed

during leave vacancy, hence, this fact was not admitted by

tribunal that engagement of respondent was for the period

of leave vacancy. It was admitted by the witness of the

management that when respondent was removed from

service employee Sh. Virendra Singh junior to the

respondent was working. It was also admitted by

management witness that after removal of respondent Sh.

Mulan Rasool & Sh. Narendra Bhatt were appointed on

the post of peon but respondent was not given opportunity.

Thus, there was violation of section 25-G & 25-H. Petition

against the order of tribunal was dismissed by Division

Bench of Hon'ble High Court & award of the trubunal was

confirmed.

37. In RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma

......Petitioner v/s. Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur &

others (122)..........Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble

High Court that section 25-G & 25-H & 25-F are independent

of each other & section 25-G & 25-H are not dependent on

section 25-F. it has also been held that section 25-G & 25-H

are applicable irrespective of the fact that the workman has

completed 240 days of service or not. It has been further

held that rule 76 to78 of Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 are

independent of each other & mandatory in nature. Violation

of these rules will given a cause of action in favour of

workman to claim compensation, damages & re-

employment. To derive the benefits of these rules continous

service is not necessary & workmen not having completed

240 days of service are also entitled to the benefits of Rule

76 to 78. In this case petitioner Sh. Suryaprakash Sharma

was retrenched from service before completion of 240 days

& was not entitled for the benefits u/s 25 I.D. Act. The only

question involved in this case was about applicability of

section 25-H of I.D. Act read with Rule 77 & 78. The case of

the respondent was that after discharge of petitioner on

1.11.88 they had employed few persons although persons

who employed were discharged on 19.8.89. The petition of

the petitioner was allowed & he was held entitled to claim

wages by way of compensation for the period during which

his junior remain in employment.

38. In 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of

India....Appellent v/s N. Sundaramoney...Respondent, it has

ben held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that read with section

25-B(2) if provision of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute

Act is attracted incase of the workman, he cannot be

retrenched without payment of compensation at the time

of retrenchment as prescribed therein. It is pertinent to

mention that facts & circumstances of the present case are

different comparing to the facts of State Bank of India v/s

N. Sundarmoney, hence, law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney is not

attracted in the present case.

39. From decision of issue no. 2 & 3 it is clear that

applicant is not entitled to the benefit of violation of section

25-G & 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act because violation of

these two sections have not been proved by the applicant.

It is also clear from the evidence on record that no seniority

list is in existence as the case of opposite party is that there

was no employment in respect of applicant & he was only

engaged casually as & when there was existence of work.

Applicant has not proved his appointment or termination

by filing any documentary evidence in this behalf who was

engaged as daily wager. It has been held by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranager District Panchayat...Appellant V/s

Dahyabhai Amarsinh...Respondent, in para 18 of the

judgement in relation to section 25-G & section 25-H as

under:—

"..........In the absence of regular employment of the

workmen, the appellant was not expected to maintain

seniority list of the employees engaged on daily

wages and in the absence of any proof by the

respondent regarding existence of the seniority list

and his so-called seniority, no relief could be given

to him for non-compliance with provisions of the

Act. The courts could have drawn adverse inference

against the appellant only when seniority list was

proved to be in existence and then not produced

before the court. In order to entitle the court to draw

inference unfavourable to the party, the court must

be satisfied that evidence is in existence and could

have been proved." Finding of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranagar District Panchayat .....Appellant V/s

Dahyabhai Amarsinh.....Respondent, is relevant &

applies to the case of applicant.

40. Bases on the findings related to issue no. 1 to 4 &

from the discussions as above, I am of the view that

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2751

applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the

statement of claim & action of the management of

Archaeolgical Survey of India in terminating the services

of the workman Sh. Mitha Lal w.e.f. 30.8.06 without following

the provisions of section 25-F. 25-G & 25-H of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 is legal & justified.

41. Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1305-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkfdZ;ksykWftdy

losZ vkWQ bafM;k jktLFkku ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ

49@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 24@06@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@26@2007&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015

S.O. 1305.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby pubished the award (I.D. No. 49/2007) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

the Archaeological Survey of India, Rajasthan and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 24/06/2015.

[No. L-42012/26/2007-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY,

Presiding Officer

I.D. 49/2007

Reference No. L42012/26/2007-IR(DU) dated: 23.7.2007

Sh. Laxmi Narayan

S/o Shri Laddu Lal Mali

R/o Village & Post Sherpur

Khilchipur,

Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)

V/s

The Regional Officer

Archaeological Survey of India

Ranthambhor Durg,

Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).

For the Applicant

: Sh. M.F. Beig, Advocate

For the Non- Applicant

: Sh. T.P. Sharma, Advocate

AWARD

18.5.2015

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred

the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India, in terminating the

services of their workman Shri Laxmi Narayan, w.e.f.

30.8.2006, without following the provisions of Sections

25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is

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

entitled to?"

2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant

workman was appointed as daily wager on 14.7.03. He was

discharging his duty since appointment honestly & there

was no complaint by opposite party against his work.

Whatever work was assigned to the applicant he completed

that work to best of his ability. Applicant was never served

with any notice & no charge was ever proved against him.

3. He was appointed on daily wage but his period of

appointment or nature of work was not fixed. The work for

which he was appointed by opposite party is still existing

& the nature of work is permanent. The applicant is

'workman'& the opposite party is émployer' according to

the definition of 'workman'& émployer' provided in

Industrial Distputes Act, 1947. The applicant had worked

for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately

preceding the date of termination & his services were

terminated on 30.8.06 without giving any notice or any

payment in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in

violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

His termination is unfair labour practice & victimisation

adopted by opposite party.

4. Before the termination of workman seniority list was

neither prepared nor published by the opposite party which

is violation of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes rules, 1958. At

the time of termination of the service workmen junior to the

applicant were retained in service by the opposite paty in

violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The opposite party has made new appointment after

termination of the services of the applicant workman but

no priority was given to the applicant which is violation of

section 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 & Rule 78 of

of Industrial Disputes Act, 1958. It has been further alleged

2752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

by the applicant that applicant requested the opposite party

to take the applicant in his employment but he was not

taken back & due to non co-operation of opposite party

conciliation also failed before the Conciliation Officer. The

opposite party has accepted before the conciliation Officer

that applicant was kept on work & work was taken from

him, hence, the relation of employer & workman has not

been denied by the opposite party but to escape from the

liability of illegal termination is has been denied that

opposite party is Índustry' whithin the meaning of definition

provided in of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The true

position is that according to the activities & work the

opposite party is an índustry' according to the definition

of industry provided under of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have not

been followed by opposite party, hence the termination of

the services of the workman is illegal & unfair.

5. It has been further alleged that allegation of the

opposite party before the concilation Officer is that the

applicant workman was absent from duty from 15.3.2006 to

8.6.2006 but workman was not given any show cause notice.

Neither any charge sheet was served upon him regarding

absence from place of duty nor any charge was proved.

The applicant had made his stand clear before the

management that he has not remained absent during above

said period & instead of absence he has been working in

that period. The applicant had completed more than two

years of service & he was demanding from the opposite

party to declare him semi permanent employee. As a result

of above demand of the applicant the opposite party instead

of making him semi permanent terminated the services of

the applicant. The applicant is jobless since the date of

termination. It is, therefore, requested that termination order

dated 30.08.06 be declared illegal & applicant reinstated

with all party & emoluments along with continuity in

service.

6. In reply statement in para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,

12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 of the statement of claim

have been specifically denied. In additional reply it has

been alleged in para 2 that the applicant labourer was not

appointed by the opposite party & he was engaged as

casual labourer for carrying out casual work on the basis

of part time contract & such engagement was coming to

end immediately after completion of the work. It has also

been alleged that the applicant labourer has never

completed 240 days in any year & applicant is under an

obligation to prove this fact by document. Statement of

para 5 of statement of claim has been said tobe baseless

& nature of the work for which applicant was engaged is

alleged to be casual. Against par 7 it has been alleged

that to succeed in his sinister design applicant has

fabricated the statement.

7. It has been alleged against para 8 of the statement of

claim that applicant was called for a fixed works & his

services were coming to end after completion of the work.

Relation between applicant & opposite party as workman

& employer has been specifically denied against para 9 of

the statement of claim & has been alleged that since he

was never appointed the question of such relationship

does not arise. The applicant does not fall within the

definition of workman & the department of the opposite

party does not fall within the definition of Industry.

Applicant was never engaged permanently & he was called

only when there was work. He was neither appointed on

any post after following the rules of appointment nor any

appointment letter was issued to him, therefore, question

of termination of his services does not arise. It has been

alleged in para 11 of reply that it is pertinent to note that

applicant was not removed from the institution of opposite

party & the fact is that the work was over hence, his services

automatically came to an end. It was not necessary to give

notice to the applicant because such notice is issued only

to such workman who permanently work for a period of

more than 240 days & the department is not satisfied with

work of such workman, in that even such workman may be

removed after serving one months notice. In case of

applicant after completion of work he himself had gone

elsewhere.

8. Against para 13 of statement of claim it has been

alleged that workmen like applicant are not given any

appointment letter neither they are deemed regular workmen

of the department. Workman like applicant are engaged on

daily wage basis according to need of a particular work for

its execution & they are removed after completion of work

or at the end of financial year or on other technical ground

on suspension or stoppage of work. Agaisnt para 14 of

statement of claim it has been alleged that nature of the

new recruitment by the department whose nature is

permanent is done by following the legal procedure &

selection is made out of person who possess the prescribed

eligibility. Applicant was not appointed on any vacant post

under grade 'D'. At the time of engaging the applicant

workman he was briefed orally that he is engaged against a

specific work & nature of the work is purely temporary &

casual in which applicant is not entitled to derive benefit of

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The allegation of

the applicant is wrong that he was removed out of

animosity. In absence of casual work the services of the

workman automatically comes to an end. In last paragraph

of the reply it has been prayed that order of dismissal be

passed against the statement of claim.

9. In rejoinder dated 3.6.2010 filed by applicant, statement

of claim has been reiterated & statement of reply submitted

by the opposite party has been alleged to be wrong.

10. In preliminary objection against statement of claim

filed by opposite party it has been alleged that applicant

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2753

was neither given any appointment nor there was any

sanctioned or vacant post. Department of the opposite

party is not covered within the definition of industry as

provided in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. In B-40/

97, GobardhanLal Meena, v/s Archaeological Survey of

India, it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its award

dated 18.1.2001 that Archaeological Survey of India is not

covered within the definition of industry. Industrial

Tribunal, Jabalpur in its award dated 9.6.2003 has held that

Archaeological Survey of India is not an Índustry' within

the meaning of section 2(j) if Industrial Disputes Act. It has

also been alleged that the applicant was engaged for

completion of casual work for fixed period of time & he has

not worked for 240 days in any of the year, hence, he is not

entitled to the benefit of if Industrial Disputes Act. It has

also been alleged that the applicant left the work on his

own even before the completion of the work, hence, he is

not entitled to any relief.

11. Against preliminary objection it has been alleged by

the applicant that preliminary objections are not tenable at

belated stage. It has also been alleged that various

precedents it has been alleged that preliminary objections

are to be decided along with other issues on merits. It has

also been alleged that preliminary objections are evidence

based, hence, opposite party be directed to file the reply to

the statement of claim.

12. Under mentioned issues were framed on 27.7.2011

by the then learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based

on pleadings of both the parties :—

(1)

Whether the workman had worked for more than 240

days as daily wager during period 14.07.03 to 30.08.06

preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged

termination and whose service was terminated in

violation of section 25-F of the Act?

(2)

At the time of terminating the service of the workman

the juniors person to him were retained by the

management in contravention of section 25-G of the

I.D. Act?

(3)

Whether subsequent to the termination of the

workman fresh hands were engaged by the non-

applicant management in violation of section 25-H

of the I.D. Act?

(4)

Whether non-applicant establishment is an 'industry'

within the meaning of section 2-J of the I.D. Act?

13. Applicant has filed document w-1 which is reply of

opposite party before conciliation proceeding, affidavit of

the applicant in evidence and statement of number of

working days in calendar year 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006.

Applicant has been cross examination by opposite party

on his affidavit.

14. In documentary evidence, opposite party has filed

statement of payment made to applicant and other workmen

which is 22 page. This document has been filed on direction

of tribunal given on application of the applicant. Opposite

party has filed affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh in evidence. Sh.

Brijraj Singh has been cross examined on 28.10.14 by

applicant side.

15. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for

both the parties and perused the file. Written argument

have been filed by both the parties which is on record.

16. Following citations have been referred on behalf of

applicant:—

i. 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of

India.......Appellant v/s Sundaramoney............

Respondent

ii Judgement and order dated 21.02.1978 in civil

appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water

Supply and Sewerage Board etc. etc. v/s A. Rajappa

and others etc. etc.

iii. 1983 LAB.I.C. 1629 (Supreme Court), D.P.

Maheshwari........Appellant v/s Delhi Administration

and others..........Respondents.

iv. Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial

Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen

through the President, Archaeological Survey

Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director

General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath,

New Delhi.

v. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of

Commerce..........Appellant v/s Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others

(23).

vi. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash

Sharma.........Petitioner v/s Rajasthan text Book

Board, Jaipur and other (122)............Respondent.

vii. Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial

Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial

Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending

Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India,

Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra.

17. Following citations have been referred on behalf of

the opposite party:—

i. Award dated 26.11.1986 passed by Central

Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in O.A. No.

33/86, Govind Kanji Parmar and others

.............Petitioner v/s Union of India and others

................Respondents.

ii. Award dated 30.10.1996 passed by Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur

in O.A. No. 331 to 334/1993, Devi Singh and others

...........petitioners v/s Union of India and others

...........Respondents.

2754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

iii. Award dated 18.01.2001 passed by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court,

Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal

Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological

Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun.

18. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the

applicant that applicant has completed continuous 240 days

of service in every year but he has removed from service

by opposite party in violdation section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been argued

that contention of the opposite party is against the law

that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry'

within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. Against this it

has been argued by learned counsel for the opposite party

that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry'

and there is no violation of section 25-F, G and H of the

Act. It has also been argued that applicant was neither

appointed nor any appointment letter was issued. There

was no advertisement for recruitment. It has also been argued

that applicant was engaged on part time contract for casual

work of repair and soon after completion of the work

engagement of the applicant was over. It has also been alleged

that his engagement was on daily wage and as the work of

repair of the wall was of temporary character hence, on

account of end of job and none availability of further job the

applicant himself had left the place of job. It has also been

aruged that whenever there is availability of work, workmen

are engaged on daily wage basis for the job. Reference has

been made by both the parties towards precedents submitted

by them in favour of their respective claim.

19. Before issue No. 1 is decided it appears desirable to

take up issues 2, 3 and 4 for decision because decision of

these issues are important and having relevance in decision

of issue No. 1.

Issue No. 2

20. This issue relates to violation of section 25-G of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of

applicant. Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

reads as under:—

"Section 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment—Where

any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a

citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a

particular category of workmen in that establishment, in

the absence of any agreement between the employer

and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall

ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person

to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to

be recorded the employer retrenches any other

workman."

21. From perusal of the provision contained in section

25-G it appears that whenever in ordinary course of

business a workman is required to be retrenched then the

last person employed by the employer shall be retrenched

first unless there is special reason for retrenchment of a

person other than the last employed person. From persusal

of statement of claim it is evident that in para 13 it has been

alleged that there has been violation of section 25-G of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of

the applicant and junior to the applicant was retained in

service at the time of his removal but no one has been

named in statement of claim that who is the person junior

to the applicant who was retained. In the affidavit also filed

by applicant as evidence there is no mention of a person

junior to him who was retained in the service at the time of

his removal. In the cross examination of the applicant on

page 2 this question has been placed before him and he

has alleged that when he was removed at that time all other

workmen were also removed. This statement of the applicant

during cross examination obviously indicates that no one

junior to him was retained & removal of all the workman

together is also indicate of the fact of Cessation or

completion of a particular work for which they are engaged.

Here, it is also pertinent to note that it has been repeatedly

argued by learned counsel for opposite party that in fact

there has been no appointment, therefore, the question of

removal of the applicant from employment does not arise.

From the perusal of the cross examination of Sh. Brijral

Singh, Deputy Superintendent (Archaeology) it is clear

that no assistance can be taken on assistance can be taken

on this point from his cross examination. Bases on above

discussion, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove

that at the time of termination of the service of applicant

workman, juniors to him were retained by the management

in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act. Issue

No. 2 is accordingly decided in negative against the

applicant.

Issue No. 3

2. This issue is to the effect that whether subsequent to

the termination of the workman fresh workmen were

engaged by the non-applicant management inviolation of

section 25-G of the I.D. Act. For convenience provision

section 25-H is reproduced below which reads as under:—

"Sec. 25-H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen—

Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer

purposes to take into his employ any persons he shall,

in such manner as may be prescribed, give an

opportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens

of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such

retrenched workmen, who offer themselves for re-

employment shall have preference over other persons.

23. The above mentioned section 25-H provides that a

retrench employee shall have preference in appointment

over rest, if management, intends to employ a workman &

the management is under an obligation to give opportunity

to retrench workman so that he can offer himself for

employment. If opportunity is not given by management it

will amount to violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Para 14

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2755

of statement of claim indicates that after termination of the

services of applicant new appointments were made without

preference given to applicant. In reply to para 14 of

statement of claim non-applicant has denied the

appointment. There is no documentary evidence on record

about new appointment. Para 6 of affidavit of applicant

filed in evidence indicates that new appointments were

made with no preference to applicant but in cross

examination applicant has admitted that in his affidavit &

statement of claim he has not alleged that after his removal

who was appointed & when. The applicant has also

admitted that in statement of claim also he has not given

detail of newly appointed persons. In para 11 of affidavit of

Sh. Brijraj Singh witness for opposite party violation of

section 25-G & H has been specifically denied. In cross

examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there is nothing significant

to draw in inference about violation of section 25-H of I.D.

Act. Based on above discussion & appreciation of evidence

adduced by the parties I am of the view that the applicant

has failed to prove the violation of section 25-H of the I.D.

Act regarding appointment of fresh hands subsequent to

termination of his service. Issue No. 3 is accordingly decided

agains the applicant.

Issue No. 4

24. This issue is to the effect what whether establishment

of the non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an

Industry within the meaning of section 2(J) of the I.D. Act.

A preliminary objection has been raised by non-applicant

that establishment of the non-applicant is not covered under

definition of 'Industry' as indicated in section 2(J) of the

I.D. Act. . Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on

Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government

Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case

N. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena V/s Director (Science),

Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch,

Deharadun. Against this, it has been argued by learned

counsel for the applicant that estalishment of non-applicant

is covered by the definition of 'Industry'. Reliance has been

placed by non-applicant on Judgement & order dated

21.2.1978 is civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore

Water Supply & Sewerage board etc.etc. v/s A. Rajappa &

others etc. etc., Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial

Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the

President, Archaeologicaly Survey Mazdoor Union, New

Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of

India, Janpath, New Delhi & Award dated 17.11.2008 passed

by Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Kanpur, in

Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending

Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Thajmahal

Agra v/s Suresh Chandra. I have very carefully gone

through cases cited by both the parties, Judgement dated

9.6.03 by CGIT, Jabalpur has not been filed by opposite

party.

25. In Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s

Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science

Branch, Deharadun, cited by learned counsel for the

opposite party it has been held in decision of issue No. 4

that provision of I.D. Act, 1947 apply to the case. Issue

No. 4 has dealt with the fact that provisions of I.D. Act

apply to the opposite party or not. Cases cited by learned

counsel for the applicant indicate that Archaeological

Survey of India is covered within the definition of 'Industry'

as provided in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. In Award dated

21.10.1998 passed by Industrial Tribunnal, Delhi in I.D. No.

78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological

Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi V/s The Director

General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New

Delhi, discussing the case of Judgement & order dated

21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore

Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc. v/s A. Rajappa &

others etc.etc., it has been held by the CGIT, Delhi that

Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. In Award

dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunnal Cum

Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute no. 9 of 2005 in

Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological

Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra, it has

been held by CGIT, Kanpur that Archaeological Survey of

India is an 'Industry'. From decision of the cases cited on

behalf of both the parties & from the fact & circumstances

of the present case, I am of the view that establishment of

non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an

'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(J) of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. Issue No. 4 is accordingly decided in

affirmative against the non-applicant.

Issue no. 1

26. This issue is to the effect whether the workman had

worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period

14.7.03 to 30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of

his alleged termination & whether his service was

terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act? It has

been argued by learned counsel for the applicant & has

also been alleged in the written argument that the applicant

has worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during

period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of

termination on 30.8.06 & termination of the services of

applicant is in violation of section 25-F of Industrial

Disputes Act, hence, the order of termination is fit to be set

aside with continuity in service along with back wages.

Against this, it has been argued by the learned counsel for

the opposite party & has also been alleged in the written

arguments that applicant was not appointed by non-

appointment letter was issued, there was no advertisement

for any appointment. It has also been argued that applicant

was engaged on daily wage basis for repair of the walls of

the fort which is a work of temporary nature. It has also

been argued that applicant voluntarily left the place of

work on account of none availability of work. It has also

been said that on vailability of work engagement is made

2756

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

on daily wage basis for the period of work only & provision

of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of applicant. It

has been alleged that in view of case of the applicant

covered under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D. Act compliance

of provisions of section 25-F is not required.

27. According to statement of claim applicant was

appointed on daily wage on 14.7.03 & was terminated on

30.8.06 without notice or pay in liew of notice or

retrenchment compensation in violaiton of section 25-F of

I.D. Act. What was the post held by the applicant during

employment has not been alleged in statement of claim.

About the nature of the work the applicant has alleged that

whatever work was assigned by the opposite party

applicant was performing that work. It has also been alleged

that his engagement was neither for a fix work nor for a fix

period. The applicant has alleged that he has worked for

more than 240 days in every year. In affidavit filed in

evidence in support of above statement of claim the

applicant has repeated the allegation of statement of claim.

No other co-worker has been produced as witness in

evidence to support the allegation of statement of claim. In

written statement it has been specifically denied by

opposite party that applicant has worked for more than 240

days in a year instead it has been alleged that applicant

has not worked for 240 days in any of the year. Sh. Brijraj

Singh has specifically denied in para 3 of his affidavit that

the applicant has worked for 240 days in any of the year. In

above fact & circumstances, the burden of proof lies on

applicant to prove that he has worked for more than 240

days in a year immediately preceding the date of his

termination on 30.8.06 as alleged in statement of claim. The

applicant has alleged in his cross examination that he has

not stated in his affidavit in evidence or in statement of

claim that for how many days he has worked in any

corresponding year. He has admitted that he has filed

document W-1 & in W-1 nature of work has been mentioned

for which he was engaged & in W-1 it has also been

mentioned that the nature of work includes 'special repair

work' & such mention in W-1 is correct. Thus, it shall appear

that two documents relating to total number of days of

work has been filed by the applicant which is W-1 & W-2.

W-2 is the document which appeared to be prepared by

workmen whereas W-1 is the document which appears to

be reply submitted by management during conciliation

proceedings. From document W-2 if taken into consideration

for claculating the period of 240 days immediately preceding

the date of termination on 30.8.06 then total number of

days on which the workman has worked between 30.8.05

to 30.8.06 comes out to be 140 days. From document W-1 it

comes out to be 205 days but lacks continuity. Thus,

workman has failed to prove that he has continuously

worked for more than 240 days in the year immediately

preceding the date of his termination. It shall also appear

from both the documents W-1 & W-2 that there is no

continuous work in the year.

28. Document regarding period & corresponding

working days filed by management on order of the tribunal

passed on application of the applicant provides following

detail:-

Period of work

Number of working days.

19.2.2003 to 20.3.2003

27

19.9.04 to 16.2.04

27

13.4.04 to 13.5.04

27

15.5.04 to 8.6.04

21

9.6.04 to 9.7.04

28

18.7.04 to 27.7.04

10

11.7.04 to 10.8.04

19

12.8.04 to 11.9.04

26

13.9.04 to 12.10.04

26

14.10.04 to 31.10.04

16

1.11.04 to 1.12.04

27

3.12.04 to 2.1.05

28

4.1.05 to 3.2.05

28

6.2.05 to 8.3.05

27

9.3.05 to 17.3.05

9

19.3.05 to 13.4.05

24

6.6.05 to 6.7.05

27

8.11.05 to 8.12.05

29

10.12.05 to 9.1.06

27

11.1.06 to 10.2.06

29

12.2.06 to 14.3.06

27

9.6.06 to 7.7.06

28

Total number of days between

30.8.05 to 30.8.2006

140 days.

29. The statement of above table submitted by opposite

party regarding statement of work done by workman

indicates that from the date of termination on 30.8.06

applicant has worked only for 140 days in a year

immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06.

Thus it is evident that the workman has not worked

continuously for 240 days immediately preceding the date

of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that

applicant has failed to prove that he has worked for more

than 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination.

From the entire cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there

appears nothing to derive in favour of applicant that he

has worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding the

date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear

that applicant has failed to prove that he has continuously

worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately

preceding the date of his termination.

30. As far as the question of violation of section 25-F of

Industrial Dispute is concerned it has been argued by the

learned counsel for the applicant that there has been

violation of section 25-F in terminating the services of the

applicant, against this learned counsel for the opposite

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2757

party has argued that there is no violation of section 25-F

of I.D. Act & section 25-F does not apply in the case of

applicant who was neither employed nor terminated & his

engagement has been only for specific period & specific

work & he has left the workplace on his own accord. It has

also been argued that as the question of terminating the

services of the applicant does not arise, because has was

not given any employment & there was no advertisement

for employment, hence, section 25-F does not apply to the

case of the applicant. Section 25-F reads as under:-

"25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of

workmen.-No workman employed in any industry who has

been in continuous service for not less than one year under

an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until---

(a) The workman has been given on month's notice in

writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and

the period of notice has expired, or the workman

has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the

period of the notice:

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of

retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to fifteen days average pay for every

completed year of continuous service or any part

thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the

appropriate Government ( or such authority as may

be specified by the appropriate Government by

notification in the Official Gazette.)

31.

Continuous service as indicated in section

25-F(1) has been defined in section 25-B (1) (ii) which reads

as under:-

Section 25-B. Definition of continuous service. --

---For the purposes of this Chapter----

(1)

a workman shall be said to be in continuous service

for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted

service, including service which may be interrupted

on account of sickness or authorised leave or an

accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out

or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault

on the part of the workman.

(2)

where a workman is not in continuous service within

the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year or

six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous

service under an employer---

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during

a period of twelve calendar months preceding

the date with reference to which calculation is

to be made, has actually worked under the

employer for not less than----

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case

of a workman employed below ground in

a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other

case;

32.

Section 2 (oo) provides meaning of retrenchment

which reads as under:-

"2(oo)---"retrenchment" means the termination by the

employer of the service of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by

way of disciplinary action but does not include----

(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of

Superannuation if the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

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

of the non-renewal of the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

on its expiry or of such contract being terminated

under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein;

or

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the

ground of continued ill-health

33. In 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranagar District Panchayat....Appellant v/s

Dahyabhai Amarsinh.....Respondent, taking together &

analyzing the integrated impact of section 2(oo), section

25-B & section 25-F in paragraph 7 page 43, it has been

held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, "........To attract provisions

of Section 25-F, the workman claiming protection under it,

has to prove that there exists relationship of employer and

employee; that he is a workman within the meaning of

section 2(s) of the Act; the establishment in which he is

employed is an industry within the meaning of the Act and

he must have put in not less than one year of continuous

service as defined by section 25-B under the employer.

These conditions are cumulative. If any of these conditions

is missing the provisions of section 25-F will not be

attracted. To get relief from the court the workman has to

establish that he has right to continue in service and that

his service has been terminated without complying with

the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The section

postulates three conditions to be fulfilled by an employer

for getting a valid retrenchment, namely:-

(i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating the

reasons for retrenchment or that the workman has

been paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of

such notice;

(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which shall

be equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every

completed year of continuous service or any part

thereof, in excess of six months;

2758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the

prescribed manner.

34. Looking into the above provisions & the law laid

down by the Hob'ble Supreme Court to attract the provision

of section 25-F, it is clear that the applicant has failed to

prove that he has worked continuously for more than 240

days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of

his termination, thus, provision of section 25-F is not

attracted in the case of applicant. From above discussion,

I am of the view that the applicant has not worked

continuously for more than 240 days as daily wager

immediately preceding 12 months from the date of his

alleged termination on 30.8.06 & his services were not

terminated in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes

Act. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in negative against

the applicant.

35. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the

applicant that even if section 25-F is not attracted in case

of applicant, he is entitled to the benefits of section 25-G &

25-H which are independent of section 25-F. Reliance has

been placed on RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank

of Commerce....Appellant v/s Presiding Officer, Central

Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others & RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur

Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma ....Petitioner v/s Rajasthan

Text Book Board, Jaipur & other (122).....Respondent.

Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for

opposite party that provision of section 25-F & 25-H is not

attracted in the case of applicant. I have carefully gone

through both the above reported cases.

36. In case of Oriental Bank of Commerce v/s Presiding

Officer respondent 2 was employed in the bank of petitioner

from 23.5.85 to 28.5.85 for a period of 79 days. He was said

to be appointed for leave period only & his engagement

came to end after expiry of period of leave. The respondent

raised industrial dispute relating to section 25- G & 25-H

which was referred for adjudication. After the evidence of

both the parties tribunal came to the conclusion that there

was violation of section 25-G & section 25-H, hence,

respondent was directed to be reinstated & it was also

directed that he will entitled to pay from the date of joining

because respondent was said to be on the job in some

other place. On the basis of evidence tribunal came to

conclusion that management had failed to indicate that

who was on leave in whose place respondent was employed

during leave vacancy, hence, this fact was not admitted by

tribunal that engagement of respondent was for the period

of leave vacancy. It was admitted by the witness of the

management that when respondent was removed from

service employee Sh. Virendra Singh junior to the

respondent was working. It was also admitted by

management witness that after removal of respondent Sh.

Mulan Rasool & Sh. Narendra Bhatt were appointed on

the post of peon but respondent was not given opportunity.

Thus, there was violation of section 25-G & 25-H. Petition

against the order of tribunal was dismissed by Division

Bench of Hon'ble High Court & award of the tribunal was

confirmed.

37. In RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma

......Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur &

others (122).........Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble

High Court that section 25-G, 25-H & 25-F are independent

of each other & section 25-G & 25-H are not dependent on

section 25-F. It has also been held that section 25-G &

25-H are applicable irrespective of the fact that the workman

has completed 240 days of service or not. It has been further

held that rule 76 to 78 of Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 are

independent of each other & mandatory in nature. Violation

of these rules will give a cause of action in favour of

workman to claim compensation, damages & re-

employment. To derive the benefits of these rules

continuous service is not necessary & workmen not having

completed 240 days of service are also entitled to the

benefits of Rule 76 to 78. In this case petitioner Sh.

