250 GI/2016

(581)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 5]

ubZ fnYyh] tuojh 24—tuojh 30] 2016] 'kfuokj@ek?k 4—ek?k 10] 1937

No. 5]

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 24—JANUARY 30, 2016, SATURDAY/MAGHA 4—MAGHA 10, 1937

bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

x`g ea=ky;

¼iqfyl&

¼iqfyl&II izHkkx½

izHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 31 fnlEcj] 2015

dk- vk- 158

dk- vk- 158.—vkns'k la- XXVII ds lkFk ifBr Hkkjrh; naM

lafgrk 1908 dh /kkjk 79 ds n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk] uhps rkfydk ds dkWye ¼1½

esa mfYyf[kr vf/kdkjh] tks Hkkjr ljdkj ds jktif=r vf/kdkjh

gSa] dks mDr rkfydk ds dkWye ¼2½ ds varxZr fofufnZ"V fdlh

dkuwuh dk;Zokgh esa fdlh nkos vFkok fyf[kr c;ku ij gLrk{kj

djus rFkk lR;kfir djus gsrq fu;qDr djrh gS] vFkkZr~%&

vf/kdkjh dk inuke

fdlh ekeys fo'ks"k esa nkok

¼1½

¼2½

izHkkjh vf/kdkjh ¼laink½]

vle jkbQYl ls lacaf/kr ljdkjh

egkfuns'kky;] vle jkbQYl

ifjlj ds laca/k esa ljdkjh ifjlj

f'kykax&793011

¼vizkf/kÑr vf/kHkksfx;ksa dh csn[kyh½

¼1½

¼2½

vf/kfu;e] 1971 ¼1971 dk 40½ ds

rgr fdlh dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ds

ifj.kkeLo:i mRiUu dsUnz ljdkj

n~okjk vFkok mlds fojQ) dksbZ nkok

vFkok vU; dkuwuh dk;ZokghA

[Qk- la- ,@IV&,@1000@2014&ih ,Q&IV]

xszlh tsEl] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

(Police-II Division)

New Delhi, the 31st December, 2015

S.O. 158.—In exercise of powers conferred by

Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, read with

Order No. XXVII, the Central Government hereby appoints

the officer mentioned in the column (1) of the Table below,

being Gazetted Officer of the Government of India, to sign

and verify any plaint or written statement in any

582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2016/MAGHA 10, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

proceedings specified under column (2) of the said Table,

namely :—

Designation of the officer

Suits in particular cases

(1)

(2)

Officer-In-Charge

Any suit or other proceedings

(Estate), Directorate

by or against the Central

General, Assam Rifles,

Government arising out of any

Shillong-793011

proceedings under the Public

Premises

(Eviction

Unauthorised Occupants) Act,

1971 (40 of 1971) in respect of

Public Premises belonging to

the Assam Rifles.

[F. No. A/IV-A/1000/2014-PF.IV]

GRACY JAMES, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 31 fnlEcj] 2015

dk- vk-

dk- vk- 159

159

159.—ljdkjh LFkku ¼vizkf/kÑr vf/kHkksfx;ksa

dh csn[kyh½ vf/kfu;e] 1971 ¼1971 dk 40½ dh /kkjk 3 }kjk

iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk]

uhps rkfydk ds dkWye&1 esa mfYyf[kr vf/kdkjh] tks Hkkjr

ljdkj ds jktif=r vf/kdkjh gSa] dks mDr vf/kfu;e ds

iz;kstukFkZ laink vf/kdkjh fu;qDr djrh gS rFkk ,rn~}kjk] ;g

funs'k nsrh gS fd mDr vf/kdkjh LFkkuh; lhekvksa ds Hkhrj

mDr vf/kfu;e ds varxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djsxk

vkSj mDr rkfydk ds dkWye ¼2½ esa fofufnZ"V ljdkjh LFkku

dh Jsf.k;ksa ds ckjs esa laink vf/kdkfj;ksa ij ykxw drZO;ksa dk

ikyu djsxk] vFkkZr~%&

vf/kdkjh dk inuke

ljdkjh ifjlj dh Jsf.k;ka rFkk

{ks=kfèkdkj dh LFkkuh; lhek,a

¼1½

¼2½

izHkkjh vf/kdkjh ¼laink½]

vle] es?kky;] ukxkySaM] ef.kiqj]

egkfuns'kky;] vle jkbQYl

flfDde] v:.kkpy izns'k] fetksje]

f'kykax&793011

f=iqjk rFkk fnYyh la?k jkT; {ks=ksa esa

vle jkbQYl ds izHkkj esa /kkfjr

lHkh ljdkjh ifjlj

2- ;g Hkkjr ljdkj] x`g ea=ky; dh fnukad 27 fnlEcj]

2014 dh dk-vk- 3260 dk vf/kdze.k djrh gSA

[Qk- la- ,@IV&,@1000@2014&ih ,Q&IV]

xszlh tsEl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st December, 2015

S.O. 159.—In exercise of powers conferred by

Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized

Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government

hereby appoints the officer mentioned in the column (1) of

the Table below, being Gazetted Officer of the Government

of India, to be estate officer for purposes of said Act and

hereby directs that the said officer shall exercise the

powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed, on the

Estate officers by or under the said Act within the local

limits and in respect of the categories of public premises

specified in column (2) of the said Table, namely :-

Designation of the officer Categories of the Public

Premises and local limits of

jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

Officer-In-Charge

All public premises held on

(Estate), Directorate

charge of Assam Rifles in the

General, Assam Rifles,

States of Assam, Meghalaya,

Shillong-793011

Nagaland, Manipur, Sikkim,

Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram,

Tripura and the Union Territory

of Delhi.

2. This supersedes the notification of the

Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs,

number S.O. 3260 dated 27th December, 2014

[F. No. A/IV-A/1000/2014-PF.IV]

GRACY JAMES, Under Secy.

oL= ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tuojh] 2016

dk- vk- 160

dk- vk- 160.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] ¼la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa

ds fy,½ jkTkHkk"kk fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e ¼4½ ds

vuqlj.k esa] oL= ea=ky; ds varxZr vkus okys fuEufyf[kr

dk;kZy; dks ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk

dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vf/klwfpr djrh gS%&

jk"Vªh; gFkdj?kk fodkl fuxe fyfeVsM]

13@36] izFke ry] Jhjke ekdsZV] rsfy;k ckx]

okjk.klh&221002 ¼mÙkj izns'k½

[la- bZ-&11016@1@2015&fgUnh]

xhrk ukjk;.k] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF TEXTILES

New Delhi, the 19th January, 2016

S.O. 160.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Languages (Use for the official purpose of

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 30] 2016@ek?k 10] 1937

583

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby

notifies the following office of the Ministry of Textiles,

more than 80% staff whereof have acquired working

knowledge of Hindi:

National Handloom Development Corporation Limited,

13/36, First Floor, Shri Ram Market, Teliya Bag,

Varanasi-221001 (Uttar Pradesh)

[No. E. 11016/1/2015-Hindi]

GEETA NARAYAN, Jt. Secy.

foÙk ea=ky;

¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2015

dk- vk- 161

dk- vk- 161.—jk"VªhÑr cSad ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr]

cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vf/kfu;e]

1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ }kjk

iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]

lqJh fla/kq fiYybZ] mi lfpo] foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx dks Jh oh-

,y-oh-,l-,l- lqCck jko ds LFkku ij ;wdks cSad ds funs'kd

eaMy esa ljdkjh ukferh funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A

[Qk-la- 7@2@2012&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2015

S. O. 161.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)

Act, 1970/1980, read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous

Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government,

hereby nominates Ms.Sindhu Pillai, Deputy Secretary,

Department of Financial Services, as Government Nominee

Director on the Board of Directors of UCO Bank with

immediate effect and until further orders vice

Shri V.LV.S.S.Subba Rao.

