3140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky;

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1474.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 6 ds mifofu;e ¼3½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, mRiknksa dh eqgjkadu 'kqYd vf/klwfpr djrk gS%—

vuqlwph

Hkkjrh;

Hkkx

vuqHkkx

o"kZ

mRikn

bdkbZ

U;wure eqgjkadu 'kqYd

bdkbZ

LySc esa 'ks"k

izpkyu

ekud

cM+s iSeku

NksVs iSekus nj LySc bdkbZ;ka

frfFk

la[;k

1 ¼#ñ½

737

2008

lkekU; bathfu;jh iz;kstuksa ds fy, fiVokW

,d fdyks

37]800-00

32]100-00 0-34

lHkh

& 30-09-2014

,Y;qfefu;e ,oa ,Y;qfefu;e feJ /kkrq

xzke

dh pknj ,oa ifÙk—fof'kf"V

[lanHkZ lañ lh,eMh&2@16%737]

thñ xq:pj.k] egkfuns'kd

MINISTRY OF CONSUMERS AFFAIRS FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015

S.O. 1474.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Marking fee for the products given in the schedule:

SCHEDULE

Part

Sec.

Year

Product

Units

Minimum Marking Fee

Unit

Units

Remain- Effective

No.

Large

Small

Rate

ing

Date

Scale

Slab-1

737

2008

Wrought Aluminium and Aluminium

1 Kg.

37,800.00

32,100.00

0.34

All

30.09.2014

alloy sheet and strip for general

engineering purposes—Specification.

[Ref. No. CMD-2/16 : 737]

G. GURUCHARAN, Director General

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1475.—kkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 6 ds mifofu;e ¼3½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, mRiknksa dh eqgjkadu 'kqYd vf/klwfpr djrk gS%—

vuqlwph

Hkkjrh;

Hkkx

vuqHkkx

o"kZ

mRikn

bdkbZ

U;wure eqgjkadu 'kqYd

bdkbZ

LySc esa 'ks"k

izpkyu

ekud

cM+s iSeku

NksVs iSekus nj LySc bdkbZ;ka

frfFk

la[;k

1 ¼#ñ½

6911

1992

LVsuySl bLikr dh IysV] píjsa rFkk ifÙk;ka—

,d Vu

54]100-00

43]300-00 240-00

lHkh

& 15-05-2015

fof'k"V ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

[lanHkZ lañ lh,eMh&2@16% 6911]

thñ xq:pj.k] egkfuns'kd

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3141

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015

S.O. 1475.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Marking fee for the products given in the schedule:—

SCHEDULE

Part

Sec.

Year

Product

Units

Minimum Marking Fee

Unit

Units

Remain- Effective

No.

Large

Small

Rate

ing

Date

Scale

Slab-1

6911 -

1992

Stainless Steel plate, strip & sheet 1tonne

54,100.00

43,300.00

240.00

All

15.05.2015

[Ref. No. CMD-2/16 : 6911]

G. GURUCHARAN, Director General

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1476.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 6 ds mifofu;e ¼3½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, mRiknksa dh eqgjkadu 'kqYd vf/klwfpr djrk gS%—

vuqlwph

Hkkjrh;

Hkkx

vuqHkkx

o"kZ

mRikn

bdkbZ

U;uwre eqgjkadu 'kqYd

bdkbZ

LySc esa 'ks"k

izpkyu

ekud

cM+s iSeku

NksVs iSekus nj LySc bdkbZ;ka

frfFk

la[;k

1 ¼#ñ½

8952

1995

lkekU; bathfu;jh iz;kstuksa dh e`nq bLikr

ehñ- Vu

34]000-00

29]000-00 56-00

lHkh

& 31-07-2014

rkj NM+ksa ds mRiknu ds fy, bLikr baxV]

Cywe vkSj fcysV—fof'kf"V

[lanHkZ lañ lh,eMh&2@16% 8952]

thñ xq:pj.k] egkfuns'kd

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015

S.O. 1476.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Marking fee for the products given in the schedule:—

SCHEDULE

Part

Sec.

Year

Product

Units

Minimum Marking Fee

Unit

Units

Remain- Effective

No.

Large

Small

Rate

ing

Date

Scale

Slab-1

8952 -

1995

Steel Ingots, Blooms and Billets

M T

34.000.00

29,000.00

56.00

All

31.07.2014

for production of mild steel wire

rods for general Engineering purposes

[Ref. No. CMD-2/16 : 8952]

G. GURUCHARAN, Director General

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1477.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 6 ds mifofu;e ¼3½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, mRiknksa dh eqgjkadu 'kqYd vf/klwfpr djrk gS%—

vuqlwph

Hkkjrh;

Hkkx

vuqHkkx

o"kZ

mRikn

bdkbZ

U;wure eqgjkadu 'kqYd

bdkbZ

LySc esa 'ks"k

izpkyu

ekud

cM+s iSeku

NksVs iSekus nj LySc bdkbZ;ka

frfFk

la[;k

1 ¼#ñ½

15965

2012

iwoZ&jksxu dh xbZ ,Y;qfefu;e ftad feJ

ehñ Vu

65000

52000

125

lHkh

& 09-06-2015

/kkrq ysfir bLikr iÙkh ,oa pknjsa ¼lknk½

[lanHkZ lañ lh,eMh&2@16%15965]

thñ xq:pj.k] egkfuns'kd

3142

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015

S.O. 1477.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Marking fee for the products given in the schedule:

SCHEDULE

Part

Sec.

Year

Product

Units

Minimum Marking Fee

Unit

Units

Remain- Effective

No.

Large

Small

Rate

ing

Date

Scale

Slab-1

15965

2012

Pre-painted Aluminium Zinc alloy

M T

65000

52000

125

All

09.06.2015

metallic coated steel strip and sheet

(Plain)

[Ref. No. CMD-2/16 : 15965]

G. GURUCHARAN, Director General

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1478.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`fr djus

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke

Hkkjrh; ekud

Hkkek lañ@Hkkx@

la[;k la[;k

dh frfFk

,oa irk

dk 'kh"kZd

[k.M@o"kZ

o"kZ@ekg

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

7800005110

04-06-2015

oYMZokbM ls¶Vh fMokblsl

,DlIyksflo ,sVeWfLQsvlZ&Hkkx&1

Hkkñekñ@vk;bZlh 60079%

;wfuV lañ 1064] igyk ekyk

QyseizwQ buDykstj ^Mh* }kjk

Hkkx & 1% 2007

HkkaMwi baMfLVª;y bLVsV] HkkaMwi & i

miLdj laj{kk

iUukyky dEikWm.M] ,ych,l ekxZ]

eqacbZ-400078

7800005211

04-06-2015

izdk'k ,xzks IykLV

flapkbZ miLdj — flapkbZ ySVjyksa gsrq Hkkñ ekñ 12786%1989

xV lañ 119 IykWV lañ 30] yksuoMs

ikWyhfFkyhu ikbZi

ekysxkao] ftyk % ukfld & 423203

7800005312

04-06-2015

izdk'k ,xzks IykLV

mRltZu ikbZi iz.kkyh

Hkkñ ekñ 13488%2008

xV lañ 119 IykWV lañ 30] yksuoMs

ekysxkao] ftyk % ukfld & 423203

7800005413

22-06-2015

ih vkj ,xzks baMLVªht+

xSl esUl] ty esUl vkSj eyty ds

Hkkñ ekñ 5382 % 1985

;wfuV uañ- 02] ik'oZukFk baMfLVª;y bLVsV

fy, jcM+ lhfyax fjax

,uñ,pñ uañ 8] xksYMsu rqfyi gksVy ds

lkeus] ,ysDl Tosyj ds ikl

okfyo] ftyk% Bk.ks & 401208

7800005514

22-06-2015

fizfl'kWu bysDVªhdYl]

cs;ksusV ySEi gksYMj

Hkkñ ekñ 1258 % 2008

xkyk lañ 3 ,oa 4] ry eafty]

pkS/kjh baVjus'kuy b.MLVªh;y bLVsV]

foyst uo/kj] olbZ iwoZ]

ftyk Bk.ks & 401210

7800005615

22-06-2015

fizfl'kWu bysDVªhdYl]

flfyax jkst

Hkkñ ekñ 371 % 1999

xkyk lañ 3 ,oa 4] ry eafty]

pkS/kjh baVjus'kuy b.MLVªh;y bLVsV]

foyst uo/kj] olbZ iwoZ]

ftyk Bk.ks & 401210

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3143

7800005716

23-06-2015

BDdj buvksxsZuhDl izkñ fyñ]

,Y;wfeuks & Qsfjd

Hkkñ ekñ 299 % 2012

,pñvksñlhñ ,ulhYyjh baMfLVª;y bLVsV]

IykWV lañ 13] rqjkMs foyst ds ikl]

jlk;uh] ftyk % jk;xM+ & 410207

[lañ dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11]

Vhñ dySok.ku] izeq[k ¼,e;wchvks&bZbZbZ½

New Delhi, the 15th July, 2015

S.O. 1478.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant

Name and address (factory)

Product

IS No/Part/

No.

Date

of the party

Sec Year

7800005110

04.06.2015

Worldwide Safety Devices

Explosive atmospheres part I

IS/IEC 60079:

Unit No. 1064, First Floor,

equipment protection by flame-

Part 1 : 2007

Bhandup Indl. Estate,

proof enclosures “d”

Panallal Compound, LBS Marg,

Bhandup (W)

Mumbai - 400078

7800005211

04.06.2015

Prakash Agro Plast

Irrigation equipment-polyethy-

IS 12786 : 1989

Gat No. 119, Plot No. 30,

lene pipes for irrigation laterals

Lonwade Malegaon,

Distt.: Nashik - 423203

7800005312

04.06.2015

Prakash Agro Plast,

Emitting pipes system

IS 13488 : 2008

Gat No. 119, Plot No. 30,

Lonwade Malegaon,

Distt.: Nashik - 423203

7800005413

22.06.2015

P.R. Agro Industries,

Rubber sealing rings for gas mains

IS 5382 : 1985

Unit No. 02, Parshwanath Indl.

Water mains and sewers

Estate, N.H. No. 8, Opp: Golden

Tulip Hotel, Near Alex Jewellery,

Waliv, Distt: Thane - 401208

7800005514

22.06.2015

Precision Electricals,

Bayonet lamp holders

IS 1258 : 2005

Gala No. 3 & 4, Ground Floor,

Choudhary Internal Industrial,

Estate, Village: Navghar Vasai (E)

Distt.: Thane - 401210

7800005615

22.06.2015

Precision Electricals,

Ceiling roses

IS 371 : 1999

Gala No. 3 & 4, Ground Floor,

Choudhary Internal Industrial,

Estate, Village: Navghar Vasai (E)

Distt.: Thane - 401210

7800005716

23.06.2015

Thakkar Inorganics Pvt. Ltd.,

Alumino-ferric

IS 299 : 2012

H.O.C. Ancillary Indl. Estate,

Plot No. 13, Near Turade Village,

Rasayani, Distt. Raigad - 410207

[No. CMD/13 : 11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

3144

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

varfj{k foHkkx

csaxywj] 14 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1479.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e ¼4½

ds vuqlj.k esa ,rn~}kjk varfj{k foHkkx ds fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;]

ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Z&

lk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vf/klwfpr djrh gSA

nzo uksnu iz.kkyh dsanz

80 QhV jksM] ,pñ,ñ,yñ II LVst ,pñihñvksñ]

csaxywj&560008

[lañ 8@1@10@2011&fgñ]

chñ vfuy dqekj] mi lfpo

DEPARTMENT OF SPACE

Bangalore, the 14th July, 2015

S.O. 1479.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of the Rule 10

of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the

Union) Rule, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies

the following Office of the Department of Space, whereof

more than 80 percent staff have acquired the working

knowledge of Hindi.

Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre,

80 Feet Road, HAL IInd Stage HPO,

Bangalore-560008

[No. 8/1/10/2011-H]

B. ANIL KUMAR, Dy. Secy.

Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 14 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1480.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

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

k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k vklulksy ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 98@1999½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 14@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@158@1999&vkbZvkj¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 14th July, 2015

S.O. 1480.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 98/1999) of the

Central Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of State Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 14/07/2015.

[No. L-12012/158/1999-IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

Present: Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 98 OF 1999

Parties: The Management of State Bank of India,

Burdwan

Vs.

Sri Gopal Chandra Dutta

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

Sri A. Chakraborty, Ld. Adv.

For the union (Workman):

Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Adv.

Industry: Bank

State: West Bengal

Dated: 24.06.2015

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-12012/

158/1999-IR(B-I) dated 05.08.1999 has been pleased to refer

the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of management of State Bank of

India, Zonal Office, Region IV Burdwan in termination

the service of Shri Gopal Chandra Dutta, Messenger on

31.03.1997 is legal and justified, if not what relief the

workman is entitled to?"

Having received the order No. L-12012/158/1999-IR

(B-I) dated 05.08.1999 of the above said reference from the

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 98 of 1999

was registered on 18.08.1999 and accordingly an order to

that effect was passed to issue notices through the

registered post to the parties concerned directing them to

appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written

statements along with the relevant documents and a list of

witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the

said order notices by the registered post were sent to the

parties concerned.

Case called out. Sri A. Chakraborty, Learned Advocate

for the management (State Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Burdwan) and Sri P.K. Das, Learned Advocate for the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3145

workman (Sri Gopal Chandra Dutta) are present.

Mr. P.K. Das submits that the case may be closed and a

'No dispute Award' may be passed as he has got no

instruction from the workman. He has also mentioned it on

the order sheet. On perusal of case record I find that the

workman is neither appearing nor taking any step from

09.06.2009 for his cross-examination. It seems that the

workman is now not at all interested to proceed with the

case further. The case is also very old—in the year 1999.

As such the case is closed and a 'No Dispute Award' may

be passed.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute

existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.

The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1481.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QñlhñvkbZñ ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; uñ 2] pa.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 391@2005½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@318@2002&vkbZvkj¼lh&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th July, 2015

S.O. 1481.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Govt. hereby

publishes the Award (Ref. No. 391/2005) of the Cent. Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as

shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between

the management of Food Corporation of India, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/07/

2015.

[No. L-22012/318/2002-IR(C-II)]

MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

PRESENT: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No. 391/2005

Registered on 19.8.2005

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, son of Sh. Mann Singh, resident of H.No.

21/3, Rajiv Colony, Kaithal Road, Karnal...

Petitioner

Versus

The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, District

Karnal.

...Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. Jai Pal, Adv.

For the management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 15.6.2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-22012/318/

2002 -IR(C-II) Dated 20.7.2005, by exercising its powers

under section 10 Sub-Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-

Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of Food

Corporation of India in terminating the services of

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Ram Pal w.e.f. 1.1.1997 is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman

entitled?"

In response to the notice, the claimant appeared and

submitted statement of claim pleading that he was

appointed as Security Guard on daily wage basis on

16.2.1995 by the respondent management and he continued

as such till September, 1998 when his services were

terminated without paying him retrenchment compensation

or service of notice. It is further pleaded that the persons

junior to him were retained in service and even fresh

appointments were made. As such the termination of his

services is illegal and he be reinstated in service with full

back wages.

Management i.e. FCI filed written statement

controverting the averments and pleaded that workman

was never employed by it. Management has entered into

an agreement with M/s. Ex-servicemen Security Services,

Kurukshetra for deployment of watch and ward staff for

the protection of food grains from time to time as and when

required and the workman was appointed by the said

agency. That the payment was used to be made to the

contractor who is turn used to make the same to its

employees. That no appointment letter or termination letter

was issued to the workman. The management has no

administrative or disciplinary control over him. Since there

was no relationship of employer and employee between

the parties, the workman is not entitled to any relief.

Parties were given opportunity to lead their evidence.

In support of its case Rajesh Kumar workman appeared

in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the

case as set out in the claim petition. He has also examined

Sh. Parveen Kumar who was the contractor of the

management. He did not say anything in favour of the

workman. He has deposed in his affidavit that management

has given contract to Ex-servicemen Security Services for

3146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

supplying manpower and an agreement dated 24.2.1986

was executed. That they used to supply security guards to

the management and had control over them.

On the other hand, the management has examined

Sh. Silky Sona Singla who filed his affidavit reiterating the

averments as contained in the written statement.

I have heard Sh. Jaipal, counsel for the workman and

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.

It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel

for the workman that workman continuously worked with

the management from February, 1995 to September, 1998

and his services were terminated without payment of any

retrenchment compensation and therefore the termination

order is illegal. He has further contended that the persons

junior to him were retained in service and even fresh

appointments were made which are in violation of the

provisions of the Act and workman is entitled to be

reinstated in service.

I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.

Workman pleaded that he was appointed as Security

Guard on daily wage basis by the management in February,

1995 and his services were terminated in September, 1998.

The respondent management has pleaded that workman

was appointed by the contractor i.e. M/s. Ex-servicemen

Security Services and as such, the management admits

that the workman worked with it for the period in question

but as a man of the Company to whom contract was given

for deploying watch and ward staff. In these circumstances,

it was for the management to prove that it has given contract

to M/s. Ex-servicemen Security Services and the workman

was on its rolls. But the management did not lead any

cogent evidence in this respect. However, the workman

himself has examined Parveen Kumar who is from the said

agency and deposed that the management has given a

contract in the year 1986 which was renewed upto the year

1999. Though he did not place on record any contract

entered into between the parties after 1986 and again he

did not state that the workman was its empoloyee, but still

the statement of the workman himself prove that he was

not employed by the management but he was a man of the

said agency.

The workman has specifically admitted that he was

deputed for duty by the Ex-servicemen Security Services

to different depots of the managements. That the said

agency used to record his attendance and was deducting

his PF from his wages. It was the Ex-servicemen Security

Services who deputed him for duty. Thus, his statement

clinches the issue that it was M/s. Ex-servicement Security

Services who was deputing him to different depots and

was marking his attendance as well was deducting his PF

and being so, it cannot be said that he was the employee of

the management and rather his own cross-examination

proves that he was engaged by M/s. Ex-servicemen Security

Services. There is nothing on the file that he ever received

any wages from the respondent management and no

appointment letter has been placed on the file and these

facts further disapprove the case of the workman that he

was ever engaged by the respondent management.

In result, workman has failed to prove that he was an

employee of the management or was ever engaged by it.

When it is so, it cannot be said that his services were

terminated by the management and he is not entitled to

any relief. The reference is accordingly answered against

the workman. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent

to the Central Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1482.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QñlhñvkbZñ ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; uñ2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 389@2005½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@206@2002&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the14th July, 2015

S.O. 1482.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cent. Govt. hereby

publishes the Award (Ref. No. 389/2005) of the Central Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as

shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between

the management of Food Corporation of India, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/07/

2015.

[No. L-22012/206/2002-IR(C-II)]

MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

PRESENT: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 389/2005

Registered on 19.8.2005

Sh. Manjeet Kumar, son of Sh. Mann Singh, resident of

H.No. 21/3, Rajiv Colony, Kaithal Road, Karnal.

Through LRs

1. Smt. Sneh Lata widow of late Sh. Manjeet Kumar

(deceased).

2. Sh. Mohit, son of late Sh. Manjeet Kumar.

3. Ms. Mehak, daughter of Late Sh. Manjeet Kumar.

4. Sh. Hardeep Singh, son of Late Sh. Manjeet Kumar.

...Petitioner

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3147

Versus

The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, District

Karnal.

Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. Jai Pal, Adv.

For the management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 15.6.2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-22012/206/

2002 -IR(C-II) Dated 4.8.2005, by exercising its powers under

Section 10 Sub section (1) Clause (d) Sub section (2-A) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as

'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for

adjudication to this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of Food

Corporation of India in terminating the services of

Sh. Manjeet Kumar, S/o Sh. Mann Singh w.e.f. 1.7.1996

is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman

entitled?"

In response to the notice, the claimant appeared and

submitted statement of claim pleading that he was

appointed as Security Guard on daily wage basis on

16.2.1995 by the respondent management and he continued

as such till September, 1998 when his services were

terminated without paying him retrenchment compensation

or service of notice. It is further pleaded that the persons

junior to him were retained in service and even fresh

appointments were made. As such the termination of his

services is illegal and he be reinstated in service with full

back wages.

Management i.e. FCI filed written statement

controverting the averments and pleaded that workman

was never employed by it. Management has entered into

an agreement with M/s. Ex-servicemen Security Services,

Kurukshetra for deployment of watch and ward staff for

the protection of foodgrains from time to time as and

when required and the workman was appointed by the

said agency. That the payment was used to be made to

the contractor who in turn used to make the same to its

employees. That no appointment letter or termination

letter was issued to the workman. The management has

no administrative or disciplinary control over him. Since

there was no relationship of employer and employee

between the parties, the workman is not entitled to any

relief.

During the pendency of the reference, the workman died

and his Legal Representatives were brought on record vide

order dated 17-10-2007.

Parties were given Opportunity to lead their evidence.

In support of its case Smt. Sneh Lata, LR workman

appeared in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating

the case as set out in the claim petition. She has also

examined Sh. Parveen Kumar who was the contractor of

the management. He did not say anything in favour of the

workman. He has deposed in his affidavit that management

has given contract to Ex-servicemen Security Services for

supplying manpower and an agreement dated 24.2.1986

was executed. That they used to supply security guards to

the management and had control over them.

On the other hand, the management has examined

Sh. Silky Sona Singla who filed his affidavit reiterating the

averments as contained in the written statement.

I have heard Sh. Jaipal, counsel for the workman and

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.

It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel

for the workman that workman continuously worked with

the management from February, 1995 to September, 1998

and his services were terminated without payment of any

retrenchment compensation and therefore the termination

order is illegal.

I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.

Workman pleaded that he was appointed as Security

Guard on daily wage basis by the management in February,

1995 and his services were terminated in September, 1998.

Thus, it was for the workman to prove by leading cogent

evidence that he was appointed by the management in

February, 1995. As stated above, workman has died during

the pendency of the reference and his wife appeared in the

witness box and she stated that she could not produce any

appointment letter issued by the management. There is no

cogent evidence on the file to prove that the workman was

actually appointed by the management at any point of time

except the bare statement of Sneh Lata who is simply a

Legal Representative of the workman. Nothing has come

on the file that workman has ever received wages from the

respondent management. When he was not paid wages

by the management, it cannot be said by any stretch of

imagination that he was ever an employee of the

management. Though, Mr. Parveen Kumar has been

examined on behalf of the workman, but he did not advance

the case of the workman in any way, rather has stated that

a contract was given to M/s. Ex-servicemen Security

Services for employing workers. In the absence of any

cogent and convincing evidence on the file, it cannot be

said that workman was ever engaged by the management

who has specifically pleaded that it has given contract to

M/s. Ex-servicemen Security Services to provide Security

Guards and the bare statement of Sneh Lata cannot be

believed.

Thus, is is held, that it is not proved on the file that

workman was an employee of the respondent management.

In result, the reference is answered against the workman

holding that he was not an employee of management and

he is not entitled to any relief. Let hard and soft copy of the

award be sent to the Central Governemnt for further

necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

3148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 14 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1483.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QñlhñvkbZñ

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/

k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

383@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

14@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@76@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th July, 2015

S.O. 1483.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award Ref. 383/2005 of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the industrial

dispute between the management Food Corporation of

India, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 14/07/2015.

[No. L-22012/76/2003-IR(C-II)]

MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No. 383/2005

Registered on 19.8.2005

Sh. Sandeep Kumar, son of Sh. Man Singh, resident of

H.No. 21/3 Rajiv Colony, Kaithal Road, Karnal.

.....Petitioner

Versus

The District Manager, Food Corporation of India,

District Karnal.

....Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

Sh Jai Pal, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 15.6.2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-22012/76/

2003-IR(C-II) Dated 5.8.2005, by exercising its powers under

Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-section

(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of Food

Corporation of India in terminating the services of

Sh. Sandeep Kumar, S/o Sh. Man Singh w.e.f. 5.11.1997

is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman

entitled?"

In response to the notice, the claimant appeared and

submitted statement of claim pleading that he was

appointed as Security Guard on daily wage basis on

16.2.1995 by the respondent management and he continued

as such till September, 1998 when his services were

terminated without paying him retrenchment compensation

or service of notice. It is further pleaded that the persons

junior to him were retained in service and even fresh

appointments were made. As such the termination of his

services is illegal and he be reinstated in service with full

back wages.

Management i.e. FCI filed written statement

controverting the averments and pleaded that workman

was never employed by it. Management has entered into

an agreement with M/s Ex-Servicemen Security Services,

Kurukshetra for deployment of watch and ward staff for

the protection of foodgrains from time to time as and when

required and the workman was appointed by the said

agency. That the payment was used to be made to the

contractor who in turn used to make the same to its

employees. That no appointment letter or termination letter

was issued to the workman. The management has no

administrative or disciplinary control over him. Since there

is no relationship of employer and employee between the

parties, the workman is not entitled to any relief.

Parties were given opportunity to lead their evidence.

In support of its case, workman appeared in the witness

box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as set out in

the claim petition. He has also examined Sh. Parveen Kumar

who was the contractor of the management who did not

say anything in favour of the workman. He has deposed in

his affidavit that management has given contract to

Ex-servicemen Security Services for supplying manpower

and an agreement dated 24.2.1986 was executed. That they

used to supply security guards to the management and

had control over them.

On the other hand, the management has examined

Sh. Silky Sona Singla who filed his affidavit reiterating the

averments as contained in the written statement.

I have heard Sh. Jaipal, counsel for the workman and

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.

It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel

for the workman that workman continuously worked with

the management from February, 1995 to September, 1998

and his services were terminated without payment of any

retrenchment compensation and therefore the termination

order is illegal. He has further contended that the persons

junior to him were retained in service and even fresh

appointments were made which are in violation of the

provisions of the Act and workman is entitled to be

reinstated in service.

I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.

Workman pleaded that he was appointed as Security

Guard on daily wage basis by the management in February,

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3149

1995 and his services were terminated in September, 1998.

The respondent management has pleaded that workman

was appointed by the contractor i.e. M/s Ex-servicemen

Security Services and as such, the management admits

that the workman worked with it for the period in question

but as a man of the Company to whom contract was given

for deploying watch and ward staff. In these circumstances,

it was for the management to prove that it has given contract

to M/s Ex-servicemen Security Services and the workman

was on its rolls but the management did not lead any cogent

evidence in this respect. However, the workman himself

has examined Parveen Kumar who is from the said agency

and deposed that the management has given a contract in

the year 1986 which was renewed upto the year 1999.

Though he did not place on record any contract entered

into between the parties after 1986 and again he did not

state that the workman was its employee, but still the

statement of the workman himself prove that he was not

employed by the management but he is a man of the said

agency.

The workman has specifically admitted that he was

deputed for duty by the Ex-servicemen Security Services

to different depots of the managements. That the said

agency used to record his attendance and was deducting

his PF from his wages. It was for the Ex-servicemen

Security Services who deputed him for duty. Thus, his

statement clinches the issue that it was M/s Ex-servicemen

Security Services who was deputing him to different

depots and was marking his attendance as well was

deducting his PF and being so, it cannot be said that he

was the employee of the management and rather his own

cross-examination proves that he was engaged by

M/s Ex-servicemen Security Services. There is nothing

on the file that he ever received any wages from the

respondent management and no appointment letter has

been placed on the file and these facts further disapprove

the case of the workman that he was ever engaged by the

respondent management.

In result, workman has failed to prove that he was an

employee of the management or was ever engaged by it.

When it is so, it cannot be said that his services were

terminated by the management and he is not entitled to

any relief. The reference is accordingly answered against

the workman. Let hard and soft copy of the award be

sent to the Central Government for further necessary

action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh 14 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1484.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QñlhñvkbZñ

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

117@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

14@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22011@55@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&2½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th July, 2015

S.O..1484.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award Ref. 117/2011 of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Food Corporation of

India and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 14/07/2015.

[No. L-22011/55/2010-IR(CM-II)]

MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No. 117/2011

Registered on 21.2.2011

The General Secretary, Food Corporation of India Handling

Workers Union, 8651, Arakshan Road, Paharganj, New

Delhi-55.

......Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager (Region), Food Corporation of India,

Regional office, Punjab, Bay No. 34-38, Sector 31/4,

Chandigarh.

Respondents

APPEARANCES:

For the Workman

Mr. P.K. Longia, Adv.

For the Management

Mrs. Kavita Sharma, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 29.6.2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-22011/55/

2010/IR(CM-II) Dated 4.2.2011, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub section (1) Clause (d) and Sub section

(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the Area Manager, Food

Corporation of India, Gurdaspur Punjab, in terminating the

services of workman Sh. Ruldu Ram Ex. Handling Worker

w.e.f. 8.5.2009 and also the non-payment of wages w.e.f.

9.11.2006 to 5.12.2006 is legal and justified? To what relief

the workman is entitled to and from which date?"

In response to the notice, the workman appeared and

submitted statement of claim pleading that workman was

3150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

working in FCI, FSD, Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur as

Handling Labour since 1993. The management issued show

cause notice dated 24.4.2009 to all Sardar and Mondal of

Gang No. 1 to 4 to explain why they stopped unloading of

trucks. That the workman and four other labourers were

transferred to Chandigarh vide order dated 8.5.2009

regarding which an appeal was preferred before the General

Manager, Chandigarh vide application dated 5.6.2009. His

services were terminated by the Area Manager under Clause

13 of the I.E.(S.O.) Act, 1946 w.e.f. 8.5.2009 vide order dated

27.7.2009.

That the order of termination is illegal as his services

cannot be terminated summarily and he was not given any

opportunity of being heard and without establishing his

misconduct. That he was not paid salary for 23 days during

the period 14.11.2006 to 5.12.2006 and since his termination

order is illegal, he be reinstated in service.

Respondent management filed written reply pleading

that a notice dated 22.6.2009 was issued to the workman

for provocating the handling workers of Dinanagar on

21.4.2009 and stopping the loading of wheat stocks. He

was asked to explain his conduct within seven days. Since

workman did not bother to file the reply, as per provisions

of Clause 13 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Order)

Act, 1946, (hereinafter called the order) his services were

terminated vide order dated 27.7.2009. That the termination

order is legal and valid.

Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.

Workman appeared in the witness box and filed his

affidavit reiterating his case as set out in the claim petition.

On the other hand the management has examined

Sh. Dinesh Tripathi, who filed his affidavit, reiterating the

stand taken by the management in the written statement.

I have heard Sh. P.K. Longia, counsel for the workman

and Mrs. Kavita Sharma, counsel for the management.

The admitted facts are that the workman was working

as a handling labourer in FCI at FSD, Dinanagar. The learned

counsel for the management advanced arguments on the

lines of the averments as contained in the written statement

and submitted that the termination order dated 27.7.2009

Annexure H is legal and valid as workman failed to give

reply to the show cause notice given to him on 22.6.2009

and the action has rightly been taken under Section 13 of

the order. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned

counsel, the order dated 27.7.2009 is reproduced as follow:—

Whereas a show cause notice No. IRL/A/(2)/DPS/DNN/

2003/1881 dated 22.6.2009 was issued to Sh. Ruldu Ram

HL FSD Dinanagar for provocating the Handling

workers of Dinanagar centre on 21.4.2009 and stopping

the unloading/loading of wheat stocks being received

from various mandis operated by FCI. The stoppage of

work was without any appropriate cause.

Whereas the said Sh. Ruldu Ram HL was directed vide

show cause notice referred above to explain the reasons/

circumstances under which he provocated the workers

to stop the unloading/loading operations in the depot

and thereby putting the corporation to not only financial

loss but also affecting operational work.

Whereas he said Sh. Ruldu Ram was also directed to

submit his reply if any within 7 days from the receipt of

his SCN failing which his services were liable to be

terminated under Industrial Employment (Standing

Orders) Act, 1946. But the said Sh. Ruldu Ram did not

bother to furnish the reply of the above SCN till date.

So, it clearly indicate that he is not willing to continue

any more in the services of FCI as handling Labour.

Accordingly in accordance with powers vested to the

undersigned as per clause No. 13 of Industrial Employment

(Standing Order) Act, 1946, the services of the said

Sh. Ruldu Ram S/o Sh. Dass Mall Gang No. 1 FSD

Dinanagar are hereby terminated w.e.f. 8.5.2009.

Thus, a perusal of the impugned order shows that

workman provocated the handling workers on 21.4.2009

and stopped unloading/loading of wheat stocks and

consequently a show cause notice was issued to him to

which he did not file reply and his services were summarily

terminated by invoking Clause 13 of the Industrial

Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The said Clause

read as follow:

Termination of Employment—(i) for terminating

employment of a permanent workman, notice in writing

shall be given either by the employer or the workmen

one month's notice in the case of monthly rated workmen

and two week's notice in the case of other workmen one

month's or two weeks' pay, as the case may be, may be

paid in lieu of notice.

(2) Subject to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), no temporary workman whether

monthly rated or weekly rated or piece rated, and no

probationer or badly or fixed term employment workman

as a result of non-renewal of contract of employment or

on its expiry, shall be entitled to any notice or pay in lieu

thereof, it his services are terminated, but the services

of a temporary workman shall not be terminated as a

punishment unless he has been given an opportunity

of explaining the charges of misconduct alleged against

him in the manner prescribed in paragraph 14.

(3) Where the employment of any workman is terminated,

the wages earned by him and other dues, if any, shall be

paid before the expiry of the second working day from

the day on which his employment is terminated.

A perusal of the Clause shows that the employment of a

permanent employee can be terminated by serving one

month's notice but Clause 14 deals with the disciplinary

action for misconduct and defines 'misconduct' and how

the disciplinary proceedings are to be conducted and

punishment is to be awarded and the relevant part of

Clause 14 read as follows:—

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3151

Disciplinary action for misconduct—(1) A workman

may be fined up to two per cent of his wages in a month for

any of the following acts and omissions, namely:—

........................................................................................

Note:—Specify the acts and omissions which the

employer may notify with the previous approval. ........ ....

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....

(2) ...

...

(3) The following acts and omissions shall be treated

as misconduct:—

(a) Wilful in-subordination or disobedience,

whether alone or in combination with others,

to any lawful and reasonable order of a

superior;

(b) Theft, fraud, or dishonesty in connection with

the employer's business or property;

or property;

(d) Taking or giving bribes or any illegal

gratification;

(e) Habitual absence without leave or absence

without leave for more than 10 days;

(f)

Habitual late attendance;

(g) Habitual breach of any law applicable to the

establishment;

(h) Riotous or disorderly behaviour during

working hours at the establishments or any

act subversive of discipline;

(i)

Habitual negligence or negliect of work;

(j)

Frequest repetition of any act or omission for

withich a fine may be imposed to a maximum of

2 per cent of the wages in a month;

(k) Striking work or inciting others to strike work

in contravention of the provisions of any law,

or rule having the force of law.

[(l) Sexual harassment which includes such un-

welcome sexual determined behaviour (whether

directly or by implication) as :

(i) physical contact and advances; or

(ii) demand or request for sexual favours; or

(iii) sexually coloured remarks; or

(iv) showing pornography; or

(v) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or

non-verbal conduct of sexual nature.]

[(4) (a) ..

[(b)

[(ba) In the inquiry, the workman shall be entitled

to appear in person or to be represented by

an office bearer of a trade union of which he

is a member.

(bb) The proceedings of the inquiry, shall be

recorded in Hindi or in English or the

language of the State where the Industrial

establishment is located, whichever is

preferred by the workman.

(bc)

The proceedings of the inquiry shall be

completed within a period of three months:

Provided that the period of three months may,

for reasons to be recorded in writing, be

extended for such further period as may be

deemed necessary by the inquiry officer.

(c)

If on the conclusion of the inquiry or as the

case may be, of the criminal proceedings, the

workman has been found guilty of the

charges framed against him and it is

considered, after giving the workman

concerned a reasonable opportunity of

making representation on the penalty

proposed, that an order of dismissal or

suspension or fine or stoppage of annual

increment or reduction in rank would meet

the ends of justice, the employer shall pass

an order accordingly:

Provided that when an order of dismissal is

passed under this Clause, the workman shall

be deemed to have been absent from duty

during the period of suspension and shall

not be entitled to any remuneration for such

period, and the subsistence allowance already

paid to him shall not be recovered:

Provided ..

(d) ..

(e) ..

[(5)]In awarding punishment under this standing order,

the [authority imposing the punishment] shall take

into account the gravity of the misconduct, the

3152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

previous record, if any, of the workmen and any

other extenuating or aggravating circumstances that

may exist. A copy of the order passed by the

[authority imposing the punishment] shall be

supplied to the workman concerned.

[(6) (a)] ..

(b) ..

Thus, Clause 14 of the Order deals with the disciplinary

action to be taken on account of 'misconduct' after

conducting of inquiry and after giving him reasonable

opportunity of making representation on the proposed

penalty. The allegations against the workman were of

'misconduct' for provocating the handling workers and

stopping of unloading/loading of wheat stocks. In such a

situation, the procedure to be followed was as required

under Clause 14 of the order and was not to be taken under

Clause 13 of the Order. The disciplinary authority i.e. Area

Manager who passed the impugned order did not care at

all to go through the clauses of the order carefully and

instead of invoking Clause 14 of the orders which clearly

provide for conduct of inquiry and giving an opportunity

to the workman to make representation against the proposed

penalty, the Area Manager simply choose an easy method

to invoke Clause 13 of the order which is not applicable at

all and in the circumstances, it cannot be said that the act

of the Area Manager is bona fide. Since there were

allegations of misconduct against the workman, inquiry

was necessitated as per Clause 14 of the Act which has not

been conducted in the present case before passing the

impugned order and therefore the impugned order which is

not passed, as per provisions of the law on which the

respondent management itself relies is not sustainable.

