foÙk ea=ky;
¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2016-—funs'kd cksMZ] jk"Vªh; d`f"k vkSj xzkeh.k fodkl
cSad] jk"Vªh; d`f"k vkSj xzkeh.k fodkl cSad vf/kfu;e] 1981 ¼1981
dk 61½ dh /kkjk 60 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu vkSj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ds
ijke'kZ ls jk"Vªh; d`f"k vkSj xzkeh.k fodkl cSad ¼vfrfjDr½ lkekU;
fofu;e] 1984 dk vkSj la'kks/ku djus ds fy, fuEufyf[kr fofu;e
cukrk gS] vFkkZr~%—
1- laf{kIr uke vkSj vkjaHk% ¼1½ bu fofu;eksa dks jk"Vªh; d`f"k
vkSj xzkeh.k fodkl cSad ¼vfrfjDr½ lkekU; ¼la'kks/ku½ fofu;e]
2015 dgk tk,xkA
¼2½ ;s Hkkjr ds jkti= esa izdkf'kr gksus dh rkjh[k ls ykxw gksaxsA
2- jk"Vªh; d`f"k vkSj xzkeh.k fodkl cSad ¼vfrfjDr½ lkekU;
fofu;e] 1984 ds fofu;e 3] mi&fofu;e ¼1½] [kaM ¼[k½ esa
fuEufyf[kr dks izfrLFkkfir fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%
^^¼[k½ /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk 3 ds varxZr fu;qDr lHkh iw.kZdkfyd
funs'kdA**
[lañ ,QvkbZ&7@9@2015&,lh]
,ñ dsñ nkl] voj lfpo
ikn fVIi.k% ewy fofu;e Hkkjr ds jkti= esa 23 Qjojh] 1985
dks dkñvkñ 740 rkjh[k 6 Qjojh] 1985 }kjk izdkf'kr fd, x, FksA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 15th October, 2015
S.O. 2016.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 60 of the National Bank for
Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 (61 of 1981),
the Board of Directors of the National Bank for Agriculture
and Rural Development, with the previous approval of the
Central Government and in consultation with the Reserve
Bank of India, hereby makes the following regulations,
further to amend the National Bank for Agriculture and
Rural Development (Additional) General Regulations, 1984,
namely—
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 43]
ubZ fnYyh] vDrwcj 18—vDrwcj 24] 2015] 'kfuokj@vkf'ou 26—dk£rd 2] 1937
No. 43]
NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 18—OCTOBER 24, 2015, SATURDAY/ASVINA 26—KARTIKA 2, 1937
bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
4307 GI/2015
(4195)
4196
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 24, 2015/KARTIKA 2, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
1. Short title and commencement.—(1) These
regulations may be called the National Bank for Agriculture
and Rural Development (Additional) General (Amendment)
Regulations, 2015.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their
publication in the Official Gazette.
2. In the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural
Development (Additional) General Regulations, 1984, in
regulation 3, in sub-regulation (1), for clause (b), the
following shall be substituted namely:—
"(b) all whole time Directors appointed under sub-
section (3) of section 6".
[No. FI-7/9/2015-AC]
A.K. DAS, Under Secy.
Foot Note: The Principal regulations were published in
the Gazette of India dated 23rd February, 1985 vide number
S.O. 740 dated the 6th February, 1985.
dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=ky;
¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2017-—dsanz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk
vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 25½ dh /kkjk 6 lgifBr
/kkjk 5 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,
mÙkj izns'k jkT; ljdkj] x`g ¼iqfyl½ vuqHkkx&12 y[kuÅ dh
vfèlwpuk la[;k lh,e&734 ¼lh½@6&ih;w&12&2015&13¼7½
Mh@2015 fnukad 24 tqykbZ] 2015 }kjk izkIr lgefr ls iqfyl Fkkuk
fljlkxat] ftyk fQjkstkckn] mÙkj izns'k esa iathd`r eqñvñlañ
387@2015] /kkjk 120&ch@302@498&, Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860
¼1860 dk vf/kfu;e la[;k 45½] ds v/khu n.Muh;] esa mn~Hkwr gksus
okys rF;ksa ;k rF; ;k muds laO;ogkj ds Øe esa fd, x, mDr
vijkèksa ds laca/k esa ;k mlls lalDr vijk/kksa@ekeyksa vkSj fdUgha
vU; vijk/kksa] iz;Ruksa] nq"izsj.kksa vkSj "kM;U= ds vUos"k.k ds fy,
fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj {ks=kf/kdkj
dk foLrkj leLr mÙkj izns'k jkT; ij djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 228@33@2015&,ñohñMhñ&II]
vthr dqekj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 14th October, 2015
S.O. 2017.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946),
the Central Government with the consent of the Govt. of
Uttar Pradesh, Grih (Police) Anubhag-12, Lucknow vide
Notification No. CM 734 (C)/6-PU-12-2015-13(7)D/2015-
dated 24.7.2015, hereby extends the powers and Jurisdiction
of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment
to the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh for investigation
of case crime No. 387/15 under section 120-B, 302 and 498-
A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)
registered at Police Station Sirasaganj, District Firozabad,
Uttar Pradesh and in relation to or in connection with the
said case in the course of the same transaction or arising
out of the same fact or facts in relation to the aforesaid
case.
[No. 228/33/2015-AVD-II]
AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 8 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2018-—jk"Vªifr] Jh izeksn dqekj prqosZnh dks fnukad
22-09-2015 ¼iwokZg~u½ ls dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
U;k;kf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
ds :i esa 14-07-2019 rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys
gks] fu;qDr djrs gSaA
[lañ ,&11016@01@2014&lh,y,l&II]
,lñ dsñ flag] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 8th October, 2015
S.O. 2018.—The President is pleased to appoint Shri
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi as Presiding Officer of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmadabad with effect from 22.09.2015 (Forenoon) for a
period up to 14.07.2019 or until further orders, whichever is
earlier.
[No. A-11016/01/2014-CLS-II]
S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 7 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2019-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr bysDVªkWfuDl
fyfeVsM] iapdqyk ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ
115@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@10@2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&14011@13@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 24] 2015@dk£rd 2] 1937
4197
New Delhi, the 7th October, 2015
S.O. 2019.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 115/2013) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Bharat Electronics Limited, Panchkulla
and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 06/10/2015.
[No. L-14011/13/2013-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Case No. ID 115 of 2013. Reference No. L-14011/13/2013-
IR(DU) dated 22.10.2013.
The President, Bharat Electronics Workers Union (NTU)
C/o Bharat Electronics Ltd., 405, Industrial Area Phase-III,
Panchkulla (Haryana).
...Union.
Versus
1. The General Manager, Bharat Electronics Ltd., 405,
Industrial Area Phase-III, Panchkulla (Haryana).
...Respondent
APPEARANCE
For the Union:
None.
For the management:
None.
ORDER
Passed on 30.09.2015
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification
No. L-14011/13/2013-IR(DU) dated 22.10.2013 has referred
the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of Bharat
Electronics Ltd. Panchkulla in transferring 15
workmen as annexed from Panchkulla Unit to other
units without any transfer policy is just, fair and legal?
If not, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled
to?"
2. Today although the date is not fixed in this case but
in compliance of the order dated 16.9.2015 of the Hon'ble
High Court of Punjab & Haryana in LPA No. 590 of 2014,
the case has been taken up. The letter No. 1464 LPA/1
dated 28.9.2015 of Superintendent LPA for Assistant
Registrar Writs, perused, in which it has been directed that
the copy of order dated 16.9.2015 passed by the Hon'ble
High Court has been forwarded in the above noted case
for immediate compliance.
3. In compliance of the letter mentioned above, the
judgment passed in LPA No. 590 of 2014 perused in which
the Hon'ble High Court passed the following order:
"Consequently, we hold that the reference as framed,
is contrary to the standing orders and, therefore, not
tenable. The reference is set aside but with liberty to
the "appropriate Government (Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour)", to take a fresh decision in
accordance with law, after considering the grievance
of the workmen, which in our prima facie opinion
may relate to the nature of the transfer orders and
not to the absence of a policy and also objections, if
any, that may be raised by the appellants, within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order. During this period, transfer orders
shall remain in abeyance. The impugned order is,
therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed in the
above terms.
4. As the reference has been set aside by the Hon'ble
High Court, therefore, the file be consigned.
5. Ministry of Labour be informed. Soft as well hard
copy be sent to the Central Govt.
Chandigarh.
30.09.2015
S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2020-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj]
ch,l,u,y] ifV;kyk vkSj nwljksa ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+
ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 202@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 12-10-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42025@03@2015&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th October, 2015
S.O. 2020.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 202/2011) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court No. II,
Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Telecom, BSNL, Patiala & others and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 12.10.2015.
[No. L-42025/03/2015-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
4198
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 24, 2015/KARTIKA 2, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No. 202/2011
Registered on 12.7.2011
Sh. Som Dutt, S/o Late Sh. Asha Ram, R/o Prem Nagar,
Ward No. 6, Gali No. 4, Tehsil Amloh, Mandi Gobindgarh
District Fatehgarh Sahib.
.......Petitioner
Versus
General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Patiala & Anr.
.......Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the workman :
Sh. Barjesh Mittal, Adv.
For the Management :
Mrs. Deepali Puri, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 31.8.2015
The workman directly submitted statement of claim in
this Court, as his demand notice dated 20.02.2011, was not
adjudicated by Assistant Labour Commissioner within a
period of 45 days.
According to the workman, he was engaged as Daily
Rated Mazdoor/Chowkidar by the Office of Divisional
Engineer of the respondent-management on 19.2.1994 on
muster roll. He continuously worked with the respondent-
management and his services were illegally terminated on
2.10.1998. The record of muster roll and work register are
available with the management.
The workman along with others filed OA No. 671-PB-99
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was
decided vide order dated 18.10.2001 with the following
observations:—
"In view of the decision of the Full Bench and the
Stand taken by the Learned Counsel for the
respondents, original Application disposed off with
a direction to them to consider the case of the
applicants, for grant of Temporary Status, within a
period of 2 months from today and in case the
applicants are held entitled to the grant of Temporary
Status, they shall be taken back in service, if not
already in service, and grant them consequential
benefits, in terms of continuity of service except that
they shall not be entitled to the salary for the period
they remained out of job, but for other purposes,
they shall be deemed to be in service. No costs."
In compliance of the said order, the respondent-
management passed order dated 16.1.2002 holding that
workman and others are not entitled to temporary status
and regularization under the 'Casual Labourers' (Grant of
Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1989 on
the ground that they were engaged through contractor.
The workman and others filed Civil Writ Petition No.
1904 of 2002 which was disposed off by the Hon'ble High
Court with the following observations:—
"We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties. It is
the case of the petitioners that though initially they
have been employed as Daily Rated Employees
through a Contractor but on the scraping of the
contract system, after 1999, the petitioner had been
in employment and paid directly by the Respondent
Company. The petitioners however, made overments
in the petition in this regard, but have not been able
to produce on record any documentary evidence. In
the reply filed by the respondents, the positive stand
is that the petitioners continued to be employed on
contract basis through a Contractor. We accordingly
find that the dispute inter-se parties appear to be
one of the disputed questions of fact. We accordingly
relegate the petitioners to their remedy before the
Labour Court."
The workman and others filed an application No. 966 of
2003 before the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Patiala, where the matter remained pending and the
Government of India issued a notification dated 31.10.2008
transferring jurisdiction regarding service matters to the
Central Administrative Tribunal. The application before the
Labour Court was withdrawn on 26.9.2008. The workman
and others filed OA No. 578/PB/08 before the Hon'ble CAT,
Chandigarh who decided the same vide award dated 1.4.2010
holding as follow:—
"For the above reasons, the relief prayed by the
applicant in the present OA is hereby declined as we
find no illegality in the orders impugned and passed
by the respondents vide Annexure P-2 dated
16.1.2002. The OA stands disposed off with the
observations given above, however, with no order
as to costs."
The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble High
Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 19844 of 2010, which
was dismissed on 9.11.2010, holding that workers have
failed to prove that they were employed by the department
and further held that it is a question of fact, which cannot
be gone into in proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
In these circumstances, the workman was left with no
option, but to agitate the matter before this Court for
adjudication, whether he was engaged directly by the
respondent-management and further pleaded that he be
reinstated in service with all the benefits.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 24] 2015@dk£rd 2] 1937
4199
Respondent-management filed written reply denying
that workman was ever employed by it or there was any
relationship of master and servant between the parties. It
is pleaded that the respondent-management was entering
into contracts for getting the petty jobs done through the
contractor and the workman was never engaged by it. That
no record relating to the workman is available with the
respondent-management. The action initiated by the
workman and others was not correct.
Following issues were framed for decision:—
1. Whether there exists a relationship of master and
servant between the employer and employee?
2. If the workman is an employee of the management-
respondent, whether the services of the workman
were terminated in violation of the provisions of
Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act?
If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled?
Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence
in support of their case.
I have heard Sh. Brijesh Mittal for the workman and
Smt. Deepali Puri for the management and perused and file.
The issue wise findings are as follow:—
Issue No. 1 :—
In support of this issue, the workman Som Dutt appeared
in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating his case
as set out in the statement of claim.
On the other hand respondent-management has
examined Sh. Amrik Singh Malhotra, SDE MGG, who filed
his affidavit supporting the case of the respondent-
management.
It was contended by the learned counsel for the
workman that the workman was employed by the
management and the workman worked there for sufficient
long time and he was entitled to the grant of 'termporary
status' but instead of granting him a 'termporary status',
his services were illegally terminated and he is entitled to
be reinstated in service with all the benefits. In support of
his contention, he has carried me through the advice note
and submitted that complaints were marked to workman
and counter-signed by the officers of the respondent-
department and thus, the workman was an employee of the
respondent-management and further submitted that
through respondent-management has pleaded that it used
to give contract for petty jobs but did not bring anything
on file to prove that it has ever given contract for the petty
jobs, which show that workman was directly employed by
the respondent-management.
I have considered the contentions raised by the learned
counsel.
The workman has agitated the matter before the Central
Administrative Tribunal as well as before the Hon'ble High
Court and this is 5th round of litigation he has initiated to
claim the relief of 'temporary status and reinstatement in
service'.
So far as the advice notes are concerned, these are not
proved on the file. If this was signed by some officers of
the respondent-management, the workman was required
to prove it by examining the said officers but no one was
examined. No reliance can be placed on the said paper to
hold that the workman was directly employed by the
respondent-management.
Respondent-management is a statutory body and
maintain its records for making any type of payment
including wages to its employees. The workman did not
produce any record to establish that he was ever paid any
wages by the respondent-management. He also did not
produce any appointment letter issued by the respondent-
management. In the circumstances, it is hard to believe
from the statement of the workman to hold that he was ever
engaged by the respondent-management.
If the management did not establish that it has given
contract for doing petty jobs, the workman do not draw
any benefit from it. It was for the workman to prove that he
was engaged by the respondent-management and it was
the respondent-management who used to pay him wages,
which he has failed to prove, and being so, the non-
production of any evidence regarding the giving of contract
by the respondent-management is of no consequence.
