4899 GI/2015
(4517)
foÙk ea=ky;
¼jktLo foHkkx½
¼¯gnh vuqHkkx&2½
ubZ fnYyh] 26 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2228-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e
¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa jktLo foHkkx ds v/khu vk;qDr dk;kZy;] dsaæh;
mRikn 'kqYd] lhek&'kqYd ,oa lsok dj] tcyiqj dks] ftlds 80
izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj
fy;k gS] vfèlwfpr djrh gS A
[Qk- la- bZ&11017@1@2015&,-Mh- ¼¯gnh&2½]
ehekald] la;qDr funs'kd ¼jktHkk"kk½
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
(HINDI SECTION-2)
New Delhi, the 26th November, 2015
S.O. 2228.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10
of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies
the Office of Commissioner, Central Excise, Custom and
Service Tax, Jabalpur under the Department of Revenue,
where more than 80% staff have acquired working
knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. E-11017/1/2015-AD (Hindi-2)]
MIMANSAK, Jt. Director (OL)
jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 49]
ubZ fnYyh] uoEcj 29—fnlEcj 5] 2015] 'kfuokj@vxzgk;.k 8—vxzgk;.k 14] 1937
No. 49] NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 29—DECEMBER 5, 2015, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 8—AGRAHAYANA 14, 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)
4518
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 5, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fons'k ea=ky;
¼lh-ih-oh- izHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 26 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2229-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/kdkjh ¼'kiFk
,oa Qhl½ ds vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1048 dk 41½dh /kkjk 2 ds [akM
¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkfud vkns'k A
,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] vcq èkch esa vt;
¯lg] lgk;d] Jh jfoUæ dqekj] lgk;d] Jh vk'kqrks"k dqekj JhokLro]
fuEu Js.kh fyfid] v'kksd dqekj] fuEu Js.kh fyfid vkSj Jh 'kaHkq
ukFk] fuEu Js.kh fyfid dks fnukad 26 uoEcj] 2015 ls ] lgk;d
dksalqyj vf/kdkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy,
izkfèd`r djrh gS A
[la- Vh&4330@01@2015]
izdk'k pUn]mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV Division)
New Delhi, the 26th November, 2015
S.O. 2229.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the
Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths
and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government
hereby appoints (1) Shri Ajay Singh, Assistant (2) Shri
Ravindra Kumar, Assistant (3) Shri Ashutosh Kumar
Srivastava, LDC (4) Shri Ashok Kumar, LDC and (5) Shri
Shambhu Nath, LDC as Assistant Consular Officer in
Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi to perform Consular services
with effect from 26 November, 2015.
[No. T-4330/01/2015]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
ubZ fnYyh] 26 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2230-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/kdkjh ¼'kiFk
vkSj Qhl½ ds vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1048 dk 41½dh /kkjk 2 ds [akM
¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkfud vkns'k A
,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds lgk;d mPpk;ksx] dSaMh esa Jh
thou ¯lg fltokyh] lgk;d dks fnukad 26 uoEcj] 2015 ls lgk;d
dksalqyj vfèdkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy,
izkfèd`r djrh gS A
[la- Vh&4330@1@2015]
izdk'k pUn]mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½
New Delhi, the 26th November, 2015
S.O. 2230.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the
Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths
and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government
hereby appoints Shri Jeewan Singh Sijwali, Assistant as
Assistant Consular Officer in the Assistant High
Commission of India, Kandy to perform Consular services
with effect from 26 November, 2015.
[No. T-4330/01/2015]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2231-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/kdkjh ¼'kiFk
vkSj Qhl½ ds vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1048 dk 41½dh /kkjk 2 ds [akM
¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkfud vkns'k A
,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds lgk;d mPpk;ksx] eksecklk
esa Jh enu eksgu] izoj Js.kh fyfid dks fnukad 27 uoEcj] 2015 ls
lgk;d dksalqyj vfèdkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds
fy, izkfèd`r djrh gS A
[la- Vh&4330@1@2015]
izdk'k pUn]mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½
New Delhi, the 27th November, 2015
S.O. 2231.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the
Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths
and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government
hereby appoints Shri Madan Mohan, UDC as Assistant
Consular Officer in the Assistant High Commission of India,
Mombasa to perform Consular with effect from
27 November, 2015.
[No. T-4330/01/2015]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
okf.kT; vkSj m|ksx ea=kky;
(okf.kT; foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2232.—dsUæh; ljdkj] fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k
vkSj fujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1964 ds fu;e 12 ds mi&fu;e ¼2½ ds lkFk
ifBr fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k vkSj fujh{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1963
¼1963 dk 22½ dh /kkjk 7 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] eSllZ FkSjkI;wfVDl dsfedy fjlpZ dkjiksZjs'ku] e-ua-
25&12&39] f}rh; ry] xksnkojh LVªhV] ,lchvkbZ Vkmu 'kk[kk ds
lkeus] fo'kk[kkiÙkue~&530001] dks bl vfèlwpuk] ds jkti= esa
izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, Hkkjr ljdkj ds
okf.kT; ea=ky;] dh vf/klwpuk la- dk-vk- 3975 rkjh[k 20 fnlEcj]
1965 dh vfèlwpuk esa mikc) vuqlwfp;ksa esa fofu£n"V [kfut vkSj
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 5] 2015@vxzgk;.k 14] 1937
4519
v;Ld] ¼xzqi&I½] vFkkZr~] ykSg v;Ld vkSj eSaxuht vkSj v;Ld]
eSaxuh; MkbvkWDlkbM dks NksM+dj] dks fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/;èhu
mDr [kfutksa vkSj v;Ldksa ds fu;kZr ls iwoZ fo'kk[kkiÙkue~ vkSj xaxkoje]
esa fujh{k.k djus ds fy, ,d vfHkdj.k ds :i esa ekU;rk iznku
djrh gS] vFkkZr~
¼i½
eSllZ FkSjkI;wfVDl dsfedy fjlpZ dkjiksZjs'ku] e-ua-
25&12&39] f}rh; ry] xksnkojh LVªhV] ,lchvkbZ Vkmu
'kk[kk ds lkeus] fo'kk[kkiÙkue~&530001][kfut vkSj
v;Ld] ¼xzqi&I½ ¼fujh{k.k½ dk fu;kZr fu;e] 1965
ds fu;e 4 ds v/khu fujh{k.k ds fØ;kUp;u ds fy,
muds }kjk vuqlfjr i)fr dh ijh{kk djus ds fy,]
bl fufeÙk fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn~ }kjk ukefu£n"V
vfèdkfj;ksa dks i;kZIr lqfo/kk,a nsxk( vkSj
¼ii½
eSllZ FkSjkI;wfVDl dsfedy fjlpZ dkjiksZjs'ku] e-ua-
25&12&39] f}rh; ry] xksnkojh LVªhV] ,lchvkbZ Vkmu
'kk[kk ds lkeus] fo'kk[kkiÙkue~&530001] bl
vfèlwpuk ds vèhu vius d`R;ksa ds vuqikyu esa ,sls
funsZ'kksa }kjk vkc) gksaxs] tks funs'kd ¼fujh{k.k vkSj
DokfyVh fu;a=.k½ fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn }kjk
le;≤ ij fyf[kr esa fn, tk,a A
[Qk- la- 04@4@2015&fu;kZr fujh{k.k]
larks"k dqekj lkjaxh] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2015
S.O. 2232.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control
and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule
(2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection)
Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognizes
M/s. Therapeutics Chemical Research Corporation, Door
No. 25-12-39, 2nd Floor, Godevari Street, Opp SBI Town
Branch, Vishakhapatnam-530001, as an agency for a period
of three years from the date of publication of this
notification, for inspection of Minerals and Ores (Group-
I), namely, Iron Ore and Manganese Ore excluding
manganese dioxide specified in the Schedule annexed to
the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry
of Commerce vide number S.O. 3975, dated the 20th
December 1965, prior to export of the said Minerals and
Ores at Vishakhapatnam and Gangavaram subject to the
following conditions, namely:—
(i)
that M/s Therapeutics Chemical Research
Corporation, Door No. 25-12-39, 2nd Floor,
Godevari Street, Opp SBI Town Branch,
Vishakhapatnam-530001, shall give adequate
facilities to the officers nominated by the Export
Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the
method of inspection followed by them in
carrying out the inspection under rule 4 of the
Export of Minerals and Ores, Group-I
(Inspection) Rules, 1965 and;
(ii)
that M/s Therapeutics Chemical Research
Corporation, Door No. 25-12-39, 2nd Floor,
Godevari Street, Opp SBI Town Branch,
Vishakhapatnam-53000l, in the performance of
their function under this notification shall be
bound by such directions as the Director
(Inspection and Quality Control), Export
Inspection Council may give in writing from time
to time.
[F. No. 04/4/2015- Export Inspection]
SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI, Jt. Secy.
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2233-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vxzoky
iSdlZ ,.M eqolZ fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] ubZ
fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 31@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-10-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&11025@2@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 30th October, 2015
S.O. 2233.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2015)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. Aggarwal Packers and Movers
Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 23-10-2015.
[No. L-11025/2/2015-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
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. 31/2015
4520
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 5, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav,
S/o NandjiYadav,
R/o S-105, Arjun Camp,
Mahipalpur,
New Delhi 110 037
...Workman
Versus
M/s. Aggarwal Packers and Movers Ltd.
Through its Managing Director
Mr. Anu Walia,
R/o Aggarwal Movers Group,
Gate No. 2, Terminal 2 (Cargo),
IGI Airport,
New Delhi 110 037
...Management
AWARD
Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav was engaged by M/s.
Aggarwal Packers and Movers Ltd. as loader at Terminal
No.2 , where he served from 17.11.2010 till December 2013.
His services were dispensed with by the management on
31.12.2013. He served a legal notice of demand for payment
of back wages, PF, Bonus, compensation etc. His demand
was not conceded to by the management. Constrained by
these circumstances, he raised a dispute before the
Conciliation Officer. Since his claim was contested by the
management, conciliation proceedings ended into a failure.
Since 45 days from the date of moving an application before
the Conciliation Officer expired, ShriYadav opted to file
his dispute before the Tribunal using provisions of sub-
section (2) of section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (in short the Act), without being referred for
adjudication by the appropriate Government under Section
10(1)(d) of the Act.
2.
Management was called upon to file their written
statement. But despite, service of notice management
failed to put in its appearance. Hence, management was
proceeded ex-parte and the case was listed for
consideration on maintainability of application.
3.
On 07.10.2015, the claimant stated that he does not
want to proceed with the adjudication of the case and
wants withdraw the petition since this Tribunal is not the
appropriate Government. Since the claimant did not want
to pursue the petition before this Tribunal, as such
statement of the claimant regarding withdrawal of the case
was separately taken.
4.
In view of the averments made by the claimant, the
claimant is permitted to withdraw the present petition, with
liberty to file petition in the court of competent jurisdiction
as the employer of the claimant does not fall within the
jurisdiction of this Tribunal and cannot exercise territorial
jurisdiction over the petition. Hence, an award is
accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the
appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : October 8, 2015
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2234-—dsUnz ljdkj] xksnh dkexkj (lqj{kk]
LokLF; ,oa dY;k.k) vf/fu;e] 1986 dh èkkjk 3 dh mi&/kjk
(1) ds }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, vkSj Je ,oa
jkstxkj ea=kky; ds fnukad 10 vDrwcj] 2012 ds la- dk-vk-
2509(v) dh vf/lwpuk dk vf/Øe.k djrs gq,] MkW- vouh'k
¯lg] egkfuns'kd] dkj[kkuk lykg lsok vkSj Je laLFkku
(MhthiQklyh)] eqEcbz dks 15 flrEcj] 2015 ls ,rn~}kjk mDr
vf/fu;e ds iz;kstukFkZ lHkh canjxkgksa ds fy, xksnh lqj{kk ds eq[;
fujh{kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrs gSa A
¹iQk- la- ,&32012@01@2015&vkbZ,l,p&Iº
jkt dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 30th November, 2015
S.O. 2234.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Dock Workers (Safety,
Health and Welfare) Act, 1986, and in supersession of the
notification of the Ministry of Labour and Employment
No. S.O. 2509(E), dated 10th October, 2012, the Central
Government hereby appoints Dr. Avneesh Singh, Director
General, Directorate General Factory Advice Service and
Labour Institutes (DGFASLI), Mumbai to be the Chief
Inspector of Dock Safety for all major ports for the purposes
of the said Act with effect from 15th September,
2015 (F/N).
[F. No. A-32012/01/2015-ISH-I]
RAJ KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2235-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jrukdj cSad
fy- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k] dksygkiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 6@2009) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@51@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 30th November, 2015
S.O. 2235.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 6/2009)
of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,
Kolhapur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
Dispute between management of Ratnakar Bank Ltd. and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
30-11-2015.
[No. L-12012/51/2009-IR (B-I)]
VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 5] 2015@vxzgk;.k 14] 1937
4521
ANNEXURE
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2,
MAHARASHTRA AT KOLHAPUR
REFERENCE (IT) NO. 6 OF 2009
Between :
The Asstt. General Manager,
Ratnakar Bank Ltd.
Mahaveer, 179, ‘E’ Ward,
Shri Shahu Market Yard,
Kolhapur
...First Party
And
Ravindra Shripati Shinde
Shivaji Nagar, Hupari,
Tal. : Hatkanangale,
Dist. : Kolhapur
...Second Party
Coram : Shri D.V. Thakare, Industrial Tribunal
Appearances :
Mr. D. D. Dhanawade, Advocate for First Party
Mr. J. B. Deshmukh, Advocate for Second Party
PART-1 AWARD
(Delivered on 20th October 2015)
This is a reference made by the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide its order No. L-12012/
51/2009-IR (B-I) dt. 7/12/2009 in exercise of powers
conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section
(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
referred the said dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal
in respect of demand specified in Schedule to the reference
order.
2.
According to second party workman he was working
since 1981 as ‘peon’ in Hupari. He worked sincerely and
honestly. He has clean past service record. No single memo
was issued to him. He was dismissed vide dismissal order
dt.27/7/2006 and second party approached the learned
Labour Court vide Comp. (ULP) No.150/2006. For want of
jurisdiction the complaint is dismissed on 24/04/2008.
Thereafter the second party raised dispute and finally the
dispute referred by Central Government for adjudication
to this Tribunal. The second party was issued charge sheet
alleging that he deliberately caused damage to the
property of first party bank and customers of the bank
and has done any act prejudicial to the interest of the
bank. On this ground charge sheet issued to him on
17/12/2005. Prior to that he was suspended pending enquiry
since 10/12/2005. The allegations were made that about 24
cheques were deposited by daily news paper ‘Pudhari’ in
United Western Bank, Shivaji Chowk branch which were
sent by courier to Hupari branch for clearance from current
account No.312 with one more cheque.
3.
The said amount was in the name of ‘M/s Rajendra
News Paper Agency’. Inadvertently those cheques are put
in bank drawer for the period of 5 months. The said
customer had sufficient bank balance in its account. The
second party did not put these cheques intentionally and
deliberately to commit any kind of fraud or to prejudice
the interest of first party. The second party put these 25
cheques from 15/5/2005 to 31/10/2005 inadvertently
and when on 9/12/2005 the first party employer asked
about the cheques immediately he came to know that
some cheques have not deposited by him for clearance
he searched same and handed over these cheques
immediately to first party on the same day and submitted
written apology. No loss or damage caused to the
property of first party and to the customers. Only
inconvenience is caused.
4.
The enquiry conducted against him after violation
of principles of natural justice and with undue haste, he
was not given proper opportunity to defend himself. The
entire enquiry was conducted within a span of 5½ hours
on 19/1/2006. The second party did not accept the
charges before enquiry officer. No alleged charges
proved against him. The enquiry officer acted as
management representative other than independent
enquiry officer. The bank submitted written argument on
31/1/2006 to the enquiry officer and second party
submitted his written argument on 6/2/2006 and again
apologized in writing. The first party did not consider
his clean service record. Enquiry report was submitted
on 6/3/2006. The findings are based on such enquiry
which is conducted in utter violation of principles of
natural justice and with undue haste. The report and
findings are not based on evidence and findings are not
proper. The enquiry report is perverse and bad in law.
5.
On 16/03/2006 he submitted written say to the
enquiry officer’s report which was not considered and
final show cause notice issued to second party on
22/3/2006. It was replied on 29/03/2006 and again
second party tendered apology in writing but his prayer
was not considered before issuing dismissal order which
is shockingly disproportionate punishment. Thus this act
is not in good faith but in colourable exercise of
employer’s rights. Without proving charges this
punishment is imposed for patently false reasons and the
dismissal is malafide. The second party workman is
unemployed and was not gainfully employed anywhere.
Therefore, second party has challenged this hasty and
illegal action and prayed that charge sheet be quashed
and set aside and the finding given by enquiry officer be
held as perverse.
6.
Vide reply Ex.C-5 first party denied all the allegations
levelled against it. It is contended that the ‘appropriate
government’ for first party bank is ‘Central Government’
and not the ‘State Government’. Hence this reference is
not maintainable. This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try
and entertain the present reference. Hence preliminary
4522
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 5, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
issue be framed pertaining to maintainability of present
reference. It is contended that the second party did not
approach this Tribunal with clean hands. It is contended
that Rajendra Shinde bearing Current A/c No.312 at Hupari
branch gave 24 cheques worth Rs.2,99,500/bearing
different dates from 15/05/2005 to 31/10/2005 to ‘Daily
Pudhari’. The cheques were deposited in United Western
Bank and same forwarded for clearance to Hupari branch,
in fact there was no balance in the said account.
