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

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1314-—n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 ¼1974 dk 2½ dh

/kkjk 24 dh mi&/kkjk ¼8½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnz

ljdkj Jh daoj iky flag ,oa Jh lq'khy usxh] vfHk;kstu

vf/kdkjh] dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks dks U;k;ky;ksa esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk }kjk izkjaHk fd, x, ekeyksa ds lapkyu ds fy, rFkk fdlh jkT;

vFkok la?k 'kkflr {ks=] ftlesa mi;qZDr /kkjk ds izko/kku ykxw gksrs g®] esa

dkuwu }kjk LFkkfir ifj'kks/ku vFkok vihyh; U;k;ky;ksa esa vihyksa]

la'kks/kuksa vFkok bu ekeyksa ls mRiUu gksus okys vU; ekeyksa dk lapkyu

djus ds fy, fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstu ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qk- lañ 225@63@2014&,ohMh&II]

vthr dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015

S.O. 1314.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby

appoints Shri Kanwar Pal Singh and Shri Sushil Negi,

Prosecuting Officers, Central Bureau of Investigation, as

Special Public Prosecutors for the conduct of cases

instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment in trial

courts, and appeals, revisions or other matters arising out

of these cases in revisional or appellate Courts; established

by law in any State or Union Territory to which the

provisions of the aforesaid section apply.

[F.No. 225/63/2014-AVD-II]

AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.

foÙk ea=ky;

¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 29 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1315-—Hkkjrh; fjtoZ c®d vf/kfu;e] 1934

¼1934 dk 2½ dh /kkjk 53 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, vkSj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ c®d ds lkIrkfgd ys[ks ds QkeZ ls

lacafèr fiNyh lHkh vf/klwpukvksa ds vf/kØe.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj]

,rí~okjk] ml QkeZ dks vf/klwfpr djrh gS ftlesa Hkkjrh; fjtoZ c®d

dsUnz ljdkj dks lkIrkfgd ys[ks izsf"kr djsxk] uker%

2737 GI/2015

(2819)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 27]

ubZ fnYyh] twu 28—tqykbZ 4] 2015] 'kfuokj@vk"kk<+ 7—vk"kk< 13] 1937

No. 27]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 28—JULY 4, 2015, SATURDAY/ASADHA 7—ASADHA 13, 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)

2820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

QkeZ

QkeZ ^d*

^d*

[Hkkjrh; fjtoZ c®d vf/kfu;e] 1934 dh /kkjk 53 ¼1½]

Hkkjrh; fjtoZ c®d

------------ dks lekIr lIrkg ds fy, ys[kk

¼jkf'k fcfy;u #i, esa½

ns;rk

le;&

fiNyk

pkyw o"kZ

vkfLr;ka

le;&

fiNyk

pkyw

lhek

o"kZ

lhek

o"kZ

iwath

c®fdax foHkkx ¼chMh½ dh vkfLr;ka

vkjf{kr fuf/k

uksV] #i;k flDdk] NksVk flDdk]

vU; vkjf{kr

Lo.kZ flDdk vkSj cqfy;u

tekjkf'k;ka

fuos'k&fons'kh&chMh

vU; ns;rk,a ,oa

fuos'k&?kjsyw&chMh

izko/kku

[kjhns vkSj Hkquk, x, fcy

_.k vkSj vfxze

vuq"kafx;ksa esa fuos'k

vU; vkfLr;ka

fuxZe foHkkx dh

fuxZe foHkkx ¼vkbZMh½ dh vkfLr;ka

ns;rk

Lo.kZ flDds vkSj cqfy;u ¼uksV fuxZe

tkjh fd, x, uksV

ds leFkZu ds :i esa½ #i;k flDdk

fuos'k&fons'kh&vkbZMh fuos'k&?kjsyw&vkbZMh

?kjsyw fofue; i= vkSj vU; okf.kfT;d i=

dqy ns;rk,a

dqy vkfLr;ka

eq[; egkizca/kd

mi xouZj

xouZj

[Qkñ lañ 06@02@2015&chvks&II]

MkWñ 'k'kkad lDlsuk] vkfFkZd lykgdkj ¼,l,l½

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2015

S.O. 1315.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 53 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934

(2 of 1934) and in supersession of all earlier notifications relating to form of weekly account of the Reserve Bank of India the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2821

Central Government hereby notifies the form in which the Reserve Bank of India, shall transmit a weekly account to the

Central Government, namely:—

Form 'A'

[see section 53(1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934]

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

An account for the week ending ................

(Amount in Rs. billion)

Liabilities

Schedules

Previous Current

Assets

Schedules

Current

year

Capital

Assets of Banking

Reserve Fund

Department (BD)

Other Reserves

Notes, rupee coin, small coin,

Deposits

Gold Coin and Bullion

Other Liabilities

Investments-Foreign-BD

and Provisions

Investments-Domestic-BD

Bills Purchased and

Discounted

Loans and Advances

Investment in subsidiaries

Other Assets

Liabilities of

Assets of Issue Department

issue Department

(ID)

Notes issued

Gold Coin and Bullion (as

backing for Note issue)

Rupee coin

Investment-Foreign-ID

Investment-Domestic-ID

Domestic Bills of Exchange

and other Commercial Papers

Total Liabilities

Total Assets

Chief General Manager

Deputy Governor

Governor

[F. No. 06/02/2015–BO-II]

Dr. SHASHANK SAKSENA, Economic Adviser (SS)

2822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

¼jktLo foHkkx½

¼dsUnzh; izR;{k dj cksMZ½

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

izi= lañ 3 lhih

dk-vk- 1316-—

vkosnd dk uke] irk rFkk isu lañ

eSllZ Mhlh,e Jhjke dksulksfyfVM fyñ ubZ fnYyh

iSu%& ,,,lhMh0097vkj

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dk uke

'kqxj eSU;wQSDpfjax ,aM dks&tsujs'ku vkWQ ikoj

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dk iz;kstu

mÙkj izns'k jkT; esa vtckiqj] #ikiqj] gfj;kou o yksuh esa phuh ;wfuV {ks=ksa esa

fdlkuksa dks loksZRre izfØ;k ls voxr djkds o ubZ@mUur izkS|ksfxdh dks viukdj

xUuk mRikndrk esa lq/kkj djuk

vkosnu dh lanHkZ la[;k vkSj frfFk

Qkñlañ 203@20@2015&vkñdñfu&II] fnukad 14-05-2015 dks izkIr gqbZA

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks vkjaHk djus dh

igys gh vkjaHk dh tk pqdh gSA rFkkfi] vuqeksnu vk;dj vf/kfu;e] 1961 dh

frfFk

/kkjk 35 xxx ds rgr vkSipkfjd vf/klwpuk tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls gh izHkkoh

gksxkA

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dh ekg ds fglkc

py jgh ifj;kstukA

ls vof/k

dj&fu/kkZj.k o"kZ ¼o"kks±½ ftuds fy,

vf/klwpuk ds fofo/k tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls 31-3-2016 rdA

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks vf/klwfpr

fd;k tk jgk gS ¼rhu o"kks± ls vf/kd ugha½

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ij gksus okys

fu/kkZj.k o"kZ 2013&14] 2014&15 vkSj 2015&16 ds fy,] vkosnd us Øe'k%

laHkkfor dqy [kpZ ¼Hkwfe vFkok Hkou

2]99]00]000 #ñ 4]62]00]000 #ñ vkSj 5]57]00]000 #ñ ds O;; dk nkok

dh ykxr jkf'k ls fHkUu½

fd;k gSA rFkkfi foÙk o"kZ 2013&14 vkSj 2014&15 ds laca/k esa] /kkjk 35xxx ds

rgr nkok vuqer ugha gS D;ksafd Hkkfjr dVkSrh dks vf/klwpuk ds fof/kor tkjh gksus

dh rkjh[k ls gh vuqer fd;k tk ldrk gSA tcfd foÙk o"kZ 2015&16 ds fy,

laHkkfor O;; 5]57]00]000 #ñ ls de gksxk A

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds izR;sd ykHkxzkgh

'kwU;

ls izkIr dh tkus okyh jkf'k] ;fn dksbZ gks]

10- os 'krs± ftuds v/;/khu ¼'kqxj eSU;wQSDpfjax ,aM dks&tsujs'ku

vkWQ ikoj½ uke ls d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks vf/klwfpr fd;k tk

jgk gS] fuEukuqlkj gS%—

¼i½ d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks 'kq: djus okyh vuqeksfnr

laLFkk /kkjk 35 xxx dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds varxZr vf/klwfpr

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dh ys[kkcfg;ka i`Fkd :i ls j[ksxh

rFkk ,slh ys[kkcfg;ksa dh /kkjk 288 dh mi/kkjk ¼2½ ds

uhps mfYyf[kr Li"Vhdj.k esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr fd, x,

vuqlkj fdlh ys[kkdkj ls ys[kk&ijh{kk djk,xhA

¼ii½ mifu;e ¼1½ esa mfYyf[kr ys[kk ijh{kk esa ys[kk&ijh{kd

dh d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds laca/k esa vuqjf{kr ys[kkcfg;ksa

ds lgh vkSj mfpr gksus ds laca/k esa dh xbZ fVIif.k;ka] d`f"k

foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds fØ;kdykiksa dh okLrfodrk rFkk

vf/kfu;e ds laxr mica/kksa esa fofufnZ"V 'krks± ds iw.kZ fd;s

tkus vFkok fu;eksa vFkok fu;e 6 dd?k ds mifu;e

¼6½ ;k mifu;e ¼9½ ds varxZr tkjh vf/klwpuk esa

mfYyf[kr fu;eksa vFkok 'krks± dks iw.kZ fd, tkus ds laca/k

esa fVIif.k;ka 'kkfey gksaxhA

¼iii½ vuqeksfnr laLFkk izf'k{k.k] f'k{kk] ekxZn'kZu vFkok ,sls

izf'k{k.k] f'k{kk vFkok ekxZn'kZu gsrq forfjr dh xbZ fdlh

lkexzh ds fy, ik= d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds varxZr

fdlh ykHkxzkgh ls dksbZ jkf'k Lohdkj ugha djsxhA

¼iv½ vuqeksfnr laLFkk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 35xxx ds mica/kksa]

fu;e 6 dd?k vkSj bl fu;e ds vuqlkj ik= O;; dh

dVkSrh ds vykok vf/klwfpr d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ls

dksbZ izR;{k ;k vizR;{k ykHk ugha mBk,xhA vuqeksfnr la[;k

viuh d`"kh; foLrkj ifj;kstuk@dk;Zdyki@;kstuk dks vius

mRiknksa ds czkaM uke ij ugha j[ksxhA

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2823

¼v½ vkosnd ifj;kstuk ls ykHkkafor fdlkuksa dh MkVk'khV dks

d`f"k ea=ky; dks HkstsxkA blds vfrfjDr vkosnd feV~Vh

¼lksby½ gsYFk ls lacaf/kr MkVk Hkh lk>k djsxk vkSj d`f"k

ea=ky; ds ikl miyC/k feV~Vh VsfLVax iz;ksx'kkyk dh

vfrfjDr {kerk dh miyC/krk ds laca/k esa lwpuk Hkh iznku

djsxkA

¼vi½ ykHkxzkgh ls izkIr dh xbZ jkf'k] ;fn dksbZ gks] dks ?kVkus ds

ckn lHkh [kps± ¼fdlh Hkwfe ;k Hkou dh ykxr Lo:i dk

O;; u gksus ij½ ftUgsa fdlh ik= d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk

dks 'kq: djus gsrq iw.kZ rFkk vuU; :i ls [kpZ fd;k x;k

gS] /kkjk 35 xxx ds rgr dVkSrh ds ik= gksaxs(

ijUrq ;g fd d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ij [kpZ fd;k x;k

dksbZ O;; ftldh dj fu/kkZfjrh dks fdlh O;fDr }kjk izR;{k

;k vizR;{k :i ls izfriwfrZ dh xbZ gS ;k dh tkuh gS] ds

fy, /kkjk 35 xxx ds varxZr dksbZ dVkSrh ugha nh tk,xhA

¼vii½ tgka vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 35 xx ds varxZr fdlh dVkSrh

dk fdlh dj&fu/kkZj.k o"kZ gsrq nkok fd;k tkrk gS rFkk mls

vuqer fd;k tkrk gS rks ,sls O;; ds laca/k esa vf/kfu;e

ds fdlh vU; mica/k ds varxZr mlh dj&fu/kkZj.k o"kZ

vFkok vU; fdlh dj&fu/kkZj.k o"kZ esa dVkSrh vuqer ugha

dh tk,xhA

¼viii½ vuqeksfnr laLFkk }kjk /kkjk 139 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds

varxZr vk; fooj.kh dks izLrqr djus dh fu;r frfFk dks

;k mlls iwoZ fuEufyf[kr lwpuk {ks=kf/kdkj ihlhvkbZVh@

lhvkbZVh@ihMhvkbZVh@MhvkbZVh] tSlk Hkh ekeyk gks] dks Hkh

izLrqr djsxh] uker%—

¼d½ ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ ds lkFk iwoZ o"kZ ds fy, d`f"k

foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds ys[kkvksa ds ys[kkijhf{kr fd,

x, fooj.k rFkk /kkjk 35 xxx dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds

varxZr nkok dh xbZ dVkSrh dh jkf'k(

¼[k½ iwoZ o"kZ ds nkSjku blds }kjk 'kq: dh xbZ d`f"k foLrkj

ifj;kstuk ij rFkk pkyw o"kZ ds nkSjku 'kq: dh tkus

okyh d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds dk;ZØe ds laca/k

esa ,d fVIi.kh vkSj ,sls dk;ZØe gsrq foRrh; vkcaVu(

rFkk

¼x½ dj&fu/kkZfjrh }kjk iwoZ o"kZ ds nkSjku 'kq: dh xbZ

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dh okLrfodrk ds laca/k esa

d`f"k ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj dh vksj ls izek.ki=A

¼ix ½ bl ifj;kstuk ds varxZr dEiuh dh izksQkby vkSj mRiknksa

ij vYi l= dks NksM+dj dsoy mRikn fu"izHkkoh izf'k{k.k

fn;k tk,xkA blds vfrfjDr ifj;kstuk ds rgr ykHkkafor

fdlkuksa dks fdlh Hkh phuh QSDVjh dks xUuk lIykbZ djus

dh lqfo/kk gksxhA

11-dsUnzh; izR;{k dj cksMZ viuk vuqeksnu okil ys ysxk ;fn

vuqeksfnr laLFkk%—

¼d½ vius fØ;kdyki can dj nsrh g®( vFkok

¼[k½ blds fØ;kdyki vokLrfod ik, tkrs g®( vFkok

¼x½ blds fØ;kdyki vf/kfu;e ds lHkh ;k fdlh laxr mica/kksa

vFkok fu;eksa ds vuqlkj ugha fd, tk jgs g®( vFkok

¼?k½ blds fØ;kdyki ,slh lHkh 'krks± vFkok muesa ls fdlh Hkh

'krZ ds vuqlkj ugha fd, tk jgs g® ftu 'krks± ds v/;/khu

vf/klwpuk tkjh dh tk jgh gSA

LFkku% ubZ fnYyh]

fnukad% 26-2-2015

[vf/klwpuk lañ 52@2015@Qkñ lañ 203@20@2015&vkñdñfuñ&II]

jksfgr xxZ] mi lfpo

(Department of Revenue)

(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2015

FORM NO. 3CP

S.O. 1316.—

Name, address and PAN of the applicant

M/s. DCM Shriram Consoliated Limited, New Delhi.

PAN: AAACD0097R

Title of the agricultural extension project

Sugar manufacturing & Co-generation of Power

Purpose of the agricultural extension project

To improve sugarcane productivity by educating farmers of

beset practices and adopting new/advanced technologies in

area of sugar units at Ajbapur, Rupapur, Haridwan & Loni in

the state of UP

Reference No. and date of application

F.No. 203/20/2015-ITA. II received on 14.05.2015.

Date of commencement of the agricultural

Already commenced. However, approval shall be effective

extension project

from the date of issue of formal Notification u/s 35CCC of the

Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act)

2824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Duration of the agricultural extension project

On going project.

in months

Assessment year(s) for which the agricultural

From date of formal issue of Notification till 31.03.2016

extension project is being notified (not

exceeding three years)

Total expenses likely to be incurred for the

For F.Yr's 2013-14, 2014-2015 and 2015-16 applicant has claimed

agricultural extension project (other than

expenses of ` 2,99,00,000/-, ` 4,62,00,000/- and ` 5,57,00,000/-

cost of land or building)

respectively. However, as far as F. Yr. 2013-14 and 2014-15 are

concerned, claim u/s 35CCC is not allowable as weighted

deduction can be allowed only from date of formal issue of

notification. While for F. Yr. 2015-16, likely expenditure would

be less than ` 5,57,00,000/-

Amount, if any, to be charged from each

NIL

beneficiary of agricultural extension project

10. Conditions subject to which agricultural extension

project titled "Sugar manufacturing & Co-generation of

Power' is being notified are as under:

i. The approved entity undertaking agricultural

extension project shall maintain separate books

of account of the agricultural extension project

notified under sub-section (1) of section 35CCC,

and get such books of accounts audited by an

accountant as defined in the Explanation below

sub-section (2) of section 288.

ii. The audit report referred to in sub-rule (1) shall

include the comments of the auditor on the true

and fair view of the books of account maintained

for agricultural extension project, the genuineness

of the activities of the agricultural extension project

and fulfilment of the conditions specified in the

relevant provisions of the Act or the rules or the

conditions mentioned in the notification issued

under sub-rule (6) or sub-rule (9) of rule 6AAD.

iii. The approved entity shall not accept any amount

from the beneficiaries under the eligible

agricultural extension project or training,

education, guidance or for any material so

distributed for the said purposes.

iv. The approved entity shall not get any direct or

indirect benefit from the notified agricultural

extension project except the deduction of the

eligible expenditure in accordance with the

provisions of section 35CCC of the Act, rule 6AAD

of I.T. Rules, 1962 and this Notification. The

approved entity shall also not name any of their

agricultural extension project/activity/scheme on

the brand name of any of their products.

v. The applicant shall furnish data sheet of farmers

who have benefitted from the project to the

Ministry of Agriculture. Further, the applicant shall

also share the data pertaining to Soil Health and

also provide information regarding availability of

additional capacity of Soil Testing Laboratory

available with Ministry of Agriculture.

vi. All expenses (not being expenditure in the nature

of cost of any land or building), as reduced by the

amount received from beneficiary, if any, incurred

wholly and exclusively for undertaking an eligible

agricultural extension project shall be eligible for

deduction under section 35CCC;

Provided that any expenditure incurred on the

agricultural extension project which is reimbursed

or reimbursable to the assessee by any person,

whether directly or indirectly, shall not be eligible

for deduction under section 35CCC.

vii. Where a deduction under this Ection 35CC of

the Act is claimed and allowed for any assessment

year, deduction shall not be allowed in respect of

such expenditure under any other provisions of

the Act for the same or any other assessment

year.

viii. The approved entity shall, on or before the due

date of furnishing the return of income under sub-

section (1) of section 139, furnish the following to

the jurisdictional PCIT/CIT/PDIT/DIT, as the case

may be namely:—

(a) the audited statement of accounts of the

agricultural extension project for the previous

year along with the audit report and amount

of deduction claimed under sub-section (1)

of section 35CCC;

(b) a note on the agricultural extension project

undertaken by it during the previous year

and the programme of agricultural extension

project to be undertaken during the current

year and the financial allocation for such

programme; and

Government of India, regarding the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2825

genuineness of the agricultural extension

project undertaken by the assessee during

the previous year.

ix. Under the project only product neutral training

will be given except a short session on company's

profile and products. Further, the farmers

benefitted under the project will have the privilege

of supplying their produce to any other entity.

11. The Central Board of Direct Taxes shall withdraw the

approval if the approved entity:—

(a) has ceased its activities; or

(b) its activities are not genuine; or

accordance with all or any of the relevant

provisions of the Act or Rules; or

(d) its activities are not being carried out in

accordance with all or any of the conditions

subject to which the notification is being issued.

Place: New Delhi

[Notification No. 52/2015/F.No. 203/20/2015-ITA. II]

ROHIT GARG, Dy. Secy.

10- os 'krs± ftuds v/;/khu mi;qZDr d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks

vf/klwfpr fd;k tk jgk gS] fuEukuqlkj gS%—

(i) d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks 'kq: djus okyh vuqeksfnr laLFkk

/kkjk 35 xxx dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds vUrxZr

vf/kwlfpr d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dh ys[kkcfg;ka i`Fkd~

:i ls j[ksxh rFkk ,slh ys[kkcfg;ksa dh /kkjk 288 dh

mi&/kkjk ¼2½ ds uhps mfYyf[kr Li"Vhdj.k esa ;Fkk

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

izi= lañ 3 lhih

dk-vk- 1317-—

vkosnd dk uke] irk rFkk isu lañ

eSllZ esfjdks fyñ] eqEcbZ] iSu&,,,lh,e 7493 th

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dk uke

dqlqEHk ¼lSQykmj½ d`f"k; foLrkj ifj;kstuk

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dk iz;kstu

mit dks csgrj djuk o lkFk gh lSQykmj Qly dh [ksrh {ks= esa o`f) djuk

vkosnu dh lanHkZ la[;k vkSj frfFk

Qkñlañ 203@21@2015 vkñdñfuñ&II] fnukad 15-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks vkjaHk djus dh frfFk

igys gh vkjaHk dh tk pqdh gSA rFkkfi] vuqeksnu vk;dj vf/kfu;e] 1961

¼vf/kfu;e½ dh /kkjk 35 xxx ds rgr bl vkSipkfjdvf/klwpuk tkjh gksus dh

rkjh[k ls izHkkoh gksxk

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dh ekg ds fglkc ls

py jgh ifj;kstuk

vof/k

dj&fu/kkZj.k o"kZ ¼o"kks±½ ftuds fy, d`f"k

vf/klwpuk ds vkSipkfjd :i ls tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls dj&fuèkZj.k o"kZ 2018&19

foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks vf/klwfpr fd;k tk jgk

gS ¼rhu o"kks± ls vf/kd ugha½

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ij gksus okys laHkkfor

vkosnd us fu/kkZj.k o"kZ 2015&16] ds fy, izR;sd o"kZ ds fy, 2]52]49214@& #ñ

dqy [kpZ ¼Hkwfe vFkok Hkou dh ykxr

ds [kpZ dk nkok fd;k gSA rFkkfi] D;ksafd ifj;kstuk dks vuqeksnu foÙk o"kZ 2015&16

jkf'k ls fHkUu½

esa ijorhZ frfFk ls fn;k tk jgk gSA vr% laxr vofè gsrq laHkkfor O;; dkQh de

gksxk] tgka rd foÙk o"kZ 2016&17 o 2017&18 dk lacaè gS] laHkkfor O;; Øe'k%

3]02]99]056@&#ñ vkSj 3]63]58]868@&#ñ gSA

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds izR;sd

'kwU;

ykHkxzkgh ls izkIr dh tkus okyh jkf'k] ;fn

dksbZ gks]

ifjHkkf"kr fd, x, vuqlkj fdlh ys[kkdkj l sys[kk&ijh{kk

djk,xhA

(ii) mifu;e ¼1½ esa mfYyf[kr ys[kk ijh{kk esa ys[kk&ijh{kd

dh d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds laca/k esa vuqjf{kr ys[kkcfg;ksa

ds lgh vkSj mfpr gksus ds lacaè esa] d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk

ds fØ;kdykiksa dh okLrfodrk rFkk vf/kfu;e ds laxr

mica/kksa esa fofufnZ"V 'krks± ds iw.kZ fd;s tkus vFkok fu;eksa

vFkok fu;e 6 dd?k ds mifu;e ¼6½ ;k mifu;e ¼9½

ds varxZr tkjh vf/klwpuk esa mfYyf[kr fu;eksa vFkok

Dated: 26/06/2015

2826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

'krks± dks iw.kZ fd, tkus ds laca/k esa dh xbZ fVIif.k;ka

'kkfey gksaxhA

(iii) vuqeksfnr laLFkk izf'k{k.k] f'k{kk] ekxZn'kZu vFkok mDr

iz;kstuksa ds fy, ,sls forfjr dh xbZ fdlh lkexzh ds fy,

ik= d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds vUrxZr fdlh ykHkxzkgh ls

dksbZ jkf'k Lohdkj ugha djsxhA

(iv) vuqekfnr laLFkk vfèfu;e dh èkjk 35xxx ds micaèksa]

vk;dj fu;ekoyh 1962 ds fu;e 6 dd?k vkSj bl

vfèlwpuk ds vuqlkj ik= O;; dh dVkSrh ds vykok

vfèlwfpr d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ls dksbZ izR;{k ;k vizR;{k

ykHk ugha mBk,xhA vuqeksfnr laLFkk viuh d`f"k; foLrkj

ifj;kstuk@dk;Zdyki@;kstuk dks vius mRiknksa ds czkaM uke

ij ugha j[ksxhA

(v) vkosnd fdlkuksa ftudks ifj;kstuk ls ykHk gqvk gS fd

MkVk'khV d`f"k ea=ky; dks HkstsxkA

(vi) ykHkxzkgh ls izkIr dh xbZ jkf'k] ;fn dksbZ gks] dks ?kVkus ds

ckn lHkh [kpsZ ¼daiuh ds fu;fer dkfeZdksa ds osru O;;

vkSj fdlh Hkwfe ;k Hkou dh ykxr Lo:i dk O;; ds

flok;½ ftUgsa fdlh ik= d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks 'kq:

djus gsrq iw.kZ rFkk vuU; :i ls [kpZ fd;k x;k gS] èkjk

35 xxx ds rgr dVkSrh ds ik= gksaxs(

c'krsZ ;g fd d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ij [kpZ fd;k x;k

dksbZ O;; ftldh dj fuèkZfjrh dks fdlh O;fDr }kjk izR;{k

;k vizR;{k :i ls izfriwfrZ dh xbZ gS ;k dh tkuh gS] ds

fy, èkjk 35 xxx ds varxZr dksbZ dVkSrh ugha nh tk,xhA

(vii) tgka vfèfu;e dh èkjk 35 xx ds vUrxZr fdlh dVkSrh

dk fdlh dj&fuèkZj.k o"kZ gsrq nkok fd;k tkrk gS rFkk mls

vuqer fd;k tkrk gS rks ,sls O;; ds lacaè esa vfèfu;e

ds fdlh vU; micaè ds vUrxZr mlh dj&fuèkZj.k o"kZ

vFkok vU; fdlh dj fuèkZj.k o"kZ esa dVkSrh vuqer ugha

dh tk,xhA

(viii) vuqeksfnr laLFkk }kjk 139 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds vUrxZr

vk; fooj.kh dks izLrqr djus dh fu;r frfFk dks ;k mlls

iwoZ {ks=kfèdkj ihlhvkbZVh@lhvkbZVh@ihMhvkbZVh@MhvkbZVh

dks] tSlk Hkh ekeyk gks] fuEufyf[kr lwpuk Hkh izLrqr

djsxh] uker%—

¼d½ ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ ds lkFk iwoZ o"kZ ds fy, d`f"k

foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds ys[kkvksa ds ys[kkijhf{kr fd,

x, fooj.k rFkk èkjk 35 xxx dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds

vUrxZr nkok dh xbZ dVkSrh dh jkf'k(

¼[k½ iwoZ o"kZ ds nkSjku blds }kjk 'kq: dh xbZ d`f"k foLrkj

ifj;kstuk ij rFkk pkyw o"kZ ds nkSjku 'kq: dh tkus

okyh d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds dk;ZØe ds lacaè esa

,d fVIi.kh vkSj ,sls dk;ZØe gsrq foÙkh; vkcaVu(

rFkk

¼x½ dj&fuèkZfjrh }kjk iwoZ o"kZ ds nkSjku 'kq: dh xbZ d`f"k

foLrkj ifj;kstuk dh okLrfodrk ds lacaè esa d`f"k

ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj dh vksj ls izek.ki=A

(ix) bl ifj;kstuk ds varxZr dEiuh dh izksQkby vkSj mRiknksa

ij vYi l= dks NksM+dj dsoy mRikn fu"izHkkoh izf'k{k.k

fn;k tk,xkA blds vfrfjDr ifj;kstuk ds rgr ykHkkafor

fdlkuksa dks viuh #fp dh laLFkk ls lSQykmV chtksa dks

lIykbZ djus dk vfèdkj gksxkA

11- dsUnzh; izR;{k dj cksMZ viuk vuqeksnu okil ys ysxk ;fn

vuqeksfnr laLFkk%—

¼d½ vius fØ;kdyki can dj nsrh gS( vFkok

¼[k½ blds fØ;kdyki vokLrfod ik, tkrs g®( vFkok

¼x½ blds fØ;kdyki vfèfu;e ds lHkh ;k fdlh laxr micaèksa

vFkok fu;eksa ds vuqlkj ugha fd, tk jgs g®( vFkok

¼?k½ blds fØ;kdyki ,slh lHkh 'krks± vFkok muesa ls fdlh Hkh

'krZ ds vuqlkj ugha fd, tk jgs g® ftu 'krks± ds v/;èhu

vfèlwpuk tkjh dh tk jgh gSA

LFkku% ubZ fnYyh]

fnukad 26@06@2015

[vfèlwpuk lañ 53@2015@Qkñlañ 203@21@2015&vkñdñfuñ II]

jksfgr xxZ] mi lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2015

FORM NO. 3CP

S.O. 1317.—

Name, address and PAN of the applicant

M/s. Marico Limited, Mumbai. PAN: AAACM7493G

Title of the agricultural extension project

Safflower Agricultural Extension Project

Purpose of the agricultural extension project

To improve the yield as well as increase the area under

cultivation of safflower crops.

Reference No. and date of application

F.No. 203/21/2015-ITA. II received on 15.05.2015.

Date of commencement of the agricultural

Alaready commenced. However, approval shall be effective

extension project

from the date of issue of formal Notification u/s 35CCC of

the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2827

Duration of the agricultural extension project

Ongoing project

in months

Assessment year(s) for which the agricultural

From date of formal issue of Notification till A.Y. 2018-19

extension project is being notified (not exceeding

three years)

Total expenses likely to be incurred for the

For F.Yr's 2015-16 applicant has claimed expenses of

agricultural extension project (other than

Rs. 2,52,49,214/. However, as project is being accorded

cost of land or building)

approval from subsequent date in the F.Yr. 2015-16, the

expected expenditure for the relevant period would be lesser.

As far as F.Yr. 2016-17 and 2017-18 are concerned, likely

expenditure is Rs. 3, 02, 99,056/- and Rs. 3, 63, 58,868/-

respectively.

Amount, if any, to be charged from each

NIL

beneficiary of agricultural extension project.

10. Conditions subject to which the above mentioned

agricultural extension project is being notified are as

under:

i. The approved entity undertaking agricultural

extension project shall maintain separate books

of account of the agricultural extension project

notified under sub-section (1) of section 35CCC,

and get such books of account audited by an

accountant as defined in the Explanation below

sub-section (2) of section 288.

ii. The audit report referred to in sub-rule (1) shall

include the comments of the auditor on the true

and fair view of the books of account maintained

for agricultural extension project, the

genuineness of the activities of the agricultural

extension project and fulfilment of the

conditions specified in the relevant provisions

of the Act or the rules or the conditions

mentioned in the notification issued under sub-

rule (6) or sub-rule (9) of rule 6AAD.

iii. The approved entity shall not accept any amount

from the beneficiaries under the eligible

agricultural extension project for training,

education, guidance or for any material so

distributed for the said purposes.

iv. The approved entity shall not get any direct or

indirect from the notified agricultural extension

project except the deduction of the eligible

expenditure in accordance with the provisions

of section 35CCC of the Act, rule 6AAD of the

I.T. Rules, 1962 and this Notification. The

approved entity shall also not name any of their

agricultural extension project/activity/scheme

on the brand name of any of their products.

v. The applicant shall furnish data sheet of farmers

who have benefitted from the project to the

Ministry of Agriculture.

vi. All expenses other than salary expenditure of

regular employees of the company and

expenditure in the nature of cost of any land or

building, as reduced by the amount received from

the beneficiary, if any, incurred wholly and

exclusively for undertaking an eligible agricultural

extension project shall be eligible for deduction

under section 35CCC:

Provided that any expenditure incurred on the

agricultural extension project which is reimbursed

or reimbursable to the assessee by any person,

whether directly or indirectly, shall not be eligible

for deduction under section 35CCC.

vii. Where a deduction under this section 35CC of

the Act is claimed and allowed for any assessment

year, deduction shall not be allowed in respect of

such expenditure under any other provisions of

the Act for the same or any other assessment

year.

viii. The approved entity shall, on or before the due

date of furnishing the return of income under sub-

section (1) of section 139, furnish the following to

the Jurisdictional PCIT/CIT/PDIT/DIT as the case

may be, namely:—

(a) the audited statement of accounts of the

agricultural extension projects for the

previous year along with the audit report and

amount of deduction claimed under sub-

section (1) of section 35CCC;

(b) a note on the agricultural extension project

undertaken by it during the previous year

and the programme of agricultural extension

project to be undertaken during the current

year and the financial allocation for such

programme; and

Government of India, regarding the

genuineness of the agricultural extension

project undertaken by the assessee during

the previous year.

2828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ix. Under the project only product neutral training

will be given except for a short session on

company's profile and products. Further, the

farmers benefitted under the project will have

the right to supply Safflower seeds to entity of

their choice.

11. The Central Board of Direct Taxes shall withdraw the

approval if the approved entity:—

(a) has ceased its activities; or

(b) its activities are not genuine; or

accordance with all or any of the relevant

provisions of the Act or Rules; or

(d) its activities are not being carried out in

accordance with all or any of the conditions

subject to which the notification is being issued.

Place: New Delhi

Dated: 26/06/2015

[Notification No. 53/2015/F. No. 203/21/2015-ITA.II]

ROHIT GARG, Dy. Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

izi= lañ 3 lhih

dk-vk- 1318-—

vkosnd dk uke] irk rFkk iSu lañ

eSllZ vofUr QhM~l fyñ] gSnjkckn] iSu&,,chlh, 7365bZ

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dk uke

vofUr ,Dok dYpj Vªsfuax ,aM MsoyiesaV lsaVj

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dk iz;kstu

l QhM dUotZu js'kks ¼,Qlhvkj½ dks c<+kus ds ckjs esa fdlkuksa dks f'kf{kr djuk

vkSj csgrj vkSlr nSfud o`f) ¼,Mhth½ gksuk(

l vPNh rkykc ¼ikWUM½ izfØ;kvksa ij bUgsa f'kf{kr djuk rkfd mÙkjthfork nj esa

o`f) gks vkSj vf/kd vk; lqfuf'pr gksaA

l ;a=hdj.k ds ykHkksa vkSj fo'o Hkj esa >haxh ¼fJEi½ Qkfe±x ds uohure fodkl

ij fdlkuksa dks f'kf{kr djuk

vkosnu dh lanHkZ la[;k vkSj frfFk

Qkñlañ 203@22@2015 vkñdñfuñ&II] fnukad 27-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvkA

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks vkjaHk

igys gh vkjaHk dh tk pqdh gSA rFkkfi] vuqeksnu vk;dj vf/kfu;e] 1961

djus dh frfFk

¼vf/kfu;e½ dh /kkjk 35 xxx ds rgr bl vkSipkfjd vf/klwpuk tkjh gksus dh

rkjh[k ls izHkkoh gksxkA

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dh ekg ds

py jgh ifj;kstuk

fglkc ls vof/k

dj&fu/kkZj.k o"kZ ¼o"kks±½ ftuds fy, d`f"k

vf/klwpuk ds fof/kor tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls

foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks vf/klwfpr fd;k

31-3-2018 rdA

tk jgk gS ¼rhu o"kks± ls vf/kd ugha½

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ij gksus

vkosnd us foÙk o"kZ 2015&16] 2016&17 vkSj 2017&18 ds fy, Øe'k%

okys laHkkfor dqy [kpZ ¼Hkwfe

7]23]66]000@& #ñ( 8]60]35]000#-& vkSj 10]25]80]750@& # ds O;;

vFkok Hkou dh ykxr jkf'k ls fHkUu½

dk nkok fd;k gSA rFkkfi] tgka rd foÙk o"kZ 2015&16 dk laca/k gS] /kkjk 35xxx ds

rgr nkok dks de fd;k tk,xk D;ksafd Hkkfjr dVkSrh dks vf/klwpuk ds fof/kor

tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls gh vuqer fd;k tk ldrk gSA

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds izR;sd

'kwU;

ykHkxzkgh ls izkIr dh tkus okyh jkf'k]

;fn dksbZ gks]

10- os 'krs± ftuds v/;/khu ^vofUr ,Dok dYpj Vsªfuax ,aM

MsoyiesaV lsUVj* uke ls d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks vf/klwfpr fd;k

tk jgk gS] fuEukuqlkj gS%—

(i) d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks 'kq: djus okyh vuqeksfnr

laLFkk /kkjk 35 xxx dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vUrxZr

vf/kwlfpr d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dh ys[kkcfg;ka i`Fkd~

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2829

:i ls j[ksxh rFkk ,slh ys[kkcfg;ksa dh /kkjk 288 dh

mi/kkjk ¼2½ ds uhps mfYyf[kr Li"Vhdj.k esa ;Fkk

ifjHkkf"kr fd, x, vuqlkj fdlh ys[kkdkj ls ys[kk&ijh{kk

djk,xhA

(ii) mifu;e ¼1½ esa mfYyf[kr ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ esa

ys[kk&ijh{kd dh d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds laca/k esa

vuqjf{kr ys[kkcfg;ksa ds lgh vkSj mfpr gksus] d`f"k foLrkj

ifj;kstuk ds fØ;kdykiksa dh okLrfodrk rFkk vf/kfu;e

ds laxr mica/kksa esa fofufnZ"V 'krks± ds iw.kZ fd;s tkus vFkok

fu;eksa vFkok fu;e 6 dd?k ds mifu;e ¼6½ ;k mifu;e

¼9½ ds varxZr tkjh vf/klwpuk esa mfYyf[kr fu;eksa vFkok

'krks± dks iw.kZ fd, tkus ds laca/k esa dh xbZ fVIif.k;ka

'kkfey gksaxhA

(iii) vuqeksfnr laLFkk izf'k{k.k] f'k{kk] ekxZn'kZu vFkok forfjr

dh xbZ fdlh lkexzh ds fy, ik= d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk

ds vUrxZr fdlh ykHkxzkgh ls dksbZ jkf'k Lohdkj ugha djsxhA

fdlkuksa ds dsoy izf'k{k.k f'k{kk vkSj ekxZ&n'kZu ls lacaf/kr

O;; ?kVd dks gh vuqer fd;k tk,xk( blds vfrfjDr&

¼d½ izf'k{kqvksa ls dksbZ 'kqYd ;k tek jkf'k ugha yh tk,xh(

¼[k½ izf'k{kqvksa dks mDr foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds ifj.kkeLo:i

dksbZ izek.ki= tkjh ugha fd;k tk,xk(

¼x½ mDr ifj;kstuk ds varxZr Hkou@egkfo|ky;@izf'k{k.k

laLFkku ds :i esa fdlh Hkh LFkk;h <kaps dk fuekZ.k

ugha fd;k tk,xk(

¼?k½ vkosnd bl ifj;kstuk ds fy, fdlh Hkh

fo'ofo|ky; ls lEc) ugha fd;k tk,xkA

(iv) vuqeksfnr laLFkk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 35xxx ds mica/kksa]

vk;dj fu;ekoyh] 1962 ds fu;e 6 dd?k vkSj bl

fu;e ds vuqlkj ik= O;; dh dVkSrh ds vykok

vf/klwfpr d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ls dksbZ izR;{k ;k vizR;{k

ykHk ugha mBk,xhA vuqeksfnr laLFkk viuh d`"kh; foLrkj

ifj;kstuk dk;Zdyki@;kstuk dks vius mRiknksa ds ckaM

uke ij ugha j[ksxhA blds vykok varjkZ"Vªh; ,Dikstj

foftV ls tqM+s [kpsZ fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/;;/khu gksaxs%—

¼d½ dsoy fdlkuksa ds izf'k{k.k] f'k{kk vkSj ekxZn'kZu ls

fof'k"V vkSj vuU; :i ls lacaf/kr O;; ds vaxksa dks

vuqer fd;k tk,xk(

¼[k½ fdlh ,d O;f"Vxr fdlku dks dsoy ,d gh fons'kh

izf'k{k.k fn;k tk ldrk gS vFkkZr~ fdlh O;f"Vxr

fdlku dks ,d ckj fons'k esa izf'k{k.k feyus ij og

ckn ds ukekadu gsrq ik= ugha jgsxk(

¼x½ fons'kh izf'k{k.k] daiuh ds dkjksckj ls fHkUu lkekU;

Lo:i dk gksxk(

¼?k½ izf'k{k.k ds uke ij daiuh ds mRikn ds fdlh

Mhyj@jhVsyj] daiuh ds deZpkjh ;k mRikn dh

ekdsfV±x ls tqM+s O;fDr;ksa dks fons'k ugha Hkstk tk,xk(

¼³½ fdlkuksa dks muds izpkyu dh ek=k ls fujis{k jgrs

gq, ;kn`fPNd :i ls fd, x, p;u ds vuqlkj mUgsa

izf'k{k.k ds fy, Hkstk tk,xk(

¼p½ bl vuqeksnu ds ekU; jgus dh vof/k ds nkSjku izR;sd

ifjokj ls dsoy ,d gh O;fDr fons'k esa izf'k{k.k

ikus gsrq ik= gksxk(

¼N½ fons'kh nkSjs ij tkus dh rS;kjh ds laca/k esa [kpZ gksus

okyk [kpZ vkosnd }kjk ugha mBk;k tk,xkA

(v) vkosnd d`f"k ea=ky; dks mu fdlkuksa dh MsVk'khV izLrqr

djsxk tks bl ifj;kstuk ls ykHkkfUor gq, g®A

(vi) ykHkxzkgh ls izkIr dh xbZ jkf'k] ;fn dksbZ gks] dks ?kVkus ds

ckn lHkh [kpsZ ¼fdlh Hkwfe dh ykxr ds Lo:i dk O;; u

gksus ij½ ¼iks[kj dh ykxr ;k iês dk fdjk;k] [kqnkbZ dh

ykxr] vkmVysV rFkk dSVokWd [kpks± lfgr½ ftUgsa fdlh

ik= d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks 'kq: djus gsrq iw.kZ rFkk

vuU; :i ls [kpZ fd;k x;k gS] /kkjk 35 xxx ds rgr

dVkSrh ds ik= gksaxs%

c'krsZ ;g gS fd d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ij [kpZ fd;k x;k

dksbZ O;; ftldh dj fu/kkZfjrh dks fdlh O;fDr }kjk

izR;{k ;k vizR;{k :i ls izfriwfrZ dh xbZ gS] ;k dh tkuh

gS] ds fy, /kkjk 35 xxx ds varxZr dksbZ dVkSrh ugha nh

tk,xhA

(vii) tgka vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 35 xx ds vUrxZr fdlh dVkSrh

dk fdlh dj&fu/kkZj.k o"kZ gsrq nkok fd;k tkrk gS rFkk

mls vuqer fd;k tkrk gS rks ,sls O;; ds laca/k esa vfèfu;e

ds fdlh vU; mica/k ds vUrxZr mlh dj&fu/kkZj.k o"kZ

vFkok vU; fdlh dj&fu/kkZj.k o"kZ esa dVkSrh vuqer ugha

dh tk,xhA

(viii) vuqeksfnr laLFkk }kjk /kkjk 139 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vUrxZr

vk; fooj.kh dks izLrqr djus dh fu;r frfFk dks ;k mlls

iwoZ vk;dj vk;qDr dks ;k vk;dj funs'kd dks] tSlk Hkh

ekeyk gks] fuEufyf[kr lwpuk Hkh izLrqr djsxh] uker%—

¼d½ ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ ds lkFk iwoZ o"kZ ds fy, d`f"k

foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds ys[kkvksa ds ys[kkijhf{kr fd,

x, fooj.k rFkk /kkjk 35xxx dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds

vUrxZr nkok dh xbZ dVkSrh dh jkf'k(

2830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

¼[k½ iwoZ o"kZ ds nkSjku blds }kjk 'kq: dh xbZ d`f"k foLrkj

ifj;kstuk ij fVIi.kh rFkk pkyw o"kZ ds nkSjku 'kq:

dh tkus okyh d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dk dk;ZØe

vkSj ,sls dk;ZØe gsrq foÙkh; vkcaVu ( rFkk

¼x½ dj&fu/kkZfjrh }kjk iwoZ o"kZ ds nkSjku 'kq: dh xbZ

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dh okLrfodrk ds laca/k esa

d`f"k ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj dh vksj ls izek.ki=A

(ix) bl ifj;kstuk ds varxZr dEiuh dh izksQkby vkSj mRiknksa

ij ,d vYi l= dks NksM+dj dsoy mRikn fu"izHkkoh

izf'k{k.k fn;k tk,xkA

11- dsUnzh; izR;{k dj cksMZ viuk vuqeksnu okil ys ysxk ;fn

vuqeksfnr laLFkk%—

¼d½ vius fØ;kdyki can dj nsrh gS( vFkok

¼[k½ blds fØ;kdyki vokLrfod ik, tkrs g®( vFkok

¼x½ blds fØ;kdyki vf/kfu;e ds lHkh ;k fdlh laxr

mica/kksa vFkok fu;eksa ds vuqlkj ugha fd, tk jgs g®(

vFkok

¼?k½ blds fØ;kdyki ,slh lHkh 'krks± vFkok muesa ls fdlh Hkh

'krZ ds vuqlkj ugha fd, tk jgs g® ftu 'krks± ds v/;/khu

vf/klwpuk tkjh dh tk jgh gSA

LFkku% ubZ fnYyh

fnukad% 30@6@2015

[vf/klwpuk lañ 55@2015@Qkñlañ 203@22@2015&vkñdñfuñ—II]

jksfgr xxZ]mi&lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2015

FORM NO. 3CP

S.O. 1318.—

Name, address and PAN of the applicant

M/s Avanti Feeds Limited, Hyderabad

PAN:-AABCA7365E

Title of the agricultural extension project

Avanti Aqua Culture Training and Development Centre

Purpose of the agricultural extension project

•

To educate farmers about increasing Feed

Conversion Ratio (FCR) and have better Average Daily

Growth (ADG);

• To educate them on good pond practices so as to increase

survival rate and ensure more income;

• To educate farmers on advantages of mechanization and

latest developments of shrimp farming across the globe.

Reference No. and date of the application

F.No. 203/22/2015-ITA.II received on 27.05.2015

Date of commencement of the agricultural

Already commenced. However, approval shall be effective

extension project

from the date of issue of formal Notification u/s 35CCC of the

Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act)

Duration of the agricultural extension project

Ongoing project

in months

Assessment year(s) for which the agricultural

From date of formal issue of Notification till

extension project is being notified (not exceeding

31.03.2018

three years)

Total expenses likely to be incurred for the

For F.Yr's 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 applicant has claimed

agricultural extension project (other than cost

expenses of ` 7,2366,000/- ` 8,60,35,000/- and ` 10,25,80,750/-

of land or building)

respectively. However, as far as F.Yr. 2015-16 is concerned,

claim u/s 35CCC shall be reduced as weighted deduction

can be allowed only from date of formal issue of notification.

Amount, if any, to be charged from each

NIL

beneficiary of agricultural extension project.

10. Conditions subject to which agricultural extension

project titled 'Avanti Aqua Culture Training and

Development Centre' is being notified are as under:

(i) The approved entity undertaking agricultural

extension project shall maintain separate books

of account of the agricultural extension project

notified under sub-section (1) of section 35CCC,

and get such books of account audited by an

accountant as defined in the Explanation below

sub-section (2) of section 288.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2831

(ii) The audit report referred to in sub-rule (1) shall

include the comments of the auditor on the true

and fair view of the books of account maintained

for agricultural extension project, the genuineness

of the activities of the agricultural extension project

and fulfilment of the conditions specified in the

relevant provisions of the Act or the rules or the

conditions mentioned in the notification issued

under sub-rule (6) or sub-rule (9) of rule 6AAD.

(iii) The approved entity shall not accept any amount

from the beneficiaries under the eligible

agricultural extension project for training,

education, guidance or for any material so

distributed for the said purposes. Only the

component of expenditure specifically relatable

to training, education and guidance of the farmers

shall be allowed; In addition:

(a) No fees or deposits shall be charged from

the trainees;

(b) No certificate shall be issued to the trainees

as a consequence of the said extension

project;

building/college/training institute shall be

created under the said project;

(d) The applicant shall not be affiliated with any

university of this project.

(iv) The approved entity shall not get any direct or

indirect benefit from the notified agricultural

extension project except the deduction of the

eligible expenditure in accordance with the

provisions of Section 35CCC of the Act, rule 6AAD

of I.T. Rules, 1962 and this Notification. The

approved entity shall also not name any of their

agricultural extension project/activity/scheme on

the brand name of any of their products. Further,

expenditure related to International Exposure visit

shall be subject to the following conditions:

(a) Only the component of expenditure

specifically and exclusively relatable to

training, education and guidance of the

farmers shall be allowed;

(b) Only one foreign training can be imparted to

an individual farmer i.e. once foreign training

has been given to a individual farmer, he shall

be ineligible for subsequent nomination;

unrelated to company's business;

(d) No dealer/retailer of company's product,

employee of the company or persons

associated with marketing of the product shall

be send abroad in the name of training;

(e) Only the randomly selected farmers shall be

send for training irrespective of their scale of

operation;

(f) Only one person per family shall be eligible

for foreign training during the period of

validity of this approval;

(g) Expenses preparatory to the foreign tour

shall not be borne by the applicant.

(v) The applicant shall furnish data sheet of farmers

who have benefitted from the project to the

Ministry of Agriculture.

(vi) All expenses (not being expenditure in the nature

of cost of any land [including pond cost or lease

rental, excavation cost, outlet and catwalk

expenses] or building), as reduced by the amount

received from beneficiary, if any, incurred wholly

and exclusively for undertaking an eligible

agricultural extension project shall be eligible

for deduction under section 35CCC;

Provided that any expenditure incurred on the

agricultural extension project which is

reimbursed or reimbursable to the assessee by

any person, whether directly or indirectly, shall

not be eligible for deduction under Section

35CCC.

(vii) Where a deduction under this section 35CC of

the Act is claimed and allowed for any assessment

year, deduction shall not be allowed in respect

of such expenditure under any other provisions

of the Act for the same or any other assessment

year.

(viii) The approved entity shall, on or before the due

date of furnishing the return of income under

sub-section (1) of Section 139, furnish the

following to the jurisdictional PCIT/CIT/PDIT/

DIT, as the case may be namely:—

(a) the audited statement of accounts of the

agricultural extension projects for the

previous year along with the audit report and

amount of deduction claimed under sub-

section (1) of Section 35CCC;

(b) a note on the agricultural extension project

undertaken by it during the previous year and

the programme of agricultural extension

project to be undertaken during the current

year and the financial allocation for such

programme; and

Agriculture, Government of India, regarding

2832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

the genuineness of the agricultural extension

project undertaken by the assessee during

the previous year.

(ix) Under the project only product neutral training

will be given except a short session on company's

profile and products. Further, the farmers

benefitted under the project will have the

privilege of supplying their produce to any other

entity.

11. The Central Board of Direct Taxes shall withdraw

the approval if the approved entity:—

(a) has ceased its activities; or

(b) its activities are not genuine; or

accordance with all or any of the relevant

provisions of the Act or Rules; or

(d) its activities are not being carried out in

accordance with all or any of the conditions

subject to which the notification is being issued.

Place: New Delhi

Dated: 30/06/2015

[Notification No. 55/2015/F. No. 203/22/2015-ITA.II]

ROHIT GARG, Dy. Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

izi= lañ 3 lhih

dk-vk- 1319-—

vkosnd dk uke] irk rFkk iSu lañ

eSllZ vkfnR; fcjyk uqok fyfeVsM] eqEcbZ iSu% ,,,lhvkbZ 1747,p

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dk uke

d`f"k foLrkj f'k{kk dk;ZØe&VksVy ,xzh lkWY;w'ku izksokbMj

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dk iz;kstu

fdlkuksa dks vfèd mit] xq.koRrk vkSj ykHk dekus esa lgk;rk djus ds fy, mUgsa

ewY; of)Zr lsok,a miyCè djkuk( rFkk okWVj jksM izcaèu] vkWxsZfud d`f"k tSlh

fofHkUu rduhdksa dks 'kq: djds d`f"k esa fLFkjrk dks c<+kok nsukA

vkosnu dh lanHkZ la[;k vkSj frfFk

Qkñlañ 203@23@2015 vkñdñfuñ&II] fnukad 27-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvkA

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks vkjaHk

igys gh vkjaHk dh tk pqdh gSaA rFkkfi vuqeksnu vk;dj vfèfu;e dh èkjk 35 xxx

djus dh frfFk

ds rgr bl vkSipkfjd vfèlwpuk tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls gh izHkkoh gksxkA

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dh ekg ds

py jgh ifj;kstuk

fglkc ls vofè

dj&fuèkZj.k o"kZ ¼o"kks±½ ftuds fy,

vfèlwpuk ds vkSipkfjd :i ls tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls dj&fuèkZj.k o"kZ 2018&19

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks vfèlwfpr fd;k

tk jgk gS ¼rhu o"kks± ls vfèd ugha½

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ij gksus okys

vkosnd us foRr o"kZ 2015&16 ds fy, 2]73]34]000 #i, ds [kpZ dk nkok fd;k

laHkkfor dqy [kpZ ¼Hkwfe vFkok Hkou dh

gSA rFkkfi] D;ksafd ifj;kstuk dks vuqeksnu foRr o"kZ 2015&16 esa ijorhZ frfFk ls

ykxr jkf'k ls ¼fHkUu½

fn;k tk jgk gS] vr% laxr vofè gsrq laHkkfor O;; de gksxkA tgka rd foRr o"kZ

2016&17 vkSj 2017&18 dk lacaè gS laHkkfor O;; 2]95]57]000 #i;s vkSj

3]16]76]000 #i, gksus dk vuqeku gSA

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds izR;sd

'kwU;

ykHkxzkgh ls izkIr dh tkus okyh jkf'k]

;fn dksbZ gks]

10- os 'krs± ftuds v/;èhu ^d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk* uke ls

f'k{kk dk;ZØe&VksVy ,xzh lksY;w'ku izksokbMj dks vfèlwfpr fd;k

tk jgk gS] fuEukuqlkj gS%µ

(i) d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dks 'kq: djus okyh vuqeksfnr

laLFkk èkjk 35 xxx dh mièkjk ¼1½ ds vUrxZr vfèlwfpr

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dh ys[kk cfg;ka i`Fkd :i ls j[ksxh

rFkk ,slh ys[kkcfg;ksa dh èkjk 288 dh mièkjk ¼2½ ds uhps

mfYyf[kr Li"Vhdj.k esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr fd, x, vuqlkj

fdlh ys[kkdkj ls ys[kk&ijh{kk djk,xhA blds vykok mDr

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ls lacafèr ys[kk cgh dks bl rjhds ls

vuqjf{kr fd;k tk,xk rkfd ifj;kstuk esa fd, tk jgs lHkh

foLrkj xfrfofè;ksa dk lR;kiu fd;k tk ldsA

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2833

(ii) mifu;e ¼1½esa mfYyf[kr ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ esa

ys[kk&ijh{kd dh d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds lEcaè esa

vuqjf{kr ys[kkofg;ksa ds lgh vkSj mfpr gksus ds lacaè esa]

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds fØ;kdykiksa dh okLrfodrk

rFkk vfèfu;e ds laxr micaèksa esa fofufnZ"V 'krks± ds iw.kZ

fd;s tkus vFkok fu;eksa vFkok fu;e 6 dd?k ds mifu;e

¼6½ ;k mifu;e ¼9½ ds varxZr tkjh vfèlwpuk esa

mfYyf[kr fu;eksa vFkok 'krks± dks iw.kZ fd, tkus ds lacaè

esa dh xbZ fVIif.k;ka 'kkfey gksaxhA

(iii) vuqeksfnr laLFkk izf'k{k.k] f'k{kk] ekxZn'kZu vFkok mDr

ifj;kstuksa ds fy, ,sls forfjr dh xbZ fdlh lkexzh ds

fy, ik= d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds vUrxZr fdlh

ykHkkxzkgh ls dksbZ jfk'k Lohdkj ugha djsxhA

(iv) vuqeksfnr laLFkk vfèfu;e dh èkjk 35xxx ds micaèksa]

vk;dj fu;ekoyh] 1962 ds fu;e 6 dd?k vkSj bl

vfèlwpuk ds vuqlkj ik= O;; dh dVkSrh ds vykok

vfèlwfpr d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ls dksbZ izR;{k ;k vizR;{k

ykHk ugha mBk,xhA

(v) ifj;kstuk ls ykHk dekus okyk vkosnd d`f"k ea=ky; dks

fdlkuksa dk MkVk'khV izLrqr djsxkA blds vykok] vkosnd

e`nk LokLF; ls tqM+s vkadM+ksa vkSj e`nk ijh{k.k iz;ksx'kkyk

dh vfrfjDr {kerk dh miyCèrk ls lacafèr miyCè

lwpuk dks Hkh d`f"k ea=ky; ds lkFk lk>k djsxkA

(vi) ykHkxzkgh ls izkIr dh xbZ jfk'k] ;fn dksbZ gks] dks ?kVkus ds

ckn lHkh [kpsZ ¼fdlh Hkwfe ;k Hkou dh ykxr Lo:i dk

O;; u gksus ij½ ftUgsa fdlh ik= d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk

dks 'kq: djus gsrq iw.kZ rFkk vuU; :i ls [kpZ fd;k x;k

gS] èkjk 35 xxx ds rgr dVkSrh ds ik= gksaxs(

c'krsZ ;g fd d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk ij [kpZ fd;k x;k

dksbZ O;; ftldh dj fuèkZfjrh dks fdlh O;fDr }kjk

izR;{k ;k vizR;{k :i ls izfriwfrZ dh xbZ gS ;k dh tkuh gS]

ds fy, èkjk 35 xxx ds varxZr dksbZ dVkSrh ugha nh

tk,xhA

(vii) tgka vfèfu;e dh èkjk 35 xx ds varxZr fdlh dVkSrh

dk fdlh dj&fuèkZj.k o"kZ gsrq nkok fd;k tkrk gS rFkk

mls vuqer fd;k tkrk gS rks ,sls O;; ds lacaè esa vfèfu;e

ds fdlh vU; micaè ds varxZr mlh dj&fuèkZj.k o"kZ

vFkok vU; fdlh dj&fuèkZj.k o"kZ esa dVkSrh vuqer ugha

dh tk,xhA

(viii) vuqeksfnr laLFkk }kjk èkjk 139 dh mièkjk ¼1½ ds vUrxZr

vk; fooj.kh dks izLrqr djus dh fu;r frfFk dks ;k mlls

iwoZ vk;dj vk;qDr dks ;k vk;dj funs'kd dks] tSlk Hkh

ekeyk gks] fuEufyf[kr lwpuk Hkh izLrqr djsxh] uker%µ

¼d½ ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ ds lkFk iwoZ o"kZ ds fy, d`f"k

foLrkj ifj;sktuk ds ys[kkvksa ds ys[kkijhf{kr fd,

x, fooj.k rFkk èkjk 35xxx dh mièkjk ¼1½ ds

vUrxZr nkok dh xbZ dVkSrh dh jkf'k(

¼[k½ iwoZ o"kZ ds nkSjku blds }kjk 'kq: dh xbZ d`f"k foLrkj

ifj;kstuk ij fVIi.kh rFkk pkyw o"kZ ds nkSjku 'kq:

dh tkus okyh d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dk dk;ZØe

vkSj ,sls dk;ZØe gsrq foRrh; vkcaVu( rFkk

¼x½ dj&fuèkZfjrh }kjk iwoZ o"kZ ds nkSjku 'kq: dh xbZ

d`f"k foLrkj ifj;kstuk dh okLrfodrk ds lacaè esa

d`f"k ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj dh vksj ls izek.ki=A

(ix) bl ifj;kstuk ds varxZr dEiuh dh izksQkby vkSj mRiknksa

ij ,d vYi l= dks NksM+dj dsoy mRikn fu"izHkkoh

izf'k{k.k fn;k tk,xkA

11- dsUnzh; izR;{k dj cksMZ viuk vuqeksnu okil ys ysxk ;fn

vuqeksfnr laLFkk%µ

¼d½ vius fØ;kdyki can dj nsrh gS( vFkok

¼[k½ blds fØ;kdyki vokLrfod ik, tkrs gSa( vFkok

¼x½ blds fØ;kdyki vfèfu;e ds lHkh ;k fdlh laxr

micaèksa vFkok fu;eksa ds vuqlkj ugha fd, tk jgs gSa(

vFkok

¼?k½ blds fØ;kdyki ,slh lHkh 'krks± vFkok muesa ls fdlh Hkh

'krZ ds vuqlkj ugha fd, tk jgs gSa ftu 'krks± ds v/;;èhu

vfèfu;e tkjh dh tk jgh gSA

LFkku% ubZ fnYyh]

fnukad 26@6@2015

[vfèlwpuk lañ 54@2015@Qkñlañ 203@23@2015&vkñdñfuñ&II]

jksfgr xxZ] mi lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2015

FORM NO. 3 CP

S.O. 1319.—

Name, address and PAN of the applicant

M/s. Aditya Birla Nuva Limited, Mumbai PAN:7AAACI1747H

Title of the agricultural extension project

Agriculture Extension Education Program-Total Agri Solution

Provider

2834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Purpose of the agricultural extension project

Provide value added services to help farmers to achieve higher

yield, quality and profit; and

To promote sustainable agriculture by introducing various

techniques such as watershed management, organic farming

Reference No. and date of the application

F.No. 203/23/2015-ITA. II received on 27.05.2015

Date of commencement of the agricultural

Already commenced, However, approval shall be effective

extension project

from the date of issue of formal Notification u/s 35CCC of the

Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act)

Duration of the agricultural extension project

On going project

in months

Assessment year(s) for which the agricultural

From date of formal issue of Notification till A.Y. 2018-19

extension project is being notified (not

exceeding three years)

Total expenses likely to be incurred for the

For F.Yr's 2015-16 applicant has claimed expenses of

agricultural extenison project (other than cost

Rs. 2,73,34,000 However, as the project is being accorded

of land or building)

approval from susequent date in the F.Yr. 2015-16, the expected

expenditure for the relevant period would be lesser. As far as

F.Yr. 2016-17 and 2017-18 are concerned likely expenditures

are Rs. 2,95,57,000 and Rs. 3,16,76,000.