The contention raised by the learned counsel that the
respondent-management has not produced the record
despite moving of an application by him is of no
consequence as it is a stand of the respondent-management
that the workman was never its employee and being so, no
record was supposed to be maintained by it.
It is the case of the workman himself that he approached
the Central Administrative Tribunal who directed the
respondent-management to consider his case for the grant
of 'temporary status' vide order dated 18.10.2001. In
pursuance of the said order, the management passed order
dated 16.1.2002 holding that the workman was never
engaged by it but was engaged through a contract and
was not entitled to the grant of 'temporary status' under
the (grant of temporary status and regularization) Scheme
1989.
The workman along with others again filed OA No. 578/
PB/08 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, who
disposed off the same vide order dated 1.4.2010 upholding
the order passed by the respondent-management.
Thus, the department has concluded that workman was
not its employee, and the order passed by it was upheld by
the competent forum before whom the matter was agitated.
In the circumstances, the matter cannot be agitated time
and again. In view of the order of the competent tribunal
4200
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 24, 2015/KARTIKA 2, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
and the evidence discussed above, it cannot be said that
there was a relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management.
In result, this issue is decided against the workman.
Issue No. 2 :—
In view of findings under issue No. 1, this issue is also
decided against the workman.
In result, the workman is not entitled to any relief and
his claim is accordingly dismissed.
Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the
Central Government for futher necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2021-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj]
ch,l,u,y] ifV;kyk vkSj nwljksa ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+
ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 203@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 12-10-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42025@03@2015&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th October, 2015
S.O. 2021.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (ID No. 203/2011) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II,
Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Telecom, BSNL, Patiala & others and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 12.10.2015.
[No. L-42025/03/2015-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 203/2011
Registered on 12.7.2011
Sh. Jagdish Singh, S/o Sh. Sucha Singh, R/o Village
Isher-Hail, P.O. Balhari Kalan, Tehsil & District Fatehgarh
Sahib.
...Petitioner
Versus
General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Patiala & Anr.
...Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
:
Sh. Barjesh Mittal, Adv.
For the Management
:
Sh. Deepali Puri, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 31.8.2015
The workman directly submitted statement of claim in
this Court, as his demand notice dated 20.02.2011, was not
adjudicated by Assistant Labour Commissioner within a
period of 45 days.
According to the workman, he was engaged as Daily
Rated Mazdoor/Helper Technician by the Office of
Divisional Engineer of the respondent-management
in September, 1992 on muster roll. He continuously
worked with the respondent-management and his
services were illegally terminated on 3-3-1999. The
record of muster roll and work register are available
with the management.
The workman along with others filed OA No. 671-PB-99
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was
decided vide order dated 18.10.2001 with the following
observations:—
"In view of the decision of the Full Bench and the Stand
taken by the Learned Counsel for the respondents, original
Application disposed off with a direction to them to
consider the case of the applicants, for grant of Temporary
Status, within a period of 2 months from today and in case
the applicants are held entitled to the grant of Temporary
Status, they shall be taken back in service, if not already in
service, and grant them consequential benefits, in terms of
continuity of service except that they shall not be entitled
to the salary for the period they remained out of job, but for
other purposes, they shall be deemed to be in service. No
costs."
In compliance of the said order, the respondent-
management passed order dated 16.1.2002 holding that
workman and others are not entitled to temporary status
and regularization under the 'Casual Labourers' (Grant of
Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1989 on
the ground that they were engaged through contractor.
The workman and others filed Civil Writ Petition No.
1904 of 2002 which was disposed off by the Hon'ble High
Court with the following observations:—
"We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties. It is
the case of the petitioners that though initially they
have been employed as Daily Rated Employees
through a Contractor but on the scraping of the
contract system, after 1999, the petitioner had been
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 24] 2015@dk£rd 2] 1937
4201
in employment and paid directly by the Respondent
Company. The petitioners however, made overments
in the petition in this regard, but have not been able
to produce on record any documentary evidence. In
the reply filed by the respondents, the positive stand
is that the petitioners continued to be employed on
contract basis through a Contractor. We accordingly
find that the dispute inter-se parties appear to be
one of the disputed questions of fact. We accordingly
relegate the petitioners to their remedy before the
Labour Court."
The workman and others filed an application No. 966 of
2003 before the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Patiala, where the matter remained pending and the
Government of India issued a notification dated 31.10.2008
transferring jurisdiction regarding service matters to the
Central Administrative Tribunal. The application before the
Labour Court was withdrawn on 26.9.2008. The workman
and others filed OA No. 578/PB/08 before the Hon'ble CAT,
Chandigarh who decided the same vide award dated 1.4.2010
holding as follow:—
"For the above reasons, the relief prayed by the
applicant in the present OA is hereby declined as we
find no illegality in the orders impugned and passed
by the respondents vide Annexure P-2 dated
16.1.2002. The OA stands disposed off with the
observations given above, however, with no order
as to costs."
The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble High
Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 19844 of 2010, which
was dismissed on 9.11.2010, holding that workers have
failed to prove that they were employed by the department
and further held that it is a question of fact, which cannot
be gone into in proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
In these circumstances, the workman was left with no
option, but to agitate the matter before this Court for
adjudication, whether he was engaged directly by the
respondent-management and further pleaded that he be
reinstated in service with all the benefits.
Respondent-management filed written reply denying
that workman was ever employed by it or there was any
relationship of master and servant between the parties. It
is pleaded that the respondent-management was entering
into contracts for getting the petty jobs done through the
contractor and the workman was never engaged by it. That
no record relating to the workman is available with the
respondent-management. The action initiated by the
workman and others was not correct.
Following issues were framed for decision:—
1. Whether there exists a relationship of master and
servant between the employer and employee?
2. If the workman is an employee of the management-
respondent, whether the services of the workman
were terminated in violation of the provisions of
Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act?
If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled?
Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence
in support of their case.
I have heard Sh. Brijesh Mittal for the workman and
Smt. Deepali Puri for the management and perused and file.
The issue wise findings are as follow:—
Issue No. 1 :—
In support of this issue, the workman Som Dutt appeared
in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating his case
as set out in the statement of claim.
On the other hand respondent-management has
examined Sh. Amrik Singh Malhotra, SDE MGG, who filed
his affidavit supporting the case of the respondent-
management.
It was contended by the learned counsel for the
workman that the workman was employed by the
management and the workman worked there for sufficient
long time and he was entitled to the grant of 'termporary
status' but instead of granting him a 'termporary status',
his services were illegally terminated and he is entitled to
be reinstated in service with all the benefits. In support of
his contention, he has carried me through the advice note
and submitted that complaints were marked to workman
and counter-signed by the officers of the respondent-
department and thus, the workman was an employee of the
respondent-management and further submitted that
through respondent-management has pleaded that it used
to give contract for petty jobs but did not bring anything
on file to prove that it has ever given contract for the petty
jobs, which show that workman was directly employed by
the respondent-management.
I have considered the contentions raised by the learned
counsel.
The workman has agitated the matter before the Central
Administrative Tribunal as well as before the Hon'ble High
Court and this is 5th round of litigation he has initiated to
claim the relief of 'temporary status and reinstatement in
service'.
So far as the advice notes are concerned, these are not
proved on the file. If this was signed by some officers of
the respondent-management, the workman was required
to prove it by examining the said officers but no one was
examined. No reliance can be placed on the said paper to
hold that the workman was directly employed by the
respondent-management.
Respondent-management is a statutory body and
maintain its records for making any type of payment
4202
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 24, 2015/KARTIKA 2, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
including wages to its employees. The workman did not
produce any record to establish that he was ever paid any
wages by the respondent-management. He also did not
produce any appointment letter issued by the respondent-
management. In the circumstances, it is hard to believe
from the statement of the workman to hold that he was ever
engaged by the respondent-management.
If the management did not establish that it has given
contract for doing petty jobs, the workman do not draw
any benefit from it. It was for the workman to prove that he
was engaged by the respondent-management and it was
the respondent-management who used to pay him wages,
which he has failed to prove, and being so, the non-
production of any evidence regarding the giving of contract
by the respondent-management is of no consequence.
The contention raised by the learned counsel that the
respondent-management has not produced the record
despite moving of an application by him is of no
consequence as it is a stand of the respondent-management
that the workman was never its employee and being so, no
record was supposed to be maintained by it.
It is the case of the workman himself that he approached
the Central Administrative Tribunal who directed the
respondent-management to consider his case for the grant
of 'temporary status' vide order dated 18.10.2001. In
pursuance of the said order, the management passed order
dated 16.1.2002 holding that the workman was never
engaged by it but was engaged through a contract and
was not entitled to the grant of 'temporary status' under
the (grant of temporary status and regularization) Scheme
1989.
The workman along with others again filed OA No. 578/
PB/08 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, who
disposed off the same vide order dated 1.4.2010 upholding
the order passed by the respondent-management.
Thus, the department has concluded that workman was
not its employee, and the order passed by it was upheld by
the competent forum before whom the matter was agitated.
In the circumstances, the matter cannot be agitated time
and again. In view of the order of the competent tribunal
and the evidence discussed above, it cannot be said that
there was a relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management.
In result, this issue is decided against the workman.
Issue No. 2 :—
In view of findings under issue No. 1, this issue is also
decided against the workman.
In result, the workman is not entitled to any relief and
his claim is accordingly dismissed.
Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the
Central Government for futher necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2022-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj]
ch,l,u,y] ifV;kyk vkSj nwljksa ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+
ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 204@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 12-10-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42025@03@2015&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th October, 2015
S.O. 2022.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (ID No. 204/2011) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II,
Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Telecom, BSNL, Patiala & others and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 12.10.2015.
[No. L-42025/03/2015-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 204/2011
Registered on 12.7.2011
Sh. Bahadur Singh, S/o Sh. Amrik Singh, R/o Village
Isher-Hail, P.O. Balhari Kalan, Tehsil & District Fatehgarh
Sahib.
.......Petitioner
Versus
General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Patiala & Anr.
.......Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
:
Sh. Barjesh Mittal, Adv.
For the Management
:
Sh. Rakesh Verma, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 31.8.2015
The workman directly submitted statement of claim in
this Court, as his demand notice dated 20.02.2011, was not
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 24] 2015@dk£rd 2] 1937
4203
adjudicated by Assistant Labour Commissioner within a
period of 45 days.
According to the workman, he was engaged as Daily
Rated Mazdoor/Helper Technician by the Office of
Divisional Engineer of the respondent-management in
August, 1996 on muster roll. He continuously worked with
the respondent-management and his services were illegally
terminated on 24.05.2003. The record of muster roll and
work register are available with the management.
The workman along with others filed OA No. 671-PB-99
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was
decided vide order dated 18.10.2001 with the following
observations:—
"In view of the decision of the Full Bench and the
Stand taken by the Learned Counsel for the
respondents, original Application disposed off with
a direction to them to consider the case of the
applicants, for grant of Temporary Status, within a
period of 2 months from today and in case the
applicants are held entitled to the grant of Temporary
Status, they shall be taken back in service, if not
already in service, and grant them consequential
benefits, in terms of continuity of service except that
they shall not be entitled to the salary for the period
they remained out of job, but for other purposes,
they shall be deemed to be in service. No costs."
In compliance of the said order, the respondent-
management passed order dated 16.1.2002 holding that
workman and others are not entitled to temporary status
and regularization under the 'Casual Labourers' (Grant of
Temporary Status and Regulaization) Scheme, 1989 on the
ground that they were engaged through contractor.
The workman and others filed Civil Writ Petition No.
1904 of 2002 which was disposed off by the Hon'ble High
Court with the following observations:—
"We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties. It is
the case of the petitioners that though initially they
have been employed as Daily Rated Employees
through a Contractor but on the scraping of the
contract system, after 1999, the petitioner had been
in employment and paid directly by the Respondent
Company. The petitioners however, made overments
in the petition in this regard, but have not been able
to produce on record any documentary evidence. In
the reply filed by the respondents, the positive stand
is that the petitioners continued to be employed on
contract basis through a Contractor. We accordingly
find that the dispute inter-se parties appear to be
one of the disputed questions of fact. We accordingly
relegate the petitioners to their remedy before the
Labour Court."
The workman and others filed an application No. 966 of
2003 before the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Patiala, where the matter remained pending and the
Government of India issued a notification dated 31.10.2008
transferring jurisdiction regarding service matters to the
Central Administrative Tribunal. The application before the
Labour Court was withdrawn on 26.9.2008. The workman
and others filed OA No. 578/PB/08 before the Hon'ble CAT,
Chandigarh who decided the same vide award dated
1.4.2010 holding as follow:—
"For the above reasons, the relief prayed by the
applicant in the present OA is hereby declined as we
find no illegality in the orders impugned and passed
by the respondents vide Annexure P-2 dated
16.1.2002. The OA stands disposed off with the
observations given above, however, with no order
as to costs."
The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble High
Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 19844 of 2010, which
was dismissed on 9.11.2010, holding that workers have
failed to prove that they were employed by the department
and further held that it is a question of fact, which cannot
be gone into in proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
In these circumtsances, the workman was left with no
option, but to agitate the matter before this Court for
adjudication, whether he was engaged direcly by the
respondent-management and further pleaded that he be
reinstated in service with all the benefits.
Respondent-management filed written reply denying
that workman was ever employed by it or there was any
relationship of master and servant between the parties. It
is pleaded that the respondent-management was entering
into contracts for getting the petty jobs done through the
contractor and the workman was never engaged by it. That
no record relating to the workman is available with the
respondent-management. The action initiated by the
workman and others was not correct.
Following issues were framed for decision:—
1. Whether there exists a relationship of master and
servant between the employer and employee?
2. If the workman is an employee of the management-
respondent, whether the services of the workman
were terminated in violation of the provisions of
Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act?
If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled?
Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence
in support of their case.
I have heard Sh. Brijesh Mittal for the workman and
Smt. Deepali Puri for the management and perused and file.
The issue wise findings are as follow:—
4204
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 24, 2015/KARTIKA 2, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Issue No. 1
In support of this issue, the workman Som Dutt appeared
in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating his case
as set out in the statement of claim.
On the other hand respondent-management has
examined Sh. Amrik Singh Malhotra, SDE MGG, who filed
his affidavit supporting the case of the respondent-
management.
It was contended by the learned counsel for the
workman that the workman was employed by the
management and the workman worked there for sufficient
long time and he was entitled to the grant of 'temporary
status' but instead of granting him a 'temporary status', his
services were illegally terminated and he is entitled to be
reinstated in service with all the benefits. In support of his
contention, he has carried me through the advice note and
submitted that complaints were marked to workman and
counter-signed by the officers of the respondent-
department and thus, the workman was an employee of the
respondent-management and further submitted that though
respondent-management has pleaded that it used to give
contract for petty jobs but did not bring anything on file to
prove that it has ever given contract for the petty jobs,
which show that workman was directly employed by the
respondent-management.
I have considered the contentions raised by the learned
counsel.
