1489 GI/2016

(1231)

foÙk ea=kky;

(vkS|ksfxd vkSj foÙkh; iqu£uekZ.k vihyh; izkf/dj.k)

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 612-—bl izkf/kdj.k dh vf/klwpuk dh fujarjrk esa

Jherh fot; 'kekZ dks bl izkf/kdj.k esa ih-ch-&3 #- 15600&39100 + 6600

fnukad 14 Qjojh] 2016 ls ,d o”kZ dh vof/k ;k dkfeZd ,oa izf’k{k.k

foHkkx ds dk;kZy; Kkiu la[;k 6@8@2009&LFkk- ¼is cSaM&2½ fnukad 17-6-

2010 ds vuqlkj fu/kkZfjr fu;e vkSj ‘krksZa ij ,d o”kZ rd ;k vxys vkns’k

rd ;k dk;kZy; ds cUn gksus rd tks Hkh iwoZ ?kfVr@igys gks] izfrfu;qfDr

ds vkèkkj ij izeq[k futh lfpo ds in ij vkxs c<k;k tkrk gSA

¹iQk- la- 1@2@2011&iz'kk-º

fot; 'kekZ] jftLVªkj o izeq[k dk;kZy;

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- 15]

ubZ fnYyh] vizSy 3—vizSy 9] 2016] 'kfuokj@pS=k 14—pS=k 20] 1938

No. 15]

NEW DELHI, APRIL 3—APRIL 9, 2016, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 14—CHAITRA 20, 1938

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)

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR INDUSTRIAL AND

FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION)

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2016

S.O. 612.—In continuation of this Authority’s

Notification of even number dated 12.02.2015, the term of

deputation of Smt Vijay Sharma, a Sr. Private Secretary of

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as Principal Private

Secretary in this Authority on deputation basis in the

PB-3 Rs.15600-39100+6600 (Grade Pay) is hereby extended

for a further period of one year w.e.f. 14.02.2016 to

13.02.2017 or till abolition of this Authority or until further

orders, whichever is earlier, on the same terms and

conditions, determined as per the instructions contained

in DOPT OM. No.6/8/2009-Estt.(Pay-II) dated 17.06.2010

as amended from time to time.

[F. No. 1/2/2011-Admn.]

VIJAY SHARMA, Registrar & HOO

1232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=kky;

(dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 31 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 613.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973

¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e la- 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi/kkjk ¼8½ }kjk iznRr ‘kfä;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq, e/; izns’k jkT; fLFkr tcyiqj esa dsUnzh; vUos”k.k C;wjks

}kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky;ksa esa mUgsa lkSais x, fnYyh fo’ks”k iqfyl LFkkiuk

¼ds-v- C;wjks½ }kjk laLFkkfir ekeyksa dk vfHk;kstu djus rFkk fof/k }kjk

laLFkkfir iqujh{k.k vFkok vihyh; U;k;ky;ksa esa mu ekeyksa ls mRiUu

izklafxd vU; ekeyksa esa vihy@iqujh{k.k gsrq fuEufyf[kr vf/koDrkvksa dks

mudh fu;qfDr dh rkjh[k ls rhu o”kZ dh vof/k rd vFkok vf/koDrkvksa dks

lkSais x, ekeyksa ds fuiVkus rd] tks Hkh igys gks] fo’ks”k yksd vfHk;kstd ds

:i esa fu;qDr djrh gS%

loZJh

¼1½ izrh’k tSu

¼2½ ,u-ih- pkS/kjh

¼3½ lqJh vatyh cuthZ

¼4½ lqJh eatq fiYys

[iQk- la- 225@1@2016&,ohMh&II]

eks- unhe] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 31st March, 2016

S.O. 613.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central

Government hereby appoints following Advocates as

Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of

cases instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment

(CBI) in the State of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur as

entrusted to them by the Central Bureau of Investigation

in the trial courts and appeals/revisions or other matters

arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate courts

established by law for a period of three years from the

date of appointment or disposal of the cases entrusted to

the counsels whichever is earlier.

S/Shri

(1)

Pratish Jain

(2)

N.P. Choudhary

(3)

Ms. Anjali Banerjee

(4)

Ms. Manju Pillay

[F. No. 225/1/2016-AVD-II]

MD. NADEEM, Under Secy.

lapkj vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ea=kky;

(bysDVªkWfudh vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 4 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 614-—dsUnz ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk jktHkk"kk (la?k ds

'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds

mi&fu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k esa] bysDVªkWfudh vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh

foHkkx ds lac¼ dk;kZy; ekudhdj.k ijh{k.k rFkk xq.koÙkk izek.ku

funs'kky; ds vxjryk fLFkr v/huLFk dk;kZy;] bysDVªkWfudh

ijh{k.k rFkk fodkl dsaæ] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa

us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèklwfpr djrh gS A

¹la- 7(2)@2005&fg-v-º

jktho dqekj] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(Department of Electronics and Information

Technology)

New Delhi, the 4th February, 2016

S.O. 614.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of the

Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official purposes

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

notifies the Electronics Test and Development Centre, a

subordinate office of the Standardisation Testing and

Quality Certification Directorate, an attached office of the

Department of Electronics & Information Technology,

located at Agartala, whose more than 80% staff have

acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. 7(2)/2005-H.S.]

RAJIV KUMAR, Jt. Secy.

MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES, RIVER

DEVELOPMENT AND GANGA REJUVENATION

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2016

S.O. 615.—In the notification G.S.R. No. 27 dated

11.02.2016 of the Minsitry of Water Resources published

in Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) of the Gazette of India,

the following pages shall be modified as under :

Page No. 179 : Clause (11) may be read as ¶iz;ksx'kkyk

lgk;d Js.kh III ftlus ml in fu;fer vk/kj ij fu;qfDr ds

i'pkr~ ikap o"kZ fu;fer lsok dh gks A¸ instead of ¶iz;ksx'kkyk

lgk;d Js.kh I ftlus ml in ij fu;fer vk/kj ij fu;qfDr ds

i'pkr~ ikap o"kZ fu;fer lsok dh gks A¸

Page No. 181 : Clause (11) may be read as “Laboratory

Assistant Grade-III with five years’ regular service in the

grade” instead of “Laboratory Assistant Grade-II with five

years’ regular service in the grade”

[F. No. 2/28/98-E. II]

S. K. KATARIA, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1233

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 616-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fVLdks ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 28@1997) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-03-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@479@1995&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2016

S.O. 616.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 28 of 1997) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. TISCO and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 30.03.2016.

[No. L-20012/479/1995-IR (C-I)]

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. 28/1997

Employer in relation to the management of

Jamadoba Colliery, M/s. TISCO

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 10/03/2016

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/479/1995-IR (C-I), date

09/10-01-1997, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Jamadoba

Colliery of M/s. TISCO in not providing employment

to the dependent after the termination of the service

of Bhadai Ram on medical ground is justified ? If

not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”

After receipt of the reference, parties are noticed,

Though they took steps for certain dates, subsequently

did not appears nor take any interest in the case by the

workman. It is presumed that the disputes between parties

have been resolved in the meantime, Hence No Dispute

Award is passed.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 617-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ chlhlh,y

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

21@1997) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-03-

2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@87@1995&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2016

S.O. 617.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 21 of 1997) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 30.03.2016.

[No. L-20012/87/1995-IR (C-I)]

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. 21/1997

Employer in relation to the management of

Barora Area, M/s. BCCL

AND

1234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Their workmen

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

Shri D. Mukherjee, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 09/03/2016

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/87/1995-IR (C-I), dated.06/01/

1997, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand by the union for placement

of Shri R.A.P. Singh as Foreman (E&T) in Tech. Gr. B

w.e.f 10.07.1985 and forman-in-charge (E&T) in Tech.

& Sup.Gr.A w.e.f. 10.07.1988 with the arrears of his

wages is legal and justified? If so , to what relief is

the concerned workman entitled ?”

After receipt of the reference, parties are noticed.

Though they took steps for certain dates, the management

and workman examined one witness each, and documents

of workman marked as W-1 to W-13. Ld. Counsel of the

workman submits in the meantime that the workman is not

interested to contest the case further. It is presumed that

the disputes between parties have been resolved in the

meantime, Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 618-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ chlhlh,y

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

37@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-03-

2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@289@2003&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2016

S.O. 618.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 37 of 2004) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 30.03.2016.

[No. L-20012/289/2003-IR (C-I)]

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. 37/2004

Employers in relation to the management of

Kusunda Area, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

Shri K. Prasad, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 11/03/2016

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/289/2003-IR (C-I), dated

26/04/2004, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of Kusunda

Area of M/S BCCL in terminating the service of

S/Shri Dinesh Kumar Pathak, Anand Rewani,

Smt.Chhudu Devi, Remesh Rewani, Smt. Kalayani

Devi, Dayal Rewani, Suman Rewani, Sapan Kr.

Rewani, Kajal Kr. Tiwary, Chhabi Devi, Gaurang

Rewani, Nilkanth Rewani, Swami Dayal Pathak, Lata

Devi, Navin Ch. Upadhayay and Devanand Tiwari

w.e.f. 03.11.99 and Sri Sanjay Rewani and Dinesh

Rewani w.e.f 05.11.2003 respectively, is fair and

justified ? If not, to what relief are the concerned

workmen entitled?'

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

14.05.2004. After receipt of the reference, both parties are

noticed. The workman files their written statement on

09.12.2004. Thereafter the management files their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 18.08.2005. One witness each

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1235

side adduced respectively. Document filed by both side.

The documents of management is marked as M-1 to M-4

series and documents of workman is marked as W-1 &

W-2 series.

The case of the workmen is that the above named

person were given employment after entering into

agreement between the management of Kusunda Area and

the land owners of Basseria Basti who sponsored the

names as mentioned in the schedule of reference were

always abide and honoured the agreement but the

management did not comply with the terms of the

agreement.

It is also submitted by the workmen that the

management issued appointment letter but after that the

management dismissed the above named workmen illegally.

The workmen further submitted that nine workmen

were appointed to work in the underground and they were

working in different units of Kusunda Area and they

completed more than 190 days in a year as such they were

eligible to be permanent employee. But without giving the

workmen permanent status, they dismissed without

following the procedure as laid down in certified standing

order .

It is also submitted by the workmen that the

management excavated the land and extracted lacks tones

of coal from their land and badly damaged several area of

agricultural land. But as per agreement the management

had to pay 80% of the total valuation of the houses land

as an advance within 60 days from the date of the

agreement but the management did not pay the same.

As per point no.30 of the agreement the management

and the land owner had agreed to refer any type of dispute

if arise between them for amicable settlement. The

management took the law in their hand and without

resorting to agreement under point no.30 dismissed the

workmen violating the terms of the agreement. Hence

dispute arose.

On the other hand the case of the management is

that the management of Kusunda Area entered into an

agreement with Sri Dinesh Kr. Pathak and 17 others persons

individually, who were land owner or land sponsored by

the land owners for mining purpose. On the basis of the

aforesaid agreement the management offered them

provisional employment subject to submission of

indemnity-cum-Security Bond and gave assurance that

the land in question is exclusively belonging to them

having subsisting lawful title and in case any obstruction,

hindrance by him or any one in the enjoyment of the land

by the management in the manner desired and if it transpire

that exclusive ownership and title of any person if found

defective in any manner so also of other claimant’s will

automatically stand withdrawn.

As per the said terms and conditions the land losers

allowed for project work. But when the management started

mining operation, other villagers also claimed for

employment and obstructed mining operation for the same

land against which the employment was provided to the

aforesaid 18 persons. Due to hindrance and obstruction

of the villagers the mining operation was stopped, over

the said land. It was the responsibilities and liabilities of

18 persons to provide peaceful possession of the aforesaid

land, as agreed.

10.

It is further submitted by the management that as

per the terms and conditions of the agreement and

indemnity Bond the management withdrew the provisional

employment of 18 persons. It is claimed by the management

that the withdrawl of employment is neither termination or

dismissal of the workmen and as such it is not an industrial

dispute.

11.

The management witness Shri T. K. Roy Senior R.I

(MW-1) has stated in his evidence that the workmen did

not give vacant possession of the land to the management

for which, they were terminated. But Sri Dinesh Rewani

(WW-1) says in his cross examination which is quoted

below:-

Xxxxx

The land we want to give to BCCL has not been

registered till today. Agreement speaks unless we

registered land, our job will go i.e lost. We did not

vacate the house on land which is to be transferred

to BCCL as we did not get alternative accommodation

from the company.

Xxxxx

12.

On perusal of the MOU marked as Ext. W-2 series.

At serial No. 26.

“That the villagers shall handed over the vacant

possession of the schedule land to this MOU to the

company and the said land shall be free from all

encumbrances and hindrances and on handing over

possession of the land within this stipulated period

six months agreed number of employment will be

provided. In case the ownership of the land/houses

is disputed at any stage in future and or the peaceful

actual vacant possession of the land /houses is and

handed over to BCCL Kusunda Area within six

months time from the date of appointment, the

employment, so offered to the land /houses losers

of his nominees as the case may be shall

automatically stand terminated/withdrawn without

any further reference and to that effect the land /

house owner and his dependant shall submit dully

sworn affidavit that they will not go any competent

court of law to such any remedy against such

withdrawal.”

1236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13.

If this the position of the case and considering the

facts and circumstances of this case, it is felt that the

management of Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL in terminating

the service of S/Shri Dinesh Kumar Pathak, Anand Rewani,

Smt.Chhudu Devi, Remesh Rewani, Smt. Kalayani Devi,

Dayal Rewani, Suman Rewani, Sapan Kr. Rewani, Kajal Kr.

Tiwary, Chhabi Devi, Gaurang Rewani, Nilkanth Rewani,

Swami Dayal Pathak, Lata Devi, Navin Ch. Upadhayay

and Devanand Tiwari w.e.f. 03.11.99 and Sri Sanjay Rewani

and Dinesh Rewani w.e.f 05.11.2003 respectively, is a just

decision. Hence the workmen are not entitled to get any

relief.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 619-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZFkksfi;u ,;j

ykbZUl ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la-

109@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-03-

2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@28@2008&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2016

S.O. 619.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central

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

Delhi (Ref. No. 109 of 2011) now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. Ethiopian Airlines and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 30.03.2016.

[No. L-11012/28/2008-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

NO.1, DELHI

ID No. 109/2011

Shri Sebastian Vallado,

Cliff End Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.,

14/02/13, Bhawani Nagar, Marol

Andheri (East),

Mumbai 400059

...Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager,

India & South East Asia,

Ethiopian Airlines,

30-B, World Trade Center,

Ground Floor, Cuffe Parade,

Mumbai 400 005

...Management

AWARD

This case was referred to Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.II, Delhi for adjudication

by Government vide letter No.L-11012/28/2008-IR(CM-I)

dated 28.07.2008 and the terms of reference are as under:

‘(i) Whether the action of the management of

Ethopian Airlines, Mumbai, in dismissing the

services of Mr.Sebastian Vallado, Junior

Transportation Agent with effect from 01.03.2006 is

justified and legal?

(ii) To what relief is the concerned workman entitled?

Statement of claim was filed by the workman herein,

Shri Sebastian Vallado, wherein it is averred that he was

employed with Ethiopian Airlines (in short the

management) in 1987 at Mumbai as temporary staff and

vide appointment letter dated 01.04.1991, he was made

permanent employee in Mumbai as Junior Transportation

Agent, which designation has the same job description of

Traffic Assistants in Air India. The appointment did not

specify that he would have to work outside Mumbai or

that he could be transferred out of Mumbai. No workman

in the history of the Airline Company was ever transferred

from one city to another, except the workman herein who

has been victimized. During his tenure as temporary staff,

he was paid his wages in cash and on being made

permanent, he was paid by way of cheque. The

management, an International Airline Company, is

committed to the basic objective of providing safe, reliable

and profitable air transport service for passengers and

cargo as well as other aviation related service. Delhi office

of the management comprised of 8 employees with one

other employee named Shri Vinod Sharma, who was also a

Junior Transportation Officer. Basic job of Junior

Transportation Officer is to assist his superiors in liasoning

and handling agents at the airports. The daily working

hours of the workman herein was eight hour shifts in

Mumbai but on his transfer to Delhi, his work profile

changed and was handling cargo sales reports as well as

accounting and his regular working extended from 9.30 am

to 5.30 p.m. No overtime was paid whenever he worked

on day shifts. His work was exceptional and his services

were appreciated time and again. He was terminated on

27.02.2006 and the enquiry conducted was sham and

bogus with a pre-determined mindset to terminate the

workman maliciously as he had refused to sign a

panchnama, as a witness, prepared by Narcotics Control

Bureau in having alleged seized drugs from a passenger

who was to travel in one of the flights. Finally it has been

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1237

prayed by the claimant that he may be reinstated in service

with full back wages and continuity of service.

Written statement was filed by the management

taking several preliminary objections inter alia of malafide

intention & ulterior motive, concealment of facts, Tribunal

not being the appropriate authority for jurisdiction, terms

of reference being made in a mechanical manner, non-

service of demand notice, principles of natural justice being

followed in conduct of enquiry and award of punishment,

misjoinder of parties etc. The management has further

denied the material averments contained in the statement

of claim. A prayer has been made to dismiss the statement

of claim with heavy and exemplary cost.

The case was transferred to this Tribunal vide order

No.Z-22019/6/2007-IRC-II dated 30.03.2010 of the

appropriate Government.

Against this factual background, my learned

predecessor, on the basis of pleadings of the parties,

framed the following issues:

(i)

Whether the enquiry conducted by the

management was just, fair and proper?

(ii)

Whether punishment awarded to the claimant

commensurate to his misconduct?

(iii)

As in terms of reference

(iv)

Relief

Issue No.(i) was treated as preliminary issue and the

management was called to adduce evidence. An application

was moved by the management pleading therein that the

claimant be called upon to lead his evidence first, which

was rejected by this Tribunal vide order dated 02.09.2011.

The learned A/R for the management approached the High

Court, who vide order dated 01.08.2013, set aside the

impugned order dated 02.09.2011 of this Tribunal and

claimant was called upon to lead evidence first.

However, despite affording 18 opportunities to the

workman herein by this Tribunal, he failed to put in his

appearance. Copy of application moved by his authorized

representative for withdrawal of vakalatnama was also

sent to the claimant herein. However, he failed to put in

his appearance. Thus, it is apparent that the claimant

herein is not interested in adjudication of the reference on

merits.

Since the workman has neither put in his appearance

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

against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with

no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. An

award is, accordingly, passed. Let this award be sent to

the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : March 3, 2016

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 620-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ chlhlh,y

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

192@1997) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-03-

2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@440@1996&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2016

S.O. 620.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 192 of 1997) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 30.03.2016.

[No. L-20012/440/1996-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 192/1997

Employers in relation to the management of

Barora Area, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 10/03/2016

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/440/96-IR (C-I), dated

07/10-11-97, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

1238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of General Manager, Barora

Area No.1 of M/S BCCL in denying to regularise the

service of Shri Sayab Seilh, General Mazdoor as U/G

Munshi is justified ? If not, to what relief is the

concerned workman entitled?”

After receipt of the reference, parties are noticed,

Though they took steps for certain dates, subsequently

did not appears nor take any interest in the case by the

workman. It is presumed that the disputes between parties

have been resolved in the meantime, Hence No Dispute

Award is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 621-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-MCY;w-,iQ-

,l- (bafM;k) izkbZosV fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 211@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 30-03-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@09@2015&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2016

S.O. 621.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central

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

Delhi (Ref. No. 211 of 2015) now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. Bird Worldwide Flight Services

(India) Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen, which was received

by the Central Government on 30.03.2016.

[No. L-11012/09/2015-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

NO.1, DELHI

ID No. 211/2015

The General Secretary,

BWFS Karamchari Union (Regd.),

RZ-330/1BKHS1/11, Gali No.3,

Raj Nagar-II, Palam Colony,

New Delhi 110 077

...Workman

Versus

(1) The Chief Executive Officer,

M/s Bird Worldwide Flight

Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

E-9, Connaught House,

Connaught Circus,

New Delhi 110 001

(2) The Managing Director,

M/s Bird Worldwide Flight

Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

E-9, Connaught House,

Connaught Circus,

New Delhi 110 001

...Managements

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No.L-11012/09/2015-

IR(CM-I) dated 18.09.2015, referred the following industrial

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether termination of 45 workmen (list enclosed)

during the pendency of conciliation proceedings

can be construed as violation of Section 33 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? To what relief the

workmen concerned are entitled to?