7.
It is contended that in order to protect the interest
of brother of second party workman he used to collect
courier mail from various couriers and retained in his
possession 24 cheques with one more cheque of Rs. 6000/-
unauthorisedly. He retained all these cheques and not
debited in the account of his brother and did not send for
clearance and on enquiry it was revealed that second party
workman handed over 25 cheques to branch manager and
tendered apology which shows that second party workman
committed grave misconduct. Therefore he was suspended
and enquiry was initiated by following due process of law.
8.
In the enquiry all material documents were produced
and three witnesses were examined. The second party
admitted the misconduct and tendered apology. Even then
enquiry officer recorded evidence and asked the second
party to conduct cross-examination of these witnesses
but he declined and enquiry officer submitted his finding
on 6/3/2006 which has been served on second party on
13/3/2006, final show cause notice issued to him on 22/3/
2006. The second party was terminated vide order dt. 27/
07/2006. Thus the termination is proper and legal.
Ultimately, it is contended that if this Tribunal comes to
the conclusion that termination is illegal and unjustified
then the first party may kindly be granted opportunity to
adduce evidence.
9.
After complying all the requirements of law and
natural justice the services of second party have been
terminated. It is contended that if the Tribunal comes to
the conclusion that findings of enquiry officer are perverse
or enquiry is vitiated on any count, the first party may be
allowed to lead evidence before this forum. The termination
is legal and proper. The misconduct committed by second
party is serious. There is no unfair labour practice on the
part of first party. The findings are legal and proper.
Complete opportunity was given to second party to defend
himself in the enquiry. The findings are based on
documents and evidence on record. The second party
admitted the charges and allegations levelled against him
voluntarily and without any pressure. Taking into
consideration the length of his service, his past service
record and gravity of misconduct the first party found
that termination is the only appropriate and proper
punishment and terminated his services. This action is in
good faith and is not in the colourable exercise of employer’s
rights or with undue haste. There is no victimisation. Lastly,
it is contended that reference is misconceived, false,
frivolous, therefore be dismissed with costs.
10.
My learned Predecessor Mr.K.R. Pethkar vide Ex.O6
framed issues on 12/06/2012. The first party had filed
application on 9/02/2010 and challenged jurisdiction of
this court on the ground that first party bank is governed
by Central Act as its activities are spread in the many
States. Therefore, the dispute raised and conciliated before
ommissioner of Labour (Central). Therefore, this Tribunal
constituted by State Government has no jurisdiction and
inadvertently the dispute is referred to this Tribunal instead
of Central Government’s Central Tribunal. Thus this
Tribunal has no jurisdiction and the reference be sent back
for proper adjudication. The learned Predecessor passed
order on 30/04/2014 held that issue of jurisdiction and
preliminary issues in respect of enquiry can be decided
together and disposed of the application. As per this order
following issue nos.1 and 2 and issue of jurisdiction needs
to be decided together.
Issues
Findings
(i)
Whether it is proved that the
In the affirmative
departmental enquiry was
conducted as per the principles
of natural justice ?
(ii) Whether the findings of the
In the affirmative
departmental enquiry are just
and proper ?
(iii) Whether this court has juris-
In the affirmative
diction to entertain the
reference ?
Reasons
11.
Issue nos.1 to 3 : In support of the claim and on the
point of fairness of enquiry and perversity of finding the
second party examined himself at Ex.U6. The second party
workman is not crossexamined by the first party. The
second party workman deposed on oath and reiterated all
the facts mentioned in the statement of claim. He was
working as peon since 1981 with first party at Hupari
branch. According to him, false charge sheet is issued
and enquiry is conducted against him in violation of
principles of natural justice and with undue haste.
According to him, he inadvertently kept 24 cheques in the
drawer of first party bank which were lying there from last
5 months. He had no intentional motive to commit any
kind of fraud or prejudice to the interest of first party and
when first party asked him immediately he took out all the
cheques and handed over the first party and apologized
the mistake orally and in writing. He has not caused any
loss or damage to the property of first party bank and its
customers.
12.
He was not given proper opportunity to defend
himself in the enquiry. He was pressurised to accept the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 5] 2015@vxzgk;.k 14] 1937
4523
false charges. He was assured that it is a mere formality
and he will not be terminated by accepting the charges.
The entire enquiry was conducted within 5½ hours on
19/01/2006 with undue haste. The enquiry officer did not
act impartially and he failed to follow the principles of
natural justice. The findings given by him are in utter
violation of principles of natural justice and not based on
the evidence brought on record in the enquiry. The enquiry
officer did not consider apology tendered by him in the
enquiry and he was having clean and unblemished past
service record.
13.
The learned advocate Mr.J.B. Deshmukh for second
party workman vehemently argued that the second party
peon worked since 1981 and was terminated in 2006. He
completed 25 years service continuously and
unblemishedly. The panchanama dt. 9/12/2005 does not
favour the case of first party. No opportunity was given to
cross-examine the witness of management. Thus there is
breach of natural justice. Moreover finding of enquiry
officer are perverse. The enquiry officer did not consider
the defence that the delinquent did not keep concerned
cheques in his custody but they were misplaced in the
office of bank.
14.
According to him, the analogy that somebody goes
to bank to remit the money at about 5.30 pm is not
acceptable. There is no complaint that second party has
caused loss. His image is not maliced. According to him,
as per Sec.10(2) of I.D. Act the reference is made by Central
Government, hence issue of jurisdiction becomes
redundant and needs no jurisdiction. He argued that
second party was not crossexamined by first party.
Therefore the evidence of second party workman was
unchallenged. According to him, in view of the evidence
and material on record in the enquiry it is clear that no
reasonable opportunity was given to second party
workman to defend himself in the enquiry and the findings
are not based on evidence led in the enquiry, therefore
findings are perverse. He is placing reliance on,
Roop Singh Negi v/s Punjab National Bank and Ors.
(2009 I CLR 160-Hon’ble Supreme Court).
Ratio : Purported confession of appellant not proved
in the enquiry—No direct or indirect evidence
against appellant in support of charges made against
him. Report of Disciplinary Authority and Order of
Appellant Authority not supported by any
reasons—Provisions of Evidence Act, not
applicable, but principles of natural justice are
applicable to such enquiries—inferences of enquiry
officer are not supported by any evidence. Suspicion
against delinquent cannot be a substitute for legal
proof—Judgment of High Court set aside.
15.
On the contrary, learned advocate Mr.D.D.
Dhanawade for first party bank conceded that reference is
already sent by Central Government to this Tribunal for
adjudication, therefore he did not agitate the issue of
jurisdiction at this moment. So far as the fairness of enquiry
and perversity of findings are concerned he argued that
sufficient opportunity was given to the second party
workman in the enquiry. Panchanama dt. 9/12/2005
supported the case of management. The second party was
suspended on 10/12/2005. Therefore, he was not
concerned with bank. He has admitted his guilt in the
enquiry. He was given complete opportunity to defend
himself in the enquiry. As per the record of enquiry he did
not request to give opportunity to defend himself. On the
point of perversity he argued that second party workman
did not give his statement in the enquiry and after
considering the material on record the enquiry officer
judiciously gave the finding. There is no perversity in the
finding.
16.
In view of bipartite submissions, I appraised the
material subtly. Though the maintainability of the reference
is challenged on the ground of ‘appropriate government’
is Central Government and therefore the reference is not
maintainable, but as per Ex.O1 the order issued by Desk
Officer, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi
dt.7/12/2009 as per clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-
section (2A) of Sec.10 of I.D. Act the Central Government
referred this dispute for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal,
Kolhapur, and asked the said Tribunal to give its award
within a period of 3 months. Thus this order makes it crystal
clear that this court has jurisdiction to try and entertain
the reference. Moreover in view of this order the learned
advocate Mr.Dhanawade for first party conceded that he
is not pursuing and harping on the issue of maintainability
of reference on the ground that appropriate government
is Central Government.
17.
Here the second party workman has challenged the
fairness of enquiry and perversity of finding of enquiry
officer. In consonance of this objection I have gone
through the enquiry papers. The second party workman
has been issued charge sheet dt.17/12/2005 for the
misconduct pertaining to 24 cheques worth Rs.2,99,500/-
issued by one Rajendra Shinde to local news paper
Pudhari and one cheque worth Rs. 6000/- deliberately and
intentionally and thus alleged that he committed
misappropriation and bank lost confidence in him. One
Rajan M. Patil was appointed as enquiry officer. The
enquiry conducted on 21/1/2006 at 12 pm. The enquiry
officer, delinquent and his bank representative Vasant
Dharmashetti were present. The second party workman
had been read over charge sheet. The delinquent disclosed
that he received the copy of charge sheet understood the
charge of misconduct. He further conceded that
unconditionally he accepted charge of misconduct and
gave admission in his own handwriting Ex.3. By following
principles of natural justice the enquiry officer asked him
whether he wants to defend himself in the enquiry that
4524
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 5, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
time the delinquent voluntarily stated that he admits his
guilt and refused to get defended through representative.
18.
The management representative produced relevant
documents at Ex.M 2 to M13, consisted of letter dt.
9/12/2005 and list of cheques, xerox copies of cheques
and covering memo dt.6/6/2015, covering letter
alongwith 4 xerox copies of cheques dt.9/7/2005 and
covering memo dt. 4/8/2005 with xerox copies of 4
chqeus, covering memo dt. 8/9/2005 with xerox copies
of 4 cheques, covering memo dt.1/10/2005 with 4 xerox
copies of cheques, covering memo dt. 9/11/2005 with 4
xerox copies of cheques, panchnama dt. 9/12/2005 with
list of cheques, letter issued by United Western Bank
dt.16/12/2005 to head office, the memo written by Hupari
branch with bounced 25 cheques and statement of
account no. CA 312, letter issued by second party
workman dt.25/12/2005 and list of witnesses.
19.
The management examined its employee Satish
Chougule who stated in his deposition the endorsement
put on Ex.M11 bears signature of second party. He further
deposed that when query was made about missing 25
cheques received for clearing that time it was disclosed
that the second party admitted that he is having said
cheques then he received these cheques from second
party workman and prepared panchnama, obtained
explanation from second party workman on 9/12/2005
and transmitted the matter with letter to Asstt. General
Manager (Inspection, Audit and Vigilance) M2, 3, 10 for
further action.
20.
According to him, these cheques received from
United Western Bank with covering letter M4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9 and the cheques mentioned in panchnama are the same.
He further stated that Rajendra Shinde the brother of
second party workman is having account with first party
bank and as per the explanation dt.9/12/2005 the second
party employee kept cheques with him which relate to
his brother Rajendra Shinde. According to him, the second
party workman retained these cheques unauthorisedly
with him. The enquiry officer asked the second party
workman to conduct cross-examination of this witness
but he declined to conduct the cross-examination of this
witness.
21.
The management examined one witness Rajendra
Kamble on the same day who stated that on 9/12/2005
panchnama was conducted in his presence when he came
to bank to remit the cash. He admitted the contents of
panchnama. The cross-examination of this witness was
also not conducted by the second party workman. The
management examined one more witness the clerk
Ramesh Desai who was working in Hupari branch from
18/05/2005. He is stated that panchnama dt.9/12/2005
was done in the bank in his presence. Again the second
party declined to conduct the cross-examination of this
witness. Thereafter enquiry officer asked the second
party whether he wants to examine any witness or produce
documents in his favour in the enquiry but he declined to
lead evidence and produce documents. On the contrary,
he gave admission in writing Ex.3 that he has admitted the
charges unconditionally without getting pressurised.
22.
From the perusal of report of enquiry officer it is
clear that he has gone through the entire enquiry papers.
The evidence and documents produced by the
management he held that management has led sufficient
evidence coupled with relevant documents and proved
that second party workman retained total 25 cheques worth
Rs.3,05,500/- unauthorisedly with him for the period of 6
months. As a result, the first party bank could not give
proper service and information to its customers and some
customers were deprived of using their amount deposited
in the bank and due to this misconduct of the second
party workman the image of first party is lowered down
and finally held that charges kept on delinquent on
17/12/2005 are proved. Both charges i.e. deliberately and
intentionally caused loss to the property of first party
bank and its customers, committed misconduct affecting
the interest of first party bank are proved. As per Ex.3 the
second party workman has given written apology and
admitted the misconduct unconditionally when enquiry
was initiated against him. Again vide letter Ex.6 dt.
6/2/2006 the second party admitted his guilt and
represented for the same.
23.
Thus it is clear that despite the clear admissions of
misconduct given on two occasions i.e. on 19/1/2006 and
6/2/2005 by way of abandoned precaution the first party
company conducted disciplinary enquiry against the
second party workman, in which the management examined
three witnesses but the second party workman declined
to conduct their cross-examination and did not lead
evidence and produce documents in support of his defence.
Here the evidence led by second party workman is not
sufficient to hold that no opportunity was given to the
second party workman in the disciplinary enquiry and there
is violation of principles of natural justice. The real facts
are not disclosed in the affidavit of second party workman.
24.
The intention is in the evidence of second party is
to show that he was not given opportunity to defend
himself in the enquiry whereby enquiry was conducted in
single day it does not mean that there was hastiness on
the part of first party in view of written admission Ex.3
given by second party workman during the enquiry
conducted on 19/01/2006. Here the enquiry officer has
accepted the evidence of management which was in no
way contradicted by second party workman without being
supported either by documentary and oral evidence in the
form of defence witness.
25.
Further on the basis of evidence the enquiry officer
held that management proved the charges levelled in the
charge sheet against the second party workman. After
perusal of the evidence in the enquiry I did not find any
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 5] 2015@vxzgk;.k 14] 1937
4525
lacuna on the part of enquiry officer. He has also properly
appreciated the seizure panchanama dt.9/12/2005. The
assessment of evidence made by him cannot be said to be
poor and irrelevant. In fact the second party could not
show that how the enquiry officer came to wrong and
faulty conclusion. Thus on the backdrop of instances of
the above said acts, evidence brought in the enquiry the
finding recorded by enquiry officer into the charges are
definitely not perverse. It is not a cryptic record without
stating any reasons, the enquiry officer has not travelled
beyond the limitation of charges levelled. He has drawn
his conclusions within the framework of charges and all
the facts adduced by the evidence of management. Thus
there is nothing on record to show that the findings are
based on extraneous discussion. The argument canvassed
by learned advocate Mr.Deshmukh for the second party
workman are not well grounded and cannot be accepted.
On the contrary, the argument canvassed by learned
advocate Mr. D.D. Dhanawade for first party company is
upright and acceptable. Hence I hold that second party
workman failed to establish that the enquiry is unfair and
findings of enquiry officer are perverse and biased. It is
also established that the enquiry officer gave complete
opportunity to second party workman to defend himself
in the enquiry and conducted the enquiry in accordance
with the provisions of law and followed the principles of
natural justice and findings are just and proper. Further
this Tribunal has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present
reference. Lastly I answer issue nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative
and proceed to pass the following award.
Award
(i)
This Tribunal has jurisdiction to try and entertain
the present reference.
(ii)
The enquiry conducted by the first party is as
per the principles of natural justice.
(iii)
The findings of enquiry officer are just and proper.
(iv)
The office is hereby directed five copies of this
Part 1 Award be sent to the Desk Officer, Ministry
of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for
publication and necessary action.
(v)
Reference to proceed further as per procedure.
Kolhapur
Date : 20th October 2015
D. V. THAKARE, Industrial Tribunal, Kolhapur
ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2236-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,u ,iQ jsyos
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k] xqokgkVh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 03@2014) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41011@02@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 30th November, 2015
S.O. 2236.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 03/2014)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Guwahati as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between management of N.F. Railway and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
30-11-2015.
[No. L-41011/02/2014-IR (B-I)]
VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM
Present:
Shri L.C.Dey, M.A., LL.B., Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati
Ref. Case No.03 of 2014
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :-
The Management of N.F.Railway, Maligaon,
Guwahati, Assam
-Vrs-
The workman represented by the
General Secretary, Rail Mazdoor Union, N.F. Railway,
Maligaon, Guwahati, Assam
APPEARANCES :
For the Union
:
Mr. M. K. Das, the General
Secretary, R.M.U.
For the Management
:
Mr. A. K. Nath, learned
Advocate.
Date of Award : 30.09.2015
AWARD
1.
This Reference has been initiated on an Industrial
Dispute raised by the General Secretary, Rail Mazdoor
Union, N.F.Railway, Maligaon, Assam against the
Management of N.F.Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati, Assam
for termination of their workman Sri Deepak Sharma,
Substitute E/Peon, which was referred by the Ministry of
Labour for adjudication vide their Order No.L-41011/
02/2014-IR(B-I) dated 25.02.2014 .The Schedule of this
reference is as under :
4526
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 5, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“Whether 18.7.2001 termination of Shri Deepak
Sharma, Substitute E/Peon, who has been
represented by the General Secretary, Railway
Mazdoor Union, 239/A, East Maligaon, Guwahati-
11 from service by the employer-Appointing
Authority of N.F.Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati is
legal & justified? If not, then applicant-workman is
entitled to get any compensation?”