The workman has agitated the matter before the Central
Administrative Tribunal as well as before the Hon'ble High
Court and this is 5th round of litigation he has initiated to
claim the relief of 'temporary status and reinstatement in
service'.
So far as the advice notes are concerned, these are not
proved on the file. If this was signed by some officers of
the respondent-management, the workman was required
to prove it by examining the said officers but no one was
examined. No reliance can be placed on the said paper to
hold that the workman was directly employed by the
respondent-management.
Respondent-management is a statutory body and
maintain its records for making any type of payment
including wages to its employees. The workman did not
produce any record to establish that he was ever paid any
wages by the respondent-management. He also did not
produce any appointment letter issued by the respondent-
management. In the circumstances, it is hard to believe
from the sole statement of the workman to hold that he was
ever engaged by the respondent-management.
If the management did not establish that it has given
contract for doing petty jobs, the workman do not draw
any benefit from it. It was for the workman to prove that he
was engaged by the respondent-management and it was
the respondent-management who used to pay him wages,
which he has failed to prove, and being so, the non-
production of any evidence regarding the giving of contract
by the respondent-management is of no consequence.
The contention raised by the learned counsel that the
respondent-management has not produced the record
despite moving of an application by him is of no
consequence as it is a stand of the respondent-management
that the workman was never its employee and being so, no
record was supposed to be maintained by it.
It is the case of the workman himself that he approached
the Central Administrative Tribunal who directed the
respondent-management to consider his case for the grant
of 'temporary status' vide order dated 18.10.2001. In
pursuance of the said order, the management passed order
dated 16.1.2002 holding that the workman was never
engaged by it, but was engaged through a contract and
was not entitled to the grant of 'temporary status under the
(grant of temporary status and regularization) Scheme 1989.
The workman along with others again filed OA No. 578/
PB/08 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, who
disposed off the same vide order dated 1.4.2010 upholding
the order passed by the respondent-management.
Thus, the department has concluded that workman was
not its employee, and the order passed by it was upheld by
the competent forum before whom the matter was agitated.
In the circumstances, the matter cannot be agitated time
and again. In view of the order of the competent tribunal
and the evidence discussed above, it cannot be said that
there was a relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management.
In result, this issue is decided against the workman.
Issue No. 2
In view of findings under issue No. 1, this issue is also
decided against the workman.
In result, the workman is not entitled to any relief and
his claim is accordingly dismissed.
Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the
Central Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2023-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj]
ch,l,u,y] ifV;kyk vkSj nwljksa ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+
ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 205@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 12-10-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42025@03@2015&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 24] 2015@dk£rd 2] 1937
4205
New Delhi, the 12th October, 2015
S.O. 2023.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 205/2011) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Telecom, BSNL, Patiala & others and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 12.10.2015.
[No. L-42025/03/2015-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No. 205/2011
Registered on 12.7.2011
Sh. Pavittar Singh, S/o Sh. Surjit Singh, R/o Vill. Polo
Majra, P.o. Sanghol, Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh
Sahib.
...Petitioner
Versus
General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Patiala & Anr.
...Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman
:
Sh. Barjesh Mittal, Adv.
For the Management
:
Sh. Rakesh Verma, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 31.8.2015
The workman directly submitted statement of claim in
this Court, as his demand notice dated 20.02.2011, was not
adjudicated by Assistant Labour Commissioner within a
period of 45 days.
According to the workman, he was engaged as Daily
Rated Mazdoor/Helper Technician by the Office of
Divisional Engineer of the respondent-management in
August, 1996 on muster roll. He continuously worked with
the respondent-management and his services were illegally
terminated on 24.05.2003. The record of muster roll and
work register are available with the management.
The workman along with others filed OA No. 671-PB-99
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was
decided vide order dated 18.10.2001 with the following
observations:—
"In view of the decision of the Full Bench and the
Stand taken by the Learned Counsel for the
respondents, original Application disposed off with
a direction to them to consider the case of the
applicants, for grant of Temporary Status, within a
period of 2 months from today and in case the
applicants are held entitled to the grant of Temporary
Status, they shall be taken back in service, if not
already in service, and grant them consequential
benefits, in terms of continuity of service except that
they shall not be entitled to the salary for the period
they remained out of job, but for other purposes,
they shall be deemed to be in service. No costs."
In compliance of the said order, the respondent-
management passed order dated 16.1.2002 holding that
workman and others are not entitled to temporary status
and regularization under the 'Casual Labourers' (Grant of
Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1989 on
the ground that they were engaged through contractor.
The workman and others filed Civil Writ Petition No.
1904 of 2002 which was disposed off by the Hon'ble High
Court with the following observations:—
"We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties. It is
the case of the petitioners that though initially they
have been employed as Daily Rated Employees
through a Contractor but on the scraping of the
contract system, after 1999, the petitioner had been
in employment and paid directly by the Respondent
Company. The petitioners however, made overments
in the petition in this regard, but have not been able
to produce on record any documentary evidence. In
the reply filed by the respondents, the positive stand
is that the petitioners continued to be employed on
contract basis through a Contractor. We accordingly
find that the dispute inter-se parties appear to be
one of the disputed questions of fact. We accordingly
relegate the petitioners to their remedy before the
Labour Court."
The workman and others filed an application No. 966 of
2003 before the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Patiala, where the matter remained pending and the
Government of India issued a notification dated 31.10.2008
transferring jurisdiction regarding service matters to the
Central Administrative Tribunal. The application before the
Labour Court was withdrawn on 26.9.2008. The workman
and others filed OA No. 578/PB/08 before the Hon'ble CAT,
Chandigarh who decided the same vide award dated
1.4.2010 holding as follow:—
"For the above reasons, the relief prayed by the
applicant in the present OA is hereby declined as we
find no illegality in the orders impugned and passed
by the respondents vide Annexure P-2 dated
16.1.2002. The OA stands disposed off with the
observations given above, however, with no order
as to costs."
4206
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 24, 2015/KARTIKA 2, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble High
Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 19844 of 2010, which
was dismissed on 9.11.2010, holding that workers have
failed to prove that they were employed by the department
and further held that it is a question of fact, which cannot
be gone into in proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
In these circumstances, the workman was left with no
option, but to agitate the matter before this Court for
adjudication, whether he was engaged directly by the
respondent-management and further pleaded that he be
reinstated in service with all the benefits.
Respondent-management filed written reply denying
that workman was ever employed by it or there was any
relationship of master and servant between the parties. It
is pleaded that the respondent-management was entering
into contracts for getting the petty jobs done through the
contractor and the workman was never engaged by it. That
no record relating to the workman is available with the
respondent-management. The action initiated by the
workman and others was not correct.
Following issues were framed for decision:—
1. Whether there exists a relationship of master and
servant between the employer and employee?
2. If the workman is an employee of the management-
respondent, whether the services of the workman
were terminated in violation of the provisions of
Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act?
If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled?
Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence
in support of their case.
I have heard Sh. Brijesh Mittal for the workman and
Smt. Deepali Puri for the management and perused and file.
The issue wise findings are as follow:—
Issue No. 1
In support of this issue, the workman Som Dutt appeared
in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating his case
as set out in the statement of claim.
On the other hand respondent-management has
examined Sh. Amrik Singh Malhotra, SDE MGG, who filed
his affidavit supporting the case of the respondent-
management.
It was contended by the learned counsel for the
workman that the workman was employed by the
management and the workman worked there for sufficient
long time and he was entitled to the grant of 'termporary
status' but instead of granting him a 'termporary status',
his services were illegally terminated and he is entitled to
be reinstated in service with all the benefits. In support of
his contention, he has carried me through the advice note
and submitted that complaints were marked to workman
and counter-signed by the officers of the respondent-
department and thus, the workman was an employee of the
respondent-management and further submitted that though
respondent-management has pleaded that it used to give
contract for petty jobs but did not bring anything on file to
prove that it has ever given contract for the petty jobs,
which show that workman was directly employed by the
respondent-management.
I have considered the contentions raised by the learned
counsel.
The workman has agitated the matter before the Central
Administrative Tribunal as well as before the Hon'ble High
Court and this is 5th round of litigation he has initiated to
claim the relief of 'temporary status and reinstatement in
service'.
So far as the advice notes are concerned, these are not
proved on the file. If this was signed by some officers of
the respondent-management, the workman was required
to prove it by examining the said officers but no one was
examined. No reliance can be placed on the said paper to
hold that the workman was directly employed by the
respondent-management.
Respondent-management is a statutory body and
maintain its records for making any type of payment
including wages to its employees. The workman did not
produce any record to establish that he was ever paid any
wages by the respondent-management. He also did not
produce any appointment letter issued by the respondent-
management. In the circumstances, it is hard to believe
from the sole statement of the workman to hold that he was
ever engaged by the respondent-management.
If the management did not establish that it has given
contract for doing petty jobs, the workman do not draw
any benefit from it. It was for the workman to prove that he
was engaged by the respondent-management and it was
the respondent-management who used to pay him wages,
which he has failed to prove, and being so, the non-
production of any evidence regarding the giving of contract
by the respondent-management is of no consequence.
The contention raised by the learned counsel that the
respondent-management has not produced the record
despite moving of an application by him is of no
consequence as it is a stand of the respondent-management
that the workman was never its employee and being so, no
record was supposed to be maintained by it.
It is the case of the workman himself that he approached
the Central Administrative Tribunal who directed the
respondent-management to consider his case for the grant
of 'temporary status' vide order dated 18.10.2001. In
pursuance of the said order, the management passed order
dated 16.1.2002 holding that the workman was never
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 24] 2015@dk£rd 2] 1937
4207
engaged by it but was enaged through a contract and was
not entitled to the grant of 'temporary status under the
(grant of temporary status and regularization) Scheme 1989.
The workman along with others again filed OA No. 578/
PB/08 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, who
disposed off the same vide order dated 1.4.2010 upholding
the order passed by the respondent-management.
Thus, the department has concluded that workman was
not its employee, and the order passed by it was upheld by
the competent forum before whom the matter was agitated.
In the circumstances, the matter cannot be agitated time
and again. In view of the order of the competent tribunal
and the evidence discussed above, it cannot be said that
there was a relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management.
In result, this issue is decided against the workman.
Issue No. 2
In view of findings under issue No. 1, this issue is also
decided against the workman.
In result, the workman is not entitled to any relief and
his claim is accordingly dismissed.
Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the
Central Government for futher necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer.
ubZ fnYyh] 12 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2024-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj]
ch,l,u,y] ifV;kyk vkSj nwljksa ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+
ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 206@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 12-10-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42025@03@2015&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th October, 2015
S.O. 2024.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (ID No. 206/2011) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court No. II,
Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Telecom, BSNL, Patiala & others and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 12.10.2015.
[No. L-42025/03/2015-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No. 206/2011
Registered on 12.7.2011
Sh. Manjeet Singh, S/o Late Sh. Garib Singh, R/o Village
Datarpur, P.O. Morinda, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.
.......Petitioner
Versus
General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Patiala & Anr.
.......Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
:
Sh. Barjesh Mittal, Adv.
For the Management
:
Sh. Rakesh Verma, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 31.8.2015
The workman directly submitted statement of claim in
this Court, as his demand notice dated 20.02.2011, was not
adjudicated by Assistant Labour Commissioner within a
period of 45 days.
According to the workman, he was engaged as Daily
Rated Mazdoor/Helper Technician by the Office of
Divisional Engineer of the respondent-management on
September, 1997 on muster roll. He continuously worked
with the respondent-management and his services were
illegally terminated on 31.03.1999. The record of muster roll
and work register are available with the management.
The workman along with others filed OA No. 671-PB-99
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was
decided vide order dated 18.10.2001 with the following
observations:—
"In view of the decision of the Full Bench and the
Stand taken by the Learned Counsel for the
respondents, original Application disposed off with
a direction to them to consider the case of the
applicants, for grant of Temporary Status, within a
period of 2 months from today and in case the
applicants are held entitled to the grant of Temporary
Status, they shall be taken back in service, if not
already in service, and grant them consequential
benefits, in terms of continuity of service except
that they shall not be entitled to the salary for the
period they remained out of job, but for other
purposes, they shall be deemed to be in service. No
costs."
In compliance of the said order, the respondent-
management passed order dated 16.1.2002 holding that
4208
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 24, 2015/KARTIKA 2, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
workman and others are not entitled to temporary status
and regularization under the 'Casual Labourers' (Grant of
Temporary Status and Regulaization) Scheme, 1989 on the
ground that they were engaged through contractor.
The workman and others filed Civil Writ Petition No.
1904 of 2002 which was disposed off by the Hon'ble High
Court with the following observations:—
"We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties. It is
the case of the petitioners that though initially they
have been employed as Daily Rated Employees
through a Contractor but on the scraping of the
contract system, after 1999, the petitioner had been
in employment and paid directly by the Respondent
Company. The petitioners however, made overments
in the petition in this regard, but have not been able
to produce on record any documentary evidence. In
the reply filed by the respondents, the positive stand
is that the petitioners continued to be employed on
contract basis through a Contractor. We accordingly
find that the dispute inter-se parties appear to be
one of the disputed questions of fact. We accordingly
relegate the petitioners to their remedy before the
Labour Court."
The workman and others filed an application No. 966 of
2003 before the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Patiala, where the matter remained pending and the
Government of India issued a notification dated 31.10.2008
transferring jurisdiction regarding service matters to the
Central Administrative Tribunal. The application before the
Labour Court was withdrawn on 26.9.2008. The workman
and others filed OA No. 578/PB/08 before the Hon'ble CAT,
Chandigarh who decided the same vide award dated
1.4.2010 holding as follow:—
"For the above reasons, the relief prayed by the
applicant in the present OA is hereby declined as we
find no illegality in the orders impugned and passed
by the respondents vide Annexure P-2 dated
16.1.2002. The OA stands disposed off with the
observations given above, however, with no order
as to costs."
The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble High
Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 19844 of 2010, which
was dismissed on 9.11.2010, holding that workers have
failed to prove that they were employed by the department
and further held that it is a question of fact, which cannot
be gone into in proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
In these circumsances, the workman was left with no
option, but to agitate the matter before this Court for
adjudication, whether he was engaged direcly by the
respondent-management and further pleaded that he be
reinstated in service with all the benefits.
Respondent-management filed written reply denying
that workman was ever employed by it or there was any
relationship of master and servant between the parties. It
is pleaded that the respondent-management was entering
into contracts for getting the petty jobs done through the
contractor and the workman was never engaged by it. That
no record relating to the workman is available with the
respondent-management. The action initiated by the
workman and others was not correct.
Following issues were framed for decision:—
1. Whether there exists a relationship of master and
servant between the employer and employee?
2. If the workman is an employee of the management-
respondent, whether the services of the workman
were terminated in violation of the provisions of
Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act?
If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled?
Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence
in support of their case.
I have heard Sh. Brijesh Mittal for the workman and
Smt. Deepali Puri for the management and perused the file.
The issue wise findings are as follow:—
Issue No. 1
In support of this issue, the workman Som Dutt appeared
in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating his case
as set out in the statement of claim.