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent

to the claimant union as well as the management. Despite

several opportunities, claimant union failed to file its

statement of claim. Thus, it is clear that the claimant union

is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the claimant union has failed to file statement

of claim, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except

to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be

sent to the appropriate Government, as required under

Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for

publication.

Dated : March 16, 2016

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 622-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ chlhlh,y

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

07@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-03-

2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@76@2013&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2016

S.O. 622.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1239

hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 07 of 2014) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 30.03.2016.

[No. L-20012/76/2013-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10

(1) (d) (2A) of the I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 07/2014

PARTIES

: The Vice President,

Janta Mazdoor Sangh,

Vihar Buildng, PO: Jharia,

Dhanbad

Vs.

The General Manager,

Kustore Area of M/s BCCL

PO: Kustore,

Dhanbad

Order No. L-20012/76/2013-IR (CM-I)

dated 12.02.2014

Appearances:

On behalf of the

None

Workman/Union

On behalf of the

None

Management

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dhanbad, dated the 3rd February, 2016

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/76/2013-IR (CM-I) dt.12.02.2014.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Alkusa

Colliery under Kustore Area of M/s. BCCL in not

regularizing Sri Uttam Kumar Chatterjee as Surface

Trammer is fair and justified? To what relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?”

None appeared from either side on date nor did even

before at all from any side despite posting of dates on

numerous times after its inception and registration of the

case on 25.02.2014 and even subsequently with issuance

of formal Notices dt. 22.4.2014 and 8.4.2015 to the both

litigant parties on the addresses referred in the Order of

the Reference itself. The case is almost stalled at the very

beginning on the status of filing of the W.S. Prime faces it

holds significance that the case failed to unfold even

getting the W.S. by the workman. The same is the position

with the Management. This definitely points out to sheer

reluctance and unwillingness of the workman to put the

case for final adjudication but help add up to piling

pendency of cases. The above Notices fell flat to fetch

initiatives from either sides. Under the circumstances, it

does not seem proper to keep the case alive any longer in

the interest of natural justice, as after having provided so

many opportunities, they do not even bothered to make

appearance whatsoever.

So there is no second opinion to hold it on any

further rather to close it down immediately just to save

sheer wastage of time and energy of the Tribunal. As such

the case is closed as non-existence of dispute between

the parties and the case is disposed of as No dispute.

Accordingly an order of ‘No Dispute Award’ is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 623-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ chlhlh,y

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

67@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

30-03-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@50@2003&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2016

S.O. 623.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 67 of 2003) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 30.03.2016.

[No. L-20012/50/2003-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

1240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10

(1) (d) (2A) of the I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 67/2003

PARTIES

: Sri Ajay Kumar Das,

Village: Kalapathar,

PO: Chiksiya

Distt: Bokaro

Vs.

The Project Officer,

Amlabad Colliery of M/s BCCL,

PO: Amlabad, Distt: Dhanbad.

Order No. L-20012/50/2003-IR(C-I)

dt.16.07.2003

Appearances:

On behalf of the

None

Workman/Union

On behalf of the

Mr. U.N. Lal, Ld. Advocate

Management

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dhanbad, dated the 4th February, 2016

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/50/2003–IR(C-I) dt.16.07.2003.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the Management of Amlabad Colliery of

M/s. BCCL is justified in dismissing Shri Ajay Kumar

Das from service w.e.f. 4.1.97? If not, to what relief is

the said workman entitled?”

The workman/petitioner is reported to be not present

on date against which the OP/Management side Mr.

U.N.Lal, Ld. Advocate appeared not for this time but earlier

also .Though the two Notices dt. 09.09.2003 and 29.09.014

were mailed at the workman’s address mentioned in the

Order of the Reference itself but it went into vain. The

case’s status still stands stagnating over evidence of the

Management on preliminary point since 02.05.2006 and

no further move advanced despite providing ample

opportunity to the workman /Petitioner. The petitioner/

workman miserably failed to make appearance whatsoever

presuming the issue either to have been settled or sorted

out of the Court. Workman’s successive failure in

appearance for a long spell of time speaks much of the

disinterestedness and utter reluctance on his part. Based

on the facts, the Tribunal holds opinion that it could not

be mute spectator on the line and in the interest of natural

justice as well. As of now, the case appears to have lost

the merits itself . Further dragging it will be proved improper

and sheer wastage of time and energy of the Tribunal. As

such the case is closed due to reluctance of the workman

concerned and passed an Order of ‘No Dispute Award’.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 31 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 624-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj uoksn;

fo|ky; lfefr] Hkksiky ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@292@99) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-03-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@97@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 31st March, 2016

S.O. 624 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID Case No.

CGIT/LC/R/292/99) 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 Navodaya

Vidyalaya Samiti, Bhopal and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 31-03-2016.

[No. L-42012/97/99-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/292/99

Shri Alex Mathew,

S/o N.E. Mathai,

Civil Hospital Compound,

Naugaon (BKD),

Chhattarpur

...Workman

Versus

Director,

Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,

Regional Office, 160,

Jhone to Dee,

Maharanapratap Nagar,

Bhopal

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1241

Principal,

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,

Naogaon (BKD),

Chhattarpur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 3rd day of March, 2016

As per letter dated 26-8-99 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-42012/

97/99/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Jawahar

Navodaya Vidhyalaya, Naugaon (BKD), Distt.

Chhattarpur in terminating the services of Shri Alex

Mathew, UDC is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 5/1 to 5/6. Case of workman is that he was initially

appointed on the post of store keeper by 2nd party vide

order dated 20-5-94. He was posted at Jawahar Navodaya

Vidyalaya, Naugaon, Distt. Chhattarpur. His services was

extended by order dated 22-8-94. The appointment was on

clear vacant post vide order dated 9-9-94, his appointment

as UDC was approved. His appointment on post of UDC

was extended vide order dated 9-12-94, 9-3-95, 8-6-95,

4-9-95, 5-12-95, 18-3-96 & 18-5-96. That he completed more

than 240 days continuous service on post of UDC. His

service record was unblemished. 2nd party terminated his

service vide order dated 4-7-96 violating provisions of ID

Act and standing orders. His service were terminated

without assigning reasons, without obtaining prior

permission of Government of India. That he was appointed

on post of UDC, prior permission of education department

of Government of India. As 2nd party is not competent

authority to initiate departmental proceeding against him

therefore order of his termination is illegal.

Ist party workman further submits that he was not

served with show cause notice or charge sheet. No DE

was conducted against him. He was not paid one months

salary in lieu of notice. Termination of his service is violative

of principles of natural justice. That he completed more

than 240 days continuous service, he is covered as

employee under Section 25 B of ID Act. His services are

terminated without notice in violation of Section 25-F is

illegal. That 2nd party has terminated his service retaining

juniors in employment thereby 2nd party has violated

section 25-G, N of ID Act. The orders were issued by Ist

party time to time extending his services amounts to unfair

labour practice. Termination of his service amounts to

punishment and act of victimization is illegal. That 2nd

party is covered as an Industry under ID Act. The

provisions of standing orders are applicable to it. That

2nd party has deliberately given artificial breaks. His

request for taking him on duty were not considered.

Workman further submits that after termination of his

service, he is not gainfully employed. On such grounds,

workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages

setting aside order of his termination.

2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of

Ist party workman. 2nd party submits that Ist party is not

a permanent employee. There is no provision for direct

appointment of UDC in Navodaya Vidyalaya. That no

approval was received to the appointment of workman.

Termination of service of workman is not violating any

rules. There is no provision or notice of terminal benefits.

The material contentions of Ist party workman are denied

as false. That Navodaya Vidyalaya is Central Government

residential Vidyalaya for rural children. 2nd party denies

termination of workman is illegal and unfair. The

contentions of workman that he is not in gainful

employment 2nd party submits that contentions are not

applicable appointment of workman being purely stop gap

arrangement, Ist party is not entitled to any relief.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the manage-

In Negative

ment of Jawahar Navodaya

Vidhyalaya, Naugaon (BKD), Distt.

Chhattarpur in terminating the

services of Shri Alex Mathew, UDC

is legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Workman has challenged legality of his termination

alleging violation of Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act. 2nd party

denied above contentions of workman. Workman filed

affidavit of his evidence. In his affidavit of evidence,

workman says as per order dated 20-5-94, he was appointed

as store keeper at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,

Chhattarpur. As per order dated 9-9-94, he was appointed

as UDC. He was working regularly from 1994 to 1996 as

UDC. He completed more than 240 days during each of

the calendar year. His services were terminated,

retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. 2nd party

violated provisions of ID Act. After termination of his

service, he is unemployed. In his cross-examination,

workman says he received information about vacancy from

Employment Exchange Office. He was orally interviewed.

His name was sent through Employment Exchange Office.

He was working on the post of UDC. While he was working

with 2nd party, his brother was also working in the same

school. The witness was recalled and from his evidence,

appointment orders and other documents are proved at

1242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Exhibit W-1 to W-12. Workman admitted document Exhibit

M-1. In his cross-examination, workman was unable to

say how many times appointment letter was issued to him.

After completion of 89 days period of appointment, he

used to be relieved. He was unable to tell how much wages

per day were paid to him. The documents Exhibit W-1 to

W-8 are received for a period of 89 days. The appointment

of workman was on daily wages payable at Collector rate.

The amount is not mentioned. Exhibit W-9, 10 are copies

of marksheet. Exhibit W-11,12 are certificates about his

working period. Exhibit M-1 is copy of attendance register.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of shri

Sudheer Ranjan Sahu supporting contentions of

management that appointment of workman was on part

time basis on stop gap arrangement on the post of store

keeper. He was not appointed on regular basis, workman

was also officiating as UDC for some time. There is no

provision for direct appointment of UDC in Navodaya

Vidyalaya. The post of UDC is filled by promotion. That

Ist party workman is not covered as workman under ID

Act. Workman had left Vidyalaya on 6-7-97 without giving

any information. Management’s witness in his cross-

examination says Ist party workman was appointed as store

keeper in 1994 as his appointment was by way of stop gap

arrangement for 89 days. After completion of period of 89

days, fresh appointment orders were issued to him. The

post of store keeper and UDC are different.

From evidence discussed above, the parties are not

in serious dispute about the workman was appointed for

89 days. He was initially appointed as store keeper and

was officiating as UDC. Considering appointment orders

Exhibit W-1 to W-8, it is clear that workman completed

more than 240 days continuous service during 1994 to

1996. In statement of claim of Ist party, it is pleaded that

Navodaya Vidyalaya is covered as industry under ID Act.

There is no specific denial to it. Initial engagement of Ist

party was as a store keeper and he was officiating as UDC.

Though management’s witness in his affidavit says Ist

party is not covered as workman such pleading is not

found in the Written Statement. The legal position is rather

settled that school is an industry, teacher is not workman.

Ist party was not working as teacher, he was appointed as

storekeeper and officiating as UDC therefore Ist party is

covered as workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act.

Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri Praveen Namdeo

in his argument submits that Navodaya Vidyalaya is not

covered under ID Act, Navodaya Vidyalaya is not an

Industry. Learned counsel during course of argument point

to produce some notifications in support of above

argument, however the notifications are not produced.

The legal position w.r.t. Section 14 of Administrative

Tribunal’s Act 1985 in AIR Manual 5th Edition Page 134 is

“ Unless an Educational Society registered under the

Societies Registration Act has been notified under Section

14(2), the Administrative Tribunal constituted under

Section 4 of the Act doesnot have jurisdiction to entertain

the grievance of an employee of the society and grant

relief to him.” 2nd party has not produced any evidence

that it is notified under Section 14(2) of Administrative

Tribunal Act. No document is produced that it is registered

under Society Registration Act. In my considered view, in

absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that this

Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The evidence of workman is

clear that his services are terminated without noticed, he

was not paid retrenchment compensation. Workman

completed more than 240 days continuous service

therefore termination 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.

10.

Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No.1

termination of service of Ist party workman is illegal,

question arises whether workman is entitled for

reinstatement with backwages. The appointment orders

Exhibit W-1 to W-8 clearly shows Ist party workman was

repeatedly appointed on daily wages at Collector rate for

a period of 89 days. Workman had completed 240 days

continuous service. Workman was not selected following

recruitment process.

11.

Learned counsel for Ist party Shri Dubey emphasized

that termination of workman is illegal. Workman be

reinstated with backwages. In support of his argument,

learned counsel relied on bunch of citations.

In case of Shri Rabinarayan Mohapatra versus

Shri Rabinarayan Mohapatra versus State of Orissa

and others the appellant was appointed as Hindi

teacher on recommendation of Managing Committee.

He continued to serve the schools for 89 days and 1

day break in between the spells from 12-7-82 to

25-5-86. Their Lordship considering Section 3 of

Validation Act directed respondents to treat the

appellant as regularly appointed teacher.

The facts of present case are not comparable as no

point is raised is about provision of Validation Act in the

matter. The ratio cannot be applied to case at hand.

In case between Gujarat Agricultural University

versus Rathod Labhu Bechar and others, the

question for consideration before their Lordship was

whether the employees listed in the Schedule be

made permanent from the day when he completed

240 days continuous service. The Scheme framed

by University was approved by State Government

subject to modifications etc. Their Lordship have

approved the Scheme.

Any such scheme is not relied by either parties

therefore ratio cannot be applied to case at hand.

In case between State of Haryana Piara Singh and

others their Lords hip dealing withs the claim for

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1243

regularization/absorption of ad hoc temporary

employees of State Governments and work charged

employees daily wage workers and casual labour

working for several years without regularization. The

terms of reference in present case pertains to legality

of termination of Ist party workman. The claim for

regularization is not included in the order of reference.

From careful reading of the judgment, it is clear that

the order of Government of Haryana dated 1-1-1980

prescribed conditions for regularization- (1) he must

have put in a minimum service to two years on

31-12-79, (2) he must have been recruited through

the Employment Exchange, (3) the service and

conduct of such employee should be of an overall

good category, (4) he must have possessed the

prescribed qualifications for the post at the time of

his appointment on ad hoc basis.

The facts are not comparable as such conditions are

not laid by any authorities. Ratio cannot be beneficially

applied to case at hand.

In case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another versus

FCI denial of regularization as per circular dated

6-5-87 was involved. Any such circular is not relied

by other party. Therefore principles laid down by

their Lordship cannot be applied to present case.

In case between Kondamudi Chandrashekhara Rao

versus State Bank of India, Zonal Office, their

Lordship observed when context to ratio held in

case of State of Karnataka versus Umadevi that the

jurisdiction of the constitutional court cannot be

exercised to compel the state or to enable the State

to perpetuate illegality.

12.

When workman was engaged on daily wages without

following recruitment process, relief of reinstatement would

not be justified. Considering workman was continuously

working from 1994 to 1996, compensation Rs. 50,000/-

would be reasonable. Accordingly I record my finding in

Point No.2.

13.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Jawahar Navodaya

Vidhyalaya, Naugaon (BKD), Distt. Chhattarpur in

terminating the services of Shri Alex Mathew, UDC

is not proper and legal.

(2)

2nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.50,000

to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 31 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 625-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dSaVksuesaV

,XthD;wfVo viQlj] dSaVksuesaV cksMZ] Egks ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@63@2006) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-03-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&13025@5@2005&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 31st March, 2016

S.O. 625.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID Case No.

CGIT/LC/R/63/2006) 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 Cantonment

Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Mhow and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 31-03-2016.

[No. L-13025/5/2005-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/63/2006

General Secretary,

Suraksha Asainik Karmchari Sangh,

Garden No.19, Peat Road,

Mhow

...Workman/Union

Versus

Cantonment Executive Officer,

Cantonment Board,

Mhow

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 2nd day of March, 2016

As per letter dated 21-9-06 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-13025/

5/2005-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of

Cantonment Executive Officer, Cantonment Board,

Mhow in terminating the services of Shri Firoz Khan

1244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

w.e.f. 4-9-2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 4/2 to 4/6. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

appointed as skilled labour on the job of blacksmith

Welder on 21-8-96 in workshop of the cantonment Board

Mhow. He was not given appointment letter. He was paid

out of monthly muster rolls. Certificate was given to him

by Vice President and Corporator of Cantonment Board.

He was continuously working in workshop of cantonment

board w.e.f. 21-8-96 to 4-9-2000 for period of 4 years as

per statement submitted before RLC, Bhopal. He was

shown continuously working during above said period.

His services were orally terminated as 2nd party wanted

to fix up another person of their choice by favour. On his

repeated request, he was given false assurances and

reconsideration. Workman reiterates that his services are

terminated malafidely without reasons. He worked for a

560 days within a period of 4 years. He was denied

regularisatiuon. His services were terminated without

giving opportunity for his defence. Termination of his

service is without notice. He claims reinstatement with

backwages.

2nd party filed Written Statement on 3-7-08

opposing claim of workman. As per 2nd party management,

workman was engaged purely on daily wage basis as per

need basis. Workman was not given appointment letter.

Certificate issued by Vice President or corporator of

Cantonment Board cannot be considered as appointment

letter. It is denied that workman was continuously working

from 21-8-96 to 4-9-2000. It is reiterated that workman was

engaged on daily wages on need basis. When there was

no work, he was not engaged. Workman has not

mentioned details of other person favoured by the

Cantonment Board for appointment in his place. 2nd party

denies that workman was continuously working for 4

years. Rather it is pleaded that workman was engaged on

daily wages. On such ground, 2nd party submits that

workman is not entitled to any relief.

Ist party workman submitted rejoinder on 24-9-08

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

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

Both parties not

management of Cantonment

adduced evidence,

Executive Officer, Cantonment

the dispute under

Board, Mhow in terminating

reference could

the services of Shri Firoz Khan

not be decided on

w.e.f. 4-9-2000 is legal and

merit.

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

No dispute award

is entitled to?”

is passed.

REASONS

The term of reference pertains to legality of

termination of service of workman in violation of Section

25-F of ID Act. Ist party workman failed to adduce evidence

in support of his claim. His evidence is closed on

7-10-2014. Management also failed to participate in

reference. Evidence of management is closed on 7-4-2015.

As both parties failed to participate in reference and

adduced evidence, the dispute under reference could not

be decided on merit. Accordingly I record my finding in

Point No.1.

In the result, No Dispute Award is passed.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 31 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 626-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xzs vk;ju

iQkÅ.Mªh] tcyiqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@72@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-03-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&16012@01@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 31st March, 2016

S.O. 626.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID Case No.

CGIT/LC/R/72/2002) 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 Grey Iron

Foundary, Jabalpur and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 31-03-2016.

[No. L-16012/01/2001-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/72/2002

Shri Sajjanlal Ghawri,

114, Laxmi Nagar,

Bhosle Colony, Dewas (MP)

...Workman

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1245

Versus

General Manager,

Bank Note Press,

Dewas (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 2nd day of March 2016

As per letter dated 9-5-02 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-16012/

1/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Bank Note Press, Dewas in compulsorily

retiring Shri Sajjanlal Ghawri w.e.f. 31-8-2000 is

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

for?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 4/1 to 4/2. Case of Ist party workman is that he

belongs to sweeper caste. His date of birth is 25-10-46.

The date of his superannuation is 24-10-06. On 8-5-76, he

was appointed as labour he submitted declaration on his

appointment that he was married, he was promoted to the

post of counter and thereafter as examiner. He was

compulsorily retired on 31-8-2000. At time of his

compulsory retirement, he was drawing salary Rs.3870

inclusive of allowances. Chargesheet was issued to him

alleging that his first marriage with Beenabai subsisted,

he married second time and concealed this fact in his

declaration submitted by him at the time of entry in service

constituting violation of Rule 21 of CCS(Conduct) Rules.

He denied charges alleged against him. Workman

contented that he obtained divorce from his first wife

Beenabai in Panchayat of Chavni Valmik, Indore on

21-12-1970. The divorce was obtained as per custom

observed since long time in his community. His first wife

Beena Bai filed civil suit 752 A/69 before Civil Judge, Class

II, Indore. Said suit was withdrawn on 23-12-1970 as

withdrawal because of compromise before Panchayat.

Workman had a son from his first wife, he was residing

with him that workman married with his 2nd wife. That

enquiry was conducted against him as per Rule 14 of CCS

(CCA) Rules 1965. Enquiry Officer submitted his report.

The punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed

against workman. That Enquiry Officer could not decide if

the custom of divorce was not prevailing in his community.