That Sh. Dinesh Tripathi, appeared in the witness box

on behalf of the management and has stated that other

four persons were involved along with the workman. He

has further deposed in cross-examination that the other

four persons were reinstated in service. Thus, in not

reinstating the workman along with the other four persons

also shows the attitude of the disciplinary authority towards

the workman and it is clear that the impugned order has

been passed with mala fide intention which not only caused

loss to the workman but also to the management itself.

In result, the reference is answered holding that

termination of services of the workman is not legal and he

is entitled to be reinstated in service within full back wages

from the date of his termination. The respondent

management shall reinstate the workman with one month

and shall pay the arrear of the back wages to the workman

within two months of the publication of the award failing

which the workman shall be entitled to get interest at the

rate of 6 per cent per annum on the amount from the date of

award till realization. However, the management is at liberty

to recover the amount of arrears of back wages from the

person who passed the impugned order as per law. Let

hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Governent for information and further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1485.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QñlhñvkbZñ ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;y; uñ 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 388@2005½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@205@2002&vkbZvkj¼lh&2½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th July, 2015

S.O. 1485.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award Ref. 388/2005 of the Central.

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of

India and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 14/07/2015.

[No. L-22012/205/2002-IR(C-II)]

MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No. 388/2005

Registered on 19.8.2005

Sh. Virender Kumar, son of Sh. Mann Singh, resident of

H.No. 21/3 Rajiv Colony, Kaithal Road, Karnal.

Petitioner

Versus

The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, District

Karnal.

Respondents

Appearances

For the workman

Sh. Jai Pal, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 15.6.2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-22012/205/

2002-IR(C-II) dated 4.8.2005, by exercising its powers under

Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-section

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3153

(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of Food

Corporation of India is terminating the services of Sh.

Virender, S/o Sh. Mann Singh w.e.f. 1.7.1996 is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

In response to the notice, the claimant appeared and

submitted statement of claim pleading that he was

appointed as Security Guard on daily wage basis on

16.2.1995 by the respondent management and he continued

as such till September, 1998 when his services were

terminated without paying him retrenchment compensation

or service of notice. It is further pleaded that the persons

junior to him were retained in service and even fresh

appointments were made. As such the termination of his

services is illegal and he be reinstated in service with full

back wages.

Management i.e. FCI filed written statement

controverting the averments and pleaded that workman

was never employed by it. Management has entered into

an agreement with M/s. Ex-servicemen Security Services,

Kurukshetra for deployment of watch and ward staff for

the protection of foodgrains from time to time as and when

required and the workman was appointed by the said

agency. That the payment was used to be made to the

contractor who in turn used to make the same to its

employees. That no appointment letter or termination letter

was issued to the workman. The management has no

administrative or disciplinary control over him. Since there

is no relationship of employer and employee between the

parties, the workman is not entitled to any relief.

Parties were given opportunity to lead their evidence.

In support of its case, workman appeared in the witness

box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as set out in

the claim petition. He has also examined Sh. Parveen Kumar

who was the contractor of the management who did not

say anything in favour of the workman. He has deposed in

his affidavit that management has given contract to Ex-

servicemen Security Services for supplying manpower and

an agreement dated 24.2.1986 was executed that they used

to supply security guards to the management and had

control over them.

On the other hand the management has examined Sh.

Silky Sona Singla who filed his affidavit reiterating the

averments as contained in the written statement.

I have heard Sh. Jaipal, counsel for the workman and

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.

It ws vehemently contended by the learned counsel for

the workman that workman continuously worked with the

management from February, 1995 to September, 1998 and

his services were terminated without payment of any

retrenchment compensation and therefore the termination

order is illegal. He has further contended that the persons

junior to him were retained in service and even fresh

appointments were made which are in violation of the

provisions of the Act and workman is entitled to be

reinstated in service.

I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.

Workman pleaded that he was appointed as Security

Guard on daily wage basis by the management in February,

1995 and his services were terminated in September, 1998.

The respondent management has pleaded that workman

was appointed by the contractor i.e. M/s. Ex-servicemen

Security Services and as such, the management admits

that the workman worked with it for the period in question

but as a man of the Company to whom contract was given

for deploying watch and ward staff. In these circumstances,

it was for the management to prove that it has given contract

to M/s. Ex-servicemen Security Services and the workman

was on its rolls but the management did not lead any cogent

evidence in this respect. However the workman himself

has examined Parveen Kumar who is from the said agency

and deposed that the management has given a contract in

the year 1986 which was renewed upto the year 1999.

Though he did not place on record any contract entered

into between the parties after 1986 and again he did not

state that the workman was its employee, but still the

statement of the workman himself prove that he was not

employed by the management but he is a man of the said

agency.

The workman has specifically admitted that he was

deputed for duty by the Ex-servicemen Security Services

to different depots of the managements. That the said

agency used to record his attendance and was deducting

his PF from his wages. It was the Ex-servicemen Security

Services who deputed him for duty. Thus, his statement

clinches the issue that it was M/s. Ex-servicemen

Security Services who was deputing him to different

depots and was marking his attendance as well was

deducting his PF and being so, it cannot be said that he

was the employee of the management and rather his own

cross-examination proves that he was engaged by M/s.

Ex-servicemen Security Services. There is nothing on

the file that he ever received any wages from the

respondent management and no appointment letter has

been placed on the file and these facts further disapprove

the case of the workman that he was ever engaged by

the respondent management.

In result, workman has failed to prove that he was an

employee of the management or was ever engaged by it.

When it is so, it cannot be said that his services were

terminated by the management and he is not entitled to

any relief. The reference is accordingly answered against

the workman. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent

to the Central Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

3154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 14 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1486.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chñlhñvkbZñ

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 21@2005½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@07@2015 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@165@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th July, 2015

S.O. 1486.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2005) of the Cent.

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

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Broadcasting Corporation of India,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

14/07/2015.

[No. L-42012/165/2004-IR(CM-II)]

MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

CUM LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 21/2005

Ref. No. L-42012/165/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 29.06.2005

Sri Ramesh Chandra Sanwal,

S/o C.D. Sanwal

Flat No. 566/28/07, Jaiprakash Nagar Lucknow

AND

The Director

Broadcasting Corporation of India,

Doordarshan Kendra

Lucknow

The Managing Director

Broadcasting Corpn. of India

Directorate of Doordarshan

New Delhi

AWARD

1. By order No. L-42012/165/2004-IR(CM-II) dated

29.06.2005 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred

this industrial dispute between Sri Ramesh Chandra Sanwal

S/o Sri C.D. Sanwal Flat No. 566/28/07, Jaiprakash Nagar,

Lucknow and the Director, Broadcasting Corporation of

India, Doordarshan Kendra, Lucknow and the Managing

Director, Broadcasting Corporation of India, Director of

Doordarshan, New Delhi for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

'KYA PRABANDHAN, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA,

LUCKNOW/DELHI DWARA SHRI RAMESH

CHANDRA SANWAL PUTRA SHRI C.D. SANWAL

AKASMIK PRODUCTION SAHAYAK KO SEWA

MAIN NIYAMITIKARAN NA KAR KE DINANK

31.07.2001 KO NAUKARI SE NIKAL DIYA JANA

UCHIT TATHA NAYAYSANGAT HAI? YADI NAHI, TO

KARMKAAR KIS ANUTOSH KO PANDE KA

ADHIKAARI HAI?"

3. This I.D. was adjudicated by my learned predecessor

Hon'ble Dr. Manju Nigam vide award dated 17.09.2013 which

was later on notified by Govt. of India on 17.10.2013. The

workman being aggrieved from the said award preferred

petition Misc. No. S 8315/ 2014 before Hon'ble High Court

of judicature Allahabad, Lucknow bench. Hon'ble High

Court while partly allowing the petition, made the following

observations;

"........In view of the aforesaid pronouncement as also

the distinguishing feature pointed out by the learned

counsel for the petitioner so far as the applicability of

the judgment in Surendranagar District Panchayat v.

Dahyabhai Amarsinh relied upon by the Tribunal and

reported in 2005 AIR SCW 5562, in my view, the findings

of Tribunal with respect to the validity of the

termination of the service of the petitioner cannot be

sustained as for the reason mentioned in paragraph 15

of the above mentioned judgment, the documentary

evidence being available with the employer, who

should have produced the same to rebut the assertions

of the petitioner that he had worked 240 days in a

calendar year so as to attract the provisions of Section

25(f) of the Act, therefore, the findings of the Tribunal

in this regard in the impugned award are set aside and

the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for

consideration of the validity of the termination of

service of the petitioner in terms of the reference made

to it keeping in mind the observations made

hereinabove and the pronouncement of the Supreme

Court reported in 2010 AIR SCW 542."

4. Thereafter notice was issued to the opposite party/

management through registered post and specific direction

was given to avoid undue delay. Several adjournments

were sought. Later on, as per the direction of Hon'ble High

Court, the management produced cheque issue register

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3155

before this Tribunal, documents produced were examined

by learned AR for both the parties. Application W-62 was

moved by the workman seeking directions for the opposite

party to produce the original records including Q-sheet,

muster roll, attendance sheet, gate register, studio pass

party filed application M-61, along with objection, affidavit,

including thereby two annexures.

5. As per the claim statement A1-3, the applicant has

asserted that conciliation proceedings were conducted

before ALC (C), Lucknow. It has been asserted by the

applicant that he was engaged by the opposite party on

31.12.1985 as Casual Production Asstt. In Group "C" against

permanent post. As per the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court the opposite party/employer is covered under the

definition of industry and the applicant is workman under

the I.D. Act.

6. It has been stated in the claim statement that the

applicant was working up till 30.07.2001 with a break; under

Section 25B of the I.D. Act the broken period of the workman

is to be counted for his service by the employer, it has also

been emphasized that the adhoc or casual employee can

not be substituted by a adhoc/casual employee. The

opposite Party No. 1 & 4 vide scheme dated 09.06.1992,

were required to maintain the seniority list of the workman

but they have failed to maintain the same. Scheme dated

17.03.1994 and 05.07.1994 were also not followed by the

opposite party, under Section 25D of the I.D. Act the

opposite party was duty bound to maintain the muster roll

of the workman, opposite party did not maintain the

seniority list of the workmen, including the applicant.

7. The applicant has stated that earlier he has filed OA

No. 619/1994 before Hon'ble CAT, Lucknow against the

employer for regularization in pursuant to the order dated

05.07.1994 passed by the Hon'ble CAT, another order dated

28.01.1993 and in furtherance of the scheme dated

17.03.1994 and 05.07.1991. O.A. No. 619/94 was dismissed

in default for non prosecution, after an order dated

24.08.2001 passed by the Hon'ble CAT, recall application

was moved which was rejected on 10.03.1994.

8. It has also been asserted in the claim statement that

Union of India and others filed a case against Rakesh Kumar

Kukreti, and other in which the applicant workman was

also a respondent in the case which was filed by Union of

India before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal

No. 1122-1136 of 1999. It is pleaded that the employers

have not followed the scheme dated 09.06.1992 and modified

dated 17.03.1994 & 05.07.1994 with respect to this applicant

workman. Inspite of the schemes the employer No. 1, 2, 3, 4

& 5 have regularized the other junior workmen i.e., Sri Umesh

Chandra Mishra, Mohd. Nasir, Rakesh Kumar Kukreti,

Ramesh Chandra Shukla, Mueen Ansari, Sishir Kumar

Singh, Atul Mishra, Smt. Rekha Gupta, Smt. Seem Kazmi,

Ankali Dixit etc.

9. In accordance with the schemes dated 09.06.92, 17.3.94

and 5.7.1994, the employer, No. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 had to regularize

the applicant workman on the post of Production Assistant

but for the ulterior motives they have not regularized the

applicant workman and they have terminated/dismissed/

discharged the services of the applicant inspite of demands

of regularization. The applicant is workman under section

2(s) of the I.D. Act. 1947 and under Section 25-J of the I.D.

Act. Employers have not regularized the applicant. It has

been mentioned in the claim statement that the employer

had stated that the applicant was found overaged in terms

of the schemes for regularization dated 09.06.1992, it was

also mentioned in the scheme dated 09.06.1992 in para 3

that the seniority list will be determined from the date of

initial engagement by Doordarshan Kendra. No enquiry

was initiated against the workman without any fault of the

workman, he was not regularized by the opposite party,

directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High

Court were ignored. It has further been stated by the

workman that at the time of initial engagement he was in

prescribed age limit and other junior persons had been

regularized by the opposite party in violation of Article 14

& 16 of Constitution of India. The workman has prayed to

declare that the opposite party had followed unfair labour

practice on 31.07.2001 while ignoring the applicant, and

the opposite party had wrongly dismissed him, and he is

senior to the junior persons.

10. The opposite party has filed comprehensive written

statement A-17, the workman's claim has been denied by

the opposite party, and it has been specifically pleaded

that the applicant was never appointed as casual artist or

adhoc or otherwise, no appointment letter was ever issued

to the applicant, hence the question to termination or

retrenchment of his services w.e.f. 31.07.2001 does not arise

at all.

11. The opposite party has emphasized that the applicant

was engaged for short period to perform casual nature of

work purely taking into account the requirement of

programme production, for not more than 10 days in a

month. It has also been pleaded by the management that

the direction given in the regularization scheme dated

09.06.1992, modified scheme dated 17.03.1994 and 05.07.1994

were followed and the applicant's case was considered but

he was not found eligible being over age as per the

provision of scheme dated 09.06.1992, so the applicant

could not be regularized by the opposite party. The opposite

party has also mentioned that other persons who were

considered by the management, were regularized in

pursuance of the direction given in the scheme dated

09.06.1992 and 17.03.1994. The management has prayed to

reject the claim of the workman since it lacks merit. It has

3156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

also been pleaded by the management that the regularization

cases of casual artists in Doordarshan Kendra were being

strictly dealt with in the light of the regularization scheme,

upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in several cases.

12. Rejoinder A1-20 has been filed by the workman,

denying the main allegation levelled by the opposite party.

Pleas taken in the claim statement have been reiterated in

the rejoinder. The workman has further asserted in the

rejoinder that his date of birth is 12.11.1956 as per his High

School certificate, while the age limit for the Production

Asstt, as per rules is 21-30 yereas. It has also been

emphasized that the initial date of engagement and date of

birth of Smt. Dixit was 12.02.1991 and 26.07.1961

respectively. She was considered by the management for

regularization in terms of the scheme dt. 9.06.1992, in

furtherance of the direction dated 08.11.2001 given by

Hon'ble CAT, Lucknow in O.A. No. 500/95 and she was

given age-relaxation of one year. The workman has earlier

filed document C-7 to 7/124 and C-8.

13. The management along with written statement has

filed annexures A-17/1—A17/6. The applicant has further

filed paper No. 20/6/ to 20/34. Annexure C-27 to C-30 has

also been filed by the applicant. Paper No. C-32-32/16 have

been filed later on before my learned predecessor along

with application C-34 annexure containing there in certain

rulings of Hon'ble High Court have also been filed.

14. The opposite party along with its affidavit have filed

annexures 418 to 41/21 along with rulings of Hon'ble

Supreme Court. Further the opposite party annexed paper

no. 39/8-39/20 with affidavit M-39.

15. The workman has examined himself whereas the

opposite party has examined Sri G.P. Pandey in support of

their respective pleadings. The learned AR of both the

parties cross examined the witness of each other. Arguments

of learned ARs of both the parties have been heard at

length and I have gone through the entire evidence available

on record, thoroughly alongwith original documents

produced by the opposite party before me.

16. Learned AR for the workman during the course of

arguments objected that the requisite document such as

Q-sheet, muster roll, attendance sheet, gate register and

Studio pass register have not been produced by the

opposite party. This argument was strongly opposed by

the learned AR of the opposite party. The opposite party

submits that records available in the department and

required for calculating number of relevant working days

have been produced before the Tribunal in compliance of

the order of Hon'ble High Court.

17. It is an admitted fact that the applicant was duly paid

for the work done by him. Therefore, the register where in

the details of payment are mentioned, is very crucial. It has

also been pointed out before me that the workman has

himself, while receiving the payment, has admitted the

number of working days on the concerned document. The

burden lies on the workman to prove that he had worked

240 days in the relevant calander year so as to give him the

benefit of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. No doubt, the

opposite party is duty bound of submit before this court

all the relevant documents without concealing any materila

fact. This Tribunal has given specific direction to the

opposite party to submit the relevant register/document

so as to ensure the compliance of the order given by Hon'ble

High Court, consequently facilitating the endeavour to

compute the actual number of working days in the relevant

calander year. There is no reason to doubt the sincerity

and integrity of the management in ascertaining the fact

that the opposite party has come before this Tribunal with

clean hands and has submitted the appropriate/proper

documents before this Tribunal/court as desired by Hon'ble

High Court.

18. Learned AR for the workman has relief upon the

following rulings;

1. (1998) 8 SCC Director, Doordarshan V/s S. Kuttan

Pillai & others page 736.

2. AIR 1976 Indian Standards Institution v/s The

Management of Indian Standards Institution page

145 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

3. 2003 LAB I.C. A.Achutha v/s Sri Rama Sahakara

page 3965 Hob'ble Karnataka High Court.

4. (2000) 3 UPLBEC Rakesh Kumar Pamar v/s. State

of U.P. page 2121 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.

5. 1976 LAB I.C. Uttar Bharat Wollen Mill v/s Shyam

Lal Sharma page 102 Hon'ble Allahabad

High Court.

6. 2004 (100) FLR Andhra Bank v/s B. Satyanarayana

& other page 1011 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

7. 2001 (88) Devdass. Amin v/s State of Maharashtra

& others. Page 206 Hon'ble Bombay High Court.

8. 2003, LAB I.C. M/s BHEL v/s State of U.P. & others

page 2630 Hon'ble High Court of Patna.

9. 1093 Bihar Journal Vinaya Nath Narain Sinha &

others v/s Bihar Journals page 633 Hon'ble Patna

High Court.

10. 1985 LAB I.C. M.P. Irrigation Karmchari Sangh

v/s State of Madhya Pradesh page 392 Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India.

11. 1983 LAB I.C. Y.V. Ranghaya v/s State of Andhra

Pradesh page 1240 Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3157

12. 2006 AIR, SCW, State of Haryana v/s. Dilbagh

Singh page 5435 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

13. 2007 LAB I.C. I.C. Bhaskar v/s. A.K. Bhattacharya

417 Hon'ble Calcutta High Court.

14. 2007 LAB. I.C. Central Coperative Bank Ltd. V/s.

State of Rajasthan & others page 419 Hon'ble

Rajasthan High Court.

19. The learned AR for the management asserts that

most of the aforesaid rulings of Hon'ble Courts do not

apply to the facts and circumstances of the present dispute,

and the workman is not entitled to any relief whatsoever

claimed, in the light of the principle laid down by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in 2005, AIR, SCW, 5562 Surendra Nagar

District Panchyat v/s. Daya Bhai Amar Bhai, 2004 AIR, SCW

5184 Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v/s. Sri Niwas &

others, AIR, SCW Director, Fishries Terminal Division v/s.

Bhiku Bhai Meghaji Bhai Chavda page 542.

20. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival submissions of the learned authorized representatives

of the parties and perused the entire documentary and

oral evidence in light of orders of Hon'ble High Court

dated 06.01.2015.

21. Hon'ble High Court vide their order dated 06.01.2015

remanded back the matter to this Tribunal for consideration

of the validity of termination of services of the workman in

terms of reference made to it. The workman in its statement

of claim has very specifically submitted that he worked

with the management for more than 240 days on the date of

termination i.e. 31.07.2001 and the management of

Doordarshan terminated his services without complying

with the mandatory provisions of Section 25 F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases has observed

that in such cases, the scope of the enquiry before the

Labour Court was confined only to 12 months preceding

the date of termination to decide the question of the

continuous service of 240 days for the purpose of

compliance of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, therefore, the management of the Doordarshan was

directed to file the relevant documents in support of

working days of the workman. The management of

Doordarshan has filed numerous documents in support of

working days of the workman with it, including paper

No. 67/9 & 67/10, the summary of amount paid to the

workman against total number of days of working in each

month, in different years of engagement.

22. Now to check the validity of the termination of the

workman by the opposite parties w.e.f. 31.07.2001 in terms

of provisions contained in Section 25F of the Act, this

Tribunal has to scrutinize as to whether the workman

worked for 240 days in a year preceding the date of

termination i.e. from 01.08.2000 to 30.07.2001? Admittedly,

the workman had been engaged as casual artist, Production

Assistant for fixed period of time, in each month; and from

perusal of details provided in paper No. 67/9 & 67/10 it is

evident that the workman worked for 10 days at most in a

month during the period of his engagement. Placing reliance

over the documents filed by the opposite party, the

authorized representative of the management has submitted

that since the workman has worked for 110 days only during

period 01.08.2000 to 30.07.2001, therefore there was no need

of compliance of provisions contained in Section 25 F of

the Act.

Per contra, the authorized representative of the workman

has submitted that the actual period of engagement was

10 days in a month but workman used to work for whole

month; accordingly, his working cannot be taken for 10

days only. He has pointed out towards provisions contained

in the O.M. dated 17.03.1994, which provides that the casual

staff artists are being engaged for 10days or have been

working on 2-3 assignments in a month on a consolidated

amount of Rs. 40-500 per assignment, but in actual practice,

they have been working throughout month. Therefore, in

view of above O.M., the working period of the workman

comes to be more than 240 days during period 01.08.2000

to 30.07.2001; hence he is entitled for the protection of

provisions contained in Section 25 F of the Act.

23. Having gone thorough contentions of the learned

authorized representatives of the parties and documentary

evidence relief upon, it would be prudent to quote the

relevant portions of O.M. dated 17.03.1994 for correct

calculation of the working period of the workman with the

opposite party, the same reads as under:

"No. 2(J)/ S.1 Dated: 17.03.1994

Office Memorandum

Sub: Scheme for regularization of Casual Artists in

Doordarshan

The undersigned is directed to invite attention to DG:D

O.M. of even number dated 09.06.92 on the above

subject, with which a copy of the scheme for

regularization of Casual Artists of Doordarshan was

circulated. According to condition in para 2 of the

scheme, the number of days for the purpose of

regularization is to be computed on the basis of actual

working days in the Muster Rolls or Attendance Sheets

or 'Q' sheets.

2. It has been brought to the notice of this Directorate

that although these Casual Staff Artists were engaged

for 10 days or have been working on 2-3 assignments in

a month on a consolidated amount of Rs. 400-500 per

assignment, but in actual practice, they have been

working throughout the month. This aspect has been

examined by the Directorate in consultation with

Ministry of I&B and procedure to be followed for arriving

at the number of days of casual working will be as under.

3158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

3. The number of days for the purpose of regularization

will be computed on a the basis of actual wages given

to the prevalent in the State during the relevant time of

working. For example, if a Casual Staff Artist has been

paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 1500 in a month whether

for working for 10 days or for 2-3 assignments in a month

and the minimum wage prevalent in the State at the

relevant time was Rs. 50, the staff artists would be

deemed to have worked fore 30 days in a month (i.e.

Rs. 1500 divided by 50) subject to the condition that the

days so computed would not exceed 25 days in a month."

A bare perusal of the clarifications provided at para 2 &

3 of the O.M. dated 17.03.1994, it becomes crystal clear that

for proper calculation of working period of a casual artist

there were two requirements, firstly the total amount paid

to him in a month and second, the minimum wages prevalent

in the State at the relevant period of time. The details of

payment made and number of working from August, 2000

to July, 2001, as per details provided by the management of

Doordearshan in paper No. 67/9 & 67/10 is a under:

Sl. No. Month

Amount

Actual days (for which

(Rs.)

payment was made)

Aug., 2000

3700

Sept., 2000

3700

Oct., 2000

3700

Nov., 2000

3700

Dec., 2000

3700

Jan., 2001

3700

Feb., 2001

3700

Mar., 2001

3700

May, 2001

3700

10.

June, 2001

3700

11.

July, 2001

3700

In the instant case, although the management of

Doordarshan has provided the details of consolidated

payment made to the workman in a month for the period

from 01.08.2000 to 30.07.2001; but has not provided the

rates of minimum wages prevalent in the State at that

particular period of time. However, from perusal of the details

of payment and number of days of working, as provided in

paper No. 67/10 it comes out that the workman had been

paid Rs. 3700/- in each month from August, 2000 to July,

2001, except April, 2001, for 10 days of working in each

month, thus it is apparent the workman had been paid for

Rs. 370/- each day in the year 2000-2001, which seems too

much, therefor, it could be well presumed that the minimum

rate of wages might have been less than 370/- and in the

absence of nay evidence from the management in this

ragard it can be taken into account that the workman had

worked for full number of days in month during period

from 01.08.2000 to 30.07.2001 and he can be given benefit

of 25 days of working in each month for the period from

August, 2000 to July, 2001, except April, 2001 as per

provisions contained in O.M. dated 17.03.1994. Hence, it

could be well presumed that the workman worked for 275

days during the period from 01.08.2000 to 30.07.2001,

therefore the management of the Doordarshan was duty

bound to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section

25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

24. Now, it is to be considered as to whether the workman

is entitled for reinstatement. From the evidence produced

by the workman it is not proved that his appointment was

as a regular employee. The workman in para 10 (1) of his

statement of claim has stated that he was engaged by the

employers on 31.12.1985 as Casual Production Assistant.

Admittedly, the services of the workman were terminated

on 31.07.2001. In between Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan

Singh (2005) 5 SCC 591; 2005 SCC (L&S) 716 Hon'ble Apex

Court while considering the question regarding award of

back wages has observed:

"There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the

Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination

of service was in violation of section 25F of the Act,

entire back wages should be awarded..........................

However, where the total length of service rendered by

a workman is very small, the award of back wages for

the complete period i.e. from the date of termination till

the date of the award, which our experience shows is

often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate.

Another important factor, which required to be taken

into consideration, is the nature of employment. A regular

service of permanent character cannot be compared to

short of intermittent daily wage employment though it

may be for 240 days in a calander year."

25. In Deepak Ganpat Tari vs. N.E. Theater Pvt. Ltd. 2008

(119) FLR 877 Hon'ble Bomaby High Court relying on the

Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in Govt. of Andhra Prades

& other vs. K Brahmandandam 2008 (117) FLR 1086 (SC)

Telephone DM vs. Keshab Deb 2008 (118) FLR 376 (SC)

JDA vs. Ram Sahai 2006 (111) FLR 1178 (SC), while awarding

compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the concerned workman

considering his daily wages as Rs. 45/- in view of the fact

that the workman had put in about 3 years of service, has

observed as under:

"It is apparent that termination of services of a daily

wager does not amount of retrenchment and for violation

of section 25 F in such circumstances, the employee

cannot be given benefit of reinstatement with continuity

and back wages. Hon'ble Apex Court has hold that in

such circumstance employee is entitled to benefit of

compensation only."

26. In Jagbir Singh vs. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg.

Board (2009) 15 SCC 327 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 545: Senior

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3159

Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal vs. Santosh

Kumar Seal and others (2010) 2 SSC (L&S) 309 Hon'ble

Apex Court has observed as under:

"However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the

legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court has

consistently taken the view that relief by way of

reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and

may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation

even though the termination of an employee is in

contravention of the prescribed procedure.

Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held

to meet the ends of justice.

The award of reinstatement with fill back wages in a

case where the workman has completed 240 days of

work in a year preceding the date of termination,

particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper

by this Court and instead compensation has been

awarded."

27. Therefore, in the light of principle laid down in

aforementioned case laws, it would not be just and proper

to direct that the workman be reinstated in service. The

ends of justice would meet by paying compensation to the

workman instead in place of relief of reinstatement in service.

28. Having regards to these facts that the workman has

worked as casual artist for fixed term from year 1985 to 2001

and he was getting Rs. 3700/- per month at the time of his

alleged termination and keeping in view the entire facts of

the case and the law, the interest of justice would be

subserved, if management is directed to pay lump sum

amount of compensation only.

29. Accordingly, the management is directed to pay a

sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the

workman as compensation for termination of his services

in violation of section 25 F of the I.D. Act. The said amount

shall be paid to the workman within 08 weeks of publication

of the award, failing which; the same shall carry interest @

8% per annum.

30. The reference is answered accordingly.

27. Award as above.

LUCKNOW

29th June, 2015.

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1487.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsanzh; ljdkj dfe'uj vkWQ

lsaVªy ,Dlkbt] dksbEcVksj ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkj ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ

76@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@07@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@104@2014 vkbZ vkj¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 15th July, 2015

S.O. 1487.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 76/2014) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,

Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Commissioner of Central Excise,

Coimbatore and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 14/07/2015.

[No. L-42012/104/2014-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Monday, the 6th July, 2015

Present:

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 76/2014

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),

between the Management of Central Excise and Customs

and their workman)

BETWEEN

Sri V. Sivaraj

1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise

O/o the Commissioner of Central Excise

6/7 ATD Street, Race Course Road

Coimbatore-18

2nd Party/Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

: M/s C.D. Sugumar & T.

Ramkumar, Advocates

For the 2nd Party/Respondent: M/s A.P. Srinivas, Senior

Standing Counsel

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-42012/104/2014-IR (DU)

dated 08.08.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

3160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

The Schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of Commissioner of Central Excise

and Customs in terminating the services of Sri V.

Sivarajan is legal and justified? If not, to what relief, the

petitioner is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 76/2014 and issued notices to both side.

Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel

and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

The petition had studied up to 9th standard. He was

appointed as contingency worker in the Respondent

department on 20.11.1998. Petitioner is a workman as

defined under Section-2(s) of the ID Act. The duty of the

petitioner was to clean the Cargo Complex premises in

Coimbatore Airport. He had attended duties of Office

Attended also. Initially he was paid at the rate of Rs. 1,000/-

per month. Later his salary was raised to Rs. 2,000/- per

month. The petitioner had been continuing as contingent

employee in the Respondent establishment for years

together. He had put in more than 480 days of service within

24 calendar months. The Respondent has orally terminated

the petitioner from service on 13.01.2007. Thereafter he

had filed application before the Central Administrative

Tribunal (CAT). Chennai Bench seeking direction to be

reinstated in service. On dismissal of the OA by the Tribunal

the petitioner had filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble

High Court of Madras and the High Court had set aside the

order of Central Administrative Tribunal and allowed the

petitioner to approach the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal by raising Industrial Dispute. The dispute is raises

accordingly. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in

service with back wages, continuity of service and other

monetary benefits. The Respondent may be directed to

reinstate the petitioner in service, regularize his services

and absorb him in the regular establishment.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as below:

The Central Excise Commissionerate is not an industrial

establishment as defined in S.2(ka) of the ID Act. As such

the issue taken up by the petitioner is not an industrial

dispute. The petitioner was never in the rolls of the

Respondent department. He was engaged for sundry works

as a purely private arrangement by the staff of various

agencies working in the Airport to buy coffee, tea and to

do errands for the staff. The petitioner is not entitled to

reinstatement or regularization as claimed.

5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of

the petitioner examined as WW1 and MW1 and also

documents marked as Ext. W1 to Ext. W15.

6. The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated

in the service of the Respondent?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any other relief?

The Points

7. The petitioner has claimed that he was appointed in

the Respondent department as a contingent worker from

November, 1998 and continued to work so until 13.01.2007

on which date he was orally terminated from service without

any justification. The Schedule of reference is one

challenging the terminating of the service of the petitioner

only. However, in the Claim Statement the petitioner has

claimed not only reinstatement in service but also

regularization of his service and also absorption in the

service of the Respondent.

8. The petitioner has given evidence as WW1. To

substantiate his case he has reiterated his case in the Claim

Statement in the Proof Affidavit also. He has stated during

his cross-examination that he had worked for 90 days in

the Respondent in 1997, that he was re-employed in 1998

and had continued to work till 13.01.2007 on which date he

was orally terminated from service. MW1 Administrative

Officer of the Respondent has stated int he Proof Affidavit

that the petitioner was never appointed as a contingent

worker on 20.11.1998 or any other date. According to him

the petitioner was never issued with any appointment letter.

According to him the petitioner was engaged by some

staff of Air Cargo and Airport Customs Staff for buying tea

and coffee and they had been paying him from their pocket.

According to him the petitioner was never on the rolls of

the Respondent department. MW1 has further stated in

his affidavit that the Respondent is not an industry at all

and therefore the dispute is not an industrial dispute at all.

9. The contention of the Respondent that the dispute is

not maintainable since the Respondent is not an industrial

establishment cannot be accepted. The case of the

petitioner is that he was working as a contingent worker

only. So he comes under the definition of workman under

S.2(s) of the ID Act.

10. The real question to be considered is whether the

petitioner was actually working under the Respondent from

November, 1998 and continued to do so until January, 2007 as

claimed by him. Apart from the oral version of the petitioner

there is no other evidence available to prove that he was

actually employed by the Respondent department. On the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3161

other hand, the documents produced by the petitioner himself

reveal that he was engaged by some of the staff in their

individual capacity. Ext. W3 is said to be a letter written by the

Superintendent of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Coimbatore

to the Joint Commissioner (P&V), HQ's office recommending

that the petitioner may be appointed as a contingent employee

for Air Cargo complex and Airport. From the same letter it is

seen that the petitioner was doing some miscellaneous work

on daily wage basis and wages were borne by the Officers of

Air Cargo Complex, Airport. So it is clear from the very

document that he was never employed by the Respondent

department. By Ext. W3 his name was suggested to be engaged

as contingent employee. Ext. W3 letter is on 03.01.2005. So it is

clear that the claim of the petitioner that he was directly

employed by the Respondent on 20.11.1998 is not correct. Ext.

W5 is another letter written by Deputy Commissioner on

26.08.2005. again requesting to provide regular services of a

contingent employee. In this letter also it is stated that the

petitioner was paid a paltry amount and this expense was

borne by the Customs Officers posted at the Cargo Complex

and Airport. Considering the personal services of the petitioner,

the Dy. Commissioner has recommended him to be posted as

contingent worker. Thus it is clear that the petitioner was

never employed by the Respondent department directly even

as a worker on daily wage basis. This is why the Central

Administrative Tribunal has dismissed his request for

reinstatement of service of the Respondent as seen from Ext.

W13 order. The order was set aside by the order in the Writ

Petition before the High Court of Madras only because the

petitioner admitted before the High Court that CAT was not

the forum for adjudication of this dispute. It is after this the

petitioner has raised the dispute and the matter was referred

to this Tribunal.

11. The material available are not sufficient to show that

the petitioners worked with the Respondent department as

a direct employee at any time. So there is no question of his

reinstatement in service, not to say about regularization

and absorption. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

In view of my discussion above, the reference is answered

against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : WW1, Sri V. Sivarajan

For the 2nd Party/

: MW1, Sri Sivaraman

Management

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ext. W1

—

Transfer Certificate

Ext. W2

—

Commendation letter

Ext. W3

03.01.2005

Proceeding of the 2nd

Respondent

Ext. W4

24.08.2005

Certificate

Ext. W5

26.08.2005

Letter to 1st Respondent

Ext. W6

27.10.2005

Conduct Certificate

Ext. W7

10.07.2006

Request for renewal of

daily permit

Ext. W8

12.07.2006

Conduct Certificate

Ext. W9

12.01.2007

Daily permit

Ext. W10

21.11.2007

Application form

Ext. W11

19.03.2008

Proceedings of the Asstt.

Labour Commissioner

Ext. W12

Aug. 2009

Reply filed by the

Respondent

Ext. W13

10.03.2010

Order in OA No. 749/2008

(Impugned Order)

Ext. W14

18.08.2011

Order in WP 19121 of

2011

Ext. W15

—

Conciliation proceedings

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1488.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZthlh,vkj ,oa

nwljksa ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp

vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 75@2015½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@07@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@101@2015&vkbZ vkj¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh

3162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th July, 2015

S.O. 1488.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 75/2015)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-

Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the IGCAR & others and their

workman, which was received by the Government on

14/07/2015.

[No. L-42012/101/2015-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 7th July, 2015

Present

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 75/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under claue

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

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

Management of IGCAR, Kalpakkam and Another and their

workman)

BETWEEN

Sri K. Sadasivan

1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The Director

2nd Party/Respondent

IGCAR (Principal Employer)

Kalpakkam-603102

2. Mr. Marudhavanan, Manager

Manager M/s Voltas Ltd.,

No. 624, Anna Salai

Chenai-600018 : 2nd Party/2nd Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

: Absent

For the 2nd Party/1st Management : Sri B. Sekar,

Advocate

For the 2nd Party/2nd Management : Sri T.R.

Sathiyamohan,

Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-42012/101/2015-IR (DU)

dated 26.05.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The Schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s Voltas

Limited in terminating the services of Sri K. Sadasivan

w.e.f. 29.08.2012 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the

Section-25 F of ID Act, 1947? If yes, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this tribunal has

numbered it as ID 75/2015 and issued notices to both sides.

The Respondents have entered appearance and filed

Vakalat.

3. Though the petitioner has received notice he has

remained absent. He seems to be not interested in pursuing

the case. So the ID is only to be closed.

The reference is closed and is answered against the

petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer.

Witnesses Examined

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/1st Management

None

For the 2nd Party/2nd Management :

None

Documents Marked:On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3163

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1489.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cki@Hksy

jkf.kisV ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/

kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 46@2015½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 14@7@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42011@30@2015&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 15th July, 2015

S.O. 1489.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No 46/2015) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the BAP/BHEL, Ranipet and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 14/07/2015.