On the other hand respondent-management has
examined Sh. Amrik Singh Malhotra, SDE MGG, who filed
his affidavit supporting the case of the respondent-
management.
It was contended by the learned counsel for the
workman that the workman was employed by the
management and the workman worked there for sufficient
long time and he was entitled to the grant of 'termporary
status' but instead of granting him a 'termporary status',
his services were illegally terminated and he is entitled to
be reinstated in service with all the benefits. In support of
his contention, he has carried me through the advice note
and submitted that complaints were marked to workman
and counter-signed by the officers of the respondent-
department and thus, the workman was an employee of the
respondent-management and further submitted that though
respondent-management has pleaded that it used to give
contract for petty jobs but did not bring anything on file to
prove that it has ever given contract for the petty jobs,
which show that workman was directly employed by the
respondent-management.
I have considered the contentions raised by the learned
counsel.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 24] 2015@dk£rd 2] 1937
4209
The workman has agitated the matter before the Central
Administrative Tribunal as well as before the Hon'ble High
Court and this is 5th round of litigation he has initiated to
claim the relief of 'temporary status and reinstatement in
service'.
So far as the advice notes are concerned, these are not
proved on the file. If this was signed by some officers of
the respondent-management, the workman was required
to prove it by examining the said officers but no one was
examined. No reliance can be placeed on the said paper to
hold that the workman was directly employed by the
respondent-management.
Respondent-management is a statutory body and
maintain its records for making any type of payment
including wages to its employees. The workman did not
produce any record to establish that he was ever paid any
wages by the respondent-management. He also did not
produce any appointment letter issued by the respondent-
management. In the circumstances, it is hard to believe
from the statement of the workman to hold that he was ever
engaged by the respondent-management.
If the management did not establish that it has given
contract for doing petty jobs, the workman do not draw
any benefit from it. It was for the workman to prove that he
was engaged by the respondent-management and it was
the respondent-management who used to pay him wages,
which he has failed to prove, and being so, the non-
production of any evidence regarding the giving of contract
by the respondent-management is of no consequence.
The contention raised by the learned counsel that the
respondent-management has not produced the record
despite moving of an application by him is of no
consequence as it is a stand of the respondent-management
that the workman was never its employee and being so, no
record was supposed to be maintained by it.
It is the case of the workman himself that he approached
the Central Administrative Tribunal who directed the
respondent-management to consider his case for the grant
of 'temporary status' vide order dated 18.10.2001. In
pursuance of the said order, the management passed order
dated 16.1.2002 holding that the workman was never
engaged by it but was enaged through a contract and was
not entitled to the grant of 'temporary status under the
(grant of temporary status and regularization) Scheme 1989.
The workman along with others again filed OA No. 578/
PB/08 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, who
disposed off the same vide order dated 1.4.2010 upholding
the order passed by the respondent-management.
Thus, the department has concluded that workman was
not its employee, and the order passed by it was upheld by
the competent forum before whom the matter was agitated.
In the circumstances, the matter cannot be agitated time
and again. In view of the order of the competent tribunal
and the evidence discussed above, it cannot be said that
there was a relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management.
In result, this issue is decided against the workman.
Issue No. 2
In view of findings under issue No. 1, this issue is also
decided against the workman.
In result, the workman is not entitled to any relief and
his claim is accordingly dismissed.
Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the
Central Government for futher necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer.
ubZ fnYyh] 12 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2025-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj]
ch,l,u,y] ifV;kyk vkSj nwljksa ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+
ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 208@2011 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 12-10-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42025@03@2015&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th October, 2015
S.O. 2025.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (ID No. 208/2011) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court No. II,
Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Telecom, BSNL, Patiala & others and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 12.10.2015.
[No. L-42025/03/2015-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No. 208/2011
Registered on 12.7.2011
Sh. Chet Pal, S/o Sh. Chela Ram, R/o H.No. 236, Prem
Nagar, Ward No. 6, Gali No. 8, Tehsil Amloh, Mandi
Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
.......Petitioner
4210
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 24, 2015/KARTIKA 2, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Versus
General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Patiala & Anr.
.......Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
:
Sh. Barjesh Mittal, Adv.
For the Management
:
Mrs. Deepali Puri, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 31.8.2015
The workman directly submitted statement of claim in
this Court, as his demand notice dated 20.02.2011, was not
adjudicated by Assistant Labour Commissioner within a
period of 45 days.
According to the workman, he was engaged as Daily
Rated Mazdoor/Safai Karamchari by the Office of Divisional
Engineer of the respondent-management in January, 1998
on muster roll. He continuously worked with the
respondent-management and his services were illegally
terminated on 24.05.2003. The record of muster roll and
work register are available with the management.
The workman along with others filed OA No. 671-PB-99
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was
decided vide order dated 18.10.2001 with the following
observations:—
"In view of the decision of the Full Bench and the
Stand taken by the Learned Counsel for the
respondents, original Application disposed off with
a direction to them to consider the case of the
applicants, for grant of Temporary Status, within a
period of 2 months from today and in case the
applicants are held entitled to the grant of Temporary
Status, they shall be taken back in service, if not
already in service, and grant them consequential
benefits, in terms of continuity of service except
that they shall not be entitled to the salary for the
period they remained out of job, but for other
purposes, they shall be deemed to be in service. No
costs."
In compliance of the said order, the respondent-
management passed order dated 16.1.2002 holding that
workman and others are not entitled to temporary status
and regularization under the 'Casual Labourers' (Grant of
Temporary Status and Regulaization) Scheme, 1989 on the
ground that they were engaged through contractor.
The workman and others filed Civil Writ Petition No.
1904 of 2002 which was disposed off by the Hon'ble High
Court with the following observations:—
"We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties. It is
the case of the petitioners that though initially they
have been employed as Daily Rated Employees
through a Contractor but on the scraping of the
contract system, after 1999, the petitioner had been
in employment and paid directly by the Respondent
Company. The petitioners however, made overments
in the petition in this regard, but have not been able
to produce on record any documentary evidence. In
the reply filed by the respondents, the positive stand
is that the petitioners continued to be employed on
contract basis through a Contractor. We accordingly
find that the dispute inter-se parties appear to be
one of the disputed questions of fact. We accordingly
relegate the petitioners to their remedy before the
Labour Court."
The workman and others filed an application No. 966 of
2003 before the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Patiala, where the matter remained pending and the
Government of India issued a notification dated 31.10.2008
transferring jurisdiction regarding service matters to the
Central Administrative Tribunal. The application before the
Labour Court was withdrawn on 26.9.2008. The workman
and others filed OA No. 578/PB/08 before the Hon'ble CAT,
Chandigarh who decided the same vide award dated 1.4.2010
holding as follow:—
"For the above reasons, the relief prayed by the
applicant in the present OA is hereby declined as we
find no illegality in the orders impugned and passed
by the respondents vide Annexure P-2 dated
16.1.2002. The OA stands disposed off with the
observations given above, however, with no order as
to costs."
The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble High
Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 19844 of 2010, which
was dismissed on 9.11.2010, holding that workers have
failed to prove that they were employed by the department
and further held that it is a question of fact, which cannot
be gone into in proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
In these circumsances, the workman was left with no
option, but to agitate the matter before this Court for
adjudication, whether he was engaged direcly by the
respondent-management and further pleaded that he be
reinstated in service with all the benefits.
Respondent-management filed written reply denying
that workman was ever employed by it or there was any
relationship of master and servant between the parties. It
is pleaded that the respondent-management was entering
into contracts for getting the petty jobs done through the
contractor and the workman was never engaged by it. That
no record relating to the workman is available with the
respondent-management. The action initiated by the
workman and others was not correct.
Following issues were framed for decision:—
1. Whether there exists a relationship of master and
servant between the employer and employee?
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 24] 2015@dk£rd 2] 1937
4211
2. If the workman is an employee of the management-
respondent, whether the services of the workman
were terminated in violation of the provisions of
Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act?
If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled?
Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence
in support of their case.
I have heard Sh. Brijesh Mittal for the workman and
Smt. Deepali Puri for the management and perused and file.
The issue wise findings are as follow:—
Issue No. 1
In support of this issue, the workman Som Dutt appeared
in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating his case
as set out in the statement of claim.
On the other hand respondent-management has
examined Sh. Amrik Singh Malhotra, SDE MGG, who filed
his affidavit supporting the case of the respondent-
management.
It was contended by the learned counsel for the
workman that the workman was employed by the
management and the workman worked there for sufficient
long time and he was entitled to the grant of 'termporary
status' but instead of granting him a 'termporary status',
his services were illegally terminated and he is entitled to
be reinstated in service with all the benefits. In support of
his contention, he has carried me through the advice note
and submitted that complaints were marked to workman
and counter-signed by the officers of the respondent-
department and thus, the workman was an employee of the
respondent-management and further submitted that
through respondent-management has pleaded that it used
to give contract for petty jobs but did not bring anything
on file to prove that it has ever given contract for the petty
jobs, which show that workman was directly employed by
the respondent-management.
I have considered the contentions raised by the learned
counsel.
The workman has agitated the matter before the Central
Administrative Tribunal as well as before the Hon'ble High
Court and this is 5th round of litigation he has initiated to
claim the relief of 'temporary status and reinstatement in
service'.
So far as the advice notes are concerned, these are not
proved on the file. If this was signed by some officers of
the respondent-management, the workman was required
to prove it by examining the said officers but no one was
examined. No reliance can be placed on the said paper to
hold that the workman was directly employed by the
respondent-management.
Respondent-management is a statutory body and
maintain its records for making any type of payment
including wages to its employees. The workman did not
produce any record to establish that he was ever paid any
wages by the respondent-management. He also did not
produce any appointment letter issued by the respondent-
management. In the circumstances, it is hard to believe
from the statement of the workman to hold that he was ever
engaged by the respondent-management.
If the management did not establish that it has given
contract for doing petty jobs, the workman do not draw
any benefit from it. It was for the workman to prove that he
was engaged by the respondent-management and it was
the respondent-management who used to pay him wages,
which he has failed to prove, and being so, the non-
production of any evidence regarding the giving of contract
by the respondent-management is of no consequence.
The contention raised by the learned counsel that the
respondent-management has not produced the record
despite moving of an application by him is of no
consequence as it is a stand of the respondent-management
that the workman was never its employee and being so, no
record was supposed to be maintained by it.
It is the case of the workman himself that he approached
the Central Administrative Tribunal who directed the
respondent-management to consider his case for the grant
of 'temporary status' vide order dated 18.10.2001. In
pursuance of the said order, the management passed order
dated 16.1.2002 holding that the workman was never
engaged by it but was enaged through a contract and was
not entitled to the grant of 'temporary status under the
(grant of temporary status and regularization) Scheme 1989.
The workman along with others again filed OA No. 578/
PB/08 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, who
disposed off the same vide order dated 1.4.2010 upholding
the order passed by the respondent-management.
Thus, the department has concluded that workman was
not its employee, and the order passed by it was upheld by
the competent forum before whom the matter was agitated.
In the circumstances, the matter cannot be agitated time
and again. In view of the order of the competent tribunal
and the evidence discussed above, it cannot be said that
there was a relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management.
In result, this issue is decided against the workman.
Issue No. 2
In view of findings under issue No. 1, this issue is also
decided against the workman.
In result, the workman is not entitled to any relief and
his claim is accordingly dismissed.
Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the
Central Government for futher necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
4212
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 24, 2015/KARTIKA 2, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 12 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2026-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj]
ch,l,u,y] ifV;kyk vkSj nwljksa ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+
ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 209@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 12@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42025@03@2015&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th October, 2015
S.O. 2026.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 209/2011) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Telecom, BSNL, Patiala & others and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 12/10/2015.
[No. L-42025/03/2015-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 209/2011
Registered on 12.7.2011
Sh. Manjinder Preet Singh S/o Late Sh. Sarwan Singh,
R/o Village Isher-Hail, P.O. Balhari Kalan, Tehsil & District
Fatehgarh Sahib.
... Petitioner
Versus
General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Patiala & Anr.
... Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
:
Sh. Barjesh Mittal, Adv.
For the Management
:
Sh. Rakesh Verma, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 31.8.2015
The workman directly submitted statement of claim in
this Court, as his demand notice dated 20.02.2011, was not
adjudicated by Assistant Labour Commissioner within a
period of 45 days.
According to the workman, he was engaged as Daily
Rated Mazdoor/Helper Technician by the Office of
Divisional Engineer of the respondent-management in
November, 1995 on muster roll. He continuously worked
with the respondent-management and his services were
illegally terminated on 03.03.1999. The record of muster roll
and work register are available with the management.
The workman along with others filed OA No. 671-PB-99
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was
decided vide order dated 18.10.2001 with the following
observations:—
"In view of the decision of the Full Bench and the
Stand taken by the Learned Counsel for the
respondents, original Application disposed off with
a direction to them to consider the case of the
applicants, for grant of Temporary Status, within a
period of 2 months from today and in case the
applicants are held entitled to the grant of Temporary
Status, they shall be taken back in service, if not
already in service, and grant them consequential
benefits, in terms of continuity of service except
that they shall not be entitled to the salary for the
period they remained out of job, but for other
purposes, they shall be deemed to be in service. No
costs."
In compliance of the said order, the respondent-
management passed order dated 16.1.2002 holding that
workman and others are not entitled to temporary status
and regularization under the 'Casual Labourers' (Grant of
Temporary Status and Regulaization) Scheme, 1989 on the
ground that they were engaged through contractor.
The workman and others filed Civil Writ Petition No.
1904 of 2002 which was disposed off by the Hon'ble High
Court with the following observations:—
"We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties. It is
the case of the petitioners that though initially they
have been employed as Daily Rated Employees
through a Contractor but on the scraping of the
contract system, after 1999, the petitioner had been
in employment and paid directly by the Respondent
Company. The petitioners however, made averments
in the petition in this regard, but have not been able
to produce on record any documentary evidence. In
the reply filed by the respondents, the positive stand
is that the petitioners continued to be employed on
contract basis through a Contractor. We accordingly
find that the dispute inter-se parties appear to be
one of the disputed questions of fact. We accordingly
relegate the petitioners to their remedy before the
Labour Court."
The workman and others filed an application No. 966 of
2003 before the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 24] 2015@dk£rd 2] 1937
4213
Patiala, where the matter remained pending and the
Government of India issued a notification dated 31.10.2008
transferring jurisdiction regarding service matters to the
Central Administrative Tribunal. The application before the
Labour Court was withdrawn on 26.9.2008. The workman
and others filed OA No. 578/PB/08 before the Hon'ble CAT,
Chandigarh who decided the same vide award dated 1.4.2010
holding as follow:—
"For the above reasons, the relief prayed by the
applicant in the present OA is hereby declined as we
find no illegality in the orders impugned and passed
by the respondents vide Annexure P-2 dated
16.1.2002. The OA stands disposed off with the
observations given above, however, with no order as
to costs."