2.
On receipt of the order from the Ministry of Labour,
Government of India, New Delhi, this reference case was
registered and notices were issued by Registered Post to
the parties concerned directing them to appear in the Court
on the date fixed and to file their written statement along
with the relevant documents in support of their claim.
Accordingly both the parties appeared and submitted their
respective claim statement/written statement.
3.
The case of the Union, in nutshell, is that the
workman Sri Dipak Sharma was appointed as Substitute
Emergency Peon (SE Peon) in the scale of pay of Rs.2550-
3200/- against the existing vacancy of work charged post
sanctioned against estimate No.8/CE of 88-89 for 19 months
P.B. No.77 of 2000-01, and he was posted in the Chief
Engineer, N.F. Railway’s office vide their letter No. E/283/
45/E dated 08.08.2000 issued by the APO, Engineering for
and on behalf of the General Manager (Personnel),
Maligaon ( in short GM(P)/MLG). Accordingly the
workman joined his duty as SE Peon and he was attached
to Shri Ravi Amrohi, CE/TP, Maligaon, N.F.Railway. The
post against which the workman was appointed was in
the Emergency Peon Unit under administrative control of
the Chief Engineer, N.F.Railway, Maligaon, and the
seniority of the workman unit is looked after by the Office
of the Chief Personnel Officer, Maligaon, N.F.R ( CPO,MLG,
N.F.Railway in short). Thereafter the said post was to be
maintained in the sanctioned strength of the relevant
Emergency Peon Unit of the establishment of Chief
Engineer, Maligaon Railway Headquarter against the
permanent incumbent’s absence or otherwise as per the
permissible percentage of the book of sanction for
substitutes against which substitutes can be engaged.
As per the then prevailing mode of engagement of SE
Peon’s initial appointment was made for 3 months only
but extended for further period depending on the
satisfaction of the officer in whose control and/or for whom
in his official capacity the services of the SE Peons are
meant for till he attains a Temporary servant’s status after
120 days continuous satisfactory service; and the said
officer in whose control and /or for whom in his official
capacity the service of the SE peons are meant for, has to
certify the satisfactory service of the SE Peon serving
under him at the end of 90 days service by the SE Peon
and thereafter the service of the SE Peon is extended
further. In adherence to the system the service of the
workman was extended on completion of his continuous
service for 120 days upon issue of certificate of satisfactory
service of the officer concerned, and in this way he
rendered service for a period of 252 days upon to
16.04.2001 and thereafter the spouse of the officer
concerned refused the workman to perform duties in the
bunglow of the said officer i.e. Dy. CE/TP to which the
family of the officer concerned shifted from transit camp
where the officer concerned namely Shri Ravi Amrohi had
been staying when the workman was engaged as SE Peon.
The termination order was followed vide order No. E/283/
45(E) dated 06.09.2001 issued by someone without
intelligible name and designation without following the
due procedure and the relevant railway Rules framed there
under. The said termination order was issued with fourteen
days pay in lieu of 14 days notice.
Further contention of the Union is that retention of
the workman in his Post after continuous service of 120
days he shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges
admissible to a temporary Railway servant, the in-action
of the management in declaring him either unfit for
temporary status on completion of 120 days of continuous
service and with the temporary status of Railway employee
with effect from 05.12.2000 as per Rule, and hence the
Management can not lawfully decline to accord sanctity
under law to this happening since the workman completed
252 days service. It is also mentioned that the management
acted in a way which was designed to deprive the workman
from easy and routine engagement as SE Peon with another
officer even though he sought for such an engagement,
and more and more officers were allowed SE Peon to be
attached to them after the termination of the workman’s
service which is contradictory to the rules as enshrined in
Para-E of Circular No. E/205/O/RP-EMERGENCY PEON/
PC/CON dated 15.02.1999. The Substitutes are defined and
their service conditions are provided in Rule 1512 to 1516
of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual 1985 ( revised
Edition) and in the Master Circular on the appointment of
Substitutes No.20 issued by the Railway Board, Ministry
of Railway. According to Railway Establishment Rule the
Substitute who has completed 4 months continuous service
shall be entitled all the rights and privileges admissible to
the Temporary Railway employee as per RB No. E(NG)/11/
77/SB 37 of 24.10.1976. It is also provided in the Railway
letter No. 83-E/1/pt WE iv dated 31.12.1997 that Peons are
engaged as substitutes and as such, they are entitled to
temporary status on completion of 120 days of continuous
service and with the temporary status they are to be
provided with all the facilities as are applicable to other
temporary status holders. As such, the action of the
management amounts to violation of the legal and
fundamental rights of the workman and the law framed
there-under. It is also pleaded that the workman was also
not paid the retrenchment compensation as well as the
notice pay by the Management which is a clear violation
of the provision of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 5] 2015@vxzgk;.k 14] 1937
4527
Subsequently the workman gathering about the unpaid
Bill came over and received the amount of the BR at
Rs.3035/-. It is added by the Union that the workman on
completion of 120 days continuous service after attaining
temporary status is entitled to be governed by the Rules
applicable to the Temporary Railway Servant and to the
protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and
Railway Rules as well as the protection of Railway Servants’
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. Further case of the
workman is that he was never given any opportunity to
offer his representation against any fault in his services
as found or nurtured by his employer before or after the
order of his discharge. The management also violated their
Circular No.E/205/O/RP-EMERGENCY PEON/PC/CON
dated 15.02.1999 wherein it was provided that a terminated
SE Peon has a locus to seek his fresh appointment in the
same seniority list, when the workman applied for
reengagement/reinstatement . While the workman ran from
pillar to post for getting justice and applied for justice to
the General Manager, N.F.Railway through his appeal dated
15.05.07 but it was of no avail. Thereafter he approached
the Rail Mazdoor Union (RMU) which raised this Industrial
Dispute. On failure of conciliation proceeding in presence
of the RLC (C), Guwahati the dispute was referred by the
Ministry for adjudication. It is also mentioned that the
Union has collected certain information in connection with
this reference under RTI Act, such as, the letter No. NFR/
RTICell/2011/1842 dated 31.10.11, NFR/RTICell/2011/1842
dated 02.01.2012, No.PNO/AD/RTI/DS/1842 dated
27.12.2011 from FA & CAO/F&B cum PIO along with letter
No.B/34724/RTI/Bill dated 23.12.2011 by APO/Bill ,
N.F.Railway. Hence, the Union prayed for granting
reinstatement with salary, retrenchment compensation,
productivity link bonus in the Railway to the workman in
addition to an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- being the
compensation to the workman, along with other
consequential/incidental benefit according to law.
4.
The Management contested the proceeding filing
written statement stating inter-alia that the reference is
not maintainable, and it is barred by limitation on the ground
that the workman Deepak Sarmah was discharged from
service on 16.4.2001 and the dispute has been raised after
a considerable delay of about 13 years without showing
sufficient cause or exceptional circumstances in order to
justify the entertainment of the reference. It is mentioned
that the file dealing with the matter regarding appointment
and termination of the workman is not traceable and the
same could not be traced out even after extensive search
drive, as such, it is not possible to make comment on each
point mentioned in the claim statements; and it would be
prejudice against the Railway Administration if the case is
admitted since the records are not available at this distant
date. As such, written statement prepared by the
Management based on the documents annexed by the
workman along with his claim statement. The management
pleaded that from the documents submitted by the
workman it appears that the workman was engaged as SE
Peon on 8.8.2000 against the vacancy of work charged
post that was sanctioned for 19 months only, and the
payment was subject to further conditions specifying the
circumstances leading his discharge from service with
effect from 16.4.2001 vide GM (P)/MLG’s letter No.
E/283/45(E) dated 06.09.2001 with 14 days pay in lieu
of notice and hence, the admissible payment as per
conditions of his appointment were drawn as referred to
in the termination order No.C003270401 dated
25.04.2001 and CO7 No.5/508 dated 26.04.2001. The
order No. E/283/45(E) dated 06.09.01 shows that the
workman has less than 240 days of service and was given
14 days pay in lieu of notice and that had he been in
service for more than 240 days he would have been given
one month pay in lieu of notice plus retrenchment
compensation @ 15 days pay for completing 240 days
of service. Further the applicant himself in his document
marked as Annexure-4 i.e. the petition dated 15.5.07
stated that he failed to attend duty for sometime and
accordingly his service was terminated vide order dated
6.9.01. The management added that the workman after
his discharge from service on 16.4.01 did not prefer any
appeal against his discharge which is evident from the
fact that no documents in support has been produced
along with the application by the Applicant at the time of
raising Industrial Dispute before the ALC (C), however,
the petitioner submitted the copy of his appeal dated
15.5.07 as Annexure-A4 as aforesaid and since the
authenticity of the said document is not accepted and
hence, the management denied the same.
Further case of the management is that since the
relevant case file to verify the claims of Sri Dipak Sarma
is not traceable at such a distant date and no appeal/
representation has been preferred by the applicant for a
very long period and no sufficient cause or exceptional
circumstances has been brought out by him in his
application which justified the entertainment of such
petition after so much delay as such, the present
reference may not be given cognizance and hence, be
dropped. The management mentioned that save and except
what is specifically admitted by them, raised are deemed
to have denied by the management; and that the case is
false, frivolous and it is nothing but gross nuisance of
law and as such it is liable to be dismissed with no award.
5.
In order to establish their case the Union examined
two witnesses including the workman Dipak Sarma and
M. K.Das, General Secretary, RMU, while the
management examined none although they cross-
examined the workman witnesses.
I have heard arguments from both the parties at
length. The Union submitted their written argument also.
Perused the entire case record along with the evidence
available on record.
4528
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 5, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Let me discuss the evidence of the workman
witnesses. According to the Dipak Sarmah (WW.1), he
was engaged as SE Peon in scale of Rs.2550-3200/- and
was posted in Chief Engineer , N.F.Railway’s office on
8.8.2000 (vide Exhibit-1) against the existing vacancy of
work charged post sanctioned against Memo No. 8/CE of
88-89 for 19 months P.B. No.77 of 2000-01. Accordingly he
joined his duty on 08.08.2000 and completed 120 days of
continuous service and obtained the temporary status of
a Railway Servant for further continuation of his service.
He mentioned that the Officer in whose control or for whom
in his official capacity the services of the workman are
meant for has to certify the satisfactory service of the Sub
E/Peon serving under him at the end of 90 days of service
only whereafter his service was extended further. As such,
the workman has completed 90 days of his service
counting from his joining from 08.08.2000 and then he was
retained till he completed 120 days service on 05.12.2000
and in this way he was allowed to remain in service beyond
the terms and conditions of his engagement for a period
of 252 days upto 16.04.2001 on which date he was refused
to work in the bunglow of the officer concerned. He also
added that the termination order was issued by the
management vide letter No.E/283/45(E) dated 6.9.2001 vide
Exhibit-2 which was signed by some one without
intelligible name and designation without following the
due procedure as established by law. The W.W.1 also
mentioned that his discharge was by way of termination
for his continuous service with fourteen days pay in lieu
of fourteen days’ notice and the service for 120 days i.e.
after attaining the temporary status of the Railway
Employees with effect from 05.12.2000 as per rules and as
such, even his service was assumed to be not satisfactory,
the inaction of the management in declaring him either
unfit for temporary status or allowing on completion of
120 days the service the workman was deemed to have
attained the temporary status as per Rules. Thus the
management can not lawfully decline to accord sanctity
under law to this happening after he completed 252 days
service. It is also pleaded by the workman that the
Management have acted in a way which was designed to
deprive the workman from easy and routine engagement
as SE Peon with another officer even though he sought
such an engagement and more and more officers were
allowed SE Peon attached to them after termination of
service of the workman; and such an action of the
management is contradictory to Rules as enshrined in Para-
E of Circular No. E/205/O/RP-EMERGENCY EPON/PC/CON
Dated 15.02.1999 (Exhibit-5) issued by the CPO, N.F.
Railway. The workman further stated that the management
has deprived him from getting of his dues such as, leave
salary, bonus and retrenchment compensation apart from
reinstatement in his former or other post on the date of
his termination. Hence, the workman prayed for allowing
him all the unpaid dues payable to him together with the
relief of reinstatement granting him temporary status
from the date of completion of 120 days service, and to
decide the reference in affirmative.
In his cross-examination the workman stated that
in Exhibit-1 at Clause-(1) it has been specifically
mentioned that his appointment would not confer upon
him any right to claim for further appointment in this
Railway and he was liable to be discharged without any
notice when his service would not be required by the
Administration or before the expiry of the currency of
the post against which he was employed or on medical
ground or physically incapacity or in the event of posting
of an approved hand but he was not aware of the above
conditions as he could not understand English. He
mentioned that he approached the Officer concerned for
his re-employment and he had submitted his
representation dated 15.5.07 marked as Exhibit-A. The
workman added that after 15.5.07 he did not submit any
representation before the management. He also admitted
that after missing of his brother he left for Delhi for
searching his brother while he informed the wife of his
attached officer but he did never said the officer
concerned for which he had written the same cause in
his representation marked as Exhibit-A. The workman
again said that he raised this dispute before the Office of
the Labour Commissioner (C), in the year 2011 through
his Union. However the workman denied the suggestion
tendered by the learned Advocate for the management
that he did never visited the officer concerned and
requested for his further engagement nor did he submit
any written representation; and that he left for Delhi to
search his brother without intimation to his authority
concerned for which the Management discharged him
from service ; and that since he raised this dispute at a
belated stage he is not entitled to any relief in this
proceeding.
The workman witness No.2, Sri Mridul Kr. Das, the
General Secretary of Rail Mazdoor Union, N.F. Zone,
Guwahati in his deposition stated that the workman was
appointed SE Peon on 8.8.2000 vide the letter issued by
the Management marked as Exhibit-1 and the workman
joined his duty on 8.8.2000. The workman was attached
to Sri Ravi Amrohi, coming on transfer as CE/TP/MLG,
N.F.Railway. The W.W.2 said that according to the
prevailing mode of engagement of SE Peon the workman
was initially appointed for 3 months only but extended
for further period depending on the satisfaction of the
officer with whom he was attached till he attained
temporary service status after 120 days continuous
satisfactory service, and the Controlling Officer has to
certify the workman’s service as SE Peon is satisfactory
under him at the end of 90 days service and thereafter
his service is extended further. The workman was in
continuous service for more than 120 days from the date
joining till the date of his termination on 16.4.01 and he
was not in receipt of any show cause notice or any other
adverse remarks or warning from the Railway
Administration as to his unsatisfactory service, if any.
Therefore the service of the workman was extended
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 5] 2015@vxzgk;.k 14] 1937
4529
on completion of continuous period of 120 days as the
service of the workman was satisfactory all along, and
there is no provision of law to keep the workman in
service otherwise the terms and conditions of his
engagement. He also mentioned that the order discharging
the workman from service vide Exhibit-2 was issued under
a signature which was not in full nor the Terminating
Authority’s name and designation mentioned in the order,
without following the due procedure as established by
the law and the relevant rule framed thereunder. He further
stated that the substitutes are defined and their service
conditions are provided for in Rule 1512 to 1516 of the
Indian Railway Establishment Manual 1989 ( Revised
Edition) (vide Exhibit-3), and in the Master Circular on
the Appointment of Substitute on Railway Board issued
by Railway Board/Ministry of Railway together with
Circular No.E/205/O/RP-EMERGENCY PEON/PC/
CON Dated 15.02.1999 vide Exhibit-4 & Exhibit-5
respectively. Mr. M.K.Das added that according to
Railway Establishment Rule the substitute who has been
in 4 months continuous service shall be entitled to all
the rights and privilege admissible to the temporary
Railway Servant as per R. B. No.E(NG) 11/77/SB 37 of
24.10.1976; and that the substitutes who have already
acquired temporary status should be immediately
screened for employment and their services should not be
artificially broken merely to deprive them from the benefit
of attaining temporary status by dint of labour. He also
added that it is already provided in the General Manager,
N.F.Railway letter No.83-E/1/pt WE iv dated 31.12.1997
that “Peons are engaged as substitutes and as such they
are entitled to temporary status on completion of 120 days
of continuous service and with the temporary status they
are to be provided with all the facilities as are applicable to
other temporary status holders. Therefore the order passed
by the Management in terminating the service of the
workman is without authority of law and contradictory to
their own order and as such, the Management have acted
in a way designed to deprive the workman from
engagement as SE Peon with another officer and the same
officer was allowed a freshman as his SE Peon. He also
referred the provision in Para E of the Circular marked a
Exhibit-5 that while Emergency Peon who has not attained
the temporary status can be terminated and it will not be
the case when he attained temporary status or becomes or
regular grade-D employees as it calls for disciplinary action
which requires all the requisite rules and formalities as
applicable to the regular employees are to be followed.
The W.W.2 further said that the management has violated
the provision of payment of Notice Pay as provided under
Rule 301(1) of Indian Railway Establishment Code 1985
as the notice pay was not paid within 48 hours of
retrenchment/termination to the workman. He also added
that the management also violated the provision of law of
the land regarding notice pay as the BR issued for paying
the workman the notice pay under AB No. C003270401
dated 25.4.2001 and CO7 05/508 dated 26.04.2001 but the
payment was not advised to the workman for his collection
through the hand bill entrusted to Cash Office, Maligaon
for payment to the workman, and the hand bill remained
unpaid due to unclaimed by the workman as the workman
was not intimated with the payment ready for him. He
further said that the workman gathering about the unpaid
bill came over and receipted the amount of the BR of Rs.