[No. L-42011/30/2015-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 7th July, 2015

Present

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 46/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section

10 of the Industrail Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between

the Management of Doss & Brothers and Another and

their workman)

BETWEEN

The President

1st Party/Petitioner Union

Anaithu Oppandha Thozhilalar Sangam

C/o BAP, BHEL, Ranipet

Tamil Nadu-632406

AND

The General Manager

2nd Party/1st Respondent

BAP/BHEL, Ranipet

Tamil Nadu-632406

The Proprieter : 2nd Party/2nd Respondent

Doss Brothers Abi Construction

Cuddalore to Chidambaram Main Road

Alapakkam & Post, Cuddalore Taluk

Distt. Cuddalore

Cuddalore-608801

Appearance

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

In Person

For the 2nd Party/1st Respondent

Sri F.B. Benjamin George,

Advocate

For the 2nd Party/2nd Respondent : Set Ex-Parte

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-42011/30/2015-IR (DU)

dated 20.04.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The Schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of Management of DASS &

Brothers, the Contractor of M/s BHEL/Ranipet

regarding the termination of the service of Sri K.

Murugadoss is justifiable or not? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 46/2015 and issued notices to both sides.

The petitioner has appeared in person on the second hearing

date and had sought time for filing Claim Statement. The

case has been postponed on two more occasions for Claim

Statement. The petitioner was absented himself again. He

has not filed any Claim Statement also in spite of repeated

postings given. He seems to be not interested in pursuing

the case. In the absence of any material the ID is to be

answered against the petitioner.

The reference is answered against the petitioner. An

award is passed accordingly.

K.P PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/1st Management

None

For the 2nd Party/2nd Management

None

Documents Marked:

on the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

3164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1490.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k xqokgVh

ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 05@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gs] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 16@07@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@84@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2015

S.O. 1490.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2012) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Guwahati as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of N.F. Railway and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

16/07/2015.

[No. L-41011/84/2011-IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, 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. 05 of 2012.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Workman Sri Gautam Ch. Das, represented by the

General Secretary, Rail Mazdoor Union, Guwahati.

-Vrs-

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

APPEARANCE

For the Workman

Mr. N. Khatoniar,

Learned Advocate.

Mr. M.K. Das,

General secretary,

RMU, Maligaon.

For the Management

Mr. A.K. Nath,

Learned Advocate.

Date of Award: 29.06.2015

AWARD

1. This Reference has been initiated on an Industrial

Dispute between the Management of N.F. Railway,

Maligaon, Guwahati represented by General Manager (P),

N.F. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati and their workman

Sri Gautam Ch. Das represented by Rail Mazdoor Union on

account of termination the service of the workman, w.e.f.

23.7.2011, which was referred by the Ministry of Labour,

Government of India, New Delhi vide their order

No. L-41011/84/2011-IR(B-I) dated 29.12.2011. The Schedule

of this Reference is as under.

SCHEDULE

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

Railway in terminating the service of Sh. Gautam Ch.

Das, Emergency Peon, w.e.f. 23.7.2011 is legal and

justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. The case of the workman Sri Gautam Ch. Das, in

nutshell, is that initially he was employed as worker in

Officers Club of N.F. Railway, Maligaon wherefrom he came

to know that there was probability of filling up of some

posts of Substitute Emergency Peon (in short S.E. Peon).

Then he applied for the post of S.E. Peon and accordingly

he was appointed on 11.11.2009 against the clear vacancy

of SE Peon attached to Sri N. Jayram, Chief Commerical

Manager, North East Frontier Railway in the scale of pay

Rs. 2550-3200/- per month under letter No. E/227/E-Peon

(T)/Comml./Loose dtd. 11.11.2009 issued by the General

Manager (P), Maligaon. The post of the workman in the

Emergency Peon Unit under administrative control of the

CCM/N.F. Railway, Maligaon in its Commerical Department

headed by its principal Officer designated as Chief

Commerical Manager at its Headquarter at Maligaon, and

the seniority unit is looked after by the officer of Chief

Personnel Officer, Maligaon, N.F. Railway in the personal

matters. As such the post of S.E. Peon was to be maintained

in the sanctioned strength of the relevant Emergency Peon

Unit of the establishment of Chief Commerical Manager,

N.F. Railway, Maligaon (in short CCM) againt 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 under terms and

conditions. At the relevant time initially the appointment

was made for three months but extended for further period

depending on the satisfaction of the officer for whom in

his official capacity the services of the SE Peon are meant

for till he attains a temporary service status after 120 days

continuous satisfactory service. The Officer to whom in

his official capacity a SE Peon is attached has to certify the

satisfactory service of the SE Peon serving under him at

the end of 90 days of the service of the SE Peon and only

thereafter his service is extended further. It is further pleaded

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) and in the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3165

Master Circular on the appointment of substitutes on the

Railways No. 20 by the Railway Board/Ministry of Railways.

The workman's service was extended after the officer

concerned (CCM, NFR, MLG) certified his service as

satisfactory; and in continuance of his service beyond the

terms and conditions of one month initial appointment and

on completion of his continuous service of 120 days as

satisfactory, the workman was given status of Temporary

Railway Employee with effect from 11.03.2010 as per rules

vide Office order No. E/41/E-Peon/TS(T) dated 12.04.2010

issued by G.M.P. Maligaon. The workman mentioned that

all on a sudden the Management discharged him from the

service by an order dated 23.07.2010 issued by the General

Manager, Personnel, N.F. Railway without following due

procedure as established by law and the relevant Railway

Rules framed therein i.e. the discharge of workman by way

of termination of his service with one month's pay in lieu of

one months notice. The Union also mentioned that in his

letter of termination the workman was entitled to

retrenchment compensation at the rate of 15 days wage for

each completed year of service as due u/s 25F(B) of the

I.D. Act. It is mentioned that the order of discharging him

from service dated 23.7.2010 was effective from 23.7.2010

but it was not available to the workman immediately nor he

was paid the notice pay at the time of termination nor the

Management ever served him the order of termination. The

Management have failed to intimate the workman the

payment of notice pay or instrumentalities of payment of

notice pay and failed to pay him his notice pay and

retrenchment compensation till long after violating the law

of the land as well as the Railways Rules. The Management

also terminated the workman under Rule 301(1) of Indian

Railway Establishment Code, Volume-I, 1985 without

following the Rule as enshrined in Rule 301(1) of the Indian

Railway Establishment Code, Volume-I, 1985.

On being aggrieved the workman reprsented to the

authorities his grievances through successive appeals

followed by reminders praying for revocation of the

termination order or reinstatement or alternative

appointment and also offered to work as SE Peon with any

other officer explaning the situation, but no result being

found out of his long standing representation. Thereafter

a dispute was raised but it was not settled amicably. The

Union approached the RLC (C), Guwahati for conciliation

but it also failed. Thereafter the Ministry of labour referred

this dispute. It is alleged 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 engagement and more

and more officers were allowed SE Peon to be attached to

them after termination of the workman service which are

contrary to Rules as enshrined in Para-E of Circular

No. E/205/O/RP-EMERGENCY PEON/PC/CON Dated,

15.02.1999 issued by Chief Personnel Officer, N.F. Railway

wherein it is provided that while SE, Peon who has not

attained the temporary status can be terminated, it will not

be a case that when he attained temporary status or became

a regular group-D employee as it calls for disciplinary action

which require all the requisites rules and formalities

applicable to the regular employees are to be followed. The

instruction was also given by the Secretary to CCM, N.F.

Railway vide his letter No. C/Secy. to CCM/2010 dated

07.04.2010 giving the intimation that the workman completed

120 days quite satisfactory service and he is to be given

the benefit of the status of temporary servant. The wokman

duly attained temporary status and was paid regular pay is

governed by the Railway Service (Discipline and Appeal)

Rules, 1968. Further case of the Union is that according to

the Railway Establishment Rules the Substitute who has

been in four months continuous service shall be entitled to

all the rights and privileges admissible to temporary

Railway Servants, and who have already acquired temporary

status should be immediately screened for empanelment

and their service should not be artificially broken merely to

deprive from the benefits of attaining temporary status by

dint of his labour. Therefore the order passed by the

Management terminated the service of the workman is

without authority of law, and is contradictory to their own

order as mentioned above as the workman has completed

253 days without break on the date of his last pay

accounting from 11.11.2009 which is the date of appointment

to 31.07.2010 which is the date until which the workman

was paid his salary. It is fruther stated that the Management

has not followed the provision of their own Circular vide

No. E/205/O/RP-EMERGENCY PEON/PC/CON Dated

15.02.1999 which provides that by implication that a

terminated SE Peon has a locus to seek his fresh appointment

in the same seniority unit. It is also stated by the Union

that the termination of service was with effect from 23.7.2010

but the officer with whom he was attached i.e. CCM, N.F.

Railway, Sri Jayaram put him out of his service under whom

and placed him at the disposal at the Sr. Dy. Commerical

Manager, Rangiya Division Sri S.C. Berman with effect from

21.04.2010 to 31.07.2010, and the reason of termination was

shown by the Management far later since the issue of the

order of termination that the Offcer i.e. Shri Jayaram was

not willing to take the workman with him and hence his

service was no longer necessary to Railway Administration.

In the face of the workman's working with the Sr. DCM,

Rangiya before termination, this reason has no legal stand

in and for this reason his service is to be taken as continuing

due to the fact that the workman was taken in by some

officer in place of his erstwhile officer as such, the reason

of termination is not sustainable both in law and in terms of

engagement and as such, the impugned order of termination

is illegal, arbitrary against the provision of Articles 14, 16,

21 and 311(2) of the Constiution of India. Under the above

premise the workman prayed for passing the Award granting

relief directing the Management to implement the award of

3166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

the Hon'ble Court allowing the workman reinstatement from

the date of his termination, absorption in a Group-D or now

equvalent post in the Railway taking the lost time since his

illegal termination as a period eligible to be counted as

continous service requires for screening.

3. The Management, on the other hand, pleaded that

the Emergency Peon will be eligible for assessment of

seniority Unit in Grade-D Post on completion of three years

service after screening as per para-(B) 2 of Circular No. E/

205/O/RP/Emergency Peon/PC/Con dated 15.2.99; and the

Substitute Emergency Peon will attain temporary status

after completion of 120 days satisfactory service as per

Para-G of Circular No. E/205/O/RP-Emergency Peon/PC/

Con dated 15.2.99 and their appointment and other service

condition is guided by the same Circular dated 15.2.99. The

Management denying the contention of the Union that the

workman was terminated without following the due

procedure as established by law and the relevant Railway

Rules, mentioned that Sri N. Jayaram, Ex-CCM, N.F. Rly,

Maligaon was transferred to EC Railways and posted as

AGM, Hajipur, EC Railway and said Mr. N. Jayaram was

not interested to take the workman to Hajipur. In terms of

the GM(P), N.F. Railway, Maligaon's Circular No. 205/O/

RP-Emergency Peon/PC/Con dated 15.2.99, if the officer

leaves N.F. Railway on trasfer or demit office on death,

retirement or superannuation, voluntary retirement, etc, the

service of the Emergency Peon is liable to be terminated

with due notice unless he has rendered one year continuous

service by the time (para-B-5). Accordingly Sri G.C. Das

was terminated from service with one month notice pay in

lieu of notice from 24.7.2010 to 23.8.10 and retrenchment

compensation at the rate of 15 days wages.

The Management pointed out that in Para-4 of the

workman's engagement letter dated 11.11.09 it has been

mentioned that in the event of retirement/transfer of the

Officers with whom the workman are engaged as Substitute

Emergency Peon their service will be terminated if the

successor or any other officers of Traffic Department does

not accept the workman as his SE Peon for remaining

5 years and hence, the termination of the workman was

done in accordance with the provision of the aforesaid

Circular dt. 15.2.99 and the compensation due to the

workman u/s 25(F)(B) of I.D. Act. As regards the statement

made in Para-9 of the claim statement the Management

stated that the notice pay in lieu of notice for one month

w.e.f. 24.07.2010 to 23.08.2010 has been made along with

the termination notice and a bill for an amount of Rs. 6773

was prepared but the same has not been drawn by the

workman and the same became unpaid. The workman has

been advised to provide the details of mode of payment so

that the dues can be paid to him. The Management further

mentioned that in the termination letter dated 23.7.2010

clearly mentioned that in Rule 301(I) of IREC, Vol (1) it has

been provided as "if the termination of his service is due to

some other cause, he shall be entitled to one month's notice

provided he was engaged on a contract for a definite period

and the contract does not provide for any other period of

notice". In the said termination letter it has also been clearly

mentioned in para-3 (D)(5) and E of Circular No. E/205/O/

RP-EMERGENCY PEON/PC/CON dated 15.02.1999 that

termination of service of Emergency Peon when the Officer

transferred to other Railway, the service of the Emergency

Peon who will be terminated unless he has rendered one

year continuous service. Further plea of the Management

is that the Sponsoring Officer of the workman has been

transferred out of N.F. Railway and he expressed

unwillingness to take the workman along with him and at

that time the workman has not completed one year regular

service, and the workman was paid one month's notice pay

in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation due to

him as per provision of I.D. Act; and that DAR proceeding

before completion of one year can only be made when a SE

Peon has completed 120 days of regular service and granted

temporary status, when his services are not satisfactory or

misconduct done by him as such, the Railway Board

Circular dated 15.2.99 as quoted above does not apply. As

per Circular No. E/205/O/RP-EMERGENCY PEON/PC/CON

dated it is provided that the appointment of Emergency

Peon at first instance will be a period of 3 months only and

will be extended further on receipt of a certificate from the

Controlling officer that the services of Emergency Peon

are satisfactory and that he can continue further so that

Temporary status can be given to the SE Peon. The policy

regarding service condition of SE Peon are formulated by

the N.F. Railway following the provision of Indian Railway

Establishment Code, the Railway Establishment Manual,

Industrial Dispute Act and other Railway Rules. The

Management contended that the SE Peon may apply for

reengagement provided any other officer expressed his

willingness to take him as SE Peon, but in the instant case no

officer has submitted willingness to appoint the workman as

SE Peon. Under the above circumstances the Management

contended that the claim statement filed by the workman is

false and frivolous and it is liable to be rejected.

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

three witnesses including the workman Sri Gautam Das

(W.W.1), Sri Sanjib Debnath (W.W.2) one of the neighbors of

the workman, and Sri Mridul Kr. Das, General Secretary, RMU,

N.F. Zone, Pandu (WW.3). While the management examined

one witness namely Sri Amit Kumar, Assistant Personnel Oficer,

N.F. Railway as M.W.1. After closing of evidence of both the

sides I have heard argument from both the sides at length.

The Union submitted written argument also.

5. I have perused the entire C.R., the evidence adduced

by both the sides along with document relied upon them,

and the written argument submitted by the Union. Let me

discuss the evidence adduced by both the sides and the

documents proved by the parties.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3167

6. According to the workman Sri Gautam Ch. Das (W.W.1)

he initially joined as worker in the Officers' club, N.F.

Railway, Maligaon and in course of his working period he

came to know that there were some vacancies in the

Emergency Unit under the Chief Commercial Manager, N.F.

Railway (CCM, N.F. Railway), while he applied for the post

of SE Peon and accordingly he was appointed as SE Peon

vide letter No. E/227/E-Peon(T)/Comml/Loose dated

11.11.09 marked as Exhibit-1 in the scale of pay of Rs. 2550/

- to 3200/- p.m. The workman joined his duties on the same

date i.e. on 11.11.09 and he was attached to CCM, N.F.

Railway. His appointment was initially for a period of

3 months as per the conditions of his service which would

be extended depending upon the satisfaction of the officer

concerned to whom he was attached till attaining the status

of temporary servant after 120 days of continuous

satisfactory service. Accordingly he was given temporary

status on completion of 120 days of continuous service

vide order dated 12.4.2010 marked as Exhibit-2. At that time

workman was working under Sri J. Jayram considering that

Sri N. Joyram would be transferred to E.C. Railway, Hajipur

as AGM, he was transferred to Rangiya and was engaged

as Emergency Peon attached to Sri S.C. Barman, Sr. DCM,

Rangiya from April, 2010 to July, 2010; and in fact, the

General Manager (P) on 26.4.2010 requested the DRM (P),

Rangiya to forward the application of Sri S.C. Barman so as

to engage him as Emergency Peon with him vide his letter

No. E/41/Cadre/E-Peon(T) dated 26.04.2010 provided as

Exhibit-3. But the Management, suddenly discharged the

workman from his service by order issued under Memo

No. 550E/2109(T) dated 23.7.2010 by the General Manager

(P), N.F. Railway, without following the due procedure as

established by law and the relevant Railway Rules vide

Exhibit-4. The workman, on being aggrieved, represented

before the authorities vide his representation dated 25.7.10,

26.7.10, 6.10.10, 5.12.10 vide Exhibit-5, Exhibit-6, Exhibit-7

& Exhibit-8 respectively before the appropriate authority

with prayer for revocation of the termination order,

reinstatement or alternative appointment but all were in

vain. Thereafter, the workman approached the Union (RMU,

N.F. Zone) raising his grievance and ultimately the dispute

was referred to the RLC (C), Guwahati for reconciliation

but it failed, as a result, this reference has been initiated.

The workman also proved the extract from the Attendance

vide Exhibit-10 containing 9 pages which were duly certified

by the authorized officer of the Management.

In course of his cross-examination the W.W.1 stated

that he worked under CCM, N.F. Railway with effect from

11.11.09 to 20.4.2010 and on 21.4.10 he was transferred to

Sr. DCM, Rangiya while on 17.4.10, the CCM, N.F. Railway

called him through his Private Secretary and both the CCM

& PPS told him that since the CCM has been transferred he

has also been transferred to the Sr. DCM, Rangiya and

accordingly he reported the Sr. DCM, Rangiya on 21.4.10.

Further no order for his transfer was issued nor handed

over any document in this respect. He also mentioned he

did not submit any joining report in writing before the Sr.

DCM, Rangiya. The W.W.1 mentioned that as per Exhibit-

3 the letter dated 26.4.2010 the Assistant Personnel Officer

(T) for General Manager (P), Lumding requested the

DRM(P), Rangiya for forwarding the application of S.C.

Barman, Sr. DCM, Ranigya regarding his posting as the

substitute Emergency Peon under the Sr. D.C.M., Rangiya

with approval of DRM, Rangiya. On 24.7.10 when he

attended the duty the Sr. DPO, Rangiya told him that his

service has been terminated, when he came to the CCM

Office, Maligaon and on enquiry the PS to CCM told him

that his service has been terminated. But at the time of

termination he was not paid the Notice Pay i.e. one month's

salary. He denied the suggestion tendered by the learned

Advocate for the Management that at the time of his transfer

the CCM, N.F. Railway, Maligaon wanted to take the

workman with him and on his refusal the CCM, N.F. Railway

posted the workman under another Junior Officer. He also

denied the suggestion that the Sr. DCM, Rangiya was not

interested to keep him and hence his service was terminated.

He again denied the suggestion put forward by the learned

Advocate for the management that due to dissatisfaction

of his Officer Sri S.C. Barman, Sr. DCM his job was

terminated for which the management has nothing to do

with and he is liable to be terminated.

The W.W. 2 Sri Sanjib Deb Nath, one of the neighbours

of the workman Gautam Das, stated the workman was

appointed as SE Peon vide order dated 11.11.09 against the

clear vacancy and was attached to Sri N. Jayram, CCM,

N.F. Railway; and on completion of 120 days of continuous

service the workman was given temporary status. He also

mentioned that considering the fact that Sri N. Joyram would

be transferred to EC Railway, Hajipur, the workman was

transferred to Rangiya and he was engaged as Emergency

Peon attached to Mr. S.C. Barman. W.W.2 stated that he

knew the workman regularly attending his duty at Rangiya.

Thereafter the workman informed him that all on a sudden

the management discharged him from service by an order

dated 23.7.2010 without following the due procedure

established by law.

During his cross-examination he stated that the learned

Advocate for the workman wrote the evidence on Affidavit

after asking him in details about his statement and he put

his signature on his Affidavit after reading over to him the

same by his learned Advocate and finding the content of

the Affidavit correct according to him. He also stated that

his elder brother was working in the Railway staying with

him, and the father of the workman also working in Railway

who was his neighbour. He again mentioned that generally

Emergency Peon are entrusted with the domestic work in

the residence work of the officer and sometimes in need,

they are, to work in office also and the Emergency Peon is

responsible to the Officer with whom he is entrusted. He

3168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

again mentioned that the workman was first attached to

Sri N. Jayram and thereafter he was transferred to Rangiya

and attached to Mr. S.C. Barman, Sr. DCM which he heard

from the workman. He also said that he had not seen the

workman at the residence of Mr. S.C. Barman at Rangiya.

However, he denied the suggestion advanced by the

management that the workman was not transferred to

Rangiya and attached to Mr. Barman. He heard from the

workman that regarding his transfer to Rangiya a letter was

written by the Office. He further denied the suggestion

that due to his good relation with the family of the workman

he deposed supporting the workman without knowing the

actual fact.

The W.W.3, Sri Mridul Kanti Das, General Secretary,

RMU in his evidence mentioned that the post of the

workman is in the Emergency Peon Unit under administrative

control of the CCM, N.F. Railway, and at the relevant time

the post of SE Peon was maintained to the sanctioned

strength of the relevant Emergency Peon Unit of that

establishment and there is permissible percentage of the

Book of Sanction for substitutes according to which

substitutes can be engaged in a permanent post when

permanent incumbent is absent or otherwise when such

engagement is required. He also mentioned that the

substitutes are defined and their service conditions are

provided for in Rule 1515 to 1516 of the Railway

Establishment Manual 1989 (Revised Edition) and in the

Master Circular on the Appointment of Substitutes. He

has proved the extract from Rule 1512 to Rule 1516 of the

Indian Railway Establishment Manual, 1989 vide Exhibit-

11; the Master Circular No. 20 regarding appointment of

Substitute in Railway vide Exhibit12; the Rule 301 of Indian

Railway Establishment Code, Volume-I, 1985 vide Exhibit-

13. The W.W. 3 mentioned that the order of termination of

the workman states that the workman was terminated from

service under Rule 301(1) of Indian Railway Establishment

Code, Volume-I, and Para-B (5) (e) of letter No. E/205/O/RP-

EMERGENCY PEON/PC/CON dated 15.2.99 and Para-2 of

the engagement latter; and the said order was passed

without following the due procedure established by law

and the relevant Railway Rules framed thereunder. He also

mentioned that there existed vacancy in these posts and

adequate numbers to continue the work in the post of SE

Peon in the Traffic Department of the Headquarters Unit

with any other officer or given due treatment under the

provision and the vacant posts were filled up after

termination of the workman from service. In support of this

contention the W.W. 3 proved the information regarding

the vacancy position supplied by the Management under

RTI Act vide Exhibit-14 wherein it has been made clear that

after the termination of the workman the next men in the

same manner of ad hoc appointment were appointed in the

Commercial Department as SE Peons and there was one

clear vacancy; but the management have acted in a way to

deprive the workman from easy and routine engagement

as SE Peon for another officer even though he sought

such an engagement and more and more officers were

allowed SE Peon to be attached to them after the termination

of the workman. Mr. Das, further mentioned that as per

Para-E of the Railway Establishment Manual the Master

Circular No. E/205/O/RP-EMERGENCY PEON/PC/CON

dated 15.2.99 marked as Exhibit-15 read with Indian Railway

Establishment Manual and the Establishment Code along

with the provision of I.D. Act, while EP who has attained

the temporary status it falls for a disciplinary action which

required for all the requisite rules and formalities applicable

for the regular employees are to be followed. The W.W. 3

further stated that the notice pay was not paid to the

workman as per rule as mentioned in Para-E-4 of Circular

marked as Exhibit-15 and the retrenchment compensation

was also not paid at the time of termination as per Section

25F(B) of the I.D. Act. In support of his contention the

W.W. 3 has proved the Pass Book of SBI in respect of the

Bank Account of the workman vide Exhibit-19.

In course of his cross-examination the W.W. 3 stated

that the workman informed the Union verbally as to his

grievance against the management and there is no written

document with the Union in this regard, and that the

workman was discharged under Rule 301 of Indian Railway

Establishment Code, Volume-I without assigning any reason

thereof. He also mentioned that the information produced

by him before the Court in support of his statement at para-

5 of his evidence-in Affidavit obtaining the same under

RTI Act through one Mr. Chatterjee and as he has been

representing the workman on behalf of the Union he has

produced the same before the Court. He also mentioned

that in his evidence he categorically stated that the workman

was deprived of getting the employment due to the

violation of the Standing Order of the Raiwlay. However,

he denied the suggestion that he has not specifically

mentioned on what point the management has violated

their Circular in not appointing the workman and that after

transfer of the then CCM, Mr. Joyram, due to non-

recommendation of the workman by any other officer the

workman was discharged. He also denied the suggestion

that due to transfer of Mr. Joyram and also for non-

recommending the name of the workman by Sri S.C. Barman,

Sr. DCM, Rangiya the service of the workman could not be

continued, and as such, the management has not committed

any wrong or illegality in discontinuing the service of the

workman and that the management will still consider the

workman if he appears with recommendation of the

competent officer.

The Management Witness No. 1, Mr. Amit Kumar,

Assistant Personnel Officer, Traffic, N.F. Railway, Maligaon,

who is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the

case, deposed that the workman Gautam Das was appointed

as SE Peon attached to CCM, N.F. Railway with effect from

11.11.09. As per the condition No. 3 of the appointment

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3169

letter in respect of the workman vide No. E/227/E-Peon(T)/

COMML/Loose dated 11.11.09 marked as Exhibit-A. The

workman would be transferred with the Officer for whom

he was engaged as SE Peon or would be discharged in the

event of the officer for whom he was engaged expressed

his unwillingness to take him on transfer along with him;

and that Sri N. Jayram, CCM, N.F. Railway with whom the

workman was engaged, was transferred to East Central

Railway on 19.7.2010, who was not willing to take the

workman with him as SE Peon and the same was intimated

to the Establishment Officer, N. F. Railway through his

Secretary vide Exhibit-C. The workman was not appointed

in Railway through open market Railway Recruitment Board

examination or other procedure, he was appointed as per

the policy decision of N. F. Railway vide policy of

Emergency Peon-Revised Policy in engagement/

retrenchment etc. vide No. F/205/O/RP-EMERGENCY

PEON/PC/CON Dated 15.2.99 marked as Exhibit-D; and as

per para-C(1) of the said letter the procedure of Emergency

Peon who is not a regular group-D employee transfer from

one Railway to another Railway is not possible; and that in

case of officers taking the Emergency Peon with them on

transfer, the service of the Emergency Peon will be deemed

to have been terminated automatically and the said

Emergency Peon will have no right for absorption back on

the basis of previous service. He also mentioned that as

per para-B(2) of the said Policy (Exhibit-D) the Emergency

Peon are eligible for regular absorption only after completion

of 3 years continuous satisfactory service, and as the

workman was engaged with Mr. N. Joyram, CCM who was

transferred to East Central Railway and as the workman

has not completed the prescribed service for absorption in

Railway as regular employee and as his transfer was not

possible as per the transfer policy of the Railway, hence,

his service was terminated with effect from 23.7.2010. The

MW.1 stated that the N. F. Railway furnished reply to the

representation submitted by the workman vide their letter

No. 550E/2109 dated 02.11.2010 marked as Exhibit-E, and

the notice pay in lieu of notice for one month and the

retrenchment compensation was prepared along with

termination letter and accordingly the bill amounting to

Rs. 6773/- was prepared by BR No. T/160/10 dated 27.7.2010

vide Exhibit-F, but the workman did not come forward to

receive the amount from the cash office and hence it remain

unpaid, nor did the workman submit his mode of payment

option. Further the workman was paid his leave salary and

the same was paid through Bank on submission of the

option for mode of payment by the workman vice Exhibit-G

the sanction order to leave encashment; and Exhibit-H the

option for mode of payment submitted by the workman. He

again mentioned that the service of the workman was

terminated as per the provision of the Railway Rules as

mentioned above as well as according to the provision of

law and that the termination was not as the major of

penalty; and hence, the workman is not entitled to any

relief and the reference is liable to be set aside.

During his cross-examination the MW.1 stated that the

workman worked upto 23.7.2010 and he used to sign the

Attendance Register regularly and the said Attendance

concerned namely N. Jayram, CCM. He mantioned that the

Emergency Peon are to work both in bunglow of the officer

concerned and discharge all the emergency works of the

officer concerned. He also added that during his service

tenure the workman used to attend his duty regularly.

However he denied the suggestion tendered by the Union

that during April, 2010 to June, 2010 the workman was

appointed as Emergency Peon attached to S.C. Barman,

Sr. DCM, Rangiya. But he could not say if the workman

served as Emergency Peon under Mr. Barman, Sr. DCM,

Rangiya, however, the then APO(T), Sri G.K. Dey wrote a

letter marked as Exhibit-3 to the DRMP/Rangiya regarding

posting of E. Peon attached to DCM, Rangiya to the effect

that Mr. SC Barman, DCM, Rangiya had proposed for

engagement of the workman as Emergency Peon attached

with him vide application dated 30.3.2010. Mr. Kumar again

denied the suggestion that due to some understanding

between Shri N. Joyram, CCM & Sri S.C. Barman, Sr. DCM,

regarding engagement of the workman as Emergency Peon

attached to Sr. DCM, Rangiya the letter marked as Exhibit-

3 was issued. He also mentioned that it is not known to him

whether the termination letter was received by the workman

by acknowledging the receipt of the same putting his

signature. However, Mr. Kumar denied that the workman

concerned has not received the termination letter marked

as Exhibit-4.

7. On perusal of the document marked as Exhibit-1 i.e.

the letter of engagement of the workman Sri Gautam Ch.

Das as SE Peon, it appears from the terms and conditions

No. 5 of the said engagement letter the engagement of SE

Peon at the first instance will be for a period of 3 months

only and it will be extended further on receipt of a certificate

from the Controlling Officer to the effefct that the service

of the SE Peon are satisfactory and that he can be

continued. As per Rule 1515 of the Indian Railway

Establishment Manual 1989 (proved as Exhibit-11) the SE

Peons are entitled to all rights and privileges as admissible

to the temporary Railway Servant after acquiring the

temporary status. The said rule is as under:

“1515. Rights and Privileges admissible to the

Substitutes.—Substitutes should be afforded all the

rights and privileges as may be admissible to

temporary railway servants, from time to time on

completion of four months continuous service.

Substitute school teachers may, however, be afforded

temporary status after they have put in continuous

service of three months and their services should be

treated as continuous for all purposes except

seniority on their eventual absorption against regular

posts after selection."

3170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Para - 4.2. of the Master Circular of appointment of

Substitutes on the Railways vide No. E(NG)11/90/68

(Exhibit-12) runs as under:

“4.2:- they should be allowed all the rights and

privileges as are admissible to temporary Railway

employees on completion of four months continuous

service."

In the revised policy for engagement/retrenchment of

Emergency Peon issued vide letter No. E/205/O/RP-

MERGENCY PEON/PC/CON dated 15.2.1999 (Exhibit-15)

by the N.F. Railway, Maligaon in para-A-5 it has been clearly

mentioned that the appointment of Emergency Peon at the

first instance will be for a period of 3 months only and will

be extended further on receipt of a certificate from

Controlling Officer that the service of Emergency Peons

are satisfactory and that he can continue further. In Para-E

of the said Circular (Exhibit-10) speccifically mentioned the

matter regarding discharge/termination of service of Peons

which runs as:

"E DISCHARGE/TERMINATION OF SERVICE OF

E/PEONS

1. Termination of the services of E/Peons is a sensitive

aspect and this is 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 form 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 Estblishment Code,

Volume-I, is the relevant rule under which termination of

service of Emergency Peon is to be resorted to.

3. NOTICE FOR TERMINATION OR PAYMENT IN

LIEU OF NOTICE.

While resorting to termination, due notice or pay in lieu

of notice must be given, otherwise it will not be able to

stand judicial proceeding, if any.

(a)

For Emergency Peon who has

14 days notice is to be

Completed for 120 days service

given for termination of

service or 14 days wage in

lieu is to be given.

(b)

For Emergency Peon who has

one month's notice is to be

Completed 240 days service.

given or one month's pay

in lieu of notice is to be

given.

(c)

For those who have not

No notice or Notice Pay

Completed even 120 days

in lieu is required to be

service.

given.

4. PROCEDURE FOR PAYING NOTICE IN LIEU OF

NOTICE

Payment of Notice Pay is a very important aspect and

the proper course of action is to be ensured to prepare the

bill beforehand and get it passed from the Accounts. When

the bill reaches Cash Office, then only the termination order

is to be handed over to the concerned E/Peon, whose

services are sought to be terminated. In the termination

order, it should be indicated that the E/Peon concerned

should take his Notice Pay from the concerned Cash Office.

It is very important because unless Notice Pay is given in

lieu of Notice within 48 hours of termination of service and

the person concerned goes to the CAT or Regional Labour

Commissioner, the entire process of termination of service

may be declared null and void. This is a very vital issue. “It

may be mentioned that the Court cases in regard to

termination of service of Emergency Peon largely originate

from this aspect".

Rule 301(1) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code

marked as Exhibit-13 (proved in original) which provides

that

“301-Termination of Service & Period of Notice - (1)

Temporary Railway Servants - When a person

without a lien on a permanent post under Government

is appointed to hold a temporary post or to officiate

in a permanent post, he is entitled to no notice of the

termination of his service if such termination is due

to the expiry of the sanction to the post which he

holds or the expiry of the officiating vacancy, or to

his compulsory reirement due to mental or physical

incapacity or to his removal or dismissal as a

disciplinary measure after compliance with the

provisions of Clause (2) of Articles 311 of the

Constitution of India. If the termination of his service

is due to some other cause, he shall be entitled to

one month's notice provided he was engaged on a

contract for a definite period and the contract does

not provide for any other period of notice; and to a

notice of 14 days if he was not engage on a contract."

8. From the pleadings of both the sides as well as the

evidence of management witness No. 1 it is found admitted

that the workman was engaged as SE Peon with effect from

11.11.09 and he discharged his duties upto 23.07.2004

regularly and so such, he rendered continuous service of

253 days, and that the workman was granted temporary

status with effect from 11.3.2010 vide Exhibit-2. The extract

from the Attendance Register of SE Peon proved as Exhibit-

10 (9 pages) shows that the workman had been working as

SE Peon with effect from 11.11.09 to 15.7.10 and thereafter

he was spared to Sr. DCM, Rangiya and worked there upto

23.7.2010 (as admitted), although the workman in course of

his cross-examination confirmed that he worked under

CCM, N.F. Railway with effect from 11.11.09 to 20.4.2010

and he was transferred and attached to Sr. DCM, Rangiya

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3171

on 21.4.2010 as per verbal order to the CCM N.F. Railway

and his Private Secretary; and accordingly he reported to

his duty under Sri S.C. Barman Sr. DCM, Rangiya on

21.4.2010. The workman also categorically mentioned that

on 24.7.2010 when he attended his duty the Sr. DPO,

Rangiya told him that his service has been terminated. From

the note dated 21.7.2010 issued by the Secretary to CCM,

Maligaon addressed to the APO(T), Maligaon vide No. G/

SS/S/NF/Pt proved as Exhibit-C shows that Mr. N. Joyram,

CCM, N.F. Railway under whom the workman was attached

to had handed over his charge on 19.7.2010; while the

termination letter was issued on 23.7.2010. The Union took

the plea that consequent upon transfer of Mr. N. Joyram,

CCM, N.F. Railway to EC Railway as AGM, the workman

was spared to Rangiya and he was allowed to work as SE

Peon attached to Mr. S.C. Barman, Sr. DCM, Rangiya. In

this connection the Union has proved the letter marked as

Exhibit-3 (No. E/41/cadre/E-Peon (T) dated 26.4.2010)

issued by the Assistant Personnel Office (T) for the General

Manager (T), Maligaon to the DRM (P), Rangiya wherein it

has been stated as under:-

"(1) Sr. S.C. Barman, Sr. DCM/RNY has proposed for

engagement of Emergency Peon Shri Gautam Ch. Das

attached with him vide application dated 30.03.2010. Shri

Gautam Ch. Das has already been appointed as Sub. E/

Peon attached with N. Jayram, CCM/MLG. Since CCM/

NFR is going to be transferred to E.C. Railway/Hajipur as

AGM, Sri S.C. Barman.

(2) But it is seen that the proposal of Sri S.C. Barman,

Sr. DCM/RNY for engagement of Sri Gautam Ch. Das as

Sub. E/Peon attached to him has not been forwarded with

approval of DRM/RNY.

(3) It is therefore, you are requested to forward the

application of Sri S.C. Barman, Sr. DCM/RNY regarding

posting of Sri Gautam Ch. Das as Sub. E/Peon under him

with approval of DRM/RNY for further processing the case

as desired by competent authority."

From the language of this letter it is revealed that Sri

S.C. Barman, Sr. DCM, Rangiya has proposed for

engagement of Emergency Peon Sri Gautam Ch. Das

consequent upon transfer of Mr. N. Jayram, CCM, Maligaon

and at that time Sri Gautam Ch. Das was attached to Sr. S.C.

Barman, Sr. DCM, Rangiya; and as such, the DRM(P),

Rangiya has been requested to forwarded the application

of Sr. S.C. Barman, Sr. DCM, Rangiya regaring the posting

of Gautam Ch. Das as SE Peon with approval of the DRM,

Rangiya. From the above, it can safely be poined that before

transfer of Mr. N. Joyram, the then CCM, N.F. Railway,

Maligaon the workman Gautam Ch. Das was attched to Mr.