[F. No. 7/2/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 7 tuojh] 2016

dk- vk- 162

dk- vk- 162.—jk"VªhÑr cSad ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr]

cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vf/kfu;e]

1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ }kjk

iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]

Jh ,u- Jhfuokl jko ds LFkku ij lqJh eqfnrk feJk] funs'kd]

foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx dks bafM;u cSad ds funs'kd eaMy esa

ljdkjh ukferh funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A

[Qk-la- 7@2@2012&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th January, 2016

S.O. 162.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)

Act, 1970/1980, read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous

Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government,

hereby nominates Ms.Mudita Mishra, Director,

Department of Financial Services, as Government Nominee

Director on the Board of Directors of Indian Bank with

immediate effect and until further orders vice

Shri N. Srinivasa Rao.

[F. No. 7/2/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tuojh] 2016

dk- vk- 163

dk- vk- 163.—jk"VªhÑr cSad ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr]

cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vf/kfu;e]

1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ }kjk

iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]

uhps nh xbZ lkj.kh ds dkye ¼2½ esa fofufnZn"V O;fDr;ksa dks

mDr lkj.kh ds dkye ¼3½ esa fofufnZ"V O;fDr;ksa ds LFkku ij

dkye ¼1½ esa fofufnZ"V cSadksa esa rRdky izHkko ls vkSj vxys

vkns'kksa rd] ljdkjh ukferh funs'kd ukfer djrh gS %

1- flafMdsV cSad Jh vkj- ,u- nqcs]

Jh fgUnqiqj iznhi

vkfFkZd lykgdkj]

jko

foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx

2- nsuk cSad

Jh v'kksd dqekj flag]

lqJh ,Wuk jk;

funs'kd] foÙkh; lsok,a

foHkkx

[Qk-la- 7@2@2012&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2016

S.O. 163.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transffer of Undertakings)

584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2016/MAGHA 10, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Act, 1970/1980, read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The

Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous

Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government,

hereby nominate the persons specified in column (2) of

the table below as Government Nominee Director of the

Banks specified in column (1) thereof, in place of the

persons specified in column (3) of the said Table, with

immediate effect and until further orders:-

(1)

(2)

(3)

Syndicate

Shri R.N. Dubey,

Shri Hindupur

Bank

Economic Advisor,

Pradeep Rao

Department of

Financial Services

Dena Bank

Shri Ashok Kumar

Ms. Anna Roy

Singh, Director

Department of

Financial Services

[F. No. 7/2/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tuojh] 2016

dk- vk- 164

dk- vk- 164.—fu;qfDr laca/kh eaf=eaMyh; lfefr }kjk

vuqeksfnr fnukad 11&12&2008 ds fn'kkfunsZ'kksa ds lkFk ifBr

Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vf/kfu;e] 1934 dh /kkjk 8 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½

ds [kaM ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;

ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] MkW- mftZr vkj- iVsy dks fnukad 11&01&2016

dks ;k blds i'pkr~ inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ

dh vof/k ds fy, ;k vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] Hkkjrh;

fjtoZ cSad ds fMIVh xouZj ds in ij iqufuZ;qDr djrh gS A

[Qk-la- 7@1@2012&chvks&I ¼ikVZ½]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 8th January, 2016

S.O. 164.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Reserve

Bank of India Act, 1934 read with guidelines No.18(52)EO/

08(ACC) dated 11.12.2008, approved by the Appointments

Committee of the Cabinet, the Central Government hereby

re-appoints Dr. Urjit R.Patel, as Deputy Governor, Reserve

Bank of lndia for a period of three years w.e.f taking over

charge of the post on or after 11.01.2016, or until further

orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 7/1/2012-BO-I (Pt.)]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2016

dk- vk-

dk- vk- 165

165

165.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

,pMh,Qlh cSad fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] fnYyh ds iapkV lanHkZ

la[;k ¼154@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 27@01@2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&12011@31@2012- vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]

fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2016

S.O. 165.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 154/2012)

of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of HDFC Bank Ltd. and their

workman, received by the Central Government on

27/01/2016.

[No. L-12011/31/2012- IR(B-I)]

VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND

DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA

COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No.154/2012

Shri Manoj Kumar,

S/o Shri Brahm Singh,

C/o The Secretary,

General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union,

I – 441, Karampura,

New Delhi-110 015

...Workman

Versus

The Assistant General Manager,

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

C-5/32, Safdarjung Development Area,

New Delhi-110 016

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 30] 2016@ek?k 10] 1937

585

Manpower Associated Services and Solutions Pvt.

Ltd.,

E 1/22A, 2^nd Floor, Opposite Income Tax Office,

Jhandewalan Extension,

New Delhi-110 055

…Managements

A complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) was filed by

Shri Manoj Kumar claiming that an Industrial Dispute was

referred by the appropriate Government vide Order No.L-

12011/31/2012-IR(B-I) dated 13.08.2012, which was pending

adjudication before this Tribunal. During pendency of

the dispute before the Conciliation Officer, his services

were terminated by H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. on 26.09.2011 in an

illegal manner, in violation of provision of Section 33 of

the Act. It has been projected that an industrial dispute

was raised before the Conciliation Officer, questioning his

illegal transfer and on that matter conciliation proceedings

were initiated. During pendency of those proceedings,

before the Conciliation Officer, his services were terminated

in an illegal manner. Considering all these facts, his

complaint was registered as an industrial dispute and the

managements were called.

2. The workman herein, Shri Manoj Kumar, in his

complaint has averred that he was appointed by the Branch

Manager, Rohini Sector 11 branch of HDFC Bank Ltd. on

18.10.2004 on the post of Field Executive and his last drawn

wages was Rs.5045.00. Management No.2, Mass

Manpower Associated Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,

is a sham contractor engaged by HDFC Bank Ltd., who is

conducting unfair labour practice by employing a sham

and nominal contractor, who are mere name lenders

engaged for frivolous purposes with a view to defeat

provisions of beneficial labour legislation. Management

No.1 used to pay Rs. 8077.00 and Rs.1.85 per kilometre as

conveyance allowance but the contractor paid him only

Rs.5045.00 as wages and Rs. 1.55 per kilometre as

conveyance allowance and was deducting Rs.2000.00 per

month as kickback to be paid to Administration Staff of

Management No.1. EPF amount was being deducted since

the date of joining of the workman herein but the same has

neither been deposited in EPF office nor has any account

number been given to them. A complaint was made by the

workman herein to the Assistant Labour Commissioner

against Management No.2 for non-payment of salary,

forcibly obtaining signatures on blank paper, non-payment

of minimum wages, non-regularization of his service.