Amount, if any, to be charged from each bene-

NIL

ficiary of agricultural extension project.

10. Conditions subject to which agricultural extension

project titled 'Agriculture Extension Education Program-

Total Agri Solution Provider' is being notified are as under:

i. The approved entity undertaking agricultural

extension project shall maintain separate books

of account of the agricultural extension project

notified under sub-section (1) of Section 35CCC,

and get such books of account audited by an

accountant as defined in the Explanation below

sub-section (2) of Section 288 of the Act. Further,

the books of accounts pertaining to the said

agricultural extension project shall be maintained

in a manner as to enable verification of each

extension activity being carried out in the project.

ii. The audit report referred to in sub-rule (1) shall

include the comments of the auditor on the true

and fair view of the books of account maintained

for agricultural extension project, the genuineness

of the activities of the agricultural extension project

and fulfillment of the conditions specified in the

relevant provisions of the Act or the rules or the

conditions mentioned in the notification issued

under sub-rule (6) or sub-rule (9) of rule 6AAD.

iii. The approved entity shall not accept any amount

from the beneficiaries under the eligible

agricultural extension project for training,

education, guidance or for any material so

distributed for the said purposes.

iv. The approved entity shall not get any direct or

indirect benefit from the notified agricultural

extension project except the deduction of the

eligible expenditure in accordance with the

provisions of section 35CCC of the Act, rule 6AAD

of the IT Rules, 1962 and this Notification. The

approved entity shall also not name any of their

agricultural extension project/activity/scheme on

the brand name of any of their products.

v. The applicant shall furnish data sheet of farmers

who have benefitted from the project to the

Ministry of Agriculture. Further, the applicant shall

also share the data pertaining to Soil Health and

also provide information regarding availability of

additional capacity of Soil Testing Laboratory

available with Ministry of Agriculture.

vi. All expenses (not being expenditrue in the nature

of cost of any land or building), as reduced by the

amount received from beneficiary, if any, incurred

wholly and exclusively for undertaking an eligible

agricultural extension project shall be eligible for

deduction under section 35CCC.

Provided that any expenditure incurred on the

agricultural extension project which is reimbursed

or reimbursable to the assessee by any person,

whether directly or indirectly, shall not be eligible

for deduction under section 35CCC.

vii. Where a deduction under this section 35CC of

the Act is claimed and allowed for any assessment

year, deduction shall not be allowed in respect of

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2835

such expenditure under any other provisions of

the Act for the same or any other assessment

year.

viii. The approved entity shall, on or before the due

date of furnishing the return of income under

sub-section (1) of section 139, furnish the

following to the jurisdictional PCIT/CIT/PDIT/

DIT, as the case may be, namely:—

(a) the audited statement of account of the

agricultural extension projects for the

previous year along with the audit report and

amount of deduction claimed under sub-

section (1) of section 35CCC;

(b) a note on the agricultural extension project

undertaken by it during the previous year and

the programme of agricultural extension

project to be undertaken during the current

year and the financial allocation for such

programme; and

Agriculture, Government of India, regarding

the genuineness of the agricultural extension

project undertaken by the assessee during

the previous year.

ix. Under the project only product neutral training

will be given except a short session on company's

profile and products.

11. The Central Board of Direct Taxes shall withdraw

the approval if the approval entity:—

(a) has ceased its activities; or

(b) its activities are not genuine; or

accordance with all or any of the relevant

provsions of the Act or Rules; or

(d) its activities are not being carried out in

accordance with all or any of the conditions

subject to which the notification is being issued.

Place: New-Delhi

Dated: 26/06/2015

[Notification No. 54/2015/F.No. 203/23/2015-ITA. II]

ROHIT GARG, Dy. Secy.

lapkj vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ea=ky;

¼nwjlapkj foHkkx½

¼jktHkk"kk izHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1320-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ¼;Fkk la'kksfèr] 1987] 2007

rFkk 2011½ ds fu;e 10¼04½ ds vuqlj.k esa eq[; egkizcaèd

nwjlapkj] iatkc ifjeaMy ds varxZr ofj"B egkizcaèd ¼lhñ,eñVhñ,lñ

uksMy lsaVj½ dk;kZy;] eksgkyh] ftlesa 80 izfr'kr ls vfèd

deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk

vfèlwfpr djrh gSA

2- ;g vfèlwpuk jkti= esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls ykxw gksxhA

[lañ bZ&11016@01@2015&jktHkk"kk]

lqjs'k pUnz 'kekZ] mi egkfuns'kd ¼lhñ ,.M ,ñ½

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(Department of Telecommunications)

(O. L. SECTION)

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2015

S.O. 1320.—In pursuance of rule 10(4) of the Official

Languages (use for official purposes of the Union) Rules,

1976 (as amended 1987, 2007 and 2011), the Central

Government hereby notifies the Office of the Principal

General Manager (C.M.T.S.-Nodal Centre), Mohali under

the administrative control of Chief General Manager

Telecom, Punjab Circle, where more than 80% staff have

acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

2. This notification shall come into force from the date

of its publication in the official Gazette.

[No. E-11016/01/2015-O.L]

SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA, DDG (C&A.)

isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1321-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut

ikbiykbZu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vfèdkj dk vtZu½ vfèfu;e]

1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh èkjk 2 ds [kaM ¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa mDr

vfèfu;e ds vèhu mRrjk[k.M jkT; ds Hkhrj xsy ¼bf.M;k½ fyfeVsM

dh lHkh ikbiykbZuksa ds fy;s l{ke izkfèdkjh ds dk;ks± dk fuoZgu

2836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

djus ds fy;s Jh cyjkt flag Mkaxh] rglhynkj] gfj;k.kk ljdkj] dks

izkfèd`r djrh gSA

[lañ ,y&14014@01@2015&thñ ihñ&II]

,lñ ihñ vxzoky] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, 3rd July, 2015

S.O. 1321.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of

the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right

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

hereby authorizes Shri Balraj Singh Dangi, Tehsildar,

Government of Haryana to perform the functions of

Competent Authority for all pipelines of GAIL (India)

Limited, under the said Act, within the territory of

Uttarakhand State.

[F. No. L-14014/01/15-G.P.-II]

S. P. AGARWAL, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1322-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut

ikbiykbZu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e]

1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 2 ds [kaM ¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/khu mRrj izns'k] mRrjk[kaM vkSj fcgkj jkT; ds Hkhrj

xsy ¼bf.M;k½ fyfeVsM dh lHkh ikbiykbZuksa ds fy;s l{ke izkf/kdkjh

ds dk;ks± dk fuoZgu djus ds fy;s Jh vej iky flag] fMIVh dysDVj]

mRrj izns'k ljdkj] dks fujLr djrh gSA

[Qk- lañ ,y&14014@01@15&th- ih-&II]

,l- ih- vxzoky] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2015

S.O. 1322.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of

the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right

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

hereby de-notify Shri Amar Pal Singh, Deputy Collector,

Government of Uttar Pradesh to perform the functions of

Competent Authority for all pipelines of GAIL (India)

Limited, under the said Act, within Uttar Pradesh,

Uttarakhand and Bihar State.

[F. No. L-14014/01/15-G.P.-II]

S. P. AGARWAL, Under Secy.

Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1323-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj e/; fcgkj xzkeh.k

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] /kuckn ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼66@2014½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@97@2004&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2015

S.O. 1323.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/2014)

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

No. -2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the industrial

dispute between the management of Madhya Bihar Gramin

Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 30/06/2015.

[No. L-12011/97/2004-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) , AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri Kishori Ram,

Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act., 1947

REFERENCE No. 66 OF 2014

PARTIES

Shri Sohan Kr. Gupta,

S/o Shri Ram Pravesh Sah,

Vill & PO: Deohalia, P.s. Ramgarh, Dist: Kaimur

Vs.

The Chairman,

Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank,

H.O.: Meena Plaza, South of Museum, Patna 1.

Order No. L-12011/97/2004-IR(B-1) dt. 16.12.2014

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2837

APPEARANCES

One behalf of the workman/Union :

None

On behalf of the Management

None

State

Bihar

Industry

Banking

Dated, Dhanbad the 14th May, 2015.

AWARD

The Government of India Ministry of Labour, in exercise

of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d) of the

I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication Vide their Order No. L-12011/97/

2004-IR(B-1) dt. 16.12.2014.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Madhya

Bihar Gramin Bank to terminate the service of workman

Shri Sohan Kumar Gupta was correct and valid when he

demanded for regularization as a status of a Part Time

Sweeper under 1/3rd scale wages of a full time subordinate

staff? If not, what relief the workman is entitled for?"

2 Neither workman Sohan Kumar Gupta is present nor

any written statement with any documents filed on his

behalf. Likewise none appeared on behalf of the Chairman,

Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank Patna.-1.

After perusal of the case record, I find the workman had

filed a petition with power of Attorney for Mr. Rama Kanta

Anand, Advocate under his signature on unscheduled

date 24.04.15, and had submitted that he had already filed

his I.D. Case No. 10(C) of 2014 under Sec. 2A (1&2) of the

Indudrial Dispute (Amendment) Act, 2010 before the

Industrial Tribunal, Patna, where it has been under progress

for adjudication; as such the workman had prayed for the

closure of the instant Reference. Under these

circumstances, the instant Reference is closed as No

Industrial Dispute existing between both the parties.

Accordingly, it is passed an order of 'No Dispute Award.'

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1324-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV 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

psUubZ ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼31@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@24@2015&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2015

S.O. 1324.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2015) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of State Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 30/06/2015.

[No. L-12012/24/2015-IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Friday, the 5th June, 2015

PRESENT

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 31/2015

(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 State Bank of India and their

workman)

BETWEEN

Sri M. Selvaraj

.......1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Deputy General Manager (B&O)

.......2nd Party/Respondent

State Bank of India

Administrative Unit, Kurinji Complex

State Bank Road

Coimbatore-641018

APPEARANCE

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

Absent

For the 2nd Party/Respondent

Sri S. Ravindran,

S. Bazeer

Ahmand,

S. Gomathi

Lakshmi,

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/24/2015-IR (B.1)

dated 09.03.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

2838

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the dismissal from service of Sri M. Selvaraj

by the Management of State Bank of India is justified

or not? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

to?"

2. On receipt of notice the Respondent has appeared

through counsel. The petitioner has been present on the

first hearing date and the matter has been posted for filing

Claim Statement by the petitioner . But the petitioner

has absented himself thereafter. In spite of that the case

has been reposted for Claim Statement of the petitioner.

He was absent on this reposted date also. He seems to be

not interested in pursuing the case. In the absence of the

Claim Statement or any other material the reference is

answered against the petitioner. An award is passed

accordingly.

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

None

Document Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

N/A

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

N/A

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1325-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV 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

y[kuÅ ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼100@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@57@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I)]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2015

S.O. 1325.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 100/2011) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of State Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 30/06/2015.

[No. L-12011/57/2010-IR (B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT

SHRI RAKESH KUMAR

Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 100/2011

Ref. No. L-12011/57/2010-IR (B-I) dated: 24.05.2011

BETWEEN

Member, National Working Committee

State Bank's Workers Organization

107/76, Jawahar Nagar, Kanpur (U.P.)

(Espousing cause of Shri Rajendera Prasad)

AND

Chief General Manager

State Bank of India, Head Office

Hazratganj, Lucknow.

AWARD

1. By order No. L-12011/57/2010-IR (B-I) dated: 24.05.2011

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this

industrial dispute between Member, National Working

Committee, State Bank's Workers Organization, 107/76,

Jawahar Nagar, Kanpur (U.P.) and Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India, Head Office, Hazratganj, Lucknow for

adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the action of management of SBI in not

regularizing Shri Rajendera Prasad Yadav from the

date of appointment i.e. 15.04.97 and not promoting

him after completion of 5 years of service is legal

and justified? To what relief the workman is

entitled?"

3. The case of the workman's union, in brief, is that the

workman, Rajendera Prasad Yadav had been appointed as

Messenger w.e.f. 15.04.1997 and he had been confirmed

w.e.f. 15.10.1997. It has been alleged by the workman's

union that he had been paid 1/3rd of salary although he

worked for full time. It is submitted by the union that the

management while forwarding his representation for

making him full time employee, to the Regional Office

vide letter dated 29.07.2005 accepted that the workman

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2839

is working full time. It is alleged further by the workman's

union that other employees junior to the workman were

allowed to sit in the examination for promotion after

completion of five years of permanent service; where as he

was not allowed; had he been made permanent from

15.04.1997, then he would have got chance to appear in the

examination. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that he

should be regularized from the date of his appointment i.e.

15.04.1997 and be promoted after completion of five years'

of service.

4. The management of the State Bank of India has denied

the claim of the workman, filing its written statement;

wherein it has submitted that the workman had been

appointed w.e.f. 15.04.1997 on 1/3rd salary and was

confirmed on 15.10.97 after completion of six months'

probation period. It is submitted by the Bank that on

01.04.2006 all permanent part time employee in 1/3rd scale

of pay have been converted as full time employees and

accordingly thereafter the workman too was given full

pay and he has been promoted from subordinate cadre to

clerical cadre w.e.f. 23.09.2009. It is also submitted by

the Bank that the workman while working on 1/3rd salary

had been officiating on other post and was paid

accordingly, the officiating allowance, therefore, the

allegation of the workman's union that the workman

worked for full time and was paid only 1/3rd of salary,

stands wrong. The management has submitted that the

workman had been promoted on higher post under Rules

after completion of requisite period of service; and

accordingly, it has prayed that the claim of the workman's

union be rejected without any relief to the workman

concerned.

5. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder wherein

part from reiterating facts already mentioned in the

statement claim has submitted nothing new.

6. The workman's union has filed its list of documents

dated 06.08.2012 and the management has filed list of

documentary in rebuttal vide dated 01.10.2012. The

workman's union has examined workman; whereas the

management examined Sri Mohan Lal Gaur, Branch

Manager in support of their respective claim. The parties

availed opportunity to cross-examine the each other's

witnesses apart from putting oral arguments.

8. Heard learned authorized representatives of the

parties at length and perused entire evidence on record.

9. The authorized representative of the workman has

contended that the workman was made to work for full

time but was paid 1/3rd salary and he was not paid full

salary. It is also contended by the union that if the workman

would have been permanent from the date of his

appointment 15.04.1997 then he would have been eligible

for appearing in the examination for promotion; but the

management did not do so, which caused prejudice to the

workman; whereas other, juniors were made permanent

from earlier dates and were promoted earlier after completion

of five years' of permanent services.

10. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the

management has contended that the workman was initially

appointed on 1/3rd salary on the post of messenger and

was confirmed after six months on completion of his

probation. It is also submitted that the bank on 01.04.2006

converted all permanent part time employees in 1/3rd scale

of pay into full time employees and accordingly, they were

paid full pay, including the workman; likewise he was

promoted to clerical cadre from subordinate cadre w.e.f.

23.09.2009 under Rules.

11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival submissions of the learned authorized representatives

of the parties and scanned entire evidence on record in

light thereto.

12. The workman's union has come up with a case that

the workman has been appointed as part time messenger

on 1/3rd salary but was made to work for full time and was

paid 1/3rd salary. The workman's union has taken a stand

that the workman should have been made paermanent from

the date his initial appointment and should be paid full

salary as this will have effect on his length of service,

making him eligible for promotion in the higher grade as

under rules a person with five years permanent service can

go through departmental exanmination for clerical cadre.

13. The management of the State Bank of India, rebutting

the claim of the workman's union has come up with a clear

cut case that the workman had been appointed on 1/3rd

salary and was paid accordingly. It is also the case of the

management that the workman was put to officiate on the

other post also and for which he was paid officiating

allowance, therefore, he is not entitled for teating or making

full time workman since his date of appointment as he was

made full time at a later date.

14. The workman's union has adduced evidence of the

workman who stated in his cross-exmination that he was

appointed as permanent part time employee w.e.f. 31.03.1997

and used to work for 8 hours and under Rules the employee,

who works for 8 hours, his promotion became due after five

years. He also stated that he had been appointed as part time

employee on 1/3rd salary and was confirmed after completion

2840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

of 6 months' probation. He also stated that all part time

employees of the bank were converted into full time employees

under bank's policy w.e.f. 01.04.2006. He further stated that

threre is a circular that a part timer shall be converted into full

timer automatically and shall be given benefit of promotion

after five years; but he has not filed the same.

The management witness, in his cross-exmination,

referring paper No. 11/2, stated that the workman had been

paid for the extra work duties he performed. He also stated

that workman officiated from 18.06.97 to 30.07.2009,

intermittently; and was paid accordingly.

15. Admittedly, the workman has been appointed w.e.f.

15.04.1997 vide letter dated 31.3.1997 as part time employee

on 1/3rd scale of pay and was confirmed after completion

of his probation period w.e.f. 15.10.1997. From perusal of

the documentary evidence relied upon by the parties it is

evident that the workman was made to officiate the higher

post and was paid officiating allowance in lieu thereof.

Now the workman has come up with a case that since he

worked full time from a previous date therefore he should

he treated full time employee from a back date; and this will

make him entitled for automatic promotion after completion

for 5 years' service. During his cross-examination, the

workman has referred to a circular which has provision

that a full timer shall be considered for promotion after

completion of five years' service; but has not filed the same.

On the contrary, the management has pleaded that the

workman was actually officiating and was paid officiating

allowance; therefore, he cannot be treated full timer from

back date. However, he has been made full timer as per

bank policy decision w.e.f. 01.04.2006 and is promoted w.e.f.

23.9.2009.

16. In 2006 (108) FLR R.M. Yellatti & Asstt. Executive

Engineer Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that intial

burden of proof to substantiate its pleadings through

cogent evidence, lies upon the workman, thus it was

the workman who had to come forward with the

documentary evidence in form of some Rule, Regulation

or Instruction.

17. Accordingly, in view of law cited above, the burden

that lied, upon the workman's union was to come with the

evidence that the workman worked for full time and under

Rules had been entitled for automatic promotion. But in

the present case the workman was appointed as part timer

and whatsoever work he had allegedly done as full timer

he was paid officiating allowance, therefore, he cannot

claim the benefit of a full timer because as per his own

admission he was converted into full timer w.e.f.

01.04.2006. The workman cannot be treated as full timer

for the period he officiated and received officiating

allowance. He cannot be given dual benefit, in the absence

of any such Rule.

18. The management has made a specific pleading to

the effect that the workman had been engaged as part timer

and was made full timer w.e.f. 01.04.2006 and further that

the workman was given benefit of promotion accordingly

seems reliable, particularly in view of evidence that the

workman officiated and was paid accordingly.

19. Hence, from the facts and circustances of the case

and discussions made hereinabove; I am of considered

opinion that the action of the management of State Bank of

India in not making the workman full timer from the date of

appointment; and not promoting him after completion of 5

years from the date of appointment i.e. 15.04.1997 is neither

illegal nor unjustified. Accordingly, I come to the conclusion

that the workman, Sri Rajendra Prasad Yadav is not entitled

to any relief.

20. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

21. Award as above.

LUCKNOW

03rd June, 2015.

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1326-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,u ,Q jsyos

izca/k ra= 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 xqokgVh

ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 10@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 30@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@83@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2015

S.O. 1326.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2012) of the

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

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of N.F. Railway and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 30/06/2015.

[No. L-41011/83/2011-IR (B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2841

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Present:

Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

Ref. Case No. 10 of 2012

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute

between:—

The Management of N.F. Railway, Maligaon,

Guwahati.

-Vrs.

Their workman Shri Dipankar Baruah, rep. by

the General Secretary, Rail Mazdoor Union,

Maligaon, Guwahati.

APPEARANCES

For the Union

: Mr. A. Ahmed, Advacate

Mr. M.K. Das, General

Secretary, Rail Mazdoor Union,

Maligaon.

For the Management

: Mr. A.K. Nath, Advocate

Date of Award: 16.06.2015

AWARD

1. This Reference has been initiated on an Industrial

Dispute raised by the workman Shri Dipankar Baruah, Ex-

Emergency Peon, represented by the General Secretary,

Rail Mazdoor Union, Maligaon, Guwahati against the

Management of N.F. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati,

consequent upon termination of Sh. Dipankar Baruah, Ex-

Emergency Peon from service; which was referred by the

Ministry of Labour for adjudication vide their Order No. L-

41011/83/2011-IR(B-I) dated 08.02.2012. The Schedule of

this reference is as under.

SCHEDULE

"Whther the action of the management of N.F.

Railway, Guwahati in terminating the services of Shri

Dipankar Baruah, Ex-Emergency Peon, w.e.f. 30/04/

2008 vide their order dated 30/4/2008, is legal and

justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the order from the Ministry of Labour,

Government of India, New Delhi, this reference case was

registered and notices were issued by Registered Post to

the parties concerned directing them to appear in the Court

on the date fixed and to file their written statement along

with the relevant documents in support of their claim.

Accordingly both the parties appeared and submitted their

respective claim statement/written statement.

3. The case of the Union, representing the workman

Dipankar Baruah, in nutshell, is that the workman was

appointed by the Management of N.F. Railway with effect

from 23.8.2007 against the clear vacancy of Substitute

Emergency Peon as the regular appointee to the post in the

regular scale of pay of Rs. 2550-3200/- per month (lateron

revised by 6th Central Pay Commission scale of Rs. 5200

to 20200/-), vide letter No. E/227/I/5-B(Q) Pt. I dated 23.8.07.

The scale of pay of the workman was a regular scale of pay

given to a permanent post in the then Group D service in

Indian Railway. Accordingly the workman joined his duty

on 23.08.07 as Substitute Emergency Peon (in short Sub/E/

Peon) attached to the General Manager, N.F. Railway

against regular post on the terms and conditions mentioned

in the appointment letter. At the material time the post of

the workman was to be maintained in the sanctioned

strength of the relevant Emergency Peon Unit of the

Establishment of General Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon

against permanent incumbent's absence or otherwise as

per Book of Sanction. The mode of engagement of SE Peon

prevalent at the relevant time was that the appointment

was made for three months only but extended for further

period depending upon the satisfaction of the officer

attached to whom till he attained temporary servant's status

after 120 days continuous satisfactory service, and the

officer to whom the SE Peon is attached, has to certify the

satisfactory service of the SE Peon seving under him at

the end of 90 days service by the SE Peon only whereafter

his service is extended further. Accordingly the service of

the workman was extended on completion of his continuous

service of 120 days after the officer concerned (GM, N.F.

Railway) or his authorized official attached to his office

certified the service of the workman as satisfactory,

otherwise his service would not have extended under the

terms and conditions of his engagement. The workman

rendered continuous satisfactory service as SE Peon under

the General Manager, N.F. Railway and got the pay and

perks from the management and he was terminated on

30.4.08. He attended the duty for 153 days up to 22.01.2008

and thereafter he undergone treatement by Railway Doctor

on authorization through an official sick memo from GM's

office to the Central Hospital of N.F. Railway, Maligaon.

Theafter the workman submitted a fit certificate on 21.04.08

to the office of Office Superintendent (OS) of GM's Office

keeping record of his Attendance to resume his duties, but

the OS refusing resumption of his duties referred him to

the higher officer who in turn directed the workman to go

to the Bunglow of the GM and to obtain consent of GM or

PPS to GM for his resumption of duty. The workman,

reported at the GM's Bunglow but he was refused

admittance. The workman came back to the office of the

GM but he was turned back by the Office.

Further case of the workman is that giving all due and

reasonable allowance to the Management of N.F. Railway

to prepare the report of the workman's unsatisfactory

service and for acting thereupon, retention of the workman

in his post for so long after his continuous service for 120

days even as his service was alleged to be unsatisfactory,

the inaction of the management on his report is not

sustainable as there is strong presumption that under the

2842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

law the workman already attained the Temporary Status

when his service was not given legal standing of being

unsatisfactory. As such, the workman attained temporary

status on his retention of service after his continous

service for 120 days and then up to 153 days. But the

management, all on a sudden discharged the workman from

his service vide letter No. E/227/1/5-B(Q) Pt. I dated 30.04.08

without following due precedure as established by the law

and the relevant Railway Rules framed thereunder, and the

discharge of the workman is by way of termination of service

of his unsatisfactory service with 14 days pay in lieu of 14

days notice. It is also mentioned that the management,

along after his termination, in order to deprive the workman

the protection of his posting by virtue of his having

attained as per the law the status of a termporary Railway

servant through his continuous service for 120 days and

more, submitted a letter No. E/227/15-B(Q) Pt. I dated

17.03.2011 to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C),

Guwahati in industrial the dispute through the Principal

Private Secretary to the General Manager, N.F. Railway along

with 2 notes vide Nos. Z/Secy/12/CRB/2007 dated

03.12.2007 and Z/Secy/CPO/12/2008 dated 25.04.2008

describing the service of the workman not satisfactory in

the notes and also advising the workman's termination

from service was for unsatisfactory service. Thus the

management through these two notes has resorted to

devious means to distort the service record of the workman

during his first 90 days and first 120 days just to deny him

the temporary status under law and issue the notes under

the dated 03.12.2007 mentioned above. But the said notes

were not in existence during the mandatory period of 120

days continuous service of the workman with satisfactory

performance, and these documents were produced only

after about 3 years. Thus it is clear that management had

applied contradictory statement just to frustrate the

workman's right to to temporary status. As such the action

of the management is violative of the Provision of Article

14, 16 and 21 as well as the provision of Indian Railway

Establishment Code 1985, and Indian Railway

Establishment Manual and Master Circular issued from

time to time. The Union further alleged that the workman

was not allowed to resume duty after his treatment for

Tuberculosis at Railway Hospital and he was declared fit

to resume duty by the same Hospital and when there was

no order of discharge or termination from the service.

The workman on being aggrieved and dissatisfied with

the impunged order of termination, the workman

represented the management by an appeal dated 2.3.09

which was followed by a reminder dated 5.10.2010 praying for

reinstatement, but it was in vain. Thereafter he applied to the

Director of Public Relation, Railway Board and also approached

to the Railway Minister on 7.12.2009 praying for relief but to no

avail. Then he take the matter with the Union, which placed this

dispute before the RLC (C), Guwahati.

The Union also stated that after holding the status of

temporary Railway servant being a SE Peon he became

entitled to all the rights and privileges as admissible to a

temporary Railway employee in terms of para-4.2 of the

Master Circular No. 20 issued by the Railway Board vide

letter No. E/205/O/RP-EMERGENCYPEON/PC/CON dated

15.2.99. Further the management by terminating him without

notice pay has also violated the provision of Railway Rules

as well as Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It is also mentioned

that the workman being the Temporary Railway Servant is

entitled to the protection under Article 311 of the

Constitution of India and the Provision of Indian Railway

Establishment code 1985. Further the illegal practice of the

Railway in not providing the SE Peon to sign Daily

Attendance Register or not allowing any token of their

attendance on duty came in handy in this willful distortion

of fact and due to such an act of the management the

workman suffered irreparable loss. Hence, the Union prayed

for deciding the dispute granting reinstatement of the

workman as Group-D or equivalent post with effect from

the date of his order of termination granting the period of

his absence as continuous service along with the

consequential/incidental relief of normal protection if any

at par with his juniors in his Emergency Peon Unit of N.F.

Railway at its Headquarter.

4. The management of N.F. Railway, on the other hand,

submitted their defence, placing their written statement

stating, inter-alia, that this reference is not maintainable

in present form as well as in fact and denied the contentions

of the Union except what has specifically admitted in their

W.S. The management stated that the workman Sri Dipankar

Baruah was engaged as SE Peon attached to the then GM,

N.F. Railway on pay scale of Rs. 2550/- to 3200/- with effect

from 23.08.07 on certain terms and conditions and the

engagement of the workman will not confer upon any right

to claim for further appointment in this Railway and he is

liable to be discharged without any notice when his service

will not be required by the Administration or on the expiry

of the currency of the post against which he was engaged

or in the event of the posting of approved hand; and he

may also be transferred with the officers with whom he was

engaged as SE Peon or he would be discharged in the

event of the said officer who expressed his willingness to

take him on transfer along with him. Management submitted

that the SE Peon at the first instance will be for a period of

3 months only and it may be extended further on receipt of

a certificate from the controlling officer to the effect that

the service of the Substitute Emergency Peon are

satisfactory. The management contended that although

the workman completed 120 days of service the said status

has not been awarded to him due to unsatisfactory remarks

received from the competent authority vide PPS to GM's

confidential note No. Z/Secy/12/CRB/2007 dated 03.12.2007

wherein it was intimated that the service of the workman

Dipankar Baruah is not satisfactory as because he is not

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2843

showing interest in his work. Subsequently PPS to GM

vide another confidential note being No. Z/Secy/CPO/12/

2008 dated 25.04.2008 intimated that the service of the

workman have been found unsatisfactory in as much as

he failed to maintain sincerity in his job and remained

absent from his service without authority for which GM,

N.F. Railsay desires that he may be terminated with

immediate effect. Accordingly the workman was terminated

with effect from 30.4.2008 with 14 days notice pay due to

his unsatisfactory service. The Management further

mentioned that the service of Sri Dipankar Baruah has not

been found satisfactory before completion of period of 4

months. Sri Barua was initially sanctioned 5 days casual

leave with effect from 14th January to 19th January, 2008

and thereafter he reported sick from 23.01.2008 and got

extended upto 21.04.2008 by the Sr. DMO/CH/MLG, and

though the workman was declared fit on 21.4.2008 he did

not report for duty fill the date and as such, the services of

the workman was not available since 14.1.2008 i.e. more

than 3 months. The management also contended that the

service of the workman was found unsatisfactory in as

much as he failed to learn his job and remained absent

without authority for which the GM desires that action

may be initiated for termination of his service with

immediate effect. The Management denied the claim of the

workman after completion of 120 days of his service the

workman was sick and ultimately he did not turn up

practically from 14.01.2008 till 25.04.2008; and that the

workman was terminated with 14 days notice pay due to

his unsatisfactory service report. The management stated

that from the record it appears that the workman has

worked as SE Peon with effect from 23.08.2007 to 13.01.2008

i.e. 144 days and he was granted 05 days casual leave w.e.f.

14.01.2008 to 19.01.2008 and thereafter he reported sick

from 23.01.2008.

The management denied the statements made in

paragraphs-13, 14, 15, 16, 33 and 37.

Further pleading of the management is that the workman

was terminated from his service after completion of

continuous service beyond 120 days with effect from

30.4.2008, but entitlement for temporary status and holding

of temporary status are not similar as for temporary status

the service of the workman must be satisfactory to the

authority concern. The management also mentioned that

the Union tried to misinterpretate the judgement passed

by the Hon'ble CAT, Guwahati Bench in O.A. Nos. 54/02

Sri Vinod Kumar Sarma-vs-Union of India and others and in

O.A. No. 228/2006 Shri Ranjit Hore-vs-Union of India and

Ors. Thus the management contended that the claim of

the workman is not legal and genuine and hence the

workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

5. The Union in order to establish their case, examined

2 witnesses including the workman and Sri Dipankar Baruah

as W.W. 1 & Sri M.K. Das, General Secretary, RMU as

W.W. 2. While the management examined their solitary

witness namely Mr. Chandra Sekhar Pandit, Assistant

Personnel Officer (Welfare) N.R. Railway, Maligaon, "After

closing of evidence of both the sides I have heard argument

from both the sides at length.

6. On perusal of the evidence on record it appears that

the workman Dipankar Baruah was appointed as Substitute

Emergency Peon on 23.8.07 vide N.F. Railway's letter No.

E/227/1/5- B(Q) Pt. I dated 23.08.07 vide Exhibit-1.

Accordingly the workman joined on the same date as SE

Peon in the regular pay scale of Rs. 2550/- to 3200/-attached

to G.M., N.F. Railway vide his joining report dated 23.8.07

vide Exhibit-2. As per the then mode of engagement of SE

Peon, initial appointment was made for 3 months only but

extended for further period depending on satisfaction of

the officer for whom in his official capacity. The SE Peon

attains temporary status after 120 days continuous

satisfactory service, and the officer concerned under him

the SE Peon is attached has to certify the satisfactory

service of the SE Peon serving under whom at the end of

90 days service, and only whereafter his service is extended

further. In Rule 1512 of the Indian Railway Establishment

Manual, 1989 Revised Edition) and in the Master Circular

on the appointment of substitutes in the Railways No. 20

issued by the Railway Board/Ministry of Railway wherein

the Substitute Peon are defined and their service conditions

are provided for. In terms of the Indian Railway

Establishment Manual 1989 Rule 1512, Rule 1513 and Rule

1515 proved as Exhibit-4; and the Master Circular on the

appointment of Substitute in Railway issued by the Railway

Board/Ministry of Railway is proved as Exhibit-5 regarding

appointment of Substitutes the service of the workman

was extended on completion of continuous service for 120

days otherwise his service would not have been extended;

but the management, suddenly by an order vide letter No.

E/227/1/5-B(Q) Pt. I dated 30.04.2008 vide Exhibit-3

terminated the workman from his service with effect from

30.04.08. The W.W.1 alleged that he was terminated by the

management of N.F. Railway without following the due

procedure as established by the Rules and the relevant

Railway Rules thereunder after 153 days of his continuous

service. The workman mentioned that the long after his

termination in order to deprive him of the protection of his

posting by virtue his having attained under the law the

status of termporary Railway Servant, and that in spite of

his continuous service for 120 days and more, a letter under

No. E/227/15-B(Q) PT. I dated 17.03.2011 (Exhibit-7) issued

by Dy. CPO, IR, N.F. Railway to the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (C) at Guwahati in course of conciliation

proceeding in an Industrial Dispute enclosing 2 notes under

No. Z/Secy/12/CRB/2007 dated 03.12.2007 (Exhibit-8) and

No. Z/Secy/CPO/12/2008 dated 25.4.2008 (Exhibit-9) from

the Principal Private Secretary to the General Manager, N.F.

2844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Railway stating that his service was not satisfactory and

also advising his termination from service for unsatisfactory

service in the note dated 25.4.2008; and these 2 notes as

aforesaid has resorted to devious means to distort his

service during his first 90 days and first 120 days just to

deny him the temporary status in the eye of law. But both

the aforesaid notes as mentioned above were not in

existence during the mandatory period of 120 days

continuous service which was rendered by him with

satisfactory performance. It is also mentioned that the

prevailing set of Rules that without re-engagement in clear

terms and in absence of the stipulation in the terms and

conditions or the rules of probation of the SE Peon category

that the period of term of 90 days or 120 days continuous

service can be extended beyond 90 and 120 days even if

the service is found unsatisfactory. Thus it is clear that the

management have applied contradictory and self defeating

standard for the same set of rules just to frustrate his right

to temporary status. The workman also said that he

completed 153 days of continuous service from 23.08.2007

to 22.01.2008 and as such he acquired the temporary status

in the eye of law, and the termination was not in terms of

the engagement but in terms of the Statutory Rule 301(I) of

Indian Railway Establishment Code. He also denied the

contention of the management placed during conciliation

that he was terminated for his unwillingness to learn the

work and his unauthorized absence from duty which is not

a fact, clearly shows that the termination was not termination

simpliciter. The W.W.1 added that on being aggrieve he

represented to the authorities his grievances by filing apeal

preferred before the GM (Exhibit-12) on 2.3.09 and on

5.10.2010 followed by reminders praying for re-instatement

and offering to work as SE Peon with any other officer

explaining the situation and challenging the validity of the

termination order but it was without any result. He also

applied to the Director, Public Relations, Railway Board

and appealed to the Union Railway Minister (Exhibit-13)

on 7.12.09 but to no avail.

The W.W.1 further stated that according to Railway

Circular No. E/205/O/RP-Emergency Peon/PC/CON dated

15.2.1999 marked as Exhibit-10, read with the Indian Railway

Establishment Code, Indian Railway Establishment Manual

and the Master Circular as aforesaid it is provided that

while Emergency Peon who has not attained the temporary

status can be terminated, it will not be because when he

attained temporary status or became regular group-D

employee as it calls for disciplinary action which requires

all the requisite rules and formalities as applicable to regular

employees are to be followed. He also said that the

management also violated the law of Notice Pay which

must be paid at the time of termination of the service as he

was paid the notice pay only after a considerable period.

Thus the process of termination was violated and it was a

colourable exercise of power by the management in

disregard to the Railway Service (Discipline and Appeal)

Rules, 1968, and Article 311 of the Constitution of India. He

again mentioned that he was never served with any notice

expressing dissatisfaction over his service as alleged, and

only during concilation the management produced the letter

dated 23.8.11 alleging that his service was unsatisfactory

and he was absent unauthorisedly, but he was never given

any opportunity to offer his defence against the said

allegation nor he was given the 14 days notice before his

termination. He pointed out that the Railway Board's No.

E(NG) 11/77/SB 37 dated 24.10.1976 and N.F. Railway letter

No. 83-E/i/pt WE iv dated 31.12.1997 provides that the

Peons are engaged as substitutes and as such they are

entitled to temporary status on completion of 120 days of

continuous service and with the temporary status they are

to be provided with all the facilities as are applicable to

other temporary status holders. The workman also pleaded

that the temporary Govt. servants are also entitled to

protection of Articles 311(2) in the same manner as

permanent Govt. Servant if the Government takes action

against them by meeting out one of the three punishments

i.e. dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. The workman

mentioned that he was under treatment of Railway Doctor

for a period on authorization through an official sick memo

from GM's Office to the Central Hospital of N.F. Railway,

Maligaon and lateron on 21.4.08 he submitted his fit

certificate and met the Office Superintendent of the GM's

Office keeping record of his attendance to resume duty but

the Office Superintendent refusing his to resume duty

referred him to higher officer who in turn directed him to

GM's Bunglow and asked him to resume duty obtaining

consent of GM or PPS to GM. Thereafter he reported to the

GM's bunglow but he was refused admittance while he

came back to GM's office. In support of this contention the

W.W.2 has proved a letter No. H/SF/08/01 dated 28.02.2008

issued by Dr. T.K. Das, Medical Director/CH/MLG and the

Medical Advice/Prescription Memo dated 28.02.08 issued

by the medical Officer in favour of the workman vide Exhibit-

17 & Exhibit-18 respectively.

In his cross-examination the W.W.1 stated that now he

is an unemployed staying at Maligaon on Railway land;

that he has been dealing wiht vegetable etc. He also

mentioned that from 19.1.2008 he had been suffering from

Tuberculosis and treated under Railway Hospital, Maligaon,

while the Doctor Advised him for treatment for three months

and thereafter advised for periodical check up and he was

under regular treatment upto 21.4.2008. He categorically

denied the suggestion tendered by the learned Advocate

for the mangement that the statement made by him regarding

his illness and treatment in the Railway Medical Hospital

for which he could not submit any document; and that he

was on casual leave for 5 days with effect from 13.1.08 to

18.1.08 and thereafter he was absent without any intimation

to the authority. He again denied the suggestion that he

could not render satisfactory service during the period of

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2845

his working and he remained absent without any authority

for which he was discharged with 14 days pay which was

received by him at his residence. The WW. 2 Mr. M.K. Das,

in his evidence on Affidavit, supporting the entire statment

of W.W. 1 stated that the workman joined as Substituted

Emergency Peon in the establishment of General Manager,

N.F. Railway in regular pay scale of Rs. 2550/ to 3200/- on

some terms and conditions issued vide Exhibit-1; and that

as per the provision the engagement of SE Peons are

engaged for 3 months initially and extended for further

period depending on the personal satisfaction of the officer

with whom the services of the SE Peon is engaged till he

attained a temporary service status after 120 days

continuous satisfactory service, and the officer concerned

has to certify the satisfactory service of the SE Peon serving

under him at the end of 90 days. He also referred the

definition and service condition of the SE Peon as provided

in Rule 1512 to 1516 of Indian Railway Establishment

Manual, and the Master Circular on the appointment of SE

Peon in Article No. 20 by Railway Ministry/Railway Board

(Exhibit-4, Exhibit-5 and Exhibit-10). The W.W. 2 also

mentioned that the workman rendered his service for a

period of 120 days continuously with effect from 23.8.07 to

18.12.07 without getting any information about his any

dissatisfactory service or any fault in his service or show

cause from the management. Thereafter the workman was

under treatment of Railway Doctor on authorization through

an official sick memo from GM's office to the Central

Hospital. N.F. Railway, Maligaon and subsequently fit

certificate was issued by the Doctor that the workman was

under treatment from 23.1.08 to 21.4.08 and he was fit to

join duty with continued treatment vide Exhibit-16, Exhibit-

17 and Exhibit-18. The W.W. 2 also mentioned that the

workman was allowed to remain in service beyond the terms

and conditions of his engagement for a period of 153 days

upto 22.1.2008 and hence, there is strong presumption of

law that the workman has already attained the status of

temporary status that the workman was not capable of

alleged satisfactory service, and as such the management

has applied a contradicatory and self defendant standard

just to frustrate the workman's right to temporary status.

He also mentioned the as per the Railway Circular dated

15.2.99 marked as Exhibit-10 (para-E) which provides that

while Emergency Peon does not attain the temporary status

can be terminated, it will not be the case when he attains

temprary status or becomes a regular Group-D employee

as it calls for disciplinary action which requires all the

requisite rules and formalities as applicable to regular

employees are to be followed. As such, the termination of

the workman is not an terms of the engagement but in

terms of the Statutory Rules 301(I) of the Indian Railway

Establishment Code, since the workman was intentionally

deprived from the temporary status and yet continued in

service for some more days, and that the reason adduced

by the management during the conciliation that he was

terminated for his unwillingness to learn his work etc. and

that he was unauthorized absent from duty, which are not

a true and it clearly shows that the termination was a

termination simpliciter. The workman witness No. 2 also

submitted that the workman represented his grievance by

an appeal preferred before the Government Manager on

2.3.09 and subsequently reminder dated 5.10.2010, and

before the Minister of Railways on 7.12.2009, but that was

without any result. He further referred the para-7 note (ii)

of the Book named Digest of Discipline, Appeal and Conduct

Rules", Eighth Editions, 2004 of B.S. Mainee extract of which

has been proved vide Exhibit-14, wherein it has been stated

that in terms of Railway Board Circular No. E(NG) 60 CL-13

of 13.5.63 Casual Labours and Substitutes on completion

of four month's service, when paid regular scales of pay,

attain temporary status and are governed by these rules.

Mr. M.K. Das again stated that the service of the workman

is governed by the various provision of Industrial Dispute

Act, 1947 overriding the Railway Rules. While the

management did not pay the retrenchment compensation

to the workman, and in this connection the copy of the

instrument of payment after termination to the workman as

B.R. No. AGB/22/08 dt. 30.4.2008 prepared in two sheets

marked as Exhibit-15. Thereby the management failed to

pay the workman notice pay within 48 hours of

retrenchment/termination and thus violated their own rules.

The W.W. 2 added that the management violated the

provision of Articles 311 and the principle of natural justice

as well and their own Circular dated 15.2.99 (Exhibit-10)

wherein at part (B) with the Heading "Choice in regard to

Engagement of fresh face" by which the terminated SE

Peon has a locus to seek his fresh appointment and the

same seniority unit, the workman applied for reengagement/

reinstatement but he was not considered for fresh

appointment whereas numerous fresh SE Peon have been

engaged in the mean time.

The W.W. 2 again stated that the notice produced before

the ALC (C), Guwahati during conciliation vide Exhibit-8 &

Exhibit-9 shows that it was alleged that the working report

of the workman attached to the General Manager is not

satisfactory as he is not showing any interest of his work

and that the service of the workman has not been found

satisfactory and that the workman was found absent

unauthorisedly. But the said report was submitted by the

PPS to General Manager without mentioning that the

workman has not done to the satisfaction of the employer

but which of the works the workman had done not showing

interest to learn. He also mentioned that in levelling the

charge of unauthorized absent of the workman since 21.1.08

the date on which the workman reported at GM's Office to

PPS to GM, Sri R.R. Rajak while the workman was not

permitted to resume his duties on his sick and fit certificate

marked as Exhibit-16, Exhibit-17 & Exhibit-18. It is stated by

Mr. M.K. Das that the workman was on CL for 5 days from

14.01.2008 to 19.01.2008 and he was to report for duty on

2846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

20.1.08, but due to continued sickness and treatment on

20.01.2008 which is evident from the prescription memo

No. 13703 dated 20.1.2008 (Exhibit-16) with observation of

the Doctor regarding his treatment for his illness as an

outdoor patient of the N.F. Railway, Central Hospital,

Maligaon. The workman also produced the medical

prescription and fit certificate dated 28.2.08 vide Exhibit-17

& Exhibit-18 wherein it is mentioned that the workman was

admitted into the hospital as indoor patient on 23.01.2008

and was discharged from Hospital on 31.01.2008 and initial

sick certificate was issued for 15 days treatment because

of his suffering from pulmonary Tuberculosis and Pleural

Effusion which was not an open infectious disease. He

also added that the workman got extension of his treatment

from 07.02.08 to 22.3.08 and then 23.03.08 to 06.04.08 as per

prescription memo dated 28.02.08 as mentioned in the

marginal notes thereupon. Hence, the W.W. 2 stated that

the workman already attained temporary status as per

provision of law before the date of his termination from

service but the workman was terminated under Rule 301(1)

of Indian Railway Establishment Code which is not

applicable as the said Rule is not relevant in the instant

case. As such it is a fit case of decision in favour of the

workman.

In his cross-examination, the W.W. 2 categorically

denied the suggestion tendered that the workman did not

attend his duty from 21.4.08 to 25.4.08. rather he confirmed

that the workman attended his duty on 21.4.08 but he has

not produced any document in support of the fact that the

workman attended his duty on 21.4.08 and that on that

date (21.4.08) and the workman was not allowed to put his

signature on the Attendance Register. He further denied

the suggestion raised by the learned Advocate for the

management with the observation made by Railway in

Exhibit-8 against the workman is not true. The W.W. 2 also

stated that the Exhibit-10 relates to the Construction

Organisation. He also denied the suggestion that after

dismissal of the workman with effect from 30.4.08 he has

not submitted any representation before the management.

On the other hand, he confirmed that the workman

submitted representation before the management on 7.12.09

and 5.10.09 but he has not submitted the copy of his

representation dated 2.3.09 as mentioned in his

representation dated 5.10.2010 (Exhibit-12).

6. According to Mr. Chandra Sekhar Pandit, the Assistant

Personnel Officer (Welfare), N.F. Railway, Maligaon, (the

MW.1) the workman Dipankar Baruah was engaged as SE

Peon attached to the General Manager, N.F. Railway (Mr.

Ashotush Swami) on 23.8.07 vide Exhibit-1 and the workman

remained absent without any authority since 21.4.08 to

25.04.08. The workman was granted CL for 5 days with

effect from 14.1.08 to 19.1.08 and thereafter he reported

sick from 23.1.08 to 21.4.2008 and he was declared fit on

21.4.08 but he did not report duty till 25.4.08. Thereafter the

service of the workman was terminated on 30.4.08 in terms

of Rule 301(I) of Indian Railway Establishment Code,

Volume-I (Exhibit-3) due to violation of his condition of

service as provided in the Master Circular of revised policy

for engagement/retrenchment etc. issued vide No. E/205/

O/RP-Emergency Peon/PC/CON. Dated 15/18.2.1999

(Exhibit-10). The MW. 1 further mentioned before

termination of the workman a report was obtained from the

General Manager vide Exhibit-8 and also from PPS to General

Manager on 25.4.08 vide Exhibit-9, and after due

consideration of the said reports marked as Exhibit-8 &

Exhibit-9 the workman was terminated from service. He

added that the workman did neither submit any

representation nor appeal before the management after his

termination, however, the management paid the notice pay

amounting to Rs. 2624/- vide Exhibit-15 & Exhibit-16 as

such, the workman is not entitled to any relief.

During his cross-examination the MW. 1 mentioned that

he could not say whether the terms "Emergency Peon" has

been defined in any Railway Circular/Railway Manual, nor

did he know what was the duty of Emergency Peon. He

said that the Office Note dated 3.12.07 (Exhibit-8) given by

the PPS to the General Manager addressed to the CPO but

the same note has not been endorsed by the CPO or any

other officer authorizing in that behalf. However the said

note was issued by the PPS to General Manager as per

advice of the General Manager. He said that the officer

concerned to whom the Emergency Peon is attached is to

submit the report as to his dissatisfaction on the service of

the SE Peon and the duties of the SE Peon are not

specifically mentioned in the Railway Circular/Manual, his

function are to be determined and allotted by the officer

concerned with whom he is attached. Mr. Pandit denied

the suggestion tendered by the Union that there is no

description in details as to the duty to be discharged by

the SE Peon, that the Officer concern's asessment as to the

satisfaction or dissatisfaction on the service of the

Emergency Peon is arbitrary and is not legal; and that since

there is no report as to the dissatisfaction of the service of

the workman given by the Officer concerned to whom the

workman was attached; and that the dissatisfaction report

submitted vide Exhibit-8 by the PPS to the General Manager

is not legal and proper. He again mentioned that the

workman discharged his duty for 103 days during the period

with effect from 23.8.07 to 30.4.08 and at the time the service

of the workman was found dissatisfactory. He also admitted

that after 90 days of service of the workman his fuirther

engagement depends upon satisfactory report of the officer

concern to whom the Substitute Emergency Peon is

attached. But he could not say under what circumstances

the workman was allowed to continue of 103 days of service

after completion of service of 3 months. He also admitted

that no action was taken on the letter marked as Exhibit-8.

The MW. 1 further sated that whether ther is any document

to show that the General Manager himself expressed his

dissatiffaction in writing, ther is nothing in details as to the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2847

comments in the concluding para of Exhibit-9, on the basis

of which the PPS to General Manager mentioned that the

service of the workman was found unsatisfactory in as

much as he failed to learn his job. He also admitted that as

per the medical report the workman was sick till 21.4.08 but

he was found absent without authority from 22.4.08; and

that Exhibit-16 shows that the workman was discharged

from hospital on 31.1.08 while in the report of the Medical

Officer (Exhibit-18) the workman's sick leave extended for

45 days with effect from 7.2.08 to 22.3.08 and also in the fit

certificate issued by the Medical Officer on 21.4.08 (Exhibit-

6) shows that the workman was discharged on 21.4.08 with

observation that the workman requires long time treatment

(six months), however he was fit to join due to his

continuous treatment with full course. He said that the

Emergency Peon's attendance is looked after by the Officer

concern with whom he is attached, and the present workman

is supposed to report to the PPS for submission of his sick/

fitness certificate. He further stated that without consulting

the attendance register he could not say exactly the total

working days beyond 103 days in respect of the workman,

but after treatment of the workman the General Manager

engaged another SE Peon.

7. On perussal of the document marked as Exhibit-1 i.e.

the letter of engagement of the workman Sri Dipankar

Baruah as SE Peon, it appears from the terms and conditions

No. 3 of the said engagement letter the engagement of SE

Peon at the fist instance will be for a period of 3 months

only and it will be extended further on receipt of a receipt of

a certificate from the Controlling Officer to the effect that

the service of the SE Peon are satisfactory and that he can

be continued. As per Rule 1515 of the Indian Railway

Establishment Manual 1989 (proved as Exhibit-4) the SE

Peon are entitled to all rights and privileges as admissible

to the temporary Railway Servant after acquiring the

temporary status. The said rule is as under:

"1515. Rights and Privileges admissible to the

Substitutes.-Substitutes should be afforded all the rights

and privileges as may be admissible to temporary railway

servants, from time to time on completion of four months

continuous service. Substitute school teachers may,

however, be afforded temporary status after they have put

in continuous service of three months and their services

should be treated as continuous for all purposes except

seniority on their eventual absorption against regular posts

after selection."

Para-4.2 and Para-7 of the Master Circular of appointment

of Substitutes on the Railways vide No. E(NG) 11/90/68

(Exhibit-5) runs as under:

"4.2:- They should be allowed all the rights and

privileges as are admissible to temporary Railway

employees on completion of four months continuous

service."

"7. Break in Service.

The following cases of absence will not be considered

as "break in services" for determining the our months

continuous service for the purpose of absorption in

regular employment:—

(a) the periods of absence of a substitute who is

under medical treatment with injury sustained

on duty covered by the provisions of

workman's Compensation Act;

(b) authorized absence not exceeding 20 days

during the preceding six months.

NOTE

(i)

The term "authorized absence" for this purpose

covers permission granted by the Supervisory

Official in-charge to be away from the work for

the period specified.

(ii)

Unauthorised absence or stoppage of work will

be treated as a break in continuity of employment."

In the revised policy for engagement/retrenchment of

Emergency Peon issued vide letter No. E/205/O/RP-

EMERGENCY PEON/PC/CON dated 15.2.1999 (Exhibit-10)

by the N.F. Railway, Maligaon in para-5A in which it has

been clearly mentioned that the appointment of Emergency

Peon at the first instance will be for a period of 3 months

only and will be extended further on receipt of a certificate

from Controlling Officer that the service of Emergency

Peons are satisfactory and that he can coninue further. In

Para-E of the said Circular (Exhibit-10) specifically

mentioned the matter regarding discharge/termination of

service of Peons which runs as:

"E. DISCHARGE/TERMINATION OF SERVICE OF

E/PEONS.

1. Termination of the services of E/Peons is a sensitive

aspect and this is requird to be dealt with utmost caution

so that relevant provisions of the Establishment Code as

well as that of Industrial Disputes Act are not infringed. In

view of this, it is felt necessary that the existing procedures

for termination of services of E/Peon are reiterated for

information and guidance of all concerned. It is clarified

that all termination letters have to be issued form Peeronnel

Branch and not directly by the Executive Branch. Necessary

guidelines for termination of E/Peon are detailed below:—

2. Rule 301(1) of Indian Railway Establishment Code,

Volume-I, is the relevant rule under which termination of

service of Emergency Peon is to be resorted to.

3. NOTICE FOR TERMINATION OR PAYMENT IN LIEU OF

NOTICE

While resorting to termination, due notice or pay in lieu

of notice must be given, otherwise it will not be able to

stand judicial proceeding, if any.

(a) For Emergency Peon who has

14 days notice is to

be given for

Completed for 120 days service

termination of

service or 14 days

2848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Wage in lieu is to

be given.

(b) For Emergency Peon who has

One month's notice

Completed 240 days service.

is to be given or one

month's pay in lieu

of notice

is to be given.

No notice or notice

Completed even 120 days

Pay in lieu is

service.

Required to be

given.

4. PROCEDURE FOR PAYING NOTICE IN LIEU OF

NOTICE

Payment of Notice Pay is a very important aspect and

the proper course of action is to be ensured to prepare the

bill beforehand and get it passed from the Accounts. When

the bill reaches Cash Office, then only the termination order

is to be handed over to the concerned E/Peon., whose

services are sought to be terminated. In the termination

order, it should be indicated that the E/Peon concerned

should take his Notice Pay from the concerned Cash Office.

It is very important because unless Notice Pay is given in

lieu of Notice within 48 hours of termination of service and

the person concerned goes to the CAT or Regional Labour

Commissioner, the entire process of termination of service

may be declared null and void. This is very vital issue. It

may be mentioned that court cases in regard to termination

of services of E/Peons largely originate from this aspect."

Rule 311(1) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code

marked as Exhibit-11 (proved in original) which provides

that

"When a person without a lien on a permanent post

under Government is appointed to hold a temporary post

or to officiate in a permanent post, he is entitled to no

notice of the termination of his service if such termination

is due to the expiry of the sanction to the post which he

holds or the expiry of the officiating vacancy, or to his

compulsory retirement due to mental or physical incapacity

or to his removal or dismissal as a disciplinary measure

after compliance with the provisions of Clause (2) of Articles

311 of the Constitution of India. If the termination of his

service is due to some other cause, he shall be entitled to

one month's notice provided he was engaged on a contract

for a definite period and the contract does not provide for

any other period of notice; and to a notice of 14 days if he

was not engaged on contract."

According to the Digest of Discipline Appeal and

Conduct Rules by B.S. Mainee, Rules 1-3: APPLICATION

& DEFINATIONS

(7)

X X X X X X

X X X X

Notes(i) X X X X X

(ii)

Casual labours and substitutes on completion of

four month service, when paid regular scales of

pay, attain temporary status and are, as such,

governed by these rules.

Thus it clear that the engagement of Substitute

Emergency Peon is made initially for a period of 90 days

and it can be extended subject to the certificate of

satisfactory service of the said Emergency Peon by the

Officer concerned with whom he was attached to, and that

on completion of 120 days of satisfactory service the said

Substitute Emergency Peon acquires the rights and

privileges similar to those of temporary railway servant. It

is also found that after attaining temporary status the service

of substitute Emergency Peon can not be terminated/

retrenched without following the due process of law and

the provision of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

8. The management both in their W.S. as well as in their

evidence (evidence of management witness No.1) admitted

the fact that the workman was engaged as SE Peon with

effect from 23.8.07 and he discharged his duty upto 22.01.08

and thereafter he reported sick from 23.01.08 and got

extended up to 21.04.08 and he was sick leave with effect

23.01.08. In their letter marked as Exhibit-7 vide No.E/227/

15-B(Q) pt.I dated 17.03.2011 addressed to the Assistant

Labour Commissioner (C), Guwahati issued by Dy. C.P.O

(IR) the Management admitted that the workmen has

completed the period of 120 days of service and the

temporary status has not been awarded to him due to

unsatisfactory remarks received from the competent

authority; and that the workman worked as SE Peon with

effect from 23.8.07 to 13.1.08 i.e. 144 day; and he was granted

5 days casual leave with effect from 14.1.08 to 19.1.08 and

thereafter he reported sick on 23.1.08 which was extended

upto 21.4.08. As such it is found well established that the

workman on completion of his 90 days initial period of

engagement, was allowed to work upto 144 days (as

admitted by the management. It is the mandatory duty on

the part of the management to extend the service of SE

Peon on completion of 90 days of his service subject to the

satisfaction certificate issued by the officer concerned to

whom the said SE Peon was attached. In the instant

reference the workman was allowed to work 144 days

(according to the management) i.e. he was allowed to work

54 days although the Union has categorically mentioned

that the workman worked for 153 days continuosly, in spite

of having unsatisfactory certificate issued by the

appropriate authority as contended by the management

both in their W.S., in the evidence of MW.1 as well as in

their letter marked as Exhibit-7. But there is nothing on

record to show that the dissatisfaction certificate was

issued by the officer concerned under whom the workman

worked has been communicated to the workman either

within 90 days of his continous service or before completion

of this 120 days of continous service which entitled him to

acquire temporary status. It is only on the occasion of the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2849

conciliation proceeding the management submitted a letter

marked as Exhibit-7 along with 2 notes vide Exhibit-8 &

Exhibit-9 and the said notes were written by the PPS to the

General Manager on 3.12.07 and 25.4.08 respectively. For

argument sake if the note regarding the dissatisfaction

certificate dated 3.12.07 is accepted it should have been

the duty of the management not to allow the workman to

continue of work even the notice (Exhibit-9) appears to

have been issued on 25.4.08 after completion of more than

120 days of the service of the workman.