S.C. Barman, Sr. DCM, Rangiya on the prefernce given by

Sr. S.C. Barman, Sr. DCM, Rangiya. The Rule 1515 of the

Indian Railway Establishment Manual 1989, revised edition

clearly mentioned that Substitues should be afforded all

the rights and privileges as may be admissible to temporary

railway servants, from time to time on completion of our

months continuous service. The management vide their

letter marked as Exhibit-4 terminated the service of the

workman under Rule 301(1) of Indian Railway Establishment

Code, Volume-1 and the Railway Circular letter dated 15.2.99

(Exhibit15) without assigning any reason thereof. Since

the workman Gautam Ch. Das has acquired the temporary

status the Discipline, Appeal and Conduct Rules of

Railways is applicable in the case. But the Management

terminated the workman without following the provision

of the said rules. According to the Digest of Discipline

Appeal and Conduct Rules by B.S. Mainee, Rules 1-3:

APPLICATION & DEFINITIONS

(7) X X X X X X

X X X X

Notes (i) X X X X X

(ii) It has been clearly mentioned that Casual labours

and substitutes on completion of four month service, when

paid regular scales of pay, attain temporary status and are,

as such, governed by these rules.

Thus it is clear that the engagement of Substitute

Emergency Peon is made initially for a period of 90 days

and it can be extended subject to the certicate of satisfactory

service of the said Emergency Peon by the Officer

concerned with whom he was attached to, and that on

completion of 120 days of satisfactory service the said

Substitute Emergency Peon acquires the rights and

privileges similar to those of a temporary railway servant.

It is also found that after attaining temporary status the

service of substitute Emergency Peon cannot be

terminated/retrenched without following the due process

of law and the provision of Article 311 of the Constitution

of India.

The Management both in their W.S. as well as in their

evidence (evidence of management witness No. 1) admitted

that fact that the workman was engaged as SE Peon with

effect from 11.11.09 and he discharged his duty upon

23.07.2010 after attaining temporary status, & that the

workman was regular in attending his duties with

satisfaction of the officer to whom the workman was

attached. It is also found well established that the notice

pay as well as the retrenchement compensation have not

been paid to the workman as per the provision of Revised

Policy for engagement/retrenchment of Emergency Peon

issued vide letter dt. 15.2.99 (Exhibit-15) & Rule 301(1) of

Indian Rly. Estt. Code, Volume-I (Exhibit-13). Further, the

evidence on record as discussed above also showes that

the contention of the Union that the workman as per the

verbal direction of the officers of the Railway reported for

duty to the Sr. D.C.M., Rangiya can not be ruled out.

9. During argument Mr. A.K. Nath, learned Advocate

for the management submitted that the workman was

3172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

terminated from service with effect from 23.7.2010 under

Rule 301(1) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code,

Volume-I consequent upon the transfer of the officer

concerned i.e. Mr. N. Joyram, CCM, N.F. Railway, Maligaon

with whom the workman was attached to and also due to

non-submission of preference of attachemnt of the said

workman by any other office. Mr. Nath, Learned Advocate

also mentioned that the terms and conditions of the

engagement of the workman has been clearly mentioned in

the engagement letter marked as Exhibit-1 Mr. Nath, Learned

Advocate also mentioned that the claim of the workman

that he had been attached to Mr. S.C. Barman, Sr. DRM,

Rangiya is also not true since there is no proof, and that

the plea of the Union relying upon the document marked

as Exhibit-3 is not true and legal since the said letter is not

a forceful one in order to justify that the workman had been

attached to Sri. S.C. Barman, Sr. DCM, Rangiya.

Mr. M.K. Das learned counsel for the Union submitted

that the workman after attaining the status of temporary

Railway Servant is entitled to all the rights and privileges

admissible to the temporary Railway Servant and hence

the workman is entitled to protection under Rule 14 and

311(2) of the Constitution of India. In support of his

contention Mr. Das relied upon the case of V.P. Ahuja - Vrs-

State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 239

wherein it was held that a probationer like a temporary

servant is also entitled for certain protection, his service

can not be terminated arbitrarily or punitively without

complying with the principle of natural justice; and that

the termination order could not be passed without following

the regular enquiry. In the said judgement the Hon'ble

Supreme Court also observes that the Appellant cannot

claim any right on the post on which he was appointed and

being on probation and his service could be terminated

since his work was not satisfactory without any notice as

set out in the appointment letter but this plea can not be

accepted. Mr. Das also relied the case of Purshotam Lal

Dhingra - vrs - Union of India, Respondent AIR 1958 SC

361 wherein it was observed that just as Art. 310, in terms,

makes no distinction between permanent and temporary

members of the services or between persons holding

permanent or temporary posts in the matter of their tenure

being dependent upon the pleasure of the President or the

Governor, so does Art. 311, make no distinction between

the two classes, both of which are, therefore, within its

protection. To limit the protection of Article 311 only two

persons who are permanent members of the service or who

hold permanent civil post will be to do equal works to the

Railway which would be contrary to is not principle of

introduction of Constitution or a Statute. In that case the

Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed" In the absence

of any special contract the substantive appointment to a

permanent post gives the servant so appointed a right to

hold the post until, under the rules, he attains the age of

superannuation or is compulsorily retired after having put

in the prescribed number of years' service or the post is

abolished and his service cannot be terminated except by

way of punishment for misconduct, negligence, inefficiency

or any other disqualification found against him on proper

equiry after due notice to him. An appointment to a

temporary post for a certain specified period also gives the

servant so appointed a right to hold the post for the entire

period of his tenure cannot be put an end to during that

period unless he is, by way of punishment, dismissed or

removed from the service".

Mr. M.K. Das also raised another argument that the

workman was verbally ordered by the CCM, N.F. Railway

& P.P.S to the CCM, N.F. Rly, that the workman has been

transferred to the Sr. DCM, Rangiya & accordingly the

workman reported for duties to the Sr. DCM, Rangia on

21.4.2014 & worked there till 24.7.2010 & the contention of

the Union in their claim statement as well as in their evidence

remained untwisted, unshaken & un-rebutted & as such

the verbal order of transfer of the workman amount to

promise by the management of N.F. Railway & hence the

management is estoppel from terminating the workman. In

this connection Mr. Das relied upon the decision in Jit Ram

Shiv Kumar & Other-vs-State of Haryana & Others reported

in AIR, 1980 SC 1285.

10. The evidence on record show that the workman after

his termination represented the Management on several

occasions for his re-instatement/re-engagement vide

Exhibit-5, Exhibit-6, Exhibit-7, Exhibit-8 and Exhibit-9 but

the Management did not pay heed to it. Further, the

information regarding the vacancy of SE Peon at the

relevant period as it supplied by the Management vide

Exhibit-14 on filling application by the Union under R.T.I

Act shows that there was one vacancy and the SE Peon

under Dy. CCM, N.F. Railway. Thus, the Management could

re-engage/re-instate the workman against the said vacant

post of SE Peon. Further, there is also nothing to show on

record that under what circumstances after receiving

preference to attach the workman from Mr. S.C. Barman, Sr.

DCM, Rangia to entrust the workman with him. The evidence

on record also shows that at the time of termination of the

workman no Notice Pay was paid although the Management

Witness said that although the bill for Notice Pay of the

workman was prepared vide Exhibit-F. On perusal and on

scrutiny of the Exhibit-F it is seen that the said Notice Pay

was prepared on 14.11.2010 and the same was signed on

14.11.2012 as such, it is crystal clear that the Management

has committed gross violation of the Rules regarding

payment of Notice Pay to the workman & such an act of

the management is illegal.

11. From the above discussion it is found well

established that the service of the workman was terminated,

after discharging his duty for a period of 253 days i.e. after

acquiring the status of temporary Government servant,

without holdeing any enquiry nor issuing any prior notice

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3173

to the workman. Further it is also found that the workman

after his dismissal represented before the Appellate

Authority for his reinstatement but there is nothing on

record to show that his appeal was entertained. In this

connection I am inclined to rely upon the decision of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Ram Chander—vrs—Union of India and

Ors. reported in AIR 1986 SC 1173 wherein it was held that

‘‘it is of utmost importance after the Forty-Second

Amendment as interpreted by the majority in Tulsiram

Patel's case that the Appellate Authority must not only

give a 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."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases held

that reasonable opportunity as envisaged by Articles 311(2)

should be afforded to the workman before his dismissal/

removal/termination, and that the authority concerned

empowered with the task of entertaining appeal who applied

their mind on the representation of the delinquent. In the

instant case the workman in spite of acquiring the status of

temporary Railway servant was deprived of availing the

protection as envisaged under Rule 301 in the Railway

Establishment Code, the letter No. E/2005/O/RP-

EMERGENCY PEON/PC/CON dated 15.2.99 (Exhibit-15) the

revised Policy for engagement/retrenchment of Emergency

Peon (Exhibit-17) issued by the Railway, and the Discipline

Appeal and Conduct Rules. It is also found well established

that the workman was denied the protection as envisaged

in Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India as

well as the principle of natural justice.

12. In this connection, before parting with my

discussion, it may not be out of context to mention here

that in the schedule of this reference it has been mentioned

that whether the action of the Management of N.F. Railway,

in terminating the service of Sri Gautam Chandra Das,

Emergency peon w.e.f. 23.7.2011 is legal & justified. While

both the management & the Union in their pleadings as

well as evidence admitted the fact that the workman was

terminated from his service on 23.7.2010. As such, there is

no dispute as to the date of termination of the workman

from service e.i. on 23.7.2010. Moreover, there is also chance

of wrong entry of the date as 23.7.2011 due to typographical

mistake. Hence, the date of termination of the workman is

accepted as 23.7.2010 in lieu of 23.7.2011 as mentioned in

the Schedule of this reference. In view of my above

discussion and having regard to the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court as discussed above I find no reason to

reject the contention of the Union that the workman

Sri Gautam Ch. Das was terminated from his service as

Emergency Peon with effect from 23.07.2010 after attaining

temporary status, is illegal and not justified, and such action

of the Management is against the provision of Art. 311(2)

of the Constitution of India, the Standing Orders of the

Railway and the principle of natural justice. Accordingly it

is opined that the action of the management of N.F. Railway,

Guwahati in terminating the service of the workman

Sri Gautam Ch. Das, Ex/Emergency Peon vide order is illegal

and not justified. As such the workman is entitled to relief.

13. In the face of the findings arrived at as above, it is

held that the workman is entitled to be reinstated as

Substitute Emergency Peon or in Group-D or now equivalent

post in Railway with his inter-se seniority as on the date of

his engagement. As regards backwage as claimed by the

workman it is mentioned that the workman in his evidence

stated that since after his termination he has been working

in a private company drawing wage of Rs. 2000/-p.m. (vide

Exhibit-8), and in my humble opinion I find it wise to award

50% of his back wage with effect from the date of his

termination, which I hope will meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly this reference is disposed of deciding the issue

in favour of the workman.

14. However, I award no cost. Let this Award be

forwarded to the Ministry for needful as per procedure.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this 29th

day of June, 2015 at Guwahati.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1491-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa

Je ea=ky; vklulksy ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼100@1999½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@156@1999&vkbZñ vkjñ ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2015

S.O. 1491.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby published the Award (Ref. No.100/1999) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute

between the management of State Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 16/07/

2015.

[No. L-12012/156/1999-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

3174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

PRESENT: Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 100 OF 1999

PARTIES : The management of State Bank of India,

Burdwan

Vs.

Sri Mayanand Prasad

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Management

Sri A. Chakraborty,

Ld. Adv.

For the union (Workman) :

Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Adv.

Industry : Bank State: West Bengal

Dated: 01.07.2015

AWARD

In exercose of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L.12012/

156/1999-IR(B-I) dated 29.07.1999 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India, Zonal Office, Region IV Burdwan in

termination the service of Shri Mayanand Prasad,

Messenger on 31.03.1997 is legal and justified, if not

what relief the workman is entitled to?"

————

Having received the Order No. L-12012/156/1999-

IR(B-I) dated 29.07.1999 of the above said reference from

the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 100 of

1999 was registered on 18.08.1999 and accordingly an order

to that effect was passed to issue notices through the

registered post to the parties concerned directing them to

appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written

statements along with the relevant documents and a list of

witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the

said order notices by the registered post were sent to the

parties concerned.

Case called out. Sri A. Chakraborty, Learned Advocate

for the management (State Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Burdwan) and Sri P.K. Das Learned Advocate for the

workman (Sri Gopal Chandra Dutta) are present.

Mr. P.K. Das submits that the case may be closed and a

'No dispute Award' may be passed as he has got no

instruction from the workman. He has also mentioned it on

the order sheet. On perusal of case record I find that the

workman is neither appearing nor taking any step from

05.09.2012 for his cross-examination. It seems that the

workman is now not at all interested to proceed with the

case further. The case is also very old—in the year 1999.

As such the case is closed and a 'No Dispute Award' may

be passed.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute

existing Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.

The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1492-+—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj iwoZ jsyos ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

17@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@07@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@19@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi the 16th July, 2015

S.O. 1492.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby published the Award (Ref. No.17/2014) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute

between the management of North Eastern Railway and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

16/07/2015.

[No. L-41011/19/2014-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. NO. 17/2014

REF. No. L-41011/19/2014-IR(B-I) dated: 19.03.2014

BETWEEN

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3175

Anchal Sangthan Secretary

Rail Sevak Sangh

C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi

49, Tilak Nagar,

Lucknow

(Espousing cause of Sri Saheb Charan)

AND

Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer

North Eastern Railway

DRM Officer, Ashok Marg

Lucknow.

The Chief Medical Superintendent

North Eastern Railway

Gonda (UP)

AWARD

By order No. L-41011/19/2014-IR(B-I) dated

19.03.2014 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred

this industrial dispute between Anchal Sangthan Secretary,

Rail Sevak Sangh, C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi, 49, Tilak Nagar,

Lucknow and Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern

Railway, DRM Office, Ashok Marg, Lucknow & The Chief

Medical Superintendent, North Eastern Railway, Gonda

(UP) for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

^^D;k iwoksZÙkj jsy iz'kklu] y[kuÅ o xksaMk }kjk Jh lkgc pju

iq= Jh larjke] lQ+kbZokyk dks iqjkuh isa'ku us nsdj ubZ isa'ku

fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks dkexkj fdl

jkgr dks ikus dk gdnkj gS\**

3. On Receipt of the reference order the workman's union

was issued registered notice to file his statement of claim

complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and

witnesses before Tribunal on 22.05.2014 with an advance

copy to the opposite party. The Secretary of the workman's

union appeared before this Tribunal and requested for a

date for filling of statement of claim.

4. On successive dates the management also turned up.

Since the case was related to grant of old pension scheme

instead of new pension scheme, the parties were advised

to settle the dispute amicably through Lok Adalat.

Accordingly, the case was taken up at Lok Adalat on

08.05.2015.

5. On 08.05.2015, Shri D.P. Awasthi, Secretary of the

workman's union was present whereas the opposite parties

were represented by Shri Upendera Kumar Sharma, Chief

Welfare Officer.

6. The opposite party filed M-5, letter signed by Sri P.B.

Prasad, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern

Railway, Lucknow, enclosing circular No. 2012/F(E)III/I(1)/

2 dated 29.10.2014 of the Railway Board. The management

in letter M- 5, referring circular dated 29.10.2014 has stated

that the Railway Board, New Delh vide their circular dated

29.10.2014 has directed to cover the employees who got

temporary status prior to 01.01.2004 may be covered under

Old Pension Scheme.

7. A copy of the M-5 was furnished to the workman's

union. The authorized representative of the workman's

union sought time to consult the workman; and

accordingly, the case was taken up on 19.06.2015 at Lok

Adalat. The Authorised representative of the worman's

union, Shri D.P. Awasthi after going through the contents

of letter, M-5 and circular dated 29.10.2014 showed

willingness to withdraw the present industrial dispute

being claim settled; and made an endorsement thereupon

as under:

"Since the relief claimed by the Union has been

accepted by the opposite parties, the further

proceeding of case may kindly be dropped."

8. In view of the submission/endorsement of the

workman's union for dropping of the proceedings, there

is no grievance left with the workman's union as the

present industrial dispute pertains to non-grant of old

pension to the workman by the railway management and

the management of the railway has granted the same vide

circular 2012/F(E)III/1/(1)/2 dated 29.10.2014 of the

Railway Board. Resultantly, the industrial dispute stands

settled; and no relief is required to be given to the

workman concerned. The reference under adjudication is

answered accordingly.

9. Award as above.

Lucknow, 06th July, 2015

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1493-+—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mrj iwoZ jsyos

izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 18@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@20@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2015

S.O. 1493.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2014) of the Cent. Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the

Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management

3176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

of North Eastern Railway and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 16/07/2015.

[No. L-41011/20/2014-IR (B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT : SHRI RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 18/2014

Ref. No. L-41011/20/2014-IR (B-I) dated: 31.03.2014

BETWEEN

Anchal Sanghthan Secretary

Rail Sevak Sangh

C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi

49, Tilak Nagar

Lucknow.

(Espousing cause of Shri Parmatma & Others)

AND

Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer

North Eastern Railway

DRM Office, Ashok Marg,

Lucknow.

The Chief Medical Superintendent

North Eastern Railway

Gonda (UP)

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41011/20/2014-IR (B-I) dated: 31.03.2014

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

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

industrial dispute between Anchal Sanghthan Secretary,

Rail Sevak Sangh, C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi, 49, Tilak Nagar,

Lucknow and Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern

Railway, DRM Office, Ashok Marg, Lucknow & the Chief

Medical Superintendent, North Eastern Railway, Gonda

(UP) for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

^^D;k iwoksZÙkj jsy iz'kklu] y[kuÅ o xksaMk }kjk Jh ijekRek

'kekZ iq= Jh cPpw yky] gjh'k pUnz] NksVs yky ,oa jkes'oj]

lQ~kbZokyk dks iqjkuh isa'ku u nsdj ubZ isa'ku fn;k tkuk

U;k;ksfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha] rks dkexkj fdl jkgr dks ikus

dk gdnkj gS\**

3. On receipt of the reference order the workman's union

was issued registered notice to file his statement of claim

complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and

witnesses before Tribunal on 22.05.2014 with an advance

copy to the opposite party. The Secretary of the workman's

union appeared before this Tribunal and requested for a

date for filing of statement of claim.

4. On successive dates the management also turned up.

Since the case was related to grant of old pension scheme

instead of new pension scheme, the parties were advised

to settle the dispute amicably through Lok Adalat.

Accordingly, the case was taken up at Lok Adalat on

08.05.2015.

5. On 08.05.2015, Shri D.P. Awasthi Secretary of the

workman's union was present whereas the opposite parties

were represented by Shri Upendera Kumar Sharma, Chief

Welfare Officer.

6. The opposite party filed M-5, letter signed by Sri P.B.

Prasad, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern

Railway, Lucknow, enclosing circular No. 2012/F(E)III/I/2

dated 29.10.2014 of the Railway Board. The management in

letter M-5, referring circular dated 29.10.2014 has stated

that the Railway Board, New Delhi vide their circular dated

29.10.2014 has directed to cover the employees who got

temporary status prior to 01.01.2004 may be covered under

Old Pension Scheme.

7. A copy of the M-5 was furnished to the workman's

union. The authorized representative of the workman's

union sought time to consult the workman; and accordingly,

the case was taken up on 19.06.2015 at Lok Adalat. The

Authorized representative of the workman's union, Shri

D.P. Awasthi after going through the contents of letter,

M-5 and circular dated 29.10.2014 showed willingness to

withdraw the present industrial dispute being claim settled;

and made an endorsement thereupon as under:

"Since the relief claimed by the Union has been

accepted by the Rly. management, the further

proceeding of case may kindly be dropped."

8. In view of the submission/endorsement of the

workman's union for dropping of the proceedings, there is

no grievance left with the workman's union as the present

industrial dispute pertains to non-grant of old pension to

the workman by the railway management and the

management of the railway has granted the same vide

circular 2012/F(E)III/(I)/2 dated 29.10.2014 of the Railway

Board. Resultantly, the industrial dispute stands settled;

and no relief is required to be given to the workman

concerned. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

9. Award as above.

Lucknow, 06th July, 2015

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3177

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1494-+—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mrj iwoZ jsyos

izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 20@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@22@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2015

S.O. 1494.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2014) of the Cent.

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

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of North Eastern Railway and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 16/07/

2015.

[No. L-41011/22/2014-IR (B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 20/2014

Ref. No. L-41011/22/2014-IR (B-I) dated: 31.03.2014

BETWEEN

Anchal Sanghthan Secretary

Rail Sevak Sangh

C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi

49, Tilak Nagar

Lucknow.

(Espousing cause of Shri Sai Riyz Ali)

AND

Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer

North Eastern Railway

DRM Office, Ashok Marg,

Lucknow.

The Chief Medical Superintendent

North Eastern Railway

Gonda (UP)

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41011/22/2014-IR (B-I) dated: 31.03.2014

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

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

industrial dispute between Anchal Sanghthan Secretary,

Rail Sevak Sangh, C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi, 49, Tilak Nagar,

Lucknow and Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern

Railway, DRM Office, Ashok Marg, Lucknow & the Chief

Medical Superintendent, North Eastern Railway, Gonda

(UP) for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

^^D;k iwoksZÙkj jsy iz'kklu] y[kuÅ o xksaMk }kjk Jh fj;kt+ iq=

Jh QStqy] lQkbZokyk dks iqjkuh isa'ku u nsdj ubZ isa'ku fn;k

tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha] rks dkexkj fdl jkgr

dks ikus dk gdnkj gS\**

3. On receipt of the reference order the workman's union

was issued registered notice to file his statement of claim

complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and

witnesses before Tribunal on 22.05.2014 with an advance

copy to the opposite party. The Secretary of the workman's

union appeared before this Tribunal and requested for a

date for filing of statement of claim.

4. On successive dates the management also turned up.

Since the case was related to grant of old pension scheme

instead of new pension scheme, the parties were advised

to settle the dispute amicably through Lok Adalat.

Accordingly, the case was taken up at Lok Adalat on

08.05.2015.

5. On 08.05.2015, Shri D.P. Awasthi Secretary of the

workman's union was present whereas the opposite parties

were represented by Shri Upendera Kumar Sharma, Chief

Welfare Officer.

6. The opposite party filed M-7, letter signed by Sri P.B.

Prasad, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern

Railway, Lucknow, enclosing circular No. 2012/F(E)III/I/2

dated 29.10.2014 of the Railway Board. The management in

letter M-7, referring circular dated 29.10.2014 has stated

that the Railway Board, New Delhi vide their circular dated

29.10.2014 has directed to cover the employees who got

temporary status prior to 01.01.2004 may be covered under

Old Pension Scheme.

7. A copy of the M-7 was furnished to the workman's

union. The authorized representative of the workman's

union sought time to consult the workman; and accordingly,

the case was taken up on 19.06.2015 at Lok Adalat. The

Authorized representative of the workman's union, Shri

D.P. Awasthi after going through the contents of letter,

M-7 and circular dated 29.10.2014 showed willingness to

withdraw the present industrial dispute being claim settled;

and made an endorsement thereupon as under:

3178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

"Since the relief claimed by the Union has been

accepted by the Rly. management, the further

proceeding of case may kindly be dropped."

8. In view of the submission/endorsement of the

workman's union for dropping of the proceedings, there is

no grievance left with the workman's union as the present

industrial dispute pertains to non-grant of old pension to

the workman by the railway management and the

management of the railway has granted the same vide

circular 2012/F(E)III/(I)/2 dated 29.10.2014 of the Railway

Board. Resultantly, the industrial dispute stands settled;

and no relief is required to be given to the workman

concerned. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

9. Award as above.

Lucknow, 06th July, 2015

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1495-+—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mrj iwoZ jsyos

izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 19@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@21@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2015

S.O. 1495.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2014) of the Cent.

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

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of North Eastern Railway and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 16/07/

2015.

[No. L-41011/21/2014-IR (B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT : SHRI RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 19/2014

Ref. No. L-41011/21/2014-IR (B-I) dated: 31.03.2014

BETWEEN

Anchal Sanghthan Secretary

Rail Sevak Sangh

C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi

49, Tilak Nagar

Lucknow.

(Espousing cause of Shri Vipat)

AND

Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer

North Eastern Railway

DRM Office, Ashok Marg,

Lucknow.

The Chief Medical Superintendent

North Eastern Railway

Gonda (UP)

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41011/21/2014-IR (B-I) dated: 31.03.2014

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New

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

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

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

industrial dispute between Anchal Sanghthan Secretary,

Rail Sevak Sangh, C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi, 49, Tilak Nagar,

Lucknow and Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern

Railway, DRM Office, Ashok Marg, Lucknow & the Chief

Medical Superintendent, North Eastern Railway, Gonda

(UP) for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

^^D;k iwoksZÙkj jsy iz'kklu] y[kuÅ o xksaMk }kjk Jh foir iq=

Jh gjh izlkn] lQkbZokyk dks iqjkuh isa'ku u nsdj ubZ isa'ku

fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha] rks dkexkj fdl

jkgr dks ikus dk gdnkj gS\**

3. On receipt of the reference order the workman's union

was issued registered notice to file his statement of claim

complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and

witnesses before Tribunal on 22.05.2014 with an advance

copy to the opposite party. The Secretary of the workman's

union appeared before this Tribunal and requested for a

date for filing of statement of claim.

4. On successive dates the management also turned up.

Since the case was related to grant of old pension scheme

instead of new pension scheme, the parties were advised

to settle the dispute amicably through Lok Adalat.

Accordingly, the case was taken up at Lok Adalat on

08.05.2015.

5. On 08.05.2015, Shri D.P. Awasthi Secretary of the

workman's union was present whereas the opposite parties

were represented by Shri Upendera Kumar Sharma, Chief

Welfare Officer.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3179

6. The opposite party filed M-5, letter signed by Sri P.B.

Prasad, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern

Railway, Lucknow, enclosing circular No. 2012/F(E)III/I/2

dated 29.10.2014 of the Railway Board. The management in

letter M-5, referring circular dated 29.10.2014 has stated

that the Railway Board, New Delhi vide their circular dated

29.10.2014 has directed to cover the employees who got

temporary status prior to 01.01.2004 may be covered under

Old Pension Scheme.

7. A copy of the M-5 was furnished to the workman's

union. The authorized representative of the workman's

union sought time to consult the workman; and

accordingly, the case was taken up on 19.06.2015 at Lok

Adalat. The Authorized representative of the workman's

union, Shri D.P. Awasthi after going through the contents

of letter, M-5 and circular dated 29.10.2014 showed

willingness to withdraw the present industrial dispute being

claim settled; and made an endorsement thereupon as

under:

"Since the relief claimed by the Union has been

accepted by the Rly. management, the further

proceeding of case may kindly be dropped."

8. In view of the submission/endorsement of the

workman's union for dropping of the proceedings, there

is no grievance left with the workman's union as the

present industrial dispute pertains to non-grant of old

pension to the workman by the railway management and

the management of the railway has granted the same vide

circular 2012/F(E)III/(I)/2 dated 29.10.2014 of the

Railway Board. Resultantly, the industrial dispute stands

settled; and no relief is required to be given to the

workman concerned. The reference under adjudication is

answered accordingly.

9. Award as above.

Lucknow, 06th July, 2015

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1496-+—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mrj iwoZ jsyos

izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 21@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@23@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2015

S.O. 1496.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21@2014) of the Cent.

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

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of North Eastern Railway and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 16/07/2015.

[No. L-41011/23/2014-IR (B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

SHRI RAKESH KUMAR

Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 21/2014

Ref. No. L-41011/23/2014-IR (B-I) dated: 31.03.2014

BETWEEN

Anchal Sangthan Secretary

Rail Sevak Sangh

C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi

49, Tilak Nagar

Lucknow.

(Espousing cause of Shri Ramdeen)

AND

Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer

North Eastern Railway

DRM Office, Ashok Marg,

Lucknow.

I.D. No. 21/2014.

The Chief Medical Superintendent

North Eastern Railway

Gonda (UP)

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41011/23/2014-IR (B-I) dated: 31.03.2014

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New

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

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

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

industrial dispute between Anchal Sangthan Secretary, Rail

Sevak Sangh, C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi, 49, Tilak Nagar,

Lucknow and Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern

Railway, DRM Office, Ashok Marg, Lucknow & the Chief

Medical Superintendent, North Eastern Railway, Gonda

(UP) for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

^^D;k iwoksZÙkj jsy iz'kklu] y[kuÅ o xksaMk }kjk Jh jkenhu]

iq= Jh iyVu] lQ~kbZokyk dks iqjkuh isa'ku u nsdj ubZ isa'ku

fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha] rks dkexkj fdl

jkgr dks ikus dk gdnkj gS\**

3180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

3. On receipt of the reference order the workman's union

was issued registered notice to file his statement of claim

complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and

witnesses before Tribunal on 22.05.2014 with an advance

copy to the opposite party. The Secretary of the workman's

union appeared before this Tribunal and requested for a

date for filing of statement of claim.

4. On successive dates the management also turned up.

Since the case was related to grant of old pension scheme

instead of new pension scheme, the parties were advised

to settle the dispute amicably through Lok Adalat.

Accordingly, the case was taken up at Lok Adalat on

08.05.2015.

5. On 08.05.2015, Shri D.P. Awasthi Secretary of the

workman's union was present whereas the opposite parties

were represented by Shri Upendera Kumar Sharma, Chief

Welfare Officer.

6. The opposite party filed M-3, letter signed by

Sri P.B. Prasad, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North

Eastern Railway, Lucknow, enclosing circular No. 2012/

F(E)III/I/2 dated 29.10.2014 of the Railway Board. The

management in letter M-3, referring circular dated

29.10.2014 has stated that the Railway Board, New Delhi

vide their circular dated 29.10.2014 has directed to cover

the employees who got temporary status prior to 01.01.2004

may be covered under Old Pension Scheme.

7. A copy of the M-3 was furnished to the workman's

union. The authorized representative of the workman's

union sought time to consult the workman; and accordingly,

the case was taken up on 19.06.2015 at Lok Adalat. The

Authorized representative of the workman's union, Shri

D.P. Awasthi after going through the contents of letter,

M-3 and circular dated 29.10.2014 showed willingness

to withdraw the present industrial dispute being claim

settled; and made an endorsement thereupon as under:

‘‘Since the relief claimed by the Union has been

accepted by the Rly. management, the further

proceeding of case may kindly be dropped’’

8. In view of the submission/endorsement of the

workman's union for dropping of the proceedings, there is

no grievance left with the workman's union as the present

industrial dispute pertains to non-grant of old pension to

the workman by the railway management and the

management of the railway has granted the same vide

circular 2012/F(E)III/(I)/2 dated 29.10.2014 of the

Railway Board. Resultantly, the industrial dispute stands

settled; and no relief is required to be given to the

workman concerned. The reference under adjudication is

answered accordingly.

9. Award as above.

Lucknow, 06th July, 2015

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1497-+—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos ds

izca/kra= lac) ds fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky;&II, fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 39@10½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@28@2009&vkbZvkj¼ch- 1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, 16th July, 2015

S.O. 1497.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/10) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No.-II, Delhi as

shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between

the management of Northern Railway and their workman,

received by the Central Government on 16/07/2015.

[No. L-41012/28/2009-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

CUM-LABOUR COURT-II.

DELHI

Present:

SHRI HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA

ID. No. 39/10

Shri Sukhbir Singh, S/o Sri Rishal Singh,

R/o T-324, Baljeet Nagar,

New Delhi.

Versus

The General Manager.

Northern Railway.

Baroda House.

New Delhi-110001

The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction).

Northern Railway.

Mahabad Khan Road.

Tilak Bridge.

New Delhi.

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide

Notification No. L-41012/28/2009 IR(B-I) dated 18.11.2010

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Northern

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3181

Railway through General Manager, Baroda House,

New Delhi and the Deputy Chief Engineer

(construction), Northern Railway, Tilak Bridge. New

Delhi in terminating services of S. Sukhbir Singh.

S/o Sh. Rishal Singh, Ex-Chowkidar is justified? What

relief the concerned workman is entitled to?

On 25.11.2010 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D. No. 39/10 and claimant was

called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from

date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

After service of notice workman/claimant filed claim

statement on 01.02.2011. Wherein he prayed as follows:—

In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is

therefore most respectfully prayed to the Hon'ble

Adjudicating Court may kindly be consider the matter of

enquiry which was is against the rule of natural justice and

direct the management to grant ex-gratia amount to the

workman in lieu of continuity of service and in lieu of full

back wages w.e.f. 10.01.2007 as the order of removal is illegal

un-natural and against the rule of natural justice. The

workman is becoming over age.

Against Statement of Claim Management filed Written

Statement on 04.04.2011. Wherein management prayed as

follows:—

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that in the facts

and circumstances as mentioned above the statement of

the claim of the workman may kindly be rejected.

Any other or further order(s) which this Hon'ble

Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances may also be passed in favour of management

against the workman.

Rejoinder or Reply of the written statement on the behalf

of the workman was filed on 20.12.2011. Wherein he prayed

as follows:—

In view of facts, as mentioned above the prayer para of

the claim statement of workman is true and lawful and the

same kindly be reiterated as correct in the interest of justice.

On the basis of pleadings following issues have been

framed by Ld. Predecessor on 22.03.2012:—

1. Whether the departmental enquiry conducted in this

case was legal, just and fair and was not in violation of the

principles of natural justice. If not, what directions are

called for in this case?

2. As per the reference sent by the Govt. of India to

this Tribunal in this case.

3. Relief.

Workman in support of his case filed his affidavit on

19.02.2013.

Workman tendered his affidavit on 09.05.2013 and he

was partly cross-examined on same day.

His statement of tendering of affidavit and partly cross-

examination is as follows:—

I tender my affidavit as evidence which is Ex. WWI/A.

Alongwith this affidavit, I rely on representations dated

13.12.2006, 30.04.2007, 27.06.2007, charge sheet dated

06.12.2007and order dated 04.12.2008, which documents

are Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/5. These documents may be

read alongwith my affidavit.

XXXX: By Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Ld. A/R for the

management.

It is correct that the property which was watched by me

as a part of my duty was worth about Rs. 7 crores. I intimated

my office, about my absence from my duty from 15.08.1991

to 02.11.1993, since I fell ill. I had sent an application in that

regard in August 1991 through my brother. It was mentioned

in that application that I was down with fever and request

for leave for 15 days was made. My brother told that my

application for leave was acceptable by the office.

Thereafter, I had not moved any application. Though I was

duty bound to sent an application for leave, but I had not

sent any other application. On account of fever, my brain

went out of order. I have no documents in my possession

to prove that my brain went out of order. Further cross-

examination is deferred since Sh. Neeraj Kumar wants to

put certain documents to the witness, which are not in his

possession now.

Workman further partly cross-examined on 19.11.2013.

His partly cross—examination is as follows:—

Q. When your order of Disciplinary Authority was

received by you?

Ans. I do not know the date of receiving the order.

Q. Through which medium that order was received by

you?

Ans. Personally as well as through post.

Q. Whether you filed appeal against aforesaid order?

Ans. Yes.

Q. Whether appeal has been decided or pending?

Ans. Pending.

Q. In which court appeal is pending?

Ans. I am not aware of it.

Workman further cross-examined on 28.01.2014. His

further cross-examination is as follows:—

Q. Whether you remained absent from duties 05.10.2006

to 16.10.2006 without any intimation to his superior?

Ans. No.

3182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Q. For aforesaid absence you was penalized.

Ans. No.

Q. Whether you gave reply to Railway Authority for

aforesaid penalty.

Ans. No.

Q. Whether memorandum which is shown to you was

given to you.

Ans. No.

Q. Whether shown memorandum contains signature

or receiving the memorandum?

Ans. No.

Observation copies of memorandum has been filed

by A/R of the management after showing list to the witness.

Q. Whether reply which is shown to you was given by

you in response to pending order (memorandum dated

16.10.2006)?

Ans. May it be but I am not remembering. It is incorrect

to suggest that department was not satisfied with my reply

and penalized me.

Q. Whether copy of minor penalty was provide to you

and you got it receipt?

Ans. No.

After showing the aforesaid paper Ld. A/R for the

management filed photocopy of it.

Q. Whether you gave representation to department for

your regularization?

Ans. I am not remembering at present.

Q. Whether you further remained absent since

10.01.2007 to 04.12.2008?

Ans. I was not remained absent. I was sent to Rohtak

by department and Brijwasan.

Q. Whether action against you was taken by department

on the ground of aforesaid action?

Ans. Department has not communicated to me of and

officers of the department gives me direction to confuse

me.

Q. Whether department prior to taken action sent letter

dtd. 13.06.2007, 29.06.2007 and 03.07.2007 through regd.

post?

Ans. No such letters were received by me.

Observation:—

Receipt of Regd. Post has not been filed by management

so far. Nor AD has been filed by management so far.

Q. Why you have not joined the service after receiving

the letters from the department.?

Ans. Department has not permitted me to join the job

and make me be fool for about 2 years.

Q. Whether you made any complaints to Superiors?

Ans. No.

Q. Whether chargesheet was submitted by department

to you and its copy was given to you?

Ans. Yes.

Q. Whether Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct

Inquiry against you?

Ans. I do not know.

Q. Whether you participated in that Inquiry?

Ans. I have not participated as I was not informed.

Subsequently stated that I participated and gave answers

to the questions subsequently signed my statement.

Q. Opportunity to you was provided to engage any

person on your behalf to look after your defence?

Ans. Yes.

Q. Whether sufficient opportunity to engage a person

or Lawyer was given to you but inspite of that opportunity

but you have not any person.

Ans. As my dauthter was illing and expenses being

incurred on her illness so I couldnot engage a lawyer.

Q. Whether free legal aid could be provided to me?

Ans. I do not know such provision.

I have sought time in written even then time was not

granted to me by department to took after the defence.

No copy of such application has been filed in this tribunal.

Nor such copy is available with me. I cannot show in future

as it was made in a single piece.

Q. Whether after conclusion of Inquiry. Inquiry officer

submitted Inquiry paper against you and copy of which

was supplied to you.

Ans. No.