Suryaprakash Sharma was retrenched from service before

completion of 240 days & was not entitled for the benefits

u/s 25 of I.D. Act. The only question involved in this case

was about applicability of section 25-H of I.D. Act read

with Rule 77 & 78. The case of the respondent was that

after discharge of petitioner on 1.11.88 they had employed

few persons although persons who employed were

discharged on 19.8.89. The petition of the petitioner was

allowed & he was held entitled to claim wages by way of

compensation for the period during which his junior remain

in employment.

38. In 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of

India......Appellant v/s Sundaramoney......Respondent, it has

been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that read with section

25-B(2) if provision of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute

Act is attracted in case of the workman, he cannot be

retrenched without payment of compensation at the time

of retrenchment as prescribed therein. It is pertinent to

mention that facts & circumstances of the present case are

different comparing to the facts of State Bank of India v/s

N. Sundarmoney, hence, law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney is not

attracted in the present case.

39. From decision of issue No. 2 & 3 it is clear that

applicant is not entitled to the benefit for violation of section

25-G & 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act because violation of

these two sections have not been proved by the applicant.

It is also clear from the evidence on record that no seniority

list is in existence as the case of opposite party is that there

was no employment in respect of applicant & he was only

engaged casually as & when there was existence of work.

Applicant has not proved his appointment or termination

by filing any documentary evidence in this behalf who was

engaged as daily wager. It has been held by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2759

Surendranagar District Panchayat .......Appellant V/s

Dahyabhai Amarsinh...... Respondent, in para 18 of the

judgement in relation to section 25-G & section 25-H as

under:-

"..................In the absence of regular employment of the

workmen, the appellant was not expected to maintain

seniority list of the employees engaged on daily wages

and in the absence of any proof by the respondent

regarding existence of the seniority list and his so-called

seniority, no relief could be given to him for non-

compliance with provisions of the Act. The courts could

have drawn adverse inference against the appellant only

when seniority list was proved to be in existence and

then not produced before the court. In order to entitle

the court to draw inference unfavourable to the party,

the court must be satisfied that evidence is in existence

and could have been proved." Finding of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranagar District Panchayat............Appellant V/s

Dahyabhai Amarsinh...... Respondent, is relevant &

applies to the case of applicant.

40. Bases on the findings related to issue No. 1 to 4 &

from the discussions as above, I am of the view that

applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the

statement of claim & action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India in terminating the services

of the workman Sh. Laxmi Narayan w.e.f. 30.8.06 without

following the provisions of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal & justified.

41. Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1306-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkfdZ;ksykWftdy

losZ vkWQ bafM;k jktLFkku ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ

50@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 24@06@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@28@2007&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015

S.O. 1306.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby pubished the award (I.D. No. 50/2007) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

the Archaeological Survey of India, Rajasthan and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 24/06/2015.

[No. L-42012/28/2007-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY,

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. 50/2007

Reference No. L-42012/28/2007-IR(DU)

dated: 23.7.2007

Sh. Babulal Mali

S/o Shri Sitaram Mali

R/o 6 Ghar , Ramsingh Pura,

Post Sherpur,

Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)

V/s

The Regional Officer

Archaeological Survey of India

Ranthambhor Durg,

Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).

For the Applicant

:

Sh. M.F. Beig, Adovcate.

For the Non-

:

Sh. T.P. Sharma, Adovcate

Applicant

AWARD

18.5.2015

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred

the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India, in terminating the

services of their workman Shri Babu Lal, w.e.f.

30.8.2006, without following the provisions of

Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute

Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled to?"

2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant

workman was appointed as daily wager on 14.7.03. He was

discharging his duty since appointment honestly & there

was no complaint by opposite party against his work.

Whatever work was assigned to the applicant he completed

that work to best of his ability. Applicant was never served

with any notice & no charge was ever proved against him.

3. He was appointed on daily wage but his period of

appointment or nature of work was not fixed. The work for

2760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

which he was appointed by opposite party is still existing

& the nature of work is permanent. The applicant is

'workman'& the opposite party is émployer' according to

the definition of 'workman'& émployer' provided in

Industrial Distputes Act, 1947. The applicant had worked

for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately

preceding the date of termination & his service were

terminated on 30.8.06 without giving any notice or any

payment in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in

violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

His termination is unfair labour practice & victimisation

adopted by opposite party.

4. Before the termination of workman seniority list was

neither prepared nor published by the opposite party which

is violaion of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes rules, 1958. At

the time of termination of the service workmen junior to the

applicant were retained in service by the opposite paty in

violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The opposite party has made new appointment after

termination of the services of the applicant workman but

no priority was given to the applicant which is violation of

section 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 & Rule 78 of

of Industrial Disputes Act, 1958. It has been further alleged

by the applicant that applicant requested the opposite party

to take the applicant in his employment but he was not

taken back & due to non co-operation of opposite party

conciliation also failed before the Conciliation Officer. The

opposite party has accepted before the conciliation Officer

that applicant was kept on work & work was taken from

him, hence, the relation of employer & workman has not

been denied by the opposite party but to escape from the

liability of illegal termination is has been denied that

opposite party is Índustry' whithin the meaning of definition

provided in of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The true

position is that according to the activities & work the

opposite party is an índustry' according to the definition

of industry provided under of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have not

been followed by opposite party, hence the termination of

the services of the workman is illegal & unfair.

5. It has been further alleged that allegation of the

opposite party before the concilation Officer is that the

applicant workman was absent from duty from 15.3.2006 to

8.6.2006 but workman was not given any show cause notice.

Neither any charge sheet was served upon him regarding

absence from place of duty nor any charge was proved.

The applicant had made his stand clear before the

management that he has not remained absent during above

said period & instead of absence he has been working in

that period. The applicant had completed more than two

years of service & he was demanding from the opposite

party to declare him semi permanent employee. As a result

of above demand of the applicant the opposite party instead

of making him semi permanent terminated the services of

the applicant. The applicant is jobless since the date of

termination. It is, therefore, requested that termination order

dated 30.08.06 be declared illegal & applicant reinstated

with all party & emoluments along with continuity in

service.

6. In reply statement in para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,

12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 of the statement of claim

have been specifically denied. In additional reply it has

been alleged in para 2 that the applicant labourer was not

appointed by the opposite party & he was engaged as

casual labourer for carrying out casual work on the basis

of part time contract & such engagement was coming to

end immediately after completion of the work. It has also

been alleged that the applicant labourer has never completed

240 days in any year & applicant is under an obligation to

prove this fact by document. Statement of para 5 of

statement of claim has been said tobe baseless & nature of

the work for which applicant was engaged is alleged to be

casual. Against par 7 it has been alleged that to succeed in

his sinister design applicant has fabricated the statement.

7. It has been alleged against para 8 of the statement of

claim that applicant was called for a fixed works & his

services were coming to end after completion of the work.

Relation between applicant & opposite party as workman

& employer has been specifically denied against para 9 of

the statement of claim & has been alleged that since he

was never appointed the question of such relationship

does not arise. The applicant does not fall within the

definition of workman & the department of the opposite

party does not fall within the definition of Industry.

Applicant was never engaged permanently & he was called

only when there was work. He was neither appointed on

any post after following the rules of appointment nor any

appointment letter was issued to him, therefore, question

of termination of his services does not arise. It has been

alleged in para 11 of reply that it is pertinent to note that

applicant was not removed from the institution of opposite

party & the fact is that the work was over hence, his services

automatically came to an end. It was not necessary to give

notice to the applicant because such notice is issued only

to such workman who permanently work for a period of

more than 240 days & the department is not satisfied with

work of such workman, in that even such workman may be

removed after serving one months notice. In case of

applicant after completion of work he himself had gone

elsewhere.

8. Against para 13 of statement of claim it has been

alleged that workmen like applicant are not given any

appointment letter neither they are deemed regular workmen

of the department. Workman like applicant are engaged on

daily wage basis according to need of a particular work for

its execution & they are removed after completion of work

or at the end of financial year or on other technical ground

on suspension or stoppage of work. Against para 14 of

statement of claim it has been alleged that nature of the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2761

new recruitment by the department whose nature is

permanent is done by following the legal procedure &

selection is made out of person who possess the prescribed

eligibility. Applicant was not appointed on any vacant post

under grade 'D'. At the time of engaging the applicant

workman he was briefed orally that he is engaged against a

specific work & nature of the work is purely temporary &

casual in which applicant is not entitled to derive benefit of

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The allegation of

the applicant is wrong that he was removed out of

animosity. In absence of casual work the services of the

workman automatically comes to an end. In last paragraph

of the reply it has been prayed that order of dismissal be

passed against the statement of claim.

9. In rejoinder dated 3.6.2010 filed by applicant, statement

of claim has been reiterated & statement of reply submitted

by the opposite party has been alleged to be wrong.

10. In preliminary objection against statement of claim

filed by opposite party it has been alleged that applicant

was neither given any appointment nor there was any

sanctioned or vacant post. Department of the opposite

party is not covered within the definition of industry as

provided in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. In B-40/

97, GobardhanLal Meena, v/s Archaeological Survey of

India, it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its award

dated 18.1.2001 that Archaeological Survey of India is not

covered within the definition of industry. Industrial

Tribunal, Jabalpur in its award dated 9.6.2003 has held that

Archaeological Survey of India is not an Índustry' within

the meaning of section 2(j) if Industrial Disputes Act. It has

also been alleged that the applicant was engaged for

completion of casual work for fixed period of time & he has

not worked for 240 days in any of the year, hence, he is not

entitled to the benefit of if Industrial Disputes Act. It has

also been alleged that the applicant left the work on his

own even before the completion of the work, hence, he is

not entitled to any relief.

11. Against preliminary objection it has been alleged by

the applicant that preliminary objections are not tenable at

belated state. It has also been alleged that various

precedents it has been alleged that preliminary objections

are to be decided also with other issues on merits. It has

also been alleged that preliminary objections are evidence

based, hence, opposite party be directed to file the reply to

the statement of claim.

12. Under mentioned issues were framed on 27.7.2011

by the then learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based

on pleadings of both the parties:

(1) Whether the workman had worked for more than 240

days as daily wager during period 14.07.03 to 30.08.06

preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged

termination and whose service was terminated in violation

of section 25-F of the Act?

(2) At the time of terminating the service of the workman

the juniors person to him were retained by the management

in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act?

(3) Whether subsequent to the termination of the

workman fresh hands were engaged by the non-applicant

management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act?

(4) Whether non-applicant establishment is an 'industry'

within the meaning of section 2-J of the I.D. Act?

13. Applicant has filed document w-1 which is reply of

opposite party before conciliation proceeding, affidavit of

the applicant in evidence and statement of number of

working days in calendar year 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006.

Applicant has been cross examination by opposite party

on his affidavit.

14. In documentary evidence, opposite party has filed

statement of payment made to applicant and other workmen

which is 17 page. This document has been filed on direction

of tribunal given on application of the applicant. Opposite

party has filed affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh in evidence. Sh.

Brijraj Singh has been cross examined on 28.10.14 by

applicant side.

15. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for

both the parties and perused the file. Written argument

have been filed by both the parties which is on record.

16. Following citations have been referred on behalf of

applicant:—

i. 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of

India.......Appellant v/s N. Sundaramoney ............

Respondent

ii Judgement and order dated 21.02.1978 in civil

appeal No. 753-54(T) of 1975, Banglore Water

Supply and Sewerage Board etc. etc. v/s A. Rajappa

and others etc. etc.

iii. 1983 LAB.I.C. 1629 (Supreme Court), D.P.

Maheshwari........Appellant v/s Delhi Administration

and others..........Respondents.

iv. Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial

Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen

through the President, Archaeological Survey

Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director

General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath,

New Delhi.

v. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of

Commerce..........Appellant v/s Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others

(23).

vi. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash

Sharma.........Petitioner v/s Rajasthan text Book

Board, Jaipur and other (122)............Respondent.

2762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vii. Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial

Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial

Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending

Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India,

Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra.

17. Following citations have been referred on behalf of

the opposite party:—

i. Award dated 26.11.1986 passed by Central Admin-

istrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in O.A. No. 33/86,

Govind Kanji Parmar and others ............. Petitioner

v/s Union of India and others ................ Respon-

dents.

ii. Award dated 30.10.1996 passed by Central Admin-

istrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in O.A.

No. 331 to 334/1993, Devi Singh and others ...........

petitioners v/s Union of India and others ...........

Respondents.

iii. Award dated 18.01.2001 passed by Central Govern-

ment Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jaipur

in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena

v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of

India, Science Branch, Deharadun.

18. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the

applicant that applicant has completed continuous 240 days

of service in every year but he has removed from service

by opposite party in violdation section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been argued

that contention of the opposite party is against the law

that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry'

within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. Against this it

has been argued by learned counsel for the opposite party

that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry'

and there is no violation of section 25-F, G and H of the

Act. It has also been argued that applicant was neither

appointed nor any appointment letter was issued. There

was no advertisement for recruitment. It has also been

argued that applicant was engaged on part time contract

for casual work of repair and soon after completion of the

work engagement of the applicant was over. It has also

been alleged that his engagement was on daily wage and

as the work of repair of the wall was of temporary character

hence, on account of end of job and none availability of

further job the applicant himself had left the place of job. It

has also been aruged that whenever there is availability of

work, workmen are engaged on daily wage basis for the

job. Reference has been made by both the parties towards

precedents submitted by them in favour of their respective

claim.

19. Before issue No. 1 is decided it appears desirable to

take up issues 2, 3 and 4 for decision because decision of

these issues are important and having relevance in decision

of issue No. 1.

Issue No. 2

20. This issue relates to violation of section 25-G of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of

applicant. Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

reads as under:—

"Section 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment.—

Where any workman in an industrial establishment,

who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he

belongs to a particular category of workmen in that

establishment, in the absence of any agreement

between the employer and the workman in this behalf,

the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman

who was the last person to be employed in that

category, unless for reasons to be recorded the

employer retrenches any other workman."

21. From perusal of the provision contained in section

25-G it appears that whenever in ordinary course of

business a workman is required to be retrenched then the

last person employed by the employer shall be retrenched

first unless there is special reason for retrenchment of a

person other than the last employed person. From persusal

of statement of claim it is evident that in para 13 it has been

alleged that there has been violation of section 25-G of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of

the applicant and junior to the applicant was retained in

service at the time of his removal but no one has been

named in statement of claim that who is the person junior

to the applicant who was retained. In the affidavit also filed

by applicant as evidence there is no mention of a person

junior to him who was retained in the service at the time of

his removal. In the cross examination of the applicant on

page 2 this question has been placed before him and he

has alleged that when he was removed at that time all other

workmen were also removed. This statement of the applicant

during cross examination obviously indicates that no one

junior to him was retained & removal of all the workman

together is also indicate of the fact of Cessation or

completion of a particular work for which they are engaged.

Here, it is also pertinent to note that it has been repeatedly

argued by learned counsel for opposite party that in fact

there has been no appointment, therefore, the question of

removal of the applicant from employment does not arise.

From the perusal of the cross examination of Sh. Brijraj

Singh, Deputy Superintendent (Archaeology) it is clear

that no assistance can be taken on assistance can be taken

on this point from his cross examination. Bases on above

discussion, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove

that at the time of termination of the service of applicant

workman, juniors to him were retained by the management

in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act. Issue No. 2

is accordingly decided in negative against the applicant.

Issue No. 3

2. This issue is to the effect that whether subsequent to

the termination of the workman fresh workmen were

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2763

engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of

section 25-G of the I.D. Act. For convenience provision

section 25-H is reproduced below which reads as under:—

"Sec. 25-H. Re-employment of retrenched

workmen—Where any workmen are retrenched, and

the employer purposes to take into his employ any

persons he shall, in such manner as may be

prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched

workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves

for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen,

who offer themselves for re-employment shall have

preference over other persons.

23. The above mentioned section 25-H provides that a

retrench employee shall have preference in appointment

over rest, if management, intends to employ a workman &

the management is under an obligation to give opportunity

to retrench workman so that he can offer himself for

employment. If opportunity is not given by management it

will amount to violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Para 14

of statement of claim indicates that after termination of the

services of applicant new appointments were made without

preference given to applicant. In reply to para 14 of

statement of claim non-applicant has denied the

appointment. There is no documentary evidence on record

about new appointment. Para 6 of affidavit of applicant

filed in evidence indicates that new appointments were

made with no preference to applicant but in cross

examination applicant has admitted that in his affidavit &

statement of claim he has not alleged that after his removal

who was appointed & when. The applicant has also

admitted that in statement of claim also he has not given

detail of newly appointed persons. In para 11 of affidavit of

Sh. Brijraj Singh witness for opposite party violation of

section 25-G & H has been specifically denied. In cross

examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there is nothing significant

to draw in inference about violation of section 25-H of I.D.

Act. Based on above discussion & appreciation of evidence

adduced by the parties I am of the view that the applicant

has failed to prove the violation of section 25-H of the I.D.

Act regarding appointment of fresh hands subsequent to

termination of his service. Issue No. 3 is accordingly decided

agains the applicant.

Issue No. 4

24. This issue is to the effect what whether establishment

of the non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an

Industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the I.D. Act.

A preliminary objection has been raised by non-applicant

that establishment of the non-applicant is not covered under

definition of 'Industry' as indicated in section 2(j) of the

I.D. Act. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on

Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case

No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science),

Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch,

Deharadun. Against this, it has been argued by learned

counsel for the applicant that estalishment of non-applicant

is covered by the definition of 'Industry'. Reliance has been

placed by non-applicant on Judgement & order dated

21.2.1978 is civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore

Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc.etc. v/s A. Rajappa &

others etc. etc., Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial

Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the

President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New

Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of

India, Janpath, New Delhi & Award dated 17.11.2008 passed

by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in

Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending

Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Thajmahal

Agra v/s Suresh Chandra. I have very carefully gone through

cases cited by both the parties, Judgement dated 9.6.03 by

CGIT, Jabalpur has not been filed by opposite party.

25. In Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s

Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science

Branch, Deharadun, cited by learned counsel for the

opposite party it has been held in decision of issue No. 4

that provision of I.D. Act, 1947 apply to the case. Issue

No. 4 has dealt with the fact that provisions of I.D. Act

apply to the opposite party or not. Cases cited by learned

counsel for the applicant indicate that Archaeological

Survey of India is covered within the definition of 'Industry'

as provided in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. In Award dated

21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunnal, Delhi in I.D. No.

78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological

Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director

General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New

Delhi, discussing the case of Judgement & order dated

21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore

Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc. v/s A. Rajappa &

others etc.etc., it has been held by the CGIT, Delhi that

Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. In Award

dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy

Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of

India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra, it has been held

by CGIT, Kanpur that Archaeological Survey of India is an

'Industry'. From decision of the cases cited on behalf of

both the parties & from the fact & circumstances of the

present case, I am of the view that establishment of non-

applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'

within the meaning of section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. Issue No. 4 is accordingly decided in affirmative

against the non-applicant.

Issue No. 1

26. This issue is to the effect whether the workman had

worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period

14.7.03 to 30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of

2764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

his alleged termination & whether his service was

terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act? It has

been argued by learned counsel for the applicant & has

also been alleged in the written argument that the applicant

has worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during

period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of

termination on 30.8.06 & termination of the services of

applicant is in violation of section 25-F of Industrial

Disputes Act, hence, the order of termination is fit to be set

aside with continuity in service along with back wages.

Against this, it has been argued by the learned counsel for

the opposite party & has also been alleged in the written

argument that applicant was not appointed by non-

applicant, no appointment letter was issued, there was no

advertisement for any appointment. It has also been argued

that applicant was engaged on daily wage basis for repair

of the walls of the fort which is a work of temporary nature.

It has also been argued that applicant voluntarily left the

place of work on account of none availability of work. It

has also been said that on availability of work engagement

is made on daily wage basis for the period of work only &

provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of

applicant. It has been alleged that in view of case of the

applicant covered under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D. Act

compliance of provision of section 25-F is not required.

27. According to statement of claim applicant was

appointed on daily wage on 14.7.03 & was terminated on

30.8.06 without notice or pay in liew of notice or

retrenchment compensation in violaiton of section 25-F of

I.D. Act. What was the post held by the applicant during

employment has not been alleged in statement of claim.

About the nature of the work the applicant has alleged that

whatever work was assigned by the opposite party

applicant was performing that work. It has also been alleged

that his engagement was neither for a fix work nor for a fix

period. The applicant has alleged that he has worked for

more than 240 days in every year. In affidavit filed in

evidence in support of above statement of claim the

applicant has repeated the allegation of statement of claim.

No other co-worker has been produced as witness in

evidence to support the allegation of statement of claim. In

written statement it has been specifically denied by

opposite party that applicant has worked for more than 240

days in a year instead it has been alleged that applicant

has not worked for 240 days in any of the year. Sh. Brijraj

Singh has specifically denied in para 3 of his affidavit that

the applicant has worked for 240 days in any of the year. In

above fact & circumstances, the burden of proof lies on

applicant to prove that he has worked for more than 240

days in a year immediately preceding the date of his

termination on 30.8.06 as alleged in statement of claim. The

applicant has alleged in his cross-examination that he has

not stated in his affidavit in evidence or in statement of

claim that for how many days he has worked in any

corresponding year. He has admitted that he has filed

document W-1 & in W-1 nature of work has been mentioned

for which he was engaged & in W-1 it has also been

mentioned that the nature of work includes 'special repair

work' & such mention in W-1 is correct. Thus, it shall appear

that two documents relating to total number of days of

work has been filed by the applicant is W-1 & W-2. W-2 is

the document which appeared to be prepared by workmen

whereas W-1 is the document which appears to be reply

submitted by management during conciliation proceedings.

From document W-2 it taken into consideration for

claculating the period fo 240 days immediately preceding

the date of termination on 30.8.06 then total number of

days on whcih the workman has worked between 30.8.05

to 30.8.06 comes out to be 171 days. From document W-1 it

comes out to be 179 days but lacks continuity. Thus,

workman has failed to prove that he has continuously

worked for more than 240 days in the year immediately

preceding the date of his termination. It shall also appear

from both the documents W-1 & W-2 that there is no

continuous work in the year.

28. Document regarding period & corresponding

working days filed by management on order of the tribunal

passed on application of the applicant provides following

detail:—

Period of work

Number of working days.

9.9.04 to 30.9.04

12

14.10.04 to 31.10.04

11

1.11.04 to 28.11.04

25

3.12.04 to 2.1.05

27

4.1.05 to 3.2.05

31

6.2.05 to 8.3.05

26

9.3.05 to 17.3.05

09

19.3.05 to 13.4.05

24

15.2.05 to 17.3.05

NIL

5.5.05 to 4.6.05

28

6.6.05 to 6.7.05

13

8.10.05 to 7.11.05

28

9.11.05 to 9.12.05

30

11.12.05 to 10.1.06

28

11.1.06 to 10.2.06

29

12.2.06 to 14.3.06

28

9.6.06 to 7.7.06

27

Total number of days between

30.8.05 to 30.8.06

170 days.

29. The statement of above table submitted by opposite

party regarding statement of work done by workman

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2765

indicates that from the date of termination on 30.8.06

applicant has worked only for 170 days in a year

immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06.

Thus it is evident that the workman has not worked

continuously for 240 days immediately preceding the date

of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that

applicant has failed to prove that he has worked for more

than 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination.

From the entire cross-examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there

appears nothing to device in favours of applicant that he

has worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding the

date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear

that applicant has failed to prove that he has continuously

worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately

preceding the date of his termination.

30. As far as the question of violation of section 25-F of

Industrial Dispute is concerned it has been argued by the

learned counsel for the applicant that there has been

violation of section 25-F in terminating the services of the

applicant, against this learned counsel for the opposite

party has argued that there is no violation of section 25-F

of I.D. Act & section 25-F does not apply in the case of

applicant who was neither employed nor terminated & his

engagement has been only for specific period & specific

work & he has left the workplace on his own accord. It has

also been argued that as the question of terminating the

services of the applicant does not arise, because has was

not given any employment & there was no advertisement

for employment, hence, section 25-F does not apply to the

case of the applicant. Section 25-F reads as under:—

"25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of

workmen.-No workman employed in any industry

who has been in continuous service for not less than

one year under an employer shall be retrenched by

that employer until—

(a) The workman has been given on month's notice in

writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and

the period of notice has expired, or the workman

has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the

period of the notice:

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of

retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every

completed year of continuous service or any part

thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the

appropriate Government ( or such authority as may

be specified by the appropriate Government by

notification in the Official Gazette.)

31. Continuous service as indicated in section 25-F(1)

has been defined in section 25-B (1) (ii) which reads as

under:—

Section 25-B. Definition of continuous service. -----For

the purposes of this Chapter—

(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service

for a period of he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,

including service which may be interrupted on account of

sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which

is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is

not due to any fault on the part of the workman.

(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within

the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year or six

months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service

under an employer—

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a

period of twelve calendar months preceding the

date with reference to which calculation is to be

made, has actually worked under the employer for

not less than—

(i)

one hundred and ninety days in the case of a

workman employed below ground in a mine;

and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

32. Section 2 (00) provides meaning of retrenchment

which reads as under:-

"2(00)---"retrenchment" means the termination by the

employer of the service of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by

way of disciplinary action but does not include—

(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of

Superannuation if the contract of employment be-

tween the employer and the workman concerned

contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

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

of the non-renewal of the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

on its expiry or of such contract being terminated

under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein;

or

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the

ground of continued ill-health.

33. In 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranagar District Panchayat....Appellant v/s

Dahyabhai Amarsinh.....Respondent, taking together &

analyzing the integrated impact of section 2(oo), section

25-B & section 25-F in paragraph 7 page 43, it has been

held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, "........To attract provisions

of Section 25-F, the workman claiming protection under it,

has to prove that there exists relationship of employer and

employee; that he is a workman within the meaning of

section 2(s) of the Act; the establishment in which he is

2766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

employed is an industry within the meaning of the Act and

he must have put in not less than one year of continuous

service as defined by section 25-B under the employer.

These conditions are cumulative. If any of these conditions

is missing the provisions of section 25-F will not be

attracted. To get relief from the court the workman has to

establish that he has right to continue in service and that

his service has been terminated without complying with

the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The section

postulates three conditions to be fulfilled by an employer

for getting a valid retrenchment, namely:—

(i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating the

reasons for retrenchment or that the workman has

been paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of

such notice;

(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which shall

be equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every

completed year of continuous service or any part

thereof, in excess of six months;

(iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the pre-

scribed manner.

34. Looking into the above provisions & the law laid

down by the Hob'ble Supreme Court to attract the provision

of section 25-F, it is clear that the applicant has failed to

prove that he has worked continuously for more than 240

days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of

his termination, thus, provision of section 25-F is not

attracted in the case of applicant. From above discussion,

I am of the view that the applicant has not worked

continuously for more than 240 days as daily wager

immediately preceding 12 months from the date of his

alleged termination on 30.8.06 & his services were not

terminated in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes

Act. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in negative against

the applicant.

35. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the

applicant that even if section 25-F is not attracted in case

of applicant, he is entitled to the benefits of section 25-G &

25-H which are independent of section 25-F. reliance has

been placed on RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank

of Commerce....Appellant v/s Presiding Officer, Central

Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others & RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur

Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma ....Petitioner v/s Rajasthan

Text Book Board, Jaipur & other (122).....Respondent.

Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for

opposite party that provision of section 25-F & 25-H is not

attracted in the case of applicant. I have carefully gone

through both the above reported cases.

36. In case of Oriental Bank of Commerce v/s Presiding

Officer respondent No. 2 was employed in the bank of

petitioner from 23.5.85 to 28.5.85 for a period of 79 days. He

was said to be appointed for leave period only & his

engagement came to end after expiry of period of leave.

The respondent raised industrial dispute relating to section

25- G & 25-H which was referred for adjudication. After the

evidence of both the parties tribunal came to the conclusion

that there was violation of section 25-G & section 25-H,

hence, respondent was directed to be reinstated & it was

also directed that he will entitled to pay from the date of

joining because respondent was said to be on the job in

some other place. On the basis of evidence tribunal came

to conclusion that management had failed to indicate that

who was on leave in whose place respondent was employed

during leave vacancy, hence, this fact was not admitted by

tribunal that engagement of respondent was for the period

of leave vacancy. It was admitted by the witness of the

management that when respondent was removed from

service employee Sh. Virendra Singh junior to the

respondent was working. It was also admitted by

management witness that after removal of respondent

Sh. Mulan Rasool & Sh. Narendra Bhatt were appointed

on the post of peon but respondent was not given

opportunity. Thus, there was violation of section 25-G &

25-H. Petition against the order of tribunal was dismissed

by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court & award of the

tribunal was confirmed.

37. In RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma

......Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur &

others (122).........Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble

High Court that section 25-G, 25-H & 25-F are independent

of each other & section 25-G & 25-H are not dependent on

section 25-F. It has also been held that section 25-G &

25-H are applicable irrespective of the fact that the workman

has completed 240 days of service or not. It has been further

held that rule 76 to 78 of Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 are

independent of each other & mandatory in nature. Violation

of these rules will give a cause of action in favour of

workman to claim compensation, damages & re-

employment. To derive the benefits of these rules

continuous service is not necessary & workmen not having

completed 240 days of service are also entitled to the

benefits of Rule 76 to 78. In this case petitioner

Sh. Suryaprakash Sharma was retrenched from service

before completion of 240 days & was not entitled for the

benefits u/s 25 of I.D. Act. The only question involved in

this case was about applicability of section 25-H of I.D.

Act read with Rule 77 & 78. The case of the respondent

was that after discharge of petitioner on 1.11.88 they had

employed few persons although persons who employed

were discharged on 19.8.89. The petition of the petitioner

was followed & he was held entitled to claim wages by way

of compensation for the period during which his junior

remain in employment.

38. In 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of

India......Appellant v/s N. Sundaramoney......Respondent,

it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that read with

section 25-B(2) if provision of section 25-F of Industrial

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2767

Dispute Act is attracted in case of the workman, he cannot

be retrenched without payment of compensation at the

time of retrenchment as prescribed therein. It is pertinent

to mention that facts & circumstances of the present case

are different comparing to the facts of State Bank of India

v/s N. Sundarmoney, hence, law laid down by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney

is not attracted in the present case.

39. From decision of issue No. 2 & 3 it is clear that

applicant is not entitled to the benefit for violation of section

25-G & 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act because violation of

these two sections have not been proved by the applicant.

It is also clear from the evidence on record that no seniority

list is in existence as the case of opposite party is that there

was no employment in respect of applicant & he was only

engaged casually as & when there was existence of work.