The workman, on the other hand, categorically stated

that he worked as SE Peon with effect from 23.8.07 to 22.1.08

and thereafter he was on sick leave and thereby he

discharged his duty for 153 days which is supported by

the testimony of W.W.2. The sick report issued by the

Medical Officer vide Exhibit-16 & Exhibit-17 shows that

the workman had been suffering from Pulmonary

Tuberculosis with Pleural Effusion, not an poen infectious

case he was likely to be fit on 23.3.08. The prescription

memo issued by ADMO/CH/MLG shows that the medical

leave of the workman was extended upto 6.4.08. It may not

be out of context to mention here that the management in

their letter marked as Exhibit-7 as well as in para-8 of their

W.S. admitted that the workman worked continuously for a

period of 144 days. In terms of Rule 1515 of Indian Railway

Establishment Manual, 1989 (Exhibit-4) and the Master

Circular on the appointment of substitutes on the Railways

(Exhibit-5), Para-4.2 and Para-7 and Para(A) 5 of Railway

Circular letter No.E/205/O/RP-EMERGENCY PEON/PC/

CON dated 15.2.99 (Exhibit-10) it can safely be held that

without obtaining satisfaction certificate on the services

discharged by the workman from the Officer concerned to

whom he was attached the services of the said workman

beyond 90 days could not be extended and as such, it can

safely be presumed that the workman completed 90 days

of service with satisfaction of the Officer concerned to

whom he was attached and further extension of his service

upto the further period of 54 days as stated above was

made on the basis of the satisfaction certificate issued by

the Officer concerned. As such it is clear that as per the

Provision of the Rules/Manual and the Railway Circulars

as discussed above the workman has attained temproary

status before his termination.

9. During argument Mr. A.K. Nath learned Advocate for

the Management submitted that the workman was

terminated from his service with effect from 30.4.08 under

Rule 301 (1) of Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume-I

on the basis of the dissatisfaction certificate issued by the

Officer conerned with whom he was attached to on the

ground that the workman was not showing interest in his

work and he remained absent from service without authority

and as such, the termination of the workman is legal and

justified and hence, the workman is not entitled to any

relief as prayed for in this reference.

Mr. M.K. Das, the learned counsel for the union

submitted that the workman after attaining temporary status

is entitled to all the rights and privileges and admissible to

the temporary Railway servant on completion of 4 months

continuous service. The workman is also entitled to

protection under Rule 14 and 311 of the Contitution of

India. In support of his contention Mr. Das relied upon the

case of V.P. Ahuja —vrs—State of Punjab and Ors. reported

in (2000) 3 SCC 239 wherein it was held that a probationer

like a temporary servant is also entitled for certain

protection, his service can not be terminated arbitrarily or

punitively without complying with the principle of natural

justice; and that the termination order could not be passed

without following the regular enquiry. In the said judgement

the Hon'ble Superme Court also observed that the Appellant

can not claim any right on the post on which he was

appointed and being on probation and his service could

be terminated since his work was not satisfactory without

any notice as set out in the appointment letter but this plea

can not be accepted.

Mr. Das, the learned counsel for the Union also pointed

out that the termination of the workman by the management

is arbitrary as the workman was not given reasonable

opportunity of showing cause against the action taken by

them. In support of his contention Mr. Das referred

Purshotam Lal Dhingra — vrs — Union of India,

Respondent AIR 1958 SC 36(1) wherein it was observed

that just as Art. 310, in terms, makes no distinction between

permanent and termporary members of the services or

between persons holding permanent of temporary posts in

the matter of their tenure being dependent upon the

pleasure of the President or the Governor, so does Art. 311

make no distinction between the two classes, both of which

are, therefor, within its protection. To limit the protection of

Articile 311 only two persons who are permanent members

of the service or who hold permanent civil post will be to

do equal works to the Railway which would be contrary to

is not principle of introduction of Constitution or a Statute.

In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed

"In the absence of any special contract the substantive

appointment to a permanent post gives the servant so

appointed a right to hold the post until, under the rules, he

attains the age of superannuation or is compulsorily retired

after having put in the prescribed number of years' service

or the post is abolished and his service cannot be terminated

except by way of punishment for misconduct, negligence,

inefficiency or any other disqualification found against

him on proper enquiry after due notice to him. An

appointment to a temporary post for a certain specified

period also gives the servant so appointed a right to hold

the post for the entire period of his tenure cannot be put an

end to during that period unless he is, by way of

punishment, dismissed or removed from the service".

10. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Union referring the

Provision of Railway Establishment (Discipline Appeal and

Conduct) Rule, further submitted that for some period the

employee's work was unsatisfactory is not enough as it

2850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

does not give him sufficient idea as to what he is to meet;

and that the reasonable opportunity as envisaged under

Articile 311(2) includes (a) an opportunity to deny his guilt

by the government servant and establish his innocence

which he could only do if he is told what the charges

levelled against him are and the allegations on which such

charges are based, (b) as opportunity to defend himself by

cross-examining the witnesses produced against him and

by examining himself for any other witnesses in support of

his defence; and finally (c) an opportunity to make his

representation as to why the proposed punishment should

not be inflicted on him, which he can only do after the

enquiry is over and after applying his mind to the gravity

or otherwise of the charges proved against the Government

servant, tentatively proposes to inflict the punishment and

communicated the same to the Government servant. Mr.

M.K. Das also pointed out that the dissatisfaction report

against the workman prepared after termination of the

workman, with a view to fill up their lapse & lacuna to

evade the law, and as such, there notes vide Exhibit-8 &

Exhibit-9 are manufactured in order to deprive the workman

from his legal rights.

11. The Management in their letter marked as Exhibit-7

produced before the conciliation proceeding in presence

of R.L.C (C), Guwahati, alongwith the notes as to the

dissatisfaction of the officer concerned to whom the

workman was attached to vide Exhibit-8 & Exhibit-9,

admitted the fact that though the workman completed the

period of 120 days of service his temporary status has not

been awarded due to unsatisfactory remarks from the

competent authority. It is also admitted that the workman

worked continuously for a period of 144 days. The notes

marked as Exhibit-8 & Exhibit-9 shows that the Exhibit-8

was issued by the P.P.S. to G.M. addressed to the C.P.O.

but there is no endorsement of the C.P.O on this report nor

any action taken thereon, while the note vide Exhibit-9 was

prepared on 25.4.08 mentioning the service of the workman

unsatisfactory in as much as the workman failed to learn

his job & remained absent without authority. The MW.1

categorically mentioned that after 90 days his further

engagement depends upon satisfactory report of the officer

concerned to whom the workman was attached to, but he

could not say under what circumstances the workman was

allowed to continue to work beyond the period of 103 days,

although they admitted in their letter marked as Exhibit-7

that the workman discharged the services continuously

for 144 days. Thus the silence of the Management in taking

apporpriate step against the workman as well as the

contradictory statements made by the Management in their

evidence of MW. 1, the W.S & their letter marked as Exhibit-7

give rise to sufficient doubts as to the trustworthiness of

the pleading & the evidence of the Management as a whole.

On the other hand, evidence of the Union is found not

shaken, rather trustworthy & as well as supported by the

relevant documents & the Railway Establishment Code,

Railway Mannual & Discipline Appeal Conduct Rule. and

Master Circulars issued by the Railways from time to time.

As such I can not reject the argument raised by the Union.

The record shows that it is an admitted fact that due to

his illness the workman was on C.L from 14.01.08 to 19.01.08

& thereafter reported sick from 23.01.08 to 21.04.08. The

workman categorically stated that after discharge from

Hospital he reported to the P.P.S to G.M. for duty but he

was not allowed to join even he was not attended to enter

into the Bunglow of the G.M. This testimony of the workman

remain unrebutted. Thus the allegation of unauthorized

absence of the workman raised by the management is also

found not maintainable. The evidence also shown that the

workman submitted appeal before the appropriate authority

but of no avail.

12. From the above discussion it is found well

established that the service of the workman was terminated,

after discharging his duty for a period of 153 days i.e. after

acquiring the status of temporary government servant,

without holding any enquiry nor any prior notice to the

workman. Further it is also found that the workman after

his dismissal represented before the Appellate Authority

for his reinstatment but there is nothing on record to show

that his appeal was entertained. In this connection I am

inclined to rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Ram Chander — vrs — Union of India and Ors. reported

in AIR 1986 SC 1173 wherein it was held that "it is of utmost

importance after the Forty-Second Amendment as

interpreted by the majority in Tulsiram Patel's case that the

Appellate Authority must not only give a haring to the

Government servant concerned but also pass a reasoned

order dealing with the contentions raised by him in the

appeal. We wish to emphasize the reasoned dicisions by

tribunals, such as the Railway Board in the present case,

will promote public confidence in the administrative process.

An objective consideration is possible only if the

delinquent servant is heard and given a chance to satisfy

the Authority regarding the final orders that may be passed

on his appeal. Considerations of fiar-play and justice also

require that such a personal hearing should be given."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases held

that reasonable opportunity as envisaged by Articles 311(2)

should be afforded to the workman before his dismissal/

removal/termination, and that the authority concerned

empowered with the task of entertaining appeal who applied

their mind on the representation of the delinquent. In the

instant case the workman in spite of acquiring the status of

temporary Railway servant was deprived of availing the

protection as envisaged under Rule 301 in the Railway

Establishment Code, the Master Circular No. E(NG)/11/90/

GS/Master Circular marked as Exhibit-5, the letter NO. E/

2005/O/RP-EMERGENCY PEON/PC/CON dated 15.2.9

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2851

(Exhibit-10) issued by the Railway regarding the service

condition etc. as well as the terms and conditions of the SE

Peon, and the Discipline Appeal and Conduct Rules

(Exhibit-14). It is also found well established that the

workman was denied the protection as envisaged in Article

14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India as well as the

principle of natural justice. In view of my above discussion

and having regard to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court as discussed above I find no reason to reject the

contention of the Union that the workman Sri Dipankar

Baruah was terminated from his service as Emergency Peon

with effect from 30.4.2008 after attaining temprorary status,

is illegal and not justified, and such action of the

Management is against the principle of natural justice.

Accordingly it is opined that the action of the management

of N.F. Railway, Guwahati in terminating the service of the

workman Sri Dipankar Baruah, Ex/Emergency Peon with

effect from 30.4.08 vide their order dated 30.4.08 is illegal

and not justified.

13. In view of the findings arrived at as above, it is held

that the workman is entitled to be reinstated as Substitute

Emergency Peon or in Group-D or now equivalent post in

Railway with his inter-se seniority as on the date of his

engagement. As regards backwage as claimed by the

workman it is mentioned that the workman in his evidence

stated that since after since after his termination he has

been residing on Railway land and dealing in vegetable

etc. and in my humble opinion I find it wise to award 50% of

his back wage with effect from the date of his termination

adjusting the notice pay, if received, by the workman.

Accordingly this reference is disposed of deciding the issue

in favour of the workman.

14. However, I award no cost. Let this Award be

forwarded to the Ministry for needful as per procedure.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this 16th

day of June, 2015 at Guwahati.

L. C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1327-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fo'kk[kkiVue iru

U;kl ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 16@2010½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-06-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&34011@5@2009 & vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2015

S.O. 1327.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2010) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Visakhapatnam Port Trust. and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

30.06.2015.

[No. L-34011/5/2009 - IR(B-II)

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI,

Presiding Officer

Dated the 9^th day of October, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 16/2010

Between:

The General Secretary,

Visakhapatnam Port Employees Union,

D.No. 26-15-204, Dharmasakthi Bhawan,

Visakhapatnam-530 001.

....Petitioner

AND

The Chairman,

Visakhapatnam Port Trust,

Port Area, Visakhapatnam - 530 005.

...Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

Sri K. Balakrishna (Expired)

For the Respondent

None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its

order No. L-34011/5/2009-IR (B-II) dated 28.1.2010 referred

the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D.

Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the

management of Visakhapatnam Port Trust and their

workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of

Visakhapatnam Port Trust in not promoting Sri P.

Prasada Rao, Electronic Technician (Sr.) to the post

of J.E. (Electronics) is justified or not? What relief

the concerned workman/visakhapatnam Port

Employees Union is entitled?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.

16/2010 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Petitioner filed claim statement. Inspite of fair

opportunity management did not file counter statement as

such, case stands posted for Petitioner's evidence.

2852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

3. At this stage, it is reported that counsel for Petitioner

expired and time is sought for. There is no representation

for Petitioner till date. Inspite of giving fair opportunity

petitioner is not taking interest in the Proceedings. In the

circumstances, taking that no claim to be made for the

Petitioner, 'Nil Award' is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1328-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tokgjyky usg:

iksVZ VªLV 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; ua- 1] eqacbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 67@2004½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-6-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&31025@5@2004&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2015

S.O. 1328.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 67/2004) of the Cent.

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

as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between

the management of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

30/06/2015.

[No. L-31025/5/2004-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1

MUMBAI

Present :

JUSTICE S.P. MEHROTRA,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. CGIT-1/67 OF 2004

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust

And

Their workmen

Appearances:

For the first party/Management

: Mr. Lancy D' Souza,

Adv.

For the second party/Union

: Mr.

Jaiprakash

Sawant, Adv.

State

: Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 7th day of May, 2015

AWARD

1. The present Reference has been made by the Central

Government by its order dated 27.7.2004 passed in exercise

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

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

disputes Act, 1947. The terms of Reference as per the

Schedule to the said order are as under:

"Whether the demand of Nhava Sheva Bandar

Kamgar Sangatana (Antargat), 64 Shoppping Centre,

JNPT, Township, JNPT, Raigad Distt. for absorption

of workers (as per annexure 'A' and "B") engaged by

the management of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust,

Sheva through contractors in the Tugs, Pilot

Launches, Survey Launches, Mooring Launches and

VIP Launches etc. from date of their initial

engagement is legal and justified? If not, what relief

are the workmen concerned entitled to?"

2. As is evident from the abovequoted Reference, the

names of workmen concerned are given in Annexure - A

(wherein 124 workmen are mentioned) and Annexure - B

(wherein 26 workmen are mentioned) to the reference. Thus,

the total number of workmen in regard to whom the

Reference was made was 124+26=150.

3. By the Order dated 12.8.2004, notices were directed to

be issued to the parties in the present Reference. The parties

put in appearance.

4. Pleadings were exchanged between the parties. The

case, at present, is at the stage of evidence. The case was

lastly fixed on 6.5.2015.

5. By the Order dated 6.5.2015, the case was fixed for

7.5.2015. i.e. today.

The case is accordingly put up today.

Shri Jaiprakash Sawant, learned counsel for the second

party/Union is present.

Shri Bhushan Patil, General Secretary of the second

party/Union is also present.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2853

Mr. Lancy D' Souza, learned counsel for the first party/

Management is present. Shri A. Ramaswami, Deputy

Manager in Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust and Shri Sanjay

Sawant, Assistant Manager (Marine) in Jawaharlal Nehru

Port Trust, are also present on behalf of the first party/

Management.

6. An Application has been filed today on behalf of the

second party/Union, inter-alia, praying that in view of the

averments made in the Application, the second party/Union

is now not pressing for adjudication of the present

Reference. The Applicaiton is signed by Mr. Jaiprakash

Sawant, learned counsel for the second party/Union as

well as by Mr. Bhushan Patil, General Secreary of the second

party/Union.

7. Mr. Lancy D'Souza, learned counsel for the first party/

Management has made the following endorsement on the

aforesaid application;

"Say of the first Party

The Management of J.N.P.T., the First Party above

named has no objection for allowing the above

Application made by the Union."

8. It is inter-alia, stated in aforeiasd Application that

the second party/Union representing the workmen has

arrived at the settlements on 25.11.2014 with the

Management of M/s. Blue Star Security and Facility

Seravices and M/s. Pragati Marine Seravices, the

Contractors of the Management of Jawaharlal Nehru Port

Trust (first party/Management) under Section 12(3) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central) II, Mumbai in the matter of

improvement in service conditions of the second party/

workmen.

9. Copy of the Settlement dated 25.11.2014 arrived at

by the second party/Union with the aforesaid M/s. Blue

Star Security and Facility Services is annexed as Exhibit -

A to the aforesaid Application. The Settlement is signed

by Shri Vikas Rajaram Bhoir, Representative/Propriator of

M/s. Blue Star Security and Facility Services as well as by

the aforesiad Shri Bhushan Patil, General Secretary of the

second party/Union. The Representatives of the first party/

Management namely, Shri A. Ramaswamy and Shri S.B.

Pagare have signed the Settlement as witnesses. A list of

66 workmen is annexed as Annexure-1 to the said Settlement.

10. Copy of the Settlement dated 25.11.2014 arrived at

by the second party/Union with the aforesaid M/s. Pragati

Marine Services Pvt. Ltd is annexed as Exhibit-B to the

aforesaid Application. The said Settlement is signed by

Mr. M.V.S. Choudhary, Representative of M/s. Pragati

Marine Services Pvt. Ltd as well as by Shri Bhushan Patil,

General Secretary of the second party/Union. The

Representatives of the first party/Management, namely,

Shri Pranesh Chandra Roy and Shri S.B. Pagare have also

signed the settlement as witnesses. A list of 35 workmen is

annexed as annexure-1 to the said Settlement.

11.As noted earlier, the Reference was in regard to total

number of 150 workmen whose names were contanied in

Annexures- A and B to the Reference order. It is, inter-alia,

stated in the aforesaid Application that out of the workmen

whose names are mentioned in Annexures A and B to the

Reference order, nearly 65 workmen named therein have

either retired from their sevices, expired or left the services

in the course of time. It is, inter-alia, further stated in the

aforesaid Application that the status of all the 150 workmen

covered in Annexures A and B to the Refernce order is

given in the statement as contained in Exhibit - C to the

aforesaid Application.

12. Mr. J. Sawant, learned counsel for the second party/

Union states that besides the 150 workmen covered in the

Reference Order, certain workmen also came on the scene

subsequently,and the aforememtioned settlements mention

the names of such Workmen also.

13. As noted earlier, it is, inter-alia prayed in the

Application that in view of the averments made in the

aforesaid Application, the second party / Union is now not

pressing for adjudication of the Industrial Dispute forming

the subject- matter of the Reference.

14.Mr. J. Sawant, learned counsel for the second party/

Union states that in view of the averments made in the

aforesaid Application, the second party/Union is now not

pressing the adjudication of the Industrial Dispute forming

the subject-matter of the Reference.

15. Mr. Lancy D'Souza, learned counsel for the first

party/Management states that the first party/

Management has no objection to the prayer made on

behalf of the second party/Union in the aforesaid

Application being granted.

16. From the above narration of the facts as contained

in the aforesaid Applicaiton and also keeping in view the

statements made by the learned counsel for the Parties, as

mentioned above, it is evident that the Industrial dispute

forming the subject-matter of the present reference no

longer survives.

17. Reference is, therefore, answered by stating that the

Industrial Dispute forming the subject-matter of the

reference no longer survives.

18. Award is passed accordingly.

Justice S.P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer

2854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1329-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk cSad ds izcaèra=

ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V

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

cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 63@2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@70@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2015

S.O. 1329.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 63/2002) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Canara Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 30/06/2015.

[No. L-12012/70/2002-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

BANGALORE

Dated : 13th March, 2015

Present : Shri S. N. Navalgund,

Presiding Officer

C R No. 63/2002

I Party

II Party

Sh. K. S. Subramanyam,

The Deputy General

No. 14, Sanjeevini, II Main

Manager, Canara Bank,

Road, Khadi Layout,

Disciplinary Action Cell,

Circle Office,

Kathrigupe Main Road,

No. 86, M. G. Road,

Bangalore-560 085.

Bangalore-560 001.

Appearances

I Party

Shri V. S. Naik,

Advocate

II Party

Shri T. R. K. Prasad,

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/70/

2002-IR(B-II) dated 15.11.2002 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and sub-

section2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947

has made this reference for adjudication with following

Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Canara Bank is justified

in terminating the services of Shri K. S. Subramanyam, Ex-

Clerk w.e.f 26.11.1993? If not, what relief the workman is

entitled to and from which date?

2. The II party in its counter statement in justifying its

action asserts that I party who was working a Clerk at its

Devanahalli Branch proceeded on one day's leave on

08.07.1993 on the ground of his Mother's Ceremony but

did not report to duty on the next working day and remained

absent without submitting any leave application

unauthorisedly as such a letter was addressed to him dated

05.08.1993 to report to duty within 3 days from the date of

receipt of that letter and also to show cause why appropriate

action should not be initiated against him and the I party

though received the said letter did not give any reply or

report to the duty and continued to remain absent without

submitting any leave application as such another letter

dated 06.09.1993 was addressed to him to report for duty

immediately and to show cause why disciplinary action

should not be initiated by 15.09.1993 and as he did not give

any reply or resume to duty another letter dated 27.10.1993

was addressed to him to report to duty immediately and to

submit his reply immediately as to why action should not

be taken for his unauthorised absence further stating that

in case he failed to respond it would be treated that he has

no intention to rejoin the duty and has voluntarily retired

from the service and as he did not respond to that letter

also and chosen to remain absent the proceedings dated

29.12.1993 were drawn treating as voluntarily abandoned

the service w.e.f. 26.11.1993. It is further asserted that even

after communication of the said proceedings he failed to

respond but chosen to file a writ petition bearing No. 17736/

1996 and subsequently in the year 2000 raised the dispute

before ALC(C), Bangalore with a lapse of about 7 years

and the Central Government on his submission of the failure

report having chosen to make this reference in the year

2002 it is not maintainable and he is not entitle for any

relief. INTER-ALIA, the I party in his claim statement asserts

that he being an Ex-serviceman joined the services of the II

party in the year 1979 as Clerk and proceeded on casual

leave on 08.07.1993 while working at its Devanahalli Branch

to attend his Mother's Ceremony and as he fell sick he sent

a leave application on 10.07.1993 accompanied by medical

certificate obtained from the District Surgeon, Victoria

Hospital for Infective Heaptitis being advised to take rest

for 48 days but to his surprise without referring to his leave

application a letter was received by him dated 05.08.1993 to

report for duty within 3 days and to that letter he gave a

reply dated 15.08.1993 expressing his inability to resume

duties due to his illness and that he would report on

01.09.1993 and even by 01.09.1993 since he did not recover

fully he addressed a letter dated 13.09.1993 enclosing copy

of the medical certificate obtained from District Surgeon,

Victoria Hospital seeking further leave for a period of

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2855

41 days and again without any reference to his leave

application dated 08.07.1993 and 13.09.1993 a letter was

received by him dated 06.09.1993 to report to duty and

subsequently another letter dated 27.10.1993 wherein it

was informed that they will presume voluntary cessation

from employment under Clause 17 of V Bipartite Settlement

and another letter dated 12.11.1993 directing to report for

duty and submit his explanation for being unauthorised

absent and then by his letter dated 15.11.1993 he requested

to extend his leave till 03.12.1993 communicating his illness

but in spite of it without any reference to his leave

applications a letter was sent to him dated 29.12.1993 stating

that he has voluntarily retired from the service of the Bank

w.e.f. 26.11.1993 and that his absence from 08.07.1993 to

26.11.1993 will be treated as without leave and pay. On

receipt of that letter dated 29.12.1993 he approached the

Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W P No. 17736/1996

and as same came to be disposed off on 11.02.1999 directing

him to raise a dispute under ID Act he approached the

ALC(C), Bangalore for conciliation and as he submitted

failure report on 04.04.2002 it resulted in this reference. He

further asserting that he being not gainfully employed the

II party be directed to reinstate him into service with

continuity of service and all other consequential benefits.

3. After completion of the pleadings when the II party

was called upon to lead evidence the learned advocate

appearing for the II party while filing the affidavit of Sh. N.

Nagendra working in the Staff Section at the Circle Office,

Bangalore reiterating the assertion made in the counter

statement by examining him on oath got marked letter dated

05.08.1993 from Staff Section (workmen), Bangalore to I

party; letter dated 12.08.1993 from Senior Manager to I

party advising I party to report for duty; letter dated

06.09.1993 informing I party to report for duty within

15.09.1993; letter dated 27.10.1993 from Senior Manager to

I party instructing him to report for duty or his absence

would be treated as voluntary cessation of employment

under cause 17 of V Bipartite Settelement and proceedings

of the General Manager dated 29.12.1993 as Ex M-1 to Ex

M-5. INTER-ALIA, the learned advocate appearing for the

I party while filing the affidavit of the I party reiterating the

assertion made in the claim statement got marked the Office

Copy of the leave letter purported to have addressed by

him to the General Manager, Bangalore Circle, Staff Section,

Bangalore dated 10.07.1993 through Senior Manager,

Devanahalli Branch; the OPD Slip pertaining to him of

Victoria Hospital, Bangalore dated 15.07.1993; the certificate

dated 15.07.1993 issued by Surgeon Admn. of Victoria

Hospital, Bangalore certifying that he require rest and

treatment for 48 days from 15.07.1993 to 31.08.1993; office

copy of the leave letter purported to have been addressed

to the Deputy General Manager dated 15.08.1993 seeking

extension of leave till 31.08.1993 through Senior Manager,

Devanahalli Branch; the certificate dated 01.09.1993 issued

by Surgeon Admn. of Victoria Hospital, Bangalore certifying

that he require rest and treatment for 41 days from 01.09.1993

to 31.10.1993; office copy of the letter addressed by him to

Staff Section dated 13.09.1993 requesting for extension of

leave up to 31.10.1993 through Senior Manager, Devanahalli

Branch and three certificates of posting dated 12.07.1993,

13.09.1993 and 18.08.1993 under which he claims to have

forwarded leave letter with medical certificates as Ex W-1

to Ex W-9 respectively.

4. With the above pleadings and evidence the arguments

of learned advocates appearing for both sides were heard.

5. On appreciation of the pleadings, oral and

documentary evidence brought on record by both the sides

in the light of the arguments put forward by both the sides,

I have arrived at conclusion the action of the management

treating that I party has voluntarily abandoned the service

w.e.f. 26.11.1993 is not justified and that he is entitle for

reinstatement with 50% of backwages from the date of

reference i.e. 15.11.2002 with continuity of service and

other consequential benefits for the following:

REASONS

6. There is no dispute that I party who was working as

Clerk at the Devanahalli Branch having proceeded on one

day's casual leave on 08.07.1993 to attend his Mother's

Ceremony and subsequently he did not resume duty and

according to the management he who remained absent

since did not send any leave application or medical

certificate and in spite of its letters dated 05.08.1993,

06.09.1993 and 27.10.1993 he did not respond ultimately on

29.12.1993 they drew a proceedings he having voluntarily

abandoned the job w.e.f. 26.11.1993. On the other hand it is

the case of the I party that he who proceeded on one day's

casual leave to attend his mother's ceremony since fell

sick on 10.07.1993 he forwarded a letter of request with

medical certificate for extension of a weeks leave and as he

could not recover from the illness he took treatment at

Victoria Hospital, Bangalore wherein he was advised to

take rest till 31.08.1993 and accordingly through his letter

dated 15.08.1993 he requested for extension of leave till

31.08.1993 and again since he was advised to take treatment

and rest till 31.10.1993 he sent another letter of request

dated 13.09.1993 for grant of leave up to 31.10.1993 and

ignoring all these letters and the medical certificates the

impugned proceedings dated 29.12.1993 came to be drawn

treating him having voluntarily abandoned the service. The

evidence of postal certificate do probabilize the assertion

made by the I Party having sent leave applications as claimed

by him from time to time and they are also supported by the

certificates issued by the Medical Officers of the Victoria

Hospital, Bangalore. Therefore, the case of the II Party that

after proceeding on leave on 08.07.1993 he did not send

any leave application and even did not respond to its letters

dated 05.08.1993, 06.09.1993 and 27.10.1993 is unacceptable.

When the I Party who proceeded on leave on 08.07.1993 to

attend his mother's ceremony when sent letters dated

2856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

10.07.1993, 15.08.1993 and 13.08.1993 seeking extension of

leave on medical ground the II Party ought to have made

some orders on those applications and communicate to

him. In the event the II Party were to Reject his request for

extension of leave as sought for by him on medical grounds

he remaining absent would have amounted to unauthorised

absence. Since the pleadings and evidence of the II Party

do suggest that they have not at all taken into consideration

the leave applications forwarded by the I Party, their

assertion that he voluntarily abandoned the service and

accordingly the proceedings dated 29.12.1993 were to be

drawn is unjust and illegal. In the result, I have arrived at

conclusion that the management of Canara Bank is not

justified in terminating the services of Sh. K.S.

Subramanyam, Ex-clerk w.e.f. 26.11.1993 under the guise of

haveing voluntarily abandoned the service and that he is

entitle for reinstatement. Since the I Party immediately after

the communication of the proceedings dated 29.12.1993

did not either prefer any appeal to the Appellate Authority

or approached the conciliation officer and only after three

years he approached the Hon'ble High Court of karnataka

in the year 1996 by filing WP No. 17736/1996 and on its

dismissal by order dated 11.02.1999 he approached the

Conciliation Officer in the year 2000, I feel it just and

appropriate to award him 50% of the Backwages from the

date of reference which is dated 15.11.2002 and continuity

of service and other consequential benefits. In the result, I

pass the following.

ORDER

The management of Canara Bank is not justified in

terminating the services of Sh. K.S. Subramanyam/I Party

w.e.f. 26.11.1993 under the guise of he voluntarily

abandoning the services by drawing proceedings dated

29.12.1993 and that he is entitle for reinstatement with 50%

of backwages from the date of reference i.e., 15.11.2002

with continuity of service and other consequential benefits.

In case he has attained the age of superannuation 50% of

backwages and continuity of service shall be till the date

of attaining superannuation.

S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2015

S.O. 1330.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nsuk cSad ds izcaèra=

ds lac) fu;kstdkas 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;

dksydrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 54@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@16@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2015

S.O. 1330.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/2014) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata as shown

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of Dana Bank and their workemen, received

by the Central Government on 30/06/2015.

[No. L-12011/16/2014-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 54 of 2014

parties: Employers in relation to the management of

Dena Bank

AND

Their workmen.

Present: Justice Dipak Saha Ray,

Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the

None.

Management

On behalf of the

None.

Workmen

State: West Bengal.

Industry:Banking

Dated. 19th June, 2015.

AWARD

By Order No. L-12011/16/2014-IR(B-II) dated 24.06.2014

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of

its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Dena

Bank is justified (1) in violation to the agreement

(tripartite) arrived at on conciliation by Honourable

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) on 19th

September 2003 and (2) demand for creation of

Special Assistant Post of 20% of the promotion of

JMG Scale-I is legal and/or justified? What relief the

workmen are entitled?

2. When the case was taken up for hearing on 16.06.2015

none appeared on behalf of either of the parties. It appears

from the record that the Union/Association who raised

the industrial dispute, first appeared in this case on

19.11.2014 and thereafter has not turned up for four

consecutive dates.

3. Considering the above facts and circumstances and

the conduct of the Union/Association it may reasonably

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2857

be presumed that the concerned Union/Association is not

willing to proceed with the case further. So, no fruitful

purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending.

4. The present reference is accordingly disposed of by

passing a "No Dispute Award."

Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

The 19th June, 2015

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1331-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u ejhVkbZe

;qfuoj'kVh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjks ds

chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] PksUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 116@2014½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&33012@06@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2015

S.O. 1331.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 116/2014) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of Indian Maritime University and their

workemen, received by the Central Government on

30/06/2015.

[No. L-33012/06/2014-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wendesday, the 29th April, 2015

Present: K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 116/2014

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

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

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between

the Management of Indian maritime University and their

workman]

BETWEEN

Sri M. Arumugam

1st party/Petitioner

AND

The Management

2nd Party/Respondent

Indian Maritime University

Uthandi

Chennai-600119

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

Absent

For the 1st Party/Respondent

Absent

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-33012/06/2014-IR (B.II)

dated 19.11.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of Indian

Maritime University regarding temination or

dismissal of the service of the petitioner,

Sri M. Arumugam is justifiable or not? What relief

the workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID No. 116/2014 and issued notices to both

sides.

3. The petitioner has received notice in the ID. However,

he has not cared to enter appearance. So the reference is

only to be closed.

Accordingly, the reference is answered against the

petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1332-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nsuk c®d 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

2858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

U;k;ky;] dksydrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 53@2014½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@18@2014&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2015

S.O. 1332.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/2014) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Dena Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 30.06.2015.

[No. L-12011/18/2014-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 53 of 2014

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Dena Bank

And

Their Workmen

Present : Justice Dipak Saha Ray,

Presiding Officer

Appearance :

On behalf of the Management

None

On behalf of the Workmen

None

State : West Bengal

Industry : Banking

Dated the 19th June, 2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-12011/18/2014-IR(B-II) dated 24.06.2014

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of

its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Dena

Bank is justified in not identifying the Krishnanagar

Branch for the post of Special Assistant and allowing

Special Assistant Allowance is legal and/or justified?

What relief the workmen are entitled?"

2. When the case was taken up for hearing on 16.06.2015

none appeared on behalf of either of the parties. It appears

from the record that the Union/Association who raised the

industrial dispute, first appeared in this case on 19.11.2014

and thereafter has not turned up for four consecutive dates.

3. Considering the above facts and circumstances and

the conduct of the Union/Association it may reasonably

be presumed that the concerned Union/Association is not

willing to proceed with the case further. So on, fruitful

purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending.

4. The present reference is accordingly disposed of by

passing a "No Dispute Award".

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated: The 19th June, 2015, Kolkata.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1333-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ eSlwj

feujYl fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] c®xyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 42@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

15-06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&29024@1@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2015

S.O. 1333.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/2012) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 15.06.2015.

[No. L-29024/1/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

Dated : 10th February, 2015

Present : Shri S. N. Navalgund,

Presiding Officer

C R. No. 42/2012

I Party

II Party

Sh. Pampavathi & others, 1. The Managing Director,

S/o Virupakashappa,

GSP Infratech Dev. Ltd. ,

Ubbalgundi (V), Rajapur

101, Siva Sai Sannidhi, Plot

(PO), Sandur (Tq), Bellary

No. 32, Opp. Shirdi Saibaba

Distt.

Temple,

HIndinagar,

Panjagutta, Hyderabad

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2859

2. The General Manager,

Mysore Minerals Limited,

Near KSRTC Bus Stand,

Sandur Taluk - 583 119,

Bellary District.

Appearances :

I Party

None

II Party No. 1

Shri G. Baburao

Advocate

II Party No. 2

None

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No. L-29024/1/

2012-IR(M) dated 21.09.2012 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section

2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has made

this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Are the workmen (Pampavathi and others) of GSP

Infratech Limited, deprived of the actual privileges

and benefits from their contractors? What relief the

workmen are entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in C R

42/2012 when notices were issued to both the parties, II

Party No. 1 entered its appearance through Sh. G. Baburao,

advocate, whereas, I Part and II Party No. 1 inspite of due

service of notice through RLAD did not appear and file

their claim and counter statement. Since the I Party failed

to put in his appearance and file the claim statement when

the II Party was called upon to file statement substantiating

the action taken against the I Party workmen they filed

their statement contending that they had obtained an

agreement for mining at Ubbalagundi Village, Bellary from

M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited/II Party No. 1 for mining of

Iron Ore and obtained licence from RLC(C), Bellary and

since the mining operation were stopped permanently from

16.09.2011 the mine was kept under C Category and the

Licence got cancelled as per the direction of Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India and as per the statutory norms 45

days of salary i.e. 50% Basic + DA was paid to the workers

as compensation and same was intimated to RLC(C), Bellary

and out of 65 workers 56 workers were laid off and remaining

workers were deployed in different projects of Karnataka

State. The I Party workmen approached the RLC(C), Bellary

stating that they have received only 25% instead of 50% of

salary as layoff compensation which ended up in failure of

conciliation and gave rise to this dispute.

3. The II Party No. 1 in order to substantiate its contention

filed the affidavit of Sh. R. Narayana, Vice President

(Marketing) as MW 1 (M) reiterating the contentions of

the counter statement and got exhibited letter of

authorization issued by the Director of II Party No. 1;

Notarized copied of agreement between MML and II Party

NO. 1 dated 22.01.2004; license issued by RLC(C), Bellary

dated 31.03.2011; Notice of temporary suspension of mining

operations issued by MML dated 21.06.2011; letter of II

Party No. 1 intimating RLC(C), Bellary regarding closure of

mines dated 16.09.2011; Two salary sheets for the month

August and September 2011 of the I Party; letter of II Party

No. 1 intimating RLC(C), Bellary regarding layoff of worken

under Rule 75A of ID Act, 1947 dated 24.07.2011; letter of

II Party No. 1 intimating RLC(C), Bellary regarding action

taken report on payment of laid off compensation date

29.10.2011; letter of clarification from II Party No. 1 of

RLC(C), Bellary dated 06.03.2012; FOC report dated

02.04.2012 submitted by RLC(C), Bellary as Ex M1(M) to Ex

M-11(M) respectively and closed his side. Since the I Party

and II Party No.2 did not appear and cross-examine the

witness when the matter came to be posted for arguments

counsel for II Party No. 1 filed his written arguments.

4. Since the I Party failed to enter appearance, file claim

statement and to controvert counter statement and

evidence of the II Party No. 1, there is no material they

being deprived of the actual privileges and the benefits

from the contractors and they being entitle for any relief. In

the result, the reference fails and I pass the following.

ORDER

The reference is rejected holding that the I Party

workmen failed to establish being deprived of the actual

privileges and benefits from their contractors.

S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYYkh] 30 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1334-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ bafM;u

vkW;y dkWjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 22@2003½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

15@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la-,y&30012@28@2003&vkbZvkj¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2015

S.O. 1334.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 22/2003) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kolkata now

2860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Indian

Oil Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 15/06/2015.

[No. L-30012/28/2003-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 22 of 2003

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldia Refinery

A N D

Their workmen.

Present : Justice Dipak Saha Ray,

Presiding Officer

Apperance :

On behalf of the

: Mr. N.K. Mehta, Ld.

Management

Counsel.

On behalf of the

: Mr. G. Mastafa, Ld.

Workman

Counsel.

State: West Bengal.

Industry : Petrolum.

Dated: 3rd June, 2015

A W A R D

By Order No. L-30012/28/2003-IR (M) dated 14.08.2003

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of

its powers under Section 10 (1) (d) and (2A) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

''Whether the action of the management of Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd. (Haldia Refinery) in not regularizing

the services of Mrs. Aloka Seth is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman concerned is entitled?''

The relevant facts of the concerned workman, in

short, are that in 1978 she was engaged by the Indian Oil

Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as management)

for janitorial service at Durgachak Colony in place of her

husband Dulal Chandra Seth and accordingly since 1978

she has been working as a Sweeper in the buildings of

Durgachak Housing Estate of the management and is

getting montly wages. It is also the case of the workman

that in spite of her repeated prayers for absorbing her as

permanent employes, her service has not been regularized

but her service is extended from time to time without

regularizing her service. Accordingly the workman raised

industrial dispute challenging the action of the management.

Hence this reference.

The management has opposed the claim of the

workman by filing written statement contending inter alia

that there is no employer and employee relationship

between the management and Smt. Aloka Seth and that

she was an independent contractor who was awarded

conctract on janitorial service from February to April, 1978

on agreed consideration and that she was never engaged

by the management either as a casual or a contract labour.

The management has further contended that Smt. Aloka

Seth was a mere contractor and as such the question of

regularization of her alleged service does not arise at all.

Accodingly, it is prayed that the instant reference may be

answered in the affirmative.

4. The concerned workman has examined two witnesses

including herself and has also proved two documents viz.

Exhibits W-01 and W-02 in support of her case.

5. The management in support of its case also examined

one witness and proved one document viz. Ext. M-01.

6. It is the case of Smt. Aloka Seth who is claiming herself

as the workman that she was engaged by the management

to work as Sweeper at Durgachak Colony in place of her

husband. Her two witnesses, namely, Baikuntha Mondal

and Raghunath Betal in their oral testimony have

corroborated the above contention of Smt. Seth. The said

witnesses have also stated in their oral evidence that

Smt. Seth is an employee of the Indian Oil Corporation

Ltd., Haldia Refinery and is getting salary month by month.

The cross-examination of both the witnesses goes to show

that they have no knowledge about the statements made

in their respective affidavits-in-chief and that they have

signed the affidavits as they were aso instructed. One of

the witness, namely, Baikuntha Mondal in this cross-

examination even has stated that ''It is fact that Smt. Aloka

Seth was not an employee of Indian Oil Corporation but

she used to work there on contract basis though the work

to be done by her was prescribed by the Indian Oil

Corporation.'' It if also interesting to note that no document

is forthcoming from the side of Smt. Seth that she is/was

getting wages form the I.O.C. month by month. Smt. Seth

has also failed to produce any document to establish that

after the death of her husband management appointed and/

or engaged her the said janitorial service in place of her

husband.

On the contrary, the witnesses of the management,

namely Pratap Singh in his oral evidence has specifically

stated the Smt. Aloka Seth was awarded a contract against

her Bid/letter dated 14.02.1978 for janitorial service at

Duragachak Colony for the period from 09.02.1978 to

31.03.1978. Thereafter the said contract was extended for

one month only. It is the specific case of the management

that Smt. Aloka Seth was an independent contractor and

she was never engaged and/or appointed to work as

Sweeper and as such there was no employer-employee

relation between the management and Smt. Seth.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2861

Here, in this case, Smt. Seth has proved two

documents in support of her case viz. Exhibits W-01 and

W-02. From the said two documents it appears that

Smt. Seth was awarded the contract for janitorial service

from 09.02.1978 to 31.03.1978. As per the said contract she

was permitted to engage at least three persons and for that

reason management was agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 600/=

per month. Exhibit W-02 goes to show that the said contract

was subsequently extended for a further period of one

month w.e.f. 01.04.1978.

The said two documents of Smt. Seth do not go

to show that Smt. Seth was appointed by the management

to do the work of a Sweeper and that she was/is getting

salary/waged from the management.

10.

Smt. Seth in this case has also failed to produce

any scrap of paper to establish that even after the expiry of

the extended period of contract of one month she was

allowed to work as Sweeper of the Corporation and was

getting salary/wages for such work. No document is also

forthcoming from the side of Smt. Seth to establish that the

post of the said Sweeper (in which post she is claiming to

have been working) is a sanctioned post.

11.

In this case as Smt. Seth is claiming that she is/

was the employee of the management and is/was getting

salary/wages from the management month by month, initial

burden is upon Smt. Seth to establish the said contention.

But, she has miserably failed to establish that she was

even engaged and/or appointed by the management to

work as Sweeper and that for such work she used to get

remuneration.

12.

So, it appears, that Smt. Seth has failed to establish

that there was any employer and employee relationship

between the management and herself.

13.

Accordingly, the instant reference is answered in

the affirmative and Smt. Seth is not entitled to any relief

whatsoever.

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

The 3rd June, 2015

ubZ fnYYkh] 30 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1335-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ xqjnhi

LVksu oDlZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

44@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15@06@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la-,y&29011@21@2004&vkbZvkj¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2015

S.O. 1335.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 44/2004) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court 1, Dhanbad

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

M/s Gurdeep Stone Works and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 15/06/2015.

[No. L-29011/21/2004-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

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. 44/2004

Employers in relation to the management of M/s Gurdeep

Stone Works, Pakur

And

their workman

Present: - Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,

Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers.

None

For the workman.

Sri S.N. Ghosh, Advocate.

State: - Jharkhand

Industry : Stone

Dated. 30/3/2015

AWARD

By Order No. : L -29011/21/2004-IR (M), dated

28/05/2004, 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 M/s Gurdeep

Stone Works, Pakur in not allowing Sri Barjan Seikh, Sabdul

Seikh, Moharam Shiekh, Bhutan Rajbansi and Mansard

Seikh (all Miners) to work in the establishment on the plea

that they are over aged refusing to accept the documentary

evidence submitted by the union in support of their age is

legal and or justified? If not, to what relief the above said

workman are entitled to?''

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 16.06.2004. After receipt of the reference, both parties

are noticed. The workman files their written statement on

2862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

26.05.2005. Thereafter the management files their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 07.02.2006. Document filed by

the workmen and marked as W-1 to W-3 series.

3. The Short point to be decided in the case is as to

whether after the Company taken over by the new

management, the concerned workmen, Form B register was

manufactured and their age as prevalent in old B Form

Prematurely.

4. In this case no evidence was adduced by the

management and none appears to put forth their claim.

Therefore there is no reason to disbelieve the version of

the workmen.

5. Therefore the workmen age be determined as per their

age in the Form B register available and they be accordingly

taken in job and those who have been already retired in the

meantime as per the age of Form B register, they be given

the full back wages and retirement benefits.

This is my award.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1336-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ ,jksMªkse@egsUnz

,lksfl,sVl@;wfuolZy VªsfMax dañ 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 91@03½ izdkf'kr dks djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

15@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y& 11011@11@2000&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2015

S.O. 1336.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 91/03) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of M/s Civil

Aerodrom/Mahendra Associates/Universal Trading Co.

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 15/06/2015.

[No. L-11011/11/2000-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR-COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/91/03

Shri Bhavani Pushpad,

S/o Shri Ramprasas Pushpad,

Near Nazarbagh Rajagar,

Chattarpur,

Distt. Chhattarpur

...Workman

Versus

Sr. Aerodrome Officer,

Civil Aerodrom,

Khajuraho,

Distt. Chhattarpur (MP)

M/s. Mahendra Associates, contractor,

Terminal Building 21,

Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow

M/s. Universal Trading Co.

Distt. Hardoi,

Hardoh (UP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 14th day of May ,2015

1. As per letter dated 4.4.03 by the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of

I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-11011/11/2000-IR(M).

The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Civil

Aerodrome, Senior Aerodrome Officer, Khajuraho,

Distt. Chhattarpur (MP) in terminating the service of

Shri Bhavanidin Pushpad is justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 2/1 to 2/3. Case of workman is that he passed 11th

standard in 1985. From 13.1.91, he was engaged as Khalasi/

helper on establishment of IInd party. That Ist party

workman was continuously working from 13.1.91 to 31.7.97

at Civil Aerodrome, Khajuraho. The documents about his

working are in custody of IInd party. Workman have

complained about payment of less wages to its employees.

The complaint was submitted to Labour Commissioner on

9.9.96. IInd party management annoyed by said complaint

discontinued the workman from 1.8.97, His services were

orally discontinued. One Nandkishore Sen and Ramesh

Chand Raikwar junior to him were continued as Khalasi.

They were continued as Wireman and AC Mechanic.

Workman further submits that about 25,000 employees are

working in all over establishment of IInd party. 150

employees are working at Civil Aerodrome, Khajuraho.

Services of workman are illegally terminated. The Govt.

has made referene only after directions issued by

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2863

Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petititon No. 276/02. On such

contentions, Ist party workman is praying for his

reinstatement with backwages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Pages 12/1 to

12/4 opposing claim of the workman. IInd party raised

preliminary objection that Ist party workman was not

appointed or engaged by IInd party. IInd party is an

instrumentality of state for smooth functioning of airports

all over country. IInd party Nos. 2 & 4 are working under

IInd party No. 3 for running 70 KW at ADG set, annual

maintenance contract was given to M/s Mahindra

Associates and thereafter M/s Universal Trading Company.

Workman was working under above contractors as Khalasi.

Workman was never engaged by Ist party. He is not an

emplyees of IInd party. After completion of contract on

Universal Trading Company on 31.7.97, further maintenance

contract was awarded to new contractor. New contractor

do not engage workman. That workman engaged by

contractor cannot claim protection of Section 25-F of ID

Act against IInd party. Workman had vide proceedings

under Section 20(2) of Minimum Wages Act, the contractors

were included as party. The order was passed in favour of

workman is challenged by IInd party filing Writ Petition

1864/4. It is reiterated by IInd party that workman was

engaged by above named contractors. New contractor did

not engage workman. Workman was not appointed or

terminated by IInd party therefore workman is not entitled

to any relief against IInd party.

4. It appears that IInd party had filed application for

impleading contractors as party to the dispute under

referene. However the contractors were not employed as

party. Ist party filed rejoinder at Pages 14/1 to 14/4. Ist

party workman has contented that he was working under

contractors who were carrying the work of job of the

municipal i.e. IInd party. That as per provisions available

with the contractor, a new contractor was bound to engage

the earlier workers. The discontinuation of workman after

engagement of new contractor amounts to unfair labour

practice. Workman is retrenched in violation of provisions

of ID Act. His discontinuation of service is illegal.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

‘‘(i) Whether the action of the

Management of IInd

management of Civil

party has not engaged

Aerodrome, Senior

or terminated workman.

Aerodrome Officer,

Khajuraho, Distt.

Chhattarpur (MP) in

terminating the services of

Shri Bhavanidin Pushpad is

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not entitled

workman is entitled to?"

to any relief.’’

6. Workman is challenging termination of his service in

violation of Section 25-F of ID Act contending that he was

continuously working as Khalasi during 13.1.91 to 31.7.97.

His service were orally terminated without notice, he was

not paid compensation. Management has contented that

workman was engaged by contractors M/s. Mahendra

Associates and M/s. Universal Trading Company were

not employed as party.

7. Workman filed evidence. Workman in his affidavit of

evidence says he was appointed as Generator Operator

through nominated contractor on regular pay and

allowances. He rendered services from 13.1.91 to 30.1.94,

1.2.94 to 31.7.97 as Khalasi. That he filed proceedings under

MW Act. That as per contract agreement, whenever

contractor is changed, it was obligation for new contractor

to continue with old staff and their services cannot be

terminated without permission of Principal Employer. That

his services were illegally terminated from 1.8.97. Notice

was not issued to him. Provisions of Section 25-F of ID

Act were violated. Workman in his cross says he was not

given appointment letter, his wages were paid by D.P.Notia

Jr. Engineer. Payment was made in cash without obtaining

any receipt from him. Workman says he is not having any

pays slips. Termination order was not issued to him. He

denies that he was working with Mahendra Associates

from 13.1.91 to 30.1.94. Rather he re-affirmed that he was

working with authorities of IInd party. After termination of

his service in 1997, he was working as Electrician. Workman

in his further cross examination says that he has produces

documents like experience certificate, Identity Card,

verification of employment office. He filed proceeding

before authority under Minimum Wages Act, the order was

passed in his favour. Copy of order passed by authority

under MW Act is produced at Exhibit M-3. It clearly shows

that contractors M/S Mahendra Associates and M/s.

Universal Trading company were impleaded as opponent

No. 3,4. The order finds observation that when contractors

have left the work, payment should be made by the Principal

Employer. The evidence of workman that he was working

under authority of IInd party is falsified from document M-

3 referred above.

8. Management's witness Tapan Kumar Swain

supported contentions of IInd party that workman was

engaged by contractors. That contractors were engaged

through NNIT process. Evidence of management's witness

2864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

remained unchallenged. Agreement Exhibit M-2 does not

show any clause that employees engaged by earlier

contractor were to be continued on work by the new

contractor. The evidence of management's witness further

supported by order passed by Authority under MW Act.

Exhibit M-3 that the Ist party workman was engaged by

contractors. Despite application was submitted by IInd

party for impleading contractors as parties, Ist party did

not take any steps. Evidence on record shows that the

workmen was not appointed or engaged by IInd party. His

services were not terminated by IInd party. The proper

parties are not impleaded by workman despite application

was submitted by management of IInd party. Considering

the evidence , I record my finding in Point No.1 that the

Ist party workman was not engaged or terminated by IInd

party.

9. Point No. 2— as Ist party is not engaged or terminated

by IInd party, the pleading and evidence of workman is

silent about the agreement/ contract between IInd party

and the contractors who engaged Ist party was sham and

bogus. Workman is not entitled to any relief against IInd

party. Accordingly, I record my finding in point No.2.

10. In the result, award is passed as under"—

(1)

The workman was neither engaged nor terminated

by the IInd party management.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1337-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ lslk xksok

fyfeVsM 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;] 1] eqacbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

24@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS ]tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15@06@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y& 29011@63@2013&vkbZvkj¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2015

S.O. 1337.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 24/2014) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court 1, Mumbai

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

M/s. Sesa Goa Limited and their workmna, which was

received by the Central Government on 15/06/2015.

[No. L-29011/63/2013-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,

MUMBAI

PRESENT :

JUSTICE S.P. MEHROTRA,

Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT-1/24 of 2014

Parties : Employers in the relation to the management of

Sesa Goa Ltd.

And

Their workmen

Appearances:

For the First party/Management

Mr. Girish K.

Sardesai, Adv.

For the Second party/Union

Mr. P. Gaonkar,

General Secretary

State :

Maharashtra

Mumbai, the 1st day of June, 2015

AWARD

1. The present Reference has been made by the Central

Government by its order dated 9.7.2014 passed in exercise

of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (2A)

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The terms

of reference as per the Schedule to the said order are as

under:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s Sesa

Goa Limited, in deducting the earned wages of the

workers working at Codi Mine from the Month of

April, 2013 onwards and who are not given the

revision of 2008 Settlement, is legal and justified?

What relief the workmen are entitled to?"

2. By the Order dated 30.7.2014, notice were directed to

be issued to the parties fixing 9.9.2014

3. On 9.9.2014, Shri P. Gaonkar, General Secretary of the

second party/Union put in appearance on behalf of the

second party/Union. Shri Girish K. Sardesai, Advocate put

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2865

in appearance on behalf of the first party/Management.

Statement of Claim was also filed on behalf of the second

party/Union on the same date, i.e., 9.9.2014. Subsequently,

an Application was filed on the behalf of the second party/

Union on 24.11.2014 sseking amendment in the statement

of Claim.

4. By the Order dated 6.1.2015, the aforesaid

Amendment Application dated 24.11.2014 was allowed.

Time was granted to the learned counsel for the first party/

Management for filing Written Statement in reply to the

statement of Claim as amended, as mentioned in the Order

dated 6.1.2015.

5. Thereafter, Various dates were fixed in the matter for

filing Written Statement on behalf the first party/

Management. The case was lastly put up on 28.5.2015.

By the Order dated 28.5.2015, the case was directed to

be put up on 1.6.2015 i.e. today. The case has accordingly

been put up today.

7. Shri P. Goankar, General Secretary of the second party/

Union and Shri Girish K. Sardesai, learned counsel for the

first party/Management are present.

8. A Joint Application has been filed today on behalf of

the second party/Union and the first party/Management.

The Joint Application has been signed by Shri Girish K.

Sardesai, learned counsel for the first party/Management

and by Shri P. Gaonkar, Genereal Secretary of the second

party/Union.

9. It is, inter-alia, prayed in the Joint Application that

Award be passed in the present Reference in terms of the

Settlement/Memorandum of Understanding, copy whereof

in annexed with the Joint Application. Alongwith the Joint

Application, Memorandum of Understanding with

annexures thereof has been filed. The Memorandum of

Understanding has been signed by Shri P.Gaonkar, General

Secretary of the second party/Union. The Memorandum

of Understanding has also been signed by Shri Sovik

Muzumdar, Deputy C.E.O of the first party/Management.

The Memorandum of Understanding has also been signed

by Shri Girish K. Sardesai, learned councel for the first

party/Management.

10. Shri Girish K. Sardesai, learned counsel for the first

party/Management and Shri P. Gaonkar, General Secretary

of the second party/Union state that the Award be passed

in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding filed

alongwith the aforesaid Joint Application.

11. In view of the averments made in the aforesaid Joint

Application and in view of the Statement made above on

behalf of both the parties, the Industrial Dispute forming

the subject-matter of the present Reference is decided in

terms of the Memorandum of Undertaking enclosed with

the aforesaid Joint Application.

12. The Reference is, therefore, answered by starting

that the Industrial Dispute forming the subject-matter of

the Reference is decided in terms of the Memorandum of

Understanding filed alongwith the aforesaid Joint

Application.

13. Award is passed accordingly. The aforesaid

Memorandum of Understanding with annexures thereto

filed alongwith the aforesaid Joint application, will form

part of the Award.

Justice S. P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTIRAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT No. 1 AT MUMBAI

Ref No. CGIT-1/24 of 2014

Sesa Goa Ltd.

......Employer/Party1

v/s

Their Workmen

...... Workmen/Party 2

May It Please your honour:

1. In the above matter, the parties above named have

arrived at a Settlement /Memorandum of Understanding,

copy of which is annexed hereto.

2. The parties above named humbly pray that a consent

award may be passed in terms of the said Understanding/

Settlement.

Dated this 1st day of June,2015

Employer/Party1

Workmean/Party 2

Advocate For Party1

Representative for Party 2

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTARL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

No.1 AT MUMBAI

Ref. No. CGIT-1/24 of 2014

Sesa Goa Ltd.,

.....Employer/Party I

V/s

Their Workman

.....Workman/Party II

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

1. The party no. I management arrived at a settlement

dated 20.11.2008 in respect of charter of demands dated

2866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

08.03.2008 submitted by Sesa Goa Workers' Union. The

party No. II Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh had also submitted

a charter of demands dated 10.02.2008.The said charter is

covered by the settlement dated 20.11.2008. When the

majority Sesa Goa Workers' Union arrived at a settlement

the management displayed a circular dated 24.11.2008

offering extension of the benefits of the settlement to even

those employees of the company who were members of

the minority. Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh provided they

seign the proforma undertaking.

2. The party No. II union pursued their charter of

demands and the issue of refusal of the Management to

negotiate with the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh on the charter

of demands dated 10.02.2008 was referred to the Industrial

Tribunal for adjudication as reference CGIT-2/03/2009. In

the said reference the Party No. II Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh

made an application for extension of the benefits of the

settlement dated 20.11.2008 by way of interim relief. The

said application was rejected.

3. Thereafter the Union filed aWrit Petition registered as

WP No. 455 of 2010 before the High Court Judicature of

Bombay at Goa challenging the said order. The Petition is

presently pending.

4. Subsequent thereto the main reference CGIT-2/03/

2009 itself was rejected. The award of the Industrial Tribunal

dated 03.01.2012 rejecting the reference has been challenged

before the High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Goa by

filing Writ Petition No.467/2012 and is pending before the

High Court.

5. The Party No. II Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh had also

raised a dispute with respect to the deduction of wages for

not reporting on paid holidays though it is the subject

matter of the earlier settlement dated 08.11.2001and also

the present settlement dated 20.11.2008. The reference was

rejected and the Industrial Tribunal rejected the dispute by

its award dated 31.03.2010 and the union preferred a Writ

Petition no. 496/2010 challenging the said award of the

Industrial Tribunal rejecting the reference. The Petition is

presently pending.

6. In the meanwhile the workmen owing allegiance to

the party No. II Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh gave signed

undertaking and declaration in form annexed to the

settlement dated 20.11.2008 — that the workmen who are

signatory to the undertaking accepts the terms and

conditions of the settlement and agrees to be bound by

the obligation thereof.

7. As there was dispute in the matter of the

implementation of the settlement the 20.11.2008 raised a

dispute which was referred to the this tribunal for

adjudication.

8. The parties thereafter had bilateral discussion on the

subject matter of reference with a view to arrive at an

amicable settlement the terms of which areas under:

the party No. II union agrees not to pursue and

the challenge to the Findings of the Industrial

Tribunal in the matter of not granting paid

holidays to workmen, non-payment of wages

availed by the workmen, re-imbursement of illegal

dedications in writ petition No. 496/2010 presently

pending in the High Court Judicature of Bombay

at Goa and file an affidavit in the High Court to

the affect (the copy of which is annexed).

the Party No. II union agrees to withdraw write

petition WP No. 455 of 2010 and No. 467/2012

presently pending in the High Court of Judicature

of Bombay at Goa and file and affidavit in the

High Court to that affect ( the copy of which is

annexed)

the Party No. I company agrees to accept the

undertaking annexed to the settlement given by

the workmen owing allegiance to the Party No. II

union and as referred to in earlier para 6 and pay

the workmen the dues under the sttlement.

In view of the above the party no. II union agree

not to pursue the present reference and treat it as

settled.

The Parties agree to file the present understanding

before the industrial tribunal with a prayer for an

award in terms of the understanding.

Emplyear Party I

Party No. II Union

Adv for Party No. I

Rep. for Party No. II - Union

Date : 1.06.15

Place : Mumbai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

BOMBAY BENCH AT GOA

Writ Petition no 496 of 2010

The Workmen of Sesa Goa Ltd.

Rep. by:

United Mines Workers' Union

Ponda-Goa.

......Petitioner

V/s

M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. & another

.....Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, Shri Puti Gaonkar, major of age, General Secretary

United Mine Workers Union, do hereby state on solemn

affirmation as under:

I say that the subject matter of the present Petition

is challenge to the award of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal dated 31.03.2010

rejecting the reference CGIT-2/15/2008.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2867

I say that the terms of the reference in CGIT-2/15/

2008 are as under:

"Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Sesa Goa Ltd. in transferring Shri Suraj Naik, Pandari

Naik and 4 others from their Codli Mine is legal and

justified? Whether the management of Sesa Goa Ltd.

as committed any unfair labour practice as defined in

entry 7 of the Schedule 5 of the ID Act, 1947? And

whether not granting paid holidays to workmen, non-

payment of wages for paid holidays availed by the

workmen, reimbursement of illegal deductions and

not recognizing United Mine Workers Union as a

majority union by M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd. for their Codli

Mine is legal and justified? If not, what relief the

Union/workmen are entitled to?"