The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble High
Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 19844 of 2010, which
was dismissed on 9.11.2010, holding that workers have
failed to prove that they were employed by the department
and further held that it is a question of fact, which cannot
be gone into in proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
In these circumstances, the workman was left with no
option, but to agitate the matter before this Court for
adjudication, whether he was engaged direcly by the
respondent-management and further pleaded that he be
reinstated in service with all the benefits.
Respondent-management filed written reply denying
that workman was ever employed by it or there was any
relationship of master and servant between the parties. It
is pleaded that the respondent-management was entering
into contracts for getting the petty jobs done through the
contractor and the workman was never engaged by it. That
no record relating to the workman is available with the
respondent-management. The action initiated by the
workman and others was not correct.
Following issues were framed for decision:—
1. Whether there exists a relationship of master and
servant between the employer and employee?
2. If the workman is an employee of the management-
respondent, whether the services of the workman
were terminated in violation of the provisions of
Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act?
If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled?
Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence
in support of their case.
I have heard Sh. Brijesh Mittal for the workman and
Smt. Deepali Puri for the management and perused and file.
The issue wise findings are as follow:—
Issue No. 1:—
In support of this issue, the workman Som Dutt appeared
in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating his case
as set out in the statement of claim.
On the other hand respondent-management has
examined Sh. Amrik Singh Malhotra, SDE MGG, who filed
his affidavit supporting the case of the respondent-
management.
It was contended by the learned counsel for the
workman that the workman was employed by the
management and the workman worked there for sufficient
long time and he was entitled to the grant of 'termporary
status' but instead of granting him a 'temporary status', his
services were illegally terminated and he is entitled to be
reinstated in service with all the benefits. In support of his
contention, he has carried me through the advice note and
submitted that complaints were marked to workman and
counter-signed by the officers of the respondent-
department and thus, the workman was an employee of the
respondent-management and further submitted that though
respondent-management has pleaded that it used to give
contract for petty jobs but did not bring anything on file to
prove that it has ever given contract for the petty jobs,
which show that workman was directly employed by the
respondent-management.
I have considered the contentions raised by the learned
counsel.
The workman has agitated the matter before the Central
Administrative Tribunal as well as before the Hon'ble High
Court and this is 5th round of litigation he has initiated to
claim the relief of 'temporary status and reinstatement in
service'.
So far as the advice notes are concerned, these are not
proved on the file. If this was signed by some officers of
the respondent-management, the workman was required
to prove it by examining the said officers but no one was
examined. No reliance can be placed on the said paper to
hold that the workman was directly employed by the
respondent-management.
Respondent-management is a statutory body and
maintain its records for making any type of payment
including wages to its employees. The workman did not
produce any record to establish that he was ever paid any
wages by the respondent-management. He also did not
produce any appointment letter issued by the respondent-
management. In the circumstances, it is hard to believe
from the sole statement of the workman to hold that he was
ever engaged by the respondent-management.
If the management did not establish that it has given
contract for doing petty jobs, the workman do not draw
any benefit from it. It was for the workman to prove that he
was engaged by the respondent-management and it was
the respondent-management who used to pay him wages,
4214
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 24, 2015/KARTIKA 2, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
which he has failed to prove, and being so, the non-
production of any evidence regarding the giving of contract
by the respondent-management is of no consequence.
The contention raised by the learned counsel that the
respondent-management has not produced the record
despite moving of an application by him is of no
consequence as it is a stand of the respondent-management
that the workman was never its employee and being so, no
record was supposed to be maintained by it.
It is the case of the workman himself that he approached
the Central Administrative Tribunal who directed the
respondent-management to consider his case for the grant
of 'temporary status' vide order dated 18.10.2001. In
pursuance of the said order, the management passed order
dated 16.1.2002 holding that the workman was never
engaged by it but was enaged through a contract and was
not entitled to the grant of 'temporary status under the
(grant of temporary status and regularization) Scheme 1989.
The workman along with others again filed OA No. 578/
PB/08 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, who
disposed off the same vide order dated 1.4.2010 upholding
the order passed by the respondent-management.
Thus, the department has concluded that workman was
not its employee, and the order passed by it was upheld by
the competent forum before whom the matter was agitated.
In the circumstances, the matter cannot be agitated time
and again. In view of the order of the competent tribunal
and the evidence discussed above, it cannot be said that
there was a relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management.
In result, this issue is decided against the workman.
Issue No. 2:—
In view of findings under issue No. 1, this issue is also
decided against the workman.
In result, the workman is not entitled to any relief and
his claim is accordingly dismissed.
Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the
Central Government for futher necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh 12 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2027-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj]
ch,l,u,y] ifV;kyk vkSj nwljksa ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2] paMhx<+ ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 210@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 12@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42025@03@2015&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th October, 2015
S.O. 2027.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 210/2011) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court
No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Telecom, BSNL, Patiala & others and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 12/10/2015.
[No. L-42025/03/2015-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 210/2011
Registered on 12.7.2011
Sh. Girja Shankar Pandey, S/o Late Sh. Kamla Pandey,
Residence of C/o Manjet Singh, Village Datarpur, P.O.
Morinda, Tehsil & District Rupnagar
...Petitioner
Versus
General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Patiala & Anr.
...Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
:
Sh. Barjesh Mittal, Adv.
For the Management
:
Mrs. Deepali Puri, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 31.8.2015
The workman directly submitted statement of claim in
this Court, as his demand notice dated 20.02.2011, was not
adjudicated by Assistant Labour Commissioner within a
period of 45 days.
According to the workman, he was engaged as Daily
Rated Mazdoor/Helper Technician by the Office of
Divisional Engineer of the respondent-management in June,
1994 on muster roll. He continuously worked with the
respondent-management and his services were illegally
terminated on 24.05.2003. The record of muster roll and
work register are available with the management.
The workman along with others filed OA No. 671-PB-99
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was
decided vide order dated 18.10.2001 with the following
observations:—
"In view of the decision of the Full Bench and the Stand
taken by the Learned Counsel for the respondents, original
Application disposed off with a direction to them to
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 24] 2015@dk£rd 2] 1937
4215
consider the case of the applicants, for grant of Temporary
Status, within a period of 2 months from today and in case
the applicants are held entitled to the grant of Temporary
Status, they shall be taken back in service, if not already in
service, and grant them consequential benefits, in terms of
continuity of service except that they shall not be entitled
to the salary for the period they remained out of job, but for
other purposes, they shall be deemed to be in service. No
costs."
In compliance of the said order, the respondent-
management passed order dated 16.1.2002 holding that
workman and others are not entitled to temporary status
and regularization under the 'Casual Labourers' (Grant of
Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1989 on the
ground that they were engaged through contractor.
The workman and others filed Civil Writ Petition No.
1904 of 2002 which was disposed off by the Hon'ble High
Court with the following observations:—
"We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties. It is
the case of the petitioners that though initially they
have been employed as Daily Rated Employees
through a Contractor but on the scraping of the
contract system, after 1999, the petitioner had been
in employment and paid directly by the Respondent
Company. The petitioners however, made averments
in the petition in this regard, but have not been able
to produce on record any documentary evidence. In
the reply filed by the respondents, the positive stand
is that the petitioners continued to be employed on
contract basis through a Contractor. We accordingly
find that the dispute inter-se parties appear to be
one of the disputed questions of fact. We accordingly
relegate the petitioners to their remedy before the
Labour Court."
The workman and others filed an application No. 966 of
2003 before the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Patiala, where the matter remained pending and the
Government of India issued a notification dated 31.10.2008
transferring jurisdiction regarding service matters to the
Central Administrative Tribunal. The application before the
Labour Court was withdrawn on 26.9.2008. The workman
and others filed OA No. 578/PB/08 before the Hon'ble CAT,
Chandigarh who decided the same vide award dated 1.4.2010
holding as follow:—
"For the above reasons, the relief prayed by the
applicant in the present OA is hereby declined as we
find no illegality in the orders impugned and passed
by the respondents vide Annexure P-2 dated
16.1.2002. The OA stands disposed off with the
observations given above, however, with no order
as to costs."
The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble High
Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 19844 of 2010, which
was dismissed on 9.11.2010, holding that workers have
failed to prove that they were employed by the department
and further held that it is a question of fact, which cannot
be gone into in proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
In these circumstances, the workman was left with no
option, but to agitate the matter before this Court for
adjudication, whether he was engaged directly by the
respondent-management and further pleaded that he be
reinstated in service with all the benefits.
Respondent-management filed written reply denying
that workman was ever employed by it or there was any
relationship of master and servant between the parties. It
is pleaded that the respondent-management was entering
into contracts for getting the petty jobs done through the
contractor and the workman was never engaged by it. That
no record relating to the workman is available with the
respondent-management. The action initiated by the
workman and others was not correct.
Following issues were framed for decision:—
1. Whether there exists a relationship of master and
servant between the employer and employee?
2. If the workman is an employee of the management-
respondent, whether the services of the workman
were terminated in violation of the provisions of
Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act?
If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled?
Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence
in support of their case.
I have heard Sh. Brijesh Mittal for the workman and
Smt. Deepali Puri for the management and perused the file.
The issue wise findings are as follow:—
Issue No. 1:—
In support of this issue, the workman Som Dutt appeared
in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating his case
as set out in the statement of claim.
On the other hand respondent-management has
examined Sh. Amrik Singh Malhotra, SDE MGG, who filed
his affidavit supporting the case of the respondent-
management.
It was contended by the learned counsel for the
workman that the workman was employed by the
management and the workman worked there for sufficient
long time and he was entitled to the grant of 'temporary
status' but instead of granting him a 'temporary status', his
services were illegally terminated and he is entitled to be
reinstated in service with all the benefits. In support of his
contention, he has carried me through the advice note and
4216
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 24, 2015/KARTIKA 2, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
submitted that complaints were marked to workman and
counter-signed by the officers of the respondent-
department and thus, the workman was an employee of the
respondent-management and further submitted that though
respondent-management has pleaded that it used to give
contract for petty jobs but did not bring anything on file to
prove that it has ever given contract for the petty jobs,
which show that workman was directly employed by the
respondent-management.
I have considered the contentions raised by the learned
counsel.
The workman has agitated the matter before the Central
Administrative Tribunal as well as before the Hon'ble High
Court and this is 5th round of litigation he has initiated to
claim the relief of 'temporary status and reinstatement in
service'.
So far as the advice notes are concerned, these are not
proved on the file. If this was signed by some officers of
the respondent-management, the workman was required
to prove it by examining the said officers but no one was
examined. No reliance can be placed on the said paper to
hold that the workman was directly employed by the
respondent-management.
Respondent-management is a statutory body and
maintain its records for making any type of payment
including wages to its employees. The workman did not
produce any record to establish that he was ever paid any
wages by the respondent-management. He also did not
produce any appointment letter issued by the respondent-
management. In the circumstances, it is hard to believe
from the sole statement of the workman to hold that he was
ever engaged by the respondent-management.
If the management did not establish that it has given
contract for doing petty jobs, the workman do not draw
any benefit from it. It was for the workman to prove that he
was engaged by the respondent-management and it was
the respondent-management who used to pay him wages,
which he has failed to prove, and being so, the non-
production of any evidence regarding the giving of contract
by the respondent-management is of no consequence.
The contention raised by the learned counsel that the
respondent-management has not produced the record
despite moving of an application by him is of no
consequence as it is a stand of the respondent-management
that the workman was never its employee and being so, no
record was supposed to be maintained by it.
It is the case of the workman himself that he approached
the Central Administrative Tribunal who directed the
respondent-management to consider his case for the grant
of 'temporary status' vide order dated 18.10.2001. In
pursuance of the said order, the management passed order
dated 16.1.2002 holding that the workman was never
engaged by it but was engaged through a contract and
was not entitled to the grant of 'temporary status under the
(grant of temporary status and regularization) Scheme 1989.
The workman alongwith others again filed OA No. 578/
PB/08 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, who
disposed off the same vide order dated 1.4.2010 upholding
the order passed by the respondent-management.
Thus, the department has concluded that workman was
not its employee, and the order passed by it was upheld by
the competent forum before whom the matter was agitated.
In the circumstances, the matter cannot be agitated time
and again. In view of the order of the competent tribunal
and the evidence discussed above, it cannot be said that
there was a relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management.
In result, this issue is decided against the workman.
Issue No. 2:—
In view of findings under issue No. 1, this issue is also
decided against the workman.
In result, the workman is not entitled to any relief and
his claim is accordingly dismissed.
Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the
Central Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2028-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksy iufctyh
cka/k izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh] fcykliqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2] paMhx<+ ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 168@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 12@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@253@2010&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th October, 2015
S.O. 2028.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 168/2011) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court
No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
NTPC, Bilaspur and their workmen, which was received by
the Central Government on 12/10/2015.
[No. L-42012/253/2010-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 24] 2015@dk£rd 2] 1937
4217
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. 168/2011
Registered on 24.5.2011
Sh. Shyam Lal S/o Sh. Durga Ram, Vill. Hawanikal, PO
Kandhar, Tehsil Arki, Solan (Himachal Pradesh).
.....Applicant
Versus
1. The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power
Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2. The Managing Dir., M/s AKS Engineers and
Contractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Sanjay
Sadan, Chhota Shimla-171002
3. Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd., Kol
Dam Hydra Electric Power Project, Village Kayan, PO
Slapper, Tehsil. Sundernagar, Mandi.
......Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
: Sh. M.S. Gorsi, Adv.
For the Management : Resp. No. 1 and 2 ex parte
Sh. H.R. Sharma for Resp. No. 3
AWARD
Passed on: 7.9.2015
Vide Order No. L-42012/253/2010-IR(DU), dated 20.4.2011
the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred
by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of
Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short Act)
has referred the following industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
"Whether the retrenchement of services of sh. Shyam
Lal S/o Sh. Durga Ram by the Managing Director,
M/s AKS Engineers & Contractors, Sanjay Sadan,
Chhota Shimla (HP) vide order dated 31.7.2008 without
following the principle of 'last come first go' is legal
and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to
from the above employer?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and
submitted statement of claim, pleading that respondent
No. 1 is the principal employer who was constructing "Dam"
and engaged respondent No. 3 as its main contractor. The
respondent No. 3 engaged respondent No. 2 as Sub-
Contractor. The workman was appointed through
respondent No. 2 on 16.8.2004 and continuously worked
till 31.7.2008 when he was 'retrenched'.
The workman challenged the 'retrenchment' on the
ground that the persons junior to him, were retained in
service as well as the management employed large number
of workers after termination of his service. He be reinstated
in service.
Respondent No. 1 and 2 were proceeded against ex
parte.
Respondent No. 2 filed written statement admitting the
relationship and pleaded that the workman was retrenched
due to completion of work after paying him retrenchment
compensation as per law.
Parties were given opportunity to lead the evidence.
In support of his case Sh. Shyam Lal workman appeared
in the witness-box and filed his affidavit reiterating the
stand taken by him in the statement of claim.
On the other hand, Mr. H.R. Sharma appeared on behalf
of Respondent No. 3 and filed his affidavit in support of its
case.