Said issue could have been decided by Civil Court. The

finding given by Enquiry Officer is illegal. The charges

alleged against him are not proved. That he replied to 2nd

show cause notice denying findings in the DE. Workman

reiterates that punishment of compulsory retirement and

deduction of 10 % pension is violation of fundamental

rights. On such ground, workman is praying for his

reinstatement with backwages.

2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/2 to 7/7

opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that

workman was appointed as mazdoor on 8-5-76. He was

promoted to the post of counter and thereafter as examiner

from 9-9-87. Chargesheet was issued to workman on

15-7-89. The charges against workman were before joining

Government Service, he married with Beenabai, out of

which the son was born. After some time, he married with

one Sashibai before illegally divorcing Ist wife. That as

per Hindu Marriage Act, 2nd marriage is permissible only

after divorce from a Court. That in Attestation form, the

name of his first wife is not included and only the name of

Smt.Shashi Bai was included in spite of warning on the

Attestation form. Even in the marriage declaration form

dated 6-5-76, he mentioned that he is married and is having

one living wife. He suppressed the material facts. Thus he

violated Rule 21 of CCS(CCA) Rules and clause 5 of the

schedule of Recruitment rules. 2nd party has further

submitted that enquiry was conducted regarding

chargesheet issued to workman. Enquiry Officer recorded

his findings that charges against workman are proved.

Disciplinary Authority after carefully going through the

Inquiry report, facts and circumstances imposed a major

penalty of compulsory retirement. The appeal preferred

by workman was rejected on 30-5-01. 2nd party reiterates

that the charges against workman are proved. He had not

disclosed information about his first wife Beena in the

declaration form. The misconduct alleged against workman

is proved. Punishment of compulsory retirement against

workman is proper and legal. That CCS Rule 21 Clause V

provides— No person who has entered into or contracted

a marriage with any person who has entered into or

contracted a marriage with any person having a spouse

living or who having a spouse living has entered into or

contracted a marriage with any person shall be eligible for

appointment to any of the said posts. That workman has

performed his 2nd marriage without divorcing his first wife,

he was not eligible for appointment in 1976 itself. That

workman divorced Beenadevi in 1970 and submitted false

and baseless complaints to harass him and he had not

hidden anything from department. 2nd party reiterates that

punishment of compulsory retirement is proper and legal.

Ist party workman submitted rejoinder at Page 8/1 to

8/4 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

As per order dated 18-9-15, enquiry against workman

is found legal.

Considering pleadings on record and order on

preliminary issue, the points which arise for my

consideration and determination are as under. My findings

1246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

are recorded against each of them for the reasons as

below:-

(i) Whether the action of the manage-

In Negative

ment of General Manager, Bank

Note Press, Dewas in compulsorily

retiring Shri Sajjanlal Ghawri w.e.f.

31-8-2000 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

As per order dated 18-9-15, enquiry conducted

against workman is found illegal. As there was no pleading

in Written statement to prove misconduct alleged against

workman, case was fixed for argument. Management has

not participated after finding on preliminary issue. There

is absolutely no evidence to prove charges alleged against

workman. Incidentally I may also refer to the documents

produced by management. Exhibit M-1 is the memorandum

of charges. Exhibit M-2 is declaration submitted by

workman. M-3 is declaration w.r.t. marriage. Workman had

declared that he was married and his one wife was living

Exhibit M-4 is reply to chargesheet submitted by workman.

Exhibit M-5, M-6 are notices of enquiry. Exhibit M-7 is

Enquiry Report, M-8 is the appeal submitted by workman.

Enquiry is found illegal mainly on the ground that the

statement of witnesses recorded before Enquiry Officer

are not produced. After enquiry is found illegal,

management has not taken any steps requesting

permission to prove misconduct alleged against workman.

For want of evidence, it is surprised to say that the charges

alleged against workman are not proved. Exhibit W-1

produced by workman shows that civil suit 752/69 filed

by Beenabai was dismissed as controversy between them

was settled between them out of Court. The suit was

withdrawn.

Learned counsel for Ist party submitted written

notes of argument. 2nd party did not advanced any

argument. For reasons discussed above, I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1

charges alleged against workman are not proved.

Management has not taken any steps to adduce evidence

after finding in Point No.1. As charges are not proved,

punishment of compulsory retirement of workman cannot

be sustained. Punishment imposed against workman

deserves to be quashed and set aside. As workman has

already attained age of superannuation, workman

deserves to be allowed salary from the period of

compulsory retirement till the date of superannuation. The

punishment for deduction of gratuity also deserves to be

quashed. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Punishment of compulsory retirement and deduction

of gratuity by order dated 27-5-01 is set-aside.

(2)

2nd party is directed to pay salary/wages to workman

from date of compulsory retirement i.e. 31-8-2000 till

the date of his superannuation within 30 days from

publication of award.

(3)

Ist party workman also be allowed retiral benefits as

per rules.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 31 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 627-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xzs vk;ju

iQkÅ.Mªh] tcyiqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@112@95) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-03-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@12@94&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 31st March, 2016

S.O. 627 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID Case No.

CGIT/LC/R/112/95) 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 Grey Iron

Foundary, Jabalpur and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 31-03-2016.

[No. L-14012/12/94-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/112/95

Shri Inder Singh Yadav,

Indra Basti,

Behind Marbel Company,

Goara Talab,

Post Prem Nagar, Madan Mahal,

Jabalpur

...Workman

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1247

Versus

General Manager,

Grey Iron Foundary,

Jabalpur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 11th day of March 2016

As per letter dated 9-6-95 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-14012/

12/94-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Grey

Iron Foundry, Jabalpur (MP) in terminating the

services of Shri Inder Singh Yadav, Ex.Electrician

vide order dated 21-2-92 is proper and legal? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 7/1 to 7/2. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

employed with management of 2nd party. His service record

was satisfactory. Chargesheet was issued to him alleging

that he committed theft. On the basis of chargesheet,

enquiry was held against him. On report of Enquiry Officer,

workman was dismissed from service. That enquiry

conducted against him is contrary to principles of natural

justice. Enquiry Officer acted as prosecutor than judge.

Enquiry was not properly conducted. The findings of

Enquiry Officer are perverse. On such ground, workman

prays for his reinstatement.

2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/11

opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that

chargesheet was issued to workman pertaining to attempt

of theft of Government property. The incident was of

19-2-88 at 7 AM. Workman while going out of factory on

completion of night duty on bicycle with a rexine bag hang

on the handle of the cycle. On his search at main gate by

Darban Shri Kamraj, workman was caught with the bag.

Workman snatched bag and started running away. With

the help of other Security Guard , workman was caught on

his search in presence of orderly Shri N.K.Dey. articles

were found in tiffin career were one small foam leather zip

fitted bag, one yellow printed lungi, one sun goggles brown

colour, 3 sets of finger contacts, 8 pieces of loose copper

contacts were seized in presence of witnesses.

Chargesheet was issued to workman. Statement of

witnesses were recorded by orderly Shri N.K. Dey. The

articles were seized on the same day in presence of witness

L.L.Vishwakarma, I.P.Dhanuk, R.C.Puraiya. The

chargesheet was issued to workman, reply was submitted

to chargesheet. Reply submitted by workman was found

unsatisfactory. Shri S.K.Pandey was appointed as Enquiry

Officer. Subsequently Shri Aglave was appointed as

Enquiry Officer. After his transfer, Shri K.B.Bannerjee was

appointed as Enquiry Officer. Shri B.L.Prasad was

appointed as Presenting Officer. After issuing memos,

enquiry was conducted on various dates. 11 witnesses

were examined before the Enquiry Officer. Workman

submitted his defence statement. 4 defence witnesses were

examined. Enquiry Officer submitted finding that charges

alleged against workman were proved. Considering

findings of Enquiry Officer after issuing showcause notice,

punishment of dismissal was imposed against workman

on 21-2-92.

2nd party further submits that service record of

workman was not satisfactory. He was issued several

warnings for past misconducts., 2nd party prays that

reference be answered in its favour.

As per order dated 27-8-2015, enquiry conducted

against workman is found proper and legal.

Considering pleadings on record and findings on

Enquiry, the points which arise for my consideration and

determination are as under. My findings are recorded

against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the misconduct alleged

In Affirmative

against workman is proved from

evidence in Enquiry proceedings?

(ii) Whether the punishment of

In Affirmative

dismissal imposed against

workman is proper and legal?

(iii) If not, what relief the workman

Workman is

is entitled to?”

not entitled to

any relief.

REASONS

Whether the misconduct alleged against workman

are proved needs to be decided from evidence in Enquiry

Proceedings. The record of Enquiry Proceedings is

produced at Exhibit M-1. Learned counsel for Ist party

workman did not advance any argument w.r.t. evidence

of management’s witnesses in Enquiry Proceedings. As

pointed out by Shri A.K.Shashi for management, the

evidence of management’s witnesses is recorded. The

witnesses of the management were cross-examined.

Workman examined 4 witnesses in support of his defence.

All the statements are at Page 9/26, 9/41 to 9/43, 9/47, 9/51,

9/54, 9/58, 9/62 and 9/69. The material seized from workman

was not disputed.

Learned counsel for Ist party workman during course

of argument emphasized that the charge of committing

theft or attempt to commit theft cannot be proved from

evidence in Enquiry Proceedings as no evidence is

adduced that articles alleged to have been recovered from

workman were Government property. Any register was not

produced before Enquiry Officer. The theft of Government

property was not proved from management’s witnesses.

The incident was not reported to police. Workman was

1248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

not prosecuted on report of management. It is emphasized

that for absence of evidence about identity of article as

Government property, the charge of theft or attempt of

theft cannot be proved. The chargesheet issued to

workman at Page 9/28 pertain to on search of workman by

Darban Kamraj, Government property were found in his

possession without authority. The recovery of the articles

from workman after his search is established from evidence

of the management’s witnesses.

Learned counsel for Ist party workman Shri

R.C.Shrivastava did not advance any argument about the

evidence of management’s witnesses. The detailed

discussion of evidence of management’s witnesses is not

required.

10.

Management’s witness Shri M.L.Vishwakarma in his

statement narrates the incident that workman was caught,

a tiffin of stainless steel was found. The articles of electrical

were recovered from the tiffin of Ist party workman. Similar

evidence is given by other witnesses of management that

the articles were seized preparing seizure memo. As no

argument have been advanced about the evidence of

management’s witness by Shri R.C.Shrivastava, detailed

discussion about quality of the evidence of management’s

witnesses is not necessary.

11.

No evidence is adduced that these were government

property, the workman did not claim during Enquiry

Proceedings that the articles belongs to him. The workman

was apprehended while leaving factory premises after

night duty. The incident occurred within the factory

premises. Workman has not explained how the electrical

articles recovered from him were found in his possession.

The charge is not exactly of committing theft or attempt

to commit theft but the charge is the articles of government

property were found in his possession constituting

misconduct an act unbecoming on part of Government

servant. The evidence is sufficient to prove charges alleged

against workman. The evidence of management’s

witnesses in Enquiry Proceedings does not require re-

appreciation as scope of judicial review is limited. For

reasons discussed above, I record my finding in Point

No.1 in Affirmative.

12.

Point No. 2- Punishment of dismissal is imposed

against workman. The charge alleged against workman

that he was found carrying government property is proved

from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. The charge proved

against workman is of serious nature. The punishment of

dismissal cannot be said excessive or disproportionate to

the proved misconduct. Therefore I record my finding in

Point No. 2 in Affirmative.

13.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Grey Iron Foundry,

Jabalpur (MP) in terminating the services of

Shri Inder Singh Yadav, Ex.Electrician vide order

dated 21-2-92 is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 31 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 628-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWiQ

VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] Hkksiky ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@110@2001) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-03-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@72@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 31st March, 2016

S.O. 628 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID Case No.

CGIT/LC/R/110/2001) 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 Telecommunication, Bhopal and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 31-03-2016.

[No. L-40012/72/2001-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/110/2001

Shri Kamal Singh,

S/o Gopal Singh,

Vill & PO Mawan,

Tehsil & Distt. Guna

Guna(MP)

...Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. Of Telecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road, MP Circle,

Bhopal (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of March, 2016

As per letter dated 30-5-2001 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1249

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-40012/

72/2001/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Telecom

District Engineer (Phones), Guna in terminating Shri

Kamal Singh, S/o Shri Gopal Singh w.e.f. 1-4-2000 is

justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled

to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 4/1 to 4/6. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

initially appointed in 4-4-89 for performing duties of phone

mechanic on daily wage basis. His appointment was

continued uninterruptedly till 31-3-2000. He was orally

terminated without issuing notice. Salary in lieu of notice,

retrenchment compensation was also not paid to him. His

services were terminated without assigning reasons. He

completed about 12 years continuous service. He

completed more than 240 days service during each of the

year.

2nd party had not displayed list of all workmen of

the categories working like him on notice board seven

days before termination of his services. 2nd party violated

Rule 77 of ID Central Rules 1957. Policy of last come first

go was not followed while terminating his services. Number

of daily wage employees were retained appointed

subsequent to his termination. Workman was not re-

engaged. That as per judgment in case, daily rated casual

labours versus Union of India reported in AIR-1987-

SC2342, the workman was not absorbed/ regularized in

service. The 2nd party engaged other daily wage workman

violating Section 25 H of ID Act. Ist party alleges

termination of his service from 1-3-97 is in violation of

Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act. His termination of service is

also alleged to be unfair labour practice. By amendment,

Ist party workman submits that after termination of his

service, he has no source of livelihood, he is not in gainful

employment. On such ground, workman prays for his

reinstatement with backwages.

2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of

the Ist party. That workman was not appointed on daily

wages. He is not covered as workman. It is reiterated that

the workman was not appointed in 1987. The post of DET

was not created at Guna. The vacancies were not

published. Workman was not posted at Guna as labour in

1987. The engagement of daily wage workers was

prohibited since 1985.

2nd party further submits that for petty work or time

bound work, the management engaged few labours on

piece rate basis. On completion of such petty work, labours

engaged were automatically retrenched. Workman had not

completed 240 days continuous service. The labours

engaged on daily wages were paid by local officers. The

rate of petty work, time bound work was fixed time to time

before engaging workman. Ist party workman had not

completed 240 days continuous service. He was not

retained by 2nd party. Provisions of ID Act pertain to

issuing notice of retrenchment or payment of retrenchment

compensation are not applicable. The engagement of daily

wage labours was prohibited since 1985. There was no

question of preparing list as per Rule 77 of ID Central

Rules 1958. That for execution of petty work, no record

was maintained. Workman was neither appointed nor

terminated by 2nd party. Violation of Section 25-F, G, H of

ID Act is denied. 2nd party prays that reference be

answered in its favour.

Ist party workman filed rejoinder reiterating his

contentions in statement of claim. 2nd party denied that

workman completed 240 days continuous service.

Additional Written Statement is filed by 2nd party

after amendment in statement of claim. 2nd party contends

that the workman engaged for specific work were given

understanding that after completion of work, their services

would come to end automatically.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the manage-

In Negative

ment of Telecom District Engineer

(Phones), Guna in terminating

Shri Kamal Singh, S/o Shri Gopal

Singh w.e.f. 1-4-2000 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

order

REASONS

Ist party workman is challenging termination of his

service for violation of Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act, Rule 77

of ID Central Rules 1957. The application for production

of documents was filed by Ist party on 19-9-07. The

application was opposed by management. As per order

dated 14-7-09, 2nd party was directed to produce

documents relating to payments made to daily wage

labours. The documents are not produced.

10.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting

his contentions in statement of claim that he was engaged

on daily wages from 4-4-89 to 31-3-2000 for a period of 12

years. He completed more than 240 days service during

each of the relevant year. He submitted application for

regularization in 1998. He was not given benefit of circular

dated 10-9-93. Temporary status was not allowed to him.

His services were orally terminated on 1-4-2000 without

issuing notice. Retrenchment compensation was not paid

to him. In his cross-examination, he passed 8th standard.

Appointment letter was not received by him. He not

received letter from Employment Exchange. In Para 4 of

his affidavit, he has stated that circular was issued by

1250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Post and Telecom deptt. He denied that he did not worked

with the 2nd party. That he produced documents muster

roll. He denies that muster roll produced by him is forged

document.

11.

Ist party filed affidavit of witness Kaluram about

working in telecom department from 4-4-89 for a period of

12 years. Wages were paid in first week of the month

obtaining signatures on the receipt. Workman completed

240 days continuous service during each of the year. His

services orally terminated without notice. Retrenchment

compensation was not paid. In his cross-examination, he

denies that as dispute raised by him is pending and

workman given evidence in his matter, therefore he was

giving evidence to support claim of workman. He denies

that he was not working with workman. They were working

separately for 1-2 years. He denies they were working under

contractor. Witness was unable to tell how many days

workman was working in a month but he added that

workman was continuously working. The suggestion is

denied that workman not completed 240 days service.

12.

Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Gajendra

Singh Senger. In his affidavit of evidence, management’s

witness says workman did not work in Telephone

Exchange, he not completed 240 days working. Workman

was not appointed by 2nd party. The cross-examination

of management’s witness was recorded in R/156/01, its

certified copy is produced on record. Management’s

witness in his cross-examination says he was posted at

GTO/SDO at Gwalior during 1986 to 1999. That any

document regarding working of the Ist party were not

available with the department. Presently daily wage

employee were not working. Work pertaining to cable line

fault, digging ditches was carried by calling tender after

issuing publication. The process of calling tender requires

one month time. The tender used to be for a period of one

year. The work of cable fault and digging ditches is carried

as petty work engaging labours for short period. The

labours engaged for petty work are paid from Advance

fund of the department. The wages for short period of

works are paid every day for the wages w.r.t. long period

of work are paid by Accounts Office preparing bill and

verifying it. 2nd party has not produced any of the bills or

any record of payment of management’s witness is not

supported by documents. The evidence of Ist party and

his witness is not shattered about workman was working

with 2nd party on daily wages from 4-4-89 to 31-3-2000. If

evidence of both parties is carefully scrutinized, it is clear

that evidence of workman is corroborated by witness

whereas evidence of management’s witness Gajendra

Singh is not corroborated by any documents.

13.

During course of argument, learned counsel for 2nd

party Shri R.S.Khare submits that the witness of Ist party

is interested witness. He is trying to support claim of

workman cannot be believed. The evidence of Ist party

witness is that he was working along with workman as

such he is co-employee and I find no reason to disbelieve

his unshattered evidence. The argument advanced by

Shri R.S.Khare that witness of workman in his cross-

examination says that workman worked for 26 days only,

the evidence is not sufficient to establish 240 days

continuous service cannot be accepted. Witness of Ist

party Shri Kamal Singh in his cross-examination says

workman was working for 26 days during each of the

month.

14.

Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri R.S.Khare relifs

on ratio held in

Case of Batala Coop Sugar Mills versus Sowaran

Singh reported in 2005(8) SCC-481. Their Lordship

dealing with Section 25-F, H of ID Act held that

burden of proof lies on workman to prove 240 days

continuous service.

The evidence of workman and his witness is not

shattered on the point workman was continuously working

from September 1987 to 28-2-97. The evidence on record

shows that workman completed 240 days continuous

service preceding 12 months of his termination. His services

are terminated without notice without displaying list of

the labours on notice board. The termination of service of

Ist party workman is in violation of Section 25-F, G and

Rule 77 of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my finding

in Point No.1 in Negative.

15.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1

termination of services of workman is illegal, question

remains whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with

backwages. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri N.K.Salunke

relies on ratio held in case between

Ashok Kumar Sharma versus Oberoi Flight Services

reported in 2010(1)SCC-142. In above said case,

workman was working as loader, he was found

carrying 30KLM (a foreign airline) soup spoons

illegally in his shoe. Workman admitted guilt in

writing and so he was dismissed from service. The

order of his compensation Rs.60,000 was set-aside.

The compensation was enhanced to Rs. 2 Lakhs.

The facts of present case are not comparable. Ratio

cannot be applied to case at hand as in above case,

workman had admitted charges in writing.

In case of Deepali Gunhdu Surwase versus Kranti

Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and others

reported in 2013(10)SCC-324. Their Lordship held

that denial of full backwages on reinstatement

awarded by Tribunal. Their Lordship held that

reinstatement entitles such employee to claim full

backwages. Denial of backwabges would amount to

indirectly punishing the employee and rewarding

employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay

backwages.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1251

The facts of above case are not comparable as in

above cited case the appellant was appointed as teacher

in primary school run by a trust. The appellant teacher

had refused to contribute Rs.1500 per month towards the

tax liability. Towards recovery of tax of Rs. 79,974/-.