During pendency of the dispute, the workman herein was

terminated from service without assigning any reason

whatsoever and without paying service compensation,

notice pay and without prior permission of the Assistant

Labour Commissioner. Finally, a prayer has been made to

pass order of regularization of the workman herein in

service.

3. Claim was demurred by HDFC Bank,

Management No.1 pleading that the claim petition is not

maintainable as he was never appointed by the Bank at

any point of time. He was neither paid monthly wages nor

was he working under the control and supervision of the

bank. The complaint is further not maintainable on the

ground that the controversy involved between the parties

in reference No.L-12011/30/2012-IR(B-1) dated 13.08.2012

is similar to that of the present complaint inasmuch when

the Bank has already taken plea that the workman herein

was never in their employment and since the said case is

still pending, the complaint is liable to be rejected. The

bank has neither resorted to unfair labour practice nor

was the contractor a mere name lender or paper agreement.

There is no relationship of employer and employee

between the bank and the workman herein and the nature

of work performed by the workman herein was not of

perennial nature. The claim is misdirected, ill conceived

and against the replying management. No notice of demand

was ever served on the Bank. The workman herein was an

employee of the contractor who used to provide all

statutory benefits to the workman herein.

4. Management No.2, Mass Manpower Associated

Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in its written statement,

has taken several preliminary objections, i.e. of non-

espousal, lack of jurisdiction, reference being bad and

being made in a mechanical manner, demand notice not

being served etc. It has further been averred that the

workman herein was never terminated by it. In fact, it was

the workman himself who absented himself from duties

despite issuance of several letters. It has been specifically

denied that the workman herein joined the services with

effect from 01.01.2007. In fact the claimant was appointed

on 03.11.2009 and was under direct supervision and control

of the bank. It is also denied that they are sham contractors.

They entered into service provider’s agreement with the

bank. The workman herein was being granted all statutory

benefits such as ESI, EPF, bonus, leave wages etc. The

bank is neither the employer of the workman herein, nor is

he a permanent employee nor is his work of permanent

nature. Contractors have denied that Rs.2000.00 was

deducted from the workman herein every month in the

name of kick back, or having forcefully obtained signatures

of the workman herein on blank papers or having paid less

than the minimum wages to them. Finally it has been

averred that the workman herein is being marked absent

in the register and he could still come and join the

management, if he so desires.

586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2016/MAGHA 10, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5. Against this factual background, my learned

predecessor framed the following issues:

Whether the claimant is workman concerned

in Industrial Dispute, which was pending

before the Conciliation Officer on 05.09.2011?

ii.

Whether Mass Manpower Associated Service

and Solution Pvt. Ltd., violated provisions of

section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947?

iii.

Whether claimant is entitled for relief of

reinstatement in service.

6. Thereafter, matter was listed for evidence of the

claimant but neither the claimant nor any authorized

representative on his behalf appeared before this Tribunal

despite granting of several opportunities. Thus, it is

apparent that the claimant is no more interested in progress

of the case on merits.

7. Since the workman has neither put in his

appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his

cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is

left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute’ award.

Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as

required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, for publication.

Dated : January 11, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2016

dk- vk- 166

dk- vk- 166.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

,pMh,Qlh cSad fyfeVsM ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] fnYyh ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 96@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 27@01@2016 izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&12011@31@2012&vkbZ vkj ch&¼1½]

fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2016

S.O. 166.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 96/2012) of

the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No.1

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of HDFC Bank Ltd and their

workman, received by the Central Government on 27/01/

2016.

[No. L-12011/31/2012- IR(B-I)]

VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURES

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. 96/2012

Shri Manoj Kumar,

S/o Shri Brahm Singh,

C/o The Secretary,

General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union,

I – 441, Karampura,

New Delhi 110 015

...Workman

Versus

The Assistant General Manager,

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

C-5/32, Safdarjung Development Area,

New Delhi 110 016

Manpower Associated Services and Solutions Pvt.

Ltd.,

E 1/22A, 2^nd Floor, Opposite Income Tax Office,

Jhandewalan Extension,

New Delhi 110 055

…Managements

Brief facts giving rise to the above dispute are

that appropriate Government referred a dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication vide order No.L-12011/31/2012-

IR(B-I) dated 13.08.2012 with following terms:

‘Whether Shri Manoj Kumar (2^nd ), S/o Shri Braham

Singh working as Field Boy with the management

of HDFC is a permanent workman of this management

and the management of Mass Manpower Associated

Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is sham and

camouflage to deprive the workman his legal rights?

To what relief the workman is entitled?

2. Statement of claim was filed by the workman

herein, Shri Manoj Kumar, pleading that he was appointed

by the Branch Manager, Safdarjung Enclave branch of

HDFC Bank Ltd. on 01.01.2007 on the post of Field

Executive and his last drawn wages was Rs.5045.00.

Management No.2, Manpower Associated Services and

Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is a sham contractor engaged by HDFC

Bank Ltd., who is conducting unfair labour practice by

employing a sham and nominal contractor, who are mere

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 30] 2016@ek?k 10] 1937

587

name lenders engaged for frivolous purposes with a view

to defeat provisions of beneficial labour legislation.

Management No.1 used to pay Rs.8077.00 and Rs.1.85 per

kilometre as conveyance allowance but the contractor

paid him only Rs.5045.00 as wages and Rs. 1.55 per kilometre

as conveyance allowance and was deducting Rs.2000.00

per month as kickback to be paid to Administration Staff

of Management No.1. EPF amount was being deducted

since the date of joining of the workman herein but the

same has neither been deposited in EPF office nor has any

account number been given to them. A complaint was

made by the workman herein to the Assistant Labour

Commissioner against Management No.2 for non-payment

of salary, forcibly obtaining signatures on blank paper,

non-payment of minimum wages, non-regularization of his

service. During pendency of the dispute, the workman

herein was terminated from service without assigning any

reason whatsoever and without paying service

compensation, notice pay and without prior permission of

the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Finally, a prayer has

been made to pass order of regularization of the workman

herein in service.

3. Claim was demurred by HDFC Bank,

Management No.1 pleading that the claim petition is not

maintainable as he was never appointed by the Bank at

any point of time. He was neither paid monthly wages nor

was he working under the control and supervision of the

bank. The bank has neither resorted to unfair labour

practice nor was the contractor a mere name lender or

paper agreement. There is no relationship of employer

and employee between the bank and the workman herein

and the nature of work performed by the workman herein

was not of perennial nature. The claim is misdirected, ill

conceived and against the replying management. No

notice of demand was ever served on the Bank. The

workman herein was an employee of the contractor who

used to provide all statutory benefits to the workman

herein.