3035/- and as such the workman remained unsatisfied with
the partial payment on account of the illegal termination
as he was not paid his leave salary, Productivity Linked
Bonus for 2000-2001 and retrenchment compensation. The
W.W.2 again said that the BR for paying him the notice
pay is under AB No. C 003270401 dated 25.04.2001 and
CO7 No.05/508 dated 26.04.2001 which fact was replied to
by the management as being not available because
according to the reply such records are preserved for 10
years only and in this connection a formal reply received
under RTI Act from SDGM –cum- Appellate Authority,
N.F. Railway under No. NFR/RTI Cell/2011/1842 Dated
26.7.11 against Request/First Appeal from the workman
which are proved as Exhibit-7 & Exhibit-8. The WW.2 again
mentioned that the workman had a legitimate expectation
for his job after serving for a period of 252 days without
break, and yet the workman failed to get the reasonable
notice and a reasonable opportunities from the
management which was required within the ambit of law
and as such, it caused miscarriage of justice. Thus the
impugned termination order was unwise which destroyed
the career of the workman and blocked the future
employment and legitimately expected fresh appointment
in the job of substitute with some other officer and to be
governed by rules applicable to temporary Railway
servants. Thereby the management had not adhered to
the provision of their own Circular regarding choice in
regard to Engagement of fresh face.
During his cross-examination the W.W.2 stated that
after his termination with effect from 16.4.01 the
workman did not submit any written representation
before the management for his re-employment. He also
said that in Exhibit-A, the workman admitted that due to
missing of his younger brother sometimes since he went
for searching his brother for which his service was
terminated. However, he denied the suggestion tendered
by the management that the workman was discharged due
to his unauthorized absence and that since the workman
was discharged from service on 16.4.01 and the workman
came to this Tribunal in 2014 raising the dispute before
the Labour Commissioner (C), as such, the workman is
not entitled to any relief in this reference.
6.
On scrutiny of the evidence of the workman along
with the documents relied upon them it appears that the
workman was engaged as SE Peon and was posted in
Chief Engineer, N.F.Railway’s Office on 8.8.2000 against
the existing vacancy of work charged post. According to
the workman he completed 120 days of continuous service
and obtained the temporary status of Railway servant for
4530
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 5, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
further continuation of his service and in this way he was
allowed to remain in service beyond the terms and
conditions of his engagement for a period of 252 days up
to 16.4.01 i.e. the date of his removal from the service; and
that the termination order was issued by the Management
vide No.E/283/45(E) dated 6.9.01 (Exhibit-2) which was
signed by some one without intelligible name and
designation and without following the due procedure as
established by law. The workman pleaded that he was
deprived of from easy and routine engagement as SE Peon
with another officer even though he showed such
engagement and more officers were allowed SE Peon
attached to them after his termination, and such the action
of the management is contradictory to the Policy as
enshrined in Para-E of Circular dated 15.2.99 marked as
Exhibit-5. On perusal of the termination letter dated 6.9.01
(Exhibit-2) it appears that the workman Dipak Sharma SE
Peon was terminated with effect from 16.4.01 with 14 days
pay in lieu of notice and in the said letter the status of the
workman was mentioned as temporary Railway Servant;
but the names of the signatory of this letter has not been
mentioned. Simply there is mentioned below the signatures
of the issuing authority as “Signature of the Appointing
Authority or Higher Authority without any designation”.
While in Para-E of the revised policy for engagement/
retrenchment etc. of Emergency Peon (Exhibit-5) it is
mentioned as under:
“(E) DISCHARGE/TERMINATION OF SERVICES
OF E/PEONS
1.
Termination of the services of E/Peon is a
sensitive aspect and this is required to be dealt
with utmost caution so that relevant provisions
of the Establishment Code as well as that of
Industrial Disputes Act are not infringed. In view
of this , it is felt necessary that the existing
procedures for termination of services of E/Peon
are reiterated for information and guidance of
all concerned. It is clarified that all termination
letters have to be issued from Personnel Branch
and not directly by the Executive Branch.
Necessary guidelines for termination of E/Peon
are detailed below:-
2.
Rule 301(1) of Indian Railway Establishment
Code, Volume-I, is the relevant rule under which
termination of service of Emergency Peon is to
be resorted to.
But the termination order (Exhibit-2) appears to have
been signed & issued by the Appointing Authority of
Higher Authority without mentioning the designation and
also there is nothing to show that Exhibit-2was issued
from Personnel Branch. Thus it is clear that the order
terminating the service of the workman was issued without
following the due procedure as established by law and
the relevant rules framed there under. The Rules 1512 to
1516 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual 1989
marked as Exhibit-3 and Master Circular dated 29.1.91
marked as Exhibit-4 shows that the Substitutes should be
afforded all the rights and privileges as may be admissible
to the temporary Railway Servant, from time to time on
completion of 4 months continuous service, and that after
completion of 4 months of continuous service they
acquired the status of temporary Railway Servant. In the
Railway Circular regarding Emergency Peon-Revised
Policy for engagement/retrenchment etc. at Para
E(6)(Exhibit-5) it has been clearly mentioned that while
Emergency Peon has not attained the temporary status
can be terminated, it will not be the case when he attains
temporary status or becomes a regular grade-D employees
as it calls for disciplinary action which require all the
requisite rules and formalities as applicable to the regular
employees are to be followed; and the provision of 301 of
Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume-I should be
borne in mind. In the instant case it is found that the
workman joined as Emergency Peon on 8.8.2000 and was
terminated from service on 16.4.2001, as such it is clear
that the workman was terminated after conferment of his
temporary status by operation of law,without holding any
departmental enquiry by the management.
During argument Mr. A.K.Nath, learned Advocate
for the Management of N.F.Railway submitted that the
workman was terminated from service due to his
unauthorized absence from duty which is found to be
admitted fact from the representation dated 15.5.07
submitted by the workman before the General Manager,
N.F.Railway, Maligaon with prayer for his reengagement
vide Exhibit-A wherein the workman mentioned that due
to missing of his only younger brother he had to proceed
for searching the brother for which he could not attend
the duty for some time and at that time he had been working
as daily wage earner. Mr. Nath further submitted that the
workman soon after his termination did neither preferred
any appeal before the Management and he was sleeping
over his right for a long time and thereafter he raised this
dispute through the Union before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (C), Guwahati and as such, this reference is
barred by limitation. In support of his contention Mr. Nath,
learned Advocate for the Management referred the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh –vs— Sirhind
Coop published in 1999 (2) SCR 505. But the ratio of the
said case is found not in support of his argument. Since
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that case opined that on
account of the admitted delay the Labour Court ought to
have appropriately moulded the relief by denying the
appellant-workman some part of the back wages; and also
observes as:
“In the instant case, the respondent-management is
not shown to have taken any plea regarding delay
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 5] 2015@vxzgk;.k 14] 1937
4531
as is evident from the issues framed by the Labour
Court. The only plea raised in defence was that the
Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the
reference and the termination of the services of the
workman was justified. Had this plea been raised,
the workman would have been in a position to show
the circumstances preventing him in approaching
the Court at an earlier stage or even to satisfy the
court that such a plea was not sustainable after the
reference was made by the government. The learned
Judges of the High Court, therefore, were not
justified in holding that the workman had not given
any explanation as to why the demand notice had
been issued after a long period. The findings of facts
returned by High Court in Writ proceedings, even
without pleadings were, therefore, unjustified. The
High Court was also not justified in holding that the
courts were bound to render an even handed justice
by keeping balance between the two different parties.
Such an approach totally ignores the aims and object
and the social object sought to be achieved by the
Act. Even after noticing mat “it is true that a fight
between the workman and the management is not a
just fight between equals,” the court was not justified
to make them equals while returning the findings,
which if allowed to prevail, would result in
derogation of the purpose of the enactment. The
workman appears to be justified in complaining that
in the absence of any plea on behalf of the
management and any evidence, regarding delay, he
could not be deprived of the benefits under the Act
merely on technicalities of law. The High Court
appears to have substituted its opinion for the
opinion of the labour court which was not
permissible in proceedings under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution.”
7.
Mr. M.K.Das, learned counsel for the Union
representing the workman submitted that the Indian
Limitation Act is not applicable in the present reference
since there is no provision for limitation made in the
I.D. Act, 1947.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hariyana Land
Reclamation and Development Corporation Ltd.—vrs—
Nirmal Kumar (2008)(2) SCC 366 wherein it was held
that delay in making the reference depends upon what
time lapse constitutes delay would depend on facts of
each case; and that reference may about six years after
retrenchment employer also suffering from losses since
many years, backwages payable to workman restricted
to Rs.10,000/-. Mr. Das, the learned Counsel for the
Union also submitted that in Tilokchand Motichand &
Ors –vs— H.B. Munshi & Anr, it was held that the question
is one of discretion for the Court to delay from case to
case; there is no lower limit and no upper limit, a case
may be brought within limitation Act by reason of some
Article but this Court need not necessarily give the total
time to the litigant to move this Court under Article 32.
Similarly in a suitable case this Court may entertain such a
petition even after a lapse of time.
From the materials on record it appears that the
workman being a poor, temporary Railway servant as SE
Peon, after his dismissal knocked the door of the Appellate
Authority by filing appeal, all his efforts were in vain and
thereafter he took up the matter with the Union which
raised the dispute before the Management and on failure
to settle up the same the Union referred the matter to the
ALC (C), Guwahati for settlement. Upon failure of the
conciliation in presence of the ALC (C), Guwahati, the
FOC report was submitted to the Central Government which
refer the dispute to this Tribunal and in this way it took
sufficient time. Although there is no evidence on record
showing specifically the cause of delay in raising the
dispute, with a view to achieve the objectives of the
Legislature to promote welfare of the workmen in enacting
the Industrial Dispute Act, I find no reason to reject the
reference on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage.
As such, the argument raised by the Management
contending that the present reference is no maintainable
since it was filed beyond the period of limitation.
8.
From evidence on record it is fond well established
that the service of the workman was terminated after
discharging his duty for a period with effect from 8.8.2000
to 16.4.01 for 252 days i.e. after acquiring the status of a
temporary Railway Servants without holding any enquiry
nor issued any prior notice to the workman. Further, the
termination order was issued on 6.9.01 terminating the
workman with effect from 16.4.01 vide the letter marked as
Exhibit-2 which is also found not in proper form as well as
not issued by the appropriate authority in accordance with
the rules and the provision of Railway Manuals and
Circulars issued from time to time vide Exhibit-3, Exhibit-4
& Exhibit-5 as discussed above. There is also noting on
record to show that before his termination. The workman
was served with any prior notice nor any enquiry was
held in connection with his termination the workman
represented the management for his re-engagement vide
Exhibit-A which was not considered by the Appropriate
Authority although the management is duty bound to
dispose of the representation/appeal in due course. Even
the management could neither produce any document nor
adduce any evidence in order to prove their pleadings in
their W.S. to challenge the contention of the union as
made in their claim statement. It is also revealed from
the record that some original documents were called for
from the custody of the management regarding
appointment of the workman including the termination
of the workman, payment of notice pay, the appeal
submitted by the workman etc. but the management
categorically mentioned that they could not trace out the
documents (Vide order dated 4.3.2015), and as such, the
4532
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 5, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
document proved as Exhibit-8 and Exhibit-A which were
proved on admission of the management. The
Management in course of cross-examination of the
workman witnesses took the plea that the workman had
been absent without authority for a long time for which
his service was terminated but there is nothing on record
to show that in terminating the service of the workman
the due procedure of law as well as the Railway Manual
marked as Exhibit-3, the Master Circular on appointment
of Substitutes of Railways vide Exhibit-4, the Revised
Policy for engagement/retrenchment etc. of the
Emergency Peon vide Exhibit-5 complied with by the
management. It is found well established that the
Substitute Emergency Peon after acquiring temporary
status are entitled to all the benefits and privileges which
are being availed by the regular Railway employees and
in such a case it is mandatory on the part of the
management to give opportunity to the workman to be
heard before terminating his service. Article 311 (2)
provided that no person who is a member of Civil Services
of the Union or of All India Service or a Civil Service of
a State or holds a Civil Post under the Union or a State
shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank accept
if an enquiry in which he has been informed of the charges
against him and given the reasonable opportunity of being
heard in respect of those charges. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in a catena of cases held that reasonable
opportunities as envisaged by Article 311(2) should be
afforded to the workman before his dismissal/removal/
termination and that the authority concerned empowered
with the task of entertaining appeal who applied their mind
on the representation of the delinquent. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 2008 SC 1300
(A) held that the power to impose punishment without
enquiry in case of conviction for criminal offence not to
be exercised irrespective of nature of offence and as
such the order of dismissal from service is not proper
nor could be said to be proportionate. In the case of
V.P.Ahuja—vrs— State of Punjab and Ors. reported in
(2000) 3 SCC 239 wherein it was held that a probationer
like a temporary servant is also entitled for certain
protection, his service can not be terminated arbitrarily
or punitively without complying with the principle of
natural justice; and that the termination order could not
be passed without following the regular enquiry.
9.
The Union has been able to establish that the
workman after his dismissal represented vide Exhibit-A
before the Appellate Authority for his reinstatement but
there is nothing on records to show that his appeal was
entertained. In this regard I am inclined to rely upon the
decision of the Hon.ble Supreme Court in Ram Chander—
vrs— Union of India and Ors. reported in AIR 1986 SC
1173 wherein it was held that “it is of utmost importance
after the Forty-Second Amendment as interpreted by the
majority in Tulsiram Patel’s case that the Appellate
Authority must not only give a hearing to the Government
servant concerned but also pass a reasoned order dealing
with the contentions raised by him in the appeal. We wish
to emphasize that reasoned decisions by tribunals, such
as the Railway Board in the present case, will promote
public confidence in the administrative process. An
objective consideration is possible only if the delinquent
servant is heard and given a chance to satisfy the Authority
regarding the final orders that may be passed on his appeal.
Considerations of fair-play and justice also require that
such a personal hearing should be given.”
From my above discussion it is found well
established that the workman after acquiring the status
of Railway servant was deprived of availing the protection
as envisaged under Rule 31 of the Railway Establishment
Code, Rule 1512 to 1515 (Exhibit-3, the Master Circular
No. E(NG)/11/90/SB/Master Circular (Exhibit-4) and the
Railway’s letter No. E/2005/O/RP-Emergency Peon/PC/
CON dated 15.2.99 (Exhibit-5) and the Discipline and
Appeal and Conduct Rules of Railway. The workman was
also denied the Constitutional safeguard as envisaged in
Articles 14,16 and 31 of the Constitution of India as well
as the principle of natural justice.
In this connection, before parting with my
discussion it may not be out of context to mention here
that in the Schedule of the reference it has been
mentioned “Whether 18.7.2001 termination of Shri
Deepak Sharma, Substitute E/Peon, who has been
represented by the General Secretary, Railway Mazdoor
Union, 239/A, East Maligaon, Guwahati-11 from service
by the employer-Appointing Authority of N.F.Railway,
Maligaon, Guwahati is legal and justified? If not, then
applicant-workman is entitled to get any compensation
?” While both the management and the Union in their
pleadings as well as the evidence of the Union mentioned
that the workman was terminated from his service with
effect from 16.4.2001. As such there is no dispute as to
the date of termination of the workman from service i.e.
16.4.01 and hence, the date of termination of the
workman is treated as 16.4.01 in lieu of 18.7.01.
10.
In view of my above discussion and having regard
to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court it can
safely be held that the action of the management in
terminating the service of the workman Deepak Sharma,
SE Peon was in violation the provision of the Railway
Manual, Master Circulars & the instruction issued from
time to time, as well as in derogation of principle of
natural justice. As such an action of the management of
N.F.Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati is illegal and not
justified. Accordingly it is held that the workman is
entitled to relief.
In the face of the findings arrived at as above, it is
held that the workman is entitled to be reinstated as SE
Peon or in Group-D or now equivalent post in Railway
with his inter se seniority as on the date of his
engagement. As regards the backwages as claimed by the
workman it may be mentioned here that the workman has
not been able to substantiate his claim for backwages
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 5] 2015@vxzgk;.k 14] 1937
4533
showing that he was not engaged in any occupation of
profit and that he remain without any job. However it is
also found in his evidence that the workman was employed
as casual worker after his dismissal. In this connection I
am inclined to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Rajasthan Lalit Kola Academy –vrs—
Radhey Shyam published in 2008 LAB IC 3894,
“ Once the termination of service of an employee is
held to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement is
ordinarily available to the employee. But the relief
of reinstatement with full back-wages need not be
granted automatically in every case where the Labour
Court/Industrial Tribunal records the finding that
the termination of services of a workman was in
violation of the provisions of the Act. For this
purpose, several factors, like the manner and method
of selection; nature of appointment—ad hoc, daily-
wage, temporary or permanent etc., period for which
the workman had worked and the delay in raising
industrial dispute, are required to be taken into
consideration.”