Thereafter 25 memos were issued to appellant and the

appellant was suspended. The ratio cannot be applied to

case at hand.

The copies of award in R/26/01, 25/01 are also

submitted by Ist party workman. The evidence adduced

in the case is not comparable. Each case requires to be

decided on the evidence adduced by the parties.

16.

Shri R.S. Khare, learned counsel for 2nd party relies

on ratio held in

Case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development

Corporation and another versus Gitam Singh

reported in 2013(5)SCC-136. Their Lordship

considering service of daily wager who worked for

short period of 240 days only terminated by appellant

employer in 1991 in contravention of Sec. 25-F of ID

Act. The award of reinstatement with continuity of

service with 25 % backwages was setaside and

compensation Rs. 50,000 was allowed.

In present case, the evidence on record shows

workman was working from 4-4-89 to 31-3-00 and not only

for 240 days therefore the ratio held in the case cannot be

applied to case at hand.

In case of MP State Agro Industries Development

and another versus Shri S.C. Pandey reported in

2006(2)SCC-716. Their Lordship dealing with status

of daily wager held daily wager doesnot hold a post

as he is not appointed in terms of the provisions of

the Act and rules framed there under and therefore

he doesnot derive any legal right. It is held that only

because a temporary employee completes said

period of service that by itself would not confer any

legal right upon him to be regularized in service.

Their Lordship allowed compensation Rs.10,000/-.

In case between Secretary, State of Karnataka and

others versus Umadevi and others reported in

2006(4)SCC-1. Their Lordship dealing with public

employment- Absoirption, regularization or

permanent continuance of temporary contractual,

casual daily wage or adhoc employees appointed/

recruited and continued for long in public

employment dehors the constitutional scheme of

public employment. It is erroneous for supreme court

to merely consider equity for the handful of people

who have approached the court with a claim whilst

ignoring equity for the teeming millions seeking

employment and a fair opportunity for completing

for employment. Further courts must be careful in

ensuring that they donot interfere unduly with the

economical/ financial arrangement of the affairs of

the State or its instrumentalities.

As evidence of workman shows that he was working

from 4-4-89 to 31-3-00 and termination of his service is

without notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid

to him. The pleadings and evidence of workman doesnot

show what rate of wages were paid to him.

17.

The evidence of workman shows he was not

appointed following recruitment procedure. He was

engaged on daily wages. Reinstatement of workman is

not justified. Considering the period of work,

compensation Rs. One Lakh would be appropriate.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.

18.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Telecom District

Engineer (Phones), Guna in terminating Shri Kamal

Singh, S/o Shri Gopal Singh w.e.f. 1-4-2000 is not

proper and legal.

(2)

2nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. One

Lakh to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 31 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 629-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWiQ

VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] Hkksiky ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@109@2001) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-03-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@73@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 31st March, 2016

S.O. 629.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID Case No.

CGIT/LC/R/109/2001) 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 Telecommunication, Bhopal and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 31-03-2016.

[No. L-40012/73/2001-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

1252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/109/2001

Shri Kaluram, S/o Shri Lalaram,

Ward No. 24, Shri Ram Colony,

Guna (MP)

...Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. Of Telecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road, MP Circle,

Bhopal (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of March, 2016

As per letter dated 30-5-2001 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-40012/73/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under reference

relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Telecom

District Engineer (Phones), Guna in terminating Shri

Kaluram S/o Shri Lalaram w.e.f. 1-4-2000 is justified?

If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 5/1 to 2/5. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

initially appointed in 1-3-1988 for performing duties of

phone mechanic on daily wage basis. His appointment

was continued uninterruptedly till 31-3-2000. He was orally

terminated without issuing notice. Salary in lieu of notice,

retrenchment compensation was also not paid to him. His

services were terminated without assigning reasons. He

completed 9 years 6 months continuous service. He

completed more than 240 days service during each of the

year.

2nd party had not displayed list of all workmen of

the categories working like him on notice board seven

days before termination of his services. 2nd party violated

Rule 77 of ID Central Rules 1957. Policy of last come first

go was not followed while terminating his services. Number

of daily wage employees were retained appointed

subsequent to his termination. Workman was not re-

engaged. That as per judgment in case, daily rated casual

labours versus Union of India reported in AIR-1987-SC2-

342, the workman was not absorbed/regularized in service.

The 2nd party engaged other daily wage workman

violating Section 25 H of ID Act. Ist party alleges

termination of his service from 31-3-2000 is in violation of

Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act. His termination of service is

also alleged to be unfair labour practice. By amendment,

Ist party workman submits that after termination of his

service, he has no source of livelihood, he is not in gainful

employment. On such ground, workman prays for his

reinstatement with backwages.

2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of

the Ist party. That workman was not appointed on daily

wages. He is not covered as workman. It is reiterated that

the workman was not appointed in 1988. The post of DET

was not created at Guna. The vacancies were not

published. Workman was not posted at Guna as labour in

1988. The engagement of daily wage workers was

prohibited since 1985.

2nd party further submits that for petty work or time

bound work, the management engaged few labours on

piece rate basis. On completion of such petty work, labours

engaged were automatically retrenched. Workman had not

completed 240 days continuous service. The labours

engaged on daily wages were paid by local officers. The

rate of petty work, time bound work was fixed time to time

before engaging workman. Ist party workman had not

completed 240 days continuous service. He was not

retained by 2nd party. Provisions of ID Act pertain to

issuing notice of retrenchment or payment of retrenchment

compensation are not applicable. The engagement of daily

wage labours was prohibited since 1985. There was no

question of preparing list as per Rule 77 of ID Central Rules

1958. That for execution of petty work, no record was

maintained. Workman was neither appointed nor terminated

by 2nd party. Violation of Section 25 F, G, H of ID Act is

denied. 2nd party prays that reference be answered in its

favour.

Ist party workman filed rejoinder reiterating his

contentions in statement of claim. 2nd party denied that

workman completed 240 days continuous service.

Additional Written Statement is filed by 2nd party

after amendment in statement of claim. 2nd party contends

that the workman engaged for specific work were given

understanding that after completion of work, their services

would come to end automatically.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the manage-

In Negative

ment of Telecom District Engineer

(Phones), Guna in terminating

Shri Kaluram S/o Shri Lalaram

w.e.f. 1-4-2000 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

order

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1253

REASONS

Ist party workman is challenging termination of his

service for violation of Section 25 F, G, H of ID Act, Rule 77

of ID Central Rules 1957. The application for production

of documents was filed by Ist party on 8-10-08. The

application was opposed by management. As per order

dated 14-7-09, management was directed to produce the

documents about payment made to daily wages. The

documents are not produced by 2nd party.

10.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting

contentions in statement of claim that he was engaged on

daily wages from 1-3-88. He worked for 13 years. He

completed 240 days continuous service. He was

terminated on 1-4-04 without notice, he was given benefit

of circular dated 10-9-92. He worked more than 240 days

during each of the year. In his cross-examination, workman

says appointment letter was not received by him, he did

not received letter from Employment Exchange. It is

reiterated that he was working in Telecom office. He denies

that he was working in post and telegraph office. He denied

working under contractor.

11.

Affidavit of witness Shri Kamal Singh supported

that he was working with workman from 1-3-1988 in Telecom

Office, Guna. He completed more than 240 days during

each of the calendar year. His services were orally

terminated on 1-4-00. In his cross-examination, the reference

pertains to his termination is pending. Workman would be

as witness in his case. He wag working with Ist party

workman sometimes they were working separately. They

were working separately together for six months.

Thereafter they were workmg together. He was working

with workman Shri Kaluram since 1987. He denies that he

is giving evidence as instructed by workman. He was

unable to tell for how many days Shri Kaluram worked

with him in 1988. The evidence of witness that he was

working alongwith workman Kaluram is not shattered. He

denies that Kaluram not completed 240 days working.

12.

Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Gajendra

Singh Senger. In his affidavit of evidence, management’s

witness says workman did not work in Telephone

Exchange, he not completed 240 days working. Workman

was not appointed by 2nd party. The cross-examination

of management’s witness was recorded in R/156/01, its

certified copy is produced on record. Management’s

witness in his cross-examination says he was posted at

GTO/SDO at Gwalior during 1986 to 1999. That any

document regarding working of the Ist party were not

available with the department. Presently daily wage

employee were not working. Work pertaining to cable line

fault, digging ditches was carried by calling tender after

issuing publication. The process of calling tender requires

one month time. The tender used to be for a period of one

year. The work of cable fault and digging ditches is carried

as petty work engaging labours for short period. The

labours engaged for petty work are paid from Advance

fund of the department. The wages for short period of

works are paid every day for the wages w.r.t. long period

of work are paid by Accounts Office preparing bill and

verifying it. 2nd party has not produced any of the bills or

any record of payment of management’s witness is not

supported by documents. The evidence of Ist party and

his witness Kamal Singh is not shattered about workman

was working with 2nd party on daily wages from 1-3-88 to

31-3-2000. If evidence of both parties is carefully

scrutinized, it is clear that evidence of workman is

corroborated by witness Kamal Singh whereas evidence

of management’s witness Gajendra Singh is not

corroborated by any documents.

13.

During course of argument, learned counsel for 2nd

party Shri R.S. Khare submits that the witness of Ist party

is interested witness. He is trying to support claim of

workman cannot be believed. The evidence of 1st party

witness is’ that he was working alongwith workman as

such he is eo-employee and I find no reason to disbelieve

his unshattered evidence. The argument advanced by Shri

R.S. Khare that evidence is not sufficient to establish 240

days continuous service cannot be accepted.

14.

Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri R.S. Khare relies

on ratio held in

Case of Batala Coop Sugar Mills versus Sowaran

Singh reported in 2005(8) SCC-481. Their Lordship

dealing with Section 25-F, H of ID Act held that

burden of proof lies on workman to prove 240 days

continuous service.

The evidence of workman and his witness is not

shattered on the point workman was continuously working

from 1-3-88 to 31-3-2000. The evidence on record shows

that workman completed 240 days continuous service

preceding 12 months of his termination. His services are

terminated without notice without displaying list of the

labours on notice board. The termination of service of Ist

party workman is in violation of Section 25-F, G and Rule

77 of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in

Point No.1 in Negative.

15.

Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No. l

termination of services of workman is illegal, question

remains whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with

backwages. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri N.K. Salunke

relies on ratio held in case between

Ashok Kumar Sharma versus Oberoi Flight Services

reported in 2010(1) SCC-142. In above said case,

workman was working as loader, he was found

carrying 30KLM (a foreign airline) soup spoons

illegally in his shoe. Workman admitted guilt in

writing and so he was dismissed from service. The

order of his compensation Rs. 60,000 was set-aside.

The compensation was enhanced to Rs. 2 Lakhs.

1254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The facts of present case are not comparable. Ratio

cannot be applied to case at hand as in above case,

workman had admitted charges in writing.

In case of Deepali Gunhdu Surwase versus Kranti

Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and others

reported in 2013(10) SCC-324. Their Lordship held

that denial of full backwages on reinstatement

awarded by Tribunal. Their Lordship held that

reinstatement entitles such employee to claim full

backwages. Denial of backwabges would amount

toindirectly punishing the employee and rewarding

employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay

backwages.

The facts of above case are not comparable as in

above cited case the appellant was appointed as

teacher in primary school run by a trust. The

appellant teacher had refused to contribute Rs.1500

per month towards the tax liability. Towards recovery

of tax of Rs. 79,974/-. Thereafter 25 memos were

issued to appellant and the appellant was

suspended. The ratio cannot be applied to case at

hand.

The copies of award in R/26/01, 25/01 are also

submitted by Ist party workman. The evidence adduced

in the case is not comparable. Each case requires to be

decided on the evidence adduced by the parties.

16.

Shri R.S. Khare, learned counsel for 2nd party relies

on ratio held in

Case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development

Corporation and another versus Gitam Singh

reported in 2013(5)SCC-136. Their Lordship

considering service of daily wager who worked for

short period of 240 days only terminated by appellant

employer in 1991 in contravention of Sec. 25-F of ID

Act. The award of reinstatement with continuity of

service with 25 % backwages was setaside and

compensation Rs. 50,000 was allowed.

In present case, the evidence on record shows

workman was working from 1-3-88 to 31-3-2000 and not

only for 240 days therefore the ratio held in the case cannot

be applied to case at hand.

In case of MP State Agro Industries Development

and another versus Shri S.C. Pandey reported in

2006(2)SCC-716. Their Lordship dealing with status

of daily wager held daily wager doesnot hold a post

as he is not appointed in terms of the provisions of

the Act and rules framed there under and therefore

he doesnot derive any legal right. It is held that only

because a temporary employee completes said

period of service that by itself would not confer any

legal right upon him to be regularized in service.

Their Lordship allowed compensation Rs. 10,000/-.

In case between Secretary, State of Karnataka and

others versus Umadevi and others reported in 2006

(4) SCC-1. Their Lordship dealing with public

employment- Absoirption, regularization or

permanent continuance of temporary contractual,

casual daily wage or ad hoc employees appointed/

recruited and continued for long in public

employment dehors the constitutional scheme of

public employment. It is erroneous for supreme court

to merely consider equity for the handful of people

who have approached the court with a claim whilst

ignoring equity for the teeming millions seeking

employment and a fair opportunity for completing

for employment. Further courts must be careful in

ensuring that they donot interfere unduly with the

economicall financial arrangement of the affairs of

the State or its instrumentalities.

As evidence of workman shows that he was working

from 1-3-88 to 31-3-2000 termination of his service is

without notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid

to him. The pleadings and evidence of workman doesnot

show what rate of wages were paid to him.

17.

The evidence of workman shows he was not

appointed following recruitment procedure. He was

engaged on daily wages. Reinstatement of workman is

not justified. Considering the period of work, compensation

Rs. One Lakh would be appropriate. Accordingly I record

my finding in Point No. 2.

18.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Telecom District

Engineer (Phones), Guna in terminating Shri Kaluram

S/o Shri Lalaram w.e.f. 1-4-2000 is not proper and

legal.

(2)

2nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. One

Lakh to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 31 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 630-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWiQ

VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] Hkksiky ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@156@2001) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-03-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@155@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1255

New Delhi, the 31st March, 2016

S.O. 630.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID Case No.

CGIT/LC/R/156/2001) 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 Telecommunication, Bhopal and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 31-03-2016.

[No. L-40012/155/2001-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/156/2001

Shri Chhotelal S/o Shri Komalsingh,

R/o Vill Amanchar, PO Patharki

Tehsil Mungawali,

Distt. Guna

...Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. of Telecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road, MP Circle,

Bhopal (MP)

Distt. Engineer (Phones),

Guna

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of March, 2016

As per letter dated 9-10-2001 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/

155/2001/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Telecom

District Engineer (Phones), Guna in terminating Shri

Chhotelal S/o Shri Komal singh w.e.f. 21-2-98 is

justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled

to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 2/1 to 2/6. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

initially appointed in 8-8-87 for performing duties of phone

mechanic on daily wage basis. His appointment was

continued uninterruptedly till 21-2-99. He was orally

terminated without issuing notice. Salary in lieu of notice,

retrenchment compensation was also not paid to him. His

services were terminated without assigning reasons. He

completed 9 years continuous service. He completed more

than 240 days service during each of the year.

2nd party had not displayed list of all workmen of

the categories working like him on notice board seven

days before termination of his services. 2nd party violated

Rule 77 of ID Central Rules 1957. Policy of last come first

go was not followed while terminating his services. Number

of daily wage employees were retained appointed

subsequent to his termination. Workman was not re-

engaged. That as per judgment in case, daily rated casual

labours versus Union of India reported in AIR-1987-SC

2342, the workman was not absorbed/ regularized in service.

The 2nd party engaged other daily wage workman violating

Section 25 H of ID Act. Ist party alleges termination of his

service from 21-2-99 is in violation of Section 25-F,G,H of

ID Act. His termination of service is also alleged to be

unfair labour practice. By amendment, Ist party workman

submits that after termination of his service, he has no

source of livelihood, he is not in gainful employment. On

such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with

backwages.

2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of

the Ist party at Page 5/5 to 5/5. 2nd party contends that

workman was not appointed on 1-1-1989 as Telephone

labour. The post of SDO(T) was not created at Guna. The

vacancy was not published. Workman was not posted as

Telephone labour. Since 1985, appointment on daily ages

were banned. 2nd party submits that for paid work/ time

bound work, management engaged few labours on piece

rate basis. After completion of time bound work, labours

were automatically retrenched. For new work, again local

officers engaged labour as per requirement in different

stations. D.M. Guna fixed the rate of petty work/ time

bound work from time to time before engaging any

workman. The labours so engaged were given

understanding that on completion of work, they would

not be continued. Workman not completed 240 days

continuous service. There is no question of payment of

retrenchment compensation or issuing notice under ID

Act. It is contented that as workman was not appointed,

there was no question of displaying list of workers as per

Rule 77 of ID Central Rules 1957. It is submitted that

principle of last come first go is not applicable as workman

was not appointed nor terminated by the management. No

record is maintained regarding execution of petty work,

time bound work. It is reiterated that workman has not

completed 240 days service during any of the year. He not

completed 240 days continuous service. 2nd party prays

that reference be answered in its favour.

Ist party workman filed rejoinder reiterating his

contentions in statement of claim. 2nd party denied that

workman completed 240 days continuous service.

Additional Written Statement is filed by 2nd party

after amendment in statement of claim. 2nd party contends

1256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that the workman engaged for specific work were given

understanding that after completion of work, their services

would come to end automatically.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the manage-

In Affirmative

ment of Telecom District Engineer

(Phones), Guna in terminating

Shri Chhotelal S/o Shri Komal

Singh w.e.f. 21-2-98 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

Workman is

entitled to?”

not entitled to

any relief.

REASONS

Ist party workman is challenging termination of his

service for violation of Section 25-F, G,H of ID Act, Rule 77

of ID Central Rules 1957. The application for production

of documents was filed by Ist party on 16-6-05. The

application was opposed by management. As per order

dated 8-4-08, workman was given liberty to prove the

documents required.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting

his contentions in statement of claim that he was engaged

on daily wages from 8-8-87. He worked continuously for

10 years 6 months. He completed more than 240 days

continuous service during each of the year. He was not

granted temporary status. He was not given benefit of

circular dated 10-9-93. His services were orally terminated

on 21-2-98. In his cross-examination, workman says

appointment letter was not issued to him. He had not

received letter from Employment Exchange. He was working

at Guna, Raghavgarh, Kherai, he was appointed in 1987

by SDO. Appointment letter in writing was not given to

him. He was discontinued in 1993. He denies that he had

not completed 240 days continuous service.

10.

Ist party filed affidavit of witness Hargovind

supporting evidence of workman that he was engaged on

daily wages in 1987. He was working till Feb 1998 for period

of 10 ½ years they were working at different places. The

payment were made obtaining signatures on receipt duly

stamped. Workman completed 240 days continuous

service.

11.

In his cross-examination, witness of Ist party says

the dispute raised by him is pending. He denies that he

had given evidence in other cases. He was unable to tell in

how many cases, he had given evidence. He denies

workman had not worked for more than 240 days. In his

further cross-examination, witness says that he was

working in the department since 1957-58.

12.

Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Gajendra

Singh Senger. In his affidavit of evidence, management’s

witness says workman did not work in Telephone

Exchange, he not completed 240 days working. Workman

was not appointed by 2nd party. Management’s witness

in his cross-examination says he was posted at GTO/SDO

at Gwalior during 1986 to 1999. That any document

regarding working of the Ist party were not available with

the department. Presently daily wage employee were not

working. Work pertaining to cable line fault, digging ditches

was carried by calling tender after issuing publication.

The process of calling tender requires one month time.

The tender used to be for a period of one year. The work of

cable fault and digging ditches is carried as petty work

engaging labouts for short period. The labours engaged

for petty work are paid from Advance fund of the

department. The wages for short period of works are paid

every day for the wages w.r.t. long period of work are paid

by Accounts Office preparing bill and verifying it. 2nd

party has not produced any of the bills or any record of

payment of management’s witness is not supported by

documents.

13.

Learned counsel for Ist party Shri N.K. Salunke at

the time of argument submitted that evidence of witness

working since 1957-58 is wrongly recorded. The counsel

for 2nd party Shri R.S. Khare pointed out that witness is

not re-examined for explaining evidence therefore argument

advanced by learned counsel for Ist party on the point

cannot be accepted. The evidence of Ist party and his

witness is not consistent. When workman in his cross

examination says he was discontinued in 1993, he did not

work after 1993. His pleading and evidence are silent as to

again when he was engaged. The evidence of workman

and his witness is not sufficient to establish that workman

was continuously working from 1987 to February 1998.