4. Management No.2, Manpower Associated

Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in its written statement,

has taken several preliminary objections, i.e. of non-

espousal, lack of jurisdiction, reference being bad and

being made in a mechanical manner, demand notice not

being served etc. It has further been averred that the

workman herein was never terminated by it. In fact, it was

the workman himself who absented himself from duties

despite issuance of several letters. It has been specifically

denied that the workman herein joined the services with

effect from 01.01.2007. In fact the claimant was appointed

on 03.11.2009 and was under direct supervision and control

of the bank. It is also denied that they are sham

contractors. They entered into service provider’s

agreement with the bank. The workman herein was being

granted all statutory benefits such as ESI, EPF, bonus,

leave wages etc. The bank is neither the employer of the

workman herein, nor is he a permanent employee nor is his

work of permanent nature. Contractors have denied that

Rs.2000.00 was deducted from the workman herein every

month in the name of kick back, or having forcefully

obtained signatures of the workman herein on blank papers

or having paid less than the minimum wages to them.

Finally it has been averred that the workman herein is

being marked absent in the register and he could still come

and join the management, if he so desires.

5. Against this factual background, my learned

predecessor, on 30.01.2013, framed the following issues:

Whether the dispute has not acquired

status of industrial dispute for want of

espousal by a union or considerable

number workmen in the establishment

of the management?

ii.

Whether the claimant is absenting

himself from duties with the contractor

with effecting from 26.09. 2011? If yes,

its effects.

iii.

As in terms of reference.

6. Thereafter, matter was listed for evidence of the

claimant but neither the claimant nor any authorized

representative on his behalf appeared before this Tribunal

despite granting of several opportunities. Thus, it is

apparent that the claimant is no more interested in progress

of the case on merits.

7. Since the workman has neither put in his

appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his

cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is

left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute’ award.

Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as

required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, for publication.

Dated : January 11, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2016

dk- vk- 167

dk- vk- 167-&vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

,pMh,Qlh cSad fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] fnYyh ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 87@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 27@01@2016 izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y-&12011@19@2012- vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]

fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2016/MAGHA 10, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2016

S.O. 167.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 87/2012) of

the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of HDFC Bank Ltd. and their

workman, received by the Central Government on

27/01/2016.

[No. L-12011/19/2012- IR(B-I)]

VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND

DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA

COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No. 87/2012

The President

General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union,

I – 441, Karampura,

New Delhi-110 015

...Workman

Versus

Mass Manpower Associated Services and

Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,

E 1/22A, 2^nd Floor, Opposite Income Tax Office,

Jhandewalan Extension,

New Delhi-110 055

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

C-5/32, Safdarjung Development Area,

New Delhi 110 016

... Managements

Brief facts giving rise to the above dispute are that

appropriate Government referred a dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication vide order No.L-12011/19/2012-IR(B-I)

dated 19.07.2012 with following terms:

‘Whether Shri Sonu, S/o Shri Ratte Ram working as

Field Boy with the management of HDFC is a permanent

workman of this management and the management of Mass

Manpower Associated Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,

is sham and camouflage to deprive the workman his legal

rights? To what relief the workman is entitled?

2. Statement of claim was filed by the workman

herein, Shri Sonu, pleading that he was appointed by the

Branch Manager, Vasant Vihar branch of HDFC Bank Ltd.

in July 2005 on the post of Field Boy and his last drawn

wages was Rs.5045.00. Management No.2, Mass

Manpower Associated Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,

is a sham contractor engaged by HDFC Bank Ltd., who is

conducting unfair labour practice by employing a sham

and nominal contractor, who are mere name lenders

engaged for frivolous purposes with a view to defeat

provisions of beneficial labour legislation. Management

No.1 used to pay Rs.8077.00 and Rs.1.85 per kilometre as

conveyance allowance but the contractor paid him only

Rs.5045.00 as wages and Rs. 1.55 per kilometre as

conveyance allowance and was deducting Rs.2000.00 per

month as kickback to be paid to Administration Staff of

Management No.1. DPF amount was being deducted since

the date of joining of the workman herein but the same has

neither been deposited in EPF office nor has any account

number been given to them. A complaint was made by the

workman herein to the Assistant Labour Commissioner

against Management No.2 for non-payment of salary,

forcibly obtaining signatures on blank paper, non-payment

of minimum wages, non-regularization of his service.

During pendency of the dispute, the workman herein was

terminated from service without assigning any reason

whatsoever and without paying service compensation,

notice pay and without prior permission of the Assistant

Labour Commissioner. Finally, a prayer has been made to

pass order of regularization of the workman herein in

service.

3. Claim was demurred by HDFC Bank,

Management No.1 pleading that the claim petition is not

maintainable as he was never appointed by the Bank at

any point of time. He was neither paid monthly wages nor

was he working under the control and supervision of the

bank. The workman herein was never in their employment.

The bank has neither resorted to unfair labour practice

nor was the contractor a mere name lender or paper

agreement. There is no relationship of employer and

employee between the bank and the workman herein and

the nature of work performed by the workman herein was

not of perennial nature. The claim is misdirected, ill

conceived and against the replying management. No

notice of demand was ever served on the Bank. The

workman herein was an employee of the contractor who

used to provide all statutory benefits to the workman

herein.

4. Management No.2, Mass Manpower Associated

Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in its written statement,

has taken several preliminary objections, i.e. of non-

espousal, lack of jurisdiction, reference being bad and

being made in a mechanical manner, demand notice not

being served etc. It has further been averred that the

workman herein was never terminated by it. In fact, it was

the workman himself who absented himself from duties

despite issuance of several letters. It has been specifically

denied that the workman herein joined the services with

effect from July 2005. In fact, the contractors came into

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 30] 2016@ek?k 10] 1937

589

existence in October 2008 and the claimant was appointed

on 01.05.2009 and was under direct supervision and control

of the bank. It is also denied that they are sham contractors.

They entered into service provider’s agreement with the

bank. The workman herein was being granted all statutory

benefits such as ESI, EPF, bonus, leave wages etc. The

bank is neither the employer of the workman herein, nor is

he a permanent employee nor is his work of permanent

nature. Contractors have denied that Rs.2000.00 was

deducted from the workman herein every month in the

name of kick back, or having forcefully obtained signatures

of the workman herein on blank papers or having paid less

than the minimum wages to them. Finally it has been

averred that the workman herein is being marked absent

in the register and he could still come and join the

management, if he so desires.

5. Against this factual background, my Learned

Predecessor, on 18.01.2013, framed the following issues:

(i)

Whether Shri Sonu absented himself from duties

with effect from 05.09.2011, as claimed by

Management No.2?

(ii) Whether any dispute arose for want of demand

notice?

(iii) As in terms of reference.

(iv) Relief

6. An application for casting of additional issue was

moved by Shri Raj Rishi, A/R for the managements.

Arguments was heard over the matter and the undernoted

additional issue was cast by my Learned Predecessor on

13.02.2013.

‘Whether reference is bad for want of espousal by

the union or a considerable number of workmen in the

establishment of the management?’

7. Thereafter, matter was listed for evidence of the

claimant but neither the claimant nor any authorized

representative on his behalf appeared before this Tribunal

despite granting of several opportunities. Thus, it is

apparent that the claimant is no more interested in progress

of the case on merits.

8. Since the workman has neither put in his

appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his

cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is

left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute’ award.

Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as

required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, for publication.

