foÙk ea=ky;
¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1812-—foÙkh; vkfLr;ksa dk izfrHkwfrdj.k ,oa iquxZBu
rFkk izfrHkwfr fgr dk izorZu vfèfu;e] 2002 dh èkjk 21 dh mi&èkjk
1 ds rgr iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~n~okjk]
Jh v'kksd dqekj jYgu dks laifÙk;ksa ij l`ftr izfrHkwfr] foÙkh; vkfLr;ksa
ds iquxZBu rFkk izfrHkwfr fgr ds varj.kksa ds iathdj.k ds iz;kstu ls
65000&78000@&#i, ds osrueku esa muds iznHkkj xzg.k djus dh
rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, vFkok muds vfèof"kZrk dh vk;q
izkIr djus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] Hkkjrh;
izfrHkwfrdj.k] ifjlaifÙk iqufuZekZ.k vkSj izfrHkwfr LoRo dh dsUnzh; jftLVªh
¼lhbZvkj,l,vkbZ½ ds iath;d ,oa izca/k funs'kd rFkk eq[; dk;Zikyd
vf/kdkjh ¼dsUnzh; iath;d½ ds in ij fu;qDr djrh gSA
[Qkñlañ 3@5@2014&fjdojh]
oh-oh-,l- [kM+k;r] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2015
S.O. 1812.—In exercise of the powers conferred under
sub-section 1 of section 21 of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002, the Central Government hereby
appoints Shri Ashok Kumar Ralhan, as Registrar and
Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer (Central
Registrar), Central Registry of Securitisation Asset
Reconstruction and Security Interest of India (CERSAI),
in the pay scale of Rs. 65000-78000/-, for the purpose of
registration of transactions relating to securitisation,
reconstruction of financial assets and security interest
created over the properties, for a period of 3 years with
effect from the date of assumption of charge or till he
attains the age of superannuation or until further orders,
whichever is the earliest.
[F. No. 3/5/2014-Recovery]
V.V.S. KHARAYAT, Under Secy.
jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 38]
ubZ fnYyh] flrEcj 13—flrEcj 19] 2015] 'kfuokj@Hkkæ 22—Hkkæ 28] 1937
No. 38]
NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 13—SEPTEMBER 19, 2015, SATURDAY/BHADRA 22—BHADRA 28, 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)
3790 GI/2015
(3785)
3786
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1813-—chek fofu;ked vkSj fodkl izkfèdj.k
vfèfu;e] 1999 ¼1999 dk 41½ dh èkjk 4 n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rr~}kjk] Jh vkyksd VaMu]
la;qDr lfpo] foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx] foÙk ea=ky; dks Jh vuwi oèkou
ds LFkku ij rRdky izHkko ls vFkok vxys vkns'k gksus rd Hkkjrh;
chek fofu;ked vkSj fodkl izkfèdj.k ds va'kdkfyd lnL; ds
:i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
[Qkñlañ 11@6@2003&chek&III ¼vkaf'kd QkbZy½]
,uñ Jhfuokl jko] funs'kd ¼chek½
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2015
S.O. 1813.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 4 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development
Authority Act, 1999 (41 of 1999), the Central Government
hereby apoints Shri Alok Tandon, Joint Secretary,
Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance as
part-time member of the Insurance Regulatory and
Development Authority of India with immediate effect and
until further orders vice Shri Anup Wadhwan.
[F.No. 11/6/2003-Ins.III (Part file)]
N. SRINIVASA RAO, Director (Insurance)
dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=ky;
¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1814-—dsUnz ljdkj ,r~nr}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl
LFkkiuk vfèfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vfèfu;e la[;k 25½ dh
èkjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr èkjk 5 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq, gfj;k.kk jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] paMhx< ds fnukad
28-8-2015 dh vfèlwpuk lañ 20@10@2015&3 ,pthñ I }kjk izkIr
lgefr ls iqfyl LVs'ku ekuslj] ftyk xqMxkao esa Hkkñnñ lafgrk dh
èkjk 420] 465] 467] 468] 471 vkSj 120& ch rFkk Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k
vfèfu;e 1988 dh èkjk 13 ds rgr ntZ ,QvkbZvkj lañ 510
fnukad 12-08-2015 rFkk muls lacafèr vijkèksa] nq"izsj.kkvksa vkSj
"kM~;a=ksa ;k mlh laO;ogkj ds Hkkx ds :i esa fd, x, vFkok mUgha rF;ksa
ls mRiUu vijkè ;k vijkèksa ,oa mi;qZDr vijkèksa esa fd, x, iz;klksa]
nq"izsj.kkvksa vkSj "kM~;a=ksa rFkk mlh laO;ogkj esa fd, x, vFkok mUgha
rF;ksa ls mRiUu fdlh vU; vijkè ;k mijkèksa ls lacafèr tkap ds
fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj {ks=kfèdkj
dk foLrkj leLr gfj;k.kk jkT; esa djrh gSA ;g fnukad 01-09-2015
dh Qkby la[;k 228@39@2015&,ohMh&II }kjk tkjh dh xbZ vfèlwpuk
ds vfèØe.k esa gSA
[Qkñlañ 228@39@2015&,ohMh&II]
vthr dqekj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC
GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2015
S.O. 1814.—In exercise of the powers conferred under
sub-section (1) of section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi
Sepecial Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946),
the Central Government with the consent of the Notification
No. 20/10/2015-3 HG-I dated 28.8.2015 hereby extends the
powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special
Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Haryana
for investigation of FIR No. 510 dated 12.8.2015 u/s 420,
465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and section 13 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Manesar,
Distt, Gurgaon and attempts, abetments and conspiracies
in relation to or in connection with the offences mentioned
above and any other offence or offences committed in the
course of the same transaction or arising out of the same
facts. This is in supersession of previous notification issued
vide File No. 228/39/2015-AVD II dated 01.09.2015.
[F.No. 228/39/2015-AVD-II]
AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1815-—dsUnz ljdkj] naM izfØ;k lafgrk 1973¼1974
dk 2½ dh èkjk 24 dh mi&èkjk ¼8½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq, dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks ds vfHk;kstu vfèdkjh Jh foihu dqekj dks
fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky;ksa esa vkjaHk fd, x,
ekeyksa vkSj vihyksa] la'kksèuksa ;k fdlh jkT; ;k la?k 'kkflr {ks= esa fofè
}kjk LFkkfir la'kksèu U;k;ky; ;k vihy U;k;ky; ftlds fy, mDr
èkjk ds izkoèku ykxw gksasxs] esa bu ekeyksa ls mRiék gksus okys vU; ekeyksa
ds lapkyu ds fy, fo'ks"k lkoZtfud vfHk;ksDrk fu;qDr djrh gSA
[lañ 225@16@2015&,ohMh&II]
vthr dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2015
S.O. 1815.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (8) of section 24 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby apoints
Shri Vipin Kumar, Prosecuting Officer of Central Bureau of
Investigation as Special Public Prosecutor 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 Court of revision or Court of appeal,
established by law in any State or Union Territory to which
the provisions of the said section apply.
[F.No. 225/16/2015-AVD-II]
AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
jsy ea=ky;
¼jsyos cksMZ½
ubZ fnYyh] 17 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1816-—jsy ea=ky; ¼jsyos cksMZ½] jktHkk"kk fu;e 1976
¼la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e
¼2½ vkSj ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa nf{k.k iwoZ e/; jsyos ds LokLF; dsUnz]
brokjh] ukxiqj eaMy rFkk LVs'ku izcaèd ¼jktif=r½] jk;iqj LVs'ku
dk;kZy;] jk;iqj eaMy] tgka 80 izfr'kr ls vfèd vfèdkfj;ksa@
deZpfkj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn}kjk
vfèlwfpr djrk gSA
[lañ fgUnh&2015@jk-Hkk-&1@12@2]
ds- ih- lR;kuanu] funs'kd] jktHkk"kk
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3787
miHkksDrk ekeys] [kkn~; vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky;
¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½
¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½
ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1817-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 6 ds mifofu;e ¼3½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rnn~okjk uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, mRiknksa dh eqgjkadu 'kqYd vfèlwfpr djrk gS%
vuqlwph
Hkkjrh;
Hkkx
vuqHkkx
o"kZ
mRikn
bdkbZ
U;wure eqgjkadu 'kqYd
bdkbZ nj lySc esa
'ks"k
izpkyu
ekud
cM+s iSekus
NksVs iSekus
lySc 1
bdkbZ;ka
frfFk
la[;k
ij
ij
¼#½
902
&
&
1992
vfXu 'keu dk;ks± ds fy,
,d
64200-00
51400-00
11-00
lHkh
&
28-7-2015
pw"ku gkst ;qXeu&fof'k"V
ihl
[lanHkZ% lh,eMh&II/16%902]
lhñdsñ egs'ojh] oSKkfud th ,oa miegkfuns'kd ¼izek.ku½
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 26th August, 2015
S.O. 1817.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulations 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Marking Fee for the product given in the schedule.
SCHEDULE
IS No.
Part
Sec
Year
Product
Units
Minimum
Marking Fee Unit
Units
Remain-
Effective
Large
Small
Rate
in
iing
Date
Scale
Scale
Slab-1
Slab-1
902
—
—
1992
Suction Hose Couplings
1 No.
64200.00
51400.00
11.00
All
— 28-07-2015
for fire fighting purposes-
specification
[Ref.: CMD-2/16:902]
C.K. MAHESHWARI, Sc. G & DDG (Certification)
ubZ fnYyh] 27 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1818-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 6 ds mifofu;e ¼3½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rnn~okjk uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, mRiknksa dh eqgjkadu 'kqYd vfèlwfpr djrk gS%
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)
New Delhi, the 17th September, 2015
S.O. 1816.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in
pursuance of Sub Rule (2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the Official
Language Rules, 1976 (use for the Official purposes of the
Union) hereby, notify the Health Unit, Itwari, Nagpur
Division and office of Station Manager (Gazetted), Raipur
Station, Raipur Division of South East Central Railway,
where 80% or more Officers/Employees have acquired the
working knowledge of Hindi.
[No. Hindi-2015/OL-1/12/2]
K. P. SATHYANANDAN, Director(OL)
3788
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqlwph
Hkkjrh;
Hkkx
vuqHkkx
o"kZ
mRikn
bdkbZ
U;wure eqgjkadu 'kqYd
bdkbZ nj lySc esa
'ks"k
izpkyu
ekud
cM+s iSekus
NksVs iSekus
lySc 1
bdkbZ;ka
frfFk
la[;k
ij
ij
¼#½
952
&
&
2012
Qk;j fczxzsM esa iz;ksx gksus okys
,d
56000-00
44800-00
8-80
lHkh
&
28-7-2015
Qkx ukSty&fof'k"V
ihl
[lanHkZ% lh,eMh&II/16% 952]
lhñdsñ egs'ojh] oSKkfud th ,oa miegkfuns'kd ¼izek.ku½
New Delhi, the 27th August, 2015
S.O. 1818.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulations 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Marking fee for the product given in the schedule.
SCHEDULE
IS No.
Part
Sec
Year
Product
Units
Minimum Marking Fee
Unit
Units
Remain-
Effective
Large
Small
Rate
in
ing
Date
Scale
Scale
Slab-1
Slab-1
952
—
—
2012
Fog Nozzle for
1 No.
56000.00
44800.00
8.80
All
—
28-07-2015
Fire Brigade
use-Specification
[Ref.: CMD-2/16 : 952]
C.K. MAHESHWARI, Sc. G & DDG (Certification)
ubZ fnYyh] 27 vxLr] 2015
dk-vk- 1819-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 6 ds mifofu;e ¼3½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rnn~okjk uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, mRiknksa dh eqgjkadu 'kqYd vfèlwfpr djrk gS%
vuqlwph
Hkkjrh;
Hkkx
vuqHkkx
o"kZ
mRikn
bdkbZ
U;wure eqgjkadu 'kqYd
bdkbZ nj lySc esa
'ks"k
izpkyu
ekud
cM+s iSekus
NksVs iSekus
lySc 1
bdkbZ;ka
frfFk
la[;k
ij
ij
¼#½
907
&
&
1984
vfXu 'keu iz;kstukFkZ
,d
61000-00
48800-00
6-40
lHkh
&
28-7-2015
csyukdkj izdkj ds lWd'kWu
ihl
LVªsuj dh fof'kf"V&¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½
[lanHkZ% lh,eMh&II/16 % 907]
lhñ dsñ egs'ojh]oSKkfud th ,oa miegkfuns'kd ¼izek.ku½
New Delhi, the 27th August, 2015
S.O. 1819.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulations 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Marking fee for the product given in the schedule.
SCHEDULE
IS No.
Part
Sec
Year
Product
Units
Minimum Marking Fee
Unit
Units
Remain-
Effective
Large
Small
Rate
in
ing
Date
Scale
Scale
Slab-1
Slab-1
907
—
—
1984
Specification for Suction
1 No.
61000.00
48800.00
6.40
All
—
28-07-2015
Strainers, Cylindrical type
for fire fighting purposes
[Ref.: CMD-2/16:907]
C.K. MAHESHWARI, Sc.G&DDG (Certification)
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3789
dks;yk ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 17 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1820-—dks;yk èkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½
vfèfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr
vfèfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu tkjh
Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; dh vfèlwpuk la[;kad dkñ vkñ 13
¼v½] rkjh[k 30 fnlEcj] 2014 tks Hkkjr ds jkti=] vlkèkj.k] Hkkx
II, [kaM 3] mi&[kaM ¼ii½] rkjh[k 01 tuojh] 2015 esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ
Fkh] mDr vfèlwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ¼ftls blesa blds
i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k gS½ esa [kfut ds [kuu] [knku] cksj djus]
mudh [kqnkbZ djus vkSj [kfutksa dks izkIr djus ds fy, ryk'k djus] mu
ij dk;Z djus vkSj mUgsa ys tkus ds fy, vfèdkj] mDr vfèfu;e dh
èkjk 10 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj]
vkR;afrd :i ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, gSa(
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lekèku gks x;k gS] fd lsaVªy
dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] jkaph] >kj[kaM ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ ljdkjh
dEiuh dgk x;k gS½] ,sls fucaèuksa vkSj 'krks± dk ftUgsa dsUnzh; ljdkj
bl fufeRr vfèjksfir djuk mfpr le>s] vuqikyu djus ds fy,
jtkean gS(
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 11 dh
mi&èkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh
gS] fd bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds lHkh vf/kdkj
dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus ds ctk,] rkjh[k 1
tuojh] 2015 ls fuEufyf[kr fucaèuksa vkSj 'krks± ds vèhu jgrs gq,
ljdkjh daiuh esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~%&
1- ljdkjh daiuh] mDr vfèfu;e ds micaèksa ds vèhu ;Fkk
voèkfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkfu;ksa vkSj oSlh gh enksa dh ckcr~
fd, x, lHkh lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izfriwfrZ djsxh(
2- 'krZ ¼1½ ds vèhu] mDr ljdkjh daiuh }kjk dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks lans; jdeksa dk voèkj.k djus ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, mDr vfèfu;e
dh èkjk 14 ds vèhu ,d vfèdj.k dk xBu fd;k tk,xk rFkk ,sls
fdlh vfèdj.k vkSj ,sls vfèdj.k dh lgk;rk djus ds fy, fu;qDr
O;fDr;ksa ds lacaè esa mixr lHkh O;;] mDr ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu
fd, tk,axs vkSj blh izdkj] bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa] ds vfèdkjksa
ds fy, ;k muds lacaè esa vihy vkfn lHkh fofèd dk;Zokfg;ksa dh
ckcr mixr] lHkh O;; Hkh] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs(
3- ljdkjh daiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds inèkfj;ksa dh] ,sls
fdlh vU; O;; ds lacaè esa {kfriwfrZ djsxh tks bl izdkj fufgr mDr
Hkwfe esa ds iwoksZDr vfèdkjksa ds ckjs esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds inèkfj;ksa
}kjk ;k muds fo#) fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa ds lacaè esa vko';d gks(
4- ljdkjh daiuh ds ikl dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds
fcuk] mDr Hkwfe;ksa esa bl izdkj fufgr iwoksZDr vfèdkjksa dks fdlh
vU; O;fDr dks varfjr djus dh 'kfDr ugha gksxh( vkSj
5- ljdkjh daiuh] ,sls funs'kksa vkSj 'krks± dk] ikyu djsxh tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe ds fof'k"V
{ks=ksa ds fy, fn, tk,a ;k vfèjksfir fd, tk,aA
[Qkñ lañ 43015@8@2013&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]
lqthr dqekj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 17th September, 2015
S.O. 1820.—Whereas on the publication of the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Coal, Number S.O. 13 (E), dated the 30th December, 2014,
published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II,
Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 1st January, 2015,
issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing
Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957)
(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the rights to mine,
quarry, bore, dig and search for win, work and carry away
minerals in the land described in the Schedule appended to
the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said
land) are vested absolutely in the Central Government free
from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10
of the said Act;
And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that
the Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi, Jharkhand
(hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is
willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the
Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby directs that the all rights in or over the
said land so vested shall with effect from 1st January, 2015,
instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government
shall vest in the Government Company, subject to the
following terms and conditions, namely:—
1. The Government Company shall reimburse to the
Central Government all payments made in respect of
compensation, interest, damages and the like, as determined
under the provisions of the said Act;
2. A Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of
the said Act, for the purpose of determining the amounts
payable to the Central Government by the said Government
Company under conditions (1) and all expenditure incurred
in connection with any such Tribunal and persons
appointed to assist the Tribunal shall be borne by the said
Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred
in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals, etc. for or in
connection with the rights, in the said land, so vested,
shall also be borne by the Government Company;
3. The Government Company shall indemnify the Central
Government its officials against any other expenditure that
may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by
3790
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
or against the Central Government or its officials regarding
the aforesaid rights in the land so vested;
4. The Government Company shall have no power to
transfer the aforesaid rights in the said lands so vested, to
any other persons without the prior approval of the Central
Government; and
5. The Government Company shall abide by such
directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by
the Central Government for particular areas of the said lands
as and when necessary.
[F.No. 43015/8/2013-PRIW-I]
SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 17 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1821-—dks;yk èkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½
vfèfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr
vfèfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu tkjh
Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; dh vfèlwpuk la[;kad dkñvkñ
2562¼v½] rkjh[k 29 flrEcj] 2014] tks Hkkjr ds jkti=]
vlkèkj.k] Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi[kaM (ii) rkjh[k 30 flrEcj] 2014 esa
izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] mDr vfèlwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr
Hkwfe ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k gS½ esa [kfut ds
[kuu] [knku] cksj djus] mudh [kqnkbZ djus vkSj [kfutksa dks izkIr
djus ds fy, ryk'k djus] mu ij dk;Z djus vkSj mUgsa ys tkus ds
fy, vfèdkj] mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 10 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds
vèhu] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj] vkR;afrd :i ls dsUnzh;
ljdkj eas fufgr gks x, gSa(
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lekèku gks x;k gS] fd lsaVªy
dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] jkaph] >kj[kaM ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ ljdkjh
daiuh dgk x;k gS½] ,sls fucaèuksa vkSj 'krks± dk ftUgsa dsUnzh; ljdkj
bl fufeÙk vfèjksfir djuk mfpr le>s] vuqikyu djus ds fy,
jtkean gS(
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 11 dh
mi&èkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDrksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh gS]
fd bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds lHkh vfèdkj dsUnzh;
ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus ds ctk,] rkjh[k 30 flrEcj]
2014 ls fuEufyf[kr fucaèuksa vkSj 'krks± ds vèhu jgrs gq, ljdkjh
daiuh esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~%µ
1- ljdkjh daiuh] mDr vfèfu;e ds micaèksa ds vèhu ;Fkk
voèkfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkfu;ksa vkSj oSlh gh enksa dh
ckcr fd, x, lHkh lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izfriwfrZ
djsxh(
2- 'krZ ¼1½ ds vèhu] mDr ljdkjh daiuh }kjk dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks lans; jdeksa dk voèkj.k djus ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, mDr
vfèfu;e dh èkjk 14 ds vèhu ,d vfèdj.k dk xBu
fd;k tk,xk rFkk ,sls fdlh vfèdj.k vkSj ,sls vfèdj.k dh
lgk;rk djus ds fy, fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds lacaè esa mixr lHkh
O;;] mDr ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs vkSj blh
izdkj] bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ds vfèdkjksa ds fy, ;k
muds lacaè esa vihy vkfn lHkh fofèd dk;Zokfg;kas dh ckcr
mixr] lHkh O;; Hkh] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs(
3- ljdkjh daiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds inèkfj;ksa dh] ,sls
fdlh vU; O;; ds lacaè esa {kfriwfrZ djsxh tks bl izdkj
fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ds iwoksZDr vfèdkjksa ds ckjs esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ;k mlds inèkfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo#) fdUgha
dk;Zokfg;ksa ds lacaè esa vko';d gks(
4- ljdkjh daiuh ds ikl dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds
fcuk] mDr Hkwfe;ksa esa bl izdkj fufgr iwoksZDr vfèdkjksa dks
fdlh vU; O;fDr dks varfjr djus dh 'kfDr ugha gksxh( vkSj
5- ljdkjh daiuh] ,sls funs'kksa vkSj 'krks± dk ikyu djsxh tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe ds
fof'k"V {ks=ksa ds fy, fn, tk,a ;k vfèjksfir fd, tk,aA
[Qkñ lañ 43015@25@2012&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]
lqthr dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 17th September, 2015
S.O. 1821.—Whereas on the publication of the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Coal, Number S.O. 2562 (E), dated the 29th September, 2014,
published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II,
Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 30th Septemebr, 2014,
issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing
areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957)
(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the rights to mine,
quarry, bore, dig and search for win, work and carry away
minerals in the land described in the Schedule appended to
the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land)
are vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all
encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the
said Act;
And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that
the Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi, Jharkhand
(hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is
willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the
Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby directs that the all rights in or over the
said land so vested shall with effect from the 30th September,
2014, instead of continuing to so vest in the Central
Government shall vest in the Government Company, subject
to the following terms and conditions, namely:—
1. The Government Company shall reimburse to the
Central Government all payments made in respect of
compensation, interest, damages and the like, as
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3791
determined under the provisions of the said Act;
2. A Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of
the said Act, for the purpose of determining the
amount payable to the Central Government by the
said Government Company under conditions (1) and
all expenditure incurred in connection with any such
Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal
shall be borne by the said Government Company
and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all
legal proceedings like appeals, etc. for or in
connection with the rights, in the said land, so vested,
shall also be borne by the Government Company;
3. The Government Company shall indemnify the
Central Government its officials against any other
expenditure that may be necessary in connection
with any proceedings by or against the Central
Government or its officials regarding the aforesaid
rights in the said land so vested;
4. The Government Company shall have no power to
transfer the aforesaid rights in the said lands so
vested, to any other persons without the prior
approval of the Central Government; and
5. The Government Company shall abide by such
directions and conditions as may be given or imposed
by the Central Government for particular areas of the
said lands as and when necessary.
[F.No. 43015/25/2012-PRIW-I]
SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 17 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1822-—dks;yk èkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½
vfèfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr
vfèfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu
tkjh Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; dh vfèlwpuk la[;kad dkñvkñ
1527¼v½] rkjh[k 9 twu] 2015 tks Hkkjr ds jkti=] vlkèkj.k]
Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi&[kaM ¼ii½] rkjh[k 10 twu] 2015 esa izdkf'kr
dh xbZ Fkh] mDr vfèlwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ¼ftls
blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k gS½ vkSj ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml
ij ds lHkh vfèdkj] mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 10 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½
ds vèhu] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj] vkR;afrd :i ls dsUnzh;
ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, gSa(
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g lekèku gks x;k gS fd lsaVªy
dksyQhYM~l] fyfeVsM] jkaph] >kj[kaM ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~
ljdkjh daiuh dgk x;k gS½] ,sls fucaèuksa vkSj 'krks± dk ftUgsa dsUnzh;
ljdkj bl fufeÙk vfèjksfir djuk mfpr le>s] vuqikyu djus ds
fy, jtkean gSa(
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vfèfu;e] 1957 dh èkjk 11 dh
mi&èkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh
gS] fd bl izdkj fufgr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds lHkh vfèdkj dsUnzh;
ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus ds ctk,] rkjh[k 10 twu] 2015
ls fuEufyf[kr fucaèuksa vkSj 'krks± ds vèhu jgrs gq, ljdkjh daiuh
esa fufgr gks x, gSa vFkkZr~%—
1- ljdkjh daiuh] mDr vfèfu;e ds micaèksa ds vèhu ;Fkk
voèkfjr izfrdkj] C;kt] uqdlkfu;ksa vkSj oSlh gh enksa dh
ckcr~ fd, x, lHkh lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izfriwfrZ
djsxh(
2- ljdkjh daiuh] }kjk 'krZ ¼1½ ds vèhu] mDr ljdkjh daiuh
}kjk dsUnzh; ljdkj dks lans; jdeksa dk voèkj.k djus ds
iz;kstuksa ds fy, èkjk 14 ds vèhu ,d vfèdj.k dk xBu
fd;k tk,xk rFkk ,sls fdlh vfèdj.k vkSj ,sls vfèdj.k dh
lgk;rk djus ds fy, fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds lacaè esa mixr lHkh
O;;] mDr ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs vkSj blh
izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vfèdkjksa ds fy, ;k
muds lacaè esa vihy vkfn lHkh fofèd dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ckcr
mixr] lHkh O;; Hkh] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs(
3- ljdkjh daiuh dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds inèkfj;ksa dh] ,sls
fdlh vU; O;; ds lacaè esa {kfriwfrZ djsxh tks bl izdkj
fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds iwoksZDr vfèdkjksa ds ckjs esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds inèkfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo#) fdUgh
dk;Zokfg;ksa ds lacaè esa vko';d gks(
4- ljdkjh daiuh] ds ikl dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds
fcuk] mDr Hkwfe;ksa esa iwoksZDr vfèdkjksa dks fdlh vU; O;fDr
dks varfjr djus dh 'kfDr ugha gksxh( vkSj
5- ljdkjh daiuh] ,sls funs'kksa vkSj 'krks± dk] ikyu djsxh tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe ds
fof'k"V {ks=ksa ds fy, fn, tk,a ;k vfèjksfir fd, tk,aA
[ Qkñ lañ 43015@17@2012&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I ]
lqthr dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 17th September, 2015
S.O. 1822.—Whereas on the publication of the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Coal, number S.O. 1527 (E), dated the 9th June, 2015,
published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II,
Section 3, sub-section (ii), dated the 10th June, 2015, issued
under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957)
(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the land and all
rights in or over the said lands described in the Schedule
appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to
as the said land) are vested absolutely in the Central
Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section
(1) of section 10 of the said Act;
And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied
that the Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi, Jharkhand
(hereinafter referred to as the Government Company)
is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as
3792
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this
behalf,
Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby directs that the land and all rights in or
over the said land so vested shall with effect from the 10th
June, 2015, instead of continuing to so vest in the Central
Government shall vest in the Government Company, subject
to the following terms and conditions, namely:—
1. The Government Company shall reimburse to the
Central Government all payments made in respect of
compensation, interest, damages and the like, as
determined under the provisions of the said Act;
2. A Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of
the said Act, for the purpose of determining the
amounts payble to the Central Government by the
said Government Company under conditions (1) and
all expenditure incurred in connection with any such
Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal
shall be borne by the said Government Company
and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all
legal proceedings like appeals, etc. for or in
connection with rights, in the said land, so vested
shall also be borne by the Government Company;
3. The Government Company shall indemnify the
Central Government its officials against any other
expenditure that may be necessary in connection
with any proceedings by or against the Central
Government or its officials regarding the aforesaid
rights in the said land so vested;
4. The Government Company shall have no power to
transfer the aforesaid rights in the said lands so
vested, to any other persons without the prior
approval of the Central Government; and
5. The Government Company shall abide by such
directions and conditions as may be given or imposed
by the Central Government for particular areas of the
said lands as and when necessary.
[F. No. 43015/17/2012-PRIW-I]
SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.
LokLF; vkSj ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky;
¼LokLF; vkSj ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2015
dk-vk- 1823-—Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ¼la'kksèu½ v/;kns'k]
2013 dh èkjk 3d dh mièkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq, fnukad 06 uoacj] 2013 dks Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn dk
iquxZBu fd;k x;k FkkA
Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn vfèfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh
èkjk 3 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ¼[k½ ds micaè ds vuqikyu esa] Hkkjr ds
jkti= fnukad 05-11-2013 dh vfèlwpuk }kjk MkWñ ,lñ
ckyklqczef.k;u] izksQslj esfMlu] jktk eqFkS;k esfMdy dkWyst dk
p;u vUukeykbZ fo'ofo|ky;] vUukeykbZ uxj] rfeyukMq dh vksj
ls Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ds lnL; ds :i esa fd;k x;k FkkA
vUukeykbZ fo'ofo|ky;] vUukeykbZ uxj] rfeyukMq us lwfpr
fd;k gS fd MkWñ ,lñ ckyklqczef.k;u] izksQslj esfMflu dkWyst] tks
vkbZ,elh vfèfu;e] 1956 dh èkjk 3¼1½ ¼[k½ ds rgr vUukeykbZ
fo'ofo|ky;] vUukeykbZ uxj dk izfrfufèRo dj jgs gSa] us O;fDrxr
dkj.kksa ls viuk R;kxi= ns fn;k gSA vr% vkbZ,elh vfèfu;e]
1956 dh èkjk 3¼1½ ¼[k½ ds rgr MkWñ ,lñ ckyklqczef.k;u dks
vUukeykbZ fo'ofo|ky;] vUukeykbZ rfeyukMq dk izfrfufèRo djus
okys Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn dh lnL;rk dks lekIr dj fn;k x;k
gSA
vr% orZeku esa vkbZ,elh vfèfu;e] 1956 ds micaè ds
vuqikyu esa MkWñ ,lñ ckyklqczef.k;u] vUukeykbZ fo'ofo|ky;]
vUukeykbZ uxj] rfeyukMq ds izfrfufèRo esa Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn
dh lnL;rk dks 25-06-2015 ls lekIr ekuk tk,xkA
[lañ oh&11013@02@2015&,ebZih&I ]
vfer fc'okl] voj lfpo
ikn fVIi.kh% ewy vfèlwpuk fnukad 9 tuojh] 1960 ds lkñfoñ
la[;k 138 }kjk Hkkjr ljdkj dh jkti= vfèlwpuk esa izdkf'kr gqbZ
Fkh vkSj mDr vfèlwpuk dks Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ¼la'kksèu½
f}Ùkh; v/;kns'k] 2013 ¼2013 dk 11½ esa vafre ckj la'kksfèr fd;k
x;k FkkA
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and Family Welfare)
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015
S.O. 1823.—Whereas on 6th November, 2013, the
Medical Council of India was reconstituted in exercise of
the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3A of
the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013;
Whereas in pursuance of the provision of sub-
section (1)(b) of section 3 of the Indian Medical Council
Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) Dr. S. Balasubramaniyan,
Professor Medicine, Rajah Muthiah Medical College,
was elected as Member of the Medical Council of India
representing Annamalai University, Annamalainagar,
Tamil Nadu vide notification dated 5.11.2013 in Gazette
of India:
Whereas the Annamalai University, Annamalainagar,
Tamil Nadu has informed that Dr. S. Balasubramaniyan,
Professor Medicine, Rajah Muthiah Medical College who
is representing Annamalai University, Annamalainagar,
under section 3(1) (b) of IMC Act, 1956 has submitted his
resignation due to personal reasons. Therefore, Dr. S.
Balasubramaniyan has ceased to be a member of Medical
Council of India representing Annamalai University,
Annamalainagar, Tamil Nadu under section 3(1) (b) of IMC
Act, 1956.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3793
Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of IMC
Act, 1956, Dr. S. Balasubramaniyan, shall be deemed to
have ceased to be a member of the Medical Council of
India representing Annamalai University, Annamalainagar,
Tamil Nadu with effect from 25.06.2015.
[No. V-11013/02/2015-MEP-I]
AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.
Foot Note: The principal notificcation was published
in the Gazette of India vide Number S.O. 138 dated the
9th January, 1960 and was last amended vide Indian
Medical Council (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013
(11 of 2013).
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1824-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ikjkekmaV ,vjost
izkbZosV 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@Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
25@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-09-2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11012@08@2015&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPOLYMENT
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2015
S.O. 1824.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2015) of the
Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Paramount Airway Pvt. and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
10.09.2015.
[No. L-11012/08/2015-IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Monday, the 24th August, 2015
Present: K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 25/2015
(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 Paramount Airways & Another and
their workmen)
BETWEEN
Sri Nitin Sood
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Association
Vice President-HR
: 2nd Party/1st Respondent
M/s. Paramount Airways
Pvt. Ltd.,
Alexander Square
No. 35, Sardar Patel Road
Guindy
Chennai-600032
2. Sri M. Thiagarajan,
: 2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Managing Director
M/s. Paramount Airways Pvt. Ltd.
A-21 Lankaram Street, Thirunagar
Madurai-625008
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: M/s. M.L. Ganesh &
S. Arun Kumar, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/1st &
: Set Ex-parte
2nd Respondent
AWARD
The Central Government Ministry of Labour &
Employment, vide its Order No. L-11012/08/2015-IR (CM-I)
dated 27.02.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the action of the Management of Paramount
Airways, Chennai regarding termination of the service
of the petitioner Capt. Nitin Sood is justifiable or not?
To what relief the workman is entitiled?"
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has
numbered it as ID 25/2015 and issued notice to both sides.
The petitioner has entered appearance and filed Claim
Statement. The Respondents, though received notice
remained absent and were set ex-parte.
3. The averments in the Claim Statement are as below :
The petitioner had joined the Respondent's Airlines,
Paramount Airways as a Trainee First Officer. On 7th
day of July, 2006 the Airways altered the terms and
conditions of employment of the petitioner and signed
revised terms and conditions and deed of service. As
per the revised terms and conditions the petitioner
agreed to serve the Company for a minimum period of
5 years after obtaining type Endorsement of E170 P2
(First Officer). During this period of 5 years the petitioner
3794
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
had to serve the Company exclusively and shall not
serve any other Company or Airlines or Concern to fly
same type of aircraft in respect of which training has
been provided to him. The period of 6 years was to be
calculated from the date of completion of the said training
and on resuming actual services as First Officer. After
completion of training the petitioner started actual service
with the Respondents from 01.02.2007. As per revised
terms and conditions the petitioner was to be on
probation for a period of 6 months after obtaining
endorsement on his flying license as a First Officer, which
can be extended at the discretion of the Management.
After 6 months of the period of probation, the petitioner
had been requesting orally and in writing to the
concerned officials of the Respondents for confirmation
in service. After confirmation the Company would be
entitled to terminate the services of the petitioner without
assigning any reason by giving 6 months notice in
writing. The salary of the petitioner was revised after 12
months of the endorsement. On 7th November, 2009 the
Management called a meeting of the pilots and informed
that the monthly salary would be reduced by about 60%.
The petitioner was directed to sign consent letter of
minutes of meeting agreeing to the changes in the terms
and conditions of the salary package. The petitioner
has refused to sign the consent letter as this will result
in loss of his earnings. Due to non-compliance with the
direction of the Respondents to sign the consent letter
the termination letter was issued to the petitioner on
18.11.2009. The petitioner was treated as an employee
on probation and he was offered 7 days notice pay only.
The petitioner's service has become confirmed even
though written communication was not given. An order
may be passed setting aside the order of the termination
by the Respondents and directing the Respondents to
reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages
and also directing to clear the dues to the petitioner
towards wages , privilege leave EPF contribution and
interest on the amount due.
3. The petitioner has filed Proof Affidavit and also maked
Ext. W1 to Ext. W19 to substantiate the case.
4. The Points
(i) Whether the action of the Respondents in
terminating the service of the petitioner is justified?
(ii) To what relief the petitioner is entitled?
The Points
5. The petitioner has joined the service of Paramount
Airways as a Trainee First Officer. As per the revised terms
and conditions of Airways the petitioner was to serve the
Airways fo a period of 5 years. His salary has been revised
from Rs. 1,57,400/- to Rs. 1,90,000/- in January, 2008.
However, the Respondents wanted to reduce the salary by
60% in November 2009, and wanted the Petitioner to give a
consent letter for which he refused. The petitioner is said
to have been terminated from service on 18.11.2009 on
account of this.
6. Though the petitioner has claimed the relief of
reinstatement also in the Claim Statement, in this Proof
Affidavit he is claiming the monetary benefits due to him
only. He has stated in the Proof Affidavit that he has
obtained a job after 15 months and 19 days of his termination
i.e. from 13.03.2011 and has restricted his claim of monetary
benefits upto this period.
7. The case of the petitioner is substantiated by the
affidavit and documents produced by him. The
Respondents have not come forward to challenge the case
put forth by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is to
be accepted in the circumstances. He is entitled to an order
as claimed in the Affidavit.
Accordingly an award is passed as follows:
(i) The Respondents shall pay the petitioner salary for
the period from 01.11.2009 to 17.11.2009 and from
24.11.2009 to 13.03.2011.
(ii) The Respondents shall pay 6 months notice pay to
the petitioner as for a permanent employee.
(iii) The Respondents shall pay amounts towards 64
days Privilege Leave to the petitioner.
(iv) The Respondents shall pay the Provident Fund
amount due to the petitioner.
(v) The Respondents are also liable to pay interest 6%
per annum on the amount due towards salary to the
petitioner.
The reference is answered as above.
K.P. PARSANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union : WW1, Sri Nitin Sood
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd
: None
Management
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3795
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner's said
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ext. W1
07.07.2006
Copy of the Revised Terms and Conditions as Annexure-1
Ext. W2
07.07.2006
Copy of the Deed of Service as Annexure-2
Ext. W3
-
Copy of the Rs. 20.00 Lakhs Undated Cheques as Annexure-3
Ext. W4
-
Copy of the Commercial Pilot License as Annexure-4
Ext. W5
-
Copy of the Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman Act, 1981 as Annexure-5
Ext. W6
-
Copy of the Payslips Dec., 2007 to January, 2008 as Annexure-6
Ext. W7
-
Copy of the Aircrew loss of license policy as Annexure-7
Ext. W8
-
Copy of the "Minutes of Meeting" as Annexure-8
Ext. W9
-
Copy of the DGCA Rules 3.5 as Annexure-9
Ext. W10
18.11.2009
Copy of the Termination Letter as Annexure-10
Ext. W11
-
Copy of the final settlement Cheque as Annexure-11
Ext. W12
-
Copy of the Bank Salary Account Statement as Annexure-12
Ext. W13
-
Copy of the Airline's Staff Leave Policy as Annexure-13
Ext. W14
-
Copy of the Salary Dues with 10% Interest as Annexure-14
Ext. W15
-
Copy of the EPFO Form 3A upto 28.02.2009 as Annexure-15
Ext. W16
04.05.2010
Copy of the Notice letter to Respondent as Annexure-16
Ext. W17
-
Copy of the Labour Commissioner Chennai Letter to as Annexure-17
Ext. W18
-
Copy of the Ministry of Labour Mantralaya Order as Annexure-18
Ext. W19
-
Copy of the News Paramount Airways Won Rs. 1,650 crore in Litigation as Annexure-19
On the Respondent's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Nil
Opium & Alkaloid Factory, Neemuch and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on
09.09.2015.
[No. L-42012/294/2010-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/57/2011
Shri Shailendra Singh Thakur,
R/o Safi Villa, Diamond Hall,
Opp. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur,
Bunglow No. 49,
Neemuch.
...Workman
Versus
General Manager,
Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,
Neemuch.
...Management
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1825-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xouZesaV vksfi;e
vkSj mi{kkj dkj[kkus] uhep ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
la- lhth vkbZ Vh@,y lh@vkj 57@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-09-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@294@2010&vkbZvkj ¼Mh ;w ½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2015
S.O. 1825.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No.
CGIT/LC/R/57/2011) 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 Govt.
3796
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Passed on this 12th day of August, 2015
As per Letter dated 25-5-2011 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-42012/294/2010-
IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Opium and
Alkaloid Factory, Neemuch in terminating the services
of Shri Shailendra Singh Thakur w.e.f. 14.6.2010 is legal
and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Workman submitted statement of claim. Case of
workman is that 2nd party is factory, Industrial Employment
Standing Orders Act and standing orders framed are
applicable to it as more than 100 employees are working on
its establishment. The Ist party workman was working as
Boiler operator. The Union of employees working with 2nd
party was formed and it is registered bearing No. 5219.
Workman was connected with formation of said Union. He
was General Secretary. Workman was rising demands of
the labours. Management developed enmity with him
management illegally terminated workman with motive to
interfere with the union Registration. Workman was served
with chargesheet dated 18.11.09 under Central Civil Service
Rules 1965. Workman was immediately suspended. He was
not paid subsistence allowance 5 charges were alleged
against workman in chargesheet issued by 2nd party,
advisor was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Workman denied
charges against him. Preliminary enquiry was conducted
on 6.1.2010. Presenting Officer Kurasi had made initial
submissions. Enquiry was conducted with bias and
prejudice. The documents requested by workman as per
letter dated 21.10.2010 were not suppled to him. workman
was not permitted to cross examine the management's
witnesses. He was not allowed to examine defence
witnesses. Workman had submitted written submissions
before Enquiry Officer. Services of workman were
terminated on 14.6.2010.
Workman challenged order of his termination by filling
appeal before Chief Controller. His appeal was also
dismissed. Workman raised dispute before ALC, Bhopal
2nd party did not obey the notice dated 6.8.2010 by RLC. It
is reiterated that enquiry was not conducted as per standing
orders. Principles of natural justice were not followed.
Workman was not paid subsistence allowance. The acts
committed by 2nd party is by way of victimization and
amounts to unfair labour practice. Workman prays for his
reinstatement with backwages.
4. 2nd party did not file Written Statement, 2nd party is
proceeded exparte on 2-4-2014.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded agtainst each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of Opium and
Alkaloid Factory, Neemuch
in terminating the services
of Shri Shailendra Singh
Thakur w.e.f. 14.6.2010 is
legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
6. Workman have challenged legality of enquiry
conducted against and it is further contented by him that
enquiry was not conducted as per certified standing orders.
Enquiry conducted against him under Central Conduct and
Appeal rules is illegal.
7. As 2nd Party has not filed Written Statement and
participated in the reference proceedings, the issue about
legality of enquiry is n ot required to be framed and decided.
Instead the point involved in the reference is required to
be decided.
8. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting
his contentions instatement of claim. From his evidence,
documents Exhibit W-1 to 13 are admitted in evidence.
The evidence of workman remained unchallenged. As 2nd
party did not participate in proceeding and cross-examine
the workman, I do not find any reason to disbelieve
evidence of workman on the point that enquiry was not
property conducted, workman was not supplied
documents, he was not allowed to adduce evidence in
defence, subsistence allowance was not paid to him during
Enquiry Proceedings. Therefore I record my finding in
Point No. 1 in Negative.
9. Point No. 2-In view of my finding in Point No. 1 the
action of the management in dismissing workman is illegal,
question remains for decision is whether workman is
entitled for backwages. Once enquiry in found illegal, order
of dismissal is illegal. Workman is entitled for reinstatement
with backwages. 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 Opium and
Alkaloid Factory, Neemuch in terminating te
services of Shri Shailendra Singh Thakur w.e.f.
14.6.2010 is not proper and legal.
(2) 2nd party is directed to reinstate workman with
continuity of service and backwages.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3797
ubZ fnYyh] 9 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1826-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phQ iksLV ekLVj
tujy gi lfdZy 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;] 1 paMhx<+ (filed under Section 33 &
33A in the matter of complaint arising out of LCA No. 9 of
2012) ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 98@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-09-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42025@03@2015&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2015
S.O. 1826.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 98/2013) of the Central
Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1
Chandigarh (filed under Section 33 & 33A in the matter of
complaint arising out of LCA No. 9 of 2012) now as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
employers in relation of the management of the Chief Post
Master General HP Circle Shimla and their workmen, which
was received by the Central Government on 09.09.2015.
[No. L-42025/03/2015-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 98/2013
Shri Jagman Singh Rana son of Shri Kishan Singh Rana
resident of Village and Post office Kotla Kalan, Tehsil and
district Una (H)).
...Workman
Versus
1. The Assistance Post Master General Office of the Chief
Post Master General HP Circle Shimla-171009.
2. The superintendent RMS HP Division Mandi 175001.
...Respondents
Appearance :
For the workman
: Shri R.P. Mehra Advocate
For the management : Shri Sanjiv Sharma Advocate.
AWARD
Passed on 03.09.2015
The workman moved the present petition U/s 33A of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for violation of the
provisions of Section 33 read with item No. 7 of the Fifth
Schedule which has been registered as Industrial Disputes,
on the ground that workman filed LCA No. 9 of 2012 in this
Tribunal for claiming service benefits. Thereafter the
workman filed OA No. 142/HP/2013 in the Central
Administrative Tribunal to claim IIIrd ACP with grade pay
of Rs. 4800/-. That on account of filing of LCA, the
respondent management infuriated to the extent that they
order his transfer forthwith during the pendency of the
LCA No. 9 of 2012 which is violative of the provisions of
Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. It is also
pleaded that the employees with the tenure of 15 or 20
years are working continuously at a particular station,
however the workman with a short tenure has been
transferred which is also unfair labour practice under 5th
Schedule of the I.D. Act and Section 25T and is punishable
U/s 25(u) of the I.D. Act and prayed that the guilty may be
punished for violating the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act. The workman also annexed documents
Annexure 1 to annexure 5.
2. The management filed reply in which it is pleaded that
OA No. 142/HP/2013 was filed by the workman in CAT was
disposed off on 24.5.2013 without commenting upon the
merits with regard to the relief pending before this Court.
The averment of the workman in incorrect as he was working
in Una sorting from 19.2.2006 on the post of soring assistant
(BCR) and from 13.8.2008 on 5.9.2013 in the post of
SRO(LSG). The tenure of SRO(LSG) supervisor is four
years. It is prayed by the management that no provisions
of ID Act has been violated by the management and the
application U/s 33A deserve rejection. Along with written
statement management annexed three document i.e. order
of CAT dated 24.5.213, copy of letter dated 4.1.2013 and
copy of rule regarding transfer and postings.
3. I have heard the parties, gone through the record.
4. From the reply filed by the management it is revealed
that workman filed OA No. 142/HP/2013 before the Hon'ble
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh. The certified
copy of the judgment dated 24.5.2013 has also been placed
on record by the management. The Hon'ble Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in para 9 of judgment
dated 24.5.2013 has observed as under:
"Admittedly, the orders dated 17.1.2013 and 21.1.2013
(Annexure A-3 and A-4) have already been withdrawn by
the respondents as per order dated 11.2.2013 (annexure
R-5). Therefore, the first prayer of the applicant stands
satisfied. With regard to second contention, admittedly,
the applicant has already approached the Central Govt.
Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court, Chandigarh for
redressal of his grievance on the same very prayer clause,
the present OA is not maintainable."
5. From the above it is clear that the order of promotion
and transfer dated 17.1.13 and 21.1.2013 have been withdrawn
by the management vide order dated 11.2.2013. Besides this,
it is evident from the record of the LCA No. 9 of 2012 filed in
3798
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
this Court, on 7.1.2013 and the first date was fixed for hearing
for 5.2.2013. The promotion and transfer orders were issued
on 17.1.2013 and 21.1.2013 and it can not be presumed that
the fact of filling the LCA No. 9 of 2012 was to the knowledge
of the management. Moreover the transfer orders have been
withdrawn by the management (as mentioned in the judgment
of the CAT Chandigarh).
6. Therefore, inview of the facts above, it cannot be said
that the management has violated Sections 33 and 33A of
the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
7. The complaint filed by the workman U/s 33A of ID
Act for violation of Section 33 of the I.D. Act is liable to be
dismissed.
8. The petition U/s 33A and 33 of the I.D. Act 1947 is
disposed off accordingly.
Chandigarh.
3.09.2015
S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1827-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksvkWfDlvy
dscy izkstsDV Xokfy;j 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ lañ lhthvkbZVh@ ,ylh@vkj@231@93½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-09-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@119@92&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2015
S.O. 1827.—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/
231/93) 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 Co-axial Cable Project, Gwalior and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 09.09.2015.
[No. L-40012/119/92-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/231/93
Shri Monga Ram,
S/o Shri Bhogiram
r/o Ambedkar Nagar,
Nadipar, Morar, Gwalior
...Workman
Versus
Junior Telecom Officer,
Co-axial Cable Project,
Jabalpur Camp-Gwalior
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 14th day of August, 2015
1. As per letter dated 20.10.93 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour,New Delhi, the refernece is
receivd. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/
119/92-IR (DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Junior
Telecom Officer, Coaxial Cable Project Jabalpur in
terminating the services of Shri Monga Ram S/o Shri
Bhogi Ram is justified or not? If not for what relief the
workman is entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 8/1
to 8/3. Case of workman is that he was appointed in Telecom
Department in February 1985. He was posted in Railway
Electrification section Kota Division. Therefore he was
discharged. Again applicant was appointed on muster roll
in April 1995 under SDO Gwalior. At that time Shri P. Singh
was SDO Gwalior. He was working from April 85 to May 88
under SDO Phones, Gwalior. In June July 88, he was sent to
Railway Electrification at Vidisha. In August 88, applicant
was taken to Gwalior under SDO Phones. He worked in
Aug. and Sept. 88. From October 88, applicant was sent to
Co-axial cable project, Gwalior where he worked in June
1989. From july 1989, workman was provided work. However
payment was made under ACG-17 till January 1990. In
February March 1990, he was not given work. In April 1990,
he was given work for 7 days. Thereafter department
decided to retrench daily rated workers as per directions in
letter dated 7-3-90. Workman submits that he completed
more than 240 days during the preceding year. He was
issued Identity cards. His services are terminated without
compliance of section 25-F, 25-G of ID Act. he was not paid
retrenchement compensation, notice pay. Reasons for
retrenchment were not disclosed. his services are
terminated in violation of section 25-F, G,H of ID Act. 2nd
party engaged Private contractors. The Act of 2nd party
amounts to unfair labour practice. On such ground, workman
prays for his reinstatement with backwages.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of
the workman. 2nd party contents that workman was purely
engaged as casual labour in the project of 2nd party. The
job of applicant was of temporary nature in Railway
Electrification. He was not appointed against permanent
post. The engagement of Ist party as casual worker was for
a specific period in Railway Electrification. Workman was
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3799
engaged in different units. As work was finished, his services
automatically came to end. 2nd party submits that workman
had not completed 240 days continuous service. The
disengagement of workman does not amount to
retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of ID Act. It is denied that
services of workman are terminated in violation of Section
25-F,G,H of ID Act. 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
In Negative
management of Junior
Telecom Officer, Co-axial
Cable Project Jabalpur in
terminating the services of
Shri Monga Ram S/o Shri
Bhogi Ram is justified or
not?
(ii) If so, to what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
5. Workman is challenging termination of his service for
violation of Section 25-F,G,H of ID Act. workman filed
affidavit giving details of his working in Railway
Electrification in February 1985. The working of 3 days at a
place, in April 1985, he was engaged on muster roll on daily
wages by SDO Telephone, Gwalior. He worked from April
85 to May 88. Thereafter he was working in Railway
Electrification Vidisha in June July 88. In August, Sept. 88,
he was working at Gwalior. From October 88, he was taken
to Co-axial cable project where he was working till June 89.
That he completed 4 years service. His services were
terminated without notice. 2nd party engaged unfair labour
practice. Workman is given details of his working days in
para-6 of his affidavit from February 1985 to April 1990. In
his cross, workman says in 1985, he was engaged in Railway
Electrification project at Vidisha. He worked for two months.
He was paid monetary wages as per the muster rolls. He
denies that only he had done work of laying cables.