In Pramod Kumar Dubey—vrs— Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court and 3 othrs published in 2014
LLR 1157(Allahabad), it was held that “reinstatement with
backwages not a rule; and relief of reinstatement in cases
of wrongful dismissal of an employee, depends upon host
of factors like manner and method of appointment, nature
of employment, length of services, etc.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Brassware
Corporation Ltd..—vrs— Udai Narain Pandey, 2006 (1)
SCC 479;
“18. Coming back to back-wages, even if the Court
finds it necessary to award back-wages, the question
will be whether back-wages should be awarded fully
or only partially (and if so the percentage). This
depends upon the facts and circumstances of each
case. Any income received by the employee during
the relevant period on account of alternative
employment or business is a relevant factor to be
taken note of while awarding backwages, in addition
to the several factors mentioned in Rudhan Singh
(supra) and Udai Narain Pandey (supra). Therefore,
it is necessary for the employee to plead that he was
not gainfully employed from the date of his
termination. While an employee can not be asked
to prove the negative, he has to at least assert on
oath that he was neither employed nor engaged in
any gainful business or venture and that he did not
have any income. Then the burden will shift to the
employer. But there is however, no obligation on the
terminated employee to search for or secure
alternative employment.”
11.
From the materials on record it is found that the
workman during his employment as SE Peon remained
absent without any authority for some time and he also
was found too late in raising the dispute and hence, there
is some negligence and latches on the part of the workman
to fight for his causes for which the management is not
liable to shoulder the responsibility of the backwages for
the whole period of his absence from the duty with effect
from 16.4.01. In this regard I find it wise to award a lump
sum amount of compensation in lieu of the back-wage,
which I hope will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly an
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- ( Rupees two lakhs) is awarded as
lump sum money towards his back-wages.
12.
Accordingly this reference is disposed of awarding
re-instatement of the workman as SE Peon , or group D or
the equivalent post now available with a lump sum back-
wages amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- ( Rupees two lakhs) in
favour of the workman.
Send the award to the Ministry as per procedure.
Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this
30th day of September,2015, at Guwahati.
L. C. DEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2237-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVSaMMZ pkVZMZ
cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k] dksydkrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 03@2015) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@17@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 30th November, 2015
S.O. 2237.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 03/2015)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between management of Standard Chartered Bank
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 30-11-2015.
[No. L-12012/17/2015-IR (B-I)]
VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 03 of 2015
Parties :
Employers in relation to the management
of Standard Chartered Bank
4534
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 5, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AND
Their workmen
Present :
JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
Appearance :
On behalf of the
:
Mr. S. Roy, Ld. Counsel
Management
On behalf of the
:
None
Workmen
State : West Bengal
Industry : Banking
Dated: 4th November, 2015
AWARD
By Order No.L-12012/17/2015-IR(B-I) dated
30.01.2015 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of
the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of Standard
Chartered Bank in terminating the services of Mr.
Sagnik Srestha Mukherjee, Ex-Relationship Manager
without following statutory rules and regulation is
justified? If not, what relief the workmen are
entitled?”
2.
When the case is taken up today for hearing, Ld.
Counsel appearing for the management files a petition
alongwith the photo copy of the order passed by the
Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in connection with the W.P.
No. 20471 (W) of 2015.
3.
It appears from the said order that the instant order
of reference dated 30.01.2015 has been set aside by the
Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta.
4.
Considering the above, instant reference is disposed
of.
Dated, Kolkata,
The 4th November, 2015
JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2238-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ
cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k] dksydkrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 48@2014) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@20@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 30th November, 2015
S.O. 2238.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 48/2014)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between management of Bhartiya Reserve Bank
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 30-11-2015.
[No. L-12011/20/2014-IR (B-I)]
VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 48 of 2014
Parties :
Employers in relation to the management
of Bhartiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Ltd.
AND
Their workmen
Present :
JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
Appearance :
On behalf of the : Mr. M. R. Sarbadhikari, Ld. Counsel
Management
On behalf of the : Mr. B. Mukherjee, Ld. Counsel
Workmen
State : West Bengal
Industry : Banking
Dated: 3rd November, 2015
AWARD
By Order No.L-12011/20/2014-IR(B-I) dated
27.05.2014 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of
the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of Bhartiya
Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Ltd. by issuing
Circular No. 1 (BNM No. 1622/02.02.14/2012-
13 dated September 28, 2012) by changing the
methodology/modalities of calculation of
performance which hampers the interest of
workmen is legal and or justified or not? If not,
what relief the workmen are entitled for?”
2.
When the case is taken up today for hearing, Ld.
Counsel for both the parties appear. Ld. Counsel for the
union files an application and submits that dispute between
the parties has been amicably settled out of the Tribunal
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 5] 2015@vxzgk;.k 14] 1937
4535
and as such the union does not want to proceed with the
case further. Ld. Counsel for the management submits that
the management has got no objection if no dispute award
is passed.
3.
Since the union at whose instance, instant reference
has been initiated, does not want to proceed with the matter
further, this Tribunal has no other alternative but to
dispose of the reference by passing a “No Dispute Award”.
3.
In view of the above, instant reference is disposed
of by passing a “No Dispute Award”.
Dated, Kolkata,
The 3rd November, 2015
JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2239-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 34@2014) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41011@94@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 30th November, 2015
S.O. 2239.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2014)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. 1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between management of Westen
Railway and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 30-11-2015.
[No. L-41011/94/2014-IR (B-I)]
VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI
Present :
JUSTICE S. P.MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-1/34 OF 2014
Parties:
Employers in relation to the management of
Western Railway
and
Their workmen
Appearances:
For the first party/
:
Mrs. Jothi Panvalkar, Adv.
Management No.1 and 2
For the second party/
:
None present
Workman
State
:
Maharashtra
Mumbai, dated the 5th day of October, 2015
AWARD
1.
The present Reference has been made by the Central
Government by its order dated 12.12.2014 passed in exercise
of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1)
and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of reference as per the
Schedule to the said order are as under:
“Whether the action of the management of Western
Railway, Mumbai Division in recovering the amount
from the salary of 10 employees as per the list
enclosed, to the extent of fake/forged notes received
by them at the counter while issuing the railway
reservation tickets even after using the fake note
detecting machine provided by the Railway
Administration, without providing an opportunity
to be heard, is just and legal? If not, what relief the
workmen are entitled to?”
2.
By the Order dated 22.12.2014, this Tribunal directed
for issuance of notice to the parties fixing 27.2.2015.
3.
As per the directions given in the Order dated
22.12.2014, notices were issued by Registered Post AD to
the first party/Management as well as to the second party/
Union.
4.
Pursuant to the Order dated 22.12.2014, the case was
put up before the Tribunal on 27.2.2015.
5.
As noted in the Order dated 27.2.2015, notices issued
as per the directions given in the Order dated 22.12.2014
were duly served on the parties, and the respective
Acknowledgement Cards had been received back. Mrs.Jyoti
Panvalkar, learned counsel for the first party/Management
Nos.1 and 2 was present on the said date, i.e., 27.2.2015.
However, none was present on behalf of the second party
/ Union. In the circumstances, by the Order dated
27.2.2015, the case was adjourned to 27.4.2015 for filing
Statement of Claim.
6.
Pursuant to the Order dated 27.2.2015, the case was
put up before the Tribunal on 27.4.2015. As noted in the
Order passed on the said date i.e., 27.4.2015, Mrs. Jyoti
Panvalkar, filed her Vakalatnama on behalf of the first
party/Management Nos.1 and 2. However, despite service
of notice,none was present for the second party/Union.
In the circumstances, the Tribunal by the Order dated
27.4.2015, adjourned the case to 22.6.2015 for filing
Statement of Claim.
4536
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 5, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7.
Pursuant to the Order dated 27.4.2015, the case was
put up before the Tribunal on 22.6.2015. As noted in the
Order passed on the said date i.e., 22.6.2015, Mrs.Jothi
Panvalkar, learned counsel for the first party/Management
Nos.1 and 2 was present. However, none was present on
behalf of the second party / Union. In the circumstances,
the Tribunal by the Order dated 22.6.2015, adjourned the
case to 31.8.2015for filing Statement of Claim.
8.
Pursuant to the Order dated 22.6.2015, the case was
put up before the Tribunal on 31.8.2015.
9.
On 31.8.2015, as noted in the Order passed on the
said date, Mrs.Geeta Raju holding brief for Mrs.Jothi
Panvalkar, learned counsel for the first party/Management
Nos.1 and 2 was present. However, none was present on
behalf of the second party / Union. In the circumstances,
the Tribunal by the Order dated 31.8.2015, adjourned the
case to 5.10.2015 for filing Statement of Claim.
10.
Pursuant to the Order dated 31.8.2015, the case is
put up today.
Mrs.Jothi Panvalkar, learned counsel for the first party/
Management Nos.1 and 2 is present. However, none is
present on behalf of the second party/Union. No
Vakalatnama on behalf of the second party/Union has been
filed. No Statement of Claim has so far been filed on behalf
of the second party/Union.
11.
From the above narration of facts, it is evident that
despite service of notice and despite the case having been
repeatedly adjourned on various dates, none has put in
appearance on behalf of the second party/Union. No
Statement of Claim has so far been filed on behalf of the
second party/Union.
12.
Thus, it is evident that there is neither any pleading
nor evidence filed on behalf of the second party/Union in
support of the Claim as contained in the aforesaid
Reference.
13.
No relief can, therefore, be granted to the second
party/Union.
14.
The Reference made to this Tribunal is consequently
answered by stating that no relief can be granted to the
second party/Union.
15.
Award is passed accordingly.
JUSTICE S. P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2240-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eè; fcgkj
xzkeh.k cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 26@2015) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@32@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 30th November, 2015
S.O. 2240.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2015)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between management of Madhya Bihar
Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 30-11-2015.
[No. L-12011/32/2015-IR (B-I)]
VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under
Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D.Act.,1947.
REFERENCE NO 26 OF 2015
PARTIES :
The President,
Bihar Provincial Gramin Bank
Employees Association,
Saboo Complex, Behind Hotel Republic,
Exhibition Road, Patna (Bihar)-1
Vs.
The Chairman,
Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank,
H.Q: Meena Plaza, South of Museum,
Patna (Bihar)-1.
Order No.L-12011/32/2015-IR(B-I)
dt.17.04.2015.
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the
:
Mr. B. Prasad, Union
Workman/Union
Representative
On behalf of the
:
Mr. Dhananjay Kumar,
Management
Manager as Representative
State : Bihar
Industry : Banking
Dated, Dhanbad, the 19th Oct., 2015
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 5] 2015@vxzgk;.k 14] 1937
4537
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No. L-12011/32/2015-IR (B-I) dt.17.04.2015.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of
Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (MBGB) to terminate
the service of workman Sri Awadhesh Prasad was
correct and valid when he demanded for
regularization of his service? If not, what relief the
workman is entitled for?”
2.
Neither the Union Representative nor the workman
concerned nor any Representative for Management made
appearance despite several opportunities provided to the
both litigant parties, though a petition was moved by the
Union Representative/Workman before the Court on
29.09.2015 to close the case as the case stands for filing
of W.S by the workman.
On perusal of the case record, it seems that the
both the parities have no longer interested to contest the
case since its inception after its registration on
17.04.2015. It also appears that there is no dispute
existing in between the both the parties as the workman
concerned is not inclined to contest the case as the
written petition moved by the Union Representative
.Under these circumstances, it would not be proper to
drag it on for uncertain period. Thus the case is closed
and a ‘No Dispute’ is passed. Accordingly, a ‘No Dispute
Award’is passed.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2241-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bafM;u
vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM rFkk eSllZ fcfgo flD;wfjfV ,.M l£oysal
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
140@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-11-
2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@49@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 30th November, 2015
S.O. 2241.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 140/
2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
M/s. Beehive Security and Surveillance and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 26-11-2015.
[No. L-30012/49/2012-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
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. 140/2012
Shri Surat Singh,
S/o Shri Girdhari Lal,
R/o House No.480, Sector 7,
Housing Board Colony,
Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar,
Haryana
...Workman
Versus
1.
The Manager,
Indane Gas Terminal,
M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Tikri Kalan,
Delhi – 110 041
2.
M/s Beehive Security & Surveillance,
House No.43, Rathi Enclave,
New Roshan Vihar,
Kakraula More, Najafgarh,
Delhi – 110 043
...Management
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-30012/49/2012-
IR(M) dated 28.10.2012, referred the following industrial
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s
Beehive Security & Surveillance in terminating the
services of Shri Surat Singh, S/o Shri Girdhari Lal
from IOC Depot, Tikri Kalan, Delhi with effect from
20.09.2011, is legal and justified? What relief the
workman is entitled to?’’
2.
Claim statement was filed by the workman and written
statements were filed by both the managements. On perusal
of pleadings, it was observed by my learned predecessor,
on 30.07.2013, that no other issue, than those referred by
the appropriate Government for adjudication was made
out. Thereafter, the case was listed for evidence of the
parties, with directions to the claimant to conclude first.
However, despite affording 17 opportunities to the
workman, neither the workman nor any authorized
representative on his behalf appeared before the Tribunal
4538
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 5, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
so as to pursue his case. Thus, it is clear that the workman
is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance
nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his 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.
Dated : November 20, 2015
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2242-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bafM;u
vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM rFkk eSllZ fcfgo flD;wfjfV ,.M l£oysal
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
143@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
26-11-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@42@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 30th November, 2015
S.O. 2242.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 143/
2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
M/s. Beehive Security and Surveillance and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 26-11-2015.
[No. L-30012/42/2012-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
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. 143/2012
Shri Ram Chander,
S/o Shri Tek Chand,
R/o Village Bhaproda,
Tehsil Bahadurgarh,
Distt. Jhajjar,
Haryana Pana 12 Bisa
...Workman
Versus
1.
The Manager,
Indane Gas Terminal,
M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Tikri Kalan,
Delhi-110 041
2.
M/s Beehive Security & Surveillance,
House No. 43, Rathi Enclave,
New Roshan Vihar,
Kakraula More, Najafgarh,
Delhi-110 043
...Management
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-30012/42/
2012 IR(M) dated 28.10.2012, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s
Beehive Security & Surveillance in terminating the
services of Shri Ram Chander, S/o Shri Tek Chand
from IOC Depot, Tikri Kalan, Delhi with effect from
20.09.2011, is legal and justified? What relief the
workman is entitled to?
2.
Claim statement was filed by the workman and written
statements were filed by both the managements. On perusal
of pleadings, it was observed by my learned predecessor,
on 30.07.2013, that no other issue, than those referred by
the appropriate Government for adjudication was made
out. Thereafter, the case was listed for evidence of the
parties, with directions to the claimant to conclude first.
However, despite affording 17 opportunities to the
workman, neither the workman nor any authorized
representative on his behalf appeared before the Tribunal
so as to pursue his case. Thus, it is clear that the workman
is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance
nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his 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.
Dated : November 20, 2015
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2243-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bafM;u
vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM rFkk eSllZ fcfgo flD;wfjfV ,.M l£oysal
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 5] 2015@vxzgk;.k 14] 1937
4539
142@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-11-
2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@53@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 30th November, 2015
S.O. 2243.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 142/
2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
M/s. Beehive Security and Surveillance and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 26-11-2015.
[No. L-30012/53/2012-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
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. 142/2012
Shri Sushil Kumar,
S/o Shri Dhan Ram,
R/o Village Sisana,
Distt. Sonipat,
Haryana
...Workman
Versus
1.
The Manager,
Indane Gas Terminal,
M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Tikri Kalan,
Delhi-110 041
2.
M/s Beehive Security & Surveillance,
House No. 43, Rathi Enclave,
New Roshan Vihar,
Kakraula More, Najafgarh,
Delhi-110 043
...Management
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-30012/53/
2012-IR(M) dated 28.10.2012, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s
Beehive Security & Surveillance in terminating the
services of Shri Sushil Kumar, S/o Shri Dhan Ram
from IOC Depot, Tikri Kalan, Delhi with effect
from 25.08.2011, is legal and justified? What relief
the workman is entitled to?’’
2.
Claim statement was filed by the workman and written
statements were filed by both the managements. On perusal
of pleadings, it was observed by my learned predecessor,
on 30.07.2013, that no other issue, than those referred by
the appropriate Government for adjudication was made
out. Thereafter, the case was listed for evidence of the
parties, with directions to the claimant to conclude first.
However, despite affording 17 opportunities to the
workman, neither the workman nor any authorized
representative on his behalf appeared before the Tribunal
so as to pursue his case. Thus, it is clear that the workman
is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance
nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his 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.
Dated : November 20, 2015
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2244-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bafM;u
vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM rFkk eSllZ fcfgo flD;wfjfV ,.M l£oysal
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k
,oa Je U;k;ky; 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 141@2012)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-11-2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@51@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 30th November, 2015
S.O. 2244.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 141/
2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., M/s.
Beehive Security and Surveillance and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on
26-11-2015.
[No. L-30012/51/2012-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
4540
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 5, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. 141/2012
Shri Ram Singh,
S/o Shri Jai Narayan,
R/o Village Garhi Sisana,
Post Sisana, Distt. Sonipat,
Haryana
...Workman
Versus
1.
The Manager,
Indane Gas Terminal,
M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Tikri Kalan,
Delhi-110 041
2.
M/s Beehive Security & Surveillance,
House No. 43, Rathi Enclave,
New Roshan Vihar,
Kakraula More, Najafgarh,
Delhi-110 043
...Management
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-30012/51/2012-
IR(M) dated 28.10.2012, referred the following industrial
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s.