It is difficult to believe that workman had worked for

240 days.

14.

Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri R.S. Khare relies

on ratio held in

Case of Batala Coop Sugar Mills versus Sowaran

Singh reported in 2005(8) SCC-481. Their Lordship

dealing with Section 25-F, H of ID Act held that

burden of proof lies on workman to prove 240 days

continuous service.

As workman himself admitted that not completed

240 days continuous service during any of the year,

evidence of witnesses for the workman cannot be accepted

on the point that workman completed 240 days continuous

service. Workman has not produced any documents in

support of his evidence. As such workman has failed to

discharge ownus that he completed 240 days continuous

service. Therefore the termination of services of workman

in violation of Section 25-F, G of ID Act is not established.

Therefore I record my finding in Point A No.1 in Affirmative.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1257

15.

Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No.1

workman has failed to establish termination of his service

is illegal for violation of Section 25-F, G of ID Act, the ratio

held in various cases by both the parties needs no detailed

discussion.

16.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Telecom District

Engineer (Phones), Guna in terminating Shri

Chhotelal S/o Shri Komal singh w.e.f. 21-2-98 is

proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 31 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 631-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWiQ

VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] Hkksiky ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@24@2001) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-03-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@408@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 31st March, 2016

S.O. 631.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID Case No.

CGIT/LC/R/24/2001) 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 Telecommunication, Bhopal and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 31-03-2016.

[No. L-40012/408/2000-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/24/2001

Shri Ramsingh, S/o Moolchand

Kapra Mohalla, H/o Dr. Chouhan,

Near Hanuman Chhattri, Raghogarh,

Guna

...Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. of Telecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road, MP Circle,

Bhopal (MP)

Distt. Engineer (Phones),

Guna

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of March, 2016

As per letter dated 27-12-2000 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-

40012/408/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference

relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of District

Engineer (Phones), Guna in terminating Shri

Ramsingh S/o Moolchand in the year 1999 is

justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled

to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 2/1 to 2/7. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

initially appointed in 15-12-1988 for performing duties of

phone mechanic on daily wage basis. His appointment

was continued uninterruptedly till 31-3-99. He was orally

terminated without issuing notice. Salary in lieu of notice,

retrenchment compensation was also not paid to him. His

services were terminated without assigning reasons. He

completed 9 years 6 months continuous service. He

completed more than 240 days service during each of the

year.

2nd party had not displayed list of all workmen of

the categories working like him on notice board seven

days before termination of his services. 2nd party violated

Rule 77 of ID Central Rules 1957. Policy of last come first

go was not followed while terminating his services. Number

of daily wage employees were retained appointed

subsequent to his termination. Workman was not re-

engaged. That as per judgment in case, daily rated casual

labours versus Union of India reported in AIR-1987-SC

2342, the workman was not absorbed/ regularized in service.

The 2nd party engaged other daily wage workman

violating Section 25 H of ID Act. Ist party alleges

termination of his service from 31-3-99 is in violation of

Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act. His termination of service is

also alleged to be unfair labour practice. By amendment,

Ist party workman submits that after termination of his

service, he has no source of livelihood, he is not in gainful

employment. On such ground, workman prays for his

reinstatement with backwages.

2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of

the Ist party. That workman was not appointed on daily

wages. He is not covered as workman. It is reiterated that

the workman was not appointed in 1988. The post of DET

was not created at Guna. The vacancies were not

1258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

published. Workman was not posted at Guna as labour in

1988. The engagement of daily wage workers was

prohibited since 1985.

2nd party further submits that for petty work or time

bound work, the management engaged few labours on

piece rate basis. On completion of such petty work, labours

engaged were automatically retrenched. Workman had not

completed 240 days continuous service. The labours

engaged on daily wages were paid by local officers. The

rate of petty work, time bound work was fixed time to time

before-engaging workman. Ist party workman had not

completed 240 days continuous service. He was not

retained by 2nd party. Provisions of ID Act pertain to

issuing notice of retrenchment or payment of retrenchment

compensation are not applicable. The engagement of daily

wage labours was prohibited since 1985. There was no

question of preparing list as per Rule 77 of ID Central

Rules 1958. That for execution of petty work, no record

was maintained. Workman was neither appointed nor

terminated by 2nd party. Violation of Section 25-F, G, H of

ID Act is denied. 2nd party prays that reference be

answered in its favour.

Ist party workman filed rejoinder reiterating his

contentions in statement of claim. 2nd party denied that

workman completed 240 days continuous service.

Additional Written Statement is filed by 2nd party

after amendment in statement of claim. 2nd party contends

that the workman engaged for specific work were given

understanding that after completion of work, their services

would come to end automatically.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the manage-

In Negative

ment of District Engineer (Phones),

Guna in terminating Shri Ramsingh

S/o Moolchand in the year 1999 is

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order

REASONS

Ist party workman is challenging termination of his

service for violation of Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act, Rule 77

of ID Central Rules 1957. The application for production

of documents was filed by Ist party on 9-9-07. The

application was opposed by management. As per order

dated 26-6-09, workman was given liberty to prove the

documents required.

10.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting

his contentions in statement of claim that he was engaged

on daily wages from 15-12-88 . He worked for 10 years 3

months. He completed 240-days continuous service. He

submitted application for reinstatement on 23-2-98. His

service terminated on 31-3-99 without notice. In his cross-

examination workman says he passed HSc, presently

working as labour. Appointment letter was not given to

him. He not received interview call. He did not received

letter from Employment Exchange. The list was displayed

including his name. the name of about 20-25 persons were

in the list. He was working in Telephone department, Guna

District. He worked for 4 years at Raghavgarh. He also

worked at Kamrag Exchange. He denied that he has not

completed 240 days continuous service. Argument

advanced by Shri R.S. Khare that in para 12 of his cross,

workman admitted that he had not completed 240 days

service in the year cannot be accepted as in cross-

examination, workman has denied suggestion that he was

giving false evidence and not completed 240 days working

in a year.

11.

Affidavit of witness Shri Premnarayan supported

that he was working with workman from 1988 in Telecom

Office, Guna. Payment was made obtaining signature on

receipts duly stamped. Workman was terminated on

31-3-99 without notice. His services were terminated orally.

In his cross-examination, he says that he knows workman

since he was working with him. Work was closed in 1988.

That he and workman did not work with contractor. He

denied that he did not work in BSNL. He denied suggestion

that as workman given evidence in his case, he is giving

evidence in his support. That workman did not work in

BSNL. The argument advanced that workman admitted

that work was closed in 1998. Workman was not working

in BSNL, witness has given evidence after long lapse of

time. His evidence that he was working with workman is

not shattered. Workman did not work in BSNL. Judicial

note can be taken that Telecom Department since 2005

was merged in BSNL. The evidence of workman and his

witness is that workman was terminated on 31-3-99. There

was no question of his working in BSNL.

12.

Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Gajendra

Singh Senger. In his affidavit of evidence, management’s

witness says workman did not work in Telephone

Exchange, he not completed 240 days working. Workman

was not appointed by 2nd party. The cross-examination

of management’s witness was recorded in R/156/01, its

certified copy is produced on record. Management’s

witness in his cross-examination says he was posted at

GTO/SDO at Gwalior during 1986 to 1999. That any

document regarding working of the Ist party were not

available with the department. Presently daily wage

employee were not working. Work pertaining to cable line

fault, digging ditches was carried by calling tender after

issuing publication. The process of calling tender requires

one month time. The tender used to be for a period of one

year. The work of cable fault and digging ditches is carried

as petty work engaging labours for short period. The

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1259

labours engaged for petty work are paid from Advance

fund of the department. The wages for short period of

works are paid every day for the wages w.r.t. long period

of work are paid by Accounts Office preparing bill and

verifying it. 2nd party has not produced any of the bills or

any record of payment of management’s witness is not

supported by documents. The evidence of Ist party and

his witness Kamal Singh is not shattered about workman

was working with 2nd party on daily wages from 15-12-88

to 31-3-99. If evidence of both parties is carefully

scrutinized, it is clear that evidence of workman is

corroborated by witness Kamal Singh whereas evidence

of management’s witness Gajendra Singh is not

corroborated by any documents.

13.

During course of argument, learned counsel for 2nd

party Shri R.S.Khare submits that the witness of Ist party

is interested witness. He is trying to support claim of

workman cannot be believed. The evidence of Ist party

witness is that he was working along with workman as

such he is co-employee and I find no reason to disbelieve

his unshattered evidence.

14.

Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri R.S. Khare relies

on ratio held in

Case of Batala Coop Sugar Mills versus Sowaran

Singh reported in 2005(8) SCC-481. Their Lordship

dealing with Section 25-F, H of ID Act held that

burden of proof lies on workman to prove 240 days

continuous service.

The evidence of workman and his witness is not

shattered on the point workman was continuously working

from September 1987 to 28-2-97. The evidence on record

shows that workman completed 240 days continuous

service preceding 12 months of his termination. His services

are terminated without notice without displaying list of

the labours on notice board. The termination of service of

Ist party workman is in violation of Section 25-F, G and

Rule 77 of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my finding

in Point No.1 in Negative.

15.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1

termination of services of workman is illegal, question

remains whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with

backwages. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri N.K.Salunke

relies on ratio held in case between

Ashok Kumar Sharma versus Oberoi Flight Services

reported in 2010(1)SCC-142. In above said case,

workman was working as loader, he was found

carrying 30KLM (a foreign airline) soup spoons

illegally in his shoe. Workman admitted guilt in

writing and so he was dismissed from service. The

order of his compensation Rs.60,000 was set-aside.

The compensation was enhanced to Rs. 2 Lakhs.

The facts of present case are not comparable. Ratio

cannot be applied to case at hand as in above case,

workman had admitted charges in writing.

In case of Deepali Gunhdu Surwase versus Kranti

Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and others

reported in 2013(10)SCC-324. Their Lordship held

that denial of full backwages on reinstatement

awarded by Tribunal. Their Lordship held that

reinstatement entitles such employee to claim full

backwages. Denial of backwabges would amount to

indirectly punishing the employee and rewarding

employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay

backwages.

The facts of above case are not comparable as in

above cited case the appellant was appointed as

teacher in primary school run by a trust. The

appellant teacher had refused to contribute Rs.1500

per month towards the tax liability, towards recovery

of tax of Rs. 79,974/-. Thereafter 25 memos were

issued to appellant and the appellant was

suspended. The ratio cannot be applied to case at

hand.

The copies of award in R/26/01, 25/01 are also

submitted by Ist party workman. The evidence adduced

in the case is not comparable. Each case requires to be

decided on the evidence adduced by the parties.

16.

Shri R.S.Khare, learned counsel for 2nd party relies

on ratio held in

Case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development

Corporation and another versus Gitam Singh

reported in 2013(5)SCC-136. Their Lordship

considering service of daily wager who worked for

short period of 240 days only terminated by appellant

employer in 1991 in contravention of Sec. 25-F of ID

Act. The award of reinstatement with continuity of

service with 25 % backwages was setaside and

compensation Rs.50,000 was allowed.

In present case, the evidence on record shows

workman was working from 15-12-88 to 31-3-99 and not

only for 240 days therefore the ratio held in the case

cannot be applied to case at hand.

In case of MP State Agro Industries Development

and another versus Shri S.C.Pandey reported in

2006(2)SCC-716. Their Lordship dealing with status

of daily wager held daily wager does not hold a

post as he is not appointed in terms of the provisions

of the Act and rules framed thereunder and therefore

he does not derive any legal right. It is held that

only because a temporary employee completes said

period of service that by itself would not confer any

legal right upon him to be regularized in service.

Their Lordship allowed compensation Rs.10,000/-.

In case between Secretary, State of Karnataka and

others versus Umadevi and others reported in

1260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2006(4)SCC-1. Their Lordship dealing with public

employment-Absorption, regularization or

permanent continuance of temporary contractual,

casual daily wage or ad hoc employees appointed/

recruited and continued for long in public

employment dehors the constitutional scheme of

public employment. It is erroneous for Supreme Court

to merely consider equity for the handful of people

who have approached the court with a claim whilst

ignoring equity for the teeming millions seeking

employment and a fair opportunity for completing

for employment. Further courts must be careful in

ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the

economical/financial arrangement of the affairs of

the State or its instrumentalities.

As evidence of workman shows that he was working

from September 15-12-88 to 31-3-99 and termination of his

service is without notice, retrenchment compensation was

not paid to him. The pleadings and evidence of workman

does not show what rate of wages were paid to him.

17.

The evidence of workman shows he was not

appointed following recruitment procedure. He was

engaged on daily wages. Reinstatement of workman is

not justified. Considering the period of work,

compensation Rs. One Lakh would be appropriate.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

18.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of District

Engineer(Phones), Guna in terminating Shri

Ramsingh S/o Moolchand in the year 1999 is not

proper and legal.

(2)

2nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. One

Lakh to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 31 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 632-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWiQ

VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] Hkksiky ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@23@2001) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-03-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@407@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 31st March, 2016

S.O. 632.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID Case No.

CGIT/LC/R/23/2001) 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 Telecommunication, Bhopal and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 31-03-2016.

[No. L-40012/407/2000-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/23/2001

Shri Premnarayan Ojha,

C/o Rambharosa Ohja,

H/o Salim Chacha,

Shivaji Nagar

Guna

...Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. of Telecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road, MP Circle,

Bhopal (MP)

Distt. Engineer (Phones),

Guna

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of March, 2016

As per letter dated 27-12-2000 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/

407/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of District

Engineer(Phones), Guna in terminating Shri

Premnarayan Ojha, S/o Shri Ramprasad Ojha w.e.f.

21-2-98 is justified? If not, what relief the workman

is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 2/1 to 2/6. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

initially appointed in 1-1-89 for performing duties of phone

mechanic on daily wage basis. His appointment was

continued uninterruptedly till 20-2-98. He was orally

terminated without issuing notice. Salary in lieu of notice,

retrenchment compensation was also not paid to him. His

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1261

services were terminated without assigning reasons. He

completed 9 years continuous service. He completed more

than 240 days service during each of the year.

2nd party had not displayed list of all workmen of

the categories working like him on notice board seven

days before termination of his services. 2nd party violated

Rule 77 of ID Central Rules 1957. Policy of last come first

go was not followed while terminating his services. Number

of daily wage employees were retained appointed

subsequent to his termination. Workman was not re-

engaged. That as per judgment in case, daily rated casual

labours versus Union of India reported in AIR-1987-

SC2342, the workman was not absorbed/regularized in

service. The 2nd party engaged other daily wage workman

violating Section 25 H of ID Act. Ist party alleges

termination of his service from 20-2-98 is in violation of

Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act. His termination of service is

also alleged to be unfair labour practice. By amendment,

Ist party workman submits that after termination of his

service, he has no source of livelihood, he is not in gainful

employment. On such ground, workman prays for his

reinstatement with backwages.

2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of

the Ist party at Page 5/5 to 5/5. 2nd party contends that

workman was not appointed on 1-1-1989 as Telephone

labour. The post of SDO(T) was not created at Guna. The

vacancy was not published. Workman was not posted as

Telephone labour. Since 1985, appointment on daily wages

were banned. 2nd party submits that for paid work/ time

bound work, management engaged few labours on piece

rate basis. After completion of time bound work, labours

were automatically retrenched. For new work, again local

officers engaged labour as per requirement in different

stations. D.M.Guna fixed the rate of petty work/ time bound

work from time to time before engaging any workman. The

labours so engaged were given understanding that on

completion of work, they would not be continued.

Workman not completed 240 days continuous service.

There is no question of payment of retrenchment

compensation or issuing notice under ID Act. It is

contented that as workman was not appointed, there was

no question of displaying list of workers as per Rule 77 of

ID Central Rules 1957. It is submitted that principle of last

come first go is not applicable as workman was not

appointed nor terminated by the management. No record

is maintained regarding execution of petty work, time

bound work. It is reiterated that workman has not

completed 240 days service during any of the year. He not

completed 240 days continuous service. 2nd party prays

that reference be answered in its favour.

Ist party workman filed rejoinder reiterating his

contentions in statement of claim. 2nd party denied that

workman completed 240 days continuous service.

Additional Written Statement is filed by 2nd party

after amendment in statement of claim. 2nd party contends

that the workman engaged for specific work were given

understanding that after completion of work, their services

would come to end automatically.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the manage-

In Affirmative

ment of District Engineer (Phones),

Guna in terminating Shri Premnarayan

Ojha, S/o Shri Ramprasad Ojha w.e.f.

21-2-98 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

Workman is

entitled to?”

not entitled to

any relief.

REASONS

Ist party workman is challenging termination of his

service for violation of Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act, Rule 77

of ID Central Rules 1957. The application for production

of documents was filed by Ist party on 19-9-07. The

application was opposed by management. As per order

dated 26-6-09, workman was given liberty to prove the

documents required.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting

his contentions in statement of claim that he was engaged

on daily wages from 1-1-1989 till 20-2-98. He completed

more than 240 days continuous service during each of the

calendar year. His services were terminated on 20-2-98. On

23-1-98, he submitted application for regularization. In his

cross-examination, workman says appointment letter was

not given to him. He was not called for interview. He did

not receive letter from Employment Exchange. He was

working in Telecom Department in Guna District laying

cables. He admits that not completed 240 days continuous

service.

10.

Ist party filed affidavit of witness Hargovind

supporting evidence of workman that he was engaged on

daily wages in 1989. His services were orally terminated

without notice. Workman was working at different places

for 9 years. In his cross-examination, witness says the

dispute raised by him is pending. Workman given evidence

in his matter. He denies that as workman given evidence in

support of his claim that he was giving evidence to support

claim of workman. Witness denies that workman was not

working in BSNL. Workman was not working under the

contractor or he did not work in the Telecom Department.

11.

Witness Ram Singh also filed affidavit of his evidence

supporting evidence of workman on material particulars

stated in his cross-examination, he denied that he was

working under contractor. Dispute raised by him is pending.

1262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

He denied that he was not working with workman.

Workman has admitted in cross that he not completed 240

days working in any of the year.

12.

Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Gajendra

Singh Senger. In his affidavit of evidence, management’s

witness says workman did not work in Telephone

Exchange, he not completed 240 days working. Workman

was not appointed by 2nd party. The cross-examination

of management’s witness was recorded in R/156/01, its

certified copy is produced on record. Management’s

witness in his cross-examination says he was posted at

GTO/SDO at Gwalior during 1986 to 1999. That any

document regarding working of the Ist party were not

available with the department. Presently daily wage

employee were not working. Work pertaining to cable line

fault, digging ditches was carried by calling tender after

issuing publication. The process of calling tender requires

one month time. The tender used to be for a period of one

year. The work of cable fault and digging ditches is carried

as petty work engaging labouts for short period. The

labours engaged for petty work are paid from Advance

fund of the department. The wages for short period of

works are paid every day for the wages w.r.t. long period

of work are paid by Accounts Office preparing bill and

verifying it. 2nd party has not produced any of the bills or

any record of payment of management’s witness is not

supported by documents. The evidence of Ist party and

his witness Kamal Singh is not shattered about workman

was working with 2nd party on daily wages from 1-1-89 till

20-2-98. If evidence of both parties is carefully scrutinized,

it is clear that evidence of workman is not consistent with

evidence of witness Kamal Singh.

13.

Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri R.S. Khare relies

on ratio held in

Case of Batala Coop Sugar Mills versus Sowaran

Singh reported in 2005(8) SCC-481. Their Lordship

dealing with Section 25-F, H of ID Act held that

burden of proof lies on workman to prove 240 days

continuous service.

As workman himself admitted that not completed

240 days continuous service during any of the year,

evidence of witnesses for the workman cannot be accepted

on the point that workman completed 240 days continuous

service. Workman has not produced any documents in

support of his evidence. As such workman has failed to

discharge onus that he completed 240 days continuous

service. Therefore the termination of services of workman

in violation of Section 25-F, G of ID Act is not established.

Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

14.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1

workamn has failed to establish termination of his service

is illegal for violation of Section 25-F, G of ID Act, the ratio

held in various cases by both the parties needs no detailed

discussion.

15.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of District

Engineer(Phones), Guna in terminating Shri

Premnarayan Ojha, S/o Shri Ramprasad Ojha w.e.f.