Workman reiterates that he was also doing work of laying
cables. Workman denies that he not completed 240 days
continuous service.
6. 2nd party filed affidavit of witness of Shri S.N. Tiwari
supporting contentions of 2nd party that workman not
completed 240 days continuous service. The management's
witness remained absent for his cross-examination. His
evidence cannot be considered. Thus contentions of 2nd
party are not supported by valid evidence. The working
days shown in affidavit of workman is not shattered by
cross-examination. The evidence on record shows that
workman was continuously working in 2nd party from 1985
to April 1990. His services are terminated without notice,
retrenchment compensation is not paid to him, the
termination of workman is in violation of Section 25-F of ID
Act. therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
7. In view of my finding in Point No. 1 services of
workman are terminated without notice, violating Section
25-F of ID act. workman was engaged on daily wages from
April 1985 to April 1990. The learned counsel for workman
relied on ratio held in
Case of Durgapur Casual Workers Union and others
Versus FCI reported in 2015(5) SCC-786. Their Lordship
dealing with Section 25-F, H of ID Act and unfair labour
practice Item 10, Schedule IV held powers of industrial and
Labour Courts to pass appropriate orders, once unfair trade
practice established. Services of appellant workmen who
were employed by respondent corporation as casual
employees on daily wage basis not regularised. The Tribunal
Specifically finding unfair labour practice on part of
Corporation, it was not open to High Court to interfere with
award of Tribunal directing absorption of appellant workmen.
The terms of reference in present case is restricted to
the legality of termination of his services and not pertain to
absorption of workman in service. Ratio cannot be
benefically applied to case at hand. The terms of reference
does not pertain to regularization of the workman. As
services of workman are terminated in violation of Section
25-F, considering the working period April 85 to April 1990,
compensation Rs. 75,000 would be reasonable. Accordingly
I record my finding in Point No. 2.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Junior Telecom
Officer, Co-axial Cable Project Jabalpur in
terminating the services of Shri Monga Ram
S/o Shri Bhogi Ram is not proper and legal.
(2) 2nd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 75,000 to the workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In
case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per annum
from the date of award till its realization.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1828-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnfo'kuy bathfu;j
VsyhdkWe] Hkksiky ds izcaèi= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj 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 lañ
lhñthñvkbZñVhñ@,ylh@vkj 42@98½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 09@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la-,y&40012@21@96&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh
3800
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2015
S.O. 1828.—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/42/
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 Divisional Engineer Telecom, Bhopal
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 09/09/2015.
[No. L-40012/21/96-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/42/98
Shri Ramdas S/o Shri Gangaram,
Village Jargaon, Post Bhageh,
Tehsil Dabra,
Distt. Gwalior (MP)
...Workman
Versus
Divisional Engineer Telecom (RE),
Arera Colony,
Bhopal
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 13th day of August, 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/
21/96-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Divisional
Engineer Telecom (RE) Bhopal in terminating the
services of Shri Ramdas S/o Shri Gangaram w.e.f.
15-8-91 is legal and 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. The case of workman is that he was engaged on
daily wages from 17-8-85 with 2nd party. He was working
with devotion at Gwalior till 30-4-86. From 10-6-86, workman
was engaged on daily wages at Bhopal. He was
continuously working till 14-8-91. On 15-8-91, his services
were orally discontinued. The oral termination is illegal. He
was not given one months notice or one months pay in lieu
of notice. He was not paid retrenchment compensation.
Without issuing show-cause notice, his services were
terminated. That he had worked continuously more than
240 days. His termination is in violation of Section 25-F of
ID Act. other persons engaged after him are continued in
employment in violation of Section 25-G of ID Act. for
terminating services of workman, permission of
Government was not obtained. On such ground, workman
is praying for his reinstatement with backwages.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 16/1 to 16/2
opposing claim of the workman, 2nd party raised preliminary
objection that Railway Electrification Project is under
control of Director of Railway Electrification of office at
Bhopal. Said office was established by Telecom department.
After completion of its work in 1990, said office was close.
The record was destroyed after complying the rules. Any
information about working of Ist party is not available.
Claim of workman deserves to be rejected. 2nd party
reiterates that record relating to the working of Ist party is
not available. Compensation under ID Act was paid to the
retrenched labours. Permission for retrenchment was taken
from Competent Authority. Claim of workman is without
any basis. It is barred by time limit. On such ground, 2nd
party prays from answering reference in its favour.
4. Workman filed rejoinder reiterating its contentions in
statement of claim.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of Divisional
Engineer Telecom (RE)
Bhopal in terminating the
services of Shri Ramdas
S/o Shri Gangaram w.e.f.
15-8-91 is legal and justified?
(ii) If so, to what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
6. Ist party is challenging termination of his service for
violation of Section 25-G,H of ID Act. workman filed
affidavit of his evidence supporting his contentions in
statement of claim. That he was working from 17-8-95 to
31-1-86 at Datia from 1-2-86 to 30-4-86, he was required to
work at Gwalior Laying the cables. From 10-6-86, he was
engaged on daily wages at Bhopal. He was continuously
working at Bhopal till 14-8-91. His services were orally
discontinued from 15-8-91. That he was working with 2nd
party for six years during each of the calendar year, he
completed more than 240 days continuous service. The
details of his working days are given in Para-4 of his
affidavit. In his cross-examination, workman says on
17-8-85, he was engaged by Motilal Kushwaha. He was
appointed at Datia where he worked for one year. He was
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3801
not appointed by contractor. From Datia, he went to
Bhopal for work. Before discontinuing his services, SDO
had contacted JTO. He was orally terminated. Written
order of termination was not given to him. He denies that
appointment letter in writing was not given to him that he
had gone for work from Datial to Bhopal, transfer order
was not received. He was unable to tell whether PF was
deducted from his wages. When he was transferred from
Datia, said office was working. Workman in his further
cross denies that he was working sometimes 8 days,
12 days, 15 days in a month. Document Exhibit W-1 was
referred to workman. Secondly it was admitted in evidence.
He denies that he had not worked 240 days in any of the
year. Before his engagement, post was not advertised.
Presently he is working in the agricultural land. In
document Exhibit W-1, the working days of workman are
shown more than 240 days during each of the year
17-8-85 to June 88. The evidence of workman is
corroborated by document Exhibit W-1.
7. Management's witness Shri R.V. Chouhan filed
affidavit supporting contentions of 2nd party in the Written
Statement. That the work of electrification project was
carried at different points. The office at Bhopal was closed
in 1990. The documents related to the project were destroyed
as per Rule-69 in Appendix-V. In his cross-examination,
witness of management says he is working with 2nd party
from April 84. He does not know the workman. He had seen
his service record. Work was completed in 1990. Presently
he is working in BSNL since 1-10-00. At that time option of
employee working in Telecom Deptt. was called. The option
was also called from casual employee working in Telecom
department. Copy of rules about distribution of rules is
produced. Management's witness has no personal
knowledge. The documents relating to the working of Ist
party could not be produced as stated above. The evidence
of workman is supported by document Exhibit W-1.
Workman had completed 240 days continuous service
during 1985 to 1988. Therefore I donot find reason to
disbelieve evidence of workman. The services of workman
are discontinued without notice, no retrenchment
compensation was paid. Though 2nd party in its Written
Statement has contented that retrenchment compensation
was paid under ID Act, any document in that regard are not
produced by 2nd party. No document is also produced
about permission of Competent Authority for retrenchment
of employee is obtained. The contentions of 2nd party in
that regard are not substantiated by documents. It is clear
that services of workman are discontinued in violation of
section 25-F of ID Act, therefore I record my finding in
Point No. 1 in Negative.
8. Point No. 2-Termination of workman is found illegal
for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act, question remains
for consideration that workman is entitled for reinstatement
with backwages. The evidence of management's witness
that office of Railway Electrification Project at Bhopal was
closed in 1998 is not shattered in its cross examination.
Workman was engaged on daily wages. As per evidence in
cross-examination of workman, the post was not advertised.
Appointment letter in writing as not given to him. Copy of
award in R/274/97 is produced. In said case, violation of
Section 25-G was also established. Workman has not
disclosed names of any junior persons continued by 2nd
party therefore reinstatement of workman could not be
possible. Considering nature of engagement of workman
and period of his engagement, compensation Rs. One Lakh
would be reasonable. Accordingly I record my finding in
Point No. 2.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Divisional
Engineer Telecom (RE) Bhopal in terminating the
services of Shri Ramdas S/o Shri Gangaram w.e.f.
15-8-91 is not proper and legal.
(2) 2nd party is directed to pay Rs. One Lakh
compensation to the workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In
case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per annum
from the date of award till its realization.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1829-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWQ
VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] Hkksiky ds izcaèr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ lañlhñthñvkbZñVhñ@,ylh@vkj@179@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@90@98&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2015
S.O. 1829.—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/179/99) of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of the
Department of Telecommunication, Bhopal and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 09/09/2015.
[No. L-40012/90/98-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
3802
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/179/99
Shri Prabhakar Kantalay,
S/o Murlidhar Kantalay,
1/6, Telecom Colony,
Govindpura, Bhopal
...Applicant
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Deptt. of Telecommunication,
Hoshangabad Road,
MP Circle,
Bhopal (MP)
...Non-applicant
AWARD
Passed on this 6th day of August 2015
1. As per letter dated 26-4-99 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-40012/90/98/IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Chief General
Manager, Telecom Bhopal in terminating the services of
Shri Prabhakar Kantalay S/o Shri Murlidhar Kantalay is
legal and 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 4/1
to 4/3. Case of workman is that he was appointment as
peon in 2nd party on 15-4-93 as permanent employee. The
services were orally terminated on 3-3-98 without assigning
any reasons. No chargesheet was issued to him. Enquiry
was not conducted against him. He completed more than
240 days continuous service. His services were illegally
terminated Compensation was not paid to him by 2nd party.
The rules about retrenchment were not followed. After
termination of his services, 2nd party appointed other
persons. Ist party workman submits that he acquired status
of permanent employee. He was paid wages at daily wage
rate. However payment was made at end of month. Ist party
had issued notice through his Advocate. Despite of his
notice, workman was not reinstated. On such contentions,
workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/3
opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party submits that
workman was not appointed by the management. He was
not its regular employee. That during summer seasons,
some labours have to be appointed on temporary basis as
waterman. Workman was engaged for such purpose during
15-4-93 to 14-6-93. Ist party workman was not engaged
after April 1996 to 3-3-98. As workman was never appointed
by management, there was no question of giving one
month's notice. Workman was not permanent employee of
the department. Details of working days of workman are
given in para-4 of the Written Statement- In 1993-61 days,
in 1994-nil, in 1995-104 days without breaks, for some period
appointed on full time basis. In 1996-121 days, in 1997- nil,
in 1998- nil. It is reiterated that workman not completed 240
days continuous service. He is not entitled for retrenchment
compensation. Workman was engaged for specific period.
He did not work for six months. Engagement of workman in
summer season was for specific period. Workman did not
work after May 1996. On such ground, 2nd party prays
that reference be answered in its favour.
4. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/2
reiterating 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
In Affirmative
management of Chief
General Manager, Telecom
Bhopal in terminating the
services of Shri Prabhakar
Kantalay
S/o
Shri
Murlidhar Kantalay is legal
and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not entitled
workman is entitled to?"
to any relief.
REASONS
6. Workman is challenging termination of his service for
violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. 2nd party contends
that workman was not appointed, he not completed
240 days continuous service.
7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting
his contentions is statement of claim. Workman has stated
that he was appointed as peon on 15-4-93. he was orally
terminated on 3-3-98 without assigning any reasons. That
he completed 240 days continuous service. He was not
paid retrenchment compensation. Work was available all
the 12 months. He worked as peon. After termination, he
submitted representation. He was not reinstated. In his
cross-examination, workman says letter of appointment was
received by him. Original appointment letter is with him.
His name was not sent through Employment Exchange
office. For regular appointment it is necessary that name is
sponsored through the Employment Exchange. Workman
volunteered that his name was registered in Employment
Exchange office but any document is not produced on
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3803
record. The post on which he was appointed was not
advertised. he was engaged for supplying drinking water.
He denies that since his initial service, he was working for
few hours. Workman denied suggestion that the not
completed 240 days continuous service. The witness of Ist
party Pachu Gopal in his evidence on affidavit supports
that workman was working with 2nd party from 1993 to
1998. In his cross-examination, witness of Ist party says he
was working on photo printer at Bhopal. Workman was
working in his office from 1993 to 1998 as waterman. He
was also doing work of distribution of letters, collecting
letters. Workman was doing work as directed by Executive
Engineer. Witness says he was not working under Executive
Engineer. Workman was not working in is section. He denies
that workman was not working from 1993 to 1998. That he
was enlarging maps on machines and taking its print. Peon
was not provided to him. Workman was collecting letters
from his section. He was not writing CRs of workman.
8. Management's witness Shri Mishra filed affidavit of his
evidence supporting contentions of 2nd party in Written
Statement. Working days of Ist party are narrated in para-5 of
his affidavit stated in the statement of claim. That after May
96, workman was not working in the department. In his cross-
examination, management's witness denies that workman was
working as peon/waterman from 15-4-93 to 13-12-98. Muster
roll of workman is not maintained. For some time, workman
was working on full time basis and some time part time basis.
That Account Officer can be examined as witness. Suggestion
is denied that workman completed 240 days continuous
service. Documents produced Exhibit W-1 is office order dated
22-4-93 workman was offered casual appointment form
15-4-93 to 14-6-93 period of 2 months. Exhibit W-1(a) workman
was engaged temporarily on fixed rate for daily 2 hours from
21-6-93. Exhibit W- 1(b) workman was offered casual
appointment from 17-4-95 to 16-6-95. Exhibit M-1 shows
workman was engaged for 13 days as waterman from 17-4-93.
He was paid wages at Rs. 48/- per day. Workman was engaged
as waterman in June 93, July 93, October 93, December 93,
February 94, April 94. The vouchers about payment of wages
are produced. The documents received by workman under
RTI Act are produced at Exhibit W-2 shows engagement of
workman as waterman for above said period only. Any
document is not produced about engagement of workman as
waterman after May 95. The documents at page 14 to 52
produced with Exhibit W-2 are w.r.t. typing charges, computec
services. The pleading and evidence of workman are silent
about Ist party workman working with computec services.
9. Workman filed additional affidavit in order to prove
Exhibit W-2. In his cross-examination workman says he did
not pay attention whether he received appointment letter in
May 96. He was engaged during summer season for two
months is denied. He also denies suggestion that he not
completed 240 days continuous service. Workman is alleging
termination of his service from 3-5-98. However witness No.2
of Ist party says workman was working till December 98
therefore his evidence can hardly be believed. The documents
produced on record donot show that workman was working
with 2nd party after May 96. There is no cogent evidence that
workman was working with 2nd party for continuous 240 days
preceding 12 months of termination of his service therefore
there was no question of paying retrenchment compensation
or compliance of section 25-F of ID Act. For above reasons, I
record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
10. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management of Chief General
Manager, Telecom Bhopal in terminating the
services of Shri Prabhakar Kantalay S/o Shri
Murlidhar Kantalay is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1830-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nh bZ Vh] vkj bZ izkstsDV]
Hkksiky 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;]tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ lhñthñvkbZñVhñ@
,ylh@vkj@118@98½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
09@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@116@97&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2015
S.O. 1830.—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/118/98) 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 DET, RE Project, Bhopal and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 09/09/2015.
[No. L-40012/116/97-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/118/98
Shri Keshav Prasad Shriwas,
S/o Shri Ganesh Prasad Shrivas,
House No. 54,
Behind Old Central Bank Building,
Garha, Jabalpur.
...Workman
Versus
DET
RE Project,
E-3/179, Arera colony,
Bhopal
...Management
3804
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Passed on this 3rd day of August 2015
1. As per letter dated 16-6-98 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-40012/116/97-IR(DU).
The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of DET, RE
Project, Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Keshav
Prasad Shriwas, S/o Shri Ganesh Prasad Shriwas w.e.f.
31-10-87 is legal and 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 4/1
to 4/3. Case of workman is that he was employed by 2nd
party on post of Helper he was posted to work at Bhopal
under control of Non-applicant No.2. He was working
honestly.He was employed from 1-8-86. His services were
discontinued from 31-10-87. He was continuously working
from his initial appointment till his services were discontinued
for more than 240 days during calender year. He acquired
status of regular employee. His discontinuation amounts to
retrenchment. That his services were terminated without
assigning any reasons. There were no complaints against
him. Termination notice was not issued to him. He was not
paid retrenchment compensation. He was not given
opportunity of hearing. No chargesheet was issued neither
enquiry was conducted against him. Permission of
appropriate government was not taken. It is submitted that
his retrenchment is illegal. Principles of first come last go
was not followed.
3. Many workmen whose services were terminated in
similar manner filed various petitions before CAT, Jabalpur
by common judgment in OA411/90 dated 28-8-95.
Management was directed to regularize services of workman
whose services are illegally terminated cancelling order of
termination. It was held that casual labours engaged before
22-6-88 termination order passed without payment of
retrenchment compensation, termination was quashed. On
such ground, workman was praying for reinstatement with
backwages.
4. 2nd party filed Written Statement at page 5/1 to 5/2
opposing claim of workman. 2nd party's case is that reference
is bad as workman never worked with the management of
2nd party, DET Railway Electrification, Bhopal. Workman
was working as Sub-Inspector Store Optical fibre Project.
That Railway Electrification Organisation does not come
under General Manager, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal.
Workman never worked with Electrification project. The
contentions of workman in his statement of claim are
baseless. That Railway electrification project was short term
project given by Department of Railway to department of
Telecommunication for erection and dismantling of lines and
wires in Bhusawal section. To undertake execution of the
project, office of Director Telecom Railway Electrification
Bhopal was opened. The funds for project were provided by
Railway. On completion, the project was closed. The funds
were exhausted. Office of Director, Telecom RE Bhopal was
closed from 1-5-90. The casual labours as per requirement
were engaged to carry out said project. Management does
not have any project in hand. Workman junior to workman is
not continued. Workman never rendered services with
management. Compliance of provisions of Section 25-F of
ID Act was not required. On such ground, 2nd party prays
reference be answered in its favour.
5. 1st pary workman filed rejoinder at Page 6/1 to 6/3
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 DET, RE
Project,
Bhopal
in
terminating the services of
Shri
Keshav
Prasad
Shriwas, S/o Shri Ganesh
Prasad Shriwas w.e.f.
31-10-87 is legal and
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
7. Workman is challenging termination of his service for
violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Management of 2nd
party denied his claim. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence
supporting his claim in statement of claim that he was
employed by DET(RE) Project, Deptt. of Telecom on post of
Helper. He was posted at Bhopal. He worked from 1-8-86 to
31-10-87 continuously without any break. He worked more
than 240 days in a calendar year. In his cross-examination,
workman says he was working as daily wager in Re Project.
He was doing work of digging ditches, laying cables and
erecting poles. He denies that after project was completed,
his services were terminated. In case of appointment of
regular employee, the names are sponsored through
Employment Exchange. His name was not sent through
Employment Exchange. He says that he was interviewed.
Workman has produced Exhibit W-1 personal record of his
service. Working days of workman shown in it almost all the
days in a month from August 1986 to January 87, 28 days in
Feb-87, 24 & 7 days in March 1987 and all the days in month
of May 87 to October 87. Workman also examined witness
Shri Golkar Prasad Sen. He has supported claim of workman
during 1986-87, he was working in Telecom Office, Bhopal.
Workman was working in department. In working record
Book Exhibit W-1-the entries are written in his handwriting
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3805
are correct. In his cross-examination, said witness says
service record W-1 is of Re Project. He admits that workman
Keshav Prasad was daily wage employee. He admits that
working of OFC Deptt. is different from BSNL. OFC is branch
of BSNL. He was working as Sub Inspector, RE, the service
record Exhibit W-1 was prepared by the office. He was not
working as Asstt. Engineer. He denies that in Column 5 of
Exhibit W-1, except him, other person were not authorized to
sign. He denies that he wrongly signed in column-6. Witness
explained that he was authorized to sign as Director by AE.
The evidence of witness that he had taken entries in Exhibit
W-1 is not shattered.
8. The evidence of management's witness Wasudeo
Lanjewar is on the point that workman never worked under
Divisional Engineer, RE Project, Bhopal. The project work
was of short term. Divisional Engineer, Bhopal carried out
the work for protection of telecom affected due to
electrification by Railway Deptt. said work was under control
of Chief General Manager, RE Project. Workman never
rendered his services in Railway Electrification project,
Bhopal. Management's witness in his cross examination says
that he has stated that workman did not work in his unit and
not in the department. Presently the management's witnesses
was working in DRE, New Delhi. He claims ignorance in
which unit workman was working. He claims ignorance about
the workman. He had come as a witness regarding working
in his unit and not the department. He was working for some
days in the unit where workman was working. Again he
corrected that he did not work in that unit. He had seen order
of reference. RE Project, Bhopal is his unit. Workman did not
work with said unit. He claims ignorance whether about reply
filed before ALC. He knows about working in his unit and
not the department. Asstt. Engineer, optical fibre was not his
unit. It is part of OFC, he claims ignorance about office of
OFC Project. That OFC project and DET were different. He
claims ignorance about the officers of OFC Project. In Exhibit
W-1, on Ist page, department of Telecom Railway
Electrification project is written in bold letters. It is clear that
work was given to the department of Telecommunication by
Railway Electrification Project. If evidence of workman
corroborated by evidence of his witness is considered and
compared with the evidence of management's witness
evidence of management's witness is not cogent.
Management's witness has admitted that workman was
working in Telecom Project, OFC unit. Order of reference is
not challenged by 2nd party. From entries in Exhibit W-1, it is
established that workman completed more than 240 days
continuous service. Workman was terminated without notice,
retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. Workman
was engaged on daily wagers. After completion of 240 days
continuous service, compliance of Section 25-F was
necessary. As services of workman are terminated without
notice, retrenchment compensation is not paid to him,
termination of workman is illegal. For above reasons, I record
my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
9. Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No. 1
termination of services of workman is illegal, question remains
as to whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with
backwages.
10. Learned counsel for 1st party Shri A.K. Shashi relies
on ratio held in
Case of Ramesh Kumar versus State of Haryana reported
in 2010(2) SCC-543. Their Lordship dealing with termination
of casual employees in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act
held in case of termination of casual employee what is required
to be seen is whether he has completed 240 days of service
in preceding 12 months or not. If he has then his service
cannot be terminated without giving notice or compensation
in lieu of it in terms of Section 25-F. Though appointment on
public post cannot be made in contravention of recruitment
rules and constitutional scheme of employment, contention
that initial appointment of appellant was contrary to
recruitment rules and constitutional scheme of employment
was not raised either before Labour Court or High Court at
the first instance. Appellant had not prayed for regularization
but only for reinstatement. Their Lordship upheld Labour
Court's direction for reinstatement with continuity of service
and regularization.
In present case, there is no evidence that similarly situated
persons are reinstated or regularised. Therefore ratio held in
the case cannot be applied to present case at hand.
Reliance is also placed on ratio held in case of Harinandan
Prasad and another versus management of FCI and others
reported in 2014-II-LLJ-54(SC). Their Lordship held direction
for regularization impermissible, if there are no posts
available. When similarly situated workmen are regularised
by employer itself under some scheme and workmen in
question are at par with them, direction of regularization in
such cases legally justified. Ist appellant was not in service
on date when scheme promulgated as his services were
dispensed with 4 years before the circular.
In present case, workman has not pleaded anything about
the scheme neither he has claimed regulaization under any
claim therefore the ratio cannot be applied to present case at
hand.
Reliance is also placed in Tapash Kumar Paul versus BSNL
reported in 2014-AIR-SC-5816. My attention was drawn to
para-6 of the judgment. Their Lordship observed it is no
doubt true that a Court may pass an order substituting an
order of reinstatement by awarding compensation but the
same has to be based on justifiable grounds i.e. (1) where
the industry is closed, (ii) where the employee has
superannuated or going to retire shortly and no period of
service is left to his credit, (iii) where the workman has been
rendered incapacitated to discharge the duties and cannot
be reinstated.
The daily wagers calim is not dealt with above judgment.
11. On the point Shri R.S.Khare relies on ratio held in
Case of Asstt. Engineer, Rajasthan Development
3806
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Corporation and another versus Giram Singh reported in
2013(2) SCC(L&S) 369. Their Lordship dealing with Section
25-F, Section 11 of ID Act w.r.t. daily rated workers from
termination held factors to be taken into account while
granting consequential relief. Distinction should be drawn
between daily rated worker and worker holding regular post.
Service of daily wager who worked for short period of 240
days only terminated by employer in 1991 in contravention
of Section 25-F Labour Court awarded reinstatement with
continuity in service with 25% back wages. Award not
interfered with by Single Judge and Division Bench of High
court held exercise of judicial discretion suffers from serious
infirmity and compensation Rs.50,000 was allowed.
Next reliance is placed on ratio held in case of Secretary,
state of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi(3) and others
reported in 2006(4) SCC-1. In present case, workman has
not claimed regularization. That the termination in violation
of Section 25-F was not under consideration in Umadevi's
case therefore ratio held in case cannot be beneficially
applied to case at hand.
In case of MP State Agro Industries Development
Corporation Ltd. and another versus S.C.Pandey reported
in 2006(2) SCC-716. Their Lordship dealing with daily wager
employees held daily wager does not held the post as he is
not appointed in terms of the provisions of the Act and
rules framed thereunder and therefore he doesnot derive
any legal right.
12. Shri A.K.Shashi produced copy of award in R/88/01.
From careful reading of the above said award, it is clear
that the proved misconduct against workman was
assaulting superior, beating him by shoes etc. The facts of
present case are not comparable.
13. The evidence of workman is clear that his name was
not sponsored through Employment Exchange. He was
working on daily wages. Therefore the ratio held in above
case cannot be applied. Workman was working hardly for
14 months on daily wages. Reinstatement of workman
would not be justified, compensation Rs. 25,000/- would
be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point
No. 2.
14. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of DET, RE Project,
Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Keshav
Prasad Shriwas, S/o Shri Ganesh Prasad Shriwas
w.e.f. 31-10-87 is not proper and legal.
(2) 2nd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 25,000 to the workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In
case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per annum
from the date of award till its realization.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1831-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj
fuxe fyfeVsM] tcyiqj 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ lañ lh th vkbZ Vh@,y lh@vkj@12@96½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@224@94&vkbZvkj¼Mh ;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2015
S.O. 1831.—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/12/
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 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Jabalpur and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 09/09/2015.
[No. L-40012/224/94-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/12/96
Shri Ram Sevak Kori,
Through Secretary,
Council of Trade Union,
1123, Wright Town,
In front of Telegraph Gate No. 3,
Jabalpur (MP)
...Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager,
BSNL, 1123, Wright Town.
In front of Telegraph Gate No. 3,
Jabalpur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 18th day of August, 2015
1. As per letter dated 27-28/12/95 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 ID. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/
224/94-IR-DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the General Manager, Telecom,
Wright Town, Jabalpur (MP) in not regularizing but
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3807
terminating the services of Shri Ram Sevak Kori, S/o
Shri Parsadilal Kori, Ex. Mazdoor w.e.f. 31-7-94 is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 4/1 to 4/3. Case of workman is that he has passed HSc
examination of MP Board Sehora in Jabalpur District. He
was appointed as Electrical maintenance labour category
in February, 1988. He was continuously working without
break from 16-2-94. After giving rest of 12 days, workman
was again called to work till 10-8-94. Thereafter his services
were discontinued. That other junior colleagues were
continued in service even after discontinuation of the
workman. That his service record was unblemished. Any
enquiry was not initiated against him.
3. Workman was appointed as casual labour in 1988. He
worked more than 6 years. His demand for regularization
was turned down on the ground that he should not indulge
in leadership that instead of regularizing his services as
labour or electrician, workman was discontinued. That there
are various circulars to the effect that any employee who is
working prior to 1990 should be regularized.
4. 2nd party management filed Written Statement at page
9/1 to 9/2 opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party submits
that workman was engaged as casual labour due to the
extension of telecom service in State of MP. The services
of workman were required for job of temporary nature. He
was engaged subject to availability of work. That workman
was not engaged continuously. For first time, he was
engaged in 1992. He rendered service for 220 days, in 1993
for 365 days, in 1994 for 31 days. Workman failed to report
for work therefore he was marked engaged afterwards.
Workman was not terminated. He himself failed to report to
work. That workman could not be granted temporary status
as per scheme framed by the department. Temporary status
of casual labour engaged prior to March, 1985 or 1988,
workman is not covered by the scheme. He is not entitled
for temporary status. That Section 25-F of ID Act is not
affected as the action of management doesnot amount to
retrenchment. On such ground, 2nd party submits that
dispute be answered in its favour.
5. After recording evidence, the reference was decided
by my predecessor passing award on 2-8-01 holding that
workman was not entitled to relief claimed by him. Said
award was challenged by workman filing Writ Petition
727/02. The Writ Petition was allowed in favour of workman
directing reinstatement without back wages. The directions
were also given to the management to consider his case for
temporary status in terms of the scheme within six months.
The judgment in above Writ Petition was challenged by
management filing MCC-556/2006. Considering raito in
various cases, the matter is remanded to this Tribunal
setting aside award.
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
General Manager, Telecom,
Wright Town, Jabalpur
(MP) in not regularizing but
terminating the services of
Shri Ram Sevak Kori, s/o
Shri Parsadilal Kori, Ex.
Mazdoor w.e.f. 31-7-94 is
legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
7. The matter is remanded by Hon'ble High Court setting
aside judgment of Single bench in Writ petition 727/02
observing that affidavit and statement by itself is not
sufficient. The order dated 3-12-05 directing reinstatement
of workman. The matter has been remanded back for
decision by this Tribunal.
8. Workman has filed affidavit of his evidence workman
has stated that he rendered services for 298 days as casual
labour in 1988. He worked for 273 days in 1989. After
completion of table work in March 1990, he was transferred
to TTC Campus, Ridge Road, Jabalpur from 1-4-90 to
3-4-92, he was regular in department, he was again
transferred to EDM office, Jabalpur in 1992. He worked for
312 days during May 92 to March 93 and 306 days during
April 93 to Jan. 94. In his further evidence, workman says
on 26-11-05, he had submitted application in office Exhibit
W-1. That circular Exhibit W-2 was issued by Account
Officer. Circular Exhibit W-3 was issued by Assistant
Engineer. In his cross-examination, workman says he was
engaged for work of laying the cables. After said work was
completed, his services were discontinued. From Exhibit
W-1, name of receiving person is not mentioned. That
certificate Exhibit W-2 was issued on his application, copy
of application is not produced on record. In Exhibit W-3,
the date of issuing and name of issuing Authority is not
mentioned. Workman denied that Exhibit W-3 is forged
document. That document Exhibit W-4 was prepared on
his requies. The careful perusal of documents Exhibit W-1
shows endorsement made by some authority on 26-11-05,
Exhibit W-2 shows that workman had worked for 312 days
from May, 92 to March 93,306 days from April, 93 to January,
94. The certificate of working Exhibit W-3 issued by Asstt.
Engineer shows that workman was working for 2 years
from 1-4-90 to 30-4-92, Exhibit W-4 also shows his working
days 290 days in 1988, 273 days in 1989, 69 days in 1990.
9. The evidence of workman is also supported by Co-
employee Omprakash Sharma that workman completed more
3808
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
than 240 days during each of the year 1988 to 1994. Witness
No. 2 of Ist party in his cross-examination says his affidavit
was filed 2 years before his cross-examination. That he
was working in Telecom department presently known as
BSNL. He claim ignorance whether workman Ramsevak
was given appointment letter. He was unable to tell whether
workman was engaged on daily wages and wages were
paid at end of the month workman was working with him
from 1992. His services were terminated in 1994. He had
seen documents of workman. Witness was unable to tell
whether workman had worked in the year 1995. Evidence
of workman is corrborated by evidence of his witness as
well as documents Exhibit W-1 to W-4.
10. 2nd party management has admitted in Written
Statement in Para 3 that workman had worked for 222 days
in 1992, 365 days in 1993. The evidence of workman is
corroborated by document and supported by evidence of
his witness. It is sufficient to establish that workman had
worked continuously more than 240 days preceding his
termination.
11. Management did not adduce any evidence. It was
submitted that management is not desiring to adduce
evidence as per ordersheet dated 4-3-2014. As services of
workman are terminated without notice despite the workman
had completed 240 days continuous service is in violation
of Section 25-F of ID Act. I record my finding in Point
No. 1 in Negative.
12. Point No. 2—In view of my finding in Point No. 1,
services of workman are terminated in violation of Section
25-F of ID Act, question is whether workman is entitled for
reinstatement with backwages. On the point Shri A.K.
Shashi counsel for Ist party relies on ratio held in
Case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education Amravati and another versus
Sanjay Krishnarao Shrungare reported in 2008-II CLR 301.
The ratio held in the case relates to unfair labour practice
under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Prevention of unfair labour practices Act, 1971. Their
Lordship held that best possible evidence with the appellant
on the point of total service put in by the respondents not
brought on record by the appellant. Appellant has to blame
itself for this failure on its part.
Even in present case, management has not brought any
evidence about the service period of workman.
In case of Tapash Kumar Paul versus BSNL reported in
2014 AIR SCW 5816. Their Lordship held that it is no doubt
that Court may pass an order substituting an order of
reinstatement by awarding compensation but the same has
to be based on justifiable grounds i.e. (1) where the industry
is closed, (ii) where the employee has superannuated, (iii)
where the workman has been rendered incapacitated to
discharge the duties and cannot be reinstated, (iv) when
he has lost confidence of the management to discharge
duties.
In above cited case, the point was not under
consideration w.r.t. engagement of casual employees on
daily wages. The copies of awards in R/26/93, R/88/01 are
also brought to my notice. Each reference requires to be
decided considering evidence on its record. In present
case, workman was engaged as casual employee on daily
wages. He reinstatement with backwages would not be
justified.
13. Reliance is placed by Shri R.S. Khare, counsel for
management in.
Case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development
Corporation versus Gitam Singh reported in 2013(2) SCC
(L&S) 369. Their Lordship held distinction should be drawn
between daily rated workman and worker holding regular
post, their Lordship allowed compensation Rs. 50,000?-
Reliance is also placed in ratio held in case of Secretary,
State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi and others
reported in 2006(4) SCC-1. In case of Umadevi, point about
violation of Section 25-F of ID Act was not involved
therefore ratio held in case cannot be applied to present
case at hand.
Considering workman was engaged as casual employee
working for about 6 years with 2nd party, his services are
terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act,
compensation Rs. 1,00,000(One Lakh) would be appropriate.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
14. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the General Manager, Telecom,
Wright Town, Jabalpur (MP) in not regularizing
but terminating the services of Shri Ram Sevak
Kori, S/o Shri Parsadilal Kori, Ex. Mazdoor w.e.f.
31.7.94 is not proper and legal.
(2) 2nd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 1,00,000/- to the workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In
case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per annum
from the date of award till its realization.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1832-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWQ
VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] Hkksiky ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkj 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 lañ lh th vkbZ Vh@,y lh@vkj@314@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yµ40012@239@99µvkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3809
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2015
S.O. 1832.—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/
314/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Department of Telecommunication,
Bhopal and their workman, which was recieved by the
Central Government on 09/09/2015.
[No. L-40012/239/99-IR (DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/314/99
Shri Wahid Hussain,
C/o Mohd. Ismail,
Behind Pipal Paththa Masjid,
Peenjarwarhi,
Shajapur,
Distt. Bhopal
...Workman
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Deptt. of Telecommunication,
Hoshangabad Road,
MP Circle, Bhopal.
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 19th day of August 2015
1. As per letter dated 21-10-99 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-40012/
239/99-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 Wahid Hussain w.e.f. 26-3-99 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 2/4. Case of workman is since August 1984, he was
working as labour in Sub Divisional Engineer, Telecom
Shajapur. Engagement of casual labour was approved by
AGM Administrative, therefore large number of casual
labours were engaged in the Telecom Deptt. Hon'ble Apex
have introduced scheme for regularization of casual labours
as per judgment in AIR-1987-SC-342. That the scheme was
introduced from 7-11-89. Workman claim that he is entitled
for regularization as per said scheme. Instead of regularizing
his services, workman was orally terminated on 31-3-99 in
violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Permission of
Government was not taken. He completed 240 days
continuous service. Workman was not paid retrenchment
compensation. He was paid Rs. 1200 pm less than minimum
wages prescribed. Workman submits that he was subjected
to exploitation. On such ground, workman prays for his
reinstatement with backwages.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 4/1 to 4/2
opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party reiterates that
workman was never engaged by the management. No
dispute arise. Workman was not appointed by management.
There is no question of his regularization, termination of
workman in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act is denied. It
is denied that workman worked more than 240 days.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the point which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of Chief
General Manager, Telecom
in terminating the services
of Shri Wahid Hussain w.e.f
26-3-99 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final orders.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
5. Is party filed affidavit of his evidence stating that he
was appointed as labour in August 1984. He worked till
May 1985. He worked till May 1985. He was taken back to
work in March 1987 under control of SDO Shajapur where
he worked till March 1995. That in conciliation proceeding
before ALC, management's witness had admitted workman
had continuously worked more than 240 days. He was not
paid retrenchment compensation. In his cross workman
says the post was not advertised. He was engaged as casual
labour. His name was not sponsored through Emloyment
Exchange. Appointment letter was given to him as casual
labour in 1987. He would produce said document. However
the document is not produced. Zerox copy of ID Card is
produced. Management has not admitted it. Workman not
laid valid evidence to prove said document.
6. Management's witness Bhagchand in his affidavit of
evidence says workman was labour engaged by
management. He is not entitled for regularization. In his
cross-examination management's witness says he is
working at Shajapur as SDE Legal from May 2011. He did
not recollect the names of SDO with whom casual labours
were working. He had seen old muster roll before filing his
affidavit, Name of workman was not found in it. The witness
of management was unable to produce the muster rolls for
the year 1984-85. Casual employees working in 1984-85
scheme for regularization was introduced. Workman was
not paid retrenchment compensation. Suggestion is denied
3810
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
that workman had completed more than 240 days
continuous service till 1985. any record about his working
is not produced. Application for production of documents
was submitted by workman on 26-6-03. As per ordersheet
dated 22-11-04, management was directed to produce
documents. However no documents are produced. When
management has not produced documents, adverse
inference deserves to be drawn against the management,
the document should have been produced, same would
have supported the claim of workman that he had worked
more than 240 days. The services of workman are terminated
without notice, retrenchment compensation is not paid to
him. Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in
Negative.
7. Point No. 2-workman was engaged as casual labour
1987 to 1999. Post was not advertised. Instead of
reinstatement with backwages awarding reasonable
compensation would be appropriate. Considering the case
compensation Rs. 2 Lakh would be reasonable.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Chief General
Manager, Telecom in terminating the services of
Shri Wahid Hussain w.e.f 26-3-99 is not proper
and legal.
(2) 2nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 2
Lakhs to the workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In
case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per annum
from the date of award till its realization.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1833-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y 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;] vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 73@2005½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS]] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yµ22012@343@2004µvkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th Septemer, 2015
S.O. 1833.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 73/2005) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfied Limited, and their
workman, received by the Central Government on
10.09.2015.
[No. L-22012/343/2004-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 73 OF 2005
PARTIES:
The management of Chinakury Colliery of M/s. ECL
Vs.
Sri Dharam Bouri
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management:
Shri P.K. Das, Ld. Adv. (ECL)
For the union (Workman):
Sri R.K. Tripathi,
General Secretary (KMC)
INDUSTRY: COAL
STATE: WEST BENGAL
Dated: 18.08.15
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/
343/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 21.07.2005 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Chinakury
Colliery in dismissing Sri Dharam Bouri, DOSCO Face
Worker from services w.e.f. 01.11.2003 is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
to and from which date?"
Having received the Order No. L-22012/343/2004-IR(CM-
II) dated 21.07.2005 of the above said reference from the
Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 73 of 2005
was registered on 17.08.2005 and accordingly an order to
that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing then to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of
witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the
said order notices by the registered post were sent to the
parties concerned.
Case called out. Sri R.K. Tripathi, General Secretary of
the union (KMC) appears on behalf of the workman but
none appears on behalf of the management.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3811
Sri Tripathi files a petition praying therein that the case
may be closed as the workman is no more interested to
proceed with the case further. Since the workman is not
interested to proceed with the case further and the case is
also 10 years old. I think it just and proper to close the
case. As such the case is closed and accordingly a "No
Dispute Award" may be passed.
ORDER
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.
The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1834-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 93@2005½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 10@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@305@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th Septemer, 2015
S.O. 1834.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 93/2005) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the management of Kuardih Colliery of M/s. ECL, and their
workman, received by the Central Government on
10.09.2015.
[No. L-22012/305/2004-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT :
Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 93 OF 2005
Parties:
The management of Kuardih Colliery of M/s. ECL
Vs.
Late Amiya Kumar Mishra
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management:
P.K. Goswami,
Ld. Advocate (ECL)
For the union (Workman):
None
INDUSTRY: COAL
STATE: WEST BENGAL
Dated: 17.08.15
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/
305/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 04.08.2005 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribuanl.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Kuardih
Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfield Limited in not
considering the retirement dated as 30.09.1997 in
respect of Late Amiya Kumar Mishra is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the dependent of the
deceases are entitled?"
Having received the Order No. L-22012/305/2004-IR
(CM-II) dated 04.08.2005 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 93 of 2005
was registered on 17.08.2005 and accordingly an order to
that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of
witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the
said order notices by the registered post were sent to the
parties concerned.
Case called out. Both the parties are absent.
On perusal of the case record find that the Union
appeared at the tribunal only on 08.05.2006 and 07.02.2007
through their advocate Mr. Sayantam Mukherjee. But after
that the union neither appeared nor file written statement.
1st notice was issued to the union on 01.09.2005 and 18
dates were granted. 2nd notice was issued on 29.05.2009
and 17 dates were granted after that. 3rd notice was issued
on 05.12.2011 and 3 dates were granted. 4th notice was
issued on 24.05.2012 and 10 dates were granted. Last notice
was issued on 15.10.2014 and 3 dates were granted. This a
case of the year 2005 and 51 opportunities were granted to
the workman but all in vain. It seems that the workman is
not at all interested to proceed with the case from the
beginning. Had he been interested with the case he ought
3812
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to have filed written statement within 10 years. Even he
could file his written statement when the post of Presiding
Officer was vacant.
Under the circumstances explained above I think it
proper and justified to close this old reference. Hence the
reference case is closed and accordingly a "No Dispute
Award" may be passed.
ORDER
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.
The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1835-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 21@2006½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-09-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@110@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2015
S.O. 1835.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2006) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute
between the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 10.09.2015.
[No. L-22012/110/2005-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 21 OF 2006
PARTIES:
The management of Dhemomain Colliery of M/s. ECL
Vs.
Sri Naurangi Nonia
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Management :
Shri P.K. Goswami,
Ld. Adv. (ECL)
For the Union (Workman) : Shri Kuldip Mahato,
Jt.Secy., KMC
Industry :
Coal
State :
West Bengal
Dated: 19.08.2015
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) Government of
India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No.
L-22012/110/2005-IR (CM-II) dated 11.07.2006 has been
pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by
this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of
Dhemomain Colliery under Sodepur Area of M/s. ECL
in not regularizing the services of Shri Naurangi
Nonia, Surface Trammer as Security Guard since 1999
is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman
is entitle to?"
Having received the Order No. L-22012/110/2005-IR
(CM-II) dated 11.07.2006 of the above said reference from
the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi
for adjudication of the dispute, a reference Case No. 21 of
2006 was registered on 09.08.2006 and accordingly an order
to that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of
witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the
said order notices by the registered post were sent to the
parties concerned.
Cases called out. Shri Kuldip Mahato, Joint, Secretary
of the Union (Koyla Mazdoor Congress) appears on behalf
of the workman and Shri P.K. Goswami, Learned Advocate
appears on behalf of the management (ECL).
Shri Mahato has made an endorsement on the order
sheet that the workman does not want to proceed with the
case because he has been regularized by the management.
Since the workman has been regularized, no dispute exists
between the parties. As such the case is closed and a 'No
Dispute Award' may be passed accordingly.
ORDER
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Government of
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3813
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and
needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1836-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj fpukdqjh dksy;jh
bZlh,y ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
128@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-09-
2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@39@2005&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2015
S.O. 1836.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 128/2005) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute
between the management of Chinakury Colliery of M/s
ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 10.09.2015.
[No. L-22012/39/2005-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT :
Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 128 OF 2005
PARTIES :
The Management of Chinakury Colliery of M/s. ECL
Vs.
Shri Dulal Bouri
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the management :
Shri P.K. Das, Ld. Adv. (ECL)
For the Union (Workman) : Shri S.K. Pandey,
General Secretary (CMC)
Industry :
Coal
State :
West Bengal
Dated : 19.08.2015
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Government of
India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-
22012/39/2005-IR (CM-II) dated 01.12.2005 has been pleased
to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Chinakury
Colliery under Sodepur Area of M/s Eastern
Coalfields Limited in dismissing Shri Dulal Bouri, R.H.
Crew from service is legal and justified? If not, to
what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"
Having received the Order No. L-22012/39/2005-IR
(CM-II) dated 01.12.2005 of the above said reference from
the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi
for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 128
of 2005 was registered on 23.12.2005 and accordingly an
order to that effect was passed to issue notices through
the registered post to the perties concerned directing them
to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their
written statements along with the relevant documents and
a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance
of the said order notices by the registered post were sent
to the parties concerned.
Case called out. Shri S.K. Pandey, General Secretary of
the Union (Colliery Mazdoor Congress) appears on behalf
of the workman and Shri P.K. Das, Learned Advocate
appears on behalf of the management (ECL).
Shri Pandey submits that the workman is not at all
intersted to proceed with the case further. So the case may
be closed. He has also written it on the order sheet.
On perusal of the case record I find that this case was
fixed for cross-examination of the witness, Shri Dulal Bouri
on 25.10.2007 and since 25.10.2007 the workman remains
absent. So I think it proper to close this case. As such the
case is closed and accordingly a 'No dispute Award' may
be passed.
ORDER
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and
neeful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
3814
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1837-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj frl xkSjk lc
,fj;k MCY;wlh,y ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
44@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
10-09-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@29@2009&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2015
S.O. 1837.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/2010) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute
between the management of Thisgaora Sub Area, WCL,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
10.09.2015.
[No. L-22012/29/2009-IR (C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/44/2010
Shri Santosh Dehariya,
S/o Radheylal, Shivaji Colony,
Shivpuri, Q.No. 384, PO Sirgora,
Tehsil Parasia,
Chhindwara
...Workman
Versus
The Manager,
WCL, Thisgora sub Area,
Pench Area,
PO Parasia,
Distt. Chhindwara
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 18th day of August, 2015
1. As per letter dated 17.09.2010 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.
L-22012/29/2009-IR (C-II). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of M/s WCL
in terminating the services of Shri Santosh Dehariya
w.e.f. 07.04.1999 is legal and justified? To what relief
is the concerned workman entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman failed to file statement of claim,
he is proceeded exparte on 10.06.2014, 2nd party filed
exparte Written Statement, 2nd party submits that workman
was working as Tub Loader at Thesgora Mines of WCL,
Pench Area. He was habitual absentee. Chargesheet was
issued to the workman on 19-9-98 for misconduct under
clause 26.22, 26.34. workman had refused to do the job
after marking attendance. Shri R.K. Tripathi was appointed
as Enquiry Officer. Enquiry Officer issued memorandum
for hearing of the enquiry on various dates. Workman had
submitted representations. On 12-10-98, workman was
present, no proceeding took place as Management
Representative was absent. Next sitting of enquiry was
held on 28-10-98. Workman was present, management
representative was absent. On 9-12-98, workman was not
present, management representative was present. Enquiry
proceeding was adjourned to 5-1-99. Enquiry was again
adjourned on 10-1-99, 11-1-99, 18-1-99. Management
examined witness Pandari, Verma on 18-1-99. Workman
refused to cross-examine the management's witnesses. The
witnesses were discharged. Enquiry Officer submitted is
report, showcause notice was also issued to workman on
24-3-99. Copy of Enquiry Report was sent to workman along
with showcause notice. Workman failed to submit his
statement of claim. Management submits if enquiry is found
illegal, permission be granted to prove misconduct.
3. 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 M/S WCL in
terminating the services of
Shri Santosh Dehariya w.e.f.
7-4-99 is legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
4. Workman has not participated in reference
proceedings, he is proceeded exparte on 10-6-2014.
Management filed Written Statement, affidavit of evidence
of management's witness Shri P.K. Tripathi is filed
supporting contentions of management in Written
Statement. Enquiry conducted against workman. copies of
record of Enquiry proceedings are produced alongwith list.
As workman has failed to participate in reference, evidence
of management's witness cannot be disbelieved. For above
reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3815
5. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of M/S WCL
in terminating the services of Shri Santosh Dehariya
w.e.f. 7-4-99 is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R .B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1838-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lksgkxiqj ,fj;k
,lbZlh,y ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 49@2010½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@09@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@46@2010&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the10th September, 2015
S.O. 1838.—In pusuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 49/2010 of the as
Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Sohagpur Area of SECL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
10/09/2015.
[No L-22012/46/2010-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/49/2010
The President/Secretary,
SEKMC(INTUC),
Sohagpur Branch,
PO Dhanpuri,
Shahdol
...Workman/Union
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Sohagpur Are of SECL,
PO Dhanpuri,
Shahdol
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 20th day of August, 2015
1. As per letter dated 8-11-2010 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/
46/2010-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Sohagpur
Area of SECL in transferring Shri Abdul Sattar in the
capacity protected workman and during the pendency
of dispute is legal and justified? To what relief Shri
Abdul Sattar is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. However workman failed to participate in the
reference proceeding. Reference proceeded exparte against
workman on 16-10-2010.
3. Management filed exparte Written Statement. Case of
management is reference pertains to legality of transfer of
workman (Protected workman). Workman was not
recognised as protected workman. Unless transfer order is
received with malafide intention, the order of transfer cannot
be interfered. Workman Abdul Sattar was working as
accountant and posted at Sohagpur. As per copy of his
appointment order, transfer is one of the condition of
service. On administrative ground, workman was transferred
to Dipila Area, Distt Korba vide order dated 12-1-2010. He
was relieved on 20-1-10. On representation of workman
vide order dated 14-6-2010, the transfer order was kept in
abeyance. Workman was permitted to resume duty at
Sohagpur Area. The transfer of workmen was on
administrative reasons. There is no reason to interfere with
the order of transfer.
4. 2nd party management filed affidavit of witness Manoj
Bhandari supporting contentions in Written Statement. As
workman failed to participate in reference proceeding,
evidence of management's witness remained unchallenged.
Any ground is not made out to interfere with the order of
transfer therefore award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Sohagpur Area of
SECL in transferring Shri Abdul Sattar in the capacity
protected workman is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R .B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1839-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj tokgj uoksn;
fo|ky; ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 164@2001½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@09@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@49@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the10th September, 2015
S.O. 1839.—In pusuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
3816
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 164/2001) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
10/09/2015.
[No L-42012/49/2001-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/164/2001
Smt. Maya Chowhan,
W/o Subash Chowhan,
Ex-Sweeper-cum-Chowkidar,
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
Ward No. 6, PO Waraseoni,
Balaghat.