I say that the finding of the Industrial Tribunal

on all the issues referred in the terms of the

reference are against the Petitioner and the

Petitioner has challenged the award on all the

findings.

Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit A is the

copy of the terms of the reference dated 06.02.2008.

I say that the parties to the present petition are

before the Industrial Tribunal in reference CGIT-

1/24/2014 on alleged non implementation of

settlement dated 20.11.2008.

Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit B is the

copy of the terms of the reference in CGIT-1/24/

2014 dated 09.07.2014.

I say that the parties the Industrial Tribunal have

filed consent terms for an amicable settlement of

the reference CGIT-1/24/2014 dated 09.07.2014.

Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit C is the

copy of the consent terms.

I say that as a concomitant part of the

understanding, it has been agreed by the

petitioner not to pursue and press the Findings

of the Industrial Tribunal, rejecting the reference

on the below mentioned issues:

"Whether not granting paid holidays to workmen,

non-payment of wages availed by the workmen,

re-imbursement of illegal dedications is legal and

justified? If not to, what relief are the union

members are entitled to?"

I therefore pray that an order may please be passed

that the petitioner does not pursue press or

challenge the findings of the Tribunal in the award

in the matter on above mentioned issues.

I reiterate and confirm that all the contents of

present affidavit are as per my say. I say that the

contents of paragraphs 1 to 7 are based on my

personal knowledge which I believe to be true.

Solemnly affirmed at Panaji-Goa on this 30th day of May

2015.

Identified by me

Deponent.

—Sd.—

Illegible

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT GOA

Writ Petition no. 455 of 2010

The Workmen of Sesa Goa Ltd.

Rep. by:

United Mines Workers' Union

Ponda-Goa.

......Petitioner

V/s

M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd. & another

.....Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, Shri Puti Gaonkar, major of age, General Secretary

United Mine Workers Union, do hereby state on solemn

affirmation as under:

I say that the parties to the present petition are

before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

in reference CGIT-1/24 of 2014 on alleged non

implementation of settlement dated 20.11.2008.

Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit A is the

copy of the terms of the reference dated 09.07.2014.

I say that the parties before the Industrial Tribunal

have filed consent terms for an amicable settlement

of the reference CGIT-1/24 of 2014.

Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit B is the

copy of the consent terms.

I say that as a concomitant part of the

understanding, it has been agreed by the

petitioner not to pursue and withdraw the present

petition.

I say that in view of the above the petitioner

does not wish to pursue the present petition and

an order may please be passed disposing the same

as withdrawn.

I reiterate and confirm that all the contents of

present affidavit are as per my say. I say that the

contents of paragraphs 1 of 4 are based on my

personal knowledge which I believe to be true.

Solemnly affirmed at Panaji-Goa on this 30th day

of May '2015.

Identified by me

Deponent.

—Sd.—

Illegible

2868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

BOMBAY BENCH AT GOA

Writ Petition no. 467 of 2012

General Secretary,

United Mines Workers' Union

Having its office at;

G-5, Macedo Appt, Tisk

Ponda-Goa.

......Petitioner

V/s

Sesa Goa Ltd.

Sesa Ghor

20, EDC complex, Patto, Panaji,

Goa-403001

.....Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

I, Shri Puti Gaonkar, major of age, General Secretary

United Mine Workers Union, do hereby state on solemn

affirmation as under:

I say that the parties to the present petition are

before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

in reference CGIT-1/24 of 2014 on alleged non

implementation of settlement dated 20.11.2008.

Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit A is the

copy of the terms of the reference dated 09.07.2014.

I say that the parties before the Industrial Tribunal

have filed consent terms for an amicable settlement

of the reference CGIT-1/24 of 2014.

Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit B is the

copy of the consent terms.

I say that as a concomitant part of the

understanding, it has been agreed by the

petitioner not to pursue and withdraw the present

petition.

I say that in view of the above the petitioner does

not wish to pursue the present petition and an

order may please be passed disposing the same

as withdrawn.

I reiterate and confirm that all the contents of

present affidavit are as per my say. I say that the

contents of paragraphs 1 of 4 are based on my

personal knowledge which I believe to be true.

Solemnly affirmed at Panaji-Goa on this 30th day of May

'2015.

Identified by me

Deponent.

—Sd.—

Illegible

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1338-—vkS|ksfxd fookn] vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ Hkkjr

isVªksfy;e dkWjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM 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] paMhx<+ ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 918@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 15@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30012@1@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2015

S.O. 1338.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 918/2005) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-2,

Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to management

of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 15/06/2015.

[No. L-30012/01/2004-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Shri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No. 918/2005

Registered on 13.09.2005

Sh. Inderjit Singh Bedi son of Sh. Darshan Singh Bedi,

r/o V.P.O. Sohian Kalan, Distt. Sangrur.

......Petitioner

Versus

Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat

Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bharat Bhavan, 4&6,

Currimbhoy Road, Baliard Estate, Mumbai.

Deputy General Manager, (HRS), Bharat Petroleum

Corporation. Ltd., 5th Floor, Sector-1, Plot No.

A5&6, Noida (UP).

Territory Manager (Retail), (TM), Bharat Petroleum

Corporation Ltd., Jind Road, Sangrur.

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. O.P. Batra, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. S. Kaushal, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 17.4.2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-30012/1/

2004- IR(M) Dated 31.3.2004, by exercising its powers under

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

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2869

(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 Bharat

Petroleum Corporation Limited, Sangrur in

terminating the services of Sh. Inderjeet Singh S/o

Sh. Darshan Singh w.e.f. 22.4.2003 without any notice

and without any payment of retrenchment is illegal

and unjustified? If so, to what relief the workman

concerned is entitled and from which date?"

In response to the notice, the workman appeared and

submitted statement of claim pleading that he was

appointed as a Clerk with the respondent management at

Sangrur on 26.6.1999, where he worked continuously and

his services were terminated on 22.4.2003 without serving

him any notice or paying him any retrenchment

compensation. That the persons junior to him were retained

in service. That his termination is illegal.

Respondent management filed written statement

controverting the averments and pleaded that workman

was never employed by it. That there is a procedure for

appointing a person in the respondent management i.e.

inviting the applications, conducting written test, interview

and medical test. That there was no post of a clerk with the

respondent Corporation and the workman was never paid

any wages by it. Parties were given opportunities to lead

their evidence.

Workman appeared in the witness box and filed his

affidavit reiterating the stand taken by him in the statement

of claim. He relied upon various photocopies of the

documents placed on the record.

On the other hand the management has examined

Sh. Radhey Shyam, who filed his affidavit reiterating the

stand of the management taken in the written statement.

He has placed on record photocopy of the attendance

registers and payment sheets.

I have heard Sh. O.P. Batra, counsel for the workman

and Sh. S. Kaushal, counsel for the management and

perused the record.

The learned counsel carried me through the photocopies

of the various documents to submit that the workman

actually worked for the corporation and his services were

arbitrarily terminated without payment of any compensation

and he be reinstated in service.

I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.

It may be added that workman claim that he was appointed

as a Clerk w.e.f. 26.6.1999. The respondent management is a

public sector undertaking and has certain rules and

regulations for making the appointments. Nothing has come

on the file that any procedure was followed when the

workman was appointed as a Clerk. Workman has himself

admitted during cross-examination that he was not called for

any interview and was not given any appointment letter.

That he do not possess any record to establish that he was

paid wages by the management who also did not deduct his

PF. Thus there workman himself admits that no appointment

letter was issued to him and nothing has come on the file

that he was ever paid wages by the management and in the

absence of this evidence, it cannot be said that he was ever

appointed by the respondent management as a Clerk.

The documents relied upon by the workman do not

advance his case in any way. The photocopy of the

documents at page 1 to 420 are only debit and credit entry

and nowhere the name of the workman appears. Similarly

the receipts at page 421 to 755 are of Mittal Traders and do

not show that workman ever worked with the respondent

management. Similarly the documents at page 1024 to 1189

are the photocopies of the telephone bills which again do

not advance the case of the workman. The photocopies of

the gate passes at page No. 756 to 1023 also do not establish

in any way that the workman was an employee of the

corporation.

On the other hand Sh. Radhey Shyam examined by the

management produced the attendance register MW1/1 and

the payment sheets MW1/2 and the name of the workman

do not figure anywhere which further show that the

workman was not ever employed by the respondent

corporation.

In result, it is held that the workman has failed to prove

that he was ever employed by the respondent corporation

and being so, it cannot be said that the services were

terminated by it.

In result, the reference is answered against the workman

holding that he is not entitled to claim any relief from the

Corporation. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent

to the Central Government for information and further

necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1339-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ fjykbZUl

ykbZQ bU';ksjsUl daiuh fyfeVsM ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 58@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

15@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&17012@27@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

2870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2015

S.O. 1339.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 58/2014) of the Cent.

Govt. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court] Chennai now as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of M/s.

Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 15/06/2015.

[No. L-17012/27/2014-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Monday, the 20th April, 2015

Present:

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 58/2014

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

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

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between

the Management of M/s. Reliance Insurance Co. Ltd. and

their workman)

BETWEEN

Sri J.G. John Jeba Sobin

: 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

Union

1. The Deputy Zonal HR

: 2nd Party/1st

Manager

Respondent

M/s. Reliance Life Insurance

Co. Ltd.

No. 114, Mena Kampala Arcade

Sir Thiyagaraja Road, T. Nagar

Chennai-600017

2. The Branch Manager

: 2nd Party/2nd

M/s. Reliance Life Insurance

Respondent

Co. Ltd.

15/64A, Ground Floor,

Palace Road

Thuckalay-629175

Kanyakumari District

3. The Regional Manager

: 2nd Party/3rd

M/s. Reliance Life Insurance

Respondent

Co. Ltd.

13/10, Rliance House,

1st Flood

Near Anna Bus Stand

Subburaman Street,

Gandhi Nagar,

Madurai-825020

APPEARANCE:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

: M/s. S. Arunachalam

Associates, Advocates

For the 2nd Party/Respondents : M/s. V.S. Manjula,

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-17012/27/2014-IR (M)

dated 09.07.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the Management of M/s

Reliance Insurance Co. Ltd. in terminating the

services of Sri J.G. John Jeba Sobin is justified? it

not, to what relief the worknan is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 58/2014 and issued notices to both sides.

Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel

and have filed their claim and counter statement

respectively. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder in reply to

the Counter Statement.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner has joined the service of the

Respondent as Junior Sales Manager by

Appointment Order dated 30.05.2008. After

completion of probation he was confirmed in service

w.e.f. 30.05.2009. Even though the petitioner joined

service in the cadre of Junior Sales Manager, he

worked under absolute control and supervision of

his immediate superior. The petitioner was to identify

issurance advisors (Agents) and to promote

insurance business by procuring issuance policies

for the Respondent Company. The post of Junior

Sales Manager does not involve any supervisory or

managerial capacity. In spite of the nomenclature of

his designation as Junior Sales Manager the

petitioner is a workman coming under the definition

of Section-2(s) of the ID Act. The petitioner had no

subordinate staff under him to control or command.

The petitioner had no authority to issue or execute

any order or to take any administrative decision. The

petitioner has been discharging his duties to the best

of his ability. On 12.05.2012 when the petitioner

brought business for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- the First

Respondent who is an immediate superior insisted

to bring another policy for a similar sum within 24

hours. He sent message to the petitioner asking to

send his resignation immediately. He prevented the

petitioner from signing the attendance register. He

even prevented the petitioner from entering the office

premises. Thirty six days spreading over the months

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2871

of June, July, August, September and October 2012

have been marked as absent in the attendance

disbursed to the petitioner. The petitioner was issued

with review letters dated 07.07.2012, 14.09.2012,

24.10.2012 and 10.12.2012 stating that he has not

achieved the target. By order dated 05.02.2013 the

Third Respondent terminated the petitioner from

service. The agreement of appointment of the

petitioner does not speak about any target. The target

has been unilaterally fixed by the Company and is

not achievable by a person doing so many duties

besides canvassing insurance policies. Termination

was effected without conducting any enquiry. The

Respondent did not issue notice or pay one month's

salary in lieu of notice. Termination of the petitioner

is purely the result of victimization. The termination

would amount to retrenchment within the meaning

of Section-2(oo) read with Section-25(f) of the ID

Act. An order may be passed holding that termination

of the petitioner is illegal and also directing the

Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service

with back wages, continuity of service and other

attendant benefits.

4. The Respondents have filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

The petition is not maintainable as the petitioner does

not fall under the definition of workman as defined

under the Industrial disputes Act. It is incorrect to

state that the post of junior Sales Manager does not

involve any managerial and supervisory capacity. It

is incorrect to state that there is no subordinate staff

under the petitioner. It is denied that the petitioner

was discharging his duty in his best way and had

brought maximum business to the Company. The

Respondent Company is running its business in a

competitive business environment and certain targets

are required to be achieved so as to sustain its

business. The petitioner was not able to achieve his

targets and his performance was poor. Several

opportunities were afforded to the petitioner to

improve his performance and meet his targets. The

company had sent at least three notices detailing the

performance of the petitioner and each time giving

opportunity to improve his performance. It is

incorrect to state that the petitioner was not given

notice of termination. It is incorrect to state that the

First Respondent had insisted upon production of

policy of Rs. 20,000/- within a span of 24 hours. So

also it is incorrect to state that the First Respondent

was sending messages to the petitioner and

preventing him from signing Attendance Register. It

is also incorrect to state that salary has not been

given to the petitioner for 36 days. The petitioner is

not entitled to any relief.

5. The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the

contentions in the Counter statement and reiterating his

case in the Claim statement.

6. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of

WW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W21.

7. The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the management of the

Respondents in terminating the service of the

petitioner is justified?

(ii)

What, if any, is the relief to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The Points

8. The petitioner who was appointed as Junior Sales

Manager in Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. in May 2008

has been terminated from service by order dated 05.02.2013.

It is the case of the petitioner that his termination is without

any justification. According to him, the Respondents have

unilaterally fixed targets of business which could not be

achieved at all. On the pretext of not improving his

performance the Respondents have terminated him from

service, the petitioner has stated.

9. The petitioner has filed proof Affidavit to substantiate

his case. Ext.W1 to Ext.W21 were marked through him. The

Respondents have not adduced any evidence either oral

or documentary to contradict the case of the petitioner.

10. The Respondents have taken a contention in the

Counter Statement that the petitioner is not a workman

coming under the definition of Section-2(s) of the ID Act

and therefore the petition is not even maintainable. Before

considering the main issue this contention of the

Respondents is to be considered. In the claim statement

itself the petitioner has stated that even though his post

carries the glorious name of Junior Sales Manager his

post is only one coming under the definition of workman

coming under the definition of workman in the ID Act.

According to him, an attractive nomenclature was given

only to attract the public and fetch business. He has stated

in the claim statement that his work is not supervisory in

nature and he is not controlling any subordinate staff or

taking any decision or executing any order. The petitioner

has reiterated his case in his affidavit also. Even though

Respondents have contended in the counter statement

that the petitioner is working in supervisory capacity, no

attempt has been made to prove this by any oral or

documentary evidence. The only justification given in

the Counter Statement is that the very name of the post is

Junior Sales Manager and it could be deciphered from this

that the post is supervisory in nature. however, it is not

sated in the Counter statement what is the supervisory

nature of the work done by the petitioner.

2872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

11. It could be seen from the Claim Statement and also

affidavit of the petitioner that his main job is to identify

persons to be taken as agents for the Respondents

Company. The petitioner has stated that he is not having

any power to supervise these agents. The counsel for the

petitioner has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in

S.K. VERMA VS. MAHESH CHANDRA AND ANOTHER

reported in AIR 1984 SC 1462 in support of his contention

that the petitioner is only a workman. In the above case the

Apex Court has held that a Development Officer in Life

Insurance Corporation of India is a workman. A

Development Officer in LIC of India seems to be a post

equal to that of a Junior Sales Manager in the Respondent

Company. The Apex Court has held in the above case that

the principal duty of the Development Officer is to organize

and develop business of the Corporation in the area allotted

to him and for that purpose he is to recruit, active and

reliable agents, to train them, to canvass new business and

to render post sale services to policy holders. He is also to

assist and inspire the agents and yet he has no authority

to appoint agents or to take disciplinary action among them.

The position of the petitioner herein also is the same. He is

to identify persons who are to work as agents for the

Respondent Company. Through them he is to canvass

policies to the Company. At the same time he does not

have any control over them. He is expected only to guide

them. There is no case for the Respondents that the

petitioner is having anybody who are the staff of the

company under him. He has no power to execute any orders

also. From all this it could be seen that in spite of the

attractive name given for the post, the job of the petitioner

is only that of a workman coming under the definition of

Section-2(s) of the ID Act.

12. The petitioner was issued with a number of letters

stating that he has failed to achieve the target and improve

his performance. Ext.W2 is the first warning letter produced

by the petitioner. In this a performances review is given

and it is stated that the performance does not meet the

expectations. The petitioner is asked to show immediate

improvement and reach acceptable performance standards

as given in the letter. One does not know on what basis the

target was fixed, what was the target achieved by the

petitioner earlier or whether the petitioner had been behind

the others of his kind in achieving the target. There is a

warning in the letter that failure to achieve the performance

standard would result in termination from employment.

Then there is Ext.W3 a communication from the First

Respondent which states that the petitioner is not fit for

the job and he is to resign from the post. Ex.W4 is another

communication asking the petitioner to show immediate

improvement. There is Ext.W7, Ext.W9 and also Ext.W10,

three more such letters asking to improve the performance.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner has written to the Deputy

Zonal Manager, the Third Respondent complaining that

he was not allowed to record his attendance and he was

not paid salary. Ext.W6 is another letter to this effect.

Ext.W8 also complains about the failure to pay salary, apart

from assuring that the petitioner will try to achieve his

target. After this letter dated 22.09.2012, on 24.10.2012 the

petitioner was terminated from service stating that he was

unable to achieve his performance.

13. As pointed out on behalf of the petitioner, it is not

known how the target was fixed. There is no evidence as to

how much the petitioner is lagging behind in achieving the

target when compared with others of his kind. It could be

seen from the Appointment Order which is marked as Ext.W1

that canvassing bussiness is not the only job of the

petitioner. He is expected to identify persons to work as

agents and is to give necessary guidance to them. In spite

of this, the petitioner was terminated from service stating

on the ground that he has failed to achieve the target.

14. It has been pointed out by the counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner was not even served with a

notice as contemplated under Section-25(f) of the ID Act

before he was terminated from service. The Respondents

have contended that several letters were issued to the

petitioner before he was terminated from service. As pointed

out by the counsel for the petitioner, all these are review

letters asking the petitioner to improve his performance.

No notice as contemplated under Section-25(f) of the Act

is seen given. The petitioner was not given salary in lieu of

notice or any compensation also. The Apex Court has held

in the decision in DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

VS. DTC MAZDOOR CONGRESS AND OTHERS reported

in 1991 SUPP (1) SCC 600 that the provision of the statute,

regulation or the rule which empowers an employer to

terminate the services of an employee whose service is of

any indefinite period till he attains the age of

superannuation, by serving a notice or pay in lieu thereof

must be conformable to the mandate of Articles 14, 19(1)(g)

and 21of the Constitution. The termination of the petitioner

from service is aginst this mandate of the Apex Court. The

petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service.

15. The Respondents are directed to reinstate the

petitioner in service within a month of the award with 50%

back wages, continuity of service and other attendant

benefits. If back wages is not paid within a month of the

award, the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum.

The reference is answered accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/petitioner

: WW1, Sri J.G. John Jeba

Sobin

For the 2nd Party/Management : None

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2873

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

30.05.2008

Appointment letter of the

petitioner

Ex.W2

18.02.2012

Warning letter issued by the

Respondent

Ex.W3

14.06.2012

SMS Correspondences

Ex.W4

07.07.2012

Warning letter issued by the

Respondent

Ex.W5

07.09.2012

Representation from the petitioner

to the Respondents

Ex.W6

13.09.2012

Reminder from the petitioner to the

Respondents

Ex.W7

14.09.2012

Warning letter issued by the

Respondent

Ex.W8

22.09.2012

Representation from the petitioner

to the Respondents

Ex.W9

24.10.2012

Warning letter issued by the

Respondent

Ex.W10

10.12.2012

Letter of the Management to the

Respondent

Ex.W11

16.11.2012

Representation from the petitioner

to the Respondent

Ex.W12

04.02.2013

Letter given by the petitioner to

the Respondent for non-payment

of salary

Ex.W13

05.02.2013

Termination notice of the

petitioner

Ex.W14

11.02.2013

Requisition letter of the petitioner

against termination

Ex.W15

20.08.2013

Dispute raised before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner,

madurai

Ex.W16

20.09.2013

Reply from the Management

Ex.W17

30.11.2013

Rejoinder

the

Management

Ex.W18

Rejoinder of the petitioner

Ex.W19

Certificate of excellence of the

petitioner

issued

the

Management

Ex.W20

Attendance Register from June to

September, 2012

Ex.W21

Visiting Registers maintained by

the Management

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

N/A

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1340-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esas dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ fizTe lhesaV

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

fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vfèdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 27@02½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&29012@84@2001&vkbZvkj¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2015

S.O. 1340.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27/02) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of M/s Prism

Cement and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 15/06/2015.

[No. L-29012/84/2001-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/27/02

Shri Pushpraj Singh,

S/o Shri Shildhaj Singh,

Gram Siijhata, Po Sijhata,

Distt. Satna (MP)

...Workman

Versus

President Mahakhari,

Prism cement

PO Bathiya,

Distt. Satna (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 13th day of March, 2015

1. As per letter dated 24-1-2001 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-29012/

84/2001-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Prism

Cement, Manakhari Distt. Satna (MP) in terminating

the services of Shri Pushpraj Singh, S/o Shri

Sheekdhwaj Singh instead of regularizing him after

extracting work from him w.e.f. 6-11-95 to 30-3-99 is

justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman

is entitled to?"

2874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 4/1

to 4/5. Case of Ist party is that he was appointed on

establishment of IInd Party from 9-10-95 for civil work. He

was continuously working till 31-3-99. His services were

illegally terminated. That Ist party was appointed as Civil

Engineer, his services were terminated by IInd party No.2

vice President. Ist party further submits that establishment

of IInd party is governed by standing orders. Other persons

appointed with him Sanjay Tiwari, Naveen Shrivastava,

Sanjay Singh, R.K. Tripathi, Mahendra Singh were

regularized. He was designated and not regularized by IInd

party amounts to unfair labour practice. It is further

submitted that he was not granted experience certificate.

He was told that he would have to wait for six months. He

acquired status of regular employee after completion of six

months service. He was continuously working more than

240 days during each of the year. His services were

terminated without issuing notice. He was not paid

retrenchment compensation. Seniority list of employees

was not displayed by IInd party. Termination is illegal for

violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. He further submits that

first time he had come to know from letter dated 24-9-98

about his engagement as trainee. On such ground workman

prays for his reinstatement with back wages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/5

opposing claim of the workman. IInd party submits that on

6-11-95, workman was engaged on ad hoc basis for 11

months. Thereafter workman was engaged under training

scheme T-4 from 1-10-96. The performance of Ist party

during training period was not satisfactory. Workman was

given opportunity as trainee. Workman had joined as trainee

from 1-10-96. IInd party denies that workman was engaged

as Civil Engineer. That standing orders are not applicable

to establishment of IInd party. Services of Sanjay Tiwari,

Naveen Shrivastava, Sanjay Singh, R.K. Tripathi, Mahendra

Singh were regularized considering their performance and

vacancy available. That performance of Ist party workman

was not found satisfactory. There were no vacancies

therefore workman could not be regularized.

4. IInd party denies that Ist party workman completed

240 days continuous service during any of the year.

Violation of Section 25-F is denied. Workman is not entitled

to retrenchment compensation as he was working as trainee

under scheme T-4. All other adverse contentions of workman

are denied. It is reiterated that as performance of workman

during training period was not satisfactory and there was

no vacancies he was not regularized after completion of

training period. The claim of workman deserves to be

rejected.

5. Ist party workman submitted rejoinder at Page 8/1 to

8/4 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of Prism Cement,

Manakhari Distt. Satna (MP)

in terminating the services of

Shri Pushpraj singh, S/o

Shri Sheekdhwaj Singh

instead of regularizing him

after extracting work from

him w.e.f. 6-11-95 to 30-3-99

is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

As per final order

workman is entitled to?"

REASONS

7. The workman is challenging termination of his service

for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. IInd party contends

that workman was engaged as trainee under Scheme T-4.

His performance during training period was not

satisfactotry. There was no vacancy therefore workman

could not be regularized.

8. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence covering most

of his contentions in statement of cliam. Parties are not in

dispute that workman was working on establishment of

IInd party from 9-10-95 till termination for his service from

31-3-99. Regularization of service of Sanjay Tiwari, Naveen

Shrivastava, Sanjay Singh, R.K. Tripathi, Mahendra Singh

appointed along with workman regularized is also not in

dispute. In his cross-examination workman denies that he

was appointed as trainee for 11 months. He denies that his

training period is extended for six months. He has not

received any notice. Workman admits notice dated 24-9-98

as Exhibit M-1 was received by him. He also admits notice

dated 29-3-99 M-2 was received. His services were

terminated by said notice. No explanation was asked under

said notice. Workman denies that his performance during

period was not satisfactory was the reason for his

termination.

9. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness

Ashutosh Mishra supporting contentions of IInd party in

Written statement. That Ist party workman was engaged

as trainee for 11 months. Initially he was paid stipend

Rs.2000/- performance of workman in training period was

not satisfactory. His training period was extended for six

months. Management's witness in his cross-examination

says no enquiry was conducted against workman basis of

record he says that workman was appointed as trainee.

Witness of management admits gate pass Exhibit W-1. He

denies that name of section is not recorded in Exhibit W-1.

He admits that other persons Sanjay Tiwari, Naveen

Shrivastava, Sanjay Singh, R.K. Tripathi, Mahendra Singh

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2875

appointed with workman are regularized. He also admits if

performance of workman during training period would have

been satisfactory he could have been appointed.

Management's witness denies that in Para-4 affidavit of

evidence, it is wrongly written that workman was not

appointed as regular employee.

10. The documentary evidence Exhibit M-1 about

extension of training period of workman by six months

doesnot bear signature of workman. The letter dated

1-10-96 about appointement of workman on training on

revised stipend Rs.2000 per month refers to training scheme

T-4. Any document about Scheme T-4 is not produced by

IInd party. IInd party has also not produced by IInd party.

IInd party has also not produced documents. Certified

standing orders categorizing the employees engaged by

IInd party. In absence of such documents, the appointment

of Ist party workman as trainee could not be said legal. In

Section 2(s) of Id Act workman includes an apprentice on

completion of 240 days continuous service. Workman is

entitled for protection of Section 25-F. the services of

workman were not terminated following Section 25-F. of ID

Act. He was not paid retrenchment compensation therefore

termination of service of workman is illegal. Accordingly I

record my finding in Point No.1.

11. Point No.2 termination of workman is found illegal

for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act, question arises

whether he is entitled for reinstatement with backwages.

The workman was terminated in violation of Section 25-F

ID Act. Workman was working for more than 3 years.

Learned counsel for workman relies on ratio held in Case of

Shriram Refrigeration Industries Vs. Hon'ble Addnl. Labour

Court, Hyderabad and other reported in 2002(9) SCC 708.

Their Lordship considered only 3years service left and

workman was drawing pay Rs. 3045/- per month,

Compensation Rs. 2,25,000 was allowed.

In another case relied between Assistant Engineer,

Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division

Kota- considering workman worked for 286 days, dispute

raised after 6 years, compensation Rs. 1 lakh was allowed.

12. Considering working days of workman, in my

considered view, compensation Rs. One Lakh would be

appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

13. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1)

The action of the management of the management

of Prism Cement, Manakhari Distt. Satna (MP) in

terminating the services of Shri Pushpraj singh,

S/o Shri Sheekdhwaj Singh instead of regularizing

him after extracting work from him w.e.f 6-11-95 to

30-3-99 is not proper.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.One

Lakh to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

withhin 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amout shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1341-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ ykbZQ ba';ksjsal

dkWjiksjs'ku 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ,jukdqye ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 10@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

15@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&17012@12@2009&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2015

S.O. 1341.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 10/2010) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ernakulam

now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute

between the management of M/s. Life Insurance

Corporation of India and their workman, received by the

Central Government on 15/06/2015.

[No. L-17012/12/2009-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri. D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding

Officer

(Tuesday the 12^th day of May, 2015/22^nd Vaisakha, 1937)

ID 10/2010

Workman

: Shri K. K. Thomas

Kannikakonil

Nedunkandom, PO

Idukki

By Adv. Shri K. S. Madhusoodanan

Management

: The senior Divisional Manager

LIC of India, Divisional Office

Jeevan Prakash

P. B. No. 609, Nagapadom

Kottayam - 686 001

By Adv. Shri S. Easwaran

2876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

This case coming up for final hearing on 29.04.2015 and

this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 12.05.2015 passed the

following:

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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-17012/12/2009-IR(M) dated

30.12.2009 referred the industrial dispute scheduled there

under for Adjudication to this tribunal.

The dispute is:

" Whether the action of the management of Life

Insurance Corporation of India in terminating the

services w.e.f. 21.8.2008 of Shri K. K. Thomas claiming

to be a part time sweeper at its Nedumkandam Branch

is justified? To what relief the workman concerned is

entitled?"

3. Initially after the acceptance of summons management

alone entered appearance and hence an ex-parte award

was passed on 19.03.2010 by my learned predecessor in

officer after setting the workman ex-parte. The ex-parte

award was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court vide

judgement dated 05.01.2015 in WP(C) No. 24100 of 2011(J).

Pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in that

order both parties entered appearance before this tribunal

on 02.02.2015.

4. After appearance workman filed claim statement

alleging that he had entered into the service of the

management as a part-time sweeper on daily wage basis in

its Nedumkandam branch in the year 1992. Later the

payment of daily wages was changed to payment on weekly

basis. He was paid Rs 56.25/- as daily wages while he was

working in the Nedukandam branch. Even after shifting

the office to a new building having a sweeping area of 6000

square feet, which is three times than that of the area of the

old building, he was paid the same wages. Hence he had

submitted a representation dated 13.08.2007 to the

management for enhancement of wages considering the

increase of three times in the workload. The Branch manager

vide letter dated 13.08.2007 recommended for enhancement

of daily wages given to the workman. But he was continued

to be paid the same wages. Even on 01.09.2007 he was paid

only Rs. 82.50/- per day for sweeping for four days. Due to

the demand made by him for enhancement of wages he

was denied of the employment w.e.f. 28.08.2008 without

any notice, notice pay or compensation. Hence he had

raised the industrial dispute which resulted in this reference.

5. Management filed written statement contending that

this tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute raised

under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act in view

of the amendment to the Life Insurance Corporation

Act, 1956. By virtue of the amendment to Section 48(2) (cc)

of the Life Insurance Corproation Act, the provisions of

the Industrial Disputes act and the Rules shall have no

bearing notwithstanding anything contained therein. The

provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act have no

applicability in relation to the employment of persons under

the Life Insurance Corporation. Besides that it is settled

law that the daily wage employee cannot claim

regularisation in service. There is no allegation in the claim

statement as to violation of Section 25F of the Industrial

Disputes act with regard to the termination of his service.

The management has never engaged him continuously as

a temporary/permanent employee for sweeping or for

cleaning duties of the office and the guest house. There is

no permanent or temporary part time sweeper in the office

of the management. As and when needed some causal

labourers were engaged and the workman had been

engaged as one of the casual labourers in the year 2008-

2009. He was engaged as a casual labourer and not as a

part time sweeper. No appointment has been made by the

management and hence the workman is not a regular or

part time employee of the management. Since he was only

a casual labour there was no specific rate of remuneration.

Remuneration was paid depending upon the volume of

work and time of work and time of work and the same was

accepted by him without any objection. Since his

engagement was not found to be satisfactory his service

was discontinued. Under such circumstances no ground

exists which necessitates the adjudication of the dispute.

6. Workman filed rejoinder denying the contentions in

the written statement and reaffirming the allegations in the

claim statement. It is further alleged that pursuant to the

representation made by him on 13.08.2007 for enhancement

of wages, he was illegally terminated from service violating

the provision under Section 25F of the ID Act,

7. Later workman filed 1A 106/2015 seeking correction

of the year of entry in service as 1994 instead of 1992 and

the date of termination as 21.08.2008 instead of 28.08.2008

in the claim statement as well as in the replication. The IA

was allowed as per order dated 20.04.2015 and the

amendment were carried out. No additional written

statement was filed by the management even though

opportunity was afforded for that purpose.

8. For the purpose of deciding this reference workman

got himself examined as WW 1 and Exts. W1 to W50 were

got marked. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was

adduced from the side of the management. The arguments

for both sides were heard.

9. The points for determination are:

(i)

Whether this Tribunal has got jurisdiction to

entertain the ID in view of the amended provisions

contained in the Life Insurance Corporation

act, 1956?

(ii)

Whether the workman in the ID comes within the

purview of the definition of 'workman' under the

Industrial Disputes Act?

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2877

(iii)

Whether he was illegally terminated from service

in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial

Disputes Act?

(iv)

To what relief the workman is entitled to?

10. Point No. (i):—Challenge is made with regard to the

jurisdiction of this Tribunal to entertain the ID by making

the plea in the written statement by resorting to the

provision contained in Section 48(2)(cc) of the Life

Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 and by making reference

to the decision reported in LIC of India Vs. Ushakumari

2014 (4) KLJ 884. At the time of argument learned counsel

for the management has argued that the rules framed by

the Central Government, in exercise of the powers under

Section 48(1) of the said Act, has overriding effect over the

provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in view of

sub section (2C) of Section 48 incorporated by way of

amendment in the year 1981 in the Life Insurance

Corporation Act. In support of his argument reliance was

place by him on the above said decision where it was held

that in view of Section 48(2) of the LIC Act, Life Insurance

Corporation of India Staff Regulations, 1960 would override

the provisions of the ID Act in so far as the conflicting

provisions relating to the terms and conditions of

employment are concerned.

11. The applicability of the provisions of the Industrial

Disputes Act is excluded only in the case of workman whose

conditions of service are governed by the regulations or

rules made by the Central Government under Section 48(1)

of the LIC Act. So it is necessarily to be considered whether

the workman in this case is governed by any such

regulation or rules.

12. There is not much dispute as to the fact that he was

engaged as a casual labour by the management. He has no

case that he was appointed as a permanent/temporary staff.

In the claim statement as well as in the replication it is

stated that he was engaged as a part time sweeper. He

would state during his cross examination when examined

as WW1 that no appointment order was issued to him from

the mangement for his engagement. There is no evidence

in this case to prove that he was a permanent or temporary

staff of the management or that he was working on contract

basis in any post in the mangement. There cannot be any

post of part time sweeper in the management and it is evident

from Rule 5 and Schedule II of the Life Insurance

Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. From the

copies of the wage receipts produced by the workman and

got marked as Exts. W 5 to W 50 it can be seen that he was

not only attending the work of part time sweeper but also

other works and he was receiving daily wages weekly for

4 to 5 days. He would also admit during cross examination

that he was engaged on daily wage basis by making

payment in every week. Hence it can be held that he was

engaged as a casual labour on daily wage basis by the

management.

13. Learned counsel for the management was not able

to point out any rule or any regulation which deals with the

conditions of service of casual labour. Life Insurance

Corporation of India (employment of temporary staff)

Instructions, 1993 dated 28.06.1993 makes it clear that

employment of staff in class III and class IV on a temporary

basis are to be made in accordance with the Instructions

and those instructions shall not apply to the employment

of casual employees. Management was not able to satisfy

that there is any rule or regulation made under Section 48(i)

governing the conditions of service of casual employees.

The engagement as a casual labour cannot be said to be

based on a rule or regulation coming within the purview of

Section 48(2C) of the LIC Act. Towards the fag end of the

argument learned counsel for the management was also

fair enough to concede that the engagement of casual labour

does not come with the purview of the said provision of

the LIC Act excluding the applicability of the provisions of

the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence it can be held that this

tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain this industrial dispute

as it relates to the engagement of a casual labour.

14. Point No. (ii):—While dealing with Point No. (i) it

has been found that the workman was engaged as a casual

labour by the management. Management would not dispute

his engagement as a casual labour. A casual labour will

also come within the definition of 'wokman' as defined under

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence it is

found that the workman comes within the purview of

definition of 'workman' as per the provision contained in

the Industrial Disputes Act.

15. Point No. (iii):—There is no case for the management

that the workman was terminated from service by complying

with the procedure provided under Section 25F of the

Industrial Disputes Act. Workman has got a specific case

in his pleadings that he was illegally terminated in violation

of Section 25F of the ID Act.

16. First of all it is to be considered whether the workman

was in continuous service for a period of one year. There is

no evidence in this case to prove that there was continous

engagement for a period of one year. Ext. W3 will go to

show that he was engaged as a part time sweeper for a

period of seven years. It is not stated anywhere in Ext. W3

that he was in continuous service during that period. As

there is no reliable evidence to prove that he was in service

for a period of one year it is to be considered whether he

was engaged for 240 days in the year prior to the date of

his termination. The burden to prove the same is on the

workman. Whether it was duly discharged is to be

considered in view of the evidence adduced in this case.

17. Initially it was pleaded in the claim statement as well

as in the replication that the workman joined the service of

the management in the year 1992 and was denied of the

employment w.e.f 28.08.2008. Subsequently it was amended

2878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

so as to change the year of joining as 1994 and the date of

ternination as 21.08.2008.

18. The proof affidavit of the workman who was

examined as WW1 still remains with the averment that he

had entered into the service as a part time sweeper of the

management in 1992. Whatever it be the date of termination

can be treated as 21.08.2008. There is absolutely no reliable

evidence in this case to prove that he had worked for

240 days in the year preceding the date of termination.

There is only the interested testimony of WW1 and Exts.

W46 to W50 to prove his engagement during that one year

period. Exts. W 46 to W50 can be relied on to prove that he

was engaged as a casual labour for a few days. It is not

sufficient to prove that there was engagement for 240 days

within the period of one year prior to the date of termination.

19. In the decision reported in Batala Coop. Sugar Mills

Ltd. Vs. Sowaran Singh (2005) 8 SCC 481 it was held that

onus to prove the requirement of 240 days' continuous

service lies on the workman and it is for the workman to

adduce evidence apart from examining himself or filing an

affidavit to prove it. It was further held that such evidence

may be 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.

20. Here in this case, there is no evidence except the

interested testimony of WW1 to prove that he was engaged

from 1994 as a part time sweeper by the management. Exts.

W7 to W 50 relate only to the period from 2001 onwards.

During the cross examination of WW1 it was stated by him

that he was marking attendance in the attendance register.

No request was made by the workman for the production

of the same by the management. Ext. W3 will also go to

show that his engagement was for a period of 7 years before

13.08.2007. There is no documentary evidence to prove

there was continuous service of 240 days. It was already

pointed out that there was no post of part time sweeper in

the management. The workman was engaged intermittently

as a casual labour. There is no reliable evidence to prove

the continious engagement of 240 days. The workman has

failed to discharge the burden cast upon him to prove

continuous engagement for 240 days in the year prior to

the date of termination. Hence his service could be

terminated without complying with the procedure provided

under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence

the action of the management in terminating the service of

the workman w.e.f 21.08.2008 is justified.

21. Point No, (iv):—In the result an award is passed

holding that the termination of the workman from the

services of the management w.e.f 21.08.2008 is justified

and hence the workman is not entitled to any relief.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dr. SREE VALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the workman

WW1

10.04.2015

Shri K K Thomas

Witness for the management

NIL

Exhibits for the workman

Representation dated 12.12.2005 submitted

by the workman to the Officer, STM, LIC

Office, Kottayam Division.

Copy of the representation dated 13.08.2007

submitted by the workman to the Sr.

Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, LIC

of India, Kottayam.

Copy of the letter dated 13.08.2007 addressed

to the Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC of India,

Divisional Office, Kottayam-1 by the Branch

Manager, LIC of India, Branch Office,

Nedumkandam.

Copy of the complaint dated 06.09.2008

addressed to the Labour Officer,

Nedumkandam by the workman.

Letter No. MO184/08/LDis dated 17.09. 2008

addressed to the workman by the Deputy

Labour Officer, Nedumkandam.

Copy of the failure of conciliation report vide

letter No. 7(06/2009/ALC-TVM dated

03.9.2009 addressed to the Secretary to the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi

Marg, New Delhi by the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Trivandrum.

Payment Voucher dated 27.01.2001 issued by

the LIC of India to the workman.

Copy of the payment voucher dated

07.02.2004 issued by the LIC of the India,

Kottayam to the workman

Payment Voucher dated 08.05.2004 issued by

the LIC of India, Kottayam Division to the

workman

W10

Copy of the payment voucher dated

26.08.2004 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W11

Copy of the account payee cheque bearing

No. 224276 dated 11.12.2004 for ` 437/- and

copy of the payment voucher dated

26.08.2004 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman.

W12

Copy of the payment voucher dated

07.05.2005 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2879

W13

Copy of the payment voucher dated

09.12.2005 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W14

Copy of the payment voucher dated

17.12.2005 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W15

Copy of the payment voucher dated

31.12.2005 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W16

Copy of the payment voucher dated

21.01.2006 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W17

Copy of the payment voucher dated

28.01.2006 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W18

Copy of the payment voucher dated

04.02.2006 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W19

Copy of the payment voucher dated

18.02.2006 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W20

Copy of the payment voucher dated

13.05.2006 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W21

Copy of the payment voucher dated

12.08.2006 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W22

Copy of the payment voucher dated

09.09.2006 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W23

Copy of the payment voucher dated

30.09.2006 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W24

Copy of the payment voucher dated

07.10.2006 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W25

Copy of the payment voucher dated

14.10.2006 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W26

Copy of the payment voucher dated

20.10.2006 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W27

Copy of the payment voucher dated

28.10.2006 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W28

Copy of the payment voucher dated

04.11.2006 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W29

Copy of the payment voucher dated

16.12.2006 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W30

Copy of the payment voucher dated

23.12.2006 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W31

Copy of the payment voucher dated

01.01.2007 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W32

Copy of the payment voucher dated

08.01.2007 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W33

Copy of the payment voucher dated

15.01.2007 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W34

Copy of the payment voucher dated

20.01.2007 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W35

Copy of the payment voucher dated

27.01.2007 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W36

Copy of the payment voucher dated

03.02.2007 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W37

Copy of the payment voucher dated

10.02.2007 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W38

Copy of the payment voucher dated

17.02.2007 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W39

Copy of the payment voucher dated

24.02.2007 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W40

Copy of the payment voucher dated

10.03.2007 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W41

Copy of the payment voucher dated

28.04.2007 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W42

Copy of the payment voucher dated

12.05.2007 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W43

Copy of the payment voucher dated

19.05.2007 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W44

Copy of the payment voucher dated

09.06.2007 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

2880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

W45

Copy of the payment voucher dated

16.06.2007 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W46

Copy of the payment voucher dated

29.08.2007 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W47

Copy of the payment voucher dated

01.09.2007 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W48

Copy of the payment voucher dated

27.10.2007 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W49

Copy of the payment voucher dated

15.12.2007 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

W50

Copy of the payment voucher dated

22.03.2008 issued by the LIC of India,

Kottayam to the workman

Exhibits for the management

—

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1342-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ vkfnR;k lhesaV

izcaèr= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 152@2000½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&29012@40@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rkiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2015

S.O. 1342.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 152/2000) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s Aditya Cement and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

15/06/2015.

[No. L-29012/40/2000-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/152/2000

Shri Giriraj S/o Shri Kanhiyalal Ojha,

VPO Ghatiyani Mohalla,

Hamirgarh,

Bhilwara

...Workman

Versus

Vice President,

M/s Aditya Cement,

Shambhupura,

Chhittorgarh

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 29^th day of April 2015

1. As per letter dated 18-8-2000 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-29012/

40/2000/IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the termination of services of Shri Giriraj

S/o Kanhiyalal Ojha by the management of M/s

Aditya Cement, Shambhupura on 18-6-99 is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief disputant is entitled

and from which date?"

2. Ist Party workman is challenging termination of his

services in the dispute under reference. Even after issuing

notices, the workman did not participate in the proceeding,

no statement of claim is filed. Ist party is proceeded exparte

on 19-9-2014.

3. IInd Party management also not filed Written

Statement. From conduct of the parties, it is clear that the

parties are not pursuing or participating in the dispute.

4. In the result, award is passed as under:—

"Reference is disposed off as No Dispute Award."

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1343-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ lsUVªy os;jgkmflax

dkWjiksjs'ku ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2881

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 1] eqacbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 31@2014½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&42011@3@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rkiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2015

S.O. 1343.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 31/2014) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 1,

Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s Central Warehousing Corporation and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 15/06/2015.

[No. L-42011/3/2014-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, MUMBAI

Present

JUSTICE S.P. MEHROTRA,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/31 OF 2014

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of

Central Warehousing Corporation

And

Their workman

Appearances:

For the first party/Management : Mr. V.S. Kadam,

Superintendent.

For the second party/Union

: Mr. K.D. Gharat,

General Secretary.

State

Maharashtra

Mumbai, the 27th day of April, 2015

AWARD

1. The present Reference has been made by the Central

Government by its order dated 9.10.2014 passed in exercise

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

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

Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of Reference as per the

Schedule to the said order are as under:

"Whether the officer Order dt. 11.9.2012 in respect of

the transfers of 12 employees from Navi Mumbai

Region to Mumbai Region issued by the Regional

Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Navi

Mumbai stated to be in compliance with the Office

circular dt. 4.9.2012 issued by the Corporate Office

of the management at New Delhi is legal, just and

proper? If not, what relief the workman concerned

are entitled to?"

2. By the Order dated 10.11.2014, Notices were directed

to be issued to the Parties.

3. Pursuant to the Notices issued, the Parties put in

appearance in the present matter.

4. By the Order dated 16.2.2015, and thereafter, by the

Order dated 13.4.2015, time was granted to the Union in

question, namely, Kendriya Bhandar Nigam Sthanik

Prakalpagrastha Kamgar Sangthana for filing Statement of

Claim.

5. Pursuant to the Order dated 13.4.2015, the case is put

up today.

6. Shri V.S. Kadam, Superintendent, Central

Warehousing Corporation, Navi Mumbai is present on

behalf of the Central Warehousing Corporation.

7. Mr. K.D. Gharat, General Secretary of the Union in

question, namely, Kendriya Bhandar Nigam Sthanik

Prakalpagrastha Kamgar Sanghatana is present.

Mr. K.D. Gharat, General Secretary of the Union in

question, namely, Kendriya Bhandar Nigam Sthanik

Prakalpagrastha Kamgar Sanghatana states that the Union

in question does not want to file any Statement of Claim as

the cause forming the subject-matter of the aforesaid

Reference no longer remains. An application in this regard

has been filed today by Shri K.D. Gharat, General Secretary

of the Union in question, namely, Kendriya Bhandar Nigam

Sthanik Prakalpagrastha Kamgar Sanghatana.

8. It is, inter-alia, stated in the said Application that no

cause remains with the Union in question to pursue the

aforesaid Reference further and, therefore, the Reference

may be disposed of as per the admissibility.

9. Shri V.S. Kadam, has filed today an Authority Letter in

his issued by Shri A.K. Dubey, Regional Manager, Central

Warehousing Corporation, Regional Office, Navi Mumbai.

It is, inter-alia, stated in the Authority Letter that Shri V.S.

Kadam is authorized to make statement on behalf of Central

Warehousing Corporation that the Management of Central

Warehousing Corporation has no objection if the Union in

question desires to withdraw their case willingly.

10. Shri V.S. Kadam, Superintendent, Central

Warehousing Corporation, Navi Mumbai states that the

Management of Central Warehousing has not objection to

2882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

the prayer made on behalf of the Union in question, namely,

Kendriya Bhandar Nigam Sthanik Prakalpagrastha Kamgar

Sanghatana, as mentioned above, being granted.

11. In view of the above, it is evident that the Industrial

Dispute forming the subject-matter of the present Reference

no longer survives.

12. Reference is, answered by stating that the Industrial

Dispute forming the subject-matter of the Reference no

longer survives.

13. Award is passed accordingly.

JUSTICE S.P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1344-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ Hkkjr xksYM

ekbZUl fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 81]

105] 106@1996½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

15@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&43012@23@95&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

lañ ,y&43012@20@95&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

lañ ,y&43012@19@95&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2015

S.O. 1344.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 81, 105, 106/1996) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s Bharat Gold Mines and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

15/06/2015.

[No. L-43012/23/95-IR(M),

No. L-43012/20/95-IR(M),

No. L-43012/19/95-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIALL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/81/96

Shri Ramesh Ganpat Bawankude,

R/o Nagardhan,

Tehsil, Ramtek,

Distt., Nagpur

...Workman

Versus

Manager,

Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.,

Belgongri Mines,

Tehsil, Ramtek, Nagpur

...Management

NO. CGIT/LC/R/105/96

Shri Nand Kumar Govinda Bavankude,

R/o Nagardhan,

Tehsil, Ramtek,

Distt., Nagpur

...Workman

Versus

Manager,

Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.,

Belgongri Mines,

Tehsil, Ramtek, Nagpur

...Management

NO. CGIT/LC/R/106/96

Shri Anna Tarachand Fulzele,

R/o Nagardhan,

Tehsil, Ramtek,

Distt., Nagpur

...Workman

Versus

Manager,

Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.,

Belgongri Mines,

Tehsil Ramtek, Nagpur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 19th day of March, 2015

1. (a) As per letter dated 18-3-96 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-43012/

23/95-IR (Misc.). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Gold Mines Limited, PO Oorgaum, KGF 563120 in

terminating the services of Shri Ramesh Ganpatrao,

a semi skilled time rated worker w.e.f. 16-4-95 as

claimed by him is legal, proper and just? If not, what

relief the workman is entitled to?"

(b) As per letter dated 27-3-96 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-43012/

20/95-IR (Misc.). The dispute under reference to:

"Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Gold Mines Limited, PO Oorgaum, KGF 563120 in

terminating the services of Shri Nand Kumar Govinda,

a semi skilled time rated worker w.e.f. 16-4-95 as

claimed by him is legal, proper and just? If not, what

relief the workman is entitled to?"

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2883

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-43012/

19/95-IR (Misc.). The dispute under reference to:

"Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Gold Mines Limited, PO Oorgaum, KGF 563120 in

terminating the services of Shri Anna Tarachand, a

semi skilled time rated worker w.e.f. 16-4-95 as claimed

by him is legal, proper and just? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to?"

2. All those references are identical in nature, it is

convenient to decide all those references by common

award.

3. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. IInd party worker submitted statement of claim at

Page 2/1 to 2/3 in all the references. Case of IInd party

workman is that they were working with Ist party

management from 19-11-92 as labour. They were respectively

paid wages Rs. 40/- per day. Ist party management was

issuing employment card. The Ist party management used

to give employment to IInd party for two months. Artificial

gap of 4-5 days was given. Ist party had taken back original

appointment orders. That Ist party had not extended

benefits of permanent employee to them. They were also

not allowed benefit of Provident Fund, Bonus, Wages,

Weekly rest, Medical facilities. All the workmen approached

ALC, Nagpur through Union. The dispute was raised. That

they were continuously working for more than 240 days

during each of the year. Their services were terminated

without notice from 15-4-95. No reason was assigned for

termination of their services. Ist party not paid retrenchment

compensation. They were not served with one month's

notice, neither paid one months pay before terminating

their services. Provision of ID Act were not applied by

management. Therefore terminating is illegal. They claim

reinstatement with back wages.

4. IInd party No. 2 MOIL filed identical Written Statement

at Page 6/1 to 6/6 in all matters opposing claim of workman.

IInd party No. 2 submits that IInd party No. 1 was engaged

as contractor for completing the work of construction of

shaft Mines of Ist party No. 1. IInd party employees were

not engaged by it. There is no employer employee

relationship. Industrial dispute is raised claiming regular

employment of Ist party No. 2. That contractor had employed

IInd party workman for specific period. After completion

of period of appointment, their services were automatically

terminated. Their discontinuation from work is covered

under Section 2 (oo)(bb) of ID Act. It does not amount to

retrenchment. The compliance of Section 25-F of ID Act

was not necessary. It was not necessary to pay

compensation or issued notice. Relying ratio held in various

cases, Ist party No. 2 prayed for rejection of claim.

5. Ist party No. 2 Bharat Gold Mines submitted Written

Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/6 pleading that it was engaged

for carrying construction work of shafts. Workmen were

engaged for specific period. The contract was awarded to

Ist party No. 1 in February, 1992 for construction of

underground shaft in Mine of MOIL. The contract work

was completed in April ,1995. After completion of contract,

the employees engaged by contractor BGML. The

provisions of Contract Labour (R&A) Act does not apply.

There was no complaint about engagement of the workers

till completion of contract. The completion certificate was

issued by Ist party No. 2 MOIL. The contract work was of

temporary nature. The employment was continued till

completion of work renewing time to time. That contractor

had followed statutory provisions. IInd party workman was

not employed following the recruitment process. It is denied

that IInd party workman was given artificial breaks of 4-5

days. The engagement was casual for specific period. It is

denied that workman had completed 240 days contrinuous

service. There was no question of issuing notice of payment

of one months salary in lieu of notice in violation of

provisions of ID Act is denied.

6. Ist party No. 2 MOIL filed rejoinder at Page 6/7 to 6/10

reiterating its contentions in Written Statement.

7. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Bharat Gold

Mines Limited, PO Oorgaum,

KGF 563120 in terminating the

services of Shri Ramesh

Ganpatrao in R/81/96, Shri Nand

Kumar Govinda in R/105/96 &

Shri Anna Tarachand in R/106/

96 a semi skilled time rated worker

w.e.f. 16-4-95 as claimed by them

is legal, proper and just?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workmen are not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

8. IInd party workman are challenging termination of

their service for violation of Section 25 of ID Act. That their

services were terminated without notice, retrenchment

compensation was not paid to them. However the IInd

party workman failed to participate in reference proceeding.

He failed to adduce evidence. Their evidence was closed

on 10-2-2010 in all the matters.

9. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness

Nitin Pagnis & J. Issac supporting contentions of IInd

2884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

party management that the work of construction was

allotted to BGML in February, 1992. Work was completed.

Completion certificate was issued by Shri P.P. Chakravorty

Dy. Chief Engineer of MOIL. Workmen were engaged for

specific period. The termination of service of workman was

a result of non-renewal of contract of employment covered

under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act. Ist party No.1 BGML

executed the work and completed in 1995. Shri Nitin Pagnis

has also corroborated above said evidence. Both witnesses

of management were not cross-examined. Their evidence

remained unchallenged. I do not find reason to discard

their evidence.

10. Affidavit of evidence of Shri N. Rangaswamy is also

filed supporting contentions of management. His evidence

also remained unchallenged as workman remained absent

and failed to cross-examine. Identical documents are

produced in all the matters. Agreement Exhibit M-1 executed

between Ist party No.1 & 2 for execution of the work. Exhibit

M-2 is completion Certificate issued by Dy. Chief Engineer

of MOIL. It finds reference that the contract work of shaft

repairig was given to BGML. Said work was completed

during 16-10-92 to 15-4-95. Exhibit M-3 is Form No. 5 given

by Principal Employer. M-4 is order declaring Ist party No.1

as Sick Industry. As IInd party workmen have not

participated in reference proceeding, witnesses of

management are not cross-examined, their evidence

remained unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve

evidence of management's witnesses.

11. Learned counsel for Ist party management No.2

Shri A.K. Shashi relies on ratio held in:

Case of M.D. Karnataka Handloom Dev. Corp. Ltd.

versus M.L. Raval reported in AIR-2007-SC-631. Their

Lordship held respondent engaged on contract basis

assigned to train weavers on time specific short term

scheme sponsored by State Handloom Dev. Corpn.

paid stipend is not a worker soon after expiry of

specific period, respondent's service was

discontinued is not retrenchment as defined under

Section 2(oo) of ID Act is not necessary.

Reliance is also placed in ratio held in case of Steel

Authority of India Ltd. and another versus State of

West Bengal and others reported in 2009-I-LLJ-

241(SC). Their Lordship dealing with Section 7-A and

10 of Contract Labour (R&A) Act. Their Lordship

held the dispute raised by contractors Union referred

by State Government. No pleading by workmen that

contract was sham and bogus and reference was

quashed.

Ratio has no bearing to the controversy involved in

present matter. As the workman failed to adduce

evidence in support of their claim, I record my finding

in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

12. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1)

The action of the management of Bharat Gold

Mines Limited, PO Oorgaum, KGF 563120 in

terminating the services of Shri Ramesh Ganpatrao

in R/81/96, Shri Nand Kumar Govinda in R.105/96

& Shri Anna Tarachand in R/106/96 a semi skilled

time rated worker w.e.f. 16-4-95 is proper and legal.

(2)

Workmen are not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1345-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj foHkkx ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@

vkj@47@98½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@06@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@22@1996&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2015

S.O. 1345.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/47/

98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Department of Telecommunications

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 30/06/2015.

[No. L-40012/22/1996-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/47/98

Shri Dharam Singh,

S/o Shri Harnam Singh,

Ex-Motor Driver,

R/o Qr. No. 1105/2,

Construction Colony,

SE. Railway, Bilaspur

........Workman

Versus

Sub Divisional Engineer,

Telecom (Railway Electrification Project),

Govt. of India,

Deptt. of Telecommunications,

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2885

Office palas No. 34, Raj Kishore Nagar,

Bilaspur

......Management

AWARD

Passed on this 29th day of May, 2015

1. As per letter dated 23-2-98 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section - 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-40012/22/96-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates

to:

"Whether the action of the management of Sub

Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Railway Electrification

Project, Bilaspur in terminating the services of

Shri Dharam Singh S/o Harnam Singh, Ex-Motor Driver

w.e.f. August, 1994 is justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 4/1 to 4/2. Case of workman is that he was employed

as Motor Driver from Sept., 93 to December, 94 in office of

Asstt. Engineer of IInd party. He was continuously working

more than 240 days. His services were abruptly terminated

by management without order in writing. The termination

of his services amounts to retrenchment. He was not paid

retrenchment compensation before terminating his services.

Prior permission of Government was not obtained by the

management. Termination of his service is in violation of

Section 25-F,H,N of ID Act. On such ground, workman

prays for his reinstatement with back wages.

3. IInd party was proceeded exparte on 4.7.07. As per

order sheet dated 31.7.07, it appears that said order was

wrongly passed, the order was called back, case proceeded

exparte against management. As per order dated 25.4.2013,

exparte order against management was called back

imposing cost of Rs. 500 However IInd party management

failed to file Written Statement.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Sub Divisional

Engineer, Telecom, Railway

Electrification Project, Bilaspur in

terminating the services of Shri

Dharam Singh S/o Harnam

Singh, Ex-Motor Driver w.e.f.

August, 1994 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

5. Workman is challenging termination of his service for

violation of Section 25-F,H,N of ID Act. That he was not

paid retrenchment compensation. Permission of

Government was not obtained before termination of his

service. Exparte order was set aside against management,

case was fixed for evidence of workman. Workman failed to

participate in reference proceeding despite of repeated

notices sent to him. Despite the case was adjourned for

evidence of workman to 14.10.14, 5.12.2014, 18.2.2015

workman failed to adduce evidence in support of his claim.

Management also failed to adduce evidence. It is clear that

the parties failed to participate in reference proceeding

therefore the dispute under reference could not be

adjudicated on merit. Action of the management is not

proved to be illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding

in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

6. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1)

The action of the management of Sub Divisional

Engineer, Telecom, Railway Electrification Project,

Bilaspur in terminating the services of Shri Dharam

Singh S/o Harnam Singh, Ex-Motor Driver w.e.f.

August, 1994 is not proved illegal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1346-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj foHkkx ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@

vkj@14@02½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-06-

2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@279@2001&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2015

S.O. 1346.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/14/

02), of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum -

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Department of Telecommunications

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 30.06.2015.

[No. L-40012/279/2001-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

2886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM -ABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/14/2002

Shri Kalu Khan,

S/o Shri Raju Khan,

Vill Bablya

PO Gulavata,

Thana Sarangpur,

Rajgarh

....Workman

Versus

Telecom District Engineer,

O/O The TDE, Rajgarh,

At Biaora,

Rajgarh.

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of June, 2015

1. As per letter dated 3.1.02 by the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section - 10 of

I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/279/2001-

IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Telecom

District Engineer, Rajgarh in terminating the services

of Shri Kalu Khan S/o Shri Raju Khan w.e.f. Jan. 2000

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

entitled for?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 2/1

to 2/5. Case of workman is that he was appointed on muster

roll as causal labour with IInd party from March ,1990. The

services on muster roll were discontinued in 1992. He

continuously worked during January, 1992 to December

1992. He was paid wages under voucher. He was working

with lineman Hari Singh, Mule Singh and others at Pandanla,

Sarangpur, Sanpudi exchanges. Orkman also refers to the

judgment by Hon'ble Apex court for framing scheme for

regularization of casual labours. The scheme was made

applicable from 31.3.85. Cut off date was extended in various

judgments. Workman reiterates that he worked more than

240 days during each of the year. His services are terminated

without paying retrenchment compensation, in violation

of Section 25-F of ID Act. Incidently workman has pleaded

that he was paid Rs. 12 per month. Oral termination of

services is illegal.