21-2-98 is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 31 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 633-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWiQ

VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] Hkksiky ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@14@2001) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-03-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@409@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 31st March, 2016

S.O. 633.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID Case No.

CGIT/LC/R/14/2001) 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 Telecommunication, Bhopal and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 31-03-2016.

[No. L-40012/409/2000-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/14/2001

Shri Hargovind Sharma,

S/o Kamar ji Sharma,

R/o Kalapara, Near Hanuman Mandir,

Cantt. Guna

...Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. of Telecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road, MP Circle,

Bhopal (MP)

Distt. Engineer (Phones),

Guna

...Management

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1263

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of March, 2016

As per letter dated 27-12-2000 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-

40012/409/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference

relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of District

Engineer(Phones), Guna in terminating Shri Hargovind

Sharma, S/o Kararji Sharma w.e.f. 21-2-98 is justified?

If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 2/1 to 2/6. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

initially appointed in 15-1-1991 for performing duties of

phone mechanic on daily wage basis. His appointment

was continued uninterruptedly till 20-2-98. He was orally

terminated without issuing notice. Salary in lieu of notice,

retrenchment compensation was also not paid to him. His

services were terminated without assigning reasons. He

completed 7 years continuous service. He completed more

than 240 days service during each of the year.

2nd party had not displayed list of all workmen of

the categories working like him on notice board seven

days before termination of his services. 2nd party violated

Rule 77 of ID Central Rules 1957. Policy of last come first

go was not followed while terminating his services. Number

of daily wage employees were retained appointed

subsequent to his termination. Workman was not re-

engaged. That as per judgment in case, daily rated casual

labours versus Union of India reported in AIR-1987-

SC2342, the workman was not absorbed/ regularized in

service. The 2nd party engaged other daily wage workman

violating Section 25 H of ID Act. Ist party alleges

termination of his service from 1-3-97 is in violation of

Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act. His termination of service is

also alleged to be unfair labour practice. By amendment,

Ist party workman submits that after termination of his

service, he has no source of livelihood, he is not in gainful

employment. On such ground, workman prays for his

reinstatement with backwages.

2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of

the Ist party. That workman was not appointed on daily

wages. He is not covered as workman. It is reiterated that

the workman was not appointed in 1987. The post of DET

was not created at Guna. The vacancies were not

published. Workman was not posted at Guna as labour in

1987. The engagement of daily wage workers was

prohibited since 1985.

2nd party further submits that for petty work or time

bound work, the management engaged few labours on

piece rate basis. On completion of such petty work, labours

engaged were automatically retrenched. Workman had not

completed 240 days continuous service. The labours

engaged on daily wages were paid by local officers. The

rate of petty work, time bound work was fixed time to time

before engaging workman. Ist party workman had not

completed 240 days continuous service. He was not

retained by 2nd party. Provisions of ID Act pertain to

issuing notice of retrenchment or payment of retrenchment

compensation are not applicable. The engagement of daily

wage labours was prohibited since 1985. There was no

question of preparing list as per Rule 77 of ID Central

Rules 1958. That for execution of petty work, no record

was maintained. Workman was neither appointed nor

terminated by 2nd party. Violation of Section 25-F, G, H of

ID Act is denied. 2nd party prays that reference be

answered in its favour.

Ist party workman filed rejoinder reiterating his

contentions in statement of claim. 2nd party denied that

workman completed 240 days continuous service.

Additional Written Statement is filed by 2nd party

after amendment in statement of claim. 2nd party contends

that the workman engaged for specific work were given

understanding that after completion of work, their services

would come to end automatically.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the manage-

In Negative

ment of District Engineer (Phones),

Guna in terminating Shri Harvogind

Sharma, S/o Kararji Sharma w.e.f.

21-2-98 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order

REASONS

Ist party workman is challenging termination of his

service for violation of Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act, Rule 77

of ID Central Rules 1957. The application for production

of documents was filed by Ist party on 19-6-01. The

application was opposed by management. As per order

dated 26-6-09, workman was given liberty to prove the

documents required.

10.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting

his contentions in statement of claim that he was engaged

on daily wages in 15-1-91 till 20-2-98 at different places in

Guna District for 7 years. He completed 240 days working.

His services orally terminated on 21-2-98 without notice.

Retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. Junior

labours were continued on work. In his cross-examination,

he studied upto 8th standard. He was working in Telephone

1264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Exchange, Guna District. He was doing cleaning work and

giving drinking water in office. Appointment letter was

not received by him. List was displayed in the office, his

name was included. List was not received by him. List of

90-91 was displayed including name of 30-40 persons, he

was unable to tell the date. He repeatedly requested copy

of list but list is not produced in the case. He was not

interviewed. His name was not sponsored through

Employment Exchange. He denied that he did not work for

240 days.

11.

Ist party filed affidavit of witness Prem Narayan and

Ram Singh supported the evidence of workman about his

engagement and oral termination from service. Shri Prem

Narayan in his cross examination says as he was working

with Hargovind, he was giving evidence. He denies that

as workman has given evidence in his case therefore he is

giving evidence to support his claim. Witness admits that

workman did not work in BSNL. Judicial note can be taken

that Telecom Department since 2005 was merged in BSNL.

The evidence of workman and his witness is that workman

was terminated on 31-3-99. There was no question of his

working in BSNL.

12.

In cross-examination of Shri Ram Singh, he knows

workman since he was working with him, they were not

working under contractor. He is not giving evidence on

say of workman. Suggestion is denied that he and

workman were not working together. Appointment letter

was not received by him. He worked from 1991 to 1998 for

a period of 7 years.

13.

Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Gajendra

Singh Senger. In his affidavit of evidence, management’s

witness says workman did not work in Telephone

Exchange, he not completed 240 days working. Workman

was not appointed by 2nd party. The cross-examination

of management’s witness was recorded in R/156/01, its

certified copy is produced on record. Management’s

witness in his cross-examination says he was posted at

GTO/SDO at Gwalior during 1986 to 1999. That any

document regarding working of the Ist party were not

available with the department. Presently daily wage

employee were not working. Work pertaining to cable line

fault, digging ditches was carried by calling tender after

issuing publication. The process of calling tender requires

one month time. The tender used to be for a period of one

year. The work of cable fault and digging ditches is carried

as petty work engaging labours for short period. The

labours engaged for petty work are paid from Advance

fund of the department. The wages for short period of

works are paid every day for the wages w.r.t. long period

of work are paid by Accounts Office preparing bill and

verifying it. 2nd party has not produced any of the bills or

any record of payment of management’s witness is not

supported by documents. The evidence of Ist party and

his witness Kamal Singh is not shattered about workman

was working with 2nd party on daily wages from

September 15-1-91 to 20-2-98. If evidence of both parties

is carefully scrutinized, it is clear that evidence of workman

is corroborated by witness Kamal Singh whereas evidence

of management’s witness Gajendra Singh is not

corroborated by any documents.

14.

During course of argument, learned counsel for 2nd

party Shri R.S. Khare submits that the witness of Ist party

is interested witness. He is trying to support claim of

workman cannot be believed. The evidence of Ist party

witness is that he was working alongwith workman as

such he is co-employee and I find no reason to disbelieve

his unshattered evidence. The argument advanced by

Shri R.S. Khare that witness of workman in his cross-

examination says that workman worked for 26 days only.

The evidence is not sufficient to establish 240 days

continuous service cannot be accepted. Witness of Ist

party Shri Kamal Singh in his cross examination says

workman was working for 26 days during each of the

month.

15.

Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri R.S. Khare relies

on ratio held in

Case of Batala Coop Sugar Mills versus Sowaran

Singh reported in 2005(8) SCC-481. Their Lordship

dealing with Section 25-F, H of ID Act held that

burden of proof lies on workman to prove 240 days

continuous service.

The evidence of workman and his witness is not

shattered on the point workman was continuously working

from 15-1-91 to 20-2-98. The evidence on record shows

that workman completed 240 days continuous service

preceding 12 months of his termination. His services are

terminated without notice without displaying list of the

labours on notice board. The termination of service of Ist

party workman is in violation of Section 25-F,G and Rule

77 of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in

Point No.1 in Negative.

16.

Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No.1

termination of services of workman is illegal, question

remains whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with

backwages. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri N.K. Salunke

relies on ratio held in case between

Ashok Kumar Sharma versus Oberoi Flight Services

reported in 2010(1)SCC-142. In above said case,

workman was working as loader, he was found

carrying 30KLM (a foreign airline) soup spoons

illegally in his shoe. Workman admitted guilt in

writing and so he was dismissed from service. The

order of his compensation Rs. 60,000 was set-aside.

The compensation was enhanced to Rs. 2 Lakhs.

The facts of present case are not comparable. Ratio

cannot be applied to case at hand as in above case,

workman had admitted charges in writing.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1265

In case of Deepali Gunhdu Surwase versus Kranti

Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and others

reported in 2013(10)SCC-324. Their Lordship held

that denial of full backwages on reinstatement

awarded by Tribunal. Their Lordship held that

reinstatement entitles such employee to claim full

backwages. Denial of backwabges would amount

toindirectly punishing the employee and rewarding

employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay

backwages.

The facts of above case are not comparable as in

above cited case the appellant was appointed as

teacher in primary school run by a trust. The

appellant teacher had refused to contribute Rs. 1500

per month towards the tax liability. Towards recovery

of tax of Rs. 79,974/-. Thereafter 25 memos were

issued to appellant and the appellant was

suspended. The ratio cannot be applied to case at

hand.

The copies of award in R/26/01, 25/01 are also

submitted by Ist party workman. The evidence adduced

in the case is not comparable. Each case requires to be

decided on the evidence adduced by the parties.

17.

Shri R.S. Khare, learned counsel for 2nd party relies

on ratio held in

Case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development

Corporation and another versus Gitam Singh

reported in 2013(5)SCC-136. Their Lordship

considering service of daily wager who worked for

short period of 240 days only terminated by appellant

employer in 1991 in contravention of Sec25-F of ID

Act. The award of reinstatement with continuity of

service with 25 % backwages was setaside and

compensation Rs. 50,000 was allowed.

In present case, the evidence on record shows

workman was working from 15-1-91 to 20-2-98 and not

only for 240 days therefore the ratio held in the case

cannot be applied to case at hand.

In case of MP State Agro Industries Development

and another versus Shri S.C. Pandey reported in

2006(2)SCC-716. Their Lordship dealing with status

of daily wager held daily wager doesnot hold a post

as he is not appointed in terms of the provisions of

the Act and rules framed there under and therefore

he doesnot derive any legal right. It is held that only

because a temporary employee completes said

period of service that by itself would not confer any

legal right upon him to be regularized in service.

Their Lordship allowed compensation Rs.10,000/-.

In case between Secretary, State of Karnataka and

others versus Umadevi and others reported in

2006(4)SCC-1. Their Lordship dealing with public

employment- Absoirption, regularization or

permanent continuance of temporary contractual,

casual daily wage or adhoc employees appointed/

recruited and continued for long in public

employment dehors the constitutional scheme of

public employment. It is erroneous for supreme court

to merely consider equity for the handful of people

who have approached the court with a claim whilst

ignoring equity for the teeming millions seeking

employment and a fair opportunity for completing

for employment. Further courts must be careful in

ensuring that they donot interfere unduly with the

economical/ financial arrangement of the affairs of

the State or its instrumentalities.

As evidence of workman shows that he was working

from 15-1-91 to 20-2-98 and termination of his service is

without notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid

to him. The pleadings and evidence of workman doesnot

show what rate of wages were paid to him.

18.

The evidence of workman shows he was not

appointed following recruitment procedure. He was

engaged on daily wages. Reinstatement of workman is

not justified. Considering the period of work,

compensation Rs. 75,000/- would be appropriate.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.

19.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of District Engineer

(Phones), Guna in terminating Shri Harvogind

Sharma, S/o Kararji Sharma w.e.f. 21-2-98 is not proper

and legal.

(2)

2nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 75,000/-

to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 31 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 634-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWiQ

VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] Hkksiky ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@15@2001) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-03-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@411@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

1266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 31st March, 2016

S.O. 634.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID Case No.

CGIT/LC/R/15/2001) 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 Telecommunication, Bhopal and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 31-03-2016.

[No. L-40012/411/2000-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/15/2001

Shri Vijay Singh Kushwaha,

S/o Kamarji Kushwaha,

R/o Shri Ram Colony, Tehsil Guna

Guna

...Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. of Telecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road, MP Circle,

Bhopal (MP)

Distt. Engineer (Phones),

Guna

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of March, 2016

As per letter dated 27-12-2000 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-

40012/411/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference

relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of District

Engineer (Phones), Guna in terminating Shri Vijay

Singh Kushwaha S/o Kamarji Kushwaha w.e.f.

1-3-97 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 2/1 to 2/6. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

initially appointed in September 1987 for performing duties

of phone mechanic on daily wage basis. His appointment

was continued uninterruptedly till 28-2-97. He was orally

terminated without issuing notice. Salary in lieu of notice,

retrenchment compensation was also not paid to him. His

services were terminated without assigning reasons. He

completed 9 years 6 months continuous service. He

completed more than 240 days service during each of the

year.

2nd party had not displayed list of all workmen of

the categories working like him on notice board seven

days before termination of his services. 2nd party violated

Rule 77 of ID Central Rules 1957. Policy of last come first

go was not followed while terminating his services. Number

of daily wage employees were retained appointed

subsequent to his termination. Workman was not re-

engaged. That as per judgment in case, daily rated casual

labours versus Union of India reported in AIR-1987-

SC2342, the workman was not absorbed/ regularized in

service. The 2nd party engaged other daily wage workman

violating Section 25 H of ID Act. Ist party alleges

termination of his service from 1-3-97 is in violation of

Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act. His termination of service is

also alleged to be unfair labour practice. By amendment,

Ist party workman submits that after termination of his

service, he has no source of livelihood, he is not in gainful

employment. On such ground, workman prays for his

reinstatement with backwages.

2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of

the Ist party. That workman was not appointed on daily

wages. He is not covered as workman. It is reiterated that

the workman was not appointed in 1987. The post of DET

was not created at Guna. The vacancies were not

published. Workman was not posted at Guna as labour in

1987. The engagement of daily wage workers was

prohibited since 1985.

2nd party further submits that for petty work or time

bound work, the management engaged few labours on

piece rate basis. On completion of such petty work, labours

engaged were automatically retrenched. Workman had not

completed 240 days continuous service. The labours

engaged on daily wages were paid by local officers. The

rate of petty work, time bound work was fixed time to time

before engaging workman. Ist party workman had not

completed 240 days continuous service. He was not

retained by 2nd party. Provisions of ID Act pertain to

issuing notice of retrenchment or payment of retrenchment

compensation are not applicable. The engagement of daily

wage labours was prohibited since 1985. There was no

question of preparing list as per Rule 77 of ID Central

Rules 1958. That for execution of petty work, no record

was maintained. Workman was neither appointed nor

terminated by 2nd party. Violation of Section 25-F, G, H of

ID Act is denied. 2nd party prays that reference be

answered in its favour.

Ist party workman filed rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/4

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim. 2nd party

denied that workman completed 240 days continuous

service.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1267

Additional Written Statement is filed by 2nd party

after amendment in statement of claim. 2nd party contends

that the workman engaged for specific work were given

understanding that after completion of work, their services

would come to end automatically.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the manage-

In Negative

ment of District Engineer (Phones),

Guna in terminating Shri Vijay Singh

Kushwaha S/o Kamarji Kushwaha

w.e.f. 1-3-97 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order

REASONS

Ist party workman is challenging termination of his

service for violation of Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act, Rule 77

of ID Central Rules 1957. The application for production

of documents was filed by Ist party on 19-9-97. The

application was opposed by management. As per order

dated 26-6-09, workman was given liberty to prove the

documents required.

10.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting

his contentions in statement of claim that he was engaged

on daily wages in September 1987 to 28-2-97. He completed

more than 240 days continuous service during each of the

calendar year. As per circular dated 10-9-93, he was not

accorded temporary status. On 28-2-97, his services were

orally terminated without notice, retrenchment

compensation was not paid to him. In his cross-

examination, workman says appointment letter was not

received by him. He did not received letter for interview.

He not received letter from Employment Exchange. He did

not receive order of termination of his services. He denied

that he did not work in BSNL. He denied that he produced

bogus documents, he denied that he was working under

contractor.

11.

Ist party filed affidavit of witness Kamal Singh. Said

witness corroborated evidence of workman that workman

was working from September 87 to 28-2-97 in Telecom

Department, Guna. Workman was working at different

places with him. The wages were paid in first week of

month obtaining their receipts. Workman had worked more

than 240 days during each of the year. His services were

terminated without notice. Retrenchment compensation

was not paid to him. After termination of his services,

family of workman is facing hardship. In his cross-

examination, the above named witness says he has not

received education. Workman was working with him

therefore he was acquainted with workman. Workman was

working at Guna with him from 1987. Suggestion is denied

that if affidavit of evidence is prepared as per instructions

given by workman. Appointment letter was not received

by him. Workman worked 26 days in every month. In

January 1996, workman worked for 26 days. Department

was paying minimum wages therefore he was knowing

about it. The witness denied that workman had not

completed 240 days continuous service. He denied that

he was giving evidence as per say of workman. The

evidence of workman is corroborated from evidence of his

witness.

12.

Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Gajendra

Singh Senger. In his affidavit of evidence, management’s

witness says workman did not work in Telephone

Exchange, he not completed 240 days working. Workman

was not appointed by 2nd party. The cross-examination

of management’s witness was recorded in R/156/01, its

certified copy is produced on record. Management’s

witness in his cross-examination says he was posted at

GTO/SDO at Gwalior during 1986 to 1999. That any

document regarding working of the Ist party were not

available with the department. Presently daily wage

employee were not working. Work pertaining to cable line

fault, digging ditches was carried by calling tender after

issuing publication. The process of calling tender requires

one month time. The tender used to be for a period of one

year. The work of cable fault and digging ditches is carried

as petty work engaging labours for short period. The

labours engaged for petty work are paid from Advance

fund of the department. The wages for short period of

works are paid every day for the wages w.r.t. Long period

of work are paid by Accounts Office preparing bill and

verifying it. 2nd party has not produced any of the bills or

any record of payment of management’s witness is not

supported by documents. The evidence of Ist party and

his witness Kamal Singh is not shattered about workman

was working with 2nd party on daily wages from

September 1987 to 28-2-97. If evidence of both parties is

carefully scrutinized, it is clear that evidence of workman

is corroborated by witness Kamal Singh whereas evidence

of management’s witness Gajendra Singh is not

corroborated by any documents.

13.

During course of argument, learned counsel for 2nd

party Shri R.S.Khare submits that the witness of Ist party is

interested witness. He is trying to support claim of workman

cannot be believed. The evidence of Ist party witness is

that he was working along with workman as such he is co-

employee and I find no reason to disbelieve his unshattered

evidence. The argument advanced by Shri R.S.Khare that

witness of workman in his cross-examination says that

workman worked for 26 days only. The evidence is not

sufficient to establish 240 days continuous service cannot

be accepted. Witness of Ist party Shri Kamal Singh in his

cross-examination says workman was working for 26 days

during each of the month.

1268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14.

Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri R.S.Khare relies

on ratio held in

Case of Batala Coop Sugar Mills versus Sowaran

Singh reported in 2005(8) SCC-481. Their Lordship

dealing with Section 25-F, H of ID Act held that

burden of proof lies on workman to prove 240 days

continuous service.

The evidence of workman and his witness is not

shattered on the point workman was continuously working

from September 1987 to 28-2-97. The evidence on record

shows that workman completed 240 days continuous

service preceding 12 months of his termination. His services

are terminated without notice without displaying list of

the labours on notice board. The termination of service of

Ist party workman is in violation of Section 25-F, G and

Rule 77 of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my finding

in Point No.1 in Negative.

15.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1

termination of services of workman is illegal, question

remains whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with

backwages. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri N.K.Salunke

relies on ratio held in case between

Ashok Kumar Sharma versus Oberoi Flight Services

reported in 2010(1)SCC-142. In above said case,

workman was working as loader, he was found

carrying 30KLM (a foreign airline) soup spoons

illegally in his shoe. Workman admitted guilt in

writing and so he was dismissed from service. The

order of his compensation Rs.60,000 was set-aside.

The compensation was enhanced to Rs. 2 Lakhs.

The facts of present case are not comparable. Ratio

cannot be applied to case at hand as in above case,

workman had admitted charges in writing.