Applicant has not proved his appointment or termination

by filling any documentary evidence in this behalf who

was engaged as daily wager. It has been held by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranagar District Panchayat .......Appellant V/s

Dahyabhai Amarsinh...... Respondent, in para 18 of the

judgement in relation to section 25-G & section 25-H as

under:—

"..................In the absence of regular employment of

the workmen, the appellant was not expected to

maintain seniority list of the employees engaged on

daily wages and in the absence of any proof by the

respondent regarding existence of the seniority list

and his so-called seniority, no relief could be given

to him for non-compliance with provisions of the

Act. The courts could have drawn adverse inference

against the appellant only when seniority list was

proved to be in existence and then not produced

before the court. In order to entitle the court to draw

inference unfavourable to the party, the court must

be satisfied that evidence is in existence and could

have been proved." Finding of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranagar District Panchayat............Appellant

V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh...... Respondent, is relevant

& applies to the case of applicant.

40. Bases on the findings related to issue No. 1 to 4 &

from the discussions as above, I am of the view that

applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the

statement of claim & action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India in terminating the services

of the workman Sh. Babu Lal w.e.f. 30.8.06 without following

the provisions of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 is legal & justified.

41. Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1307-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkfdZ;ksykWftdy

losZ vkWQ bafM;k jktLFkku ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ lañ 51@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@29@2007&vkbZvkj ¼Mh ;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015

S.O. 1307.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 51/2007) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

the Archaeological Survey of India, Rajasthan and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 24/06/2015.

[No. L-42012/29/2007-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY,

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. 51/2007

Reference NO. L-42012/29/2007-IR(DU) dated: 23.7.2007

Sh. Bhagchand Mali

S/o Shri Morpal Mali

R/o Village & Post Sherpur,

Khilchipur,

Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)

V/s

The Regional Officer

Archaeological Survey of India

Ranthambhor Durg,

Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).

For the Applicant

:

Sh. M.F. Bieg, Advocate.

For the Non-applicant

:

T.P. Sharma, Advocate.

AWARD

18.5.2015

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1& 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred

2768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:—

"Whether the action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India, in terminating the

services of their workman Shri Bhagchand Mali, w.e.f.

30.8.2006, without following the provisions of Sections

25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is

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

entitled to?"

2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant

workman was appointed as daily wager on 9.8.03. He was

discharging his duty since appointment honestly & there

was no complaint by opposite party against his work.

Whatever work was assigned to the applicant he completed

that work to best of his ability. Applicant was never served

with any notice & no charge was ever proved against him.

3. He was appointed on daily wage but his period of

appointment or nature of work was not fixed. The work for

which he was appointed by opposite party is still existing

& the nature of work is permanent. The applicant is

'workman' & the opposite party is 'employer' according to

the definition of 'workman' & 'employer' provided in

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The applicant had worked

for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately

preceding the date of termination & his services were

terminated on 30.8.06 without giving any notice or any

payment in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in

violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

His termination is unfair labour practice & victimisation

adopted by opposite party.

4. Before the termination of the workman seniority list

was neither prepared nor published by the opposite party

which is violation of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes Rules,

1958. At the time of termination of the service workmen

junior to the applicant were retained in service by the

opposite party in violation of section 25-G of Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947. The opposite party has made new

appointment after termination of the services of the

applicant workman but no priority was given to the applicant

which is violation of section 25-H of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 & Rule 78 of Industrial Disputes Rule, 1958. It

has been further alleged by the applicant that applicant

requested the opposite party to take the applicant in his

employment but he was not taken back & due to non co-

operation of opposite party conciliation also failed before

the Conciliation Officer. The opposite party has accepted

before the Conciliation Officer that applicant was kept on

work & work was taken from him, hence, the relation of

employer & workman has not been denied by the opposite

party but to escape from the liability of illegal termination it

has been denied that opposite party is 'Industry' within the

meaning of definition provided in Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. The true position is that according to the activities &

work the opposite party is an 'industry' according to the

definition of industry provided under Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

have not been followed by opposite party, hence, the

termination of the services of the workman is illegal & unfair.

5. It has been further alleged that allegation of the

opposite party before the Conciliation Officer is that the

applicant workman was absent from duty from 15.3.2006 to

8.6.2006 but workman was not given any show cause notice.

Neither any charge sheet was served upon him regarding

absence from place of duty nor any charge was proved.

The applicant had made his stand clear before the

management that he has not remained absent during above

said period & instead of absence he has been working in

that period. The applicant had completed more than two

years of service & he was demanding from the opposite

party to declare him semi permanent employee. As a result

of above demand of the applicant the opposite party instead

of making him semi permanent terminated the services of

the applicant. The applicant is jobless since the date of

termination. It is, therefore, requested that termination order

dated 30.8.06 be declared illegal & applicant reinstated with

all pay & emoluments along with continuity in service.

6. In reply statement in paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,

12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 of the statement of claim

have been specifically denied. In additional reply it has

been alleged in para 2 that the applicant labourer was not

appointed by the opposite party & he was engaged as

casual labourer for carrying out casual work on the basis

of part time contract & such engagement was coming to

end immediately after completion of the work. It has also

been alleged that the applicant labourer has never completed

240 days in any year & applicant is under an obligation to

prove this fact by document. Statement of para 5 of

statement of claim has been said to be baseless & nature of

the work for which applicant was engaged is alleged to be

casual. Against para 7 it has been alleged that to succeed

in his sinister design applicant has fabricated the statement.

7. It has been alleged against para 8 of the statement of

claim that applicant was called for a fixed works & his

services were coming to end after completion of the work.

Relation between applicant & opposite party as workman

& employer has been specifically denied against para 9 of

the statement of claim & has been alleged that since he

was never appointed the question of such relationship

does not arise. The applicant does not fall within the

definition of workman & the department of the opposite

party does not fall within the definition of Industry.

Applicant was never engaged permanently & he was called

only when there was work. He was neither appointed on

any post after following the rules of appointment nor any

appointment letter was issued to him, therefore, question

of termination of this services does not arise. It has been

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2769

alleged in para 11 of reply that it is pertinent to note that

applicant was not removed from the institution of opposite

party & the fact is that the work was over hence, his services

automatically came to an end. It was not necessary to give

notice to the applicant because such notice is issued only

to such workman who permanently work for a period of

more that 240 days & the department is not satisfied with

work of such workman, in that event such workman may be

removed after serving one months notice. In case of

applicant after completion of work he himself had gone

elsewhere.

8. Against para 13 of statement of claim it has been

alleged that workmen like applicant are not given any

appointment letter neither they are deemed regular workmen

of the department. Workman like applicant are engaged on

daily wage basis according to need of a particular work for

its execution & they are removed after completion of work

or at the end of financial year or on other technical ground

on suspension or stoppage of work. Against para 14 of

statement of claim it has been alleged that nature of the

new recruitment by the department whose nature is

permanent is done by following the legal procedure &

selection is made out of person who possess the prescribed

eligibility. Applicant was not appointed on any vacant post

under grade 'D'. At the time of engaging the applicant

workman he was briefed orally that he is engaged against a

specific work & nature of the work is purely temporary &

casual in which applicant is not entitled to derive benefit of

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The allegation of

the applicant is wrong that he was removed out of

animosity. In absence of casual work the services of the

workman automatically comes to an end. In last paragraph

of the reply it has been prayed that order of dismissal be

passed against the statement of claim.

9. In rejoinder dated 3.6.2010 filed by applicant, statement

of claim has been reiterated & statement of reply submitted

by the opposite party has been alleged to be wrong.

10. In preliminary objection against statement of claim

filed by opposite party it has been alleged that applicant

was neither given any appointment nor there was any

sanctioned or vacant post. Department of the opposite

party is not covered within the definition of industry as

provided in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act.

In B-40/97, Gobardhan Lal Meena v/s Archaeological

Survey of India, It has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in

its award dated 18.1.2001 that Archaeological Survey of

India is not covered within the definition of industry.

Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur in its award dated 9.6.2003

has held that Archaeological Survey of India is not an

'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) if Industrial

Disputes Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant

was engaged for completion of casual work for fixed period

of time & he has not worked for 240 days in any of the year,

hence, he is not entitled to the benefit of Industrial Dispute

Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant left the

work on his own even before the completion of the work,

hence, he is not entitled to any relief.

11. Against preliminary objection it has been alleged by

the applicant that preliminary objections are not tenable at

belated stage. It has also been alleged that various

precedents it has been alleged that preliminary objections

are to be decided along with other issues on merits. It has

also been alleged that preliminary objections are evidence

based, hence, opposite party be directed to file the reply to

the statement of claim.

12. Under mentioned issues were framed on 27.7.2011

by the then learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based

on pleadings of both the parties:—

(1)

Whether the workman had worked for more than 240

days as daily wager during period 9.8.03 to 30.8.06

preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged

termination & whose service was terminated in

violation of section 25-F of the Act?

(2)

At the time of terminating the service of the workman

the juniors person to him were retained by the

management in contravention of section 25-G of the

I.D. Act?

(3)

Whether subsequent to the termination of the

workman fresh hands were engaged by the non-

applicant management in violation of section 25-H

of the I.D. Act?

(4)

Whether non-applicant establishement is an

'industry' within the meaning of section 2-J of the

I.D. Act?

13. Applicant has filed document w-1 which is reply of

opposite party before conciliation proceeding, affidavit of

the applicant in evidence and statement of number of

working days in calendar year 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006.

Applicant has been cross examination by opposite party

on his affidavit.

14. In documentary evidence, opposite party has filed

statement of payment made to applicant & other workmen

which is 18 page. This document has been filed on direction

of tribunal given on application of the applicant. Opposite

party has filed affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh in evidence. Sh.

Brijraj Singh has been cross examined on 28.10.14 by

applicant side.

15. I have heard the argument of Learned Counsel for

both the parties & perused the file. Written argument have

been filed by both the parties which is on record.

16. Following citations have been referred on behalf of

applicant:—

2770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

i. 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of

India.....Appellant

v/s.

Sundaramoney.....Respondent.

ii. Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal

no. 753-754(T) of 1975, Bangalore Water Supply &

Sewerage Board etc. etc v/s A. Rajappa & others

etc. etc.

iii. 1983 LAB.I.C. 1629 (Supreme Court), D.P.

Maheshwari....Appellant v/s Delhi Administration

& others.......Respondents.

iv. Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial

Triunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through

the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor

Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General,

Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi.

v. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of

Commerce....Appellant v/s Presiding Officer, Central

Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others (23).

vi. RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash

Sharma......Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book

Board, Jaipur & other (122)..........Respondent.

vii. Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial

Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending

Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India,

Tajmahal Agra vs Suresh Chandra.

17. Following citations have been referred on behalf of

opposite party:-

i. Award dated 26.11.1986 passed by Central

Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in O.A. No.

33/86, Govind Kanji Parmar & others .....Petitioner

vs Union of India & others......Respondents.

ii. Award dated 30.10.1996 passed by Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur

in O.A. No. 331 to 334/1993, Devi Singh & others.....

petitioners vs Union of India & others......

Respondents.

iii. Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal

Meena vs Director (Science), Archaeological Survey

of India, Science Branch, Deharadun.

18. It has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the

applicant that applicant has completed continuous 240 days

of service in every year but he has removed from service

by opposite party in violation of section 25-F,25-G &25-H

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been argued

that contention of the opposite party is against the law

that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry'

within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. Against this it

has been argued by Learned Counsel for the opposite party

that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' &

there is no violation of section 25-F,G & H of the Act. It has

also been argued that applicant was neither appointed nor

any appointment letter was issued. There was no

advertisement for recruitment. It has also been argued that

applicant was engaged on part time contract for casual

work of repair & soon after completion of the work

engagement of applicant was over. It has also been alleged

that his engagement was on daily wage & as the work of

repair of the all wall was of temporary character hence, on

account of end of job & none availability of further job the

applicant himself had left the place of job. It has also been

argued that whenever there is availability of work, workmen

are engaged on daily wage basis for the job. Reference has

been made by both the parties towards precedents

submitted by them in favour of their respective claim.

19. Before issue No. 1 is decided it appears desirable to

take up issues 2, 3 & 4 for decision because decision of

these issues are important & having relevance in decision

of issue No. 1.

Issue No. 2

20. This issue relates to violation of section 25-G of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of

applicant. Section 25-G of Idnstrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads

as under:-

"Section 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment.—Where

any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a

citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a

particular category of workmen in that establishment, in

the absence of any agreement between the employer

and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall

ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person

to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to

be recorded the employer retrenches any other

workman."

21. From perusal of the provison contained in section

25-G it appears that whenever in ordinary course of

business a workman is required to be retrenched then the

last person employed by the employer shall be retrenched

first unless there is special reason for retrenchment of a

person other than the last employed person. From perusal

of statement of claim it is evident that in para 13 it has been

alleged that there has been violation of section 25-G of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of

the applicant & junior to the applicant was retained in

service at the timeof his removal but no one has been named

in statement of claim that who is the person junior to the

applicant who was retained. In the affidavit also filed by

applicant as evidence there is no mention of a person junior

to the applicant who was retained in the service at the time

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2771

of his removal. In the cross examination of the applicant on

page 2 this question has been placed before him & he has

alleged that when he was removed at that time all other

workmen were also removed. This statement of the applicant

during cross-examination obviously indicates that no one

junior to him was retained & removal of all the workman

together is also indicative of the fact of Cessation or

completion of a particular work for which they are engaged.

Here, it is also pertinent to note that it has been repeatedly

argued by Learned Counsel for opposite party that in fact

there has been no appointment, therefore, the question of

removal of the applicant from employment does not arise.

From the perusal of the cross-examination of Sh. Brijraj

Singh, Deputy Superintendent (Archaeology) it is clear

that no assistance can be taken on this point from his

cross-examination. Bases on above discussion, it is clear

that the applicant has failed to prove that the time of

termination of the service of applicant workman, juniors to

him were retained by the management in contravention of

section 25-G of the I.D.Act. Issue No. 2 is accordingly

decided in negative against the applicant.

Issue No. 3

22. This issue is to the effect that whether subsequent

to the termination of the workman fresh workmen were

engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of

section 25-H of the I.D. Act. For convenience provision of

section 25-H4 is reproduced below which reads as under:-

"Sec. 25-H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.—

Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer

purposes to take into his employ any persons he shall, in

such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity to

the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer

themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched

workmen, who offer themselves for re-employment shall

have preference over other persons.

23. The above mentioned section 25-H provides that a

retrench employee shall have preference in appointment

over rest, if management, intends to employ a workman &

the management is under an obligation to give opportunity

to retrench workman so that he can offer himself for

employment. If opportunity is not given by management it

will amount to violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Para 14

of statement of claim indicates that after termination of the

services of applicant new appointments were made without

preference given to applicant. In reply to para 14 of

statement of claim non-applicant has denied the

appointment. There is no documentary evidence on record

about new appointment. Para 6 of affidavit of applicant

field in evidence indicates that new appointments were

made with no preference to applicant but in cross

examination applicant has admitted that in his affidavit &

statement of claim he has not alleged that after his removal

who was appointed & when. The applicant has also

admitted that in statement of claim also he has not given

detial of newly appointed persons. In para 11 of affidavit of

Sh. Brijraj Singh witness for opposite party violation of

section 25-G & H has been specifically denied. He cross-

examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there is nothing significant

to draw an inference about violation of section 25-H of I.D.

Act..Based on above discussion & appreciation of evidence

adduced by the parties I am of the view that the applicant

has failed to prove the violation of section 25-H of the I.D.

Act regarding appointment of fresh hands subsequent to

termination of his service. Issue No. 3 if accordingly decided

against the applicant.

Issue No. 4

24. This issue is to the effect that whether establishment

of the non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an

Industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the I.D. Act.

A preliminary objection has been raised by non-applicant

that establishemnt of the non-applicant is not covered under

definition of 'Industry' as indicated in sectin 2(j) of the I.D.

Act. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on Award

dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Indsutrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/

97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena vs Director (Science),

Archeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Dehradun.

Against this, it has been argued by Learned Counsel for

applicant that establishemnt of non-applicant is covered

by the definition of 'Industry'. Reliance has been placed by

non-applicant on Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in

civil appeal No. 753-754(Y) of 1975, Bangalore Water Supply

& Sewerage Board etc. etc vs Rajappa & Others etc. etc.,

Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal,

Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President,

Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi vs The

Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath,

New Delhi & Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial

Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute

No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist,

Archaeological Survey of India,Tajmahal Agra vs Suresh

Chandra. I have very carefully gone through cases cited

by both the parties.

25. In Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jaipur

in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena vs

Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science

Branch, Dehradun, cited by Learned Counsel for the

opposite party it has been held in decision of issue No. 4

that provision of I.D. Act, 1947 apply to the case. Issue No.

4 has dealt with the fact that provisions of I.D. Act apply

to the opposite party or not. Cases cited by learned counsel

for the applicant indicate that Archaeological Survey of

Indian is covered within the definition of 'Industry' as

provided in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. In Award dated

21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No.

2772

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological

Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi vs The Director General,

Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi

discussing the case of Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978

in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Bangalore Water

Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc vs A. Rajappa & others

etc. etc., it has been held by the CGIT, Delhi that

Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. In Award

dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy

Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of

India, Tajmahal Agra v/s. Suresh Chandra, it has been held

by CGIT, Kanpur that Archaeological Survey of India is an

'Industry'. From decision of the cases cited on behalf of

both the parties & from the fact & circumstances of the

present case, I am of the view that establishment of non-

applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'

within the meaning of section 2(J) of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. Issue No.4 is accordingly decided in affirmative

against the non-applicant.

Issue No.1

26. This issue is to the effect whether the workman had

worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period

19.08.2003 to 30.08.2006 preceding twelve months from the

date of his alleged termination & whether his service was

terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act? It has

been argued by Learned Counsel for the applicant & has

also been alleged in the written argument that the applicant

has worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during

period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of

termination on 30.08.2006 & termination of the services of

applicant is in violation of section 25-F of Industrial

Disputes Act, hence, the order of termination is fit to be set

aside with continuity in service along with back wages.

Against this, it has been argued by the Learned Counsel

for the opposite party & has also been alleged in the written

argument that applicant was not appointed by non-

applicant, no appointment letter was issued, there was no

advertisement for any appointment. It has also been argued

that applicant was engaged on daily wage basis for repair

of the walls of the fort which is a work of temporary nature.

It has also been argued that applicant voluntarily left the

place of work on account of none availability of work. It

has also been said that on availability of work engagement

is made on daily wage basis for the period of work only &

provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of

applicant. It has also been alleged that in view of case of

the applicant covered under section 2(oo) (bb) of the

I.D.Act, compliance of provision of section 25-F is not

required.

27. According to statement of claim applicant was

appointed on daily wage 09.08.2003 & was terminated on

30.08.2006 without notice or pay in lieu of notice or

retrenchment compensation in violation of section 25-F of

I.D. Act.What was the post held by the applicant during

employment has not been alleged in statement of claim.

About the nature of the work the applicant has alleged that

whatever work was assigned by the opposite party

applicant was performing that work. It has also been alleged

that his engagement was neither for a fix work nor for a fix

period. The applicant has alleged that he has worked for

more than 240 days in every year. In affidavit filed in

evidence in support of above statement of claim the

applicant has repeated the allegation of statement of claim.

No other co-worker has been produced as witness in

evidence to support the allegation of statement of claim. In

written statement it has been specifically denied by

opposite party that applicant has worked for more than 240

days in a year instead it has been alleged that applicant

has not worked for 240 days in any of the year. Sh. Brijraj

Singh has specifically denied in para 3 of his affidavit that

the applicant has worked for 240 days in any of the year. In

above fact & circumstances, the burden of proof lies on

applicant to prove that he has worked for mroe than 240

days in a year immediately preceding the date of his

termination on 30.8.06 as alleged in statement of claim. The

applicant has alleged in his cross-examination that he has

not stated in his affidavit in evidence or in statement of

claim that for how many days he has worked in any

corresponding year. He has admitted that he has filed

document W-1 & in W-1 nature of work has been mentioned

for which he was engaged & in W-1 it has also been

mentioned that the nature of work includes 'special repair

work' & such mention in W-1 is correct. Thus, it shall appear

that two documents relating to total number of days of

work has been filed by the applicant which is W-1 & W-2.

W-2 is the document which appeared to be prepared by

workman whereas W-1 is the document which appears to

be reply submitted by management during conciliation

proceedings. From document W-2 if taken into consideration

for calculating the period of 240 days immediately preceding

the date of termination on 30.08.2006 then total number of

days on which the workman has worked between 30.08.2005

to 30.08.2006 comes out to be 104 days. From document w-

1 it comes out to be 120 days but lacks continuity. Thus,

workman has failed to prove that he has continuously

worked for more than 240 days in the year immediately

preceding the date of his termination. It shall also appear

from both the documents W-1 & W-2 that there is no

continuous work in the year.

28. Document regarding period & corresponding

working days filed by management on order of the tribunal

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2773

passed on application of the applicant provides following

detail:-

Period of work

Number of working days.

19.2.2003 to 20.3.2003

28 days

25.7.03 to 24.8.03

09

25.8.03 to 1.9.03

08

19.1.04 to 16.2.04

29

13.4.04 to 13.5.04

27

15.5.04 to 14.6.04

22

9.6.04 to 9.7.04

27

11.7.04 to 10.8.04

29

12.8.04 to 11.9.04

27

14.10.04 to 31.10.04

17

1.11.04 to 28.11.04

25

4.1.05 to 3.2.05

28

6.2.05 to 8.3.05

27

6.6.05 to 6.7.05

27

8.11.05 to 8.12.05

28

11.12.05 to 10.1.06

27

12.2.06 to 14.3.06

25

9.6.06 to 10.7.06

24

Total number of days between

30.8.05 to 30.8.06

104 days.

29. The statement of above table submitted by opposite

party regarding statement of work done by workman

indicates that from the date of termination on 3.8.06

applicant has worked only for 104 days in a year

immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.08.06.

Thus, it is evident that the workman has not worked

continuously for 240 days immediately preceding the date

of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that

applicant has failed to prove that he has worked for more

than 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination.

From the entire cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there

appears nothing to derive in favour of applicant that he

has worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding the

date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear

that applicant has failed to prove that he has continuously

worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately

preceding the date of his termination.

30. As far as the question of violation of section 25-F of

Industrial Dispute is concerned it has been argued by the

learned counsel for the applicant that there has been

violation of section 25-F in terminating the services of the

applicant, against this learned counself for the opposite

party has argued that there is no violation of section 25-F

of I.D. Act & section 25-F does not apply in the case of

applicant who was neither employed nor terminated & his

engagement has been only for specific period & specific

work & he has left the workplace on his own accord. It has

also been argued that as the question of terminating the

services of the applicant does not arise, because he was

not given any employment & there was no advertisement

for employment, hence, section 25-F does not apply to the

case of the applicant. Section 25-F reads as under:—

"25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of

workmen.—No workman employed in any industry who

has been in continuous service for not less than one year

under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer

until:—

(a) The workman has been given on month's notice in

writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and

the period of notice has expire, or the workman has

been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period

of the notice;

(b) The workman has been paid, at the time of

retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every

completed year of continuous service or any part

thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the

appropriate Government (or such authority as may

be specified by the appropriate Government by

notification in the Official Gazette.)

31. Continuous service as indicated in section 25-F(1)

has been defined in section 25-B (1) (ii) which reads as

under:—

Section 25-B. Definition of continuous service.—For

the purposes of this Chapter:—

(1)

a workman shall be said to be in continuous service

for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted

service, including service which may be interrupted

on account of sickness or authorised leave or an

accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out

or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault

on the part of the workman.

(2)

where a workman is not in continuous service within

the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year or

six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous

service under an employer:—

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during

a period of twelve calendar months preceding

the date with reference to which calculation is

to be made, has actually worked under the

employer for not less than:—

(i) One hundred and ninety days in the case

of a workman employed below ground in

a mine; and

2774

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other

case;

32. Section 2 (oo) provides meaning of retrenchment

which reads as under:—

‘‘2(oo)—‘retrenchment’ means the termination by the

employer of the service of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by

way of disciplinary action but does not include—

(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of

superannuation if the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

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

of the non-renewal of the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

on its expiry or of such contract being terminated

under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein;

or

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the

ground of continued ill-health;

33. In 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L and S) 38,

Surendranagar District Panchayat.... Appellant V/s

Dahyabhai Amarsinh...... Respondent, taking together and

analyzing the integrated impact of section 2(oo), section

25-B and section 25-F in paragraph 7 page 43, it has been

held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, "............. To attract

provisions of Section 25-F, the workman claiming protection

under it, has to prove that there exists relationship of

employer and employee; that he is a workman within the

meaning of section 2(s) of the Act; the establishment in

which he is employed is an industry within the meaning of

the Act and he must have put in not less than one year of

continuous service as defined by section 25-B under the

employer. These conditions are cumulative. If any of these

conditions is missing the provisions of section 25-F will

not be attracted. To get relief from the court the workman

has to establish that he has right to continue in service and

that his service has been terminated without complying

with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The section

postulates three conditions to be fulfilled by an employer

for getting a valid retrenchment, namely:—

(i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating

the reasons for retrenchment or that the

workman has been paid wages for the period

of notice in lieu of such notice;

(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which

shall be equivalent of 15 days' average pay for

every completed year of continuous service

or any part thereof, in excess of six months;

(iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the

prescribed manner.

34. Looking into the above provisions and the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to attract the provision

of section 25-F, it is clear that the applicant has failed to

prove that he has worked continuously for more than

240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date

of his termination, thus, provision of section 25-F is not

attracted in the case of applicant. From above discussion,

I am of the view that the applicant has not worked

continuously for more than 240 days as daily wager

immediately preceding 12 months from the date of his

alleged termination on 30.8.06 and his services were not

terminated in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes

Act. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in negative against

the applicant.

35. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the

applicant that even if section 25-F is not attracted in case

of applicant, he is entitled to the benefits of section 25-G

and 25-H which are independent of section 25-F. Reliance

has been placed on RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental

Bank of Commerce.........Appellant v/s Presiding Officer,

Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and others and RLR 1991

(2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma...... Petitioner v/s

Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur and other (122)..........

Respondent. Against this it has been argued by learned

counsel for opposite party that provision of section 25-G

and 25-H is not attracted in the case of applicant. I have

carefully gone through both the above reported cases.

36. In case of Oirental Bank of Commerce v/s Presiding

Officer respondent 2 was employed in the bank of petitioner

from 23.5.85 to 28.5.85 for a period of 79 days. He was said

to be appointed for leave period only and his engagement

came to end after expiry of period of leave. The respondent

raised industrial dispute relating to section 25-G and 25-H

which was referred for adjudication After the evidence of

both the parties tribunal came to the conclusion that there

was violation of section 25-G and section 25-H hence,

respondent was directedd to be reinstated and it was also

directed that he will entitled to pay from the date of joining

because respondent was said to be on the job in some

other place. On the basis of evidence tribunal came to

conclusion that management had failed to indicate that

who was on leave in whose place respondent was employed

during leave vacancy, hence, this fact was not admitted by

tribunal that engagement of respondent was for the period

of leave vacancy. It was admitted by the witness of the

management that when respondent was removed from

service employee Sh. Virendra Singh junior to the

respondent was working. It was also admitted by

management witness that after removal of respondent

Sh. Mulan Rasool and Sh. Narendra Bhatt were appointed

on the post of peon but respondent was not given

opportunity. Thus, there was violation of section 25-G and

25-H. Petition. against the order of tribunal was dismissed

by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court and award of the

tribunal was confirmed.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2775

37. In RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash

Sharma.....Petitioner v/s Rajathan Text Book Board, Jaipur

and others (122).......... Respondent, it has been held by

Hon'ble High Court that section 25-G, 25-H and 25-F are

independent of each other and section 25-G and 25-H are

not dependent on section 25-F. It has also been held that

section 25-G and 25-H are applicable irrespective of the

fact that the workman has completed 240 days of service or

not. It has been further held that rule 76 to 78 of Industrial

Dispute Rules, 1957 are independent of each other and

mandatory in nature. Violation of these rules will give a

cause of action in favour of workman to claim

compensation, damages and re-employment. To derive the

benefits of these rules continuous service is not necessary

and workmen not having completed 240 days of service

are also entitled to the benefits of Rule 76 to 78. In this case

petitioner Sh. Suryaprakash Sharma was retrenched from

service before completion of 240 days and was not entitled

for the benefits u/s 25 of I.D. Act. The only question

involved in this case was about applicability of section 25-

H of I.D. Act read with Rule 77 and 78. The caswe of the

respondent was that after discharge of petitioner of 1.11.88

they had employed few perons although persons who

employed were discharged on 19.8.89. The petition of the

petitioner was allowed and he was held entitled to claim

wages by way of compensation for the period during which

his jurior remain in employment.

38. In 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of

India....Appellant v/s N. Sundaramoney.......Respondent, it

has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that read with

section 25-B(2) if provision of section 25-F of Industrial

Dispute Act is attracted in case of the workman, he cannot

be retrenched without payment of compensation at the

time of retrenchment as prescribed therein, It is pertinent

to mention that facts and circumstances of the present

case are different comparing to the facts of State Bank of

India v/s N. Sundarmoney, hence law laid down by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney

is not attracted in the present case.

39. From decision of issue no.2 and 3 it is clear that

applicant is not entitled to the benefit for violation of section

25-G and 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act because violation

of these two sections have not been proved by the

applicant. It is also clear from the evidence on recrod that

no seniority list is in existence as the case of opposite

party is that there was no employment in respect of

applicant and he was only engaged casually as and when

there was existence of work. Applicant has not proved his

appointment or termination by filing any documentary

evidence in this behalf who was engaged as daily wager. It

has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme

Court Cases (L and S) 38, Surendranagar District

Panchayat....Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh......

Respondent, in para 18 of the judgement in relation to

section 25-G and section 25-H as under:—

............In the absence of regular employment of the

workmen, the appellant was not expected to maintain

seniority list of the employees engaged on daily wages

and in the absence of any proof by the respondent

regarding existence of the seniority list and his so-called

seniority, no relief could be given to him for non-

compliance with provisions of the Act. The courts could

have drawn adverse inference against the appellant only

when seniority list was proved to be in existence and

then not produced before the court. In order to entitle

the court to draw inference unfavourable to the party,

the court must be satisfied that evidence is in existence

and could have been proved". Finding of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Casess (L and S)

38, Surendranagar District Panchayat .....Appellant V/s

Dahyabhai Amarsinh....Respondent, is relevant and

applies to the case of applicant.

40. Bases on the findings related to issue no. 1 to 4 and

from the discussions as above, I am of the view that

applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the

statement of claim and action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India in terminating the services

of the workman Sh. Bhagchand Mali w.e.f. 30.8.6 without

following the provisions of section 25F, 25-G and 25-H of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified.

41. Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1308-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

losZ vkWQ bafM;k jktLFkku ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ lañ 52@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24-06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@30@2007&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015

S.O. 1308.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 52/2007) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

the Archaeological Survey of India, Rajasthan and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 24.06.2015.

[No. L-42012/30/2007-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

2776

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY,

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. 52/2007

Reference No. L-42012/30/2007-IR (DU) dated 23.07.2007

Sh. Radhye Shyam Mali

S/o Shri Korya Mali

R/o Allamur, Tehsil Khandar,

Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)

V/s

The Regional Officer

Archaeological Survey of India

Ranthambhor Durg,

Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)

For the Applicant

:

Shri M.F. Beig, Advocate

For the Non-applicant

:

Sh. T.P. Sharma, Advocate

AWARD

18.05.2015

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section 1 and 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred

the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:—

"Whether the action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India, in terminating the

services of their workman Shri Radhye Shyam Mali, w.e.f.

30.08.2006, without following the provisions of Sections

25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is

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

entitled to?"

2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant

workman was appointed as daily wager on 09.09.03. He

was discharging his duty since appointment honestly and

there was no complaint by opposite party against his work.

Whatever work was assigned to the applicant he completed

that work to best of his ability. Applicant was never served

with any notice and no charge was ever proved against

him.

3. He was appointed on daily wage but his period of

appointment or nature of work was not fixed. The work for

which he was appointed by opposite party is still existing

and the nature of work is permanent. The applicant is

'workman' and the opposite party is 'employer' according

to the definition of 'workman' and 'employer' provided in

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The applicant had worked

for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately

preceding the date of termination and his services were

terminated on 30.08.06 without giving any notice or any

payment in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in

violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

His termination is unfair labour practice and victimisation

adopted by opposite party.

4. Before the termination of the workman seniority list

was neither prepared nor published by the opposite party

which is violation of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes Rules,

1958. At the time of termination of the service workmen

junior to the applicant were retained in service by the

opposite party in violation of section 25-G of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The opposite party has made new

appointment after termination of the services of the

applicant workman but no priority was given to the applicant

which is violation of section 25-H of Industrial Disputes

Act. 1947 and Rule 78 of Industrial Disputes Rule, 1958. It

has been further alleged by the applicant that applicant

requested the opposite party to take the applicant in his

employment but he was not taken back and due to non co-

operation of opposite party conciliation also failed before

the Conciliation Officer. The opposite party has accepted

before the Conciliation Officer that applicant was kept on

work and work was taken from him, hence, the relation of

employer and workman has not been denied by the opposite

party but to escape from the liability of illegal termination it

has been denied that opposite party is 'Industry' within the

meaning of definition provided in Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. The true position is that according to the activities

and work the opposite party is an 'industry' according to

the definition of industry provided under Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The provisions of Industrial Disputes

act, 1947 have not been followed by opposite party, hence,

the termination of the services of the workman is illegal

and unfair.

5. It has been further alleged that allegation of the

opposite party before the Conciliation Officer is that the

applicant workman was absent from duty from 15.03.2006

to 08.06.2006 but workman was not given any show cause

notice. Neither any charge sheet was served upon him

regarding absence from place of duty nor any charge was

proved. The applicant had made his stand clear before the

management that he has not remained absent during above

said period and instead of absence he has been working in

that period. The applicant had completed more than two

years of service and he was demanding from the opposite

party to declare him semi permanent employee. As a result

of above demand of the applicant the opposite party instead

of making him semi permanent terminated the services of

the applicant. The applicant is jobless since the date of

termination. It is, therefore, requested that termination order

dated 30.08.06 be declared illegal and applicant reinstated

with all pay and emoluments along with continuity in

service.

6. In reply statement in para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,

12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the statement of claim

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2777

have been specifically denied. In additional reply it has

been alleged in para 2 that the applicant labourer was not

appointed by the opposite party and he was engaged as

casual labourer for carrying out casual work on the basis

of part time contract and such engagement was coming to

end immediately after completion of the work. It has also

been alleged that the applicant labourer has never completed

240 days in any year and applicant is under an obligation

to prove this fact the document. Statement of para 5 of

statement of claim has been said to be baseless and nature

of the work for which applicant was engaged is alleged to

be casual. Against para 7 it has been alleged that to succeed

in his sinister design applicant has fabricated the statement.

7. It has been alleged against para 8 of the statement of

claim that applicant was called for a fixed works and his

services were coming to end after completion of the work.

Relation between applicant and opposite party as workman

and employer has been specifically denied against para 9

of the statement of claim and has been alleged that since

he was never appointed the question of such relationship

does not arise. The applicant does not fall within the

definition of workman and the department of the opposite

party does not fall within the definition of Industry.

Applicant was never engaged permanently and he was

called only when there was work. He was neither appointed

on any post after following the rules of appointment nor

any appointment letter was issued to him, therefore,

question of termination of his services does not arise. It

has been alleged in para 11 of reply that it is pertinent to

note that applicant was not removed from the institution of

opposite party and the fact is that the work was over hence,

his services automatically came to an end. It was not

necessary to give notice to the applicant because such

notice is issued only to such workman who permanently

work for a period of more than 240 days and the department

is not satisfied with work of such workman, in that event

such workman may be removed after serving one months

notice. In case of applicant after completion of work he

himself had gone elsewhere.

8. Against para 13 of statement of claim it has been

alleged that workmen like applicant are not given any

appointment letter neither they are deemed regular workmen

of the department. Workman like applicant are engaged on

daily wage basis according to need of a particular work

for its execution and they are removed after completion

of work or at the end of financial year or on other technical

ground on suspension or stoppage of work. Against

para 14 of statement of claim it has been alleged that

nature of the new recruitment by the department whose

nature is permanent is done by following the legal

procedure and selection is made out of person who

posses the prescribed eligibility. Applicant was not

appointed on any vacant post under grande 'D'. At the

time of engaging the applicant workman he was briefed

orally that he is engaged against a specific work and

nature of the work is purely temporary and casual in

which applicant is not entitled to derive benefit of

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The allegation of

the applicant is wrong that he was removed out of

animosity. In absence of casual work the services of the

workman authomatically comes to an end. In last

paragraph of the reply it has been prayed that order of

dismissal be passed against the statement of claim.

9. In rejoinder dated 03.06.2010 filed by applicant,

statement of claim has been reiterated and statement of

reply submitted by the opposite party has been alleged to

be wrong.

10. In preliminary objection against statement of claim

filed by opposite party it has been alleged that applicant

was neither given any appointment nor there was any

sanctioned or vacant post.

Department of the opposite party is not covered within

the definition of industry as provided in section 2(j) of

Industrial Disputes Act. In B-40/97, Gobardhan Lal Meena

v/s Archaeological Survey of India, it has been held by the

Hon'ble Tribunal in its award dated 18.1.2001 that

Archaeological Survey of India is not covered within the

definition of industry. Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur in its

award dated 9.6.2003 has held that Archaeological Survey

of India is not an 'Industry' within the meaning of section

2(j) if Industrial Disputes Act. It has also been alleged that

the applicant was engaged for completion of casual work

for fixed period of time and he has not worked for 240 days

in any of the year, hence, he is not entitled to the benefit of

Industrial Dispute Act. It has also been alleged that the

applicant left the work on his own even before the

completion of the work, hence, he is not entitled to any

relief.

11. Against preliminary objection it has been alleged by

the applicant that preliminary objections are not tenable at

belated stage. It has also been alleged that various

precedents it has been alleged that preliminary objections

are to be decided along with other issues on merits. It has

also been alleged that preliminary objections are evidence

based, hence, opposite party be directed to file the reply to

the statement of claim.

12. Under mentioned issues were framed on 27.7.2011

by the then learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based

on pleadings of both the parties:—

(1)

Whether the workman had worked for more than

240 days as daily wager during period 9.9.03 to

30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of

his alleged termination and whose service was

terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act?

(2)

At the time of terminating the service of the workman

the juniors person to him were retained by the

2778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management in contravention of section 25-G of

the I.D. Act?

(3)

Whether subsequent to the termination of the

workman fresh hands were engaged by the non-

applicant management in violation of section 25-H

of the I.D. Act?

(4)

Whether non-applicant establishment is an

'industry' within the meaning of section 2-J of the

I.D. Act?

13. Applicant has filed document W-1 which is reply of

opposite party before conciliation proceeding, affidavit of

the applicant in evidence and statement of number of

working days in calendar year 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006.

Applicant has been cross examination by opposite party

on his affidavit.

14. In documentary evidence, opposite party has filed

statement of payment made to applicant & other workmen

which is 24 page. This document has been filed on direction

of tribunal given on application of the applicant. Opposite

party has filed affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh in evidence. Sh.

Brijraj Singh has been cross examined on 28.10.14 by

applicant side.

15. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for

both the parties & perused the file. Written argument have

been filed by both the parties which is on record.

16. Following citations have been referred on behalf of

applicant:—

(i) 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State bank of

India......Appellant v/s N. Sundaramoney......

Respondent.

(ii) Judgement and order dated 21.2.1978 in civil

appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Bangalore Water

Supply and Sewerage Board etc.etc. v/s A.

Rajappa and others etc.etc.

(iii) 1983 LAB.I.C. 1629 (Supreme Court), D.P.

Maheshwari...Appellant

v/s

Delhi

Administration & others......Respondents.

(iv) Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial

Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen

through the President, Archaeological Survey

Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director

General, Archaeological Survey of India,

Janpath, New Delhi.

(v) RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of

Commerce......Appellant v/s/ Presiding Officer,

Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and others

(23).

(vi) RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash

Sharma......Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book

Board, Jaipur and other (122)......Respondent.

(vii) Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in

Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy

Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological

Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh

Chandra.

17. Following citations have been referred on behalf of

opposite party:—

(i) Award dated 26.11.1986 passed by Central

Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in O.A.

No. 33/86, Govind Kanji Parmar and

others......Petitioner v/s Union of India and

others......Respondents.

(ii) Award dated 30.10.1996 passed by Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench,

Jodhpur in O.A. No. 331 to 334/1993, Devi

Singh and others......petitioners v/s Union of

India and others......Respondents.

iii. Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour

Court, Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in

Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science),

Archaeological Survey of India, Science

Branch, Deharadun.

18. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the

applicant that applicant has completed continuous 240 days

of service in every year but he has removed from service

by opposite party in violation of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been argued

that contention of the opposite party is against the law

that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry'

within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. Against this it

has been argued by learned counsel for the opposite party

that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry'

and there is no violation of section 25-F, G & H of the Act.

It has also been argued that applicant was neither appointed

nor any appointment letter was issued. There was no

advertisement for recruitment. It has also been argued that

applicant was engaged on part time contract for casual

work of repair and soon after completion of the work

engagement of the applicant was over. It has also been

alleged that his engagement was on daily wage and as the

work of repair of the wall was of temporary character hence,

on account of end of job and none availability of further

job the applicant himself had left the place of job. It has

also been argued that whenever there is availability of work,

workmen are engaged on daily wage basis for the job.

Reference has been made by both the parties towards

precedents submitted by them in favour of their respective

claim.

19. Before issue No. 1 is decided it appears desirable to

take up issues 2, 3 & 4 for decision because decision of

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2779

these issues are important and having relevance in decision

of issue No. 1.

Issue No. 2

20. This issue relates to violation of section 25-G of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of

applicant. Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

reads as under:—

"Section 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment.—Where

any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a

citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a

particular category of workmen in that establishment, in

the absence of any agreement between the employer

and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall

ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person

to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to

be recorded the employer retrenches any other

workman."

21. From perusal of the provision contained in section

25-G it appears that whenever in ordinary course of

business a workman is required to be retrenched then the

last person employed by the employer shall be retrenched

first unless there is special reason for retrenchment of a

person other than the last employed persons. From perusal

of statement of claim it is evident that in para 13 it has been

alleged that there has been violation of section 25-G of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of

the applicant & junior to the applicant was retained in

service at the time of his removal but no one has been

named in statement of claim that who is the person junior

to the applicant who was retained. In the affidavit also filed

by applicant an evidence there is no mention of a person

junior to him who was retained in the service at the time of

his removal. In the cross examination of the applicant on

page 2 this question has been placed before him & he has

alleged that when he was removed at that time all other

workmen were also removed. This statement of the applicant

during cross examination obviously indicates that no one

junior to him was retained & removal of all the workman

together is also indicative of the fact of Cessation or

completion of a particular work for which they are engaged.

Here, it is also pertinent to note that it has been repeatedly

argued by learned counsel for opposite party that in fact

there has been no appointment, therefore, the question of

removal of the applicant frofm employment does not arise.

From the perusal of the cross examination of Sh. Brijraj

Singh, Deputy Superintendent (Archaeology) it is clear

that no assistance can be taken on this point from his

cross examination. Bases on above discussion, it is clear

that the applicant has failed to prove that at the time of

termination of the service of applicant workman, juniors to

him were retained by the management in contravention of

section 25-G of the I.D. Act. Issue No. 2 is accordingly

decided in negative against the applicant.

Issue No. 3

22. This issue is to the effect that whether subsequent

to the termination of the workman fresh workmen were

engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of

section 25-H of the I.D. Act. For convenience provision of

section 25-H is reproduced below which reads as under:

"Sec. 25-H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen—

Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer

purposes to take into his employ any persons he shall,

in such manner as may be prescribed, give an

opportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens

of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such

retrenched workmen, who offer themselves for re-

employment shall have preference over other persons.

23. The above mentioned section 25-H provides that a

retrench employee shall have preference in appointment

over rest, if management, intends to employ a workman &

the management is under an obligation to give opportunity

to retrench workman so that he can offer himself for

employment. If opportunity is not given by management it

will amount to violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act, Para 14

of statement of claim indicates that after termination of the

services of applicant new appointments were made without

preference given to applicant. In reply to para 14 of

statement of claim non-applicant has denied the

appointment. There is no documentary evidence on record

about new appointment. Para 6 of affidavit of applicant

filed in evidence indicates that new appoitments were made

with no preference to applicant but in cross examination

applicant has admitted that in his affidavit & statement of

claim he has not alleged that after his removal who was

appointment & when. The applicant has also admitted that

in statement of claim also he has not given detail of newly

appointed persons. In para 11 of affidavit of Sh. Brijraj

Singh witness for opposite party violation of section 25-G

& H has been specifically denied. In cross examination of

Sh. Brijraj Singh there is nothing significant to draw an

inference about violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Based

on above discussion & appreciation of evidence adduced

by the parties I am of the view that the applicant has failed

to prove the violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act.

regarding appointment of fresh hands subsequent to

termination of his service. Issue no. 3 is accordingly decided

against the applicant.

Issue no. 4

24. This issue is to the effect that whether establishment

of the non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an

Industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the I.D. Act.

A preliminary objection has been raised by non-applicant

that establishment of the non-applicant is not covered under

definition of 'Industry' as indicated in section 2(j) of the

I.D. Act. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on

Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government

2780

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case

no. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science),

Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch,

Deharadun. Against this, it has been argued by learned

counsel for the applicant that establishment of non-

applicant is covered by the definition of 'Industry'. Reliance

has been placed by non-applicant on Judgement & order

dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal no. 753-754(T) of 1975,

Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc. v/s A.

Rajappa & others etc. etc., Award dated 21.10.1988 passed

by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen

through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor

Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological

Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi & Award dated

17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court,

Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute no. 9 of 2005 in Deputy

Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of

India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra. I have very

carefully gone through cases cited by both the parties.

Judgement dated 9.6.03 by CGIT, Jabalpur has not been

filed by opposite party.

25. In Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

in CGIT case no. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s

Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science

Branch, Deharadun, cited by learned counsel for the

opposite party it has been held in decision of issue no. 4

that provision of I.D. Act, 1947 apply to the case. Issue no.

4 has dealt with the fact that provisions of I.D. Act apply to

the opposite party or not. Cases cited by learned counsel

for the applicant indicate that Archaeological Survey of

India is covered within the definition of 'Industry' as

provided in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. In Award dated

21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. Act.

No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President,

Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The

Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath,

New Delhi, discussing the case of Judgement & order dated

21.2.1978 in civil appeal no. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore

Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc. v/s A. Rajappa &

others etc. etc., it has been held by the CGIT, Delhi that

Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. In Award

dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute no. 9 of 2005 in Deputy

Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of

India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra, it has been held

by CGIT, Kanpur that Archaeological Survey of India is an

'Industry'. From decision of the cases cited on behalf of

both parties & from the fact & circumstances of the present

case, I am of the view that establishment of non-applicant

Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry' within the

meaning of section 2(J) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Issue no. 4 is accordingly decided in affirmative against

the non-applicant.

Issue no. 1

26. This issue is to the effect that whether workman had

worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period

9.9.03 to 30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of

his alleged termination & whether his service was

terminated in violation of section 25-H of the Act? It has

been argued by learned counsel for the applicant & has

also been alleged in the written argument that the applicant

has worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during

period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of

termination on 30.8.06 & termination of the services of

applicant is in violation of section 25-F of Industrial

Disputes Act, hence, the order of termination is fit to be set

aside with continuity in service along with back wages.

Against this, it has been argued by the learned counsel for

the opposite party & has also been alleged in the written

argument that applicant was not appointed by non-

applicant, no appointment letter was issued, there was no

advertisement for any appointment. It has also been argued

that applicant was engaged on daily wage basis for repair

of the walls of the fort which is a work of temporary nature.

It has also been argued that applicant voluntarily left the

place of work on account of non availability of work. It

has also been said that on availability of work engagement

is made on daily wage basis for the period of work only &

provision of section 25-H is not attracted in the case of

applicant . It has also been alleged that in view of case of

the applicant covered under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D.

Act, compliance of provision of section 25-F is not

required.

27. According to statement of claim applicant was

appointed on daily wage on 9.9.03 & was terminated on

30.8.06 without notice or pay in lieu of notice or

retrenchment compensation in violation of secton 25-F

of I.D. Act. What was the post held by the applicant

during employment has not been alleged in statement of

claim. About the nature of the work of the applicant has

alleged that whatever work was assigned by the opposite

party applicant was performing that work. It has also

been alleged that his engagement was neither for a fix

work nor for a fix period. The applicant has alleged that

he has worked for more than 240 days in every year. In

affidavit filed in evidence in support of above statement

of claim the applicant has repeated the allegation of

statement of claim. No other co-worker has been

produced as witness in evidence to support the

allegation of statement of claim. In written statement it

has been specifically denied by opposite party that

applicant has worked for more than 240 days in a year

instead it has been alleged that applicant has not worked

for 240 days in any of the year. Sh. Brijraj Singh has

specifically denied in para 3 of his affidavit that the

applicant has worked for 240 days in any of the year. In

above fact & circumstances, the burden of proof lies on

applicant to prove that he has worked for more than 240

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2781

days in a year immediately preceding the date of his

termination on 30.8.06 as alleged in statement of claim.

The applicant has alleged in his cross examination that

he has not stated in his affidavit in evidence or in

statement of claim that for how many days he has worked

in any corresponding year. He has admitted that he has

filed document w-1 & in w-1 nature of work has been

mentioned for which he was engaged & in w-1 it has

also been mentioned that the nature of work includes

'special repair work' & such mention in w-1 is correct.

Thus, it shall appear that two documents relating to total

number of days of work has been filed by the applicant

which is w-1 & w-2. W-2 is the document which appeared

to be prepared by workman whereas w-1 is the document

which appears to be reply submitted by management

during conciliation proceedings. From document w-2 if

taken into consideration for calculating the period of

240 days immediately preceding the date of termination

on 30.8.06 then total number of days on which the

workman has worked between 30.8.05 to 30.8.06 comes

out to be 169 days. From document w-1 it comes out to

be 219 days but lacks continuity. Thus, workman has

failed to prove that he has continuously worked for more

than 240 days in the year immediately preceding the

date of his termination. It shall also appear from both

the documents w-1 & w-2 that there is no continuous

work in the year.

28. Document regarding period & corresponding

working days filed by management on order of the tribunal

passed on applicant of the applicant provides following

detail:—

Period of work

Number of working days

19.2.03 to 20.3.03

26

17.1.04 to 16.2.04

29

13.4.04 to 13.5.04

27

15.4.04 to 14.6.04

28

9.6.04 to 9.7.04

23

18.7.04 to 27.7.04

10

11.7.04 to 10.8.04

19

12.8.04 to 11.9.04

27

13.9.04 to 13.10.04

27

14.10.04 to 31.10.04

17

1.11.04 to 1.12.04

26

3.12.04 to 2.1.05

27

4.1.05 to 3.2.05

27

6.2.05 to 8.3.05

27

9.3.05 to 17.3.05

09

15.2.05 to 17.3.05

12

6.6.05 to 6.7.05

28

7.7.05 to 7.8.05

27

8.9.05 to 6.10.05

27

8.11.05 to 8.12.05

29

10.12.05 to 9.1.06

27

11.1.06 to 10.2.06

29

12.2.06 to 14.3.06

29

9.6.06 to 7.7.06

28

Total number of days between

30.8.05 to 30.8.06

169 days.

29. The statement of above table submitted by opposite

party regarding statement of work done by workman

indicates that from the date of termination on 30.8.06

applicant has worked only for 169 days in a year

immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06.

Thus, it is evident that the workman has not worked

continuously for 240 days immediately preceding the date

of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that

applicant has failed to prove that he has worked for more

than 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination.

From the entire cross examination Sh. Brijraj Singh there

appears nothing to dervie in favour of applicant that he

has worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding the

date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear

that applicant has failed to prove that he has continously

worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately

preceding the date of his termination.

30. As far as the question of violation of section 25-F of

Industrial Dispute is concerned it has been argued by the

learned counsel for the applicant that there has been

violation of section 25-F in terminating the services of the

applicant, against this learned counsel for the opposite

party has argued that there is no violation of section 25-F

of I.D. Act & section 25-F does not apply in the case of

applicant who was neither employed nor terminated & his

engagement has been only for specific period & specific

work & he has left the workplace on his own accord. It has

also been argued that as the question of terminating the

services of the applicant does not arise, because he was

not given any employment & there was no advertisement

for employment, hence, section 25-F does not apply to the

case of the applicant. Section 25-F reads as under:—

"25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of

workmen.— No workman employed in any industry

who has been in continuous service for not less than

one year under an employer shall been retrenched by

that employer until:—

(a) The workman has been given on month's notice in

writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and

the period of notice has expired, or the workman

has been paid in lieu such notice, wages for the

period of the notice:

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of

retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every

completed year of continous service or any part

thereof in excess of six months; and

2782

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the

appropriate Government (or such authority as may

be specified by the appropriate Government by

notification in the Oficial Gazette.)

31. Continuous service as indicated in section 25-F(1)

has been defined in section 25-B(1) (ii) which reads as

under:—

Section 25-B. Definition of continuous service.— For

the purposes of this Chapter—

(1)

a workman shall be said to be in continuous service

for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrrupted

service, including service which may be interrupted

on account of sickness or authorised leave or an

accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out

or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault

on the part of the workman.

(2)

where a workman is not in continuous service within

the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year or

six months, he shall be deemed to be in continous

service under an employer:—

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during

a period of twelve calendar months preceding

the date with reference to which calculation is

to be made, has actually worked under the

employer for not less than:—

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case

of a workman employed below ground in

a mine; and

(ii) two hundered and forty days, in any other

case;

32. Section 2 (oo) provides meaning of retrenchment

which reads as under:—

"2(oo)-----------"retrenchment" means the termination by

the employer of the service of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by

way of disciplinary action but does not include---------

(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of

superannuation if the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

contains a stipulation in that behalf: or

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

of the non-renewal of the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

on its expiry or of such contract being terminated

under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein;

or

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the

ground of continued ill-helath;

33. In 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranagar District Panchayat .......Appellant V/s.

Dahyabhai Amarsinh ....... Respondent, taking together &

analyzing the integrated impact of section 2(oo), section

25-B & section 25-F in paragraph 7 page 43, it has been

held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, "............. To attract

provisions of Section 25-F, the workman claiming protection

under it, has to prove that there exists relationship of

employer and employee; that he is a workman within the

meaning of section 2(s) of the Act; the establishment in

which he is employed is an industry within the meaning of

the Act and he must have put in not less than one year of

continuous service as defined by section 25-B under the

employer. These conditions are cumulative. If any of these

conditions is missing the provisions of section 25-F will

not be attracted. To get relief from the court the workman

has to establish that he has right to continue in service and

that his service has been terminated without complying

with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The section

postulates three conditions to be fulfilled by an employer

for getting a valid retrenchment, namely:—

(i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating

the reasons for rtrenchment or that the

workman has been paid wages for the period

of notice in lieu of such notice;

(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which

shall be equivalent to 15 days average pay for

every completed year of continuous service

or any part thereof, in excess of six months;

(iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the

prescribed manner.

34. Looking into the above provisions & law laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to attract the provision of

section 25-F, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove

that he has worked continuously for more than 240 days in

a calendar year immediately preceding the date of his

termination, thus, provision of section 25-F is not attracted

in the case of applicant. From above discussion, I am of the

view that the applicant has not worked continuously for

more than 240 days as daily wager immediately preceding

12 months from the date of his alleged termination on

30.08.06 & his services were not terminated in violation of

section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. Issue No. 1 is

accordingly decided in negative against the applicant.

35. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the

applicant that even if section 25-F is not attracted in case

of applicant, he is entitled to the benefits of section 25-G &

25-H which are independent of section 25-F. Reliance has

been placed on RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank

of Commerce ........ Appellant v/s. Presiding Officer, Central

Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others & RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur

Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma ........Petitioner v/s. Rajasthan

Text Book Board, Jaipur & other (122).........Respondent.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2783

Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for

opposite party that provision of section 25-G & 25-H is not

attracted in the case of applicant. I have carefully gone

through both the above reported cases.

36. In case of Oriental Bank of Commerce v/s. Presiding

Officer respondent 2 was employed in the bank of petitioner

from 23.55.85 to 28.5.85 for a period of 79 days. He was said

to be appointed for leave period only & his engagement

came to end after expiry of period of leave. The respondent

raised industrial dispute relating to section 25-G & 25-H

which was referred for adjudication. After the evidence of

both the parties tribunal came to the conclusion that there

was violation of section 25-G & section 25-H, hence,

respondent was directed to be reinstated & it was also

directed that he will entitled to pay from the date of joining

because respondent was said to be on the job in some

other place. On the basis of evidence tribunal came to

conclusion that management has failed to indicate that

who was on leave in whose place respondent was employed

during leave vacancy, hence, this fact was not admitted by

tribunal that engagement of respondent was for the period

of leave vacancy. It was admitted by the witness of the

management that when respondent was removed from

service employee Sh. Virendra Singh junior to he

respondent was working. It was also admitted by

management witness that after removal of respondent Sh.

Mulan Rasool & Sh. Narendra Bhatt were appointed on

the post of peon but respondent was not given opportunity.

Thus, there was violation of section 25-G & 25-H. Petition

against the order of tribunal was dismissed by Division

Bench of Hon'ble High Court & award of the trubunal was

confirmed.

37. In RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma

......Petitioner v/s. Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur &

others (122)..........Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble

High Court that section 25-G & 25-H & 25-F are independent

of each other & section 25-G & 25-H are not dependent on

section 25-F. It has also been held that section 25-G & 25-

H are applicable irrespective of the fact that the workman

has completed 240 days of service or not. It has been further

held that rule 76 to78 of Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 are

independent of each other & mandatory in nature. Violation

of these rules will given a cause of action in favour of

workman to claim compensation, damages & re-

employment. To derive the benefits of these rules continous

service is not necessary & workmen not having completed

240 days of service are also entitled to the benefits of Rule

76 to 78. In this case petitioner Sh. Suryaprakash Sharma

was retrenched from service before completion of 240 days

& was not entitled for the benefits u/s 25 I.D. Act. The only

question involved in this case was about applicability of

section 25-H of I.D. Act read with Rule 77 & 78. The case of

the respondent was that after discharge of petitioner on

1.11.88 they had employed few persons although persons

who employed were discharged on 19.8.89. The petition of

the petitioner was allowed & he was held entitled to claim

wages by way of compensation for the period during which

his junior remain in employment.

38. In 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of

India....Appellent v/s N. Sundaramoney...Respondent, it has

ben held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that read with section

25-B(2) if provision of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute

Act is attracted incase of the workman, he cannot be

retrenched without payment of compensation at the time

of retrenchment as prescribed therein. It is pertinent to

mention that facts & circumstances of the present case are

different comparing to the facts of State Bank of India v/s

N. Sundarmoney, hence, law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney is not

attracted in the present case.

39. From decision of issue no. 2 & 3 it is clear that

applicant is not entitled to the benefit of violation of section

25-G & 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act because violation of

these two sections have not been proved by the applicant.

It is also clear from the evidence on record that no seniority

list is in existence as the case of opposite party is that there

was no employment in respect of applicant & he was only

engaged casually as & when there was existence of work.

Applicant has not proved his appointment or termination

by filing any documentary evidence in this behalf who was

engaged as daily wager. It has been held by Hob'ble

Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranager District Panchayat...Appellant V/s

Dahyabhai Amarsinh...Respondent, in para 18 of the

judgement in relation to section 25-G & section 25-H as

under:—

"..........In the absence of regular employment of the

workmen, the appellant was not expected to maintain

seniority list of the employes engaged on daily wages

and in the absence of any proof by the respondent

regarding existence of the seniority list and his so-called

seniority, no relief could be given to him for non-

compliance with provisions of the Act. The courts could

have drawn adverse inference against the appellant only

when seniority list was proved to be in existence and

then not produced before the court. In order to entitle

the court to draw inference unfavourable to the party,

the court must be satisfied that evidence is in existence

and could have been proved." Finding of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranagar District Panchayat .....appellant V/s

Dahyabhai Amarsinh.....Respondent, is relevant &

applies to the case of applicant.

40. Bases on the findings related to issue no. 1 to 4

& from the discussions as above, I am of the view that

applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the

statement of claim & action of the management of

Archaeolgical Survey of India in terminating the

services of the workman Sh. Radhye Shyam Mali w.e.f.

2784

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

30.8.06 without following the provisions of section 25-

F. 25-G & 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal

& justified.

41. Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1309-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkfdZ;ksykWftdy

losZ vkWQ bafM;k jktLFkku ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ

53@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 24@06@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@31@2007&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñdsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015

S.O. 1309.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby pubished the award (I.D. No. 53/07) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

the Archaeological Survey of India, Rajasthan and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 24/06/2015.

[No. L-42012/31/2007-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY,

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. 53/2007

Reference No. L42012/31/2007-IR(DU) dated: 23.7.2007

Sh. Ram Prasad Mali

S/o Shri Ghasi Lal Mali

R/o Village & Post Sherpur, Khilchipur,

Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)

V/s

The Regional Officer

Archaeological Survey of India

Ranthambhor Durg,

Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)

For the Applicant

: Sh. M.F. Beig, Advocate.