Dated : January 12, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2016

dk- vk- 168

dk- vk- 168.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

,pMh,Qlh cSad fyfeVsM ds izca/kra=z ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] fnYyh ds iapkV

lanHkZ la[;k ¼93@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 27@01@2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&12011@28@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch-I½]

fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2016

S.O. 168.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 93/2012)

of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of HDFC Bank Ltd., and their

workman, received by the Central Government on

27/01/2016.

[No. L-12011/28/2012- IR(B-I)]

VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND

DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA

COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No. 93/2012

Shri Mukesh Sharma

S/o Shri Jai Kishan Sharma,

C/o The Secretary,

I – 441, Karampura,

New Delhi-110 015

...Workman

Versus

The Assistant General Manager,

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

C-5/32, Safdarjung Development Area,

New Delhi-110 016

Manpower Associated Services and Solutions Pvt.

Ltd.,

E 1/22A, 2^nd Floor, Opposite Income Tax Office,

Jhandewalan Extension,

New Delhi-110 055

... Managements

Brief facts giving rise to the above dispute are that

appropriate Government referred a dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication vide order No.L-12011/28/2012-IR(B-I)

dated 13.08.2012 with following terms:

590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2016/MAGHA 10, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

‘Whether Shri Mukesh Sharma, S/o Shri Jai Kishan

Sharma working as Field Boy with the management

of HDFC is a permanent workman of this management

and the management of Mass Manpower Associated

Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd., is sham and

camouflage to deprive the workman his legal rights?

To what relief the workman is entitled?^,

2. Statement of claim was filed by the workman

herein, Shri Mukesh Sharma, pleading that he was

appointed by the Branch Manager, Vasant Kunj branch of

HDFC Bank Ltd. on 21.11.2012 on the post of Field Boy

and his last drawn wages was Rs.5045.00. Management

No.2, Mass Manpower Associated Services and Solutions

Pvt. Ltd., is a sham contractor engaged by HDFC Bank

Ltd., who is conducting unfair labour practice by

employing a sham and nominal contractor, who are mere

name lenders engaged for frivolous purposes with a view

to defeat provisions of beneficial labour legislation.

Management No.1 used to pay Rs.8077.00 and Rs.1.85 per

kilometre as conveyance allowance but the contractor

paid him only Rs.5045.00 as wages and Rs. 1.55 per kilometre

as conveyance allowance and was deducting Rs.2000.00

per month as kickback to be paid to Administration Staff

of Management No.1. EPF amount was being deducted

since the date of joining of the workman herein but the

same has neither been deposited in EPF office nor has any

account number been given to them. A complaint was

made by the workman herein to the Assistant Labour

Commissioner against Management No.2 for non-payment

of salary, forcibly obtaining signatures on blank paper,

non-payment of minimum wages, non-regularization of his

service. During pendency of the dispute, the workman

herein was terminated from service without assigning any

reason whatsoever and without paying service

compensation, notice pay and without prior permission of

the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Finally, a prayer has

been made to pass order of regularization of the workman

herein in service.

3. Claim was demurred by HDFC Bank,

Management No.1 pleading that the claim petition is not

maintainable as he was never appointed by the Bank at

any point of time. He was neither paid monthly wages nor

was he working under the control and supervision of the

bank. The bank has neither resorted to unfair labour

practice nor was the contractor a mere name lender or

paper agreement. There is no relationship of employer

and employee between the bank and the workman herein

and the nature of work performed by the workman herein

was not of perennial nature. The claim is misdirected, ill

conceived and against the replying management. No

notice of demand was ever served on the Bank. The

workman herein was an employee of the contractor who

used to provide all statutory benefits to the workman

herein.

4. Management No.2, Mass Manpower Associated

Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in its written statement,

has taken several preliminary objections, i.e. of non-

espousal, lack of jurisdiction, reference being bad and

being made in a mechanical manner, demand notice not

being served etc. It has further been averred that the

workman herein was never terminated by it. In fact, it was

the workman himself who absented himself from duties

despite issuance of several letters. It has been specifically

denied that the workman herein joined the services with

effect from 21.11.2002. In fact the claimant was appointed

on 01.06.2009 and was under direct supervision and control

of the bank. It is also denied that they are sham

contractors. They entered into service provider’s

agreement with the bank. The workman herein was being

granted all statutory benefits such as ESI, EPF, bonus,

leave wages etc. The bank is neither the employer of the

workman herein, nor is he a permanent employee nor is his

work of permanent nature. Contractors have denied that

Rs.2000.00 was deducted from the workman herein every

month in the name of kick back, or having forcefully

obtained signatures of the workman herein on blank papers

or having paid less than the minimum wages to them.

Finally it has been averred that the workman herein is

being marked absent in the register and he could still come

and join the management, if he so desires.

5. Against this factual background, my Learned

Predecessor, on 30.01.2013, framed the following issues:

Whether the dispute has not acquired status of

industrial dispute for want of espousal by a

union or considerable number workmen in the

establishment of the management?

ii.

Whether the claimant is absenting himself from

duties with the contractor with effecting from

26.09. 2011? If yes, its effects.

iii.

As in terms of reference.

6. Thereafter, matter was listed for evidence of the

claimant but neither the claimant nor any authorized

representative on his behalf appeared before this Tribunal

despite granting of several opportunities. Thus, it is

apparent that the claimant is no more interested in progress

of the case on merits.

7. Since the workman has neither put in his

appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his

cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is

left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute’ award.

Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as

required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, for publication.

Dated : January 11, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 30] 2016@ek?k 10] 1937

591

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2016

dk- vk- 169

dk- vk- 169.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

,pMh,Qlh cSad fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] fnYyh ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 155@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 27@01@2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&12011@28@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]

fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2016

S.O. 169.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 155/

2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No.1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of HDFC Bank Ltd . and

their workman, received by the Central Government on

27/01/2016.

[No. L-12011/28/2012- IR(B-I)]

VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND

DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA

COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No. 155/2012

Shri Mukesh Sharma

S/o Shri Jai Kishan Sharma,

C/o The Secretary,

General Mazdorr Lal Jhanda Union,

I – 441, Karampura,

New Delhi-110 015

...Workman

Versus

The Assistant General Manager,

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

C-5/32, Safdarjung Development Area,

New Delhi-110 016

Manpower Associated Services and Solutions Pvt.

Ltd.,

E 1/22A, 2^nd Floor, Opposite Income Tax Office,

Jhandewalan Extension,

New Delhi-110 055

... Managements

A complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) was filed by

Shri Manoj Sharma claiming that an Industrial Dispute

was referred by the appropriate Government vide Order

No.L-12011/31/2012-IR(B-I) dated 13.08.2012, which was

pending adjudication before this Tribunal. During

pendency of the dispute before the Conciliation Officer,

his services were terminated by H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. on

26.09.2011 in an illegal manner, in violation of provision of

Section 33 of the Act. It has been projected that an industrial

dispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer,

questioning his illegal transfer and on that matter

conciliation proceedings were initiated. During pendency

of those proceedings, before the Conciliation Officer, his

services were terminated in an illegal manner. Considering

all these facts, his complaint was registered as an industrial

dispute and the managements were called.