3. The application for production of document was filed

by workman. IInd party has filed reply as well as parawise

reply. IInd party contents that muster roll is totally stopped

from 1985. Workman was engaged for petty work in the

department. Workman was neither appointed nor

retrenched by the department. That as per Rule 69 in General

Appendix 5, muster rolls are preserved for 5 years. The

record beyond 5 years is destroyed.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Telecom District

Engineer, Rajgarh in terminating

the services of Shri Kalu Khan

S/o Shri Raju Khan w.e.f. Jan

2000 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

5. Workman is challenging termination of his services

for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. His claim is opposed

by management denying his appointment.

6. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting

his contentions that he was appointed on muster roll by

IInd party March ,90 to March, 92 as casual labour. He was

working with different lineman. His wages were paid by

voucher. Workman remained absent for his cross-

examination therefore his evidence could not be relief.

Management failed to adduce evidence. Evidence of

management is closed on 7.1.2015. As the workman failed

to appear for his cross-examination, his evidence cannot

be considered. The claim of workman cannot be established.

For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in

Affirmative.

7. In the result award is passed as under:—

(1)

The action of the management of Telecom District

Engineer, Rajgarh in terminating the services of

Shri Kalu Khan S/o Shri Raju Khan w.e.f. Jan. ,2000

is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1347-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj foHkkx ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ@lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@

vkj@69@96½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-06-

2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@239@1994&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2887

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2015

S.O. 1347.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/69/

96) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Department of Telecommunications

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 30.06.2015.

[No. L-40012/239/1994-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/69/96

Shri Ramesh Kumar Avasare,

S/o Buddh Ram C/o Bhim Chandra Patel,

R/o Gangu Sahu, Taj Chowk,

Telibandh, Raipur

Workman

Versus

The Director,

Telecom Project (West MP),

T.T. Nagar, Bhopal.

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 15th day of June 2015

1. As per letter dated 26.2.96 by the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of

I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/239/94-

IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Coaxial

Cable Project D/o Telecommunication through

Divl . Engineer, Coaxial Cable Project, Shankarnagar,

Raipur MP in terminating the services of Shri Ramesh

Kumar Avasare is lawful and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 3/1

to 3/3. The case of workman is that he was engaged by IInd

party No. 2, 3 on 16.1.1987 in co-axial Project, Shankar Nagar,

Raipur. That he received education upto intermediate. The

workman was engaged in carrying work of receiving

telephone calls, safety of spare parts etc. from February 87

to 31.12.90. He was regularly paid monthly pay. He worked

with devotion from 1.1.1991. Workman was disengaged in

1996. Workman was called to work at Microwave station,

Bhatapara. Identity Card was not issued to him. He was

paid wages obtaining receipts signed by him. Workman

was disengaged on the ground that work in telephone

department were not available. The employees working in

coaxial department were transferred to other departments

of the telephone and continued in service. From January

97, workman was discontinued without notice, he was not

paid retrenchment compensation. Workman was given

assurances if permission was granted, he would be engaged

back. Workman submits that he is the only earning person

in the family, his family consists of mother, father, wife and

two children. He is unemployed. On such ground, he prays

that IInd party be directed to engage him as watchman,

phone mechanic etc.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/2

opposing claim of workman, IInd party submits that

workman was engaged purely on temporary basis by DET,

Raipur for execution of co-axial cable. Workman was

engaged on muster roll. He was paid for work done by him.

IIn party denies that workman was not paid retrenchment

compensaiton or no notice of retrenchment was served on

him. As per IInd party, on 31.12.90, amount of Rs. 2125/-

was paid to the workman towards retrenchement

compensaiton. IInd party denies any assurance was given

to the workman for his re-engagement. It is submitted that

Shri Daud and Tej Ram casual labours were prohibited as

per order passed in OA No. 71/91 dated 28.3.96, OA No.

196/90 dated 6.9.95 respectively. It is reiterated that workman

was served with notice of termination, retrenchment

compensation was paid to him. Muster rolls is available.

On such ground, management prays for reference be

answered in its favour.

4. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 6/1 to 6/2

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim. It is

contented that during 1987 to 1990, he completed more

than 240 days continuous service during each of the year.

His services are terminated without notice, not paid

retrenchment compensation.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Coaxial Cable

Project D/o Telecommunication

through Divl. Engineer, Coaxial

Cable Project, Shankarnagar,

Raipur MP in terminating the

services of Shri Ramesh Kumar

Avasare is lawful and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

6. Workman is challenging termination of his service

alleging he was not paid retrenchment compensation,

termination notice was not served on him. He completed

2888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

240 days continuous service during each of the year from

1.7.87 to 31.12.90. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence

stating he continuously worked from July 87 to December

90. He worked more than 240 days. He was doing work of

laying cables, he was paid for laying cables. He was

discontinued without notice from 1.1.1991. Shri Ramesh

Avasare, Bheemchand, Daud Khan, Tejram Sahare working

with him were regularised but his services were not

regularised by IInd party. Workman has produced I Card,

his working days are shown from 16.1.1997 till 30.11.90.

The careful perusal of his I Card Exhibit W-1, shows he

completed more than 240 days continuous service prior to

his discontinuation in the year 1990. IInd party has not

adduced by evidence. Workman is not cross-examined.

Evidence of workman remained unchallenged. Though IInd

party has contented that workman has paid retrenchment

compensation, no evidence is adduced in that regard. The

evidence of workman cannot be disbelieved that his

services were terminated without notice, he was not paid

retrenchment compensation therefore termination of

services of workman is in violation of Section 25-F of ID

Act. Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in

Negative.

7. Point No. 2. In view of my finding in Point No. 1,

termination of services of workman is illegal for violation

of Section 25-F of ID Act, learned counsel for Ist party Shri

Choubey argued that services of workman are not

regularised as per scheme in the department. Scheme is not

produced. The terms of reference do not relate to

regularization of services of workman any defence by

learned counsel for workman are beyond the terms of

reference. The reference relates to legality of termination

of services of workman and does not include the claim for

reinstatement.

8. Incidently the learned counsel for workman relies on

ratio held in —

"Case of Chief Conservator of Forest versus

Jagannath M. My attention is pointed to Para 22 of

the judgement. Their Lordship observed we have

given out due thought to the aforesaid rival

contentions and according to us, the object of the

state Act being prevention of certain unfair labour

practices, the same would be thwarted or get

frustrated if such a burden is placed on a workman

which he cannot reasonably discharge. In our

opinion, it would be permissible on the facts of a

particular case to draw the inference mentioned in

the second part of the item, if badlis, casuals or

temporaries are continued as such for years."

In Para—26 of the judgment their Lordship observed

Therefore what was stated in the aforesaid case cannot

called in aid at all by the appellants. According to us the

case is more akin to that of State of Haryana Versus Piara

Singh and others 1992(4) SCC 118 in which this Court

favoured the State Scheme for regularization of casual

labours who continued for a fairly long spell.

In present case, the workman was working with IInd

party from 1.7.87 till 30.11.90 for about 3 1/2 years. The

reference doesn ot relate to denial of regularization.

Departmental scheme is not produced by Ist party.

Therefore ratio cannot be beneficially applied to present

case at hand.

9. Next reliance is placed in—

Case of Union of India and others versus Daily Rated

Casual Labour Employed under P & T Deptt. Their

Lordship observed that it is against this document

that he say that non-regularisation of temporary

workmen is not a wise policy. As claim for

regularization is not included in terms of reference,

this Tribunal cannot decide claim beyond terms of

reference. Therefore regularization in service cannot

be allowed. Considering workman was hardly

working for about 3 1/2 years with IInd party. In my

considered view, compensation Rs. One Lakh would

be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in

Point No. 2.

10. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1)

The action of the management of Coaxial Cable

Project D/o Telecommunication through Divl.

Engineer, Coaxial Cable Project, Shankarnagar,

Raipur MP in terminating the services of Shri

Ramesh Kumar Avasare is not legal.

(2)

IInd party is direted to pay compensation Rs. One

lakh to the workman within 30 days from the date

of publication of award.

In case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per

annum from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1348-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj foHkkx

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ lhthvkbVh@,ylh@

vkj@102@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

30@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@75@2000&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the Ist July, 2015

S.O. 1348.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2889

102/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Department of

Telecommunications and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 30.06.2015.

[No. L-40012/75/2000-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL,Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/102/00

Shri Sanabbar Ali

S/o Mashuk Ali

R/o Suthalia,

Behind Garhi, Tehsil Biaora,

Raigarh (MP)

Workman

Versus

Telecom District Engineer,

Raigarh,

At Biaora,

Rahgarh (MP)

Manager

AWARD

Passed on this 8th day of June 2015

1. As per letter dated 31.5.2000 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/

75/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Chief

General Manager Telecom in terminating the services

of Shri Sanabbar Ali S/o Mashuk Ali w.e.f. April 1995

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

entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 2/1

to 2/4. Case of workman is that he was initially appointed in

Telecom Department as casual labour in September 1987 at

SDO Biaora, Distt. Rajgarh. He was working sincerely with

devotion. He worked continously till April 1995. He was

appointed against permanent vacant post of labour. He

completed more than 240 days continuous service during

each of the year. His services deserve to be regularised.

Despite he had completed 240 days continuous service,

in spite of regularization his services, was discontinued

from April 1995 without complying statutory provisions.

His services were discontinued without reasons. He was

discriminated. Principles of natural justice were not

followed.

3. Ist party workman further submits while he was posted

at Narsingarh sub-division, he was assigned duty of line

testing and recording entries in register. His services are

terminated by way of victimization. IInd party is engaged

in unfair labour practice. He was not served any notice. No

chargesheet was issued to him. Any kind of enquiry was

not conducted against him without terminating his services.

On such ground, workman submits that termination of his

service is illegal. He prays for his reinstatement with

backwages.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 4/1 to

4/2 opposing claim of workman. IInd party submit that as

per records available at SDO(T) Rajgarh, workman was

never engaged by the management. Claim for workman for

regularization of his service is baseless. Violation of

provisions of ID Act is denied. IInd party further submits

that workman was engaged purely as casual labor for

specific for specific work and specific period. As the work

was finished, his services were automatically discontinued.

There was no question of giving one months notice or

paying retrenchment compensation. Workman never

completed 240 days continuous service. On such ground

IInd party submits that reference be answered in its favour.

Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Chief

General Manager Telecom in

terminating the services of

Shri Sanabbar Ali S/o

Mashuk Ali w.e.f. April

1995 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any relief

REASONS

6. Workman is challenging termination of his services

for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act.Workman contents

that he had completed 240 days continuous service since

he was engaged in 1987. His services were discontinued in

April 1995. IInd party management denied all those material

contentions of workman. Workman failed to adduce

evidence in support of his claim. Rather he failed to

participate in reference proceeding. His evidence is closed

on 14-2-2012.

7. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness

Ramjani Khan supporting his contentions that workman

was engaged as casual labour. He not completed 240 days

continuous service during any of the year. His evidence

remained unchallenged as workman failed to cross examine

the management withness. As workman failed to adduce

evidence in support of his claim and evidence of

2890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

management's witness remained unchallenged, I record my

finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

8. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1)

The action of management of Chief General

Manager Telecom in terminating the services of

Shri Sanabbar Ali S/o Mashuk Ali w.e.f. April 1995

is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1349-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad uksV eqnz.kky;]

nsokl ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ

lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj 306@97½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 30@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&16012@2@96&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, The 1st July, 2015

S.O. 1349.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. case No. CGIT/LC/R/306/

97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Bank Note Mudranalay, Dewas and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 30/06/2015.

[No. L-16012/2/96-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/306/97

Shri Subhash Tote,

C/o General Secretary,

Bank Note Mudranalay Shrasmik Sangh,

Dewas, 1231,

BNP Colony, Dewas

...Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Bank Note Mudranalay,

Dewas (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 16th day of June 2015

1. As per letter dated 24-10-97 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section - 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-16012/2/96-IR (DU). The dispute under reference relates

to:

"Whether the action of the management of Bank Note

Press, Dewas MP in promoting Shri Nansingh

Nargave instead of Shri Subhash to the post of

Sr. Assistant Electrician (Varishta Sahayak Vidyatkar)

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

is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at page 6/1

to 6/2. Case of Ist party worman is that he was appointed

as labour on 17-1-76. Considering his satisfactory

performance, he was promoted as Assistant Electrician,

Electrician. That there was no adverse report against him,

no DE was not conducted against him, promotion of

workman was with held by IInd party till 16-12-05 for the

unknown reasons. That since 1995, workman was due for

promotion. Many juniors working in the department were

considered for promotion. Workman was discriminated. He

was denied pay scale to the promotional post till 16-12-05.

It is further submitted that the department having realized

its wrong, unjust and illegal activity, workman was promoted

as per order dated 16-12-05 in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-

6000 to the post of Electrician Grade I.

3. Workman submits that for almost 12 years. He was

not considered for promotion, junior employees were

promoted prior to his promotion. Workman had requested

on 29-12-05 to provide information w.r.t. criteria adopted

for promotion of Nan Singh Nargawe, Rankuram, Muchal

and Bhagat Singh, Workman has stated date of appointment

of Ramkuram Sitaram 28-4-76, Nan Singh Nargawe 13-3-79

& Viram Singh Muchal 2-6-76. Workman was appointed on

17-1-76 and claims to be senior to all of them. Workman

further submits that he was denied promotion overlooking

his seniority. There was no adverse report against him for

denial of promotion. After realizing his mistake, workman

was allowed promotion from 16-12-05. The information

requested by workman as per letter dated 29.12.05 was not

supplied. Workman is claiming difference of pay and

increments since 6-9-93 to 16-12-05 with 12% interest. He

also claims for according him deemed promotion from

6-9-93.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 7/2 to 7/8

opposing claims of the workman. IInd party submits that

BNP Dewas is Government of India undertaking. It is

engaged in printing of notes of various denominations. It

is factory engaged in production of security paper printing

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2891

currency. The unclassified industrial staff engaged in IInd

party have separate recruitment rules. Staff of different

categories were working in IInd party. Workman joined

Bank Note Press on 17-1-76. He was promoted as Assistant

Electrician. From 8-5-85, workman was working as Electrician

on regular basis. The channel of promotion for electrician

is to the post of electrician Grade I.

5. IInd party has contented that in 1995, one vacancy of

Electrician Grade I was there. On recommendation of DPC,

out of 5 persons under consideration, all were found not

suitable. Next senior most person Nan Singh was promoted

on recommendation of DPC. In 1996, the dispute w.r.t.

Subhan Kallukhan, Assistant Diesel Mechanic, BNP was

found not maintainable by the Ministry of Labour in 2003,

there were two vacancies of Electrician Grade I, 8 persons

were in consideration zone. After considering CRs and other

record, recommended promotion to Shri S.B. Yadav,

Rankuram Sitaram (ST) category. In 2004 there was one

vacancy of Electrician Grade I. 5 persons were under

consideration Zone including workman. DPC recommended

Shri Bhiram Singh Muchal for promotion to the post of

Electrician Grade I considering the bench mark Good. In

2005, two vacancies of Electrician Grade I were available.

8 persons were under consideration including the workman.

DPC had recommended Shri Bharat Singh Sawaisingh,

electrician for promotion of the post of Electrician. It is

further contented that after completion of enquiry against

workman, he was allowed promotion from 16-12-05. That

workman was convicted in criminal case No. 1150/94 for

offence under Section 420 IPC. He was removed from service

as per order dated 18-12-96. In appeal, workman was

acquitted, he was reinstated in service from 5-4-97,

Chargesheet was issued to workman under Rule 14 of CCS

CCA Rules for violation of security instructions and

another chargesheet was issued to workman on 3-3-04 under

rule 17 of CCS CCA Rules for misbehavior with Senior

officers. It is reiterated that the workman was considered

for promotion in 1995, 2003 & 2004 was not found fit for

promotion. The contentions of workman that his service

record was very good is incorrect. The allegation for

discrimination towards workman have been denied.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the

Parties failed to

management of Bank Note

participate in

Press, Dewas MP in

reference as such

promoting Shri Nansingh

the dispute could

Nargave instead of

not be decided

Shri Subhash to the post of

recording evidence.

Sr. Assistant Electrician

(Varishta Sahayak Vidyatkar)

is legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

7. Workman has raised dispute and filed statement of

claim. Written Statement is filed by IInd party. Workman

failed to adduce evidence in support of his claim. Evidence

of workman is closed on 24-9-2014. Management also failed

to adduce evidence. The evidence of management is closed

on 26-12-2014. Parties did not participate and appear in the

reference proceeding therefore the dispute under reference

could not be decided in merit recording evidence of parties.

Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

8. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(i)

The legality of action of the management of Bank

Note Press, Dewas MP in promoting

Shri Nansingh Nargave instead of Shri Subhash

to the post of Sr. Assistant Electrician (Varishta

Sahayak Vidyatkar) could not be decided in merit

as parties failed to participate in reference despite

repeated notices given to them.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1350-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u bafLVV`;wV

vkWQ QkjsLV eSustesaV] Hkksiky ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ lañ lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj 142@00½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@60@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2015

S.O. 1350.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. case No. CGIT/LC/R/142/

00) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Indian Institute of Forest Management,

Bhopal and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 30.06.2015.

[No. L-42012/60/2000-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

2892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/142/00

Shri Prakash Sonwane,

S/o Shri Bansilal Sonwane,

Deepmala Pan Bhandar,

Durga Chowk,

Annanagar, Bhopal

....Workman

Versus

Director,

Indian Institute of Forest Management,

Nehru Nagar, P.B. No. 357,

Bhopal (MP)

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 15th day of June 2015

1. As per letter dated 31.07.00 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-42012/

60/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to :

"Whether the action of the management of Director,

Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal in

terminating the services of Shri Prakash Sonwane,

S/o Bansilal Sonwane w.e.f. 15.01.99 is justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 2/1

to 2/3. Case of workman is that he was appointed on

compassionate ground after death of his father Shri Bansilal

from 2.1.98. That his father Bansilal had died on 3.9.97 on

duty. Therefore he was appointed on compassionate

ground in place of his father. His work was excellent. His

services were discontinued from 15.1.99 without assigning

any reasons. Any chargesheet was not issued to him. He

was not given opportunity of hearing. No enquiry was

conducted agaisnt him that he completed 240 days

continuous service preceding 12 months of his termination.

He was not paid retrenchment compensation. Termination

notice was not isued to him. His services are terminated

illegally. He submits that the employee appointed on

compassionate ground cannot be terminated. On such

grounds, he submits that his termination is illegal. He prays

for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/7

opposing claim of workman. It is denied that workman was

appointed on compassionate ground in place of his father.

He denied that father of workman died on duty. As per IInd

party, father of workman died in Railway accident on 3.9.97.

Workman was engaged as casual labour as Helper.

Workman was not appointed on compassionate ground. It

is reiterated that on humanitarian ground, workman was

engaged as casual labour. There is no question of issuing

chargesheet or conducting enquiry against the workman.

Workman had not completed 240 days continuous service.

Casual employee is not entitled to notice or retrenchment

compensation. IInd party submits that reference be

answered in its favour.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Director, Indian

Institute of Forest Management,

Bhopal in terminating the services

of Shri Prakash Sonwane, S/o

Bansilal Sonwane w.e.f. 15.1.99

is justified.

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

Workman is not

is entitled to?"

entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

5. Workman is challenging termination of his service for

violation of section 25-F of ID Act. That his services were

terminated orally without notice. He was not paid

retrenchment compensation. IInd party denied above

contentions of workman.

6. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. He has stated

that he was appointed on compassionate ground in January

1998. His father died on 3.9.97. He was orally discontinued.

He was not paid retrenchment compensation. Notice of

termination was not given to him. In his cross-examination,

workman says he was not issued appointment letter on

compassionate ground. He claims ignorance whether there

are rules for appointment in compassionate ground in the

department. He admits his father died in train accident. He

worked for 11 months. He was paid wages for his working

days. He denies that he was engaged as per exigencies.

Workman has not produced any documents about his

working days. Any co-employee is not examined.

7. Management witness Shri Kyoriyakos filed affidavit

of evidence that workman was engaged as casual labour

on humanitarian ground. His engagement was on daily

wages. There are no rules for appointment on

compassionate ground. Evidence of management's witness

remained unchallenged. I find no reason to disbelieve his

evidence. Workman in his cross-examination says he worked

only for 11 months. The engagement was on casual basis.

The affidavit of evidence of workman is silent that he

completed 240 days continuous service before termination

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2893

of his services. The evidence is not sufficient to prove that

the workman had completed 240 days continuous service

therefore workman is not covered under Section 25 B of ID

Act, he is not entitled to protection under Section 25-F of

ID Act. For above reasons, termination of workman cannot

be said illegal. Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1

in Affirmative.

8. In the result, awared is passed as under:—

(1)

The action of the management of Director, Indian

Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal in

terminating the services of Shri Prakash Sonwane,

S/o Bansilal Sonwane w.e.f. 15.1.99 is proper and

legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1351-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u VsyhQksu

baMLVªht lhfer Hkksiky ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ lañ lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@55@05½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@10@2005&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2015

S.O. 1351.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/55/

05) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., Bhopal

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 30.06.2015.

[No. L-40012/10/2005-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/55/05

Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Tiwari,

C/o Dr. H. Saxena,

H.No. 171, Panchsheel Nagar,

Bhopal

...Workman

Versus

Project Manager,

Indian Telephone Industries Ltd.,

Network Systems Unit,

Western Zoen Office,

E-7/657, Ist Floor Arera Colony,

Bhopal

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 15th day of June, 2015

1. As per letter dated 13.06.05 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/

10/2005-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to :

"Whether the action of the management of Project

Manager, Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Bhopal

in terminating the services of Shri Rajeshwar Prasad

Tiwari w.e.f. 1.3.04 is justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled for?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist Party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 3/1 to 3/4. Case of workman is that he was engaged as

Office Assistant of IInd party from July 1999. He was paid

Rs. 3100/- per month. His work was satisfactory. Applicant

was doing work of dispatch, receiving, computer operating,

file work, accounts work as Office Assistant. He was orally

discontinuted from 1.3.2004. Workman was not served with

one months notice before terminating his service. Workman

had completed more than 240 days continuous service

during each of the year. He is covered as employee under

Section 25 B of ID Act. His services are terminated without

paying retrenchment compensation. Termination of his

service is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act.

3. Workman further submits that after termination of his

service, IInd party engaged Aarti Yadav, Shilpa Jadhav,

Rajesh Kumar and Pappu Khendelwal in April 2000, January

2001 & 2003. All those employees are still working with

IInd party. Principles of last come first go was not followed.

Seniority list as per Rule 76, 77 was not displayed. IInd

party has violated Section 25-G of ID Act. He futher

contented that IInd party has violated Section 25-N &

25-O of ID Act. Permission for his termination was not

obtained by IInd party. IInd party has not regularised his

services after completion of 240 days continuous service.

IInd party therefore engaged unfair labour practice defined

under Section Item 10, Section 5 of ID Act. On such ground,

workman is praying to set aside order of his termination

and allow him reinstatement with backwages.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/5

opposing claim of workman. IInd party has denied workman

was engaged as Office Assistant from July 1999. It is denied

that workman was paid Rs. 3100/- p.m. IInd party reiterates

that workman was engaged on contract basis. The wages

were paid for his working days. It is denied that workman

was orally terminated from 1.3.04 without issuing notice. It

2894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

is reiterated by IInd party that contract labouris not entitled

to termination notice or retrenchment compensation.

Violation of Section 25-F of ID Act is denied. It is denied

that workman completed 240 days service during each of

the year. It is denied that IInd party violated Section 25-F

of ID Act. Engagement of Aarti Yadav, Shilpa Jadhav, Rajesh

Kumar and Pappu Khendelwal is denied. It is denied that

principles of last come first go was not followed. Allegation

of unfair labour practice are also denied. IInd party submits

that workman was engaged on contract basis as per

exigencies. He is not entitled to any relief.

5. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 11/1 to 11/4 reiterating

his contentions in statement of claim.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of Project Manager,

Indian Telephone Industries Ltd.

Bhopal in terminating the

services of Shri Rajeshwar

Prasad Tiwari w.e.f. 1.3.04 is

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?"

order.

REASONS

7. Workman challenged termination of his service for

violation of Section 25-F, G, N, O of ID Act. IInd party

denied all material contentions of workman. IInd party has

pleaded that workman was engaged on contract basis. He

not completed 240 days continuous service. Workman is

not entitled to protection of Section 25-F of ID Act.

Documents produced by management Exhibit M-1, M-1(a)

shows payment of Rs. 3100 to workman for period

March 03 to Feb. 04.

8. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting

his contentions in statement of claim. That he was working

as Office Assistant on establishment of IInd party.

Workman is his cross-examination says in July 99, he was

pursuing his MBA studies. He was not appointed by

Project Manager. He was carrying work of discharging

accounts, billings, computer operator. He was paid fixed

monthly salary. Payments were made in name of Project

Manager. The evidence of workman that he was working

as Office Assistant, he was paid Rs. 3100/-, his services

were orally terminated from 1.3.04 is not shattered in his

cross-examination.

9. Management has not adduced any evidence.

Considering the documents on record, workman has proved

that before oral terminationl of his services, he was

continuously working more than 240 days. He was not served

with termination notice, he was not paid retrenchment

compensation. The evidence of workman that other workmen

engaged after him were continued in service remained

unchallenged. The termination of Ist party workman is in

violation of Section 25-F, G of ID Act. For above reasons, I

record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.

10. Point No. 2 —Termination of Ist party workman is

found illegal for violation of Section 25-F, G of ID Act as

per my finding in Point No.1 question remains is whether

workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. I

must make it clear that evidence of workman about

engagement of other persons namely Aarti Yadav, Shilpa

Jadhav, Rajesh Kumar and Pappu Khandelwal during the

year April 2000, January 01 & 2003 is not shattered. The

workman was terminated without notice, retrenchment

compensation was not paid. However, workman in his

cross-examination says after termination of his service, he

is not doing any work. He was pursuing his MBA studies.

As workman was pursuing his further study and was not

able to work, workman cannot be granted backwages. His

termination from service is illegal.

11. Learned counsel for workman Shri Ashok Shrivastava

relies on ratio held in case of.

Durgapur Casual Workers Union versus FCI reported in

2015 LAB.I.C.771. Their Lordship dealing with Section 25-H

& Item 10 of ID Act held workman were entitled for re-

employment.

Reliance is also placed in case of Tapas Kumar Pal versus

BSNL reported in 2015 (1) SCC-D 299(SC)-299. Their Lordship

dealing with question of reinstatemet upheld judgemnt for

reinstatement by Tribunal confirmed by Single Bench.

In case of Mackinon Machenzie & Company Ltd. versus

Mackinnon Employees Union reported in 2015-LAB.I.C.

1645. Their Lordship dealing with violation of Section 25-F

of ID Act, Retrenchment. One month notice not given to

concerned workmen before retrenchment nor one months

salary in lieu of notice was paid to them. It amounts to non-

compliance of conditions procedure to retrenchment as

per Section 25-F (a) & (c) of ID Act. Relief of reinstatment

with backwages was granted.

In present case, the services of workman are terminated

in violation of Section 25-G, H of ID Act. However worman

was pursuing in MBA study therefore reinstatement of

workman without backwages would be appropriate.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.

12. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management of Project Manager,

Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Bhopal in terminating

the services of Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Tiwari w.e.f. 1.3.04

is not legal.

(2) IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with

continuity of service but without back wages.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2895

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1352-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk /kkjk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj us'kuy

bafLVV~;wV vkWQ VsDuksykWth dq:{ks= ds izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 1] paMhx<+ ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 81@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 30-06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@149@2012&vkbZvkbZ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2015

S.O. 1352.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 81/2012) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, No. 1,

Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the National Institute of Technology,

Kurukshetra and their workman, which ws received by the

Central Government on 30.06.2015.

[No. L-42012/149/2012-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH.

Case No. ID 81 of 2012. Refernce No. L-42012/149/2012-IR

(DU) dated 16.01.2013/21.1.2013.

Shri Satbir C/o Shri Sat Pal Bairagi S/o Shri Dhula Bairagi,

Resident of Village Barana, Teh. & District Panipat-

Haryana.

Workman

Versus

1. The Director, National Institute of Technology,

Kurukshetra

Respondent

Appearance

For the workman

: None

For the management

: None

AWARD

Passed on 23.06.2015

Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

notification No. L-42012149/2012-IR(DU) dated 16.01.2013/

21.1.2013 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication:

"Whether the demand of Shri Satbir son of Shri Baru

Ram, Ex-Security Guard for reinstatement and

regularization in service with the management of

Director, NIT, Kurukshetra w.e.f. 05.01.2009 as

security guard is just, fair and legal? If not, what

relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. Today the case was fixed for evidence of the workman.

Shri Jang Bahadur Yadav appearing on behalf of the

workman pleads no instructions. On perusal of the file it

reveals that on two occasions last opportunity was allowed

to the workman to file his affidavit in evidence. Workman

never appeared in person before this Corut. No affidavit

has also been filed by the workman in evidence despite

several opportunities. It appears that workman is not

interested to puruse his reference. In view of the above,

the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for

want of prosecution.

Chandigarh

23.6.2015

S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1353-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 10@2006½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-07-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@153@2002&vkbZvkj¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2015

S.O. 1353.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 10/2006) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of Union Bank of India and their

workman, received by the Central Government on

02.07.2015.

[No. L-12012/153/2002-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

Rakesh Kumar

Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 10/2006

2896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Ref. No. L-12012/153/2002-IR (B-II) dated 18.04.2006

BETWEEN

Mr. Shahabuddin S/o Sh. Abu Mohammad Khan

Mohalla-Saiyadwada

Post Office-Baijnath Chowk,

Ghazipur City

Ghazipur (U.P.) 233001

AND

The Regional Manager

Union Bank of India

Regional Office

Ghazipur (U.P.)

AWARD

1. By order No. L-12012/153/2002-IR (B-II) dated

18.04.2006 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 Mr. Shahabuddin S/o Sri Abu

Mohammad Khan and the Regional Manager, Union Bank

of India, Ghazipur for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the action of the management of Union

Bank of India in terminating the service of Shri

Shahabuddin Khan w.e.f. 02.04.1989 is legal and

justified? If not, what relief is the disputant concerned

entitled to?"

3. The claim statement A3 has been filed by the workman

wherein it has been asserted that on 29.10.1985 he was

appointed as Driver in Union Bank of India, was attached

as personal Driver to Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad the then Regional

Manager of the Bank at Ghazipur, he continuously worked

there from 29.10.1985 to 02.04.1989 i.e., about three & half

years, thereafter his services were orally terminated in

violation of Section 25 ZA of the ID Act. The workman has

further stated that he was entrusted with duty of driving

vehicles and his services were also used for other bank

work like transmitting of cash, clearing or stationery etc.

4. It has further been pleaded that the workman was

also entitled to draw advance for the purpose of

maintenance of Mahendra Jeep UPH 5922 insured in the

name of M/s Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Mahua

Bagh, Ghazipur. The job of the workman which included

works like transmitting cash, clearing of stationery was

entitled for preference in appointment on the post of peon

cum driver in accordance with Para 20.16 of Bipartite

Settlement, 1966 applicable to the Union Bank of India.

The relevant paragraph 20.16 is as under:

"20.16 Bank work like transmitting cash, clearing or

stationery will not be entrusted to private drivers

empowered by bank officers. It as a result the

services of a driver are required for doing such bank

work, the existing private driver, if he was already

doing the bank work, shall be given preference for

appointment as a peon-cum-driver. Such peon-cum-

driver, whenever called upon to do so; drive any

motor vehicle, being used for the bank's work."

5. The workman further pleaded that during employment

of the workman the then Regional Manager, namely, Sir

Mukhtar Ahmad, on various occasions asked the workman

to perform his private household works after the duty hours

which was refused by the workman on few occasions which

caused Sri Mukhtar Ahmad to nurse grudge against the

workman.

6. It has been further pleaded that one vacancy of the

post of driver-cum-peon occurred in the month of

March, 1998 in the Union Bank of India against which the

applicant applied. But then Regional Manager, Namely Sir

Mukhtar Ahmad deliberately and willfully did not submit

the academic records of the applicant before the respondent

No. 2 through proper channel for the said post.

7. On being aggrieved due to arbitrary action of the

then Regional Manager Sir Mukhtar Ahmad, Writ Petition

1950/1988 was filed by the workman in the Hon'ble High

Court and the court passed an order dated 23.03.1988, its

relevant portion is as under:

"It is averted that the petitioner has already made

application for his appointment as Driver. It is also

averted that the petitioner is already in the

employment of the Manager of the Bank. If the

petitioner has in fact made application to the Bank

for his appointment as Driver the same shall be dealt

with on merits and no other appointment shall be

made before passing an order on the application of

the petitioner both these observations, the petition

is disposed of finally."

8. The workman asserts that one interview letter dated

16.04.1988 was issued asking him to appear before the

interview committee on 30.04.1988, but he was not allowed

by respondent No. 3 Regional Manager of the Bank to

appear in the interview, then applicant approached the

higher authorities of the bank appraising the entire fact

and the victimization of the applicant by the then Regional

Manager. In response thereto the Dy. Regional Manager

of the bank issued letter dated 01.07.1988. Subsequently,

the applicant was informed vide letter dated 15.1988 that

the candidature of the applicant for the appoint on the

permanent post of driver-cum-peon has been rejected on

the ground that the school leaving certificate of class VIII,

submitted by the applicant during the course of interview

was found to be forged one.

8. It has also been pleaded in the claim statement that

the applicant made representation to the respondent No. 2

submitting that no such forged document was submitted

by the applicant and it is a conspiracy on the part of

Sri Mukhtar Ahmed to eliminate him from the selection as

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2897

he was nursing grudge against the applicant. The applicant

also submitted the respondent no. 2 the copy of the school

leaving certificate of class VIII before opposite party no. 1

so that it may be verified.

9. An enquiry was conducted to verify the document,

in pursuance to which report dated 12.04.1989 was sent in

which it was concluded that school leaving certificate

produced by the applicant was genuine one.

10. It is further pleaded when the respondent no. 2 did

not take any final decision with respect to the selection of

the workman on the post of Driver-cum-peon; the applicant

filed writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court, which was

disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated

7.03.1990 directing the respondents to decide the

representation dated 12.06.1989 which was pending within

2 months. The respondent no. 2, thereafter, vide order dated

02.05.1990 finally took decision rejecting the selection of

the workman on the post of driver-cum-peon. In the

meantime applicant services were also orally terminated by

the respondent no. 2 w.e.f. 02.04.1989.

11. It has been further pleaded that on the one hand the

applicant was denied appointment on the permanent and

substantive vacancy of driver-cum-peon and on the other

hand his services were illegally terminated by an oral order

w.e.f 02.04.1989. In fact the management of the bank acted

in the most arbitrary and illegal manner while orally

terminating the services of the applicant working on the

post of driver continuously since 29.10.1985 which is in

violation of section 25ZA of the I.D. Act, 1947 which is

unfair labour practice on the part of the management of the

bank. It is specifically stated here that the applicant was in

continuous service since 29.10.1985 i.e. for more than one

year but the conditions enumerated under section 25ZA

has not been complied with while orally terminating the

services of the applicant w.e.f. 02.04.1989.

12. It is further pleaded that Bipartite Settlement 1966

applicable in the case of the applicant provides the

procedure for taking any disciplinary authority against any

employee of the bank vide paragraphs 19.11 and 19.12. In

the present case no disciplinary proceedings were initiated

at all against the applicant but the service was orally

terminated as he was victimized for claiming regular

appointment on the permanent and substantive vacancy

of driver-cum-peon.

13. The workman has pleaded that other 8 persons who

were discharging the similar duties were given regular

appointment on the permanent post of driver-cum-peon

but applicant has been discriminated. The names of 8

persons have been mentioned in para 18. The applicant

has stated that respondent/opposite party is following

illegal and unfair labour practice contrary to the provision

of Constitution of India and I.D. Act. 1947. The workman

has requested to set aside the oral termination w.e.f

02.04.1989, reinstate him with full back wages and continuity

of service, absorb him on the substantive post of peon-

cum-driver after setting aside the order dated 02.05.1990.

14. The opposite party has filed written statement A-28

mentioning therein the preliminary objection as well. The

opposite party emphasized that the applicant was not

employed with bank, there was no employer empoyee

relationship at any point of time, he is not covered under

the definition of workman as envisaged under Section 2 of

the I.D. Act. It has been mentioned in the written statement

that Mr. Shahbuddin was personal driver of Mr. Mukhtar

Ahmad, the then lead district Manager, therefore

termination of his services from the bank would not arise

at all the reference order itself is bad in the eyes of law, the

claim of the workman is not tenable in any case. The main

allegations of the claim statement have been denied by the

opposite party. The procedure for appoint of peon etc.

have been given in para 2 & 3 of written statement.

15. It has further been asserted by the opposite party

that the workman could not legally appointed driver-cum-

peon by Branch Manager the statement are totally false

and concocted by the workman. The Chief Managers at

branches and executives of the bank are permitted/allowed

to engage personal drivers of their choice and are

reimbursed salary paid to their personal drivers up to a

specific limit stipulated by the central office and Bank has

no role or hold for the engagement of such drivers. The

engagement of the applicant as personal driver is done by

an executive and not by the bank and it has no role to play

in the matter. The engagement of the applicant is the

personal decision of the Executive concerned and there

exist no employer and employee relationship between the

bank and the applicant. Since the bank has not recruited

the applicant therefore it cannot be claimed that he is an

employee of the bank or a workman as defined in the I.D.

Act., 1947. No appointment letter has been given to the

applicant by the bank. He was also not on the muster roll

and/or on the pay roll of the bank. It is admitted fact that he

was a personal driver of an executive of the bank.

16. Hon'ble High Court order dated 23.03.1988 in writ

petition No. 1950/1988 has been quoted by the opposite

party and it has further been stated the application of the

workman was considered by the bank although his name

was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. During

the process of interview it was revealed by Mr. Shahabbudin

had submitted some bogus certificate in support of his

qualification. After revelation matter was properly

investigated and it has been confirmed that Sri Shahbuddin

had tried to get employment in the bank through forged

documents and thereafter his candidature was rejected by

the answering bank as there is no room for dishonest person

in the Industry like bank and financial institutions.

17. It is also pleaded that thereafter Shahbuddin again

moved a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court,

2898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Allahabad for considering his representation dated

12.6.1989 regarding cancellation of his candidature for the

post of Driver which was already under consideration before

Dy. General Manager, Zonal Office, Lucknow. The said writ

petition was finally disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court

with following observations/orders dated 07.03.1990;

"The only grievance of the petitioner is that his

representation to the Dy. General Manager, Zonal

Office, Lucknow, has not been considered. The

representation is said to be dated 12.6.1989. If it is

correct, the aforesaid authority is directed to decide

the said representation of the petitioner within a

period of two months from the date of the service of

the certified copy of this order upon him. With these

directions the petition is disposed of."

18. Sri Shahbuddin had moved an application dt. 22.3.1990

along with the copy of the representation dt. 12.6.1989 before

the Dy. General Manager, Zonal Office, Lucknow. The said

representation was duly considered and replied by the said

authority by letter dated 02.05.1990 in which it was clearly

mentioned that Sri Shahbuddin had appeared for interview

before the interview board held on 30.04.1988 and 06.07.1989

for the post of driver-cum-peon at Regional Office, Gazipur

and submitted several documents along with a copy of

transfer certificate which had been found forged as such his

candidature for the post of driver-cum-peon could not be

considered. The order passed by the Dy. General Manager,

Zonal Office, Lucknow was final as no appeal or writ petition

had been preferred against the said order as the best of

knowledge of the answering bank as such claimant had no

right to agitate the matter again and again and to harass the

opposite party bank.

19. It is also pleaded that it is clear that from the facts

mentioned in the preceding paragraphs that the candidature

of Sri Shahbuddin had been considered by the answering

bank very liberally but every time he approached all the

forums not with clean hands. It has been pleaded in the

written statement that the applicant approached to Hon'ble

High Court twice but he could not get the back door entry

as such he approached with ulterior motives before this

Tribunal through the reference order. The opposite party

has specifically stated that bank is an undertaking of Govt.

of India, it has got its rules for appointment of sub staff/

driver, no appointment can made otherwise than without

following the established rules. The opposite party has

requested the Tribunal to hold that the applicant is not

entilted to any relief.

20. Thereafter rejoinder A1-30 has been filed on behalf

of the workman reiterating the pleas taken in the claim

statement, with the denial of main allegation leveled by the

opposite party in the written statement.

21. The workman has filed list of documents, paper No.

C-6,dated Nil; and additional lists dated 09.03.2007, paper

No. C-31, dated 12.08.2009, paper No. C-38 and dated

04.03.2011, paper No. W-43. The management has filed list

of documentary in rebuttal vide list of documents dated

04.03.2011, paper No. M-44 and dated 06.01.2012, paper

No. M-48. The workman examined himself, whereas the

management examined Sri Avanesh Kumar Singh,

Sr. Manager (P) in support of their respective claim. The

parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the each

other's witnesses apart from putting oral arguments.

22. Heard learned authorized representatives of the

parties at length and perused entire evidence on record.

23. The authorized representative of the workman has

contended that the workman was appointed as Driver with

the Bank on 29.10.1985 and worked as such up to 02.04.1989

continuously when his services have been terminated by

the opposite party bank without assigning any reason or

rhyme or complying with the mandatory provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman has also argued

that when one vacancy of the post of Driver-cum-Peon

occurred in the Bank he applied for the same and since the

opposite party was not forwarding his testimonials the

workman approached Hon'ble High Court for redressal of

his grievances. It is submitted that Hon'ble High Court

vide their order dated 23.3.1988 directed the opposite party

to consider his candidature against the post of Driver; and

the management getting annoyed from this delcared his

transfer certificate to be forged one and denied him

appointment on the post of Driver.

24. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the

management has submitted that the opposite party being

Central Government Undertaking observed certain Rules for

making appointment against the vacancies of Sub Staff,

whether temporary or permanent. It has contended workman

was never appointed by the Bank; rather he was engaged as

personal driver of Sri Mukhtar Ahmad, the then District Lead

Manager and the Bank has no role in his engagement

altogether. It is also submitted that the applicant had never

been paid by the Bank rather Sri Mukhtar Ahmed who

engaged him used to pay him on his own and the Bank used

to reimburse Sri Mukhtar Ahmed for the same, thus, there

was no relationship of employee and employer between the

applicant and the Bank. It is also submitted that the

candidature of the applicant against the post of Driver-cum-

Peon was test as per directions of Hon'ble High Court; but

the applicant could not fulfill the requirements being his

testimonial forged one. It is vehemently argued by the learned

authorized representative of the Bank that since the workman

was never appointed/engaged by the bank in any capacity,

therefore, there arises no question of terminating his services

at any point of time.

25. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival submissions of the learned authorized representatives

of the parties and scanned entire evidence on record in

light thereto.

26. The workman has come up with a case that he had

been appointed as driver by the Bank and worked

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2899

continuously till illegal oral termination of his services. It is

also the case of the workman that when there occurred a

vacancy of Driver-cum-Peon in the Bank, he applied for

the same; but the Bank authorities showed their

indifference to his application. Aggrieved from attitude

of the Bank authorities, he approached Hon'ble High

Court, which pleaded to direct the Bank to consider his

condidature against the vacancy of Driver; but the

management of the Bank illegally rejected his candidature

on the plea that the school transfer certificate submitted

by him is forged one.

27. The management of the Union Bank of India,

rebutting the claim of the workman has come up with a

clear cut case that being a public sector undertaking it has

certain specified Rules regarding recruitment on various

post in the Bank, including sub staff posts of Driver. It is

also the case of the management that the workman had

never been engaged/appointed by the bank management

in any capacity nor any payment was made to him at any

point of time. It has also been pleaded by the Bank that the

workman was actually engaged by Sri Mukhtar Ahmad,

the then Lead Manager as his personal driver. It was

Sri Mukhtar Ahmad who used to pay the workman and

Sri Mukhtar Ahmad was reimbursed accordingly, under

Rules, thus, there was no relationship of employer and

employee between the bank and the workman, therefore,

there arise no question of terminating services of the

workman by the bank at any point of time or violating any

of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The

bank management has also come forward with specific

pleading that the workman was considered against the

vacancy of Driver as per directions of Hon'ble High Court;

but the workman could not quality the same as the school

leaving certificate submitted by the workman was found to

be forged one.

28. The workman has stated in his cross-examination that

no appointment letter was given to him and that his

appointment was ad hoc. He further stated that he was not

given any letter regarding attachment with Sri Mukhtar

Ahmad. The workman admitted his signatures on paper

No. 48/2, application form and stated that he submitted

Transfer Certificate of Chashma-e-Rahmat Oriental College,

Gazipur.

The management witness, in his cross-examination,

stated that the workman was not working with the Bank

and he was personal driver of Sri Mukhtar Ahmad. He also

stated that Mukhtar Ahmad used to pay the workman put

of his pocket and Sri Mukhtar was pad Driver Allowance

for making payment to the workman. The witness stated

that the workman was disqualified for the post of driver for

production of false educational qualification certificate.

29. No doubt, the Bank being a public sector enterprise

has to follow certain Rules and Regulations while making

recruitment on various post/vacancies. As regard for the

vacancies on the Sub Staff, it has to notify he vacancies to

the Employment Exchange for the purposes of seeking list

of eligible candidates. On receipt of list, the sponsored

candidates, the eligible candidates are called for interview

and the selected candidates have to undergo further

recruitment procedure; but in the instant case no such

procedure was adopted. On the other hand the workman

has himself admitted that he was not given any appointment

letter, this strengthens the contention of the management

that the workman was personal driver of Sri Mukhtar

Ahmad, Regional Manager. Admittedly, under instructions,

the Chief Managers at branches and executives of the Bank

are permitted to engage personal derivers of their choice

and are reimbursed salary paid to their personal drivers up

a specified limit stipulated by the Central Office; and the

Bank has no role or hold for the engagement of such drivers.

The workman failed to reply upon any cogent

documentary evidence to substantiate this fact that he was

engaged/appointed by the bank and was paid by the bank.

Further, the workman himself has pleaded in para 06 of the

statement of claim that when a vacancy of Driver-cum-Peon

occurred in the bank, he applied for the same. Now the

question arises when he was already appointed by the bank,

why did he apply again, this goes to fortify the pleadings of

the management that the workman was personal driver of

Sri Mukhtar Ahmad. Thus, it is established that there was no

relationship of employee and employers between the

workman the management of the bank. Accordingly, it cannot

be held that the Bank ever terminated the services of the

workman at any point of time and thereby violated any of

the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

30. In 2006 (108) FLR R.M. Yallatti & Asstt. Executive

Engineer Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that initial

burden of proof to substantiate its pleadings through

cogent evidence, lies upon the workman.

Accordingly, in view of law cited above, the burden

that lied upon the workman to come with the evidence to

substantiate his pleadings that he was appointed/engaged

by the management of the Bank, following due process

and his services have been terminated in utter violation of

provisions contained in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; but

he failed to do so.

31. The workman has also pleaded that the management

of the Bank has wrongly and maliciously refused his

candidature against the post of Driver for fake educational

certificates. In this regard the workman, in his cross-

examination has admitted that the signatures mentioned

on the application form, paper No. 48/2, are his. However,

he stated that he did not file the same; but he simply signed

it. In the said application form it is mentioned that he is

working as personal driver in the Union Bank of India since

29.10.85. In the said application form, in column of

educational qualification it is written that he is eighth

standard pass from Intermediate College, Khalipur, Distt.

Gazipur. The workman in cross-examination has denied to

have submitted any Transfer Certificate of Intermediate

2900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

College, Khalipur, Distt. Gazipur; rather he has stated that

he submitted Transfer Certificate of Chashma-e-Rahmat

Oriential College, Gazipur. The management has filed

photocopy of the Transfer Certificate No. 11051 of

Intermediate College, Khalipur, Gazipur, which wad found

to be forged one, on verification.

Now once the workman has admitted his signatures on

the application form then he cannot escape from its

contents in which he has mentioned that he has passed his

eighth standard from Intermediate College, Khalipur, Distt.

Gazipur; and when it was found on verification that the

Transfer Certificate, claimed to have been issued by

Intermediate College, Khalipur, Distt. Gazipur, is forged one

then the management of the Bank had rightly rejected the

candidature of the workman. Taking the other aspect of the

case, as stated by the workman, in his cross-examination

that he did not enclose any Transfer Certificate with the

application form. If this statement is taken to be true then

again his candidature cannot be accepted for the want of

supportive documents in support of his educational

qualification. Apart from oral statement of the workman,

there is no cogent evidence that the workman passed eighth

standard from Chashma-e-Rahmat Oriental College, Gazipur

and he enclosed Transfer Certificate of the said college,

leaving no alternate than to rely on the evidence adduced

by the opposite party.

32. Hence, from the facts and circumstances of the case

and discussions made hereinabove; I am of considered

opinion that the workman was personal driver of the

Regional Manager of the Bank; there was no relationship

of employee and employer between the workman and the

management of the Bank, therefore, there was no termination

of services of the workman by the bank or violation of any

provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the

bank management rightly, rejected the candidature of the

workman for the want of requisite education qualification/

production of fake certificate. Accordingly, I come to the

conclusion that the workman, Sri Shahabuddin Khan is

not entitled to any relief.

33. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

34.

Award as above.

Lucknow,

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

04th June, 2015.

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1354-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;qufVM 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; y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 29@2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@30@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2015

S.O. 1354.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 29/2005) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of United Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 02/07/2015.

[No. L- 12011/30/2005 - IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRAIL

TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

RAKESH KUMAR,

PRESIDING OFFICER

L-12011/30/2005-IR (B-II) dated 05.07.2005

I.D. No. 29/2005

BETWEEN

The Central Committee Member

National Confederation of Bank Employees

SBI, Pandu Nagar, Kanpur

Kanpur (U.P.)

AND

The Chief Manager

United Bank of India

4B, Habibullah Estate, Hazratganj

Lucknow

AWARD

1. By Order No. L-12011/30/2005-IR(B-II) dated

05.07.2005 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 The Central Committee Member,

National Confederation of Bank Employees, SBI, Pandu

Nagar, Kanpur (Espousing cause of Sri Kishan Gopal

Kataray) and the Chief Manager, United Bank of India,

Habibullah Estate, Hazratganj, Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

''Whether the action of the Management of United

Bank of India in Imposing the Penalty of Reduction in

Pay by one Stage with Cumulative Effect on

Sri Kishan Gopal Kataray, Special Assistant Vide Order

Dated 03.05.2003 is Legal and Justified? If not, what

relief is the workman concerned is entitled to?''

3. The National Confederation of Bank Employees has

filed the claim statement A 1 -7, stating therein that the workman

Sri K.G. Kataray was appointed as Clerk on 02.05.1970

in United Bank of India, later on was confirmed on 02.11.1970

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2901

after completing probation period with excellent performance,

promoted as Special Assistant 24.05.1995 on the basis of his

seniority and bright working carrier, and was confirmed on

24.01.1996 in the same branch.

It has also been stated therein that the workman

performed his duties with utmost sincerity and integrity.

No superior could find a chance to question the workman.

The workman has further emphasized that he has an

unspotted service carrier of 36 years.

On 22.01.2000 the workman was issued a letter No. CRM/

CR/ADMN/LHB/329/2000, to explain the seven points

based financial loss for Rs.52500/-plus Interest thereon. It

is essential to quote that amount of Rs. 52500/- was

classified among four withdrawals from different accounts,

in different dates as under:

A-

Rs.10000/- from Account No.4606 on 09.01.98

B-

Rs.7500/- from Account No.4151 on 15.10.97

C-

Rs. 25000/- from Account No. 1143 on 26.11.97

D-

Rs. 10000/- from Account No. 1143 on 28.02.98

All the withdrawals were said to be made with same

irregularities like, no signature of drawer were tallied and

pass book did not accompany the withdrawals form/slip.

5. The workman has further stated that in the eyes of

law, all the four above transaction is of identical nature. If

any decision is taken by bank for any one of the four, that

decision must be identical for rest of all transactions, on

the basis of equality before law.

6. It has been asserted that item C & D mentioned in

para No. 5 of them claim statement could not be termed as

workman's misconduct as decided by the bank itself. Item

No. A & B in para 5 can not be treated as misconduct on the

part of the workman since they were identical as C& D,but

the bank management without any legal and genuine

ground treated it as negligence and misconduct, and

thereafter bogus charge sheet dated 27.04.2002 was issued

to the workman, leveled allegation under item A & B

mentioned in para 5.

7. The workman has pleaded that the management of

the bank lost the right to sustain the charge sheet, due to

prejudice, as, they reported the different dates for the same

& one withdrawals for Rs. 7500/- in letter dated 22.01.2000

and letter dated 20.02.2002. In letter dated 22.01.2000. The

event is said to take place on 15.10.97, whether in charge

sheet dated 20.02.2002 it is said to take place on 15.11.97.

On this ground this charge sheet has one fate; it is to be

set aside.

8. The workman passed payment by way of two

withdrawals to well known and frequent visiting customers.

So far as, the question of withdrawal with passbook is

concerned, the Bank in its verdict has given an example that

pass book may not be essential at the time of withdrawal, by

deleting two withdrawal transactions under the purview of

misconduct i.e. item C & D under para 5. It has happened in

the same show cause notice and chare sheet.

9. The act of passing two payments to valued customers

is an act done in good faith. So as signature tallying is

concerned, it was merely, the workman's error of judgment,

who was working in the capacity of special Asstt. i.e. payment

passing official. The work done, in good faith and error of

judgment do not constitute a misconduct. So charge sheet

is not more than a waste paper and deserves to be set aside.

10. The bank employees federation has further alleged

that unfair and improper enquiry was conducted on

imaginative ground, revengeful attitude was adopted by

the then Dy. Manager. The enquiry officer favoured the

management against natural justice and sufficient

opportunity was not provided to the workman, request for

second opinion by another hand writing expert submitted

by the workman was not entertained by the prejudiced

enquiry officer the workman has alleged unfair labour

practice and improper enquiry by the management thereby

resulting into illegal punishment awarded to the workman,

and his pay was reduced to the lower stage with cumulative

effect causing huge pecuniary loss. The workman prayed

to quash the enquiry and the punishment awarded to the

workman, with prayer to restore the financial loss with the

interest and all consequential benefits as well.

11. The workman has filed several documents as per list

C-11 viz;

i. Show Cause Notice

ii. Its reply

iii. Charge sheet

iv. Enquiry Report

v. Letter from Defence ( 3 dated 20.01.03)

vi. Letter from Defence (1; dated 21.01.03)

vii. Defence Brief

viii. E.O. Brief

ix. Letter D.A. & A.A.

x. Appeal from workman to D.A. & A.A.

xi. Letter Related with case of Mr. Chariyari (5) Etc.

12. The opposite party/management has filed written

statement A2-15, denying the allegations leveled by the

workman. The management has asserted that the workman

was posted as Special assistant at Lahurabir branch.

Varanasi in the bank but he was very careless and negligent

with his duties therefore show cause notice/letter dated

22.02.2000 was issued to him for the misconduct relating to

four incidents referring payment dated 09.01.1998 for

10000/-, 15.10.1997 for Rs. 7500/-, 26.11.1997 for Rs. 25000/-

and dated 28.02.1998 for Rs. 10000/-, the management has

also pleaded that charge sheet dated 20.04.2002 was issued

to the workman by the Chief Manager of the bank in respect

of two major incidents mentioned in para 21 of the written

statement, alleging that the workman has violated the bank's

2902

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

guidelines and his act has caused financial loss of 17500/-

plus interest. Sufficient opportunity was given to the

workman, he submitted the reply dated 15.04.2002 thorough

disciplinary enquiry was conducted by the management,

both the charges were proved against the workman

thereafter vide order dated 03.05.2003 reduction of pay to

one stage lower with cumulative effect was imposed on the

workman. The management has stated that fair and proper

enquiry was conducted; full opportunity was given to the

workman as per rules. Main contention of the claim statement

has been denied by the management and it has also been

stated that there was no discrimination; the other case of

Sri. B.L. Chariyari was different from that of the workman.

13. Taking into account the absence of the workman on

previous dated negligent conduct, the then Presiding Officer

on 19.09.2007 passed an order to proceed ex-parte against

the workman. Time was sought by the workman to move

application to set aside the said order. The workman was

permitted to file rejoinder on the payment of cost of

Rs. 300/-, vide order dated 15.12.09. On 13.04.2010 two

preliminary issues wee framed by the then Presiding Officer

regarding the fairness of the said departmental enquiry,

prejudice and natural justice etc. Later on several dates

were fixed but none appeared for the workman. My learned

predecessor observed on 18.10.2012 that the workman has

not been appearing before the tribunal since 2009.

Witnesses were examined by the management before the

Tribunal. Thereafter sufficient opportunities were provided

to the workman for cross examination but none appeared

on his behalf. Moreover, no evidence in support of the

claim statement was adduced by the workman.

14. Arguments advanced on behalf of the opposite party

management were heard at length and record was perused.

15. As stated hereinabove, the employees union has

alleged in the claim statement that without holding fair and

proper enquiry, prejudiced attitude was adopted, without

any genuine subsistance valid ground, the workman

Sri K.G. Kataray was punished by the bank, he was reverted

to the lower pay scale with cumulative effect causing

thereby huge financial loss and unnecessary humiliation

as well. It has also been alleged in the claim statement that

sufficient opportunity was not provided to the workman,

and his request for thorough examination by the hand

writing expert was turned down by the enquiry officer

without assigning any satisfactory reason.

16. The management has denied the ground taken by

the workman, and has elaborated all the relevant facts in

the written statement, mentioning therein that detailed,

thorough and fair enquiry was conducted sufficient

opportunity was provided, two charges were proved

against the workman. The management has asserted that

the workman had violated guidelines issued by the Bank's

Mannual clause 37, page No. 154 Part II deposit, and is due

to his misconduct and carelessness the bank has been

exposed of financial loss of Rs. 17500/- and interest thereon.

17. On behalf of the management Sri A.K. Srivastava,

retired Dy. GM, Sri Girish Dutt Misra and Sri K.K. Pandey

were examined as DW in support of the written statement.

18. The opposite party management has successfully

justified the impugned order dated 03.05.2003. The Learned

Authorised Representative for the management has cited

the principle by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in 2008(118)

FLR 1164 M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees Union,

Ghaziabad through its Secretary and Presiding Officer,

Labour Court (II) Ghaziabad. Law laid down by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in 1979 (39) FLR 70 (SC) and 1979 (39) FLR

70 (SC) has also been relied upon.

19. After having heard the arguments advanced by the

management, in the light of the evidence available on record,

it is inferred that the workman is not entitled to any relief in

this industrial dispute. The facts mentioned in the claim

statement have not been proved at all.

20. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above I

come to the conclusion that workman is not entitled for

any relief.

21. Award as above.

LUCKNOW

10.02.2015

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1355-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ bafM;k

izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 76@12½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@96@2011&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2015

S.O. 1355.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 76/12) of the Cent. Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur 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 02/07/2015.

[No. L-12011/96/2011-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2903

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/76/12

General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karamchari Sangathan,

Central Office, F-1, Karmbhoomi,

Tripti Vihar,

Opp. Engineering College,

Ujjain.