Q. Whether aforesaid Inquiry Report was sent to you.

Through section Engineer on 16.09.2008?

Ans. No.

Q. Whether show cause notice to propose sentence

was given to you?

Ans. No.

Q. Whether you made sign of receiving to aforesaid

show cause notice.

Ans. I am not remembering.

Q. When you have not filed reply to show cause notice

then punishing authority imposed punishment of removal?

Ans. Yes.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3183

Q. Whether you was provided an opportunity of filing

appeal against order of removal before Chief Engineer within

45 days?

Ans. Yes.

I filed appeal but result has not been communicated

copy of memorandum of appeal has not been filed by me in

this court.

Q. Whether you enquired about disposal of appeal,

pendency of appeal etc.

Ans. Nothing could be traced out.

Q. Whether removal order in accordance with Law?

Ans. No.

It is incorrect to suggest that removal order is just fair

and proper.

Management in support of its case filed affidavit of

MW1 Sh. R.S, Ujiayan on 9.5.2014.

Management tendered its affidavit on 10.6.2014. His

statement of tendering of affidavit is as follows:

I tender in evidence my affidavit Exh. MW1/A which

bears my signature at point 'A' and 'B'. I rely upon my

documents Ex. MW1/A to Ex. MW1/H.

MW1 was cross-examined on 28.10.2014.

His cross-examination is as follows:—

XXXXX: By Sh. S.K. Gupta, Ld. A/R for the workman.

Q1. Whether you have letter through which you was

appointed inquiry officer?

A. No, as it was not needed at all.

Affidavit which has been filed by me has been prepare

by my Ld. A/R on my directions.

Q2. As per contents of para 4 of your affidavit workman

remained absent for period of 829 days. Whether in this

respect inquiry has been launched against workman?

A. It is not in my knowledge whether any inquiry prior

to inquiry which was conducted by me was initiated against

workman.

Q3. Whether contents of para 5 of your affidavit are

correct?

A. Yes.

Q4. Whether you conducted inquiry in respect of default

of workman in respect of his absence since 5.10.2006 to

16.10.2006?

Ans. No.

I was appointed inquiry officer to conduct the inquiry

of workman on the point of misconduct in not resuming

duty after temporary transfer to Rohtak.

After aforesaid misconduct an conclusion of aforesaid

inquiry disciplinary authority confirmed the report of inquiry

officer and consequently dismissed the workman. So no

question of transfer from Rohtak to other place arises.

It is incorrect to suggest that workman was transferred

to Brijwasan from Rohtak. In Inquiry proceedings workman

participated as well as remained absent on certain dates.

Whenever workman remains absent in inquiry

proceeding I give notice to workman to come and participate

inquiry proceedings on next date.

Copies of notices sent to workman to attend and

participate on further proceedings of inquiry is in the record

of inquiry proceedings.

Photocopies of postal receipts has been attest with the

inquiry record which is on court file.

Photocopy of envelope bearing date 4.12.08. During

inquiry workman expressed his desire to conduct his case

himself. Although he was asked whether he wants to be

represented by Ld. A/R.

I have submitted my report after completion of inquiry

on 2.9.2008. I submitted my inquiry report to disciplinary

authority. I never been appointed inquiry officer in any

other case.

It is incorrect to suggest that I submitted inquiry report

under pressure of management.

It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely to

justify my fabricated inquiry report.

On the date of arguments none turn up on behalf of

claimant. So I heard the arguments of Ld. A/R for the

management.

Ld. A/R for Management stressed that departmental

inquiry conducted against workman was legal, just and fair

and so it is not in violation of principles of natural justice.

He also pointed out that Management proved its case

as pleaded in written statement on the point of fairness etc.

departmental inquiry.

Moreover, Workman and his witness could not prove

the case of workman. In this background he stressed that

there is no material on record to question of validity of

departmental inquiry. So no direction to management are

called for in the instant case.

On the date of argument I have permitted the Ld. A/R as

well as workman to argue before passing of award which

has been reserved but till now none on behalf of workman

came forward to put forth the arguments of the workman.

3184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

In the light of contentions raised on behalf of Ld. A/R

for the management I am perusing the pleadings of claim

statement, written statement, rejoinder as well as evidence

of the parties on record.

On the basis of evidence issue No. 1 which is relating to

Departmental Inquiry is to be decided. Which is the only

material issue in the instant case. Inwant of proper reliable

and credible evidence of workman as well as credible

rebuttal evidence of defendant. There is no option to this

Tribunal to hold that Departmental Inquiry conducted

against workman is legal, just and fair and there is no

violation of principles of natural justice.

Moreover on the basis of Inquiry Report disciplinary

authority passed the punishment of removal of workman.

Against which workman alleged that he filed appeal but

not filed order of appellate authority to show that appeal

was allowed.

Moreover management alleged that his appeal has been

dismissed so in the instant case wherein workman remain

absent for about 829 days is not entitled for reduction of

aforesaid penalty of removal from service.

Therefore, no direction ot management in this respect

is required to be passed but there is difference between

dismissal and removal. So,. Workman is entitled to dues

which have accrued to him prior to his removal and dues

which are admittedly have not been given by management

to workman. Issue No. 1 is liable to be decided

accordingly.

Which is accordingly decided.

Issue No. 2 framed by my Ld. Predecessor is cover up

by issue no. 1. So, it needs no decision. So far issue no. 3

is concerned which is relating to relief as I have already

discussed while deciding issue no. 1 that workman is

entitled to benefit accrued to workman prior to removal.

So, workman is entitled to this relief and management is

duty bound to pay the arrears and dues prior to removal of

workman on 4.12.2008.

Reference is accordingly decided partly in favour of

workman and partly in favour of management. Award is

accordingly passed. Management is directed to pay all

dues to workman which accrued to him prior his removal

of service i.e. from 4.12.2008.

Management is further directed to pay all dues within

two months after publication of award alongwith 6%

interest p.a. from the date of claim petition till payment.

In case management fails to pay aforesaid amount of

workman than it has to pay interest 9% p.a. instead of 6%

p.a. on aforesaid due amount of workman.

Award is accordingly passed.

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

Dated 25.06.2015

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1498-+—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@

Je U;k;ky; u- 1 /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 85@2014½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@77@2014&1 vkbZvkj¼lh&1½]

,e-ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the16th July, 2015

S.O. 1498.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 85/2014) of the

Central. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 16/07/

2015.

[No. L-20012/77/2014-IR(C-1)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.

Act, 1947

Reference No. 85 of 2014

Employer in relation to the management of Simlabahal

Colliery, P.B. Area, M/s. BCCL

And

Their workman

Present:-Sri R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers:

Sri N.M. Kumar, Advocate

For the Workman:

Sri R.R. Ram, Rep

State-Jharkhand.

Industry:-Coal

Dated 25.6.2015

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/77/2014-IR(C-I) dated 05/09/2014

the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise

of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and

Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication

to this Tribunal:

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3185

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Simlabahal

Colliery Under P.B. Area M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri

Bablu Bauri EX-M/Loader from the service vide letter

dated 14/18/07.2003 is fair and justified? To what relief

concerned workman is entitled?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

16.09.2014 After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written statement

on 21.11.2014. And the management files their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 26.03.2015.

3. The point involved in the reference is that the workman

has been dismissed from his services for long absenteeism.

4. The workman referred in the case says, he worked

under management for one year and as he remained absent

continously, he was dismissed from service.

5. The workman appeared and submits that he would

not repeat the same. But the management disputes the

identity of the workman. However the workman without

filling any company I.D. card, submitted that as he worked

for one year, he was not given I.D. card. But he files salary

slip. Management could not file it service exerts.

6. The workman files the pay slip issued to him by

management and says that I.D. Card of the company was

not issued to him. If there is doubt regarding identity.

Management through his own agency or any other agency,

get him identified and to take him in job as a fresh employee,

and to keep him under probation for two years. But the

management ought not delay on the ground of identity.

The direction of the Tribunal merely on the pretext of

identification.

This is my award.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer.

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1499-+—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhlh,y ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] u- 1 /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 12@1993½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@189@1992&vkbZvkj¼lh&1½]

,e-ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2015

S.O. 1499.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/1993) of the

Central. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. CCL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 16/07/

2015.

[No. L-20012/189/1992-IR(C-1)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.

Act., 1947

Reference No. 12/1993

Employer in relation to the management of M/s. C.C.L.

And

Their workmen

Present:

SRI R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers:

Sri D.K. Verma Advocated

For the Workman:

None

State-Jharkhand.

Industry-Coal

Dated 29.6.2015

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/189/1992-IR(C-I) dated 15/01/1993

the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise

of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and

Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputres

Act., 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication

to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s.

Central Coalfield Ltd., is justified in not paying

overtime at double the rate of normal wages for

working beyond working hours, Sunday, holidays

and thrice the wages working on paid holidays to

S./Shri S.C. Jha, R.N. Pandey, P. Roy, K. Tirkey, Hiralal,

M. Thankappan, M.M. Singh and A. Akhtar posted

to H.F. branch of Telecommunication of CCL Hqrs?

If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled and

from what date?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.

But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently

on behalf of the workman, Case remain pending. It is felt

that the disputes between the parties have been resolved

in the meantime. Hence No. Dispute Award is passed.

Communicate.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer.

3186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1500-+—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k Je

U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 36@1993½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@386@1991&vkbZvkj¼lh&1½]

,e-ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, 16th July, 2015

S.O. 1500.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/1993) of the

Central. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

16/07/2015.

[No. L-20012/386/1991-IR(C-1)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act,

1947

Reference No. 36/1993

Employer in relation to the management of Chaitudih

Colliery, M/s. BCCL

And

Their workman

Present:

SRI R.K. SARAN,

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers:

None

For the Workman:

None

State-Jharkhand.

Industry:-Coal

Dated 29.6.2015

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/386/1999-IR-(C-I) dated 04/01/1993

the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise

of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and

Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputres

Act., 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication

to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of Janta Mazdoor Sangh for

regularization of Shri Shiv Balak Paswan and 31 others

(as per list cenclosed) on the roll of BCCL is justified?

If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled."

1. Shri Shiv Balak Paswan

2. Shri Baldeo Yadav

3. Heera Ram

4. Rajendra Prasad Singh

5. Kapil Paswan

6. Abay Kumar Pathak

7. No. 1 Sheojee Singh

8. Binesh Singh

9. Rabindra Saw

10. Anant Kumar

11. Ram Raj Yadav

12. Kishori Nonia

13. Subedar Paswan

13. Ram Pd. Ram

15. Rajkumar Singh

16. No. 2 Sheojee Singh

17. Sineshwar Paswan

18. Satyanarayan Yadav

19. Jamdar Paswan

20. Naresh Sharma

21. Sanjay Kumar Singh

22. Naredh Dusadh

23. Gopal Singh

24. Sudhir Kumar Burma

25. Sree Kant Singh

26. Ram Bachan Paswan

27. Surajdeo Singh

28. Paras Singh

29. Madhav Singh

30. Bhagwan Thakur

31. Rajkumar Rai

32. Lalim Ram

2. After receipt of the reference both parties are noticed.

But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3187

Case remain pending. It is felt that the disputes between

the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No

Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1501-+—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ

bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] xqokgVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 13@2014½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16&07&2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@65@2014&vkbZvkj¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2015

S.O. 1501.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2014) of the

Central. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Guwahati

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Union Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

16-07-2015.

[No. L-12011/65/2014-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI,

ASSAM

Present:

SHRI L.C. DEY, M.A., L.L.B.

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati,

Ref. Case No. 13 of 2014

In the matter of an industrial Dispute between:

The Management of Union Bank of India, Guwahati, Assam

Vrs.

The General Secretary, Union Bank Employees Union

(NER), Guwahati, Assam

APPEARANCES :

For the Union :

Mr. J. Chakrabarty, Vice-President,

Mr. S. Haloi, General Secretary,

of Union Bank Employees Union

(NER)

Guwahati,

For the

Mr. V. Murugan,

Management

Seniror Manager (HR).

Union Bank of India, Regional Office,

Chandmari, Guwahati.

AWARD

1. The Reference has been initiated on an Industrial

Dispute raised by the General Secretary, Union Bank

Employees Union (NER) against the Management of

Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Chandmari, for

appointment of Armed Security Guard through Sainik

Board instead of out sourcing, which was referred by the

Ministry of Labour for adjudication vide their Order No.

L-12011/65/2014-IR (B-II) dated 25/27.08.2014. The

Schedule of this reference is as under:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the claim of the Union Bank Employees

Union (NER) Guwahati for regular appointment of

Arms Security Guard through Sainik Board instead

of out sourcing as contemplated by the Union Bank

of India Management in violating the terms and

condition of the bipartite agreement is legal &

justified? What relief the said Union is entitled to?"

The dispute has been raised by the Union Bank

Employees Union (NER), Guwahati which is one of the

members of the Bank Employees Federation of India. The

workmen concerned are both the clerical and subordinate

staff working in Union Bank of India in the State of Assam

whose service conditions are governed by the Bipartite

Settlements which are Industry level settlement in the

Banking Industry signed between the Indian Bank

Association (representing Banks) and Apex level Unions

of workmen duly registered u/s 2(p) and Section 18(1)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of

the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957.

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 sumitted their

respective claim statement/written statement.

3. The case of the Union, in nutshell, is that on

the 2nd June, 2005 the 8th Bipartite Settlement was

signed between Indian Banks Association on behalf

of the employer Banks and the Bank Employees

Federation of India, along with other 4 Unions on behalf

of the workmen, and the present Union being affiliated

by Bank Employees Federation of India, is a party to the

said settlement.

3188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

In Clause-31(h) of the said settlement it was agreed as

"while it shall be the banks' endeavour to retain/re-skill

staff and to develop in-hourse competencies, they may

outsource IT and its related activities in respect of the

specialized area where in-house capability is not available".

In terms of the said provision the Bank can out source only

IT and its related activities in respect of specialized areas

and that too where in-house capability is not available.

The Settlement has clearly established the fact that the

Management has no authority whatsoever to outsource

any other activity of the Bank besides IT and its related

activities. In the 9th Bipartite Settlement (current one)

signed on 27.4.2010 wherein no further authority has been

given to the Management to outsource any other job

beyond what was agreed to in the 8th Bipartite Settlement,

and even the word "outsource" has not find its place

through out the current settlement. The Union stated that

the protection of customer's money and valuable in Branch

is a primary job in the Bank, and Arms Guards permanently

employed in the Bank are performing the jobs with

excellence and at times even at the risk of their lives. The

Management identified 10 vacancies of permanent Armed

Guards for Dibrugarh, Duliajan, G.S. Road, Hatigaon,

Hijugiri, L.N.B. Road, Paltan Bazar, Silchar, Barpeta Road

and Santipur Branches. While the Management vide its

Circular No. ROG:HRM:1546/2011 dated 20.10.2011 decided

the jobs of the Armed Guards to be outsourced. On being

aggrieved with the said decision of the Management the

Union through its letter dated 11.11.2011 lodged its strong

protest against violation of the provision of the Bipartite

Settlement and requested the Management for recruitment

of the Bank's permanent Arms Guards through Sainik Board

but there was no response. As a result this Industrial

Dispute was raised and the same was ended in failure.

Some important facts came up during conciliation

proceeding. On 11.11.2013 the Management informed that

they were trying to obtain approval from the competent

authority for recruitment of the Armed Guards (not

outsourced), and on 23.12.2013 the Management informed

that they were making efforts to obtain permission from

the Central Office for amicable settlement of the dispute

and they also submitted a letter dated 3.12.2013 regarding

filling up of Armed Guards by which permission was sought

for recruitment of Armed Guard by adopting procedure of

direct recruitment instead of outsourcing through private

agency. Further during the conciliation held on 23.6.2014

the Union submitted a copy of the letter written by the

Bank on 03.02.2014 to the National Deputy Chairman,

National Ex-Serviceman Coordination Committee wherein

the Bank informed that Armed Guards were recruited from

ex-servicemen candidates only through Rajya Sainik Kalyan

and Punarnivas Karyalaya Board. They further informed

that in order to meed sudden needs of posting guards in

vulnerable branches and also for temporary phase, they

outsourced Armed Guards.

The Union alleged that the outsourcing job of Armed

Guard does not provide any better facility to the customers,

and it will not help in generating permanent employment in

the Bank where many vacancies are still lying unfilled.

Rather, the adoption of outsourcing route the posts of

Armed Guards would permanently be abolished. Thus the

Management arbitrarily wanted to apply its prerogative to

violate the provisions of Section 2(p) and Section 18(1) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rules 58 of the

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. Thus the action

of the Management of outsourcing the job of permanent

Armed Guards is a clear violation of registered settlement

and it attracks Section 29 of the Industrial Dispute Act,

1947. Hence, the Union prayed for passing an order for

appropriate action against the Management u/s 29 of the

I.D. Act, 1947 with direction to the Management to desist

from resorting the outsourcing permanent jobs of the Armed

Guards for maintaining sanctity of the Settlement and/or

other orders as deem fit.

4. The Management by filing W.S. raised preliminary

objection which goes to the root of the matter effecting the

maintainability of the reference as well as the jurisdiction

of this Tribunal to entertain the present reference, taking

the following pleas:

(i) That the reference does not constitute an

industrial dispute u/s 2(k) of the I.D. Act and

hence, the reference deserve to be rejected.

(ii) That the workman have not shown it as a

registered Trade Union under the provision of

Trade Union Act, 1956, and whether the said

registration is valid on the claim before this

Tribunal.

(iii) That the workmen have not shown whether under

the terms of its registration or otherwise, it is

entitled to organize/espouse any complaint.

(iv) That the workman ought to have produced a copy

of the Form A of the application for registration

under Trade Union Act.

(v) That the workman ought to have produced a copy

of its constitution showing the number of its office

bearer for managing its affairs and whether 50%

of the said office bearers are the workmen

employed in the management as required under

Section 22 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926.

(vi) That the workmen ought to have produced a copy

of the extract of the minutes book and the minutes

book of its managing Committee/General body in

original to show that a decision was taken at such

meeting and/or a resolution was passed to file the

said complaint and that who has signed the same

has been authorized/empowered to file such

complaint and that who had signed the same has

been authorized/empowered in that behalf.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3189

(vii) That the Union has not produced any document

to show that the workmen referred in the

representation are the members of the Union and

that these workmen have submitted application

for Union membership or they have paid

membership dues to the Union at the time or

raising the dispute.

Further plea of the management is that the reference is

bad for non joinder of necessary parties; and the

appropriate government did not consider the stand of the

management that the dispute is under consideration of the

management bank in its Central Office at Mumbai and

without waiting the final result of the Central Office the

reference on the dispute for adjudication is prematured

and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction as no industrial dispute

existed or apprehended. Hence, the management prayed to

frame and decide the preliminary issues as under:

(i) Whether the demands as mentioned in the order

of Schedule as raised on behalf of the workman

who are not the member of the Union are justified?

(ii) Whether the Union is registered Trade Union

under the Union Act, 1926 and whether this

registration is valid as on the date of raising the

dispute and/or filing of the complaint or on the

date of making the reference to this Industrial

Tribunal?

(iii) Whether the Union is entitled to organize and

espouse the industrial dispute on behalf of the

workmen?

(iv) Whether as per Section 22 of the Trade Unions

Act, 1926, 50% of the office bearer of the Union

are persons employed under the management?

(v) Whether the Constitution and/or by-laws of the

Union permits its General Secretary to raise the

demand?

(vi) Whether any resolution has been adopted by the

Executive Committee or the General Body of the

Union authorizing or empowering the persons to

espouse the cause of the workmen?

(vii) Whether the reference is barred by limitation in

view of the settlement which has already been

expired.

The management contended that the reference made by

the appropriate government without considering the

provision of Industrial Dispute Act since it is not a industrial

dispute within the meaning of the said Act and this Tribunal

can not assume jurisdiction to adjudicate the alleged

dispute. The management mentioned that the settlement

was arrived at between the Indian Bank Association and

their workmen represented by All India Bank Employees

Association, National Confederation of Bank Employees';

Bank Employees' Federation of India; Indian National Bank

Employees' Federation and National Organization of Bank

Workers on 2.6.2005 under Section 2(p) and Section 18(1)

of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 and there

was provision in Clause 31(h) of the said Memorandum of

Settlement that "while it be banks' endeavour to retain/re-

skill staff and to develop in house competencies, they may

outsource IT and its related activities in respect of

specialized area where in house capability is not available",

and the said Memorandum of Settlement was for a period

of 5 years with effect from 01.11.2007. Since the said

Settlement has already expired on 31.10.2012 and hence,

the said Memorandum of Settlement is not inforce at

present. It is added that the financial services business

throughout the world the increasingly using third parties

to carry out activities that the business themselves would

normally have undertaken.

The Right/well-planned outsourcing can have a positive

impact in terms of cost benefits, domain expertise and

efficient delivery to the customer; and Technological

advancement has transformed the banking sector into a

high tech park for financial services and availability of the

lates techno products. As such, effective outsourcing

enables Banks to enhance product offering/diversify assets

and revenues, access superior expertise and devote scarce

human resources to core business and reduce costs.

Furthermore, the Bank for international settlement has

defined outsourcing as a regulated entity's (Bank) use of a

third party (either an affiliated entity within a corporate

group or an entity that is external to the corporate group)

to perform activities on a continuing basis that would

normally be undertaken by the regulated entity. The

Reserve Bank of India has also retained the same definition

of its final guideline issued on 3.11.2006 on outsourcing of

financial services by banks and further clarified that the

continuing basis would include agreement for a limited

period. Thus the bank shall outsource selected financial

activities with the objectives to reduce and control cost; to

gain efficiency; to improve turnaround time and client

servicing and to improve focus on core business. The

Reserve Bank of India also, from time to time issued

guidelines on Managing Risk and Code of Conduct in

Outsourcing of financial services by Banks to provide

direction and guidelines to bank to adopt sound and

responsive risk management practices for effective

oversight, due diligence and management of risk arising

from such outsourcing activities. The Reserve Bank of India

also issued guidelines asking the banks to put in place a

comprehensive outsourcing policy duly approved by its

Board. The management reiterated that the management of

the Bank is trying to regulate the services of the persons

who are placed for work in the Union Bank of India in

North Eastern Region are trying to allot the work only to

those outsourcing agency who are required to fulfill all the

laws/regulations made thereunder from time to time and to

3190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

follow the same; and that the management shall rely and

refer the outsourcing policy of 2012-13 issued by the

authorities from time to time. It is contended by the

management that the workmen should have settled the

matter in a bipartite agreement with the management instead

referring the matter to the appropriate government for

adjudication; and that the local management has already

taken up the matter with the Head Office of the Bank and

the same is pending and no written communication from

the Head Office have been initiated in this matter. As such,

the matter already referred to the higher authority of the

management Bank for fair adjudication and/or for justice

the present reference may be kept pending till final disposal

by the Head Office of the Union Bank of India. Under the

above premises the management prayed to frame

preliminary issue on the maintainability of the reference

and if the preliminary issues are deciding against the

management may be allowed to adduce their evidence on

merit and pass such other order as deem fit.

5. The management denied all the pleas taken by the

Union refuting their contention made in their W.S. The

management also submitted that outsourcing of security

guards being a policy matter and hence the Union has no

right or authority to interfere with the policy matters of the

Bank. Further the management by a letter dated 20.10.2011

intimated the existing Armed Guards to send their transfer

application within 15 days i.e. on or before 5.11.2011 and

that the transfer application for the branch would be

considered as per seniority of the candidates as well as the

date of transfer application. The management also

requested to existing Armed Guards to send their request

transfer for other branches as well apart from being

mentioned branches if interested. Thus the management

has not violated any of the provision of bipartite settlement

since the engagement of Armed Guards either through

Sainik Board or from outsourcing is not an Industrial

Dispute.

6. The Union, on the other hand, by filing Addl. W.S.

stated, inter-alia that the management filed their W.S.

through the person against whom the notice of this Tribunal

was served; that the contention of the management in their

W.S. have not been admitted specifically and/or contrary

to and not consistent with the Rules and Provision of the

Bipartite Settlement; that this reference is on the matter of

employment of Armed Guard and service condition of

workmen which are decided in the Bipartite Settlement and

hence, it is an Industrial Dispute; that the Union Bank

Employees Union (NER) is a registered Trade Union under

the provision of Trade Union Act, 1926 and its registration

is valid till now vide No. 1403 and the Registration certificate

can be produced on demand by this Tribunal; that more

than 50% of the office bearers of the Union of the workmen

are employed in the Bank; that it is a settled law that a third

party is not entitled to challenge matter pertaining to the

internal management of a trade Union vide 1969/LLJ 235

SC; that the contention of the management that the terms

of the 8th Bipartite Settlement dated 2.6.2005 was upto

31.10.2007 is not correct, also the 9th Bipartite Settlement

signed on 27.04.2010 has no further authority to the

management to outsource any other job beyond what was

agreed in the 8th Bipartite Settlement; and that the

contention of the management made in paragraphs—11,

12, 13, 14, 15, 17 are not relevant.

On receipt of the claim statement of the W.S. submitted

by the Union and the Management respectively, the

reference was put up before Lok Adalat for amicable

settlement but neither of the parties turned up. The

Management although took the plea that the present

reference is not maintainable and this Tribunal has no

jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute since it is not a

industrial dispute, and hence, the management in their W.S.

prayed for framing preliminary issue on the maintainability

of the reference. But the Management did neither press to

frame preliminary issue nor did adduce any evidence to

prove the preliminary issues raised by them. As such, both

the parties have been directed to adduced their evidence

in support of their respective cases. However, the points

raised by the management regarding framing of preliminary

issues would be considered on merit.

7. In order to establish their case the Union examined

one witness namely Sri Jagannath Chakrabarty, Vice

President of the Union Bank Employees Union (NER),

Guwahati, while the management declined to adduce any

evidence. However, both the parties have submitted their

written argument. Also they argued their respective case

orally. Let me discuss the evidence of the Union along with

the documents submitted by them.

According to the W.W.1, Sri Jagannath Chakrabarty, a

Bipartite Settlement was reached between the Workmen

Union' and Indian Banks Association (representing the

Banks) on 2.6.2005, which was circulated by the

management Bank through Staff Circular No. 5194 dated

23.6.2005 (marked as Exhibit-1, proved on admission by the

management) including the Bipartite Settlement. In the said

Settlement called the 8th Bipartite Settlement in Clause 31(h)

it is mentioned that "while it shall be the banks endeavour

to retain/re-skill staff and to develop in-house

competencies, they may outsource IT and its related

activities in respect of specialized area where in-house

capability is not available". Similarly 9th Bipartite Settlement

was signed on 27.4.2010 which was circulated by the

management bank through their Staff Circular No. 5668

dated 26.5.2010 (marked as Exhibit-2, proved on admission

by the management), wherein the provision of Clause 31(h)

of the Settlement dated 2.6.2005 (Exhibit-1) has not been

modified in any way whatsoever. Though these two

Settlements clearly prohibited the Bank to outsource jobs/

activites other than IT related service, but the management

vide their Circular No. ROG:HRM:/1546/2011 dated

20.10.2011 (Exhibit-3, proved on admission by the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3191

management) declared that they were in the process to

engage Armed Guards from outsourcing Agency in some

Branches as mentioned in the said circular. Reacting to

such action of the management, the union vide its letter

dated 11.11.2011 (marked as Exhibit-4, proved on admission

by the Management) drew the attention of the management

that the said decision was against the terms of Bipartite

Settlement and hence, they requested the management to

abandon the move to out-source jobs of Armed Guards in

view of the said settlement and recruit Armed Guards

through District Sainik Board only for filling up the vacant

posts. But no response from the management while the

Union raised this Industrial Dispute before the ALC(C),

Guwahati against the aforesaid action of the management.

Accordingly the conciliation proceeding was held on

11.11.2013 wherein it was decided, inter-alia, that the

management was trying to get approval for recruitment of

Armed Guards (not outsourced) from the competent

authority of the Bank (vide Exhibit-5, proved on admission

by the management). On 23.12.2013 another conciliation

was held in the office of the ALC (C), Guwahati wherein it

was recorded, the representative of the management

submitted inter-alia, that they were making efforts to obtain

approval from the Central Office for amicable settlement on

the dispute (vide Exhibit-6, proved on admission by the

management). The W.W. 1 has also proved a copy of letter

No. ROG:HRM:3101/2013 dated 03.12.2013 (vide Exhibit-6,

proved on admission by the management wherein the

management Bank at Guwahati wrote to the Central Office

of the Bank at Mumbai for permitting to recruit Armed

Guards to 8 Branches by adopting the procedures of direct

recruitment instead of outsourcing through the Private

Agency. The W.W. 1 also added that the last and final

conciliation proceeding was held on 23.6.2014 in the Office

of the ALC (C), Guwahati (vide Exhibit-7, proved on

admission by the management). He further mentioned that

the Central Management had taken a different stand from

that of the same taken in this dispute which is clear from a

communication dated 3.2.2014 made by the Bank to the

National Dy. Chairman (vide Exhibit-7 (1); while the National

Ex-Servicemen Co-ordination Committee and in the said

letter the Central Management stated that they would

recruit Armed Guards in the Bank from Ex-servicemen

candidates through Rajya Sainik Kalyan and Punarnivas

Karyalaya Board. The W.W. 1 again stated that in the

concilialtion proceeding the management, on the other

hand, stated that the issue have been taken up with the

Head Office of the Bank recommending for recruitment of

Armed Guards through Sainik Board, however, the same

has been pending and no written communication from the

Head Office has been initiated in this matter. He again

mentioned that in response to the request of Dy. CLC (C),

Guwahati the management representative stated that there

was no scope to consider the demand of the Union because

their suggestion has not been approved by the Central

Office of the Bank. On failure of the conciliation this

reference was made by the appropriate Government.

The W.W. 1 also stated that it is a general rule of the

Bank that the Armed Guards are to be posted in vulnerable

branches for temporary phase only while in Exhibit-7(1)

the Bank stated that they want to out-source Armed Guards

in vulnerable branches for temporary phase only, but this

decision of the bank is not consistent with the cause of the

dispute since the management's decision to outsource

Armed Guards from Private Agency is totally against the

Bipartite Settlement marked as Exhibit-1 & Exhibit-2. As

such, the action of the management as mentioned above is

against the provision of industrial dispute Act, 1947.

Accordingly the Union prayed for passing an Award

resisting the management from resorting the outsourcing

permanent jobs of Armed Guards for maintaining sanctity

of the settlement.

During his cross examination the W.W. 1 did not agree

that under any circumstances the job of Armed Guards

which is very important for an institution like Bank being

the custodian of public money should be outsourced

through Private Agency. He also mentioned that the

performance of the Bank's Armed Guards and that of

outsourced Armed Guards are not the same, that apart,

there is no provision for outsourcing Armed Guards as per

the Settlement. The W.W. 1, on production of the document

namely Circular letter No. SEC:BR: 375 dated 18.6.2013

issued by the Bank regarding outsourcing security guard,

proved vide Exhibit-A, wherein the guidelines regarding

outsourcing Armed Guards in para-12 & 13 have already

been settled up in the Bipartite Settlement marked as Exhibit-

1 & Exhibit-2.

8. On perusal of evidence of W.W. 1 along with the

documents proved in the Court and the oral submission as

well as written argument submitted by both the sides it

appears that 2 Bipartite Settlements on wage revision and

other service condition of service including outsourcing

the service by the Bank have been signed by the Indian

Bank's Association (in short IBA) on behalf of its member

Banks and the workmen Unions, namely, 8th Bipartite

Settlement dated 2.6.2005 and the 9th Bipartite Settlement

dated 27.4.2010. In the aforesaid Bipartite Settlement dated

2.6.2005 at Para-31(h) it is clearly mentioned that it shall the

Bank's endeavour to retain/re-skill staff and to develop in-

house competencies, however they may outsource IT and

its activities in respect of specialized areas where in-house

capability is not available. The Bipartite Settlement dated

27.4.2010 arrived at between the Indian Banks' Association

and various workmen Unions represented by All India Bank

Employees Association, Natioal Confederation of Bank

Employees, Bank Employees Federation of India etc.,

expired on 31.10.2012, and thereafter no further settlement

has yet been signed between the parties. But the provision

of the said settlement dt. 27.4.2010 (Para-1) of the terms of

Settlement (page 42 of Exhibit-2) clearly states that the

provision of all earlier settlements including that of 2.6.2005

shall continue to govern the service conditions except to

3192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

the extent the same are modified by the instant settlement

(settlement dated 27.4.2010). The Management in their W.S.

(para-10) admitted that the Settlement dated 2.6.2005 was

signed u/s 2(p) and Section 18(1) of the I.D. Act, 1947 read

with Rules 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,

1957 and that there is no provision for outsourcing the

services other than IT and its related activities in respect

of specialized areas where in-house capability is not

available. The subsequent Bipartite Settlement dated

27.4.2010 has neither modified nor touched the provision

of the matter regarding recruitment of Armed Guards by

the Bank through Sainik Board. The practice of recruitment

of Armed Guards by the Banks from ex-servicemen

candidates through Rajya Sainik Kalyan and Punarnivas

Karyalaya (Soldiers Board) Board/Armed Guards who are

also ex-servicemen and those Ex-Servicemen in reserve

category as per Government policy is found admitted by

the Management of Union Bank vide their letter SEC:BR:361:

dated 3.2.14 (marked as Exhibit-7(1).

9. During argument Mr. J. Chakrabarty, learned counsel

for the Union submitted that the Management in their W.S.

took different pleas including the issue of maintainability

of the reference challenging the eligilibity of the Union to

organize and espouse the present industrial dispute on

behalf of the workmen employed under the Management;

the authority of the General Secretary of the said Union to

raise the demand/industrial dispute; the jurisdiction of this

Tribunal to adjudicate the reference on merit, the propriety

of the appropriate government to refer the dispute, etc. Mr.

Chakrabarty also pointed that the management in their W.S.

averred that the Memorandum of Settlement was for a

period of 5 years with effect from 1st November, 2007 and

as such, the said Settlement has already been expired on

31.10.2012 and hence, the said Memorandum of Settlement

is at present not in force; that the Reserve Bank of India

has also retained the same definition of its financial

guidelines issued on 3.11.2006 for out souricng financial

services at bank and further clarified that the continuing

basis would include agreement for a limited period and for

managing risk and Code of Conduct of outsourcing financial

services by the Bank; that the management shall rely and

refer the outsourcing policy of 2012-13 issued by the

authorities from time to time; and that the local management

has already taken up the matter with the Head of Office of

the Bank and the same is pending decision from the Head

Office. But the management has not adduced any evidence

in support of their pleadings, for which it is clear that there

is no further need to prove whether the decision of the

management to out source was in violation of the terms of

settlement or not.

In their W.S. the management challenged the

maintainability of the present reference on the ground of

legality of referring the dispute by the central Government

as well as the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to adjudicate the

dispute. The present dispute is regarding appointment of

Armed Guard in the management of Union Bank of India

and as per the terms of Bipartite Settlement dated 2.6.2005

(Exhibit-1). It is agreed upon by both the parties vide Clause-

31(h) of the said Memorandum that while it be Banks'

endeavor to retain/re-skill staff and to develop in-house

competency, they may outsource IT and its related activities

in respect of specialized area where in-house capability is

not available. In the subsequent Bipartite Settlement signed

on 27.4.2010 between the parties (Exhibit-2) there is no

mention to the fact that the authority has been given to the

management to outsource any other job beyond what was

agreed in the Bipartite Settlement marked as Exhibit-1 nor

there is any mention regarding outsourcing throughout

the Settlement dated 27.4.2010.

The decision of the management vide its Circular

No. ROG:HRM:1546/2011 dated 20.11.2011 regarding

outsourcing the jobs of Armed Guards is the appeal of

discord in the instant dispute, against which the Union

lodged its protest alleging violation of provision of Bipartite

Settlement; and subsequently conciliation took place

between the parties which ended in failure. In course of

conciliation the management expressed their views that

they are making efforts to obtain approval for recruitment

of Armed Guard (not outsource) from the competent

authority of the Bank and to settle the matter amicably as it

reveals from the extract of proceeding of conciliation held

between the parties is presence of ALC(C), Guwahati vide

Exhibit-5, Exhibit-6 and Exhibit-6(1) but ultimately it failed.

It is also found admitted by the management that they

have been recruiting Armed Guards from ex-servicemen

candidates through Rajya Sainik Kalyan and Punarnivas

Karyalaya (Soldiers Board) Board and in order to meet

sudden need of posting Guards in vulnerable Branches

and also temporary phase they outsource Armed Guard

who are also Ex-servicemen and they adhere the recruitment

of Ex-Servicemen in reserved policy as per Government

policy. It is also clear from the para-1 of page-42 of the

Bipartite Settlement marked as Exhibit-2 that the provisions

of all earlier settlement including those of 2nd June, 2005

shall continue to govern the service conditions except to

the extent of the same are modified by this Settlement. The

Bipartite Settlement (Exhibit-1 & 2) arrived at between the

management of Banks represented by the Indian Banks'

Association and their workmen as represented by the All

India Bank Employees' Association, National Confederation

of Bank Employees, Bank Employees' Federation of India,

Indian National Bank Employees' Federation and National

Organisation of Bank workers u/s 2(p) and Section 18(1) of

the I.D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of the Industrial

Dispute (Central) Rule 57, wherein the present Union

appears to be one of the members of the Bank Employees

Federation of India which is one of the signatories to the

said Bipartite Settlement. The dispute has been raised by

the General Secretary of the Union Bank Employees Union

(NER), Guwahati regarding the outsourcing of Armed Guards

in the management Bank and the said Bipartite Settlement

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3193

was signed between the parties on the issues regarding

conditions of service as well as the provision for

outsourcing of services of the Bank. The step taken by the

management of Union Bank of India to outsource the Armed

Guards ignoring the existing procedure of recruitment of

the Armed Guards directly by the Bank from the Rajya

Sainik Kalyan and Punarnivas Karyalaya (Soldiers Board)

Board appears to have been a violation of the terms of

agreement relating to the conditions of services, and hence,

it is an industrial dispute. Thus it is crystal clear that the

plea of the management regarding the maintainability of

the reference as to the authority of the appropriate

government to refer the dispute to this Tribunal and as

well as to adjudicate this reference by this Tribunal is not

sustained. Accordingly, the prayer of the management in

their WS for framing the preliminary issue on maintainability

of the reference is rejected.