...Workman
Versus
The Principal,
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
Waraseoni, Balabhat
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 19th day of August, 2015
1. As per letter dated 5-10-01 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/
49/2001-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the Principal, Jawahar
Navodaya Vidyalaya, Waraseoni, Balghat MP in not
regularizing Smt. Maya Chowhan W/o Subhash
Chowhan, Sweeper-cum-Chowkidar after completion
of 240 days attendance and stopping her from duty
w.e.f. 1-5-2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief she is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Pages
9/1 to 9/3. Case of workman is she was appointed as
sweeper-cum-watchman for 89 days as per order dated
31-12-98 one Sudhir Kumar terminated by department on
18-1-01. He had raised dispute under R/2/02. He is taken
back in service and still continued. That she completed
more than 240 days continuous service. Her services are
terminated malafidely. On such ground, workman prays for
her reinstatement with backwages.
3. Written Statement filed at Pages 10/1 to 10/2 opposing
claim of the workman. 2nd party submits that the regular
appointment are made by the Committee following
prescribed procedure. The workman was appointed as
Sweeper-cum-watchman temporarily on daily wages at
Collectorate rate. She worked for 29 days in January, 2000,
31 days in March, 2000 and 30 days in April, 2000. Workman
had not completed 240 days continuous service. One Mr.
Mamta was appointed on compassionate ground as
sweeper-cum-watchman therefore services of workman were
not required. Her services were terminated. On such ground
2nd party submits that claim of workman cannot be allowed.
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
Principal, Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya, Waraseoni, Balghat
MP in not regularizing Smt. Maya
Chowhan W/o Subhash
Chowhan, after completion of
240 days attendance and stopping
her from duty w.e.f. 1-5-2000 is
legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
5. Though workman raised dispute challenging
termination for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act, she has
not adduced evidence. The document Exhibit W-1 is
appointment for 61 days during March to April 2000. Exhibit
W-1(a) appointment for 89 days from 3-1-00 to 31-3-00.
From those documents, her working days comes to 150
days. Exhibit W-2 is undertaking submitted by workman
not to claim regular post. Opting such undertaking cannot
be appreciated. The workman has failed to establish that
she was continuously working for 240 days. Provisions of
Section 25-F cannot be applied to her case.
6. Learned Counsel for 2nd party pointed out my
attention to the notification dated 17-12-98 issued under
Section 14(2) of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1935.
Navodaya Vidyalaya is mentioned at Sl. No. 45.
7. However the jurisdiction of Labour Court cannot be
taken way by said circular when Ist party workman is
covered under Section 2(s) of ID Act.
8. Management has also not examined any witness in
the case. As workman has not completed 240 days
continuous service, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in
Affirmative.
9. In result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
Waraseoni, Balghat MP is not regularizing Smt. Maya
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3817
Chowhan W/o Subhash Chowhan, Sweeper cum
Chowkidar afrter completion of 240 days attendance and
stopping her from duty w.e.f. 1-5-2000 is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1840-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y ds
izcaèi= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 72@99½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@97@1998&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2015
S.O. 1840.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 72/99) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour court, Jabalpur as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Gevra Area of SECL, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 10/09/2015.
[No. L-22012/97/1998-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/72/99
The Secretary,
CSMU, Gevra project,
Q.NO. MD 395
Deepika Colony,
Distt. Bilaspur.
...Workman/Union
Versus
Chief General Manager, SECL, Gevra Area,
PO Gevra Project,
Distt. Bilaspur.
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 18th day of August 2015
1. As per letter dated 27-1-99 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-22012/
97/98-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of management of Gevra Project
of SECL in denying promotion to Shri Lilaran Gond
from EPF.III to EPF.II is justified? If not, to what relief
she is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
through Union at Page 6/1 to 6/3. Case of Ist party is that
workman was pointed as trainee Fitter on stipend Rs. 21-16
on 30-11-88. On completion of training period of one year,
he was appointed in Gevra Project of SECL on 3-1-89 as
Fitter Technical. He belongs to ST. Workman appeared in
HSc examination in 1991. However he did not clear said
examination. His performance was very good. Nothing
adverse was informed to him. Said workman is employee in
Class D category. There is nothing like Annual confidential
Reports are written. In 1994, it is notified by the management
that some post of EP Fitter grade II are to be filled up
eligibility for promotion is 4 years experience as EP Fitter
Grade III. As said workman is fulfilling the required criteria,
he has applied for the same post. He was entitled to benefit
of reservation as per policy of Government. Workman was
not allowed promotion. Junior to him like Ompraksh
Bhardwaj, Shivcharan Choudhary, Nandu Baghel
Ramdheen Sahu etc. were promoted to the post of EPF
Grade II. Workman prays benefit of ptomotion and
backwages.
3. Management filed Written Statement at page 8/1 to 8/
2 opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party submits Lilaram
was initially appointed as Fitter Trainee on 3-1-89. It is
denied that he was regularised on the post of Fitter Grade III
on 3-1-99. After completion of training period of one year,
workman was appointed on 3-1-89 on post of Fitter
Grade III. The documents referred by Ist party in statement
of claim are not supplied to the management. In 1994, DPC
was constituted for the post of Fitter Grade II Category VI.
DPC was constituted for the post of Fitter Grade II Category
VI. DPC did not find eligible or suitable for promotion to
the higher grade therefore he was not promoted. The reason
for not promoting workman is his performance reported by
controlling Officer, he is not eligible for ptomotion. It is
denied that workman was eligible for promotion. It is
reiterated that as his Controlling Authority reported not fit
for promotion, DPC did not recommend his name.
Reservation benefit could be considered only if the
workman was found eligible for promotion. It is submitted
that DPC rightly denied promotion to him.
4. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 11/1 to 11/2 reiterating
his contentions in statement of claim.
5. Considering pleading 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:—
3818
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Gevra Project of
SECL in denying promotion to
Shri Lilaran Gond from EPF. III
to EPF. II is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman
Workman in not
is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
6. Workman filed affidavit of evidence in support of his
claim covering his contentions in statement of claim.
Workman submits that in 1994, juniors to him were promoted
to DP Fitter Grade II Grade "C" Departmental Committee
did not hold Trade Test. Workman was not selected on the
basis of qualification, oral test and trade test. DPC has
manipulated performance report procured it after selection
process. Out of total vacancy, atleast one post should have
been from ST candidates. DPC did not recommend any ST
candidates. There was no SC ST candidates in the list
prepared by DPC. Total 26 persons had appeared in test
out of performance report of 18 persons were not found
satisfactory. Workman in his cross says he was appointed
as Fitter Grade III on 3.1.89. He was promoted to Fitter
Grade II in 2002. He claims ignorance about the rules
governing his service or cadre scheme. The promotions
are given in the department on recommendations of DPC.
In 2002, he was promoted but not on recommendation of
DPC. In the year 1994, he had appeared before DPC. In the
year 1994, he had appeared before DPC for post of Fitter
Grade-II. He claims that the name was included by DPC in
list of Promotion of candidates. Said document is not
produced on record. He admits that in 1994, DPC did not
recommend his name for Fitter Grade II therefore hes was
not granted promotion.
7. Management's witness Shri K. Shankar Narayanan
filed affidavit of his evidence narrating the details of
constitution of DPC Committee Marks to be allotted out of
40 marks, for qualification 10 marks, oral-15 marks, trade-15
marks. For candidates having matric 10 marks, passing 8th
standard-5 marks, illiterate candidate-2 marks. Qualifying
marks were 20 marks i.e. 50% . The candidates getting less
than 50% marks were not found recommended. That
performance of 18 candidates were not found satisfactory.
Performance of 9 candidates were found satisfactory. They
had secured more than 50% mark were recommended for
promotion. Name of workman is not included among those
9 persons. In his cross-examination, management's witness
says performance report bears signature of Shri R.K. Jaiswal
and Sudhanshu Pradhan marked Exhibit M-2. DPC
performance report was one of the criteria for
recommending. Oral test and other test of the candidates
were taken. It was not necessary to file marksheet therefore
it is not produced. Mr. B.D. Sahay was Dy. General manager.
He was chairman of DPC. He performance report bears
signature of Shri Jaiswal. Performance report was submitted
before DPC meeting. Performance report of Gopal was not
related to the meeting of DPC. The final list by DPC bears
signature of Shri Jaiswal. Management's witness was unable
to tell whether there was quota of reservation categories in
the promotion. He was unable to tell whether there was
any post reserved for ST candidate among the 17
candidates. DPC report is produced at Exhibit M-1. Name
of workman is at Sl. No. 16 of the candidates not found
satisfactory performance and not recommended for
promotion. The performance report Exhibit M-2 produced
by management shows gopalram Sahu was reported unfit
for promotion. Exhibit M-3 performance report of Leelaram
Gond shows that Controlling Officer reported he was not
fit for promotion. By order Exhibit M-4, Jairman Muleti was
promoted as EP Electrician Grade B without monetary
benefits. As per Exhibit M-5 workman Lilaram Gond was
promoted to EP Fitter Grade I on 1.1.06 on recommendation
of DPC. Exhibit M-6 is order of appointment of Lilaram
(workman) dated 30.11.88. As per Exhibit M-7 he was
regularised on post of Fitter Grade III on 1.5.90. Exhibit M-
8 is office order of promotion of 9 persons dated 23.12.94
on recommendation of DPC. Exhibit M-9 is report of DPC.
8. Workman has admitted his name was not
recommended by DPC in 1994 for promotion to Fitter Grade
II. As his name was not recommended by DPC, claim of
workman for promotion cannot be accepted. No evidence
is brought on record that any post for ST category was
reserved for promotion to the post of Fitter Grade in 1994.
Thus claim of workman is not substantiated by evidence
on record. Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in
Affirmative.
9. In the result, award is passed as Under:-
(1) The action of the management of Gevra Project of
SECL in denying promotion to Shri Lilaran Gond from EPF.
III to EPF. II is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B.PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1841-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,ylh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 26@ 2004½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@65@2000&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2015
S.O. 1841.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3819
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2004) of the Cent.
Govt. Indust. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, inthe industrial dispute between
the management of Jhingirda Project of NCL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
10.09.2015.
[No. L-22012/65/2000 - IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBNUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/26/04
Secretary,
Bhartiya Koyla Khadan Shramik Sangh,
PO Jhingurda Colliery,
District Sidhi (MP),
Jhingurda Project.
Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager,
Jhingurda Project of NCL,
PO Jhingurda, Distt. Sidhi (MP).
Jhingurda Project
Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 19th day of August, 2014
1. As per letter dated 15.9.2000 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-22012/
65/2000-IR (CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager,
Jhingurda Project of NCL, PO Jhingurda, Distt. Shdhi
(MP) in not giving employment on compassionate
ground to son of Shri Ram Lakhan Shukla in terms of
Para 9.40 of NCWA V is legal and justified? If not, to
what relief is the concerned 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 1st party workman is that Mr. Ram
Lakhan Shukla was appointed in NCL Singrauli from 20.3.68.
He was working with 2nd party. He was promoted time to
time. In 1991, Lakhan Sukhlal suffered trouble in his eye
and physical weakness. He received treatment in Jayant
Hospital, Sidhi. He also received treatment at Netyra Jyoti.
Workman was not able to perform his duties due to affected
eye sight. As per Clause 9/14 of Bipartite Settlement,
workman requested compassionate appointment for his
son Mundrika Prasad who was graduate. The application
was submitted on 14.6.94. Shri Lakhan Shukla received
expert treatment for his eye in Jayant Hosptial in July 1997.
Workman was advised rest for his work. Secondly workman
was not on duty. His financial condition was poor. He did
not receive any assistance from the management during
period of his sickness. Lakhan was examined by Medical
Board in Jayant Hospital. On 9.10.98 in order to cause
harassment to workman, he was referred to Dr. Rajendra
Prasad eye Hospital, Delhi. On 27.11.99, workman was sent
for medical examination. The expert had found that there
was no possibility of restoring his vision. Shri Ramlakhan
was examined by Medical Board on 19.1.99 by Dr. Ojha and
Biswas. Workman was found unfit for duty. From fund for
employment, help of Rs. 2000 was provided to the workman
for treatment of his eye sight. After Ram Lakhan Shukla
was declared unfit, he had sent letters dated 9.12.98, 5.3.99,
30.3.99, 14.4.99 for compassionate employment for his son.
The compassionate employment was not provided to his
son. On such ground workman Ram Lakhan Shukla prays
for compassionate employment for his dependent son.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 3/1 to 3/8
opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party raised preliminary
objection. That workman is not entitled for discretionary
relief as he mislead the facts. Workman had not approved
with clean hands. His claim deserves to be dismissed.
Workman is claiming relief under clause 9.4.0 of NCWA-V.
That said clause is not covered by any agreement. 2nd
party cannot invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction for
implementing said clause. Clause 9.4.0 is reproduced in the
Written Statement. The benefit of said clause is restricted
up to the age of 58 years. As per said clause, the Committee
is required to be constituted for submitting the report. That
the last report of Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Althalmic sciences
New Delhi. Workman was not found complete blind and
unfit for duty. Therefore workman cannot claim benefit of
Clause 9/4/0. It is reiterated that relief of compassionate
appointment cannot be allowed to the workman. That claim
of Ist party workman is based on presumption assumptions
cannot be accepted. Ist party workman was negligent in
pursuing the matter. He had not approached Dr. V.K. Veda
for further treatment as per advice dated 30.11.98. 1st party
tried to pressurize through Union for his claim. Workman
moved Hon'ble High Court at belated stage.
4. That law does not accept the story, the documents
produced on record by 2nd party speaks otherwise. The
documents are tampered, fabricated. Workman did not
suffer any deformity in his eye. The document produced
are written in different handwriting. It is reiterated that
workman was having no eye problem as tablet voveran
was prescribed for him which is a painkiller, It is denied that
3820
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Doctor at Delhi opined that workman is likely to get back
his sight, that workman had not followed treatment from
the Doctor. Intentionally workman for unlawful gain, the
words in Hindi. All contentions of workman relating to eye
sight is denied.
5. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 4/1 to 4/2 reiterating
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 Affirmative
Chief General Manager,
Jhingurda Project of NCL,
PO Jhingurda, Distt. Sidhi (MP)
in not giving employment on
compassionate ground to son of
Shri Ram Lakhan Shukla in terms
of Para 9.40 of NCWA V is
legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
7. In support of his claim, workman filed affidavit of his
evidence. Workman stated that in 1991, he got some problem
in his dye. He received treatment from Nehru Shatabdi
Hospital. Due to weak eye sight, he was having trouble in
doing duty. In 1994, he requested to appoint his son on
compassionate ground as per clause 9.4.0 of NCWA. He
did not get relief in his eyes. He was referred to eye
specialized Centre at Nehru Shatabdi Hospital. By that time,
he got complete blind in both eyes. Dr. Rajendra Prasad,
Delhi declared workman cannot get back his eye sight. On
19.1.99, he was examined before Medical Board. He was
declared unfit for service due to blindness. He was retired
prematurely on 29.3.99. His son Mundrika Prasad Shukla
was major at the time he was examined by the Medical
Board. His son was not allowed appointment on
compassionate ground as per NCWA-V. in his cross-
examination, workman says medical book is given by
management for treatment. The treatment given to him is
noted in the book. That he has not brought original
treatment book. It is not produced in Court. He denies that
there are interpolation in treatment book and therefore it is
not produced in Court. That he was referred to Medical
Board in 1998. He appeared before Medical Board. He was
examined before NSC Jayant Hospital for eye treatment.
He was advised on 287.11.98 to Nehru Shatabdi Hospital.
He was referred to Rajendra Prasad Centre for Althalmic
Sciences, New Delhi. Due to blindness, he could not see
report. He denies that he was referred to Dr. V.K. Dada.
That Dr. in NSC Jayant told him he was unfit for any work.
He denies that he was found fit for partial work.
8. Management's witness Dr. Subrata Biswas filed
affidavit of his evidence. His affidavit is devoted that under
Clause 29(d) Medical Examination is done. Clause 29
provides for appeal by Medical Board. Workman appeared
before Medical Board in 1997. He was declared fit. Report
of Dr. R.P. Centre does not total workman complete blind
and declared unfit. Workman was negligent in pursuing
matter as advised to Dr. V.K. Dada for further treatment.
The diagnosis of Glaumatus cannot be said to total
blindness. On perusal of prescription of hospital, it is clear
that workman had any difficulty of showing the object in
dim light only. Workman is not using glass. He was referred
to Dr. V.K. Dada for operation. Management's witness in
his cross-examination says he had conducted medical
examination of workman. He did not recollect its date, he
did not recollect names of other persons examined by him.
For examination by Medical Board, 15 days notice is to be
issued. Witness of management did not recollect how much
percentage he declared unfit. That they had not shown
percentage or degeneration but was 60%. 60% degeneration
causes vision blink. Such person cannot attend routine
work. Workman was referred to AIMS where he was
examined.
9. The evidence of management's witness Shri Rajendra
Shah deals with NCWA-II providing employment on
compassionate ground. Said provision was also included
in NCWA-VI. The benefit of said clause is restricted to
employees medically unfit if his age is upto 58 years. On
9.10.98, workman was examined by Medical Board, 9.2.99,
workman was informed he would be relieved from duty. He
was advised to collect his dues. Workman worked till
attaining age of superannuation he is not entitled to avail
benefit of clause 9.4.0. In his cross-examination, witness of
management claims ignorance whether recommendations
of Medical Board were accepted. NCL Medical Board
declared workman fit is produced. Dr. Thanil and Dr. Vishwas
declared fit the workman. In 1994, workman requested to
refer him to Medical Board. Workman was examined by
Medical Board twice in 1997, 98. Workman was found if in
1997. Report of examination by Medical Board in 1998 is
produced. Workman was to retire in 1999. He denies that
workman was prematurely retired. Affidavit of
management's witness Shri Khan is filed but he was not
made available for cross-examination.
10. The documents produced by workman are zerox
copies, no care is taken to prove it by valid evidence. In
document Page 2/12 to 2/14, age of workman is shown 59
years on 26.11.98. Zerox of medical report from Dr. Rajendra
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3821
Prasad, Althalmic Science. The entire document is written
in English. In last sentence, there is no possibility of
regaining eye sight is written in Hindi. No witness is
examined to prove said document. Copy of mining rules is
produced. In Exhibit M-2, Ramlakhan Shukla is reported fit
for duty. Said report is dated 15.7.97. Serveral Zerox copies
of documents are produced. In document 14/10, age of
workman is shown 29 years when he joined service on
20.3.68. As such workman must have born in the year 1939.
He was retired in 1999. Evidence of Management's witness
that workman retired after attaining age of supennuation is
corroborated. As benefit of clause 9.4.0 is restricted to the
employees to the age of 58 years, workman is not entitled
to the benefit of compassionate employment for his son.
For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in
Affirmative.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the Chief General Manager, Jhingurda
Project of NCL, PO Jhingurda, Distt. Sidhi (MP) in not giving
employment on compassionate ground to son of Shri Ram
Lakhan Shukla in terms of Para 9.40 of NCWA V is proper
and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1842-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 19@2002½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@305@2000&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2015
S.O. 1842.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/02) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Kahan Area of WCL, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 10/09/2015.
[No. L-22012/305/2000-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/19/02
Secretary,
RKKMS (INTUC),
PO Chandametta,
Chhindwara
........Workman/Union
Versus
The Director Personnel,
WCL, Coal Estate,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
The P.M.
WCL, Kahan Area,
PO Dungaria, Chhindwara
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 14th day of August 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-22012/305/2000-
IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of WCL,
Nagpur/Kanhan Area in not promoting Kum. Kusum
Verma and Ku. Bhagwati Karmarkar Staff Nurses of
Regional Hospital, WCL, Kanhan Area and not
considering their seniority and also supersession
by junior is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
they are entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim through
Secretary, RKKMS Union. The case of Ist party Union is
that both workmen are member of said Union. Workman
Ku. Kusum was initially appointed as staff Nurse on
15-11-76 in Technical Grade C. workman Ku. Bhgwati
Karmakar was appointed as Staff Nurse Technical Grade
Con 13-11-78. Their appointments were made in open
selection followed by written test, interview. Both the
workmen joined their services at Regional Hospital of WCL,
Kanhan Area on respective dates of their appointment.
Smt. Rekha Masarkar (Ghosh) was initially appointed as
staff nurse T & S Grade C on 4-4-79. On her transfer to
Regional Hospital, Kanhan Area, on 1-1-1987, she joined
2nd party. The Smt. Rekha Masarkar (Ghosh) was junior to
both of them. The details of the respective appointments
are shown in Para 5 of the statement of claim.
3. Though Smt. Rekha Masarkar (Ghosh) is junior to
them as per Seniority list in T&S Grade C till 1-1-1994.
Surprisingly giving advantage to her, she was shown in
T&S Grade B from 7-4-79 is illegal. Both Kusum and
Bhagwati were placed in Grade C technical on 15-11-76,
3822
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13-11-78 after merger of CMWO staff from 1-3-83. Smt.
Rekha Masarkar (Ghosh) was wrongly shown in Technical
Grade B is discriminatory. The repeated representation of
Ist part workman for correction of seniority list was not
considered. Ist party workman Kusum and Bhagwati were
not given promotion in technical Grade B over Smt. Rekha
Masarkar (Ghosh). Both of them were given upgradation
to next higher grade after completion of 10 year service as
per order dated 12-12-89. It is submitted that both of them
were entitled to promotion in terms of DPC over Smt. Rekha
Masarkar (Ghosh) w.e.f. 7-4-79. That Ist party workmen
were placed in T&S Grade B as per order dated 10-12-94
completing 5 years service in Grade C without DPC as one
time arrangements. They joined Kanhan Area Hospital in
T&S Grade B on 10-12-94 itself. That both of them were
entitled for promotion above Smt. Rekha Masarkar (Ghosh).
Both the workmen have reiterated that they are senior to
Rekha and ignoring their seniority, Rekha was promoted to
the post of Matron T&S Grade A vide order dated 10-7-98.
Her seniority was overlooked. They had submitted
representations. Their seniority was not restored. Cadre
Scheme of para medical staff circulated on 15-7-92 was
ignored by the management. Both workmen raised the
dispute. The dates of appointments of respective workman
and Rekha were reiterated contending that both were senior
to Rekha. Overlooking their seniority, Rekha is promoted.
Both workmen claims that they be given promotion above
Rekha in T&S Grade A from 10-7-98.
4. 2nd party filed Written Statement at page 7/1 to 7/11
opposing claim of Ist party workman. Preliminary objection
is raised that Rekha was impleaded party to the dispute
before RLC. The reference is not tenable. That the date
from which promotion is claimed is not given. Reference
is vague and not tenable. 2nd party submits that service
conditions of its employees are covered by NCWA and
guidelines given by JBCCI time to time. WCL is subsidiary
to Coal India having its offices at Nagpur. Various collieries
spread over MP and Maharashtra are working under WCL.
The hospitals were run by welfare Organisation as per
order dated 5-1-88 by Govt. of India, Deptt. of Coal. The
regional hospitals of CMW at Jamni, Dhanpuri, Kurasia
were transferred to WCL. In pursuance of said order
employees of the organization become employees of
WCL. Rekha after her marriage was offered appointment
as per order dated 2-8-83 in pursuance of her transfer of
service from CMWO to WCL. Bhagwati was appointed
as nurse in Grade C of NCWA as per office order dated 13-
11-78. Miss Kusum was appointed as Nurse Technical
Grade C as per order dated 15-11-78. The comparative
chart of appointments and other details are given in Para-
10 of the Written Statement. The services rendered by
employees of CMWO are considered for promotion to
higher post.
5. As per office order dated 2-1-89, employees of
CMWO taken over w.e.f. 1-3-83 were placed in the
designation and grade engaged against therein. Name of
Smt. Rekha Masarkar (Ghosh) was appearing at Sl.No. 7
Staff Nurse Technical Grade C. New designation Sr. Nurse
Grade B. The pay was accordingly fixed. Vide Head Office
Circular dated 15-3-93, provisions of I.I. No. 3 & 17 of
NCWA IV were extended to employees of Ex. CMO on
similar directions and conditions laid down therein. The
service rendered by them prior to take over in the same
category was taken into account. II 55 is reproduced.
WCL HQ issued letter dated 12-5-98 that WCL decided
that the date of effectiveness of the above implementation
instructions should be uniform in all the areas and that
the date of effectiveness of above placement of staff Nurse
Grade B as one time arrangement without DPC was allowed
updated seniority list of staff nurse was published by
WCL HQ including SC ST candidates on 1-7-99. In
accordance with II 55, staff Nurse in T&S Grade C in
various units of Kanhan Area completing 5 years service
were placed in T&S Grade B. WCL Hq published seniority
list of medical staff including staff nurse on 20-6-97. On
recommendation of DPC approved by Competent
Authority Sr. Staff Nurses T&S Grade B were promoted
to the post of Matron T&S Grade A. Rekha was at Sl.No.
3 2nd party denies that Ist party workman are senior to
Rekha. Revised cadre scheme for para medical staff nurse
JBCCI issued Implementation Instruction No. 41. Staff
nurse with Grade A recognized diploma or certificate with
3 year course will be inducted as staff nurse on completion
of one year training in Grade C. Qualification will not be
barred for existing staff nurse. Zone of promotion upto
T&S Grade B will be Area level from T&S Grade B to
Grade A at Company level. The representations submitted
by workman claiming seniority were rejected. After
verifying seniority list dated 20-6-97. Name of Bhagwati
was placed at Sl.No. 39. The contentions of Ist party
workman that they were senior to Rekha are denied by
2nd party claim of workman for promotion above Rekha is
also denied. Seniority list of concerned employee of WCL
was circulated inviting objections. Thereafter promotions
were made as per the norms. That Bhagwati was promoted
as Matron T&S Grade A. It could not be made applicable
to the dispute. It is submitted that both workmen cannot
be compared with Rekha. She is much senior to both
workmen. On such ground 2nd party submits that Ist party
workmen are not entitled to any relief.
6. Workman filed rejoinder reiterating their contentions
in statement of claim.
7. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3823
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of WCL,
Nagpur/Kanhan Area in not
promoting Kum.Kusum Verma
and Ku. Bhagwati Karmarkar
Staff Nurses of Regional
Hospital, WCL, Kanhan
Area and not considering
their seniority and also
supersession by junior is
legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workmen are not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
8. In support of their claim, Bhagwati filed affidavit of
her evidence claiming seniority over Rekha claiming that
Rekha was appointed on 7-4-79. She was appointed as
staff nurse technical Grade C on 13-11-78. After merger of
CMWO staff nurse from 1-3-83. On merger, Rekha was
placed on Technical Grade C from 1-1-87. Rekha was junior
to her. After seniority list published, it came to notice that
management has wrongly placed Rekha in T&S Grade B
from 4-4-79. She was discriminated. She was not given
promotion in technical Grade B over Rekha. She joined
Kanhan Area Hospital in T&S Grade B on 10-12-94.
However Bhagwati in her cross-examination says she does-
not recollect contents of her affidavit. She had read the
affidavit prepared by her Advocate. Considering her
evidence in cross-examination, as she did not recollect the
content of her affidavit, her evidence cannot be relied.
9. Kusum filed affidavit of her evidence stating her date
of appointment 15-11-76, Rekha was appointed on 7-4-79.
On her transfer to Regional hospital, Kanhan Area on
1-1-1987 that Rekha was junior to her. After merger of
CMWO staff from 1-3-83, Rekha was placed on technical
Grade C from 1-1-87. Rekha was wrongly shown in Technical
Grade B from 4-4-79. She claims promotion above Rekha. In
her cross-examination, Kusum says that she was appointed
on 15-11-76 in Technical Grade C. Bhagwati was appointed
on 13-11-78. Rekha was appointed on 7-4-79. Cadre Scheme
for nursing staff is introduced. The promotion are given as
per cadre cheme. CMWO was running hospitals in the
past. From 1-1-83 Coal India is running the hospitals after
merge of CMWO, she claims ignorance what option was
given by Rekha at the time of merger of CMWO staff. After
marget of CMWO junior employees were given their
seniority and juniors were retained at same position. She
did not see order that the employees working in Coal India
were treated senior. That Rekha was appointed as staff
nurse in CMWO in Technical Grade D. however the order
of appointment of Rekha in Technical Grade B is not
produced. She was promoted in Technical Grade A in the
year 2008. Rekha was promoted to Grade A in January 2008.
That she and Bhagwati had raised the dispute of seniority.
They did not received any information about decision of
their representations. There was no reason not to implead
Rekha as party before ALC.
10. Management's witness Shri A.C. Kaushik in his
affidavit has stated that Rekha was not junior to workmen.
The details of their promotion in Grade B, A are shown in
para 6 of his affidavit. Rekha is shown in T&S Grade B in
7-4-79 in CMWO. She is shown in T&S Grade A from
1-7-89, T&S Grade from 10-7-98. In his cross-examination,
management's witness admits that Rekha was appointed in
CMWO in 1979. Ist party workmen were appointed in WCL
in 1976, 1978. The employees of other companies joining
WCL. Their record of appointment remained in the earlier
company. Rekha was shown in Grade B after joining WCL
as per the orders of Coal India Head. For promotion in
Grade A vacancies and seniority are considered. The cadre
scheme was considered while promoting Rekha. She is still
continued in service. The representations about seniority
submitted by workmen were rejected by the management.
Rekha has not adduced any evidence. It is to be noted that
the order of appointment in CMWO of Rekha in Grade B is
not produced. The evidence of Kusum claims ignorance
about the options given by Rekha while joining her service
in WCL after merger of employees of CMWO.
11. Documents produced Exhibit W-1 shows
appointment of Kusum on 15-11-76 in Technical Grade C.
Exhibit W-2 shows appointment of Smt. Rekha on 7-4-79 as
Nurse, her technical grade is not mentioned. The documents
W-3 to W-8, 11, 12 shows date of appointment of both
workmen and Rekha.
12. Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri N. B. Sharma
emphasized that dispute is raised belatedly is not tenable.
Seniority of Rekha in Technical Grade B shown in 1979
Technical Grade A in 1989 is challenged by raising dispute.
In support of above submissions, Shri N.B. Sharma relies
on ratio held in Case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. versus K.P.
Madhavankutty and others reported in 2002(2) SCC-455.
Their Lordship held when dispute becomes stale, held,
would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
In the instant case, the workman was dismissed after
lawfully and properly conducting the disciplinary
proceedings, his dismissal was upheld in appeal and the
benefits legally due to him were paid. 7 long years later he
raised a dispute against his dismissal on he ground that
two other employees dismissed in similar situation were
reinstated. Reference is said dispute at this stage, held,
3824
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
bad both on the grounds of delay as well as non existence
of an industrial dispute.
In present case, both the workmen through Union are
challenging seniority of Rekha given in Technical Grade B,
Technical Grade A. Even long back in 1983, 97 respectively.
Original Technical Grade shown of Rekha from 7-4-79 in
the seniority list. The dispute is highly belated and the
dispute has apparently ceized to exist as the promotions
were given considering the seniority list and cadre scheme
therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
13. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management of WCL, Nagpur/
Kanhan Area in not promoting Kum. Kusum Verma and
Ku. Bhagwati Karmarkar Staff Nurses of Regional Hospital,
WCL is proper and legal.
(2) Workmen are not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1843-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 198@96½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@490@1995&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2015
S.O. 1843.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 198/96) of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Kusmunda Area of SECL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
10/09/2015.
[No. L-22012/490/1995-IR(C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/198/96
Regional President,
Sanyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC),
Q.No. B/269, Adarsh Nagar,
Post Kusumunda Colliery,
Distt. Bilaspur.
......Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager,
SECL, Kusmunda Area,
Post Kusmunda Pariyojana,
Distt. Bilaspur (MP)
......Management
AWARD
Passed on this 13th day of August 2015
1. As per letter dated 18-10-96 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-22012/490/95-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of SECL,
Kusmunda Area, Bilaspur in dismissing Shri
G.R. Jaiswal, Clerk Grade II w.e.f. 25-3-95 vide office
order No. GM/KSM/PM/DA/95/4366 dated 25-3-95
is justified? If not, 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 4/3. Case of workman is that he was appointed
as mazdoor in 1984. Considering his satisfactory work, he
was promoted as Clerk Grade II. Prior to Order of his
dismissal dated 25-3-95, chargesheet was issued to him
alleging certain misconduct. He had submitted reply to the
chargesheet denying charges against him, without
considering his reply, Shri R. R. Dubey was apointed as
Enquiry Officer. Enquiry conducted against his not legal
and proper. He was not given full opportunity for his
defence. Enquiry Officer did not explain to him procedure
of enquiry. Workman was not asked any question regarding
engagement of Defence Assistant. Workman was not
allowed to cross examine witnesses of management, he
was not given opportunity to produce his witnesses in
defence. The principles and natural justice were not
followed. Enquiry is illegal. Punishment of dismissal
imposed against him is illegal. On such ground, workman
prays for his reinstatement.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claims of
the workman at page 7/1 to 7/2. The appointment of
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3825
workman as General Mazdoor Category I in 1984, his
promotion as Clerk grade II is not disputed chargesheet
issued to workman and order of his suspension is not
disputed by 2nd party, workman had submitted reply to
the charge sheet. Reply of workan was found not
satisfactory. Enquiry was ordered against him, it is denied
that the enquiry conducted against workman is illegal. It is
denied that workman was not given reasonable opportunity
for his defence, 2nd party reiterates that enquiry was
conducted as per laid down procedure. Workman was
allowed to defend charges with held of co-worker. Fair
opportunity of defence was allowed to the workman. It is
denied that Enquiry Officer not followed principles of
natural justice. That charges against workman were proved,
minimum punishment is imposed considering gravity of
misconduct. It is denied that past record of workman was
not considered.
4. As per order dated 20-6-2014, enquiry conducted
against workman is found legal.
5. Considering pleading 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 charges alleged
In Affirmative
against workman is proved
from evidence in Enquiry
proceedings?
(ii) Whether the punishment of
In Affirmative
dismissal imposed agaist
workman is proper and
legal?
(iii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
6. Enquiry conducted against workman is found legal.
Therefore the point whether charges alleged against
workman are proved needs to be decided form evidence in
Enquiry Proceedings. 2nd party has produced copy of
judgement in Criminal Case No. 24/04, said judgment shows
that workan was accused No. 1 along with other 5 accused.
All of the accused including workman were convicted for
offence under Section 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) Prevention
of Corruption Act read ith Section 120-B IPC and different
sentence extending 3 years and fine Rs. 20,000 etc. was
imposed. The appeal No. 32/12 is filed by Teertankhar Banu-
accused No. 6 in the case. There is no document that
conviction of Ist Party is challenged before superior court
filing appeal. In its judgement, special court, CBI had
discussed evidence against workman at Page 13, 20. That
Committee was constituted at instance of accused regarding
payment of bills with National Trade Centre in the year
1992-93. The Committee submitted report that bill passing
officer Karba was not guilty. As per the report of the
Committee, Shri G.R. Jaiswal i.e. workman was suspected.
AT page 23 of the judgment, evidence of witness Puran
Singh is considered that the witness had state that accused
G.R. Jaiswal i.e. workman had given requistion for printing
10,000 requisition forms. He printed 10,000 forms. Exhibit
P-6 is requisition form got printed by Shri Jaiswal i.e. Ist
party workman, the bill Exhibit P-22 dated 10-8-92, Bill Ex P-
20 dated 20-8-93 were the proforma printed in Krishna
Printing Press. The seals Article A,B were prepared but not
given to Shri Jaiswal. Said witness in his further evidence
has stated that Exhibit P-2 Banking opening form was
signed by him as introduced. That he had not received
amount for printing of 10,000 requisition forms. Said witness
had admitted that he was knowing while signing account
opening from that accused Shri G.R. Jaiswal opened account
in name of firm to be used for the business. I need not
discuss the evidence considered while convicting workman
and other accused. It is surprise to say that workman was
convicted along with other accused and no document is
produced that his conviction was set-aside or challenged
before superior court.
7. Turning to the evidence in Enquiry Proceedings, It is
necessary to consider the charges alleged against
workman. The charges are narrated in his report by Enquiry
Officer about payment made to National Trade Centre
Rs. 1,59,000, 6,03,215/- & 1,45,600/- preparing bogus bills
and attempt to get payment of Rs. 4,09,418 by delinquent
under Clause 26.1. The argument advanced by counsel for
Ist party Shri S. Mishra that chare against workman was
not about forgery, Merely workman had forwarded the bills
as party of his official duty cannot be accepted. The witness
of management Shri V.N. Bandopadhyay has narrated
about presentation of bills to different amount before him.
Mr. Pradhan told that the order was not given for the
amount shown in the bills. That the information was given
to Genral Manager and enquiry was made in the matter.
That witness Puran Singh was taken in custody. The facts
disclosed that Shah was relatie of Shri G.R. Jaiswal Clerk
Grade II in Regional Store i.s. Ist party workman. That Shri
G. R. Jaiswal was involved in transaction. Shri Shah was
told by Jaiswal for printing of the stationery (letter pad) in
name of National Trade Centre, Calcutta, Jaiswal had
suggested for opening current account and Puran Singh
as witness/guranter should sign. If entire evidence of Puran
Singh is considered, the argument advanced by Shri S.
Mishra on behalf of workman that there is no evidence
against workman by the management's witnesses cannot
be accepted. Evidence of MW-2 Rajesh Kumar is on the
3826
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
point of taking entries in ward register Sl. No. 1528, 1395,
Management's witness Shri S.K. Pradhan says about 3 bills
of different amount received dated 14-3-94, 27-3-94 its entry
was taken in inward register. The purchase order in respect
of those bills was not issued from purchase department.
Statement of MW-4 A. G. Karva is on the point that 3 bills
of different amount dated 27-3-94, 14-3-94 were bogus,
purchase order was not issued w.r.t. both the bills. MW-5
P. Anirudhhan in his statement explained that he along
with Shri G. R. Jaiswal jointly made enquiry from day book,
goods receipt register, bills forwarding register etc. In his
cross-examination, he says Shri G.R. Jaiswal Clerk Grade II
was forwarding bills for payment to Accounts office putting
his initials on the forwarding letter. In store dispatch register,
Shri Jaiswal was making entry to forwarding letter writing
number in peon book was sent to Accounts office. W.r.t.
writing double numbers 718, 418 to 738/438, he claims
ignorance and says that Shri Jaiswal asked about the same.
Charge is about payment on bogus bills made in National
Trade Centre not only forwarding the bills by Ist party
workman. There is some evidence in Enquiry proceedings
whereas workman was convicted for offence under Section
13(1)(d) read with 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act by
Special Court, CBI. The corruption of workman is not
challenged in appeal. Workman is not acquitted by superior
court. Therefore the findings of Enquiry Officer supported
by some evidence cannot be said perverse. In criminal case,
burden of proof lies to prove charges beyond reasonable
doubt. When charges are held proved by Special CBI Court
is also piece of evidence against workman. For reasons
discussed above, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in
Affirmative.
8. Point No. 2-In view of my finding in Point No. 1 charge
relating to payment on 3 bogus bills is proved against
workman and other persons involving Ist party is convicted
in Criminal Case along with other 5 accused,. The proved
charge is of serious nature.
9. Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri A.K. Shashi relies
on ratio held in :
Case of Jaishankar versus Government of India and
another reported in 1996(6) SCC 204. Their Lordship dealing
with conviction for Section 509 held involces moral
turpitude, hence where such conviction attained fainality,
although the amount of fine imposed was below Rs. 2000,
dismissal of the convict worker from service was upheld.
In case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. versus A. L. Mohan Rao
reported in 2006 (I) SCC 63. Their Lordship dealing with
matter Branch Manager charged with gross misconduct of
granting fictitious loan. Their Lordhip held if gross
misconduct of this nature does merit dismissal, it cannot
be seen what other type of miscouduct would merit
dismissal. It is not for courts to interfere in cases of gross
misconduct of this nature with decision of disciplinary
authority on any mistaken notion. of sympathy, so long as
inquiry has been fair and proper and miscouduct proved.
In case of Nand Kishore Prasad versus State of Bihar
and other reported in 1978(3) SCC 366 their Lordship
considering before the delinquenht officer is found guilty
of charge there must be some evidence. Their Lordship
held authority must act without bias and predilection and
must pass speaking orders discussing evidence.
Copies of award in R/117/97 & 38/90 are also submitted
for persual. Each case needs to be decided considering
evidence on record, the evidence discussed while dealing
with Point No. 1 and Ist party workman has been convicted
by CBI Special Court for payment of 3 bogus bills,
punishment of dismissal imposed against workman cannot
be said excessive or exorbitant. Dismissal of Ist party
workman doesnot call interference by this Tribunal. I record
my finding in Issue No. 2 in Affirmative.
10. In the result, award is passed as under:
(1) The action of the management of SECL, Kusmunda
Area, Bilaspur in dismissing Shri G. R. Jaiswal, Clerk Grade
II w.e.f. 25-3-95 is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1844-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 277@99½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-09-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@382@1998&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2015
S.O. 1844.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Govenment
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 227/99) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus-Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown
in the Annexue, in the Industrial dispute between the
management of Khurja Sub Area of SECL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
10.09.2015.
[No. L-22012/382/1998-IR(CM-1I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3827
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/227/99
Secretary,
Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (UTUC),
Jhimer Colliery,
Shastri Nagar,
PO Jhimer Colliery,
Distt. Shahdol.
Workman/Union
Versus
Sub Area Manager,
Khurja Sub Area of SECL,
PO Bijuri,
Distt. Shahdol (MP)
Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 4th day of August, 2015
As per letter dated 22-6-99 by the Government of India,
Minsitry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of
I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/382/98/IR
(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager, Khurja
Sub Area of SECL, PO Bijuri Distt. Shahdol in dismissing
Shri Shivcharan S/o Shivdayal General Mazdoor w.e.f.
5-8-97 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. 1st party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 4/1 to 4/5. Case of 1st party workman is that he was
employed as General Mazdoor in SECL in 1996. He was
working with dedication. He was on sick leave in July 96.
After recovery of illness, he reported on duty on 1-8-96 to
Shri Nagendra Pratap Singh. Workman requested Shri
Nagendra Pratap to allow him on duty. He was not allowed
to join duty instructing workman to report to Shif In-charge.
When workman reported shift In-charge, he as instructed
to report to Mr. Choudhary, Mr. Choudhary asked workman
to go to shift in-charge and advise to make request for
allowing him to join duty. Workman was kept dangling and
now allowed to join duties. Workman tired of his efforts
came back to Cigarette Stall. He had seen Shri V.K. Singh
sitting in a jeep far there. Workman went to Manager
requesting him to join duty, Manager without loosing a
minute came out of a jeep and slapped 2-3 times to workman.
Workman was saved by other peoples. Manager left the
place.
3. Workman further submits that once again he
requested shift in-charge to allow him on duty but he
requested. Workman was told that he was trying to become
leader, duty will not be given to him. He was also told that
Shri V.K. Singh Manager was inspected not to take him on
duty. Workman started shouting, he requested belt operator
to stop the belt. He also asked Shift in-charge to stop belt
till the question of taking him on duty was decided.
Thereafter workman was forcibly taken in jeep to police
station. Charge-sheet was issued to workman on 5-8-96.
The allegations against him were about gambling, fighting,
disobedience, abusing co-worker and willful damage,
Workman denied charges against him management without
considering reply to the chage-sheet initiated DE. 3
wtnesses were examined by management. Witness
Digambar Singh admitted he was not present at site of
incident. He made false statement that workman was under
influence of liquor. Enquiry was conducted in casual
manner. The statements of witnesses were contradictory.
Enquiry was conducted in hurrry. Workman was not allowed
opportunity for his defence. Enquiry Officer submitted
report without applying his mind. Vital contradiction in
evidence of management's witness were not considered.
Show-case notice for dismissal was issued to him. Workman
replied to said show-case notice pointing out contradictory
evidence of management's winesses. Punishment of
dismissal was impossed as per order dated 5-8-99. It is
submitted that punishment of dismissal is illegal. Workman
was discriminated. He was harassed by all the persons. He
was not allowed to join duty. On such ground, workman
prays for setting aside order of his dismissal and
reinstatement with consequential benefits.
4. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/9
opposing claim of the workman. Case of 2nd party is that
workmanw as working as General Mazdoor Category-I. on
1.8.96, management received complaint that workman was
under intoxication came to time keeper office at
5 PM.Workman was insisting to mark his attendance. Entry
Clerk refused to mark his attendance. Then workman gone
to Under Manager Shri Pradhan threatening him of serious
consequences if his attendance was not marked. Workman
was unauthorisely absent. Shri Pradhan tried to get
information about it. It is further contended that workman
had ran and switch off the main belt causing obstruction in
production. When belt operator started switch again,
workman stopped the belt. Workman was then taken to
police station. Charge sheet was issued to workman for
misconduct under Clause 26.4, 28.18, 26.23. The details of
those clauses are reproduced in Para-10 of the Written
Statement. That Enquisry Committee was constituted.
Enquriy was conducted giving opportunity for defence to
the workman, principles of natural justice were followed.
The charges against workman were proved. Workman was
dismissed from service. Workman had participated in
enquiry. It is reiterated that workman was unauthorisely
absent. Under intoxication, he had indecently behaved with
his superiors. Workman was taken to police station. After
show-cause notice, workman was dismissed.
3828
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5. Workman filed rejoinder at page 6/1 to 6/3 reiterating
his contentions in statement of claim.
6. 2nd party field reply to rejoinder at Page 13/1 to 13/2
reiterating his contentions in Written Statement.
7. As per order dated 12-12-12, enquiry conducted
against workman is found legal and proper.
8. Considering pleadings on record and findings on
preliminary issue, the points which arise for my
considerations and determination are as under. My
findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the charges
Partly in Affirmative
alleged against workman
under clause 26.4, 26.18 &
26.23 are proved from
evidence in Enquiry
proceedings?
(ii) Whether the punishment
In Negative
of dismissal imposed against
workman is proper and legal?
(iii) If not, what relief the
workman is entitled to?"
As per final order
REASONS
9. Enquiry conducted against workman is found legal.
Charges-gheet Exhibit M-5 is clear that charges against
workman were under Clause 26.4, 26.18 & 26.23. charge
under Clause 26.4 pertain to gambling, drunkenesss, ritious
or indecent behaviour place of work. Clause 26.18 pertains
to assault, attempt to assault, threatening to assault,
abusing co-worker or superior while on duty. Charge
No. 26.23 pertains to causing willful damage to the property
of company. As enquiry conducted against workman is
found legal, whether charges against workman are proved
needs to be decided from evidence in Enquriy Proceedings.
Management's witness Shri Digambar Singh in his
statement before Enquiry Officer says when he went there,
workman was talking with Mr. Pradhan, workman was
saying that his attendance should be marked. Shri Pradhan
refused to mark his attendance. On that workman said how
his attendance should not be marked, he would see him,
then workman stopped the switch of belt. The belt was
stopped. Then workman went to belt and sat on it. He was
trying to jump from the belt. Workman was caught from the
place and taken away. Management's witness Shri Pradhan
in his statement says he was setting the set. Workman Shri
Shivcharan came to him at 5 PM. He had shown sick fit
certificate and requested to allow on duty. He was beating
the table by his hand. Workman said if he was not allowed
on duty, he would see him. He will destroy the canes.
Workman said he would show him immediately. He went to
the belt operator giving threats to the Belt Operator, he
switeched off the belt. Management's witness Krishna
Kumar in his evidence says that at 5.10 PM, workman came
under intoxication near switch and asked to stop the belt
till his attendance was marked. When workman came near
the belt, he had stopped the switch. Workman was under
intoxication, his mouth was smelling. Workman was called
to Shift Manager. Again he had come near the switch.
Witness had stopped the switch. Witness had stopped the
switch. The belt was not operating. Belt was started at
5.30. for about 20 minutes, belt was stopped.
10. The evidence is not required to be re-appreciated
but evidence of all management's witnesses is not
consistent. Witness Digambar Singh and A.K. Pradhan
says switch was stopped by workman whereas belt operator
Krishna Kumar says that switch was stopped by him, as
per evidence in cross-examination of Digambar Singh,
workman was taken to police station. Police had given 2-4
slaps to workman saying that always he was disorderely
behaving under intoxication. As per management's witness.
A.K. Pradhan, workman had climbed ladder of the main
belt and threatened to jump. Other witnesses have not
stated about it. Shri A.K. Pradhan says workman was
referred for medical examination about intoxication. Medical
reported is not produced. Shri Krishna Kumar in his
evidence says workman was smelling intosicating. Other
witnesses did not tell about it. Evidence cannot be re-
appreciated. Shri Digambar Singh in his cross-examiantion
says he was not present at the place of incident therefore
his evidence cannot be accepted. Shri A.K. Pradhan in his
cross-examination says he had not signed sick certificate
brought by workman evidence of all management's
witnessses is consistent on point that workman was
insisting that he was allowed on duty. He was saying until
his attendance was marked or allowed on duty, belt would
not operate. Workman was asking to stop the belt. Shri
Nagendra Singh in his cross-examination says workman
had not misbehaved with anybody. Workman was
shouting. The belt was stopped twice. As per evidence of
management's witness MW-1 belt was stopped for about
5 minutes, as per MW-3, belt was stopped for about
20 minutes. Statement of workman was redorded. He stated
that when he was not allowed to join duty despite fitness
certificte he was insisting for duty. When he gone to the
Manager, he given slap to him. If entire evidence is
considered, the charge w.r.t. assault cannot be established.
The charge about drunkeness/intoxication also cannot be
established from oral evidence of management's witness
as Medical Certificate is not produced despite the workman
was referred for medical examination. The evidence on
reocrd that workman was insisting for joining duties. He
had gone towards the belt he was shouting requesting to
stop the belt shows that behaviour of workman was ritious
and disorderely. The evidence of management's witness
about causing damage to the propery is silent. Charge under
Clause 26.23. doesnot include loss caused to the
management. The evidence is consistent on the point that
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3829
belt was stopped for about 5-20 minutes causing
obstruction to the production.
11. Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri A.K. Shashi relies
on ratio held in
Case of West Bokaro Colliery (TISCO LTd) vrs Ram
Pravesh Singh reported in 2009-I-LLJ-220(SC). Their
Lordship held standard of proof in departmental
proceedings is different from that in criminal case.
In case of Commissioner of Police versus Jayasurian
and another reported in 1997(6) SSC-75. Their Lordship
held considering inconsistency very minor order or removal
from service passed by Competent authority on the basis
of report held there was no informity in approach of the
competent authority in appreciation of evidence aduced in
the enquiry. The Tribunal in exercise of power of judicial
review was not justifed in interfering with the finding of
the Competent authority that chage against the delinquent
was passed.
In case of Krishanakali Tea Estate versus Akhil Bharatiya
Chah Mazdoor Sangh and another reported in 2004(8)SSC-
200. Their Lordship held even proceeding on the basis that
the charge not framed namely of extortion has not been
legally established and ought not be considered as
miscondcut the other estalblished misconducts of causing
damage of property, gherao of the management and
worngfully confining the manager are severable and are by
themselves sufficient and grave enough to establish
misconuct punishment under the Standing Orders
applicable to the workmen concerned.
In present case, charge of disorderely behaviour of
workman is supported by cogent evidence of management's
witness. The charge of intoxication is not established. The
charge under Clause 26.23 causing damage to the propery
is also not supported by evidence. To conclude their
evidence of management's witnesses charge under Clause
26.4 w.r.t ritious and diorderely behaviour is established.
Charge under clause 26.18 assault, attempt to assault,
threatening to assault co-workers, charge under Clause
26.23 causing willful damage to the property of the company
are not proved. Therefore I record my finding in Point
No. 1 partly in Affirmative.
12. Point No.2- charge under Clause 26.24 of disorderly
and ritious behviour is proved from evidence of
management's witness in Enquiry Proceedings. Question
arises whether punishment of dismissal imposed against
workman is proper and legal. The circumstances needs to
be cosnidrered. The evidence of management's witness is
clear that workman was on sick leave. He has come with
fitness and requested to allow to join duty. He was not
allowed to join duty. Workman was dangled to shift in-
charge and others. The intention of workman is clear that
he was interested to joint duty. He had no intention to
assault or disorderly behave or abuse anybody. When
workman was not allowed to join duty, workman in order to
join duty, started shouting and rushed towards the belt.