In case of Deepali Gunhdu Surwase versus Kranti

Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and others

reported in 2013(10)SCC-324. Their Lordship held

that denial of full backwages on reinstatement

awarded by Tribunal. Their Lordship held that

reinstatement entitles such employee to claim full

backwages. Denial of backwages would amount to

indirectly punishing the employee and rewarding

employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay

backwages.

The facts of above case are not comparable as in

above cited case the appellant was appointed as

teacher in primary school run by a trust. The

appellant teacher had refused to contribute Rs.1500

per month towards the tax liability towards recovery

of tax of Rs. 79,974/-. Thereafter 25 memos were

issued to appellant and the appellant was

suspended. The ratio cannot be applied to case at

hand.

The copies of award in R/26/01, 25/01 are also

submitted by Ist party workman. The evidence adduced in

the case is not comparable. Each case requires to be

decided on the evidence adduced by the parties.

16.

Shri R.S.Khare, learned counsel for 2nd party relies

on ratio held in

Case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development

Corporation and another versus Gitam Singh

reported in 2013(5)SCC-136. Their Lordship

considering service of daily wager who worked for

short period of 240 days only terminated by appellant

employer in 1991 in contravention of Sec. 25-F of ID

Act. The award of reinstatement with continuity of

service with 25 % backwages was setaside and

compensation Rs.50,000 was allowed.

In present case, the evidence on record shows

workman was working from 1987 to 28-2-97 and not only

for 240 days therefore the ratio held in the case cannot be

applied to case at hand.

In case of MP State Agro Industries Development

and another versus Shri S.C.Pandey reported in

2006(2)SCC-716. Their Lordship dealing with status

of daily wager held daily wager does not hold a

post as he is not appointed in terms of the provisions

of the Act and rules framed thereunder and therefore

he does not derive any legal right. It is held that

only because a temporary employee completes said

period of service that by itself would not confer any

legal right upon him to be regularized in service.

Their Lordship allowed compensation Rs.10,000/-.

In case between Secretary, State of Karnataka and

others versus Umadevi and others reported in

2006(4)SCC-1. Their Lordship dealing with public

employment- Absoirption, regularization or

permanent continuance of temporary contractual,

casual daily wage or ad hoc employees appointed/

recruited and continued for long in public

employment de hors the constitutional scheme of

public employment. It is erroneous for supreme court

to merely consider equity for the handful of people

who have approached the court with a claim whilst

ignoring equity for the teeming millions seeking

employment and a fair opportunity for completing

for employment. Further courts must be careful in

ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the

economical/ financial arrangement of the affairs of

the State or its instrumentalities.

As evidence of workman shows that he was working

from September 1987 to 28-2-97 and termination of his

service is without notice, retrenchment compensation was

not paid to him. The pleadings and evidence of workman

does not show what rate of wages were paid to him.

17.

The evidence of workman shows he was not

appointed following recruitment procedure. He was

engaged on daily wages. Reinstatement of workman is

not justified. Considering the period of work,

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1269

compensation Rs. One Lakh would be appropriate.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

18.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of District

Engineer(Phones), Guna in terminating Shri Vijay

Singh Kushwaha S/o Kamarji Kushwaha w.e.f.

1-3-97 is not proper and legal.

(2)

2nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. One

Lakh to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 635-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy cksMZ

vkWiQ lsdsaMjh ,tqds'ku ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la- 19@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

04-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@135@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2016

S.O. 635.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 19/2014)

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 Central Board of Secondary Education

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 01-04-2016.

[No. L-42012/135/2013-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

NO.1, DELHI

ID No. 19/2014

Shri Ramesh Kumar,

S/o Shri Ramphal,

F-282, Lado Sarai, Mehrauli,

New Delhi 110 030

...Workman

Versus

The Secretary,

Central Board of Secondary Education,

2, Samudaik Centre, Preet Vihar,

Delhi 110 092

...Management

AWARD

Brief facts giving rise to filing of the present

reference are that the workman herein was engaged as

Junior Assistant on daily wage basis by the management

in the year 1996 and since then the workman had been

working continuously with Central Board of Secondary

Education (CBSE). It is alleged that after his appointment

firstly worked in the year 1998 and after that in the year

1999-2000 and last February 2005 to May 2005 without

any notice. The workman worked to the satisfaction of

the management, honestly and diligently. In fact the

workman was to be absorbed against permanent vacancy

since the nature of duties performed by the workman was

perennial in nature. Workman was recruited through

Employment Exchange and there was no back door entry.

It is further the case of the workman that the Hon’ble

High Court of Delhi directed the management to prepare

seniority list of daily wagers after considering their

respective claims. In compliance of the directions of the

Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 12.0.2004 in the case

titled as ‘Ramakant Sharma Vs. CBSE’ vide WP No.2292 of

1999, wherein name of the workman was at serial No.17 as

petitioner, a common seniority list was prepared by the

management of CBSE and in that list name of the workman

appeared as serial No.85.

Later on, in May 2005, services of the workman was

illegally terminated without any prior notice or intimation

or following statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (in short the Act) . Thereafter, workman herein,

number of times visited the office of the management

regarding his reinstatement in service but to no use. When

the seniority list was displayed by the management, the

workman found that his address was incorrectly mentioned

as E-282 Lado Sarai, Mehrauli, New Delhi instead of F-282,

Lado Sarai, Mehrauli, New Delhi. Thereafter, when he

approached the concerned authority regarding the wrong

address, assurance was given by the management that

the address would be corrected soon. Workman also

moved a complaint to the management on 05.01.2007.

There are also averments that complaint was filed

before the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 13.03.2012

and 19.06.2010 and the Labour Commissioner called both

the parties but the management was not willing to

compromise/settle the matter with the workman. The

Labour Commissioner transferred the case to the Secretary,

Government of India, Ministry of Labour and it was

thereafter that a reference was received by this Tribunal

vide letter No.L-42012/135/2013-IR(DU) dated 29.01.2014

with the following terms:

1270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

‘Whether the action of the management of Central

Board of Secondary Education in terminating the

services of Shri Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Ramphal,

Ex/Junior Assistant with effect from May 2005 is

justified or not? If not, what relief will be given to

the workman and from which date?

After putting notice to both the parties, workman

herein filed statement of claim in the manner stated above

and reply thereto was filed by the management wherein

management took preliminary objections that CBSE does

not call within the definition of ‘industry’ as defined under

Section 2(j) of the Act. CBSE was constituted in pursuant

to Government of India Resolution dated 27.02.1962 and

as such is an instrumentality of State. It is an autonomous

institute under the Ministry of Human Resource

Development, Government of India. Management has also

referred to the judgement in Bangalore Water Supply and

Sewerage Board vs. Rajappa (AIR 1978 SC 548) wherein

triple test so as to establish entity to be an industry has

been laid down and the same is (i) Systematic activity, (ii)

Organized by Co-operation between employer & employee

and (iii) For the production and or distribution of goods

and services calculated to satisfy human wants and

wishes. CBSE meets first two tests but not the third, as

such it is not an industry. It is also alleged that it is a stale

case as claimants services were terminated in 2005.

However, reference in the case has been made late.

Reference also does not say whether it is a case of

retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Act.

On merits, it is prayed in para 1 and 2 of the written

statement that the workman herein has worked from

15.11.1996 to 16.12.1996, i.e. only for 32 days in a span of

14 months. He was never appointed to the post of Junior

Assistant in regular or temporary capacity nor against a

regular or future vacancy. The burden to prove the

employment lies on the claimant. He was simply appointed

on daily wage bases vide letter dated 21.01.1998. He along

with other workmen was called for seasonal work of CBSE

but these engagements were purely on daily wages to

attend the seasonal work. Claim of the workman that he

has worked continuously till 2005 is totally denied. Details

of work done by the claimant is as under:

Sl.

Year

Period

Total days

No.

From

Upto

(including

Sundays &

Holidays

1996

15.11.1996

16.12.1996

1997

Nil

1998

27.01.1998

31.03.1998

1999

15.02.1999

28.03.1999

31.03.1999

30.04.1999

2000

Nil

2001

08.05.2001

31.07.2001

2002

Nil

2003

Nil

2004

Nil

10.

2005

03.03.2005

30.06.2005

120

Total

10 years

373

Above details clearly shows that the workman did

not work for a single day during the calendar 1997, 2000

and 2002 to 2004 . In a span of 10 years, he worked only

for 373 days. It has been admitted that seniority list was

prepared by the management in view of the directions of

the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The seniority list was

displayed and the claimants name appears at serial No.85

with residential address at E-282, Lado Sarai, Mehrauli,

New Delhi. Objections were invited and no objection

relating to his seniority or address was received from the

claimant. Claimant has no vested right to get permanent

employment. Work for which he was engaged was purely

on seasonal and contractual in nature. The workman has

not completed 240 days in any given year. Remaining

averments contained the statement of defence has been

denied by the management.

Against this factual background, my learned

predecessor, vide a order dated 03.06.2014, framed the

following issues:

(1)

Whether management is an industry within the

meaning of section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947?

(2)

Whether the claimant has rendered continuous

service of 240 days in preceding 12 months from the

date of his alleged retrenchment?

(3)

As in terms of reference.

Workman herein, in order to discharge onus on the

issues examined himself as WW1 and tendered in evidence

Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/11. There is no cross-examination

of the workman herein as the management has been

proceeded ex-parte on 01.06.2015. It is apposite to mention

here that the management did not cross-examine the

workman herein nor adduced any evidence worth the name

so as to prove its stand that the CBSE does not fall within

the definition of ‘industry’ of that the workman has not

worked for 240 days in any calendar year.

Findings on Issue No.1

10.

Shri Mohd. Shahwaz, authorized representative

appearing on behalf of the claimant urged that management

of CBSE falls within the definition of industry as defined

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1271

under Section 2(j) of the Act. Before I I proceed to consider

the question whether CBSE falls within the definition of

industry or not, it is appropriate to reproduce the definition

of industry under section 2(j) , and the same is as under:

“industry” means any business, trade, undertaking,

manufacture or calling of employers and includes

any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or

industrial occupation or avocation of workmen”.

11.

It is further clear from perusal of the above definition

that (1) The definition of “industry” in the Act is very

comprehensive. It is in two parts : one part defines it from

the stand-point of the employer and the other from the

stand-point of the employee. If an activity falls under either

part of the definition, it will be an industry within the

meaning of the Act. While considering question whether

a particular institution or Corporation or Board falls within

the definition of of industry, it is necessary to remember

that the Act is a legislation intended to bring about peace

and harmony between management and labour in an

industry so that production does not suffer and at the

same time there is no exploitation of labour employed by

such industry or its day to day work. Whenever such a

question arises whether a particular concern is an industry

or not, approach must be broad & liberal and not rigid

and doctrinaire. Interpretation should be such as would

advance object and purpose of the Act and give full

meaning and effect to it in the achievement of its avowed

social objectives.

12.

I have carefully gone through the ration of

judgement in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage

(supra ) and there is not an inkling in the said authority

that CBSE would not fall within the definition of industry.

Rather the management in its pleadings referred to the

three basic attributes laid down in the said case and only

the first two attributes are fulfilled by the management. To

my mind when a workman has been engaged by the CBSE

to do a particular kind of work on daily basis, then

relationship of employer and employee stands established

and management cannot take the plea that in the Act, the

Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to try the case. Even

no such objection was taken before the ALC and it is only

made thereafter when Government made reference to this

Tribunal for adjudication of the case. Resultantly, it is

held that in the case in hand management falls within the

definition of industry.

Findings on Issue No. 2

13.

Management, in its pleadings, has specifically avrred

that the workman has not rendered continuous service for

240 days in any calendar year and also alleged that the

workman herein has worked only for 373 days in 10 years.

At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to the facts averred

by the workman in this behalf. Workman in his pleadings

has specifically stated that he was engaged in the year

1996 by the management and was appointed through

Employment Exchange and it was not a case of back door

entry. This fact has been specifically denied by the

management. There is also reference to the writ petition

2292 of 1999 wherein the petitioner has specifically stated

that his name is at serial No.17. All these facts are reiterated

by him in his affidavit Ex.WW1/A also. There is no cross

examination of the workman on that point. Law is fairly

well settled that if a witness has deposed a particular fact

in his statement and he is not cross examined by the

opposite party on that point or that fact is not specifically

denied by the opposite party, in that eventuality, such

fact shall be deemed to be admitted. It is pertinent to

mention here that the management in its reply in para 1

and 2 has admitted that he was engaged on daily wage

basis vide letter dated 21.01.1998. It is further averred by

the management that he was doing seasonal work of the

management and this engagement was purely on daily

wage basis to attend to seasonal work. When the workman

stated that he has worked for 240 days or he has worked

regularly in a calendar year for 240 days, onus to prove to

the contrary is upon the management. Hon’ble Apex Court

in the case of Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi Vs. Hindalco

Industries Ltd. (2014) 11 SCC 85)dealt with the question of

termination of services of a daily wager who has rendered

service for six yours and it was held that when the workman

has stated that he was out of employment, onus to prove

that the workman was in service would shift upon the

employer.

14.

Further, the fact that in the writ petition name of the

petitioner was mentioned as co-petitioner also prima facie

shows that at all the material times, workman was in the

employment of the management. It is further clear from

memorandum WW1/1 that he was appointed as Junior

Assistant on daily wages basis vide letter dated 21.01.1998

The list of employees Ex.WW1/2 also shows mentions the

name of the workman herein at serial No.85, which further

shows that the workman in the year 18\996 worked from

15.11.1996 to 26.12.1996 and 29.12.1996 to 08.02.1997 but

there is no mention of the engagement in the subsequent

period in the above list. However, factum of engagement

of the workman in 1996 stands duly established from the

above letter and stand of the management that he was not

employed in the year 1997 stands falsified. Workman has

also filed Ex.WW1/3 wherein he has mentioned that his

address has not been properly mentioned in the seniority

list of the management and the same be corrected in the

manner discussed above. There is also a letter Ex.WW1/

4 wherein request has been made for his reinstatement. In

the said letter, it is mentioned that it was in the year 2007

that his services were terminated and since then he is

unemployed. He has to feed his family, including his aged

parents and his mother is suffering from several deceases.

Workman has also sent letter to Assistant Labour

Commissioner vide letter dated 13.03.2002 Ex.WW1/5,

1272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

wherein it is clearly mentioned that he has written several

letters to the management for taking him back into service,

but of no use. Letter WW1/6 issued by the management

shows that the name of the workman herein was not

included in the seniority list of Junior Assistants and he

has not reported for duties since 2006. It is clear from

evidence on record that address of the workman herein

was wrongly mentioned in the seniority list and the

workman has specifically brought this fact to the notice of

the management of CBSE by writing letter Ex.WW1/3. It

is further clear that after 2006, the workman was not in the

employment of the management and management did not

show name of the workman herein in the seniority list of

Junior Assistants because he was not reporting for duties.

However, this Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that address

of the workman was not proper and as such any letter

dispatched at the above address which was not correct

cannot be construed that the workman was having

knowledge of termination of his job in 2006-07. It is also

relevant to point out here that the workman has specifically

deposed that even after 2007, he has approached the

management several times so as to given him employment,

but the management has not paid any heed to the request

of the workman. In such a situation, when name of the

workman was initially shown in the writ petition filed before

Hon’ble High Court at serial No.17 and other

correspondence record also shows that he was in the

employment of the management, as such, it is held that

the workman herein has worked for 240 days or more in a

calendar year, particularly when no evidence worth the

name was adduced by the management so as to prove its

stand that the workman has not worked for requisite

number of days in a calendar year.

15.

Now, the residual question which survives for

consideration is whether termination of services of he

workman herein in May, 2005 is justified or not. As

discussed above, it has come in evidence that the

workman has tried to approach the management on several

occasions so as to get his employment even after 2005.

There is no evidence on record to show that any notice

was served on the workman before ordering his termination

nor salary in lieu of notice was paid to the workman before

ordering his termination. Thus, there is clear cut violation

of provisions of Section 25 F of the Act. Since the workman

in the case in hand rendered almost regular service with

artificial breaks as discussed above, as such, termination

of his services without complying with the mandatory

requirement of section 25 F of the Act is held to be illegal

and not justified under the law. It has also come in evidence

that the workman has a big family support and he is not in

any other employment. Ordinarily settled principles of

law is that the workman is entitled for reinstatement with

full back wages when his termination is held to be illegal.

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of BSNL Vs. Bhurumal

(2014) 7 SCC 177 held that this principle cannot be applied

in a mechanical manner. While that may be the position

where services of regular/permanent workmen are

terminated illegally and or in a malafide manner by way of

victimization. However, in cases where terminate of daily

wager workers and such workmen is found to be illegal

because of procedural defects, i.e. in violation of provisions

of Section 25F of the act, reinstatement with back wages is

not to be automatic. Instead, workman may be given

monetary compensation if the facts and given

circumstances of the case so warrants. However, situation

would be different when employment is still available with

the management and the workman is ready and willing to

work against that post. No doubt in the case in hand,

reference has been made by the Central Government

requiring it adjudicate the case, but merely delay in making

reference to this Tribunal would not deprive the workman

of his legal rights in case his services have been terminated

in violation of provisions of the Act or principles of natural

justice. As reference in the present case was received on

29.01.2014 after expiry of nearly nine years and as such,

this Tribunal is of the view that back wages are to be

granted to the workman herein from the date of raising

dispute till reinstatement. I find support to this view from

the case of Raghubir Singh versus General Manager,

Haryana Roadways, Hissar, 2014 AIR SCW 5515 wherein

it was also the case where reference was virtually stale or

was made very belatedly on account of delay caused by

the workman.

Relief

16.

As a sequel to the discussions herein above,

workman is entitled to be taken back in service with all

consequential benefits from the date of his termination

and is entitled to back wages from the date of raising the

dispute till reinstatement. An award is, accordingly,

passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate

Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : March 29, 2016

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 636-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj v'kksd gksVy]

fnYyh ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 69@2012)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-04-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1273

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2016

S.O. 636.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 69/2012)

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 Ashok Hotel, Delhi and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

01-04-2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

NO.1, DELHI

ID No. 69/2012

Shri Lalilt Kumar Vashishta &

Shri Bhupender Singh Bhandari, through

The President

Ashok Hotel Mazdoor Janta Union,

Ashok Hotel,

Staff Quarter No. C-48-49,

50-B, Chanakyapuri,

New Delhi –110 021

...Workman

Versus

The General Manager (HR),

Ashok Hotel, 50-B,

Chanakyapuri,

Delhi –110 021

...Management

AWARD

Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that

the workmen herein directly raised a dispute before this

Tribunal under provisions of sub-section (2) of Section

2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) in

as much as period of 45 days stood expired from the date

of making his application before the Conciliation Officer

and no reference is required under the Act by the Tribunal

from the appropriate Government after the said period.

It is averred in the statement of claim that the

workmen mentioned in the head note of the petition were

working in Ashok Hotel since July, 2004 and January, 2006

respectively to the satisfaction of the management of

Ashok Hotel. There was no complaint against the said

workmen and their group leader has also appreciated

their services. The workmen were working in the premises

of Ashok Hotel against permanent posts lying vacant in

Ashok Hotel. Officials of Ashok Hotel used to assign the

job or work to the workmen and also used to mark their

attendance and supervision of the work/job was under

the control of management of Ashok Hotel.

It is further the case of the workmen that they have

filed proper applications and they were also interviewed

by the officials of Ashok Hotel before their appointment.

However, instead of giving direct letter of appointment

through management of Ashok Hotel, they were issued

letters through the contractor, M/s Recruitment Bureau

so as to deprive them of proper pay-scales as well as other

benefits applicable to the post of cashier. Workmen were

working in the restaurants of Ashok Hotel, dealing with

cash. However, they were not paid cash handling

allowance of Rs.200.00 per month, which they were entitled

as per rules. It is pertinent to mention here that the workmen

were working with the permanent cashiers appointed by

the management of Ashok Hotel , who were being paid

regular pay scale of cashier, alongwith other allowances

whereas the workmen herein were paid less salary starting

from Rs.7000.00 per month and at the time of termination

of their services, they were getting Rs.9000.00 per month

whereas permanent employees working as cashiers are

getting salary of Rs.30,000.00 per month. Job carried out

by the workmen herein was perennial in nature and the

same should have not been done through contractor, as

such, contrary to the provisions of Contract Labour Act,

1970. For the purpose of making payment of salary,

management of Ashok Hotel was using services of

middleman contractor M/s Recruitment Bureau, who was

making payment to the workmen after receiving the said

salary from the management of Ashok Hotel every month.