I have heard Mr. Gorsi for the workman and Mr. H.R.
Sharma for respondent No. 3.
There is no denial of the fact that the workman was
employed by respondent No. 2 on 16.8.2004 and he was
retrenched from service on 31.7.2008 after paying
compensation as required under Section 25F of the Act.
The workman while appearing in the witness-box has
admitted that he was paid the compensation at the time of
his termination of his service. There is nothing to suggest
that 'retrenchment' made by the respondent is invalied.
The objection taken by the workman is that persons
junior to him were retained in service, as well as the
management employed more persons after the termination
of his service. But there is no cogent evidence on the file to
prove the said facts. It cannot be said from the bare
statement of the workman that persons junior to the
workman were retained in service and some other persons
were appointed by the respondent-management after the
termination of the service of the workman. Thus, it cannot
be said that the management did not follow the principle of
'last come first go' and rather the 'retrenchment' being made
as per law is legal and valid.
In result the reference is answered against the workman
and he is not entitled to any relief.
Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the
Central Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2029-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lfefr ds izca/k]
ARTRAC dSVhu] f'keyk ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
4218
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 24, 2015/KARTIKA 2, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
279@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@10@2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@23@2013&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th October, 2015
S.O. 2029.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 279/2013) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Managing Committee ARTRAC
Canteens, Shimla and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 12/10/2015.
[No. L-42012/23/2013-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No. 279/2013
Registered on 28.6.2013
Sh. Raj Kumar, S/o Sh. Sukhram Rathod, R/o Mandyal
House Village Upper Chamina, PO Kamla Nagar, Shimla
(Himachal pradesh)-171006.
....Petitioner
Versus
1. The Chairman, Managing Committee ARTRAC
Canteens, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)..
2. The Manager, ARTRAC Canteen, Shimla (Himachal
pradesh).
..... Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
:
Sh J.C. Bhardwaj, Adv.
For the Management
:
Sh. Vijay Arora, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on: 16.9.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/23/
2013-IR(DU) Dated 20.6.2013, 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 Managing Committee of
ARTRAC Canteen, Shimla in terminating the services
of Sh. Raj Kumar w.e.f. 30.9.2012/8.1.2013 without
following the procedure laid down U/s 25-F of ID
Act, 1947 is legal and justified? To what relief the
workman is entitled to and from which date?"
The facts, in brief are that the workman was appointed
as daily wager with the respondent-management on 1.9.2004
by issuing appointment letter (Annexure P-1). He was
upgraded as Sales Attendant w.e.f. 1.2.2007 (Annexure P-2).
He continued serving at Shimla and was transferred to
URC Canteen Ghumarwin on 15.11.2011. But he did not
join duty due to certain unavoidable circumstances. the
representation made by him was not considered by the
respondent-management. He approached to Central
Administrative Tribunal by moving AO No. 1267/HP/2011,
which was dismissed on 24.5.2012. He approached the
Hon'ble High Court of Himachal pradesh by filing Writ
Petition No. 4481/2012, which was dismissed on 27.9.2012.
Thereafter, he went to Ghumarwin to submit his joining
report but was not accepted by stating that his services
were terminated on 24.12.2011. The respondent-
management again passed a termination order on 8.1.2013.
That the termination order is illegal as the same was issued
without compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the
Act as well as termination was ordered without conducting
any inquiry as envisaged under the "Rules relating to terms
and conditions of service of civilian employees of unit run
Canteen" (hereinafter called the rules). As such his
termination is illegal and he be reinstated in service with
back wages.
Respondent-management pleaded that as per agreement,
the workman was liable to be transferred and on his refusal
to join, his services were to be terminated. That respondent-
management is private unit run canteen and not under the
administrative control of the Ministry of Defence. That the
order passed by the respondent-management is legal and
valid as the workman has failed to join at the place of his
posting of transfer.
Parties were given opportunity to lead their evidence.
In support of his case, the workman appearecd in the
witness-box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as
stated in the claim petition.
On the other hand, the respondent-management
examined Col. R.S. Mehta, who filed his affidavit reiterating
the case of the respondent-management as stated in the
written statement.
I have heard Sh. J.C. Bhardwaj for the workman and
Sh. Vijay Arora for the management.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 24] 2015@dk£rd 2] 1937
4219
It may be added that the workman has taken alternative
pleas to challenge his termination i.e. he was terminated
without conducting of any inquiry and following the
procedure as laid down under the rules, and secondly that
he was not paid any retrenchment compensation, but at
the time of arguments, the only argument advanced was
regarding non-observation of the rules. Rule 22 of the Rules
read as follow:—
ACT OF COMMISSION/OMISSION CONSTITUTING
MISCONDUCT:—
The following acts of commission/omission shall
constitute misconduct:—
(a) Misappropriation or theft;
(b) Casual performance of duties resulting in loss of
stores, fund, or image of the Canteen;
(c) Two or more instances of absence without leave or
lack of punctuality;
(d) Insubordination to senior employee;
(e) Intoxication whether of drugs or any other means;
(f) Contravention of any provisions of these rules or
by rules made by the employer or other order issued
from time to time by such employer;
(g) Any act/omission, which constitutes an offence
under any law for the time being in force in the
country.
Rule 23 provides the Punishment to be awarded and
Rule 24 prescribes the Procedure to be followed.
Rule 24 read as follow:—
"Before awarding to an employee any of the punishment
mentioned in Rule 23 following procedure shall be followed
by the disciplinary authority:—
(A) The employee shall be served with a charge sheet,
clearly stating the details of misconduct against
him and calling upon him to show cause as to why
one or more of the punishments included in these
Rules should not be awarded to him.
(B) The reply to the charge sheet, if any shall be duly
considered by the disciplinary authority.
(C) If the employee so desires he is to be heard in person
and is also to be allowed to cross-examine
witness(es) against him or produce witnesses in
his defence. The disciplinary procedure is laid
down in Schedule 'B'."
Thus, Rule 22 define misconduct and Rule 24 prescribes
the procedure to be followed for taking disciplinary action.
The admitted facts are that the workman was transferred
from Shimla to Ghumarwin on 15.11.2011. He did not join at
his place of posting and rather opted to avail legal remedies
by filing application before the Central Administrative
Tribunal as well as before the Hon'ble Shimla High Court.
After the disposal of the writ petition, his services were
terminated on 8.1.2013 (Annexure P12). Thus, the
termination order was passed as the workman failed to join
his place of posting. On transfer from one place to another,
if a workman do not join his duty, the same amounts to
'misconduct'. As per the rules stated above, the employee
was to be served with a charge sheet and calling upon him
to show cause as to why the punishment be not awarded
to him and after getting the reply and giving him personal
hearing, the action was to be taken. But in the present case
the respondent-management did not issue any charge
sheet to the workman as required under the rules and issued
the termination order without following the procedure. In
the circumstances, it is to be held that the termination of
the services of the workman is illegal.
Now the question is shether the workman is entitled to
back wages. The workman did not join duty in pursuance
of the transfer orders and indulged in fruitless litigation by
questioning his transfer. Again there is nothing on the file
that he remained without work after the termination of his
services. In these circumstances he is not entitled to any
back wages.
In result, the reference is answered holding that
termination of the services of the workman w.e.f. 8.1.2013 is
illegal and unjust. The management is directed to reinstate
him in service within two months of the publication of the
award and post him anywhere it likes. The management is
also at liberty to initiate action against the workman as per
rules, if so desired.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Preisidng Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2030-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xSeu bafM;k
fyfeVsM] dqYyw ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
331@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12&10&2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@152@2013&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th October, 2015
S.O. 2030.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 331/2013) of the
4220
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 24, 2015/KARTIKA 2, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court
No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Gammon India Ltd., Kullu and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 12-10-2015.
[No. L-42012/152/2013-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No. 331/2013
Registered on 25.2.2014
Sh. Sachin (Legal heir of S/o Late Sh. Kondia, S/o Sh.
Roshia) House No. 290, Gali No. 14, Bal Krishan Road,
Krishna Nagar, Hoshiarpur (Punjab).
....Petitioner
Versus
1. The Project Manager/Incharge Gammon India Ltd.,
Rampur H.E. Project, Package 1, P.O.-3, Rampur, Kullu
(H.P.)-172001
....Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the workman
:
Workman ex parte.
For the Management
:
Kailash Sharma, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on: 16.9.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/152/
2013-IR(DU) Dated 11.2.2014, 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 termination of service of Late
Sh. Kondaiai S/o Sh. Roshia now represented by his
son and legal heirs Sh. Sachin w.e.f. 20.11.2010 by
the management of Project Manager, Gammon India
Ltd. Rampur HE Project is legal, just and valid? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and
from which date?"
In response to the notice the legal representatives of
the workman filed statement of claim pleading that workman
Kondaiai was appointed as Security Guard with the
respondent-management. He applied for leave due to
sickness and when discharged from the hospital, he reported
for duty. But he was not allowed to join the duty. That his
signature was taken on blank paper when he applied for
leave and the same was converted into resignation. He did
not sign any resignation letter.
The workman died during the pendency of the
proceedings before the Labour Commissioner and the
present claimants were impleaded as his legal heirs.
Respondent-management filed written reply admitting
the relationship and pleaded that the workman voluntarily
submitted his resignation on 20.11.2010 on the ground of
ill-health. His date of birth was 6.4.1941 and he had
completed 68 years of age at the time of submission of his
resignation. He was paid all the dues when he resigned
and the claimants now put forward are false claim.
The claimants were proceeded against ex part vide order
dated 16.12.2014.
Thereafter, the management filed an affidavit of Mr. R.C.
Rawat.
I have heard the counsel for the management. There is
no denial of relationship of employer and employee between
the parties. According to the management, the workman
submitted resignation voluntarily on 20.11.2010 which was
accepted and all the dues was paid to him. The claimants
has set up a definite case that the signature of the workman
was obtained by misrepresentation on a paper which was
later controverted to "resignation letter." But no evidence
has been lead by the claimants to prove said assertions. In
view of the affidavit of Mr. Rawat and the resignation letter
(Annexure-R3) it cannot be said that the signatures of the
workman were obtained on it by any misrepresentation.
Since the workman has submitted his resignation, it
cannot be said that his services were terminated by the
respondent-management, and the workman is not entitled
to any relief.
The reference is accordingly answered against the
claimants.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2031-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj]
ch,l,u,y] paMhx<+ vkSj nwljksa ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 741@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 12&10&2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&40012@52@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 24] 2015@dk£rd 2] 1937
4221
New Delhi, the 12th October, 2015
S.O. 2031.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 741/2005) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court
No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Telecom, BSNL, Chandigarh &
others and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 12-10-2015.
[No. L-40012/52/2000-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No. 741/2005
Registered on 2.9.2005
Sh. Avtar Singh C/o Sh. Karam Singh, 4093, Maloya
Colony, Chandigarh-160001.
....Applicant
Versus
1. The General Manager, Telecom, Sector-18,
Chandigarh-160001.
2. Telegraph Office, General Post Office, Sector-17
(Ist Floor), U.T., Chandigarh.
....Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the workman
:
Ex parte.
For the Management
:
Sh. G.C. Babbar, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 11.9.2015
Vide Order No. L-40012/52/2000-IR(DU), dated 30.5.2000
the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred
by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of
Section 10 of Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (in short Act)
has referred the following Industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
"Whether the action of the management of General
Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating the
services of Sh. Avtar Singh is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and
from which date?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and
submitted statement of claim, pleading that he joined
respondent No. 2 on 7.2.1996 and was drawing a salary of
Rs. 1500/- at the time of termination of his service. he
challenged the termination on the ground that he was not
paid any retrenchment compensation and the persons junior
to him, were retained in service as well as the management
employed new persons in his place. His termination being
illegal, he be reinstated in service.
Respondent-management filed written statement
controverting the averments and denied that workman was
ever employed by it. It is pleaded that it used to give tender
for the supply of labour for emergency work and the
workman was never employed by it.
Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence in
support of his case.
Avtar Singh appeared in the witness-box and filed his
affidavit reiterating the stand taken by him.
On the other hand, management examined Sh. Ashok
Kumar, who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand taken
by the management.
The workman was proceeded against ex parte vide order
dated 26.5.2015.
I have heard Sh. G.C. Babbar for the management and
perused the file carefully.
This is the case of the workman that he was employed
by the respondent-management on 7.2.1996. Respondent-
management is a statutory body having its rules and
regulations for giving employment. Nothing has come on
the file to show that the workman was ever employed by
the respondents by following any procedure.
The workman did not place on record any appointment
letter to prove that he was actually employed by the
respondents. The respondent-management maintain its
record for making every type of payment including wages
to its employees but no such record has come on the file to
establish that the management has ever paid wages to the
workman. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the
workman was ever engaged by the respondents and there
was any relationship of employer and employee between
the parties. When it is so, it cannot be said that the services
of the workman was terminated by the respondent-
management.
In result, the reference ius answered against the workman
and he is not entitled to any relief.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2032-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj]
ch,l,u,y] paMhx<+ vkSj nwljksa ds izca/ra=k ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2 paMhx<+ ds iapkV
4222
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 24, 2015/KARTIKA 2, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
¼lanHkZ lañ 742@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
12&10&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@50@2000&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxkiky] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th October, 2015
S.O. 2032.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 742/2005) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court
No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Telecom, BSNL, Chandigarh & others
and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 12-10-2015.
[No. L-40012/50/2000-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. 742/2005
Registered on 2.9.2005
Sh. Pavitter Singh S/o Sh. Karam Singh, 4093, Maloya
Colony, Chandigarh-160001.
....Applicant
Versus
1. The General Manager, Telecom, Sector-18,
Chandigarh-160001.
2. Telegraph Office, General Post Office, Sector-17(1st
Floor), U.T., Chandigarh.
....Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the workman
—
Ex parte
For the management
—
Sh. G.C. Babbar, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on:—11.9.2015
Vide Order No. L-40012/50/2000-IR(DU), dated 30.5.2000
the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred
by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of
Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short Act)
has referred the following industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
"Whether the action of the management of General
manager, Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating the
service of Sh. Pavitter Singh is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and
from which date?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and
submitted statement of claim, pleading that he joined
respondent No. 2 on 10.2.1996 and was drawing a salary of
Rs. 1500/- at the time of termination of his service. He
challenged the termination on the ground that he was not
paid any retrenchment compensation and the persons junior
to him, were retained in service as well as the management
employed new persons in his place. His termination being
illegal, he be reinstated in service.
Respondent-management filed written statement
controverting the averments and denied that workman was
ever employed by it. It is pleaded that it used to give tender
for the supply of labour for emergency work and the
workman was never employed by it.
Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence in
support of his case.Pavitter Singh appeared in the witness-
box and filed his affidavit reiterating the stand taken by
him.
On the other hand, management examined Sh. Mohinder
Pal, who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand taken by
the management.
The workman was proceeded against ex-parte vide order
dated 26.5.2015.
I have heard Sh. G.C. Babbar for the management and
perused the file carefully.