Looking to the workman coming towards belt, belt operator
had himself switched off the belt. Workman was threatening
the belt should not be operted till he was allowed to join
duty. Such behaviour appears on account of refusal to join
duty to the workman, on the point of punishment, learned
counsel for 2nd party Shri A.K. Shashi relies on ratio held
in case of
MP, Eelctricity Board versus Jagdish Chandra Sharma
reported in 2005(3) SCC-401. Their Lordship dealing with
proportionality of punishment dimissal for breach of
discipline at workplace by employee. In such a case it is
not open to Labour Court of Industrial Tribunal to take the
view that the punishment awarded is shockingly
disproportinate to the charge proved. Their Lordship held
discipline at workplace is a sine qua non for the efficient
working of the organization.
In present case, there is no evidence that the workman
had physically assaulted any superior therefore ratio cannot
be applied to present case.
In case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. and N.B.
Naravade reported in 2005-1-LLJ-1129. their Lordship held
on facts use of abusive, filthy language against superior
officer held did not call for lesser punishemnt than
dismissal.
In present case, the evidence of management's
witnesses is silent about abuses to the officer by workman,
the ratio cannot be applied to present case.
Reliance is also placed on ratio held in case between UP
State Road Transport Corporation veruss Subhash Chandra
Sharma reported in AIR 2000 SC-1163.
Their Lordship held that punishment of dismissal for
misconduct of absuing and theartening under drunken state
is not disproportionate.
In present case, charges of drunkeness condition,
abusing in indecent language with the colleague cannot
be established. Therefore ratio cannot be applied to case
at hand.
In case of Emco Transformers Ltd. versus S.P. Shouche
and another reported in 1997 LLR 649. Their Lordship of
Bombay High Court held that :abour Court disbelieved
direct witnesses deposing of the incident of misconduct
by respondent No. 1 Labour Court directed reinstatement
of the workman and backwages was set-aside. The oral
evidence is discussed above.
Only charge under 26.4 of standing order is established.
Other charges are not supported by cogent evidence.
Therefore ratio held in the case cannot be applied to present
case.
Ratio held in case of State Bank of India and others
versus Ramesh Dinkar Punder reported in 2006(7) SSC-212
3830
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
cannot be applied to case as the nature of misconduct
proved is entirely different.
In present case, the evidence clearly shows that
workman had gone with fitness certificate for joining duty.
He was not allowed to join duty and thereby workman was
insisting to stop belt his matter of joining duty was decided.
Workman has not stopped the switch of belt, it was stopped
by operator therefore punishment imposed against
workman is shockingly disproportionate. If one same day,
workman would have allowed to join duty, the incident
would not have been occurred.
Learned counsel for 1st party Shri K.C. Ghildiyal submits
that the circumstances be considered that workman had
gone for joining duty after sick leave. He was not allwoed
to join duty. The punishment of dismissal is illegal.
13. Learned counsel relies on ratio held in.
Case of State of UP and others versus Ram Daras Yadav
reported in 2010(2)SCC-236, A.L. Kalra Versus Project and
Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. reported in 1984(3)
SCC-316, Om Kumar and others versus Union of India
reported in 2011(2) SCC-386. The facts of present case are
not comparable. Ratio cannot be applied to present case.
The punishment of dismissal is imposed against workman.
All charges are not proved against workman. Only charge
under 26.4 is proved. The punishment of dismissal is
justified. Considering the nature of proved charge, minor
punishment like withholding 2-3 increments should have
been appropriate in the case.
14. However the counsel for 2nd party Shri A.K.Shashi
pointed out my attention to the age of the workman in
affidavit of evidence as 67 years. Though learned counsel
for workman tried to say that workman has not attained
age of superannuation as per his date of birth, no evidence
in that regard is produced. Therefore minor punishment
withholding increment is not possible to be imposed.
Punishment of dimissal is disproportionate to prove charge
under Clause 26.4. the ciricumstances cannot justify
awarding reasonable compenssation to the workman. In
my considered view, compensation Rs. 2,50,000/- and retiral
benefits would be appropirate. Accordingly I record my
finding in Point No. 2.
15. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action os the Sub Area Manager, Khurja Sub
Area of SECL, PO Bijuri Distt. Shahdol in
dismissing Shri Shivcharan S/o Shivdayal General
Mazdoor w.e.f. 5-8-97 is not legal and proper.
(2) The order of pinishment of dismissal is quashed.
2nd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 2,50,000 to the workman.
(3) 2nd party shall also allow retiral benefits to the
workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In
case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per annum
from the date of award till its realization.
R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1845-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chch,ech ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1336@2007½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-09-2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[la- ,y& 23012@4@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2015
S.O. 1845.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1336/2007) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of BBMB, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
10.9.2015.
[No. L-23012/4/2006-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 1336/2007
Registered on 14.09.2007
Sh. Vinod Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Tek Chand, R/o VPO Gumma,
Tehsil Joginder Nagar, Mandi (H.P.)
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Spl. Secy., Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Sec-19-B, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh
2. The Resident Engineer, DPH, BBMB, P.W., Slapper,
Himachal Pradesh.
...Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the Workman
Sh. Manjit Dhiman, Adv.
For the Management
Sh. Ravinder Sharma, Adv.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3831
AWARD
Passed on 30.7.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-23012/4/
2006-IR(CM-II)) Dated 02.08.2007, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-
section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
"Whether the action of the management of BBMB in
terminating the services of Sh. Vinod Kumar w.e.f.
14.10.2005 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is
the workman entitled?"
The facts, in brief, are that Sh. Tek Chand, father of the
workman was a permanent employee of Punjab State
Electricity Board and was allocated to BBMB. Sh. Tek Chand
expired on 20.2.2003 while in service. Consequently, the
workman being son of Sh. Tek Chank applied for an
appointment on compassionate grounds with the BBMB
and he was appointed as T-mate by the Resident Engineer,
DPH Division, BBMB (PW), Slapper (HP) vide letter dated
7.7.2003 in the pay scale of Rs. 2720-4300.
The workman joined the services on 9.7.2003 on regular
vacant post for 89 days at the first instance and thereafter,
he continuously remained in service for more than Two
years.
It is pleaded that the Resident Engineer vide his letter
dated 13.10.2005 (Annexure R-15) terminated the services
of the workman and the same is illegal as there was no
reason to terminate his services, and the services of the
other persons similarly placed were regularized. It is also
pleaded that there is a violation of provisions of Section
25(G) & 25(N) of the Act. He has prayed that he be reinstated
in service with all consequential benefits.
Respondent Management filed written statement
pleading that the workman was not appointed on
Compassionate Grounds but was appointed on temporary
basis for 89 days only as T-mate as per guidelines issued
by the Board vide letter dated. 24.8.1990 and 21.3.1991 i.e.
Annexure R-1 & R-2. It is further stated that the conditions
for giving employment on compassionate grounds to family
members of board's own recruited employees, and that of
other Departments/Electricity Boards are different and the
applications of the dependants of employees of other
departments for employment are sent to the parent
department/Electricity Boards. Case of the workman was
taken up with the PSEB vide different letters to give him
employment on compassionate grounds and in the
meantime, he was given extension in service from time to
time. PSEB has informed that a sum of Rs. 3 lac is being
given as Solatium in lieu of Compassionate Appointment
in view of the new policy dated 23.11.2004. It was the PSEB
who was to give employment to the workman.
Since the workman was employed on contract basis for
89 days, the services were ordered to be terminated along
with others in view of the letter dated 10.10.2005(R-13)
issued by the Special Secretary, BBMB and accordingly,
the letter dated 13.10.2005 was issued.
Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.
In support of his case, the workman appeared in the
Witness box and filed an affidavit supporting his case as
set out in the claim statement.
On the other hand, Sh. G.C. Sharma, Resident Engineer
was examined who filed an affidavit reitrating the case of
the management as stated in the written statement.
Both the counsels carried me through the different letters
issued by the Board and argued at length in favour of/
against regular appointment to the dependants of the
employees who died while serving with the Board. But this
Court need not consider whether the workman was entitled
for getting regular service with the Board or not. As per the
Terms of Reference, it is only to determine whether
termination of the workman w.e.f. 14.10.2005 is legal and
justified.
The contents of the appointment letter dt. 7.7.2003
(Annexure-1) shows that offer was given to the workman
for the post of T-mate on contract basis for 89 days.
Thereafter, he was continuously given extension and as
per his case in para 4 of the claim statement, he
continuously remained in the service up to 14.10.2005 which
is not controverted in the written statement. Letter dated
10.3.2005 (Annexure R-5) shows that the workman was given
extension for the 8th time. Thus the workman continuously
remained in service with the Board.
There is nothing is on the file that the there was any
break in service and rather letters (Annexure R-4 & R-5)
shows that extensions were given prior to the expiry of the
previous periods. Thus the workman continuously remaned
in service for the period 9.7.2003 to 14.10.2005.
Now the question is whether the services of such a
person who remained in continuous service for more than
2 years, though was given extensions for 89 days can be
'retrenched'. The relevant portion of termination letter dated
13.10.2005 (Annexure-R-15) are as follows:—
"As per Board's decision on the subject as circulated
vide spl. Secy. No. 8648-52 R&R 329 R-2/L-37/L- dt.
10.10.2005 CE/SO BBMB (PW), Chandigarh No. Fax
Message dt. 11.10.2005 and SE/DPH Circle, BBMB(PW)
Slapper Endst. No. 17298 dt 11.10.05, your services are
hereby dispensed with effect from 15.10.05 A.M. in
accordance with the terms and conditions of your letter of
appointment.
A bank draft cheque No.G-587438 dt. 14/X/05 drawn on
State Bank of India Slapper for Rs. 11544/ (Rs. Eleven
Thousand Five Hundred Forty Only) an account of the
following dues as admissible under the Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947, is enclosed’’
3832
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Thus the letter was issued on the basis of letter dt.
10.10.2005 of Spl. Secy, BBMB. The relevant portion of
the letter dt. 10.10.2005 (Annexure R-15) is read as
under:—
"Approval of Chairman, BBMB is hereby conveyed for
giving extension in service to the dependants of the
deceased PWEB employees (11 Nos. as per list
Enclosed) up to 15.10.2005, notwithstanding the dates
on which their previous spells have expired.
The service of above employees shall be terminated by
the respective Head of Deptt. by fulfilling the requirements
of section 25F of ID Act by giving each of them retrenchment
compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days average
pay for every completed year of continuous service or any
part thereof in excess of six months) and one month wages
in lieu of notice.’’
‘‘The perusal of the letter dated 13.10.2005 shows that
the Chairman of the Board has given approval for
extension in service to the dependants of the deceased
PSEB employees up to 15.10.2005 but in the 2nd para,
the Spl. Secy. BBMB ordered to terminate the services
of the employees as per Section 25F of the Act. This
letter does not show whether it was the Chairman who
approved the termination of the services of the
employees. The approval given by the Chairman for
termination of the services of the employees has not
been brought on record. It is not clear whether the Spl.
Secretary was competent to order the termination of the
employees. Thus it cannot be said that 'retrenchment'
has been ordered by the Competent Authority, and
being so, the termination order dt. 13.10.2005 (Annexure
R-15) on the basis of letter dated 10.10.2005 (Annexure
R-13) cannot be termed as legal and valid.
It has been specifically ordered vide letter dated
13.10.2005 to fulfill the requirement of section 25F of the
Act meaning thereby, that the employee was 'retrenched'.
'Retrenchment' is defined under section 2(oo) of the Act
which read as under:—
"retrenchment means the termination by the employer
of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever,
otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of
disciplinary action, but does not include—
(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of
superannuation if the contract of employment
between the employer and the workman
concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf;
or
(bb)
2termination of the service of the workman as a
result of the non-renewal of the contract of
employment between the employer and the
workman concerned on its expiry or of such
contract being terminated under a stipulation in
that behalf contained therein; or]
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the
ground of continued ill-health;]
The perusal of the provisions shows that the services
of the workman can be terminated for any reasons
whatsoever meaning thereby that the employer has to give
the reasons for retrenching the employees in every case
covered under the said clause.
Neither the Spl. Secy., nor the RE, DPH(PW), Slapper
had given any reasons for retrenching the workman i.e.
whether the workman was retrenched on account of
completion of works/financial constraints/organization of
labour/some regular appointee joined, etc.
Thus the services of the workman were terminated
without any reasons and that too the order for the same
was not passed by the Competent Authority; and as such,
the 'retrenchment' is bad in law and termination of services
of the workman on 14.10.2005 is illegal and unjustified.
The next question is whether the workman is to be
reinstated in service and, if not, be paid compensation.
The workman was initially appointed for 89 days. It is
not the case of the respondent-management that his
appointment was illegal and rather pleaded that he was
appointed as per policy issued by the Board vide their
letters dated 24.8.1990 and 21.3.1990 (Annexure R1 and
R2). The relevant portion of letter dated 24.8.1990 (Annexure
R1) read as follow:—
"The Chief Engineers, the FA&CAO and the Secretary
are hereby authorized to give employment on
compassionate grounds to a member each of family of
the deceased State Government/Electricity Boards
allocated employees (who dies while working in BBMB)
for only one spell of 89 days on 'contract basis' against
the existing regular vacant posts/vacancies".
The relevant portion of letter dated 21.3.1991 (Annexure-
R2) read as follows:—
"In case regular employment to such dependants is not
given by the State Govts/Elecy. Boards within the first
spell of 89 days, subsequent employment for 2nd and
3rd spells of 89 days each may also be given by the
Chief Engineers, the FA&CAO and the Secretary".
The workman was to be given three spells of service on
compassionate grounds but he was given extension in
service from time to time and allowed to complete two years
of service. The workman specifically pleaded in the
statement of claim that he joined the service on 9.7.2003
and continuously remained in service for two years. This
fact is not controverted by the management in written reply.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3833
When the workman continuously worked for one year,
the protection of Section 25F of the Act became available
to him, and giving extensions, as per the policy laid down
vide above said letter is only a surplusage. Similarly by
mentioning the words on "Contract Basis" in appointment
letter, also loose its importance. It seems that the
management was aware of this and on that account, the
services of the workman were ordered to be 'retrenched',
and retrenchment is illegal as discussed earlier.
Since the workman was appointed legally as discussed,
and his retrenchment is illegal, he is to be reinstated in
service.
It is not the case of the workman that he remained without
work after the termination of his services nor any cogent
evidence has been led to that effect in this respect but
considering the totality of the facts, he is to be awarded
25% of the back wages.
In result, the reference is answered, holding that the
action of the management in terminating the services of
the workman w.e.f. 14.01.2005 is íllegal and unjust' and
workman is to be reinstated in service on the same terms
and conditions on which he worked. The management shall
reinstate him in service within one month, and pay arrears
of back wages within two months of the publication of the
award. The management is at liberty to recover the amount
so paid from the officers who are responsible for passing
an illegal order, as per law.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dkñ vkñ 1846-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chch,ech ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1309@2007½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@09@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&23012@1@2007&vkbZñvkjñ ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2015
S.O. 1846.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 1309/2007 of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of BBMB, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 10/09/
2015.
[No. L-23012/1/2007-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Shri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 1309/2007
Registered on 4.7.2007
Sh. Satish Kumar, S/o Sh. Shiv Kumar, Vill. Dohnal, P.O.
Daroli, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, Ropar.
Petitioner
Versus
1. The Special Secretary, Bhakra Beas Management
Board, Sector 19-B, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
2. The Chief Engineer/Generation, Bhakra Beas
Management Board (Power Wing), Nangal Township.
3. The Financial Advisor & Chief Accountant Officer
Bhakra Beas Management Board, Nangal Township.
Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the workman
Sh. Manjit Dhiman, Adv.
For the Management
Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 30.7.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-23012/1/
2007-IR(CM-II) Dated 26.06.2007, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 Sub-Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-
Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of BBMB in
terminating the services of Sh. Satish Kumar w.e.f.
14.10.2005 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is
the workman entitled?"
The facts, in brief, are that Sh. Shiv Kumar, father of the
workman was a permanent employee of Punjab State
Electricity Board and was allocated to Bhakra Beas
Management Board. Sh. Shiv Kumar expired on 1.4.2001
while in service. The workman, being son of Sh. Shiv Kumar,
applied for appointment on compassionate grounds with
the Board, and he was appointed as Steno Typist by the
Chief Engineer, Nangal, vide letter dated 20.6.2001
(Annexure 1), in the pay scale of 3480-6500.
The workman joined the service on 5.7.2001 on regular
vacant post for 89 days and thereafter he continued in
service for four years. It is pleaded that FA & CAO
terminated his services, by issuing termination letter dated
14.10.2005 (Annexure R14) on the basis of letter dated
10.10.2005(Annexure-R13) issued by the Special Secretary
3834
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman has continuously remained in service with the
Board.
Now the question is whether the services of such a
person who remained in continuous service for 4 years,
though was given extensions for 89 days, can be
'retrenched'. The relevant portion of termination of letter
dated 14.10.2005 (Annexure-R-14) are as follow:—
"(1) You were oppointed on purely temporary (89 days)
basis as Steno Typist vide Chief Engineer/Generation
letter No. CEG/PEN-32/5468-69 dated 20.6.2001.
(2)
In view of Special Secretary, BBMB, Chandigarh letter
No. 8648-52/R&R/329/R-2/L-37/L dated 10.10.2005
your services are terminated w.e.f. 14.10.2005 (AN)
under Section 25F of I.D. Act.
(3)
A bank draft of Rs. 34852-00 bearing No. 306113 dated
13.10.2005 on account of following dues as admissible
under I.D. Act is enclosed.
(I) One month pay in lieu of one month notice pay
Rs. 7037-00 and pay dues for the period from
26.8.2005 to 14.10.2005 Rs. 11576-00.
(II) Compensation equivalent of 15 days wages for
each completed year of service Rs. 17239-00."
Thus, this letter was issued on the basis of letter dt.
10.10.2005 of Spl. Secy, BBMB. The relevant portion of the
letter dt. 10.10.2005 (Annexure-R13) read as under:–
1. "Approval of Chairman, BBMB is hereby
conveyed for giving extension in service to the
dependents of the deceased PSEB employees (11
Nos. as per list enclosed) upto 15.10.2005,
notwithstanding the dates on which their previous
spells have expired.
2. The services of above employees shall be
terminated by the respective Head of Deptt. by
fulfilling the requirement of section 25F of ID Act.
By giving each of them retrenchemnt
compensation (which shall be equivalent to 15
days average pay for every completed year of
continuous service or any part thereof in excess
of six months) and one month's wages in lieu of
notice."
This letter shows that the Chairman of the Board has
given approval for extension in service to the dependants
of the deceased PSEB employees upto 15.10.2005 but in
the 2nd para, the Spl. Secy, BBMB ordered to terminate the
services of the employees as per section 25F of the Act.
This letter does not show whether it was the Chairman
who approved the termination of the services of the
employees, as the approval given by the Chairman for
termination of the services of the employees has not been
brought on record. It is not clear whether the Spl. Secretary
was competent to order the termination of employees. Thus
of the Board. That the termination of the services is illegal
as the services of the workmen similarly placed were
regularized and no reason has been given for terminating
his services. There is also violation of Section 25G and
Section 25N of the Act. It was prayed that he be reinstated
in service with all the benefits.
Respondent management file written statement pleading
that the workman was not appointed on compassionate
grounds but was given appointment for 89 days on
temporary basis as per guidelines issued by the Board,
vide letter dated 24.8.1990 and 21.3.1991 (Annexure R3 and
R4). It is further pleaded that the condition for giving
employment on compassionate grounds to family members
of the Board's own recruited employees, and of other
departments is a different and the applications of persons
belonging to other departments/Electricity Departments
are sent to the parent department/Electricity board for
giving employment on compassionate grounds. The case
of the workman was taken up with the Punjab State
Electricity Board vide different letters and in the meantime
he was given extension in service. Now the Electricity Board
has informed that a sum of Rs. 3 lac is being given as
solatium in lieu of compassionate appointment vide its
policy dated 23.11.2004. Since the workman was employed
on contract basis for 89 days, his services were ordered to
be terminated along with others in view of the letter dated
10.10.2005 (Annexure R13) issued by the Special Secretary
of the Board and the termination order dated 14.10.2005
(Annexure R14) is legal and valid.
Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.
In support of his case, the workman appeared in the
Witness Box and filed an affidavit supporting his case as
set out in the claim statement.
On the other hand, respondent management has
examined Sh. Shashi Paul Rana, Accounts Officer, BBMB,
who filed his affidavit reiterating the case of the
management.
Both the counsels carried me through the different letters
issued by the Board and argued at length in favour of/
against regular appointment to the dependants of the
employees who died while serving with the Board. But this
Court need not consider whether the workman was entitled
for getting regular service with the Board or not. As per the
Terms of Reference, it is only do determine whether
termination of the workman w.e.f. 14.10.2005 is legal and
justified.
The contents of the appointment letter dt. 20.3.2001
(Annexure-I) shows that offer was given to the workman
for the post of Steno-Typist on contract basis for 89 days.
Thereafter, he was continuously given extension and as
per his case as set out in para 4 of the claim statement, he
continuously remained in the service upto 14.10.2005 which
is not controverted in the written statement. Thus, the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3835
it cannot be said that 'retrenchment' has been ordered by
the Competent Authority, and being so, the termination
order dt. 14.10.2005 (Annexure R-14) on the basis of letter
dated 10.10.2005 (Annexure R-13) cannot be termed as legal
and valid.
Since it has been specifically ordered to fulfill the
provisions of section 25 F of the Act meaning thereby, the
employees were 'retrenched'. Retrenchment' is defined
under section 2(oo) of the Act which read as under:—
"retrenchment means the termination by the employer
of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever,
otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of
disciplinary action, but dues not include—
(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of
superannation if the contract of employment
between the employer and the workman
concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf;
or
(bb)
2termination of the service of the workman as a
result of the non-renewal of the contract of
employment between the employer and the
workman concerned on its expiry or of such
contract being terminated under a stipulation in
that behalf contained therein; or [(c) termination
of the service of a workman on the ground of
continued ill-health;]
The perusal of the provisions shows that the services
of the workman can be terminated for any reasons
whatsoever meaning thereby that the employer has to give
the reasons for retrenching the employees in every case
covered vide the said clause.
Neither the Spl. Secy., nor the Financial Advisor & Chief
Accountant Office Bhakra Beas Management Board, Nangal
Township, given any reasons for retrenching the workman
i.e. whether the workman was 'retrenched' on account of
completion of work/Financial Constraints/Organization of
Labour/or some regular employee joined etc.
Thus the service of the workman were terminated
without any reasons and that too the order for the same
was not passed by the Competent Authority; and as such,
the 'retrenchment' is bad in law and termination of services
of the workman on14.10.05 is illegal and unjustified.
The next question is whether the workman is to be
reinstated in service and, if not, be paid compensation.
The workman was initially appointed for 89 days. It is
not the case of the respondent-mangement that his
appointment was illegal and rather pleaded that he was
appointed as per policy issued by the Board vide their
letters dated 24.8.1990 and 21.3.1990 (Annexure R3 and
R4). The relevant portion of letter dated 24.8.1990
((Annexure R3) read as follow:—
"The Chief Engineers, the FA&CAO and the Secretary
are hereby authorized to give employment on
compassionate grounds to a member each of family
of the deceased State Government/Electricity Boards
allocated employees (who dies while working in
BBMB) for only one spell of 89 days on 'contract
basis' against the existing regular vacant posts/
vacancies".
The relevant portion of letter dated 21.3.1991 (Annexure-
R4) read as follow:—
"In case regular employment to such dependants is not
given by the State Govt/Elecy. Boards within the
first spell of 89 days, subsequent employment for
2nd and 3rd spells of 89 days each may also be given
by the Chief Engineers, the FA&CAO and the
Secretary".
The workman was to be given three spells of service on
compassionate grounds but he was given extension in
service from time to time and allowed to complete four
years of service. The workman specifically pleaded in the
statement of claim that he joined the service on 5.7.2001
and continuously remained in service for four years. This
fact is not controverted by the management in written reply.
When the workman continuously worked for one year,
the protection of Section 25F of the Act became available
to him, and giving extensions, as per the policy laid down
vide above said letter is only a surplusage. Similarly by
mentioning the words on "Contract Basis" in appointment
letter, also loose its importance. It seems that the
management was aware of this and on that account, the
services of the workman were ordered to be 'retrenched',
and retrenchment is illegal as discussed earlier.
Since the workman was appointed legally as discussed,
and his retrenchment is illegal, he is to be reinstated in
service.
It is not the case of the workman that he remained without
work after the termination of his services nor any cogent
evidence has been led to that effect in this respect but
considering the totality of the facts, he is to be awarded
25% of the back wages.
In result, the reference is answered, holding that the
action of the management in terminating the services of
the workman w.e.f. 14.10.2005 is 'illegal and unjust' and
workman is to be reinstated in service on the same terms
and conditions on which he worked. The management shall
reinstate him in service within one month, and pay arrears
of back wages within two months of the publication of the
award. The management is at liberty to recover the amount
so paid from the officers who are responsible for passing
an illegal order, as per law.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
3836
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1847-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chch,ech ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uñ 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1323@2007½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&23012@2@2007&vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2015
S.O. 1847.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 1323/2007 of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of BBMB, Bhakra Beas Management
Board, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 10/09/2015.
[No. L-23012/2/2007-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Shri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No. 1323/2007
Registered on 16.7.2007
Ms. Archana Rishi, D/o Late Sh. Chander Mohan Rishi,
H.No. 30W, Dobetta Colony, Nangal Township, Ropar.
...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Chief Engineer, (Genration), BBMB, Power Wing,
Nangal Township.
2. Sr. Accounts Officer, Bhakra Beas Management
Board, Nangal Township.
...Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the workman
Sh. Manjit Dhiman, Adv.
For the Management
Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 30.7.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-23012/2/
2007-IR(CM-II) Dated 5.7.2007, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub Section
(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of BBMB in
terminating the services of Ms. Archana Rishi w.e.f.
14.10.2005 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is
she entitled?"
The facts, in brief, are that Sh. Chander Mohan Rishi,
father of the workman was a permanent employee of the
Punjab State Electricity Board and was working as a Senior
Assistant. He was allocated to Bhakra Beas Management
Board. Sh. Chander Mohan Rishi died on 17.5.2002 while in
service of the Board. The workman applied for appointment
on compassionate grounds with the Board. She was
appointed as Upper Division Clerk by the Financial Advisor
and Chief Accounts Officer, BBMB, Nangal Township vide
letter dated 18.9.2002 (Annexure 1), in the pay scale of
Rs. 4600-7250/-.
The workman joined the services on 18.9.2002 on regular
vacant post for 89 days and she continued till 14.10.2005.
Her services were terminated by FA & CAO vide letter
dated 14.10.2005 (Annexure 14), on the basis of letter dated
10.10.2005 (Annexure- 13) issued by the Special Secretary
of the Board.
It is pleaded that the termination of her services is illegal
as the services of the workmen similarly placed were
regularized and no reason has been given for terminating
her services. There is also violation of Section 25G and
Section 25N of the Act. It was pleaded that she be reinstated
in service with all the benefits.
Respondent management filed written statement
pleading that the workman was not appointed on
compassionate grounds but was given appointment for 89
days on temporary basis as per guidelines issued by the
Board, vide letter dated 24.8.1990 and 21.3.1991 (Annexure
R3 and R4). It is further pleaded that the conditions for
giving employment on compassionate grounds to family
members of the Board's own recruited employees, and of
other department/Electricity Boards is a different and the
applications of persons belonging to other department/
Electricity Departments are sent to the parent department/
electricity board for giving employment on compassionate
grounds. The case of the workman was taken up with the
Punjab State Electricity Board vide different letters and in
the meantime she was given extension in service. Now the
Electricity Board has informed that a sum of Rs. 3 lac is
being given as solatium in lieu compassionate appointment
vide its policy dated 23.11.2004.
Since the workman was employed on contract basis for
89 days, her services were ordered to be terminated along
with others in view of the letter dated 10.10.2005 (Annexure
R13) issued by the Special Secretary of the Board and the
termination order dated 14.10.2005 (Annexure R14 ( is legal
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3837
and valid.
Parties were given opportunities to lead evidence.
In support of her case, the workman, Mrs. Archana Rishi
appeared in the witness box and filed here affidavit
reiterating here case as set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand, respondent management has
examined Sh. Shashi Paul Rana, Accounts Officer, BBMB,
who filed his affidavit reiterating the case of the
management.
Both the counsels carried me through the different letters
issued by the Board and advanced lengthy arguments in
favour/against regular appointment of the dependents of
the employees who died while in service with the Board.
But this Court is not to consider whether and workman
was entitled for getting regular service with the Board or
not. As per term of reference, it is only to determine whether
termination of the workman w.e.f. 14.10.2005 is legal and
justified.
The contents of the appointment letter dated 18.9.2002
(Annexure R2) shows that the offer was given to the
workman for the post of Upper Division Clerk on contract
basis for 89 days. Thereafter, she was continuosly given
extension and as per the averments in Para 4 of the claim
statement, she continously worked upto 14.10.2005 which
is not controverted in the written statement. Thus, the
workman continuosly remained in service with the Board
from 18.9.2002 to 14.10.2005.
There is nothing on the file that there was any break in
service and the letters/documents placed on the file shows
that extension was given prior to the expiry of the previous
periods. Thus the workman continuously remained in
service from 18.9.2002 to 14.10.2005
Now the question is whether the service of such a
person who continued in service for more than 3 years, can
be retrenched. The relevant portion for the termination of
letter dated 14.10.2005 (Annexure R14) read as folow:—
"(1) You were appointed on purely temporary (89 days)
basis as UDC vide this office letter No. 3556 dated
18.9.2002.
(2) In view of Special Secretary, BBMB, Chandigarh
letter No. 8648-52/R&R/329/Rs-2/L-37/L dated
10.10.2005 your services are terminated w.e.f.
14.10.2005 (AN) under Section 25 of I.D. Act.
(3) A bank draft of Rs. 41309-00 bearing No. 306111
dated 13.10.2005 on account of following dues as
admissible under I.D. Act is enclosed.
(1) One month pay in lieu of one month notice pay
Rs. 9170-00 and pay dues for the period from
22.8.2005 to 14.10.2005 Rs. 162680-00
(II) Compensation equivalent of 15 days wages for
each completed year of service Rs. 15871-00."
Thus this letter was issued on the basis of letter dated
10.10.2005 (Annexure R13) of Sepecial Secretary to the Board
and its relevant portion read as follow:—
1.
"Approval of Chairman, BBMB is hereby conveyed
for giving extension in service to the dependents
of the deceased PSEB employees (11 Nos. as per
list enclosed) upto 15.10.2005, notwithstanding the
dated on which their previous spells have expired.
2
The services of above employees shall be
terminated by the respective Head of Deptt. by
fulfilling the requirement of section 25F of ID Act.
By giving each of them retrenchment compensation
(which shall equivalent to 15 days average pay for
every completed year of continous service or any
part thereof in excess of six months) and one months
wages in lieu of notice."
The perusal of the letter dated 13.10.2005 shows that
the Chairman of the Board has given approval for extension
in service to the dependants of the deceased PSEB
employees upto 15.10.2005 but in the 2nd para, the Spl.
Secy, BBMB ordered to terminate the services of the
employees as per Section 25F of the Act. This letter does
not show whether it was the Chairman who approved the
termination of the services of the employees. The approval
given by the Chairman for termination of the services of
the employees has not been brought on record. It is not
clear whether the Spl. Secretary was competent to order
the termination of the employees. Thus it cannot be said
that 'retrenchment' has been ordered by the Competent
Authority, and being so, the termination order dt. 13.10.2005
(Annexure R-15) on the basis of letter dated 10.10.2005
(Annexure R-13) cannot be termed as legal and valid.
It has been specifically ordered vide letter dated
13.10.2005 to fulfill the requirement of section 25F of the
Act meaning thereby, that the employee was 'retrenched'.
'Retrenchement' is defined under section 2(oo) of the
Act which read as under :—
"retrenchment means the termination by the employer
of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever,
otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of
disciplinary action, but does not include—
(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of
superannuation if the contract of employment
between the employer and the workman
concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf;
or
(bb)
2termination of the service of the workman as a
result of the non-renewal of the contract of
employment between the employer and the
3838
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman concerned on its expiry or of such
contract being terminated under a stipulation in
that behalf contained therein; or (c) termination
of the the service of a workman on the ground of
continued ill-health;’’
The persual of the provisions shows that the services
of the workman can be terminated for any reasons
whatsoever meaning thereby that the employer has to give
the reasons for retrenching the employees in every case
covered under the said clause.
Neither the Spl. Secy., nor the FA&CAO, Nangal
Township, had given any reasons for retrenching the
workman i.e. whether the workman was retrenched on
account of completion of works/financial constraints/
organization of labour/some regular appointee joined,
etc.
Thus the services of the workman were terminated
without any reasons and that too the order for the same
was not passed by the Competent Authority; and as such,
the 'retrenchment' is bad in law and termination of services
of the workman on 14.10.05 is illegal and unjustified.
The next question is whether the workman is to be
reinstated in service and, if not, be paid compensation.
The workman was initially appointed for 89 days. It is
not the case of the respondent-management that his
appointment was illegal and rather pleaded that she was
appointed as per policy issued by the Board vide their
letters dated 24.8.1990 and 21.3.1990 (Annexure R3 and
R4). The relevant portion of letter dated 24.8.1990 (Annexure
R3) read as follow:—
"The Chief Engineers, the FA&CAO and the Secretary
are hereby authorized to give employment on
compassionate grounds to a member each of family of
the deceased State Government/Electricity Boards
allocated employees (who dies while working in BBMB)
for only one spell of 89 days on 'contract basis' against
the existing regular vacant posts/vacancies".
The relevant portion of letter dated 21.3.1991 (Annexure-
R4) read as follow:—
"In case regular employment to such dependants is not
given by the State Govts/Elecy. Boards within the first
spell of 89 days, subsequent employment for 2nd and
3rd Spell of 89 days each may also be given by the Chief
Engineers, the FA&CAO and the Secretary".
The workman was to be given three spells of service on
compassionate grounds but she was given extension in
service from time to time and allowed to complete more
than three years of service. The workman specifically
pleaded in the statement of claim that she joined the serivce
on 18.9.2002 and continuously remained in service for three
years. This fact is not controverted by the management in
written reply.
When the workman continuously worked for one year,
the protection of section 25F of the Act became available
to her, and giving extensions, as per the policy laid down
vide above said letter is only a surplusage. Similarly by
mentioning the words on 'Contract Basis' in appointment
letter, also loose its importance. It seems that the
management was aware of this and on that account, the
services of the workman were ordered to be 'retrenched',
and retrenchment is illegal as discussed earlier.
Since the workman was appointed legally as discussed,
and his retrenchment is illegal, she is to be reinstated in
service.
It is not the case of the workman that she remained
without work after the termination of her services nor any
cogent evidence has been led to that effect in this respect
but considering the totality of the facts, she is to be
awarded 25% of the back wages.
In result, the reference is answered, holding that the
action of the management in terminating the services of
the workman w.e.f. 14.01.2005 is 'illegal and unjust' and
workman is to be reinstated in service on the same terms
and conditions on which she worked. The management
shall reinstate her in service within one month, and pay
arrears of back wages within two months of the publication
of the award. The management is at liberty to recover the
amoung so paid from the officers who are responsible for
passing an illegal order, as per law.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1848-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds izcaèra=
ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè eas fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 27@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@09@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@258@2003&vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2015
S.O. 1848.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/2004) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Kalidaspur Project, M/S Eastern Coalfields
Limited and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 15.09.2015.
[No. L-22012/258/2003-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3839
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT: Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE No. 27 OF 2004
PARTIES: The management of Kalidaspur Project of
M/s. ECL
Vs.
Sri Bihari Bhuian
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management
: Shri P.K. Goswami, Ltd. Adv.
(ECL)
For the union (Workman)
: Shri
Rakesh
Kumar,
President (KMC)
INDUSTRY : COAL
STATE : WEST BENGAL
Dated: 14.08.2015
AWARD
In exercise of power conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/
258/2003-IR(CM-II) dated 18.05.2004 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Kalidaspur
Project of M/S. ECL in dismissing Shri Bihari Bhuian,
Trammer from service w.e.f. 17/27.01.2000 is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
to?"
Having received the Order No. L-22012/258/2003-IR
(CM-II) dated 18.05.2004 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 27 of
2004 was registered on 21.06.2004 and accordingly an order
to that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of
witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the
said order notices by the registered post were sent to the
parties concerned.
Case called out. Shri Rakesh Kumar, President of the
union (Koyla Mazdoor Congress) appears on behalf of the
workman and Sri P.K. Goswami, Learned Advocate appears
on behalf of the management (ECL).
Sri Rakesh Kumar submits that the case may be closed
and a "No Dispute Award may’’ be passed as the workman
has already joined in service through amicable settlement.
Since the workman has already joined in service, no dispute
exists between the parties. As such the case is closed and
accordingly a 'No. Dispute Award' may be passed.
ORDER
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute
existing. Send to copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.
The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1849-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds
izcaèra= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k
tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 146@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@09@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yµ 12012@551@98&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2015
S.O. 1849.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 146/99) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of State Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 11/09/2015.
[No. L-12012/551/98-IR (B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/146/99
Shri Govindsingh Goyal,
S/o Shri Khemaji Goyal,
Nr. Girls High School,
Nehru Marg,
Jhabua (MP)
...Workman
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Region-V, Zonal Office,
Hamidia Road,
Bhopal (MP)
...Management
3840
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Passed on the 10th day of August, 2015
As per letter dated 30-3-99 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/
551/98-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Asstt. General
Manager, State Bank of India in terminating the services of
Shri Govind Singh Goyal w.e.f. 8-7-97 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 2/2
to 2/3. Case of Ist party workman is that he was working
with 2nd party from 1983 to 1998. For some period, he was
working as canteen boy. He was required to work for 8-10
hours. In 1989, he was paid Rs. 50/- per day. His wages
were increased to Rs. 20,30,34,40 per day. From 5-12-95, he
was appointed as temporary messenger. The certificate of
working was issued for the period 17-4-96 to 13-4-99. From
28-2-98, his services were discontinued. During the period
1982 to 1989, he was paid Rs. 250/- per month for his work
as messenger. From 1990 to 1996, he was paid Rs. 500 per
month. His services were terminated. He raised dispute
before RLC, Bhopal.
3. 2nd party filed written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/6
opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party contends that
workman was employed on daily wages as messenger on
contract basis at Jhabua branch. In 1983, he worked for
3 days, in 1984-for 94 days and in 1986-4days-total 101
days. From April 96 to Dec.-96-216 days, during Jan-97 to
Dec-97-227 days and during Jan to Feb 98-54 days.
Workman was appointed on daily wages till regular
appointment of messenger. The engagement of workman
was on contract basis as per exigencies. He was not required
to report to work on next day. Workman had not completed
240 days continuous service during any calendar year. His
discontinuation is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID
Act. Workman is not entitled to retrenchment compensation
under Section 25-F of ID Act. as he was never in employment
of the Bank, his services were contractual. He has not
worked for 240 days. He is not covered as workman under
Section 25-B of ID Act. Bank has fixed rules for selection of
candidates. Workman was selected following recruitment
process. As per provisions of various agreements dated
17-11-87, 16-7-88, 27-20-88, 91-91, 30-6-96. Worman was
called for interview but he was not found fit for considering
his seniority by the Committee. It is reiterated that
discontinuation of workman is covered under Section
2(oo)(bb) of ID Act. Workman not completed 240 days
continuous service is not entitled to retrenchment
compensation.
4. Workman filed rejoinder at page 9/1 to 9/4 reiterating
his contentions in statement of claim. Workman his admitted
working days shown in Para-1 of the Written Statement.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of Asstt.
General Manager, State
Bank of India in terminating
the services of Shri Govind
Sing Goyal w.e.f. 8-7-97 is
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman
As per final order.
is entitled to?"
REASONS
6. Workman is challenging termination of his service for
violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. 2nd party contends
that workman was engaged on daily wages. He not
completed 240 days continuous service during any of the
year. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting
his contentions in statement of claim. That workman worked
in 1983, he worked for 3 days, in 1984-for 94 days and in
1986-4 days-total 101 days. He was working as canteen
boy. During 17-4-96 to 30-4-96, he was appointed as
messenger. In January-February 1998, he worked for 54
days. His services were terminated without notice. Junior
employees were continued. He was called for interview on
22-9-89. One Gopal appointed in 1984 is continued in
service. In his cross-examination workman says he was
working in the branch from 1983. He did not recollect the
date. He submitted application, its copy is not produced.
Appointment letter was not issued to him in 1989. He denies
that he failed in the interview therefore he was not given
appointment. Gopal is still working with the Bank. Even
after his interview in 1989, he was working in the Bank till
February 1998. He was paid daily wages.
7.
Management's witness Rita Shukla filed affidavit
of her evidence narrating working days of workman in Para-
2,3 of affidavit. Workman worked for 216 days during April
to December 98,227 days during January 97 to December
97. Management's witness in her cross-examination says
her affidavit is filed as per record. She claims ignorance
about documents produced by workman. The copy of
settlement produced by workman is admitted and marked
Exhibit W-1. That she had not verified the certificate
produced by workman. She claims ignorance about payment
of bonus to workman. She claims ignorance about payment
of retrenchment compensation or issue notice of termination
to workman. Management's witness claims ignorance
whether payment was paid to workman from petty cash
and the register of paid cash was maintained.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3841
Management's witness admitted letter issued by Branch
Manager it is market Exhibit W-1. In Exhibit W-2, working
days are shown from April 96 to February 1998. If working
days of workman are considered from February 98 to March
97 12 preceding months of termination of workman, the
working days comes 278. Thus workman was continuously
working more than 240 days preceding 12 months of his
termination. His services are terminated without notice, no
retrenchment compensation is paid to the workman
therefore termination of workman is illegal for violation of
Section 25-F of ID Act.
8. Claim of workman w.r.t. regularization in 1989 is not
covered in terms of reference and therefore claim of
workman on that ground cannot be considered. That
workman is illegal for violation of section 5-F of ID Act.
Therefore I record Point No. 1 in Negative.
9. Point No. 2-Workman in his cross-examination
admitted he was working on daily wages. In Exhibit W-2,
his working days during 1983 to 1985 were 101 days.
Thereafter workman was again engaged in April 96 to Feb-
98 for about 2 years. As workman was engaaged on daily
wages, reinstated with back wages would not be
approprirate. In my considered view, compensation
Rs. 60,000/- would be reasonable. 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 Asstt. General
Manager, State Bank of India in terminating the
services of Shri Govind Singh Goyal w.e.f. 8-7-97
is not legal.
(2) 2nd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 60,000/- to the workman. Amount as per above
order shall be paid to workman within 30 days
from the date of notification of award. In case of
default, amount shall carry 9% interest per annum
from the date of award till its realization.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1850-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 dh vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V Je U;k;ky;] vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ lañ ¼181@00½ izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-09-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@219@2000&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2015
S.O. 1850.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 181/00) of the Central
Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of State Bank of India and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
11-09-2015.
[No. L-12012/219/2000-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/181/00
General Secretary,
Daily Wages Bank Employees Association,
Hardev Niwas, 9,
Sanwer Road, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager (Operations),
State Bank of India,
Head Office, 5,
Yeshwant Niwas Road,
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 10th day of August, 2015
As per letter dated 16-10-2000 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-12012/
219/2000/IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of Indore in terminating the services of Shri Rajkumar
Bansiwal w.e.f. 7-7-99 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
on daily wages as sweeper from 16-3-96 in Freeganj branch
Ujjain of 2nd party. He was working with honesty under
different branch managers. He was paid six day wages in a
week by voucher. He completed more than 240 days
continuous service. On his claim for bonus, his services
were terminated without notice on 7-7-99. He raised dispute
before ALC. It is reiterated that workman completed more
than 240 days continuous service. His services are
terminated without notice, retrenchement compensation is
not paid. His termination is in violation of Selection 25-F of
ID Act. Principles of last come 1st go was not followed. His
termination is in violation of section 25 of I.D Act. After
termination of his service, other persons were engaged on
daily wages are still continued. Workman was not re-
employed. His termination is in violation of section 25-H of
ID Act. On such ground, workman prays for reinstatement
with back wages.
3842
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at page 6/1 to 6/12
opposing claim of the workman. Preliminary objection is
raised that Ist party workman was not appointed by 2nd
party. He has not completed 240 days continuous service.
Ist party is not covered as workman under Section 2(s) of
ID Act. The reference is not tenable. Employer employee
relationship is denied. 2nd party submits that it is registered
under State Bank of India Act, 1959. The servcies of its
employees recovered by the rules. If candidates are
selected after calling for interview, workman was not
appointed after following recruitment process. Engagement
of workman was on daily wages as per exigencies. His
discontinuation is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID
Act and does not amount to retrenchement. 2nd party in
additional pleading submits that daily wages casual workers
have no right for absorption/regularization in service
quoting ratio held in various cases. 2nd party submits that
reference be answered against workman.
4. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/2 reiterating
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
In Affirmative
management of State Bank
of Indore in terminating the
services of Shri Rajkumar
Bansiwal w.e.f. 7-7-99 is
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not entitled
workman is entitled to?"
to any relief.
REASONS
6. Workman has challenged termination of his service
for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. He filed affidavit of
his evidence. However he failed to appear for cross-
examination therefore his evidence cannot be considered.
7. Management filed affidavit of witness Subhash Aheer
supporting contentions of 2nd party that workman was
engaged for cleaning, sweeping work one hour morning,
one hour evening as per exigencies. Workman was paid
wages for the working days as agreed. Workman was not
continuously working, his name was not sponsored
through Employment Exchange. Workman was not
appointed following recruitment process. In his cross-
examination management's witness says he was working
in the branch during relevant period. He had seen statement
of claim filed by workman but did not see the documents
produced. Any document are not produced by him in
support of his affidavit. Looking to the correspondence in
file, his affidavit was prepared. Those documents are not
produced. How workman was paid wages was not written
in the file. For how many days wages was paid was also
not written in the file. Appointment letter was not given to
the workman. Management's witness did not admit copies
of vouchers shown to him. Witness of management admits
retrenchment notice was not issued to workman,
retrenchment compensation was not paid to him.
application for production of document was submitted by
workman. However any order on the application was not
passed. It appears that the application was not pressed.
Workman has failed to establish he was continuously
working more than 240 days preceding 12 months of his
termination.
8. On the point, counsel for 2nd party Shri Praveen
Chaturvedi relies on ratio held on ratio held in
Case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd and Mansingh
reported in 2012 (132) FLR 500. Their Lordship of the
apex court held daily wages does not hold any post
and not permanent employee. The order passed by
Labour Court was set aside and compensation Rs. 2
lakh was allowed.
In present case, termination of workman in violation of
Section 25-F of ID Act is not established. Therefore action
of 2nd party cannot be said illegal. Therefore I record my
finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management of State Bank of
Indore in terminating the services of Shri Rajkumar
Bansiwal w.e.f. 7-7-99 is proper.
(2) Ist party workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1851-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼178@03½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@148@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2015
S.O. 1851.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 178/03) of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of State Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 11/09/2015.
[No. L-12012/148/2003-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3843
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/178/03
General Secretary,
Nationalised Bank Karmchari Sangathan,
Hardev Niwas, 9, Sanwer Road,
Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager (Operations),
State Bank of India,
Head Office, 5, Yeshwant Niwas Road,
Indore
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 17th day of August, 2015
1. As per letter dated 28-11-03 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-12012/
148/2003-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Dy. General
Manager, State Bank of Indore in not granting promotion
and non-payment of duty allowance after taking the
higher duties in respect of Shri Narendra Shah 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 4/1 to 4/5. The case of Ist party is that he was
appointed as peon in Rajghar (Dhar) branch Indore on
29-8-81. He was working with devotion. In 1983, he was
transferred from Rajghar (Dhar) branch to Jhabua branch.
In 1983, he passed HSc and requested for recording his
higher qualification to the management. From 1983 though
he was posted as peon, work of clerk was extracted from
him. On 12-7-84, he was transferred from Jhabua branch to
Rajgarh branch. On 13-7-84, he joined his duty at Rajgarh.
During 1984 to 1987, he was doing officiating work of clerk.
In 1989, he was promoted as Daftary in Rajgarh branch.
Even after his promotion as Daftary work of officiating
clerk was extracted from him. In 1994, Branch Manager
Mr. Mahajan called him in his cabin and appreciating his
experience said that he should work as Head cashier and
deposit cash security of Rs. 1000 opening account of
Rs. 100/-. Workman deposited said amount of Security on
16-11-94. Amount of security is deposited. Workman is
paid interest on it.
3. Ist party workman further submits that he had taken
over charge of Head cashier and was doing the work of
Head cashier like cash remittance. He was paid TA, DA of
post of Head cashier. He was allowed benefits of post of
clerk/LFC. Workman submits that since 1983 to 1997, work
of officiating clerk, Head cashier was extracted from him.
He was not paid allowance of officiating clerk despite
admitting the working before ALC. Workman further
submits that on 31-5-01, false chargesheet was issued to
him. He was suspended. Workman is claiming allowance
for officiating clerk as per Para-9 of the settlement dated
9-10-1966. As per Para 6.56 of Desai Award, the workman is
claiming officiating allowance from 1983 to 1997.
4. 2nd party submitted Written Statement at Page 6/1 to
6/2 opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party submits that
workman was initially appointed in the post of peon. While
working at Rajgarh, workman was suspended on 1-6-01 for
committing acts of omission. Workman was compulsorily
retired on 14-11-03. At present workman is not employee of
the Bank. Workman is claiming officiating allowance while
working in Jhabua branch in 1982 to 1983, in Rajgarh branch
from 1984 to 1987. 2nd party denied claim of workman
contending that workman was never directed to officiate in
the post of clerk. As per para 9.10 of Bipartite settlement, if
Bank requires employee to officiate in post of higher cadre,
order in writing is required. Workman was not directed to
work as officiating clerk. Vertabim of para 9.11 are
reproduced in Para 5 of the Written Statement. 2nd party
further submits that workman had committed certain
misconduct. After enquiry, punishment of withholding
4 increments was imposed against him as per letter dated
27-2-99. On 14-11-03, workman was compulsorily retired.
Workman had not appeared in exam for promotion as per
promotion policy of the Bank. Claim of workman cannot be
allowed.
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 from the
reasons as below:—
‘‘(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Dy. General
Manager, State Bank of
Indore in not granting
promotion
and
non-
payment of duty allowance
after taking the higher
duties in respect of Shri
Narendra Shah is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief, the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
6. Claim of workman is denial of promotion and non-
payment of officiating allowance. Workman filed affidavit
of his evidence supporting his contentions in statement of
claim that work of officiating clerk was extracted from him.
He was also asked to do work of post of Head cashier.
3844
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
However he was not granted promotion neither he was
paid officiating allowance for the post of clerk. Workman
remained absent. Representative of workman Shri R.
Nagwanshi given in writing that he know that workman
would not appear for his cross-examination therefore his
evidence cannot be considered.
7. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri A.N. Tank
supporting contentions of management. In his cross-
examination, management's witness says that he was not
posted in Rajgarh branch during 1987 to 1997. He has not
seen record about service of workman. Workman was
engaged as peon. Thereafter appointed as Daftary.
Management's witness claims ignorance about working of
Ist party as clerk. He had not seen order directing workman
to work as clerk. He denied copy of statement of Bank
account. The zerox copy of receipt is denied. Management's
witness denied that workman was given charge of Head
cashier. Copy of TA bill shown to him is denied. He claims
ignorance about Account No. C-188 in name of workman.