For the Non-applicant

: Sh. T.P. Sharma, Advocate.

AWARD

18.5.2015

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred

the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:-

"Whether the action of the management of

Archaeoligical Survey of India, in terminating the

services of their workman Shri Ram Prasad Mali, w.e.f

30.8.2006, without following the provisions of Sections

25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is

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

entitled to?"

2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant

workman was appointed as daily wager on 25.5.03. He was

discharging his duty since appointment honestly & there

was no complaint by opposite party against his work.

Whatever work has assigned to the applicant he completed

that work to best of his ability. Applicant was never served

with any notice & no charge was ever proved apainst him.

3. He was appointed on daily wage but his period of

appointment or nature of work was not fixed. The work for

which he was appointed by opposite party is still existing

& the nature of work is permanent. The applicant is

'workman' & the opposite party is 'employer' according to

the definition of 'workman' & employer' provided in

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The applicant had worked

for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately

preceding the date of termination & his services were

terminated on 30.8.06 without giving any notice or any

payment in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in

violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

His termination is unfair labour practice & victimisation

adopted by opposite party.

4. Before the termination of the workman seniority list

was neither prepared nor published by the opposite party

which is violation of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes Rules,

1958. At the time of termination of the service workmen

junior to the applicant were retained in service by the

opposite party in violation of section 25-G of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The opposite party has made new

appointment after termination of the services of the

applicant workman but no priority was given to the

applicant which is violation of section 25-H of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 & Rule 78 of Industrial Disputes Rule,

1958. It has been further alleged by the applicant requested

the opposite party to take the applicant in his employment

but he was not taken back & due to non co-operation of

opposite party conciliation also failed before the

Conciliation Officer. The opposite party has accepted

before the Conciliation Officer that applicant was kept on

work & work was taken from him, hence, the relation of

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2785

employer & workman has not been denied by the opposite

party but to escape from the liability of illegal termination

it has been denied that opposite party is 'Industry' within

the meaning of definition provided in Industrial Disputes

Act, 1957. The true position is that according to the

activities & work the opposite party is an 'industry'

according to the definition of industry provided under

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The provisions of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 have not been followed by opposite

party, hence, the termination of the services of the

workman is illegal & unfair.

5. It has been further alleged that allegation of the

opposite party before the Conciliation Officer is that the

applicant workman was absent from duty from 15.3.2006 to

8.6.2006 but workman was not given any show-cause notice.

Neither any charge sheet was served upon him regarding

absence from place of duty nor any charge was proved.

The applicant had made his stand clear before the

management that he has not remained absent during above

said period & instead of absence he has been working in

that period. The applicant had completed more than two

years of service & he was demanding from the opposite

party to declare him semi permanent employee. As a result

of above demand of the applicant the opposite party instead

of making him semi permanent terminated the services of

the applicant. The applicant is jobless since the date of

termination. It is, therefore, requested that termination order

dated 30.8.06 be declared illegal & applicant reinstated with

all pay & emoluments along with continuity in service.

6. In reply statement in para 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,

12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19 & 20 of the statement of claim have

been specifically denied. In additional reply it has been

alleged in para 2 that the applicant labourer was not

appointed by the opposite party & he was engaged as

casual labourer for carrying out casual work on the basis

of part time contract & such engagement was coming to

end immediately after completion of the work. It has also

been alleged that the applicant labourer has never completed

240 days in any year & applicant is under an obligation to

prove this fact by document. Statement of para 5 of

statement of claim has been said to be baseless & nature of

the work for which applicant was engaged is alleged to be

casual. Against para 7 it has been alleged that to succeed

in his sinister design applicant has fabricated the statement.

7. It has been alleged against para 8 of the statement of

claim that applicant was called for a fixed works & his

services were coming to end after completion of the work.

Relation between applicant & opposite party as workman

& employer has been specifically denied against para 9 of

the statement of claim & has been alleged that since he

was never appointed the question of such relationship

does not arise. The applicant does not fall within the

definition of workman & the department of the opposite

party does not fall within the definition of Industry.

Applicant was never engaged permanently & he was called

only when there was work. He was neither appointed on

any post after following the rules of appointment nor any

appointment letter was issued to him, therefore, question

of termination of his services does not arise. It has been

alleged in para 11 of reply that it is pertinent to note that

applicant was not removed from the institution of opposite

party & the fact is that the work was over hence, his services

authomatically came to an end. It was not necessary to

given notice to the applicant because such notice is issued

only to such workman who permanently work for a period

of more than 240 days & the department is not satisfied

with work of such workman, in that event such workman

may be removed after serving one months notice. In case

of applicant after completion of work he himself had gone

elsewhere.

8. Against para 13 of statement of claim it has been

alleged that workmen like applicant are not given any

appointment letter neither they are deemed regular workmen

of the department. Workman like applicant are engaged on

daily wage basis according to need of a particular work for

its execution & they are removed after completion of work

or at the end of financial year or on other terchnical ground

on suspension or stoppage of work. Against para 14 of

statement of claim it has been alleged that nature of the

new recruitment by the department whose nature is

permanent is doen by following the legal procedure &

selection is made out of person who possess the prescribed

eligibility. Applicant was not appointed on any vacant post

under grade 'D'. At the time of engaging the applicant

workman he was briefed orally that he is engaged against a

specific work & nature of the work is purely temporary &

casual in which applicant is not entitled to derive benefit of

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The allegation of

the applicant is wrong that he was removed out of

animosity. In absence of casual work the services of the

workman automatically comes to an end. In last paragraph

of the reply it has been prayed that order of dismissal be

passed against the statement of claim.

9. In rejoinder dated 3.6.2010 filed by applicant, statement

of claim has been reiterated & statement of reply submitted

by the opposite party has been alleged to be wrong.

10. In preliminary objection against statement of claim

filed by opposite party it has been alleged that applicant

was neither given any appointment nor there was any

sanctioned or vacant post Department of the opposite party

is not covered within the definition of industry as provided

in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. In B-40/97,

Gobardhan Lal Meena v/s Archaeological Survey of India,

it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its award dated

18.1.2001 that Archaeological Survey of India is not

covered within the definition of industry. Industrial

Tribunal, Jabalpur in its award dated 9.6.2003 has held that

Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within

2786

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the meaning of section 2(j) if Industrial Disputes Act. It has

also been alleged that the applicant was engaged for

completion of casual work for fixed period of time & he has

not worked for 240 days in any of the year, hence, he is not

entitled to the benefit of Industrial Dispute Act. It has also

been alleged that the applicant left the work on his own

even before the completion of the work, hence, he is not

entitled to any relief.

11. Against preliminary objection it has been alleged by

the applicant that preliminary objections are not tenable at

belated stage. It has also been alleged that various

precedents it has been alleged that preliminary objections

are to be decided along with other issues on merits. It has

also been alleged that preliminary objections are evidence

based, hence, opposite party be directed to file the reply to

the statement of claim.

12. Under mentioned issues were framed on 27.7.2011

by the then learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based

on pleadings of both the parties:—

(1)

Whether the workman had worked for more than

240 days as daily wager during period 25.5.2003 to

30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of

his alleged termination & whose service was

terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act?

(2)

At the time of terminating the service of the workman

the juniors person to him were retained by the

management in contravention of section 25-G of

the I.D. Act?

(3)

Whether subsequent to the termination of the

workman fresh hands were engaged by the non-

applicant management in violation of section 25-H

of the I.D. Act?

(4)

Whether non-applicant establishment is an

'Industry' within the meaning of section 2-J of the

I.D. Act?

13. Applicant has filed document W-1 which is reply of

opposite party before conciliation proceeding, affidavit of

the applicant in evidence and statement of number of

working days in calendar year 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006.

Applicant has been cross-examination by opposite party

on his affidavit.

14. In documentary evidence, opposite party has filed

statement of payment made to applicant & other workmen

which is 26 page. This document has been filed on direction

of tribunal given on application of the applicant. Opposite

party has filed affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh in evidence.

Sh. Brijraj Singh has been cross examined on 28.10.14 by

applicant side.

15. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for

both the parties & perused the file. Written argument have

been filed by both the parties which is on record.

16. Following citations have been referred on behalf of

applicant:—

i. 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of

India.........Appellant V/s N. Sundaramoney........

Respondent.

ii. Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil

appeal No. 753-754(I) of 1975, Banglore Water

supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc. V/s A.

Rajappa & Others etc. etc.

iii. 1983 LAB.I.C. 1629 (Supreme Court), D.P.

Maheshwari...Appellant

v/s

Delhi

Administration & other...Respondents.

iv. Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial

Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen

through the President, Archaeological Survey

Mazdoor Union, New Delhi V/s The Director

General, Archaeological Survey of India,

Janpath, New Delhi.

v. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of

Commerce...Appellant V/s President Officer,

Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others (23).

vi. RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash

Sharma....Petitioner V/s Rajasthan Text Book

Board, Jaipur & others (122)....Respondent.

vii. Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in

Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy

Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological

Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra V/s Suresh

Chandra.

17. Following citations have been referred on behalf of

opposite party:—

i. Award dated 26.11.1986 passed by Central

Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in

O.A.No. 33/86, Govind Kanji Parmar &

others....Petitioner V/s Union of India &

others....Respondents.

ii. Award dated 30.10.1996 passed by Central

administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench,

Jodhpur in O.A.No. 331 to 334/1993, Devi singh

&others....petitioners V/s Union of India &

others....Respondents.

iii. Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jaipur of CGIT case No. B-40/97 in

Goverdhan Lal Meena V/s Director (Science),

Archaeological Survey of India, Science

Branch, Deharadun.

18. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the

applicant that applicant has completed continuous 240 days

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2787

of service in every year but he has removed from service

by opposite party in violation of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been argued

that contention of the opposite party is against the law

that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry'

within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. Against this it

has been argued by learned counsel for the opposite party

that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' &

there is no violation of section 25-F G & H of the Act. It has

also been argued that applicant was neither appointed nor

any appointment letter was issued. There was no

advertisement for recruitment. It has also been argued that

applicant was engaged on part time contract for casual

work of repair & soon after completion of the work

engagement of the applicant was over. It has also been

alleged that his engagement was on daily wage & as the

work of repair of the wall was of temporary character hence,

on account of end of job & none availability of further job

the applicant himself had left the place of job. It has also

been argued that whenever there is availability of work,

workmen are engaged on daily wage basis for the job.

Reference has been made by both the parties towards

precedents submitted by them in favour of their respective

claim.

19. Before issue No. 1 is decided it appears desirable to

take up issues 2, 3 & 4 for decision because decision of

these issues are important & having relevance in decision

of issue No. 1.

Issue No. 2

20. This issue relates to violation of section 25-G of

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 in terminating the services of

applicant. Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

reads as under:—

"Section 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment.—Where

any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a

citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a

particular category of workmen in that establishment, in

the absence of any agreement between the employer

and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall

ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person

to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to

be recorded the employer retrenches any other

workman."

21. From persual of the provision contained in section

25-G it appears that whenever in ordinary course of

business a workman is required to be retrenched then the

last person employed by the employer shall be retrenched

first unless there is special reason for retrenchment of a

person other than the last employed person. From perusal

of statement of claim it is evident that in para 13 it has been

alleged that there has been violation of section 25-G of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of

the applicant & junior to the applicant was retained in

service at the time of his removal but no one has been

named in statement of claim that who is the person junior

to the applicant who was retained. In the affidavit also filed

by applicant as evidence there is no mention of a person

junior to him who was retained in the service at the time of

his removal. In the cross-examination of the applicant on

page 2 this question has been placed before him & he has

alleged that when he was removed at that time all other

workmen were also removed. This statement of the applicant

during cross-examination obviously indicates that no one

junior to him was retained & removal of all the workman

together is also indicative of the fact of Cessation or

completion of a particular work for which they are engaged.

Here, it is also pertinent to note that it has been repeatedly

argued by learned counsel for opposite party that in fact

there has been no appointment, therefore, the question of

removal of the applicant from employment does not arise.

From the perusal of the cross-examination of Sh. Brijraj

Singh, Deputy Supertintendent (Archaeology) it is clear

that no assistance can be taken on this point from his

cross-examination. Bases on above discussion, it is clear

that the applicant has failed to prove that at the time of

termination of the service of applicant workman, juniors to

him were retained by the management in contravention of

section 25-G of the I.D. Act. Issue No. 2 is accordingly

decided in negative against the applicant.

Issue No. 3

22. This issue is to the effect that whether subsequent

to the termination of the workman fresh workmen were

engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of

section 25-H of the I.D.Act. For convenience provision of

Section 25-H is reproduced below which reads as under:—

"Sec. 25-H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen—

Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer

purposes to take into his employ any person he shall, in

such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity

to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of the India

to offer themselves for re-employment, and such

retrenched workmen, who offer themselves for re-

employment shall have preference over other persons.

23. The above mentioned section 25-H provides that a

retrench employee shall have preference is appointment

over rest, if management, intends to employ a workman &

the managemt is under an obligation to give opportunity

to retrench workman so that he can offer himself for

employment. If opportunity is not given by management it

will amount to violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Para 14

of statement of claim indicates that after termination of the

services of applicant new appointments were made without

preference given to applicant. In reply to para 14 of

statement of claim non-applicant has denied the

appointment. There is no documentary evidence on record

about new appointment. Para 6 of affidavit of applicant

filed in evidence indicates that new appointments were

2788

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

made with no preference to applicant but in cross

examination applicant has admitted that in his affidavit &

statement of claim he has not alleged that after his removal

who was appointed & when. The applicant has also

admitted that in statement of claim also he has not given

detail of newly appointed persons. In para 11 of affidavit of

Sh. Brijraj Singh witness for opposite party violation of

section 25-G & H has been specifically denied. In cross-

examination of Sh. Brijraj singh there is nothing significant

to draw an inference about violation of section 25-H of I.D.

Act. Based on above discussion & appreciation of evidence

adduced by the parties I am of the view that the applicant

has failed to prove the violation of section 25-H of the

I.D.Act regarding appointment of fresh hands subsequent

to termination of his service. Issue No 3 is accordingly

decided against the applicant.

Issue No. 4

24. This issue is to the effect that whether establishment

of the non-applicant. Archaeological Survey of India is an

Industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act.

A preliminary objection has been raised by non-applicant

that establishement of the non-applicant is not covered

under definition of 'Industry' as indicated in section 2(j) of

the I.D. Act. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on

Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case

No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science),

Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch,

Deharadun. Aganist this, it has been argued by learned

counsel for the applicant that establishment of non-

applicant is covered by the definition of 'Industry'. Reliance

has been placed by non-applicant on Judgement & order

dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975,

Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc V/s A.

Rajappa & others etc. etc., Award dated 21.10.1988 passed

by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen

through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor

Union, New ``Delhi V/s The Director General, Archaeological

Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi & Award dated

17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy

Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of

India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra. I have very

carefully gone through cases cited by both the parties.

Judgement dated 9.6.03 by CGIT, Jabalpur has not been

filed by opposite party.

25. In Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s

Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science

Branch, Deharadun, cited by learned counsel for the

opposite party it has been held in decision of issue No. 4

that provision of I.D. Act, 1947 apply to the case. Issue No.

4 has dealt with the fact that provisions of I.D. Act apply to

the opposite party or not. Cases cited by learned counsel

for the applicant indicate that Archaeological Survey of

India is covered within the definition of 'Industry' as

provided in section 2(i) of the I.D. Act. In Award dated

21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No.

78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archeological

Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General,

Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi,

discussing the case of Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978

in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water

Supply & Sewerage Board etc etc v/s A. Rajappa & others

etc. etc., it has been held by the CGIT, Delhi that

Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. In Award

dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy

Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of

India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra, it has been held

by CGIT, Kanpur that Archaeological Survey of India is an

'Industry'. From decision of the cases cited on behalf of

both the parties & from the fact & circumstances of the

present case, I am of the view that establishment of non-

applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'

within the meaning of section 2(J) of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. Issue No. 4 is accordingly decided in affirmative

against the non-applicant.

Issue No. 1

26. This issue is to the effect whether the workman had

worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period

25.5.03 to 30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of

his alleged termination & whether his service was

terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act? It has

been argued by learned counsel for the applicant & has

also been alleged in the written argument that applicant

has worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during

period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of

termination on 30.8.06 & termination of the services of

applicant is in violation of section 25-F of Industrial

Disputes Act, hence, the order of termination is fit to be set

aside with continuity in service along with back wages.

Against this, it has been argued by the learned counsel for

the opposite party & has also been alleged in the written

argument that the applicant was not appointed by none-

applicant, no appointment letter was issued, there was no

advertisement for any appointment. It has also been argued

that applicant was engaged on daily wage basis for repair

of the walls of the fort which is a work of temporary nature.

It has also been argued that applicant voluntarily left the

place of work on account of non availability of work. It has

also been said that on availability of work engagement is

made on daily wage basis for the period of work only &

provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of

applicant. It has also been alleged that in view of case of

the applicant covered under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2789

Act, compliance of provision of section 25-F is not required.

27. According to statement of claim applicant was

appointed on daily wage on 25.5.03 & was terminated on

30.8.06 without notice or pay in lieu of notice or

retrenchment compensation in violation of section 25-F of

I.D. Act. What was the post held by the applicant during

employment has not been alleged in statement of claim.

About the nature of the work the applicant has alleged that

whatever work was assigned by the opposite party

applicant was performing that work. It has also been alleged

that his engagement was neither for a fix work nor for a fix

period. The applicant has alleged that he was worked for

more than 240 days in every year. In affidavit filed in

evidence in support of above statement of claim the

applicant has repeated the allegation of statement of claim.

No other co-worker has been produced as witness in

evidence to support the allegation of statement of claim. In

written statement it has been specifically denied by

opposite party that applicant has worked for more than 240

days in a year instead it has been alleged that applicant

has not worked for 240 days in any of the year. Sh Brijraj

Singh has specifically denied in para 3 of his affidavit that

the applicant has worked for 240 days in any of the year. In

above fact & circumstances, the burden of proof lies on

applicant to prove that he has worked for more than 240

days in a year immediately preceding the date of his

termination on 30.8.06 as alleged in statement of claim. The

applicant has alleged in his cross examination that he has

not stated in his affidavit in evidence or in statement of

claim that for how many days he has worked in any

corresponding year. He has admitted that he has filed

document w-1 & in w-1 nature of work has been mentioned

for which he was engaged & in w-1 it has also been

mentioned that the nature of work includes 'special repair

work' & such mention in w-1 is correct. Thus, it shall appear

that two documents relating to total number of days of

work has been filed by the applicant which is w-1 & w-2,

W-2 is the document which appeared to be prepared by

workman whereas w-1 is the document which appears to

be reply submitted by management during conciliation

proceedings. From document w-2 if taken into consideration

for calculating the period of 240 days immediately preceding

the date of termination on 30.8.06 then total number of

days on which the workman has worked between 30.8.05

to 30.8.06 comes out to be 139 days. From document w-1 it

comes out to be 231 days but lacks continuity. Thus,

workman has failed to prove that he has continuously

worked for more than 240 days in the year immediately

preceding the date of his termination. It shall also appear

from both the documents w-1 & w-2 that there is no

continuous work in the year.

28. Document regarding period & corresponding

working days filed by management on order of the tribunal

passed on application of the applicant provides following

detail:—

Period of work

Number of working days

19.2.03 to 20.3.03

26

25.5.03 to 24.6.03

30

25.7.03 to 24.8.03

09

25.8.03 to 1.9.03

08

17.1.04 to 16.2.04

28

13.4.04 to 13.5.04

26

15.5.04 to 14.6.04

22

9.6.04 to 9.7.04

28

18.7.04 to 27.7.04

10

11.7.04 to 10.8.04

19

12.8.04 to 11.9.04

27

13.9.04 to 13.1.04

28

14.10.04 to 31.10.04

17

1.11.04 to 1.12.04

26

3.12.04 to 2.1.05

28

4.1.05 to 3.2.05

28

19.1.05 to 18.2.05

13

6.2.05 to 8.3.05

15

9.3.05 to 17.3.05

09

19.3.05 to 13.4.05

24

6.6.05 to 6.7.05

28

8.10.05 to 7.11.05

28

9.11.05 to 9.12.05

27

11.12.05 to 10.1.06

29

12.2.06 to 14.3.06

27

9.6.06 to 7.7.06

28

Total number of days between

30.8.05 to 30.8.06

139 days

29. The statement of above table submitted by opposite

party regarding statement of work done by workman

indicate that from the date of termination on 30.8.06

applicant has worked only for 139 days in a year

immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06.

Thus, it is evident that the workman has not worked

continuously for 240 days immediately preceding the date

of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that

applicant has failed to prove that he has worked for more

than 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination.

From the entire cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there

appears nothing to derive in favour of applicant that he

has worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding the

2790

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear

that applicant has failed to prove that he has continuously

worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately

preceding the date of his termination.

30. As far as the question of violation of section 25-F of

Industrial Dispute is concerned it has been argued by the

learned counsel for the applicant that there has been

violation of section 25-F in terminating the services of the

applicant, against this learned counsel for the opposite

party has argued that there is no violation of section 25-F

of I.D. Act & section 25-F does not apply in the case of

applicant who was neither employed nor terminated & his

engagement has been only for specific period & specific

work & he has left the workplace on his own accord. It has

also been argued that as the question of terminating the

services of the applicant does not arise, because he was

not given any employment & there was no advertisement

for employment, hence, section 25-F does not apply to the

case of the applicant. Section 25-F reads as under:—

"25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of

workmen.—No workman employed in any industry who

has been in continuous service for not less than one

year under an employer shall be retrenched by that

employer until-----------

(a) the workman has been given on month's notice in

writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and

the period of notice has expired, or the workman

has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the

period of the notice:

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of

retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every

completed year of continuous service or any part

thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the

appropriate Government (or such authority as may

be specified by the appropriate Government by

notification in the Official Gazette.)

31. Continuous service as indicated in section 25-F(1)

has been defined in section 25-B(1) (ii) which reads as

under:—

Section 25-B. Definition of continuous service---

----For the purposes of this Chapter—

(1)

a workman shall be said to be in continuous service

for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted

service, including service which may be interrupted

on account of sickness or authorised leave or an

accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-

out or a cessation of work which is not due to any

fault on the part of the workman.

(2)

where a workman is not in continuous service within

the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year

or six months, he shall be deemed to be in

continuous service under an employer.............

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during

a period of twelve calendar months preceding

the date with reference to which calculation is

to be made, has actually worked under the

employer for not less than.................

(i) one hundred any ninety days in the case

of a workman employed below ground in

a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other

case;

32. Section 2 (oo) provides meaning of retrenchment

which reads as under: —

"2(oo)............"retrenchment" means the termination by

the employer of the service of a workman for any reason

whatsosever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by

way of disciplinary action but does not include.............

(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) Retirement of workman on reaching the age of

superannuation if the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

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

of the non-renewal of the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

on its expiry or of such contract being terminated

under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein;

or

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the

ground of continued ill-health;

33. In 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranagar District Panchayat...............Appellant V/s.

Dahyabhai Amarsinh....................Respondent, taking

together & analyzing the integrated impact of section 2(oo),

section 25-B & section 25-F in paragraph 7 page 43, it has

been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, "...............................

To attract provisions of Section 25-F, the workman claiming

protection under it, has to prove that there exists relationship

of employer and employee; that he is a workman within the

meaning of section 2(s) of the Act; the establishment in

which he is employed is an industry within the meaning of

the Act and he must have put in not less than one year of

continuous service as defined by section 25-B under the

employer. These conditions are cumulative. If any of these

conditions is missing the provisions of section 25-F will

not be attracted. To get relief from the court the workman

has to establish that he has right to continue in service and

that his service has been terminated without complying

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2791

with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The section

postulates three conditions to be fulfilled by an employer

for getting a valid retrenchment, namely:—

(i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating

the reasons for retrenchment or that the

workman has been paid wages for the period

of notice in lieu of such notice;

(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which

shall be equivalent to 15 days' average pay for

every completed year of continuous service

or any part thereof, in excess of six months;

(iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the

prescribed manner.

34. Looking into the above provisions & the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to attract the provision

of section 25-F, it is clear that the applicant has failed to

prove that he has worked continuously for more than 240

days in a calender year immediately preceding the date of

his termination, thus, provision of section 25-F is not

attracted in the case of applicant. From above discussion,

I am of the view that the applicant has not worked

continuously for more than 240 days as daily wager

immediately preceding 12 months from the date of his

alleged termination on 30.8.06 & his services were not

terminated in violation of section 25-F of Indstrial Disputes

Act. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in negative against

the applicant.

35. It has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the

applicant that even if section 25-F is not attracted in case

of applicant, he is entitled to the benefits of section 25-G &

25-H which are independent of section 25-F. Reliance has

been placed on RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank

of Commerce...............Appellant v/s Presiding Officer,

Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others & RLR 1991 (2),

Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma...............Petitioner

V/s. Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & others

(122)...............Respondent. Against this it has been argued

by learned counsel for opposite party that provision of

section 25-G & 25-H is not attracted in the case of applicant.

I have carefully gone through both the above reported

cases.

36. In case of Oriental Bank of Commerce V/s. Presiding

Officer respondent 2 was employed in the bank of petitioner

from 2.5.85 to 28.5.85 for a period of 79 days. He was said to

be appointed for leave period only & his engagement came

to end after expiry of period of leave. The respondent raised

industrial dispute relating to section 25-G & 25-H which

was referred for adjudication. After the evidence of both

the parties tribunal came to the conclusion that there was

violation of section 25-G & section 25-H, hence, respondent

was directed to be reinstated & it was also directed that he

will entitled to pay from the date of joining because

respondent was said to be on the job in some other place.

On the basis of evidence tribunal came to conclusion that

management had failed to indicate that who on leave in

whose place respondent was emplyed during leave

vacancy, hence, this fact was not admitted by tribunal that

engagement of respondent was for the period of leave

vacancy. It was also admitted by management witness that

after removal of respondent Sh. Mulan Rasool & Sh.

Narendra Bhatt were appointed on the post of peon but

respondent was not given opportunity. Thus, there was

violation of section 25-G & 25-H. Petition against the order

of tribunal was dismissed by Division Bench of Hon'ble

High Court & award of the tribunal was confirmed.

37. In RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash

Sharma.............Petitioner V/s. Rajasthan Text Book Board,

Jaipur & others (122).........Respondent, it has been held by

Hon'ble High Court that section 25-G, 25-H & 25-F are

independent of each other & section 25-G & 25-H are not

dependent on section 25-F. It has also been held that

section 25-G & 25-H are applicable irrespective of the fact

that the workman has completed 240 days of service or

not. It has been further held that rule 76 to 78 of Industrial

Dispute Rules, 1957 are independent of each other &

mandatory in nature. Violation of these rules will give a

cause of action in favour of workman to claim

compensation, damages & re-employment. To derive the

benefits of these rules continuous service is not necessary

& workmen not having completed 240 days of service are

also entitled to the benefits of Rule 76 to 78. In this case

petitoner Sh. Suryaprakash Sharma was retrenched from

service before completion of 240 days & was not entitled

for the benefits u/s 25 of I.D. Act. The only question

involved in this case was about applicability of section 25-

H of I.D. Act read with Rule 77 & 78. The case of the

respondent was that after discharge of petitoner on 1.11.88

they had employed few persons although persons who

employed were discharged on 19.8.89. The petition of the

petitioner was allowed & he was held entitled to claim wages

by way of compensation for the period during which his

junior remain in employment.

38. In 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of

Inda.........Appellant V/s. N. Sundaramoney..............

Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court

that read with section 25-B(2) if provision of section 25-F

of Industrial Dispute Act is attracted in case of the workman,

he cannot be retrenched without payment of compensation

at the time of retrenchment as prescribed therein. It is

pertinent to mention that facts & circumstances of the

present case are different comparing to the facts of State

Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney, hence, law laid down

by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v/s N.

Sundarmoney is not attracted in the presnet case.

39. From decision of issue No. 2 & 3 it is clear that

applicant is not entitled to the benefit for violation of section

25-G & 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act because violation of

these two sections have not been proved by the applicant.

It is also clear from the evidence on record that no seniority

2792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

list is in existence as the case of opposite party is that there

was no employment in respect of applicant & he was only

engaged casually as and when there was existence of work.

Applicant has not proved his appointment or termination

by filing any documentary evidence in this behalf who was

engaged as daily wager. It has been held by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranagar District Panchayat.................Appellant V/s

Dahyabhai Amarsinh..............Respondent, in para 18 of the

judgement in relation to section 25-G & section 25-H as

under:—

"..........................In the absence of regular employment

of the workmen, the appellant was not expected to

maintain seniority list of the employees engaged on

daily wages and in the absence of any proof by the

respondent regarding existence of the seniority list and

his so-called seniority, no relief could be given to him

for non-compliance with provisions of the Act. The

courts could have drawn adverse inference against the

appellant only when seniority list was proved to be in

existence and then not produced before the court. In

order to entitle the court to draw inference unfavourable

to the party, the court must be satisfied that evidence is

in existence and could have been proved." Finding of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases

(L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat

......Appellant V/s. Dahyabhai Amarsinh..........

Respondent, is relevant & applies to the case of

applicant.

40. Bases on the findings related to issue No. 1 to 4 &

from the discussions as above, I am of the view that

applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the

statement of claim & action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India in terminating the services

of the workman Sh. Ram Prasad Mali w.e.f. 30.8.06 without

following the provisions of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of

Industrial Disptues Act, 1947 is legal & justified.

41. Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1310-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj vkfdZ;ksykWftdy

losZ vkWQ bafM;k] jktLFkku ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ lañ 54@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24-06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@33@2007&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015

S.O. 1310.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 54/2007) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

the Archaeological Survey of India, Rajasthan and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 24.06.2015.

[No. L-42012/33/2007-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

Bharat Pandey, Presiding Officer

I.D. 54/2007

Reference No. L-42012/33/2007-IR(DU) dated 23.07.2007

Shri Prabhu Lal Mali

S/o Shri Morpal Mali

R/o Village and Post Sherpur,

Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)

V/s

The Regional Officer

Archaeological Survey of India,

Ranthambhor Durg,

Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).

For the Applicant

: Shri M.F. Beig, Advocate.

For the Non-applicant : Shri T.P. Sharma, Advocate.

AWARD

18.05.2015

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 and 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred

the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:—

"Whether the action of the management of

Archaeologial Survey of India, in terminating the

services of their workman Shri Prabhu Lal Mali, w.e.f.

30.08.2006, without following the provisions of

Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute

Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled ?"

2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant workman

was appointed as daily wager on 25.03.03. He was

discharging his duty since appointment honestly and there

was no complaint by opposite party against his work.

Whatever work was assigned to the applicant he completed

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2793

that work to best of his ability. Applicant was never served

with any notice and no charge was ever proved against him.