... Workman/Union

VERSUS

The Managing Director,

Bank of India,

Head Office, Star House,

C-5, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,

Bandra (East)

Mumbai

... Management

A W A R D

Passed on this 16th day of June 2015

1. As per letter dated 26-6-12 by the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of

I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12011/96/2011-IR

(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of

India in terminating the services of Shri Ashok Kumar

Vyas w.e.f. 2-6-08 without adhearing the provisions

of ID Act, 1947 is legal and justified? What relief

Shri Ashok Kumar Vyas is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

through General Secretary of Daily Wage Bank Employees

Union, Ujjain. The case of workman is that workman

Shri Ashok Kumar Vyas was engaged on daily wages by

then Bank Manager Shri N.S. Shah from 17-3-89. Workman

was engaged orally. His work was satisfactory and he was

working every day for 8 hours. Workman was initially paid

wages Rs. 30/- per day. Wages were increased to

Rs. 35,50,100 per day. That workman had completed 240

days continuous service. He was in employment of IInd

party for 90 days. Workman was paid bonus. On 2-6-08, his

services were discontinued without notice. Workman

reiterated that his services were terminated without notice,

retrenchment compensation was not paid to him though

he completed 240 days continuous service before his

discontinuation. Workman prays that for violation of

Section 25-F of ID Act, his termination from service be set-

aside. He also prays for reinstatement with back wages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of

the workman. IInd party submits that dispute is raised by

the Union challenging illegal termination. Union has no

locus to raise dispute. Employer employee relationship does

not exist between parties. He is not workman as defined

under Section 2(s) of ID Act. The casual labours engaged

in the Bank are compensated for their service. That

Ist party has not discussed anything with regard to his

employment with the management. The documents are not

produced. The claimant was not employed by Bank on

regular basis. He was not appointed against permanent

sanctioned post. IInd party further submits that Bank is

covered by statutory rules and regulations. Persons seeking

employment in bank has to face the procedure prescribed

for appointment. Only such employees are entitled for

regular employment. The Branch manager in order to ensure

smooth customer service are engaging persons when there

is temporary increase in work, when regular sub staff is on

leave. The persons who are so engaged are compensated

by fair amount. Branch Manager is not Appointing

Authority. As per directions of Central Government,

employment of sub cadre staff is made in the list of the

candidate called from the Employment Exchange. The

Government Organisation are bound to notify vacancies

to Employment Exchange. When suitable candidates are

available, a certificate is issued by Employment Exchange

for appointment from other sources. It is reiterated that the

persons engaged on casual basis are paid by the Managers

and is entitled to reimbursement of such amount. That the

services are covered by bipartite settlement, Sastry Award,

Desai award, the engagement of daily wage employee ends

on the day, he need not report on next day. IInd party

denied workman completed 240 days service. Violation of

Section 25-F of ID Act is denied. It is denied that workman

was engaged from 17-3-89 on daily wages. It is submitted

that claim of workman is not tenable. Workman is not entitled

to any relief.

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

Workman failed to establish

management of Bank of

his services are terminated

India in terminating the

in that violation of

services of Shri Ashok Kumar

provisions of ID Act.

Vyas w.e.f. 2-6-08 without

adhearing the provisions of

ID Act, 1947 is legal and

justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

Workman is not entitled to

workman is entitled to?"

any relief.

REASONS

5. The dispute is raised by Union challenging termination

of workman Shri Ashok Kumar Vyas in violation of Section

25-F of ID Act. Management has opposed his claim.

Workman Ashok filed affidavit of his evidence. Workman

2904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

has stated that from 17-3-89 to 2-6-08, he was working in

the Bank. He was terminated without notice. However

workman did not appear for his cross-examination. Union

Representative submitted that workman doesnot desire to

adduce oral evidence therefore evidence of workman cannot

be considered.

6. At the time of argument, Union Secretary Ram

Nagwanshi produced certain documents, copy of letter

dated 12-5-15 addressed to Branch Manager, copy of reply

filed in R/27/12 to the application for production of

documents. It cannot be said legal evidence for deciding

controversy between parties. Copy of awards in R/180/00

relating to termination of services of Shri Sandeep Yadav

& R/4/07 pertaining to termination of service of Chhotelal

Kushwah are produced by Shri Ram Nagwanshi. These are

awards passed in the individual matters. Claim of workman

cannot be substantiated from those awards. When he failed

to appear for cross-examination, his evidence cannot be

considered for deciding controversy between parties. As

per ordersheet dated 31-7-2014, management submitted that

no evidence is to be adduced in the matter as such

controversy between parties cannot be decided for failure

of parties to adduce evidence. It is surprise to say that

workman has failed to establish that his services are

terminated in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.1.

7. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1)

Workman failed to establish that action of the

management of Bank of India in terminating the services of

Shri Ashok Kumar Vyas w.e.f. 2-6-08 is illegal for violation

of Section 25-F of ID Act.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1356-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj c®d vkWQ bafM;k

ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼77@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@103@2011&vkbZvkj¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2015

S.O. 1356.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 77/2012) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur 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 02.07.2015.

[No. L-12011/103/2011-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/77/2012

General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karamchari Sangathan,

Central Office, F-1, Karmbhoomi,

Tripti Vihar,

Opp. Engineering College,

Ujjain.

....Workman/Union

VERSUS

The Managing Director,

Bank of India,

Head Office, Star House,

C-5, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,

Bandra (East)

Mumbai

....Management

A W A R D

Passed on this 16th day of June 2015

1. As per letter dated 26-6-12 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-

12011/103/2011-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates

to:

"Whether Shri Ashok Kumar Vyas is entitled for

payment of bonus for the period from 1-1-2006 to

2-6-2008? If yes, what relief he is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim on

16-11-2012. Case of Ist party workman is workman was

orally engaged in extension branch in Dewas branch of the

Bank on daily wages Rs. 100/- as peon. Workman was

required to work from opening till closing of the Bank. That

wages of the workman were increased from Rs. 50 to 100

per day. He was continuously working more than 240 days

from 1-1-2006. When workman claimed appointment on

permanent post and payment of bonus, his services were

terminated from 2-6-08. Workman was not served notice,

retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. The

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2905

dispute about denial of bonus was raised before ALC, the

dispute has been referred.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement on 23-9-13 opposing

claim of the workman. IInd party submits that workman is

not member of the Union. Union has no locus standi to

raise the dispute. Employer employee relation is not existing

between parties. Workman is no covered under section

2(s) of ID Act. Employment of any person in industry is

variable. The apprentice is not covered as workman under

Section 2(s) of ID Act. Branch Managers are authorized to

engage persons as per exigencies. The Branch Manager is

not Appointing Authority. The Branch Manager can

engage sub staff temporarily when there is increase in work.

In the matter of recruitment, the reserved policy needs to

be followed. The names are required to be called from

Employment Exchange after advertising post. It is further

submitted that casual workman are paid wages as per the

prevailing rates. It is reiterated that workman is not covered

under Section 25-B of ID Act. It is denied that workman

was engaged from 1-1-2006. It is denied that his services

were discontinued without notice.

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 Shri Ashok Kumar

In Affirmative

Vyas is entitled for payment

of bonus for the period from

1-1-2006 to 2-6-2008?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

As per final order.

workman is entitled to?"

REASONS

5. The terms of reference relates to entitlement of bonus

to workman. His claim is denied by IInd party denying

employer employee relationship.

6. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. He has stated

that he was working with IInd party in extension branch at

Rewa from 1-1-06 to 2-6-08. He was paid Rs. 50/- per day.

Management failed to cross-examine the workman, his

evidence remained unchallenged. IInd party also failed to

participate in reference and adduce evidence. Evidence on

record proves that workman was continuously working

from 1-1-06 to 2-6-08. IInd party Bank can apparently be

covered under provisions of Payment of Bonus Act. As

per section 8 of Payment of Bonus Act, Ist party is entitled

to receive bonus from IInd party for the period 1-1-06 to

2-6-08. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point

No.1 in Affirmative.

7. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The workman Shri Ashok Kumar Vyas is entitled

for payment of bonus for the period from 1-1-2006

to 2-6-2008.

(2) IInd party is directed to accordingly pay amount of

bonus to workman within 30 days from the date of

notification of award.

In case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per

annum from the date of award till its realization.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer.

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1357-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy cSad vkQ

bafM;k ds izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼114@99½ izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@189@98&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2015

S.O. 1357.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 114/99) of the Cent. Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur 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 02/07/2015.

[No. L-12012/189/98-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/114/99

Shri Ganesh Ram Yadav,

Purani Basti, Gopiya Para,

Raipur.

.... Workman

VERSUS

Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Post Box No. 113, Choubey Colony,

Raipur.

.... Management

AWARD

Passed on this 29th day of May 2015

As per letter dated 22-2/9-3/99 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

2906

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/

189/98-IR (B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Central

Bank of India in dismissing Shri Ganesh Ram Yadav,

ex-Daftari of Central Bank of India, Durg Branch w.e.f.

25-11-93 vide Memo No. RO/Personnel/Vigi/93-94/

1690 dated 25-11-93 is justified? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 2/1

to 2/4. Case of workman is that he was working as peon in

IInd party Bank from 19-7-74 to 30-11-81. He worked with

devotion on 14-11-81, new branch of the Bank was opened

at Durg. Workman was transferred as peon in the new

branch. He was working with devotion in Bank till 7-8-91.

3. Workman further submits that his daughter in law has

submitted report to Police Station, Raipur alleging dowry

demands. The police were repeatedly interrogating him and

all family members. He was mentally upset. Because of

disturbed mind, he could not work properly. Some infirmity

in office work was committed. Explanation was called in the

matter by Regional Manager. He explained the

circumstances. He was orally warned by authorities.

Workman was allowed to work. After transfer of Regional

Manager, chargesheet was issued to him on 20-1-93 though

the matter was already disposed. The enquiry was not

properly conducted as per standing orders. Chargesheet

was not issued within 3 days, principles of natural justice

were not followed by Enquiry Officer. Without any evidence

of misconduct alleged against him punishment of dismissal

imposed against workman is illegal. The appeal filed by

workman was also decided without proper conciliation.

Workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/11

opposing claim of workman. Case of IInd party is that

workman was posted as Daftary in Central Bank of India,

Durg. He was assigned duty of dispatch department of the

Bank. Nature of his duty was to affix postal tickets on

ordinary and registered envelopes and take its entry in

dispatch register, to deliver those envelope in Post Office

obtaining receipt from postal department. That during

5-8-91 to 27-8-91, workman intentionally not dispatched 74

registered envelopes. Those envelopes were related to

valuable instruments dispatched to various customers and

branch. Those envelopes were not returned back by the

workman. On 15-9-91, explanation of workman was called

in the matter. On 16-9-91, workman submitted his explanation

admitting that all those 74 envelopes were not dispatched

in the Post office. The explanation submitted by workman

was not found satisfactory. Chargesheet was issued to

workman on 20-1-93. The charges against workman related

to defalcation of postal funds of Rs. 581/- by not delivering

74 envelopes detailed shown in Para-6 of the Written

Statement. Enquiry Officer was appointed, enquiry was

conducted against workman issuing notice. Workman

participated in Enquiry Proceedings along with Defence

Representative Shri Suresh. The chargesheet was read over

and explained to workman on 26-2-93, the documents were

got exhibited. On 26-5-93, workman and his Defence

Representative appeared and admitted all charges and he

recorded confession. It is reiterated that as workman

admitted chrges against him, the evidence was not required

to be recorded, enquiry was closed. Workman was given

opportunity for submitting briefs, workman did not submit

his brief. Enquiry Officer submitted report that charges

against workman were proved after issuing showcause

notice. Disciplinary Authority considering findings of

Enquiry Officer, charges against workman are proved.

Punishment of dismissal was imposed against workman

considering gravity of charges. On such ground, IInd party

prays for rejection of claim.

5. As per order dated 2-8-2013, enquiry conducted

against workman was found vitiated. Considering pleading

on record and order on preliminary issue, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the charges alleged

In Affirmative

against workman are proved

from evidence in Enquiry

proceedings?

(ii)

Whether the punishment of

In Affirmative

dismissal imposed against

workman is proper and legal?

(iii)

If not, what relief the

Workman is not entitled to

workman is entitled to?"

any relief.

REASONS

6. Enquiry conducted against workman is found vitiated.

Though case was fixed for evidence on other issues, the

Written Statement filed by IInd party finds clear pleading

that if enquiry is found vitiated, IInd party be given

opportunity to prove misconduct in Court.

7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence but he was

not cross-examined. Management's witness Shri H.P.

Dewangan also filed affidavit of evidence on the point of

legality of enquiry but he was also not cross-examined.

After enquiry conducted against workman is found vitiated,

management's witness Shri R.L. Kori filed affidavit of

evidence. The evidence of management's witness clearly

state that during 5-8-91 to 27-8-91, 74 registered envelopes

were not dispatched by workman in the Post office. The

postal stamp worth Rs. 581/- were misused. Chargesheet

was issued to workman. His further affidavit is devoted on

the point that workman has admitted charges against him.

That he not dispatched 74 envelope. The enquiry conducted

against workman remained absent and failed to cross-

examine witness of the management therefore I have no

reason to disbelieve evidence of management's witness.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2907

The evidence of management's witness is sufficient to

prove the charges alleged against workman, therefore I

record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

8. Point No. 2—In view of my findings in Point No. 1,

charges against workman are proved, that 74 registered

envelope were not dispatched by workman, the postal stamp

worth Rs. 581/- were misused. Workman had returned back

those 74 letters only after his explanation was called by

Manager. Affidavit of Management's witness is clear that

those 74 envelope contain instructions to the customers

and branches. As those envelopes were vital documents

relating to the Banking work, proved misconduct on part

of workman is of serious nature affecting the Bank work

therefore punishment of dismissal cannot be said excessive

disproportionate. Therefore no intereference is called for.

For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in

Affairmative.

9. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management of Central Bank of

India in dismissing Shri Ganesh Ram Yadav, ex-

Daftari of Central Bank of India, Durg Branch w.e.f.

25-11-93 is proper and legal.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1358-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼136@2001½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@69@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2015

S.O. 1358.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 136/2001) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur 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 02/07/2015.

[No. L-12012/69/2001-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/136/2001

Shri Yogesh Chatturvedi,

S/o Shivdutt Chatturvedi,

R/o Mari Mata, Mahal Gaon,

Distt. Gwalior,

Gwailor.

...Workman

VERSUS

Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Regional Office,

A.G. Office Road,

Gwalior,

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 5th day of June, 2015

As per letter dated 16-23/8/2001 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/

69/2001-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Regional

Manager, Central Bank of India, Gwalior in terminating

the services of Shri Yogesh Chatturvedi S/o Shivdutt

Chatturvedi w.e.f. 11-7-90 is justified? If not, what

relief the workman is entitled for?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 3/1

to 3/5. Case of workman is that he was appointed in

Janakganj branch of IInd party as per order dated 26.4.88.

He was appointed on daily wages. He worked till 25.6.88.

Thereafter he was transferred to Hardipur branch where

he worked till 5.12.89. He was posted at Janakganj branch,

Gwalior where he worked till July 1990. That he was working

as peon/daftary for 247 days. He was called for interview

on 14.3.93. He was allotted Roll No. 04. Workman was also

called by IInd party to Regional Office Gwalior. He passed

written test, workman was asked to produce necessary

documents. He deposited documents on 22.9.93. Thereafter

he was not informed by the management despite several

applications sent by him. His application dated 17.5.96 was

not replied. That he had worked on permanent vacant post

of peon/daftary. That he acquired status of permanent

employee. His services could not be terminated without

written order. That workman had completed 240 days

continuous service. The persons appointed after him are

still in service. IInd party did not follow principles of last

come first go. His services are terminated in violation of

Section 25-F,G of ID Act. Workman submits that he is

unemployed. He prays for reinstatement with backwages.

2908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

3. IInd party filed written Statement at Page 11/1 to 11/

10 opposing claim of workman. Preliminary objection is

raised by IInd party that as per statement of claim, workman

had worked for 247 days during 1988 to 1990. He had not

continuously worked for 240 days in a calendar year.

Therefore reference is not tenable. It is reiterated that

workman was not employee of the Bank. He did not works

as peon. The reference is vague. The Government should

not have referred the dispute. The question of termination

of employee arises only when employee is appointed after

following recruitment process. Workman was not appointed

following recruitment process. His name was not sponsored

through Employment Exchange. Workman had not

completed 240 days continuous service. The regular peon

are working in the Bank. The non-engagement of workman

is covered under section 2 (oo) (bb) of ID Act. Workman

wants back door entry in the Bank. All adverse contentions

of workman are denied. Workman was working in temporary

capacity as per exigencies. It is denied that workman had

worked for 247 days as claimed by him. The casual labour

does not get right of absorption as permanent employee.

In additional pleadings, IInd party submits that

Madanmohan Kushwah and 7 others filed Writ petition

before Gwalior Bench of MP High Court challenging

recruitment test. Hon'ble High Court refused to grant interim

relief. The interview was conducted, result of successful

candidates was declared. Those successful candidates were

absorbed in service. As workman was never engaged, his

claim is not justified. There is no question of termination of

his service.

4. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 13/1 to 13/7

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the

Termination of services of

management of Regional

workman by IInd party

Manager, Central Bank of

is not established.

India, Gwalior in

terminating the services

Shri Yogesh Chatturvedi

S/o Shivdutt Chatturvedi

w.e.f. 11.7.90 is justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

Workman is not entitled to

workman is entitled to?"

any relief.

REASONS

6. Workman is challenging termination of his service for

violation of Section 25-F,G of ID Act. Workman reiterates

that he was continuously working from April 88 to July

1990 for more than 240 days during a calendar year.

7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence stating that

he worked at Janakganj branch, Laskar Gwalior from 26.4.80

to 26.6.86. Then he was transferred to Jankaganj where he

worked till 1990. He was called for wirtten test on 14.3.93

vide Roll No. 04. He was called for interview on 24.9.93. He

appeared for test as well as oral interview but nothing was

heard from the management. That he acquired status of

permanent employee. His services are terminated without

notice, no retrenchment compensation was paid. Principles

of last come first go was not followed. In his cross-

examination, workman says he had appeared for test

alongwith substaff. He was called for interview. He did not

receive any letter about the result. He was told by the

interviewers that he passed the test. Prior to that he was

called for test, he worked for 60 days in Janakganj branch

Gwalior. He was paid wages at the rate of daily wages. He

has not produced any certificate about working days.

8. The document produced by workman Exhibit W-1

shows working days of workman 24 each in August 88 &

Sept. 88, 23 days in October 88, 22 days & 4 days etc total

90 days. In Exhibit W-2, working days of workman from

10.5.90 to 10.7.90 are shown 51 days. Exhibit W-3 is the

interview call issued to workman, Exhibit W-4 is letter given

by Regional office calling formation about the casual

employees working during 1.1.1982 to 24.12.1990. Exhibit

W-5 is call letter issued to workman. Exhibit W-6 is

application submitted by workman to ALC, the documents

discussed above does not show workman had completed

240 days continuous service. Though workman is claiming

that he had acquired temporary status, the document Exhibit

W-7 produced by him Clause 3(1) provides-temporary

employees should have put in 240 days temporary service

in continuous period of 12 months after 1.1.1982 to

31.12.1990 will be considered for absorption. Evidence

adduced by workman is not cogent that he completed 240

days continuous service during 1988 to 1990 therefore

claim of workman for absorption is not established. Rather

his claim for absorption is beyond the terms of reference.

The terms of reference relates to legality of termination of

his service. As evidence adduced by workman doesnot

establish that he completed 240 days continuous service,

workman is not entitled to protection under Section 25-F of

ID Act. Evidence of management's witness Ashwini Kumar

Arora is on the point that workman not completed 240

days continuous service. The workman was engaged as

casual labour. Evidecne of managements witness remained

unchallenged. Workman has failed to establish that he

completed 240 days continuous service. He is not entitled

to protection under Section 25-F of ID Act. For reasons

discussed above, I record my finding in Point No. 1 that

termination of service of workman is not established.

9. Point No.—2 In view of my finding in Point No. 1 that

workman has failed to establish illegal termination of his

service therefore he is not entitled to any relief. Claim of

workman for absorption is beyond terms of reference. Such

relief cannot be allowed.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2909

10. In the result, award is pased as under:—

(1) The termination of services of workman by

management is not proved illegal.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

Parties to bear their own costs.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1359-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ]1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,y vkbZ lh 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 232@99½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&17012@39@98&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2015

S.O. 1359.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 232/99) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of LIC of India and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 02.07.2015.

[No. L-17012/39/98-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/232/99

Shri Anand Swaroop,

S/o Shri K. Sharma,

R/o Sutarpura, Morar,

Gwailor.

..... Workman

VERSUS

Divisional Manager,

LIC of India,

Divisional Office,

Phool Bag, Lashkar.

Gwalior

..... Management

AWARD

Passed on this 4th day of June, 2015

As per letter dated 31-5/11-6/99 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-17012/

39/98/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Divisional

Manager, LIC of India in terminating the Services of

Shri Anand Swaroop S/o Kashiprasad w.e.f. 25.2.96

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

entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 2/2/ to 2/8. Case of workman is that he was shown as

temporary sub staff by IInd party No. 2 from 8-8-95. Infact

he was working with IInd party from 1-7-95. He was paid

Rs. 1200/- for the month of July, 1995. That for proper

working of IInd party No. 1, 2 daily wage employees were

engaged. Daily wage employee Gangaram Baghel was

relative of Hemant, therefore he was allowed on work.

Shri Ganesh Kam Kanojia was relative of Shri G.H.Kanojia-

AAO. Shri Balkishan Batham was also relative of Shri Suresh

Batham therefore they were engaged on work. That

workman was continuously working with IInd party No. 2

workman was paid salary Rs. 920/- for February 1996.

Workman has also worked with IInd party from March 1996.

He was paid Rs. 185/- towards his wages on 7-3-96. The

record of said payment maintained in budget control

out and name of Shri Jagdish Prasad was recorded with

oblique motive for terminating his service.

3. Workman further pleaded that orally his services were

terminated from 25-2-96. However Branch Manager

Shri B.K. Choudhary had told him to work till 7-3-96. As

such it is submitted that workman was working from 1-7-95

till 7-3-96 for total 251 days. He was working on vacant

post. In order to absorb son of his friend Naresh Kumar,

workman was retrenched. That he completed more than

240 days continuous service from July 95 to 7-3-96. His

working period was shown less for terminating services

legally. His working days were shown only 202 days with

oblique motive to absorb son of Naresh Kumar. His services

were terminated without notice, he was not paid

retrenchment compensation. Termination of his service is

in violation of Section 25 of ID Act.

4. Government of India has issued certain circulars w.r.t.

absorption of daily wage employee. The circulars were also

issued by the authorities time to time. Workman was not

given benefit of those circulars. His services were not

regularised on completion of 180 days service.

5. Workman filed Writ Petition No.260/98 before Gwalior

bench, MP High Court. It is further alleged that during

2910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

conciliation proceeding, ALC, Bhopal had not discussed

the facts in reply filed by IInd party dismissing Writ petition

260/98, it was absorbed that the dispute under I.D.Act was

tried to be raised and therefore the Writ petition was

dismissed. Precisely it is submitted that his services are

terminated in violation of Section 25 of ID Act. Workman

was not provided employment. After his discontinuation,

junior employees are continued. On such ground, workman

is praying for his reinstatement with backwages.

6. IInd party filed written submission at Page 11/1 to 11/3

contending dismissal of Writ Petition by Hon'ble High

Court. Claim of workman is barred by resjudicata provided

under Section 11(iv) of CPC.

7. The detailed Written Statement is filed by IInd party

at Page 7/1 to 7/10. IInd party had opposed claim of

workman. Preliminary objection is raised. That in view of

dismissal of Writ Petition No. 260/98, claim of workman is

barred by resjudicata, claim cannot be decided by this

Tribunal. IInd party submits that it is corporation

established under Section 31 of LIC Act, 1956. As per

section 6(1) of the Act, corporation is enjoined to carry on

Life Insurance business. The powers provided by Section

6(2) of the Act to its different projects are enumerated.

That Section 23(1) of the Act provides that the corporation

may employ such number of persons as it thinks fit for the

purpose of enabling it to discharge its functions under the

Act. As per Section 48, Central Government has power to

make rules for carrying the business. Government has

amended provisions of staff regulations, the amendment

in regulation in 1981. Regulations are statutory rules but

have over-riding effect on ID Act, 1947. That staff

regulation 8 provides that Managing Director, Executive

Director, Zonal Manager, Divisional Manager may employ

staff of Class III, IV categories on temporary basis. Verbatim

of those regulations are reproduced. In exercise of powers

under Section 23 of LIC Act, the Corporation has recruited

number of persons following the rules of appointment and

procedure. Rules supersede the recruitment instructions

1979 which were in operation in 1993. By amendment, IInd

party has pleaded that rules and regulations made under

LIC Act, 1956 have over-riding effect over provisions of ID

Act. In view of LIC Staff Regulations 1960, service

conditions of employees of LIC are covered. The Tribunal

has no jurisdiction to decide the reference.

8. On merit, IInd party in its Written Statement

engagement of workman is not disputed. It is submitted

that workman engaged by Branch Manager Shri G.P.

Choudhary was not authorized by Sr. Divisional Manager

for appointment of termporary Staff. Workman was

engaged as daily wage for 69 days during July 1995 to

October 95,. It is denied that Shri H.P. Kanojia, Suresh

Batham and Gangaram Baghel were appointed being relative

of other officials. It is submitted that they were appointed

following the prescribed procedure as per rules. IInd party

had denied that workman had continued to work in March,

1996. Payment of Rs. 185/- to workman is denied. That

amount of Rs 185/- was paid to one Keshav Singh on

7-3-96. IInd party has denied Ist party workman had

completed 240 days continuous service. Branch Manager

Shri G.K. Choudhary had no authority to engage workman.

Engagement of workman was without authority. Claim of

Ist party workman would amount to back door entry. Mere

engagement of workman does not confer him substantive

right for reinstatement. Workman is not entitled to

retrenchment compensation neither workman is entitled

for absorption or regularization. It is reiterated that Writ

Petition No. 260/38 was dimissed by Hon'ble High Court

and therefore principles of resjudicata is applicable. Claim

of workman is not tenable. On such ground, IInd party

submits that workman is not entitled to any relief.

9. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 29/1 to 29/8

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim. It is denied

that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the reference.

That IInd party has admitted engagement of workman on

daily wages. It is denied that claim of workman is barred by

res-judicata.

10. Considering pleadings on record, my predecessor

framed issues on 2-7-2001 give below:—

(i) Whether workman was employed temporary as

sub staff by management?

(ii) Whether services of workman were illegally

terminated by management from 25-2-96?

(iii) Whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement

with backwages?

11. Issues framed above not cover entire controversy

between parties, therefore points which arise for my

consideration and determination are as under. My findings

are recorded against each of them from the reasons as

below:—

(i)

Whether this Tribunal has

In Affirmative

jurisdiction to decide the

matter under reference?

(ii)

Whether claim of workman

In Negative

is barred by resjudicata in

view of decision in Writ

petition No. 260/98?

(iii)

Whether it is proved that

In Affirmative

services of workman are

illegally terminated by

management of IInd party

from 5-2-96?

(iv)

Whether workman is entitled

In Negative

for reinstatement with

backwages?

(iv)

If so, to what relief the

As per final order.

workman is entitled to?"

REASONS

12. Point No. 1, 2 Ist party workman is challenging

termination of his service for violation of section 25 of ID

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2911

Act. That Junior employees are regularised, his services

are terminated with oblique motive to absorb the relative of

the staff members. IInd party has raised objection to the

jurisdiction of this Tribunal barred by resjudicata in view

of dismissal of Writ petition 260/98 by Gwalior bench of

High Court. Copy of order of dismissal of Writ Petition 260/

98 is produced. While dismissing the Writ Petition, it is

observed that there is nothing on record to indicate that

the petitioner has right to hold the post. Moreover it is

indicated by the petitioner in Para 5(vi) of the petition he is

pursuing the remedy under the provisions of the ID Act.

Considering the facts and circumstances as brought on

record, no justifiable ground is made out for any interference

by this Court at this stage while exercising the extra ordinary

jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the constitution

of India. The petition was dismissed. The Hon'ble High

Court did not decide the claim of workman termination of

his service in violation of Section 25 of ID Act. Writ Petition

was dismissed as workman was pursuing remedy under

provisions of ID Act. As the matter was not decided on

merit by Hon'ble High Court, the provisions of Section

11(iv) CPC would not be applicable in the matter. This

dismissal of Writ Petition by Hon'ble High Court therefore

cannot bar remedy under ID Act. The contentions raised in

that regard by IInd party cannot be accepted.

13. With respect to objection to jurisdiction of this

Tribunal, preliminary objection as raised. My predecessor

has passed order that the point shall be decided alongwith

other issues. The order dated 2-7-01 passed by my

predecessor is clear that claim of workman is not barred by

resjudicata. Said order was not challenged by IInd party

and as such received finality. The objection raised by IInd

party on the jurisdiction of this Tribunal was raised by

amendment in para 10-A, 10-B. That the rules and

regulations framed under Section 48(2)(cc) overrides the

provisions of ID Act. I may make it clear that order of

reference made by Govt. of India was not challenged by

IInd party therefore dispute under reference needs to be

decided by this Tribunal. Learned counsel for IInd party

Mr. Amit Bharti did not argue w.r.t. point of jurisdiction of

this Tribunal. The ratio referred by IInd party in amendment

Para 10-A of Written Statement is also not produced by

counsel for IInd party for my perusal. Learned counsel for

IInd party has not brought to my notice any statutory

rules regulations of ratio on the point. I do not find

substance in contentions raised by IInd party about bar of

jurisdiction of this Tribunal. For above reasons, I record

my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative and Point No. 2 in

Negative.

14. Point No. 3- Before dealing with evidence of parties,

I may also mention that counsel for workman submitted

details of the proceedings time to time. It was emphasized

that application submitted under Section 65 read with Rule

114 of Evidence Act were pending. In application for

production of original documents, no order was passed.

After this preliminary issue was framed, the applications

filed by counsel for Ist party were decided by order dated

29-4-2015. The applications were rejected. It would not be

appropriate to discuss same point again.

15. The substance of the contentions of workman is he

completed more than 240 days continuous service. His

services were terminated without notice, not paying

retrenchment compensation. The termination of his service

is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. That the junior

employees were regularized. Workman was not provided

employment. The terms of reference pertains to legality of

termination of services of workman from 25-2-96. Workman

however pleaded that he was working with IInd party from

1-7-95 to 7-3-96. Evidence and documents relied by parties

needs to be discussed.

16. In his affidavit of evidence workman says he was

engaged by IInd party from 1-7-95. He was paid pay of

Rs. 1200. His services were treated as temporary sub staff

by Branch Manager Shri G.K. Choudhary. His affidavit is

devoted about the dispute raised before Conciliation Officer

and dismissal of Writ petition 260/98. That he worked for

251 days. His services were not regularised as per

regulation of 1960. That IInd party had admitted working

of 69 days of Ist party workman. Affidavit of evidence of

workman is further devoted about categories of the

employees as per Regulation of 1960 and the ratio held in

different cases by the Apex Court. In his cross-examination,

workman says that IInd party LIC is undertaking of the

Government. It functions as per regulations rules. He claims

ignorance about rules of temporary recruitment. That before

his appointment, no public advertisement was issued. He

not appeared for Written Test, only he was interviewed.

Any other persons were not called for interview along with

him. That he was working as class IV employee. He was

paid Rs. 40/- per day for working days. His monthly pay

was not fixed. He was paid wages for actual working days.

He was submitting application for payments. He claims

ignorance whether vouchers for payments were prepared

by OA department. From evidence of workman in his cross-

examination, documents Exhibit M-1, 1-a to f, M-2 and

M-2 a to h, M-3 are admitted. Workman in his further cross

denies that he worked only for 69 days and not completed

240 days continuous service. Workman further says on

12.5.96, he had appeared for the examination. Workman

corrected that he was not allowed to participate in the

examination, only he received admit card. Workman claims

ignorance whether Gangaram, H.P. Kanojia, and Suresh

Batham had passed examination.

17. The documents Exhibit M-1 shows workman working

with IInd party from 10.7.95 to 31.7.99. M-1(a) shows same

working period of workman, he was paid wages Rs. 40/-

per day. Amount of Rs. 170 was claimed. Exhibit M-1(b)

shows workman working from 1.8.95 to 4.8.95. The amount

of Rs. 160/- was paid to him. Exhibit 1 (d) shows working

2912

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

period of workman from 4.9.95 to 9.9.95. Exhibit M-1(e)

shows payment of Rs. 240/- to workman for period 11.9.95

to 16-9-95. Exhibit M-1(f) shows payment of wages for the

period 5-9-95 to 29.9.95. Exhibit M-1(g) shows payment to

workman for the period 4.10.95 to 14.10.95. Exhibit M-2

shows payment of Rs. 510/- to workman on 31.7.95. M-2(a)

shows payment of Rs. 170 to Ist party on 17.8.05 for period

of 17 days. Exhibit M-2(b) shows payment of Rs. 160/- for

the period 1.8.95 to 4.8.95 for 4 days. Exhibit M-2(c) shows

payment of Rs. 120/- on 14.8.95 for 4 days. M-2(c) shows

payment of Rs. 120/- on 14.8.95. Exhibit M-2(d) shows

payment of Rs. 240/- to workman on 9.9.05. M-2(e) shows

payment of Rs. 240/ to workman on 16.9.95. Exhibit M-2(e)

shows payment of Rs. 200 for 5 days to workman on 16.10.95

for period of 10 days. Exhibit M-2(h) shows payment of

Rs. 480/- to workman for 12 days. Exhibit M-3 shows

payment of Rs. 18/- to workman towards payment for TA.

Workman has produced bills vouchers and applications

regarding payment made to him. IInd party had denied

those documents. Payments under voucher dated 2.1.96 of

Rs. 70/- is admitted by IInd party.

18. Zerox copies of entries in budget control register are

produced. The register itself shows payment made to

workman on 7.3.96.

19. The evidence of management's witness Shri P.P. Arya

is on the point that workman had worked for 69 days form

July 95 to October 95, thereafter workman did not work in

IInd party. That H.P. Kanojia, Suresh Batham and Gangaram

Baghel were regularly appointed following the rules.

Workman had not completed 240 days continuous service.

From evidence of management's witness documents Exhibit

M-4, M-5 were admitted in evidence. Management's witness

in his cross-examination says during 1995-96, he was not

working as higher grade Assistant. Said post was of clerical

grade. During 1995-96, Shri R.K. Dixit was posted in Bhind

branch Gwalior Division. Management's witness was unable

to say whether workman participated in selection process.

He also claims ignorance whether workman was not allowed

to appear in the examination. Shri H.P. Kanojia, Suresh

Batham and Gangaram Baghel were appointed on 12-5-96.

As per pleadings and evidence of workman, his services

were terminated from 7-3-96. The appointment of above

persons is subsequent to termination of Ist party workman.

The cross-examination of management's witness is devoted

about budget control. The entries of payments are recorded

in said register. That page 70 of budget control register is

torned. He denies that said page was torned after workman

was rejected. Management's witness admits that Shri

G.K.Choudhary Manager was working at the relevant time.

Management's witness claimed ignorance about his

predecessors working in the Bank. The suggestion is denied

that workman had worked for 249 days in the branch. He

claims ignorance whether employee completed 180 days

service is entitled to regularization as per the circular. Any

document in name of Keshav Singh was recorded at Page

No. 9. That he had not seen payment voucher for 1996

before filing affidavit of his evidence. That Page No. 3, 18,

48, 60 & 95 of Account Register were torned. He claimed

ignorance since what time those documents were not in

the register.

20. Learned counsel for workman Shri Sharma pointed

my attention to application for production of document

was submitted by workman on 7-4-2011 and reply was not

filed or any order was not passed on such application. It is

further submitted that adverse inference be drawn against

IInd party. I am not convinced with the arguments advanced

by learned counsel. When application was filed for

production of documents and it was not pressed by

workman till the right for recording evidence and case was

fixed for argument. In the circumstances adverse inference

against IInd party would not be justified. IInd party has

not produced document about attendance of Ist party

workman. The evidence of workman is corroborated by

number of payment vouchers discussed above. The

evidence of management's witness that workman had

completed only 69 days working cannot be accepted in

view of payment vouchers produced on record. Those

documents are admitted by IInd party.

21. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri Sharma submitted

written notes of argument along with bunch of citations.

In case of Sudarshan Rajpoot versus Uttar Pradesh State

Road Transport Corporation reported in 2015(1) SSC (:&S)

451. Their Lordship held that workman was working on

permanent basis was not employed by respondent

corporation. Extracting work of permanent nature

continuously for more than three years on contract basis

is statutorily prohibited and hence impermissible, same

amounts to unfair labour practice and is punishable.

In present case workman was working with IInd party

from 1-7-95 to 7-3-96. The facts are not comparable, ratio

held in case cannot be applied to present case at hand.

The workman has pleaded that circulars are issued by

authority of IInd party for absorbing employee completing

180 days, such circulars are not produced on record.

Besides above, the terms of reference donot pertain to

claim for regularization of workman. It relates only to the

legality of termination of service therefore ratio held in

above case as well in case of Umrala Gram Panchayat versus

Secretary, Municipal Employees Union and others reported

in 2015-LLR-449 cannot be applied to present case.

Ratio held in case of Devinder Singh versus Municipal

Council Sanaur reported in 2011(4) MPLJ-62 relied by

counsel for workman relate to workman covered under

Section 2(s) of ID Act. Their Lordship held the source of

employment, the method of recruitment, the terms and

conditions of employment, the quantum of wages and the

mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether

or not a person is a workman.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2913

In present case, IInd party has not specifically pleaded

that Ist party is not covered as workman under Section 2(s)

of ID Act. The Parties are in serious dispute about

completion of 240 days service by workman and Violation

of Section 25-F of ID Act. Therefore ratio held in above

case cannot be applied to case at hand.

In case of Anoop Sharma versus Executive Engineer

reported in 2014(4) MPLJ-39. Their Lordship dealing with

termination of service of employee is by way of retrenchment

held non compliance of conditions precedent action of the

employer is nullity and the employee is entitled to continue

in employment.

In present case, evidence of workman is corroborated

by several documents that he was working from 1-7-95 to

7-3-97.

22. IInd party has not produced Attendance Register to

show that workman worked only for 69 days. The payment

voucher discussed above corroborates evidence of

workman that he was working more than 240 days.

Learned counsel for Ist party has also relied on ratio

held in—

Case of Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. versus

Rakesh Kumar. The ratio held in above case pertains to

fixed term employment and application under Section

2(oo)(bb) and Section 25-F of ID Act. The case of IInd

party is not that workman was engaged for specific period

on fraud committed by other side.

The facts of present case are not comparable and cannot

be applied to present case.

In case of Moolchand versus Radha Sharan and another

reported in 2006-MPLJ-601, the scope of order with Rule 2

was considered by his Lordship and it was held that the

pleadings cannot take the place of proof until it is not

proved by reliance evidence by examining the witnesses.

In present case, both parties have lead evidence and

therefore question involved is about appreciating of

evidence and corroboration of evidence of the parties. Ratio

held in the case cannot be applied to present case.

In case of MP Textbooks Corporation, Bhopal versus

Anil Jethli and another reported in 2008(1) MPJR-36. His

Lordship dealing with Section 2(oo) 25 B of ID Act. The

workman proved that he worked for 240 days management

did not take the plea that the appointment was on contract

basis. Management did not produced ledger or attendance

was unsatisfactory. His Lordship held initial onus on the

workman of having worked for 240 days is discharged.

Management did not prove to contrary.

In present case, evidence of workman is supported by

payment voucher and document discussed above shows

that he worked more than 240 days continuous service.

The evidence of management's witness is not worth of

place reliance. Management's witness has no personal

knowledge. Documents are not produced by management

about attendance and working days of workman. For above

reasons, ratio held in case of Commissioner, Municipal

Corporation, Katni versus Laxmi Narayan Jaiswal and others

cannot be applied as pleadings and evidence are not

comparable.

23. From evidence and documents discussed above, it

is clear that though workman completed 240 days

continuous service, his services were terminated without

notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him.

Termination of workman is in violation of Section 25-F of

ID Act. So far as regularization of Gangaram and two others,

other junior employees, claim of workman is not for

regularization. Those employees were appointed following

selection process. The candidates declared successful on

28-5-96 is produced at Exhibit M-4. The list of names of

successful candidates is produced at Exhibit M-5. Name of

workman is not appearing in the list. Workman cannot be

compared with those selected candidates. To sum up it is

proved that termination of services of workman is in

violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. For above reasons, I

record my finding in Point No. 3 in Affirmative.

24. Point No. 4, 5. In view of my finding in Point No. 3,

termination of services of workman is illegal for violation

of Section 25-F of ID Act, question arises whether workman

is entitled for reinstatement for backwages. The evidence

of workman is clear from 1-7-95 to 7-3-96. Payment vouchers

shows workman was engaged on wages Rs. 40/- per day.

Workman had not appeared in examination. He was not

selected following the rules.

25. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri Sharma argues

that termination of workman is illegal for violation of Section

25-F. Workman be allowed reinstatement with backwages.

In support of his argument, reliance is placed on ratio held

in—

In case of Harjinder Singh and Punjab State Warehousing

Corporation reported in 2010(124) FLR 700. The facts of

above cited cases are different. The appellant in said case

was employer in service of Punjab State Warehousing

Corporation from 5-3-86 as work charge Motor Man w.e.f.

5-3-1986. After 7 months further orders were issued to him

to work as Work Munshi in pay scale 350-525, 400-600, he

was continued in service till 5-7-88. The services were

terminated by issuing one months notice.

In view of the facts in above cited case are not

comparable, the ratio cannot be applied to case at hand.

26. Learned counsel for IInd party Mr. Amitabh Bharti

relies on ratio held in.—

Case of Hari Nandan Prasad versus Management of FCI

and another reported in AIR 2014-SC-1848. Their Lordship

considering workman worked barely for 3 years service

terminated in distant past. Termination found to be faulty

2914

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

on technical ground of non-compliance with Section 25-F.

Workman was not entitled to relief of reinstatement.

Considering the facts and evidence, workman worked

for about one year, compensation Rs. 50,000 would be

appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point

No. 3.

In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management of Divisional

Manager, LIC of India in terminating the services

of Shri Anand Swaroop S/o Kashiprasad w.e.f.

25-2-96 is illegal for violation of Section 25-F of

ID Act.

(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation

Rs. 50,000/- to the workman within 30 days from

the date of notification of award.

In case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per

annum from the date of award till its realization.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1360-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wdks c®d 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;] iVuk ds iapkV [02 (C) of 2014] dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2015

S.O. 1360.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award [Ref. 02(C) of 2014] of the

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Patna as shown in the

Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of UCO Bank and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 02.07.2015.

[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL, PATNA.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO.:— 02 (C) OF 2014

Between the management of Zonal Manager, UCO Bank

Zonal Office, S.K. Trafdar Road, Near Koliaghat Adampur,

Bhagalpur and their workman Shri Dablu Kumar, S/o-

Shri Banke Behari Pandey, Vill. & P.O.- Baijani,

P.S.- Jagdishpur, Dist.- Bhagalpur, through the State

Secretary, UCO Bank Employees Association, Bihar State

Committee, 2nd Floor, Saboo Complex, P.O.-Hotel Republic,

Exhibition Road, Patna-800001.

For the management :

Shri Ashutosh Nath Acharya,

Senior Manager, UCO Bank,

Bhagalpur.

For the workman

Shri B. Prasad, State Secretary,

UCO

Bank

Employees

Association, 2nd Floor, Saboo

Complex, P.O.-Hotel Republic

Exhibition Road, Patna-800001.

Present

Bipin Dutta Pathak

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

AWARD

Patna dated 22nd June, 2015

This application has been filed under the provisions of

Section-2A (1) & (2) of the Industrial Disputes

(Amendment) Act, 2010. This case has been filed by the

workman Shri Dablu Kumar against the management of

UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Bhagalpur for seeking relief of

wrongful termination of the workman who was part time

sweeper in the bank.

2. Case was pending for the evidence of the

management. In this case both parties had appeared and

written statement was also filed on behalf of the

management bank.

3. Today attendance has been filed on behalf of the

management and the workman through State Secretary,

UCO Bank Employees Association, namely Sri B. Prasad,

representative of the union.

4. Petition has been filed on behalf of the workman

stating therein that he was working temporarily in UCO

Bank, Zonal Office, Bhagalpur as sweeper. He was removed

from the service and as such he has filed this case before

this tribunal. He without any pressure wants to withdraw

this case. Now he has no dispute or complaint against the

bank.

5. On the point of compromise W.W-1 Dablu Kumar has

been examined today and in his evidence he has stated

that he was working since 1st September, 2007 in UCO

Bank Branch Baijani but he was removed from the service

after 09.10.2013. Now he has been again appointed and he

is working in the bank since 04.02.2015 and posted at Khaisar

Branch, Distt. - Banka.

6. He further stated that after removal from the service

he filed Industrial Dispute Case No. 02(C) of 2014 and he

withdraw of this case without any pressure. Now he no

complaint or dispute from the bank. In cross-examination

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2915

he has stated that he has no complaint and dispute

against the bank and he requested to pass "No Dispute

Award".

7. Since the workman wants to pass "No Dispute Award"

and he has no complaint or dispute against the bank and

he has again been appointed so "No Dispute Award" is

passed in this case.

This is my award accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

BIPIN DUTTA PATHAK, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1361-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj v/kh{kd] Mkd?kj

¼gSM vkWfQl½] Hkkjrh; Mkd foHkkx ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; tks/kiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 04@09½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

30@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@227@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2015

S.O. 1361.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 04/09) of the Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jodhupur now as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the

Suprintendent of Post Office and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 30/06/2015.

[No. L-40012/227/2003-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

vuqca/k

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj

ihBhlhu vf/kdkjh

% Jh egsUnz dqekj flagy]

vkjñ,pñtsñ,lñ

vkSñ fookn ¼dsUnzh;½ izñlañ

% 04@2009

fnus'kflag jko iq= Jh ukFkqyky jko] tkfr

jko] mez 33 o"kZ] fuoklh eqdke iksLV ckdjk]

xzke ok;k ckxjk] ftyk tkyksj ¼jktñ½

orZeku irk tSu ik'oZukFk] eafnj xksMhth

ds ikl] xksMhth] tkyksj ¼jktñ½A

----- izkFkhZ@Jfed

cuke

v/kh{kd] Mkd ?kj ¼gSM vkfQl½

Hkkjrh; Mkd foHkkx] fljksgh e.My] fljksgh

¼jktñ½A

----- vizkFkh@fu;kstd

mifLFkr%&

1- izkFkhZ ds izfrfuf/k

% Jh fxjh'k lka[kyk]

2- vizkFkhZ ds izfrfuf/k

% Jh fou; tSu

vf/kfu.kZ;

fnukad % 08-12-2014

1- Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=ky; us viuh vf/klwpuk Øekad

,y@40012@227@2003&vkbZñvkjñ ¼Mhñ;wñ½ ubZ fnYyh] fnukad

29-01-2009 ds }kjk fuEu fookn vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq bl U;k;ky; dks

izsf"kr fd;k x;k gS%&

"Whether the action of the management of

Superintendent of Post Office, Sirohi Mandal, Sirohi

(Rajsthan) in terminating the services of Shri Dinesh

Singh Rao w.e.f. 26.03.2000 is legal and justified? If

not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2- izkFkhZ us vius ekaxi= esa ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd mldh fu;qfDr

vñfoñ 'kk[kk Mkd iky ds in ij vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds v/khu czkap

iksLV ekLVj ikaFksjh ¼/kkuklk½ ftyk tkyksj ds v/khu fnukad

05-07-1999 dks Kkiu la[;k ,p@ih ,Q 310@II fljksgh fnukad

08-06-1999 ds varxZr iznku dh xbZA ekfld osru 1280 #i;s rFkk

eagxkbZ HkÙkk izfrekg ds vk/kkj ij dqy 1857 #i;s ij fu;qfDr dh

xbZA izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ ds le{k fnukad 25-06-1999 dks izkFkZuki=

izLrqr fd;k] ftl ij vizkFkhZ }kjk leqfpr ik;s tkus ij izkFkhZ dks

mDr fu;qfDr iznku dh xbZA

3- izkFkhZ us mYys[k fd;k gS fd mlus vizkFkhZ ds v/khu fnukad

05-07-1999 ls fnukad 26-03-2000 rd lsok,a iznku dha] mls v-

fo- 'kk[kk Mkd iky ds in ij fu;qfDr nh xbZ Fkh] ysfdu vizkFkhZ }kjk

mlls fyfidh; dk;Z ds lkFk&lkFk prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dk dk;Z Hkh

djok;k x;kA mldk dk;Z larks"kiw.kZ gksus ds ckotwn Hkh vizkFkhZ fu;kstd

}kjk izkFkhZ ds ekSf[kd vkns'k ls fnukad 26-03-2000 dks lsok,a lekIr

dj nhaA izkFkhZ us vius dk;Z o"kZ esa 240 fnol ls vf/kd fnol rd

vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds v/khu dk;Z fd;k gS] ysfdu mldh lsok i`Fkdrk

ls iwoZ mls fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ fyf[kr uksfVl] vkjksii= ugha fn;k

x;k] u gh dksbZ tkap dh xbZ] u gh dksbZ uksfVl vFkok psrkouh i=

fn;k x;kA lsok lekfIr ls iwoZ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds

izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr ,d ekg dk uksfVl] uksfVl ds cnys osru vFkok

dksbZ eqvkotk jkf'k dk Hkh Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ ds vuqlkj

mldh lsok lekfIr ds i'pkr~ vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk dbZ u;s Jfedksa

dh HkfrZ;ka dh xbZa] tks vuQs;j yscj izsfDVl dh rkjhQ esa vkrk gSaA

2916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

bl izdkj vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947

dh /kkjk 25,Q] 25th rFkk 25,p ds izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku fd;k

x;k gSA mls vizkFkhZ vk'oklu nsrs jgs fd mldh i=koyh Hkkjr ljdkj

U;w nsgyh dks izsf"kr dh xbZ gS rFkk mPp vf/kdkfj;ksa dk vkns'k vkrs

gh mls iqu% lsok esa j[k fy;k tk;sxkA vUr esa izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ }kjk

iqu% lsok esa ugha ysus ij izkFkhZ }kjk Je fookn dsUnzh; Je vk;qDr]

vtesj ds le{k fnukad 22-05-2003 dks izsf"kr fd;k x;kA l{ke

ljdkj us izkFkhZ ds izdj.k esa jsQjsal djus ls bUdkj dj fn;k] ftl ij

izkFkhZ }kjk ,d fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 3580@2004 fnus'k flag jko cuko

Hkkjr ljdkj rFkk vU; ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj easa

izLrqr dh] ftlds vkns'k fnukad 07-01-2009 ds }kjk mDr fjV ;kfpdk

dks Lohdkj djrs gq, le{k ljdkj dks izkFkhZ ds izdj.k dk iqu%

voyksdu dj rhu ekg ds Hkhrj&Hkhrj jsQjsal Je U;k;ky; dks

izsf"kr djus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k] ftl ij l{e ljdkj }kjk mDr

jsQjsal vtesj Je U;k;ky; dks izsf"kr dj fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ dk

izdj.k Je U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj ds {ks=kf/kdkj esa vkrk gSA mlds fuosnu

ij l{ke ljdkj us fnukad 06-05-2009 dks mDr Je fookn Je

U;k;ky;] vtesj ls tks/kiqj LFkkukUrfjr djus dk vkns'k ikfjr

fd;kA izkFkhZ lsok lekfIr ls vkt rd csjkstxkj gS] mlds thfodksiktZu

dk dksbZ lk/ku ugha gSA izkFkhZ ds lkFk vizkFkhZ }kjk Je 'kks"k.k fd;k

x;k gSA mDr vk/kkjksa ij izkFkhZ us ;g izkFkZuk dh gS fd mls lsok esa

iqu%LFkkfir fd;k tkos] mldh lsok,a yxkrkj ekuh tkosa o fiNyk

leLr cdk;k osru lsok lekfIr ls fnyk;k tkosA

4- i=koyh Je U;k;ky; vtesj ls izkIr gksus ij nksuksa i{kksa dks

uksfVl tkjh fd;s x;sA fnukad 24-1-2009 dks vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls

vf/koDrk Jh fot; tSu us odkyrukek is'k fd;kA fnukad 02-11-

2010 dks tokc izLrqr ugha fd;s tkus ij vizkFkhZ dk tokc is'k fd;s

tkus dk vf/kdkj [kRe fd;k x;k o fnukad 24-11-2011 dks vizkFkhZ

dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gksus ls vizkFkhZ fu;ksDrk ds fo#) dk;Zokgh

,d rjQk dh xbZ] fnukad 21-12-2011 dks vf/kdj.k }kjk

vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;kA

5- ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ,lch flfoy fjV la[;k

11699@2013 dh fnukad 06-01-2014 ds vkns'k ds vuqlj.k esa

vizkFkhZ i{k o izkFkhZ i{k dh cgl vfUre lquh xbZA

6- nksuksa i{kksa dks lquk x;k] i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu

fd;k x;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZ dk cgl esa dFku gS fd izkFkhZ i{k

}kjk is'k izkFkhZ ds 'kiFki= o nLrkostkr ,usDpj & 1 yxk;r ,usDpj

12 ls ;g lkfcr djus esa lQy jgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ foHkkx us

fnukad 05-07-99 dks vñfoñ 'kk[kk esa Mkdiky ds in ij fu;qfDr

nhA izkFkhZ us ogka fujUrj fnukad 26-03-2000 rd dk;Z fd;kA vizkFkhZ

us vizkFkhZ dh lsok fnukad 26-03-2000 dks lekIr dj nhA bl izdkj

izkFkhZ us 12 dys.Mj ekgksa esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd fnu dk;Z fd;kA

vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ls iwoZ /kkjk 25Q vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e] 1947 ds izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk ugha dh] ,d ekg dk

uksfVl ugha fn;k] osru rFkk NaVuh dk eqvkotk vnk ugha fd;k] izkFkhZ

dks vuqfpr rjhds ls lsok ls gVk;k] izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr vuqfpr o

voS/k gSA

7- vizkFkhZ i{k dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZ dks izksfotuy fu;qfDr nh xbZ

Fkh] tks fnukad 08-07-1999 ls 31-01-2000 rd nh xbZ FkhA izksfotuy

fu;qfDr flQZ fu;fer fu;qfDr gksus ;k de le; rd ds fy, gS rFkk

fdlh Hkh le; fcuk iwoZ uksfVl fn;s gVk;k tk ldrk gSaA izkFkhZ fu;qfDr

dk nkok ugha dj ldrkA

8- izkFkhZ us lk{; esa 'kiFki= is'k fd;k] ftlesa ekaxi= ds y{;ksa

dks nksgjk;k x;kA 'kiFki= ij ftjg ugha dh xbZ gS] blfy, izkFkhZ ds

'kiFki= ds dFku v[kf.Mr jgs gSA jsQjsal esa vf/kdj.k dks ;g r;

djuk gS fd fnus'kflag jko dh fnukad 26-03-2000 dks dh xbZ lsok

lekfIr fof/kuqlkj o oS/k gSa\

9- bl laca/k esa vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk ;g dgk x;k gS fd fnus'kflag dks

izksfotuy fu;qfDr nh xbZ Fkh tks fnukad 08-07-1999 ls 31-01-2000

rd nh xbZ FkhA gkykafd vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk u rks tokc is'k fd;k x;k]

u gh lk{; is'k dh xbZ gS] ijUrq ,usDpj 4 tks vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk

lgk;d Je vk;qDr dks Hkstk x;k Fkk] mlds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dks fnukad

08-07-1999 ls 31-01-2000 rd izksfotuy fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA

mDr frfFk ls Li"V gS fd mDr vof/k 240 fnu dh ugha gksrh gS] tcfd

jsQjsal ls ;g Li"V gS fd fnukad 26-03-2000 dks izkFkhZ dks lsok ls

gVk;k x;k FkkA fnukad 08-7-1999 ls 26-03-2000 rd dh vof/k

240 fnu ls T;knk gksrh gSA izkFkhZ us vius ekaxi= o lk{; ds 'kiFki=

esa Li"V crk;k gS fd mlus 240 fnu ls T;knk ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa

yxkrkj ukSdjh dh FkhA

10- ;gka ;g mYys[k djuk vko';d gS fd izkFkhZ dks fnukad

08-07-1999 ls 31-01-2000 rd izkfotuy fu;qfDr nsus ds ckn Hkh

vFkkZr fnukad 31-01-2000 ds ckn 26-03-2000 rd ukSdjh esa j[kk

x;kA izksfotuy fu;qDr O;fDr dks fu/kkZfjr fu;qfDr ds nkSjku ;k

le;kof/k lekIr gksus ij fcuk uksfVl ds gVk;k tk ldrk gSA ijUrq

bl izdj.k esa izksfotuy fu;qfDr dh le;kof/k ds ckn nks ekg ls

vf/kd le; rd izkFkhZ dks ugha gVk;k x;k] rd rd izkFkhZ us fujUrj

:i ls 240 fnu ls T;knk ukSdjh dj yh FkhA

11- bl izdj.k dh fo'ks"k fLFkfr ;g Hkh jgh gS fd izkFkhZ dh

f'kdk;r ij vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk ekeys dks vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq ekeys dks

jsQj ugha fd;k x;k rc izkFkhZ }kjk ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;

esa flfoy fjV la[;k 3580@2004 nk;j dh] ftlesa fnukad 07-01-

2009 dks ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vkns'k fn;k x;k fd

izkFkhZ ds ekeys dks iqu% lquk tk, vkSj jsQjsal djus gsrq mfpr fu.kZ;

fy;k tkosA ftl ij jsQjsal fd;k x;kA

12- mijksDr foospu ls izkFkhZ mldh lsok dh fujUrjrk esa lsok esa

iquZLFkkfir fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA izkFkhZ dh lsok lekIr gq, djhc 14 o"kZ

ls vf/kd le; gks pqdk gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa leLr rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa

dks ns[krs gq, izkFkhZ lsok lekfIr ls lsok esa iquZLFkkfir fd;s tkus rd

dh vof/k ds osru dh 25 izfr'kr jkf'k iwoZHk`fr ds :i esa izkIr djus

dk vf/kdkjh gSA

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2917

vf/kfu.kZ;

13- vr% ;g vf/kfuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSa fd%—

¼1½ vizkFkhZ fu;kstd v/kh{kd] Mkd ?kj Hkkjrh; Mkd foHkkx]

fljksgh e.My] fljksgh }kjk izkFkhZ Jh fnus'kflag iq=

Jh ukFkqyky dks fnukad 26-03-2000 ls lsoki`Fkd djuk

mfpr rFkk oS/k ugha gSaA

¼2½ vizkFkhZ fu;kstd izkFkhZ Jh fnus'kflag iq= Jh ukFkqyky dks

rqjUr lsok esa iquZLFkkfir djsaA izkFkhZ dh lsok,a mldh lsok

lekfIr dh frfFk ls lsok esa iquZLFkkfir gksus rd fujUrj

ekuh tk;sxhA

¼3½ izkFkhZ lsok lekfIr dh frfFk ls lsok esa iquZLFkkfir gksus rd

dh vof/k ds osru dh 25 izfr'kr jkf'k iwoZHk`fr ds :i esa

vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA

14- bl vf/kfu.kZ; dks izdk'kukFkZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=ky;]

ubZ fnYyh dks izsf"kr fd;k tkosA

15- ;g vf/kfu.kZ; esjs }kjk fy[kk;k tkdj vkt fnukad

08-12-2014 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa gLrk{kj dj lquk;k x;kA

egsUnz dqekj flagy] U;k;k/kh'k

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1362-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsUnzh; Hkfo";

fuf/k vk;qDr ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky; tks/kiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 02@09½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42011@10@2009&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2015

S.O. 1362.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 02.09) of the Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jodhpur now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Central Provident Fund

Commissioner and their workmen, which was received by

the Central Government on 30/06/2015.

[No. L-42011/10/2009-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

vuqca/k

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kdj.k

,oa

Je U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

% Jh vuwi dqekj lDlSuk]

vkjñ,pñtsñ,lñ

vkS|ksfxd fookn ¼dsUnzh;½ la[;k % 02@2009

nh okbZl izslhMsUV]

jktLFkku VªsM ;wfu;u dsUnz]

tks/kiqj

------ izkFkhZ

cuke

dsUnzh; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr

----- vizkFkhZ

mifLFkr%

¼1½ izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k Jh fot; esgrkA

¼2½ vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k Jh ;'koar esgrkA

vf/kfu.kZ;

fnukad% 03-02-2014

Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je foHkkx us viuh vf/klwpuk Øekad

&42011@10@2009&IR(DU) fnukad 05@05@2009 ds }kjk fuEu fookn

vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq bl U;k;ky; dks izsf"kr fd;k gS %µ

"Whether the action of the management of the Central

Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi/Officer

Incharge and Assistant Provident fund

Commissioner, Jodhpur in imposing a penalty of

reduction of pay by one stage for a period of 4 years

without cumulative effect on their workman

Shri Jawaharlal vide order dated 21/8/2006 is legal

and justified? If not, what relief the workman entitled

to".

2- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ekaxi= izLrqr djrs gq, ;g fuosnu fd;k x;k

gS fd izkFkhZ dks vkjksi i= la[;k 95 fnukad 29-04-99 dk;kZy;

vkns'k fnukad 07-12-2000 ds ek/;e ls 21 ekg i'pkr~ ;g vkjksi

yxkrs gq, fn;k x;k fd izkFkhZ us LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k fnukad

24-09-1998 dh ikyuk ugha dh rFkk fuyEcu vkns'k fnukad

19-11-1998 dks ysus ls badkj dj fn;kA blds vykok izkFkhZ us

dsUnzh; iz'kklfud vf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; dh ikyuk ugha dh] tcfd

izkFkhZ us LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k dh ikyuk djrs gq, fnukad 25-09-1998

dks viuk dk;ZHkkj fd'kuyky dks lkSai fn;k Fkk vkSj izkFkhZ dk;ZeqDr

gks x;k FkkA dk;Zxzg.k djus dh vof/k ds nkSjku izkFkhZ xaHkhj :i ls 51

fnu chekj jgk ftldk vodk'k izkFkZuk i= e; chekjh izek.k i= ds

izkFkhZ us izLrqr dj fn;k] ftlds laca/k esa iz'kklu us dksbZ vkifÙk ugha

2918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

dhA izkFkhZ us LoLFk gksus ij mi {ks=h; dk;kZy; dksVk esa dk;Zxzg.k dj

fy;kA izkFkhZ dks iwoZ fuyacu vof/k ds fuokZg HkÙkk dk Hkqxrku dj

fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ ds irs ij fuyacu vkns'k ugha Hkstk x;kA izkFkhZ dks

xyr vk/kkj ij iwokZxzg ls xzflr gksrs gq, vkjksi i= ns fn;k x;kA

izkFkhZ dks yach vof/k rd xyr :i ls fuyafcr j[kk x;kA izkFkhZ ds

vkjksi i= ij dh xbZ tkap dk;Zokgh voS/k gS] izkjafHkd tkap bdrjQk

dj yh xbZ vkSj mldh fjiksVZ ckn esa izkFkhZ dks Hksth xbZA izkFkhZ ds

fuosnu ij iw.kZ fuyacu vof/k dks lsok vof/k ekurs gq, 80 izfr'kr

fuokZg HkÙkk Hkqxrku dj fn;k x;kA tkap dk;Zokgh ckjg o"kks± ls

voS/k :i ls o izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)karksa ds foijhr nqHkkZouko'k

yafcr gSA nks ckj vihy xyr :i ls fujLr dh xbZ] ftldh iqujh{k.k

;kfpdk vkt Hkh yafcr gS] blds ckotwn Hkh vuq'kklukRed

vf/kdkjh us Biased tkap vf/kdkjh dh tkap fjiksVZ dks vk/kkj ekurs

gq, xyr 'kkLrh vf/kjksfir dhA izkFkhZ dh vihy dks Lohdkj djrs gq,

fnukad 20-12-2004 dks vihy Lohdkj dj 'kkLrh vikLr dh xbZ o

rhu ekg esa iqu% tkap dk vkns'k fn;k x;k] ;g tkap izkjaHk ugha dh

xbZA izkFkhZ dks ns; ykHk iznku ugha fd;k x;k o mldh ojh;rk dks

utjUnkt djrs gq, dfu"B O;fDr;ksa dks inksUufr nh xbZA dsUnzh;

Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr us Lor% izlaKku ysdj fnukad 21-08-2006 dks

vihy vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k fnukad 20-12-2004 dks vikLr djrs gq,

vuq'kklukRed vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k fnukad 19-12-2002 ds n.MkRed

vkns'k dks cgky dj fn;k o vizkFkhZ dks izR;kosnu izLrqr djus ds

fy;s leqfpr le; fn;kA mDr vkns'k ikfjr djus okyk vf/kdkjh u

rks Hkkjr ljdkj gS u gh dsUnzh; cksMZ gS u gh mijksDr nksuksa ds }kjk

fof'k"V vkns'k ds v/khu fu;qDr ;k euksuhr vf/kdkjh gSA bl izdkj

ls vkns'k 21-08-2006 dks {ks=kf/kdkj ls ijs tkdj le;kof/k ls

ckf/kr vlaoS/kkfud o 'kwU; gSA izkFkhZ us ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k gS fd

izkFkhZ dh okf"kZd osru o`f)] inksUufr o ,fj;j dk Hkqxrku xyr :i

ls jksd j[kk gSA bl izdkj ls izkFkhZ us foLr`r ekax i= izLrqr djrs gq,

vkns'k 21-08-2006 dks fujLr djus dh izkFkZuk djrs gq, izkFkhZ dks

ns; leLr ykHk o inksUufr vkfn iznku djk;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k

gSA vius rdks± ds leFkZu esa izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d

n`"VkUr o fu;e is'k fd;s] ftudk geus llEeku voyksdu fd;kA

1. AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1462, S.K. Verma Vs.

Mahesh Chadra and Others.

2. AIR 1984 Supreme Court 914, Ved Prakash Gupta

Vs. M/s Delton Cable India (P) Ltd.

3. 1992 (2) W.L.C. 455, Dinesh Chand Sharma Vs.

State of Rajasthan & ors.

4. 2000 (2) W.L.C. 338, The Management, M/s The

Rambagh Palace Hotel Ltd. Bhawani Singh Marg.

Jaipur Through its Area General Manager

Shri Malvinder Narang V/s The State of Rajasthan.

5. 2007 (1) W.L.C. 17, State of Rajasthan & Ors. V/s

Shri Harish Chandra Sharma & Ors.

6. The Employees Provident Fund Staff (Classifica-

tion, Control & Appeal) Rules 1971, Part-VIII

Revision & Review.

3- vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls ekax i= dk foLr`r tokc izLrqr djrs gq,

ekax i= dks fujLr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gS rFkk dgk x;k gS fd

izkFkhZ dks vkjksi i= la[;k 95 fnukad 29-04-1999 dks mlds fuokl

LFkku ij Mkd }kjk Hkstk x;k Fkk] ysfdu izkFkhZ ds ?kj ;g dgk x;k fd

og ckgj x;k gqvk gSA bl i= dks ?kj ds vU; lnL;ksa us ysus ls bUdkj

dj fn;k] ftldh lwpuk lekpkj i= esa izdkf'kr djkbZ xbZA izkFkhZ

dks LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k fnukad 24-09-1998 dk iw.kZ Kku FkkA izkFkhZ us

51 fnu chekjh dk vkosnu fdl ek/;e ls fHktok;k] bldk [kqyklk

ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ us dksbZ LokLF; izek.k i= izLrqr fd;k] mlus dksVk

esa fdl rkjh[k dks dk;Z xzg.k fd;k ;g ugha crk;k gSA izkFkhZ dks fuokZg

HkÙkk nsuk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ ds fo#) yxk;k x;k vkjksi

la[;k ,d] nks o rhu lgh gSaA vkjksi i= iwokZxzg ls xzflr gksdj ugha

fn;k x;k gS cfYd fu;eksa dh vogsyuk djus ij fu;ekuqlkj fn;k

x;k gSA izkFkhZ dks iw.kZ lquokbZ dk volj iznku fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ

ftEesnkj in ij dk;Zjr gS] mldh xyrh ds fy;s mls fuyafcr j[kk

x;kA izkFkhZ dks tkap dk;Zokgh esa cpko dk iwjk ekSdk fn;k x;k]

ysfdu izkFkhZ dk joS;k lgh ugha jgk o og tkap dk;Zokgh dks fcuk

otg yack [khapuk pkgrk Fkk] blh dj.k mlus iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk

fof/k fo#) rjhds ls izLrqr dhA izkFkhZ ds fo#) dh xbZ dk;Zokgh

fu;ekuqlkj gSA izkFkhZ fdlh izdkj dk vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vfèdkjh

ugha gSA izkFkhZ Jfed dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrk gS] u gh dksbZ VªsM ;wfu;u

izkFkhZ dh iSjoh dj ldrh gSA izkFkhZ us ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k gS fd Je

U;k;kyk; dks bl fookn dks lquus dk Jo.kkf/kdkj o {ks=kf/kdkj ugha

gSA vizkFkhZ us ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k gS fd ekaxi= esa in la[;k&12 esa

mBk;s x;s eqís izkFkhZ bl izdj.k esa izkIr ugha dj ldrk D;ksafd os fofè

vuqlkj jksds x;s gSaA ^dsV* tks/kiqj ds vkns'k fnukad 21-06-1991 dh

ikyuk ds fy;s bl izdj.k esa dksbZ vkns'k fof/k vuqlkj ugha fn;k tk

ldrkA izkFkhZ dh ofj"Brk dk eqík ekaxi= esa ugha fy;k tk ldrkA

in la[;k 24 esa ekax x;k vuqrks"k bl izdj.k ls lacaf/kr ugha gSA bl

izdkj ls vizkFkhZ us ,d izdj.k esa dbZ eqís fcuk fdlh fof/kd jsQjsUl

ds izkFkhZ dks izkIr ugha gksus dk dFku djrs gq, ekaxi= esa ekaxs x;s

vuqrks"k dks Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha crk;k gSA bl ekaxi= dks lO;; [kkfjt

fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA

4- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls lk{; esa Lo;a ds dFku ys[kc) djok;s x;s o

nLrkostkr izn'kZ&1 ls izn'kZ&5 dks izn'kZ djk;k x;kA vizkFkhZ dh

vksj ls dqynhi flag jkor] tsñ ,uñ nqykuh ds 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;s

x;A tsñ ,uñ nqykuh dks izfrijh{kk gsrq mifLFkr j[kk x;k] ftlls

izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k us izfrijh{kk dhA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izn'kZ&1 yxk;r

izn'kZ&38 nLrkostkr izn'kZ djk;s x;sA

5- geus nksuksa izfrfuf/kx.k dh cgl lquhA lEiw.kZ i=koyh dk

/;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;kA

6- fo}ku izfrfuf/k dh vksj ls Jh fot; esgrk us cgqr laf{kIr

cgl djrs gq, fuosnu fd;k gS fd The Employees Provident

Fund Staff (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1971,

Part-VIII Revision & Review ds fu;e 25 esa crk;s x;s

vf/kdkjh gh fjohtu lquus esa l{ke gSaA mudk fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ ds

ekeys esa ikfjr fookfnr vkns'k fnukad 21-08-2006 bl fu;e esa

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2919

crk;s x;s l{ke vf/kdkjh ds }kjk ikfjr ugha fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj

ls mUgksaus vkns'k fnukad 21-08-2006 dks fujLr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk

dj ekax i= Lohdkj djus dk fuosnu fd;k gSA

7- fo}ku izfrfuf/k vizkFkhZ us Hkh cgqr laf{kIr cgl djrs gq,

fuosnu fd;k gS fd /kkjk 2 ,l vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds

vUrxZr tks Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk nh xbZ gS] izkFkhZ dk ekeyk mlds

vUrxZr ugha vkrk D;ksafd izkFkhZ lqijokbZtj ds in ij dk;Zjr gksrs gq,

izfrekg 28]000@& #i;s osru izkIr dj jgk gSA mldk csfld osru

14]300@& #i;s izfrekg gSA bl izdkj mudk fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ

Jfed ugha gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa U;k;ky; bl fookn esa dksbZ vuqrks"k

ugha ns ldrk rFkk bl U;k;ky; dks ;g fookn lquus dk vf/kdkj ugha

gSA izkFkhZ vxj fookfnr vkns'k ls ihfM+r gS rks mls l{ke U;k;ky;@

vf/kdj.k esa viuk ekeyk izLrqr djuk pkfg;sA bl izdkj ls mUgksaus

ekax i= dks fujLr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA

8- fo}ku izfrfuf/k vizkFkhZ dh cgl dk tokc nsrs gq, fo}ku

izfrfuf/k izkFkhZ us ;g fuosnu fd;k gS fd ;g U;k;ky; fd;s x;s jsQjsal

ls ck/; gS] ;g U;k;ky; jsQjsal ls ckgj ugha tk ldrkA fo}ku

izfrfuf/k vizkFkhZ us tks vkifÙk yh gS og cgl ds nkSjku loZizFke yh

gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mudh vkifÙk xzg.k fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA

9- geus mHk;i{k ds }kjk j[ks x, rdks± ij xaHkhjrkiwoZd fopkj

fd;kA

10- loZizFke ge bl ckr ij fopkj djsaxs fd D;k fo}ku izfrfuf/k

vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZ ds Jfed ugha gksus dk rdZ cgl esa izFke ckj mBk;k

gSA bl laca/k esa ;fn vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr tokc dks ns[ksa rks

tokc ds iwoZ la[;k&20 esa vizkFkhZ ds }kjk ;g rdZ fy;k x;k gS fd

izkFkhZ Jfed dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrk rFkk bl U;k;ky; dks bl ekeys

esa Jo.kkf/kdkj o {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gSA bl izdkj ls fo}ku izfrfuf/k

izkFkhZ ds bl rdZ esa dksbZ cy ugha gS fd vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k us mDr fcUnq

cgl ds nkSjku izFke ckj mBk;k gSA

11- Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk ds ckjs esa fopkj djsa rks /kkjk 2 ,l

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e esa Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk nh xbZ gSA /kkjk 2

,l (iv) fuEu izdkj gS%µ

"who, being employed in a supervisory capacity,

Draws wages exceeding (ten thousand rupees) per

mensem or exercise, either by the nature of the duties

attached to the office or by reason of the power

vested in him, function mainly of a managerial

nature."

bl izdkj /kkjk 2 ,l (iv) esa Supervisory Capacity, esa vkus

okys O;fDr ftldk osru ten thousand rupees per mensem ls

vf/kd gS vkSj mlds dk;Z dh izd`fr managerial gS rks og Jfed dh

ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrkA

12- vc bl ifjizs{; esa ge izkFkhZ tokgjyky dh lk{; dks ns[ksa

rks ;g lk{kh izfrijh{kk esa dgrk gS fd eSa 'kk[kk i;Zos{kd ds in ij

dk;Zjr gwa] eSa lsD'ku lqijokbZtj ds in ij dk;Zjr gwa] esjs lkFk ,d

vkneh dke djrk gS] esjs v/khu dksbZ dk;Zjr ugha gSA og esjs ;k eSa

muds v/khu dk;Zjr ugha gwaA eSa 'kk[kk esa >kMw ugha fudkyrkA eSa QkbZysa

Lo;a ykrk gwaA esjs lsD'ku esa lkekftd lqj{kk lgk;d dk;Zjr gSA

i=koyh lacaf/kr lqj{kk lgk;d ykrk gS] og esjk cksl ugha gSA ;g

xyr gS og esjs v/khu dk;Zjr gksA eSa 'kk[kk lqijokbZtj ds in ij

dk;Zjr gwaA esjk csfld osru djhc 14]300@& #i;s gS] ^xzksl lsyjh*

yxHkx 28]000@& feyrh gSA bl izdkj ls izkFkhZ dh mijksDr lk{; ls

;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ 'kk[kk lqijokbZtj ds ij dk;Zjr gSA izkFkhZ

viuh gh 'kk[kk esa dk;Zjr vU; LVkWQ dks vius v/khu ugha gksuk

dgrk gSA esjs fouez er esa izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku lR; izrhr ugha gksrkA

lsD'ku lqijokbZtj dk dk;Z Mangerial dk;Z gks] ;g ckr ugha ekuh

tk ldrhA izkFkhZ dk osru Lohd`r :i ls 28]000@& #i;s izfrekg gSA

bl izdkj ls esjs fouez er esa izkFkhZ /kkjk 2 ,l ds vUrxZr ifjHkkf"kr

Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk gSA

13- fo}ku izfrfuf/k izkFkhZ us U;kf;d n`"VkUr AIR 1984

Supreme Court 1462, S.K. Verma Vs. Mahesh Chandra and

others izLrqr fd;k gSA bl U;kf;d n`"VkUr ds rF; ifjfLFkfr;ka osru

vkfn orZeku ekeys ds rF;ksa ls esy ugha [kkrs gSaA bl izdkj ls bl

U;kf;d n`"Vkar ls izkFkhZ dks dksbZ ykHk ugha igq¡prkA U;kf;d n`"Vkar

AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1914, Ved Prakash Gupta Vs.

M/s. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. ds ekeys esa QsDVªh esa dk;Zjr

flD;ksfjVh bUlisDVj ds dk;Z dh izd`fr dks ns[krs gq, Jfed ugha

ekuk x;k FkkA bl U;kf;d n`"Vkar ds rF; o ifjfLFkfr;ka orZeku

ekeys ds rF; o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls fHkUu gSaA bl izdkj ls bl U;kf;d

n`"VkUr ls izkFkhZ dks dksbZ ykHk ugha igq¡prkA U;kf;d n`"VkUr 1992(2)

W.L.C. 455, Dinesh Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan

& Ors. ds ekeys esa izkFkhZ fdlh iz'kklfud vfèdkjh ds in ij

dk;Zjr ugha FkkA bl ekeys esa izkFkhZ dk dk;Z lqijokbZtjh ;k esustsfj;y

ugha ekuk x;k FkkA esjs fouez er esa orZeku ekeys ds rF; o ifjfLFkfr;ka

bl ekeys ds rF; o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls fHkUu gSaA blfy;s ;g U;kf;d

n`"Vkar bl ekeys esa ykxw ugha gksrk gSA U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2000 ¼2½

W.L.C. 338, The Management, M/S The Rambagh Palace

Hotel Ltd. Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur Through Its Area

General Manager Shri Malvinder Narang Vs. The State of

Rajasthan ds ekeys esa ;g vfHkfuèkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k jsQjsal esa dksbZ ifjorZu] la'kksèu ;k izfrLFkkiu ugha dj

ldrkA bl U;kf;d n`"Vkar esa izfrikfnr fl)kar ls ge iw.kZr% lger

gSaA ysfdu tc orZeku ekeys esa vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izkjfEHkd izØe

ij gh izkFkhZ ds Jfed gksus dh vkifÙk yh xbZ gS rks ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa

tks jsQjsal bl U;k;ky; dks ;g dgdj Hkstk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ bl

U;k;ky; ls D;k vuqrks"k izkIr dj ldrk gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g

U;k;ky; bl vkifÙl dks lqudj bldk fofè vuqlkj fuLrkj.k djus

esa l{ke gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa bl U;kf;d n`"Vkar ls izkFkhZ dks dksbZ

ykHk ugha igq¡prkA U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2007 ¼1½ W.L.C. 17, State of

Rajasthan & Ors Vs. Shri Harish Chandra Sharama & Ors.

ds ekeys esa izkjfEHkd izØe ij vk{ksi ugha yxkus ls lEcfUèr rdZ

dk fuLrkj.k fd;k x;k FkkA tSlk fd orZeku ekeys esa geus ;g ik;k

gS fd vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izkjfEHkd Lrj ij gh izkFkhZ ds Jfed ugha gksus

2920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

dk vk{ksi fy;k x;k gSA bl izdkj ls ;g U;kf;d n`"Vkar orZeku

ekeys ds rF; o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k ykxw ugha gksrk gSA

&%vfèfu.kZ;%&

14- vr% ;g vfèfu.khZr fd;k tkrk gS fd%&

1- izkFkhZ tokgjyky iq= Jh [ksrkjke] fuoklh 141] uksFkZ fctyh

?kj ds lkeus tksèiqj Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkus ds

dkj.k bl U;k;ky; ls fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr

djus dk vfèdkjh ugha gSA

15- bl vfèfu.kZ; dks izdk'kukFkZ Hkkjr ljdkj dks izsf"kr fd;k

tkosA

16- ;g vfèfu.kZ; esjs }kjk fyfic) djok;k tkdj vkt fnukad

03-02-2014 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa gLrk{kj dj mn~?kksf"kr fd;k x;kA

vuwi dqekj lDlSuk] U;k;kèh'k

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1363-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esas dsUnzh; ljdkj phQ tujy

eSustj] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] jktLFkku ds izcaèr= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; tksèiqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ lañ 01@09½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-

06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@14@2008&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2015

S.O. 1363.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 01/09) of the Industrial

Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jodhupur now as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the Chief General Manager, Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 30/06/2015.

[No. L-40012/14/2008-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

vuqcUè

vkS|ksfxd fookn~ vfèdj.k

,oa

Je U;k;ky;] tksèiqjA

ihBklhu vfèdkjh

% Jh vuwi dqekj lDlSuk

vkjñ,pñtsñ,lñ

vkS|ksfxd fookn ¼dsUnzh;½ la[;k% 01@2009

Jherh I;kjh ckbZ ifRu Jh ckcqyky th tkfr gfjtu fuoklh

ek.Mokyk rglhy ,oa ftyk ukxkSjA

----- izkfFkZuh

cuke

1- phQ tujy eSustj] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] jktLFkku

ldZy] ljnkj iVsy ekxZ] lh&Ldhe] t;iqjA

2- lgk;d tujy eSustj] ¼iz'kklu½ Hkkjr lapkj fuxe

fyfeVsM] jktLFkku ldZy] ljnkj iVsy ekxZ] lh&Ldhe]

t;iqjA

3- mi e.My vfHk;Urk ¼iz'kklu½ dk;kZy; egkizcaèd nwj

lapkj Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyñ fljksghA

---- vizkFkhZx.k

mifLFkr%

¼1½ izkfFkZuh izfrfufè Jh ,lñdsñ,eñ O;klA

¼2½ vizkFkhZx.k izfrfufè Jh yfyr O;klA

&%vfèfu.kZ;%&

fnukad% 20-01-2014

1- Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=ky; us viuh vfèlwpuk Øekad

L-40012@14@2008&IR(DU) dated 28.11.2008 ds }kjk fuEu fookn~

vfèfu.kZ; gsrq bl U;k;ky; dks izsf"kr fd;k gS%&

"Whether the action of the Management of Sub-

Divisional Engineer (Admn.) Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited, Sirohi, in terminating the services of their

workman Smt. Pyari Bai w.e.f. 21.01.2006 is legal and

justified? If not, to What relief the workman is entitled

to?"

2- izkfFkZuh us vius ek¡x&i= esa ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd izkfFkZuh dh

izFke fu;qfDr o"kZ 1984 esa dstqvy yscj ds :i esa vizkFkhZ lañ3 ds

vèhu dh xbZA vizkFkhZx.k vius vèhu lHkh dk;kZy;ksa ls dk;Z dj

jgs dstqvy Jfedksa ds lacaè esa tks va'kdkyhu dk;Z dj jgs Fks mUgsa

iw.kZdkyhu deZpkjh cuk, tkus ds lacaè esa dk;Zokgh dh tkrh jghA

izkfFkZuh ds lacaè esa Hkh bl lacaè esa i=koyh lacafèr mPp vfèdkfj;ksas

dks fHktokbZ xbZ] ysfdu vizkFkhZ lañ3 us izkfFkZuh dh lsok,a fu;fer ugha

dhA vizkFkhZx.k }kjk voSè :i ls izkfFkZuh dh lsok,a lekIr dj nh

xbZaA ftl lacaè esa izkfFkZuh }kjk dk;kZy; ls lEidZ djus ij fnukad

21-01-2006 dks lwfpr fd;k x;k fd izkfFkZuh dh lsok,a lekIr dj

nh xbZ gS D;ksafd og vxLr 1998 ls dk;Zjr~ ugha gSA izkfFkZuh us mYys[k

fd;k gS fd mldk dsl o"kZ 2002 ,oa 2003 esa yxk Fkk rFkk vizkFkhZx.k

ds dk;kZy; esa Lo;a }kjk mPpkfèdkfj;ksa dks fHktok;k x;k Fkk ftlesa

;g Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd izkfFkZuh 1984 ls yxkrkj dk;Z dj jgh gSA

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2921

3- izkfFkZuh us vkxs mYys[k fd;k gS fd mlds lkFk fu;qDr ,oa ckn

esa fu;qDr deZpkfj;ksa dks vizkFkhZx.k }kjk iw.kZdkfyd deZpkjh ds

:i esa fu;fer dj fn;k x;k ysfdu izkfFkZuh dh lsok,a fcuk fdlh

fyf[kr vkns'k ,oa fcuk dksbZ lquokbZ dk volj fn;s lekIr dj nh

xbZaA izkfFkZuh }kjk vizkFkhZ foHkkx esa o"kZ 1984 ls djhc 22 o"kZ rd

yxkrkj lsok,a us ds ckotwn fnukad 21-01-2006 dks lsok,a lekIr

dj nh xbZaA lsok lekfIr ls iw.kZ izkfFkZuh dks ,d ekg dk uksfVl] osru

eqvkotk vkfn iznku ugha fd;k x;k o vkS|ksfxd fookn~ vfèfu;e

dh èkjk 25&,Q ds izkoèkuksa dk mYya?ku fd;k x;kA

4- ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k gS fd vizkFkhZ foHkkx us izkfFkZ;ksa dks o"kZ

1998 ls dk;Zjr~ ugha gksus ds vkèkj ij fnukad 21-01-2006 dks

lsok,a lekIr dj nh tcfd vizkFkhZ foHkkx us vius dbZ i=ksa o vU;

nLrkostksa esa izkfFkZuh }kjk o"kZ 2001 o 2002 esa dk;Zjr gksuk Lohdkj

fd;k gS vr% lsok lekfIr dk vkns'k fnukad 21-01-2006 fujLr

?kksf"kr gksus ;ksX; gSA mDr vkèkjksa ij izkfFkZuh us fuosnu fd;k gS fd

mldh lsokeqfDr dk vkns'k voSè Bgjk;k tkdj lHkh lqlaxr ifjykHk

e; lsok fujUrjrk ds iznku fd;s tkus dk izkfFkZuh dks vfèdkjh

?kksf"kr fd;k tkosA

5- vizkFkhZx.k us izR;qRrj izLrqr dj izkfjEHkd vkifRr;ksa esa dgk gS

fd phQ tujy eSustj] lgk;d tujy eSustj ,oa mie.My

vfHk;Urk fu;ksDrk dh ifjHkk"kk esas ugha vkrs gSaA izkfFkZuh }kjk Hkkjr

lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM dks i{kdkj ds :i esa la;ksftr ugha fd;k gS

vr% izkfFkZuh dk ek¡x&i= blh vkèkj ij [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA

;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k gS fd izkfFkZuh dks fu;qfDr nsus ls iwoZ fu;ekuqlkj

fuèkZfjr izfØ;k ugha viukbZ xbZ u gh vizkFkhZ fuxe us izkfFkZuh dh

lsok,a lekIr dh gSaA izkfFkZuh Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrh gS]

izkfFkZuh Lo;a ekg vxLr 1998 ls vuqifLFkr jgh gS bl dkj.k izkfFkZuh

iqu% lsok esa fy;s tkus dh vfèdkjh ugha gSA izkfFkZuh us ;g fookn~

vlkèkj.k foyEc ls mBk;k gSA vr% mDr vkèkjksa ij izkfFkZuh dk

ek¡x&i= [kkfjt fd;k tkosA

6- vkxs izR;qRrj esa dgk gS fd izkfFkZuh dk ;g dFku xyr gS fd

vizkFkhZx.k }kjk izkfFkZuh dks o"kZ 1984 eas va'kdkyhu Jfed ds :i esa

fu;qfDr nh gks rFkk izkfFkZuh us larks"ktud lsok,a foHkkx dks nh gksA

okLrfodrk esa vizkFkhZ foHkkx us izkfFkZuh dks iw.kZr;k vLFkkbZ rkSj ij

vkdfLed etnwj ds :i esa vko';drk ds vkèkj ij dk;Z ij j[kk

FkkA Lo;a izkfFkZuh us ekg vxLr 1998 ls dk;Z ij vkuk LosPNk ls cUn

dj fn;k FkkA izkfFkZuh us fdlh Hkh o"kZ esa 240 fnol vFkok mlls

vfèd va'kdkyhu Jfed ds :i esa dk;Z ugha fd;kA ;g Hkh mYys[k

fd;k gS fd vizkFkhZ foHkkx esa va'kdkyhu Jfed dks iw.kZdkfyd

Jfed ds :i esa fu;qDr djus dh fuèkZfjr izfØ;k ,oa ekin.M gS ,oa

ftuds }kjk fiNys ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnol vFkok mlls vfèd le;

rd va'kdkyhu Jfed ds :i esa dk;Z fd;k gks mUgsa gh iw.kZdkfyd

Jfed dk ntkZ fn;k x;k FkkA izkfFkZuh viuh LosPNk ls ekg vxLr

1998 ls vkdfLed Jfed ds :i esa dk;Z djus gsrq vizkFkhZ foHkkx esa

mifLFkr ugha gqbZ Fkh bl dkj.k izkfFkZuh iw.kZdkfyd vkdfLed Jfed

dh ik=rk xzg.k djus ;ksX; ugha FkhA vr% vizkFkhZ foHkkx us izkfFkZuh dks

iw.kZdkfyd vkdfLed Jfed dk ntkZ ugha fn;k ftldh lwpuk

izkfFkZuh dks tfj;s i= fnukad 21-01-2006 dks izsf"kr dj nh xbZ

FkhA

7- vizkFkhZx.k us vkxs mYys[k fd;k gS fd okLrfodrk esa vizkFkhZ

foHkkx us i= fnukad 21-01-2006 ds tfj;s izkfFkZuh dh lsok,a lekIr

ugha dh Fkha oju vizkFkhZ foHkkx us izkfFkZuh dks ;g lwfpr fd;k Fkk fd

izkfFkZuh ekg vxLr 1998 ls ikVZ VkbZe Lohij ds :i esa dk;Zjr ugha

gS bl dkj.k izkfFkZuh foHkkx ds fuèkZfjr ekin.Mksa ,oa foHkkxh; fu;eksa

ds rgr iw.kZdkfyd vkdfLed etnwj dh ik=rk ugha j[krh gSA pwafd

izkfFkZuh dh dHkh fu;qfDr gh ugha dh xbZ Fkh bl dkj.k mldh lsok,a

lekIr djus dk rF; iw.kZr;k xyr gSA ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k gS fd

vizkFkhZ foHkkx ds dk;kZy; ls mPp vfèdkfj;ksa dks fHktokbZ xbZ fjiksVZ

esa dgha Hkh ;g rF; vafdr ugha gS fd izkfFkZuh o"kZ 1984 ls yxkrkj

dk;Zjr~ gSA izkfFkZuh dk ;g dFku Hkh xyr gS fd mlds }kjk o"kZ 1998

ls yxkrkj 22 o"kZ rd lsok,a nh xbZ gkasA vizkFkhZ foHkkx }kjk izkfFkZuh

dks dk;Z dh vko';drk ds vuqlkj va'kdkyhu Jfed ds :i esa

dk;Z ij cqyk;k tkrk Fkk rFkk ekg vxLr 1998 ls izkfFkZuh us

LosPNkiwoZd dk;Z ij vkuk cUn fd;k FkkA izkfFkZuh vkS|ksfxd fookn~

vfèfu;e ds izkoèkuksa ds rgr Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrh gS

bl dkj.k izkfFkZuh ds ekeys esa èkjk 25&,Q ds izkoèku ykxw ugha

gksrs gSaA mDr vkèkjksa ij vizkFkhZx.k us fuosnu fd;k fd izkfFkZuh dk

ek¡x&i= lO;; [kkfjt fd;k tkosA

8- izkfFkZuh us vius ekax&i= esa mYys[k fd;s x;s rF;ksa dh iqf"V esa

Lo;a dk 'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;kA izkfFkZuh ls izfrijh{kk dh xbZA izkfFkZuh

dh vksj ls izys[kh; lk{; esa i= fnukad 25-01-2004 izn'kZ&1] i=

fnukad 11-06-2002 izn'kZ&2] dk;kZy; dk i= izn'kZ&3] dk;kZy;

vkns'k izn'kZ&4] izkfFkZuh dk izkFkZuk&i= izn'kZ&5] vizkFkhZ dk i=

izn'kZ&6] xzke iapk;r ek.Moyk dk izek.k&i= izn'kZ&7] izkfFkZuh dk

vkosnu&i= izn'kZ&8] izn'kZ&9] izn'kZ&10] izkfFkZuh dk izkFkZuk&i=

izn'kZ&11] vizkFkhZ dk i= izn'kZ&12] vizkFkhZ dk dk;kZy; vkns'k

izn'kZ&13] izn'kZ&14] jftLVMZ uksfVl izn'kZ&15] ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;

dk vkns'k izn'kZ&16 rFkk vizkFkhZ dk i= izn'kZ&17 dks is'k dj

izn'kZ djok;s x,A vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls eksguyky jklq] o Jh

lksguyky oekZ ds 'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;s x;s ftuls izfrijh{kk dh

xbZA vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izys[; lk{; esa mifLFkfr jftLVj dh izfr

izn'kZ ,&1 o vizkFkhZ dk i= izn'kZ ,&2 dks is'k dj izn'kZ djok;s

x;sA

9- cgl mHk;&i{k lquh xbZA i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu

fd;k x;kA

10- fo}ku izfrfufè izkfFkZuh us cgl ds nkSjku fuosnu fd;k gS fd

izkfFkZuh us vizkFkhZx.k ds vèhu dStqvy yscj ds :i esa o"kZ 1984 ls

fujUrj dk;Z fd;k gSA vizkFkhZx.k }kjk fnukad 21-01-2006 dks voSè

:i ls mls lsokeqDr fd;k x;kA bl izdkj izkfFkZuh us o"kZ 1984 ls o"kZ

2006 rd yxkrkj dke fd;k gSA mudk dguk gS fd tks ikVZ VkbZe

Jfed gSa os Hkh odZeSu dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrs gSaA mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd

tks nLrkost izkfFkZuh us is'k fd;s gSa muesa ;g gokyk gS fd izkfFkZuh dk

ekeyk jsxqyjkbZts'ku ds fy, vizkFkhZ us o"kZ 2003 esa Hkh fHktok;k FkkA

2922

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

bl lacaè esa vizkFkhZx.k ;g dgdj vk;s gSa fd izkfFkZuh o"kZ 1998 ds

ckn dHkh vkbZ gh ugha rks vizkFkhZx.k dk ;g dFku fd izkfFkZuh o"kZ

1998 ds ckn ugha vkbZ] mDr nLrkost ls xyr lkfcr gks tkrk gSA

izkfFkZuh dh vksj ls ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k x;k gS fd vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj

ls iwjs nLrkost is'k ugha fd;s x;s gSa vkSj c;ku Hkh >wBs fn;s x;s gSaA

mudk fuosnu gS fd izkfFkZuh dks vizkFkhZx.k }kjk fofèor~ :i ls

vkS|ksfxd fookn~ vfèfu;e ds izkoèkuksa dh ikyuk djrs gq, lsokeqDr

ugha fd;k x;k gS blfy;s izkfFkZuh dh lsokeqfDr vuqfpr ,oa voSè gSA

vUr esa mUgksaus fuosnu fd;k fd izkfFkZuh }kjk ekaxk x;k vuqrks"k mls

iznku fd;k tkosA mUgksaus vius rdZ dh iqf"V esa U;kf;d n`"Vkar

Divisional Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A.

Sankaralingam AIR 2009 Supreme Court 309 is'k fd;k ftldk

geus llEeku voyksdu fd;kA

11- vizkFkhZx.k ds fo}ku izfrfufè us cgl ds nkSjku fuosnu fd;k

gS fd izkfFkZuh dks vizkFkhZx.k }kjk o"kZ 1984 esa va'kdkyhu Jfed ds

:i esa fu;qfDr ugha nhA izkfFkZuh us viuh dksbZ tksbZfuax rkjh[k Hkh ugha

crkbZ u gh dc rd dk;Z fd;k og rkjh[k crkbZ gS] fdrus fnu

izfrekg esa dk;Z fd;k ;g Hkh ugha crk;k gSA mudk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd

vko';drk vuqlkj Jfedksa dks dk;Z ij ysrs Fks rFkk dsoy mu

Jfedksa ds jsxqyjkbZts'ku ds dsl Hksts x;s Fks ftUgksaus fiNys o"kZ 240

fnu iwjs dj fy;s FksA mudk fuosnu gS fd izkfFkZuh bl dUMh'ku dks

QqyfQy ugha djrh Fkh blfy;s mldk dsl ugha Hkstk x;k FkkA mudk

;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd gktjh jftLVj esa izkfFkZuh dk uke vafdr ugha gS

blfy;s izkfFkZuh o"kZ 1998 ds ckn muds ;gk¡ dke djus ugha vkbZ

blfy;s izkfFkZuh dk ekeyk fMLi;qVsM gSA mUgksaus fuosnu fd;k fd tks

nLrkost izkfFkZuh dh vksj ls is'k fd;s x;s gSa mlds ckjs esa izkfFkZuh dksbZ

ckr ugha crk ikbZ gS rFkk ;g dgk gS fd bu nLrkostkr ds ckjs esa dksbZ

tkudkjh ugha gS og vui<+ gS vkSj ;s nLrkostkr foHkkx dh izekf.kr

izfrfyfi ugha gS blfy;s ;gh ekuk tkuk pkfg;s fd izkfFkZuh dh vksj ls

,sls dksbZ nLrkostkr is'k ugha fd;s x;s gSa ftlls ;g izekf.kr gks fd

o"kZ 1998 ds ckn mls dksbZ osru feyk gksA vUr esa mUgksaus fuosnu

fd;k fd izkfFkZuh dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dh vfèdkjh ugha gS blfy;s

izkfFkZuh dk ekax&i= fujLr fd;k tkosA

12- geus nksuksa i{kksa ds rdks± ij xEHkhjrkiwoZd fopkj fd;kA

13- loZizFke ge bl izdj.k esa bl ckr ij fopkj djsaxs fd

izkfFkZuh dh vksj ls tks nLrkostkr is'k fd;s x;s gSa mudh fLFkfr D;k

gS\ vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls bl ckr ij dksbZ fookn ugha fd;k x;k gS fd

izkfFkZuh us o"kZ 1984 ls dk;Z ugha fd;kA dsoy izkfFkZuh }kjk rkjh[k dk

[kqyklk ugha fd;k x;k gSA o"kZ 1998 rd rks vizkFkhZx.k Hkh izkfFkZuh

}kjk dk;Z djuk dgrs gSaA ;|fi izkfFkZuh ds dk;Z fnolksa ds ckjs esa dksbZ

[kqyklk ugha gqvk gS blds ckotwn Hkh izkfFkZuh dh vksj ls tks nLrkostkr

is'k fd;s x;s gSa muds ckjs esa vizkFkhZx.k dk dguk gS fd os foHkkx ds

nLrkost ugha gSa] bl ckjs esa fopkj djsa rks vizkFkhZx.k dk lk{kh

lksguyky oekZ Mhñ MCyw&2 viuh izfrijh{kk esa dgrk gS fd izkfFkZuh

dh vksj ls izLrqr nLrkostkr izn'kZ&2] 3] 4] 6] 13] 14] o izn'kZ&17

gekjs foHkkx ds nLrkost gSaA Mhñ MCyw&1 eksguyky jklq viuh izfrijh{kk

esa dgrk gS fd tks izn'kZ foHkkx }kjk tkjh fd;s x;s gSa os foHkkx ds gSaA

xokg dgrk gS fd izn'kZ&3 ij I;kjhckbZ dk uke fy[kk gqvk gSA ;|fi

mlus ;g dgk gS fd og dkSulh I;kjh ckbZ Fkh eSa ;g ugha tkurk gwaA

mDr lk{kh us izn'kZ&13 ds ckjs esa dgk gS fd ;g nLrkost phQ

tujy eSustj }kjk ekdZ fd;k x;k gS vkSj ;g nLrkost I;kjh ckbZ ds

lacaè esa fLyi vkWQ isu ds dkj.k Hkstk x;k gS] FkkA xokg ;g Hkh

dgrk gS fd izn'kZ&17 esa izkfFkZuh dk uke fy[kk gqvk gS] ysfdu fLyi

vkWQ isu ds dkj.k ;g i= Hkstk x;k FkkA bl izdkj tks lk{; vizkFkhZx.k

ds vksj vkbZ gS mlls ;g ckr rks Li"V gS fd tks nLrkost izkfFkZuh dh

vksj is'k fd;s x;s gSa os vizkFkhZ foHkkx ds nLrkost gSa o buesa izn'kZ&3

o izn'kZ&13 nLrkost esa izkfFkZuh dk uke Hkh vafdr gSA vc tc

vizkFkhZx.k us nksuksa xokg dh lk{; ls izkfFkZuh dh vksj ls izLrqr

nLrkostkr foHkkx ds nLrkost gksuk lkeus vk;k gS rks izkfFkZuh tks

vui<+ gS mlds ;g dg nsus ek= ls fd bu nLrkostkr ds ckjs esa og

dqN ugha tkurh gS rks izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij dksbZ foijhr izHkko

ugha iM+rk gSA

14- vizkFkhZx.k ;g dgdj vk;s gSa fd o"kZ 1998 ds ckn izkfFkZuh

us dksbZ dk;Z ugha fd;k tcfd izkfFkZuh dk dguk gS fd mlus o"kZ 2006

rd dk;Z fd;kA bl lacaè esa nksuksa i{kksa esa fdl dk dFku lR; gS bl

ckr ij fopkj djsa rks vizkFkhZx.k ds lk{kh Mhñ MCyw&2 lksguyky

oekZ dh izfrijh{kk dks ns[ksa rks og viuh izfrijh{kk esa dgrk gS fd

izn'kZ&3 esa , Vw ch Hkkx esa I;kjh ckbZ fy[kk gqvk gS ;g lgh gSA xokg

;g Hkh dgrk gS fd ;g lgh gS fd ;g nLrkost izn'kZ&3 fnukad

30-07-2003 dks tkjh gqvk gS tks lh Vw Mh gSA vkxs izfrijh{kk esa ;g

lk{kh dgrk gS fd izn'kZ&13 esa , Vw ch Hkkx ij izkFkhZ;k dk uke fy[kk

gqvk gS tks lgh gS rFkk lh Vw Mh Hkkx Hkh nLrkost ds vuqlkj lgh gSA ;g

lgh gS fd ;g nLrkost 26-12-2002 dks tkjh gqvk FkkA izn'kZ&13 dks

ns[ksa rks blesa , Vw ch Hkkx esa izkfFkZuh dk uke fy[kk gqvk gS vkSj lh Vw

Mh Hkkx esa "working since opening of exch. i.e. in 1984 &

continue working at present" vafdr gSA blls Hkh ;g izekf.kr

gks tkrk gS fd izkfFkZuh viuh tksbZfuax dh frfFk ls i= tkjh djus dh

frfFk rd yxkrkj dk;Zjr FkhA ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vizkFkhZ dk ;g

dFku fd izkfFkZuh us dsoy 1998 rd gh dk;Z fd;k gS] ;g ckr

vlR; o >wBh lkfcr gksrh gSA

15- izn'kZ&3 nLrkostkr dks Hkh ;fn ns[ksa rks ;g nLrkost fnukad

30-07-2003 dks tkjh gqvk gS vkSj bl i= ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkh

lkeus vkrk gS fd blesa Øe lañ 1 esa ;g bckjr Hkh fy[kh xbZ gS fd

I;kjh ckbZ dk dsl izkIr ugha gqvkA blesa ;g Hkh fy[kk x;k gS fd "srl.

No. 1, 3, & 4 may be converted into full time c/Labour." ;gka

;g mYys[k djuk mfpr gksxk fd vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls [k.Mu esa

,slh dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha dh xbZ gS fd ;g I;kjh ckbZ izkfFkZuh ugha gksA

;|fi vizkFkhZx.k viuk tks i{k ysdj vk;s gSa fd izkfFkZuh o"kZ 1998

ds ckn dHkh ugha vkbZ] mijksDr rF;ksa ls fcYdqy >wBk izekf.kr gksrk

gS vkSj ,slh fLFkfr esa izkfFkZuh dk dFku lgh ekus tkus ;ksX; gSA tks

nLrkosth lk{; gS mlls ;gh izdV gksrk gS fd izkfFkZuh o"kZ 1984 ls

yxkrkj dke dj jgh gSA

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2923

16- izkfFkZuh dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar Divisional Man-

ager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A. Sankaralingam

AIR 2009 Supreme Court 309 esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ls ;g ckr

izekf.kr gS fd tks ikVZ VkbZe csfll ij dk;Z djus okys gSa os Hkh

odZeSau dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrs gSaA

17- vc ;fn bl ckr ij fopkj djsa fd izkfFkZuh dks lsokeqfDr ls

iwoZ vizkFkhZx.k }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn~ vfèfu;e ds izkoèkuksa dh

ikyuk dh xbZ vFkok ugha rks bl lacaè esa vizkFkhZx.k dk ;g dguk

ugha gS fd izkfFkZuh dks vkS|ksfxd fookn~ vfèfu;e dh èkjk 25&,Q]

th o ,p dh ikyuk djds fudkyk x;k gksA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;gh

izekf.kr gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZx.k }kjk izkfFkZuh dh lsok lekfIr ls iwoZ

vkS|ksfxd fookn~ vfèfu;e ds izkoèkuksa dh ikyuk ugha dh xbZ izkfFkZuh

}kjk o"kZ 1984 ls o"kZ 2006 rd dke fd;k x;k gS tks Lo;a vizkFkhZx.k

ds nLrkostkr o mijksDr foospu ls lkfcr gS ,slh fLFkfr esa esjs fouez

er~ esa vizkFkhZx.k }kjk izkfFkZuh dh lsokeqfDr vuqfpr ,oa voSè gS ,oa

izkfFkZuh dks lsok esa iquLFkkZfir djuk U;k;fgr~ esa vko';d gSA

18- mijksDr foospu ds vkèkj ij ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izkfFkZuh

dk vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk fnukad 21-01-2006 dks voSè rjhds ls

lsokeqDr fd;k x;k gSA izkfFkZuh us vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds vèhu djhc

22&23 o"kZ rd dk;Z fd;k gSA vr% bl izdj.k dh leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa

esa izkfFkZuh dks lsoki`Fkdrk dh frfFk 21-01-2006 ls lsok esa iquLFkkZfir

fd, tkus dh frfFk rd 25 izfr'kr iwoZHk`fr (back wages) lfgr o

iwoZ lsok dh fujUrjrk lfgr lsok esa iquLFkkZfir fd, tkus ds vkns'k

fn;k tkuk mfpr gSA

&%vfèfu.kZ;%&

19- vr% ;g vfèfu.khZr fd;k tkrk gS fd%µ

¼1½ izkfFkZuh Jherh I;kjh ckbZ ifRu Jh ckcqyky dks vizkFkhZ

fu;kstdx.k 1- phQ tujy eSustj] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe

fyfeVsM] jktLFkku ldZy ljnkj iVsy ekxZ] lh&Ldhe]

t;iqj 2- lgk;d tujy eSustj ¼iz'kklu½ Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fyfeVsM] jktLFkku ldZy] ljnkj iVsy ekxZ]

lh&Ldhe] t;iqj o 3- mi e.My vfHk;Urk ¼iz'kklu½

dk;kZy; egkizcaèd nwj lapkj Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyñ]

fljksgh }kjk fnukad 21-01-2006 ls lsokeqDr djuk vuqfpr

,oa voSè gSA

¼2½ vizkFkhZ fu;kstdx.k izkfFkZuh Jherh I;kjh ckbZ ifRu

Jh ckcqyky dks rqjUr izHkko ls lsok esa iquLFkkZfir djsaA

izkfFkZuh dh lsok;sa fujUrj ekuh tkosaxhA

¼3½ izkfFkZuh Jherh I;kjh ckbZ ifRu Jh ckcqyky dks lsoki`Fkdrk

dh fnukad 21-01-2006 ls lsok esa iquLFkkZfir fd, tkus

dh frfFk rd 25 izfr'kr iwoZHk`fr (back wages) vizkFkhZ

fu;kstd ls izkIr djus dk vfèdkjh ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA

20- bl vfèfu.kZ; dks izdk'kukFkZ Hkkjr&ljdkj dks izsf"kr fd;k

tkosA

21- ;g vfèfu.kZ; esjs }kjk fy[kk;k tkdj vkt fnukad

20-01-2014 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa gLrk{kj dj mn~?kksf"kr fd;k x;kA

vuwi dqekj lDlSuk] U;k;kèh'k

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1364-—vkS|ksfxd fookn] vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bLVsV fMQsal

vkWfQlj] bLVsV fMQsal vkWfQl] tksèiqj 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; tksèiqj ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 01@12½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 30@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&14012@7@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2015

S.O. 1364.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 01/12) of the Industrial

Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jodhupur now as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to management of the Estate Defence

Officer, Estate Defence Office, Jodhpur and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

30/06/2015.

[No. L-14012/7/2011-IR (DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

vuqca/k

vkS|ksfxd fookn~ vf/kdj.k

,oa

Je U;k;ky;] tks/kiqjA

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

% Jh vuwi dqekj lDlSuk

vkjñ,pñtsñ,lñ

vk|kSfxd fookn ¼dsUnzh;½ la[;k%&01@2012

Jh jk/ks';ke iq= Jh dk'khjke tfj;s Jh JhukFk cksgjk] lsØsVªh

vkWVkseksckbZYl ojdZl ;wfu;u] foiqy y{eh fc¯YMx] 375&376 gkFkh

pkSd tkyi] iqf"Vdj Ldwy ds ihNs] tkyksjh xsV ds vUnj]

tks/kiqjA

-------izkFkhZ

cuke

bLVsV fMQsal vkWfQlj] bLVsV fMQsal vkWfQl]

tks/kiqj lfdZy vksYM iqfyl ykbZUl jksM] mEesn Dyc jksM] tks/kiqj

-----------vizkFkhZ

2924

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

mifLFkr%

¼1½ izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k Jh JhukFk cksgjkA

¼2½ vizkFkhZx.k izfrfuf/k Jh fou; tSuA

&%vf/kfu.kZ;%&

fnukad%&22-05-2013

1- Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=ky; us viuh vf/klwpuk Øekad

L-14012/7/2011-IR(DU) Dated 03.10-2011 ds }kjk fuEu fookn~

vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq bl U;k;ky; dks izsf"kr fd;k gS %

"Whether the action of the Management of Estate

Defence Officer, Jodhpur Circle, Jodhpur in

terminating the services of Shri Radhey Shyam s/o

Shri Kashiram w.e.f. 18/06/2009 is legal and justified?

What relief the workman is entitled to?"

2- izkFkhZ us vius ek¡x&i= esa ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd mlus vizkFkhZ

fu;kstd ds v/khu nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed ds :i esa fnukad

01-12-1992 ls 18-06-2009 rd viuh lsok,sa nhA izkFkhZ dk osru

izkjEHk esa 150@&#i;s izfrekg Fkk] ckn esa fnukad 29-08-1995 ls

mldk osru 225@& #i;s izfrekg fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dh M~;wVh esa vizkFkhZ

fu;kstd laLFkku esa fLFkr nks ysVªhu ckFk o bLVsV vkWfQlj ds caxys

dh ysVªhu o ckFk:e lkQ djuk FkkA izkFkhZ us mYys[k fd;k gS fd mls

osru dk Hkqxrku is okmpj ls fd;k tkrk Fkk o ckn esa cSad ds tfj;s

pSd ls osru dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkus yxk rFkk izkFkhZ dh gktjh jftLVj

esa ^ih* yxkdj ntZ dh tkrh FkhA izkFkhZ us ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd mu

fnuksa izkFkhZ ds osru dh dqy jde 2462@& cukbZ tkrh FkhA bZñ,lñvkbZñ

o bZñihñ,Qñ dh dVkSrh dj izkFkhZ dks 2062@& #i;s dk Hkqxrku fd;k

tkrk FkkA

3- izkFkhZ us vkxs mYys[k fd;k gS fd mlls twfu;j Jfed jkts'k

dh lsok;sa jsX;wyjkbZt dh xbZ rc izkFkhZ us Hkh fuosnu fd;k ftl ij

izkFkhZ dks crk;k x;k fd mldh lsok;sa Hkh jsX;wyj djus dh dk;Zokgh

py jgh gS] ysfdu vizkFkhZ us ckn esa izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa jsX;wyj djus ls

bUdkj dj fn;k o izkFkhZ dh lsokvksa esa ^vkfVZfQfl;y czsd* dj

vU;k; djus yxs rFkk vizkFkhZ us vius i= fnukad 04-01-1993 ds

tfj;s izkFkhZ ij ncko Mkyk fd izkFkhZ dHkh Hkh dsl ugha djsxkA bl ij

izkFkhZ us fnukad 01-05-2009 dks lsok;sa jsX;wyj djus gsrq CAT esa dsl

la[;k 113@2009 nk;j fd;kA mDr dsl dk uksfVl feyus ij vizkFkhZ

us tokc nsus ls iwoZ izkFkhZ dh lsok,sa ekSf[kd vkns'k ls fnukad

18-06-2009 dks lekIr dj nha ftlds ifj.kke Lo:i izkFkhZ dk mDr

dsl fnukad 26-04-2010 dks ^bUQzDp;wvl* gks x;kA

4- izkFkhZ us mYys[k fd;k gS fd mls lsokeqDr djus ls iwoZ vizkFkhZ

fu;kstd }kjk /kkjk 25 vkS|ksfxd fookn~ vf/kfu;e] 1947 ds

izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr NaVuh eqvkotk] uksfVl] uksfVl osru vkfn dk

Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;kA ftl ij izkFkhZ us le>kSrk okrkZ gsrq izkFkZuk&i=

izLrqr fd;kA tgka Hkh vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZ dh lsok,sa cgky djus ls euk

dj fn;kA ftl ij le>kSrk okrkZ dks vlQy ?kksf"kr fd;k x;kA

ftl ij ;g jsQjsUl bl U;k;ky; dks izsf"kr fd;k x;kA

5- izkFkhZ us mYys[k fd;k gS fd mldh yxHkx 18 lky dh lsokvksa

dks xSj dkuwuh rjhds ls lekIr djus ds ckn vizkFkhZ us v[kckj esa

^osadsV iksLV* ij ukSdjh nsus gsrq foKkiu fn;k o vU; dks ukSdjh ns nh]

tks Je dkuwuksa dk mYya?ku gSA mDr vk/kkjksa ij izkFkhZ us izkFkZuk dh gS

fd izkFkhZ dh ekSf[kd vkns'k fnukad 18-06-2009 ls dh xbZ lsok

lekfIr dks fujLr djrs gq, izkFkhZ dh lsok,sa cgky dh tkosa o izkFkhZ

dh lsok,sa fujUrj] vck} o jsX;wyj ekurs gq, izkFkhZ dks losru e;

,fj;j o vU; ikfj.kkfed ykHk vizkFkhZ ls fnyk;s tkosaA

6- vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izkFkhZ ds ek¡x&i= dk izR;qÙkj izLrqr dj

dgk x;k gS fd vizkFkhZ dk dk;kZy; Hkkjr ljdkj j{kk ea=ky; ds

v/khu gS o okf.kT;d o vkS|ksfxd laLFkku ugha gSA vizkFkhZ ij vkS|ksfxd

fookn~ vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ykxw ugha gksrsA izkFkhZ dks va'kdkyhu

lQkbZ deZpkjh ds in ij fnukad 01-12-1992 ls ,d fuf'pr y?kq

vof/k ds fy, vizkFkhZ ds dk;kZy; {ks= dh lQkbZ] ,d&nks ?kaVs

izfrfnu dk;Z djus gsrq ljdkjh nj ij vLFkkbZ :i ls fu;qDr fd;k

x;kA izkFkhZ dks dHkh Hkh fu;fer fu;qfDr ugha nh xbZA izkFkhZ dh

fu;qfDr iwjh rjg ls vko';drk ds vuqlkj fu;r le; ds fy, dh

Fkh rFkk fu;r le; dh lekfIr ds i'pkr~ mldh fu;qfDr Lor%

lekIr gks tkrh FkhA mlds i'pkr~ izkFkhZ vU; txg ij dk;Z djus ds

fy;s tkrk FkkA vizkFkhZ us mYys[k fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ us va'kdkyhu

lQkbZ dk;Z ds fy, fnukad 01-12-1992 ls 18-06-2009 rd dHkh

Hkh dys.Mj o"kZ ds vuqlkj ,d lky esa 240 fnu yxkrkj dk;Z ugha

fd;kA izkFkhZ dks Hkqxrku ftruh Lohd`r jkf'k gksrh Fkh mlh vuqlkj

pSd }kjk fd;k tkrk FkkA izkFkhZ dh bZñ,lñvkbZñ o bZñihñ,Qñ dj

dVkSrh ugha dh tkrh FkhA

7- vizkFkhZ us vkxs mYys[k fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks 89 fnol dh

Lohd`fr va'kdkyhu lQkbZdehZ ds :i esa fu;qDr fd;k tkrk FkkA

izkFkhZ vafre ckj fnukad 14-10-2008 ls 10-01-2009 rd dh ,d

y?kq vof/k gsrq vizkFkhZ foHkkx ds fu;kstu esa jgk rFkk fnukad

10-01-2009 ds ckn izkFkhZ dk fu;kstu Lor% gh lekIr gks x;kA izkFkhZ

dk ;g dFku xyr gS fd mlds }kjk dsUnzh; iz'kklfud vf/kdj.k

tks/kiqj ds le{k nk;j okn dk uksfVl feyus ds ckn lsok,sa ekSf[kd

vkns'k ls lekIr dh xbZA izkFkhZ dh lsok,sa rks 10-01-2009 ds ckn

Lor% dh lekIr gks xbZ FkhA izkFkhZ us okLrfod rF;ksa dks fNikrs gq,

xyr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij dsUnzh; iz'kklfud vf/kdj.k ds le{k

izkFkZuk&i= la[;k 113@2009 nk;j dj vuqfpr ykHk izkIr djus dk

iz;kl fd;k] ysfdu vizkFkhZ }kjk tokc izLrqr dj izkFkhZ ds xyr

rF;ksa dks U;k;ky; ds le{k mtkxj fd;k x;k ftl ij izkFkhZ us vius

izkFkZuk&i= dks ^foMªks* dj fy;kA

8- vizkFkhZ us ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ iw.kZdkyhu fdlh

vU; laLFkku esa dk;Zjr~ FkkA izkFkhZ dHkh Hkh csjkstxkj ugha jgk u gh

orZeku esa csjkstxkj gSA izkFkhZ dks dHkh Hkh nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa

fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;kA vr% izkFkhZ ij /kkjk 25 vkS|ksfxd `fookn~

vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ykxw ugha gksrsA vizkFkhZ us mYys[k fd;k gS fd

vizkFkhZ dk;kZy; }kjk dk;Z lqpk: :i ls pykus ds fy, vLFkkbZ

va'kdkyhu lQkbZ deZpkjh dh vko';drk gsrq foKkiu nsuk] u xSj

dkuwuh gS u gh bldk izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr okn~ ls laca/k gSA mDr vk/kkjksa

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2925

ij vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZ dk ek¡x&i= [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu

fd;kA

9- izkFkhZ us vius ekax&i= esa mYys[k fd;s x;s rF;ksa dh iqf"V esa

Lo;a dk 'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;kA izkFkhZ ls izfrijh{kk dh xbZA izkFkhZ

dh vksj ls vius i{k esa fo".kq nso o lquhy ds 'kiFk&i= Hkh izLrqr

fd;s x;s ftuls Hkh izfrijh{kk dh xbZA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izys[kh;

lk{; esa nSfud vkns'k f}rh; izn'kZ&1] vizkFkhZ dk i= izn'kZ&2]

nSfud vkns'k f}rh; izn'kZ&3] gktjh jftLVj izn'kZ&4] 5] 6 o 7]

pSd izn'kZ&8] vizkFkhZ dk i= izn'kZ&9] izn'kZ&10] uwru jatweuh

VªkUliksVZ dk izek.k&i= izn'kZ&11] vlQy okrkZ izfrosnu izn'kZ&12

o jsQjsUl izn'kZ&13 dks is'k ij izn'kZ djok;s x;sA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls

Jh dkS'ky xkSre dk 'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;k x;k] ftlls Hkh izfrijh{kk

dh xbZA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izys[kh; lk{; esa uwru jatweuh Vªk¡liksVZ dk

izek.k&i= izn'kZ ,&1] dsUnzh; iz'kklfud vf/kdj.k dk vkns'k fnukad

26-04-2010 izn'kZ ,&2 dks is'k dk izn'kZ djok;k x;kA

10- cgl mHk;&i{k lquh xbZ izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr fyf[kr cgl

rFkk i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;k x;kA

11- fo}ku izfrfuf/k izkFkhZ us cgl ds nkSjku fuosnu fd;k gS fd

izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds v/khu nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed ^Lohij*

ds :i esa fnukad 01-12-1992 ls 18-06-2009 rd fujUrj dk;Z

fd;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk iwjs fnu dk;Z fd;k tkrk FkkA izkFkhZ }kjk fd;s x;s

dk;Z dks Lo;a izkFkhZ o mlds lk{khx.k fo".kqnso o lquhy us vius

'kiFk&i=ksa ds ek/;e ls fl) fd;k gSA mudk fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ dks

loZizFke 150@& #i;s ekgokj osru fn;k tkrk Fkk] tks le;≤

ij c<+k;k x;k o vUr esa mldk osru 2062@&#i;s izfrekg FkkA

mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds v/khu yxkrkj

fnukad 01-12-1992 ls 18-06-2009 rd dk;Z fd;k gSA ysfdu izkFkhZ

dh lsok lekfIr ls iwoZ vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk /kkjk 25&,Q] 25&th o