Workman has failed to appear in cross-examination. His
evidence cannot be considered. From evidence in cross-
examination of management's witness, nothing is extracted
in support of claim of workman. Shri R. Nagwanshi did not
point out any rule supporting claim of promotion of
workman. The claim of workman is not established.
Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Dy. General
Manager, State Bank of Indore in not graning
promotion and non-payment of duty allowance
after taking the higher duties in respect of Shri
Narendra Shah is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1852-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k iwoZ jsyos
ds izcaèra= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼209@99½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@09@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@4@99&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2015
S.O. 1852.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref.209/99) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of South Eastern Railway and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
11/09/2015.
[No. L-41012/4/99-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/209/99
Smt. Premsheela Bai, LR
Late Shri Dudhia,
S/o Shri Angad,
Q.No. 3, Block No. 7,
SE.Rly Colony,
Rasmada Distt. Durg
...Workman
Versus
Divisional Engineer (East),
South Eastern Railway,
Maharashtra, Nagpur,
...Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 20th day of August, 2015
1. As per letter dated 14-5-99 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-41012/
4/99/IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of S.E. Railway,
Nagpur Division in terminating the service of Shri
Dudhia, S/o Shri Angad, Ex-Gate Keeper w.e.f. 31-3-98 is
justfied? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Workman died during pendency. His LRs are
brought on record. Statement of claim is filed by workman
at Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of workman is that he was permanent
employee of SECL posted under Sr. Section Engineer was
served with chargesheet dated 24-12-97 under Rule 3 (c) of
Railway Service Conduct Rule 1966. The charge against
workman was while working as Gate Keeper under Sr. SE(P-
Way), Rajnandgaon is alleged to have committed gross
dereliction of duty. On 19-11-97, at Manned LC Gate No.
120, he failed to close the side booms even though he
exchanged P.E. resulted Train No. 8543 up Samta Express
on main line hitted a load vehicle. The workman submitted
his explanation denying the charges against him. Workman
was not supplied copies of relevant documents for his
defence. Enquiry Officer was appointed without
considering his explanation. The evidence of management's
witnesses was adduced. The delinquent workman was not
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3845
permitted to cross-examine the witnesses after completion
of Enquiry Proceedings, Enquiry Officer submitted his
report to disciplinary. Authority holding him guilty of
charges. Disciplinary Authority accepting report and
findings of Enquiry Officer, imposed punishment of
dismissal against workman. Order of his dismissal is
arbitrary. The enquiry conducted against him is vitiated.
The procedure under Railway Servants Discipline Appeal
rules 1964 was not followed. The punishment is
commensurate with the charges alleged or proved against
him. Workman was not provided details of the charges
against him. Annexure I to IV were not supplied. Material
documents were not supplied to him. List of witness was
not furnished. Workman was not given fair opportunity for
his defence. It is submitted that workman has not committed
any misconduct. The order of his dismissal is illegal as it is
not based on any evidence. The dismissal of workman is
by way of victimisation and unfair labour practice. On such
ground, workman prayed for setting aside order of his
dismissal dated 30-3-98 and his reinstatement with
backwages.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/5
opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party submits that
ALC as well this Tribunal has no jurisdiction with the matter.
The reference pertains to removal of permanent railway
employee falls within jurisdiction of CAT as per Section 19
of Act of 1985. Workman was working as Gate keeper under
Asstt. Engineer, SE Railway at Dongergarh. Chargesheet
was issued to him for major penalty on 19-11-97. Charges
alleged against workman were proved before enquiry
Officer. The report of Enquiry was submitted to Disciplinary
Authority. The documents were served on workman on
21-2-98 were duly acknowledge on 25-2-98. Workman faild
to submit any representation. The disciplinary authority
issued notice dated 30-3-98 for removal. Workman
acknowledged it on 31-3-98. Workman was removed from
service on 31-3-98. Appeal preferred by workman was
dismissed. Workman could have approached CAT in view
of Section 19 of Act of 1985.
4. 2nd party reiterates that workman was supplied
relevant documents. It is denied that workman was not
permitted to cross examine management's witnesses. As
per report of enquiry Officer, charges against workman were
proved and punishment of removal from service was
imposed on 30-3-98. The enquiry was conducted as per
rules of 1968. Considering gravity of charges, punishment
has been imposed is legal.
5. Workman field rejoinder at Page 10/1 to 10/3 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 enquiry
In Negative
conducted against
workman is proper and
legal?
(ii) Whether the charges
In Negative
alleged against workman
are proved from evidence
in enquiry Proceedings?
(iii) Whether the punishment
In Negative
of removal from service
imposed against workman
is proper and legal?
(iv) If not, what relief the
As per final order
workman is entittled to?"
REASONS
7. Workman has pleaded that enquiry was not properly
conducted against him. Documents were not supplied to
him. He was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses of
management. Procedure under rules of 1968 was not
followed. Workman died during pendency of reference, his
widow Premsheela Bai filed affidavit of her evidence stating
that on 19-11-97, her husband had closed the gate. The
tempo driver under intoxication entered in argument that
her husband and the tempo driver opened Railway Gate.
Driver and passengers in the tempo ran away when accident
had occurred. Similar affidavit of Dilip Ingle is filed. Both
the witnesses are not cross-examined.
8. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Prasad
Naik. The management's witness says that enquiry was
conducting giving reasonable opportunity for his defence
to the workman. Punishment of removal was imposed. The
witness of the management also not appeared for cross-
examination. The record of enquiry is not produced. For
non production of enquiry Record by 2nd party, I hold that
the enquiry conducted against workman was not proper
and legal.
9. Point No. 2&3-As record of enquiry is not produced
by 2nd party, in Written Statement, no permission is
requested for proving misconduct alleged against workman.
That the charges alleged against workman are not proved
as record of enquiry is not produced. When charges against
workman are not proved, the punishment of removal from
service of workman cannot be said legal. For above reasons,
I record my finding in Point No. 2,3 in Negative.
10. Point No. 4- In view of my finding in Point No. 2,
charges against workman are not proved, the order of
removal from service of workman cannot be said legal.
Question remains for consideration is whether workman is
entitled for reinstatement with backwages. Workman died
during pendency of reference. As per copy of death
certificate, workman died on 4-2-2000 therefore
3846
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
reinstatement of workman is not possible. As charges are
not proved, removal of workman from service is illegal.
However workman is dead, reinstatement cannot be allowed.
Workman could be allowed monetary benefits or backwages
form date of his termination till his date of death of
superannuation. Accordingly I record my finding in Point
No. 4.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management of S.E. Railway,
Nagpur Division in terminating the service of Shri
Dudhia, S/o Shri Angad, Ex-Gate Keeper w.e.f.
31-3-98 is not proper.
(2) 2nd party is directed to pay wages to the LR of
workman from the date of his removal i.e. 31-3-98
till date of death of workman or age of attaining
superannuation.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In
case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per annum
from the date of award till its realization.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1853-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
izcaè ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vfèdj.k
tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼5@09½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@09@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[ lañ ,y&12011@46@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2015
S.O. 1853.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref.5/09) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of State Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 11/09/2015.
[No. L-12011/46/2008-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/5/09
Regional Secretary,
State Bank of India Staff Congress (INTUC)
34, Premnagar, Madan Mahal,
: Workman/Union
Jabalpur
Versus
Dy. General Manager
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Vijay Nagar,
Jabalpur.
... Management
AWARD
Passed on this 17th day of August 2015
1. As per letter dated 20-1-09 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-12011/46/2008/IR(B-I). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the Deputy General Manager,
State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Vijay Jagar, Jabalpur
(MP) in not considering interest on delay payment of
arrears to Shri S.A. Henry, Sr. Assistant, SBI, SBI
Jawaharganj Branch, Jabalpur is fair, legal and justified?
If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party submitted statement of claim at Page 2/1
to 2/2 through Divisional Secretary, SBI Staff Congress,
Jabalpur. Case of Ist party is that he was working as Head
cashier in despatch section in SBI, Jabalpur from January
90. 4 clerks were provided in despatch section under his
supervisor. Each clerk was allotted different kind of works.
On 28-10-91, workman was advised by Asstt. General
Manager that some work in despatch section was delayed
and Bank had suffered loss of interest. Workman asked its
details but no reply was given. Chargesheet was issued to
workman on 4-4-98 after 7 years. Enquiry was conducted in
2005. Workman was exonerated of charges against him. He
was granted promotion with retrospective effect from
1-4-99 as Sr. Assistant and 1-4-01 as special Assistant.
Workman was paid arrears in May 07. Workman claims
interest at 24-25% per annum on delayed payment
calculated to Rs. 1,43,561/-. Workman also claims he is
entitled for voluntary retirement scheme benefit. Said claim
is beyond the terms of reference.
3. Pleadings in statement of claim are vague w.r.t. the
amount paid to workman in May 2007. On what ground,
said payment was made is also not disclosed in statement
of claim.
4. 2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of
the workman. 2nd party submits that workman has not
submitted full facts in his statement of claim. Workman
was working as Assistant at Ranjhi branch of SBI at
Jabalpur. On 4-4-98, chargesheet was issued to workman.
He was negligent in the bank causing loss to the Bank.
Workman challenged Writ Petition No. 4193/1998 on
ground of delay. Enquiry was stayed. Writ Petition was
dismissed on 13-1-03. Workman challenged said order filing
LPA 92/03 before Hon'ble High Court, order of single bench
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3847
was stayed. LP was dismissed on 1-9-05. Thereafter enquiry
against workman was held. Workman was exonerated on
30-11-05. Ist party was issued chargesheet on 29-11-97, the
charges against workman were proved in the Enquiry
Proceedings. Punishment of withholding two increments
was imposed against workman on 30-3-01. Workman filed
appeal against the order of punishment. The appeal was
rejected. 3rd chargesheet was issued on 11-10-99 after
conducting DE, punishment of reducing pay by two stage
was imposed on 27-3-02. Workman was promoted as
Sr. Assistant from 1-4-97 as per order dated 1-6-06. He was
also promoted as special Assitant from 1-4-01 vide order
dated 3-8-06. However workman was working in different
branches at Ranjhi, OFK. Therefore arrears of salary were
paid on 26-5-07, 30-3-07. The Competent authority had
allowed payment of arrears showing leniency. The payment
was sanctioned on 1-6-06. The delay in payment was caused
due to workman was working in different branches. Claim
of workman for interest 24-25% is not legal. 2nd party prays
for rejection of claim.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the
In Negative
Deputy General Manager,
State Bank of India, Zonal
Office, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur
(MP) in not considering
interest on delay payment
of arrears to Shri S.A. Henry,
Sr. Assistant, SBI, SBI
Jawaharganj
Branch,
Jabalpur is fair, legal and
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
6. Workman is claiming interest at 24-25% on the ground
of arrears and statement of claim is not disclosing what
kind of arrears were paid to him. at the time of argument,
workman tried to explain that arrears paid to him were of
special allowance whereas Written Statement filed by 2nd
party shows that arrears of salary was sanctioned to
workman on 1-6-06. However as workman was working in
different branches, delay was caused in payment of amount
of arrears of salary. As per Written Statement, amount was
paid by Jawahar branch on 14-5-07 by Ranjhi branch and
OFK branch on 26-5-07, 30-3-07.
7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence dated
25-9-2013. Workman says that in disciplinary proceeding,
he was exonerated in 2005. He was given promotion as
Sr. Assistant from 1-4-99, Special Assistnat from 1-4-01 as
per order dated 1-6-06. On pretext of disciplinary
proceedings were pending, after completion of disciplinary
proceedings, he was promoted. The chargesheet issued to
him after 7 years. The allowances were paid w.r.t. 1-4-99
and 1-4-01 every months. He claims interest at rate of over
draft 24-25% Management cannot be blamed for said delay.
Immediately after the writ appeal was dismissed by Hon'ble
High Court, enquiry was completed, workman was
exonerated. The order for payment of arrears of salary was
passed on 1-6-06. The payment should have been made
within reasonable time. However the payment of arrears
was paid on30-3-07, 14-5-07, 26-5-07 by the respective
branches. Therefore workman is entitled to reasonable
interest on amount of arrears paid to workman from above
dates. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.1.
8. Point No.2-In view of my finding in Point No.1 that
workman is entitled to interest on amount of arrears paid to
him, in my considered view 9% interest on said amount
would be appropriate. For above reasons, I record my
finding in Point No. 2.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the Deputy General Manager, State
Bank of India, Zonal Office, Vijay Jagar, Jabalpur
(MP) in not considering interest on delay payment
of arrears to Shri S.A. Henry, Sr. Assistant, SBI,
SBI Jawaharganj Branch, Jabalpur is not proper
and legal.
(2) Workman is entitled to interest 9% per annum on
amount of arrear of salary paid to him on 30-3-07,
14-5-07, 26-5-07 by Jawaharganj branch, Rajgarh
branch and OFK branch from 1-6-06 till the date
of respective payments.
(3) Parties to bear their respective costs.—
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1854-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad banksj
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k
tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 238@98½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@809@98&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the11th September, 2015
S.O. 1854.— In pusuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref.238/98) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
3848
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of State Bank of Indore and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 11/09/2015.
[lañ ,y&12012@80@98&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/238/98
General Secretary,
Daily Wages Bank Employees Association,
Hardev Niwas, 9
Sanwer Road, Ujjain
...Workman Union
Versus
Managing Director,
State Bank of Indore,
State Bank of India, Head Office,
5, Y.N. Road,
Indore
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 17th day of August, 2015
1. As per letter dated 30-10-98 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/
80/98-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Managing
Director, State bank of Indore in terminating the services
of Shri Sharad Maheshwari w.e.f. 28-3-97 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 through
Union at Page 2/1 to 2/3. Case of workman is that he was
engaged as peon in Freeganj branch, Ujjain from 1-9-94. He
was working from 10.30 AM to 6 PM.
He was working with devotion. He was paid for six days
in a week by payment voucher. His signature was obtained.
Payment was made to him in name of different persons. On
payment of bonus, he was terminated without notice on
30-5-97. That he completed 240 days continuous service
during each of the year. He is covered as employee under
Section 25 B of ID Act. After termination of his service,
other persons are engaged on daily wages. His services
are terminated without paying retrenchment compensation
as per Sastry Award, Para 507, 524. Termination of his service
is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. During pendency
of conciliation proceedings, his services were terminated
in violation of Section 33 of ID Act. On such ground,
workman is praying for reinstatement with backwages.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/6
opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party raised preliminary
objection that the statement of claim is verified by Shri R.
Nagwanshi. the claim is not tenable. Union was not party
in conciliation proceeding. It has no locus to raise the
dispute. Ist party has not produced any document that
Union has passed resolution on behalf of workman.
4. 2nd party further submits that Director, State Bank of
Indore is not party to the dispute. The dispute raised suffers
from misjoinder of parties. 2nd party denies that workman
was engaged by Branch Manager from 1-4-94 for cleaning
work. All contention about working hours, payment of
wages, termination of services of workman is denied. 2nd
party denies that workman completed 240 days continuous
service. Violation of Section 25-F, G, H is denied. That
workman is not working with 2nd party. That he is not
entitled to protection of Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act. 2nd
party submits that employees in the Bank are appointed
after following recruitement process as per rules. Workman
was engaged as per exignecies temporarily. He was paid
wages for his working days. Workman does not get right
of regularisation. Claim of workman cannot be allowed.
5. Ist party workman submitted rejoinder at Page 7/1 to
7/2 reiterating 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 Affirmative
management of Managing
Director, State Bank of
Indore in terminating the
services of Shri Sharad
Maheshwari w.e.f. 28-3-97 is
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
7. Workman is challenging his termination for violation
of Section 25-F, G,H,N of ID Act contending that he was
continuously working from April 94 to 30-5-97. 2nd party
had denied his contentions about his continuous working.
8. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. However he
remained absent for his cross-examination. His evidence
cannot be considered. Management's witness Raghunath
filed affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions in
Written Statement of 2nd party but he remained absent for
cross-examination.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3849
9. Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Yogesh
Chouhan. Management's witness in his affidavit says
workman was never engaged by the Bank for cleaning
purpose. He was not in employment of the Bank.
Appointment letter was not given to workman. Witness
failed to appear for his cross-examination. His evidence
also cannot be considered. Ist party workman as well as
witness of management remained absent for their cross-
examination, their evidence could not be considered. The
documents Exhibit W-1 produced by workman is letter dated
23-2-01 directing not to engage daily wage employees.
Exhibit w-2 is copy of settlement dated 13-7-92. When
evidence of workman cannot be considered, Exhibit W-2
itself cannot establish claim of the workman about his
working from April 94 to May 97. Therefore as workman
failed to establish his continuous working more than 240
days preceding 12 months of his termination, protection of
Section 25-F or Exhibit W-2 cannot obe extended to him.
For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in
Affirmative.
10. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the mangement of Managing
Director, State bank of Indore in terminating the
services of Shri Sharad Maheshwari w.e.f. 28-3-97
is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1855-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k iwoZ jsyos
izcaè ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k
tcyiqj ds iapkV la[;k ¼138@93½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 11-09-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41012@33@92&vkbZvkj ¼ch& 1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2015
S.O. 1855.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 138/93) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of South Eastern Railway and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
11.09.2015.
[No. L-41012/33/92-IR (B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/138/93
Shri Nasir Viswas
S/o Shri N.C. Viswas,
Shanti Nagar,
Bhilai, Distt. Durg (MP)
....Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager (P),
South Eastern Railway,
Bilaspur ...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 12th day of August, 2015
1. As per letter dated 21.07.93 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-41012/
33/92-IR (DU). The dispute under reference related to:
"Whether the action of the management of South Eastern
Railway, Bilaspur division in terminating the services of
Shri Nasir Viswas, Gangman w.e.f. 14.05.90 is justified?
If not, to what relief he is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
page 3/1 to 3/5. Case of workman is that he was appointed
as Gangman vide order dated 05.03.90. Without order in
writing, he was terminated form 14.05.90. However he was
given employment he continued in service without break,
without assigning any reasons he was prevented from
doing his duties. That there cannot be oral order of
termination. In absence of termination in writing, workman
claims to be continued in service. That he was oraly
informed about his termination for using incorrect casual
cards. Workman submits that casual cards are not condition
precedent for employment. It cannot be a ground for
termination of his service. Termination of his service without
giving reasonable opportunity to explain his case is illegal.
The termination of his service amounts to retrenchment
under ID Act. Many persons are employed in Railway,
workman was not given chance. He was working in regular
post. Vacancies are still existing. Hundreds of persons
similarly situated are retained in service, only some persons
are removed on the ground of alleged fake service card.
The action of management is unfair and violative of Article
14 of the constitution. His services are terminated without
compliance of statutory provisions and principle of natural
justice.
3. Ist party workman further submits that the action is
taken against him without giving opportunity of hearing is
arbitrary and illegal. That he never submitted casual card.
The casual card is not necessary for casual labours.
3850
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Therefore on said ground, services could not be terminated.
Terminating his services without giving reasonable
opportunity is violative of Article 311 of constitution. CAT
Jabalpur filed judgment dated 14.09.87 in Original
Application 189/86 and others held services of casual
employee cannot be terminated on ground that they have
obtained employment by producing fake card without
conducting equiry. On such ground, workman is praying
for his reinstatement with backwages.
4. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 4/1 to 4/10
opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party has narrated
brief history that workman Shri Nasir Viswas was engaged
as casual gangman on daily rate basis as per order dated
14.02.90 on the basis of past service certificate. Engagement
of workman was subject to verification of his past service
card. Memorandum dated 22.02.90 issued to all branches,
all units giving understanding that in the event of the
working certificate/caste certificate being found false at
any time during their engagement, their service would be
terminated automatically without any notice. 2nd party
submits that on verification, past service card was found
false and fabricated. Therefore services of workman were
terminated from 10.05.90. There are about 150 candidates
whose services have been terminated on above ground.
Workman was not holding any civil post at that time. Case
of workman does not come under purview of ID Act as the
matter relate to cheating and forgery. 2nd party relies
judgment by CAT Jabalpur in OA 727/88, Shri B. Sunder
Rao versus Union of India and others.
5. That workman was appointed as casual Gangman
under PWI on 05.03.90 on the basis of past service
certificate. It was found false. The services of workman
were terminated on 10.05.90. He has not completed 240
days continous service. It is reiterated that it was condition
at time of engagement if service certificate found false, the
service would stand automatically terminated without
notice. As past service certificate produced by workman
was found false, termination of his service is illegal. In
view of above condition, there was no question of giving
reasonable opportunity. Workman worked only for 66 days.
That out of 861 casual candidates about 150 candidates
were terminated for production of false past service. FIR
was lodged to police station. As workman has not
completed 240 days continous service, he is not entitled to
retrenchment compensation. Engagement of workman was
subject to production of past service casecard. On
investigation, it is proved that working certificate produced
by workman was found fictitious. Therefore services of
workman were terminable without notice. On such ground,
2nd party requests to answer reference in its favour.
6. Ist party workman submitted rejoinder at Page 5/1 to
5/2 reiterating his contentions in statment of claim.
7. Management filed reply to rejoinder at Page 6/1 to
6/3 reiterating contentions in Written Statement.
8. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
Management of South
Eastern Railway, Bilaspur
division in terminating the
services of Shri Nasir
Viswas, Gangman w.e.f.
14-5-90 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not entitled
workman is entitled to?"
to any relief.
REASONS
9. Workman is challenging termination of his service on
the ground production of past service card was not
condition precedent for his engagement as casual
employee. Termination of his services on the ground that
past service card produced by him was false without giving
any opportunity for hearing is illegal.
10. 2nd party denied above contentions of workman.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting
contentions in statement of claim that he was appointed
on 5-3-90, his services were terminated on 14-5-90. Thus
workman was working with 2nd party for two months and 9
days. His services were terminated on the ground past
service card produced by him was found false. He was not
given opportunity of hearing. Rather workman in his
affidavit of evidence has stated that he had not received
any memorandum. He had not submitted any fake
document for getting appointment. Workman failed to
appear for his cross-examination. His evidence was closed
on 13-2-2013 therefore evidence of workman cannot be
relied.
11. 2nd party filed affidavit of witness Shri R. S. Bepari
and Lingaraj Rout. However both the witnesses of
management did not appear for his cross-examination. Their
evidence also cannot be considered. As such both parties
failed to adduce evidence in support of their respective
contentions. Parties have not properly participated in
reference proceeding. The contentions of workman that
his services were terminated without hearing was not
condition precedent to produce past service card. That he
had not produced past service and cannot be accepted as
workman has not appeared for his cross-examination. To
be precise, workman failed to substantiate his contentions.
Therefore 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 South Eastern
Railway, Bilaspur division in terminating the
services of Shri Nasir Viswas, Gangman w.e.f.
14-5-90 is proper and legal.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3851
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1856-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k iwoZ jsyos
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k
tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼153@96½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@73@92&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2015
S.O. 1856.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1947), the Central Govenment
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 153/96) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus-Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between
the management of South Eastern Railway and their
workmen, revceived by the Central Government on
11/09/2015.
[No. L-41012/73/92-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/153/96
Shri P. Ramarao,
Through Shri P. Venkatswamy,
Rameshwar Nagar,
Bhanpuri, PO Raipur ....Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager (P),
South Eastern Railway,
Bilaspur. ....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 12th day of August 2015
1. As per letter dated 21.7.93 by the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of
I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-41012/73/92-IR(DU).
The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of DRM, South
Eastern Railway, Bilaspur in terminating the services of
Shri P. Rama Rao is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief he is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of workman is that he was appointed
as Gangman vide order dated 19.2.90. Without order in
writing, he was terminated from 14.5.90. However he was
given employment he continued in service without break,
without assigning any reasons, he was prevented from
doing his duties. That there cannot be oral order of
termination. In absence termination in writing, workman
claims to be continued in service. That he was orally
informed about his termination for using incorrect casual
cards. Workman submits that casual cards are not condition
precedent for employment. It cannot be a ground for
termination of his service. Termination of his service without
giving reasonable opportunity to explain his case is illegal.
The termination of his service amounts to retrenchment
under ID Act. Many persons are employed in Railway,
workman was not given chance. He was working in regular
post. Vacancies are still existing. Hundreds of persons
similarly situated are retained in service, only some persons
are removed on the ground of alleged fake service card.
The action of management is unfair and violative of Article
14 of the constitution. His services are terminated without
compliance of statutory provisions and principles of natural
justice.
3. Ist party workman further submits that the action is
taken against him without giving opportunity of hearing is
arbitrary and illegal. That he never submitted casual card.
The casual card is not necessary for casual labours.
Therefore on said ground, services could not be terminated.
Terminating his services without giving reasonable
opportunity is violative of Article 311 of constitution. CAT
Jabalpur filed judgement dated 14.9.87 in Original application
189/86 and others held services of causal employee cannot
be terminated on ground that they have obtained
employment by producing fake card without conducting
enquiry. On such ground, workman is praying of his
reinstatement with backwages.
4. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/6
opposing claim of the workman. Case of 2nd party is
workman has not enclosed any documents in supports of
his claim. Workman was working in Railway as casual
gangman for about 2 ½ months. That while giving
appointment to the workman and many other persons, it
was clearly mentioned in appointment order if working
certificate/caste certificate and other documents submitted
found false at any time during their engagement, their
services will be terminated automatically without notice.
Accordingly the service of workman was terminated as he
submitted false certificate of service. It is denied that
services of workman was terminated without assigning
reasons. The reasons were specifically mentioned in
3852
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
termination order dated 10.5.90 that workman was given
appointment to the post of casual gangman on the ground
that he was previously working as casual labour, therefore
the reason for termination is correct. It was stipulated in
terms of appointment that working certificate/service
certificate found false, the services would be terminated
automatically without notice. Above contention are
reiterated repeatedly. Workman had secured employment
on the basis of false certificate of service. Workman was
involved in forgery case. Workman was not engaged
against regular post. He was engaged as casual gangman
on the basis of past service certificate which was found
false. The termination order was issued after completing
thorough investigation. Workman work for 2 ½ months.
Wormkan had not acquired temporary status. Workman is
not covered by Discipline and Appeal Rules. There was no
incident of conducting DE against workman. 2nd party
submits that though enquiry was conducted by vigilance
department, there was no question of giving opportunity
of hearing to the workman as he had accepted terms and
conditions of his initial appointment. As the workman
obtained employment by producing false certificate, his
services are automatically terminated. As very long list of
casual labours was approved, there was no question of
engaging fresh casual employees. That vigilance
department in his investigation found past service produced
by workman was false . W.r.t. judgment by CAT, Jabalpur, it
is submitted that the order was passed beyond its
jurisdiction. On such ground, 2nd party prays to answer
the reference in its favour.
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 DRM, South
Eastern Railway, Bilaspur in
Terminating the services of
Shri P. Rama Rao is legal and
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not entitled
Workman is entitled to?"
to any relief.
REASONS
6. The engagement of workman on 19-2-90 as casual
gangman and termination of his service from 14-5-90 is not
in dispute. Workman had worked for about 2 1/2 months.
As per his own pleadings, workman had not completed 120
days and could not acquire temporary status. Workman
has also not completed 240 days continuous service. He is
not covered as employee under Section 25 B of ID Act.
Consequently workman is not entitled to protection under
Section 25-F of ID Act or retrenchment compensation.
7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence covering his
contentions in statement of claim that he was appointed
on 19-2-90 and continued to work without break till
14-4-90. His services were terminated from 15-4-90 on the
ground of using fake casual cards. It was not condition
precedent to produce casual cards for employment. The
termination of service without giving opportunity of hearing
is illegal. It amounts to retrenchment. In his cross, workman
says he signed in Telugu. He doesnot know Hindi English.
He was not given any certificate. He had not produced any
documents at the time of his appointment.
8. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri R.S. Bepari
but management's witness did not appear for his cross-
examination therefore their evidence cannot be considered.
Management's witness witness Shri Lingaraj Rout filed
affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions of 2nd
party. In his cross-examination, Shri Lingaraj says copy of
Exhibit M-1 was given to workman. He denied that said
document was received from other office, denies that it is
no circular issued by the office. In 1990, he was working in
Traffic Apprentice Training, Chankradarpur. He claims
ignorance what process was followed while appointing
workman. He had seen appointment letter of workman. He
was not concerned with appointment or termination of
workman. Documents on which his affidavit is based are
produced on record. Workman was appointed on basis of
past service card. The document in that regard is produced.
He was not involved in investigation and verification of
the documents. Management's witness in his further cross
says inspector was sent for verifying past service card of
workman. He found it was false. On its basis, he has made
statement in para-6 of affidavit. The order of termination
was issued to workman on 10-5-90. The record was stolen
from office. Workman was not given notice prior to
termination of his service. Management's witness claims
ignorance about the date of committing theft of records.
He did not see report of security guard about the theft. The
report to police was submitted by management. The witness
was unable to tell name of the Officer. Document Exhibit
M-1 office memorandum dated 14-2-90 refers to engagement
of casual gangman till period 31-3-90. The note further
provides the working certificate/case certificate/service
certificate if found false at any time during their
engagement, the services would be terminated automatically
without any notice. Document Exhibit M-1 corroborate
evidence of MW-1. Workman has not produced order of
his appointment or termination. Rather evidence of workman
is that it was not precondition for employment produced
past service card. Exhibit M-1 reverts evidence of workman
on above point.
9. Workman was working for about 2 1/2 months. He not
completed 240 days continuous service or 120 days
continuous service for acquiring regular or temporary
status. Therefore termination of service of workman in
violation of Section 25-F of ID Act is acceptable.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3853
10. Only point argued is service of workman are
terminated without giving opportunity of hearing.
Management's witness also says that the services of
workman were terminated as per condition in appointment
order there was no point of giving opportunity for hearing
to the workman. Shri A.K. Shashi appearing for Ist party
produced copies of award passed by this Tribunal. In
zR/116/99, claim of workman was rejected therefore the
award doesnot support claim of the workman. In R/46/06,
relying ratio in case of Nepal Singh versus State of UP
reported in AIR-1980-SC-1459 and considering the
documents or Exhibit M-1, IInd Party has directed
candidates should not be re-engaged in circumstances that
their names are recorded in the blank list register. Further
FIR with police will be lodged under Sectin 420 of IPC for
cheating and forgery. It was found that workman was not
given opportunity of hearing before discharge of his
service, the discharge order/termination is in violation of
Article 311 of the Constitution would not be upheld. In
present case, both parties have not produced order of
termination of workman that document relating similar
directions were also issued in termination order of workman
could not be ascertained. Therefore ratio held in AIR-1980-
SC-1459 could not be applied to case at hand.
11. Counsel for 2nd party Shri Vijay Tripathi relies on
ratio held in
Case of State of MP and others versus Shyama Pardhi
and others reported in 1996(7)SCC-118. Their
Lordship considering persons not possessing the
pre-requisite qualifications prescribed by statutory
rules wrongly selected and after successful
completion of training appointed as Auxilliary Nurse
cum Midwife. In such circumstances their initial
selection to undergo training being per se illegal,
termination of their appointment, held did not attract
principles of natural justice.
The facts of present case are not comparable. What
was the qualification prescribed as per rules for engagement
of casual gangman is not brought on record by either
parties. In present case controversy between parties about
his termination of service on the ground of past service
card submitted by workman was found false. Workman
claims that submission of past service card was not
necessary. As per Exhibit M-1, submission of past service
card was necessary therefore the ratio held in the case
cannot be beneficially applied to case at hand.
12. Shri Vijay Tripathi counsel for 2nd party relies on
ratio held in
"Case of Union of Indias versus Soran Singh by Delhi
High Court. In above cited case also the service of
workman was terminated on the ground that bogus
casual card was produced by workman. His Lordship in
Para-6 of the judgement observed in statement filed by
the workman before the Tribunal, workman stated that
allegations were made against him that he obtained fake/
bogus certificate and got employment in railways. he
was served a notice to this effect on 8-1-87 and the
management did not wait for his explanation and
terminated him on 9-1-87. Nowhere in his statement of
claim he stated that he had not obtained employment
on the basis of a fake/bogus casual card or that he was
having a genuine certificate. His only claim was that
even if he was involved in a fraud as per principles of
natural justice, he could not be removed from services
without giving an opportunity of hearing.’’
In present case, workman has pleaded that it was not
precondition to produce past service card. That he has not
produced such certificate. However Exhibit M-1 shows that
services could be terminated if past service card was found
bogus. Parties have not produced order of appointment or
termination. Evidence of management's witness is
corroborated by Exhibit M-1. The pleadings and evidence
of workman are silent how he was appointed as casual
gangman in absence of casual service card required as per
Exhibit M-1. The above cited case squarely covers the
controversy between parties.
In Para 17, his Lordship held that Tribunal miserably
misdirected itself in directing reinstatement of the
respondent with 50% backawages. The respondent was
not a workman in the sense that he entered into service by
fraudulent means. There was no reason with the Tribunal
to disbelieve enquiry conducted by the Vigilance of the
railways and consequently termination of all those who
have obtained appointment by fraud. The award was found
perverse.
As present case is alo identical, ratio applies to present
case also. Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in
Affirmative.
13. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management of DRM, South
Eastern Railway, Bilaspur in terminating the
services of Shri P. Rama Rao is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1857-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l bZ jsyos ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼7@93½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@14@92&vkbZvkj¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2015
S.O. 1857.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 7/93) of the Cent. Govt.
3854
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
management of S.E. Railway and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 11/9/2015.
[No. L-41012/14/92-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/7/93
Shri Mohan Paswan,
Q. No. 781/B,
Construction Colony,
SE. Rly., Bilaspur.
... Workman
Versus
Sr. Accounts Officer (Construction),
S.E. Railways,
Biaspur
... Management
AWARD
Passed on this 3rd August, 2015
1. As per letter dated 7.1.93 by the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of
I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-41012/14/92-IR(DU).
The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of S.E. Railway,
Bilaspur in terminating the services of Shri Mohan
Paswan, Ex-Pay Clerk w.e.f. 11.6.86 is legal and justified?
If not, 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 5/1
to 5/6. Case of workman is that he was appointed in Railway
Service a Clerk in 1958 by financial advisor and Chief
Accounts Officer, NE Railway, Gorakhpur. He was
transferred to Bailadila Railway project as Clerk in 1961. He
was appointed as Pay Clerk by Financial Advisor and Chief
Accounts Officer in 1968. He was posted to the
construction department of S.E. Railway, Bilaspur. Applicant
was on duty at Rourkela on 19.12.78 for making payment to
the staff of District Engineer (Construction), Rourkela. He
was staying in the office at Rourkela. In night of 19-20.12.78,
theft took place involved loss of Rs. 25,705.84. the matter
was reported to GPRF Rourkela in the morning of 20.12.78.
GRPF was also informed about the incident. 2nd party
No. 3 issued chargesheet to him on 16.3.79. His allegations
were of (i) making false complaint of theft of cash to the
GRPF, (ii) misappropriating the Railway Cash of
Rs. 25,705.84. workman had denied charges against him.
He had also submitted that the proceeding was subjudice
before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Panposh (Orissa)
regarding same charges. He requested to stay the Enquiry
Proceedings. His request was not considered. Enquiry
Committee comprising Sr. Account Officer, Bilaspur and
Security Officer, RPF was constituted for enquiring the
charges. His request to stay enquiry Proceedings was not
considered. Enquiry was conducted in disregard of the
procedure laid down under Railway Service Discipline
Rules. Principles of natural justice were violated.
Documents No. 4, 5 in Annexure 3 in chargesheet were not
proved during enquiry. The authors of the documents were
not examined. He was not given opportunity to cross
examine the witnesses. Only one witness was mentioned
in Annexure 4 of the chargesheet. He could not be produced
because of his death. 8 more witnesses were produced
without providing their statement to the workman. The
decision of SDJM that false report was submitted to police
was relied by Enquiry Officer. Workman had challenged
such proceeding before filing revision. The order passed
by SDJM was set aside by Session Judge. The matter was
remitted back to SDJM. The findings of Enquiry Committee
are not based on evidence during Enquiry. His findings are
based on conjucture. Proper procedure was not followed
causing violation of natural justice. Enquiry Committee
considered extraneous issues such as money lending by
workman which was not subject matter of the charges. It is
reiterated that the enquiry is vitiated. The disciplinary
authority was not enquiry Officer. Workman was punished
on the material contention in Enquiry Report was not
brought to his notice. Workman was not given opportunity
for his defence. On such ground, workman prays that
punishment of removal from service as per order dated
9.6.86 be quashed. Workman prays for his reinstatement
with backwages.
3. Workman died during pendency. His LRs are
substituted.
4. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/7
opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party submits that
workman was appointed to Railway service on July as
clerk by Sr. Accounts Officer of NE Rly, Gorakhpur.
Workman was transferred as clerk to the office of Dy.
Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer,
Dandakaranya Bailadila Kiruburu Railway Project,
Rourkela in 1961. Workman was promoted to officiate as
junior pay clerk from 19-5-67. By Dy. Financial Advisor
and Chief Accounts Officer. That workman was working
as Junior Cashier at Bilaspur since 25-4-75. He was
entrusted with disbursement of cash to Railway
employees Mahendragarh on 19-12-78, workman left for
Rourkela after making payments at Mahendragarh and
Akaltara. He reached Rourkela at 17.30 hours and haulted
in the office of District Engineer (Const.) workmen
committee gross misconduct. Workman made false
complaint to police about theft and misappropriating
amount of Rs. 25,705.84. After issuing chargesheet,
enquiry was conducted against workman. It is reiterated
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3855
that there is no bar in conducting enquiry during
pendency of criminal case. Workman was given full
opportunity for his defence. The report given by workman
about theft for offence under Section 457 of IPC. Said
articles were returned. 2nd party denies the contentions
w.r.t. filing revision by workman and the order passed by
SDJM setting aside by Apex Court. Enquiry was
conducted following prescribed procedure and principles
of natural justice. The special report of Security Officer,
Chakradhar was produced. Said report was based on facts
and figures. The defence never expressed to cross-
examine authors of those documents and accused the
same. Workman cannot object to the documents. Supply
list of 8 witnesses was furnished to workman by
Disciplinary Authority. In absence of stay order, enquiry
was conducted. Copies of statement of witnesses were
made available to workman by Enquiry Officer. All adverse
contentions of workman have been denied. It is denied
that case is pending before Court of law. It is submitted
that Disciplinary Authority need not be Enquiry Officer.
Workman was found guilty of charges against him. The
Disciplinary Authority considered the charges and found
workman not fit, to be retained in Railway service. Relief
claimed by workman cannot be allowed.
5. As per order dated 17-6-2014, enquiry conducted
against workman is found legal. Issue No. 2 was answered
that there is no need to prove misconduct by management
adducing evidence.
6. Considering pleadings on record and findings on
preliminary issue, the points which arise for my
consideration and determination are as under. My findings
are recorded against each of them for the reasons as
below:—
(i) Whether the misconduct alleged
In Affirmative
against workman is proved from
evidence in Enquiry proceedings?
(ii) Whether the punishment of
In Affirmative
removal imposed against
workman is proper and legal?
(iii) If not, what relief the
Workman
workman is
is entitled to?"
not entitled
to
any relief.
REASONS
7. Workman is challenging legality of the order of
punishment of removal from service. Enquiry is found legal
and proper. Note needs to be taken that the workman or his
LR have not adduced any evidence to support the claim.
8. 2nd party has produced documents of appointment
order of workman of April 1958, report of Enquiry Officer,
Enquiry Officer had considered defence statement and
evidence was assessed at Page 11/11 to 11/16. Report of
Enquiry Officer finds enclosures of statement of witnesses
and minutes of Enquiry Proceedings. Copies of statements
of witnesses Chandrapratap Pandey, Baniram Mishra,
Sheodarshan are produced. Documentary evidence was
discussed at Page 11/26 to 11/27. Copies of Enquiry
proceedings dated 19-12-85 is produced at page 11/28. The
statement of workman is produced at 11/13 to
11/25. Statement of Tichen Behra produced at 11/37 to
11/38. Statement of Shri S.G. Guha, Section Officer produced
at 11/39 to 11/40. Statement of Shri G.K. Dey is produced at
Page 11/41. Copies of evidence recorded before Enquiry
Officer is also produced. Statements of all those witnesses
shows that doors of offices where workman was staying
were found closed in the morning. The theft of amount
alleged by workman was not established. The evidence
before Enquiry Officer is sufficient to prove that report
submitted by workman was not proved. Amount of
Rs. 25,705.84 carried by workman for payment to the Railway
Staff was not disbursed to them. The findings of Enquiry
Officer are supported by statements of witnesses therefore
I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
9. Considering findings on Point No. 1 that the charges
against workman are proved, punishment of removal
imposed by Disciplinary Authority appears appropriate and
no interference in the punishment order is required. For
above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 2 in
Affirmative.
10. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of S.E. Railway,
Bilaspur in terminating the services of Shri Mohan
Paswan, Ex. Pay Clerk w.e.f. 11-6-86 is legal and
proper.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1858-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ ykbZQ
ba';ksjsUl dkiksZjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
la[;k 84@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
08@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&17025@2@2015&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2015
S.O. 1858.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 84/2014) of the Central
3856
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Government 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 LIC of
India and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 08/09/2015.
[No. L-17025/2/2015-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Thursday, the 27th August, 2015
Present: K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 84/2014
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Sub-
Section 2A of Section-10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (as amended by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010)
between the Management of LIC of India and their
workman)
BETWEEN
Sri G. Karthick
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Zonal Manager
: 2nd Party/1st Respondent
Life Insurance Corporation
of India
LIC Building, Anna Salai
Chennai-600002
2. The Divisional Manager
: 2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Divisional Officer-II
Life Insurance Corporation
of India
C-47, Anna Plaza, II Avenue,
Anna Nagar
Chennai-600040
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: M/s. Balan Haridas,
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/1st &
: Sri C.K. Chandrasekkar,
2nd Management
Advocate
AWARD
This is an Industrial Dispute taken for adjudication on
the file under Sub-Section 2A of Section-10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f.
15.09.2010).
2. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are as below:
The petitioner has completed his BBA Course
through Distance Education. He was engaged by
the Respondents to do the work of Office Assistant/
Peon. He had joined the Office of the Second
Respondent on 22.09.2011. He had been working
continuously with the Second Respondent. He was
paid wages initially @ Rs. 250/- per day and the same
was increased to Rs. 360/- per day later. He was paid
on weekly basis raising voucher under the head
"Unkeep and Cleaning Material". This was done to
circumvent law. The petitioner had worked for more
than 480 days continuously during the period of 24
calendar months. So the petitioner is entitled to be
made permanent under Section-3 of the Tamil Nadu
Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workman) Act, 1981. The work discharged
by the petitioner is perennial in nature. He had worked
for more than 240 days continuously during the
period of 12 calendar months. He had been
terminated orally on 31.08.2013. The petitioner was
not issued any notice, notice pay or compensation
before termination. Termination of the services of
the petitioner would amount to retrenchment. In the
absence of compliance with Section-25 F of the ID
Act the termination is void abinitio. The Respondent
now cannot say that the appointment of the petitioner
was not in terms of the LIC of India (Employment of
Temporary Staff) Instructions. Anyhow the
employment of the petitioner is protected by the
provisions of ID Act and the same will override the
so-called instructions. An order may be passed
holding that termination of the service of the
petitioner by the Respondent is illegal and
consequently direct the Respondent to reinstate the
petitioner with full backwages, continuity and all other
attendent benefits.
3. The Respondents have filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The claim of the petitioner is not maintainable either
on facts or on law. The petitioner was not engaged
as Peon by the Respondents. He was engaged as
Coolie to do certain petty works in the office. He was
paid coolie charges on various dates from 22.09.2011
to 31.08.2013. The charges was paid for cleaning,
dusting and upkeep works of the branch office
depending upon the necessity. It is not correct to
state that the employment was continuous and
regular. The engagement of the petitioner was on
need basis only and he was paid for the same. It is
denied that the petitioner worked against the post
for 480 days in 24 calendar months to claim
permanency. Casual engagement of need based
works cannot confer permanency. Any appointment
in the Respondent Corporation can only be through
a regular process of selection and appointment
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3857
against regular posts. The termination of the
petitioner was effected pursuant to the order of Apex
Court wherein a scheme was framed and approved
and those not fitting the scope of the scheme were
directed to be relieved. So the claim of the petitioner
is liable to be rejected. The petitioner is not entitled
to invoke Section-25F of the ID Act as the action of
the Respondents is in conformity with law. In
compliance of the order of the Supreme Court dated
18.01.2011 applications were invited from eligible
temporary Class-IV employees working in LIC of
India for more than 5 years as on 18.01.2011 and who
had possessed minimum eligible qualification. As per
the order of the Supreme Court those who have been
engaged on need bases would cease to be in
employment in compliance of the scheme. The
petitioner was not eligible to apply as per the scheme
of the Supreme Court. So he has no right to claim
reinstatement or absorption. The question of
reinstatement can arise only when regular
employment has taken place as per LIC of India
(Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions. The
provisions of the ID Act are not applicable to the
petitioners with reference to matters covered by
Section-48(2C) of the LIC Act. The petitioner is not
entitled to any relief.
4. The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the
allegations in the Counter Statement and also reiterating
his case in the Counter Statement.
5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of
WW1 and MWs 1 and 2 and also documents marked as
Ext.W1 to Ext.W70 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M3.
6. The points for consideration are:
(i) Whether the termination of the petitioner by the
Respondents from service is legal and justified?
(ii) What, if any, is the relief to which the petitioner is
entitled?
The Points
7. The petitioner has claimed that he had been working
as Office Assistant/Peon in the office of the Second
Respondent from 22.09.2011 but he was orally terminated
from service on 30.08.2013 without any justification. He
has claimed that he is entitled to be reinstated in the service
of the First Respondent. According to the petitioner he
was doing the work of filing papers, cleaning the office and
all sundry works entrusted to him in the Office of the
Second Respondent. Initially he was paid @ Rs. 250/- per
day and later it was increased to Rs. 360/- per day and
payment was made on weekly basis. According to him,
though voucher was raised under the head "Upkeep and
Cleaning Material" for making payment, this was only to
circumvent the laws. The petitioner has given evidence
and also produced documents to substantiate his case
that he was continuously working in the office of the Second
Respondent from 22.09.2011 until he was terminated from
service on 30.08.2013.
8. The Respondents have stated in the Counter
Statement that the petitioner was working in the office of
the Second Respondent during the period from 22.09.2011
to 31.08.2013. However, it is not admitted by the
Respondents that the petitioner was working as Peon or
Office Assistant. Their case is that the petitioner was
engaged only to do some petty works and coolie charges
were paid to him for cleaning, dusting and upkeep works of
the Branch. The Respondents have denied the case that
the engagement was continuous or that the employment
was regular.
9. The documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W70 would
show that the petitioner was working in the office of the
Second Respondent almost on all days continuously except
for gap of a few days. He had worked for more than 240
days during the last 12 months preceding the termination,
as could be seen from Ext.W1 to Ext.W70 which are not
disputed. It is clear from these documents that payment
was mostly made weekly and a fixed amount was paid for
each day. No payment is seen made for holidays other than
for the holidays on which he had worked.
10. What is the nature of work done by the petitioner?
According to the Respondents they were only doing works
such as cleaning, dusting and other upkeep works. This is
what stated by MWs 1 and 2 in their Proof Affidavits also.
However, during their cross-examination MW1 has stated
that except for issuing forms the petitioner was doing all
the work that were usually done by the Sub-Staff. MW1
has also stated that the petitioner was paid daily wages on
weekly basis. Ext.W1 to Ext.W70 also would show that
almost on all occasions the petitioner was paid once in a
week calculated on an amount fixed as wage per day. From
this also it could be seen that the petitioner was working
continuously with the Respondents for the period claimed.
However, there is no case for the petitioner that he was
working on a sanctioned post. He has not claimed also that
he was working on temporary basis but only as a casual
worker. In fact in the Claim Statement the demand of the
petitioner is only for reinstatement and not for regularization
except for the claim of permanency under Section-3 of the
Tamil Nadu Act. So it is clear that the petitioner was working
on daily wages and not on any sanctioned post.
11. Before dealing with the other contentions of the
petitioner the case that he is entitled for permanency under
Section-3 of the Tamil Nadu Act can be considered. Section-
3(1) of the Act states that notwithstanding anything
3858
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
contained in any law in force every workman who is in
continuous service for a period of 480 days in a period of
24 calendar months in an industrial establishment shall be
made permanent. The condition for treating a workman to
be in continuous service is given in the next sub-section of
Section-3. On going through Ext.W1 to Ext.W70 there could
be no doubt that the petitioner must have been in service
for a period of 480 days within a period of 24 calendar
months in the Office of the Second Respondent.
12. The counsel for the petitioner has been seeking
support from the decisions of the High Court of Madras to
fortify his contention. He has referred to the decision in
Elayaperumal vs. State Bank of India (WRIT APPEAL NO.
1372 of 2006 decided on 08.01.2007). The Hon'ble High
Court has held in this case that the provisions of the
Permanent Status Act will apply to Banks including
nationalized banks. Another decision referred to by the
counsel for the petitioner is HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM
CORPORATION LTD. VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT,
CHENNAI reported in 2008 4 CTC 819 where it was held
that the Act is applicable to Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. Another decision relied upon is LAKSHMI
VS. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, TNEB reported in 2012 3 LLN
681 wherein it was held that the concerned worker would
have been entitled to the benefit of conferment of permanent
status under TNEB. It is pointed out by the counsel for the
Respondents that the second decision referred to has been
taken to the Apex Court and has been compromised. In the
last decision referred to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board being
a party, the Permanent Status Act very well apply to the
same. The operation of the other decision referred to has
been stayed by the Apex Court and the matter is still
pending. According to the counsel for the petitioner even
if stay has been granted the dictum laid down by the High
Court can be applied to the present case. I am not able to
accept this argument of the counsel. When operation of
the decision is stayed, it could not be acted upon and there
is no question of the principle laid down in the decision
being applied. So the contention of the petitioner that he is
entitled to the benefit of Section-3 of the Permanent Status
Act of the Tamil Nadu could not be accepted.
13. It is not disputed by the Respondents that the
petitioner will be a workman as defined in Section-2(k) of
the ID Act but for inapplicability of the Act itself. It is also
admitted on behalf of the Respondents that the termination
of the petitioner was done without complying with Section-
25F of the ID Act. So there is no necessity to refer to various
decisions relied upon on behalf of the petitioner in this
respect. The counsel for the Respondents has not disputed
the legal position that the termination in violation of
Section-25F of the Act will be void abinitio.
14. The contention on behalf of the Respondents that
the termination of the petitioner was in lieu of the decision
of the Apex Court wherein the scheme framed was approved
by the Apex Court and those who did not get selected as
per the scheme ceased to be in service. The order of the
Apex Court relied upon by the Respondents has been
produced and marked as Ext.M1. One of the appellants in
the several civil appeals decided by Ext.M1 order is the LIC
of India and the Respondents are those who were working
in the Corporation and has claimed reinstatement or
permanency. While this case was pending, the Corporation
had framed a scheme as below:
One time limited examination for those temporary
persons who are working in LIC of India for more
than 5 years and who had possessed minimum eligible
qualification and age as prescribed at the relevant
time of their entry into the LIC of India would be
considered. For this purpose LIC of India would hold
a limited written examination which will be in the
vernacular language with a limited syllabus which
would be announced in advance.
Such of those temporary employees who do not apply
and/or not successful shall cease to be in
employment. It is cleared that those temporary
persons who are not governed under these
submissions shall also cease to be in employment.
* * * * * * * *
The scheme having been acceptable to the other
side the appeals were disposed by the Apex Court
with the direction that the Respondents shall absorb
employees interms of the scheme.