2. The workman herein, Shri Mukesh Sharma, in

his complaint has averred that he was appointed by the

Branch Manager, Vasant Kunj branch of HDFC Bank

Ltd. on 21.11.2012 on the post of Field Executive and

his last drawn wages was Rs.5045.00. Management

No.2, Mass Manpower Associated Services and

Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is a sham contractor engaged by

HDFC Bank Ltd., who is conducting unfair labour

practice by employing a sham and nominal contractor,

who are mere name lenders engaged for frivolous

purposes with a view to defeat provisions of beneficial

labour legislation. Management No.1 used to pay

Rs.8077.00 and Rs.1.85 per kilometre as conveyance

allowance but the contractor paid him only Rs.5045.00

as wages and Rs. 1.55 per kilometre as conveyance

allowance and was deducting Rs.2000.00 per month as

kickback to be paid to Administration Staff of

Management No.1. EPF amount was being deducted

since the date of joining of the workman herein but the

same has neither been deposited in EPF office nor has

any account number been given to them. A complaint

was made by the workman herein to the Assistant

Labour Commissioner against Management No.2 for

non-payment of salary, forcibly obtaining signatures

on blank paper, non-payment of minimum wages, non-

regularization of his service. During pendency of the

dispute, the workman herein was terminated from service

without assigning any reason whatsoever and without

paying service compensation, notice pay and without

prior permission of the Assistant Labour Commissioner.

Finally, a prayer has been made to pass order of

regularization of the workman herein in service.

3. Claim was demurred by HDFC Bank,

Management No.1 pleading that the claim petition is not

maintainable as he was never appointed by the Bank at

any point of time. He was neither paid monthly wages nor

was he working under the control and supervision of the

bank. The complaint is further not maintainable on the

592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2016/MAGHA 10, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ground that the controversy involved between the parties

in reference NO.L-12011/28/2012-IR(B-1) dated 13.08.2012

is similar to that of the present complaint inasmuch when

the Bank has already taken plea that the workman herein

was never in their employment and since the said case is

still pending, the complaint is liable to be rejected. The

bank has neither resorted to unfair labour practice nor

was the contractor a mere name lender or paper agreement.

There is no relationship of employer and employee

between the bank and the workman herein and the nature

of work performed by the workman herein was not of

perennial nature. The claim is misdirected, ill conceived

and against the replying management. No notice of demand

was ever served on the Bank. The workman herein was an

employee of the contractor who used to provide all

statutory benefits to the workman herein.

4. Management No.2, Mass Manpower Associated

Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in its written statement,

has taken several preliminary objections, i.e. of non-

espousal, lack of jurisdiction, reference being bad and

being made in a mechanical manner, demand notice not

being served etc. It has further been averred that the

workman herein was never terminated by it. In fact, it was

the workman himself who absented himself from duties

despite issuance of several letters. It has been specifically

denied that the workman herein joined the services with

effect from 21.11.2002. In fact the claimant was appointed

on 01.06.2009 and was under direct supervision and control

of the bank. It is also denied that they are sham contractors.

They entered into service provider’s agreement with the

bank. The workman herein was being granted all statutory

benefits such as ESI, EPF, bonus, leave wages etc. The

bank is neither the employer of the workman herein, nor is

he a permanent employee nor is his work of permanent

nature. Contractors have denied that Rs.2000.00 was

deducted from the workman herein every month in the

name of kick back, or having forcefully obtained signatures

of the workman herein on blank papers or having paid less

than the minimum wages to them. Finally it has been

averred that the workman herein is being marked absent

in the register and he could still come and join the

management, if he so desires.

5. Against this factual background, my Learned

Predecessor framed the following issues:

Whether the claimant is workman concerned

in Industrial Dispute, which was pending

before the Conciliation Officer on 05.09.2011?

ii.

Whether MASS Manpower Associated

Service and Solution Pvt. Ltd. violated

provisions of section 33A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947?

iii.

Whether claimant is entitled for relief of

reinstatement in service.

6. Thereafter, matter was listed for evidence of the

claimant but neither the claimant nor any authorized

representative on his behalf appeared before this Tribunal

despite granting of several opportunities. Thus, it is

apparent that the claimant is no more interested in progress

of the case on merits.

7. Since the workman has neither put in his

appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his

cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is

left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute’ award.

Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as

required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, for publication.

Dated : January 11, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2016

dk- vk- 170

dk- vk- 170.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

,pMh,Qlh cSad fyfeVsM ds izca/kra=z ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] fnYyh ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 88@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 27@01@2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&12011@20@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]

fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2016

S.O. 170.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 88/2012) of

the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of HDFC Bank Ltd. and their

workman, received by the Central Government on

27/01/2016.

[No. L-12011/20/2012- IR(B-I)]

VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 30] 2016@ek?k 10] 1937

593

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. 88/2012

The President

General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union,

I – 441, Karampura,

New Delhi-110 015

...Workman

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

C-5/32, Safdarjung Development Area,

New Delhi-110 016

Mass Manpower Associated Services and

Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,

E 1/22A, 2^nd Floor, Opposite Income Tax Office,

Jhandewalan Extension,

New Delhi-110 055

... Managements

Brief facts giving rise to the above dispute are

that appropriate Government referred a dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication vide order No.L-12011/20/2012-

IR(B-I) dated 20.07.2012 with following terms:

‘‘Whether the action of the management of HDFC

Bank Ltd., and the management of Mass

Manpower Associated Services and Solutions

Pvt. Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri

Amarjeet Singh, S/o Shri Avtar Singh with effect

from 11.08.2011 is legal and justified?? To what

relief the workman is entitled?’’

2. Statement of claim was filed by the workman

herein, Shri Amarjeet Singh, pleading that he was appointed

by the Branch Manager, Vasant Vihar branch of HDFC

Bank Ltd. in July 2007 on the post of Field Boy and his last

drawn wages was Rs.5045.00. Management No.2, Mass

Manpower Associated Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is

a sham contractor engaged by HDFC Bank Ltd., who is

conducting unfair labour practice by employing a sham

and nominal contractor, who are mere name lenders

engaged for frivolous purposes with a view to defeat

provisions of beneficial labour legislation. Management

No.1 used to pay Rs. 8077.00 and Rs.1.85 per kilometre as

conveyance allowance but the contractor paid him only

Rs.5045.00 as wages and Rs. 1.55 per kilometre as

conveyance allowance and was deducting Rs. 2000.00 per

month as kickback to be paid to Administration Staff of

Management No.1. DPF amount was being deducted since

the date of joining of the workman herein but the same has

neither been deposited in EPF office nor has any account

number been given to them. A complaint was made by the

workman herein to the Assistant Labour Commissioner

against Management No.2 for non-payment of salary,

forcibly obtaining signatures on blank paper, non-payment

of minimum wages, non-regularization of his service.

During pendency of the dispute, the workman herein was

terminated from service without assigning any reason

whatsoever and without paying service compensation,

notice pay and without prior permission of the Assistant

Labour Commissioner. Finally, a prayer has been made to

pass order of regularization of the workman herein in

service.

3. Claim was demurred by HDFC Bank, Management

No.1 pleading that the claim petition is not maintainable as

he was never appointed by the Bank at any point of time.