25&,p vkS|ksfxd fookn~ vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk ugha dh

xbZA mudk fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ ds }kjk viuh lsok,sa ^jsX;wyjkbZt*

djkus ds laca/k esa dsUnzh; iz'kklfud vf/kdj.k esa okn~ izLrqr fd;k

ftlds uksfVl vizkFkhZ dks feyus ij vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZ dks ekSf[kd :i

ls lsoki`Fkd dj fn;kA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ dh vksj ls

tks ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr dh xbZ gS] mlls izkFkhZ dk ekeyk

iw.kZ:i ls fl) gksrk gS A mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ vU; fdlh

laLFkku esa dk;Z ugha dj jgk gSA mudk fuosnu gS fd izn'kZ ,&1

vuqfpr izHkko Mkydj vizkFkhZ fu;kstd us izkIr fd;k gSA mudk

fuosnu gS fd izn'kZ ,&1 dks tkjh djus okys laLFkku us gh izn'kZ&11

i= fy[kdj mDr ckr dks Li"V dj fn;k gSA blds vykok mudk ;g

Hkh fuosnu gS fd lsok lekfIr ds ckn ;fn izkFkhZ viuk thou;kiu

djus ds fy, dqN dke dj Hkh jgk gks rks mlls mlds bl izdj.k ij

dksbZ izHkko ugha iM+rk gSA vUr esa mUgksaus fuosnu fd;k fd izkFkhZ }kjk

ek¡xk x;k vuqrks"k mls iznku fd;k tkosA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls vius rdks±

ds leFkZu esa bl U;k;ky; ds Je fookn~ la[;k 37@2007 Hkxkjke

cuke CykWd izkjfEHkd f'k{kk vf/kdkjh dk vf/kfu.kZ; fnukad

19-03-2012 is'k fd;kA

12- vizkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us cgl ds nkSjku fuosnu fd;k gS

fd vizkFkhZ fu;kstd vkS|ksfxd laLFkku ugha gSA vr% ml ij vkS|ksfxd

fookn~ vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ykxw ugha gksrs gSaA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu

gS fd izkFkhZ dks va'kdkyhu lQkbZ deZpkjh ds in ij fnukad

01-12-1992 ls ,d fuf'pr y?kq vof/k ds fy, dk;kZy; {ks= dh

lQkbZ dk dk;Z ,d&nks ?kaVs izfrfnu djus gsrq ljdkjh nj ij vLFkkbZ

:i ls fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA mudk fuosnu gS fd mDr fu;qfDr iwjh

rjg ls vko';drk ds vuqlkj fu;r le; ds fy, Fkh rFkk fu;r

le; dh lekfIr ds i'pkr~ mldh fu;qfDr Lor% lekIr gks tkrh FkhA

mUgksaus fuosnu fd;k fd vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr dHkh Hkh fu;fer

:i ls ugha dh FkhA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ us 01-12-1992

ls 18-06-2009 rd dHkh Hkh fdlh dys.Mj o"kZ esa yxkrkj 240 fnu

dk;Z ugha fd;kA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ vafre ckj fnukad

14-10-2008 ls 10-01-2009 rd dh ,d y?kq vof/k gsrq vizkFkhZ

foHkkx ds fu;kstu esa jgk rFkk fnukad 10-01-2009 ds ckn izkFkhZ dk

fu;kstu Lor% gh lekIr gks x;kA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ us

dsUnzh; iz'kklfud vf/kdj.k esa izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr dj vuqfpr ykHk

izkIr djus dk iz;kl fd;k ijUrq vizkFkhZ }kjk mDr izkFkZuk&i= dk

tokc izLrqr dj izkFkhZ }kjk vafdr fd;s x;s xyr rF;ksa dks

vf/kdj.k ds le{k mtkxj fd;k rks izkFkhZ us viuk okn~ ^foMªks* djus

dk izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr fd;k ftl ij dsUnzh; iz'kklfud vf/kdj.k us

izkFkhZ dk okn~ fujLr fd;kA cgl ds nkSjku ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd

lsok lekfIr ds ckn izkFkhZ iw.kZdkyhu fdlh vU; laLFkku esa dk;Zjr~

gSA vUr esa mUgksaus fuosnu fd;k fd izkFkhZ dk ek¡x&i= fujLr fd;k

tkosA

13- geus nksuksa i{kksa ds rdks± ij xEHkhjrkiwoZd fopkj fd;kA

14- loZizFke bl izdj.k esa bl ckcr fopkj djsa fd vizkFkhZ

fu;kstd m|ksx gS ;k ughA bl laca/k esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;

dh [k.MihB dk fu.kZ; 2012 WLC (Raj.) UC 530 State of

Rajasthan & Anr. vs The Labour Court Ajmer & Anr. vR;Ur

egRoiw.kZ gSA bl izdj.k esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds

le{k ;g fopkj.kh; fcUnq Fkk fd iqfyl foHkkx esa dk;Zjr~ fHk'rh

(Waterman) Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk es vkrk gS ;k ughaA ekuuh; jktLFkku

mPp U;k;ky; us vusdksa U;kf;d n`"Vk¡rksa dk foLr`r foospu djrs gq,

bl ckr dks dgk gS fd cSaxyksj okVj lIykbZ ds ekeys esa crk;s x;s

fl)karksa ds ifjizs{; esa ;g Li"V gS fd fHk'rh dk in iqfyl foHkkx esa

jkT; lEizHkq d`R; (Sovereign function) ls lacaf/kr ugha gSaA ekuuh;

jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; dh [kaMihB us leLr rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa

dk foLr`r foospu djrs gq, bl ekeys esa m|ksx 'kCn dks ifjHkkf"kr

djrs gq, ;g ekuk fd iqfyl foHkkx esa dk;Zjr~ fHk'rh (Waterman)

Jfed gSA ;fn mDr U;kf;d n`"Vk¡r ds izdk'k esa orZeku ekeys ds

rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fopkj djsa rks orZeku ekeys esa Hkh yxHkx

ogh ifjfLFkfr;ka lkeus vkrh gSa tks mDr U;kf;d n`"Vk¡r okys ekeys esa

FkhaA bl izdkj mijksDr U;kf;d n`"Vk¡r ds izfjizs{; esa esjs fouez er esa]

orZeku ekeys esa izkFkhZ ftl vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds v/khu ^Lohij* dk

2926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

dk;Z dj jgk Fkk] og ogka Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA bl izdkj ls

vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dk ;g fuosnu [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; le>s tkus ls

[kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS fd vizkFkhZ fu;kstd m|ksx dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha

vkrk gSA

15-

vc ge bl izdj.k esa bl ckr ij fopkj djsaxs fd izkFkhZ

dk dk;Z fdl izdkj dk jgk gSA bl laca/k esa lk{; ds voyksdu ls

;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds v/khu fnukad

01-12-1992 ls 18-06-2009 rd dk;Zjr~ jgk gSA vizkFkhZ fu;kstd

dk tks tokc gS mlesa bl ckr dks dgk x;k gS fd ;g lR; gS fd izkFkhZ

bl dk;kZy; esa va'kdkyhu lQkbZ dk;Z ds fy, fnukad 01-12-1992

ls 18-06-2009 rd dHkh Hkh o"kZ dys.Mj o"kZ ds vuqlkj ,d lky esa

dHkh Hkh 240 fnu yxkrkj dk;Z ugha fd;kA vizkFkhZ ds mDr dFku ls

,d ckr rks ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ fnukad 01-12-1992 ls

18-06-2009 rd vizkFkhZ fu;kstd esa dk;Zjr~ jgk gS] ysfdu vizkFkhZ

fu;kstd dk vc dsoy ;g dguk gS fd izkFkhZ us dHkh Hkh ,d o"kZ esa

240 fnu rd yxkrkj dk;Z ugha fd;kA bl laca/k esa ,d ckr ;g

Li"V gks tkrh gS fd izkFkhZ us o"kZ 1992 ls 2009 rd yxHkx 17 o"kZ

rd vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds v/khu dk;Z fd;k gSA

16-

vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izLrqr tokc o lk{; dks ns[ksa

rks vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dk ,d rjQ ;g dguk gS fd izkFkhZ dks dHkh 89

fnu ls T;knk fu;qfDr ugha nh xbZA nwljh rjQ bl laca/k esa izn'kZ&1

izkFkhZ dk fu;qfDr&i= gS] ftlesa izkFkhZ dks fnukad 14 fnlEcj 1992

dks 150@& #i;s izfrekg ij va'kdkyhu lQkbZ okyk ds in ij

fnukad 01-12-1992 ls 31-05-1993 rd fu;qDr fd;k x;k gSA bl

fu;qfDr&i= ls ,d ckr ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ dks jkstkuk etnwjh

ds fglkc ls fu;qDr ugha fd;k tkdkj izfrekg ds fglkc ls fu;qDr

fd;k x;k FkkA bl fu;qfDr&i= ls vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dk ;g dFku Hkh

>wBk lkfcr gks tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks dsoy 89 fnu ds fy, gh fu;qfDr

nh tkrh FkhA bl laca/k esa izn'kZ&2 i= esa Hkh bl ckr dks dgk x;k gS

fd jkstxkj dk;kZy; ls ckr djus ij 150@& #i;s izfrekg ij dk;Z

djus dks dksbZ rS;kj ugha gSA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls viuh lk{; esa izn'kZ&4]

izn'kZ&5] izn'kZ&6 o izn'kZ&7 gkftjh jftLVj dh izfr;ka izLrqr dh xbZ

gSa ftu ij izkFkhZ ds uke ds vykok vU; deZpkfj;ksa ds uke Hkh fy[ks

gq, gSaA bu mifLFkfr jftLVj ds voyksdu ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd

izkFkhZ us iwjs ekg gh dk;Z fd;k gSA ;gka rd fd 26] tuojh] 15 vxLr

dh rkjh[kksa ij Hkh izkFkhZ ds gLrk{kj ekStwn gSaA bl izdkj ls ;g lkeus

vkrk gS fd izkFkhZ jkstkuk etwnjh dh 'krZ ij dk;Z ugha dj izfrekg ds

fglkc ls dk;Zjr~ FkkA izn'kZ&9 ds voyksdu ls Hkh ;g lkeus vkrk gS

fd izkFkhZ dks nSfud osru Hkksxh lQkbZ deZpkjh crk;k x;k gS vkSj mls

14-11-2008 ls 13-12-2008 rd ,d ekg dk osru 2062@& fn;k

x;k gSA vc ;fn vizkFkhZ dh lk{; dks ns[ksa rks vizkFkhZ dk lk{kh

dkS'ky xkSre izfrijh{kk esa dgrk gS fd fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj dk;kZy; esa

,d gh ^Lohij* FkkA ;g lk{kh dgrk gS fd izkFkhZ jk/ks';ke fnlEcj]

1992 eas fu;qDr gqvk FkkA vUr esa ekpZ 2009 esa vkuk cUn gqvkA

tcfd nwljh rjQ vizkFkhZ vius tokc o 'kiFk&i= esa ;g dgdj

vk;k gS fd fnukad 10-01-2009 d ckn izkFkhZ Jfed dk fu;kstu

lekIr gks x;kA bl izdkj ls vizkFkhZ Lo;a dh lk{; fojks/kkHkklh gSa

vkSj vizkFkhZ dh lk{; ls ;g Li"V gS fd vizkFkhZ Lo;a lsokeqfDr dh

rkjh[k xyr crk jgs gSaA blds vykok tc vizkFkhZ ;g dgdj vk;s gSa

fd ;g lgh gS fd fnukad 01-12-1992 ls 18-06-2009 rd izkFkhZ us

bl dk;kZYk; esa va'kdkyhu lQkbZ dk;Z ds fy, ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu

dk;Z ugha fd;kA bl ckr ls ;g Li"V gS fd vizkFkhZ bl ckr dk ekurk

gS fd izkFkhZ 18-06-2009 rd vizkFkhZ ds ;gka dk;Zjr~ FkkA bl izdkj

ls Hkh izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr dh rkjh[k vizkFkhZ ckj&ckj xyr crk jgs

gSaA vizkFkhZ ds lk{kh dkS'ky xkSre us bl ckr dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd

izkFkhZ dks loZizFke 6 ekg ds fy, yxk;k FkkA

17-

vizkFkhZ ds }kjk izkFkhZ dks ikVZVkbZe j[ks tkus dh ckr dgh

xbZ gSA bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ ds }kjk izLrqr Je fookn~ la[;k 37@2007

Hkxkjke cuke CykWd izkjfEHkd f'k{kk vf/kdkjh dk vf/kfu.kZ; fnukad

19-03-2012 esa U;kf;d n~"VkWar Divisional Manager New India

Assurance Co. Ltd. V.A. Sankaralingam 2009 Lab.I.C. Page

151, Kan Singh V. District Ayurved Offcer and others (2012

(132) FLR 570) o State & Ors.V Giriraj Prasad & another

2008 Western Law Cases (Raj) UC Page 730 dk mYys[k fd;k

x;k gS ftlesa bl ckr dks dgk x;k gS fd ikVZVkbZe Jfed@deZpkjh

Hkh Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gS vkSj mls /kkjk 25&ch o 25&,Q

vkS|ksfxd fookn~ vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh lqj{kk izkIr gSA

18-

lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ ds ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu dk;Z djus ds

laca/k ;g lqLFkkfir fof/k gS fd izkFkhZ dk ;g nkf;Ro gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ

dks bu rF;ksa dk izekf.kr djuk gksrk gSA orZeku ekeys esa tc izkFkhZ

us bl ckr dks nLrkosth lk{; ls izekf.kr dj fn;k gS fd mls izfrekg

ds fglkc ls fu;qfDr nh xbZ Fkh vkSj fofHkUUk mifLFkfr jftLVj o

izn'kZ &9 ls Hkh ;g rF; izekf.kr dj fn;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ izfrekg ds

fglkc ls gh vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds v/khu fu;qDr Fkk esjs fouez er esa

izkFkhZ us vius ftEes dk Hkkj fl) dj fn;k gSA vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ;g

dgdj vk;s gSa fd izkFkhZ dks 89 fnu ds fy, j[kk tkrk Fkk vFkok

izkFkhZ us dHkh Hkh 240 fnu ,d o"kZ esa dk;Z ugha fd;k] ysfdu bl

laca/k esa vizkFkhZ ds }kjk dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; vfHkys[k ij izLrqr ugha

dh xbZ gS] ftlls vizkFkhZ ds fo:) fu"d"kZ fudkyk tk ldrk gSA

U;kf;d n`"Vkar Joseph Thomas V. The Judge, Labour Court,

Jodhpur & Ors. S.B. CIVIL Writ Petition No. 7136/2005

Date of Order : 19th December, 2008 ds ekeys esa ekuuh;

jktLFkku mPPk U;k;ky; us bl ckr dks dgk gS fd Jfed 5 o"kZ ls

vizkFkhZ ls ;gka dk;Zjr gS mls jgus dks eq¶r vkokl o Hkkstu Hkh fn;k

x;k gS] leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa gj o"kZ lsok c<+kus dk vkns'k dsoy

blhfy, tkjh fd;k x;k gS fd rkfd Jfed ds ekeys esa vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ykxw u gks ldsaA ekuuh; mPPk U;k;ky;

us bl unfair labour practice ekukA bl U;kf;d n`"VkWr esa iwoZ

U;kf;d n`"VkWrksa dk mYYks[k djrs gq, ekuuh; jktLFkku mPPk U;k;ky;

us ;g Hkh dgk fd U;k;ky; dks ijns dk mBkdj okLrfodrk dks

ns[kuk pkfg,A mDr er fuEu 'kCnksa esa O;Dr fd;k x;kA

A Divsion Bench of Allahabad High Court in Shailendra

Nath Shukla and others v. Vice-Chancellor, Allahabad

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2927

University and others, reported in 1987 Lab. I.C. 1607, while

dealing with a similar question as involved in this petition

for writ, held as follow:—

''Terminations which are included in its are those

which are brought about either because of non-

renewal of contract or because of expiry of time

stipulated in agreement. The meaning is plain and

simple. But in a society with so wide gap where

bargaining power of employee is nil who is exposed

to exploitation the nature of employment cannot be

judged on the letter issued by the employer but on

the nature of duties performed. For instance workers

employed for doing a particular job which may be for

more than 240 days can be said to be covered by this

clause as their engagement comes to an end because

of completion of work. Similarly, a workman employed

for a stipulated period of completion of work

whichever may be earlier may be covered in this

clause. But if contractual employment is resorted to

as mechanism to frustrate the claim of employee to

become regular or permanent against a job which

continues or the nature of duties is such that the

colour of contractual engagement is given to take it

out from the principal clause then such agreement

shall have to be tested on anvil of fairness and bona

fide. An agreement for arm twisting or to perpetuate

the policy of hire and fire cannot be deemed to be

included in Cl. (bb). Because if its is left to employer

not to renew contract whenever he likes irrespective

of any circumstance then the protection afforded to

a workman by treating every termination of service

as retrenchment shall be rendered nugatory. It has to

be confined to those limited cases where either the

work or post ceased to exist or job comes to an end

or the agreement for a specific period was bona fide.

It cannot be extended to such cases where the job

continues and the employee's work is also

satisfactory but periodical renewals are made to

avoid regular status to the employees. That would

be unfair labour practice''.

A Division Bench of this Court in Bheem Raj. v. Uttariya

Rajasthan Sahkari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Bikaner &

Vice-Versa, reported in 2000(3) WLN 690, opined that:

''merely writing in the order, a fix term of appointment

by itself is not a conclusive proof of the fact that it is

a fixed term employment. It depends on facts and

circumstances of each case whether the employment

offered was for a fix term or was only as a device to

avoid the applicability of the beneficial provisions

of the Industrial Dispute Act ensuring against

arbitrary hire and fire principal adopted by the

employments (employers). It is always open for

adjudicatoyr body to lift the veil of the real

transactions and if it comes to the lattter conclusion

the provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) could not be

attracted. In these circumstances, essentially in each

cases this being a finding of fact would not be

ordinarily subjected to the judical review.''

In Alcobex Metals Ltd. v. State of Rajathan & Qrs.,

reported in 2004 WLC(Raj). UC 260, a Division Bench of

this Court held that the Labour Court is required to examine

the real nature of work and termination of the employee

concerned. if any exemption is claimed in view of the

provisions of clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the Act of

1947. In the case aforesaid the Division Bench held as

follows:—

''33. It cannot be said that whenever workmen raised

dispute about real nature of employment and real

nature of termination, it can be frustrated solely by

showing termination order embedded in order of

appointment.

The appointment ostensibly satisfying the provisions

of Section 2 (oo) (bb) in such cases becomes a matter of

industrial adjudication. Whether the appointment in the

first instance itself was bonafide for a fixed term or was a

mere camouflage to release the employer from obligations

arising under the Industrial Distputes Act. Such a dispute

raised can only be solved by adjudication on the basis of

material that may come before the Adjudicating Authority

during the course of such proceedings.''

''In the present case the Labour Court made no effect

to examine real nature of the duties discharged by

the petitioner, the real nature of termination effected

by the employer and the real reason to exectute

service agreement year by year. The provsions of

Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act of 1947 cannot be

utilised by an employer to victimise a workman by

way of discharge. The clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo)

of the Act of 1947 comes into picture only where a

person is employed for a work of intermittent nature

for a short term under an agreement. If any employer

executes service agreement in terms relating to

paranial nature of work only with view to keep the

workman at a disadvantageous position with a view

to avoid the applicability of the condition precedents

for effecting a valid retrenchment, then that shall be

nothing but an unfair labour practice which is

prohibited as per the provisions of Section 25-T of

the Act of 1947. Such type of termination is a

discharge simplicitor from service by way of

victimisation.''

''As said above, the petitioner remained in

employment for five years and his services were

utilised by the employer as a regular staff. The

petitioner was also entitled for the residential

accommodation and meals as given to the students.

Before employing the petitioner as Electrician-cum-

Plumber a process of selection was also conducted

2928

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

and appointment was given to him agaisnt a vacant

post. This factual position available in instant mattter

establishes it well that the petitioner was employed

to discharge a paranial work and he was having a

relationship of workman with the employer. The

service agreements were executed year by year by

the employer only with view to deprive the petitioner

from protection of the provisions of the Act of 1947

while effecting retrenchment. It is really unfortunate

that the jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya, that is an

agency of the State adopted a practice against the

thrust and will of a statute and also contrary to a

public policy of a welfare state. A citizen of our

country expects fair approach atleast from the

government and its agencies, thus, such agencies

should act fairly and should prove themselves as

model employer.''

19-

mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa lqLFkkfir fof/k ds izdk'k esa orZeku

ekeys dks ns[ksa dks mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS

fd izkFkhZ dks vkS|ksfxd fookn~ vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk

djrs gq, lsokeqDr ugha fd;k x;k gSA i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ls ;g

Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ dks lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ uksfVl] uksfVl osru vFkok

NaVuh eqvkotk ugha fn;k x;kA lk{; ls ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ dh

lsok 1992 ls 2009 rd djhc 17 o"kZ yxkrkj jgh gSA vizkFkhZ fu;kstd

us dk;Z fnolksa ds laca/k esa dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; is'k ugha dh gS] ftlls

muds fo#) fu"d"kZ fudkyk tk ldrk gSA bl izdkj ls ;g Li"V gS

vizkFkhZ ds }kjk /kkjk 25&,Q vkS|ksfxd fookn~ vf/kfu;e dh ikyuk

ugha dh xbZ gSA

20-

vizkFkhZ ds lk{kh dkS'ky xkSre us viuh lk{; esa izoh.k

dqekj dks ^Lohij* ds in ij fu;qDr djus dh ckr dgh gSA ;|fi

mldh fu;qfDr rkjh[k ;g lk{kh ugha crk ldk gSA bl lk{kh ds vuqlkj

dk;kZy; esa dsoy ,d gh ^Lohij* FkkA bl lk{kh us bl ckr dks Hkh

dgk gS fd vHkh gekjs foHkkx esa dk;Zjr~ ^Lohij* Qqy VkbZe VsEizsjh 89

fnu ds fy, j[kk x;k gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd tc mldk ikVZVkbZe

vkns'k tkjh gqvk rFkk izkFkhZ dk dsl py jgk FkkA bl izdkj ;g Li"V

gS fd vizkFkhZ fu;kstd us izoh.k dqekj dh fu;qfDr ls iwoZ izkFkhZ dks

lsok esa iquZLFkkfir ( re-employment) djus gsrq u rks dksbZ uksfVl

fn;k u gh mls iqu% lsok esa j[kus dk iz;kl fd;kA bl izdkj ls vizkFkhZ

fu;kstd }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn~ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,p o jktLFkku

vkS|ksfxd fookn~ fu;e ds fu;e 78 dk mYya?ku fd;k tkuk Hkh

izekf.kr gksrk gSA

21- mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij ;g izekf.kr gks tkrk gS fd

izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk fnukad 18-06-2009 ds voS/k rjhds

ls lsokeqDr fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds v/khu djhc

17 o"kZ rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k gSA vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds ikl izkFkhZ gsrq

dk;Z Hkh miyC/k gSaA vr% bl izdj.k dh leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa o

mijksDr of.kZr lqLFkkfir fof/k ds izdk'k esa izkFkhZ dks jsQjsal dh

fnukad 03-10-2011 ls lsok esa iquZLFkkfir fd, tkus dh frfFk rd

25 izfr'kr iwoZHk`fr (back wages) lfgr o iwoZ lsok esa fujUrjrk

lfgr lsok esa iquZLFkkfir fd, tkus ds vkns'k fn;k tkuk mfpr gSA

&%vf/kfu.kZ;%&

22- vr% ;g vf/kfu.khZr fd;k tkrk gS fd%—

¼1½ izkFkhZ Jfed jk/ks';ke iq= Jh dk'khjke dks vizkFkhZ fu;kstd

bLVsV fMQsal vkWfQlj] bLVsV vkWfQl] tks/kiqj }kjk fnukad

18-06-2009 ls lsokeqDr djuk vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gSA

¼2½ vizkFkhZ fu;kstd bLVsV fMQsal vkWfQlj] bLVsV fMQsal

vkWfQl] tks/kiqj izkFkhZ Jfed jk/ks';ke iq= Jh dk'khjke

dks rqjUr izHkko ls lsok esa iquZLFkkfir djsA izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa

fujUrj ekuh tkosaxhA

¼3½ izkFkhZ Jfed jk/ks';ke iq= Jh dk'khjke jsQjsal dh fnukad

03-10-2011 ls lsok esa iquZLFkkfir fd, tkus dh frfFk rd

25 izfr'kr iwoZHk`fr (back wages) vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ls

izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA

23- bl vf/kfu.kZ; dks izdk'kukFkZ Hkkjr&ljdkj dks izsf"kr fd;k

tkosA

24- ;g vf/kfu.kZ; esjs }kjk fyfic) djok;k tkdj vkt fnukad

22-05-2013 dks [kqys U;k;ky; easa gLrk{kj dj mn~?kksf"kr fd;k x;kA

vuwi dqekj lDlSuk] U;k;k/kh'k

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1365-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkdk'kok.kh ,oa

nwjn'kZu ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa

U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 03@05½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@126@2000&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2015

S.O. 1365.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 03/05) of the

Industrial Tribunal Cum -Labour Court, Jodhupur now as

shown in the Annexure in the industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of the Chief

Engineer (North Zone), Akashwani and Doordarshan and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 30/06/2015.

[No. L-42012/126/2000-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2929

vuqcU/k

vkS|ksfxd fookn~ vf/kdj.k

,oa

Je U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

% Jh vuwi dqekj lDlSuk]

vkj-,p-tsñ,l-

vkS|ksfxd fookn~ ¼dsUnzh;½ la[;k% 03@2005

Jh ckcw[kka iq= Jh lxrs [kka] tkfr&eqlyeku]

fuoklh&jkex<+] rglhy&tSlyesj] ftyk&tSlyesj

¼jkt-½

---- izkFkhZ

cuke

1- dsUnz vfHk;Urk] nwj'kZu dsUnz] izlkj Hkkjrh] mPp 'kfDr

izsf"k=] tSlyesjA

2- eq[; vfHk;Urk ¼mRrjh {ks=½ vkdk'kok.kh ,oa nwjn'kZu

tkeuxj gkÅl] 'kkgtgka jksM+] ubZ fnYyhA

---- vizkFkhZx.k

mifLFkr%

¼1½ izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k Jh enu iqjksfgrA

¼2½ vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k Jherh 'kf'kyrk feRryA

&%vf/kfu.kZ;%&

fnukad 18-04-2013

1- Je ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj us viuh vf/klwpuk Øekad

L-42012/126/2000-IR (DU) New Delhi dated 12.01.2005 ds

}kjk fuEu fookn~ vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq bl U;k;ky; dks izsf"kr fd;k gS%&

"Whether the action of the management of Chief

Engineer (North Zone), Akashwani and Doordarshan

in terminating the services of Shri Babu Khan

S/o Shri Sangte Khan w.e.f 15.11.1994 is just, fair and

legal? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is

entitled?"

2- izkFkhZ us vius ekax&i= esa ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ

vizkFkhZ la- 1 ds tSlyesj fLFkr mPp 'kfDr izsf"kr ( High Power

Transmitter) ij dsUnz vfHk;Urk ds v/khu MªkbZoj ds in ij dk;Zjr~

FkkA izkFkhZ us mYys[k fd;k gS fd mlus vius vizkFkhZx.k ds v/khu

fnukad 01-01-1992 ls 1994&95 rd dqy feykdj nks lky ls

vf/kd fujUrj dk;Z fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dq'ky dkexkj dh Js.kh esa vkrk

gSA izkFkhZ dks izfrekg 3000@& :i;s osru ns; FkkA izkFkhZ us mYys[k

fd;k gS fd fnukad 06-06-1994 dks vizkFkhZ us fcuk dksbZ dkj.k

crk, izkFkhZ dks fcuk lquokbZ dk ekSdk fn;s ekSf[kd :i ls lsok ls

i`Fkd dj fn;kA lsoki`Fkdrk ls iwoZ dksbZ uksfVl ;k uksfVl vof/k dk

osru ugha fn;k x;kA

3- izkFkhZ us vkxs mYys[k fd;k gS fd lsoki`Fkdrk ls iwoZ mls u rks

dksbZ vkjksi&i= fn;k x;k u gh dksbZ foHkkxh; tkap dh xbZ vkSj

dsoy ekSf[kd rkSj ij lsok,sa lekIr dj nh xbZA izkFkhZ us mYys[k

fd;k gS fd lsok vof/k dks nkSjku lsok,sa lUrks"kizn jghaA mlus vizkFkhZx.k

ds v/khu ,d o"kZ ds nkSjku 240 fnu dh lsok vof/k iw.kZ dj yh Fkh]

blfy;s mls fcuk fof/kd izfØ;k viuk, lsok ls i`Fkd ugha fd;k tk

ldrk FkkA izkFkhZ us mYys[k fd;k gS fd vizkFkhZx.k }kjk vkS|ksfxd

fookn~ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q ds izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku fd;s

tkus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ iqu% iwoZor MªkbZoj ds in ij dk;Z djus dk

vf/kdkjh gS rFkk lsoki`Fkd fd;s tkus ls iqu% fu;kstu esa j[ks tkus dh

fnukad rd ds fiNys osru o vU; ifjykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh

gSA ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k gS fd vkS|ksfxd fookn~ vf/kfu;e ds

izko/kkuksa ds rgr lsok esa izeks'ku ,oa vU; ifjykHkksa dks Hkh izkIr djus

dk vf/kdkjh gSA

4- mDr vk/kkjksa ij izkFkhZ us fuosnu fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks voS/k

:i ls lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus dh fnukad ls iqu% lsok esa j[ks tkus dh

fnukad dk leLr osru fnyk;k tkos rFkk vU; ifjykHk Hkh fnyk;s

tkosaA

5- vizkFkhZx.k us vius izR;qRrj esa izkjfEHkd vkifRr;ksa esas dgk gS

fd izkFkhZ }kjk ;g izkFkZuk&i= vR;Ur nsjh ls izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA

vizkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 15-11-1994 dks izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa lekIr dh xbZ

gksrh rks izkFkhZ rqjUr gh U;k;ky; dh 'kj.k esa vkrk] ysfdu izkFkhZ us

yEch vof/k ds i'pkr~ ;g fookn~ mBk;k gS ,oa vuqfpr ykHk izkIr

djus dk iz;kl fd;k gSA ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ Lo;a vius

vf/kdkjksa ds izfr tkx:d ugha gS A izkFkhZ }kjk fookn~ vR;f/kd foyEc

ls izLrqr fd;s tkus ds dkj.k pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA izkFkhZ us foyEc dk

dksbZ lUrks"ktud Li"Vhdj.k Hkh ugha fn;k gSA vr% mDr vk/kkj ij

izkFkhZ dk ekax&i= fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA

6- vkxs izR;qRrj esa mYys[k fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZx.k ds

v/khu MªkbZoj ds in ij tSlyesj fLFkr mPp 'kfDr izsf"k= dsUnz

vfHk;Urk ds v/khu fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k cfYd okLro esa izkFkhZ dks

vkdfLed MªkbZoj ds rkSj ij iw.kZr;k vLFkkbZ rkSj ij dsUnz ds fuekZ.k

rd mPp 'kfDr izsf"kr jkex<+ ij yxk;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ dks iw.kZr;k

vLFkkbZ rkSj ij 01-01-1992 ls 12-10-1992 rd lhfer vof/k

vFkok izkstsDV iwjk gksus rd tks Hkh igys gks] rd ds fy, dk;Z ij

yxk;k x;k FkkA bl rF; dks Hkh vLohdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ us

01-01-1992 ls ysdj 1994&95 rd yxkrkj o fujUrj nks o"kZ ls

vf/kd le; rd dk;Z fd;kA okLro esa izkFkhZ dks 01-01-1992 ls

12-10-1992 rd vkdfLed Jfed ds rkSj ij rFkk mlds i'pkr~

13-10-1992 ls 15-11-1994 rd odZpktZ deZpkjh ds rkSj ij

dk;Z ij yxk;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZx.k ds v/khu dHkh Hkh

fujUrj o yxkrkj dk;Z ugha fd;kA ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd dk;Z dh

vko';drk ds vk/kkj ij gh izkFkhZ ls dk;Z fy;k tkrk FkkA

2930

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

7- vizkFkhZ us mYys[k fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ ls fy;k x;k dk;Z fu;fer

izd`fr dk ugha Fkk cfYd vizkFkhZx.k dk dk;Z dsoy mPp 'kfDr izsf"kx

dsUnz ds fuekZ.k rd gh FkkA vizkFkhZx.k ds v/khu u rks MªkbZoj dk

dksbZ in~ Lohd`r Fkk u gh vizkFkhZx.k dks fu;fer MªkbZoj dh dksbZ

vko';drk gh FkhA dsoy mPp 'kfDr izsf"kx dsUnz dk fuekZ.k ds

nkSjku vR;ko';d dk;Z ds fu"iknu ds m}s'; ls izkFkhZ dks dk;Z ij

yxk;k x;k Fkk rFkk dsUnz dk fuekZ.k iw.kZ gks tkus ij vizkFkhZx.k dk

dk;Z lekIr gks x;kA vr% izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa mls eqvkotk jkf'k o NaVuh

jkf'k iznku dj fof/kor~ lekIr dj nh xb±A

8- ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks 3000@& #i;s ekfld osru

ugha fn;k tkrk Fkk cfYd 01-01-1992 ls 12-10-1992 rd vkdfLed

Jfed ds rkSj ij 38-45 #i;s izfrfnu dh nj ls etnwjh nh tkrh Fkh

rFkk fnukad 13-10-1992 ds i'pkr~ lsok lekfIr rd mls odZpktZ

deZpkjh ds rkSj ij 950&20&1150&20&1500 osrueku ls vkjfEHkd

osru 950@& #i;s Lohdk;Z HkÙks ns; FksA bl rF; dks xyr crk;k gS

fd izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa fnukad 06-06-1994 dks ekSf[kd :i ls lekIr

dh xbZA okLro esa izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa tfj;s i= fnukad 13-17-94@iz'kk-

vkbZ fnukad 13-10-994 ds }kjk fnukad 15-11-1994 rd c<+kZ xbZ

rRi'pkr~ izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa fnukad 15-11-1994 ls fof/kor~ NaVuh

eqvkotk 2106@& #i;s nsdj lekIr dh xbZ ftls izkFkhZ us izkIr fd;k

gSA izkFkhZ us rF;ksa dks fNik;k gS o LoPN gkFkksa ls ugha vk;k gSA

9- vizkFkhZx.k us mYys[k fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZx.k ds v/khu

240 fnu yxkrkj dk;Z ugha fd;kA cfYd izkFkhZ ls vko';drk ds

vk/kkj ij gh dk;Z fy;k tkrk Fkk D;ksafd vizkFkhZx.k dk dk;Z mPp

'kfDr izsf"kx dsUnz ds fuekZ.k rd gh Fkk vkSj mlds i'pkr~ dk;Z

lekfIr ij fof/kd izfØ;k viukrs gq, izkFkhZ dh lsok lekIr dh xbZA

vizkFkhZx.k }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q ;k

vU; fdlh izko/kku dk mYya?ku ugha fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ iqu% fu;qfDr

ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA mDr vk/kkjksa ij vizkFkhZx.k us fuosnu fd;k

gS fd izkFkhZ dk ekax&i= lO;; fujLr fd;k tk;sA

10- izkFkhZ us vius eax&i= esa mYys[k fd;s x;s rF;ksa dh iqf"V esa

Lo;a dk 'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;kA izkFkhZ ls izfrijh{kk dh xbZA izkFkhZ dh

vksj ls izys[kh; lk{; esa dk;kZy; vkns'k fnukad 23-11-1992 izn'kZ&1]

Kkiu izn'kZ&2] vizkFkhZx.k }kjk izkFkhZ dks lk{kkRdkj gsrq izsf"kr i=

izn'kZ&3] izkFkhZ dk Mªkbafoax ykbZlsUl izn'kZ&4] izek.k&i= izn'kZ&5]

{kfriwfrZ jkf'k Lohd`fr vkns'k izn'kZ&6] ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky;

dk ,l-ch- flfoy fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 3934@2002 ckcw[kka cuke

Hkkjr la?k esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 03-12-2004 izn'kZ&7 dks is'k dj

izn'kZ djok;s x;sA vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls Jh ts- ih- vxzoky dk

'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;k x;kA bl lk{kh ls izfrijh{kk dh xbZA vizkFkhZx.k

dh vksj ls izys[kh; lk{; esa Je ea=ky; dk i= izn'kZ&1] izkFkhZ dks

{kfriwfrZ dh jkf'k Lohd`fr vkns'k izn'kZ &2] Kkiu izn'kZ &3] izkFkhZ

dk 13-10-92 ls 31-12-92 rd fu;qfDr vkns'k izn'kZ &4] lsok vof/

k 15-11-1994 rd c<+kus dk vizkFkhZx.k dk vkns'k izn'kZ &5] izkFkhZ

dks {kfriwfrZ dh jkf'k Lohd`fr vkns'k izn'kZ&6] okmpj izn'kZ&7 o

osru fcy dh izfr izn'kZ&8 dks is'k dj izn'kZ djok;s x;sA

11- cgl mHk;&i{k lquh xbZA i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu

fd;k x;kA

12- cgl ds nkSjku fo}ku izfrfuf/k izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fuosnu fd;k

x;k gS fd izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZx.k ds v/khu 01-01-1992 ls 1994µ95

rd yxkrkj nks lky ls vf/kd le; rd MªkbZoj ds in ij fujUrj

dk;Z fd;k gS rFkk lsok lekfIr ls iwoZ ds o"kZ esa yxkrkj 240 fnu ls

vf/kd lsok vof/k iw.kZ dj yh] ysfdu blds ckotwn Hkh vizkFkhZx.k

us izkFkhZ dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q ds izko/kkuksa

ds varxZr ,d ekg dk uksfVl] uksfVl osru o NaVuh eqvkotk vnk

ugha fd;k o /kkjk 25&,Q ds izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku djrs gq, izkFkhZ dks

lsokeqDr dj fn;k x;kA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd lsok lekfIr ls

iwoZ izkFkhZ dks dksbZ vkjksi&i= ugha fn;k u gh dksbZ tkap dh xbZA bl

izdkj ls mUgksaus izkFkhZ ds i{k esa izkFkhZ }kjk ekaxk x;k vuqrks"k iznku

fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k us vius rdks± ds leFkZu

esa U;kf;d n`"Vkar Ramesh Kumar V. State of Haryana (2010)

2 Supreme Court Cases 543 izLrqr fd;k] ftldk voyksdu

fd;k x;kA

13- ;ksX; izfrfuf/k vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls fuosnu fd;k x;k gS fd

izkFkhZ us viuk fookn vR;f/kd foyEc ls izLrqr fd;k gSA ;g Hkh

fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ dks 01-01-1992 ls 12-10-1992 rd vkdfLed

Jfed ds rkSj ij rFkk mlds i'pkr~ 13-10-1992 ls 15-11-1994

rd odZpktZ deZpkjh ds rkSj ij dk;Z ij yxk;k x;kA mudk fuosnu

gS fd izkFkhZ ls fy;k x;k dk;Z fu;fer izd`fr dk ugha Fkk cfYd

vizkFkhZx.k dk dk;Z dsoy mPp 'kfDr izsf"kx dsUnz ds fuekZ.k rd gh

FkkA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd vizkFkhZx.k ds v/khu u rks MªkbZoj dk

dksbZ in Lohd`r Fkk u gh vizkFkhZx.k dks MªkbZoj dh fu;fer vko';drk

FkhA dsoy mPp 'kfDr izsf"kx dsUnz dk fuekZ.k ds nkSjku vR;ko';d

dk;Z ds fu"iknu ds mís'; ls izkFkhZ dks dk;Z ij yxk;k x;k Fkk o dsUnz

dk fuekZ.k iw.kZ gks tkus ij vizkFkhZx.k dk dk;Z lekIr gks x;k vr%

izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa mls eqvkotk jkf'k o NaVuh jkf'k iznku dj fof/kor~

:i ls lekIr dh xbZ gSA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd vizkFkhZx.k }kjk

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q ;k vU; fdlh izko/kku

dk mYya?ku ugha fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ iqu% fu;qfDr izkIr djus dk

vf/kdkjh ugha gSA mUgksaus fuosnu fd;k fd izkFkhZ dk ekax&i= [kkfjt

fd;k tkosA

14- geus nksuksa i{kksa ds rdks± ij xaHkhjrkiwoZd fopkj fd;kA

15- loZizFke mHk;i{k dh lk{; dks ns[ksa rks bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ us

vius ekax&i= rFkk 'kiFk&i= esa ;g dgk gS fd mls vizkFkhZx.k ds

v/khu fnukad 01-01-1992 dks MªkbZoj ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k

Fkk rFkk mlus 01-01-1992 ls yxkrkj o"kZ 1994&95 rd nks lky ls

vf/kd fujUrj dk;Z fd;kA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd vizkFkhZx.k us fnukad

06-06-1994 dks fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s izkFkhZ dks ekSf[kd :i ls

lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;kA izkFkhZ us ;g Hkh dgk gS fd mls lsoki`Fkd djus

ls iwoZ uksfVl ;k uksfVl dk osru ugha fn;kA izfrijh{kk us izkFkhZ us dgk

gS fd eq>s loZizFke 01-01-1992 dks MªkbZoj ds in ij fyf[kr vkns'k

ls yxk;kA vkns'k vLFkkbZ gks rks bldh eq>s tkudkjh ugha gSA eSa

nwjn'kZu foHkkx esa yxk FkkA xkM+h lkeku ysus ds fy, tSlyesj vkrh

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2931

FkhA tc eSa MªkbZfoax dk dke djrk Fkk ml le; tSlyesj dk dksbZ

MªkbZoj ugha FkkA fnYyh dk MªkbZoj FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd ogka ij

ijekusUV MªkbZoj ugha FkkA vt[kqn us dgk fd ogka MªkbZoj dh ijekusUV

iksLV FkhA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eq>s ijekusUV u yxk;k gksA esjh

gktjh gktjh jftLVj esa yxrh FkhA eq>s ekfld osru 3000@& #i;s

feyrk FkkA mDr Hkqxrku eSaus nks lky ls vf/kd fy;k FkkA ;g dguk

xyr gS fd eq>s izkstsDV esa yxk;k x;k gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eq>s

vkdfLed dke ds fy, j[kk gksA eq>s 'kq: esa Msyh oStst ij j[kk Fkk

ckn esa esjk isesUV c<+k fn;kA eSaus 01-01-1992 ls nks o"kZ rd dke

fd;kA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSaus VqdM+ksa esa dke fd;k gks cfYd eSaus

yxkrkj dke fd;kA izkFkhZ us vkxs izfrijh{kk esa dgk gS fd eq>s ;g

irk ugha fd ogka dk;Z lekIr gksus ij esjh lsok,a lekIr dj nh xbZ

gksA eq>s lsok lekfIr dk vkns'k ugha fn;kA ;g dguk xyr gS fd lsok

lekfIr ij eq>s ,d ekg ds osru] NaVuh eqvkotk fn;k gks vkSj mls

eSaus fy;k gksA ;g dguk Hkh xyr gS fd eSaus 240 fnu dke ugha fd;k

gks eSaus rks 700 fnu ls Hkh vf/kd dke fd;k gSA

16- blds foijhr vizkFkhZ ds lk{kh Jh tsñihñ vxzoky us viuh

lk{; esa ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks vkdfLed MªkbZoj ds rkSj ij iw.kZr;k

vLFkkbZ rkSj ij dsUnz ds fuekZ.k rd mPp ¼,pihVh½ 'kfDr izsf"kx

jkex<+ ij yxk;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ dks iw.kZr;k vLFkkbZ rkSj ij 01-01-

1992 ls 12-10-1992 rd lhfer vof/k vFkok izkstsDV iwjk gksus rd

tks Hkh igys gks rd ds fy, dk;Z ij yxk;k x;k FkkA lk{kh us vkxs

dgka gS fd izkFkhZ dks 01-01-1992 ls 12-10-1992 rd vkdfLed

Jfed ds rkSj ij rFkk mlds i'pkr~ 13-101992 ls 15-11-1994

rd odZpktZ deZpkjh ds rkSj ij dk;Z ij yxk;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ us

vizkFkhZx.k ds v/khu dHkh Hkh fujUrj dk;Z ugha fd;k cfYd dk;Z dh

vko';drk ds vk/kkj ij gh dk;Z fd;kA lk{kh us ;g Hkh dgk gS fd

vizkFkhZx.k ds v/khu u rks MªkbZoj dk dksbZ in Lohd`r Fkk u gh

vizkFkhZx.k dks fu;fer MªkbZoj dh vko';drk FkhA dsoy mPp 'kfDr

izsf"k= dsUnz ds fuekZ.k ds nkSjku vR;ko';d dk;Z ds fu"iknu ds

mís'; ls izkFkhZ dks dk;Z ij yxk;k x;kA mDr dsUnz ds fuekZ.k dk dk;Z

iwjk gksus ij vizkFkhZx.k dk dk;Z lekIr gks x;k vr% izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa

mls eqvkotk jkf'k o NaVuh jkf'k iznku dj fof/kor~ lekIr dj nh

xbZA izfrijh{kk esa bl lk{kh us dgk gS fd ckcw[kka ls gekjs vkWfQl

fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj MªkbZoj dk dke fy;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ dks o"kZ 1992

ls 1994&95 ds chp gekjh ;kstuk esa dk;Z dh vko';drk vuqlkj

MªkbZoj ds dke ds fy, nSfud Jfed ds :i esa j[kk FkkA vt[kqn

dgk fd izkFkhZ dks bUlVkys'ku izkstsDV vkWfQl ds }kjk j[kk x;k FkkA

;g lgh gS fd izkFkhZ dks vLFkkbZ rkSj ij j[kk x;k FkkA ;g lgh gS fd

izkFkhZ dks 'kq: esa rhu ekg ds fy, izn'kZ,&3 ds rgr j[kk FkkA ;g

dguk xyr gS fd izkFkhZ us dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z

fd;k gksA izkFkh dks Hkqxrku fjlhIV ysdj fn;k tkrk FkkA fjlhIV Hkqxrku

vkWfQlj }kjk yh tkrh Fkh oks gh fjdkMZ esUVsu djrk FkkA izkFkhZ dks

Hkqxrku ekfld o ikf{kd gksrk FkkA Hkqxrku eLVj jksy ij lkbZu

djok dj fn;k tkrk FkkA lk{kh us vkxs izfrijh{kk esa dgk gS fd eq>s

ugha ekywe fd izkFkhZ dks 01-12-1992 ls 31-12-1992 esa Hkqxrku

1780@& o 01-03-1993 ls 31-03-1993 dks Hkqxrku 1779@& fdl

vk/kkj ij fd;k x;kA ;g ckr lgh gS fd izkFkhZ dks lsok lekfIr ij

NaVuh eqvkotk o uksfVl is fn;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ dks okgu pkyd ds

:i esa j[kk FkkA vkdfLed MªkbZoj o vkdfLed Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk

ds ckjs esa iw.kZ tkudkjh ugha gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd izkFkhZ dh lsok,a

fcuk fof/kd izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk o fcuk NaVuh eqvkotk fn, dh xbZ

gksA

17- izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku jgk gS fd mls vizkFkhZx.k ds }kjk 01-01-

1992 dks MªkbZoj ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k rFkk 06-06-1994 dks

ekSf[kd :i ls lsoki`Fkd dj fn;kA blds foijhr vizkFkhx.k dk ;g

dFku jgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks 01-01-1992 ls 12-10-1992 rd lhfer

vof/k vFkok izkstsDV iwjk gksus rd tks Hkh igys gks rd ds fy, MªkbZoj

ds in ij yxk;k x;k FkkA rRi'pkr~ 13-10-1992 ls 15-11-1994

rd odZpktZ deZpkjh ds rkSj ij dk;Z ij yxk;k x;kA izkFkhZ us viuh

izfrijh{kk esa bl rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mls 01-01-1992 dks

MªkbZoj ds in ij fyf[kr vkns'k ls yxk;k x;kA mlus ;g Hkh dgk gS

fd fyf[kr esa tks vkns'k fn;k oks mlus is'k dj fn;k gSA vc ;fn

izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr nLrkostkr dks ns[ksa rks izn'kZ&2 Kkiu fnukad

09-10-1992 ds }kjk izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr osru J`a[kyk esa rhu ekg ds

fy, okgu pkyd ds :i esa 31-12-1992 rd dh xbZ gSA bl vkns'k

esa Li"V :i ls ;g mYysf[kr fd;k x;k gS fd 31-12-1992 ds i'pkr~

mudh lsok,a Hkax vFkok lekIr le>h tk,axhA bl vkns'k esa ;g Hkh

'krZ vafdr gS fd mudh fu;qfDr iw.kZr;k vLFkk;h gSfl;r ls gksxh vkSj

os fdlh Hkh voLFkk esa fu;fer vk/kkj ij ukSdjh esa cus jgus ;k lsok

iqf"V ds gdnkj ugha gksaxs rFkk mudh lsok,a fcuk dksbZ uksfVl fn, vkSj

fcuk dkj.k crk, dHkh lekIr dh tk ldrh g®A rRi'pkr~ izkFkhZ dh

lsok,a dk;kZy; vkns'k fnukad 23-11-1992 izn'kZ,&4 ds }kjk Kkiu

fnukad 09-10-1992 esa vafdr 'krks± ds vuqlj.k esa fnukad 13-10-

1992 ls 31-12-1992 rd dh vof/k ;k ifj;kstuk ds iwjk gksus rd

blesa tks Hkh igys gks] ds fy, fu;qDr fd;k x;kA rRi'pkr~ izkFkhZ dh

lsok,a dk;kZy; vkns'k fnukad 13-10-1994 izn'kZ,&5 ds tfj;s 01-

10-1994 ls 15-11-1994 rd c<+kbZ xbZ o vUr esa izn'kZ,&2 ds

tfj;s izkFkhZ dh lsok,a fnukad 15-11-1994 ls lekIr dh xbZA vizkFkhZx.k

ds lk{kh us viuh izfrijh{kk esa ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks o"kZ 1992 ls

1994&95 ds chp gekjs ;kstuk esa dk;Z dh vko';drk vuqlkj

MªkbZoj ds dke ds fy, nSfud Jfed ds :i esa j[kk FkkA bl lk{kh us

;g Hkh dgk gS fd izkFkhZ us ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa yxkrkj 240 fnu dk;Z

ugha fd;kA lsok lekfIr ls iwoZ ds ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa yxkrkj 240

fnu dk;Z djus ds laca/k esa bl xokg ls u rks izkFkhZ dh vksj ls vU;

dksbZ nLrkost ryc djk;s x;s g® u gh izfrijh{kk esa vU; dksbZ lq>ko

j[kk x;k gS fd dkSu ls nLrkostkr bl xokg us tkucw>dj is'k ugha

fd;s g®A Lo;a izkFkhZ dh vksj ls vius lk{; esa ,sls fdlh frfFk dk

mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k gS fd mlus fdl ekg esa fdrus fnu dk;Z bl

izdkj izkFkhZ us tks ekSf[kd o izys[kh; lk{; i=koyh ij izLrqr dh gS

mlls ;g izekf.kr ugha gksrk gS fd mlus vizkFkhZx.k ds v/khu fnukad

01-01-1992 ls 15-11-1994 rd fujUrj dk;Z fd;k vFkok lsok

lekfIr dh frfFk 15-11-1994 ls iwoZ ds ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa yxkrkj

240 fnu ;k blls vf/kd dk;Z fd;kA izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d

2932

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2015/ASADHA 13, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

n`"Vkar Ramesh Kumar V. State of Haryana (2010) 2

Supreme Court Cases 543 esa ;g ekeyk ;g Fkk fd ftl Jfed

us 240 fnu dh lsok iwjh dj yh gS mls fcuk uksfVl fn;s rFkk fcuk

/kkjk 25&,Q ds izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk fd;s lsok ls ugha gVk;k tk

ldrkA tSlk fd geus Åij foosfpr fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ ;g izekf.kr

djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd mlus lsok lekfIr ls iwoZ ds ,d dys.Mj

o"kZ esa 240 fnu fujUrj dk;Z fd;kA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk

izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ls izkFkhZ dks dksbZ lgk;rk ugh feyrh gSA

18- bl laca/k esa U;kf;d n`"Vkar Supreme Court of India

Appeal (Civil) 6383 of 2005 Surendranagar Distt. Panchayat

& Anr. V. Gangaben Laljibhai & Ors. dated 3.7.2006 esa

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds vusdksa U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk gokyk nsrs

gq, bl ckr dks dgk x;k gS fd Jfed dks ;g ckr izekf.kr djuh

gksxh fd mlus 240 fnu dk dk;Z dj fy;k gSA bl U;kf;d n`"Vkar esa

U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2005 ¼5½ lqizhe dksVZ dSlst 100 eSustj fjtoZ c®d

vkWQ bafM;k c®xyksj cuke ,lñ euh o vU; rhu U;k;ewrhZx.k ds }kjk

fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;k dk Hkh gokyk fn;k x;k gS vkSj dgk x;k gS fd

izkjfEHkd lcwr dk Hkkj fd Jfed us 240 fnu dk;Z dj fy;k gS]

Jfed ij gh gksxkA

19- orZeku ekeys esa izkFkhZ ckcw [kk¡ us izkjfEHkd rkSj ij Hkh bl

ckr dks izekf.kr ugha fad;k gS fd mlus vizkFkhZx.k ds fu;kstu esa 240

fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gSA

20- ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[k djuk mfpr gksxk fd izkFkhZ us viuk osru

3000@& #i;s izfrekg crk;k gS ysfdu mDr osru ds laca/k esa izkFkhZ us

dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr ugha dh gS u gh vizkFkhZx.k ls ryc

djokbZ gSA blds foijhr vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izn'kZ ,&8 izkFkhZ dks

Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf'k dk okÅpj izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlds voyksdu

ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dk osru 950@& #i;s rFkk Mhñ,ñ 788@&

#i;s o ,pñvkjñ,ñ 50@& #i;s dqy 1770@& #i;s dk Hkqxrku uoEcj

1992 esa fd;k x;k gS rFkk blh izdkj fnlEcj 1992 esa 1789@&

#i;s] ekpZ 1993 esa 1788@& #i;s] vizSy 1993 esa 1789@& #i;s o

ebZ 1993 esa 1874@& #i;s dk Hkqxrku izfrekg osru ds :i esa izkFkhZ

dks fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ vlR; dFku

dj jgk gS fd mldk osru 3000@& #i;s izfrekg FkkA ,slh fLFkfr esa

esjs fouez er~ esa vlR; dFku okys O;fDr dks lkE;k ds fl)kar ds

vuqlkj dksbZ ykHk iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrkA izkFkhZ LoPN gkFkksa ls

U;k;ky; ds le{k ugha vk;k gS vkSj mlus vlR; dFku U;k;ky; ds

le{k fd;s g®A

21- U;kf;d n`"Vkar A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 1806 Secretary, State

of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others ds ekeys

esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds }kjk bl ckr dks Li"V dj fn;k x;k

gS fd lafonk ds varxZr fu;qDr vFkok nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh dh

fu;qfDr fu;fer fu;qfDr ugha gSA mudh fu;qfDr lafonk lekIr gksus ij

vFkok nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh dh fu;qfDr lekIr fd;s tkus ij

lekIr gks tkrh gSA bl izdkj ds deZpkjh dks dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha

gksrs g®A ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds }kjk bls laca/k esa fuEu er O;Dr

fd;k gS%&

"Unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant

rules and after a proper competition among qualified

persons, the same would not confer any right on the

appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the

appointment comes to an end at the end of the

contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on

daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to

an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary

employee could not claim to be made permanent on

the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to

be clarified that merely because a temporary employee

or a casual wage worker is continued for a time

beyond the term of his appointment, he would not

be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made

permanent, merely on the strength of such

continuance, if the original appointment was not made

by following a due process of selection as envisaged

by the relevant rules. It is not open to the Court to

prevent regular recruitment at the instance of

temporary employees whose period of employment

has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by

the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire

any right. High Courts acting under Art. 226 of the

Constitution of India, should not ordinarily issue

directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent

continuance unless the recruitment itself was made

regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme.

Merely because, an employee had continued under

cover of an order of Court, which is described as

'litigious employment', he would not be entitled to

any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the

service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may

not be justified in issuing interim directions, since,

after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is

found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to

mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no

prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim

direction to continue his employment would hold up

the regular procedure for selection or impose on the

State the burden of paying an employee who is really

not required. The Courts must be careful in ensuring

that they do not interfere unduly with the economic

arrangement of its affairs by the State or its

instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments

to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and

statutory mandates. (Para 34)".

mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ds izdk'k es Hkh ;fn izkFkhZ dk ekeyk ns[kk

tk, rks izkFkhZ dks tks fu;qfDr vkns'k vizkFkhZx.k }kjk tkjh fd;s x;s g®

muesa Li"V :i ls ;g vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr fdl

frfFk rd dh vof/k ds fy, gksxh rFkk mlds i'pkr~ mldh lsok,a Hkax

vFkok lekIr le>h tk,axhA ;g Hkh 'krZ vafdr gS fd mldh fu;qfDr

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 4] 2015@vk"kk<+ 13] 1937

2933

iw.kZr;k vLFkkbZ gSfl;r ls gksxh vkSj og fdlh Hkh voLFkk esa fu;fer

vk/kkj ij ukSdjh esa cus jgus ;k lsok iqf"V dk gdnkj ugha gksxk rFkk

mldh lsok,a fcuk fdlh uksfVl fn, vkSj fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk,

dHkh lekIr dh tk ldrh g®A mDr vk/kkj ij Hkh esjs fouez er esa

izkFkhZ dksbZ jkgr izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA

22- ;gka ;g mYys[k djuk mfpr gksxk fd bl U;k;ky; dks tks

jsQjsUl Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj us izsf"kr fd;k gS mlesa lsok lekfIr

dh frfFk 15-11-1994 n'kkZbZ xbZ gS tcfd izkFkhZ us vius ekax&i= o

'kiFk&i= esa lsok lekfIr dh frfFk 06-06-1994 crkbZ gSA izkFkhZ dk

;g dFku jgk gS fd mls vizkFkhZx.k us fnukad 06-06-1994 dks fcuk

dksbZ uksfVl] uksfVl osru o NaVuh eqvkotk fn;s lsok ls ekSf[kd :i

ls lsok ls i`Fkd~ dj fn;kA blds foijhr Lo;a izkFkhZ us izn'kZ&6 lsok

lekfIr ds laca/k esa {kfriwfrZ Lohd`fr vkns'k is'k fd;k gS ftlds

voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkkZ dks {kfriwfrZ jkf'k 2106@& dk

Hkqxrku dk vkns'k fn;k x;k gS o 15-11-1994 ls lsok lekIr djuk

crk;k x;k gSA vizkFkhZx.k ds lk{kh Jh tsñihñ vxzoky us viuh

izfrijh{kk esa Hkh bl ckr dks dgk gS fd ;g ckr lgh gS fd izkFkhZ dks

lsok lekfIr ij NaVuh eqvkotk o uksfVl is fn;k x;k FkkA bl rF;

dh iqf"V Lo;a izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr ,lñchñ flfoy fjV fiVh'ku

uEcj 3934@2002 ckcw [kka cuke Hkkjr la?k esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad

03-12-2004 izn'kZ&7 ls Hkh gksrh gS ftlesa NaVuh eqvkotk fn;s tkus

ds rF; dks Lohd`r fd;k x;k gSA ysfdu vc izkFkhZ bl izdj.k esa ;g

dFku dj jgk gS fd mls lsok lekfIr ls iwoZ NaVuh eqvkotk vnk ugha

fd;k x;kA bl izdkj izkFkhZ vlR; dFku dj jgk gS rFkk Lo;a ds }kjk

izLrqr nLrkostkr ds foijhr dFku dj jgk gSA bl izdkj ;g Li"V gS

fd izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr fnukad 15-11-1994 dks vizkFkhZx.k }kjk

fof/kor~ :i ls NaVuh eqvkotk o uksfVl is nh tkdj dh xbZ gSA ,slh

fLFkfr esa vizkFkhZx.k }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk

25&,Q ;k vU; fdlh izko/kku dk mYya?ku fd;k tkuk izekf.kr ugha

gksrk gSA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa esjs fouez er~ esa izkFkhZ vizkFkhZx.k ls

dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA

vf/kfu.kZ;

23- vr% ;g vf/kfu.khZr fd;k tkrk gS fd %—

¼1½ izkFkhZ Jfed Jh ckcw [kk¡ iq= lxrs [kk¡ dks vizkFkhZx.k }kjk

fnukad 15-11-1994 dks lsokeqDr fd;k tkuk vuqfpr

,oa voS/k ugha gSA blfy;s izkFkhZ dksbZ jkgr ,oa jkf'k izkIr

djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA

24- bl vf/kfu.kZ; dks izdk'kukFkZ Hkkjr ljdkj dks izsf"kr fd;k

tkosA

25- ;g vf/kfu.kZ; esjs }kjk fyfic) djok;k tkdj vkt fnukad

18-04-2013 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa gLRkk{kj dj mn~?kksf"kr fd;k x;kA

vuwi dqekj lDlSuk] U;k;k/kh'k

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.