Beehive Security & Surveillance in terminating the
services of Shri Ram Singh, S/o Shri Jai Narayan
from IOC Depot, Tikri Kalan, Delhi with effect from
12.10.2011, is legal and justified? What relief the
workman is entitled to?
2.
Claim statement was filed by the workman and written
statements were filed by both the managements. On perusal
of pleadings, it was observed by my learned predecessor,
on 30.07.2013, that no other issue, than those referred by
the appropriate Government for adjudication was made
out. Thereafter, the case was listed for evidence of the
parties, with directions to the claimant to conclude first.
However, despite affording 17 opportunities to the
workman, neither the workman nor any authorized
representative on his behalf appeared before the Tribunal
so as to pursue his case. Thus, it is clear that the workman
is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance
nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his 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.
Dated : November 20, 2015
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2245-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ykbZiQ
ba';ksjsal dkiksZjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] ubZ
fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 82@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-11-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&17025@6@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 30th November, 2015
S.O. 2245.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 82/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of
India and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 26-11-2015.
[No. L-17025/6/2015-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
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. 82/2013
Shri Vimal Kumar,
S/o Late Shri Mam Chand,
C/o 99 C, Pocket I,
Dilshad Garden,
Delhi 110 095
...Workman
Versus
1.
The Senior Divisional Manager,
Division Office, Life Insurance
Corporation of India,
Jiwan Prakash,
Meerut 250 001
2.
The Zonal Manager,
North Central Zone,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
3.
The Chairman,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Jiwan Beema Marg,
Mumbai 400 021
...Management
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 5] 2015@vxzgk;.k 14] 1937
4541
AWARD
Briefly, Shri Vimal Kumar, the claimant herein has
filed a petition under sub-section 2 of section 2A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act), with the
averments that he was appointed as Development Officer
by the management in the pay scale of Rs.2660-7520 and
was confirmed by the management on 26.04.2001.
Workman remained posted as Development Officer in
CBO-3, Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh with
effect from 26.04.2000 to 28.08.2012. Work and conduct of
the workman was excellent but unfortunately he was
placed under suspension by the management on
16.12.2003. After a long suspension of 8 years, 8 months
and 22 days, workman was ultimately dismissed from
service by the management vide order dated 29.08.2012.
During the period of suspension, workman was paid 50%
initially and after 2004, 75% was paid as subsistence
allowance. No other benefits were given to the workman
during this period. Charge sheet was also observed upon
the workman containing various charges which are
mentioned in para 11 of the statement of claim. Workman
was not supplied with copies of evidence recorded during
the course of enquiry. Workman filed his reply to the
departmental enquiry and order of punishment, i.e.
Dismissal from service vide order dated 29.08.2012 has
been alleged to be null and void and without application
of mind. It has been alleged that the disciplinary authority
has not followed rules and regulations as well as principles
of natural justice and passed order in breach of law laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and various rulings.
Finally, prayer has been made for quashing of order dated
29.08.2012 and reinstatement in service from the said date
with full back wages.
2.
Reply to the petition has been filed on behalf of the
management wherein preliminary objections regarding non
disclosure of cause of action, non-maintainability of the
claim petition etc. have been taken. It is also alleged that
the workman herein is not a workman within the meaning
of Section 2(s) of the Act. He was a class II officer . Reliance
has been placed upon the judgement of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of H.R. Adyanthaya & Ors. Vs.
Sandoz India) Ltd. & Ors. (1994) 5 SCC 737. Further, it is
alleged that alternative statutory remedy is available to
the workman. The management has also alleged that the
enquiry is perfectly in accordance with rules and
regulations and punishment awarded is legally valid and
has made a prayer for dismissal of the claim.
3.
My learned predecessor vide a order dated
29.08.2013, framed the following issues:
(i)
Whether the claimant is a workman within the
meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947?
(ii)
Whether enquiry conducted by the management
is just, fair and proper?
(iii)
Whether punishment of dismissal awarded vide
order dated 29.08.2012 commensurate to his
misconduct?
(iv)
Whether claimant is entitled to relief of
reinstatement in service of the management.
4.
Issue No.(i) and (ii) were treated as preliminary
issues and parties were directed to adduce evidence on
the same.
5.
However, when the case was at the stage of evidence,
an application was moved on behalf of the workman for
withdrawal of the case and reference was made to the
judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Chauharya Tripathi and others Vs. LIC of India &
Ors.(2015) 7 SCC 263 and in that it was held that
Development Officer does not fall within the definition of
workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
6.
I have carefully gone through the ratio of judgement
in the above noted case. It is clear from perusal of the
above judgement that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set
at rest the controversy that Development Officer does not
fall within the definition of ‘workman’ within the meaning
of Section 2(s) of the Act. In view of this, petition filed by
the workman herein is not legally maintainable before this
Tribunal inasmuch as workman herein does not fall within
the definition of ‘workman’ defined in the act.
Consequently, permission is granted for withdrawal of the
above petition. An award is accordingly passed. Let this
award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required
under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for
publication.
Dated : November 19, 2015
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 fnlEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2246-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ-,l-
vkbZ- dkiksZjs'ku ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 245@1993) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
2-12-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&15012@2@1993&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2015
S.O. 2246.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 245/
1993) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
4542
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 5, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of M/s. ESI Corporation and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 2-12-2015.
[No. L-15012/2/1993-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/245/93
Shri Nikhil Jani,
Flat No.9/2, Analtas Complex,
Near Manisha Market,
Shahpura, Bhopal
...Workman
Versus
Manager,
ESI Corporation,
New Subhash Nagar,
Bhopal
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 17th day of November 2015
1.
As per letter dated 13-12-93 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-15012/
2/93-IR(Misc.)The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of ESIC in
terminating the services of Shri Nikhil Jani w.e.f.
1-4-91 is justified? If not, to what relief, the workman
is entitled to?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page
7/1 to 7/5. Case of Ist party is that he was appointed in
ESI Corporation as LDC on 9-4-85. He worked with
honesty and dedication. His service record was
unblemished. Chargesheet was issued to him on 22-6-90
alleging certain misconduct. That Ist party workman had
taken frequent leave. He submitted reply to chargesheet
on 9-11-90 denying charges against him. That issuing
chargesheet and calling his explanation was empty
formality. The Disciplinary Authority has already made up
mind to hold enquiry against him of charges alleged on
22-6-90. That Shri R.K. Kapoor was appointed as Enquiry
officer. ShriP.C.Verma was appointed as Presenting Officer.
Both of them were from legal background. Ist party workman
was unaware of legal procedure in DE. Despite mandatory
provisions in Service Rules, his request for appointing
co-worker to Shri P.S.Malane was rejected. Enquiry Officer
was acting under control of Disciplinary Authority. The
Enquiry Proceeding was conducted without proper
intimation to him in violation of service rules and principles
of natural justice. Enquiry Officer recorded statement of
management’s witnesses in his absence without prior
intimation to him. He was not supplied copy of Enquiry
Report, showcause notice was not issued to him before
imposing punishment of removal from service. The
punishment imposed against him is excessive. The
Disciplinary Authority was determined to remove him from
service. Chargesheet was issued to him with said oblique
motive. Workman challenged removal of his service before
Appellate Authority, his appeal was dismissed. On such
ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with
backwages.
3.
2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/2
opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that
workman was appointed as LDC on 9-4-85. Chargesheet
was issued to him on 22-6-90. Charges alleged pertains to
frequently availing leave without notice, disobeying orders
of Manager. Workman was absent from 11-7-89 to 13-7-89
and 11-7-89 to 10-8-89 without intimation. Workman was
conducted exparte. All charges against workman were
proved. As per Enquiry Report, workman was given
opportunity for his defence. He failed to avail the same.
The appeal filed by workman was rejected by speaking
order. The dispute raised by workman is not tenable.
4.
Supplementary Written Statement is filed by 2nd
party at Page 9/1 to 9/4. Appointment of workman as LDC
on 9-4-85 is admitted. It is denied that service record of
workman was unblemished. Workman was continuously
absent from 11-7-89 to 10-8-89. He did not join duty at new
place of his posting at Mandsor. Enquiry officer sent
intimation to the workman. Workman had submitted his
resignation on 9-11-90. The resignation was not accepted
as enquiry was pending against him. It is denied that
Enquiry officer and Presenting Officer were from legal
backgrounds. Workman submitted written consent for his
Defence Assistant P.S.Malani. Workman was given
opportunity to inspect relevant documents. However he
disassociated from enquiry. Enquiry was conducted
exparte. Workman was given opportunity to submit
representations to Disciplinary Authority. letter was
received on 22-3-91 with remark refused to accept. Appeal
was rejected by Appellate Authority passing speaking
orders. 2nd party submits that claim of workman cannot
be accepted.
5.
As per order dated 17-6-2015, enquiry conducted
against workman is found vitiated. 2nd party has not
pleaded in Written Statement permission to prove
misconduct adducing evidence, case was fixed for final
argument.
6.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 5] 2015@vxzgk;.k 14] 1937
4543
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the manage-
In Negative
ment of ESIC in terminating the
services of Shri Nikhil Jani w.e.f.
1-4-91 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman
As per final
is entitled to?”
order.
REASONS
7.
As per order dated 16-6-15, enquiry conducted
against workman is found vitiated. Management has not
completed permission to prove misconduct by adducing
evidence. As enquiry conducted against workman is found
vitiated, punishment of removal from service imposed
against workman cannot be said legal. For above reasons,
I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
8.
Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 that
enquiry against is found illegal, management had not
requested permission to prove misconduct alleged against
workman, no evidence is adduced regarding the charges
alleged against workman. Punishment imposed against
workman cannot be sustained, question remains for
consideration whether workman is entitled for
reinstatement with backwages. As discussed above,
enquiry is vitiated and management has not adduced
evidence to prove charges. Workman in his cross-
examination says that he was not allowed to join duty
during the Enquiry Proceedings. No evidence is adduced
by parties on the point whether workman was in gainful
employment after termination of his service. Evidence of
workman is silent. Considering above aspects and enquiry
was found vitiated, charges are not proved, reinstatement
of workman with 50 % backwages would be appropriate.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.
9.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management of ESIC in
terminating the services of Shri Nikhil Janiw.e.f.
1-4-91 is not proper and legal.
(2) Order of removal of Ist party workman is set-
aside. 2nd party is directed to reinstate workman
with continuity of service and 50 % backwages.
(3) 2nd party shall also pay cost of proceeding
Rs.3000/- to the workman.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 fnlEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2247-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj
fuxe fyfeVsM] jryke ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@59@03) dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@252@2002&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2015
S.O. 2247.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No.
CGIT/LC/R/59/03) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Ratlam and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 30/11/2015.
[No. L-40012/252/2002-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/59/03
Shri Kamla Prasad Tiwari
C/o Saligram Mishra, A-163,
Housing Colony, Vinoba Nagar,
Ratlam (MP)
...Workman
Versus
Telecom District Engineer,
BSNL, Office of TDE,
Ratlam
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 6th day of November 2015
1.
As per letter dated 25-3-03 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
40012/252/2002-IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Telecom
District engineer, Ratlam in terminating the services
of Shri Kamla Prasad Tiwari w.e.f. 4-11-95 and not
regularizing him even after completing 240 days
in a calendar year is justified? If not, to what relief
he is entitled for?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/4. Unfortunately it is not signed either by
workman or his counsel. Case of workman is that he was
initially engaged as casual labour in June 1984 by
department of 2nd party. He was getting salary after
4544
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 5, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
putting signature on muster roll. He was given artificial
break. Workman continued to work till 1995. He was not
issued attendance certificate about working days by
department. He was continuously discharging his duties.
That 2nd party No.3 issued certificate about his working
period. Ministry of Labour, Government of India issued
various circulars providing regularization of casual
labours. Circular dated 17-12-93 provided to grant
temporary status to Government Servants. Ist party
workman further submits that completed more than 240
days continuous service during each of the year. He was
not granted benefit of regularization of his service. He
was denied equality before law in violation of Article
14,16 of the constitution. 2nd party had introduced
scheme for regularization of casual labours in 1989. The
employees working prior to 30-3-85 and continued to
work as on 7-11-89. Casual labour completing 240 days
in an year. The claim of workman was not considered for
regularization. 2nd party adopted hostile discrimination
denying regularization of his service. Original
applications 427/96 was filed by workman for
regularization of his service. Said petition was dismissed
on 9-2-01 observing to approach this Tribunal. Workman
prays direction for regularisation of his services from
the time of his discontinuation.
3.
2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 12/2 to
12/3 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party reiterates
that workman had not continuously worked more than
240 days during any of the calendar year. He is not
employee under Section 25 B of ID Act. He is not entitled
to any relief. The particulars of his working days are
given in 2nd para of Written Statement. Workman worked
for 69 days in Sept to November 87, 60 days in Sept to
Nov-87, 60 days during Feb to July 88. That 2nd party
No.3 had not issued any certificate about working of Ist
party workman. Ist party workman did not worked with
Ratlam Division from July 84 to July 85 & Sept 87 to
July 88. Workman not completed 240 days continuous
service during any of the year. He was not entitled for
benefit of regularization. 2nd party prayed for rejection
of claim of workman.
4.
Ist party workman filed rejoinder at Page 15/1 to
15/2 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
Workman reiterates that he worked more than 240 days.
That 2nd party be directed to produce record of muster
roll, salary payments.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the manage- In Affirmative
ment of Telecom District engineer,
Ratlam in terminating the services
of Shri Kamla Prasad Tiwari w.e.f.
4-11-95 and not regularizing him
even after completing 240 days in
a calendar year is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
Workman is
entitled to?”
not entitled
to any relief.
REASONS
6.
Term of reference pertains to legality of termination
of workman from 4-11-95 and denial of regularisation after
completion of 240 days continuous service. Workman filed
affidavit of his evidence. Workman contented that he was
working with 2nd party from July 84 to June 85.Workman
in his affidavit says that he was initially engaged as casual
labour in June 1994. He was continued in service till 1995.
Artificial breaks were shown by the department that 2nd
party No.3 had issued certificate dated 14-5-87. That he
was working in the department. He completed 240 days
continuous service. He was denied regularization. 2nd
party discontinued his services without issuing any order.
Workman remained absent for his cross-examination.
Therefore his evidence cannot be considered.
7.
2nd party filed affidavit of evidence of Harkesh
Singh. Management’s witness in his affidavit of evidence
says that Ist party workman worked for 70 days in
September 1987, 23 days in October 87, 29 days in
Feb89, total 129 days. Workman was engaged as
temporary employee as per exigency. He not completed
240 days during any of the year. Management’s witness
was not cross-examined on behalf of workman. His
evidence remained unchallenged. Workman had not
appeared for his cross-examination. He failed to cross-
examine management’s witness. I find no reason to
disbelieve unchallenged evidence of management’s
witness. Workman has failed to establish that he worked
more than 240 days during any of the year. Termination
of his service in violation of ID Act is not established.
Therefore I record my finding in Point No.,1 in
Affirmative.
8.
In view of my finding in Point No.1 services of
workman is found proper and legal, workman is not
entitled to any relief.
9.
Ratio relied by Shri R.S. Khare for 2nd party in
case of MP State Agro Industries Development
corporation and another versus S.C.Pandey reported in
2006(2)SCC-716 and Ajaypal singh versus Haryana
Warehousing Corporation reported in 2015(2)
SCC(L&S) – 279 needs no discussion as workman has
failed to establish that he completed 240 days continuous
service during any of the year. Workman is not entitled
to any relief. Accordingly I record my finding in Point
No.2.
10.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Telecom District
engineer, Ratlam in terminating the services of Shri
Kamla Prasad Tiwari w.e.f. 4-11-95 and not
regularizing him even after completing 240 days
is proper and legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 5] 2015@vxzgk;.k 14] 1937
4545
ubZ fnYyh] 2 fnlEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2248-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZeasaV vkWiQ
VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] Hkksiky ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@316@99) dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@237@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2015
S.O. 2248.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No.
CGIT/LC/R/316/99) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the Department
of Telecommunication, Bhopal and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 30/11/2015.
[No. L-40012/237/99-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/316/99
Shri Kaluram Malviya,
R/o Mehpura,
Shahapur Distt.
...Workman
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Deptt. of Telecommunication,
Hoshangabad road,
MP Circle, Bhopal (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 6th day of November 2015
1.
As per letter dated 21-10-99 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-40012/
237/99/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Chief
General Manager, Telecom in terminating the
services of shri Kaluram Malviya w.e.f. 26-3-99 is
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page
2/1 to 2/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was
appointed as labour in office of Sub Divisional Engineer,
Telecom shajapur i.e. 2nd party No.4 in January 1987. 2nd
party No. 2,3 are the Controlling Authorities. That the
appointments of casual labour were made with approval
of the administration. The management had not taken steps
for regularisation of casual employees. Employees Union
filed Writ Petition in Hon’ble Supreme Court. The judgment
was reported in AIR-1987-SC-2342. The Apex Court had
issued direction to the Telecom Department for introducing
scheme for regularisation of daily wage labours.