3. He was appointed on daily wage but his period of

appointment or nature of work was not fixed. The work for

which he was appointed by opposite party is still existing

and the nature of work is permanent. The applicant is

'workman' and the opposite party is 'employer' according

to the definition of 'workman' and 'employer' provided in

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The applicant had worked

for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately

preceding the date of termination and his services were

terminated on 30.08.06 without giving any notice or any

payment in lieu of notice or retrenchement compensation

in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

His termination is unfair labour practice and victimisation

adopted by opposite party.

4. Before the termination of the workman seniority list

was neither prepared nor published by the opposite party

which is violation of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes Rules,

1958. At the time of termination of the service workmen

junior to the applicant were retained in service by the

opposite party in violation of section 25-G of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The opposite party has made new

appointment after termination of the services of the

applicant workman but no priority was given to the applicant

which is violation of section 25-H of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 & Rule 78 of Industrial Disputes Rule, 1958. It

has been further alleged by the applicant that applicant

requested the opposite party to take the applicant in his

employment but he was not taken back & due to non co-

operation of opposite party conciliation also failed before

the Conciliation Officer. The opposite party has accepted

before the Conciliation Officer that applicant was kept on

work & work was taken from him, hence, the relation of

employer & workman has not been denied by the opposite

party but to escape from the liability of illegal termination it

has been denied that opposite party in 'Industry' within

the meaning of definition provided in Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. The true position is that according to the

activities & work the opposite party is an 'industry'

according to the definition of industry provided under

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The provisions of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 have not been followed by opposite

party, hence the termination of the services of the workman

is illegal & unfair.

5. It has been further alleged that allegation of the

opposite party before the Conciliation Officer is that the

applicant workman was absent from duty from 15.3.2006 to

8.6.2006 but workman was not given any show cause notice.

Neither any charge sheet was served upon him regarding

absence from place of duty nor any charge was proved.

The applicant had made his stand clear before the

management that he has not remained absent during above

said period & instead of absence he has been working in

that period. The applicant had completed more than two

years of service & he was demanding from the opposite

party to declare him semi permanent employee. As a result

of above demand of the applicant the opposite party instead

of making him semi permanent terminated the services of

the applicant. The applicant is jobless since the date of

termination. It is, therefore, requested that termination order

dated 30.8.06 be declared illegal & applicant reinstated with

all pay & emoluments along with continuity in service.

6. In reply statement in para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,

12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 of the statement of claim

have been specifically denied. In additional reply it has

been alleged in para 2 that the applicant labourer was not

appointed by the opposite party & he was engaged as

casual labourer for carrying out casual work on the basis

of part time contract & such engagement was coming to

end immediately after completion of the work. It has also

been alleged that the applicant labourer has never completed

240 days in any year & applicant is under an obligation to

prove this fact by document. Statement of para 5 of

statement of claim has been said to be baseless & nature of

the work for which applicant was engaged is alleged to be

casual. Against para 7 it has been alleged that to succeed

in his sinister design applicant has fabricated the statement.

7. It has been alleged against para 8 of the statement of

claim that applicant was called for a fixed works & his

services were coming to end after completion of the work.

Relation between applicant & opposite party as workman

& employer has been specifically denied against para 9 of

the statement of claim & has been alleged that since he

was never appointed the question of such relationship

does not arise. The applicant does not fall within the

definition of workman & the department of the opposite

party does not fall within the definition of Industry.

Applicant was never engaged permanently & he was called

only when there was work. He was neither appointed on

any post after following the rules of appointment nor any

appointment letter was issued to him, therefore, question

of termination of his services does not arise. It has been

alleged in para 11 of reply that it is pertinent to note that

applicant was not removed from the institution of opposite

party & the fact is that the work was over hence, his services

automatically came to an end. It was not necessary to give

notice to the applicant because such notice is issued only

to such workman who permanently work for a period of

more than 240 days & the department is not satisfied with

work of such workman, in that even such workman may be

removed after serving one months notice. In case of

applicant after completion of work he himself had gone

elsewhere.

8. Against para 13 of statement of claim it has been

alleged that workmen like applicant are not given any

appointment letter neither they are deemed regular workmen

of the department. Workman like applicant are engaged on

daily wage basis according to need of a particular work for

2794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

its execution and they are removed after completion of

work or at the end of financial year or on other technical

ground on suspension or stoppage of work. Against para

14 of statement of claim it has been alleged that nature of

the new recruitment by the department whose nature is

permanent is done by following the legal procedure &

selection is made out of person who possess the prescribed

eligibility. Applicant was not appointed on any vacant post

under grade 'D'. At the time of engaging the applicant

workman he was briefed orally that he is engaged against a

specific work & nature of the work is purely temporary &

casual in which applicant is not entitled to derive benefit of

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The allegation of

the applicant is wrong that he was removed out of

animosity. In absence of casual work the services of the

workman automatically comes to an end. In last paragraph

of the reply it has been prayed that order of dismissal be

passed against the statement of claim.

9. In rejoinder dated 3.6.2010 filed by applicant, statement

of claim has been reiterated & statement of reply submitted

by the opposite party has been alleged to be wrong.

10. In preliminary objection against statement of claim

filed by opposite party it has been alleged that applicant

was neither given any appointment nor there was any

sanctioned or vacant post. Department of the opposite

party is not covered within the definition of industry as

provided in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. In B-40/

97, Gobardhan Lal Meena v/s Archaeological Survey of

India, it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its award

dated 18.1.2001 that Archaeological Survey of India is not

covered within the definition of industry. Industrial

Tribunal, Jabalpur in its award dated 9.6.2003 has held that

Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within

the meaning of section 2(j) if Industrial Disputes Act. It has

also been alleged that the applicant was engaged for

completion of casual work for fixed period of time & he has

not worked for 240 days in any of the year, hence, he is not

entitled to the benefit of Industrial Dispute Act. It has also

been alleged that the applicant left the work on his own

even before the completion of the work, hence, he is not

entitled to any relief.

11. Against preliminary objection it has been alleged by

the applicant that preliminary objections are not tenable at

belated stage. It has also been alleged that various

precedents it has been alleged that preliminary objections

are to be decided along with other issues on merits. It has

also been alleged that preliminary objections are evidence

based, hence, opposite party be directed to file the reply to

the statement of claim.

12. Under mentioned issues were framed on 27.7.2011

by the then learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based

on pleadings of both the parties:—

(1). Whether the workman had worked for more than

240 days as daily wager during period 25.3.03 to 30.8.06

preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged

termination & whose service was terminated in violation of

section 25-F of the Act?

(2). At the time of terminating the service of the workman

the juniors person to him were retained by the management

in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act/

(3). Whether subsequent to the termination of the

workman fresh hands were engaged by the non-applicant

management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act?

(4). Whether non-applicant establishment is an 'industry'

within the meaning of section 2-J of the I.D. Act?

13. Applicant has filed document w-1 which is reply of

opposite party before conciliation proceeding, affidavit of

the applicant in evidence and statement of number of

working days in calendar year 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006.

Applicant has been cross-examination by opposite party

on his affidavit.

14. In documentary evidence, opposite party has filed

statement of payment made to applicant & other workmen

which is 28 page. This document has been filed on direction

of tribunal given on application of the applicant. Opposite

party has filed affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh in evidence.

Sh Brijraj Singh has been cross-examined on 28.10.14 by

applicant side.

15. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for

both the parties & perused the file. Written argument have

been filed by both the parties which is on record.

16. Following citations have been referred on behalf of

applicant:—

i. 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of

India.....Appellant V/s N. Sundaramoney ......

Respondent.

ii. Judgenent & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal

No. 753 - 754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply &

Sewerage Board etc.etc V/s A. Rajappa & other

etc.etc

iii. 1983 LAB.I.C 1629 (Supreme Court ), D.P.

Maheshwari...Appellant V/s Delhi Administration

& others......Respondents.

iv. Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial

Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No.78/84 in workmen through

the president,Archeological Survey Mazdoor

Union, New Delhi V/s The Director General,

Archealogical Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi.

v. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of

Commerce.....Appellant V/s Presiding Officer,

Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others (23).

vi. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench,Surya Prakash Sharma

....... Petitioner V/s Rajasthan Text book Board, Jaipur

& Others (122)....... Respondent.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2795

vii. Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Kanpur in Industrial

Dispute no. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending

Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India,

Tajmahal Agra V/s Suresh Chandra.

17. Following citations have been referred on behalf of

opposite party:—

i. Awarded dated 26.11.1986 passed by Central

Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in O.A. No.

33/86, Govind Kanji Parmar & others .....Petitioner

V/s Union of India & others............Respondents.

ii. Award dated 30.10.1996 passed by Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur

in O.A. No. 331 to 334/1993, Devi Singh &

Others......petitioners V/s Union of India &

Others..........Respondents.

iii. Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,

Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal

Meena V/s Director (Science), Archaeological

Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun.

18. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the

applicant that applicant has completed continuous 240 days

of service in every year but he has removed from service

by opposite party in violation of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been argued

that contention of the opposite party is against the law

that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry'

within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. Against this it

has been argued by learned counsel for the opposite party

that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' &

there is no violation of sections 25-F, G & H of the Act. It

has also been argued that applicant was neither appointed

nor any appointment letter was issued. There was no

advertisement for recruitment. It has also been argued that

applicant was engaged on part time contract for casual

work of repair & soon after completion of the work

engagement of the applicant was over. It has also been

alleged that his engagement was on daily wage & as the

work of repair of the wall was of temporary character hence,

on account of end of job & none availability of further job

the applicant himself had left the place of job. It has also

been argued that whenever there is availability of work,

workmen are engaged on daily wage basis for the job.

Reference has been made by both the parties towards

precedents submitted by them in favour of their respective

claim.

19. Before issue No. 1 is decided it appears desirable to

take up issues 2,3, & 4 for decision because decision of

these issues are important & having relevance in decision

of issue No. 1.

Issue No. 2

20. This issue relates to violation of section 25-G of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of

applicant. Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

reads as under:—

"Section 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment.—

Where any workman in an industrial estabilishment,

who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he

belongs to a particular category of workmen in that

establishment, in the absence of any agreement

between the employer and the workman in this behalf,

the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman

who was the last person to be employed in that

category, unless for reasons to be recorded the

employer retrenches any other workman."

21. From perusal of the provision contained in section

25-G it appears that whenever in ordinary course of

business a workman is required to be retrenched then the

last person employed by the employer shall be retrenched

first unless there is special reason for retrenchment of a

person other than the last employed person. From perusal

of statement of claim it is evident that in para 13 it has

been alleged that there has been violation of section 25-G

of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services

of the applicant & junior to the applicant was retained in

service at the time of his removal but no one has been

named in statement of claim that who is the person junior

to the applicant who was retained. In the affidavit also

filed by applicant as evidence there is no mention of a

person junior to him who was retained in the service at

the time of his removal. In the cross examination of the

applicant on page 2 this question has been placed before

him & he has alleged that when he was removed at that

time all other workmen were also removed. This statement

of the applicant during cross examination obviously

indicates that no one junior to him was retained & removal

of all the workman together is also indicative of the fact

of Cessation or completion of a particular work for which

they are engaged. Here, it is also pertinent to note that it

has been repeatedly argued by learned counsel for

opposite party that in fact there has been no appointment,

therefore, the question of removal of the applicant from

employment does not arise. From the perusal of the cross

examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh, Deputy Superintendent

(Archaeology) it is clear that no assistance can be taken

on this point from his cross examination. Basis on above

discussion, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove

that at the time of termination of the service of applicant

workman, juniors to him were retained by the management

in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act. Issue

No. 2 is accordingly decided in negative against the

applicant.

2796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Issue No. 3

22. This issue is to the effect that whether subsequent

to the termination of the workman fresh workmen were

engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of

section 25-H of the I.D. Act. For convenience provision of

section 25-H is reproduced below which reads as under:—

"Sec. 25-H. Re-employment of retrenched

workmen—Where any workmen are retrenched, and

the employer purposes to take into his employ any

persons he shall, in such manner as may be

prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched

workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves

for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen,

who offer themselves for re-employment, shall have

preference over other persons.

23. The above mentioned section 25-H provides that a

retrench employee shall have reference in appointment over

rest, if management, intends to employ a workman & the

management is under an obligation to give opportunity to

retrench workman so that he can offer himself for

employment. If opportunity is not given by mangement it

will amount to violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Para 14

of statement of claim indicates that after termination of the

services of applicant new appointments were made without

preference given to applicant. In reply to para 14 of

statement of claim non-applicant has denied the

appointment. There is no documentary evidence on record

about new appointment. Para 6 of affidavit of applicant

filed in evidence indicates that new appointments were

made with no preference to applicant but in cross

examination applicant has admitted that in his affidavit &

statement of claim he has not alleged that after his removal

who was appointed & when. The applicant has also

admitted that in statement of claim also he has not given

detail of newly appointed persons. In para 11 of affidavit of

Sh. Brijraj Singh witness for opposite party violation of

section 25-G & H has been specifically denied. In cross

examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there is nothing significant

to draw an inference about violation of section 25-H of I.D.

Act. Based on above discussion & appreciation of evidence

adduced by the parties I am of the view that the applicant

has failed to prove the violation of section 25-H of the

I.D.Act regarding appointment of fresh hands subsequent

to termination of his service. Issue No. 3 is accordingly

decided against the applicant.

Issue No. 4

24. This issue is to the effect that whether establishment

of the non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an

Industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the I.D. Act.

A preliminary objection has been raised by non-applicant

that establishment of the non-applicant is not covered under

definition of 'Industry' as indicated in section 2(j) of the

I.D. Act. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on

Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government

Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case

No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science),

Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch,

Deharadun. Against this, it has been argued by learned

counsel for the applicant that establishment of non-

applicant is covered by the definition of 'Industry'. Reliance

has been placed by non-applicant on Judgement & order

dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975,

Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc v/s A.

Rajappa & others etc. etc., Award dated 21.10.1988 passed

by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen

through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor

Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological

Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi & Award dated

17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court,

Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy

Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of

India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra. I have very

carefully gone through cases cited by both the parties.

Judgement dated 9.6.03 by CGIT, Jabalpur has not been

filed by opposite party.

25. In Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jaipur

in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s

Director (Science), Archaeological Survery of India, Science

Branch, Deharadun, cited by learned counsel for the

opposite party it has been held in decision of issue No. 4

that provision of I.D. Act, 1947 apply to the case. Issue

No. 4 has dealt with the fact that provisions of I.D. Act

apply to the opposite party or not. Cases cited by learned

counsel for the applicant indicate that Archaeological

Survey of India is covered within the definition of 'Industry'

as provided in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. In Award dated

21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D.

No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President,

Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The

Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath,

New Delhi, discussing the case of Judgement & order dated

21.2.1978 in civil appeal no. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore

Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc v/s A. Rajappa &

others etc. etc., it has been held by the CGIT, Delhi that

Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. In Award

dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour

Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute no. 9 of 2005 in Deputy

Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of

India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra, it has been held

by CGIT, Kanpur that Archaeological Survey of India is an

'Industry'. From decision of the cases cited on behalf of

both the parties & from the fact & circumstances of the

present case, I am of the view that establishment of non-

applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'

within the meaning of section 2(J) of Industrial Disputes

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2797

Act, 1947. Issue No. 4 is accordingly decided in affirmative

against the non-applicant.

Issue No. 1

26. This issue is to the effect whether the workman had

worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period

25.3.03 to 30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of

his alleged termination & whether his service was

terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act? It has

been argued by learned counsel for the applicant & has

also been alleged in the written argument that the applicant

has worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during

period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of

termination on 30.8.06 & termination of the services of

applicant is in violation of section 25-F of Industrial

Disputes Act, hence, the order of termination is fit to be set

aside with continuity in service along with back wages.

Against this, it has been argued by the learned counsel for

the opposite party & has also been alleged in the written

argument that applicant was not appointed by non-

applicant, no appointment letter was issued, there was no

advertisement for any appointment. It has also been argued

that applicant was engaged on daily wage basis for repair

of the walls of the fort which is a work of termporary nature.

It has also been argued that applicant voluntarily left the

place of work on account of none availability of work. It

has also been said that on availability of work engagement

is made on daily wage basis for the period of work only &

provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of

applicant. It has also been alleged that in view of case of

the applicant covered under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D.

Act, compliance of provision of section 25-F is not required.

27. According to statement of claim applicant was

appointed on daily wage on 25.3.03 & was terminated on

30.8.06 without notice or pay in lieu of notice or

retrenchement compensation in violation of section 25-F

of I.D. Act. What was the post held by the applicant during

employment has not been alleged in statement of claim.

About the nature of the work the applicant has alleged that

whatever work was assigned by the opposite party

applicant was performing that work. It has also been alleged

that his engagement was neither for a fix work nor for a fix

period. The applicant has alleged that he has worked for

more than 240 days in every year. In affidavit filed in

evidence in support of above statement of claim the

applicant has repeated the allegation of statement of claim.

No other co-worker has been produced as witness in

evidence to support the allegation of statement of claim. In

written statement it has been specifically denied by

opposite party that applicant has worked for more than 240

days in a year instead it has been alleged that applicant

has not worked for 240 days in any of the year. Sh. Brijraj

Singh has specifically denied in para 3 of his affidavit that

the applicant has worked for 240 days in any of the year. In

above fact & circumstances, the burden of proof lies on

applicant to prove that he has worked for more than 240

days in a year immediately preceding the date of his

termination on 30.8.06 as alleged in statement of claim. The

applicant has alleged in his cross examination that he has

not stated in his affidavit in evidence or in statement of

claim that for how many days he has worked in any

corresponding year. He has admitted that he has filed

document W-1 & in W-1 nature of work has been mentioned

for which he was engaged & W-1 it has also been mentioned

that the nature of work includes 'special repair work' &

such mention in W-1 is correct. Thus, it shall appear that

two documents relating to total number of days of work

has been filed by the applicant which is W-1 & W-2. W-2 is

the document which appeared to be prepared by workman

whereas W-1 is the document which appears to be reply

submitted by management during conciliation proceedings.

From document W-2 if taken into consideration for

calculating the period of 240 days immediately preceding

the date of termination on 30.8.06 then total number of

days on which the workman has worked between 30.8.05

to 30.8.06 comes out to be 171 days. From document W-1 it

comes out to be 206 days but lacks continuity. Thus,

workman has failed to prove that he has continuously

worked for more than 240 days in the year immediately

preceding the date of his termination. It shall also appear

from both the documents W-1 & W-2 that there is no

continuous work in the year.

28. Document regarding period & corresponding

working days filed by management on order of the tribunal

passed on application of the applicant provides following

details:—

Period of work

Number of working days

25.5.03 to 24.6.03

31

25.7.03 to 24.8.03

09

25.8.03 to 1.9.03

08

17.1.04 to 16.2.04

27

13.4.04 to 13.5.04

27

15.5.04 to 14.6.04

22

9.6.04 to 9.7.04

28

18.7.04 to 27.7.04

09

11.7.04 to 10.8.04

18

12.8.04 to 11.9.04

27

13.9.04 to 13.10.04

28

14.10.04 to 31.10.04

17

1.11.04 to 1.12.04

26

3.12.04 to 2.1.05

27

4.1.05 to 3.2.05

28

19.1.05 to 18.2.05

12

2798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6.2.05 to 8.3.05

16

15.2.05 to 17.3.05

12

9.3.05 to 17.3.05

09

19.3.05 to 13.4.05

23

6.6.05 to 6.7.05

27

7.7.05 to 7.8.05

27

8.10.05 to 7.11.05

29

8.11.05 to 8.12.05

29

10.12.05 to 9.1.06

28

11.1.06 to 10.2.06

29

12.2.06 to 14.3.06

29

9.6.06 to 7.7.06

28

Total number of days

172 days.

between 30.8.05 to 30.8.06

29. The statement of above table submitted by opposite

party regarding statement of work done by workman

indicates that from the date of termination on 30.8.06

applicant has worked only for 172 days in a year

immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06.

Thus, it is evident that the workman has not worked

continuously for 240 days immediately preceding the date

of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that

applicant has failed to prove that he has worked for more

than 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination.

From the entire cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there

appears nothing to derive in favour of applicant that he

has worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding the

date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear

that applicant has failed to prove that he has continuously

worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately

preceding the date of his termination.

30. As far as the question of violation of section 25-F of

Industrial Dispute is concerned it has been argued by the

learned counsel for the applicant that there has been

violation of section 25-F in terminating the services of the

applicant, against this learned counsel for the opposite

party has argued that there is no violation of section 25-F

of I.D. Act & section 25-F does not apply in the case of

applicant who was neither employed nor terminated & his

engagement has been only for specific period & specific

work & he has left the workplace on his own accord. It has

also been argued that as the question of terminating the

services of the applicant does not arise, because he was

not given any employment & there was no advertisement

for employment, hence, section 25-F does not apply to the

case of the applicant. Section 25-F reads as under:—

"25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of

workmen.—No workman employed in any industry who

has been in continuous service for not less than one year

under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer

until—

(a) The workman has been given on month's notice in

writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and

the period of notice has expired, or the workman

has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the

period of the notice:

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of

retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every

completed year of continuous service or any part

thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the

appropriate Government (or such authority as may

be specified by the appropriate Government by

notification in the Official Gazette.)

31. Continuous service as indicated in section 25-F(1)

has been defined in section 25-B(1)(ii) which reads as

under:—

Section 25-B. Definition of continuous service.—For

the purposes of this Chapter—

(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service

for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,

including service which may be interrupted on account of

sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which

is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is

not due to any fault on the part of the workman.

(2) where a workman is not a continuous service within

the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year or six

months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service

under an employer—

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a

period of twelve calendar months preceding the

date with reference to which calculation is to be

made, has actually worked under the employer for

not less than—

(i)

one hundred and ninety days in the case of a

workman employed below ground in a mine;

and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

32. Section 2 (oo) provides meaning of retrenchment

which reads as under:—

"2(oo)—"retrenchment" means the termination by

the employer of the service of a workman for any

reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment

inflicted by way of disciplinary action but doe snot

include—

(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of

superannuation if the contract of employment

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2799

between the employer and the workman concerned

contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

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

of the non-renewal of the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

on its expiry or of such contract being terminated

under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein;

or

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the

ground of continued ill-health;

33. In 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranagar District Panchayat ........ Appellant V/s

Dahyabhai Amarsinh....... Respondent, taking together &

analyzing the integrated impact of section 2(oo), section

25-B & section 25-F in paragraph 7 page 43, it has been

held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, "...................... To attract

provisions of Section 25-F, the workman claiming protection

under it, has to prove that there exists relationship of

employer and employee; that he is a workman within the

meaning of section 2(s) of the Act; the establishment in

which he is employed is an industry within the meaning of

the Act and he must have put in not less than one year of

continuous service as defined by section 25-B under the

employer. These conditions are cumulative. If any of these

conditions is missing the provisions of section 25-F will

not be attracted. To get relief from the court the workman

has to establish that he has right to continue in service and

that his service has been terminated without complying

with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The section

postulates three conditions to be fulfilled by an employer

for getting a valid retrenchment, namely:—

(i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating the

reasons for retrenchment or that the workman has

been paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of

such notice;

(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which shall

be equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every

completed year of continuous service or any part

thereof, in excess of six months;

(iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the

prescribed manner.

34. Looking into the above provisions & the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to attract the provision

of section 25-F, it is clear that the applicant has failed to

prove that he has worked continuously for more than 240

days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of

his termination, thus, provision of section 25-F is not

attracted in the case of applicant. From above discussion,

I am of the view that the applicant has not worked

continuously for more than 240 days as daily wager

immediately preceding 12 months from the date of his

alleged termination on 30.8.06 & his services were not

terminated in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes

Act. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in negative against

the applicant.

35. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the

applicant that even if section 25-F is not attracted in case

of applicant, he is entitled to the benefits of section 25-G &

25-H which are independent of section 25-F. Reliance has

been placed on RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank

of Commerce.....Appellant V/s Presiding Officer, Central

Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others & RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur

Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma .....Petitioner V/s Rajasthan

Text Book Board, Jaipur & other (122).........Respondent.

Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for

opposite party that provision of section 25-G & 25-H is not

attracted in the case of applicant. I have carefully gone

through both the above reported cases.

36. In case of Oriental Bank of Commerce v/s Presiding

Officer respondent 2 was employed in the bank of petitioner

from 23.5.85 to 28.5.85 for a period of 79 days. He was said

to be appointed for leave period only & his engagement

came to end after expiry of period of leave. The respondent

raised industrial dispute relating to section 25-G & 25-H

which was referred for adjudication. After the evidence of

both the parties tribunal came to the conclusion that there

was violation of section 25-G & section 25-H, hence,

respondent was directed to be reinstated & it was also

directed that he will entitled to pay from the date of joining

because respondent was said to be on the job in some

other place. On the basis of evidence tribunal came to

conclusion that management had failed to indicate that

who was on leave in whose place respondent was employed

during leave vacancy, Hence this fact was not admitted by

tribunal that engagement of respondent was for the period

of leave vacancy. It was admitted by the witness of the

management that when respondent was removed from

service employee Sh. Virendra Singh junior to the

respondent was working. It was also admitted by

management witness that after removal of respondent Sh.

Mulan Rasool & Sh. Narendra Bhatt were appointed on

the post of peon but respondent was not given opportunity.

Thus, there was violation of section 25-G & 25-H. Petition

against the order of tribunal was dismissed by Division

Bench of Hon'ble High Court and award of the tribunal was

confirmed.

37. In RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bengh, Surya Prakash

Sharma......Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur

& others (122)..........Respondent, it has been held by

Hon'ble High Court that section 25-G, 25-H & 25-F are

independent of each other and section 25-G & 25-H are not

dependent on section 25-F. It has also been held that

section 25-G & 25-H are applicable irrespective of the fact

that the workman has completed 240 days of service or

not. It has been further held that rule 76 to 78 of Indusrial

Dispute Rules, 1957 are independent of each other and

2800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

mandatory in nature. Violation of these rules will give a

cause of action in favour of workman to claim

compensation, damages and re-employment. To derive the

benefits of these rules continuous service is not necessary

& workmen not having completed 240 days of service are

also entitled to the benefits of Rule 76 to 78. In this case

petitioner Sh. Suryaprakash Sharma was retrenched from

service before completion of 240 days and was not entitled

for the benefits u/s 25 of I.D. Act. The only question

involved in this case was about applicability of section

25-H of I.D. Act read with Rule 77 and 78. The case of the

respondent was that after discharge of petitioner on 1.11.88

they had employed few persons although persons who

employed were discharged on 19.8.89. The petition of the

petitioner was allowed and he was held entitled to claim

wages by way of compensation for the period during which

his junior remain in employment.

38. In 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of

India......Appellant v/s N. Sundaramoney.......Respondent,

it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that read with

section 25-B(2) if provision of section 25-F of Industrial

Dispute Act is attracted in case of the workman, he cannot

be retrenched without payment of compensation at the

time of retrenchment as prescribed therein. It is pertinent

to mention that facts and circumstances of the present

case are different comparing to the facts of State Bank of

India v/s/ N. Sundarmoney, hence, law laid down by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney

is not attracted in the present case.

39. From decision of issue no 2 and 3 it is clear that

applicant is not entitled to the benefit for violation of section

25-G & 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act because violation of

these two sections have not been proved by the applicant.

It is also clear from the evidence on record that no seniority

list is in existence as the case of opposite party is that there

was no employment in respect of applicant & he was only

engaged casually as and when there was existence of work.

Applicant has not proved his appointment or termination

by filling any documentary evidence in this behalf who

was engaged as daily wager. It has been held by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranagar District Panchayat ........Appellant V/s

Dahyabhai Amarsinh...... Respondent, in para 18 of the

judgement in relation to section 25-G & section 25-H as

under:—

".................In the absence of regular employment of

the workmen, the appellant was not expected to

maintain seniority list of the employees engaged on

daily wages and in the absence of any proof by the

respondent regarding existence of the seniority list

and his so-called seniority, no relief could be given

to him for non-compliance with provisions of the

Act. The courts could have drawn adverse inference

against the appellant only when seniority list was

proved to be in existence and then not produced

before the court. In order to entitle the court to draw

inference unfavourable to the party, the court must

be satisfied that evidence is in existence and could

have been proved." Finding of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranagar District Panchayat ....... Apellant V/s

Dahyabhai Amarsinh....... Respondent, is relevant

and applies to the case of applicant.

40. Bases on the findings related to issue no. 1 to 4 &

from the discussions as above, I am of the view that

applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the

statement of claim and action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India in terminating the services

of the workman Sh. Prabhu Lal Mali w.e.f. 30.8.06 without

following the provisions of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified.

41. Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYYkh] 25 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1311-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkfdZ;ksykWftdy

losZ vkWQ bafM;k jktLFkku ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

lañ 68@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[ lañ ,y&42012@44@2007&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015

S.O. 1311.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 68/2007) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

the Archaeological Survey of India, Rajasthan and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 24/06/2015.

[No. L-42012/44/2007-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

Bharat Pandey, Presiding Officer

I.D. 68/2007

Reference No. L-42012/44/2007-IR(DU)

dated: 9.10.2007

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2801

Sh. Omar Din

S/o Shri Ramjani Shah

R/o Village & Post Sherpur

Khilchipur,

Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)

V/s

The Regional Officer

Archaeological Survey of India

Ranthambhor Durg,

Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).

For the Applicant

:

Sh. M.F. Beig, Advocate

For the Non-applicant :

Sh. T.P. Sharma, Advocate

AWARD

18.5.2015

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section 1 & 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 has referred

the following Industrial Dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:—

"Whether the action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India, Ranthambhore, in

terminating the services of their workman Shri Omar

Din, w.e.f. 15.3.2006 is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant

workman was appointed as daily wager on 11.9.03 on the

post of Masson. He was discharging his duty since

appointment honestly and there was no complaint by

opposite party against his work. Whatever work was

assigned to the applicant he completed that work to best

of his ability. Applicant was never served with any notice

& no charge was ever proved against him.

3. He was appointed on daily wage but his period of

appointment or nature of work was not fixed. The work for

which he was appointed by opposite party is still existing

and the nature of work is permanent. The applicant is

'workman' and the opposite party is 'employer' according

to the definition of 'workman' & 'employer' provided in

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The applicant had worked

for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately

preceding the date of termination and his services were

terminated on 15.3.06 without giving any notice or any

payment in liew of notice or retrenchment compensation in

violation of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

His termination is unfair labour practice & victimisation

adopted by opposite party.