15. The case of the Respondents is that application was
called for from the temporary workers, a written examination
was conducted and those who were found eligible were
given permanent appointment in the Corporation. Those
other persons who did not fit in the scheme were turned
out of service on 31.08.2013. According to the Respondents
the petitioner who was not eligible to apply for the test and
had not made any application had ceased to be in
employment consequent to the scheme approved by the
Appex Court. It is the case of the Respondents that the
petitioner who had ceased to be an employee of the
Corporation is now not entitled to claim reinstatement.
16. the counsel for the petitioner has been mainly relying
upon the decision of the Apex Court in TAMIL NADU
TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY LIC
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. LIC OF INDIA AND
OTHERS in Civil Appeal No. 6951/2009 and other appeals
in this respect. In this the Apex Court has found that the
temporary employees are entitled to reinstatement and
permanency. In the above decision the Apex Court had
found that even though the Corporation had entered into a
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3859
compromise with some of the workers it will not affect the
right of the workmen concerned to claim relief under the
earlier naitonal awards existing since those awards were
not set aside even after the compromise. It has also been
observed that in any case the compromise will not affect
the rights of the parties to claim statutory benefits under
the Industrial Disputes Act.
17. The counsel for the Respondents has pointed out
that Civil Appeal No. 6951/2009 and connected appeals
were de-tagged by the Apex Court while considering Ext.
M1 cases since the issues involved in those cases were
different from the cases considered in Ext. M1 order. On
going through Ext. M1 it could be seen that such a
representation was made and it is accordingly those appeals
were de-tagged. The workman involved in the above
appeals were discharging work of perennial nature against
permanent posts. It could be seen from the decision that
there was an earlier award applicable to the parties and a
compromise was entered into by the Corporation with some
of the Unions while a case was pending. In Civil Appeals
Nos. 6951/2009 and other cases it has been held that
direction given to the Corporation as per the Award
regarding other workmen who were parties to the case and
had not entered into a compromise has not been substituted
by the terms and conditions of the compromise. It is pointed
out by the counsel for the Respondents that it is in this
background the decision has been rendered.
18. The counsel for the Respondents has referred to
two earlier decisions of the Apex Court that has held that
the provisions of the ID Act is not applicable to the workers
of the Corporation. Reference was made to the decision in
M. VENUGOPAL VS. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER. LIC
OF INDIA reported in 1994 2 SCC 323. In this the Apex
Court has considered Sub-section 2(C) of Section-48 which
has been incorporated in LIC Act by amendment, and other
provisions. Section-48 of the Act provides that the Central
Government may make rules to carry out the purposes of
the Act. The rules may provide for terms and conditions of
the service of the employees. As per Clause (cc) the
regulations and other provisions in force immediately before
the commencement of the Amendment Act with respect to
the terms and conditions of the service of the employees
shall be deemed to be the rules made under Clause (cc) as
per Clause-2(A). Clause-2C of the same section states that
the provisions of Clause (cc) and Sub-section 2B and any
rules made there under shall have effect notwithstanding
any judgment, decree or order of the any Court, Tribunal or
other authority and notwithstanding anything contained
in the Industrial Disputes Act or any other law, aggrement,
settlement, award or other instrument. Referring to these
provisions it was held in Venugopal's case referred to above
that the wisdon of the legislature in extending the protection
of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act or denying the
same cannot be judged by the Court unless any such step
is held to be violative of any of the provisions of the
Constitution. After the amendment introduced in Section-
48 the employees of the Corporation shall not be entitled
to protection to which they were entitled before coming
into force of the amendment, though till then it was upto
them to impose the rights or remedies in terms of the
regulation so framed under the Corporation Act or in
accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act, it has been held. The counsel for the Respondents
has also referred to the decision A.V. NACHANE VS.
UNION OF INDIA reported in AIR 1982 SC 1126 in this
respect. In the above case it has been held that Section-48
(2C) read with Section-48 (2cc) authorized the Central
Government to make rules to carry out the purpose of the
Act notwithstanding the Industrial Disputes Act or any
other law, which meant that in respect of the matters covered
by the rules, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act
or any other law will not be operative. The grievance raised
in the case that excluding the employees of the Corporation
from the purview of Industrial Disputes Act amounted to
discrimination against them and as such the provisions of
the amending act were violative of Article-14 of the
Constitution were also rejected by the Apex Court. The
counsel has also referred to the decision of the Apex court
in LIC OF INDIA VS. ASHA RAMCHAND AMBEDKAR
reported in 1994 2 SCC 718 where it was held that the
instructions issued by the Chairman of the Corporation
exercising his powers under the regulations framed under
the Act were statutory in character and they have the force
of law. Based on the decision of the Apex Court after
acceptance of the scheme the Corporation had issued
several instructions on the basis of which the petitioner
and such other had ceased to be in employment. It has
been argued that the instructions are not statutory in
character though the regulations are. It was in this context
the above decision was relied upon. Thus the three bench
decision of the Apex court in the case earlier referred to
had held that Industrial Disputes Act will not apply to
those employees coming under the LIC Act and its rules
and regulations. The recent decision of the Apex Court in
favour of the temporary employees of the Corporation were
rendered in the context already referred to. Those employees
were fighting their case even while the cases under Ext.M1
were pending and those were treated separately and decided
separately in the back ground referred to above. So the
decision in the above case could not be applied to the
facts of the present case. The other decisions referred to
by the counsel for the petitioner are all those in which the
provisions for the ID Act are applicable and need not be
referred to.
3860
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
19. I have already stated that there is no case for the
Respondents that any notice, notice pay or compensation
were given as required under Section-25F of the ID Act
when the petitioner was terminated. The counsel for the
Respondents has pointed out that in the absence of
application of Industrial Disputes Act there is no necessity
to comply with Section-25F of the Act also. He has referred
to the decision of the High Court of Kerala in LIC OF INDIA
VS. USHA KUMARI AND OTHERS in Writ Appeal 2362/
2009 in this respect. The High Court has referred to the
dicisions of the Apex Court wherein the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act were found in applicable to the
employees of the Life Insurance Corporation and has held
that the provisions contained in Section-48(2C) of the LIC
Act would override the Industrial Disputes Act and so
termination of the employees cannot amount to
retrenchment as provided under Section-2(oo) of the
Industrial Disputes Act attracting Section-25F of the Act.
It was a natural consequence, the Apex Court having found
that Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable to those
coming under the Life Insurance Corporation Act. This
being so, the petitioner would not be entitled even to the
benefit under Section-25F of the Act. The termination of
the petitioner was the consequence of the order of the
Apex Court accepting the scheme for providing employment
to eligible workmen who were working as temporary
employees of the Corporation. Those who did not fit in
with the scope had to meet the consequence. The petitioner
had not completed 5 years as daily wager in the Corporation
as contemplated in the scheme and he was not eligible to
apply for the written examination. It is accordingly he
happened to be eliminated and ceased to be in employment.
So the petitioner will not be entitled to any relief.
In view of my discussion above the refernce is answered
against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/
:
WW1 Sri. G. Karthick
Petitioner
For the 2nd Party/
:
MW1 Sri. B. Seetharaman
Management
:
MW2 Sri. S. Shrinivas Purushan
Documents Marked:
On the side of the Petitioner
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ext. No. W1
18.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W2
23.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W3
09.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W4
30.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W5
06.02.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W6
13.02.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W7
20.02.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W8
27.02.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W9
05.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W10
26.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W11
02.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W12
16.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W13
23.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W14
07.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W15
14.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W16
21.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W17
28.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W18
25.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W19
02.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W20
09.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W21
09.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W22
23.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W23
28.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W24
06.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W25
13.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W26
18.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W27
27.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W28
01.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W29
10.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W30
17.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W31
24.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W32
29.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W33
09.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W34
15.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W35
22.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W36
29.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W37
03.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W38
10.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W39
19.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W40
24.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W41
08.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W42
17.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W43
22.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W44
31.12.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W45
07.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W46
21.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W47
28.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W48
04.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W49
09.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W50
18.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W51
19.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W52
25.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W53
02.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W54
11.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W55
25.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W56
06.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W57
15.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W58
22.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W59
29.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W60
07.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W61
13.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3861
Ext. No. W62
20.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W63
27.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W64
03.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W65
10.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W66
24.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W67
25.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W68
29.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W69
05.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. No. W70
03.09.2013
Payment Vouchers
On the side of the Respondent
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ext M1
18.01.2011
Hon'ble Supreme Court
Order dated 18.01.2011
in the matter of LIC of
India and Another Vs. D.V.
Anil Kumar and Etc. Min
Civil Appeal No. 953-968
of 2005
Ext. M2
16.07.2014
Judgment of Hon'ble High
Court of Kerala in WA No.
2362/2009 in OP 39055/
2002 in the matter of LIC
of India Vs. Ushakumar
and Others
Ext. M3
—
Section 48 (1&2) of the
Life Insurance Corporation
Act, 1956
ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1859-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ykbZQ ba';ksjsUl
dkiksZjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
la[;k 83@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
08@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&17025@4@2015 vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2015
S.O. 1859.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 83/2014) of the
Central Government 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 LIC of India and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 08/09/2015.
[No. L-17025/4/2015-IR (M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Thursday, the 27th August, 2015
Present
:
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 83/2014
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Sub-
section 2A of Section-10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (as amended by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15-09-2010)
between the Management of LIC of India and their
workman)
BETWEEN
Sri S. Balachandar
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Zonal Manager
: 2nd party/1st Repondent
Life Insurance Corporation
of India
LIC Building, Anna Salai
Chennai-600002
2. The Divisional Manager
: 2nd party/2nd Respondent
Divisional Office-II
Life Insurance Corporation
of India C-47, Anna Plaza,
II Avenue, Anna Nagar
Chennai-600040
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner :
M/s Balan Haridas,
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/1st &
:
Sri C.K. Chandrasekkar,
2nd Management
Advocate
AWARD
This is an Industrial Dispute taken for adjudication
on the file under Sub-section 2A of Section-10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended by Act-24 of
2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010).
2. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner has passed SSLC. Respondent had
engaged the services of the petitioner to do the work
of Office Assistant/Peon. He had been doing the
work of filing papers, cleaning the office and all sundry
work entrusted to him in the Office of the Second
Respondent. He had joined the office in April 2011
and had been continuously working. Initially he was
3862
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
paid wages @ Rs. 160/- per day. Later it was revised
to Rs. 250/- per day and again to Rs. 360/- per day. He
was paid on weekly basis. But voucher had been
raised under the head "Upkeep and Cleaning
Material". This was done to circumvent the law. The
petitioner had worked for more than 480 days
continuously during the period of 24 calendar
months. So the petitioner is entitled to be made
permanent under Section-3 of the Tamil Nadu
Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workman) Act, 1981. The work discharged
by the petitioner is perennial in nature. He had worked
for more than 240 days continuously during the
period of 12 calendar months. He had been
terminated orally on 31.08.2013. The petitioner was
not issued any notice, notice pay or compensation
before termination. Termination of the services of
the petitioner would amount to retrenchment. In the
absence of compliance with Section-25F of the ID
Act the termination is void abinitio. The Respondent
now cannot say that the appointment of the petitioner
was not in terms of the LIC of India (Employment of
Temporary Staff) Instructions. Anyhow the
employment of the petitioner is protected by the
provisions of ID Act and the same will override the
so-called instructions. An order may be passed
holding that the termination of the service of the
petitioner by the Respondent is illegal and
consequently direct the Respondent to reinstate the
petitioner with full backwages, continuity of service
and all other attendant benefits.
3. The Respondents have filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The Claim of the petitioner is not maintainable either
on facts or on law. The petitioner was not engaged
as Peon by the Respondents. He was engaged as
Coolie to do certain petty works in the office. He was
paid coolie charges on various dates from 01-04-2011
to 31.08.2013. The charges was paid for cleaning,
dusting and upkeep works of the branch office
depending upon the necessity. It is not correct to
state that the employment was continuous and
regular. The engagement of the petitioner was on
need basis only and was paid for the same. It is denied
that the petitioner worked against the post for 480
days in 24 calendar months to claim permanency.
Casual engagement of need based works cannot
confer permanency. Any appointment in the
Respondent Corporation can only be through a
regular process of selection and appointment against
regular posts. The termination of the petitioner was
effected pursuant to the order of Apex Court wherein
a scheme was framed and approved and those not
fitting the scope of the scheme were directed to be
relieved. So the claim of the petitioner is liable to be
rejected. The petitioner is not entitled to invoke
Section-25F of the ID act as the action of the
Respondents is in conformity with law. In compliance
of the order of the Supreme Court dated 18.01.2011
applications were invited from eligible temporary
Class-IV employees working in LIC of India for more
than 5 years as on 18.01.2011 and who had possessed
minimum eligible qualification . As per the order of
the Supreme Court those who have been engaged
on need bases would cease to be in employment in
compliance of the scheme. The petitioner was not
eligible to apply as per the scheme of the Supreme
Court. So he has no right to claim reinstatement or
absorption. The question of reinstatment can arise
only when regular employment has taken place as
per LIC of India (Employment of Temporary Staff)
Instructions. The provisions of the ID Act are not
applicable to the petitioners with reference to matters
covered by Section-48(2C) of the LIC Act. The
petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
4. The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the
allegations in the Counter Statement and also reiterating
his case in the Counter Statement.
5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of
WW1 and MWs 1 and 2 and also documents marked as
Ext.W1 to Ext.W105 and Ext.M1 to Ext. M3.
6. The points for consideration are:
(i) Whether the termination of the petitioner by the
Respondents from service is legal and justified?
(ii) What, if any, is the relief to which the petitioner is
entitled?
The Points
7. The petitioner is challenging his termination from the
service of LIC of India and also seeking a direction to the
Respondents to reinstate him with full backwages,
continuity of service, etc.
8. The case set up by the petitioner is that he has joined
as Office Assistant/Peon in the office of the Second
Respondent in April 2011 and had been continuously
working in this capacity. According to him he was paid
wages @ Rs. 160/- per day initially. This was later revised
to Rs. 250/- per day again @ Rs. 360/- per day. According
to him though voucher was raised under the head "Upkeep
and Cleaning Material", this was only to circumvent the
law. He was actually doing the work of filing papers, cleaning
the office and doing other sundry work entrusted to him
just like any regular Peon in the office.
9. The case that is advanced on behalf of the
Respondents is that the petitioner was engaged as a Coolie
to do certain petty works in the office. The Respondent
has denied the claim of the petitioner that he was working
as Peon. However, it is admitted by the Respondent that
the petitioner had worked on various dates from 01.04.2011
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3863
to 31.08.2013 in the office of the Second Respondent,
though the claim is that the payment was as coolie charges.
10. Ext. W1 to Ext. W105 are the payment vouchers
produced by the petitioner to show that he was working in
the office of the Second Respondent continuously. These
vouchers are not disputed by the Respondents. It is clear
from the vouchers that the petitioner had been working
almost continuously in the office of the Second
Respondent except for some gap of a few days. The
vouchers would show that the payment used to be made
mostly for 6 days work. No payment is seen made for
holidays. A perusal of the voucher would reveal that the
petitioner had worked almost continuously.
11. What is the nature of work done by the pettioner?
According to the Respondents they were only doing works
such as cleaning, dusting and other upkeep works. This is
what is stated by MWs 1 and 2 in their Proof Affidavits
also. However, during their cross-examination MW1 has
stated that except for issuing forms the petitioner was
doing all the work that were usually done by the Sub-staff.
MW1 has also stated that the petitioner was paid daily
wages on weekly basis. Ext. W1 to Ext. W105 also would
show the almost on all occasions the petitioner was paid
once in week calculated on an amount fixed as wage per
day. From this also it could be seen that the petitioner
was working continuously with the Respondents for the
period claimed. However, there is no case for the
petitioner that he was working on a sanctioned post. He
has not claimed also that he was working on temporary
basis but only as a casual worker. In fact in the Claim
Statement the demand of the petitioner is only for
reinstatement and not for any regularization except for
the claim of permanency under Section-3 of the Tamil
Nadu Act. So it is clear that the petitioner was working on
daily wages and not on any sanctioned post.
12. Before dealing with the other contentions of the
petitioner the case that he is entitled for permanency under
Section-3 of the Tamil Nadu Act can be considered.
Section-3(1) of the Act states the notwithstanding anything
contained in any law in force every workman who is in
continuous service for a period of 480 days in a period
24 calendar months in an industrial establishment shall
be made permanent. The condition for treating a workman
to be in continuous service is given in the next Sub-section
of Section-3. On going through Ext.W1 to Ext.W105
there could be no doubt that the petitioner must have been
in service for a period of 480 days within a period of 24
calendar months in the Office of the Second Respondent.
13. The counsel for the petitioner has been seeking
support from the decisions of the High Court of Madras
to fortify his contention. He has referred to the decision
in ELAYAPERUMAL VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA (Writ.
Appeal No. 1372 of 2006 decided on 08.01.2007). The
Hon'ble High Court has held in this case that the provisions
of the Permanent Status Act will apply to Banks including
nationalized banks. Another decision referred to by the
counsel for the petitioner is HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM
CORPORATION LTD. VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT,
CHENNAI reported in 2008 4 CTC 819 where it was held
that the Act is applicable to HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM
CORPORATION LTD. Another decision relied upon is
LAKSHMI VS. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, TNEB reported in
2012 3 LLN 681 wherein it was held that the concerned
worker would have been entitled to the benefit of
conferment of permanent status under TNEB. It is pointed
out by the counsel for the Respondents that the second
decision referred to has been taken to the Apex court and
has been compromised. In the last decision referred to Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board being a party, the Permanent Status
Act very well applies to the same. The operation of the
other decisions referred to has been stayed by the Apex
Court and the matter is still pending. According to the
counsel for the petitioner even if stay has been granted the
dictum laid down by the High Court can be applied to the
present case. I am not able to accept this argument of the
counsel. When operation of the decision is stayed, it could
not be acted upon and there is not question of the principle
laid down in the decision being applied. So the contention
of the petitioner that he is entitled to the benefit of Section-
3 of the Permanent Status Act of the Tamil Nadu could not
be accepted.
14. It is not disputed by the Respondents that the
petitioner will be a workman as difined in Section-2(k) of
the ID Act but for inapplicability of the Act itself. It is also
admitted on behalf of the Respondents that the termination
of the petitioner was done without complying with Section-
25F of the ID Act. So there is no necessity to refer to various
decisions relied upon on behalf of the petitioner in this
respect. The counsel for the Respondents has not disputed
the legal position that that termination in violation of
Section-25F of the Act will be void abinitio.
15. The contention on behalf of the Respondents that
the termination of the petitioner was in lieu of the decision
of the Apex Court wherein the scheme framed was approved
by the Apex Court and those who did not get selected as
per the scheme ceased to be in service. The order of the
Apex Court relied upon by the Respondents has been
produced and marked as Ext.M1. One of the appelants in
the several civil appeals decided by Ext.M1. order is the
LIC of India and the Respondents are those who were
working in the Corporation and has claimed reinstatement
or permanency. While this case was pending, the
Corporation had framed a scheme as below:
One time limited examination for those termporary
persons who are working in LIC of India for more
than 5 years and who had possessed minimum
eligible qualification and age as prescribed at the
relevant time of their entry into the LIC of India
3864
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
would be considered. For this purpose LIC of India
would hold a limited written examination which will
be in the vernacular language with a limited syllabus
which would be announced in advance.
Such of those temporary employees who do not apply
and/or not successful shall cease to be in
employment. It is cleared that those temporary
persons who are not governed under these
submissions shall also cease to be in employment.
The scheme having been acceptable to the other
side the appeals were disposed by the Apex Court
with the direction that the Respondents shall absorb
employees in terms of the scheme.
16. The case of the Respondents is that application
was called for from the temporary workers, a written
examination was conducted and those who were found
eligible were given permanent appointment in the
Corporation. Those other persons who did not fit in the
sheme were turned out of service on 31.08.2013.
According to the Respondents the petitioner who was not
eligible to apply for the test and had not made any
application had ceased to be in employment consequent
to the scheme approved by the Apex Court. It is the case
of the Respondents that the petitioner who had ceased to
be an employee of the Corporation is now not entiled to
claim reinstatement.
17. The counsel for the petitioner has been mainly
relying upon the devision of the Apex Court in TAMIL
NADU TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY LIC
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. LIC OF INDIA AND
OTHERS in civil Appeal No. 6951/2009 and other appeals
in this respect. In this the apex Court has found that the
temporary employees are entitled to reinstatement and
permanency. In the above decision the Apex Court had
found that even though the Corporation had entered into a
compromise with some of the workers it will not affect
the right of the workmen concerned to claim relief under
the earlier national awards existing since those awards
were not set aside even after the compromise. It has also
been observed that in any case the compromise will not
affect the rights of the parties to claim statutoary benefits
udner the Industrial Disputes Act.
18. The counsel for the Respondents has pointed out
the Civil Appeal Nos. 6951/2009 and connected appeals
were de-tagged by the Apex Court whil considering
Ext.M1 cases since the issues involved in those cases were
different from the cases considered in Ext.M1 order. On
going through Ext.M1 it could be seen that such a
representation was made and it is accordingly those
appeals were de-tagged. The workmen involved in the
above appeals were discharging work of perennial nature
against permanent posts. It could be seen fromt he
decision that there was an earlier award applicable to the
parties and a compromise was entered into by the
Corporation with some of the Unions while a case was
pending. In Civil Appeal Nos. 6951/2009 and other cases
it has been held that the direction given to the Corporation
as per the Award regarding other workmen who were
parties to the case and had not entered into a compromise
has not been substituted by the terms and conditions of
the compromise. It is pointed out by the counsel for the
Respondents that it is in this background the decision has
been rendered.
19. The counsel for the Respondents has referred to
two earlier decisions of the Apex Court that has held that
the provisions of the ID Act is not applicable to the workers
of the Corporation. Reference was made to the decision
in M. Venugopal Vs. the Divisional Manager, LIC of India
reported in 1994 2 SCC 323. In this the Apex Court has
considered Sub-section 2(c) of Section 48 which has been
incorporated in LIC Act by amendment, and other
provisions. Section 48 of the Act provides that the Central
Government may make rules to carry out the purposes of
the Act. The rules may provide for terms and conditions
of the service of the employees. As per Clause (cc) the
regulations and other provisions in force immediately
before the commencement of the Amendment Act with
respect to the terms and condititons of the service of the
employees shall be deemed to be the rules made under
Clause (cc) as per Clause 2 (A). Clause 2C of the same
section states that the provisions of Clause (cc) and Sub-
section 2B and any rules made there under shall have
effect notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of
the any Court, Tribunal or other authority and
notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial
Disputes Act or any other law, agreement, settlement,
award or other instrument. Referring to these provisions
it was held in Venugopal's case referred to above that the
wisdom of the legislature in extending the protection of
the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act or denying the
same cannot be judged by the Courts unless any such steps
is held to be violative of any of the provisions of the
Constitution. After the amendment introduced in Section-
48 the employees of the Corporation shall not be entitled
to protection to which they were entitled before coming
into force of the amendment, though till then it was upto
them to impose the rights or remedies in terms of the
regulation so framed under the Corporation Act or in
accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act, it has been held. The counsel for the Respondents
has also referred to the decision A.V. NACHANE VS.
UNION OF INDIA reported in AIR 1982 SC 1126 in this
respect. In the above case it has been held that Section -
48 (2C) read with Section 48 (2cc) authorized the Central
Government to make rules to carry out the purpose of the
Act notwithstanding the Industrial Disputes Act or any
other law, which meant that in respect of the matters
covered by the rules, the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act or any other law will not be operative. The
grievance raised in the case that excluding the employees
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3865
of the Corporation from the purview of Industrial Disputes
Act amounted to discrimination against them and as such
the provisions of the amending act were violative of
Article-14 of the Constitution were also rejected by the
Apex Court. The counsel has also referred to the decision
of the Apex Court in LIC OF INDIA Vs. ASHA RAMCHAND
AMBEDKAR reported in 1994 2 SCC 718 where it was held
that the instuctions issued by the Chairman of the
Corporation exercising his powers under the regulations
framed under the Act were statutory in character and they
have the force of law. Based on the decision of the Apex
Court after acceptance of the scheme the Corporation had
issued several instructions on the basis of which the
petitioner and such others had ceased to be in employment.
It has been argued that the instructions are not statutory
in character though the regulations are. It was in this context
the above decision was relied upon. Thus the three bench
decision of the Apex Court in the case earlier referred to
had held that Industrial Disputes Act will not apply to
those employees coming under the LIC Act and its rules
and regulations. The recent decision of the Apex Court in
favour of the temporary employees of the Corporation were
rendered in the cotext already referred to. Those employees
were fighting their case even while the cases under Ext.M1
were pending and those were treated separately and decided
separately in the background referred to above. So the
decision in the above case could not be applied to the
facts of the present case. The other decisions referred to
by the counsel for the petitioner are all those in which the
provisions of the ID Act are applicable and need not be
referred to.
20. I have already stated that there is no case for the
Respondents that any notice, notice pay or compensation
were given as required under Section 25F of the ID Act
when the petitioner was terminated. The counsel for the
Respondents has pointed out that in the absence of
application of Industrial Disputes Act there is no necessity
to comply with Section-25F of the Act also. He has
referred to the decision of the High Court of Kerala in LIC
OF INDIA Vs. USHA KUMARI AND OTHERS in Writ
Appeal 2362/2009 in this respect. The High Court has
referred to the decisions of the Apex Court wherein the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act were found
inapplicable to the employees of the Life Insurance
Corporation and has held that the provisons contained in
Section 48(2C) of the LIC would override the Industrial
Disputes Act and so termination of the employees cannot
amount to retrenchment as provided under Section-2(oo)
of the Industrial Disputes Act attracting Section 25F of
the Act. It was a natural consequence, the Apex Court having
found that Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable to
those coming under the Life Insurance Corporation Act.
This being so, the petitioner would not be entitled even to
the benefit under Section-25F of the Act. The termination
of the petitioner was the consequence of the order of the
Apex Court accepting the scheme for providing
employment to eligible workmen who were working as
temporary employees of the Corporation. Those who did
not fit in with the scope had to meet the consequence.
The petitioner had not completed 5 years as daily wager
in the Corporation as contemplated in the scheme and he
was not eligible to apply for the written examination. It is
accordingly he happened to be eliminated and ceased to
be in employment. So the petitioner will not be entitled
to any relief.
In view of my discussion above the reference is answered
against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/
: WW1, Sri S. Balachandar
Petitioner
For the 2nd Party/1st & : MW1, Sri B. Seetharaman
2nd Management
MW2, Sri S. Shrinivas
Purushan
On the side of the Petitioner
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
10.04.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W2
20.06.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W3
29.08.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W4
31.12.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W5
5.12.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W6
06.062011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W7
05.05.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W8
-
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W9
10.10.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W10
15.04.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W11
23.05.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W12
15.10.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W13
24.02.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W14
13.09.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W15
31.10.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W16
14.11.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W17
28.11.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W18
21.11.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W19
05.11.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W20
03.10.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W21
14.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W22
25.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
3866
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.W23
30.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W24
06.02.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W25
13.02.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W26
20.02.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W27
14.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W28
06.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W29
26.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W30
02.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W31
09.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W32
16.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W33
23.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W34
07.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W35
14.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W36
28.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W37
21.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W38
04.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W39
18.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W40
25.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W41
02.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W42
09.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W43
14.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W44
23.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W45
30.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W46
06.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W47
13.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W48
18.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W49
27.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W50
01.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W51
10.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W52
17.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W53
24.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W54
29.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W55
22.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W56
29.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W57
06.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W58
06.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W59
12.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W60
19.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W61
24.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W62
03.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W63
10.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W64
31.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W65
07.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W66
12.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W67
21.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W68
29.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W69
25.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W70
29.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W71
01.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W72
02.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W73
16.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W74
25.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W75
18.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W76
04.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W77
11.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W78
22.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W79
07.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W80
21.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W81
16.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W82
18.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W83
02.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W84
13.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W85
16.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W86
25.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W87
25.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W88
25.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W89
08.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W90
15.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W91
22.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W92
29.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W93
07.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W94
13.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W95
27.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W96
03.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W97
11.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W98
18.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W99
25.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W100
08.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W101
15.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W102
29.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W103
05.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W104
14.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W105
03.09.2013
Payment Vouchers
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3867
On the side of the Respondent :
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.M1
18.01.2011
Hon'ble Supreme Court
Order dated 18.01.2011 in
the matter of LIC of India
and Another Vs. D.V. Anil
Kumar and Etc. Min. Civil
Appeal No. 953-968 of
2005
Ex.M2
16.07.2014
Judgment of Hon'ble High
Court of Kerala in WA No.
2362/2009 in OP 39055/2002
in the matter
of LIC of
India Vs. Ushakumar and
Others
Ex.M3
Section 48 (1&2) of the Life
Insurance Corporation Act,
1956.
ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1860-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ykbZQ
ba';ksjsUl dkiksZjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 85@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 08-09-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&17025@4@2015&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2015
S.O. 1860.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 85/2014) of the
Cent.Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai
now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of M/s. LIC of India and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
08/09/2015.
[No. L-17025/4/2015-IR (M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENTAL
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Thursday, the 27th August, 2015
Present:
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 85/2014
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Sub-
section 2A of Section-10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (as amended by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010)
between in the Management of LIC of India and their
workman)
BETWEEN
Sri S. Vinoth Kumar
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Zonal Manager
: 2nd Party/1st Respondent
Life Insurance
Corporation of India
LIC Building, Anna Salai
Chennai-600002
2. The Divisional Manager : 2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Divisional Office-II
Life Insurance Corporation
of India
C-47, Anna Plaza, II Avenue,
Anna Nagar
Chennai-600040
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s Balan Haridas,
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/
: Sri C.K. Chandrasekkar
Management
Advocate
AWARD
This is an Industrial Dispute taken for adjudication on
the file under Sub-section 2A of Section-10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f.
15.9.2010).
2. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner has studied upto Plus 2 and has done
his B.Com. Course though he is yet to complete two
papers. He was engaged by the Respondents to do
the work of Office Assistant/Peon. He had been doing
the work of filing of papers, cleaning the office and
all sundry work entrusted to him by the Office of the
second Respondent. The petitioner joined the Office
of the Second Respondent on 06.12.2010 and had
been continuously working. He was paid @ Rs. 250/-
per day initially and this was later increased to Rs.
360/- per day. Payment was made on weekly basis.
He was paid by raising voucher under the head
"Upkeep and Cleaning Material". He was paid wages
every week in Cash. It was only to circumvent the
law the wording Upkeep and Cleaning Material was
used in the vouchers. The petitioner had worked for
3868
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
more than 480 days continuously during the period
of 24 calendar months. So, the petitioner is entitled
to be made permanent under Section-3 of the Tamil
Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of
Permanent Status of Workman) Act, 1981. The work
discharged by the petitioner is perennial in nature.
He had worked for more than 240 days continuously
during the period of 12 calendar months. He had
been terminated orally on 31.08.2013. The petitioner
was not issued any notice, notice pay or
compensation before termination. Termination of the
services of the petitioner would amount to
retrenchment. In the absence of compliance with
Section-25F of the ID Act the termination is void
abinitio. The Respondent now cannot say that the
appointment of the petitioner was not in terms of the
LIC of India (Employment of Temporary Staff)
Instructions. Anyhow the employment of the
petitioner is protected by the provision of ID Act
and the same will override the so-called instructions.
As order may be passed holding that termination of
the service of the petitioner by the Respondent is
illegal and consequently direct the Respondent to
reinstate the petitioner with full backwages,
continuity and all other attendant benefits.
3. The Respondents have filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The claim of the petitioner is not maintainable either
on facts or on law. The petitioner was not engaged
as Peon by the Respondents. He was engaged as
Coolie to do certain petty works in the office. He was
paid coolie on various dates from 06.12.2010 to
31.08.2013. Charges were paid for cleaning, dusting
and upkeep works of the branch office depending
upon the necessity. It is not correct to state that the
employment was continuous and regular. The
engagement of the petitioner was on need basis only
and he was paid for the same. It is denied that the
petitioner worked against post for 480 days in 24
calendar months to claim permanency. Casual
engaged on need based works cannot confer
permanency. Any appointment in the Respondent
Corporation can only be through a regular process
of selection and appointment against regular posts.
The termination of the petitioner was effected
pursuant to the order of Apex Court wherein a scheme
was framed and approved and those not fitting the
scope of the scheme were directed to be relieved. So
the claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. The
petitioner is not entitled to invoke Section-25F of the
ID Act as the action of the Respondents is in
conformity with law. In compliance of the order of
the Supreme Court dated 18.01.2011 applications were
invited from eligible temporary Class-IV employees
working in LIC of India for more than 5 years as on
18.01.2011 and who had possessed minimum eligible
qualification. As per the order of the Supreme Court
those who have been engaged on need basis would
cease to be in employment in compliance of the
scheme. The petitioner was not eligible to apply as
per the scheme of the Supreme Court. So he has no
right to claim reinstatement or absorption. The
question of reinstatement can arise only when regular
employment has taken place as per LIC of India
(Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions. The
provisions of the ID Act are not applicable to the
petitioners with reference to matters covered by
Section-48(2C) of the LIC Act. The petitioner is not
entitled to any relief.
4. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder denying the
allegations in the Counter Statement and also reiterating
his case in the Counter Statement.
5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of
WW1 and MWs 1 and 2 and also documents marked as
Ext. W1 to Ext. 108 and Ext. M1 to Ext. M3.
6. The points for consideration are:
(i) Whether termination of the petitioner by the
Respondents from service is legal and justified?
(ii) What, if any, is the relief to which the petitioner is
entitled?
The Points
7. The petitioner has claimed that he was illegally
terminated from the service of the Respondents orally on
31.08.2014 and is seeking to reinstate him in service with
full backwages, continuity of service and other benefits.
8. According to the petitioner he had joined the service
of the First Respondent on 06.12.2010 as Office Assistant/
Peon and was working continously in this capacity in the
office of the Second Respondent until he was terminated
from service on 31.08.2013. According to the petitioner
initially he was paid wages @ Rs. 250/- per day and later
this was increased to Rs. 360/- per day. According to him,
though voucher was raised under the head "Upkeep and
Cleaning Material", this was only a ploy to circumvent the
law.
9. The Respondent has admitted in the counter statement
that the petitioner had been working in the Office of the
Second Respondent on various dates from 06.12.2010 to
31.08.2013. However, according to the Respondents the
petitioner was only doing certain petty works in the office
and was paid coolie charges only. He was not working as
Peon or Office Assistant.
10. The petitioner has filed Proof Affidavit in lieu of
Chief Examination and has also marked payment vouchers
as Ext. W1 to Ext. W108 to substantiate his case. The
payment vouchers for different period starting from
27.12.2010 and upto 03.09.2013 would show that the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3869
petitioner was working almost continuously in the office
of the Second Respondent. It could be deciphered from
these payment vouchers that he was working almost
regularly in the Office of the Second Respondent.
Payment is seen made weekly, mostly and for a fixed rate
per day. The vouchers would reveal that payment is made
mostly for 6 days excludig holidays. Thus it could be seen
that it was not engagement on need basis as claimed by
the Respondents but continuous engagement, as could be
made out from these vouchers.
11. What is the nature of work done by the petitioner?
According to the Respondents they were only doing works
such as cleaning, dusting and other upkeep works. This is
what is stateded by MWs 1 and 2 in their Proof Affidavits
also. However, during their cross-examination MW1 has
stated that except for issuing forms the petitioner was
doing all the works that were usually done by the Sub-
Staff. MW1 has also stated that the petitioner was paid
daily wages on weekly basis. Ext. W1 to Ext. W108 also
would show that almost on all occasions the petitioner
was paid once in a week calculated on amount fixed as
wage per day. From this also it could be seen that the
petitioner was working continuously with the Respondents
for the period claimed. However, there is no case for the
petitioner that he was working on a sanctioned post. He
was not claimed also that he was working on temporary
basis but only as a causal worker. In fact in the Claim
Statement the demand of the petitioner is only for
reinstatement and not for any regularization except for
the claim of permanency under Section-3 of the Tamil
Nadu Act. So it is clear that the petitioner was working on
daily wages was not on any sanctioned post.
12. Before dealing with the other contentions of the
petiioner the case that he is entitled for permanency under
Section-3 of the Tamil Nadu Act can be considered.
Section-3(1) of the Act states that notwithstanding
anything contained in any law in force every workman who
is in continuous service for a peirod of 480 days in a
period of 24 calendar months in an industrial
establishment shall be made permanent. The condition for
treating a workman to be in continuous service is given in
the next sub-section of Section-3. On going through Ext.
W1 to Ext.W108 there could be no doubt that the
petitioner must have been in service for a period of 480
days within a period of 24 calendar months in the Office
of the Second Respondnet.
13. The counsel for the petitioner has been seeking
support from the decisions of the High Court of Madras
to fortify his contention. He has referred to the decision
in ELAYAPERUMAL VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA (Writ
Appeal No. 1372 of 2006 decided on 08.01.2007) . The
Hon'ble High Court has held in this case that the
provisions of the Permanent Status Act will apply to Banks
including nationalized banks. Another decision referred
to by the counsel for the petitioner is HINDUSTAN
PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. VS. PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT, CHENNAI reported in 2008 4 CTC 819 where it
was held that the Act is applicable to HINDUSTAN
PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. Another decision
relied upon is LAKSHMI VS. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
TNEB reported in 2012 3 LLN 681 wherein it was held
that the concerned worker would have been entitiled to
the benefit of conferment of permanent status under
TNEB. It is pointed out by the counsel for the Respondents
that the second decision referred to has been taken to the
Apex Court and has been compromised. In the last decision
referred to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board being a party,
the Permanent Status Act very well apply to the same. The
operation of the other decision referred to has been stayed
by the Apex Court and the matter is still pending. According
to the counsel for the petitioner even if stay has been
granted the dictum laid down by the High Court can be
applied to the present case. I am not able to accept this
argument of the counsel. When operation of the decision
is stayed, it could not be acted upon and there is no question
of the principle laid down in the decision being applied. So
the contention of the petitioner that he is entitiled to the
benefit of Section-3 of the Permanent Status Act of the
Tamil Nadu could not be accepted.
14. It is not disputed by the Respondents that the
petitioner will be a workman as defined in Section-2(k)
of the ID Act but for inapplicability of the Act itself. It is
also admitted on behalf of the Respondnets that the
termination of the petitioner was done without complying
with Section-25F of the ID Act. So there is no necessity
to refer to various decisions relief upon on behalf of the
petitioner in this respect. The counsel for the Respondents
has not disputed the legal position that the termination in
violation of Section-25F of the Act will be void abinitio.
15. The contention on behalf of the Respondents that
the termination of the petitioner was in lieu of the decision
of the Apex Court wherein the scheme framed was
approved by the Apex Court and those who did not get
selected as per the scheme ceased to be in service. The
order of the Apex Court relied upon by the Respondents
has been produced and marked as Ext. M1. One of the
appellants in the several civil appeals decided by Ext. M1
order is the LIC of India and the Respondents are those
who were working in the Corporation and has claimed
reinstatement or permanency. While this case was pending,
the Corporation had framed a scheme as below:
On time limited examination for those temporary
persons who are working in LIC of India for more
than 5 years and who had possessed minimum
eligible qualification and age as prescribed at the
relevant time of their entry into the LIC of India
would be considered. For this purpose LIC of India
hold a limited written examination which will be in
the vernacular language with a limited syllabus which
would be announced in advance.
3870
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Such of those temporary employees who do not apply
and/or not successful shall cease to be in
employment. It is cleared that those temporary
persons who are not governed under these
submissions shall also cease to be in employment.
The scheme having been acceptable to the other side
the appeals were disposed by the Apex Court with
the direction that the Respondents shall absorb
employees in terms of the scheme.
16. The case of the Respondents is that application
was called for from the temporary workers, a written
examination was conducted and those who were found
eligible were given permanent appointment in the
Corporation. Those other persons who did not fit in the
scheme were turned out of service on 31.08.2013.
According to the Respondents the petitioner who was not
eligible to apply for the test and had not made any
application had ceased to be in employment consequent
to the scheme approved by the Apex Court. It is the case
of the Respondents that the petitioner who had ceased to
be an employee of the Corporation is now not entitled to
claim reinstatement.
17. The counsel for the petitioner has been mainly
relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in TAMIL
NADU TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY LIC
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. LIC OF INDIA AND
OTHERS in Civil Appeal No. 6951/2009 and other appeals
in this respect. In this the Apex Court has found that the
temporary employees are entitled to reinstatment and
permanency. In the above decision the Apex Court had
found that even though the Corporation had entered into a
compromise with some of the workers it will not affect the
right of the workmen concerned to claim relief under the
earlier national awards existing since those awards were
not set-aside even after the compromise. It has also been
observed that in any case the compromise will not affect
the rights of the parties to claim statutory benefits under
the Industrial Disputes Act.
18. The counsel for the Respondents has pointed out
that Civil Appeal Nos. 6951/2009 and connected appeals
were de-tagged by the Apex Court while considering Ext.
M1 cases since the issues involved in those cases were
different from the cases considered in Ext. M1 order. On
going through Ext. M1 it could be seen that such a
representation was made and it is accordingly those appeals
were de-tagged. The workmen involved in the above
appeals were discharging work of perennial nature against
permanent posts. It could be seen from the decision that
there was an earlier award applicable to the parties and a
compromise was entered into by the Corporation with
some of the Unions while a case was pending. In Civil
Appeal Nos. 6951/2009 and other cases it has been held
that the direction given to the Corporation as per the Award
regarding other workmen who were parties to the case
and had not entered into a compromise has not been
substituted by the terms and conditions of the
compromise. It is pointed out by the counsel for the
Respondents that it is in this background the decision has
been rendered.
19. The counsel for the Respondents has referred to
two earlier decisions of the Apex Court that has held that
the provisions of the ID Act is not applicable to the workers
of the Corporation. Reference was made to the decision
in M. Venugopal Vs. The Divisional Manager, LIC of India
reported in 1994 2 SCC 323. In this the Apex Court has
considered Sub-Section 2(C) of Section-48 which has been
incorporated in LIC Act by amendment and other
provisions Section-48 of the Act provides that the Central
Government may make rules to carry out the purposes of
the Act. The rules may provide for terms and conditions
of the service of the employees. As per Clause (cc) the
regulations and other provisions in force immediately
before the commencement of the Amenedment Act with
respect to the terms and conditions of the service of the
employees shall be deemed to be the rules made under
Clause (cc) as per Clause-2(A). Clause-2C of the same
section states that the provisions of Clause (cc) and Sub-
Section 2B and any rules made there under shall have
effect notwithstanding any judgement, decree or order of
the any Court. Tribunal or other authority and
notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial
Disputes Act or any other law, agreement, settlement,
award or other instrument. Referring to these provisions
it was held in Venugopal's case referred to above that the
wisdom of the legislature in extending the protection of
the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act or denying the
same cannot be judged by the Courts unless any such step
is held to be violative of any of the provisions of the
Constitution. After the amendment introduced in Section-
48 the employees of the Coporation shall not be entitled
to protection to which they were entitled before coming
into force of the amendment, though till then it was upto
them to impose the rights or remedies in terms of the
regulation so framed under the Corporation Act or in
accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act, it has been held. The counsel for the Respondents
has also referred to the decision A.V. Nachane Vs. Union
of India reported in AIR 1982 SC 1126 in this respect. In
the above case it has been held that Section-48(2C) read
with Section-48(2cc) authorized the Central Government
to make rules to carry out the purpose of the Act
notwithstanding the Industrial Disputes Act or any other
law, which meant that in respect of the matters covered
by the rules, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act
or any other law will not be operative. The grievance raised
in the case that excluding the employees of the
Corporation from the purview of Industrial Disputes Act
amounted to discrimination against them and as such the
provisions of the amending act were violative of Article-
14 of the Constitution were also rejected by the Apex
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3871
Court. The counsel has also referred to the decision of the
Apex Court in LIC of India Vs. Asha Ramchand Ambedkar
reported in 1994 2 SCC 718 where it was held that the
instructions issued by the Chairman of the Corporation
exercising his powers under the regulations framed under
the Act were statutory in character and they have the force
of law. Based on the decision of the Apex Court after
acceptance of the scheme the Corporation had issued
several instructions on the basis of which the petitioner
and such others had ceased to be in employment. It has
been argued that the instructions are not statutory in
character though the regulations are. It was in this context
the above decision was relied upon. Thus the three bench
decision of the Apex Court in the case earlier referred to
had held that Industrial Disputes Act will not apply to
those employees coming under the LIC Act and its rules
and regulations. The recent decision of the Apex Court in
favour of the temporary employees of the Corporation were
rendered in the context already referred to. Those employees
were fighting their case even while the cases under Ext. M1
were pending and those were treated separately and decided
separately in the backgound referred to above. So the
decision in the above case could not be applied to the
facts of the present case. The other decisions referred to
by the counsel for the petitioner are all those in which the
provisions of the ID Act are applicable and need not be
referred to.
20. I have already stated that there is no case for the
Respondents that any notice, notice pay or compensation
were given as required under Section-25F of the ID Act
when the petitioner was terminated. The counsel for the
Respondents has pointed out that in the absence of
application of Industrial Disputes Act there is no necessity
to comply with Section-25F of the Act also. He has
referred to the decision of the High Court of Kerala in
LIC of India Vs. Usha Kumari and Others in Writ Appeal
2362/2009 in this respect. The High Court has referred
to the decisions of the Apex Court wherein the provisions
of the Industrial Disputes Act were found inapplicable to
the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation and has
held that the provisions contained in Section-48(2C) of
the LIC Act would override the Industrial Disputes Act
and so termination of the employees cannot amount to
retrenchment as provided under Section-2(oo) of the
Industrial Disputes Act attracting Section-25F of the Act.
It was a natural consequence, the Apex Court having found
that Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable to those
coming under the Life Insurance Corporation Act. This
being so, the petitioner would not be entitled even to the
benefit under Section-25F of the Act. The termination of
the petitioner was the consequence of the order of the
Apex Court accepting the scheme for providing
employment to eligible workmen who were working as
temporary employees of the Corporation. Those who did
not fit in with the scope had to meet the consequence.
The petitioner had not completed 5 years as daily wager in
the Corporation as contemplated in the scheme and he was
not eilgible to apply for the written examination. It is
accordingly he happened to be eliminated and ceased to
be in employment. So the petitioner will not be entitled
to any relief.
In view of my discussion above the reference is answered
against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : WW1, Sri S. Vinoth Kumar
For the 2nd Party/
: MW1, Sri B. Seetharaman
Management
: MW2, Sri S. Shrinivas
Purushan
Documents Marked:
On the side of the Petitioner
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ext. W1
27.12.2010
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W2
03.01.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W3
10.01.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W4
14.01.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W5
24.01.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W6
31.01.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W7
07.02.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W8
12.02.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W9
21.02.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W10
28.02.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W11
07.03.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W12
12.03.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W13
21.03.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W14
28.03.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W15
02.04.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W16
05.04.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W17
18.04.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W18
25.04.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W19
02.05.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W20
23.05.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W21
06.06.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W22
27.06.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W23
04.07.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W24
19.07.2011
Payment Vouchers
3872
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext. W25
25.07.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W26
13.08.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W27
29.08.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W28
22.08.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W29
29.08.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W30
12.09.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W31
17.09.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W32
26.09.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W33
03.10.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W34
10.10.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W35
15.10.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W36
24.10.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W37
05.11.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W38
14.11.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W39
21.11.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W40
28.11.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W41
26.12.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W42
31.12.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W43
09.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W44
18.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W45
23.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W46
30.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W47
27.02.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W48
05.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W49
26.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W50
03.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W51
09.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W52
23.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W53
05.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W54
14.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W55
21.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W56
28.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W57
05.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W58
19.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W59
28.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W60
02.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W61
09.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W62
16.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W63
23.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W64
30.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W65
06.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W66
13.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W67
18.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W68
27.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W69
04.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W70
08.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W71
17.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W72
24.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W73
03.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W74
12.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W75
15.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W76
26.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W77
07.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W78
12.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W79
19.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W80
27.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W81
03.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W82
08.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W83
18.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W84
22.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W85
03.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W86
09.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W87
12.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W88
24.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W89
30.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W90
09.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W91
11.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W92
16.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W93
27.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W94
06.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W95
19.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W96
30.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W97
15.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W98
22.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W99
02.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W100
08.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W101
27.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W102
10.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W103
08.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W104
15.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W105
29.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W106
05.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W107
14.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W108
03.09.2013
Payment Vouchers
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3873
On the side of the Management
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ext. M1
18.01.2011
Hon'ble Supreme Court Order
dated 18.01.2011 in the matter
of LIC of India and Anr Vs. D.V.
Anil Kumar & Etc. Min. Civil
Appeal No. 953-968 of 2005
Ext. M2
16.07.2014
Judgment of Hon'ble High
Court of Kerala in WA No.
2362/2009 in OP No. 39055/2002
in the matter of LIC of India Vs.
Ushakumar & Others
Ext. M3
—
Sec. 48 (1 & 2) of the Life
Insurance Corporation of India
Act, 1956.
ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1861-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ykbZQ ba';ksjsUl
dkiksZjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 86@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
08@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&17025@4@2015&vkbZvkj¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2015
S.O. 1861.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 86/2014) of the Central
Government 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 LIC of
India and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 08/09/2015.
[No. L-17025/4/2015-IR (M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Thursday, the 27th August, 2015
Present:
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 86/2014
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Sub-
section 2A of Section-10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (as amended by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010)
between the Management of LIC of India and their
workman)
BETWEEN
Sri. T. Kalaiarasan
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Zonal Manager
: 2nd Party/Respondent
Life Insurance
Corporation of India
LIC Building, Anna Salai
Chennai-600002
2. The Branch Manager
: 2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Life Insurance
Corporation of India
City Branch Office No. 10,
Anna Salai
Chennai-600002
3. The Divisional Manager : 2nd Party/3rd Respondent
(Divisional Office-II)
Life Insurance
Corporation of India
C-47, Anna Plaza,
Avenue-II
Anna Nagar
Chennai-600040
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner :
M/s Balan Haridas,
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/1st, 2nd : Sri C.K. Chandrasekkar,
& 3rd Management
Advocate
AWARD
This is an Industrial Dispute taken for adjudication on
the file under Sub-Section 2A of Section-10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended by Act 24 of 2010 w.e.f.
15.09.2010).
2. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner has passed SSLC. The Respondents
had engaged the service of the petitioner to do the
work of Office Assistant/Peon. He had been filing
papers, cleaning the office and doing all sundry work
entrusted to him in the Office of the Second
Respondent. He had joined the office in January 2006
and had been continuously working. He was paid
wages @ Rs. 90/- per day and thereafter it was revised
periodically. From September, 2012 he was paid
3874
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
@ Rs. 360/- per day. The petitioner had worked with
the Second Respondent upto 21.04.2010 and
thereafter he was deputed to the Third Respondent.
The petitioner was paid by raising voucher under
the head "Upkeep and Cleaning Material", though
he was paid in cash weekly. This was done only to
circumvent the law. The petitioner had worked for
more than 480 days continuously during the period
of 24 calendar months. So the petitioner is entitled to
be made permanent under Section-3 of the Tamil Nadu
Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workman) Act, 1981. The work discharged
by the petitioner is perennial in nature. He had worked
for more than 240 days continuously during the
period of 12 calendar months. He had been
terminated orally on 31.08.2013. The petitioner was
not issued any notice, notice pay or compensation
before termination. Termination of the service of the
petitioner would amount to retrenchment. In the
absence of compliance with Section-25F of the ID
Act the termination is void abinitio. The Respondent
now cannot say that the appointment of the petitioner
was not in terms of the LIC of India (Employment of
Temporary Staff) Instructions. Anyhow the
employment of the petitioner is protected by the
provisions of ID Act and the same will override the
so-called instructions. An order may be passed
holding that the termination of the service of the
petitioner by the Respondent is illegal and
consequently direct the Respondent to reinstate the
petitioner with full back wages, continuity and all
other attendant benefits.