10. Mr. Vel Muragaon, the learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the management Bank, in course of argument,

submitted that the Bipartite Settlement marked as Exhibit-1

& Exhibit-2 has expired and hence, it has no force and that

there is no question of violation of terms of the Bipartite

Settlement. Mr. Muragon also pointed that outsourcing of

Security Guards etc. are policy matters of the management

and as such, the Union cannot interfere with the policy

matter of the Bank and that the private security Agency

adhere to the provision of fair wages as applicable to the

areas and that the service provider pays the monthly wages

not less than the applicable minimum wages so that the

statutory provisions of Labour Laws such as, ESI, CPF,

payment of Gratuity Act, etc.; are complied with, as such,

the claim of the union is not maintainable and accordingly

the reference is liable to be disposed of without granting

any relief.

11. Mr. J. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the Union

assailing the argument of the learned counsel for the

Management submitted that to exercise the power an

authority has to acquire the said power and in the instant

case the Management of Union Bank of India has no

authority/power to issue any guidelines regarding

outsourcing Armed Guards through service provider

ignoring the existing procedure of direct recruitment to the

Armed Guards by the Management of Union Bank of India

from Rajya Sainik Kalayan and Punarnivas Karyalaya

(Soldiers Board) Board, and such step of the Management

to outsource the Armed Guards is a clear violation of the

Bipartite Settlement dated 2.6.2005 and 27.4.2010 which

were signed between the Indian Banks' Association and

Workmen Unions (All India Bank Employees, Bank

Employees Federation of India, Indian National Bank

Employees Federation and others) since the Management

i.e. the Union Bank of India is one of the Unit of Indian

Banks' Association, which have no authority to alter the

terms of Settlement regarding outsourcing of services. Mr.

Chakrabarty also submitted that neither the management

Bank nor the Reserve Bank did acquire any power to issue

guidelines regarding outsourcing of Armed Guards. In order

to establish his contention Mr. Chakrabarty, learned counsel

for the Union relied upon Election Commission of India—

vs—State Bank of India Staff Federation reported in 1995

AIR 1078, 1995 SCC Suppl. (2) 13 wherein it was held that it

is a question of existence of power and not the manner of

its exercise.

12. The Management representative Mr. V. Murugan, in

his reply to the above argument, submitted that the Bank

for international settlement has defined outsourcing as a

regulated entity's (Bank) use of a third party to perform

activities on a continuing basis that would normally be

undertaken by the regulated entity. He also added that the

Reserve Bank of India, from time to time issued guidelines

on managing risk and Code of Conduct in outsourcing

financial services of Banks to provide direction and

guidelines to Banks to adopt sound and responsive risk

management practices for effective oversight; and as such,

the management by issuing the Circular Letter

No. SEC:BR:375 dated 18.6.2013 on the policy of outsourcing

Armed Security Guards in the Management Bank has not

committed any illegality.

13. On persual the pleadings of both the sides as well as

the terms and conditions of the Bipartite Settlement dated

2.6.2005 and 27.4.2010 and taking into consideration the

argument advanced by both the parties as discussed above,

it appears that the Management being one of the partners

of Indian Banks' Association entered into the Bipartite

Settlement and the workmen Unions including the Union

Bank Empolyees Union (NER), Guwahati as foresaid marked

as Exhibit-1 & Exhibit-2 wherein it was agreed upon between

the parties to outsource the IT and its related activities

only in respect of specialized areas only where in-house

capability is not available as per terms of settlement dated

2.6.2005 (Clause-3(h) which has not been modified in any

way whatsoever by its subsequent Bipartite Settlement

dated 7.4.2010. It is also found admitted that the

Management Bank at Guwahati wrote to its Central Office

of the Bank at Mumbai for permitting to recruit Armed

Guards to 8 Branches by adopting the procedure of direct

recruitment in spite of outsourcing through Private Agency

vide their letter No. ROG:HRM: 3101/2013 dated 3.12.2013

(Exhibit-6). Thus it is clear that the management issued

Circular letter marked as Exhibit-A regarding outsourcing

of Armed Security Guards proposing the outsourcing of

Armed Security Guards setting procedure etc, on the other

hand, they are implementing the terms and conditions of

appointment of Armed Security Guards as per the Bipartite

Settlement marked as Exhibit-1 & 2. Further the record shows

that no further settlement arrived at between the parties as

regards conditions of services of the Bank employees

including the outsourcing of services of the Bank as such,

it is crystal clear that the Bipartite Settlement marked as

Exhibit-1 & 2 are in operation.

3194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

In this connection I am inclined to rely upon the case of

Sukla Maseta Industries Private Ltd.-vrs-Workmen,

reported in 1977 SC 224, and in Chemplast Somman Ltd.-

vrs-Mettur Chemicals Etc. Union published in (2000) 1 LLJ

1335 (Mad), wherein it was decided that a settlement though

terminated as per Section 19 the same will bind the parties

till it is replaced by another settlement.

14. In view of my above discussion it is found that the

argument raised by the learned counsel for the Management

has no force, and they have miserably failed to establish

their contention that the operation of the Bipartite

Settlement marked as Exhibit-1 & Exhibit-2 is not in force

and the matter regarding appointment/outsourcing of

Armed Guards being policy matter the Union has no right

or authority to interfere with this, and that present dispute

is not an Industrial Dispute to be adjudicated by this

Tribunal. In the result, it can safely be held that the decision

of the Management of Union Bank of India to outsource

the services of Armed Guards/Armed Security Guards is

against the terms and conditions of the Bipartite Settlement

vide Exhibit-1 & 2. Hence, it is decided that the claim of the

Union Bank Employees Union (NER), Guwahati for regular

appointment of Armed Security Guards through Sainik

Board instead of out sourcing as contemplated by the

Union Bank of India Management in violating the terms

and conditions of the Bipartite agreement is legal and

justified.

15. Accordingly the Management of Union Bank of India

is directed to follow the terms of Bipartite Settlement dated

2.6.2005 and 27.4.2010 as regards the engagement of Armed

Security Guards through Sainik Board till subsistence of

the Bipartite Settlement as aforesaid. In the result, this

reference is decided in affirmative in favour of the Union.

Send the Award to the Ministry as per procedure.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this

22nd day of May, 2015, at Guwahati.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer.

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk-1502-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M fla/k

cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@ a Je U;k;ky; xqokgVh ds iapkV ¼26@2012½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@11@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2015

S.O.1502.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 26/2012) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Guwahati as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Punjab & Sind Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

16/07/2015.

[No. L-12011/11/2012-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 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. 26 of 2012

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Workman Sri Sanjib Choudhury

-Vrs-

The Management of Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal Office,

Guwahati.

Date of Award: 27.12.13

AWARD

1. This Reference has been initiated on an Industrial

Dispute between the Management, represented by the

Zonal Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal Office,

Uzanbazar, Guwahati and their workman Sri Sanjib

Choudhury on account of termination of service of the

said workman by the Management, which was referred by

the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi

vide their order No. L-12011/11/2012-IR(B-II) dated

22.11.2012. The Schedule of this Reference is an under.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab &

Sind Bank in terminating the services of Shri Sanjib

Choudhury, Temporary Worker w.e.f. 23.08.2011 and

refusal for reinstatement his services, is legal and justified?

What relief Shri Sanjib Choudhury is entitled to?"

2. The claimant/workman was a casual employee of

Punjab & Sind Bank Ltd., Silchar Branch since Ist December,

2005 to 2010 and he received his wages regularly from the

said Bank. Initially he was engaged in the Bank as Operator

and in addition to his duties he worked as Operator. He

performed the duties of Peon, Postal works and loan

recovery etc. Sometimes he was directed to cook the meal

and to do marketing for the staff and also to purchase the

essential materials of computer as directed by the Manager

of the Bank from time to time. The Management of the said

Bank assured him to confirm his service and he also tried

his best to satisfy the officer and staff of the Bank. On

23.8.2011 he attended his duties 15 minutes late for which

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3195

he was terminated without any reasonable ground. As he

served for long period of six years in the Bank, his claim for

continuous service is genuine and according to law. He

submitted prayer for revival of his service but all were in

vain in spite of his repeated attempts and efforts.

3. The Management of Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal

Office submitted their W.S. stating, inter-alia, that there is

no cause of action, that the case is not maintainable in its

proper form and the case is bad for estoppel, acquiescence

and waiver, and against the provision of Industrial Dispute

Act and other laws. As such, the reference is liable to be

dismissed. It is also pleaded by the Management that the

complaint is frivolous and vexatious and hence, the

complainant is not entitled to any relief. The Management/

O.P. Categorically denied all the allegations raised in the

claim statement submitted by the workman. Further, case

of the Management is that the workman was engaged to

operate generator set on daily wage basis whenever required

and was paid wages as mutually agreed since there was no

fixed payment. In the month of August, 2011 the generator

set went out of order and was not serviceable condition

without major repair. So the Management did not utilize his

service any more. It is mentioned that the claimant at no

point of time an employee or workman of any nature

temporary or casual or by whatsoever adjective at any

point of time. So the claim of the workman to be reinstated

to operate the generator is childish demand. It is further

stated by the Management that the workman was not an

employee of the Bank and hence, his attendance was not

maintained; and that the plea of the workman that he got

extra work of the Bank is not true. Thus the averment made

by the claimant are of baseless, incorrect and concocted as

such, the reference is liable to be dismissed and the

workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed.

4. During the pendency of the proceeding the reference

has been taken up for disposal in the Lok Adalat held on

27.12.2013. With the intervention of the learned Conciliators

appointed for the purpose, the dispute has been settled up

amicably. As per terms of the settlement the management

representative namely the Senior Manager, Punjab and Sind

Bank, Zonal Office, Guwahati agreed to recommend to the

concerned Branch Manager of Punjab and Sind Bank, to

re-engage the workman as early as possible on requirement;

and the workman also committed to attend his duty with

sincerity, honesty, punctuality and obedience. The workman

also agreed to dispose of the reference on amicable

settlement upon the initiative taken by the Management

on humanitarian ground. Accordingly a Memorandum of

Settlement has been prepared and signed by both the parties

along with the learned Conciliators which is placed on

record, and the said Memorandum will form a part of the

record as well as the Award.

5. Accordingly the reference is disposed of on amicable

settlement/compromise in the Lok Adalat and the

management is directed to re-engage the workman as early

as possible as per the terms of settlement.

6. Send the Award along with a copy of the Memorandum

of Settlement to the Ministry according to the law.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this 27th

day of December, 2013 at Guwahati.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk-1503—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc us'kuy cSad

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; t;iqj ds iapkV ¼72@2014½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2015

S.O.1503—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 72/2014) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the management of Punjab National Bank and their

workman, received by the Central Government on

16/07/2015.

[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. 72/2014

Sh. Kalu Ram Gujar

S/o Shri Ramji Lal

Repr. By the Rajasthan (State) Bank

Employees Welfare Forum (Regd.),

Chaturvedi Bhawan, Indra Colony,

Alwar.

V/s

The Dy. General Manager,

Punjab National Bank

Nehru Place, Jaipur.

3196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

The Branch Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Raja Park, Jaipur.

Petition u/s 2(A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against

illegal termination of service of workman Sh. Kalu Ram

Gujar w.e.f. 5.6.2011.

AWARD

27.10.2014

1. Applicant Sh. Kalu Ram Gujar has filed this case u/s

2(A) & 33-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against Punjab

National Bank for termination of his service w.e.f. 5.6.2011.

2. According to statement of claim briefly fact of the

case is that applicant raised an industrial dispute in relation

to regularisation of his services before the Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central), Jaipur by submitting a plaint dated

21.4.2011 through above mentioned Bank Employees

Welfare Forum. Consequent to submission of plaint notice

dated 27.4.2011 was issued to both the parties for attending

conciliation proceeding. According to statement of claim

bank management was annoyed with workman on account

of raising industrial dispute & therefore terminated the

services of workman w.e.f. 5.6.2011 during pendency of

conciliation proceeding. Applicant preferred a complaint

on 29.8.2011 before Regional Labour Commissioner

(Central), Jaipur against termination of services during

pendency of conciliation proceeding. Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central), Jaipur further issued a notice dated

16.11.2011 against opposite party against termination of

services of the applicant. Conciliation proceeding ended

in failure & a failure report was submitted to the Ministry

by Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) vide letter No.

JP 7(16)/2011 dated 19.7.2012.

3. Accordingly to the fact contained in the plaint

presented before the Regional Labour Commissioner

(Central) on behalf of applicant by General Secretary of the

above Bank Employee's Welfare Forum Sh. Kalu Ram Gujar

was working in the above branch of Punjab National Bank

as temporary part time subordinate staff from April, 2008 &

he was doing the job of supply of drinking water to the

consumer of the bank, dusting & cleaning of the bank

furniture & computers & other duties of a peon e.g. delivery

of clearing & accompany to cash remittances with cashiers

of the bank etc. He was paid a sum of Rs. 1200/- (1000/- +

200/-) by Branch Manager in lieu of services rendered by

him. It has been further alleged that despite clear mandate

of section 25-(T) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that no

employer should adopt unfair labour practice as provided

in Schedule V of the Act, the Bank management is

deliberately violating this mandate & employing casual &

temporary employees & continue them as such for years

with the object of depriving them of the status & privileges

of permanent workmen. Section 20(8) of I.B.P. Settlement

provides that a temporary employee may also be appointed

to fill up a permanent vacancy & further section 20(12) of

the Settlement provides that a temporary employee should

be given preference in filling permanent vacancies. The

Bank has recently filled up number of vacancies as part

time employee at the scale of 1/3 wage scale from amongst

temporary employees who have worked for 90 days or more

during last five years at any branch of Jaipur district. Sh.

Kalu Ram Gujar has worked continuously as part time

employee but has not been given such chance. The above

discriminatory treatment of the bank management amounts

to grave unfair labour practice. At last, it has been prayed

that the bank management be instructed to provide chance

to Sh. Kalu Ram Gujar to be a permanent employee at the

earlierst.

4. After expiry of period of more than 45 days when no

reference was received by the applicant from Ministry he

filed the application before this tribunal u/s 2(A) of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 31.1.2013 during the period

of my learned predecessor. The case of the applicant was

registered & notices were sent to opposite party fixing

2.5.2013 for hearing on maintainability of application.

Notices were served on opposite party on 21.3.2013 &

learned representative of opposite party appeared on

2.5.2013. On 11.12.2013 adjournment was granted in favour

of opposite party to file reply by 13.2.2014. An order was

passed on 13.2.2014 to seek information from Ministry about

issuance of any reference in the matter of applicant. No

reference has been received till date in this matter.

5. Before receipt of any information from Ministry about

reference & conclusion of hearing on maintainability of

the application of applicant, on 29.4.2014 an application

was moved before the tribunal by the applicant for

withdrawing the case to re-agitate the issue again before

the Conciliation Officer for seeking reference. It is pertinent

to mention that at the time of filing of application on 2.5.2013

u/s 2(A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the application of

the applicant was fixed for hearing on maintainability on

25.7.2013.

6. I have heard the argument of the learned

representative of the applicant on the issue of withdrawing

the case. It has been argued by the learned representative

of the applicant that it is permissible to withdraw the case

for placing the matter for conciliation & seeking the

reference. Reliance has been placed by the learned

representative of the applicant on the case reported in 2002

LLR 1085, Supreme Court Virendra Bhandari vs. Rajasthan

State Road Transport Corporation & others.

7. I have very carefully gone through the above judicial

precedents wherein it has been held in para 4 of the

judgement by Hon'ble Supreme Court, ".......... When there

is no adjudication of the matter on merits, it cannot be said

that the industrial dispute does not exist. If the industrial

dispute still exists, as is opined by the government, such a

matter can be referred under Section 10 of the Industrial

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3197

Disputes Act." It has been further held, "........ It was

certainly permissible for the government to have made the

second reference on which occasion after inquiring into

the matter, the tribunal adjudicated the matter finally."

8. According to the facts of the above cited case a

reference was made to the industrial tribunal-cum-labour

Court for adjudication of a dispute in terms of section 10(d)

read with section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act on

the question of termination of the services of the workman

and forfeiture of the certain amount of wages for the period

for suspension. The tribunal by an adjudication dated 8.8.85

held that notices had been served upon the appellant but

he had remained ex-parte hence, the tribunal proceeded to

state that there does not remain any dispute between the

parties & accordingly the reference was adjudicated in that

manner in absence of appellant. Subsequently, an

application was moved by the appellant for restoration of

the case which was disposed by the tribunal on the ground

that appellant had not evinced any interest in the dispute

& there has been delay in seeking restoration of the

proceedings hence, it is not proper to cancel the award

after issue of notification after the award was made. Thus,

first reference was disposed against the appellant in his

absence. However, the government by order dated

20.12.88 made a reference of the dispute to the tribunal on

the same questions on which first reference was made. On

the second reference matter was adjudicated by the tribunal

& an award was made. Against the award on second

reference challenge was made by respondent before the

Hon'ble High Court wherein it was found by Hon'ble High

Court that tribunal had given a finding on the earlier

occasion that industrial dispute does not exist which is in

itself a determination of the question relating to industrial

term 'award' under the Industrial Dispute act & therefore,

second reference made by the government was

incompetent in as much as no claim petition had been filed

by the appellant on earlier occasion when reference was

made. It is not permissible for appellant to agitate the matter

any further. Looking into entire adjudication proceedings

on first reference & subsequently on second reference it

was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 3 of the

judgement as under:—

".......... We fail to appreciate neither the manner in which

the tribunal disposed of the matter on the first occasion

nor the manner of approach made by the High Court."

9. Accordingly, the order passed by Hon'ble Division

Bench of the High Court was set aside & judgement passed

by Hon'ble Single Judge of High court was affirmed & the

matter was remitted for fresh consideration on the merit in

accordance with law by the Division Bench of the High

Court under writ jurisdiction. Based on the above cited

case stress has been made by learned representative of the

applicant that an attempt will be made by the applicant to

re-agitate the issue once again before the Conciliation

Officer & secure the reference in the matter.

10. In above fact & circumstances, it is evident that the

applicant no longer wants to pursue the matter further &

intends to withdraw it for seeking reference. In absence of

willingness of the applicant to continue the case & in

absence of any cogent evidence brought on record it is

impracticable to adjudicate the matter in dispute before the

tribunal. Accordingly, the application of the applicant in

respect of this case is allowed & the case is dismissed as

withdrawn.

11. Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer.

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk-1504—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ikjknhi iÙku U;kl

ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k

esa] fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 2@2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&38011@4@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2015

S.O.1504.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. 2/2005) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Paradip Port Trust and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

16/07/2015.

[No. L-38011/4/2004-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present: Shri Pradeep Kumar,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 2/2005

Date of Passing Order—8th September, 2014

Between:

The Chairman, Paradip Port Trust,

At/Po. Paradip, Jagatsinghpur-754 142.

3198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

The General Manager,

Indian Farmers Fertilizer Corporation,

Musadhie, At./Po. Paradip, Jagatsinghpur,

Pin-754 142, Orissa.

The Managing Director,

M/s. Paradip Phosphate Ltd.,

Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,

Bhubaneswar-750 110.

... 1st Party - Managements

(And)

The General Secretary,

Paradip Port, Dock & Construction

Workers' Union, Quarter No. M/11/9B,

Madhuban, Paradip Port, Jagatsinghpur,

Pin-754 142, Orissa.

The General Secretary,

Paradip Dock & Transport workers Union,

Nisamani Bhawan, Paradip Port,

Jagatsinghpur-754 142, Orissa.

... 2nd Party - Unions.

Appearances:

Shri Sriman N. Mishra,

Asst. Traffic Manager.

Shri Madhusudhan Kuntia,

Sr. Officer, Law.

... For the 1st Party - Management No. 1 and 3.

Shri Gagan Behari Mohanty,

General Secretary.

... For the 2nd Party - Union No. 2

AWARD

Case taken up today. Authorized representatives for

the 1st Paty—Management No. 1 and 3 are present. General

Secretary of the 2nd Party—Union No. 2 is also present.

None is present for the 1st Party—Management No. 2 and

the 2nd Party—Union No.1. They were set exparte on

1.12.2008. The case is today fixed for cross examination of

M.W.-1, but the General Secretary of the 2nd Party—Union

No. 2 has moved a petition today before this Tribunal to

drop/withdraw the dispute on the ground that the reliefs

sought by them are covered in the award passed in I.D.

Case No. 19/2007. Accordingly the 2nd Party-Union No. 2

has sought leave of this Tribunal to permit it to withdraw

the present dispute. The authorized representatives for

the 1st Party-Management No. 1 and 3 have no objection

to the petition. Accordingly finding no legal hindrances in

allowing the 2nd party-Union No. 2 to withdraw the present

dispute I allow the 2nd Party No. 2 to withdraw the present

case. The petition is allowed and the reference is decided

as withdrawn and a no-dispute award is passed in terms of

the reference.

PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk-1505-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ cM+kSnk ds

izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 22@2010½ izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@79@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2015

S.O.1505-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award Ref. 22/2010 of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of the Bank of

Baroda and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 16/07/2015.

[No. L-12012/79/2009-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 22 of 2010

Parties: Employes in relation to the management of

Bank of Baroda, Eastern Zonal Office,

Kolkata Metro Regional Office

AND

Their workmen,

Present: Justice Dipak Saha Ray,

...Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the : Mr. Partha Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel.

Management

On behalf of the : Mr. Devajyoti Barman, Ld. Counsel.

Workmen

State: West Bengal.

Industry : Banking.

Dated: 7th July, 2015.

AWARD

By Order No. L-12012/79/2009-IR(B-II) dated 27.01.2010

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of

its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3199

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of

Baroda, Kolkata in dismissing Shri Subrata Saha,

Computer Operator (E.C. No. 21356) is legal and

justified? What relief the concerned workman is

entitled to?"

2. When the case is taken up for hearing today, Ld.

Counsel for both the parties appear and they refer to the

application of the councerned workman dated 06.07.2015

and pray for necessary order.

3. Heard both sides. Perused the application.

4. It is submitted on behalf of both the parties that the

disputes between the parties have been settled amicably

out of the Tribunal and as such the concerned workman

does not want to proceed with the case further.

5. Considering the above, it appears that there is neither

any scope nor any reason to proceed with the case further.

6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, instant

reference is disposed by passing a "No Dispute Award".

Kolkata,

Dated , the 7th July, 2015

Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk-1506-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkU/kzk cSad ds

izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 27@2011½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@28@2010&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjhA

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2015

S.O.1506.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. 27/2011) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and

their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 16/07/2015.

[No. L-12011/28/2010-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present: Shri Pradeep Kumar,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 27/2011

L-12011/28/2010-IR(B-II), dated 04.05.2011

Date of Passing Award - 5th day of January, 2015

Between:

The Dy. General Manager,

Andhra Bank, Zonal Office,

At/PO-Baramunda,

Bhubaneswar-3, Odisha

... 1st Party - Management.

(And)

The General Secretary,

Odisha State Andhra Bank Employees Union,

Hanuman Bazar, Berhampur

Odisha.

... 2nd Party - Union.

Appearances:

1. Shri B.K. Ekka, Sr. Manager-HR,

... For the 1st Party -

Andhra Bank Zonal Office

Management

2. Shri S.K. Mohanty

... For the 2nd Party

Dy. General Secretary.

- Union

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour &

Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between the employer in relation to the Management of

Andhra Bank, Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, and their

workmen Shri Soren Kumar Nayak represented through

the General Secretary, Orissa State Andhra Bank Employees'

Union, Berhampur in exercise of the powers conferred under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act vide their Letter No. L-

12011/28/2010 - IR(B-II), dated 04.05.2011 to this Tribunal

for adjudication. The dispute as referred to has been

mentioned under the schedule of the order of reference

which is quoted below.

"Whether the action of the Management of Andhra

Bank, Bhubaneswar in refusing to provide the

documents and/or information relied upon during the

course of domestic enquiry against Shri Soren Kumar

Nayank, Sub-Staff and intending to award punishment

of compulsory retirement is proportionate to offence

cause by the workman is legal & justified? What relief

the concerned workman is entitled to?"

2. The 2nd party union (herein after referred to as "the

2nd party") has filed his Statement of Claim detailing

therewith the illegality committed on behalf of the 1st party

management Bank (herein after referred to as "the 1st

party") in refusing to provide the documents and/or

information relied upon during the course of domestic

3200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

enquiry to the delinquent workman Shri Soren Kumar Nayak

(herein after referred to as "the workman") and the

imposition of the punishment of compulsory retirement

upon the workman. The workman had joined to the 1st

party on 14.10.1986 in its sub-ordinate staff cadre at it's

currency chest branch, Baramunda, Bhubaneswar. The

disputant workman is a member of the Orissa State Andhra

Bank Employees' Union. The disciplinary proceedings

against the bank employees are being conducted as per

the Bipatrite settlements signed between the Indian Banks'

Association and the All India Bank Employees' Association

under the settlement dated 10.04.2002. The 2nd party has

strongly objected the action of the 1st party as the same is

not done in accordance with the bipartite settlement dated

10.04.2002 and therefore, the action taken by the 1st party

against the workman is unjust, unfair, illegal and arbitrary.

3. The 2nd party alleged that, on 13.04.2009, the 1st

party entrusted the workman who happened to be a sub-

ordinate staff of the bank, the task of receiving, counting

the sorting the cash of Rs. 53 lakhs and to remit the same to

the Currency Chest Branch of the bank in violation of the

rules framed in the manual of instructions of the bank which

should have been done actually by the cashier or an officer

concerned of the bank. Moreover, the 2 (two) excess

numbers of five hundred rupee denomination notes have

been adjusted with the shortfall of 10 (ten) hundred rupee

denomination notes and there was no misappropriation of

the total amount of Rs. 53 lakhs.

4. Report submitted by the then manager Mr. Bijay

Kumar Jena is also false on the ground that he (Shri Jena)

was on tour to Kaliapani on 16.04.2009 from 9.30 AM to

6.00 PM. The process of counting was undertaken under

the supervision of one Mr. Ashok Das, officer of the bank

and the necessary adjustments of shortfall of hundred

rupee notes with the five hundred rupee notes in his

presence. The 1st party had only manipulated the

documents for conducting the departmental enquiry

against the workman and went beyond the terms of the

charge sheet with an ulterior motive to punish the workman.

The 1st party did not provide the required documents to

the delinquent workman to enable him to defend the matter

and thereby violated the principles of natural justice.

Accordingly, the 2nd party made aprayer to pass orders

declaring the departmental proceedings conducted against

the workmen as unfair, the gravity of punishment imposed

upon the workman is not proportionate and to order for

any other relief as applicable to the workman.

5. The 1st Party on the other hand in his written

statement denied the statements made by the 2nd party in

his statement of claim. The 1st party has contended that,

the departmental proceeding was conducted against the

workman fairly and properly on the charges of mis-

appropriation of money and the workman was punished

with compulsory retirement by the disciplinary authority

on the prove of the charges leveled against him as per the

report of the enquiry officer. The 1st party has further

contended that there cannot be an industrial dispute against

any punishment proposed to be imposed upon the

delinquent employee of the bank. Since the punishment of

compulsory retirement is confirmed by the disciplinary

authority and the same is upheld by the appellate authority,

the present reference becomes innocuous. The reference

is therefore, liable to be rejected in limini. Accordingly, the

1st party prayed for the rejection of the reference and award

costs to the 1st party against the 2nd party.

6. The following issues were framed by my predecessor.

(a) Whether the action of the management of Andhra

Bank, Bhubaneswar in refusing to provide the

documents and/or information relied upon during

the course of domestic enquiry against Shri Soren

Kumar Nayak, sub-staff and intending to award

punishment of compulsory retirement is

proportionate to offence caused by the workman

is legal and justified?

(b) What relief the concerned workman is entitled

to?

7. The 2nd party has examined his witness

Shri Manoranjan Das, then Special Assistant in Andhra

Bank, Berhampur Main Branch as workman witness No. 1

and proved 12 (twelve) documents. The 1st party on the

other hand declined to adduce the evidence of any of his

witness nor proved any document. I have heard arguments

of both the parties. The 2nd party also filed his written

notes of arguments alongwith certain case laws.

FINDINGS

Issue No. 1

8. The admitted facts are, the workman was a regular

sub-staff under the 1st Party working in it's Currency Chest

Branch, Bhubaneswar. As per the rules framed in the Manual

of Instruction of the bank, sub-stafs are not supposed to

be engaged for sorting/counting of currency notes/coins.

The 1st party have forced the workman for sorting/counting

of the huge cash in the guise of responsibility and in

violation of the prescribed rules. The sorting/counting of

notes are to be undertaken under the strict supervision of

one responsible officer of the bank. The departmental

proceeding conducted against the workman was based

mainly upon the CCTV recordings of 15.04.2009.

Discrepancy was noticed only with the hundred rupee notes

packets and not with the five hundred rupee notes packets.

The 1st party nowhere in this case has alleged that the

workman has misappropriated the hundred rupees notes.

Rather allegations were made against the workman for

misappropriation of five hundred rupee notes.

9. Further, it is admitted that the 1st party conducted the

departmental proceedings against the workman after

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3201

issuance of charge sheet basing upon only two documents,

(a) visit report dated 21.04.2009 and (b) attendance register

for the month of April, 2009. The 1st party has provided

only those two documents to the workman alongwith the

charge sheet. But, besides the above two documents, the

1st party relied upon certain other documents like CCTC

recordings etc. which they have not provided to the

workman. The 1st party also not co-operated the workman

in providing him the required documents in order to give

him proper opportunity for his defence. The workman was

not given an opportunity to prove his stand on the non-

availability of the then Sr. Manager, Shri Bijay Kumar Jena

in the currency chest branch of the bank in Bhubaneswar

on 16.04.2009 to prove the fact that the statement of Shri

Jena was false and ill motivated. Also, the activities of the

then bank officer Shri Ashok Das was neither scanned nor

any liability was fixed upon him for the above

misappropriation as he was strictly supervising the

counting/sorting of the huge cash. The 1st party also not

provided the information/documents as applied for under

the RTI Act, 2005 by Shri Manoranjan Das who is assisting

the workman to defend himself. Moreover, it seems that, to

avoid the liability, the bank management declined to provide

the information/documents to the RTI applicant on the

grounds of non-availability of the same.

10. The copies of the enquiry proceedings/ report clearly

shows that the statement given by the management

witnesses have not been properly interpreted. Some of the

statements of the management witnesses also gives some

doubt on their truthfulness. The 1st party have not supplied

the documents they actually relied upon the the

departmental proceeding conducted against the workman

either with the charge sheet or with the second show cause

notice to the workman. This is a clear violation on the part

of the 1st party of the law of natural justice. On the above

grounds, the entire acts of the 1st party in this case smells

fishy. It seems, in order to save theselves, the 1st party

made the workman a victim of their laibaility. Hence, the

action of the 1st party is not legal and justified in refusing

to provide the documents and/or information to the

workman. The 1st party also not justified in imposing the

punishment of compulsory retirement upon the workman

as the departmental proceeding conducted against the

workman was not fair and proper. Issue No. 1 is answered

acccordingly.

Issue No. 2

11. In view of the above grounds, I found no infirmity in

quashing the order of punishment passed against the

workman by the disciplinary authority and the 1st party is

hereby ordered to reinstate the workman Shri Soren Kumar

Nayak back into his services under them with all service

benefits applicable to him and pay him his back wages

since the date of his compulsory retirement till the date of

his reinstatement into bank's services within three months

from the date of publication of this award in the Gazette of

India failing which the 1st party shall pay simple interest @

12 per cent per annum to the workman on the total amount

of back wages.

12. The reference is answered accordingly against the

1st party management Bank.

PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1507-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj yscj osyQs;j

vkxsZukbZts'ku ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

dksVk ds iapkV ¼lañ 32@1997½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 14-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@42@96&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñdsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2015

S.O. 1507.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby published the Award (I.D. No. 32/1997) of the

Industrial Tribunal, Kota now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Labour Welfare Organisation and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 14/07/2015.

[No. L-42012/42/96-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

vuqcU/k

U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk] ¼jktñ½

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& Jherh vfurk 'kekZ] vkjñ,pñtsñ,lñ

funsZ'k izdj.k Øekd vkSñU;kñ ¼dsUnzh;½&32@1997

fnukad LFkkfir% 21@11@97

izlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k

Øa ,y&42012@42@96&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½ fnñ 24@10@97

funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e] 1947

e/;

b'kkd iq= ulhj eksgEen }kjk la;qDr egkea=h]

fgUn etnwj lHkk] caxkyh dksyksuh] dksVkA

—izkFkhZ Jfed

,oa

Je dY;k.k vk;qDr] Hkkjr ljdkj] xka/khuxj] HkhyokM+kA

—vizkFkhZ fu;kstd

3202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

mifLFkr

izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%—

Jh ,uñdsñ frokjh

vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%—

Jh ,lñ,lñ mIiy

vf/kfu;e fnukad% 18@2@2015

%%vf/kfu.kZ;%%

Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds izklafxd vkns'k fnukad

24@10@97 ds tfj;s fuEu funsZ'k fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]

1947 ¼ftls rnqijkUr ^^vf/kfu;e**a ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tk;sxk½ dh

/kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ds vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ

lEizsf"kr fd;k x;k gS%

"Whether the action of the management of Labour

Welfare Organisation in not regularising the service of

Shri Ishak is Legal and justified? If not to what relief the

workman is entitied to?"