Accordingly scheme was introduced by the 2nd party from
7-11-89. The scheme provided regularisation of daily wage
employees who worked prior to 30-3-85. In Original
Application No. 1476/90, CAT Delhi in case Murari singh
Versus Govt. of India held that cut off date in the scheme
for giving benefit of regularisation was illegal. Ist party
workman submits that the service was satisfactory.
Workman was orally terminated on directions of 2nd party
No.2,3. His services are terminated without notice, no
retrenchment compensation was paid to him. Termination
of his service is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act.
Workman had contented that he completed 240 days
continuous service without paying retrenchment
compensation or issuing notice of termination. The
services are orally terminated is illegal. Workman was paid
Rs.1200 per month less than minimum wages. On such
ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with
backwages.
3.
2nd party filed Written Statement at page 5/1 to 5/
2 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party reiterates that
workman was never working with establishment of 2nd
party. Workman was not appointed since 1987 or 1989. As
workman was not working on its establishment, there is
no question of completing 240 days of service by
workman. Termination of service of workman in violation
of Section 25-F is denied. Workman is not entitled for
compensation neither he is entitled for absorption as
permanent labour. As workman was never engaged, there
was no question of obtaining his signature in the record.
On all such contentions, 2nd party prays for rejection of
claim of workman.
4.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the manage-
In Negative
ment of Chief General Manager,
Telecom in terminating the services
of Shri Kaluram Malviya w.e.f.
26-3-99 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
As per final
entitled to?”
order.
4546
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 5, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REASONS
5.
Workman is challenging termination of his service
for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman in his
affidavit of evidence says that he was continuously
working with 2nd party from 87 to 99. He had completed
more than 240 days continuous service during each of the
year. He was working under DE Telecom Shajapur presently
known as BSNL. 2nd party has not followed Section 25
G,H of ID Act. Juniors are retained in service. In his cross-
examination, Ist party workman says the post on which
he was working was not advertised. He claims ignorance
whether the notice was displayed on notice board. He
was not interviewed. His name was not called from
Employment Exchange. Written test was not conducted.
Appointment letter was not issued to him. He denies that
he was not working in Telecom Department.
6.
Management’s witness Deewakar filed affidavit of
his evidence. Management’s witness says as per record
available in office of TDM, Shajapur, workman was never
engaged. The claim of workman for regularization is
baseless. In his cross-examination, management’s witness
says during 1990 to 1998, whether casual labours were
engaged at Shajapur, he has no information. He was unable
to tell names of working at Shajapur from 1990 to 98. Again
workman filed affidavit of his evidence. Workman says
that management framed scheme for giving temporary
status of casual employees engaged after 30-3-85 to 22-6-
88. That he had worked in department from Feb 88 to 99
under SDO(II) , Shajapur. He worked more than 240 days
during each of the year, he was not granted temporary
status, his service were terminated from Feb 99. In
conciliation proceeding before ALC, Bhopal,
management’s witness had admitted he worked more than
240 days during Feb88 to 99. In his cross-examination,
workman says he had earlier filed affidavit of his evidence.
He admits that Umrao Singh and Shivkant Pandey have
given evidence before ALC supporting his claim. He denies
that he had never worked in the department.
7.
Application for production of documents was
submitted on behalf of workman on 26-6-03. 2nd party did
not produce documents. No reply to the application was
filed despite the application was allowed on 22-11-04.
Management of 2nd party by not producing the documents
disobeyed order. Material documents are suppressed
by management. If evidence of workman is considered
with the evidence of management’s witness,
management’s witness was not working during relevant
period, he even doesnot know about the daily wage labours
engaged in the department, the names of Engineers
working during the relevant period. On the other hand,
evidence of workman is that he was working in the
department. In conciliation proceedings before ALC,
management’s witness has admitted that the workman
worked more than 240 days remained unchallenged. It
would have been proper on part of workman to produce
the copies of evidence recorded before ALC, Bhopal. The
copies of the deposition recorded before ALC are not
produced. If evidence is carefully appreciated, I donot
find reason to disbelieve the evidence of workman when
management’s witness has no personal knowledge about
his working. The management has failed to produce the
material documents despite order was passed. Therefore
adverse interference deserves to be drawn against the
management. If the documents directed to be produced
were produced in the matter, same would have supported
workman about claim of working period.
8.
From evidence of record, it is established that
workman had worked more than 240 days, his services
were terminated without notice, no retrenchment
compensation was paid to him. Termination of his service
is illegal for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Accordingly
I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
9.
Point No. l & 2- Termination of workman is illegal as
per my finding in Point No.1, question remains for
consideration whether workman is entitled for
reinstatement with backwages. Evidence of workman in
cross-examination is post was not advertised, he was not
called for interview, appointment letter was not given to
him. Thus his engagement was not following the
recruitment process. Therefore workman cannot be granted
reinstatement with backwages. Considering the period of
working, compensation Rs.One Lakh would be appropriate.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.
10.
In the result, award is passed as under:
(1)
The action of the management of Chief General
Manager, Telecom in terminating the services of shri
Kaluram Malviya w.e.f. 26-3-99 is not proper and
legal.
(2)
2nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. One
Lakh to the workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In
case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum
from the date of award till its realization.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 fnlEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2249-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mkd foHkkx]
Hkksiky ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@03@05) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 30@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@72@2004&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 5] 2015@vxzgk;.k 14] 1937
4547
New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2015
S.O. 2249.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No.
CGIT/LC/R/03/05) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the Department
of Posts, Bhopal and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 30/11/2015.
[No. L-40012/72/2004-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/3/05
Shri Himanshu Shekhar Giri,
H.No. 128, Panchsheel Nagar,
T.T. Nagar,
Bhopal (MP)
...Workman
Versus
Post Master General,
MP circle, Dak Bhawan,
Deptt. of Posts,
Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 6th day of November 2015
1.
As per letter dated 24-11-2004 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-40012/
72/2004-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Post
Master General, Department of post Office, Bhopal
in terminating the services of Shri Himanshu Shekhar
Giri w.e.f. 10-11-2002 is justified? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim a Page
2/1 to 2/3. Case of Ist party workman is that he was
appointed by management of 2nd party on 22-6-98 for
distribution of postal dak. He was appointed on post of
EDDA. He was illegally terminated on 10-11-2002. He
honestly worked without any complaints. No chargesheet
was issued to him. that Ist party workman was
continuously discharging his duties from 22-6-98 to
10-11-02. He had completing more than 240 days
continuous service. He is entitled for permanent status
under provisions of ID Act. That he was not issued notice,
retrenchment compensation was not paid. Termination of
his services is illegal. One Bindu Markode was employed
after his termination. 2nd party violated Section 25 H of
ID Act as workman was not given opportunity. On such
ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with
backwages.
3.
2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/3
opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that in
department, post of GDS(EDA) is at lowest stage. TRCA
is paid to GDS instead of regular pay. For GDS employee
recruitment and service conditions are provided as per
GDS Service Rules 2001. Earlier the rules were known as
GDS Rules 1964. The engager is entitled only for TRCA,
he is not entitled for any other right or claim either for
regular appointment or regularisation. That workman
Himanshu was engaged on behalf of regular GDS. He
worked in place of regular GDS on leave. He is not entitled
to any relief.
4.
2nd party reiterates that workman was never
appointed as regular EDA or casual labour in the
department. It is denied that services of workman are
illegally terminated on 10-11-02. That the workman was
engaged by EDA on his personal responsibility. He was
not appointed by department. There was no question of
issuing chargesheet or issuing warning to the workman
as he was not appointed by department. That the
provisions of ID Act are not applicable as workman was
never appointed as casual labour, there was no question
of his absorption in department. There was no question
of terminating services of workman by department.
Whenever an EDA proceeds on leave, he is required to
engage his substitute at his risk. As original EDA joins
service returning from leave, the services of workman were
dispensed. On such ground, 2nd party submits that
workman is not entitled to any relief.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the manage-
In Negative
ment of Post Master General,
Department of post Office, Bhopal
in terminating the services of
Shri Himanshu Shekhar Giri w.e.f.
10-11-2002 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
As per final
entitled to?”
orders.
REASONS
6.
The term of reference pertains to legality of
termination of services of workman from 10-11-02.
Workman is challenging termination of his services.
Affidavit of his evidence is filed. In his affidavit of
4548
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 5, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
evidence, workman says he was appointed by
management on 22-6-98 for distribution of dak. His
services were terminated from 10-11-02. That he was
honestly doing his services without any complaints
against him. That his services are covered by the postal
Gramin Dak Sevak Service rules. That till May 2001, he
was continuously in service. In June 2001, he went on
leave submitting application. In muster roll for June 2001
the letter “L” is mentioned which denotes leave. He was
shown substitute to one Jamuna Prasad in October 2001.
That he rendered his services even after Jamuna Prasad
joined his services. In November 2001, his name was
appearing at bottom of Attendance Register showing that
he joined on 8-11-01. Rule 7.2(2) of Gramin Dak Seva
Rules stipulates that in case if a GDS proceeds on leave,
he shall propose name of his substitute. Rule 5(2) is
also quoted by workman. management could not have
engaged substitute in place of GDS for period more than
180 days. That he was discharging his duties regularly
from July 99 to 2001 more than 180 days period. That
he was also shown substitute of the Rasid Ali from February
2002. In his cross-examination, workman says he passed
BA honours. He could read write English and Hindi. He
admits copies of muster register Exhibit M-1 to M-54 as
correct. He did not remember whether appointment letter
was issued to him. Jamuna Prasad was EDA Agent. He
admits he was engaged in place of Jamuna Prasad. He
claims ignorance how his name was received by the
department. He claims ignorance when a regular employee
proceeds on leave, substitute is engaged in is place. His
evidence in cross-examination is contrary to the contents
of Para 6 of his affidavit. In documents Exhibit M-1 to M-
54, copies of muster register name of workman is found
below name of Yuvraj Moe EDA. In cross-examination of
workman, it is not challenged that workman was
continuously working from 22-6-98 to 10-11-02, that he
had completed more than 240 days continuous service.
7.
The evidence of management’s witness is devoted
on point that workman was never appointed as regular
EDA or casual labour. Workman was not illegally
terminated is by way of denial. Workman has produced
copy of postal life insurance at Exhibit W-2 and the
documents produced by management, copy of attendance
M-1 to M-54 supports that workman was continuously
working with 2nd party. his name was shown below name
of Yogesh More.
8.
Evidence on record is clear that workman was
engaged as substitute when regular EDA proceeded on
leave. Section 25-F of ID Act doesnot differentiate
workman working is regularly or engaged as substitute.
If any workman completes continuous service more than
one year, is denied under Section 25 B, services of
workman cannot be terminated without notice. The
evidence of workman is convent that he was continuously
working from 1998 to 10-11-02. Workman is entitled to
protection of Section 25-F of ID Act.
9.
Rule 8 provides-
Engagement of a Sevak who has rendered more
than 3 years continuous service from the date of
his engagement shall be liable to be terminated any
time by a notice in writing given either by the Sevak
to the Recruiting Authority or by the Recruiting
Authority to the Sevak.
2nd party not complied Rule-8 by issuing one
months notice therefore termination of workman is illegal
for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act as well as Rule 8
of Dak Sevak Rules. For above reasons, I record my
finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
10.
Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1,
termination of workman is legal, question remains for
consideration whether workman is entitled for
reinstatement with backwages. As per evidence in cross-
examination of workman, he was not given appointment
letter by the department. As per documents Exhibit M-1
to M-54, name of workman is shown below name of
regular EDA. Workman was not interviewed. His name
was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. Ist
party workman was not appointed following recruitment
rules.
11.
Learned counsel for workman Shri Rajnish Gupta
relies on ratio held in case of
Ajaypal Singh versus Haryana Warehousing
Corporation reported in 2015(6) SCC-321. Their
Lordship held violation of Section 25-F is unfair
labour practice and illegal retrenchment. Their
Lordship held although State or its establishment/
undertaking can order retrenchment of workman
on such ground, but it cannot do so in contravention
of Section 25-F as they would render order illegal
and may amount to unfair labour practice by
employer with object of depriving workman benefits
of ID Act. On facts it was held that order of
retrenchment in violation of Section 25-F being
invalid, relief of reinstatement with full back wages
awarded by Labour Court deserves to be restored.
In present case, workman was not given any
appointment order. He was engaged as substitute during
leave period of the regular EDA. Relief of reinstatement
with backwages would not be justified to the workman.
Learned counsel also relied on ratio held in case of
Jasmer Singh versus State of Haryana and another reported
in 2015(4) SCC-458. Their Lordship considering that the
appellant was appointed as daily paid worker on 1-1-1993
and continued to be so until termination of his service on
31-12-93. The respondent employer on the other hand
contending that appellant had voluntarily left job in August
1993 and thereafter in October 1993 had got himself
engaged in another sub division and again voluntarily
quit job in December 1993. In written statement, respondent
employer stating that appellant had worked for 231 days
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 5] 2015@vxzgk;.k 14] 1937
4549
in the sub division. Thus appellant worked for more than
240 days in establishment of respondent preceding the
date of his termination. The order of Labour Court held
termination order was set-aside, their Lordship upheld
order of reinstatement with backwages.
The facts of present case are not comparable as
workman was not directly employed by department. He
was engaged as substitute during leave period of regular
EDS therefore relief of reinstatement would not be
appropriate. Considering period of working, compensation
Rs. 75,000/- would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly
I record my finding in point No.2.
12.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Post Master
General, Department of Post Office, Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri Himanshu Shekhar
Giri w.e.f. 10-11-2002 is not proper.
(2)
2nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 75,000/-
to the workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In
case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum
from the date of award till its realization.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 fnlEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2250-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj
fuxe fyfeVsM] tcyiqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@130@03) dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@182@2002&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2015
S.O. 2250.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No.
CGIT/LC/R/130/03) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jabalpur and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on 30/11/
2015.
[No. L-40012/182/2002-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/130/03
Shri D. K. Mukherjee, Secretary,
National Federation of Telecom Employee,
NFTE, Telecom Factory,
Right Town, Jabalpur
...Workman
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Telecom Factory,
BSNL, Righit Town,
Jabalpur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 20th day of November 2015
1.
As per letter dated 13-18/2/2003 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
40012/182/2002-IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“ Whether the action of the management of Telecom
Factory, Jabalpur in imposing the penalty of
compulsory retirement on Shri R.D.Khamparia, Ex-
Fitter Grade 2 vide their order No. DIS/IE/2058/
10/90 dated 18-10-00 and depriving him from
other allowance other than the maintenance
allowance for the suspension period from 6-2-91
to 18-10-00 is fair and just? If not, to what relief
the concerned workman is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman through Union submitted
statement of claim at Page 3/1 to 3/7. Case of Ist party
is that the Union is registered under Trade Union Act.
Telecom Factory in wright town is undertaking of
Government of India. In 1991, norms of production by
the National productivity council were introduced by the
management without any discussion. The employees were
opposing it. The petition was filed before CAT in the
matter for staying implementation of the norms of NPC.
The management of 2nd party was annoyed and was in
search of the opportunity to implicate the workman. On
4-2-91, the employees working in Tower Section were
illegally suspended by the chargemen. The workers
started agitations which was continued on 5-2-91. Ist party
workman was suspended on 6-2-91 alleging false charge
of instigating workers appearing in the factory premises.
The charge was alleged under Rule 31 of standing orders.
Shri P.K.Choudhary was appointed as Enquiry Officer.
Workman has requested change of Enquiry Officer but
his request was not accepted. On 15-3-94, appeal was filed.
4550
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 5, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
On 15-5-96, Goverdhan was appointed as Enquiry Officer,
Tapan Chattopadhyay Divisional Engineer and thereafter
Shri N.P. Bathunkar appointed as Enquiry Officer. Enquiry
was prolonged. Enquiry Officer submitted his report
exonerating workman holding that charges are not proved.
The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings
of Enquiry Officer observing that the statement of
management’s witness Bharat, Jangli. The charges against
workman entering the premises unauthorisely and
committed act of indiscipline were held proved.
Showcause notice was issued. Workman contends that
the statement of management’s witnesses are inconsistent
and unreliable. It is emphasized that the charges against
workman are not proved by the evidence in Enquiry
Proceedings. In order to support charges against workman,
letter dated 27-9-02 issuing charges obtained from his false.
That punishment of compulsory retirement against
workman is illegal. The dispute was raised by workman.
The evidence was not properly appreciated. Punishment
of compulsory retirement was imposed against workman.
Enquiry was not properly conducted. The punishment
imposed against workman is inductive. 2nd party imposed
different punishment. Workman Awadh Choubey was fully
censured whereas Shri D.K.Pal and Sharma were imposed
different punishments. The punishment of deducting two
days wages were imposed against some of the employees
for similar misconduct. The punishment imposed against
workman is excessive than the charge alleged under
Rule31(C)(RJ) could not be made out. Chargesheet is
illegal. On such ground, workman prays for setting aside
order of his compulsory retirement and prays for
reinstatement with backwages.
3.
2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/8
opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that
workman Shri R.D.Khamparia Ticket No. 2058 was working
as Filter Master Grade II. On 4-2-91 and 5-2-91, he was not
on duty. He entered in factory premises and given slogans
against management and instigated workers for strike.
Workman alongwith other workers entered in room of Asstt.
Engineer A.N.Gupta unauthorisely. Workman called other
officers in said rooms. 2nd party has contented that
chargesheet was issued to workman, enquiry was
conducted appointing Enquiry Officer. Enquiry Officer
submitted his report. Charges were not proved.