He was neither paid monthly wages nor was he working

under the control and supervision of the bank. The workman

herein was never in their employment. The bank has neither

resorted to unfair labour practice nor was the contractor a

mere name lender or paper agreement. There is no

relationship of employer and employee between the bank

and the workman herein and the nature of work performed

by the workman herein was not of perennial nature. The

claim is misdirected, ill conceived and against the replying

management. No notice of demand was ever served on the

Bank. The workman herein was an employee of the

contractor who used to provide all statutory benefits to the

workman herein.

4. Management No. 2, Mass Manpower Associated

Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in its written statement,

has taken several preliminary objections, i.e. of non-

espousal, lack of jurisdiction, reference being bad and

being made in a mechanical manner, demand notice not

being served etc. It has further been averred that the

workman herein was never terminated by it. In fact, it was

the workman himself who absented himself from duties

despite issuance of several letters. It has been specifically

denied that the workman herein joined the services with

effect from July 2007. In fact, the contractors came into

existence in October 2008 and the claimant was appointed

on 21.11.2012 and was under direct supervision and control

of the bank. It is also denied that they are sham contractors.

They entered into service provider’s agreement with the

bank. The workman herein was being granted all statutory

benefits such as ESI, EPF, bonus, leave wages etc. The

bank is neither the employer of the workman herein, nor is

he a permanent employee nor is his work of permanent

nature. Contractors have denied that Rs.2000.00 was

deducted from the workman herein every month in the

name of kick back, or having forcefully obtained signatures

of the workman herein on blank papers or having paid less

than the minimum wages to them. Finally it has been

averred that the workman herein is being marked absent

in the register and he could still come and join the

management, if he so desires.

594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2016/MAGHA 10, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5. Against this factual background, my learned

predecessor, on 18.01.2013, framed the following issues:

(i)

Whether Shri Amarjeet Singh absented himself

from duties with effect from 01.08.2011, as claimed

by Management No. 2?

(ii) Whether any dispute arose for want of demand

notice?

(iii) As in terms of reference.

(iv) Relief

6. An application for casting of additional issue was

moved by Shri Raj Rishi, A/R for the managements.

Arguments was heard over the matter and the undernoted

additional issue was cast by my learned predecessor on

13.02.2013.

‘‘Whether reference is bad for want of espousal

by the union or a considerable number of workmen

in the establishment of the management?’’

7. Thereafter, matter was listed for evidence of the

claimant but neither the claimant nor any authorized

representative on his behalf appeared before this Tribunal

despite granting of several opportunities. Thus, it is

apparent that the claimant is no more interested in progress

of the case on merits.

8. Since the workman has neither put in his

appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his

cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is

left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute’ award.

Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as

required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, for publication.

Dated : January 12, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2016

dk- vk- 171-

dk- vk- 171-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

,pMh,Qlh cSad fyfeVsM] ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k fnYyh ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 95@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 27@01@2016 izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&12011@30@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]

fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2016

S.O. 171.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 95/2012)

of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of HDFC Bank Ltd. and their

workman, received by the Central Government on

27/01/2016.

[No. L-12011/30/2012- IR(B-I)]

VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND

DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA

COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No. 95/2012

Shri Manoj Kumar

S/o Shri Kali Charan,

C/o The Secretary,

General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union,

I – 441, Karampura,

New Delhi-110 015

...Workman

Versus

The Assistant General Manager,

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

C-5/32, Safdarjung Development Area,

New Delhi-110 016

Mass Manpower Associated Services and

Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,

E 1/22A, 2^nd Floor, Opposite Income Tax Office,

Jhandewalan Extension,

New Delhi-110 055

... Managements

Brief facts giving rise to the above dispute are that

appropriate Government referred a dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication vide order No.L-12011/30/2012-IR(B-I)

dated 13.08.2012 with following terms:

‘‘Whether Shri Manoj Kumar, S/o Shri Kali Charan

working as Field Boy with the management of HDFC

is a permanent workman of this management and

the management of Mass Manpower Associated

Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd., is sham and

camouflage to deprive the workman his legal rights?

To what relief the workman is entitled?’’

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 30] 2016@ek?k 10] 1937

595

2. Statement of claim was filed by the workman

herein, Shri Manoj Kumar, pleading that he was appointed

by the Branch Manager, Rohini Sector 11 branch of HDFC

Bank Ltd. on 18.10.2004 on the post of Field Boy and his

last drawn wages was Rs. 5045.00. Management No. 2,

Mass Manpower Associated Services and Solutions Pvt.

Ltd., is a sham contractor engaged by HDFC Bank Ltd.,

who is conducting unfair labour practice by employing a

sham and nominal contractor, who are mere name lenders

engaged for frivolous purposes with a view to defeat

provisions of beneficial labour legislation. Management

No.1 used to pay Rs.8077.00 and Rs.1.85 per kilometre as

conveyance allowance but the contractor paid him only

Rs.5045.00 as wages and Rs. 1.55 per kilometre as

conveyance allowance and was deducting Rs. 2000.00 per

month as kickback to be paid to Administration Staff of

Management No.1. EPF amount was being deducted since

the date of joining of the workman herein but the same has

neither been deposited in EPF office nor has any account

number been given to them. A complaint was made by the

workman herein to the Assistant Labour Commissioner

against Management No. 2 for non-payment of salary,

forcibly obtaining signatures on blank paper, non-payment

of minimum wages, non-regularization of his service.

During pendency of the dispute, the workman herein was

terminated from service without assigning any reason

whatsoever and without paying service compensation,

notice pay and without prior permission of the Assistant

Labour Commissioner. Finally, a prayer has been made to

pass order of regularization of the workman herein in

service.

3. Claim was demurred by HDFC Bank, Management

No.1 pleading that the claim petition is not maintainable as

he was never appointed by the Bank at any point of time.

He was neither paid monthly wages nor was he working

under the control and supervision of the bank. The bank

has neither resorted to unfair labour practice nor was the

contractor a mere name lender or paper agreement. There is

no relationship of employer and employee between the bank

and the workman herein and the nature of work performed

by the workman herein was not of perennial nature. The

claim is misdirected, ill conceived and against the replying

management. No notice of demand was ever served on the

Bank. The workman herein was an employee of the

contractor who used to provide all statutory benefits to the

workman herein.

4. Management No. 2, Mass Manpower Associated

Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in its written statement,

has taken several preliminary objections, i.e. of non-

espousal, lack of jurisdiction, reference being bad and

being made in a mechanical manner, demand notice not

being served etc. It has further been averred that the

workman herein was never terminated by it. In fact, it was

the workman himself who absented himself from duties

despite issuance of several letters. It has been specifically

denied that the workman herein joined the services with

effect from 18.10.2014. In fact the claimant was appointed

in April 2009 and was under direct supervision and control

of the bank. It is also denied that they are sham

contractors. They entered into service provider’s

agreement with the bank. The workman herein was being

granted all statutory benefits such as ESI, EPF, bonus,

leave wages etc. The bank is neither the employer of the

workman herein, nor is he a permanent employee nor is his

work of permanent nature. Contractors have denied that

Rs.2000.00 was deducted from the workman herein every

month in the name of kick back, or having forcefully

obtained signatures of the workman herein on blank papers

or having paid less than the minimum wages to them.