3. The Respondents have filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The claim of the petitioner is not maintainable either
on facts or on law. The petitioner was not engaged
as Peon by the Respondents. He was engaged as
Coolie to do certain petty works in the office. He was
paid coolie on various dates from 15.03.2008 to
14.08.2009 and again from 22.04.2010 to 31.08.2013.
The charges were paid for cleaning, dusting and
upkeep works of the branch office depending upon
the necessity. It is not correct to state that the
employment was continuous and regular. The
engagement of the petitioner was on need basis only
and he was paid for the same. It is denied that the
petitioner worked against the post for 480 days in 24
calendar months to claim permanency. Casual
engagement of need based works cannot confer
permanency. Any appointment in the Respondent
Corporation can only be through a regular process
of selection and appointment against regular posts.
The termination of the petitioner was effected
pursuant to the order of Apex Court wherein a scheme
was framed and approved and those not fitting the
scope of the scheme were directed to be relieved. So
the claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. The
petitioner is not entitled to invoke Section-25F of the
ID act as the action of the Respondents is in
conformity with law. In compliance of the order of
the Supreme Court dated 18.01.2011 applications were
invited from eligible temporary Class-IV employees
working in LIC of India for more than 5 years as on
18.01.2011 and who had possessed minimum eligible
qualification. As per the order of the Supreme Court
those who have been engaged on need basis would
cease to be in employment in compliance of the
scheme. The petitioner was not eligible to apply as
per the scheme of the Supreme Court. So he has no
right to claim reinstatement or absorption. The
question of reinstatement can arise only when regular
employment has taken place as per LIC of India
(Employment to Temporary Staff) Instructions. The
provisions of the ID Act are not applicable to the
petitioners with reference to matters covered by
Section-48(2C) of the LIC Act. The petitioner is not
entitled to any relief.
4. The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the
allegations in the Counter Statement and also reiterating
his case in the Counter Statement.
5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of
WW1 and MWs 1 and 2 and also documents marked as
Ext. W1 to Ext. W116 and Ext. M1 to Ext. M3.
6. The points for consideration are:
(i) Whether termination of the petitioner by the
Respondents from service is legal and justified?
(ii) What, if any, is the relief to which the petitioner
is entitled?
The points
7. The petitioner is seeking is set aside the termination
of his service by the Respondents and to direct them to
reinstate him in service with backwages, contnuity of
service and other benefits.
8. The petitioner has claimed that he was engaged by
the Respondents as Office assistant/Peon and he was doing
the work of filing papers, cleaning the office and other
sundry works entrusted to him. According to him, initially
when he joined the Office of the Second Respondent in
January 2006 he was paid wages @ Rs. 90/- per day. It used
to be revised periodically. He had worked in the Office of
the Second Respondent till 21.04.2010 and thereafter he
was deputed to the Office of the Third Respondent. From
September, 2010 he was paid wages @ Rs. 360/- per day
and payment was made on weekly basis. According to him,
voucher was raised under the head "Upkeep and Cleaning
Material" to circumvent law though payment was made
weekly. The petitioner has claimed that having worked for
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3875
more than 480 days continuously within a period of 24
months the is entitled to be made permanent under Section-
3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment
of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act. He has also claimed
that his termination is in violation of Section-25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act.
9. The Respondent has admitted in the Counter Statement
that the petitioner was engaged on various dates from
15.03.2008 to 14.08.2009 and again from 22.04.2010 to
31.08.2013. However, according to the Respondents the
engagement was only to do certain petty works like cleaning,
dusting and upkeep works. It is denied by the Respondents
that the petitioner had ever worked as Peon or Office
Assistant.
10. The petitioner has filed Proof Affidavit and also
marked Ext. W1 to Ext. W116 to substantiate his case. Ext.
W1 to Ext. W116 are payment vouchers showing payment
to the petitioner. Though these are of the period from
03.01.2011 to 03.09.2013, it is clear from the Counter
Statement of the Respondents that he had been working
even prior to 03.01.2011. The claim of the Respondents is
that the engagement of the petitioner was only need basis.
However, the vouchers would reveal that the engagement
was almost continuous. Payment is seen made weekly by
raising vouchers. It could also be deciphered from the
vouchers that amount payable for a day was fixed. There is
also the evidence given by the petitioner that he was
working continuously. It could be seen from the vouchers
that the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days during
the 12 months preceding the date on which he has last
worked. As could be seen the engagement of the petitioner
was continuous in nature.
11. What is the nature of work done by the petitioner?
According to the Respondents they were only doing works
such as cleaning, dusting and other upkeep works. This is
what is stated by MWs 1 and 2 in their Proof Affidavits
also. However, during their cross-examination MW1 has
stated that except for issuing forms the petitioner was doing
all the work that were usually done by the Sub-Staff MW1
has also stated that the petitioner was paid daily wages on
weekly basis. Ext. W1 to Ext.W112 also would show that
almost on all occasions the petitioner was paid once in a
week calculated on wage fixed per day. From this also it
could be seen that the petitioner was working continuously
with the Respondents for the period claimed. However,
there is no case for the petitioner that he was working on
a sanctioned post. He was not claimed also that he was
working on temporary basis but only as a casual worker.
In fact in the Claim Statement the demand of the petitioner
is only for reinstatement and not for any regularization
except of the claim of permanency under Section-3 of
the Tamil Nadu Act. So, it is clear that the petitioner was
working on daily wages and not on any sanctioned post.
12. Before dealing with the others contentions of the
petitioner the case tht he entitled for permanency under
Section-3 of the Tamil Nadu Act can be considered. Section-
3(1) of the Act states that notwithstanding anything
contained in any law in force every workman who is
continuous service for a period of 480 days in a period of
24 calendar months in an industrial establishment shall be
made permanent. The condition for treating a workman to
be a in continuous services is given in the next sub-section
of Section-3. On going through Ext.W1 to Ext.W112 there
could be no doubt that the petitioner must have been in
service for a period of 480 days within a period of 24
calendar months in the Office of the Second Respondent.
13. The counsel for the petitioner has been seeking
support from the decisions of the High Court of Madras to
fortify his contention. He has referred to the decision in
Elayaperumal vs. State Bank of India (Writ Appeal No. 1372
of 2006 decided on 08.01.2007) The Hon'ble High Court has
held in this case that the provisions of the Permanent Status
Act will apply to Banks including nationalized banks.
another decision referred to by the counsel for the
petitioner is Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs.
Presiding Officer, CGIT, Chennai reported in 2008 4 CTC
819 where it was held that the act is applicable to Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. another decision relied upon is
Lakshmi vs. The Chief Engineer, TNEB reported in 2012
3 LLN 681 wherein it was held that the concerned worker
would have been entitled to the benefit of conferment of
permanent status under TNEB. It is pointed out by the
counsel for the Respondent that the second decision
referred to has been taken to the Apex Court and has been
compromised. In that last decision referred to Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board being a party, the Permanent Status Act
very well apply to the same. The operation of the other
decision referred to has been stayed by the Apex Court
and the matter is still pending. According to the counsel
for the petitioner even if stay has been granted the dictum
laid down by the High Court can be applied to the present
case. I am not able to accept this argument of the counsel.
When operation of the decision is stayed. It could not be
acted upon and there is no question of the principle laid
down in the decision being applied. So the contention of
the petitioner that he is entitled to the benefit of Section-
3 of the Permanent Status Act of the Tamil Nadu could
not be accepted.
14. It is not disputed by the Respondents that the
petitioner will be a workman as defined in Section-2(K)
of the ID Act but for inapplicability of the Act itself. It is
also admitted on behalf of the Respondent that the
termination of the petitioner was done wihtout complying
with Section-25F of the ID Act. So there is no necessity
to refer to various decisions relied upon on behalf of the
petitioner in this respect. The counsel for the Respondents
has not disputed the legal position that the termination in
violation of Section-25F of the Act will be void abinitio.
3876
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15. The contention on behalf of the Respondents that
the termination of the petitioner was in lieu of the decision
of the Apex Court wherein the scheme framed was approved
by the Apex Court and those who did not get selected as
per the scheme ceased to be in service. The order of the
Apex Court relied upon by the Respondents has been
produced and marked as Ext.-M1. One of the appellants in
the several civil appeals decided by Ext.M1 order is the LIC
of India and the Respondents are those who were working
in the Corporation and has claimed reinstatement for
permanency. While this case was pending, the Corporation
had framed a scheme as below:
One time limited examination for those temporary
persons who are working in LIC of India for more
than 5 years and who had possessed minimum
eligible qualification and age as prescribed at the
relevant tike for their entry into the LIC of India
could be considered. For this prupose LIC of India
would who a limited written examination which will
be in the vernacular language with a limited syllabus
which would be announced in advance.
Such of those temproary employees who do not
apply and / or not successful shall cease to be in
employment. It is cleared that those temporary
persons who are not governed under these
submissions shall also cease to be in employment.
The scheme having been acceptable to the other side
the appeals were disposed by the Apex Court with
the direction that the Respondents shall absorb
employees in terms of the scheme.
16. The case of the Respondents is that application
was called for from the temporary workers, a written
examination was conducted and those who were found
eligible were given permanent appointment in the
Corporation. Those other persons who did not fit in the
scheme were teruned out of service on 31.08.2013.
According to the Respondents the petitioner who was not
eligible to apply for the test and had not made any
application had ceased to be in employment consequent
to the scheme approved by the Apex Court. It is the case
of the Respondents that the petitioner who had ceased to
be an employee of the Corporation is now not entitled to
claim reinstatement.
17. The counsel for the petitioner has been mainly
relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Tamil Nadu
terminated full time temporary LIC Employees
Association vs. LIC of India and others in Civil Appeal
No. 6951/2009 and other appeals in this respect. In this
the Apex Court has found that the temporary employees
are entitled to reinstatement and permanency. In the above
decision the Apex Court had found that even though the
Corporation had entered into a compromise with some
of the workers it will not affect the right of the workmen
concerned to claim relief under the earlier national awards
existing since those awards were not set aside even after
the compromise. It has been observed that in any case the
compromise wil not affect the rights of the parties to claim
statutory benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act.
18. The counsel for the Respondents has pointed out
that Civil Appeal Nos. 6951/2009 and connected appeals
were de-tagged by the Apex Court while considering Ext.M1
cases since the issues involved in those cases were
different from the cases considered in Ext.M1 order. On
going through Ext.M1 it could seen that such a
representation was made and it accordingly those appeals
were de-tagged. The workmen involved in the above
appeals were discharging work of pernnial nature against
permanent posts. It could be seen from the decision that
there was an earlier award applicale to the parties and a
compromise was entered into by the Corporation with some
of the Unions while a case was pending. In Civil Appeal
Nos. 6951/2009 and other cases it has been held that the
direction given to the Corporation as per the Award
regarding other workmen who were parties to the case and
had not entered into a compromise has not been substituted
by the terms and conditions of the compromise. It is pointed
out by the counsel for the Respondents that it is in this
background the decision has been rendered.
19. The counsel for the Respondents has referred to
two earlier decisions of the Apex Court that has held that
the provisions of the ID Act is not applicable to the workers
of the Corporation. Reference was made to the decision in
M. Venugopal vs. The Divisional Manager, LIC of India
reported in 1994 2 SCC 323. In this the Apex Court has
considered Sub-Section 2(C) of Section-48 which has been
incorporated in LIC Act by amendment, and other
provisions. Section-48 of the Act provides that the Central
Government may make rules to carry out of the purposes
of the Act. The rules may provide for terms and conditions
of the service of the employees. As per Clause (cc) the
regulations and other provisions in force immediately
before the commencement of the Amendment Act with
respect to the terms and conditions of the service of the
employees shall be deemed to be the rules made under
Clause (cc) as per Clause-2(A). Clause-2C of the same
section states that the provisions of Clause (cc) and Sub-
Section 2B and any rules made there under shall have
effect notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of
the any Court, Tribunal or other authority and
notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial
Disputes Act or any other law, agreement, settlement,
award or other instrument. Referring to these provisions
it was held in Venugopal's case referred to above that the
wisdom of the legislature in extending the protection of
the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act or denying the
same cannot be judged by the Courts unless any such step
is held to be violative of any of the provisions of the
Constitution. After the amendment introduced in Section-
48 the employees of the Corporation shall not be entitled
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3877
to protection to which they were entitled before coming
into force of the amendment, though till then it was upto
them to impose the rights or remedies in terms of the
regulation so framed under the Corporation Act or in
accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act, it has been held. The counsel for the Respondents
has also referred to the decision A.V. NACHANE VS.
UNION OF INDIA reported in AIR 1982 SC 1126 in this
respect. In the above case it has been held that Section-
48 (2C) read with Section-48 (2cc) authorized the Central
Government to make rules to carry out the purpose of the
Act notwithstanding the Industrial Disputes Act or any
other law, which meant that in respect of the matters
covered by the rules, the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act or any other law will not be operative. The
grievance raised in the case that excluding the employees
of the Corporation from the purview of Industrial Disputes
Act amounted to discrimination against them and as such
the provisions of the amending act were violative of
Article-14 of the Constitution were also rejected by the
Apex Court. The counsel has also referred to the decision
of the Apex Court in LIC OF INDIA VS. ASHA
RAMCHAND AMBEDKAR reported in 1994 2 SCC 718
where it was held that the instructions issued by the
Chairman of the Corporation exercising his powers under
the regulations framed under the Act were statutory in
character and they have the force of law. Based on the
decision of the Apex Court after acceptance of the scheme
the Corporation had issued several instructions on the
basis of which the petitioner and such others had ceased
to be in employment. It has been argued that the
instructions are not statutory in character though the
regulations are. It was in this context the above decision
was relied upon. Thus the three bench decision of the
Apex court in the case earlier referred to had held that
Industrial Disputes Act will not apply to those employees
coming under the LIC Act and its rules and regulations.
The recent decision of the Apex Court in favour of the
temporary employees of the Corporation were rendered in
the context already referred to. Those employees were
fighting their case even while the cases under Ext.M1 were
pending and those were treated separately and decided
separately in the background referred to above. So the
decision in the above case could not be applied to the
facts of the present case. The other decisions referred to
by the counsel for the petitioner are all those in which the
provisions of the ID Act are applicable and need not to
referred to.
20. I have already stated that there is no case for the
Respondents that any notice, notice pay or compensation
were given as required under Section-25F of the ID Act
when the petitioner was terminated. The counsel for the
Respondents has pointed out that in the absence of
application of Industrial Disputes Act there is no necessity
to comply with Section-25F of the Act also. He has referred
to the decision of the High Court of Kerala in LIC OF INDIA
VS. USHA KUMARI AND OTHERS in Writ Appeal 2362/
2009 in this respect. The High Court has rerferred to the
decisions of the Apex Court wherein the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act were found inapplicable to the
employees of the Life Insurance Corporation and has held
that the provisions contained in Section-48(2C) of the LIC
Act would override the Industrial Disputes Act and so
termination of the employees cannot amount to
retrenchment as provided under Section-2(oo) of the
Industrial Disputes Act attracting Section-25-F of the Act.
It was a natural consequence, the Apex Court having found
that Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable to those
coming under the Life Insurance Corporation Act. This
being so, the petitioner would not be entitled even to the
benefit under Section-25F of the Act. The termination of
the petitioner was the consequence of the order of the
Apex Court accepting the scheme for providing employment
to eligible workmen who were working as temporary
employees of the Corporation. Those who did not fit in
with the scope had to meet the consequence. The petitioner
had not completed 5 years as daily wager in the Corporation
as contemplated in the scheme and he was not eligible to
apply for the written examination. It is accordingly he
happened to be eliminated and ceased to be in employment.
So the petitioner will not be entitled to any relief.
In view of my discussion above the reference is
answered against the petitioner. An award is passed
accordingly.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: WW1, Sri T.
Kalaiarasan
For the 2nd Party/
: MW1, Sri E.
Management
Sathyanarayanan
MW2, Sri S. Shrinivas
Purushan
Documents Marked:
On the Petitioner's side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
03.01.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W2
14.01.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W3
24.01.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W4
31.01.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W5
05.02.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W6
14.02.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W7
28.02.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W8
19.02.2011
Payment Vouchers
3878
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.W9
07.03.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W10
12.03.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W11
21.03.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W12
28.03.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W13
02.04.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W14
15.04.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W15
18.04.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W16
25.04.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W17
30.04.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W18
23.05.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W19
27.06.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W20
02.07.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W21
11.07.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W22
11.07.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W23
18.07.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W24
25.07.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W25
29.07.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W26
13.08.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W27
22.08.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W28
29.08.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W29
12.09.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W30
18.09.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W31
26.09.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W32
03.10.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W33
10.10.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W34
15.10.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W35
24.10.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W36
31.10.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W37
05.11.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W38
14.11.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W39
21.11.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W40
24.12.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W41
26.11.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W42
04.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W43
23.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W44
30.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W45
18.02.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W46
27.02.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W47
05.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W48
26.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W49
02.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W50
10.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W51
16.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W52
23.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W53
05.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W54
14.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W55
21.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W56
28.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W57
04.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W58
18.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W59
25.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W60
02.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W61
09.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W62
16.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W63
21.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W64
28.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W65
04.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W66
13.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W67
18.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W68
27.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W69
01.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W70
08.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W71
15.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W72
22.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W73
01.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W74
08.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W75
15.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W76
22.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W77
29.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W78
03.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W79
12.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W80
19.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W81
26.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W82
01.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W83
10.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W84
26.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W85
07.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W86
12.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W87
24.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W88
02.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W89
11.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W90
16.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W91
25.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W92
02.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W93
11.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W94
16.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3879
Ext.W95
23.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W96
30.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W97
06.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W98
15.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W99
20.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W100
29.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W101
04.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W102
13.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W103
20.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W104
03.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W105
08.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W106
17.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W107
25.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W108
15.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W109
29.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W110
05.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W111
12.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W112
03.09.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W113
-
Application for appointment to
the post of Peon
Ext.W114
April 2004
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W115
30.06.2004
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W116
02.06.2011
Payment Vouchers
On the Management's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
18.01.2011
Hon'ble Supreme Court Order
dated 18.01.2011 in the matter
of LIC of India and Anr. Vs. D.V.
Anil Kumar & Etc. Min. Civil
Appeal No. 953-968 of 2005
Ext.M2
16.07.2014
Judgment of Hon'ble High
Court of Kerala in WA No. 2362/
2009 in OP 39055/2002 in the
matter of LIC of India Vs.
Ushakumar & Others
Ext.M3
-
Sec. 48(1&2) of the Life
Insurance Corporation Act,
1956
ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1862-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ ykbZQ ba';ksjsUl
dkiksZjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
la[;k 81@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-
09-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&17025@3@2015&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2015
S.O. 1862.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 81/2014) of the Central
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 LIC of
India and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 08.09. 2015.
[No. L-17025/3/2015-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Thursday, the 27th August, 2015
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 81/2014
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Sub-
section 2A of Section-10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (as amended by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010)
between the Management of LIC of India and their
workman)
BETWEEN
Shri M. Selva Sathish
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Zonal Manager
: 2nd Party/1st Respondent
Life Insurance,
Corporation of India
LIC Building, Anna Salai
Chennai-600 002.
2. The Senior Branch
: 2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Manager Divisional
Office-I Life Insurance
Corporation of India
No. 25, Whites Road,
Mamatha Complex
1st Floor, Royapettah
Chennai-600 014.
3880
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s. Balan Haridas,
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/1st &
: Sri C.K. Chandrasekkar,
2nd Management
Advocates
AWARD
This is an Industrial Dispute taken for adjudication on
the file under Sub-section 2A of Section-10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f.
15.09.2010).
2. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are as below:
The petitioner, a Graduate was engaged by the Second
Respondent to do the work of Office Assistance/Peon. He
had been doing the work of filing papers, cleaning the
officer and all sundry work entrusted to him in the Office of
the Second Respondent. He initially joined the office of
the Second Respondent on 20.02.2007 and had been
continuously working. The initial payment was @ Rs. 90/-
per day. Later it was revised as Rs. 360/- Per day and the
same was paid on weekly basis . The payment was made
by raising voucher under the head "Upkeep and Cleaning
Material". The petitioner was not given wages for weekly
off or other holidays. The petitioner and worked for more
than 480 days continuously during the period of 24 calendar
months. So the petitioner is entitled to be made permanent
under Section-3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent Status of Workman) Act, 1981.
The work discharged by the petitioner is perennial in nature.
He had worked for more than 240 days continuously during
the period of 12 calendar months. He had been terminated
orally on 31.08.2013. The petitioner was not issued any
notice, notice pay or compensation before termination.
Termination of the services of the petitioner would amount
to retrenchment. In the absence of compliance with Section-
25F of the ID Act the termination is void abinitio. The
Respondent now cannot say that the appointment of the
petitioner was not in terms of the LIC of India (Employment
of Temporary Staff) Instructions. Any how the employment
of the petitioner is protected by the provisions of ID Act
and the same will override the so-called instructions. An
order may be passed holding that the termination of the
service of the petitioner by the Respondent is illegal and
consequently direct the Respondent to reinstate the
petitioner with full backwages, continuity and all other
attendant benefits.
3. The Respondents have filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The claim of the petitioner is not maintainable either on
facts or on law. The petitioner was not engaged as Peon by
the Respondents. He was engaged as Coolie to do certain
petty works in the office. He was paid coolie on various
dates from 20.02.2007 to 30.04.2010. The charges were paid
for cleaning, dusting and upkeep works of the branch office
depending upon the necessity. It is not correct to state
that the employment was continuous and regular. The
engagement of the petitioner was on need basis only and
was paid for the same. It is denied that the petitioner worked
against the post for 480 days in 24 calendar months to
claim permanency. Casual engagement of need based works
cannot confer permanency. Any appointment in the
Respondent Corporation can only be through a regular
process of selection and appointment against regular posts.
The termination of the petitioner was effected pursuant to
the order of Apex Court wherein a scheme was framed and
approved and those not fitting the scope of the scheme
were directed to be relieved. So the claim of the petitioner
is liable to be rejected. The petitioner is not entitled to
invoke Section-25F of the ID Act as the action of the
Respondents is in conformity with law. In compliance of
the order of the Supreme Court dated 18.01.2011
applications were invited from eligible temporary Class-IV
employees working in LIC of India for more than 5 years as
on 18.01.2011 and who had possessed minimum eligible
qualification. As per the order of the Supreme Court those
who have been engaged on need bases would cease to be
in employment in compliance of the scheme. The petitioner
was not eligible to apply as per the scheme of the Supreme
Court. So he has no right to claim reinstatment or
absorption. The question of reinstatement can arise only
when regular employment has taken place as per LIC of
India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions. The
provisions of the ID Act are not applicable to the petitioners
with reference to matters covered by Section-48(2C) of the
LIC Act. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
4. The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the
allegations in the Counter Statement and also reiterating
his case in the Counter Statement.
5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of
WW1 and MWs 1 and 2 and also documents marked as
Ext. W1 and Ext. W2 and Ext. M1 to Ext. M3.
6. The points for consideration are:
(i) Whether the termination of the petitioner by the
Respondents from its services is legal and
justified?
(ii) What, if any, is the relief to which the petitioner is
entitled?
The Points
7. The petitioner has claimed that he has joined the
Office of the Second Respondent as Office Assistant/Peon
on 20.2.2007 and had been continuously working in this
position until 31.08.2013 on which date he was orally
terminated. According to him, he was doing the work of
filing of papers, cleaning of office and other sundry works
in the Office of the Second Respondent. He was being paid
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3881
at daily wage rates though payment was made weekly.
According to the petitioner he is entitled to permanency
under Section-3 of the Industrial Establishment (Permanent
Status to Workman) Act, he having worked for more than
480 days continuously within a period of 24 calendar
months. It is further contended by the petitioner that his
termination on 31.08.2013 amounts to retrenchment but he
has not been issued any notice or paid any notice pay or
compensation as required under Section-25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act.
8. In the Counter Statement the Respondent has not
disputed the case of the petitioner that he was working
with the Second Respondent. However, accordingly to the
Respondents the petitioner was not engaged as Peon but
was engaged only as Coolie to do certain petty works in
the office of the Second Respondent. He was being paid
for cleaning, dusting and unkeep works depending upon
necessary it is stated by the Respondents. According to
the Respondents, the employment was never continuous
or regular. The job involved was only of menial nature. It
was only on need basis the petitioner was put to work.
The Respondents have denied the case that the petitioner
had worked for more than 480 days in 24 calendar months
to claim permanency. It is stated that in any case the
petitioner is not entitled to claim permanency under the
Tamil Nadu Act, the Industrial Establishment (Conferment
of Payment Status to Workman) Act.
9. Before dealing with other aspects of the case it could
be seen whether the case of the petitioner that he is
entitled to permanency under the Tamil Nadu Act has no
basis. Though it is claimed by the petitioner that he had
worked for more than 480 days within a period of 24
calendar months the evidence available is not sufficient
to accept this contention. The petitioner has produced the
Wage Payment Register for the period from 24.02.2007
marked as Ext. W1 and Budget Control Register from the
same period marked as Ext. W2. However, it could not be
made out from these documents whether the petitioner
had worked for more than 240 days within a period of 24
months as required to seek permanency under Section-3
of the Tamil Nadu Act. The argument that is advanced on
behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner has entered
the witness box and has given evidence to the effect that
he has been working continuously from 2007 until he was
terminated from service and he had produced the available
documents also and so the burden has shifted upon the
Respondents to prove otherwise.
10.The contention based on Section-3 of the Tamil
Nadu Act can be dealt with even without considering the
above contention that the burden has shifted on the
Respondents. The counsel for the petitioner has been
relying upon certain decisions in support of his
contention. He has referred to WA No. 1372 to 1375 of
2006 in which State Bank of India is the Respondent,
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another vs. The
Presiding Officer, CGIT, Chennai reported in 2008 4 CTC
819 and also Lakshmi vs. The Chief Engineer, TNEB reported
in 2012 3 LLN 681 of the High Court of Madras in support
of his argument. In these cases, it has been held that the
workers are entitled to permanency under Section-3 of the
Tamil Nadu Act. However, it has been informed by both
sides that the question is now pending before the Apex
Court and the operation of the order of the High Court of
Madras had been stayed. The counsel for the petitioner
has argued that in spite of the stay the principle laid down
by the High Court can be accepted to give the verdict in
favour of the petitioner. This will not be possible since the
matter has been stayed which mean the operation of the
order is put under arrest. So the principle laid down cannot
be used to give an order in favour of the petitioner.
11.The next contention that is raised on behalf of the
petitioner is that termination has been without any notice,
notice pay and compensation and the petitioner is entitled
to be reinstated in service on account of the very fact
that the termination is void ab initio because of non-
compliance with Section-25F of the ID Act. The contention
that has been raised on behalf of the Respondents is that
the provisions of the ID Act are not applicable to the
petitioner since the LIC of India is governed by the Life
Insurance Corporation Act and Section-48(2C) of the Act
have excluded the applicability of the Industrial Disputes
Act to the establishment. Even assuming that the
Industrial Disputes is applicable the present case can be
disposed without referring to the other aspects of the
case.
12. As stated, the case of the petitioner is that he was
terminated without complying with Section-25F of the ID
Act. Section-25F states that a workman employed in any
industry who had been in service for not less than one
year under an employer shall not be retrenched by that
employer until the workman has been given 1 month's
notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment
and the period of notice has expired or the workman has
been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for period of notice
and the workman has been paid at the time of retrenchment
compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days
average pay for every completed year of continuous
service or any part thereof in excess of six months. Section-
25B defines the term "Continuous Service". It states that
a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a
period if he is for that period in uninterrupted service.
The second clause of Section-25B states that if the
workman is not in continuous service within the meaning
of the earlier clause he shall be deemed to be in continuous
service under an employer (a) for a period of 1 year if the
workman during the period of 12 calendar months
preceding the date with reference to which calculation is
to be made has actually worked under the employer for
not less than 190 days if he empolyed below ground in a
mine and 240 days in any other case and (b) for a period
3882
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of six months, if the workman during the period of six
calendar months preceding the date with reference to
which calculation is to be made has actually worked under
the employer for not less than 95 days if he was employed
below ground in a mine and 120 days in any other case.
Thus, it could be seen from the definition that only if the
concerned workman had been in continuous service
preceding the date with reference to which calculation is
to be made he would be entitled to the benefit of Section-
25F of the Act.
13. The case of the petitioner is that he was turned out
from service orally on 31.08.2013 and it amounts to
retrenchment. To make the service of the petitioner
continuous for not less than one year he should have been
in service for more than 240 days in the 12 months
immediately before he was terminated on 31.08.2013 to
claim the benefit of Section-25F.
14. On scanning the available evidence it could be
seen that the petitioner was not in continuous service
for one year with the Respondent preceding the date of
termination. I have already referred to Ext. W1 and Ext.
W2, regarding payment of wages for the petitioner and
others. These documents are not disputed by the
Respondents. Before referring to these documents it is
to be kept in mind that though the petitioner has claimed
that he was in service until 31.08.2013 the date of
termination, the case that is put forth by the Respondents
in the Counter Statement is that he was engaged only till
30.04.2010. Ext. W1 shows payments of wages to one
Sathish from 24.02.2007 though the number of days
worked are not available in this document. However, it
could be deciphered from Page-9 onwards of the
document that the petitioner had not been working with
the Respondents at least after 29.05.2012. Page-9
onwards of the document shows the rejoining date of
the workers as 01.10.2012 and also the payments made
to the different workers from 06.10.2012. The details
of the payment made till 31.08.2013 are available in this
document. However, the name of the petitioner does not
figure in this. So the contention on behalf of the
petitioner that it is for the Respondents to produce the
required documents also will not hold good. The
documents produced by the petitioner itself is sufficient
to show that he was not in continuous services of the
Respondents preceding the alleged date of termination.
So there is no question of the petitioner having been
retrenched in violation of Section-25F of the ID Act as
claimed. For this reason itself the petitioner will not be
entitled to any relief under Section-25F nor
reinstatement as claimed.
In view of my above discussion 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 : WW1, Sri M. Selva Sathish
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd : MW1, Sri E.
Management
Sathyanarayanan
MW2, Sri Shrinivas Purushan
On the side of the Petitioner
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
—
Wage Payment Register period
from 24.02.2007 to 31.08.2013
Ext. W2
—
Budget Control Register of the
Respondent from February 2007
onwards to August, 2010
On the side of Respondent
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
18.01.2011
Hon'ble Supreme Court Order
dated 18.01.2011 in the matter of
LIC of India and Another Vs. D.V.
Anil Kumar and Etc. min Civil
Appeal No. 953-968 of 2005
Ext.M2
16.07.2014 Judgement of Hon'ble High
Court of Kerala in WA No. 2362/
2009 in OP 39055/2002 in the
matter of LIC of India Vs.
Ushakumar and Others.
Ext.M3
—
Section 48 (1 & 2) of the Life
Insurance Corporation Act,
1956.
ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1863-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ bU'kksjsUl
dkWjiksjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
la[;k 125@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
08&09&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&17012@129@2014&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2015
S.O. 1863.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 125/2014) of the
Central Government 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 Life Insurance Corporation of India
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3883
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 08-09-2015.
[No. L-17012/129/2014-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 23rd December, 2014
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 125/2014
[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 Life Insurance Corporation
of India and their workman]
BETWEEN
Sri M. Selva Sathish
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Zonal Manager
: 2nd Party/Respondent
LIC of India, Chennai Division-I
102, Anna Salai
Chennai-600002
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: None
For the 2nd Party/Respondent : None
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-17012/29/2014-IR (M)
dated 05.12.2014 referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the action of the management of Life
Insurance Corporation of India in terminating the
services of Sri M. Selva Sathish w.e.f. 31.08.2013 is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to?"
2. The petitioner herein has filed ID 81/2014 before
this Tribunal directly challenging the order of termination
against him. The petitioner does not want to proceed with
this reference in view of this. He has endorsed stating
that he is not proceeding with the reference because of
the pendency of the other case. Therefore the reference
is closed.
An award is passed accordingly.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : None
For the 2nd Party/
: None
Management
Documents marked:
On the petitioner's side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
N/A
On the Management's side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
N/A
ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1864-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ lsUVªy
os;jgkmflax dkiksZjs'ku 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 12@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
08&09&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42011@4@2007&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15 the September, 2015
S.O. 1864.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2008) 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. Central Warehousing Corporation and
their workman, which was received by the Cental
Government on 08.09.2015.
[No. L-42011/4/2007-IR(M))]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/12/08
The President,
CWC Workers Union,
C/o Central Warehousing Corporation,
Regional Office, 70, Arera Hills,
Bhopal
....Workman/Union
Versus
3884
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Regional Manager,
Central Warehousing Corporation,
Regional Office, 75,
Arera Hills, Opp. Central Shcool-I,
Bhopal.
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 15th day of July 2015
1. As per letter dated 7-2-08 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-42011/4/2007-IR(M).
The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of CWC Bhopal
in transferring Shri K.L. Chourasia, Sr. Supdt. (General
Secretary of CWC Workers Union) from CWC, Raipur
to CWC, Balaghat vide office order to CWC/RO- BPL/I-
Transfer Estt. 12203 dated 21-3-2005 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
through Union. Case of workman is that he is working as
junior Supdt. In Central Ware Housing Corporation, Raipur.
He was also holding additional charge of Ware House Raipur
from 21-8-03. After taking over charge by workman, the
profit of ware housing increased in 2005-06 to Rs. 18,78,441,
in 2006-07- Rs. 14,92,904/-in 2007-08 Rs. 25,92, 612, in 2008-
09 — Rs. 31, 93, 229/- and in 2009-10 Rs. 11,95,239/-. Ist
party further submits that for his good performance, he
was granted certificate of appreciation by Asstt. General
Manager, Accounts Division, District Manager of State
Civil Supplies Corporation, Raipur That on 16-10-93,
workman refused to accept poor quality and underweight
bags of M/s Satyam Rice Industries, its properietor Pradeep
Agarwal abused, manhandled and misbehaved with the
workman. On 16-10-03, workman complained to the
authorities including Regional Manager, CWC, Bhopal but
action was not taken on his complaint. The order of his
transfer was passed on 21.3.05 by mangement. It is reiterated
that the order of transfer is malafide, arbitrary. The order of
his transfer is issued with oblique motive. The action of
the management is high handed and in colourable exercise
of powers. That workman is still continuing to work at
Raipur. His representation submitted immediately after order
of his transfer was not considered. On such ground,
workman prays to set aside order of his transfer dated 21-
3-05.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of
the workman. 2nd party submits that it is constituted under
Central Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulation 1986.
The services of its employees are covered by Staff
Regulations 1986. That workman was working as Joint
Superintendent in Central Ware House, Raipur. He was
transferred from Raipur to Balaghat vide order dated 21-3-
05. Workman was working at Raipur from 1987 for almost
20 years at one station. He was granted promotions to the
post of Ware House assistant Grade II, Grade I and Joint
Superintentent. The condition No. IV of his appointment
order provides for transfer to any part of India. The
transport facility by Rail and bus between Balaghat to
Raipur. The allegation of workman are denied.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the point which
arise for any 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 have failed to
management of CWC
participate in reference,
Bhopal transferring
dispute could not be
Shri K.L.Chourasia,
decided on merit.
Sr. Supdt.(General
Secretary of CWC
Workers Union) from
CWC, Raipur to CWC,
Balaghat vide office order
No. CWC/RO-BPL/I-Transfer/
Estt. 12203 dated
21-3-2005 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not entitled
workman is
to any relief.
entitled to?"
REASONS
5. Workman is challenging order of his transfer dated
21-3-05. Workman was transferred from Raipur to Balaghat.
Claim of the workman is opposed by management.
Workman failed to adduce any evidence in support of his
claim. Management also not adduced any evidence. Parties
failed to participate in reference proceeding therefore matter
could not be decided on evidence of parties. Accordingly
I record my finding in Point No. 1.
6. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The parties failed to participate in reference
proceedings, as such dispute could not be
decided on merit.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 1865-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ pSUubZ isVªksfy;e
dkjiksjs'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;] pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3885
87@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
08-09-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30011@07@2015&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2015
S.O. 1865—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.87/2015) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai
now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute
between the employers in relation to the management of
M/s Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 80.09.2015.
[No L-30011/7/2015-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Monday, the 3rd August, 2015
Present: K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 87/2015
(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 Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and
their workman.
BETWEEN
The General Secretary
: 1st Party/Petioner Union
Chennai Petroleum
Employees' Union
CPCL Campus, Manali
Chennai-600068
AND
The General Manager
: 2nd Party/Respondent
Chennai Petroleum
Corporation Ltd.
Manali
Chehhai-600068
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petioner Union : Absent
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
: Ms.K.Premalatha,
Authorized
Representative
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No L-30011/7/2015-IR(M)
04.06.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication.
The Schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the action of the Management of CPCL,
Manali, Chennai in respect of sudden reduction of
manpower and unilateral decision is justified or not? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?
2. On the receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 87/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. The Respondent has entered appearance through
Authorized Representative.
3. Even though the petitioner has received notice, he
did not enter appearance. In spite of that, the case has
been reposted to today for filling claim statement. However,
the petitioner failed to appear on this day also.
4. The petitioner seems to be not interested in pursuing
the matter. In the absence of any material a decision on
merits is not possible. The reference is to be answered
against the petitioner, in the circumstances.
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/1st & 2nd Management : None
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner's side & Management's side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1866-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ tkSgj lsD;wfjfVt
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;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 38@2014½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&30012@70@2013&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2015
S.O. 1866.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Governement hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 38/
2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the
3886
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Johar Securities and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government
on 08.09.2015.
[No. L-30012/70/2013-IR (M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Friday, the 31st July, 2015
Present
: K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 38/2014
(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 Johar Securities and their
workman.)
BETWEEN
Sri M. Panneerselvam
: 1st Party/Petitioner
(International Human
Rights Organization,
Near Jothi Vidyalay
School, Karuppur Post
Omalur District
Salem-636012
AND
1. M/s Johar Securities
: 2nd Party/1st Respondent
434, Jonapur, Mehrauli
Mandir Road
Lakshman Farm House
New Delhi-110047
2. Sri Venkatraman
: 2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Ex-Army Sub B-Off
Door No. 5/69, Butt
Road, Butt Lane
St. Thomas Mount
Chennai-600 016
3. Ex-Army, Maharaju
: 2nd Party/3rd Respondent
Security Supervisor
Indian Oil Corporation
Narayanppanchavadi
R.S. Post, Sangagiri Taluk,
Salem Distt.
Salem
4. Sri S. Kumar
: 2nd Party/4th Respondent
Sr. Depot Manager
Indian Oil Corporation
Narayanappanchavadi
R.S. Post, Sangagiri Taluk
Salem District
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: M/s. J. Saravanakumar
For the 2nd Party/1st Respondent : Set Ex-parte
For the 2nd Party/2nd Respondent : Sri G. Thangavel,
Advocate
For the 2nd Party/3rd Respondent : Sri G. Thangavel,
Advocate
For the 2nd Party/4th Respondent : Set Ex-parte
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-30012/70/2013-IR (M)
dated 01.04.2014 referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The Schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the action of the management of Johar
Securities regarding termination of services of the
petitioner M. Paneerselvam w.e.f. 24.06.2012 is
justified or not? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 38/2014 and issued notice to both
sides. The petitioner and Respondents 2 and 3 have entered
appearance through counsel on receipt of notice. The
petitioner has filed Claim Statement. The 1st and 4th
Respondents remained ex-parte. The Second Respondent
alone has filed Counter Statement.
3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner is a retired Army staff. In the year 2001
he has joined as Security in a LPG Gas Bottling Plant at
Karuppur, Salem District. The petitioner accepted the
proposal of the 1st Respondent and had agreed to work
through them. From the year 2003 till the date of his
retrenchment by the respondents on 24.06.2012 the
petitioner had been working as Security Staff at Indian
Oil Corporation (IOC) in Sankari Taluk. The work allotted
to him was to check the lorries and tankers that enter the
IOC premises and to intimate the same to the concerned
employee deployed to facilitate the loading of oil. On
23.06.2012 the 3rd Respondent intimated the petitioner
not to come for work from the next day. He informed that
he had acted as per the instructions of the 4th Respondent
and Administrative officers of the 1st Respondent. The
petitioner had sent representations to different Officers
of IOC to check the abuse of power by illegal
retrenchment. The officers did not take any action. The
petitioner had been removed from service without any
reason. The dispute is raised accordingly. The petitioner
is entitled to be reinstated in service. The Respondent
shall be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with
back wages from the date of retrenchment. They shall also
be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner
as compensation for illegal retrenchment.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3887
4. The 2nd Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The petitioner intends to have the relief of reinstatement
from the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent performs
security of Sankari Terminal of IOC Ltd. from 01.04.2010 to
31.05.2014. The 1st Respondent establishment does not
exist as on 31.05.2015. Sardar Singh who had been
representing the 1st Respondent is not alive. The petitioner
had been working elsewhere from 24.06.2012. This fact is
suppressed by him. As the 1st Respondent establishment
is not functioning now the petitioner is not entitled to any
relief from the 1st Respondent.
5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of
WW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W18.
6. The points for consideration are:
(i) Whether the action of the 1st Respondent in
terminating the service of the petitioner is
justified?
(ii) What is the relief, if any to which the petitioner is
entitled?
The Points
7. The petitioner, a retired Army staff had been working
as Security at LPG Gas Bottling Plant of the IOC at Karuppur,
Salem District through the 1st Respondent. According to
the petitioner, he was retrenched from service from
24.06.2012 illegally without any justification. He is claiming
the relief of reinstatement against the Respondents.
8. Though the petitioner had made Respondents 3 and
4, Officers of the IOC and also the 2nd Respondent whose
status and position in the whole affairs is not clear as
parties, it is very much clear that the relief is claimed only
against 1st Respondent who had engaged him as Security
for the bottling plant at IOC. The 1st Respondent itself did
not come forward and defend the case. Only the 2nd
Respondent has filed a Counter Statement. Though the
Second Respondent is defending the 1st Respondent, the
role of the 2nd Respondent itself in the case is not made
clear even in the Counter Statement.
9. The petitioner has filed affidavit in lieu of examination
and has been cross-examined on behalf of the 2nd
Respondent. In the affidavit the petitioner has reiterated
his case that he had been working as security for the IOC
through the 1st Respondent. Ext. W1, the document
showing ESI contribution would show that the petitioner
was employed by the 1st Respondent. Ext. W6 the Identity
Card issued by the IOC Ltd. also shows that the petitoner
was working at Sankari Depot of the Corporation and he
was engaged through the 1st Respondent whose name is
given as Contractor in the Identity Card. The only
contesting Respondent, the 2nd Respondent has not
disputed the case that the petitioner had been working
through the 1st Respondent. So it is very much clear that
the 1st Respondent had engaged the petitioner and he has
been working as Security for the LPG bottling plant of IOC.
10. The only contesting Respondent did not adduce
any evidence either oral or documentary. In any case the
only contention raised by the 2nd Respondent is that the
person who was representing the 1st Respondent is not
alive and that the Contractor of the 1st Respondent with
IOC subsisted till 31.05.2014 only. Even regarding the period
of contract there is no evidence. So the case of the petitioner
that he was employed by the1st Respondent and was
terminated illegally and is entitled to be reinstated is to be
accepted.
11. Accordingly an award is passed as below:
The First Respondent is directed to reinstate the
petitioner in service within a month of the publication of
the award with 50% back wages and other attendant
benefits.
The reference is answered accordingly.
K.P. RASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: WW1, Sri M.
Paneerselvam
For the 2nd Party/1st Respondent : None
For the 2nd Party/2nd Respondent : None
For the 2nd Party/3rd Respondent : None
For the 2nd Party/4th Respondent : None
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner's side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
-
EPF Contribution for the year
2010-2011 and 2011-2012.
Ex.W2
30.6.2012
Representation to the Director,
IOC New Delhi.
Ex.W3
30.6.2012
Representation to the Executive
Director, IOC Chennai.
Ex.W4
30.6.2012
Representation to the Manager
(Vigilance),
Vigilance
Department, IOC, Chennai.
Ex.W5
04.07.2012 Acknowledgement Cards
Ex.W6
—
Identification Card
Ex.W7
14.11.2012 Petition filed before Assistant
Labour Commissioner (Central),
Channai.
3888
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.W8
18.03.2013
Reply letter from 1st Respondent.
Ex.W9
10.04.2013
Notice from Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central), Chennai.
Ex.W10
18.04.2013
Reply by 4th Respondent.
Ex.W11
19.04.2013
Representation of Claimant.
Ex.W12
02.05.2013
Representation of Claimant.
Ex.W13
—
Reply by 3rd Respondent.
Ex.W14
16.05.2013
Notice of Assistant Commissioner
(Central), Chennai.
Ex.W15
29.05.2013
Reply of Claimant.
Ex.W16
01.06.2013
Statement of S. Sankaranarayanan
Ex. W17
05.12.2013
Reply of Failure of Conciliation.
Ex. W18
01.04.2014
Order of reference of Hon'ble
Tribunal.
On the Management's side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1867-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ fo'kky
VsfLVax lfoZlst ds 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;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
112@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-09-2015 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&30011@22@2015&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2015
S.O. 1867.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 112/2015) of the
Central Government 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. Vishal Testing Services and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 08.09.2015.
[No. L-30011/22/2015-IR (M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 26th August, 2015
Present:
K.P. Prasanna Kumari,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 112/2015
(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 M/s. Vishal Testing Services, Chennai
and their workman)
Between
Sri R. Arumugam
1st Party/Petitioner Union
General Secretary, HMS Union
Libe Plant, Indian Oil Co. Tondiarpet
Chennai-600081
And
The Proprietor
2nd Party/Respondent
M/s Vishal Testing & Service,
Engineers Consultant &
Contractors, 1/623, PGN Apartments
Muttukadu Road, Kottivakkam
Chennai-600041
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
Absent
For the 2nd Party/Management :
Absent
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, vide its Order No. L-30011/22/2015-IR (M)
dated 14.07.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The Schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the action of the managemnt of M/s. Vishal
Testing Services, Chennai regarding the details of
absenteeism and the amount deducted for the days
of absenteeism from the bonus amount given to the
workers is justified or not? If not, to what relief the
workman are entitled?"
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 112/2015 and issued notices to
both sides.
3. Initially when notice was issued to the petitioner, he
has refused to claim the notice. When the matter had come
up for hearing on 04.08.2015, the petitioner had not
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3889
appeared on this date also. The Respondent also was
absent, thoutgh served.
5. In spite of refusal by the petitioner to claim the notice,
notice has been sent to him again. This time the petitioner
has received the notice. In spite of that he had not entered
appearance on this second hearing date also. The petitioner
seems to be not interested in proceeding with the case. So
the matter is only to be disposed in the absence of the
petitioner.
In the circumstances mentioned above, the reference is
answered againt the petitioner. An award is passed
accordingly.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
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] 15 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1868-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ ykbZQ
ba';ksjsUl dkiksZjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
vkSn~;ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
la[;k 106@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
08@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la-,y&17012@122@2014&vkbZ vkj¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2015
S.O. 1868.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 106/2014) of the
Central Government 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 LIC of India and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 08/09/2015.
[No. L-17012/122/2014-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Thursday, the 27th August, 2015
PRESENT: K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 106/2014
(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 LIC of India and their
workman)
BETWEEN
Sri S. Jayaseelan
:1st Party/Ist Petitioner
AND
The Zonal Manager
LIC of India, Cheenai Division-1
102, Anna Salai
Chennai-600002
: 2nd Party/Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
M/s Balan Haridas,
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
Shri C. K. Chandrasekkar,
Advocate
A W A R D
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its order No. L-17012/122/2014-IR(M)
dated 28.10.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to the Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
‘‘Whether the action of the management of Life
Insurance Corporation of India in terminating the
services of Sri S. Jayaseelan w.e.f. 31.08.2013 is
legal and justified? If not, the what relief the
workman concerned is entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 106/2014 and issued notices to
both sides. Both sides have entered appearance through
their counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement
respectively. The Petitioner has filed rejoinder in reply
to the Counter Statement.
3. The petitioner has filed Claim Statement contending
as below.
The petitioner has passed 10th standard. The petitioner
was engaged in the Office of the Second Respondent as
3890
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Office Assistant/Peon. He had joined in April 2011 and had
been continuosly working. He had been doing the work of
filing papers, cleaning the office and all sundry work
entrusted to him in the office of the Second Respondent.
Initially he was paid @ Rs. 160/- per day and this was
revised as Rs. 250/- and later as Rs. 360/- per day. He had
been working continuously in this manner. The petitioner
was paid wages every week in cash. However, voucher was
raised under the head ‘‘Upkeep and Cleaning Material".
This was done to circumvent law. The pettioner had worked
for more than 480 days contnuously during the period of
24 calendar months. So the petitioner is entitled to be
made permanent under Section-3 of the Tamil Nadu
Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workman) Act, 1981. The work discharged by
the petitioner is perennial in nature. He had worked for
more than 240 days continuously during the period of 12
calendar months. He had been terminated orally on
31.08.2013. The petitioner was not issued any notice,
notice pay or compensation before termination.
Termination of the service of the petitioner would amount
to retrenchment. In the absence of compliance with
Sectoin-25F of the ID Act the termination is void abinitio.
The Respondent now cannot say that appointment of the
petitoner was not in terms of the LIC of India
(Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions. Any how
the employment of the petitioner is protected by the
provision of ID Act and the same will override the so-
called instructions. An order may be passed holding that
termination of the service of the petitioner by the
Respondent is illegal and consequently direct the
Respondent to reinstate the petitioner with full backwages,
continuity and all other attendant benefits.
4. The Resondents have filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The claim of the petitioner is not maintainable either on
facts or on on law. The petitioner was not engaged as Peon
by the Respondents. He was engaged as Coolie to do certain
petty works in the office. He was paid coolie charges on
various dates form November 2005 to February 2009, from
May 2009 to September 2009 and from November 2009 to
August 2013. The charges was paid for cleaning, dusting
and upkeep works of the branch office depending upon
the necessity. It is not correct to state that the employment
was continuous and regular. The engagement of the
petitioner was on need basis only and he was paid for the
same. It is denied that the petitioner worked against the
post for 480 days in 24 calendar months to claim
permanency. Casual engagement on need based works
cannot confer permanency. And appointment in the
Respondent Corporation can only be through a regular
process of selection and appointment against regular posts.
The termination of the petitioner was effected pursuant to
the order of Apex Court wherein a scheme was framed and
approved and those not fitting the scope of the scheme
were directed to be relieved. So the claim of the petitioner
is laible to be rejected. The petitioner is not entitled to
invoke Section-25F of the ID act as the action of the
Respondents is in conformity with law. In compliance of
the order of the Supreme Court dated 18.01.2011
applications were invited from eligible temporary Class-IV
employees working in LIC of India for more than 5 years as
on 18.01.2011 and who had possessed minimum eligible
qualification. As per the order of the Supreme Court those
who have been engaged on need basis would cease to be
in employment in compliance of the scheme. The petitioner
was not eligible to apply as per the scheme of the Supreme
Court. So he has no right to claim reinstatement or
absorption. The question of reinstate can arise only when
regular employment has taken place as per LIC of India
(Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions. The
provision of the ID Act are not applicable to the petitioners
with reference to matter covered by Section-48(2C) of the
LIC Act. The petioner is not entitled to any relief.