4. Before the termination of the workman seniority list

was neither prepared nor published by the opposite party

which is violation of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes Rules,

1958. At the time of termination of the service workmen

junior to the applicant were retained in service by the

opposite party in violation of section 25-G of Industrial

Dispputes Act, 1947. The opposite party has made new

appointment after termination of the services of the

applicant workman but no priority was given to the applicant

which is violation of section 25-H of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 & Rule 78 of Industrial Disputes Rule, 1958. It

has been further alleged by the applicant that applicant

requested the opposite party to take the applicant in his

employment but he was not taken back and due to non co-

operation of opposite party conciliation also failed before

the Conciliation Officer. The opposite party has accepted

before the Conciliation Officer that applicant was kept on

work and work was taken from him, hence, the relation of

employer and workman has not been denied by the opposite

party but to escape from the liability of illegal termination it

has been denied that opposite party is 'Industry' within the

meaning of definition provided in Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. The true position is that according to the activities

and work the opposite party is an 'Industry' according to

the definition of industry provided under Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The provisions of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 have not been followed by opposite party, hence,

the termination of the services of the workman is illegal

and unfair.

5. It has been further alleged that allegation of the

opposite party before the Conciliation Officer is that the

applicant workman was absent from duty from 11.1.06 to

4.2.06 but workman was not given any show-cause notice.

Neither any charge sheet was served upon him regarding

absence from place of duty nor any charge was proved.

The applicant had made his stand clear before the

management that he has not remained absent during above

said period and instead of absence he has been working in

that period. The applicant had completed more than two

years of service and he was demanding from the opposite

party to declare him semi-permanent employee. As a result

of above demand of the applicant the opposite party instead

of making him semi permanent terminated the services of

the applicant. The applicant is jobless since the date of

termination. It is, therefore, requested that termination order

dated 15.3.06 be declared illegal and applicant reinstated

with all pay and emoluments along with continuity in

service.

6. In reply statement in para 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,

11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 of the statement of claim have

been specifically denied. In additional reply it has been

alleged in para 2 that the applicant labourer was not

appointed by the opposite party and he was engaged as

casual labourer for carrying out casual work on the basis

of part time contract and such engagement was coming to

end immediately after completion of the work. It has also

been alleged that the applicant labourer has never completed

240 days in any year and applicant is under an obligation

to prove this fact by document. Statement of para 5 of

statement of claim has been said to be baseless and nature

2802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of the work for which applicant was engaged is alleged to

be casual. Against para 7 it has been alleged that to succeed

in his sinister design applicant has fabricated the statement.

7. It has been alleged against para 8 of the statement of

claim that applicant was called for a fixed works and his

service were coming to end after completion of the work.

Relation between applicant and opposite party as workman

and employer has been specifically denied against para 9

of the statement of claim and has been alleged that since

he was never appointed the question of such relationship

does not arise. The applicant does not fall within the

definition of workman and the department of the opposite

party does not fall within the definition of Industry.

Applicant was never engaged permanently and he was

called only when there was work. He was neither appointed

on any post after following the rules of appointment nor

any appointment letter was issued to him, therefore,

question of termination of his services does not arise. It

has been alleged in para 11 of reply that it is pertinent to

note that applicant was not removed from the institution of

opposite party and the fact is that the work was over hence,

his services automatically came to an end. It was not

necessary to give notice to the applicant because such

notice is issued only to such workman who permanently

work for a period of more than 240 days and the department

is not satisfied with work of such workman, in that event

such workman may be removed after serving one months

notice. In case of applicant after completion of work he

himself had gone elsewhere.

8. Against para 13 of statement of claim it has been

alleged that workmen like applicant are not given any

appointment letter neither they are deemed regular workmen

of the department. Workman like applicant are engaged on

daily wage basis according to need of a particular work for

its execution and they are removed after completion of

work or at the end of financial year or on other technical

ground on suspension or stoppage of work. Against para

14 of statement of claim it has been alleged that nature of

the new recruitment by the department whose nature is

permanent is done by following the legal procedure and

selection is made out of person who possess the prescribed

eligibility. Applicant was not appointed on any vacant post

under grade 'D'. At the time of engaging the applicant

workman he was briefed orally that he is engaged against a

specific work and nature of the work is purely temporary

and casual in which applicant is not entitled to derive

benefit provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The allegation

of the applicant is wrong that he was removed out of

animosity. In absence of casual work the services of the

workman automatically comes to an end. In last paragraph

of the reply it has been prayed that order of dismissal be

passed against the statement of claim.

9. In rejoinder dated 3.6.2010 filed by applicant, statement

of claim has been reiterated and statement of reply submitted

by the opposite party has been alleged to be wrong.

10. In preliminary objection against statement of claim

filed by opposite party it has been alleged that applicant

was neither given any appointment nor there was any

sanctioned or vacant post. Department of the opposite

party is not covered within the definition of industry as

provided in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. In B-40/

97, Gobardhan Lal Meena V/s. Archaeological Survey of

India, it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its award

dated 18.1.2001 that Archaeological Survey of India is not

covered within the definition of industry. Industrial

Tribunal, Jabalpur in its award dated 9.6.2003 has held that

Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within

the meaning of section 2(j) if Industrial Disputes Act. It has

also been alleged that the applicant was engaged for

completion of casual work for fixed period of time and he

has not worked for 240 days in any of the year, hence, he is

not entitled to the benefit of Industrial Dispute Act. It has

also been alleged that the applicant left the work on his

own even before the completion of the work, hence, he is

not entitled to any relief.

11. Against preliminary objection it has been alleged by

the applicant that preliminary objections are not tenable at

belated stage. It has also been alleged that various

precedents it has been alleged that preliminary objections

are to be decided along with other issues on merits. It has

also been alleged that preliminary objections are evidence

based, hence, opposite party be directed to file the reply to

the statement of claim.

12. Under mentioned issues were framed on 27.7.2011

by the then learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based

on pleadings of both the parties:—

(1) whether the workman had worked for more than 240

days as daily wager during period 11.9.03 to 15.3.06

preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged

termination and whose service was terminated in violation

of section 25-F of the Act?

(2) At the time of terminating the service of the workman

the junior persons to him were retained by the management

in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act?

(3) Whether subsequent to the termination of the

workman fresh hands were engaged by the non-applicant

management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act?

(4) Whether non-applicant establishment is an 'Industry'

within the meaning of section 2-J of the I.D. Act?

13. Applicant has filed document W-1 which is reply of

opposite party before conciliation proceeding, affidavit of

the applicant in evidence and statement of number of

working days in claendar year 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006.

Applicant has been cross-examination by opposite party

on his affidavit.

14. In documentary evidence, opposite party has filed

statement of payment made to applicant and other workmen

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2803

which is 17 page. This document has been filed on direction

of tribunal given on application of the applicant. Opposite

party has filed affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh in evidence.

Sh. Brijraj Singh has been cross-examined on 28.10.14 by

applicant side.

15. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for

both parties & perused the file. Written argument have

been filed by both the parties which is on record.

16. Following citations have been referred on behalf of

applicant:—

i. 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of

India........ Appellant V/s. N. Sundarmoney ........

Respondent.

ii. Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal

No.753-754(T) of 1975, Bangalore Water Supply and

Sewerage Board etc. etc V/s. A. Rajappa & others

etc. etc.

iii. 1893 LAB.I.C. 1629 (Supreme Court), D. P.

Maheshwari... Applicant V/s. Delhi Adminstration

& Others.......Respondents.

iv. Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial

Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen

through the President, Archaeological Survey

Mazdoor Union, New Delhi V/s. The Director

General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath,

New Delhi.

v. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of

Commerce........Appellant V/s. Presiding Officer,

Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and others (23).

vi. RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash

Sharma..........Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book

Board, Jaipur and other (122)..........Respondent.

vii. Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial

Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending

Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India,

Tajmahal Agra V/s. Suresh Chandra.

17. Following citations have been referred on behalf of

opposite party:—

i. Award dated 26.11.1986 passed by Central

Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in O.A.No.

33/86, Govind Kanji Parmar and Others ..........

Petitioner V/s. Union of India and Others ...........

Respondents.

ii. Award dated 30.10.1996 passed by Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur

in O.A.No. 331 to 334/1993, Devi Singh and

Others..............Petitioners V/s. Union of India and

Others..............Respondents.

iii. Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal

Meena V/s. Director (Science), Archaeological

Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun.

18. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the

applicant that applicant has completed continuous 240 days

of service in every year but he has removed from service

by opposite party in violation of sections 25-F, 25-G & 25-

H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been

argued that contention of the opposite party is against the

law that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry'

within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. Against this it

has been argued by learned counsel for the opposite party

that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' &

there is no violation of section 25-F, G & H of the Act. It has

also been argued that applicant was neither appointed nor

any appointment letter was issued. There was no

advertisement for recruitment. It has also been argued that

applicant was engaged on part time contract for casual

work of repair & soon after completion of the work

engagement of the applicant was over. It has also been

alleged that this engagement was on daily wage & as the

work of repair of the wall was of temporary character hence,

on account of end of job & none availability of further job

the applicant himself had left the place of job. It has also

been argued that whenever there is availability of work,

workmen are engaged on daily wage basis for the job.

Reference has been made by both the parties towards

precedents submitted by them in favour of their respective

claim.

19. Before issue No. 1 is decided it appears desirable to

take up issues 2, 3 & 4 for decision beause decision of

these issues are important & having relevance in decision

of issue No. 1.

Issue No. 2

20. This issue relates to violation of section 25-G of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the service of

applicant. Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

reads as under:—

“Section 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment.—

Where any workman in an industrial establishment,

who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he

belongs to a particular category of workmen in that

establishment, in the absence of any agreement

between the employer and the workman in this behalf,

the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman

who was the last person to be employed in that

category, unless for reasons to be recorded the

employer retrenches any other workman."

21. From perusal of the provision contained in section

25-G it appears that whenever in ordinary course of

business a workman is required to be retrenched then the

last person employed by the employer shall be retrenched

first unless there is special reason for retrenchment of a

2804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

peson other than the last employed person. From perusal

of statement of claim it is evident that in parta 13 it has

been alleged that there has been violation of section 25-G

of Industiral Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services

of the applicant & junior to the applicant was retained in

service at the time of his removal but no one has been

named in statement of claim that who is the person junior

to the applicant who was retained. In the affidavit also filed

by applicant as evidence there is no mention of person

junior to him was retained in the service at the time of his

removal. In the cross-examination of the applicant on page

2 this question has been placed before him & he has alleged

that when he was removed at the time all other workmen

were also removed. This statement of the applicant during

cross-examination obviously indicates that no one junior

to him was retained & removal of all the workman together

is also indicative of the fact of Cessation or completion of

a particular work for which they are engaged. Here, it is

also pertinent to note that it has been repeatedly argued

by learned counsel for opposite party that in fact there has

been no appointment, therefore, the question of removal

of the applicant from employment does not arise. From the

perusal of the cross-examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh, Deputy

Superintendent (Archaeology) it is clear that no assistance

can be taken on this point from his cross-examination. Bases

on above discussion, it is clear that the applicant has failed

to prove that at the time of termination of the service of

applicant workman, juniors to him were retained by the

management in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D.

Act. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in negative against

the applicant.

Issue No. 3

22. This issue is to the effect that whether subsequent

to the termination of the workman fresh workmen were

engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of

section 25-H of the I.D. Act. For convenience provision of

section 25-H is reporduced below which reads as under:—

"Sec. 25-H. Re-employment of retrenched

workmen—Where any workmen are retrenched, and

the employer purposes to take into his employ any

persons he shall, in such manner as may be

prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched

workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves

for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen,

who offer themselves for re-employment shall have

preference over other persons.

23. The above mentioned section 25-H provides that a

retrench employee shall have preference in appointment

over rest, if management, intends to employ a workman &

the management is under an obligation to give opportunity

to retrench workman so that he can offer himself for

employment. If opportunity is not given by management it

will amount to violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Para 14

of statement of claim indicates that after termination of the

services of applicant new appointments were made without

preference given to applicant. In reply to para 14 of

statement of claim non-applicant has denied the

appointment. There is no documentary evidence on record

about new appointment. Para 6 of affidavit of applicant

filed in evidence indicates that new appointments were

made with no preference to applicant but in cross-

examination applicant has admitted that in his affidavit &

statement of claim he has not alleged that after his removal

who was appointment & when. The applicant has also

admitted that in statement of claim also he has not given

detail of newly appointed persons. In para 11 of affidavit of

Sh. Brijraj Singh witness for opposite party violation of

section 25-G & H has been specifically denied. In cross-

examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there is nothing signifacnt

to draw an inference about violation of section 25-H of I.D.

Act. Based on above discussion & appreciation of evidence

adduced by the parties I am of the view that the applicant

has failed to prove the violation of section 25-H of the I.D.

Act regarding appointment of fresh hands subsequent to

termination of his service. Issue No. 3 is accordingly decided

against the applicant.

Issue no. 4

24. This issue is to the effect that whether establishment

of the non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an

Industry within the meaning of section(j) of the I.D. Act. A

preliminary objection has been raised by non-applicant

that establishment of the non-applicant is not covered under

definition of 'Industry' as indicated in section 2 (j) of the

I.D. Act. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on

Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case

No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena V/s Director (Science),

Archaeological Survey of India, Seience Branch,

Deharadun. Against this, it has been argued by learned

counsel for the applicant that establishment of non-

applicant is covered by the definition of 'Industry'. Reliance

has been placed by non-applicant on Judgement & order

dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975,

Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc.etc. v/s A.

Rajappa & Others etc.etc., Award dated 21.10.1988 passed

by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen

through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor

Union, New Delhi V/s The Director General, Archaeological

Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi & Award dated

17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy

Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of

India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra. I have very

carefully gone through cases cited by both the parties.

Judgement dated 9.6.03 by CGIT, Jabalpur has not been

filed by the opposite party.

25. In Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2805

in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s

Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science

Bench, Deharadun, cited by learned counsel for the

opposite party it has been held in decision of issue No. 4

that provision of I.D. Act, 1947 apply to the case. Issue No.

4 has dealt with the fact that provisions of I.D. Act apply to

the opposite party or not. Cases cited by learned counsel

for the applicant indicate that Archaeological Survey of

India is covered within the definition of 'Industry' as

provided in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. In Award dated

21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No.

78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological

Survey mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General,

Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi,

discussing the case of Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978

in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Bangalore Water

Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc v/s A. Rajappa & others

etc.etc., it has been held by the CGIT, Delhi that

Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry". In Award

dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour

Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy

Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of

India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra, it has been held

by CGIT, Kanpur that Archaeological Survey of India is an

'Industry'. From decision of the cases cited on behalf of

both the parties & from the fact & circumstances of the

present case, I am of the view that establishment of non-

applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'

within the meaning of section 2(J) of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. Issue No. 4 is accordingly decided in affirmative

against the non-applicant.

Issue No. 1

26. This issue is to the effect whether the workman had

worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period

11.9.03 to 15.3.06 preceding twelve months from the date of

his alleged termination & whether his service was

terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act? It has

been argued by learned counsel for the applicant & has

also been alleged in the written argument that the applicant

has worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during

period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of

termination on 15.3.06 & termination of the services of

applicant is in violation of section 25-F of Industrial

Disputes Act, hence, the order of termination is fit to be set

aside with continuity in service along with back wages.

Against this, it has been argued by the learned counsel for

the opposite party & has also been alleged in the written

argument that applicant was not appointed by non-

applicant, no appointment letter was issued, there was no

advertisement for any appointment. It has also been argued

that applicant was engaged on daily wage basis for repair

of the walls of the fort which is a work of temporary nature.

It has also been argued that applicant voluntarily left the

place of work on account of none availability of work. It

has also been said that on availability of work engagement

is made on daily wage basis for the period of work only &

provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of

applicant. It has also been alleged that in view of case of

the applicant covered under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D.

Act, compliance of provision of section 25-F is not required.

27. According to statement of claim applicant was

appointed on daily wage on 11.9.03 & was terminated on

15.3.06 without notice or pay in lieu of notice or

retrenchment compensation in violation of section 25-F of

I.D. Act. What was the post held by the applicant during

employment has not been alleged in statement of claim.

About the nature of the work the applicant has alleged that

whatever work was assigned by the opposite party

applicant was performing that work. It has also been alleged

that his engagement was neither for a fix work nor for a fix

period. The applicant has alleged that he has worked for

more than 240 days in every year. In affidavit filed in

evidence in support of above statement of claim the

applicant has repeated the allegation of statement of claim.

No other co-worker has been produced as witness in

evidence to support the allegation of statement of claim. In

written statement it has been specifically denied by

opposite party that applicant has worked for more than 240

days in a year instead it has been alleged that applicant

has not worked for 240 days in any of the year. Sh. Brijraj

Singh has specifically denied in para 3 of his affidavit that

the applicant has worked for 240 days in any of the year. In

above fact & circumstances, the burden of proof lies on

applicant to prove that he has worked for more than 240

days in a year immediately preceding the date of his

termination on 15.03.2006 as alleged in statement of claim.

The applicant has alleged in his cross examination that he

has not stated in his affidavit in evidence or in statement of

claim that for how many days he has worked in any

corresponding year. He has admitted that he has filed

document w-1 & in w-1 nature of work has been mentioned

for which he was engaged & in w-1 it has also been

mentioned that the nature of work includes 'special repair

work' & such mention in w-1 is correct. Thus, it shall appear

that two documents relating to total number of days of

work has been filed by the applicant which in w-1 & w-2.

W-2 is the document which appeared to be prepared by

workman whereas w-1 is the document which appears to

be reply submitted by management during conciliation

proceedings. From document w-2 if taken into consideration

for calculating the period of 240 days immediately preceding

the date of termination on 15.03.2006 then total number of

days on which the workman has worked between 15.03.2005

to 15.03.2006 comes out to be 115 days. From document

w-1 it comes out to be 144 days but lacks continuity. Thus,

workman has failed to prove that he has continuously

worked for more than 240 days in the year immediately

preceding the date of his termination. It shall also appear

from both the document w-1 & w-2 that there is not

continuous work in the year.

2806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

28. Document regarding period & corresponding

working days filed by management on order of the tribunal

passed on application of the applicant provides following

detail:—

Period of work

Number of working days

19.02.2003 to 20.03.2003

24

17.01.2004 to 18.02.2004

28

15.05.2004 to 14.06.2004

27

11.07.2004 to 10.08.2004

28

12.08.2004 to 11.09.2004

21

13.09.2004 to 13.10.2004

22

14.10.2004 to 31.10.2004

16

1.11.2004 to 01.12.2004

24

3.12.2004 to 02.01.2005

26

4.1.2005 to 03.02.2005

26

19.01.2005 to 18.02.2005

09

09.03.2005 to 17.03.2005

08

15.02.2005 to 17.03.2005

09

07.10.2005 to 06.11.2005

26

09.11.2005 to 09.12.2005

26

11.12.2005 to 10.01.2006

27

12.02.2006 to 14.03.2006

30

Total number of days

between 15.3.05 to 15.3.06

128 days.

29. The statement of above table submitted by opposite

party regarding statement of work done by workman

indicates that from the date of termination on 15.03.2006

applicant has worked only for 128 days in a year

immediately preceding the date of termination on 15.03.2006.

Thus, it is evident that the workman has nor worked

continuously for 240 days immediately preceding the date

of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that

applicant has failed to prove that he has worked for more

than 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination.

From the entire cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there

appears nothing to derive in favour of applicant that he

has worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding the

date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear

that applicant has failed to prove that he has continuously

worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately

preceding the date of his termination.

30. As far as the question of violation of section 25-F of

Industrial Dispute is concerned it has been argued by the

learned counsel for the applicant that there has been

violation of section 25-F in terminating the services of the

applicant, against the learned counsel for the opposite party

has argued that there is no violation of section 25-F of

I.D.Act and section 25-F does not apply in the case of

applicant who was neither employed nor terminated & his

engagement has been only for specific period and specific

work and he has left the workplace on his own accord. It

has also been argued that as the question of terminating

the services of the applicant does not arise, because he

was not given any employment and there was no

advertisement for employment, hence, section 25-F does

not apply to the case of the applicant. Section 25-F reads

as under:—

"25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of

workmen.—No workman employed in any industry

who has been in continuous service for not less than

one year under as employer shall be retrenched by

that employer until:—

(a) The workman has been given on month's notice in

writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and

the period of notice has expired, or the workman

has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the

period of the notice:

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of

retrenchment compensation shall be equivalent to

fifteen days' average pay for every completed year

of continuous service or any part thereof in excess

of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the

appropriate Government (or such authority as may

be specified by the appropriate Government by

notification in the Official Gazette.)

31. Continuous service as indicated in section 25-F(1)

has been defined in section 25-B (1) (ii) which reads as

under:—

Section 25-B. Definition of continuous service. ........ For

the purposes of this Chapter:—

(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service

for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,

including service which may be interrupted on account of

sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which

is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is

not due to any fault on the part of the workman.

(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within

the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year or six

months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service

under an employer:—

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, druing a

period to twelve calendar months preceding the

date with reference to which calculation is to be

made, has actually worked under the employer for

not less than:—

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2807

(i)

one hundred and ninety days in the case of a

workman employed below ground in a mine;

and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case:

32. Section 2(oo) provides meaning of retrenchment

which reads as under:—

"2(oo)—"retrenchment" means the termination by

the employer of the service of a workman for any

reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment

inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not

include:—

(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of

superannuation if the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

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

of the non-nenewal of the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

on its expiry or of such contract being terminated

under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein;

or

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the

ground of continued ill-health.

33. About appointment of applicant in the department

of opposite party it is pertinent to mention that applicant

has admitted in his cross-examination that there was neither

advertisement for appointment nor applicant had submitted

any application for appointment, hence, statement of

applicant in his statement of claim and afidavit that he was

appointed by the opposite party on a particular date is

baseless and wrong. Thus, question of his appointment &

termination does not arise and contention of the opposite

party that applicant was not appointed by the opposite

party appears to be correct.

34. In 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranagar District Panchayat............ Appellant V/s

Dahyabhai Amarsinh ......... Respondent, taking together

and analyzing the integrated impact of section 2(oo), section

25-B and section 25-F in paragraph 7 page 43, it has been

held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, "........... To attract

provisions of Section 25-F, the workman claiming protection

under it, has to prove that there exists relationship of

employer and employee; that he is a workman within the

meaning of section 2(s) of the Act; the establishment in

which he is employed is an industry within the meaning of

the Act and he must have put in not less than one year of

continuous service as defined by section 25-B under the

employer. These conditions are cumulative. If any of these

conditions is missing the provisions of section 25-F will

not be attracted. To get relief from the court the workman

has to establish that he has right to continue in service and

that his service has been terminated without complying

with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The section

postulates three conditions to be fulfilled by an employer

for getting a valid retrenchment, namely:—

(i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating the

reasons for retrenchment or that the workman has

been paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of

such notice;

(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which shall

be equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every

completed year of continuous service or any part

thereof, in excess of six months;

(iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the

prescribed manner.

35. Looking into the above provisions and the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to attract the provision

of section 25-F, it is clear that the applicant has failed to

prove the he has worked continuously for more than 240

days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of

his termination, thus, provision of section 25-F is not

attracted in the case of applicant. From above discussion,

I am of the view that the applicant has not worked

continuously for more than 240 days as daily wager

immediately preceding 12 months from the date of his

alleged termination on 15.03.2006 and his services were

not terminated in violation of section 25-F of Industrial

Disputes Act. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in negative

against the applicant.

36. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the

applicant that even if section 25-F is not attracted in case

of applicant, he is entitled to the benefits of section 25-G

and 25-H which are independent of section 25-F. Reliance

has been placed on RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental

Bank of Commerce.......Appellant v/s Presiding Officer,

Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and others and RLR

1991(2),

Jaipur

Bench,

Surya

Prakash

Sharma..............Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board,

Jaipur and other (122)..........Respondent. Against this it has

been argued by learned counsel for opposite party that

provision of section 25-G and 25-H is not attracted in the

case of applicant. I have carefully gone through both the

above reported cases.

37. In case of of Oriental Bank of Commerce v/s Presiding

Officer respondent No. 2 was employed in the bank of

petitioner from 23.5.85 to 28.5.85 for a period of 79 days. He

was said to be appointed for leave period only & his

engagement came to end after expiry of period of leave.

The respondent raised industrial dispute relating to section

25-G & 25-H which was referred for adjudication. After the

evidence of both the parties tribunal came to the conclusion

that there was violation of section 25-G & section 25-H,

hence, respondent was directed to be reinstated & it was

2808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

also directed that he will entitled to pay from the date of

joining because respondent was said to be on the job in

some other place. On the basis of evidence tribunal came

to conclusion that management had failed to indicate that

who was on leave in whose place respondent was employed

during leave vacancy, hence, this fact was not admitted by

tirbunal that engagement of respondent was for the period

of leave vacancy. It was admitted by the witness of the

management that when respondent was removed from

service employee Sh. Virendra Singh junior to the

respondent was working. It was also admitted by

management witness that after removal of respondent Sh.

Mulan Rasool & Sh. Narendra Bhatt were appointed on

the post of peon but respondent was not given opportunity.

Thus, there was violation of section 25-G & 25-H. Petition

against the order of tribunal was dismissed by Division

Bench of Hon'ble High Court & award of the tribunal was

confirmed.

38. In RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash

Sharma..... Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur

& others (122).... Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble

High Court that section 25-G, 25-H & 25-F are independent

of each other & section 25-G & 25-H are not dependent on

section 25-F. It has also been held that section 25-G & 25-

H are applicable irrespective of the fact that the workman

has completed 240 days of service or not. It has been further

held that rule76 to 78 of Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 are

independent of each other & mandatory in nature. Violation

of these rules will give a cause of action in favour of

workman to claim compensation, damages & re-

employment. To derive the benefits of these ruels

continuous service is not necessary & workmen not having

completed 240 days of service are also entitled to the

benefitws of Rule 76 to78. In this case petitioner

Sh. Suryaprakash Sharma was retrenched from service

before compeltion of 240 days & was not entitled for the

benefits u/s 25 of I.D. Act. The only question involved in

this case was about applicability of section 25-H of I.D.

Act read with Rule 77 & 78. The case of the respondent

was that after discharge of petitioner on 1.11. 88 they had

employed few persons although persons who employed

were discharged on 19.8.89. The petition of the petitioner

was allowed & he was held entitled to claim wages by way

of compensation for the period during which his junior

remain in employment.

39. In 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India....

Appellant v/s N. Sundaramoney.... Respondent, it has been

held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that read with section 25-

B( 2) if provision of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute Act

is attracted in case of the workman, he cannot be retrenched

without payment of compensation at the time of

retrenchment as prescribed therein. It is pertinent to mention

that facts & circumstances of the present case are different

comparing to the facts of State Bank of India v/s N.

Sundarmoney, hence, law laid down by Hon' Supreme Court

in State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney is not attracted

in the present case.

40. From decision of issue No. 2 & 3 it is clear that

applicant is not entitled to the benefit for violation of section

25-G & 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act because violation of

these two sections have not been proved by the applicant.

It is also clear from the evidence on record that no seniority

list is in existence as the case of opposite party is that there

was no employment in respect of applicant & he was only

engaged casually as & when there ws existence of work.

Applicant has not proved his appointment or termination

by filling any documentary evidence in this behalf who

was engaged as daily wager. It has been held by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranagar District Panchayat.... Appellant V/s

Dahyabhai Amarsinh.... Respondenet, in para 18 of the

judgement in relation to section 25-G & section 25-H as

under:—

"...... In the absence of regular employment of the

workmen, the appellant was not expected to maintain

seniority list of the employees engaged on daily wages

and in the absence of any proof by the respondent

regarding existence of the seniority list and his so-called

seniority, no relief could be given to him for non-compliance

with provisions of the Act. The courts could have drawn

adverse inference against the appellant only when seniority

list was proved to be in existence and then not produced

before the court. In order to entitle the court to draw

inference unfavourable to the party, the court must be

satisfied that evidence is in existence and could have been

proved." Finding of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme

Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat...

Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh.... Respondent, is

relevant & applies to the case of applicant.

42. Bases on the findings related to issue No. 1 to 4 &

from the discussion as above, I am of the view that applicant

is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the statement of

claim & action of the management of Archaeological Survey

of India in terminating the service of the workman Sh. Omar

Din w.e.f. 15.3.06 is legal & justified.

42. Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1312-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkfdZ;ksykWftdy

losZ vkWQ+ bafM;k jktLFkku ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

lañ 69@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@45@2007&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2809

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015

S.O. 1312.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby published the award (I.D. No. 69/2007) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

the Archaeological Survey of India, Rajasthan and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 24.6.2015.

[No. L-42012/45/2007-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

Bharat Pandey, Presiding Officer

I.D. 69/2007

Reference No. L-42012/45/2007-IR(DU) dated: 8.10.2007

Sh./ Kamlesh Mali

S/o Shri Hazari Mali

R/o village & Post Sherpur

Khilchipur, Ranthambhor Durg,

Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)

V/s

The Regional Officer

Archaeological Survey of India

Ranthambhor Durg,

Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).

For the Applicant

:

Sh. M.F. Beig, Advocate.

For the Non-applicant :

Sh. T.P. Sharma, Advocate

AWARD

18.5.2015

1. The Central Government in excercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of Sub-Secton 1 & 2 (A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred

the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:—

"Whether the action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India, Ranthambhore, in

terminating the services of their workman Shri

Kamlesh Mali, w.e.f. 8.7.2006 is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant

workman was appointed as daily wager on 25.9.03 on the

post of masson. He was discharging his duty since

appointment honestly and there was not complaint by

opposite party against his work. Whatever work was

assigned to the applicant he completed that work to best

of his ability. Applicant was never served with any notice

and no charge was ever proved against him.

3. He was appointed on daily wage but his period of

appointment or nature of work was not fixed. The work for

which he was appointed by opposite party is still existing

and the nature of work is permanent. The applicant is

'workman' and opposite party is 'employer' according to

the definition of 'workman' and 'employer' provided in

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. the applicant had worked for

more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding

the date of termination and his services were terminated on

8.7.06 without giving any notice or any payment in lieu of

notice or retrenchment compensation in violation of section

25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. His termination is

unfair labour practice and victimisation adopted by

opposite party.

4. Before the termination of the workman seniority list

was neither prepared nor published by the opposite party

which is violation of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes Rules,

1958. At the time of termination of the service workmen

juniror to the applicant were retained in service by the

opposite party in violation of section 25-G of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The opposite party has made new

appointment after termination of the services of the

applicant workman but no priority was given to the applicant

which is violation of section 25-H of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947and Rule 78 of Industrial Disputes Rule, 1958. It

has been further alleged by the applicant that applicant

requested the opposite party to take the applicant in his

employment but he was not taken back and due to non co-

operation of opposite party conciliation also failed before

the Conciliation Officer. The opposite party has accepted

before the Conciliation Officer that applicant was kept on

work and work was taken from him, hence the relation of

employer and workman has not been denied by the opposite

party but to escape from the liability of illegal termination it

has been denied that opposite party is 'Industry' within the

meaning of definition provided in Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. The true position is that according to the activities

and work the opposite party is an 'industry' according to

the definition of industry provided under Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The provisions of Inddustrial Disputes

Act, 1947 have not ben followed by opposite party, hence,

the termination of the services of the workman is illegal

and unfair.