Disciplinary Authority disagreed with findings of Enquiry
Officer after issuing showcause notice, Disciplinary
Authority held charges against workman are proved. The
punishment of compulsory retirement is proved against
workman is legal. It is denied that charges are not supported
by present evidence. The reasons for not agreeing with
the findings of Enquiry Officer are given. 2nd party
reiterates that the punishment of compulsory retirement
imposed against workman is proper and legal. It is denied
that punishment imposed against workman is excessive.
2nd party prays for rejection of claim.
4.
Ist party filed rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/6 reiterating
contentions in statement of claim.
5.
As per order dated 4-3-14, enquiry conducted against
workman is found proper and legal.
6.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the charges alleged
Not proved
against workman is proved
from evidence in Enquiry
proceedings?
(ii) Whether the punishment of In Affirmative
dismissal imposed against
workman is proper and legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
As per final
entitled to?”
order
REASONS
7.
As per order dated 4-3-14, enquiry conducted against
workman is found proper and legal. The point whether
charges alleged against workman are proved needs to be
decided from the evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. The
documents of enquiry are produced. Exhibit W-1 is notice
issued by CAT in Original application 121/91. Document
Exhibit W-2 is memorandum issued to workman, it includes
articles of charges. It is alleged that workman entered in
the premises, given slogans and instigated other workers.
Exhibit W-3 is reply filed by workman denying charges
against him. Workman claimed falsely implicated. Exhibit
W-4 is application submitted by workman for change of
Enquiry Officer. Exhibit W-5 is order rejecting application
for change of Enquiry Officer. Report submitted by Enquiry
Officer is produced at Page 3/39 is also admitted. Parties
are not in dispute that the Enquiry Officer held charges
against workman are not proved. Showcause notice was
issued to workman at Page 3/49 giving reasons by
Disciplinary Authority not agreeing with the findings of
Enquiry Officer. Pointed out the inconsistency could not
be basis for discarding entire evidence. The order of
punishment is produced at Page 3/61, 3/62. Order passed
in appeal is produced at Page 3/65-66. The evidence in
enquiry proceedings is produced at Page 3/58 to 3/60.
Statement of witness at page 3/59 on the point that the
employees entered in the factory premises were giving
slogans Muradabad, Zindabad. Management’s witness
was unable to tell specific name of the workers giving
slogans. The statement of management’s witness Shri
S.C.Khera at page 3/57 is on the point that objecting the
suspension of workers, the workers had entered in office
in his cabin in tower section. Workman were asking for
withdrawal of the suspension of workers. Kranti Prasad,
Srivastava and Gurucharan Yadav were present at that
time. management’s witness Shri D.K.Pal in his statement
at Page 3/59 also corroborates evidence of the witnesses
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 5] 2015@vxzgk;.k 14] 1937
4551
that workers were giving slogans objecting to the
suspension. Workers had entered in office of Asstt.
Engineer Shri Gupta. Statement of witnesses recorded in
Enquiry Proceeding do not show that the workman was
amongst the workers giving slogans and he had instigated
workers. The evidence in Enquiry Proceedings is absolutely
not show what act were committed by workman. The
Enquiry Officer had recorded his findings that charges are
not proved against workman, it was interfered by
Disciplinary Authority without valid reasons. For above
reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
8.
Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1,
charges alleged against workman are not proved from
evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. The punishment of
compulsory retirement cannot be sustained. The
punishment deserves to be set aside. Accordingly I record
my finding in Point No.2.
9.
Point No.3- As charges against workman are not
proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings, the
punishment imposed against workman deserves to be
quashed and set aside. I may also mention here that learned
counsel for 2nd party Shri Himanshu Srivastava donot
advance any argument in the point. He remained absent.
The punishment imposed against workman deserves to
be quashed and set-aside. The affidavit of evidence filed
by workman is silent on the point what he was doing after
punishment imposed by management. Management has
also not adduced evidence about workman was in gainful
employment. Considering those aspects, it would be
appropriate to reinstate workman with 50 % backwages.
10.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management is not proper and
legal.
(2)
2nd party is directed to reinstate workman with
continuity of service with 50 % backwages.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 fnlEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2251-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZeasaV vkWiQ
VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] Hkksiky ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@148@00) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@252@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2015
S.O. 2251.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No.
CGIT/LC/R/148/00) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the Department
of Telecommunication, Bhopal and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 30/11/2015.
[No. L-40012/252/2000-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/148/00
Shri Balchand,
S/o Kamal,
Vill Nohar, Khurd,
Lalitpur (UP)
...Workman
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Deptt. of Telecommunication,
Hoshangabad Road, MP Circle,
Bhopal (MP)
Telecom District Engineer,
Shajapur Distt.
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 26th day of October 2015
1.
As per letter dated 29-8-00 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
40012/252/2000-IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Chief
General Manager Telecom, Bhopal in terminating
Shri Balchand S/o Kamal w.e.f. March 1997 is
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of
claim at Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of Ist party is that he was
engaged as labour in establishment of 2ndparty No.4,5
in June 1989. 2nd party No.1,2,3 are Controlling
Authorities. 2nd party had introduced scheme for
regularization of casual labours working in department
in pursuance of judgment by Supreme court in AIR 1987-
2342. As per the scheme introduced by 2nd party, the
4552
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 5, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman working 30 days prior to March 1985 were
entitled for regularization in OA 1476/98 Union versus
Government of India, directions were given for
regularisation of casual workers. The workman claimed
regularization of his services. As per the scheme, instead
of regularization the workman was orally terminated
from March 1997. Any chargesheet was not issued to
him, no enquiry was conducted. Termination of Section
25-F of ID Act. Workman contented that he worked more
than 240 days in a calendar year. His services are
terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation
is not paid to him. His request for regularization was not
considered. 2nd party management is exploiting him. He
was paid wages Rs. 1600 per month less than the minimum
wages. Workman prays for his reinstatement and
regularization of his service.
3.
2nd party filed Written Statement at Pages 4/1 to 4/
2 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party contends that
workman never worked with the management. Industrial
Dispute does not arise. Workman has not worked since
1989. As workman did not worked in the Sub-division,
there is no question of regularizing his services. There is
no question of violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. when
workman did not work in Sub-division, there was no
question of continuing junior casual labours. Workman
did not worked 240 days during any of the year. There was
no question of payment of retrenchment compensation or
absorption of workman in service.
4.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the manage- In Affirmative
ment of Chief General Manager
Telecom, Bhopal in terminating
Shri Balchand S/o Kamal w.e.f.
March 1997 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
Workman is
entitled to?”
not entitled
to any relief.
REASONS
5.
Workman is challenging termination of his service
for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman has
contented that he worked more than 240 days during each
of the year during June 89 to March 97. Workman filed
affidavit of his evidence but he failed to appear for his
cross-examination. His evidence was closed on
21-8-09. As workman failed to appeared for cross-
examination, his evidence cannot be considered.
6.
Management filed affidavit of witness
Shri J.K.Jethwani supporting contentions of management
that Ist party workman was never engaged in the office of
TDM, Shajapur. Workman is not entitled for regularization.
Management’s witness was cross-examined by Advocate
Shri R.C.Shrivastava. management’s witness in his cross
examination says post of TDM is in Shajapur. He looks
after the administrative work. The management’s witness
is working on post of SDE legal and looks after the Court
matter. Before preparing his affidavit, he had seen Court
file of department. He had also seen pleadings in statement
of claim and Written Statement.
7.
As workman has not appeared for his cross-
examination, his evidence cannot be looked into, claim
of workman is not supported by any evidence. Workman
has failed to establish that he continuously worked more
than 240 days during each of the year during 1989 to
March 97. Therefore protection of Section 25-F of ID
Act is not available to the workman. For above reasons, I
record my finding on Point No.2 in Affirmative.
8.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Chief General
Manager Telecom, Bhopal in terminating Shri
Balchand S/o Kamal w.e.f. March 1997 is proper
and legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 fnlEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2252-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj
fuxe fyfeVsM] f'koiqjh ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@33@11) dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@108@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2015
S.O. 2252.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No.
CGIT/LC/R/33/11) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Shivpuri and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on 30/11/
2015.
[No. L-40012/108/2010-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 5] 2015@vxzgk;.k 14] 1937
4553
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/33/2011
Shri Rajesh Yadav,
S/o Shri Rambharose Yadav,
R/o Vill Thakurpura,
Purana Chhatrawas,
Post Katya Mill,
Shivpuri
...Workman
Versus
District Manager, Telecom,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Telecom Centre,
Shivpuri
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 27th day of October, 2015
1.
As per letter dated 20-4-2011 the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
40012/108/2010-IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“Whether Shri Rajesh Yadav S/o Shri Rambharose
Yadav is a workman within the provisions of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? Whether his
services were terminated by the management of
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited without following
the provisions of law? What relief the applicant
concerned is entitled to?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim on
31-7-12. Case of Ist party workman is that he was engaged
on daily wages by 2nd party No.2 as watchman from
12-10-95. He was paid wages at Collector rate. His
services record was satisfactory. Workman was also
entrusted work of looking after the rest house and office
building. He was assigned work of lineman at Telephone
Exchange, Sirsoda. Workman was doing work of lineman
till his services were orally terminated on 7-8-03. Before
termination of his service, notice was not issued to him,
he was not paid retrenchment compensation. Termination
of his service is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act.
Workman reiterates that he completed 240 days
continuous service. He is covered as employee under
section 25 B of ID Act. He was not regularized in service.
He was orally terminated violating Section 25 N of ID
Act. After termination of his service as lineman, 2nd
party has engaged Baluram Rajak, Tiwari, workman was
not provided employment. No chargesheet was issued to
him or any kind of enquiry was not conducted against
him. Termination of his service is illegal. Workman prays
for reinstatement with backwages.
3.
2nd party filed written Statement opposing claim of
the workman. 2nd party reiterates that Ist party was not
appointed as watchman. Since 1985, post of watchman is
not vacant in its establishment. Workman was not
appointed by management of 2nd party. There was no
question of his transfer. Appointment letter was not issued
to workman. Therefore there was no question of
termination of his services. Protection of Section 25-F is
not applicable to the workman. Ist party is not covered as
employee under Section 25 B of ID Act. All adverse
contentions of workman are denied. The contentions of
workman that his services were orally terminated are
denied. Ist party never worked in office of 2nd party. As
workman did not work in establishment of 2nd party, the
question of his employment or non-employment is
irrelevant. Workman is not entitled for reinstatement.
4.
Workman submitted rejoinder on 5-5-2013 reiterating
his contentions in statement of claim. Workman submits
that SDO(T) Shivpuri orally terminated his service from 8-
8-03. Retrenchment compensation was not paid to him.
Workman was not given any opportunity of hearing.
Government of India issued circular in 1993 for
regularization of daily wage employees. 2nd party
overlooking said circular not granted temporary status.
His services are not regularized even after completing 240
days service in a year.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
‘‘(i)Whether Shri Rajesh Yadav
Shri Rajesh Yadav is
S/o Shri Rambharose Yadav
workman under ID
is a workman within the
Act. It is not proved
provisions of Industrial
that his services are
Disputes Act, 1947,
terminated violating
Whether his services were
the law.
terminated by the manage-
ment of Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited without
following the provisions
of law?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?”
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
6.
The term of reference pertains to legality of the
termination of service of workman. The reference also
includes whether Ist party is covered as workman under
Section 2(s) of ID Act.
7.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting
his contentions that he was engaged as watchman on
daily wages from 12-10-1995. He was paid wages at
4554
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 5, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 14, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Collector rate. He was assigned work of lineman. He was
also looking after the building and rest house. He was
working as lineman at Telephone Exchange. His services
were orally terminated from 7-8-03 without issuing notice.
No retrenchment compensation was paid to him. His
services were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID
Act. As he completed more than 240 days continuous
service during each of the year, he is covered as workman
under section 25 B of ID Act, no enquiry was conducted
against him. After his termination, Baluram Rajak and
Manoj Tiwari were engaged. He was working with 2nd
party for 8 years with intermittent breaks. From evidence
of workman, documents Exhibit W-1 to W-16 are admitted.
Workman in his cross-examination, says appointment letter
was not issued to him. Interview call was not given to him.
He has passed 10th standard in 2013. In 2003, he passed
8th standard. He had not received any training about
running telephone machines or running the generator.
Witness explained that for work of meter reading,
training is not required.
8.
In his further cross, workman says in upper portion
of Exhibit W-7, W-8 are forged. Workman denies that Exhibit
W-9 is not slip of the department. Workman admits that
whatever departmental work is carried, letter head is used
with name of the officer. In Exhibit W-13, name of BSNL
is not appearing, signature of officer is not appearing.
Workman denies that said document is forged by him and
produced. He denies that on Exhibit W-13, name of
department is not appearing. He denies that he had not
worked for more than 240 days during any of the year.
9.
Management filed affidavit of evidence of Kailash
Narayan Bajpai. Management’s witness says that workman
was never appointed by the department. Appointment
letter was not issued to him. Workman did not work on
daily wages. Any post is not lying vacant. Workman has
not completed 240 days continuous working. In his cross-
examination, management’s witness says since past 2
years, he is posted at Shivpuri and he has information as
per office record. He has no personal knowledge about
working of the Ist party. He has no information about the
employees working in the past.
10.
Workman claims that he was engaged on daily
wages as watchman and work of lineman was assigned to
him whereas management is denying workman was
engaged on daily wages. Appointment letter was not
issued to workman. Under Section 2(s) of ID Act,
workman is defined as under:-
“” Workman means any person including an
apprentice employed in any industry to do any
manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,
clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,
whether the terms of employment be express or
implied and for the purposes of any proceeding
under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute,
includes any such person who has been dismissed,
discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as
a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal,
discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute,
but does not include any such person-….
The evidence on record shows that workman was
engaged as watchman/ lineman. He was not engaged in
supervisory capacity. The evidence proves that workman
is covered under Section 2(s) of ID Act. Workman had
not received appointment letter, he was not called for
interview. In 2003, he passed only 8th standard, in 2014
he passed 10th standard as per his evidence in cross-
examination. The documentary evidence produced by
workman Exhibit W-1 workman was directed to work at
Magroli exchange as per oral directions of Sub Divisional
Officer, Shivpuri. The parties are in dispute whether
workman had completed 240 days, Exhibit W-1 is not
disclosing working days. Document Exhibit W-7,8
produced by workman w.r.t. his attendance are not bearing
office seal or signature of the officer concerned. On top
of those documents, name of BSNL is not appearing.
Exhibit W-7/1 to 6 shows names of different villages in
vertical line and name of workman in horizontal line at
bottom, who has maintained said attendance register is
not disclosed from the documents. In Exhibit W-8, name
of Ist party is appearing at Sl.No.3. document appears to
be the attendance sheet- the name of BSNL is not
appearing. Signature of any officer is not appearing on
it. The evidence in cross-examination of workman is clear
on above point. Document Exhibit W-9/1 to 5 are bills
of purchase of machine oil on different dates. The name
of workman is written on reverse side. It cannot be said
evidence of attendance of workman. Exhibit W-11
pertains to the details of work, who has maintained said
record is not understood as document does not bears seal
or signature of any Officer. Exhibit W-13 donot bear seal
signature of officer, who has maintained said document
is not disclosed. Similarly name, seal and signature of
Officer is not appearing on Exhibit W-14 & 15. 2nd party
has suggested that those documents are forged and
produced by workman. When documents are not bearing
seal and signature of concerned officer, name of
department is not appearing on it. Those documents are
not free from suspicion. The documents discussed above
cannot establish that workman continuously worked more
than 240 days during each of the year.
11.
At the time of argument, learned counsel for
workman Shri R.K. Soni produced copy of circular of the
year 1998-99 pertaining to payment of bonus and casual
labours engaged are entitled to temporary status from
1-8-98. When evidence of workman about completing
more than 240 days continuous service is not cogent and
reliable, the documents produced are suspicious. The
circular brought to my notice does not advance claim of
workman.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 5] 2015@vxzgk;.k 14] 1937
4555
12.
Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri R.S.Khare relies
on ratio held in case of
Ajaypal Singh Vrs. Haryana Warehousing
Corporation reported in 2015(2) SCC (L&S) 279. Their
Lordship dealing with non-compliance of Section
25-F and on facts order of retrenchment in violation
of Section 25-F,B is invalid, reinstatement with full
backwages awarded by Labour Court deserves to
be restored.
Ratio in above case cannot be applied to present
case as evidence adduced by workman does not prove
that he completed 240 days continuous service. He
violation of Section 25-F of ID Act is not established.
For same reasons, ratio held in case of Batala Coop Sugar
Mills Ltd. Vrs. Sowaran Singh reported in 2005(8) SCC-481
cannot be beneficially applied to case at hand. Workman
has not discharged onus to prove that he completed 240
days service during any of the year. Workman is not entitled
to protection of Section 25-F of ID Act. The ratio held in
2013-2-SCC(L&S) 369 & 2006-4-SCC-1 relied by Shri Khare
needs to detailed discussion. For reasons discussed
above, I record my finding in Point No.1 that Ist party is
covered as workman but his services are not terminated
violating Section 25-F of ID Act.
13.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management is proper and legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
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.