2- funsZ'k@fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa izkIr gksus ij iathc) mijkUr

i{kdkjksa dks lwpuk@uksfVl tkjh dj fof/kor voxr djok;k x;kA

3- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls mldh ;wfu;u ds egkea=h }kjk U;k;ky; ds

le{k Dyse LVsVesUV izLrqr dj O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks

vizkFkhZ dY;k.k vk;qDr] Hkkjr ljdkj] Je dY;k.k laxBu] 44&,

f=yksd fuokl] xka/khuxj] HkhyokM+k }kjk fnukad 7@3@84 ls pkSdhnkj

ds in ij lsok esa fu;ksftr dj fpfdRlkf/kdkjh] ,yksisfFkd]

vkS"kèky;] Hkkjr ljdkj chM+h Jfed dY;k.k laxBu] dksVk ds ;gka

ij dk;Z ij yxk;k x;k FkkA Jfed ls lka;dky 7 cts ls izkr% 7 cts

rd 12 ?kUVs pkSdhnkj dk dk;Z fy;k tkrk Fkk rFkk ek= 350@&#ñ

izfrekg osru fn;k tkrk Fkk tks U;wure osru Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk

?kksf"kr ls Hkh cgqr de gSA izkFkhZ Jfed dk 11 o"kZ ls 'kks"k.k fd;k tk

jgk gSA Jfed lsok esa fy;s tkus dh fnukad ds nks o"kZ ckn ls LFkk;h

gksus dk vf/kdkjh gSA fu;kstd ds ;gka Jfed dk fiNyk lsokdky

larks"kizn jgk gSA ifj.kker% Jfed dks fu;qfDr fnukad ds nks o"kZ ckn

ls LFkk;h fd;k tkdj fiNys leLr ,fj;j ,oa ykHk fnyk;s tkus dh

izkFkZuk U;k;ky; ls dh x;h gSA

4- mijksDr Dyse LVsVesUV dk la'kksf/kr tokc izLrqr dj vizkFkhZ

dh vksj ls O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks foHkkx esa

vko';drkuqlkj ,d fuf'pr vof/k ds fy, vYidkyhu Jfed ds

:i esa vLFkk;h rkSj ij vizkFkhZ }kjk Lohd`fr iznku djus ij lgk;d

dY;k.k iz'kkld] chMh Jfed fpfdRlky;] dksVk dk;kZy; esa yxk;k

x;k FkkA lgk;d dY;k.k iz'kkld] chM+h Jfed fpfdRlky;] dksVk]

izkFkhZ Jfed dk vly fu;kstd gS ftls i{kdkj cuk;k tkuk vko';d

gS uksu tksbZ.Mj vkQ uslsljht vkQ ikVhZt ds nks"k ds dkj.k ;g

izkFkZuk&i= pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA izkFkhZ Jfed dh fu;qfDr vYidkyhu

Jfed ds :i esa 350@&#i;s izfrekg ds fglkc ls dh x;h FkhA izkFkhZ

ls foHkkx esa ek= 2 ;k 3 ?kUVs gh dk;Z fy;k tkrk gSA izkFkhZ }kjk dHkh

Hkh iw.kZ nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed ds :i esa dka;Z ugha fd;k x;k gSA

izkFkhZ Jfed vYidkyhu Jfed gS ftls vYidkyhu Jfed dk gh

osru fn;k tkrk gSA izkFkhZ nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed ugha gS] vr% LFkk;h

gksus dh {kerk ugha j[krk gSa foHkkx esa ,slk dksbZ fu;e ugha gS fd fdlh

Hkh Jfed ds 2 o"kZ dk;Z djus ds mijkUr mls LFkk;h fd;k tkosA

vizkFkhZ dk foHkkx dsUnzh; ljdkj] Je ea=ky; ds v/khu dk;Zjr

,d laLFkku gS tks chM+h Jfedksa ds fgrksa og lsok ds fy, dk;Zjr gS tks

fdlh izdkj dk ykHk vftZr ugha djrk] vr% vizkFkhZ foHkkx m|ksx

dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk gS o vizkFkhZ foHkkx ij vkSñfoñ vf/kfu;e ds

izko/kku ykxw ugha gksrs] vr% izkFkhZ vkSñfoñ vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dk

dksbZ ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA pkSdhnkj ds in gsrq izkFkhZ

dh mez 18 ls 25 o"kZ ds chp gksuh pkfg, o izkFkhZ dk 8oha d{kk ikl

gksuk o HkwriwoZ lSfud gksuk vko';d gS] tcfd izkFkhZ Jfed dh mez

orZeku esa 50 o"kZ ds djhc gS] vr% izkFkhZ Jfed LFkk;h deZpkjh gksus

dh ;ksX;rk Hkh ugha j[krk gSA ifj.kker% izkFkhZ Jfed] vYidkyhu

Jfed gksus ds dkj.k v)ZLFkk;h o LFkk;h gksus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gksus

ls izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k Dyse LVsVesUV [kfjt fd;s tkus

dh izkFkZuk dh x;h gSA

5- izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls vizkFkhZ ds mDr la'kksf/kr tokc dk

izR;qÙkj izLrqr dj O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed ls

ek= 2 ;k 3 ?kUVs gh dk;Z ugha fd;k tkrk cfYd vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ ls

lk;a dky 7 cts ls izkr% 7 cts rd 12 ?kUVs pkSdhnkj dk dk;Z fy;k

tkrk jgk gS rFkk izkFkhZ dks ek= izkr% 7 cts rd 12 ?kUVs pkSdhnkj dk

dk;Z fy;k tkrk jgk gS rFkk izkFkhZ dks ek= 350@&#ñ nsdj mldk

'kks"k.k fd;k tk jgk gSA izkFkhZ dk pkSdhnkj dk in LFkk;h izd`fr dk

in gS ftl ij 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk o vk;q ds fglkc ls gh fu;qfDr dh

tkuh pkfg, FkhA fu;kstd ds ;gkW Jfed dh lsok;sa 19 o"kZ ls Hkh

vfèd dh gks pqdh gSa o 19 o"kZ rd fdlh Jfed dks nSfud osru ij

j[kk tkuk vkSñfoñ vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 2¼vkjñ,ñ½ ds lkFk

lifBr /kkjk 25&Vh o ikapoha f'kM~;wy ds vUrxZr vuqfpr Je vkpj.k

gSA

6- lk{; esa izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls Lo;a izkFkhZ b'kkd dk rFkk

vizkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls lk{kh MkWñ latho dok=k dk 'ki=&i= o

la'kksf/kr 'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftuls mHk;i{k ds izfrfufèx.k

}kjk ,d&nwljs i{k ds 'kiFk&i=ksa ij ftjg dh x;h gSA izys[kh; lk{;

esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izn'kZ MCY;w 1 yxk;r McY;w 5 rFkk vizkFkhZ dh

vksj ls izn'kZ ,eñ 1 yxk;r ,eñ 5 rd ds izys[k izLrqr dj iznf'kZr

djok;s x;s gSA

7- mHk;i{k ds fo)ku izfrfuf/kx.k dh cgl lquh x;h] i=koyh

ij miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh dk /;kuiwoZd ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA

8- cgl vfUre ds nkSjku U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k ;g rF; /;ku esa

yk;k x;k fd gLrxr ekeys esa izkIr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa izkFkhZ ds

fu;fefrdj.k dh dksbZ frfFk vafdr ugha gS] vr% ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k

fdl frfFk@fnukad dks izkFkhZ dh fu;fefrdj.k dh frfFk ekudj]

lsokesa fu;fefrdj.k ugha fd;s tkus dh oS/krk ,oa mfprrk dk fofu'p;

djsxk\ bl lEcU/k esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk U;k;n`"Vkar

^^2003 MCY;w,ylh ¼jktñ½ i`"B 424&egkohj d.MDVj cuke

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3203

uUnfd'kksj** esa ;g izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd lsokvksa ds i;Zolku

dh frfFk dk jsQz sUl esa mYys[k ugha gksus ls Je U;k;ky; fdlh deZdkj

ds dFkukuqlkj i;Zolku dh frfFk dks Lohdkj dj funsZ'k@jsQz sUl dh

'krksZa esa lq/kkj] la'kks/ku ;k mikUrj.k djus esa l{ke ugha gS ,oa uk gh

U;k;ky; dks i{kdkjksa dh lgefr ls ,slh vf/kdkfjrk izkIr gksrh gSA

vr% ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk funsZ'k@jsQz sUl esa deZdkj dh lsok ds

i;Zolku

frfFk

of.kZr

ugha

gksus

vf/kfu.kZ; dks vikLr dj fn;k x;kA bl mDr U;k;fu.kZ; esa izfrikfnr

fl)kar ds vuqlkj tgka funsZ'k@jsQz sUl esa lsok ls gVkus] eqDr djus ;k

i`Fkd djus dh frfFk dk vadu ugha gS rks Je U;k;ky; dks ml frfFk

dks lgh djus ;k la'kks/ku djus dh vf/kdkfjrk i{kdkjksa ds }kjk ,slh

frfFk izLrkfor fd;s tkus ij Hkh izkIr ugha gks tkrh gSA vFkkZr~ ;fn

funsZ'k esa lsok eqfDr] i`Fkd ;k gVkus dh frfFk dk dksbZ vadu ugha gS o

nksuksa i{kdkj ,slh frfFk ;fn crk Hkh nsrs gksa rks Hkh Je U;k;ky; dks

ml crk;h x;h frfFk dks ekudj mlds vk/kkj ij funsZ'k@jsQz sUl

mÙkfjr djus dk vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gksrk gSA bl U;k;fu.kZ; ds isjk

lañ 11 esa] ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk enuiky flag cuke mÙkj

izns'k jkT; o vU;&,vkbZvkj 2000 ,llh 537 ds fu.kZ; dks foosfpr

fd;k x;k gS rFkk var esa ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk x;k fd Je U;k;ky;

funsZ'k esa of.kZr fcanqvksa rd gh lhfer {ks=kf/kdkj j[krk gS ,oa mldks

i{kdkjksa ds ukeksa esa funsZ'k ls ijs tkdj la'kks/ku vkfn djus dk vf/

kdkj izkIr ugha gksrkA ;fn ukeksa ;k frfFk vkfn esa dksbZ ifjorZu ;k

vadu djkuk gS rks i{kdkjksa dks leqfpr ljdkj ds le{k bl ckcr

i{k j[kdj mlesa la'kks/ku djkuk gksxk] ijarq Je U;k;ky; dks ,slk

la'kks/ku djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gSA vr% blh fu.kZ; dks vk/kkj

ekurs gq, ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk mDr ekeys esa Je U;k;ky;

}kjk ikfjr vf/kfu.kZ; dks {ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko dk ekurs gq, vikLr

dj fn;k x;kA

9- vc ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k gLrxr funsZ'k@jsQz sUl esa izkFkhZ ds

fu;fefrdj.k dh frfFk dk dksbZ vadu ugha gksus ls fdl frfFk ls izkFkhZ

dh lsokvksa dk fu;fefrdj.k vizkFkhZ }kjk ugha fd, tkus ls vizkFkhZ

ds mDr d`R; dh mfprrk ,oa oS/krk dk fofu'p; djsxk rFkk D;k

;g U;k;kf/kdj.k izkFkhZ }kjk lq>k;h xbZ frfFk dks fu;fefrdj.k frfFk

ekudj izdj.k dk xq.kkoxq.k ij fofu'p; dj ldrk gS vFkok

funsZ'k@jsQz sUl esa la'kks/ku djus dk vf/kdkj j[krk gS\ bl laca/k esa

ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mDr U;k;n`"Vkar ^^2003

MCY;w,ylh¼jktñ½ i`"B 424&egkohj d.MDVj cuke uUnfd'kksj**

ds iSjk la[;k 12 dk mYys[k fd;k tkuk U;k;laxr gS ftlesa ekuuh;

mPp U;k;ky; }kjk lsok lekfIr frfFk esa la'kks/ku vkfn ckcr fuEu

fLFkfr izdV dh xbZ gS%—

"Thus, in view of the above, I reach the inescapable

conclusion that the Labour Court has no competence

to correct/modify/amend/alter the terms of the reference

or mention the date of termination etc. or proceed with

the reference and accepting the date of termination as

suggested by the workman and in case it does so, the

award becomes nullity, being without jurisdiction, based

on the bad reference."

10- bl izdkj mijksDr U;k;n`"Vkar esa izfrikfnr fl)kar gLrxr

izdj.k ds rF;ksa ij ?kfVr djds ns[kk tk, rks bl ekeys esa Hkh

funsZ'k@jsQz sUl tks l{ke ljdkj }kjk fd;k x;k gS] mlesa izkFkhZ Jfed

b'kkd dks fdl frfFk ls lsok esa fu;fefrdj.k ugha djus dh mfprrk

,oa oS/krk dk fofu'p; fd;k tkos] ;g fLFkfr Li"V ugha gS] tcfd

izkFkhZ us vius Dyse LVsVesaV esa Lo;a dks 7-3-84 ls pkSdhnkj ds in ij

lsok esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkuk O;Dr fd;k gS o fu;qfDr fnukad ds 2 o"kZ

ckn ls LFkk;h fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gS o blh izdkj dh lk{; Lo;a

ds 'kiFk&i= ds ek/;e ls izLrqr dh gS o fnukad 7-3-86 ls gh Lo;a

dks fu;fer gksus dk vf/kdkjh gksuk O;Dr fd;k gSA ijarq ekuuh;

mPpre ,oa mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Åij foosfpr fd, x, U;k;fu.kZ;ksa

esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ds vuqlkj bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks ,sls i{kdkjksa

dk la'kks/ku izLrko Lohdkj fd, tkus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gksus ls bl

U;k;kf/kdj.k dh jk; esa ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k ;fn dksbZ vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr

Hkh djrk gS rks og {ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko dk gksdj 'kwU; gksxkA bu

U;k;fu.kZ;ksa ds [k.Mu esa ;k vU; dksbZ U;k;fu.kZ; ,slk is'k Hkh ugha

fd;k x;k ftlesa fd Åij of.kZr fLFkfr gksus ds ckotwn Hkh U;k;kfèdj.k

dks funsZ'k vf/kfu.khZr djus dk vf/kdkj izkIr gksA vr% dqy feykdj

fLFkfr mDr U;k;fu.kZ;ksa ds gh vHkh rd izHkko'khy gksus dh ikbZ tkrh

gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ,oa ekuuh; mPPre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr

mDr U;k;fu.kZ;ksa esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ls ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k vkc) gSA

vr% ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa lEiw.kZ foospu ds mijkUr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k

dh jk; esa bruk gh dguk i;kZIr gS fd gLrxr funsZ'k@jsQz sUl esa izkFkhZ

Jfed dks fu;fer fd, tkus dh frfFk dk dksbZ vadu ugha gksus ls ;g

U;k;kfèdj.k ,sls funsZ'k esa dksbZ la'kks/ku dj vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr djus

dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha j[krk gS ,oa ;fn i{kdkj ljdkj ls bl ckcr

funsZ'k@jsQz sUl esa la'kks/ku djkdj U;k;kf/kdj.k esa is'k djrs gSa rks

U;k;kf/kdj.k ,slk la'kks/ku izkIr gksus ij izdj.k esa fof/k vuqlkj

vfxze dk;Zokgh dj ldsxk] ijarq bl izØe ij fQygky ;g ekeyk

bl U;k;kf/kdj.k ds {ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko dk ik;k tkrk gSA

ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk izklafxd

vkns'k fnukad 24-10-97 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQz sUl fookn dks

blh vuq:i mÙkfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd gLrxr funsZ'k@jsQz sUl esa izkFkhZ

Jfed b'kkd ds fu;fefrdj.k fd, tkus dh frfFk dk dksbZ vadu

ugha gksus ls o bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks i{kdkjksa }kjk lq>k;h xbZ frfFk dks

Lohdkj fd, tkus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gksus ls funsZ'k@jsQz sUl esa vizkFkhZ

}kjk fu;fefrdj.k ugha djus dh oS/krk ,oa mfprrk dk fofu'p;

dj vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tkuk 'kwU; ,oa {ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko dk

gksxkA i{kdkj ;fn l{ke ljdkj ls izkFkhZ Jfed ds fu;fefrdj.k

frfFk ckcr la'kks/ku@vadu djkdj U;k;kf/kdj.k esa is'k djsaxs rks

U;k;kf/kdj.k xq.kkoxq.k ds vk/kkj ij fof/k vuqlkj vkxs izdj.k ds

fuLrkj.k dh dk;Zokgh dj ldsxkA

Jherh vfurk 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k

3204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk-1508-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dekaMsaV fjekmaV Vªsfuax

Ldwy] lgkjuiqj ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 2] MsYgh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 74@2013½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-07-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&14011@01@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2015

S.O.1508.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 74/2013) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Commandant, Remount Training School,

Saharanpur and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 20.07.2015.

[No. L-14011/01/2013-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI

Present:—Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 74/13

Joint Secretary,

Remount Training School & Depot Civil,

Karamchari Union, C/o Rajiv Sharma, H/N 3/7955,

Nand Vatika Dehradun Road, Opp. Remount Depot Gate,

Saharanpur (U.P.)-247 001

...Workmen

Versus

The Commandant,

Remount Training School,

Saharanpur (U.P.)

...Management

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide

notification No. L-14011/01/2013[IR (DU)] dated 3.07.2013

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication:—

"Whether the action of the management of Remount

Traning School & Depot, Saharanpur of depriving

10 civillian workers i.e. Shri Biram Chand (331006), Shri

Sompa (6087), Vijay Kumar Talwar (6314), Ahsan (6115),

Gurbachan (5521), Vidrapal (6361), Bir Singh (5798), Kiran

Pal (5175) & Rajkumar (6186) of their HRA without approval

of competent authority is justified? To what relief the

workers are entitled to?’’

On 23.07.2013 reference was received in this Tribunal.

Which was registered as ID No. 74/2013 and claimants

were called upon to file claim statement within fifteen days

from date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

Several opportunities given to workmen as well as

management but neither workmen nor management filed

claim Statement/Response to the reference.

In this background there is no option to this Tribunal

except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not

interested to file their respective pleadings. On the basis of

which none of the party can be directed to adduce its

evidence.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated: 11.6.2015

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk-1509-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj E;qfufliy dkjiksjs'ku

vkWQ MsYgh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; MsYgh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 304@2011½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-07-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42011@57@2011&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ihñdsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2015

S.O.1509.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. 304/2011) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and

their workmen which was received by the Central

Government on 20.07.2015.

[No. L-42011/57/2011-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3205

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. 304/2011

Ms. Geeta, through

The General Secretary,

Hospital Employees Union,

Aggarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road, Tis Hazari,

Delhi -110 054

....... Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi,

Town Hall,

Chandni Chowk,

Delhi-100 006

..........Management

AWARD

Brief facts giving rise to the above reference is that

Ms. Geeta joined the service of Municipal Corporation

of Delhi as safai karamchari on 20.12.2002. She worked

regularly without any break since her joining to the entire

satisfaction of her superiors and has an unblemished and

uninterrupted record of service. Though she is working

for 8 hours a day and the duty she performs is of regular

nature, she has been termed as a part time safai karamchari

with ulterior motive and mala fide intention amounting

to unfair labour practice. Her wages is a meager Rs.

560.00 per month though she is discharging her duties

for the last so many years, which is much lower than the

wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, while her

regular counterparts doing identical work are being paid

salary in proper pay scale with usual allowances admissible

under Rules. Action on the part of the management in not

regularizing the services of the claimant in proper pay

scale and allowances from initial date of her joining,

denying her wages at par with her co-workers on the

principles of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' is illegal, bad,

unjust, mala fide and amounts to exploitation of labour, which

is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 39(D) of the Constitution

of India and against the intention of the legislation as

contained in Section 4 of the Equal Remuneration Act,

1976. It is also violative of Resolution 1002 of 5.1.1967 of

the Standing Committee of Municipal Corporation of

Delhi according to which name of the claimant should have

been entered in the seniority list of muster roll sweepers

from the initial date of her joining. Workmen junior to her

have been regularized in service in proper pay scale and

allowance. Demand notice was served on the management

on 12.09.2008. Conciliation proceedings also failed due to

the adamant and non-co-operative attitude of the

management. Prayer has been made that the management

may be directed to regularize the services of the workman

in regular pay scale and allowances with retrospective effect.

2. Since the matter could not be resolved, as such the

workman approached the Union Government, who made

reference to this Tribunal for adjudication vide order

No. L-42011/57/2011-IR(DU) dated 12.08.2001 in the

following manner:

"Whether the action of the management of Municipal

Corporation of Delhi in not regularizing the services of

Smt. Geeta (W/o Shri Vijay Singh) appointed as Part

Time Safai Karamchari with effect from 20.12.2002

continued in employment and has completed more than

240 days in a year and her other colleagues have been

regularized by the management of MCD, ignoring her

claim, is legal and justified? What relief the workman is

entitled to and from which date?’’

3. After consideration of statement of claim by the

workman, matter was listed for filing written statement on

behalf of the management, who filed written statement,

taking preliminary objections inter alia, maintainability,

non-service of demand notice etc. It is also alleged that the

claimant was engaged in IPP-VII Department, which is

constituted to run the Project initiated by the World Health

Organization. Apart from the claimant, there are already

three regular full time safai karamcharis who perform work

for 8½ hours. It is well established that part time workers

are not workmen. The claimant was engaged for cleaning

only for 4 hours a day on a fixed/consolidated remuneration

of Rs. 560 per month (now revised to Rs. 1120). It is also

mentioned in the appointment order of the claimant that

‘the engagement will not entitle them to claim for regular

or daily wage employee' which condition of engagement

was duly accepted by the claimant. There is no policy for

regularizing part time workers working in Health Department/

different medical institutions run by the management.

Regularization policy relied upon by the claimant is

applicable only to daily wage workers and not part time

workers. The management is a Government organization

and has its own rules and regulations, resolutions, office

orders etc. for regulating service of its employees.

Management also denied the other material averments

contained in the statement of claim.

4. The claimant, Ms. Geeta, in support of her case,

examined herself as WW1. Management, in order to rebut

the case of the claimant, examined Dr. Harshlata as MW1.

In the course of cross examination of Dr. Harshlata, it

was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the claimant

is not interested in pursuing the claim petition. As such,

3206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

statement of the claimant regarding withdrawal of the case

was separately taken.

5. It is pertinent to note that under the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (in short the Act), there is no specific provisions

relating to withdrawal of reference made by the Government

in terms of Section 10, sub-section 2A of the Act. However,

the Tribunal can take cognizance of the facts stated in the

statement made by the claimant on 10.07.2015.

6. In view of the statement made by the claimant at the

bar on 10.07.2015, there is no need to answer the above

reference or pass an award on merits. Moreover, the claimant

herein is not interested in pursing the present case. 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.

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk-1510-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj XPO jsfQtjs'ku

bathfu;lZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; dksydrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 27@2013½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20&07&2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@171@2014&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2015

S.O.1510.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Ref. 27 of 2013) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court,

Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the XPO Refrigeration Engineers and their

workman, received by the Central Government on

20-07-2015.

[No. L-42012/171/2014-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 27 of 2013

Parties : Employers in relation to the management

of M/s. XPO Refrigeration Engineers

AND

Their workmen,

Present : Justice Dipak Saha Ray,

Presiding Officer

Apperance

On behalf of the :

Mr. R. Saha, Ld. Counsel for

Management

Govt. of India, Dept. of Space

None for others.

On behalf of the :

None

Workman

State: West Bengal

Dated: 9th July, 2015.

AWARD

By Order No. L-42012/171/2012-IR(DU) dated 26.04.2013,

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 M/s. XPO

Refrigeration Engineers and M/s. Electro Dynamic is

justified in terminating the services and denying full

and final pay to Shri Bibhuti Sarkar, Sk. Afta Rahaman

and Shri Naba Kumar Chakraborty w.e.f. 31.05.2011?.

Whether principal employer is justified in its duty to

regularize the service of 3 No. of workers, whose nature

of job constitute perennial in nature? Whether the

principal employer had filed in its duty to take action

under Section 21(4) of CL (R&A) Act, 1970? If not, what

relief the workmen are entitled to?"

2. When the case is taken up for hearing today, none

appears on behalf of the workman in spite of service of

notice though the Government of India, Dept of Space is

represented by the Ld. Counsel concerned. It appears from

the record that the workmen at whose instance the present

reference case has been initiated, have not turned up for

last two consecutive dates.

3. From such conduct of the concerned workmen it may

be presumed that they are not interested to proceed with

the case further. So, no fruitful purpose will be served in

keeping the matter pending.

4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, present

reference is disposed of by passing a "No Dispute Award".

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

the 9th July, 2015

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3207

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvk.1511.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ohvkse usVodZ

izkbosV fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

77@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@07@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@164@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2015

S.O.1511.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. Reference No. 77 of 2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the VIOM Network Pvt. Ltd. and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 20/07/2015.

[No. L-42012/164/2014-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 77 of 2014

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

M/s. VIOM Network Pvt. Ltd.

AND

Their workmen,

PRESENT

Justice Dipak Saha Ray,

Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the :

None for M/s. Viom Networks Ltd.

Management

Mr. Soumyak Bhattacharyya, Ld.

Counsel for M/s. Soltek Insolation

Pvt. Ltd.

On behalf of the

None

Workman

State

West Bengal.

Industry

Telecommunication.

Dated : 9th July, 2015.

AWARD

By Order No. L-42012/164/2014-IR(DU) dated 03.12.2014

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 M/s. Soltek

Insolation Pvt. Ltd. is justified by terminating the service

of Shri Bhuddadev Kundu is legal and/or justified? If

not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

2. When the case is taken up for hearing today, none

appears on behalf of the workman inspite of service of

notice though the management/M/s. Soltek Insolation Pvt.

Ltd. is represented by the Ld. Counsel concerned. It appears

from the record that the workman at whose instance the

present reference case has been initiated, never turned up

before this Tribunal.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances it appears

that the concerned workman is not willing to proceed with

this case. So, no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping

the matter pending.

4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, present

reference is disposed of by passing a "No Dispute Award".

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

The 9th July, 2015.

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1512—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ohvkse usVodZ

izkbosV fyfeVsM ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj

ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

75@2014½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@07@2015 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@163@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñdsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2015

S.O.1512—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. Reference No. 75 of 2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the VIOM Network Pvt. Ltd. and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 20/07/2015.

[No. L-42012/163/2014-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

3208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 75 of 2014

Parties :

Employers in relation to the management of

M/s. VIOM Network Pvt. Ltd.

AND

Their workmen,

Present:

Justice Dipak Saha Ray,

Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the :

Mr. Soumyo Deep Banerjee,

Management

Ld. Counsel for M/s. Viom

Networks Ltd.

Mr. Chanchal Kr. Chandra,

Ld. Counsel with Mr. Soumyak

Bhattacharyya, Ld. Counsel for

M/s. Soltek Insolation pvt. Ltd.

On behalf of the :

None

Workman

State

West Bengal.

Industry

Telecommunication.

Dated: 8th July, 2015.

AWARD

By order No. L-42012/163/2014-IR(DU) dated 02.12.2014

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

M/s. Soltek Insolation Pvt. Ltd. is justified by

terminating the service of Shri Susanta Paul is legal

and/or justified? If not, what relief the workmen are

entitled to?"

2. When the case is taken up for hearing today, none

appears on behalf of the workman inspite of service of

notice though the management side was represented by

the Ld. Counsel concerned. It appears from the record that

the workman at whose instance the present reference case

has been initiated, never turned up before this Tribunal.

3. From such conduct of the concerned workman it

appears that he is not at all interested about this case. So,

no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping the matter

pending.

4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, present

reference is disposed of by passing a "No Dispute Award".

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

the 8th July, 2015.

ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk-1513-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWQ

VsyhdE;qfudsa'kl] jk;iqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@210@98½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@15@98&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2015

S.O.1513.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. CGIT/LC/R/210/98)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Department of Telecommunication,

Raipur and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 21/07/2015.

[No. L-40012/15/98-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/210/98

Shri Gopal S/o Lalmani,

Vill Ghatkachhar,

PO Saraipali,

Raipur

Workman

Versus

The DE,

Telecom Project,

7, Sahakari Marg-II,

Choubey Colony,

Raipur

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 1st day of July, 2015

1. As per letter dated 10.9.98 by the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of

I.D. Act., 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/15/98-IR (DU).

The dispute under reference relates to:

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3209

"Whether the action of management of Divisional

Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur (MP) in terminating

Shri Gopal, S/o Shri Lalmani, Ex-Mazdoor is legal and

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 workman is that he was appointed

as mazdoor against permanent post in 1986. His services

were discontinued from 16.2.88. He worked more than 240

days in the year 1986, 87. His services were discontinued

for the reasons that there was no work. When dispute was

raised by Ist party workman before ALC, Raipur challenging

termination during conciliation proceeding, settlement was

arrived on 27.12.89. As per said settlement, workman was

reinstated immediately without backwages. After his

reinstatement he was working from 1.1.91. He was

continuously working for 240 days. His discontinuation

by IInd party without notice, without paying pay in lie of

notice, without paying retrenchment compensation is

illegal. That his termination is in violation of Section

25-F(a,b) of ID Act. Employees junior to him had filed

petition No. 196/90 before CAT Jabalpur claiming

regularisation. Hon'ble Tribunal directed IInd party to

accommodate the concerned applicants. As such the

employees junior to him are reinstated in service.

Termination of his service is illegal. Workman prays for his

reinstatement with back wages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/2

opposing claim of the workman. IInd party submits that

workman was not engaged by DE, Telecom Project, Raipur.

Workman was engaged by DE Coaxial Cable Project, Raipur

which was wound up on 31.3.91. It is further submitted that

workman was engaged on muster roll on daily wage basis.

Muster rolls are preserved for 5 years as per rules. Workman

was not continuously working. The dispute is raised after

10 years. It is difficult to state whether workman was

reinstated by management. Workman was engaged purely

on temporary basis on muster roll for specific period and

specific job. There was no question of his termination and

workman was engaged as casual labour. There was no

question of issuing one month's notice or payment of

retrenchment compensation. Workman was discontinued

as per the policy of Governmetn of India vide letter dated

17.12.99. Workman was not appointed on basis of order

passed in Original application 71/91 and 196/90 passed by

CAT, Jabalpur. The claim of workman is not legal.

4. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/2

reiterating its contentions in statement of claim.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of

management of Divisional

In Affirmative

Engineer, Telecom Project,

Raipur (MP) in terminating

Shri Gopal, S/o Shri Lalmani,

Ex-Mazdoor is legal and

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

6. Workman is challenging termination of his service for

violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman filed affidavit

of his evidence. He has stated that he was continuously

working without break from 1986 to 31.12.90. In his cross-

examination, workman says he had passed 6th standard.

He doesnot know English. His affidavit in english is

submitted by his Advocate. That in his affidavit, he has

stated that he was working in coaxial project. Co-axial cable

Project was not different. workman again said that he was

not working in DE Project, Raipur. Before his appointment,

post was not advertised. Order in writing was not given to

him. He was paid wages for his working days. Payment

was also made for Sundays. He was working from 1986 to

Jan-91. He completed more than 240 days continuous

service. There were no holidays. Document Exhibit P-1

working days of workman are shown comes more than 240

days during the preceding year of his termination.

7. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri R.R. Yadav

supporting contentions in Written Statement that workman

was not engaged by IInd party rather the workman was

engaged in DE Co-axial Cable Project which was wound up

on 31.3.91. Workman was engaged on muster roll on daily

wage basis. Muster rolls are preserved for 5 years.

management's witness was cross-examined. In his cross-

examination, witness of management has denied that

workman had completed 240 days continuous service.

Workman was not served with notice for termination. If

evidence is appreciated carefully, the evidence of workman

is supported by document P-1. Management has not

produced any documents. Services of workman were not

terminated by DE Telecom Project, Raipur. Evidence of

workman is clear that he was working with Co-axial Cable

Project. It is not impleaded as party to the proceeding

therefore claim of workman against management cannot be

upheld. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point

No. 1 that illegal termination of services by IInd party is

not proved.

8. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of management of Divisional Engineer,

Telecom Project, Raipur (MP) in terminating Shri

Gopal, S/o Shri Lalmani, Ex-Mazdoor is proper and

legal.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

3210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1514.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWQ

VsyhdE;qfuds'kal] jk;iqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la-

lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@ 92@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@77@98&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ihñdsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2015

S.O. 1514.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/LC/R/92/99) of

the Central Govt. Industrialy. 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,

Raipur and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 21/07/2015.

[No. L-40012/77/98-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/92/99

Shri Setram,

Village Ghat Kachhar, PO Signora,

Tehsil Saraipali,

Raipur

Workman

Versus

The DE,

Telecom Project,

7, Sahakari Marg-II,

Choubey Colongy,

Raipur

Management

AWARD

Pssed on this 1st day of July 2015

1. As per letter dated 16.2.99 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-40012/77/98-IR(DU).

The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of management of Divisional

Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur (MP) in terminating

Shri Set Ram, S/o Shri Kamrup, Ex-Mazdoor is legal

and 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 workman is that he was appointed

as mazdoor against permanent post in 1986. His service

were discontinued from 16.2.88. He worked more than 240

days in the year 1986, 87. His services were discontinued

for the reasons that there was no work. When dispute was

raised by Ist party workman before ALC, Raipur challenging

termination during conciliation proceeding, settlement was

arrived on 27.12.89. As per said settlement, workman was

reinstated immediately without backwages. After his

reinstatement he was working from 1.1.91. He was

continuously working for 240 days. His discontinuation

by IInd party without notice, without paying pay in lied of

notice, without paying retrenchment compensation is

illegal. That his termination is in voilation of Section 25-F

(a,b) of ID Act. Employees junior to him had filed petition

No. 196/90 before CAT Jabalpur claiming regularisation.

Hon'ble Trinunal directed IInd party to accommodate the

concerned applicants. As such the employees junior to

him are reinstated in service. Termination of his service is

illegal. Workman prays for his reinstatement with back

wages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/2

opposing claim of the workman. IInd party submits that

workman was not engaged by DE, Telecom Project, Raipur.

Workman was engaged by DE Coaxial Cable Project, Raipur

which was wound up on 31.3.91. It is further submitted that

workman was engaged on muster roll on daily wage basis.

Muster rolls are preserved for 5 years as per rules. Workman

was not continuously working. The dispute is raised after

10 years. It is difficult to state whether workman was

reinstated by management. Workman was engaged purely

on temporary basis on muster roll for specific period and

specific job. There was no question of his termination and

workman was engaged as casual labour. There was no

question of issuing one months' notice or payment of

retrenchment compensation. Workman was discontinued

as per the policy of Government of India vide letter dated

17.12.99. Workman was not appointed on basis of order

passed in Original application 71/91 and 196/90 passed by

CAT, Jabalpur. The claim of workman is not legal.

4. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/2

reiterating its contentions in statement of claim.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3211

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of

management of Divisional

In Affirmative

Engineer, Telecom Project,

Raipur (MP) in terminating

Shri Set Ram, S/o Shri Kamrup,

Ex-Mazdoor is legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not entitled

workman is entitled

to any relief.

to?"

REASONS

6. Workman is challenging termination of his service for

violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Wokman filed affidavit

of his evidence supporting his contentions in statement of

claim about his initial appointment in 1986. That he was

continuously working for more than 240 days. His services

were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. His

affidavit is also devoted to filing of Petition No. 196/90 by

junior employees. That CAT Jabalpur had set aside the

order of termination of those employees and directed to

take them in service. Worman has failed to appear for his

cross-examination. His evidence cannot be considered.

Copy of order passed in OA 196/90 is produced on record.

The benefit of said order cannot be extended to workman.

7. Management filed affidavit of wittness Shri R.R. Yadav

supportintg contentions in Written Statement that workman

was not engaged by IInd party rather the workman was

engaged in DE Coatial Cable Project which was wound up

on 31.3.91. Workman was engaged on muster roll on daily

wage basis. Muster rolls are preserved for 5 years.

Management's witness was cross-examined. In his cross-

examination, witness of management says showcause

notice was not issued to workman, information of

termination of workman was not given to Government of

India. Any record of workman engaged as casual labour is

not maintained. Muster roll of workman is not produced.

Workman has not completed more than 240 days working.

If evidence on record is appreciated, workman has failed to

appear for his cross-examination and witness of

management has re-affirmed that workman had not

completed more than 240 days continuous service,

workman has failed to establish that he was working more

than 240 days before termination of his service, violation

of Section 25-F of ID Act is not establihsed by the workman.

Considering the evidence discussed above, I record my

finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

8. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of management of Divisional Engineer,

Telecom Project, Raipur (MP) in terminating

Shri Set Ram, S/o Shri Kamrup, Ex-Mazdoor is

proper and legal.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk-1515-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWQ

VsyhdE;qfuds'kal jk;iqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,o Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@209@98½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@14@98&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2015

S.O. 1515.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/LC/R/209/98)

of the Central. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the rddustrial

dispute between the employers in indation to the

management of the Department of Telecommunication,

Raipur and their workmen, which received by the Central

Government on 21/07/2015.

[No. L-40012/14/98-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/209/98

Shri Keshabo,

S/o Shri Lalmani, Village Ghat Kachhar,

PO Sighora, Tehsil Saraipali,

Raipur.

Workman

Versus

The Divisional Engineer,

Telecom Project,

7, Sahakari Marg-II,

Choubey Colony,

Raipur

Management

AWARD

Pssed on this 7th day of July 2015

1. As per letter dated 16.2.98 by the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of

I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/14/98-IR(DU).

The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of management of Divisional

Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur (MP) in terminating

3212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

the services of Shri Keshabo, S/o Shri Lalmani Ex-

Mazdoor is legal and 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 3/1 to 3/4. Case of workman is that he was appointed

as mazdoor against permanent post in 1986. His services

were discontinued from 16.2.88. He worked more than 240

days in the year 1986, 87. His services were discontinued

for the reasons that there was no work. When dispute was

raised by Ist party workman before ALC, Raipur challenging

termination during conciliation proceeding, settlement was

arrived on 27.12.89. As per said settlement, workman was

reinstated immediately without backwages. After his

reinstatement he was working from 1.1.91. He was

continuously working for 240 days. His discontinuation

by IInd party without notice, without paying pay in lieu of

notice, without paying retrenchment compensation is

illegal. That his termination is in voilation of Section

25-F (a,b) of ID Act. Employees junior to him had filed

petition No. 196/90 before CAT Jabalpur claiming

regularisation. Hon'ble Tribunal directed IInd party to

accommodate the concerned applicants. As such the

employees junior to him are reinstated in service.

Termination of his service is illegal. Workman prays for his

reinstatement with back wages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/2

opposing claim of the workman. IInd party submits that

workman was not engaged by DE, Telecom Project, Raipur.

Workman was engaged by DE Coaxial Cable Project, Raipur

which was wound up on 31.3.91. It is further submitted that

workman was engaged on muster roll on daily wage basis.

Muster rolls are preserved for 5 years as per rules. Workman

was not continuously working. The dispute is raised after

10 years. It is difficult to state whether workman was

reinstated by management. Workman was engaged purely

on temporary basis on muster roll for specific period and

specific job. There was no question of his termination and

workman was engaged as casual labour. There was no

question of issuing one months' notice or payment of

retrenchment compensation. Workman was discontinued

as per the policy of Government of India vide letter dated

17.12.99. Workman was not appointed on basis of order

passed in Original application 71/91 and 196/90 passed by

CAT, Jabalpur. The claim of workman is not legal.

4. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/2

reiterating its contentions in statement of claim.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of

management of Divisional

In Affirmative

Engineer, Telecom Project,

Raipur (MP) in terminating

Shri Keshabo, S/o Shri Lalmani,

Ex-Mazdoor is legal and

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

6. Workman is challenging termination of his service for

violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Wokman filed affidavit

of his evidence supporting his contentions in statement of

claim about his initial appointment in 1986. That he was

continuously working for more than 240 days. His services

were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. His

affidavit is also devoted to filing of Petition No. 196/90 by

junior employees. That CAT Jabalpur had set aside the

order of termination of those employees and directed to

take them in service. Workman has failed to appear for his

cross-examination. His evidence cannot be considered.

Copy of order passed in OA 196/90 is produced on record.

The benefit of said order cannot be extended to workman.

7. Management filed affidavit of withness Shri R.R.

Yadav supportintg contentions in Written Statement that

workman was not engaged by IInd party rather the workman

was engaged in DE Co-axial Cable Project which was wound

up on 31.3.91. Workman was engaged on muster roll on

daily wage basis. Muster rolls are preserved for 5 years.

Management's witness was cross-examined. In his cross-

examination, witness of management says show-cause

notice was not issued to workman, information of

termination of workman was not given to Government of

India. Any record of workman engaged as casual labour is

not maintained. Muster roll of workman is not produced.

Workman has not completed more than 240 days working.

If evidence on record is appreciated, workman has failed to

appear for his cross-examination and witness of

management has re-affirmed that workman had not

completed more than 240 days continuous service,

workman has failed to established that he was working

more than 240 days before termination of his service,

violation of Section 25-F of ID Act is not establihsed by

the workman. Considering the evidence discussed above,

I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

8. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of management of Divisional Engineer,

Telecom Project, Raipur (MP) in terminating

Shri Keshabo, S/o Shri Lalmani, Ex-Mazdoor is

proper and legal.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3213

ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1516-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWQ

VsyhdE;qfuds'kal] jk;iqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;y;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@16@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@50@98&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2015

S.O. 1516.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/LC/R/16/99) 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 Telecommunication, Raipur and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 21/07/2015.