5. It has been further alleged that allegation of the

opposite party before the Conciliation Officer is the

applicant workman was absent from duty from 15.3.2006 to

8.6.2006 but workman was not given any show-cause notice.

Neither any charge sheet was served upon him regarding

absence from place of duty nor any charge was proved.

The applicant had made his stand clear before the

management that he has not remained absent during above

said period and instead of absence he has been working in

2810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that period. The applicant had completed more than two

years of service and he was demanding from the opposite

party to declare him semi permanent employee. As a result

of above demand of the applicant the opposite party instead

of making him semi permanent terminated the services of

the applicant. The applicant is jobless since the date of

termination. It is, therefore, requested that termination order

dated 8.7.2006 be declared illegal and applicant reinstated

with all pay and emoluments along with continuity in

service.

6. In reply statement in para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,

12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, & 20 of the statement of claim

have been specifically denied. In additional reply it has

been alleged in para 2 that the applicant labourer was not

appointed by the opposite party and he was engaged as

casual labourer for carrying out casual work on the basis

of part time contract and such engagement was coming to

end immediately after completion of the work. It has been

alleged that the applicant labourer has never completed

240 days in any year and the applicant is under an obligation

to prove this fact by document. Statement of para 5 of

statement of claim has been said to be baseless nature of

the work for which applicant was engaged is alleged to be

casual. Against para 7 it has been alleged that to succeed

in his sinister design applicant has fabricated the statement.

7. It has been alleged against para 8 of the statement of

claim that applicant was called for a fixed works and his

services were coming to end after completion of the work,

Relation between applicant & opposite party as workman

and employer has been specifically denied against para 9

of the statement of claim and has been alleged that since

he was never appointed the question of such relationship

does not arise. The applicant does not fall within the

definition of workman and the department of the opposite

party does not fall within the definition of Industry.

Applicant was never engaged permanently and he was

called only when there was work. He was neither appointed

on any post after following the rules of appointment nor

any appointment letter was issued to him, therefore,

question of termination of his services does not arise. It

has been alleged in para 11 of reply that it is pertinent to

note that applicant was not removed from the institution of

opposite party and the fact is that the work was over hence,

his services automatically came to an end \. It was not

necessary to give notice to the applicant because such

notice is issued only to such workman who permanently

work for a period of more than 240 days and the department

is not satisfied with work of such workman, in that event

such workman may be removed after serving one months

notice. In case of applicant after completion of work he

himself had gone elsewhere.

8. Against para 13 of statement of claim it has been

alleged that workmen like applicant are not given any

appointment letter neither they are deemed regular

workmen of the department. Workman like applicant are

engaged on daily wage basis according to need of a

particular work for its execution and they are removed after

completion of work or at the end of financial year or on

other technical ground on suspension or stoppage of work.

Against para 14 of statement of claim it has been alleged

that nature of the new recruitment by the department whose

nature is permanent is done by following the legal procedure

& selection is made out of person who possess the

prescribed eligibility. Applicant was not appointed on any

vacant post under grade 'D'. At the time of engaging the

applicant workman he was briefed orally that he is engaged

against a specific work and nature of the work is purely

termporary and casual in which applicant is not entitled to

derice benefit of provisions of Industrial Disputes. Act.

The allegationof the applicant is wrong that he was removed

out of animosity. In absence of casual work the services of

the workman automatically comes to an end. In last

paragraph of the reply it has been parayed that order of

dismissal be passed against the statement of claim.

9. In rejoinder dated 3.6.2010 filed by applicant, statement

of claim has been reitereated and statement of reply

submitted by the opposite party has been alleged to be

wrong.

10. In preliminary objection against statement of claim

filed by opposite party it has been alleged that applicant

was neither given any appointment nor there was any

sanctioned or vacant post. Department of the opposite

party is not covered within the definition of industry as

provided in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. In

B-40/97, Gobardhan Lal Meena v/s Archaeological Survey

of India, it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its

award dated 18.1.2001 that Archaeological Survey of India

is not covered within the definition of industry. Industrial

Tribunal, Jabalpur in its award dated 9.6.2003 has held that

Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within

the meaning of section 2(j) if Industrial Disputes Act. It has

also been alleged that the applicant was engaged for

completion of casual work for fixed period of time and he

has not worked for 240 days in any of the year, hence, he is

not entitled to the benefit of Industrial Dispute Act. It has

been alleged that the applicant left the work on his own

even before the completion of the work, hence, he is not

entiled to any relief.

11. Against preliminary objection it has been alleged by

the applicant that preliminary objections are not tenable at

delated stage. It has also been alleged that various

precedents it has been alleged that preliminary objections

are to be decided along with other issues on merits. It has

also been alleged that preliminary objections are evidence

based, hence, opposite party be directed to file the reply to

the statement of claim.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2811

12. Under mentioned issues were framed on 27.7.2011

by the then learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based

on pleadings of bother parties:—

(1) Whether the workman had worked for more than 240

days as daily wager during period 25.9.2003 to 8.7.2006

preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged

termination and who service was terminated in violation of

section 25-F of the Act?

(2) At the time of terminating the service of the workman

the juniors person to him were retained by the management

in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act?

(3) Whether subsequent to the termination of the

workman fresh hands were engaged by the non-applicant

management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D.Act?

(4) Whether non-applicant establishment is an 'industry

within the meaning of section 2-J of the I.D.Act?

13. Applicant has filed document W-1 which is reply of

opposite party before conciliation proceeding, affidavit of

the applicant in evidence and statement of number of

working days in calender year 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006.

Applicant has been cross examination by opposite party

on his affidavit.

14. In documentary evidence, opposite party has filed

statement of payment made to applicant and other workmen

which is 21 page. This document has been filed on direction

of tribunal given on application of the applicant. Opposite

aprty has filed affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh in evidence. Sh.

Brijraj Singh has been cross examined on 28.10.14 by

applicant side.

15. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for

bother the parties and perused the file. Written argument

have been filed by both the parties which is on record.

16. Following citations have been referred on behalf of

applicant:—

i. 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of

India......Applellant v/s N. Sundaramoney ........

Respondent.

ii. Judgement and order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal

no. 753-754(T) of 1975, Bangalore Water Supply &

Sewerage Board etc. etc v/s A Rajappa & other

etc.etc.

iii. 1983 LAB.I.C. 1929 (Superme Court), D.P.

Maheshwar .....Appellant v/s Delhi Administration

and others ..........Respondents.

iv. Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial

Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen

through the President, Archaeological Survey

Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director

General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath,

New Delhi.

v. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of

Commerce ..........Appellant v/s Presiding Officer,

Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others(23).

vi. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur bench, Surya Prakash

Sharma.....Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board,

Jaipur & others (122).....Respondent.

vii. Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial

Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy superintending

Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India,

Tajmahal Agra V/s Suresh Chandra.

17. Following citations have been referred on behalf of

opposite party:—

i. Award dated 26.11.1986 passed by Central

Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in O.A.No.

33/86, Govind Kanji Parmar & others....Petitioner

V/s Union of India & others....Respondents.

ii. Award dated 30.10.1996 passed by Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur

in O.A.No. 331 to 334/1993, Devi Singh & others...

Petitioners v/s Union of India and others ....

Respondents.

iii. Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jaipur in CGIT case No.B. 40/97 in Goverdhan Lal

Meena V/s Director (Science), Archaeological

Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun.

18. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the

applicant that applicant has completed continuous 240 days

of service in every year but he has removed from service

by opposite party in violation of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been argued

that contention of the opposite party is against the law

that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry'

within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. Against this it

has been argued by learned consel for the opposite party

that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry'

and there is no violation of section 25-F, G and H of the

Act. It has also been argued that applicant was neither

appointed nor any appointment letter was issued. There

was no advertisement for recruitment. It has also been

argued that applicant was engaged on part time contract

for casual work of repair & soon after completion of the

work engagement of the applicant was over. It has also

been alleged that his engagement was on daily wage and

as the work of repair of the wall was of temporary character

hence, on account, of the job & none availability of further

job the applicant himself had left the place of job. It has

also been argued that whenever there is availability of work,

workmen are engaged on daily wage basis for the job.

Reference has been made by both the parties towards

precedents submitted by them in favour of their respective

claim.

2812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

19. Before issue No. 1 is decided it appears desirable to

take up issues 2, 3 & 4 for decision because decision of

these issues are important and having relevance in decision

of issue No. 1.

Issue No. 2

20. This issue relates to violation of section 25-G of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of

applicant. Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

reads as under:—

"Section 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment.—

Where any workman in an industrial establishment,

who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he

belongs to a particular category of workmen in that

establishment, in the absence of any agreement

between the employer and the workman in this behalf,

the employer, shall ordinarily retrench the workman

who was the last person to be employed in that

category, unless for reasons to be recorded the

employer retrenches any other workman."

21. From perusal of the provision contained in section

25-G it appears that whenever in ordinary course of

business a workman is required to be retrenched then the

last person employed by the employer shall be retrenched

first unless there is special reason for retrenchment of a

person other than the last employed person. From persual

of statement of claim it is evident that in para 13 it has been

alleged that there has been violation of section 25-G of

Industrial and Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services

of the applicant & junior to the applicant was retained in

service at the time of his removal but no one has been

named in statement of claim that who is the person junior

to the applicant who was retained. In the affiadavit also

filed by applicant as evidence there is no mention of a

person junior to him who was retained in the service at the

time of his removal. In the cross examination of the applicant

on page 2 this question has been placed before him and he

has alleged that when he wasw removed at the time all

other workmen were also removed. This statement of the

applicant during cross examination obviously indicates that

no one junior to him was retained and removal of all the

workman together is also indicative of the fact of Cessation

or completion of a particular work for which they are

engaged. Here, it is also pertinent to note that it has been

repeatedly argued by learned counsel for opposite party

that in fact there has been no appointment, therefore, the

question of removal of the applicant from employment does

not arise. From the persual of the cross examination of

Sh. Brijraj Singh, Deputy Superintendent (Archaeology) it

is clear that no assistance can be taken on this point from

his cross examination. Bases on above discussion, it is

clear that the applicant has failed to prove that at the time

of termination of the service of applicant workman, juniors

to him were retained by the management in contravention

of section 25-G of the I.D. Act. Issue No. 2 is accordingly

decided in negative against the applicant.

Issue No. 3

22. This issue is to the effect that whether subsequent

to the termination of the workman fresh workmen were

engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of

section 25-H of the I.D. Act. For convenience provision of

section 25-H is reproduced below which reads as under:—

"Sec. 25-H. Re-employment of retrenched

workmen—Where any workmen are retrenched, and

the employer purposes to take into his employ any

person he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed,

give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen who

are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-

employment, and such retrenched workmen, who

officer themselves for re-employment shall have

preference over other persons.

23. The above mentioned section 25-H provides that a

retrench employee shall have preference in appointment

over rest, if management, intends to employ a workman

and the management is under an obligation to give

opportunity to retrench workman so that he can offer

himself for employment. If opportunity is not given by

management it will amount to violation of section 25-H of

I.D. Act Para 14 of statement of claim indicates that after

termination of the services of applicant new appointments

were made without preference given to applicant. In reply

to para 14 of statement of claim non-applicant has denied

the appointment. There is no documentary evidence on

recored about new appointment. Para 6 of affidavit of

applicant filed in evidence indicates that new appointments

were made with no preference to applicant but in cross

examination applicant has admitted that in his affidavit and

statement of claim he has not alleged that after his removal

who was appointed & when. The applicant has also

admitted that in statement of claim also he has not given

detail of newly appointed persons. In para 11 of affiadvit of

Sh. Brijraj Singh witness for opposite party violation of

section 25-G & H has been specifically denied. In cross

examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there is nothing significant

to draw an inference about violation of the section 25-H of

I.D. Act. Based on above discussion and appreciation of

evidence adduced by the parties I am of the view that the

applicant has failed to prove the violation of section 25-H

of the I.D. Act regrading appointment of fresh hands

subsequent to termination of his service. Issue No. 3 is

accordingly decided against the applicant.

Issue No. 4

24. This issue is to the effect that whether establishement

of the non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an

Industry within the meaing of section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. A

preliminary objection has been raised by non-applicant

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2813

that establishement of the non-applicant is not covered

under definition of 'Industry' as indicated in section 2(j) of

the I.D. Act. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on

Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case

No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science),

Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch,

Deharadun. Against this, it has been argued by learned

counsel for the applicant that establishment on non-

applicant is covered by the definition of 'Industry'. Reliance

has been placed by non-applicant on Judgement and order

dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975,

Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc V/s A.

Rajappa and others etc. etc., Award dated 21.10.1988 passed

by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen

through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor

Union, New Delhi V/s The Director General, Archaeological

Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi and Award dated

17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy

Superintending Horiticulturist, Archaeological Survey of

India. Tajmahal Agra V/s Sureh Chandra. I have very

carefully gone through cases cited by both the parties.

Judgement dated 9.6.03 by CGIT, Jabalpur has not been

filed by opposite party.

25. In Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

in CGIT case No. B. 40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena V/s

Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science

Branch, Deharadun, cited by learn counsel for the opposite

party it has been held in decision of Issue No. 4 that

provision of I.D. Act, 1947 apply to the case. Issue No. 4

has dealt with the fact that provisions of I.D. Act apply to

the opposite party or not. Cases cited by learned counsel

for the applicant indicate that Archaeological Survey of

India is covered within the definition of 'Industry' as

provided in section2(j) of the I.D. Act. In Award dated

21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No.

78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological

Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi V/s The Director

General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New

Delhi, discussing the case of Judgement & order dated

21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Bangalore

Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. v/s A. Rajappa &

others etc. etc., it has been held by the CGIT, Delhi that

Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. In Award

dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy

Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeoligical Survey of

India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Surech Chandra, it has been held

by CGIT, Kanpur that Archaeological Survey of India is an

'Industry'. From decision of the cases cited on behalf of

both the parties & from the fact & circumstances of the

present case, I am of the view that establishment of non-

applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'

within the meaning of section 2(J) of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. Issue no. 4 is accordingly decided in affirmative

against the non-applicant.

Issue no. 1

26. This issue is to the effect whether the workman had

worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period

25.9.03 to 8.7.06 preceding twelve months from the date of

his alleged termination & whether his service was

terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act? It has

been argued by learned counsel for the applicant & has

also been alleged in the written argument that the applicant

has worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during

period of 12 months immediately proceding the date of

termination on 8.7.06 & termination of the services of

applicant is in violation of section 25-F of Industrial

Disputes Act, Hence, the order of termination is fit to be

set aside with continuity in service along with back wages.

Against this, it has been argued by the learned counsel for

the opposite party & has also been alleged in the written

argument that applicant was not appointed by non-

applicant, no appointment letter was issued, there was no

advertisement for any appointment. It has also been argued

that applicant was engaged on daily wage basis for repair

of the walls of the fort which is a work of temporary nature.It

has also been argued that applicant voluntarily left the

place of work on account of none availability of work. It

has also been said that on availability of work engagement

is made on daily wage basis for the period of work only &

provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of

applicant. It has also been alleged that in view of case of

the applicant covered under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D.

Act, compliance of provision of section 25-F is not required.

27. According to statement of claim applicant was

appointed on daily wage on 25.9.03 & was terminated on

8.7.06 without notice or pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment

compensation in violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act. What

was the post held by the applicant during employment has

not been alleged in statement of claim. About the nature of

the work the applicant has alleged that whatever work was

assigned by the opposite party applicant was performing

that work. It has also been alleged that this engagement

was neither for a fix work nor for a fix period. The applicant

has alleged that he has worked for more than 240 days in

every year. In affidavit filed in evidence in support of above

statement of claim the applicant has repeated the allegation

of statement of claim. No other co-worker has been

produced as witness in evidence to support the allegation

of statement of claim. In written statement it has been

specifically denied by opposite party that applicant that

applicant has not worked for 240 days in a year instead it

has been alleged that applicant has not worked for 240

days in any of the year. Sh. Brijraj Singh has specifically

denied in para 3 of his affidavit that the applicant has

worked for 240 days in any of the year. In above fact &

circumstances, the burden of proof lies on applicant to

prove that he has worked for more than 240 days in a year

2814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

immediately preceding the date of his termination on 8.7.06

as alleged in statement of claim. The applicant has alleged

in his cross examination that he has not stated in his affidavit

in evidence or in statement of claim that for how many

days he has worked in any corresponding year. He has

admitted that he has filed document w-1 & in w-1 nature of

work has been mentioned for which he was engaged & in

w-1 it has also been mentioned that the nature of work

includes 'special repair work' & such mention in w-1 is

correct. Thus, it shall appear that two documents relating

to total number of days of work has been filed by the

applicant which in w-1 & w-2. W-2 is the documents which

appeared to be prepared by workman whereas w-1 is the

documents which appears to be reply submitted by

mangement during conciliation proceedings. From

document w-2 if taken into consideration for calculating

the period of 240 days immediately preceding the date of

termination of 8.7.06 then total number of days on which

the workman has worked between w-1 it comes out to be

125 days but lacks continuity. Thus, workman has failed to

prove that he has continuously worked for more than 240

days in the year immediately preceding the date of his

termination. It shall also appear from both the documents

w-1 & w-2 that there is no continuous work in the year.

28. Documents regarding period & corresponding

working days filed by management on order of the tribunal

passed on application of the applicant proves following

detail:—

Period of work

Number of working days

19.2.03 to 20.3.03

Nil

28.7.03 to 24.8.03

Nil

13.4.94 to 13.5.04

Nil

09.06.04 to 09.7.04

Nil

11.7.04 to 10.8.04

Nil

12.8.04 to 11.9.04

Nil

13.9.04 to 12.10.04

Nil

14.10.04 to 21.10.04

17

01.11.04 to 1.12.04

Nil

3.12.04 to 2.1.05

Nil

4.1.05 to 3.2.05

Nil

6.2.05 to 8.3.05

Nil

15.2.05 to 17.3.05

Nil

9.3.05 to 17.3.05

09

19.3.05 to 13.4.05

Nil

8.9.05 to 6.10.05

Nil

9.11.05 to 9.12.05

Nil

11.12.05 to 10.1.06

Nil

11.1.06 to 10.2.06

Nil

12.2.06 ro 14.3.06

Nil

9.6.06 to 6.7.06

Nil

Total Number of days

between 8.7.2005 to 8.7.2006

Nil

29. The statement of above table submitted by opposite

party regarding statement of work done by workman

indicates that from the date of termination on 8.7.2006

applicant has worked only for NIL days in a year

immediately preceding the date of termination on 8.7.2006.

Thus, it is evident that the workman has not worked

continuously for 240 days immediately proceding the date

of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that

applicant has failed to prove that he has worked for more

than 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination.

From the entire cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there

appears nothing to derive in favour of applicant that he

has worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding the

date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear

that applicant has failed to prove that he has continuously

worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately

preceding the date of his termination.

30. As far as the question of violation of section 25-F of

Industrial Dispute is concerned it has been argued by the

learned counsel for the applicant that there has been

violation of section 25-F in terminating the services of the

applicant, against this learned counsel for the opposite

party has argued that there is no violation of section 25-F

of I.D. Act & section 25-F does not apply in the case of

applicant who was neither employed nor terminated & his

engagement has been only for specific period & specific

work & he has left the workplace on his own accrod. It has

also been argued that as the question of terminating the

services of the applicant does not arise, because he was

not given any employment & there was no advertisement

for employment, hence, section 25-F does not apply to the

case of the applicant. Section 25-F reads as under:—

"25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of

workmen—No workman employed in any industry

who has been in continuous service for not less than

one year under an employer shall be retrenched by

that employer until.....

(a) The workman has been given on month's notice in

writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and

the period of notice has expired, or the workman

has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the

period of the notice:

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrench-

ment, compensation which shall be equivalent to

fifteen days's average pay for every completed year

of continuous service or any part thereof in excess

of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the

appropriate Government (or such authority as may

be specified by the appropriate Government by

notification in the Official Gazette.)

31. Continuous service as indicated in section 25-F(1)

has been defined in section 25-B(1)(ii) which reads as

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2815

under:—

Section 25-B. Definition of continuous service—For the

purposes of this Chapter:—

(1)

a workman shall be said to be in continuous

service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted

service, including service which may be interrupted on

account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a

strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of

work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman.

(2)

Where a workman is not in continuous service

within the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year or

six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service

under an employer—

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a

period of twelve calendar months preceding the

date with reference to which calculation is to be

made, has actually worked under the employer for

not less than—

(i)

one hundred and ninety days in the case of a

workman employed below ground in a mine;

and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

32. Section 2 (oo) provides meaning o retrenchment

which reads as under:—

"2(oo)---"retrenchment" means the termination by the

employer of the service of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by

way of disciplinary action but does not include—

(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of

superannuation if the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

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

of the non-renewal of the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

on its expiry or of such contract being terminated

under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein;

or

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the

ground of continued ill-health;

33. About appointment of applicant in the department

of opposite party it is pertinent to mention that applicant

has admitted in his cross examination that there was neither

advertisement for appointment nor applicant had submitted

any application for appointment, hence, statement of

applicant in his statement of claim & affidavit that he was

appointed by the opposite party on a particular date is

baseless & wrong. Thus, question of appointment &

termination does not arise & contention of the opposite

party that applicant was not appointed by the opposite

party appears to be correct.

34. In 2006 Supreme Court Cased (L&S) 38,

Surendranagar District Panchayat….Appellant v/s.

Dahyabhai Amarsinh…Respondent, taking together &

analyzing the integrated impact of section 2(oo), section

25-B & section 25-F in paragraph 7 page 43, it has been

held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, "---To attract provisions

of section 25-F, the workman claiming protection under it,

has to prove that there exists relationship of employer and

employee; that he is a workman within the meaning of

section 2(s) of the Act; the establishment in which he is

employed is an industry within the meaning of the Act and

he must have put in not less than one year of continuous

service as defined by section 25-B under the employer.

These conditions are cumulative. If any of these conditions

is missing the provisions of section 25-F will not be

attracted. To get relief from the court the workman has to

establish that he has right to continue in service and that

his service has been terminated without complying wit the

provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The section postulates

three conditions to be fulfilled by an employer for getting a

valid retrenchment, namely:

(i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating the

reasons for retrenchment or that the workman has

been paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of

such notice;

(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which shall

be equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every

completed year of continuous service or any part

thereof, in excess of six months;

(iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the

prescribed manner.

35. Looking into the above provisions & the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to attract the provision

of section 25-F, it is clear that the applicant as failed to

prove that he has worked continuously for more than 240

days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of

his termination, thus, provision of section 25-F is not

attracted in the case of applicant. From above discussion,

I am of the view that the applicant as not worked

continuously for more than 240 days as daily wager

immediately preceding 12 months from the date of his

alleged termination on 8.7.2006 & his services were not

terminated in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes

Act. Issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in negative against

the applicant.

36. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the

applicant that even if section 25-F is not attracted in case

of applicant, he is entitled to the benefits of section 25-G &

25-H which are independent of section 25-F. Reliance has

2816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

been placed on RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank

of Commerce…appellant v/s Presiding Officer, Central Govt.

Industrial Tribunal & others & RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench,

Surya Prakash Sharma…Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book

Board, Jaipur & others (122)…Respondent. Against this it

has been argued by learned counsel for opposite party

that provision of section 25-G & 25-H is not attracted in the

case of applicant. I have carefully gone through both the

above reported cases.

37. In case of Oriental Bank of Commerce v/s Presiding

Officer respondent 2 cash employed in the bank of petitioner

from 23.5.85 to 28.5.85 for a period of 79 days. He was said

to be appointed for leave period only & is engagement

came to end after expiry of period of leave. The respondent

raised industrial dispute relating to section 25-G & 25-H

which was referred for adjudication. After the evidence of

both the parties tribunal came to the conclusion that there

was violation of section 25-G & section 25-H, hence,

respondent was directed to be reinstated & it was also

directed that he will entitled to pay from the date of joining

because respodent was said to be on the job in some other

place. On the basis of evidence tribunal came to conclusion

that management had failed to indicate that who was on

leave in whose place respondent was employed during

leave vacancy, hence, this fact was not admitted by tribunal

that engagement of respondent was for the period of leave

vacancy. It was admitted by the witness of the management

that when respondent was removed from service employee

Sh. Virendra Singh junior to the respondent was working.

It was also admitted by management witness that after

removal of respondent Sh. Mulan Rasool & Sh. Narendra

Bhatt were appointed on the post of peon but respondent

was not given opportunity. Thus, there was violation of

section 25-G & 25-H. Petition against the order of tribunal

was dismissed by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court &

award of the tribunal was confirmed.

38. In RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma

…Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & others

(122)…..Respondent, it has been held by Hob'ble Court

that section 25-G, 25-H & 25-F are independent of each

other & section 25-G & 25-H are not dependent on section

25-F. It has also been held that section 25-G & 25-H are

applicable irrespective of the fact that the workman has

completed 240 days of service or not, It has been further

held that Rule 76 to 78 of Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 are

independent of each other & mandatory in nature. Violation

of these rules will give a cause of action in favour of

workman to claim compensation, damages & re-

employment. To derive the benefits of these rules

continuous service is not necessary & workmen not having

completed 240 days of service are also entitled to the

benefits of Rule 76 to 78. In this case petitioner Sh. Surya

Prakash Sharma was retrenched from service before

completion of 240 days & was not entitled for the benefits

u/s 25 of I.D. Act. The only question involved in this case

was about applicability of section 25-H of I.D. Act read

with Rule 77 & 78. The case of the respondent was that

after discharge of petitioner on 1.11.88 they had employed

few persons although persons who employed were

discharge on 19.8.89. The petition of the petitioner was

allowed & he was held entitled to claim wages by way of

compensation for the period during which his junior remain

in employment.

39. In 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of

India…Appellant v/s N. Sundaramoney……Respondent,

it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that read with

section 25-B(2) if provision of section 25-F of Industrial

Dispute Act is attracted in case of the workman he cannot

be retrenched without payment of compensation at the

time of retrenchment as prescribed therein. It is pertinent

to mention that facts & circumstances of the present case

are different comparing to the facts of State Bank of India

v/s N. Sundarmoney, hence, law laid down by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney

is not attracted in the present case.

40. From decision of issue No. 2 & 3 it is clear that

applicant is not entitled to the benefit for violation of section

25-G & 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act because violation of

these two sections have not been proved by the applicant.

It is also clear from the evidence on record that no seniority

list is in existence as the case of opposite party is that there

was no employment in respect of applicant & he was only

engaged casually as & when there was existence of work.

Applicant has not proved his appointment or termination

by filing any documentary evidence in this behalf who was

engaged as daily wager. It has been held by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranagar District Panchayat …….Appelllant V/s

Dahyabhai Amarsinh ….. Respondent, in para 18 of the

judgement in relation to section 25-G & section 25-H as

under:—

"………In the absence of regular employment of the

workmen, the appellant was not expected to maintain

seniority list of the employees engaged on daily

wages and in the absence of any proof by the

respondent regarding existence of the seniority list

and his so-called seniority, no relief could be given

to him for non-compliance with provisions of the

Act. The courts could have drawn adverse inference

against the appellant only when seniority list was

proved to be in existence and then not produced

before the court. In order to entitle the court to draw

inference unfavourable to the party, the court must

be satisfied that evidence is in existence and could

have been proved." Finding of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,

Surendranagar District Panchayat ……..Appellant

V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh…. Respondnet, is relevant

& applies to the case of applicant.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 27] 2015@vk"kk<+ 6] 1937

2817

41. Bases on the findings related to issue No. 1 to 4 &

from the discussions as above, I am of the view that

applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the

statement of claim & action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India in terminating the services

of the workman Sh. Kamlesh Mali w.e.f. 8.7.2006 is legal &

justified.

42. Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1313-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,p ,e Vh e'khu

VwYl fyfeVsM] vtesj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ lañ 69@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42011@38@2014&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015

S.O. 1313.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 69/2014) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

the H.M.T. Machine Tools Limited, Ajmer and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 24/06/2015.

[No. L-42011/38/2014-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

I.D. 69/2014

Reference No. L-42011/38/2014-IR(DU) dated 11.8.2014

The President

Hindustan Machine Tools

Employees Union, 626/24,

Jadam Bhawan, Narishala Road,

Shakti Nagar, Ajmer.

V/s

The General Manager

H.M.T. Machine Tools Limited,

Viyavar Road, Ajmer.

AWARD

11.5.2015

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section 1 & 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred

the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:—

^^D;k egkizca/kd] ,pñ,eñVhñ e'khu VwYl fyfeVsM] vtesj

ds }kjk laLFkku esa dk;Zjr Jfedksa dks fu;r osru frFkh ij

osru dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa U;k;laxr gS\ ;fn

ughas rks Jfed fdl jkgr ds vf/kdkjh gS\**

2. Pursuant to the receipt of the reference order,

registered notices were issued to both the parties as per

the order of the tribunal dated 29.9.2014 fixing 24.11.2014

for filing statement of claim. On 24.11.2014 learned

representative on behalf of opposite party came in

appearance & alleged to file authority for & on behalf of

opposite party on next date 16.2.2015. Applicant was served

for 24.11.2014 but statement of claim was not filed & no

one came in appearance for applicant. In interest for justice

case was adjourned by the tribunal fixing 16.2.2015 for filing

statement of claim. On 16.2.2015 applicant was absent &

opposite party was present. Presiding Officer was on leave,

6.5.2015 was fixed for filing statement of claim. On 6.5.2015

also no one appeared for applicant, learned representative

for the oposite party was present who alleged that interest

is not taken by applicant side in filing statement of claim &

only management is coming in appearance since service of

notice. Sh. Tara Singh Rawat, Law Officer of the opposite

party came in appearance for opposite party. In above fact

& circumstances, seeing the uninterestedness from the

applicant side in filing statement of claim further opportunity

for filing claim was closed & case was reserved for award.

3. It is pertinent to note that on 11.8.2014 reference

order was sent by Ministry to the applicant with direction

to file statement of claim within 15 days from the date of

receipt of reference. Applicant has neither filed statement

of claim on the direction of Ministry nor on the notice of

the tribunal sent to the applicant. The applicant was under

an obligation to file statement of claim after receipt of notice

from Ministry even without any notice from the tribunal.

Notice sent by the tribunal also has failed to secure positive

response from applicant in filing statement of claim. It

appears that applicant is not interested & willing to submit

the statement of claim for adjusdication. In the

circumstances & in the absence of statement of claim &

material evidence brought on record by the applicant,

tribunal is unable to record the finding on the issues referred

to it on merit. Accordingly, "No Claim Award" is passed in

this matter. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

4. Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.