This is the case of the workman that he was employed
by the respondent-management on 10.2.1996. Respondent-
management is a statutory body having its rules and
regulations for giving employment. Nothing has come on
the file to show that the workman was ever employed by
the respondents by following any procedure.
The workman did not place on record any appointment
letter to prove that he was actually employed by the
respondents. The respondent-management maintain its
record for making every type of payment including wages
to its employees but no such record has come on the file to
establish that the management has ever paid wages to the
workman. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the
workman was ever engaged by the respondents and there
was any relationship of employer and employee between
the parties. When it is so, it cannot be said that the services
of the workman was terminated by the respondent-
management.
In result, the reference is answered against the workman
and he is not entitled to any relief.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 24] 2015@dk£rd 2] 1937
4223
ubZ fnYyh] 12 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2033-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksy iufctyh ckaè
izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh] fcykliqj ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vksj
muds deZdkj ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;-2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ lañ 95@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
12@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@131@2010&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th October, 2015
S.O. 2033.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disptues Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 95/2011) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court No. II,
Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
NTPC, Bilaspur and their workmen, which was received by
the Central Government on 12/10/2015.
[No. L-42012/131/2010-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No. 95/2011
Registered on 24.01.2011
Sh. Inder Singh S/o Sh. Bangalu Ram, VPO Slapper,
Tehsil Sunder Nagar, Mandi (HP).
....Petitioner
Versus
1. The General manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric power
Project, NTPC VPO Barmana, Dist. Bilaspur, HP
2. The Managing Director, M/s AKS Engineers &
Contractors, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla-171002.
3. The Project manager, M/s Italian Thai Development
Co. Ltd., Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Village Kayan, Post Office Slapper, Tehsil Sunder
Nagar, Distt. Mandi(HP)
4. M/s ITD Cementation India Limited, Kol Dam Hydro
electric Power Project, Village Kayan, Post Office
Slapper, Tehsil Sundar Nagar, Distt. Mandi(HP)
......Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
:
Sh. M.S. Gorsi, Adv.
For the Management:—
For Respondent No. 1
:
Sh. Ex-Parte
For Respondent No. 3
:
Sh. Hem Raj Sharma
For Respondent No. 4
:
Sh. Ravinder Nath Shetty
AWARD
Passed on 21.08.2015
Central Government vide Order No. L-42012/131/2010-
IR(DU)) Dated 15.12.2010, 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 M/s ITD
Cementation India Limited, as sub-contractor of M/s
Italian Thai Development Co. ltd., Koldam Hydro
Electric power Project, NTPC, Barmana, Bilaspur(HP)
in terminating the services of Sh. Inder Singh s/o Sh.
Bangalu Ram w.e.f. 14.08.2008 without following the
principle of 'Last come First go' is legal and justified?
If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
In response to the notice, workman appeared and
submitted statement of claim pleading that the Respondent
No. 1 i.e. the Principal Employer had given contract to the
Respondent No. 3 and who in turn engaged Respondent
No. 4 as Sub-contractor. The workman was appointed by
the Respondent No. 4 on 12.5.2005 and continuously
worked upto 14.8.2008, when his services were retrenched.
He has challenged the 'Retrenchment' on the grounds
that persons junior to him were retained in service and also
a large number of workers were employed after his
termination and he prayed to be reinstated in service.
Respondent No. 4 filed written reply admitting that the
workman was employed and was retrenched on completion
of the work as per law and further no persons junior to the
workman were retained in service nor any fresh
appointments were made.
To that effect, Respondent No. 1 & Respondent No. 3
also filed their written statements.
However, Respondent No. 1 was proceeded against ex-
parte vide order dt 23.3.2015.
Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.
In support of his claim, Sh. Inder Singh, the workman
appeared in the Witness Box and filed his affidavit
supporting his claim as set out in the Statement of Claim.
On the other hand, Sh. Ravinder Nath Shetty was
examined on behalf of Respondent No. 4 and Sh. Hem Raj
4224
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 24, 2015/KARTIKA 2, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Sharma on behalf of Respondent No. 3 who filed their
respective affidavits supporting the stand of management
as taken in respective of written statements.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi, advocate for the workman,
Sh. Ravinder Nath Shetty for Respondent No. 4 and Sh.
Hem Raj Sharma for Respondent No. 3.
The admitted facts are that workman was employed by
Respondent no. 4 and he worked for the period from
12.5.2005 to 14.8.2008, when he was retrenched after paying
retrenchment compensation. The workman while appearing
in witness box admitted that he has received the amount.
Respondent No. 4 has given explanation that the workman
was retrenched on completion of the work and this fact is
not under challenge. There is nothing on the file that any
worker junior to him was retrained in service; or some new
appointments were made after termination of services of
the workman as pleaded. Thus the 'Retrenchment' made in
the present case cannot be said to be illegal or it cannot be
said that the management did not follow the Principles of
"last come first go".
As a result, the reference is answered against the
workman and he is not entitled to any relief. Let hard and
soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government
for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2034-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksy iufctyh
cka/k izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh] fcykliqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; 2] paMhx<+ ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 96@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 12@10@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@124@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th October, 2015
S.O. 2034.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 96/2011) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the KOl Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
NTPC, Bilaspur and their workmen, which was received by
the Central Government on 12/10/2015.
[No. L-42012/124/2010-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. 96/2011
Registered on 24-1-2011
Sh. Virender Singh S/o Sh. Hari Ram, Vill. Deol Chhamb,
PO Harnora, Tehsil Sundernagar, Mandi (HP).
...Applicant
Versus
1. The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric
Power Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2. The Managing Dir., M/s AKS Engineers and Con-
tractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla-171002.
3. Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydra Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil, Sundernagar, Mandi.
4. The ITD Cementation India Ltd., Kol Dam Hydro-
Electric Power Project, Village Kayan, PO Slapper,
The Sundernagar, Mandi (HP).
...Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
— Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
For the Management
— Respondent No. 1 ex parte
— Sh. H.R. Sharma for Resp. No. 3
— Sh. Ravinder Shetty for
Resp. No. 4
AWARD
Passed on 21.8.2015
Vide Order No. L-42012/124/2010-IR(DU), dated
15.12.2010 the Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section
2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short
Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for
adudication to this Tribunal.
"Whether the action of the management of M/s ITD
Cementation India Ltd., a sub contractor of M/s
Italian Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. in the
Koldam Hydro-Electric Project of NTPC, Barmana,
Bilaspur (HP), in terminating the services of Sh.
Virender Singh S/o Sh. Hari Ram w.e.f. 14.8.2008
without following the principle of 'Last come First
go' is legal and justified? If not, what relief the
workman is entitled to?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and
filed statement of claim, pleading that respondent No. 1 is
the principal employer and constructing "Kol Dam Hydro
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 24] 2015@dk£rd 2] 1937
4225
Electrical Power Project", at Harmonda. Respondent No. 2
is a main contractor who had engaged respondent No. 3 as
sub-contractor, who in turn engaged respondent No. 4 as
sub-contractor.
The workman was appointed through respondent No. 4
on 12.5.2005 and worked continuously till 14.8.2008, when
he was 'retrenched'.
The workman has challenged the 'retrenchment' on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service as well as the management employed large number
of workers after the termination of their services. That he
be reinstated in service.
Respondent No. 4 filed written statement admitting that
employed the workman and further pleaded that the
workman was 'retrenched' due to completion of the work as
per law and after paying him retrenchment compensation.
Written statement was filed by respondent No. 3 and
respondent No. 1 on the same terms.
Respondent No. 1 was proceeded against ex parte, vide
order dated 23.3.2015.
Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.
In support of his case, Sh. Virender Singh appeared in
the witness box and filed his affidavit supporting his case
as set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand, Sh. Ravinder Nath Shetty and Sh.
H.R. Sharma appeared in the witness box on behalf of
respondent 4 and 3 respectively and file their affidavits
supporting the stand taken by the respondent-management
in the written statement.
I have heard Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman, Sh. H.R.
Sharma for Respondent No. 3 and Sh. Ravinder Nath Shetty
for Resondent No. 4.
There is a no denial of the fact that the workman was
employed by resondent No. 4 on 12.5.2005 and he was
'retrenched' from service on 14.8.2008, after paying
compensation as required under Section 25F of the Act.
The workman Virender Singh while appeared in the witness
box has admitted that he was paid Rs. 8375/- at the time of
his termination of services. There is nothing to suggest
that 'retrenchement' made by respondent No. 4 is invalid.
The objection taken by the workman is that persons
junior to him were retained in service, as well as the
management employed more persons after the termination
of his services. But there is no cogent evidence on the file
to prove the said fact and Sh. Ravinder Shetty has
specifically deposed that work was completed and on that
account, the retrenchment was made, Again he has
specifically stated that no person was employed after the
retrenchement of the workman and no person junior to the
workman were retained in service. Thus, it cannot be said
that management did not follow the principle of 'last come
first go' and the retrenchment of the workman cannot be
termed as illegal.
The reference is answered accordingly holding the
termination of the services of the workman is legal and
valid and workman is not entitled to any relief.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2035-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksy iufctyh
cka/k izkstsDV] ,uVhihlh] fcykliqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; 2] paMhx<+ ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 98@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 12@10@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@129@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th October, 2015
S.O. 2035.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 98/2011) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
NTPC, Bilaspur and their workmen, which was received by
the Central Government on 12/10/2015.
[No. L-42012/129/2010-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. 98/2011
Registered on 24.1.2011
Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Prem Das, Vill. Dhatoli, PO
Khudla, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Mandi (HP).
...Applicant
Versus
1. The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric
Power Project, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.
2. The Managing Dir., M/s AKS Engineers and Con-
tractors Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,
Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla-171002.
4226
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 24, 2015/KARTIKA 2, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
3. Proj. Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd.,
Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village
Kayam, PO Slapper, Tehsil, Sundernagar, Mandi.
4. The ITD Cementation India Ltd., Kol Dam Hydro-
Electric Power Project, Village Kayam, PO Slapper,
The Sundernagar, Mandi (HP).
...Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
:
Sh. M.S. Gorsi for the workman
For the Management :
Respondent No. 1 ex parte
:
Sh. H.R. Sharma for Resp. No. 3
:
Sh. Ravinder Shetty for
Resp. No. 4
AWARD
Passed on 21.8.2015
Vide Order No. L-42012/129/2010-IR(DU), dated
15.12.2010 the Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section
2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short
Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for
adudication to this Tribunal.
"Whether the action of the management of M/s ITD
Cementation India Ltd., a sub contractor of M/s
Italian Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. in the
Koldam Hydro-Electric Project of NTPC, Barmana,
Bilaspur (HP), in terminating the services of Sh. Vijay
Kumar S/o Sh. Prem Das w.e.f. 17.8.2008 without
following the principle of 'Last come First go' is legal
and justified? If not, what relief the workman is
entitled to?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and
filed statement of claim, pleading that respondent No. 1 is
the principal employer and constructing "Kol Dam Hydro
Electrical Power Project", at Harmonda. Respondent No. 2
is a main contractor who had engaged respondent No. 3 as
sub-contractor, who in turn engaged respondent No. 4 as
sub-contractor.
The workman was appointed through respondent No. 4
on 7.5.2005 and worked continuously till 17.8.2008, when
he was 'retrenched'.
The workman has challenged the 'retrenchment' on the
ground that the persons junior to him were retained in
service as well as the management employed large number
of workers after the termination of their services. That he
be reinstated in service.
Respondent No. 4 filed written statement admitting that
it employed the workman and further pleaded that the
workman was 'retrenched' due to completion of the work as
per law and after paying him retrenchment compensation.
Written statement was filed by respondent No. 3 and
respondent No. 1 on the same terms.
Respondent No. 1 was proceeded against ex parte, vide
order dated 23.3.2015.
Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.
In support of his case, Sh. Vijay Kumar appeared in the
witness box and filed his affidavit supporting his case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand, Sh. Ravinder Nath Shetty and
Sh. H.R. Sharma appeared in the witness box on behalf of
respondent 4 and 3 respectively and file their affidavits
supporting the stand taken by the respondent-management
in the written statement.
I have heard Sh. M.s. Gorsi for the workman, Sh. H.R.
Sharma for Respondent No. 3 and Sh. Ravinder Nath Shetty
for Resondent No. 4.
There is a no denial of the fact that the workman was
employed by resondent No. 4 on 7.5.2005 and he was
'retrenched' from service on 17.8.2008, after paying
compensation as required under Section 25F of the Act.
The workman Vijay Kumar while appeared in the witness
box has admitted that he was paid Rs. 7000/- at the time of
his termination of services. There is nothing to suggest
that 'retrenchement' made by respondent No. 4 is invalid.
The objection taken by the workman is that persons
junior to him were retained in service, as well as the
management employed more persons after the termination
of his services. But there is no cogent evidence on the file
to prove the said fact and Sh. Ravinder Shetty has
specifically deposed that work was completed and on that
account, the retrenchment was made, Again he has
specifically stated that no person was employed after the
retrenchement of the workman and no person junior to the
workman were retained in service. Thus, it cannot be said
that management did not follow the principle of 'last come
first go' and the retrenchment of the workman cannot be
termed as illegal.
The reference is answered accordingly holding the
termination of the services of the workman is legal and
valid and workman is not entitled to any relief.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2036-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh MsoyiesaV
vFkkWfjVh ,.M vnlZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj
ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 24] 2015@dk£rd 2] 1937
4227
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdkj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 1] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
lañ 35@2015½dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@10@2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42011@128@2014&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi the 14th October, 2015
S.O. 2036.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 35/2015) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, No. 1,
Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Delhi Development Authority and
Others and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 13/10/2015.
[No. L- 42011/128/2014-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA
COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 35/2015
Indian Steel and Metal Workers Union,
C/o 1800/9, Govindpuri Extension,
Main Road, Kalkaji,
New Delhi—110019
....Workman
Versus
1. The Secretary,
Delhi Development Authority
Siri Fort Sports Complex,
August, Kranti Marg,
Khel Gaon,
New Delhi-110049
2. M/s Niti Enterprises,
L-88, Kisan Vihar,
New-Delhi
3. M/s International (Ex-Servicemen) Security Service,
A/3B, Janta (near Central School),
Tagore Garden Extension),
New Delhi-110027
4. M/s Deepali (India) Enterprieses
178, Block 14, Ground Floor,
L.B.S. Hospital, Khichripur,
New Delhi-110019
....Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-42011/128/2014-
IR(DU) dated 13.01.2015, referred the following industrial
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the demands raised by the Indian Steel
and Metal Workers Union (Regd.) against the
managements of Delhi Development Authority/NITI
Enterprises/Deepali (India) Enterprises/International
Ex-servicemen Security Service as mentioned above
and available on 2nd page of the original application
are just, fair and legal? If yes, what relief the workman
concerned are entitled to?’’
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government
commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance
and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt
of the reference order and to forward a copy of such
statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the
dispute. Despite directions so given, Indian Steel and Metal
Workers Union opted not to file their claim statement with
the Tribunal.
3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to
the claimant union as well as the management. Neither the
postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it
observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every
presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice
was serve upon the claimant union. Despite service of the
notice, claimant union opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on their behalf.