[No. L-40012/50/98-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/16/99

Shri Makhru,

Village Ghat Kachhar, PO Signora,

Tehsil Saraipali,

Raipur

Workman

Versus

The DE,

Telecom Project,

7, Sahakari Marg-II,

Choubey Colony,

Raipur

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 1st day of July, 2015

1. As per letter dated 30.11.98 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/

50/98-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Divisional

Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur (MP) in terminating

Shri Makhun, S/o Shri Faggu Gada, Ex-Mazdoor is

legal and 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 workman is that he was appointed

as mazdoor against permanent post in 1986. His services

were discontinued from 16.2.88. He worked more than 240

days in the year 1986-87. His services were discontinued

for the reasons that there was no work. When dispute was

raised by Ist party workman before ALC, Raipur challenging

termination during conciliation proceeding, settlement was

arrived on 27.12.89. As per said settlement, workman was

reinstated immediately without backwages. After his

reinstatement he was working from 1.1.91. He was

continuously working for 240 days. His discontinuation

by IInd party without notice, without paying pay in lieu of

notice, without paying retrenchment compensation is

illegal. That his termination is in violation of Section

25-F (a,b) of ID Act. Employees junior to him had filed

petition No. 196/90 before CAT Jabalpur claiming

regularisation. Hon'ble Tribunal directed IInd party to

accommodate the concerned applicants. As such the

employees junior to him are reinstated in service.

Termination of his service is illegal. Workman prays for his

reinstatement with back wages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/2

opposing claim of the workman. IInd party submits that

workman was not engaged by DE, Telecom Project, Raipur.

Workman was engaged by DE Coaxial Cable Project, Raipur

which was wound up on 31.3.91. It is further submitted that

workman was engaged on muster roll on daily wage basis.

Muster rolls are preserved for 5 years as per rules. Workman

was not continuously working. The dispute is raised after

10 years. It is difficult to state whether workman was

reinstated by management. Workman was engaged purely

on temporary basis on muster roll for specific period and

specific job. There was no question of his termination and

workman was engaged as casual labour. There was no

question of issuing one month's notice or payment of

retrenchment compensation. Workman was discontinued

as per the policy of Government of India vide letter dated

17.12.99. Workman was not appointed on basis of order

passed in Original application 71/91 and 196/90 passed by

CAT, Jabalpur. The claim of workman is not legal.

4. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/2

reiterating its contentions in statement of claim.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of

management of Divisional

3214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Engineer, Telecom Project,

In Affirmative.

Raipur (MP) in terminating

Shri Makhun, S/o Shri Faggu

Gada, Ex-Mazdoor is legal

and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

6. Workman is challenging termination of his service for

violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman filed affidavit

of his evidence supporting his contentions in statement of

claim about his initial appointment in 1986. That he was

continuously working for more than 240 days. His services

were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. His

affidavit is also devoted to filing of Petition No. 196/90 by

junior employees. That CAT Jabalpur had set aside the

order of termination of those employees and directed to

take them in service. Workman has failed to appear for his

cross-examination. His evidence cannot be considered.

Copy of order passed in OA 196/90 is produced on record.

The benefit of said order cannot be extended to workman.

7. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri R.R. Yadav

supporting contentions in Written Statement that workman

was not engaged by IInd party rather the workman was

engaged in DE Co-axial Cable Project which was wound up

on 31.3.91. Workman was engaged on muster roll on daily

wage basis. Muster rolls are preserved for 5 years.

Management's witness was cross-examined. In his cross-

examination, witness of management says show-cause

notice was not issued to workman, information of

termination of workman was not given to Government of

India. Any record of workman engaged as casual labour is

not maintained. Muster roll of workman is not produced.

Workman has not completed more than 240 days working.

If evidence on record is appreciated, workman has failed to

appear for his cross-examination and witness of

management has re-affirmed that workman had not

completed more than 240 days continuous service,

workman has failed to establish that he was working more

than 240 days before termination of his service, violation

of Section 25-F of ID Act is not established by the workman.

Considering the evidence discussed above, I record my

finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

8. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of management of Divisional Engineer,

Telecom Project, Raipur (MP) in terminating

Shri Makhun, S/o Shri Faggu Gada, Ex-Mazdoor

is proper and legal.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk-1517-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkWMZusUl QSDVªh]

dVuh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la-

lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@95@05½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&14011@3 ls 5@2005&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2015

S.O.1517.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/LC/R/95/05) 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 Ordnance Factory, Katni and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 21/07/2015.

[No. L-14011/3 to 5/2005-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/95/05

General Secretary,

Ordnance Factory, Katni (MP)

General Secretary,

Mazdoor Sangh, Ayudh Nirmani,

Office 1/1 A Type,

East Land, Ordnance Factory,

Katni

General Secretary,

Ordnance Factory Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh,

Ordnance Factory, Type III 5/6

Vivekanand Nagar, Katni

....Workman/Unions

Versus

General Secretary,

Ordnance Factory, Katni

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 3rd day of July, 2015

1. As per letter dated 8.9.05 by the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3215

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section 10 of

I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-14011/3 to 5/2005-

IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Ordnance

Factory, Katni MP not granting initial pay scale of

Rs. 320-400 to Mill Wright and Tool & Die Maker at

the time of their appointment and giving after

completion of their probation i.e. after two years is

justified? If not, what relief the workers are entitled

to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim at

Page 5/5 to 5/5. Case of Ist party Union is dispute is raised

in representing capacity by the workmen who were

appointed in the year 1996 onwards in trades of Mill Wright

and Tool & Die Maker. That the workman of those

categories are required to undergo apprenticeship training

under the provisions of Apprentice Act, 1961. They were

required to undergo training of 4 years. On completion of

training, they were given certificate which is known as

NCTVT certificates. An Expert Classification Committee

was constituted to examine job contents of various

semiskilled trade in the Defence installation working under

the Ministry of Defence. Said committee gave its

recommendations and it was made applicable w.e.f. 16.10.81.

The Expert Committee had evaluated job contents on basis

of score they recommended for grant of particular pay scale.

On recommendation of Expert Committee, various trades

were upgraded from pay scale of Rs. 196-232 to 210-290,

from 210-290 to 260-400. However certain trades were left

out, their cases were not properly considered. Therefore

another committee under the chairmanship of retired

Hon'ble Justice Shri Puri was constituted which was called

Anomaly Committee.

3. The Anomaly Committee submitted recommendations

pursuant to which 23 semi skilled trades were upgraded

the pay scales of Rs. 210-290 to 260-400 w.e.f. 15.10.84.

Certain employees employed in subsequent upgradation

from 15.10.84 in lieu of 16.10.81 the various petitions were

filed before various courts. The controversy was decided

by Apex court in case of Bhagwan Sahay carpenter reported

in AIR 1989 SC 1215. The action of the department granting

pay scale Rs. 260-400 from 15.10.84 was not approved and

the department was directed to give said benefit from

16.10.81. It is submitted that Expert Committee had allotted

327 marks to Mill Wright Trade. As per said rating, the mill

wright should have been allowed pay scale of Rs. 320-400.

However as such pay scale is not available, workman

submits that he should be allowed pay scale 330-480 for

Mill Wright and Tool and Die Maker. Alternately it is

submitted that they may be allowed pay scale of Rs. 950-

1500 revised pay scale 3050-4590 from 1-1-96. By

amendment, Ist party workman submits that the Expert

Classified Committee report considered various trades of

defence installation including various Ordnance Factories

and 506 Army Base workshop for the purpose of job

evaluation. The pay scale Rs. 210-290 was revised to

Rs. 800-1150 by 4th Pay Commission. The pay scale was

further revised to Rs. 2650 by 5th Pay Commission. The

pay scale of Mill Wrights and Tool makers was 230-480 in

3rd CPC, revised to 1200-1800 in 4th CPC, 4000-6000 in 5th

CPC. That as per order dated 15-10-84, 23 semiskilled grade

were upgraded to skilled grade from 210-290 to 260-400. On

such contentions workmen are praying IIIrd party is

directed to provide pay scale 950-1500/ 3050-4590 for Mill

Wright and Tool and Die Maker from the date of their

initial appointment.

4. Management of 2nd party filed Written Statement at

Page 6/1 to 6/7 opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party

intends that the representative of Union raised dispute

claiming higher pay scale from date of appointment in the

year 1996 for post of Mill Wright and Tool and Die maker.

The union have not submitted particulars of those

workmen. Therefore the reference is not tenable. That

workman in those two trades and in other technical trades

are appointed in semiskilled grade 210-290 as per

recruitment rules notified in SRO-18(E) of 1989 and SRO

185 of 1994. Workman related to present dispute after

completion of their apprentice training in Ordnance Factory

Katni and passing NCTVT were appointed in semiskilled

trade of Mill wright and Tool and Die Maker in pay scale of

Rs. 210-290. Appointment of those workmen were as per

the provisions of the statutory rules under which

recruitment is governed. Pay scale Rs. 210-290 was revised

to Rs. 800-1100. Workman had accepted the appointment,

the dispute is raised after long lapse of time. The workmen

are not entitled to any relief.

5. 2nd party has further pleaded that initially semiskilled

grade was Rs. 210-290 effective from 16-10-81. After

recommendations of Expert Classification Committee, the

workers in Ordnance Factory distributed in five scales

(a) unskilled in pay scale 192-232, (b) semi skilled in pay

scale 210-290, (c) skilled in pay scale of Rs. 260-400,

(d) Highly skilled Grade II in pay scale of Rs. 330-480 and

(e) highly skilled Grade I in pay scale of Rs. 380-560. Pay

scale of Rs. 260-400 was revised to Rs. 950-1500. 2nd party

also referred to ratio held in AIR 1990(SC)-675 contending

that the workmen were appointed as per SRO-18 (E) of 1989

and SRO 185 of 1994. Employees are covered under ID Act.

Reiterating above contentions and recommendations by

Expert Committee, anomaly Committee, the pay scales were

revised. Workman of both the trades fall in semiskilled

category. Their claim for higher pay scale may not be

accepted. On such ground, 2nd party submits that reference

be answered in favour of management.

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

3216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of the

management of Ordnance

Factory, Katni MP not

In Affirmative

granting initial pay scale of

Rs. 320-400 to Mill Wright

and Tool & Die Maker at the

time of their appointment is

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workmen are not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

7. The terms of reference pertains to claim of denial of

pay scale 320-400 to Mill wright and Tool and Die Maker at

the time of their initial appointment is in issue. Affidavit of

evidence is filed by Shri Ganesh Pal supporting the claim

of Ist party Union. The witness of Ist party has stated

about the persons appointed in above trades are completing

apprentice training known as NCTVT and recommendations

of Expert Classification Committee was constituted to fix

the salary on the basis of job evaluation and Anomaly

Committee was constituted. As per recommendations of

Anomaly committee, 23 semi skilled posts carrying pay

scale of Rs. 210-290 to 260-400 w.e.f. 14.10.84. That Anomaly

committee also prepared list of common category skilled

job in which the Mill Wright Trade has also been included.

Therefore the Mill Wright and Tool Makers who were

already in the scale of Rs. 330 have been brought in Rs.

480/-. His affidavit is further devoted to Notification dated

22-12-79. As per SRO 185 of 1994, member of Union were

directly appointed as highly skilled grade II, they were

directly appointed against non-selection post. That

affidavit is further devoted to job deserving higher grade

classifications, as per terms of reference and understanding

given to the Committee pay scales of Rs. 380-550 were not

open to the committee for classification of industrial jobs.

The matter was however examined by the Committee in

detail. That the skilled job have secured points 420/425,

the correlation of the point score adopted by the Committee

provides for a rise of 25-30 points between different scales

to distinguish one skilled level form another. Considering

the rapid advance in certain technologies and intricacies

and skills involved in the performance of connected tanks,

the Committee recommended for grant of a scale higher

than that of Rs. 380-560. Mill Wright High Scale appears at

Sl.No. 14 and Tool Maker at Sl.No. 18. The details of the

Trade is given in Para-9 of the affidavit. Witness of Ist

party in his cross-examination says he claims pay scale Rs.

330-480 whereas demand as per terms of reference was for

320-400. The claim of witness of Ist party is exceeding the

terms of reference. In his further cross-examination, witness

of Ist party admits he was first given apprentice training in

ordnance Factory. After completion of training, he was

appointed as Mill Writer in semiskilled category. After his

appointment, he was received further training. He admits

that there were recruitment rules for appointment.. his

appointment was made as per SRO 185 of 1994. He admits

that report of Expert Classified committee dated 16-10-81

provided for classification of pay scales. The Expert

Classification report Exhibit M-2 the employees were placed

in relevant pay scale. From 16-10-81 as per the report of

Expert Classification Committee, recruitment rules were

framed in 1984. As per recruitment rules of 1984, the entry

is in semi skilled category. He denies that after completion

of 2 years service semi skilled are brought in skilled

category. The channel of promotion under SRO is for

departmental promotions of employees. It does not apply

to employees appointed as per rules Exhibit M-1. The

witness of Ist party denies that rules framed for factory are

not applicable for 506. There are separate recruitment rules

for 506 army workshop. The witness of Ist party admits on

31-10-98, he was promoted from semiskilled to skilled

category. On 27-5-05, he was promoted to highly skilled

category II, on 11-8-07, he was promoted to highly skilled

category I.

8. Management filed affidavit of witness Niranjan Lal,

Joint General Manager, Administration in Ordnance

Factory, Katni. Supporting contentions of management.

That as per Executive instructions, the industrial workers

in ordnance Factory have been classified from 16-10-81 to

unskilled, skilled, highly skilled Grade I categories. That

the requirement were 15% post in highly skilled Grade I,

20% in highly skilled Grade II and 65% in skilled grade.

That workman accepted their initial appointment without

any protest and continued in job. They also accepted

promotion to next higher grade and still they got further

promotions during these periods. Management's witness

in his cross-examination says in Exhibit W-5, Annexure A,

post of Mill Writer is appearing at Sl.No. 14, Tool Maker at

Sl.No. 22. Exhibit W-5 annexure A the promotional post is

not correctly shown, other grades are shown in it. The pay

of Mill Wright and tool maker trade is fixed as per SRO.

Separate documents are not maintained about fixation of

the pay scales of Mill write and tool maker. The expert

committee report and anomaly committee report were

received in 1981, 84 respectively. Said Expert Committee

report is produced at Exhibit W-6. The oral evidence of

witnesses of both parties is not disclosing what kind of

error was committed while fixing pay scale on

recommendation of Expert Committee report, Anomaly

Committee Report.

9. The documents produced on records needs to be

considered. Exhibit W-1 report dated 15-10-84, the pay

scales were recommended for semi skill from Rs. 210-290

were revised to 260-400. The Miller is appearing at

Sl.No. 16. Said document at page 2 clause a deals with:

(a) semiskilled categories to be identified by you or

feeder categories in he pay scale of Rs. 210-290

already existing under the recent recruitment rules,

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3217

subject to the workers having rendered a minimum

of three years service in the grade and after

passing the prescribed trade test and

(b) direct recruits with ITI certificate/Ex-trade,

apprentices etc. inducted in the semiskilled grade

who have rendered 2 years service in that grade.

It is clear that the semi skilled category whose pay was

revised from 210-290 should have completed NCTVT

training 2 years service.. Only on fulfilling said condition,

the benefit of revised pay scale 260-400 was to be extended.

In Appendix the post of Miller is appearing at Sl.No. 17.

Exhibit m-1 is copy of recruitment rules of 1994 provides

eligibility of semi skilled category in pay scale 800-1150.

The candidate who have completed NCTVT training, ITI

or equivalent diploma, 2 years service for direct recruitment.

Said document is consistent with Exhibit W-1. Exhibit W-2

is nothing but copy of Exhibit W-1. Exhibit W-3 is copy of

annexure Miller is appearing at Sl.No. 17, Mill write at Sl.No.

18. Exhibit W-4 is copy of Notification dated 10-12-79. The

standards for eligibility to semi skilled category and

promotional channel are not different. Exhibit M-2 is copy

of order issued on 16-10-81. There is not variation in the

documentary evidence produced by parties. As discussed

above, evidence adduced by workman is not disclosing

what error was committed by Expert Committee or Anomaly

committee, the copy of judgment in Writ Petition No. 4368

of 2002 has brought to my notice by learned counsel for

IInd party. The question involved for consideration was

not identical as involved in present case. From reading of

Para-11 of the judgment, it is clear that the controversy in

above judgment was whether the applicants who were

recruited after 16-10-81 but prior to 15-10-84 were entitled

to get promotion in view of the recommendations given by

the Expert Committee and the Anomalies Committee. The

controversy was decided in view of judgment by Apex

Court in case of Association of Examiners Muradnagar

Ordnance Factory versus Union of India. Those who were

not in position as on 16-10-81 in the semi skilled grade of

Rs. 210-290 will be entitled to placement in the skilled

category of Rs. 260-400.

10. The above judgment is useful for deciding the claim

of Ist party for pay Scale Rs. 320-400.

11. In notes of argument submitted by Ist party, there is

reference to letter dated 24-12-02. The semi-skilled Mill

wright and Took Maker after completion of test of upgraded

as master draftsman is not supported by any documents

produced on record. Therefore the point emphasized in the

notes of argument cannot be accepted.

12. The citations in case of Gan Raj Gandhewar and

another is brought to my notice. In said judgment also, the

claim of Ist party for Mill Wright and Took Maker Trades

Promotion to the post of Master Craftsman was not under

consideration. Therefore ratio held in the case does not

advance the claim of Ist party.

13. The counsel for management relies on ratio held in

Case of P.S. Rai versus Union of India report in 2006(1)

MPLJ 147. Their Lordship held Claim by employee to a pay

scale not prescribed by rules not a claim for re-fixation of

pay scales. Adjudication of such claim if belated would

attract bar of limitation.

The judgment in case of Shri P.B. Venu Nath versus

Union of India submitted by Ist party. The controversy in

above cited case was w.r.t. Annexure A-15 Memorandum

dated 1.2.08 by which respondent was promoted as

chargeman Grade-II (Radio) in pay scale 5000-1508000. In

Annexure A-2 Seniority list of combined personnel from

Radar and Ratio Trade the position of 3rd respondent was

Sl. No. 8 with his date of appointment as MCM on 4.2.2000

and that of applicant was Sl. No. 10 with date of

appointment as MCM on 20.5.03.

The controversy related to the promotions therefore

said judgment cannot be applied to present case at hand.

14. Thus is clear that after the Mill Wright and Tool

Maker were allowed revised scale from 210-290 to Rs. 260-

400 as per recommendation of Anomaly Report, there is no

change in the pay scales of skilled category. The claim of

workman that they were entitled to promotion as Master

Craftsman after completion of training and completion of 2

years service is not supported by oral of documentary

evidence therefore claim of Ist party is not established. For

above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in

Affirmative.

15. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management of Ordnance

Factory, Katni MP not granting initial pay scale

of Rs. 320-400 to Mill Wright and Tool & Die Maker

at the their appointment is proper and legal.

(2) Workmen are not entitled to any relief.

(3) Parties to bear their own costs.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1518-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xu dSfjt QSDVªh]

tcyiqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@150@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&14011@19@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

3218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2015

S.O. 1518.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. CGIT/LC/R/150/2001)

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 Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 21.07.2015.

[No. L-14011/19/2001-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/150/2001

Shri Anant Narayan Sonekar,

S/o Late Shri Shiv Narayan Sonekar,

H. No. 40 (Old), 555 (New),

Khatik Mohalla, Ghamapur Chowk,

Balbagh, Jabalpur.

Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Gun Carriage Factory,

Jabalpur.

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 25th day of June, 2015

1. As per letter dated 28.9.2001 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-14011/

19/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether imposing penalty of compulsory retirement

on Shri Anant Narayan Sonekar S/o Shri Late Shiv

Narayan Sonekar, Peon T. No. 2780 w.e.f. 22.2.2000

by the management of Gun Carriage Factory, Jablapur

is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 4/1

to 4/3. Case of workman is that he was employed as peon

under IInd party No. 3. His Controlling Authority was IInd

party No. 2 for his absence during period 98 to 99,

chargesheet was served on him. Enquiry was conducted.

Workman had contested enquiry. It is alleged that IInd

party No. 3 without considering the circumstances put up

by workman without following principles of natural justice

and imposed punishment of compulsory retirement is harsh.

That he had applied for leave. However, he was treated

unauthorized absence and punishment was imposed

against him. He challenged punishment filing appeal.

However the appeal was rejected on 9.6.2000. Ist party

workman submits the order of compulsory retirement is

disproportionate to the charge alleged against him.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 5/1 to 5/5

opposing claim of the workman. IInd party submits that

workman was appointed as messenger on 20.6.78 under

IInd party No. 2. He was unauthorized absent for 238 days

in 1998, 206 days till August in 1999. Workman was also

absent in the year 1983, 92 & 96. Considering the

misconduct, chargesheet was issued to him that on 26.12.99,

workman admitted charge during course of enquiry. The

report of enquiry was submitted. Taking its cognizance,

the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of

compulsory retirement. Appeal was rejected for cogent

reasons. Enquiry was properly conducted. Workman had

admitted charges against him. It is reiterated that the penalty

imposed against workman is proper and legal. Claim of

workman is not justified.

4. As per order dated 25.7.2013, enquiry conducted

against workman was found proper and legal.

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 charges alleged

against workman is proved

In Affirmative

from evidence in Enquiry

proceedings?

(ii) Whether the punishment of

compulsory retirement

In Affirmative

imposed against workman is

proper and legal?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

6. As stated above, enquiry conducted against workman

was found legal and proper. Whether the charges are

proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings needs to be

decided considering the documents in Enquiry

Proceedings. In Exhibit M-1, workman has clearly stated

that after death of his son age about 15 years in an accident,

he was medically upset, he was not keeping good health.

He submitted application for voluntary retirement which

was not accepted. He admitted the charges against him.

Exhibit M-2 is record of enquiry proceedings. Vide Exhibit

M-10, workman admitted charges against him. In view of

admission of charges, said fact is not necessary to be

proved by adducing evidence. However, chart of

attendance of workman is produced at Exhibit M-14.

Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3219

7. Point No. 2 for unauthorized absence of workman

punishment of compulsory retirement is imposed. Exhibit

M-10 workman himself had submitted application for

voluntary retirement, it was not accepted. Workman

admitted charge in the Enquiry proceedings. Considering

long absence from duty, punishment of compulsory

retirement imposed against workman cannot be said

shockingly disproportionate. The punishment imposed on

him does not call for interference. For above reasons, I

record my finding in Point No. 2.

8. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The punishment of compulsory retirement

imposed on Shri Anant Narayan Sonekar S/o Shri

Late Shiv Narayan Sonekar, Peon. T. No. 2780 w.e.f.

22.2.2000 by the management of Gun Carriage

Factory, Jabalpur is legal and proper.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1519-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWQ

VsyhdE;qfuds'kal] tcyiqj ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@2@2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@196@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2015

S.O.1519.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. CGIT/LC/R/2/2002)

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 Telecommuni-cation,

Jabalpur, and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 21.07.2015.

[No. L-40012/196/2001-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/2/02

Shri Sukhdeen Sahu,

S/o Shri Dalchand Sahu,

Vill. Kheri PO Shahapur

Tehsil Patan, Jabalpur

.....Workman

Versus

Controller of Telecom Stores,

Wrighttown, Jabalpur.

Executive Engineer (Civil),

Telecom Civil Division No. 1, 1164,

Napier Town, Gorakhpur,

Jabalpur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 25th day of June, 2015

1. As per letter dated 18.12.2001 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/

196/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Controller

of Telecom Stores, Jabalpur and Executive Engineer

(Civil), Telecom Division No. 1, Jabalpur in

terminating the services of Shri Sukhdeen Sahu w.e.f.

1.9.1987 is just and legal? 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 workman is that he was appointed

in establishment of respondent. He worked with IInd party

from 8.4.83 to 24.6.84. Thereafter from 1.5.84 to 30.10.84,

3.8.87 to 1.9.87 under IInd party No. 3 Executive Engineer.

He was relieved assuring to take back on duty when work

was available. That large number of other persons were

taken back on duty as they had succeeded in reference

filed by them. Ist party workman was not regularised. He

submitted application on 9.10.96, 29/30.10.96 but no reply

was received. Legal notice was issued by workman on

7.11.96.

3. Workman further submits that orally in reply to his

notice, it was told that his colleagues had filed case,

secondly they were taken back. Workman also obtained

copy of judgement by Tribunal of 28.8.95. The employees

engaged prior to 22.6.88 were regularised, workman was

not regularised. Workman further pleaded that the cut off

date was extended by one year. Workman prays for

regularization of his service.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 3/1 to 3/3

opposing claim of the workman. IInd party submits that Ist

party workman was engaged for sprinking water on Khas

on contract basis wages during 83-84. As per IInd party,

workan was engaged from 1.5.83 to 30.6.83, 8.4.84 to 15.6.84.

In 1987, workman was engaged for 21 days in June, 30 days

in July and 30 days from 3.8.87 to 1.9.87. It is reiterated that

workman not completed 240 days continuous service.

3220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Termination of his service is not in violation of Section

25-F of ID Act.

5. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 4/1 to 4/2 reiterating

his contentions in statement of claim.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Controller of

Telecom Stores, Jabalpur

and Executive Engineer

(Civil), Telecom Division

No.

Jabalpur

terminating the services of

Shri Sukhdeen Sahu w.e.f.

1.9.87 is just and legal?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting

his contentions in statement of claim. He has narrated his

working days in 1983-84, 1987. The certificates were issued

by the officer. After re-examination, documents Exhibit

W-2, W-4 are admitted in evidence. Workman in his cross-

examination says in 1983, he was engaged in Telecom

Stores, Jabalpur. Appointment letter was not given to him.

It is denied that he had not produced the appointment

letter given in 1983. In his further cross-examinatin workman

says in 1983, he worked for 2 months in May and June.

Thereafter he tried to assert that he was continuously

working from 1983 to 1987. He was engaged on daily wages

but wages were paid at the end of the month. Workman

denied that he was engaged on work from 8.4.84 to 15.6.84.

The documents produced by workman shows that he was

engaged from 1.5.83 to 30.6.83. Appointment letter was

issued by Asstt. Engineer includes name of workman. In

Exhibit W-2 order dated 20.4.84, the workman was appointed

temporarily. Exhibit W-1 is certificate issued by Junior

Engineer, workman was working from 1-5 to 30-10 for wages

Rs. 9/25 per day. The total number of working days are not

shown in it. Document Exhibit W-4 is copy of legal notice

issued by workman.

8. Management's witness Shri Chetram Choudhary filed

affidavit of his evidence. The working days of workman in

1987 are shown 21 days in June, 30 days in July, 30 days

from 3.8.87 to 1.9.87. Management's witness in his cross-

examination claims ignorance whether the post was

advertised. Workman was engaged as seasonal employee

on daily wages. There was no rule for regularizing services

of casual employees. Workman were engaged under control

of Asstt. Engineer. The cross-examination of management's

witness shows that he denied suggestion that workman

completed 240 days continuous service all the calender

years. The documents produced on record shows that

workman was engaged as seasonal employee for sprinkling

water. Workman was not continuously working for more

than 240 days, workman was not covered as employee

under Section 25B of ID Act, he is not entitled for protection

under Section 25-F of ID Act. The claim of Ist party for

regularization as per certain judgement relief by him. The

term of reference pertains to legality of termination. The

claim for regularization beyond the terms of reference cannot

be accepted. Therefore I record my finding in Point no. 1 in

Affirmative.

9. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The action of the management of Controller of

Telecom Stores, Jabalpur and Executive Engineer (Civil),

Telecom Division No. 1, Jabalpur in terminating the services

of Shri Sukhdeen Sahu w.e.f. 1.9.87 is proper and legal.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1520-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWQ

VsyhdE;qfuds'kal] tcyiqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@8@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@389@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2015

S.O.1520.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. CGIT/LC/R/8/2001)

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 Talecommunication,

Jabalpur and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 21.07.2015.

[No. L-40012/389/2000-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3221

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/8/2001

Shri Shivram Bhargav,

S/o Shri Babulal Bhargav,

C/o Gopal Bhargav, Kurnolganj,

Shivaji Nagar, Guna

.....Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. of Telecommuncation,

Hoshangabad Road, MP Circle,

Bhopal.

District Engineer (Phones),

Guna

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 19th day of June, 2015

1. As per letter dated 17.11.2000 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/

389/2000-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of District

Engineer (Phones), Guna in terminating Shri Shivram

Bhargav S/o Babulal Bhargav w.e.f. 21.2.98 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 4/1

to 4/5. Case of workman is that he was appointed from

1-1-92 in General Cadre without giving any written order.

He was carrying the work assigned to him time to time till

21-2-98. He completed 240 days continuous service during

each of the year. He is engaged as employee under Section

25B of ID Act. From 21-2-98, he was preventing from doing

his duties. There cannot be oral termination order. Workman

submits that he is deemed to be in service. It is further

submitted that his service were terminated after demand

for regularization. He was not served with notice,

retrenchment compensation was not paid to him.

Termination of his service is illegal for violation of Section

25-F of ID Act. Workman has also pleaded about violation

of Section 25-G, H of ID Act. List of daily wage employees

was not deliberately prepared by the management. On such

ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with back

wages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/3

opposing claim of workman. IInd party submits that

workman was not appointed in any post by the department

in December 1992. The contentions of workman in that

regard are false. It is reiterated that workman was engaged

for petty works in department. Few labours engaged to do

various nature of work. After completion of specified petty

work, engagement of labours automatically ends. It was

made clear to the labours that after completion of the petty

work, he would not be continued. Muster roll is stopped in

1985. Workman has not given any record of his working

days. It is denied that workman completed 240 days

continuous service during any of the calendar year. It is

denied that workman is covered as employee under Section

25B of ID Act. Workman has no right to be regularised in

service. Violation of Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act is denied.

Workman is not entitled for reinstatement.

4. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 8 reiterating

his contentions in statement of claim.

5. Considering pleading on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

‘‘(i) Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of District

Engineer (Phones), Guna

in terminating Shri Shivram

Bhargav S/o Babulal Bhargav

w.e.f 21-2-98 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to?

As per final order."

REASONS

6. Workman is challenging termination of his service for

violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman has pleaded

that he was continuously working for more than 240 days

during each of the calender year. The application for

production of document was submitted by workman on

21-6-07. Application was opposed by management filing

reply. Case was adjourned for filing affidavit in support of

reply. However no order was passed for production of

documents on above said application. Management has

not produced any documents about working days of

workman.

7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence stating that

he was appointed in general cadre without order in writing

from 1-1-1992. Services were orally terminated from

21-2-98. In Para-3 of his affidavit, he stated that he

completed 210 days in a calendar year. Additional affidavit

is filed by workman that he completed 240 days continuous

service during each of the year. Oral termination of his

service is illegal. That he was terminated in violation of

Section 25-F. He was not paid retrenchment compensation.

Any enquiry was not conducted against him. In his cross-

examination, workman says the post was not advertised.

He submitted application to the clerk, his name was not

3222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2015/SRAVANA 3, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

sponsored through Employment Exchange. He was not

interviewed in writing or orally. He was engaged on daily

wages in BSNL. He was paid wages for the days he worked.

The justification is denied that he was engaged for petty

work. It is denied that he not completed 240 days

continuous service. In his cross-examination on additional

affidavit, he says that Certificate Exhibit W-2 to 4 were

given to him by the office. He denies suggestion that those

certificates are false. Workman reiterates that he worked

more than 240 days during last year of his service and all

calendar year. The documents Exhibit W-2 to W-4 are

certificates of working shows that workman was working

with IInd party from 20-1-94 to 15-5-96 as per Exhibit W-2.

He was working from 1-3-97 to 31-12-97 as per Exhibit W-3.

He was working from 1-3-97 to 2-7-97 as per Exhibit W-4.

The evidence of workman is supported by documents

Exhibit W-2 to W-4. On the other hand, IInd party has not

produced any documents despite application submitted

by workman for production of documents. Management's

witness Basant Kumar Pateria in his affidavit of evidence

has stated that workman had never worked in the

department. He was not issued any appointment letter.

That casual labours were engaged in the department as per

exigencies. Management's witness in his cross examination

says from 1-1-1992 to 21-2-98, he was not posted at Guna.

He was posted at Sagar during said period. Witness of

management was unable to tell who were working as Asstt.

Engineer and District Engineer at Guna district during above

said period. Affidavit is prepared as per documents

produced by workman. Copy of affidavit of Kailash

Prajapati in R/51/01 is produced Exhibit W-1. I find

absolutely no relevance of said affidavit for deciding

present reference. Management's witness in his further

cross says during the period 92 to 98, any record of daily

wage employee was not maintained. He claims ignorance

about such record. In his further cross-examination,

management witness says Written Statement filed by IInd

party is not stated that workman was engaged on daily

wages. He has not received any information from officer

working during 1992 to 1998. Thus evidence of

management's witness is not as per his personal knowledge

neither it is based on document. On the other hand, evidence

of workman is supported by documents Exhibit W-2 to

W-4 therefore evidence of workman is worth in reliance in

comparison to the evidence of management's witness.

Considering the evidence of workman supported by

documents, it is established that workman was working

more than 240 days during 1992 to 1998. His services are

orally terminated without notice. No retrenchement

compensation is paid to him. The termination of service of

workman is illegal for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act.

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

termination of workman is illegal, question remains for

decision is whether workman is entitled for reinstatement

with backwages. Workman in his cross says the post was

not advertised, he was not interviewed, he was submitted

application to the clerk, he was orally engaged. Thus it is

clear that workman was not appointed following recruitment

process. Therefore reinstatement of workman would not

be appropriate. Considering workman was working for

about 6 years, compensation of Rs. One Lakh would be

reasonable. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.

9. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management of District Engineer

(Phones), Guna in terminating Shri Shivram

Bhargav S/o Babulal Bhargav w.e.f. 21-2-98 is not

proper and legal.

(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation

Rs. One Lakh to the workman within 30 days from

the date of notification of award. In case of default,

amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from

the date of award till its realization.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1521-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWQ+

VsyhdE;qfuds'kal] jk;iqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,o Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ lañ lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@14@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@45@98&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2015

S.O. 1521.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. CGIT/LC/R/14/99) 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,

Raipur and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 21/07/2015.

[No. L-40012/45/98-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 25] [email protected] 3] 1937

3223

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/14/99

Shri Rankmani,

Village Ghat Kachhar, PO Signora,

Tehsil Saraipali,

Raipur

...Workman

Versus

The DE,

Telecom Project,

7, Sahakari Marg-II,

Choubey Colony,

Raipur

... Management

AWARD

Passed on this 1st day of July, 2015

1. As per letter dated 30-11-98 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/

45/98-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of management of Divisional

Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur (MP) in terminating

Shri S.L. Rankmani, S/o Shri Dhanu Gada, Ex-Mazdoor

is legal and 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 workman is that he was appointed

as mazdoor against permanent post in 1986. His services

were discontinued from 16-2-88. He worked more than 240

days in the year 1986, 87. His services were discontinued

for the reasons that there was no work. When dispute was

raised by Ist party workman before ALC, Raipur challenging

termination during conciliation proceeding, settlement was

arrived on 27-12-89. As per said settlement, workman was

reinstated immediately without backwages. After his

reinstatement he was working from 1-1-91. He was

continuously working for 240 days. His discontinuation

by IInd party without notice, without paying pay in lieu of

notice, without paying retrenchment compensation is

illegal. That his termination is in violation of Section

25-F(a,b) of ID Act. Employees junior to him had filed

petition No. 196/90 before CAT Jabalpur claiming

regularisation. Hon'ble Tribunal directed IInd party to

accommodate the concerned applicants. As such the

employees junior to him are reinstated in service.

Termination of his service is illegal. Workman prays for his

reinstatement with back wages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/2

opposing claim of the workman. IInd party submits that

workman was not engaged by DE, Telecom Project, Raipur.

Workman was engaged by DE Coaxial Cable Project, Raipur

which was wound up on 31-3-91. It is further submitted

that workman was engaged on muster roll on daily wage

basis. Muster rolls are preserved for 5 years as per rules,

workman was not continuously working. The dispute is

raised after 10 years. It is difficult to state whether workman

was reinstated by management. Workman was engaged

purely on temporary basis on muster roll for specific period

and specific job. There was no question of his termination

and workman was engaged as casual labour. There was no

question of issuing one month's notice or payment of

retrenchment compensation. Workman was discontinued

as per the policy of Government of India vide letter dated

17-12-99. Workman was not appointed on basis of order

passed in Original application 71/91 and 196/90 passed by

CAT, Jabalpur. The claim of workman is not legal.

4. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/2

reiterating its contentions in statement of claim.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

‘‘(i) Whether the action of

management of Divisional

Engineer, Telecom Project,

In Affirmative

Raipur (MP) in terminating

Shri S.L. Rankmani, S/o Shri

Dhanu Gada, Ex-Mazdoor is

legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?

entitled to any relief.’’

REASONS

6. Workman is challenging termination of his service for

violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman filed affidavit

of his evidence supporting his contentions in statement of

claim about his initial appointment in 1986. That he was

continuously working for more than 240 days. His services

were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. His

affidavit is also devoted to filing of Petition No. 196/90 by

junior employees. That CAT Jabalpur had set aside the

order of termination of those employees and directed to

take them in service. Workman has failed to appear for his

cross- examination. His evidence cannot be considered.

Copy of order passed in OA 196/90 is produced on record.

The benefit of said order cannot be extended to workman.

7. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri R.R. Yadav

supporting contentions in Written Statement that workman