Finally it has been averred that the workman herein is

being marked absent in the register and he could still come

and join the management, if he so desires.

5. Against this factual background, my Learned

Predecessor, on 30.01.2013, framed the following issues:

Whether the dispute has not acquired status of

industrial dispute for want of espousal by a union

or considerable number workmen in the

establishment of the management?

ii.

Whether the claimant is absenting himself from

duties with the contractor with effecting from

29.07.2011? If yes, its effects.

iii.

As in terms of reference.

6. An application for casting of additional issue was

moved by Shri Raj Rishi, A/R for the managements.

Arguments was heard over the matter and the under-noted

additional issue was cast by my learned predecessor on

06.03.2013:

‘Whether the dispute has not acquired status of

an industrial dispute for want of espousal by a

union or considerable number of the workmen in

the establishment of the management ?’

7. Thereafter, matter was listed for evidence of the

claimant but neither the claimant nor any authorized

representative on his behalf appeared before this Tribunal

despite granting of several opportunities. Thus, it is

apparent that the claimant is no more interested in progress

of the case on merits.

8. Since the workman has neither put in his

appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his

cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is

left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute’ award.

Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as

required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, for publication.

Dated : January 11, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2016/MAGHA 10, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2016

dk- vk- 172

dk- vk- 172.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

,pMh,Qlh cSad fyfeVsM izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k fnYyh ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 120@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 27@01@2016 izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&12011@30@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]

fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2016

S.O. 172.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 120/2012)

of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of HDFC Bank Ltd. and

their workman, received by the Central Government on

27/01/2016.

[No. L-12011/30/2012- IR(B-I)]

VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND

DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA

COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No. 120/2012

Shri Manoj Kumar

S/o Shri Kali Charan,

C/o The Secretary,

General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union,

I – 441, Karampura,

New Delhi-110 015

...Workman

Versus

The Assistant General Manager,

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

C-5/32, Safdarjung Development Area,

New Delhi-110 016

Mass Manpower Associated Services and

Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,

E 1/22A, 2^nd Floor, Opposite Income Tax Office,

Jhandewalan Extension,

New Delhi-110 055

... Managements

A complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) was filed by Shri

Manoj Kumar claiming that an Industrial Dispute was

referred by the appropriate Government vide Order

No. L-12011/30/2012-IR(B-I) dated 13.08.2012, which was

pending adjudication before this Tribunal. During

pendency of the dispute before the Conciliation Officer,

his services were terminated by HDFC Bank Ltd., on

29.07.2011 in an illegal manner, in violation of provision of

Section 33 of the Act. It has been projected that an industrial

dispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer,

questioning his illegal transfer and on that matter

conciliation proceedings were initiated. During pendency

of those proceedings, before the Conciliation Officer, his

services were terminated in an illegal manner. Considering

all these facts, his complaint was registered as an industrial

dispute and the managements were called

2. The workman herein, Shri Manoj Kumar, in his

complaint has averred that he was appointed by the Branch

Manager, Rohini Sector 11 branch of HDFC Bank Ltd. on

18.10.2004 on the post of Field Executive and his last drawn

wages was Rs.5045.00. Management No.2, Mass

Manpower Associated Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,

is a sham contractor engaged by HDFC Bank Ltd., who is

conducting unfair labour practice by employing a sham

and nominal contractor, who are mere name lenders

engaged for frivolous purposes with a view to defeat

provisions of beneficial labour legislation. Management

No.1 used to pay Rs.8077.00 and Rs.1.85 per kilometre as

conveyance allowance but the contractor paid him only

Rs.5045.00 as wages and Rs. 1.55 per kilometre as

conveyance allowance and was deducting Rs.2000.00 per

month as kickback to be paid to Administration Staff of

Management No.1. EPF amount was being deducted since

the date of joining of the workman herein but the same has

neither been deposited in EPF office nor has any account

number been given to them. A complaint was made by the

workman herein to the Assistant Labour Commissioner

against Management No.2 for non-payment of salary,

forcibly obtaining signatures on blank paper, non-payment

of minimum wages, non-regularization of his service.

During pendency of the dispute, the workman herein was

terminated from service without assigning any reason

whatsoever and without paying service compensation,

notice pay and without prior permission of the Assistant

Labour Commissioner. Finally, a prayer has been made to

pass order of regularization of the workman herein in

service.

3. Claim was demurred by HDFC Bank,

Management No.1 pleading that the claim petition is not

maintainable as he was never appointed by the Bank at

any point of time. He was neither paid monthly wages nor

was he working under the control and supervision of the

bank. The complaint is further not maintainable on the

ground that the controversy involved between the parties

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 30] 2016@ek?k 10] 1937

597

in reference No. L-12011/30/2012-IR(B-1) dated 13.08.2012

is similar to that of the present complaint inasmuch when

the Bank has already taken plea that the workman herein

was never in their employment and since the said case is

still pending, the complaint is liable to be rejected. The

bank has neither resorted to unfair labour practice nor

was the contractor a mere name lender or paper agreement.

There is no relationship of employer and employee

between the bank and the workman herein and the nature

of work performed by the workman herein was not of

perennial nature. The claim is misdirected, ill conceived

and against the replying management. No notice of demand

was ever served on the Bank. The workman herein was an

employee of the contractor who used to provide all

statutory benefits to the workman herein.

4. Management No.2, Mass Manpower Associated

Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in its written statement,

has taken several preliminary objections, i.e. of non-

espousal, lack of jurisdiction, reference being bad and

being made in a mechanical manner, demand notice not

being served etc. It has further been averred that the

workman herein was never terminated by it. In fact, it was

the workman himself who absented himself from duties

despite issuance of several letters. It has been specifically

denied that the workman herein joined the services with

effect from 18.10.2004. In fact the claimant was appointed

in April, 2009 and was under direct supervision and control

of the bank. It is also denied that they are sham contractors.

They entered into service provider’s agreement with the

bank. The workman herein was being granted all statutory

benefits such as ESI, EPF, bonus, leave wages etc. The

bank is neither the employer of the workman herein, nor is

he a permanent employee nor is his work of permanent

nature. Contractors have denied that Rs. 2000.00 was

deducted from the workman herein every month in the

name of kick back, or having forcefully obtained signatures

of the workman herein on blank papers or having paid less

than the minimum wages to them. Finally it has been

averred that the workman herein is being marked absent

in the register and he could still come and join the

management, if he so desires.

5. Against this factual background, my learned

predecessor framed the following issues:

Whether the claimant is workman concerned

in Industrial Dispute, which was pending

before the Conciliation Officer on 05.09.2011?

ii.

Whether Mass Manpower Associated Service

and Solution Pvt. Ltd., violated provisions of

section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947?

iii.

Whether claimant is entitled for relief of

reinstatement in service.

6. Thereafter, matter was listed for evidence of the

claimant but neither the claimant nor any authorized

representative on his behalf appeared before this Tribunal

despite granting of several opportunities. Thus, it is

apparent that the claimant is no more interested in progress

of the case on merits.

7. Since the workman has neither put in his

appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his

cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is

left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute’ award.

Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as

required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, for publication.

Dated : January 11, 2016

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.