Thus, it is clear that the claimant union is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4. Since the claimant union has neither put in their
appearance nor have they led any evidence so as to prove
their cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal
is left with no choice, except to pass a 'No Dispute/Claim'
award. Let this award be sent to the appropriate
Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
Dated: October, 8, 2015
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2037-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj us'kuy bafLVV~;wV
vkWQ+ VsDuksykWth] dq#{ks= ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ lañ 75@2012½dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
14@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@143@2012&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
4228
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 24, 2015/KARTIKA 2, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
New Delhi, the 14th October, 2015
S.O. 2037.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 75/2012) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, No. 1,
Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the National Institute of Technology,
Kurukshetra and Others and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 14/10/2015.
[No. L- 42012/143/2012-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-I, CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No. 75 of 2012, Reference No. L-42012/143/
2012/IR(DU) dated 21.1.2013
Sh. Rakesh Kumar son of Shri Neki Ram, Resident of VPO
Pabnawa, District Kaithal, Haryana.
....Workman
Versus
1. The Director, National Institute of Technology,
Kurukshetra.
....Respondent.
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman
:
None.
For the Management
:
Shri S.S. Chokhar Advocate.
AWARD
Passed on:— 08.10.2015
Government of India ,Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-42012/143/2012/IR(DU) dated 21.1.2013
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
"Whether the demand of Shri Rakesh Kumar son of
Shri Neki Ram for reinstatement and regularisation in
service with the management of Director, NIT,
Kurukshetra w.e.f. 21.08.2008 as Security Guard is
just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman is
entitled to?"
2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any witness is present on behalf of the
workman. On the last date of hearing also, no one was
present on behalf of the workman. It appears that the
workman is not interested to pursue the present reference.
In view of the above the present reference is disposed off
for want of prosecution.
3. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.
be informed, Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
08.10.2015
S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2038-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj us'kuy bafLVV;wV
vkWQ+ VsDuksykWth] dq#{ks= ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdkj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ lañ 76@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
14@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@144@2012&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 14th October, 2015
S.O. 2038.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 76/2012) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, No. 1,
Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the National Institute of Technology,
Kurukshetra and their workmen, which was received by
the Central Government on 14/10/2015.
[No. L- 42012/144/2012-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-I, CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No. 76 of 2012, Reference No.-L42012/144/
2012/IR(DU), dated 21.1.2013
Sh Gurmit Singh son of Shri Rakam Singh, Resident of VPO
Barsana, Tehsil and District Kaithal, Haryana.
....Workman
Versus
The Director, National Institute of Technology,
Kurukshetra.
....Respondent.
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman
:
None.
For the Management
:
Shri S.S. Chokhar, Advocate.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 24] 2015@dk£rd 2] 1937
4229
AWARD
Passed on— 08.10.2015
Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-42012/144/2012/IR(DU) dated 21.1.2013
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
"Whether the demand of Shri Gurmit Singh son of
Shri Rakam Singh, Ex-security guard, for
reinstatement and regularisation in service with the
management of Director, NIT, Kurukshetra w.e.f.
22.04.2009 as Security Guard is just, fair and legal? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any witness is present on behalf of the
workman. On the last date of hearing also, no one was
present on behalf of the workman. It appears that the
workman is not interested to pursue the present reference.
In view of the above the present reference is disposed off
for want of prosecution.
3. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.
be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
08.10.2015
S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2039-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u bafLVV~;wV
vkWQ VsDuksykWth] psUubZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjks ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 88@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 13@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@110@2014&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 14th October, 2015
S.O. 2039.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cenral Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D. 88/2014) 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 themanagement of Indian Institute
of Technology, Chennai and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 13/10/2015.
[No. L-42012/110/2014-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 30th September, 2015
Present:
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 88/2014
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the
Management of Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai
and their workman)
BETWEEN :
Smt. Mary @ Lourdhumary
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Registrar
2nd party/Respondent
Indian Institute of Technology
IIT Campus, Sardar Patel Road
Chennai-600036
APPEARANCE :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
Sri R.S. Vaideeswaran,
Advocate
For the 2nd Party/Respondent :
Sri R. Parthiban,
Advocate
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-42012/110/2014-IR(DU)
dated 07.10.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the action of the Kannagi Self Halp Group
under the OW-Zone Project of IIT Campus Welfare
Trust is justified in denying to give job to Smt. Mary
@ Lourdhumary? If not to what relief is the workman
entitled to?’’
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has
numbered it as ID 88/2014 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 answer to the Counter
Statement.
3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner was working in the Respondent
institution in the Department of Maintenance as Sanitary
4230
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 24, 2015/KARTIKA 2, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
Worker from 01.02.2005 to 31.07.2012 for a monthly salary
of Rs. 8,000/- The Respondent has terminated the petitioner
from service illegally without following statutory labour
regulations and without giving any Show Cause Notice.
There was no valid cause for terminating the petitioner
from service. The petitioner had requested the Respondent
to regularize her in service. The petitioner has sent a lawyer
notice to the Respondent on 11.12.2013. But she did not
receive any reply so far. The dispute is raised accordingly.
The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service as a
regular worker. She is entitled to Rs. 4.00 lakhs as
compensation also.
4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below"
The Respondent is an academic insitution running
primarily on the grants provided by Ministry of Human
Resources Development Kannagi Self-Help Group
represented by its President referred to in the order of
reference is a necessary party to the proceedings. So the
claim is liable to be rejected. The claim of the petitioner that
she was working as Sanitary Worker in the Department of
Maintenance of the Respondent is incorrect. There is no
Department of Maintenance in the Respondent institution.
The Respondent does not employ any sanitary worker
directly. The Respondent understands that the petitioner
was engaged by Kannagi Self-Help Group for garbage
segregation from 2006. The Self-Help Groups were inititated
to find effective mechanism for disposal of garbage in the
residential area of IIT Madras Campus in the year 2005.
The Respondent extended its support to the group by
constructing sheds for collection of waste, providing
dustbins, tricycles, tool kilts etc. inside the campus and
also arranged to make deductions from the salaries of the
residents for ease of payment by the residents to the Self-
Help Groups. The Groups were primarily engaged for
cleaning and upkeep of around 1000 residential premises
inside the campus of the Institute. Their work included
sweeping of the streets and door to door garbage collection
in the campus. Later they were collecting waste from 80
academic building also. The members of the Self-Help
Groups are paid daily wages by the concerned Self-Help
Groups. During the material period the liaison between the
Slef-Help Group and IITM was through the volunteers of
the Women's Club of IITM. At present, this is coordinated
by IIT Madras Campus Welfare Trust, an independent trust
which came into existence in the year 2012. The petitioner
was employed by Kannagi Self Help Groups. Several others
were also employed under the Group. Their work included
sweeping of the streets and door to door garbage collection
in the campus. These persons render services to the
residents. The work cannot be treated as an Industry. It
will not come under the definition of Industry under Section-
2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is incorrect to state
that the Respondent has terminated the petitioner from
service. There was never any employer- employee
relationship between the petitioner and the Respondent. It
was not in the knowledge of the Respondent that the
petitlioner was hired or terminated by the Self-Help Group,
till the issue was raised by the petitioner. The claim of the
petititoner for reinstatement in the service of the
Respondent is not tenable. The Respondent did not receive
any lawyer notice from the petitioner. The petitioner is not
entitled to any relief.
5. The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the
averments in the Counter Statement and reiterating her
case in the Claim Statement.
6. The evidence in the case consists of the oral evidence
of WW1 and MWs 1 and 2 and documents marked as Ext.
W1 to Ext. W3 and Ext. M1.
7. Point for consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement
as claimed by her?
The Point
8. In the Claim Statement the petitioner has claimed that
she had worked in the Department of Maintenace of
Respondent insitution as Sanitary Worker for the period
from 01.02.2005 to 31.07.2012. According to her, she was
suddenly terminated by the Respondent illegally without
any notice and without following the statutory provisions.
She has claimed an order for reinstatement in the service of
the Respondent as a "regularized" worker and also
compensation of Rs. 4.00 lakhs.
9. The prayer of the petitioner in the Claims Statement
has no connection with the order or reference. On going
through the order of reference what is to be understood is
that it is Kannagi Self-Help Group under Ozone Project of
IIT Campus welfare Trust that denied job to the petitioner.
However, in the Claim Statement there is no reference to
Kannagi Self-Help Group who is said to have denied job.
The claim in the Claim Statement is that the petitioner was
working directly under the Respondent and it is the
Respondent who has terminated her from service. The claim
of the petitioner for reinstatement with the Respondent
could not be entertained even on account of the fact that
the schedule of reference does not refer to the Respondent
as the employer of the petitioner or as the one who has
denied job to her.
10. The petitioner who is examined as WW1 has
reiterated her case in the Claim Statement, in the affidavit
of Chief Examination filed by her also. She has asserted
during her cross-examination that she had worked with the
Respondent for 8 years from 01.02.2005 to 31.07.2012 on a
monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/-. She has even stated that
before taking leave she used to give leave application to
the office. However, she has stated at the subsequent stage
of cross-examination that wife.of IIT. Director was in-charge
of the employees and no employees can be terminated
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 24] 2015@dk£rd 2] 1937
4231
without consulting her. IIT Director's wife is not one who
has anything to do directly with the Respondent institution.
The case of the petitioner referring to the wife of IIT Director
only supports the case of the Respondent that initally the
Ladies Club of IIT Campus was taking up the work of
cleaning of the residential premises in the campus through
the several Self-Help Groups including Kannagi Self-Help
Group which according to the Respondent had employed
the petitioner.
11. Apart from the oral version of the petitioner there is
no other evidence on the part of the petitioner to prove
that she has been directly employed by the Respondent.
The only documents worth mentioning are the copies of
some Casual/Contract Labour Pass produced by the
petitioner and marked as Ext. W1. These are intended only
for entry into the Institution. This would not show that the
Respondent is the employer of the petitioner. These are
described as Contract Labour Pass as well. So these
documents are not of any relevance except in concluding
that the petitioner was getting entry into the premises of
the Respondent with the help of the pass. Not even a single
documents is produced to prove that the petitioner had
been working under the Respondent directly from the year
2005.
12. The Assistant Register of the Respondent has been
examined as MW1. He has described the manner in which
the garbage in the IIT campus used to be removed. He has
stated that Self-Help Groups were doing the work and this
was envisaged as a community based project called Ozone
to be executed through Self-Help Groups. The Groups were
primarily engaged for cleaning and upkeep of around 1000
residential premises inside the campus of the Institute. Later
the groups were collecting waste from the academic
buildings also. The members of the Self-Help Groups were
paid daily wages by the concerned Self-Helf Group. He has
further stated that payment to the Self-Help Groups was
made by the Ladies Club who was taking care of the
cleaning. The staff who were staying in the campus have
to pay some payment towards cleaning charges. This
amount will be deducted from the salary and given to the
Ladies Club.
13. There is also the evidence given by MW2 who was
working as Accounts Assistant of the Ladies Club in the
campus of the Respondent. He had stated that Kannagi
Self-Help Group was engaged by the Ladies Club for
garbage collection, segregation and disposal from the year
2006. There were four other Self-Help Groups also. About
70 daily wage workers were engaged through these Self-
Help Groups. This witness has also stated that the
Respondent arranged to make deduction from the salaries
of the residents to facilitate payment of wages to Self-Help
Group workers by the residents. He has further stated that
the leader of the Self-Help Group will take attendance and
will disburse wages at the end of the month. According to
him the Ladies Club used to facilitate issue of Contract
Worker Pass by the Security section of the Respondent to
the workers of the Self-Help Groups. He has further stated
that due to illness of the petitioner her husband has
approached the Office of the Ladies Club and they had
disbursed Rs. 19,236/- through cheque to the petitioner on
27.08.2012. This according to him was done as a welfare
measure. There is no reason to reject the evidence of MW2
regarding the manner in which the Self-Help Groups were
utilized by the Ladies Club in the residential premises of
the Respondent for disposal of waste. This witness has
stated that every month the Self-Help Groups used to
produce Attendance Register before him and he will be
making payment on that basis.
14. During here cross-examination Ext. M1 was shown
to the petitioner and she has admitted that this was the
letter written by her to the Director. IIT. A translation of the
letter which is in Tamil has been furnsihed. As revealed
from the letter the petitioner has been working in Ozone
Project from 2005 to 2012. She has further stated that due
to her family problems and due to her mental illness she
has left the job and she has received Rs. 19,363/- from Ms.
Vijayalakshmi on her leaving MW2 has stated during his
cross-examination that Vijayalakshmi referred to in Ext. M1
was in-charge of the Ozone Project at the time and was
athorized to sign cheques, etc. He had also given details of
the circumstances under which the payment was made.
Thus what is to be seen from Ext. M1 is that the petitioner
has left here job with the Self-Help Group on her own
because of her illness and other problems. The evidence
available is sufficient to show that there was no employer-
employee relationship between the petitioner and the
Respondent. This is what is to be deciphered from the
order of reference also. Before the Conciliation Officer there
seems to have been no case for the petitioner that she was
working directly under the Respondent. On the other hand
her claim was that she was denied job by the Self -Help
Group that employed her. She has not thought it necessary
to make the Self-Help Group, a party. In the absence of
employer-employees relationship the petitioner is not
entitled to any relief from the Respondent.
15. It is pointed out on behalf of the Repondent that in
any case the petitioner has not worked for 240 days
preceding the date of her alleged termination and so she
could not be said to have been in continuous employment
and for this reasons itself she would not be entitled to any
relief. The case of the petitioner in the Claim Statement as
well as the Proof Affidavit is that she had worked until
31.07.2012. She has stated during her cross-examination
that she has not attended duty during the whole month of
July 2012. She worked only for 7 days in the month of June
2012. During May, she worked only for 1 day. During April,
she is said to have worked for 28 days. Referring to the
4232
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 24, 2015/KARTIKA 2, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
admission made by the petitioner during her cross-
examination it is pointed out by the counsel for the
Respondent that she could not have worked for more than
240 days in the 12 months preceding 31.07.2012 if her
evidence is taken into account. She has not produced any
evidence to show that she had worked for more than 240
days during the 12 months preceding her alleged termination
so she could not be deemed to have been in continuous
employment. Considered from any point of view, the
petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
In view of my discussion above, the reference is
answered against the petitioner. An award is passd
accourdingly.
(Dictated to the P.A. transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 30th September, 2015)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: WW1, Smt. M. Mary
For the 2nd Party/Management : MW1, Sri. Y.E.L.
Sudhakar Rao Punjari
MW2, Sri V. Sivakumar
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner's side:
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ext. W1
-
Contract Worker Pass of the Petitioner
Ext. W2
-
Death Certificatge of the Petitioner's
fatyher Francis Jothy dated 15.02.1991
Ext. W3
Petitioner's Lawyer Notice dated
11.12.2012 with Acknowledgement
Card & Receipt
On the Management's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ext. M1
11.10.2013 Representation made by Petitioner
to the Director.
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.