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.