5. The petitoner has filed rejoinder denying the
allegations in the Counter Statement and also reiterating
his case in the Counter Statement.
6. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of
WW1 and MWs 1 and 2 and also documents marked as Ext
W1 to Ext. W344 and Ext. M1 to Ext. M3.
7. The points for consideration are
(i) Whether termination of the petitioner by the
Respondents from service is legal and justified?
(ii) What, if any, is the relief to which the petitioner is
entitled?
The Points
8. The petitioner is seeking to set aside termination of
his service by the the Respondents and to direct them to
reinstate him with backwages, continuity of service and
other benefits.
9. According to the petitioner he had joined in the
office of the Second Respondent as Officer Assistant/
Peon in April 2011 and had been continuously working in
the said office until 31.08.2013 on which date he was
orally terminated without any justification. According to
him he was initally paid wages @ Rs. 160/- per day. This
was revised to Rs. 250/- per day and again to Rs. 360/-
per day. He used to be paid on weekly basis. According to
him voucher was raised under the head’’ Upkeep and
Cleaning Material" only to circumvent the law. He was
terminated illegally, without any justification. He has
claimed that he had worked for more than 480 days
continuously within a period of 24 calendar months and
is entitled to be made permanent under Section -3 of the
Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of
Permanent Status to Workmen) Act. He has also claimed
that his termination was in violation of Section-25F of
the Industrial Disputes Act.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3891
10. The Respondents have admitted that the petitioner
was paid coolie charges on various dates form November
2005 to February 2009 and from May 2009 to September
2009 and from November 2009 to August 2013. However,
according to the Respondents, the engagement was not as
Peon or Officer Assistant. It was only to be certain petty
works like cleaning, dusting and upkeep works. The
Respondents have denied the case that the engagement
was continous and employment was regular. There was no
question of payment on Sunday and Hoilday as the
engagement was on daily wages bais only, it is stated.
11. The petitioner has filed affidavit in lieu of Chief
Examination and also produced Ext. W1 to Ext. W344 to
substantiate the case. The petitioner has stated in his proof
affidavit that his engagement was continuous. Ext. W1 to
Ext W343 are the payment vouchers which are not disputed.
These vouchers are of the period starting from 03.12.2011.
However, it could be seen from the admission of the
Respondents itself that the petitioner used to be engaged
even from the year 2005. On going through the payment
vouchers it could be seen that the petitioner used to be
paid weekly on daily wage basis. A perusal of the vouchers
would reveal that the engagement was without much of a
gap. Certainly, he had worked for more than 240 days
preceding the 12 months of the date on which he last
worked. Thus it could be seen that the engagement was of
a continuous nature.
12. What is the nature of work done by the petitioner?
According to the Respondents they were only doing works
such as cleaning, dusting and other upkeep works. This is
what is stated by MWs 1 and 2 in their Proof Affidavits
also. However, during their cross-examination MW1 has
stated that except for issuing forms the petitioner was doing
all the works that were usually done by the Sub-Staff. MW1
has also stated that the petitioner was paid daily wages on
weekly basis. Ext. W1 to Ext. W343 also would show that
almost on all occasions the petitioner was paid once in a
week calculated on wage fixed per day. From this also it
could be seen that the petitioner was working continuously
with the Respondents for the period claimed. However,
there is no case for the petitioner that he was working on
sanctioned post. He has not claimed also that he was
working on temporary basis but only as a casual worker.
In fact in the Claim Statement the demand of the petitioner
is only for reinstatement and not for any regularization
except for the claim of permanency under Section-3 of
the Tamil Nadu Act. So it is clear that the petitioner was
working on daily wages and not on sanctioned post.
13. Before dealing with the others contentions of the
petitioner the case that he is entitled for permanency under
Section-3 of the Tamil Nadu Act can be considered. Section-
3(1) of the Act states that notwithstanding anything
contained in any law in force every workman who is in
continuous service for a period of 480 days in a period of
24 calendar months in an industrial establishment shall be
made permanent. The condition for treating a workman to
be in continuous service is given in the next sub-section of
Section-3. On going through Ext. W1 to Ext. W343 there
could be no doubt that the petitioner must have been in
service for a period of 480 days within a period of 24
calendar months in the Office of the Second Respondent.
14. The counsel for the petitioner has been seeking
support from the decisions of the High Court of Madras to
fortify his contention. He has referred to the decision in
Elayaperumal VS. State Bank of India (Writ Appeal No.
1372 of 2006 decided on 08.01.2007). The Hon'ble High
Court has held in this case that the provisions of the
Permanent Status Act will apply to Banks including
nationalized banks. Another decision referred to by the
counsel for the petitioner is Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. VS Presiding Officer, CGIT, Chennai
reported in 2008 4 CTC 819 where it was held that the Act is
applicable to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Another decision relied upon is Lakshmi VS. The Chief
Engineer, TNEB reported in 2012 3LLN 681 wherein it was
held that the concerned worker would have been entitled
to the benefit of conferment of permanent status under
TNEB. It is pointed out by the counsel for the Respondents
that second decision referred to has been taken to the
Apex court and has been compromised. In the last decision
referred to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board being a party, the
Permanent Status Act very well applies to the same. The
operation of the other decision referred to has been stayed
by the Apex Court and the matter is still pending. According
to the counsel for the petitioner even if stay has been
granted the dictum laid down by the High Court can be
applied to the present case. I am not able to accept this
argument of the counsel. When operation of the decision
is stayed, it could not be acted upon and there is no question
of the principle laid down in the decision being applied. So
the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to the
benefit of Section-3 of the Permanent Status Act of the
Tamil Nadu could not be accepted.
15. It is not disputed by the Respondents that the
petitioner will be a workman as defined in Section-2(k)
of the ID Act but for inapplicability of the Act itself. It is
also admitted on behalf of the Respondents that the
termination of the petitioner was done without complying
with Section-25F of the ID Act. so there is no necessity
to refer to various decisions relied upon on behalf of the
petitioner in this respect. The counsel for the Respondents
has not disputed the legal position that the termination in
violation of Section-25F of the Act will be void abinitio.
16. The contention on behalf of the Respondents that
the termination of the petitioner was in lieu of the decision
of the Apex Court wherein the scheme framed was approved
by the Apex Court and those who did not get selected as
3892
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
per the scheme ceased to be in service. The order of the
Apex Court relied upon by the Respondents has been
produced and marked as Ext. M1. One of the appellants in
the several civil appeals decided by Ext. M1 order is the
LIC of India and the Respondents are those who were
working in the Corporation and has claimed reinstatement
or permanency. While this case was pending, the
Corporation had framed a scheme as below:
One time limited examination for those temporary
persons who are working in LIC of India for more
than 5 years and who had possessed minimum eligible
qualification and age as prescribed at the relevant
time of their entry into the LIC of India would be
considered. For this purpose LIC of India would hold
a limited written examination which will be in the
vernacular language with a limited syllabus which
would be announced in advance.
Such of those temporary employees who do not apply
and/or not successful shall cease to be in
employment. It is cleared that those temporary
persons who are not governed under these
submissions shall also cease to be in employment.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The scheme having been acceptable to the other
side the appeals were disposed by the Apex Court
with the direction that the Respondents shall absorb
employees in terms of the scheme.
17. The case of the Respondents is that application was
called for from the temporary workers, a written examination
was conducted and those who were found eligible were
given permanent appointment in the Corporation. Those
other persons who did not fit in the scheme were turned
out of service on 31.08.2013. According to the Respondents
the petitioner who was not eligible to apply for the test and
had not made any application had ceased to be in
employment consequent to the scheme approved by the
Apex Court. It is the case of the Respondents that the
petitioner who had ceased to be an employee of the
Corporation is now not entitled to claim reinstatement.
18. The counsel for the petitioner has been mainly
relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Tamil Nadu
Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees
Association VS. LIC of India and Others in Civil Appeal
No. 6951/2009 and other appeals in this respect. In this
the Apex Court has found that the temporary employees
are entitled to reinstatement and permanency. In the above
decision the Apex Court had found that even though the
Corporation had entered into a compromise with some
of the workers it will not affect the right of the workmen
concerned to claim relief under the earlier national awards
existing since those awards were not set aside even after
the compromise. It has also been observed that in any case
the compromise will not affect the rights of the parties to
claim statutory benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act.
19. The counsel for the Respondents has pointed out
that Civil Appeal Nos. 6951/2009 and connected appeals
were de-tagged by the Apex Court while considering Ext.
M1 cases, since the issues involved in those cases were
different from the case considered in Ext. M1 order. On
going through Ext. M1 it could be seen that such a
representation was made and it is accordingly those appeals
were de-tagged. The workmen involved in the above
appeals were discharging work of perennial nature against
permanent posts. It could be seen from the decision that
there was an earlier award applicable to the parties and a
compromise was entered into the Corporation with some
of the Unions while a case was pending. In Civil Appeal
Nos. 6951/2009 and other cases it has been held that the
direction given to the Corporation as per the Award
regarding other workmen who were parties to the case and
had not entered into a compromise has not been substituted
by the terms and conditions of the compromise. It is pointed
out by the counsel for Respondents that it is this
background the decision has been rendered.
20. The counsel for the Respondents has referred to
two earlier decisions of the Apex Court that has held that
the provisions of the Act is not applicable to the workers
of the Corporation. Reference was made to the decision
in M. Venugopal VS. The Divisional Manager, LIC of India
reported in 1994 2 SCC 323. In this the Apex Court has
considered Sub-Section 2(C) of Section-48 which has
been incorporated in LIC Act by amendment, and other
provisions. Section-48 of the Act provides that the Central
Government may make rules to carry out the purpose of
the Act. The rules may provide for terms and conditions
of the service of the employees. As per Clause (cc) the
regulations and other provisions in force immediately
before the commencement of the Amendment Act with
respect to the terms and conditions of the service of the
employees shall be deemed to be the rules made under
Clause (cc) as per Clause-2(A). Clause-2C of the same
section states that the provisions of Clause (cc) and Sub-
Section 2B and any rules made there under shall have
effect notwithstanding any judgment, decree on order of
the any Court, Tribunal or other authority and
notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial
Disputes Act or any other law, agreement, settlement,
award or other instrument. Referring to these provisions
it was held in Venugopal's case referred to above that the
wisdom of the legislature in extending the protection of
the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act or denying the
same cannot be judged by the Courts unless any such step
is held to be violative of any of the provisions of the
Constitution. After the amendment introduced in Section-
48 the employees of the Corporation shall not be entitled
to protection to which they were entitled before coming
into force of the amendment, though till then it was upto
them to impose the rights or remedies in terms of the
regulation so framed under the Corporation Act or in
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3893
accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act, it has been held. The counsel for the Respondents
has also referred to the decision A.V. Nachane VS. Union
of India reported in AIR 1982 SC 1126 in this respect. In the
above case it has been held that Section-48 (2C) read with
Section-48 (2cc) authorized the Central Government to make
rules to carry out the purpose of the Act notwithstanding
the Industrial Disputes Act or any other law, which meant
that in respect of the matters covered by the rules, the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or any other law
will not be operative. The grievance raised in the case that
excluding the employees of the Corporation from the
purview of Industrial Disputes Act amounted to
discrimination against them and as such the provisions of
the amending act were violative of Article-14 of the
Constitution were also rejected by the Apex Court. The
counsel has also referred to the decision of the Apex court
in LIC of India VS. Asha Ramchand Ambedkar reported in
1994 2 SCC 718 where it was held that the instructions
issued by the Chairman of the Corporation exercising his
powers under the regulations framed under the Act were
statutory in character and they have the force of law. Based
on the decision of the Apex Court after acceptance of the
scheme the Corporation had issued several instructions
on the basis of which the petitioner and such others had
ceased to be in employment. It has been argued that the
instructions are not statutory in character though the
regulations are. It was in this context the above decision
was relied upon. Thus the three bench decision of the
Apex court in the case earlier referred to had held that
Industrial Disputes Act will not apply to those employees
coming under the LIC Act and its rules and regulations.
The recent decision of the Apex Court in favour of the
temporary employees of the Corporation were rendered in
the context already referred to. Those employees were
fighting their case even while the cases under Ext. M1 were
pending and those were treated separately and decided
separately in the background referred to above. So the
decision in the above case could not be applied to the
facts of the present case. The other decisions referred to
by the counsel for the petitioner are all those in which the
provisions of the ID Act are applicable and need not be
referred to.
21. I have already stated that there is no case for the
Respondents that any notice, notice pay or compensation
were given as required under Section-25F of the ID Act
when the petitioner was terminated. The counsel for the
Respondents has pointed out that in the absence of
application of Industrial Disputes Act there is no necessity
to comply with Section-25F of the Act also. He has referred
to the decision of the High Court of Kerala in LIC of India
VS Usha Kumari and Others in Writ Appeal 2362/2009 in
this respect. The High Court has referred to the decisions
of the Apex Court wherein the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act were found inapplicable to the employees of
the Life Insurance Corporation and has held that the
provisions contained in Section-48(2C) of the LIC Act
would override the Industrial Disputes Act and so
termination of the employees cannot amount to
retrenchment as provided under Section-2(oo) of the
Industrial Disputes Act attracting Section-25F of the Act.
It was a natural consequence, the Apex Court having found
that Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable to those
coming under the Life Insurance Corporation Act. This
being so, the petitioner would not be entitled even to the
benefit under Section-25F of the Act. The termination of
the petitioner was the consequence of the order of the
Apex Court accepting the scheme for providing employment
to eligible workmen who were working as temporary
employees of the Corporation. Those who did not fit in
with the scope had to meet the consequence. The petitioner
had not completed 5 years as daily wager in the Corporation
as contemplated in the scheme and he was not eligible to
apply for the written examination. It is accordingly he
happened to be eliminated and ceased to be in employment.
So the petitioner will not be entitled to any relief.
In view of my discussion above the reference is answered
against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
WW1, Sri S. Jayaseelan
For the 2nd Party/Management MW1, Sri E. Sathyanara-
yanan
MW2, Sri S Shrinivas
Purushan
Documents Marked:
On the Petitioner's side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
03.12.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W2
03.12.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W3
10.12.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W4
10.12.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W5
17.12.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W6
17.12.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W7
24.12.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W8
24.12.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W9
12.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W10
12.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W11
21.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W12
21.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
3894
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.W13
28.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W14
28.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W15
04.02.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W16
04.02.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W17
11.02.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext. W18
11.02.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W19
25.02 2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W20
25.02.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W21
03.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W22
03.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W23
03.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W24
01.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W25
—
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W26
—
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W27
10.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W28
10.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W29
17.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W30
17.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W31
17.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W32
17.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W33
24.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W34
24.03 2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W35
31.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W36
31.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W37
31.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W38
31.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W39
31.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W40
31.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W41
07.04 2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W42
07.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W43
02.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W44
02.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W45
07.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W46
07.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W47
12.04 2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W48
12.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W49
12.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W50
12.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W51
21.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W52
21.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W53
21.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W54
21.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W55
28.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W56
28.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W57
28.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W58
28.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W59
07.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W60
07.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W61
05.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W62
05.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W63
05.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W64
05.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W65
05.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W66
12.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W67
12.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W68
12.02.2015
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W69
17.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W70
17.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W71
17.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W72
17.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W73
28.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W74
28.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W75
02.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W76
02.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W77
02.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W78
02.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W79
09.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W80
09.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W81
09.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W82
09.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W83
16.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W84
16.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W85
16.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W86
16.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3895
Ext.W87
23.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W88
23.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W89
23.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W90
23.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W91
—
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W92
29.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W93
30.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W94
30.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W95
30.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W96
30.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W97
07.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W98
07.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W99
07.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W100
07.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W101
14.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W102
14.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W103
14.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W104
14.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W105
21.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W106
21.07 2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W107
21.07 2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W108
21.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W109
28.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W110
28.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W111
28.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W112
28.07 2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W113
04.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W114
04.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W115
04.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W116
04.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W117
11.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W118
11.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W119
11.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W120
11.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W121
18.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W122
18 08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W123
18.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W124
—
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W125
—
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W126
25.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W127
27.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W128
25.08 2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W129
01.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W130
01.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W131
01 09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W132
01.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W133
08 09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W134
08 09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W135
08.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W136
08.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W137
15.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W138
15 09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W139
15.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W140
15.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W141
22 09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W142
22 09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W143
22 09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W144
22.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W145
29.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W146
29.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W147
29.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W148
29.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W149
05.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W150
05.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W151
05.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W152
05.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W153
13.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W154
13.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W155
13.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W156
13.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W157
20.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W158
20.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W159
26.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W160
26.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
3896
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.W161
26.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W162
26.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W163
01.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W164
01.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W165
03.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W166
03.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W167
03.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W168
11.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W169
11.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W170
11.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W171
10.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W172
10.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W173
17.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W174
17.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W175
17.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W176
17.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W177
21.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
ExtW.178
21.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
ExtW.179
21.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W180
21.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W181
24.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W182
24.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W183
24.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W184
01.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W185
01.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W186
01.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W187
01.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W188
08.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W189
08.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W190
08.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W191
08.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W192
15.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W193
15.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W194
22.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W195
22.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W196
22.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W197
22.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W198
29.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W199
29.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W200
05.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W201
05.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W202
12.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W203
12.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W204
19.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W205
19.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W206
24.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W207
24.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W208
02.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W209
02.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W210
05.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W211
05.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W212
05.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W213
05.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W214
05.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W215
05.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W216
05.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W217
05.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W218
05.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W219
05.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W220
05.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W221
05.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W222
05.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W223
05.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W224
09.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W225
09.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W226
09.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W227
08.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W228
16.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W229
16.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W230
19.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W231
16.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W232
23.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W233
23.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W234
25.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3897
Ext.W235
25.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W236
27.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W237
27.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W238
02.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W239
02.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W240
04.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W241
04.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W242
09.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W243
09.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W244
16.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W245
16.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W246
16.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W247
16.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W248
23.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W249
23.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W250
23.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W251
23.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W252
30.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W253
30.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W254
06.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W255
06.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W256
13.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W257
13.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W258
15.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W259
16.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W260
16.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W261
10.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W262
15.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W263
15.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W264
16.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W265
16.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W266
20.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W267
20.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W268
20.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W269
20.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W270
20.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W271
20.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W272
27.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W273
27.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W274
04.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W275
04.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W276
11.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W277
11.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W278
23.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W279
23.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W280
18.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W281
18.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W282
27.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W283
28.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W284
28.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W285
01.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W286
01.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W287
08.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W288
08.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W289
11.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W290
11.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W291
11.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W292
11.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W293
11.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W294
11.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W295
15.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W296
15.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W297
18.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W298
18.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W299
22.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W300
22.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W301
29.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W302
29.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W303
06.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W304
06.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W305
06.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W306
06.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W307
11.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
3898
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.W308
11.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W309
13.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W310
13.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W311
13.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W312
13.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W313
20.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W314
20.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W315
20.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W316
20.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W317
27.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W318
27.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W319
27.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W320
27.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W321
29.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W322
29.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W323
03.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W324
03.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W325
03.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W326
03.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W327
03.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W328
03.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W329
03.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W330
08.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W331
08.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W332
10.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W333
10.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W334
10.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W335
10.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W336
17.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W337
17.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W338
23.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W339
23.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W340
24.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W341
24.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W342
31.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W343
31.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ext.W344
23.05.2014
Reply filed by
Respondent before conciliation
On the Management's side:
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
18.01.201
Hon'ble Supreme Court
Order in LIC of India &
Another vs. D.V. Anil
Kumar & Others — C.A.
No. 953-968 of 2005
Ext.M2
16.07.2014
Judgement of Hon'ble
High Court of Kerala in
WA No. 2362/2009 in
OP 39055/2002 in the
matter of LIC of India
Vs. Usha Kumari &
Others
Ext.M3
-
Sec.48 (1&2) of the Life
Insurance Corporation
Act. 1956.
ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1869-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ ykbZQ ba';ksjsUl
dkiksZjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
la[;k 82@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
08@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&17025@4@2015&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2015
S.O. 1869.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 82/2014) of the Central
Government 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 LIC of
India and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 08/09/2015.
[No. L-17025/4/2015-IR (M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Thursday, the 27th August, 2015
Present: K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 82/2014
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Sub-
section 2A of Section-10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3899
1947 (as amended by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010).
between the Management of LIC of India and their
workman)
BETWEEN
Sri M. Sindhan
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Zonal Manager
: 2nd Party/1st
Life Insurance
Respondent
Corporation of India
LIC Building, Anna Salai
Chennai-600002
2.
The Divisional Manager
: 2nd Party/2nd
Divisional Office-II
Respondent
Life Insurance Corporation
of India
C-47, Anna Plaza, II Avnenue,
Anna Nagar Chennai-600040
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
M/s Balan Haridas,
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/1st &
M/s C.K. Chandrasekkar,
2nd Management
Advocate
AWARD
This is an Industrial Dispute taken for adjudication on
the file under Sub-section 2A of Section-10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended by Act-24 of
2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010.).
2. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner has passed SSLC. He was engaged by
the Respondent to do the work of Office Assistant/Peon.
He was doing the work of filing the papers, cleaning the
office and also sundry work entrusted to him in the office
of the Second Respondent. The petitioner initially joined
the service of the Respondent on 26.10.2010. He was paid
@ Rs. 160/- per day at the beginning. Later it was revised
as Rs. 250/- and again as Rs. 360/-. Payment was made on
weekly basis. The petitioner had been continuously
working. He was paid wages by raising voucher under the
head "Upkeep and Cleaning Material". This was done only
to circumvent law. He was not given wages for weekly off
and other holidays. The petitioner had worked for more
than 480 days within a period of 24 calendar months. He is
entitled to be made permanent under Section-3 of the Tamil
Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent
Status to Workmen) Act. The Respondent had been
extracting work from the petitioner without conferring any
benefits payable to a permanent employee. The petitioner
had worked for more than 240 days continuously within a
period of 12 calendar months. While so, his services had
been terminated orally on 31.08.2013. The petitioner was
not issued any notice nor paid notice pay or compensation.
Termination of the services of the petitioner would amount
to retrenchement. In the absence of compliance with
Section-25F of the ID Act the termination is void abinitio.
The Respondent now cannot say that the appointment of
the petitioner was not in terms of the LIC of India
(Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions. Anyhow
the employment of the petitioner is protected by the
provisions of ID Act and the same will override the so-
called instructions. An order may be passed holding that
termination of the service of the petitioner by the
Respondent is illegal and consequently direct the
Respondent to reinstate the petitioner with full backwages,
continuity and all other attendant benefits.
3. The Respondents have filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The claim of the petitioner is not maintainable either on
facts or on law. The petitioner was not engaged as Peon by
the Respondents. He was engaged as Coolie to do certain
petty works in the office. He was paid coolie charges on
various dates from 01.10.2010 to 31.08.2013. The charges
were paid for cleaning, dusting and upkeep works of the
branch office depending upon the necessity. It is not
correct to state that the employment was continuous and
regular. The engagement of the petitioner was on need
basis only and he was paid for the same. It is denied that
the petitioner worked against a post for 480 days in 24
calendar months to claim permanency. Casual engagement
on need based works cannot confer permanency. Any
appointment in the Respondent Corporation can only be
through a regular process of selection and appointment
against regular posts. The termination of the petitioner
was effected pursuant to the order of Apex Court wherein
a scheme was framed and approved and those not fitting
the scope of the scheme were directed to be relieved. So
the claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. The
petitioner is not entitled to invoke Section-25F of the ID
act as the action of the Respondents is in conformity with
law. In compliance of the order of the Supreme Court dated
18.01.2011 applications were invited from eligible temporary
Class-IV employees working in LIC of India for more than 5
years as on 18.01.2011 and who had possessed minimum
eligible qualification. As per the order of the Supreme Court
those who have been engaged on need bases would cease
to be in employment in compliance of the scheme. The
petitioner was not eligible to apply as per the scheme of
the Supreme Court. So he has no right to claim reinstatement
or absorption. The question of reinstatement can arise only
when regular employment has taken place as per LIC of
India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions. The
provisions of the ID Act are not applicable to the petitioners
with reference to matters covered by Section-48(2C) of the
LIC Act. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
4. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder denying the
allegations in the Counter Statement and also reiterating
his case in the Counter Statement.
3900
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of
WW1 and MWs 1 and 2 and also documents marked as
Ext. W1 to Ext. W109 and Ext. M1 to Ext. M3.
6. The points for consideration are:
(i) Whether the termination of the petitioner by the
Respondents from service is legal and justified?
(ii) What, if any, is the relief to which the petitioner is
entitled?
The Points
7. The petitioner is seeking to set aside termination of
his service by the Respondents and to direct the
Respondents to reinstate him with backwages, continuity
of service and other benfits.
8. The petitoner has claimed that he had joined the Office
of the Second Respondent, a Divional Office of the First
Respondent as an Office Assistant/Peon on 26.10.2010 and
had been continuously working in the office until he was
terminated orally on 31.08.2013. It is alleged by the petitioner
that his termination was in violation of Section-25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act. It is also claimed by the petitioner
that he had worked for more than 480 days within a period
of 24 calendar months before he was terminated from service
and he should have been made permanent under Section-
3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment
of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act.
9. The Respondents had contended that the termination
was effected pursuant to the order of the Apex Court
wherein a scheme was framed and approved and those
who do not fit in the scope of the scheme were directed to
be relieved. The Respondent has denied the claim of the
petitioner that he is entitled to permanent status under
Section-3 of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments
(Conferment of Permanent Staus to Workmen) Act. The
Respondents also denied the contention that termination
is effected in violation of Section-25F of the Industrial
Disputes Act. The Respondents have also advanced a case
that petitioner's engagement was on a need based manner
and he was only given the work of cleaning, dusting and
upkeep works of the branch office and was never working
as Peon as claimed by him.
10. The petitioner has given evidence himself and also
produced Ext. W1 to Ext. W109 to prove his contention
that he was continuously working in the Office of the
Second Respondent. The payment vouchers marked as
Ext. W1 to Ext.W109 are not disputed by the respondents.
These are vouchers of different dates starting from
25.10.2010 to 03.09.2013. The petitioner has stated in his
Proof Affidavit that his work in the Officer of the Second
Respondent was continuous in nature. This case of the
petitioner is supported by the vouchers produced. It could
be seen on going through the vouchers that except for
some occasional gaps the petitioner was working in the
Office of the Second Respondent continuously. The
vouchers show the period for which payments are made
and some of them contains the number of days also. So in
spite of some gaps it could be assumed that the petitioner
was working in the Office of the Second Respondent from
25.10.2010.
11. What is the nature of work done by the petitioner?
According to the Respodents they were only doing works
such as cleaning dusting and other upkeep works. This is
what is stated by MWs 1 and 2 in their Proof Affidavits
also. However, during their cross-examination MW1 has
stated that except for issuing forms the petitioner was doing
all the work that were usually done by the Sub-Staff. MW1
has also stated that the petitioner was paid daily wages on
weekly basis. Ext. W1 to Ext. W109 also show that almost
on all occasions the petitioner was paid once in a week
calculated on an amount fixed as wage per day. From this
also it could be seen that the petitioner was working
continuously with the Respondents for the period claimed.
However, there is no case for the petitioner that he was
working on a sanctioned post. He has not claimed also that
he was working on temporary basis but only as a casual
worker. In fact in the Claim Statement the demand of the
petitioner is only for reinstatement and not for any
regularization except for the claim of permancy under
Section-3 of the Tamil Nadu Act. So it is clear that the
petitioner was working on daily wages and not on any
sanctioned post.
12. Before dealing with the other contentions of the
petitioner the case that he is entitled for permanency under
Section-3 of the Tamil Nadu Act can be considered Section-
3(1) of the Act states that notwithstanidng anything
contained in any law in force every workman who is in
continuous service for a period of 480 days in a period of
24 calender months in an industrial establishment shall be
made permanent. The condition for treating a workman to
be continuous service is given in the next sub-section of
Section-3. On going through Ext. W1- to Ext. W109 there
could be no doubt that the petitioner must have been in
service for a period of 480 days within a period of 24
calender months in the Office of the Second Respondent.
13. The counsel for the petitioner has been seeking
support from the decisions of the High Court of Madras to
fortify his contention. He has referred to the decision in
ELAYAPERUMAL VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA (Writ
Appeal No. 1372 of 2006 decided on 08.01.2007). The
Hon'ble High Court has held in this case that the provisions
of the Permanent Status Act will apply to Banks including
nationalized banks. Another decision referred to by the
counsel for the petitioner is HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM
CORPN. Ltd. VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT, CHENNAI
reported in 2008 4 CTC 819 where it was held that the Act is
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3901
applicable to HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION
LTD. ANOTHER decision relied upon is LAKSHMI VS.
THE CHIEF ENGINEER, TNEB reported in 2012 3 LLN 681
where it was held that the concerned worker would have
been entitled to the benefit of conferment of permanent
status under TNEB. It is pointed out by the counsel for the
Respondents that the second decision referred to has been
taken to the Apex Court and has been compromised. In the
last decision referred to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board being
a party, the Permanent Status Act very well apply to the
same. The operation of the other decision referred to has
been stayed by the Apex Court and the matter is still
pending. According to the counsel for the petitioner even
if stay has been granted the dictum laid down by the High
Court can be applied to the present case. I am not able to
accept this argument of the counsel. When operation of
the decision is stayed, it could not be acted upon and there
is no question of the principle laid down in the decision
being applied. So, the contention of the petitioner that he
is entitled to the benefit of the Section-3 of the Permanent
Status Act of the Tamil Nadu could not be accepted.
14. It is not disputed by the Respondents that the
petitioner will be a workman as defined in Section-2(k) of
the ID Act but for inapplicability of the Act itself. It is also
admitted on behalf of the Respondents that the termination
of the petitioner was done without complying with Section-
25F of the ID Act. So there is no necessity to refer to various
decisions relied upon on behalf of the petitioner in this
respect. The counsel for the Resposndents has not
disputed the legal position that the termination in violation
of Section-25F of the Act will be void abinitio.
15. The contention on behalf of the Respondents that
the termination of the petitioner was in lieu of the decision
of the Apex Court wherein the scheme framed was approved
by the Apex Court and those who did not get selected as
per the scheme ceased to be in service. The order of the
Apex Court relied upon by the Respondents has been
produced and marked as Ext. M1. One of the appellants in
the several civil appeals decided by Ext. M1 order is the
LIC of India and the Respondents are those who were
working in the Corporation and has claimed reinstatement
or permanency . While this case was pending the
Corporation had framed a Scheme as below:
One time limited examination for those temporary
persons who are working in LIC of India for more
than 5 years and who had possessed minimum eligible
qualification and age as prescribed at the relevant
time of their entry into the LIC of India would be
considered. For this purpose LIC of India would hold
a limited written examination which will be in the
vernacular language with a limited syllabus which
would be announced in advance.
Such of those temporary employees who do not apply
and/or not successful shall cease to be in
employment. It is cleared that those temporary
persons who are not governed under these
submissions shall also cease to be in employment.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The scheme having been acceptable to the other
side the appeals were disposed by the Apex Court
with the direction that the Respondents shall absorb
employees in terms of the scheme.
16. The case of the Respondents is that application
was called for from the temporary workers, a written
examintion was conducted and those who were found
eligible were given permanent appointment in the
Corporation. Those other persons who did not fit in the
scheme were turned out of service on 31.08.2013.
According to the Respondents the petitioner who was not
eligible to apply for the test and had not made any
application had ceased to be in employment consequent
to the scheme approved by the Apex Court. It is the case
of the Respondents that the petitioner who had ceased to
be an employee of the Corporation is now not entitled to
claim reinstatement.
17. The counsel for the petitioner has been mainly
relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in TAMIL
NADU TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY LIC
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. LIC OF INDIA AND
OTHERS in Civil Appeal No. 6951/2009 and other appeals
in this respect. In this the Apex Court has found that the
temporary employees are entitled to reinstatement and
permanency. In the above decision the Apex Court had
found that even though the Corporation had entered into a
compromise with some of the workers it will not affect
the right of the workmen concerned to claim relief under
the earlier national awards existing since those awards
were not set aside even after the compromise. It has also
been observed that in any case the compromise will not
affect the rights of the parties to claim statutory benefits
under the Industrial Disputes Act.
18. The counsel for the Respondents has pointed out
the Civil Appeal Nos. 6951/2009 and connected appeals
were de-tagged by the Apex Court while considering Ext.
M1 cases since the issues involved in those cases were
different from the cases considered in Ext. M1 order. On
going through Ext. M1 it could be seen that such a
respresentation was made and it is accordingly those
appeals were de-tagged. The workmen involved in the
above appeals were discharging work of perennial nature
against permanent posts. It could be seen from the
decision that there was an earlier award applicable to the
parties and a compromise was entered into by the
Corporation with some of the Unions while a case was
pending. In Civil Appeal Nos. 6951/2009 and other cases
it has been held that the direction given to the Corporation
as per the Award regarding other workmen who were
parties to the case and had not entered into a compromise
has not been substituted by the terms and conditions of
the compromise. It is pointed out by the cousel for the
3902
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Respondents that is in this background the decision has
been rendered.
19. The counsel for the Respondents has referred to
two earlier decisions of the Apex Court that has held that
the provisions of the ID Act is not applicable to the workers
of the Corporation. Reference was made to the decision in
M. Venugopal VS. The Divisional Manager, LIC of India
reported in 1994 2 SCC 323. In this the Apex Court has
considered Sub-section 2(C) of Section-48 which has been
incorporated in LIC Act by amendment, and other
provisions. Section-48 of the Act provides that the Central
Government may make rules to carry out the purposes of
the Act. The rules may provide for terms and conditions of
the service of the employees. As per Clause (cc) the
regulations and other provisions in force immediately before
the commencement of the Amendment Act with respect to
the terms and conditions of the service of the employees
shall be deemed to be the rules made under Clause (cc) as
per Clause-2(A). Clause-2C of the same section states that
the provisions of Clause (cc) and Sub-section 2B and any
rules made there under shall have effect notwithstanding
any judgment, decree or order of the any Court, Tribunal or
other authority and notwithstanding anything contained
in the Industrial Disputes Act or any other law, agreement,
settlement, award or other instrument. Referring to these
provisions it was held in Venugopal's case referred to above
that the wisdom of the legislature in extending the protection
of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act or denying the
same cannot be judged by the Courts unless any such
step is held to be violative of any of the provisions of the
Constitution. After the amendment introduced in Section-
48 of the employees of the Corporation shall not be entitled
to protection to which they were entitled before coming
into force of the amendment, though till then it was upto
them to impose the rights or remedies in terms of the
regulation so framed under the Corporation Act or in
accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act, it has been held. The counsel for the Respondents
has also referred to the decision A.V. NACHANE VS. UNION
OF INDIA reported in AIR 1982 SC 1126 in this respect. In
the above case it has been held that Section-48 (2C) read
with Section-48 (2cc) authorized the Central Government
to make rules to carry out the purpose of the Act
notwithstanding the Industrial Disputes Act or any other
law, which meant that in respect of the matters covered by
the rules, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or
any other law will not be operative. The grievance raised in
the case that excluding the employees of the Corporation
from the purview of Industrial Disputes Act amounted to
discrimination against them and as such the provisions of
the amending act were violative of Article-14 of the
Constitution were also rejected by the Apex Court. The
counsel has also referred to the decision of the Apex Court
in LIC OF INDIA VS. ASHA RAMCHAND AMBEDKAR
reported in 1994 2 SCC 718 where it was held that the
instructions issued by the Chairman of the Corporation
exercising his powers under the regulations framed under
the Act were statutory in character and they have the force
of law. Based on the decision of the Apex Court after
acceptance of the scheme the Corporation has issued
serveral instructions on the basis of which the petitioner
and such others had ceased to be in employment. It has
been argued that the instructions on the basis of which the
petititoner and such others had ceased to be in employment.
It had been argued that the instructions are not statutory
in character though the regulations are. It was in this context
the above decision was relied upon. Thus the three bench
decision of the Apex court in the case earlier referred to
had held that Industrial Disputes Act will not apply to
those employees coming under the LIC Act and its rules
and regulations. The recent decision of the Apex Court in
favour of the temporary employees of the Corporation were
rendered in the context already referred to. Those employees
were fighting their case even while the cases under Ext. M1
were pending and those were treated separately and decided
separately in the background referred to above. So the
decision in the above case could not be applied to the
facts of the present case. The other decisions referred to
by the counsel for the petitioner are all those in which the
provisions of the ID Act are applicable and need not be
referred to.
20. I have already stated that there is no case for the
Respondents that any notice, notice pay or compensation
were given as required under Sectio-25F of the ID Act when
the petitioner was terminated. The counsel for the
Respondents has pointed out that in the absence of
application of Industrial Disputes Act there is no necessity
to comply with Section-25F of the Act also. He has referred
to the decision of the High Court of Kerala in LIC OF INDIA
VS. USHA KUMARI AND OTHERS in Writ Appeal 2362/
2009 in this respect. The High Court has referred to the
decisions of the Apex Court wherein the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act were found inapplicable to the
employees of the Life Insurance Corporation and has held
that the provisions contained in Section-48(2C) of the LIC
Act would override the Industrial Disputes Act and so
termination of the employees cannot amount to
retrenchment as provided under Section-termination of the
employees cannot amount to retrenchement as provided
under Section-2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act attracting
Section-25F of the Act. It was a natural consequence, the
Apex Court having found that Industrial Disputes Act is
not applicable to those coming under the Life Insurance
Corporation Act. The being so, the petitioner would not be
entitled even to the benefit under Section-25F of the Act.
The termination of the petitioner was the consequence of
the order of the Apex Court accepting the scheme for
providing employment to eligible workmen who were
working as temporary employees of the Corporation. Those
who did not fit in with the scope had to meet the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3903
consequence. The petitioner had not completed 5 years as
daily wager in the Corporation as contemplated in the
scheme and he was not eligible to apply for the written
examination. It is accordingly he happened to be eliminated
and ceased to be in employment. So the petitioner will not
be entitled to any relief.
In view of my discussion above the reference is answered
against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : WW1, Sri M. Sindhan
For the 2nd Party/1st &
: MW1, Sri B. Seetharaman
2nd Management
: MW2, Sri S. Shrinivas
Purushan
On the side of the Petitioner
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ex. W1
25.10.2010
Payment Vouchers
Ex. W2
10.11.2010
Payment Vouchers
Ex. W3
01.11.2010
Payment Vouchers
Ex. W4
31.12.2010
Payment Vouchers
Ex. W5
12.01.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W6
14.01.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W7
24.01.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W8
31.01.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W9
07.02.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W10
14.02.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W11
21.02.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W12
01.03.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W13
07.03.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W14
12.03.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W15
21.03.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W16
28.03.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W17
11.04.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W18
25.04.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W19
02.05.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W20
09.05.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W21
14.05.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W22
23.05.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W23
02.06.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W24
06.06.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W25
15.06.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W26
20.06.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W27
27.06.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W28
04.07.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W29
11.07.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W30
19.07.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W31
25.07.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W32
01.08.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W33
08.08.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W34
13.08.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W35
29.08.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W36
22.08.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W37
12.09.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W38
19.09.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W39
26.09.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W40
03.10.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W41
10.10.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W42
15.10.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W43
31.10.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W44
05.11.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W45
14.11.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W46
21.11.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W47
05.12.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W48
12.12.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W49
26.12.2011
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W50
02.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W51
09.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W52
18.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W53
23.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W54
31.01.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W55
07.02.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W56
13.02.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W57
20.02.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W58
02.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W59
05.03.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W60
09.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W61
23.04.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W62
14.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W63
21.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
3904
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.W64
28.05.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W65
18.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W66
27.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W67
30.06.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W68
09.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W69
16.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W70
23.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W71
30.07.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W72
06.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W73
21.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W74
28.08.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W75
01.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W76
15.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W77
24.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W78
29.09.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W79
22.10.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W80
29.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W81
05.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W82
12.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W83
19.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W84
26.11.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W85
03.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W86
22.12.2012
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W87
05.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W88
05.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W89
07.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W90
21.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W91
29.01.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W92
18.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W93
05.02.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W94
01.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W95
09.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W96
16.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W97
25.03.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W98
01.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W99
15.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W100
22.04.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W101
02.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W102
20.05.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W103
18.06.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W104
15.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W105
30.07.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W106
02.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W107
05.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W108
14.08.2013
Payment Vouchers
Ex.W109
03.09.2013
Payment Vouchers
On the side of the Respondent:
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
18.01.2011
Hon'ble Supreme Court
Order dated 18.01.2011
in the matter of LIC of
India and Another Vs. D.V.
Anil Kumar and Etc. min
Civil Appeal No. 953968
of 2005.
Ext.M2
16.07.2014
Judgment of Hon'ble High
Court of Kerala in WA No.
2362/2009 in OP 39055/
2002 in the matter of LIC
of India Vs. Ushakumari
and Others.
Ext.M3
—
Section 48 (1&2) of the
Life
Insurance
Corporation Act, 1956
ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1870-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ cksdkjks LVhy
IykaV ¼lsy½ 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;&1] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
75@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@09@2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&29012@4@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2015
S.O. 1870.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 75/2014) 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 Bokaro Steel Plant (SAIL) and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 08/09/2015.
[No. L-29012/4/2014-IR (M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3905
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD.
In the matter of reference U/s 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act.,
1947.
Reference No. 75 of 2014
Employer in relation to the management of
Bokaro Steel Plant (SAIL).
And
Their workman.
PRESENT :
Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
Shri D.K, Verma, Advocate.
For the Workman
:
Sri Pintu Mondal, Rep
State:-
Jharkhand
Industry: Coal.
Dated 6/7/2015
AWARD
By order No. L-29012/4/2014 IR-(M), dated 09/07/2014,
the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise
of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and
Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication
to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bokaro
Steel Plant (SAIL) in dismissing Sri Jishu Mahto from
the service vide order dated 17.12.1998 is fair and
justified? If not, to what relief concerned workman is
entitled?"
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
21.07.2014. After receipt of reference, both parties are
noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written statement
on 13.08.2014. And the management files their written
statement-cum-rejoinder on 19.11.2014.
3. The point involved in the reference is that the workman
has been dismissed from his services for long absenteeism.
4. During preliminary hearing it is revealed that the case
is dismissal of workman for long absence on duty. But he
has already out of service for 17 years. It is felt to give
another chance to the workman to service.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee. But
the workman be kept under probation for a period of two
year and his performance report be given to the under
signed. Therefore the question of back wages does not
arise at all.
This is my award
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1871.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj
fuxe 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;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 28@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-09-2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40011@26@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 16th September, 2015
S.O. 1871.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 28/2003) of the Central
Government IndustrialTribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai
now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute
between the employers in relation of the management of
the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workmen, which
was received by the Central Government on 15/09/2015.
[No. L-40011/26/2002-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 26th August, 2015
Present:
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 28/2003
(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 Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Ltd. & two Others and their workman)
BETWEEN
The Circle Secretary
: 1st Party/Petitioner Union
BSNL Employees Union
3/71, 4th Street,
Raghava Nagar
Madipakkam
Chennai-600091
3906
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AND
1.
The General Manager : 2nd Party/1st Respondent
Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd.
Kumbakonam
2.
The Chairman & Managing : 2nd Party/
Director Bharat Sanchar 2nd Respondent
Nigam Ltd. Sanchar Bhawan
New Delhi-110001
3.
The Chief General Manager : 2nd Party/
Telecom Tamil Nadu Circle 3rd Respondent
Anna Salai
Chennai-600002
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
:
M/s K.M. Ramesh,
Petitioner Union
:
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/1st,
:
Sri. D. Simon,
2nd & 3rd Management
Advocate
A W A R D
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, vide its Order No. L-40011/26/2002-IR
(DU) dated 07.01.2003 and Corrigendum dated
01.01.2004 referred the following industrial Dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the non-absorption of casual employees
as per annexure as claimed by the BSNL Employees
Union is legal and justified? if not, to what relief
the workmen are entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 28/2003 and issued notice to both
sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their
counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement
respectively.
3. The petitioner has filed claim Statement seeking
absorption of the employees named in the annexure to
the reference in the service of the BSNL. The Respondents
have filed Counter Statement resisting the claim of the
petitioner.
4. When the case came up for evidence today, the
counsel for the petitioner has endorsed stating that he is
not adducing any evidence to substantiate the claim of
the petitioner and that the dispute can be closed. In the
absence of any material there could not be an adjudication
of the dispute on mertirs. The petitioner having failed to
adduce any evidence in support of the claim the reference
is only to be answered against the petitioner.
In the result 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 Union
: None
For the 2nd Party/ 1st,2nd &
: None
3rd Management:
Documents Marked;
On the Petitoner's side
Ext.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management's side
Ext.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 16 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1872.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj
fuxe fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds
chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 383@2004½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15@09@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40011@49@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w)]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 16th September, 2015
S.O. 1872.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputer Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 383/2004) of the
Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai
now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute
between the employment in relation to the management
of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workmen,
which was received by the Central Government
on 15/09/2015.
[No. L-40011/49/2003-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 26th August, 2015
Present:
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,
Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3907
Industrial Dispute No. 383/2004
(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 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & two Other
and their workman)
BETWEEN
The Circle Secretary
: 1st Party/Petitioner Union
BSNL Employees Union
3/71, 4th Street,
Raghava Nagar
Madipakkam
Chennai-600091
AND
1.
Chief General Manager 2nd Party/1st Respondent
BSNL, Tamilnadu Circle,
Anna Salai
Chennai-600002
2.
The General Manager : 2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Telecommunications
Kancheepuram District,
29 Eldams Road
Chennai-600018
3.
The Chairman and Managing
: 2nd Party/
Director Bharat Sanchar
: 3rd Respondent
Nigam Ltd.,
Sanchar Bhawan
New Delhi-110001
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
: M/s K.M. Ramesh,
Petitioner Union
: Advocates
For the 2nd Party/1st, 2nd &
Sri D. Simon, Advocate
3rd Management
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, vide its Order No. L-40011/49/2003-IR (DU)
dated 09.07.2004 referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom
Department, BSNL, Chennai in non-regularizing/
absorbing the services of the contract laburers
numbering seventeen viz. S/Sri G. Ponnu Kalathi,
S. Samuel, P. Dili Babu, V. Krishnan, N. Bather,
N. Vivekan, E. Elangovan, B. Venkatesan, Ramesh,
M. Meganathan, M. Kanniappan, R. Dili Babu,
R. Parthasarathy. A Dhanasekaran, A Gnana Velu,
Ms. Maheswari and Rani is legal and justified and if
not, to what relief the workmen/contract labourers
are entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has
numbered it as ID 383/2004 and issued notice to both sides.
Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel
and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.
3. The petitioner has filed Claim Statement seeking
absorption of the employees named in the annexure to
the reference in the service of the BSNL. The Respondents
have filed Counter Statement resisting the claim of the
petitioner.
4. When the case came up for evidence today, the
counsel for the petitioner has endorsed stating that he is
not adducing any evidence to substantiate the claim of
the petitioner and that the dispute can be closed. In the
absence of any material there could not be an adjudication
of the dispute on merits. The petitioner having failed to
adduce any evidence in support of the claim the reference
is only to be answered against the petitioner.
In the result the reference is answered against the
petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined
For the 1st Party/
: None
Petitioner Union
For the 2nd Party/1st, 2nd
: None
& 3rd Management
Documents Marked:
On the Petitioner's side
Ext. No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management's side
Ext. No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 16 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1873-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj fuxe
fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 24@2003
,oa 25@2003½ dks izdkf'krk djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
15@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40011@22@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½
lañ ,y&40011@23@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh
3908
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 19, 2015/BHADRA 28, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 16th September, 2015
S.O.1873.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 24/2003 & 25/2003)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
of 15/09/2015.
[No. L-40011/22/2002-IR(DU),
No. L-40011/23/2002-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 26th August, 2015
PRESENT:
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 24/2003
(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 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., & two
Others and their workman)
BETWEEN
The Circle Secretary
: 1st Party/Petitioner Union
BSNL Employees Unoin
3/71, 4th Street,
Raghava Nagar
Madipakkam
Chennai-600091
AND
1.
The General Manager : 2nd Party/1st Respondent
Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd.
Kumbakonam
2.
The Chairman & Managing : 2nd Party/
Director Bharat
: 2nd Respondent
Sanchar Nigam. Ltd.
Sanchar Bhawan
New Delhi-110001
3.
The Chief General Manager
2nd Party/
Telecom Tamilnadu Circle
3rd Respondent
Anna Salai
Chennai-600002
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
: M/s K.M. Ramesh,
Petitioner Union
: Advocates
For the 2nd party/1st, 2nd &
: Shri D. Simon, Advocate
3rd Management
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, vide its Order No. L-40011/22/2002-1R
(DU) dated 07.01.2003 and Corrigendum dated
01.01.2004 referred the following Industrial Dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication.
The Schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the non-absorption of casual employees
as per annexure as claimed by the BSNL Employees
Union is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the workman are entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 24/2003 and issued notice to both
sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their
counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement
respectively.
3. The petitioner has filed Claim Statement seeking
absorption of the employees named in the annexure to
the reference in the service of the BSNL. The Respondents
have filed Counter Statement resisting the claim of the
petitioner.
4. When the case came up for evidence today, the
counsel for the petitioner has endorsed stating that he is
not adducing any evidence to substantiate the claim of
the petitioner and that the dispute can be closed. In the
absence of any material there could not be an adjudication
of the dispute on merits. The petitioner having failed to
adduce any evidence in support of the claim the reference
is only to be answered against the petitioner.
In the result the reference is answered against the
petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined
For the 1st Party/
: None
Petitioner Union
For the 1st Party/1st, 2nd &
: None
3rd Management
Documents Marked:
On the Petitioner's side
Ext.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management's side
Ext.No.
Date
Description
Nil
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 19] 2015@Hkkæ 28] 1937
3909
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 26th August, 2015
PRESENT:
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 25/2003
(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 Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Ltd. & Two Others and their workman)
BETWEEN
The Circle Secretary
: 1st Party/Petitioner Union
BSNL Employees Union
3/71, 4th Street,
Raghava Nagar
Madipakkam
Chennai-600091
AND
1.
The General Manager : 2nd Party/1st Respondent
Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd.
Kumbakonam
2.
The Chairman & Managing : 2nd Party/
Director Bharat
: 2nd Respondent
Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
Sanchar Bhawan
New Delhi-1100001
3.
The Chief General Manager :
2nd Party/
Telecom Tamilnadu Circle
: 3rd Respondent
Anna Salai
Chennai-600002
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
: M/s K.M. Ramesh,
Petitioner Union
Advocates
For the 2nd party/1st, 2nd &
: Shri D. Simon,
3rd Management
Advocate
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, vide its Order No. L-40011/23/2002-1R (DU)
dated 07.01.2003 and Corrigendum dated 01.01.2004 referred
the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication.
The Schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the non-absorption of casual employees
as per annexure as claimed by the BSNL Employees
Union is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
workman are entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has
numbered it as ID 25/2003 and issued notice to both sides.
Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel
and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.
3. The petitioner has filed Claim Statement seeking
absorption of the employees named in the annexure to the
reference in the service of the BSNL. The Respondents
have filed Counter Statement resisting the claim of the
petitioner.
4. When the case came up for evidence today, the
counsel for the petitioner has endorsed stating that he is
not adducing any evidence to substantiate the claim of the
petitioner and that the dispute can be closed. In the absence
of any material there could not be an adjudication of the
dispute on merits. The petitioner having failed to adduce
any evidence in support of the claim the reference is only
to be answered against the petitioner.
In the result the reference is answered against the
petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined
For the 1st Party/
: None
Petitioner Union
For the 1st Party/1st, 2nd &
: None
3rd Management
Documents Marked:
On the Petitioner's side
Ext.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management's side
Ext.No.
Date
Description
Nil
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.