It is further alleged that as per Payment of Wages Act,

1948 workmen are entitled to double the wages for extra

duty performed by them, which was also denied to the

workmen herein. EPF of the workmen herein as per rule of

Ashok Hotel should have been deposited in Ashok Hotel

Employees Provident Fund Trust No.DL-522, which was

not done. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (North

Delhi) cancelled the Ashok Hotel Employees PF Trust

No.DL-522 on account of non-deposit of PF money of the

employees in the EPF Trust of Ashok Hotel, who were

working through contractor, vide letter dated 28.12.2010,

which was subsequently restored vide order dated

14.07.2011. Workmen herein were also entitled for bonus

as per Bonus Act, 1965 for the financial years working

since 2004 but the management of Ashok Hotel paid only

Rs.3000.00 once in the entire service of the workmen.

Workmen have completed 240 days in each calendar year

and thus were entitled for regularization of their services

with the management of Ashok Hotel. However, instead

of regularizing services of the workmen, their services were

illegally terminated in September, 2011. While removing

the workmen from service no notice or pay in lieu thereof,

nor any service compensation for the service rendered by

the workmen was given to them; as such, it violates

provisions of Section 25F of the Act.

1274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

There are also averments that as per Standing Orders

of Ashok Hotel under Section No,3 there is a classification

of the employees, i.e. Permanent, Temporary, Badlis,

casuals, probationers and apprentices and the management

of Ashok Hotel cannot use services of employees through

contractor and have to employ or appoint employees in

the above categories. Workmen were working in the

premises of Ashok Hotel , who were beneficiary of their

services. As such, they were employees of Ashok Hotel

for all purposes.

Workmen, further, alleged in para 19 of the claim

filed before the Central Labour Commissioner that there

was shortage of Rs.860.00 while they were selling coupons

in the function held in the Convention Hall on 05.08.2011

and the shortage of Rs.860.00 at the time of coupon sale

was deposited by them on 06.08.2011 as per normal

practice, though the management did not issue any letter

to the workmen for making payment of shortage of amount

of Rs.860.00. Management of Ashok Hotel has written

letter dated 20.09.2011 to the contractor advising him to

direct the workman to deposit Rs.860.00 found short in

their cash on 05.08.2011, whereas the workmen, as stated

above, had already deposited the amount with management

of Ashok Hotel. Thereafter, workmen have also written

letter to the General Manager of Ashok Hotel on 24.09.2011

requesting them to take them on duty, but Ashok Hotel

has not responded to the said letter so far. President of

Ashok Hotel Mazdoor Janta Union wrote two letters i.e.

26.09.2011 and 24.11.2011 but none of these letters were

responded by the management of Ashok Hotel. In the

end, Workmen have prayed that the management of Ashok

Hotel be directed to reinstate both the workmen, Shri Lalit

Kumar Vashisht and Shri Bhupender Singh Bhandari with

full back wages.

Management was put to notice, who filed written

statement taking preliminary objections, claiming that the

present claim is totally misconceived, ill conceived and

not tenable. It is further alleged that the workmen herein

were employees of M/s Recruitment Bureau, as such, there

is no cause of action against the management of Ashok

Hotel. The answering management is neither necessary

nor a proper party for adjudication of the claim and name

of the answering management should be deleted and

substituted with M/s Recruitment Bureau, which is

necessary party. Answering management has entered into

an agreement with M/s Recruitment Bureau for providing

manpower for job works which was on principal to principal

basis. Workmen herein were permanent employees of M/s

Recruitment Bureau. Liability towards all the relief of the

workmen is that of M/s Recruitment Bureau and the

answering management has no role in the present dispute.

On merits, management has denied most of the

averments contained in the statement of claim. It is

specifically denied that the workmen herein were working

for the management of Ashok Hotel as they were

employees of M/s Recruitment Bureau under whose

control and supervision they were working. Workmen

during the said period were also charged with offence of

misappropriation of public money. It is also denied that

attendance of workmen were being marked in I. Card

section. Answering management has no rule with regard

to marking of attendance of workmen of Recruitment

Bureau, who were deployed for rendering service under

the contract. Answering management, being principal

employer, has no authority to make salary slip of the

employees of Recruitment Bureau. Salary bill is raised by

the service provider is required to be verified by the

concerned officer of Ashok Hotel to establish their

authenticity and to ensure compliance of statutory

provisions. Averments made in the other paras in relation

to deployment, payment of wages, bonus etc. has also

been denied by the management. Finally, it has been prayed

that this Tribunal may dismiss the claim filed by the

workmen herein.

Against this factual background, my learned

predecessor, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, vide

order dated 30.05.2012, framed the following issues:

(i)

Whether the claimants are employees of the

management or the contractor?

(ii)

Whether the claimants rendered continuous service

of more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months

from the date of termination of their services?

(iii)

Whether termination of services of the claimants

amount to retrenchment?

(iv)

Whether the claimants are entitled to relief of

reinstatement in the services of the management ?

Workmen, in order to prove their case against the

management examined Shri S.S. Upadhyay as WW1, Shri

Lalit Kumar Vashishtha as WW2, Shri Bhupender Singh

Bhandari as WW3 and Shri Hira Ballab as WW4, who filed

affidavits Ex.WW1/A, Ex.WW2/A, Ex.WW3/A and

Ex.WW4/A respectively and they have also adduced

several documents in evidence and I would be discussing

the same while rendering findings in the subsequent paras

on various issues.

10.

Management, in order to rebut the case of the

workmen, examined Shri Lohit Joshi, Manager(HR) as MW1

and also filed affidavit, Ex.MW1/A. He has also tendered

in evidence certificate of registration under the Contract

Labour Act and copies of bills raised by Recruitment Bureau

etc. and the documents are Ex.MW1/1, Ex.MW1/2,

Ex.WW4/5 and Ex.WW4/6.

11.

I have heard Shri S.S. Upadhyay, authorized

representative for the workmen and Shri B.K. Singh,

authorized representative for the management.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1275

Findings on Issue No.1 and 2

12.

Both these issues are being taken up together for

the purpose of discussion as they are inter-related and

can be conveniently disposed of.

13.

It is clear from the affidavit filed by Shri S.S.

Upadhyay, copy of which is Ex.WW1/A that the same is

on similar lines as the averments made in the statement of

claim. During the course of arguments, it was not disputed

that Ashok Hotel Mazdoor Janta Union is recognized union

by the management of Ashok Hotel and there are several

cases which have been filed by the workmen through the

said union. Admittedly, Ashok Hotel is a public sector

undertaking being run by Board of Directors under the

Ministry of Tourism. It has its own rules and regulations

regarding working of the Hotel. It was also not disputed

that Certified Standing Orders modified from time to time

are full applicable governing services of the employees

working in the said Hotel. During the course of arguments,

attention of this Tribunal was invited to Section 3 of the

Sanding Order, Ex.WW1/1, which deals with the

classification of the employees, which clearly provides

that all employees of the company shall be classified as

under:

a) Permanent

b) Temporary

c) Badlis

d) Casuals

e) Probationers

14.

Certified standing orders is a complete code so far

as services of the employees working in Ashok Hotel is

concerned and it contains specific provisions relating to

the procedure for dealing with cases of misconduct. The

term permanent, temporary, badlis, casuals and probationer

workmen has also been fully defined in the said standing

orders. It is specifically averred in para 8 of affidavit

Ex.WW1/A that the strength of employees approved by

the Board of Directors is 1494 in all and employees are

appointed in respective categories as per strength of the

category. There is also specific mention of the vacant

posts and it is specifically alleged that so far as post of

cashiers/clerks were concerned, 50 posts of cashiers/clerks

were vacant in 2012 against sanctioned post of about 100.

Further, management of Ashok Hotel utilizes services of

workmen through M/s. Recruitment Bureau. However,

supervision and control over the workmen was that of the

management of Ashok Hotel. Admittedly, all these

workmen were working in the premises of Ashok Hotel.

Shri S.S. Upadhyay has admitted that on number of

occasions, payment of wages was made when he happened

to be present there. Payment of wages was made through

M/s. Recruitment Bureau to the workmen. He has further

admitted that the workmen were engaged by

M/s. Recruitment Bureau and their services were

dispensed with by the said Bureau. He has tendered in

evidence duty chart Ex.WW1/14, which shows that the

workmen herein used to work in the premises of Ashok

Hotel and officials of Ashok Hotel used to mark their

attendance. This witness also tendered in evidence

document Ex.WW1/5 which shows that management has

awarded job contract to the agency mentioned in the said

document. There is also letter dated 26.08.2008 Ex.WW1/

6 written by Manager, Ashok Hotel to M/s. Recruitment

Bureau wherein requirement of 16 candidates has been

mentioned to the needful work. There is yet another letter

Ex.WW1/7 dated 28.07.2008 which shows that deployment

of Shri Satveer Nimesh as Cashier was done by the

management of Ashok Hotel. There is an office order

Ex.WW1/8 which shows that henceforth no person shall

be engaged on contract basis in any of the Division/Unit

of ITDC without the approval of the Corporate HR Division.

Another letter Ex.WW1/9 addressed by the General

Manager to M/s. Sparkling Enterprises shows that the

management of Ashok Hotel complained to the contractor

that the employees mentioned in the said letter were found

to be sleeping during surprise check carried out by officials

of the management. Competent authority has directed to

take major penalty action against the delinquent employees.

This again shows that so far as working of the employees

is concerned, supervision and control over them was that

of the management of Ashok Hotel and the so called

contractor was engaged by the principal employee, i.e.

Ashok Hotel was simply a service provider on paper who

has forwarded name of workmen for the purpose of

deployment in the various units of the Hotel. Ex.WW1/10

shows that surprise check was carried out by officials of

the Hotel on the night of 24/25.08.2008 and the workers

whose names are mentioned in the said list were found

sleeping. Ex.WW1/13 shows list of workmen employed in

Ashok Hotel.

15.

After termination of the job of the workmen herein,

Shri S.S. Upadhyay, President of the Union has written

letter to the General Manager, Ashok Hotel, informing the

management that cashier, namely Shri Bhupinder Singh

Bhandari and Shri Lalit Kumar Vashisht who were working

under the management of Ashok Hotel since January, 2006

and 2004 respectively have now been removed from

service in an illegal manner. There is also reference to the

shortage of cash of Rs.860.00 , which amount stands

deposited with Ashok Hotel. Similarly, letter Ex.WW1/19

written by Shri S.S. Upadhyay makes reference to his

previous letter dated 26.09.2011 Ex.WW1/18 wherein

request was made to take the workmen, mentioned in the

letter, back with full back wages, failing which matter would

be taken to the Court. Letter Ex.WW1/20 shows that

matter regarding illegal termination/removal of the workmen

was brought to the notice of M/s. Recruitment Bureau,

wherein serious allegations have been made against

1276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Shri Bhupinder Singh Bhandari and Shri Lalit Kumar

Vashisht regarding concealment/.misappropriation of

amount mentioned in the said letter. Both employees have

admitted the fact that cash of Rs.860.00 was found short.

Thus, it is clear that it is on the basis of these lapses

committed by the workmen herein that their services was

terminated by the management. However, there is force in

the contention of the workmen herein that no such notice

before termination or payment of salary in lieu of the notice

was made to the workmen before removal or terminating

their services.

16.

Similar is the statement of Shri Lalit Kumar Vashisht,

WW2, whose affidavit is Ex.WW2/A. He has deposed

that he was working since 20.11.2011 as cashier. It was the

Manager who assigned duty to him as per duty roster. He

used to record time of his arrival as well as departure in the

attendance register. His attendance was recorded by the

Manager. He used to work in shifts and his wages used to

be paid through contractor. Photocopy of the ESI card

issued to him is Ex.WW2/1. He has not received any

notice regarding details for the amount of deposits in his

provident fund. He has served under Shri Anil Makkar,

who was Manager for about 5 years, Shri K.S. Chaudhary,

joined in his post. He also worked under Shri Khanna for

about 1 ½ months. He specifically deposed that no

termination letter was issued to him . There were regular

employees in the Hotel who were doing similar job of

cashier. This witness was again cross examined by the

management to try and prove photocopy of Identity Card

Ex.W2/M2. He has admitted that his wages were paid by

M/s. Recruitment Bureau after getting bill passed from the

management. He further admitted that the management

had not signed any documents with him relating to his

service conditions. He has denied other suggestions made

by the management.

17.

Shri Bhupinder Singh Bhandari was examined as

WW3 and his affidavit is Ex.WW3/A. His statement is

also on similar lines as that of Shri Lalit Kumar Vashisht.

He has admitted that the contractor used to pay wages

and he was simply a middleman. No other benefits were

granted by the contractor. He rendered continuous service

of more than 240 days in every calendar year. No

termination order was issued, in writing, by the contractor

to him. He has also mentioned the name of the Manager

under whom he was working.

18.

Workmen also examined Shri Hira Ballabh as WW4

and his affidavit is Ex.WW4/A. Statement of this witness

is also on similar lines as that of the other two witnesses.

He used to perform his duties in the kitchen. All these

workmen were admittedly working in the same hotel.

19.

Management, in order to rebut the case of the

workmen, examined Shri Lohit Joshi as MW1, whose

affidavit is Ex.MW1/A. He has tendered documents

relating to engagement of M/s. Recruitment Bureau Ex./

MW1/1 and other documents Ex.MW1/2, E.WW4/4 and

Ex.WW4/5. He was posted at Ashok Hotel in October

2012. He has admitted that Certified Standing Orders are

applicable to employees of Ashok Hotel. He has admitted

the various categories of the employees as mentioned in

the said Standing Orders. He further admitted creation of

provident fund trust pertaining to employees of Ashok

Hotel. He admitted that as per rule 14, Ex.WW1/2, duty is

cast on the principal employer to deposit contribution of

the provident fund in respect of employees of the

contractor in the Trust. He has further deposed that wages

were paid to all the employees through M/s. Recruitment

Bureau and said employees were working in Ashok Hotel.

He has admitted that duty chart Ex.WW1/4 bears

signatures of the Bills Manager at point A. To a court

question as to why signature of Bills Manager appears at

point A, witness sought further time to explain the said

fact. He has admitted that Ex.WW1/14 nowhere bears

signatures of the contractor. It is clear from perusal of

duty charg Ex.WW1/14 that duty chart does not bear

signature of the contractor or any of his agent. Bills

Manager as signed the same at the end. Thus, there is no

force in the contention of the management that it was

M/s. Recruitment Bureau who was having overall control

on the working as well as supervision over the workmen

herein. There is amply evidence on record, as discussed

above, to show that above contractor was simply a name

lender and the workmen herein were actually working under

complete control and supervision of the management of

Ashok Hotel. Their placement on duty as well as nature

of duty was duly determined by the management from

time to time and they were also shifted from one place to

another within the premises of Ashok Hotel by the officials

of the management so as to get work from them.

20.

Now, the primary question which arises for

consideration is whether the workmen were in the

employment of Ashok Hotel or were employed by M/s.

Recruitment Bureau. Equally important is the fact that

agreement between the management of Ashok Hotel and

the contractor is genuine or simply a sham and camouflage

so as to deny status of workmen under the principal

employer herein. In this regard, strong reliance was placed

by Shri Upadhyay, learned authorized representative

appearing on behalf of the workmen upon Steel Authority

of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Waterfront

Workers and others (2001) 7 SCC 1, wherein the Hon’ble

Supreme Court considered extensively various provisions

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as Contract

Labour Act, 1970 alongwith relevant notification issued

under Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act, 1970. A

critical appraisal of eh above judgement would show that

the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken into consideration the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1277

entire spectrum of the case law on the subject and held in

para 107 as under:

107. An analysis of the cases, discussed above,

shows that they fall in three classes: (i) where

contract labour is engaged in or in connection with

the work of an establishment and employment of

contract labour is prohibited either because the

industrial adjudicator/court ordered abolition of

contract labour or because the appropriate

Government issued notification under Section 10(1)

of the CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of the

contract labour working in the establishment was

ordered; (ii) where the contract was found to be a

sham and nominal, rather a camouflage, in which

case the contract labour working in the establishment

of the principal employer were held, in fact and in

reality, the employees of the principal employer

himself. Indeed, such cases do not relate to abolition

of contract labour but present instances wherein

the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct

position as a fact at the stage after employment of

contract labour stood prohibited; (iii) where in

discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining a

canteen in an establishment the principal employer

availed the services of a contractor the courts have

held that the contract labour would indeed be the

employees of the principal employer.

21.

Ratio of the above judgement has been cited with

approval in all the subsequent pronouncements by the

various High Courts as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court

and while making various conclusions, ratio of he law in

Hussanbhai case (three judgements decision) was

approved and ratio of the judgement in Air India Statutory

Corporation Vs. United Labour Union (1997) 9 SCC 377

was partly overruled prospectively. It was also made clear

that neither Section 10 of the Contract Labour Ac nor any

other provisions under the Act, whether expressly or by

necessary implication provides for automatic absorption

of the contact labour on issuance of notification by the

appropriate Government under sub-section 1 of Section

10 prohibiting employment of contract labour in any

process, operation or other work in any establishment.

Mater is to be decided judiciously by the Industrial

Adjudicator where a contractor has been interposed either

on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given

result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour

for the work of the establishment under a genuine contract

or is merely a ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with

various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers

of the benefit there-under. If the contract is found to be

not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called contract

labour will be treated as employees of the principal

employer who shall be directed to regularize services of

the contract labour in the establishment concerned, subject

to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose

in the light of para 6 hereunder:

(6) If the contract is found to be genuine and

prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the

CLRA Act in respect of the concerned establishment

has been issued by the appropriate Government,

prohibiting employment of contract labour in any

process, operation or other work of any

establishment and where in such process, operation

or other work of the establishment the principal

employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall

give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if

otherwise found suitable and, if necessary, by

relaxing the condition as to maximum age

appropriately taking into consideration the age of

the workers at the time of their initial employment by

the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to

academic qualifications other than technical

qualifications.

22.

This Tribunal has to keep one thing in mind that the

Industrial Disputes Act as well as Contract Labour Act.

Essential and beneficial legislation of the scheme of the

Contract Labour Act 1970 is to regulate conditions of

workers under the contract labour system and to provide

for its abolition by the appropriate Government as provided

under Section 10 of the said Act. Section 12 of the said

Act bars a contractor from undertaking or executing any

work through contract labour, except under and in

accordance with a licence issued. Section 23, 24 and 25 of

the Act makes contravention of provisions of the Act

punishable there-under. There is also requirement for the

principal employer of the establishment to get itself

registered under the Act so as to avail the benefit of

provisions of the Act.

23.

Reliance was also placed upon the case of

Management of Ashok Hotel vs Their Workmen decided

on 19.02.2013 in WP(C) No.14828/2006 wherein similar

question was involved. It was a case where various

workmen were working continuously as safaiwala/

Housemen in the kitchen department etc. and they were

alleged to be working directly under the contactor who

has entered into a contract with the principal employer, i.e.

Ashok Hotel. Strong reliance was placed on behalf of the

workmen upon ratio of the case in Steel Authority of India

(supra) and contention of the management to the effect

that workmen were employees of the contractor was

rejected. Further, contract in the said case was also held to

be sham and camouflage so as to deny direct relationship

of employer (Ashok Hotel) and the workmen.

24.

Lastly, reliance was placed upon the case of J.

Elangovan vs. CGIT cum Labour Court Chennai decided

on 13.12.2010 wherein workmen who were engaged as lift

operators through contractor by the principal employer,

i.e Airport Authority of India, were held to be employees

1278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of the contractor by the Industrial Tribunal and an appeal

against the same was filed before the Hon’ble High Court

wherein same plea was taken as in the case in hand that

the workmen were getting salary through contractor and

were not engaged by the principal employer, who was not

having any effective control over them. However, this

plea was rejected by the Hon’ble High Court by heavily

relying upon the ratio of the case of Hussain Bhai Calicut

Vs. The Alath Factory Thezhilali Union, Kozhikode &

others (1978 4 SCC 257), Catering Cleaners of Southern

Railway Vs. Union of India and another (1987 1 SCC 700),

Silver Jubilee Tailoring House and others vs. Chief

Inspector of Shops and Establishments and another (1974

(3) SCC 498, Mishra Chatu Nigam Ltd. and others V.M.

Venkataiah and others ( 2003 7 SCC 488), Sankar Mukherjee

and others vs. Union of India and others ((1990(Supp.)

SCC 668 and Ram Singh and others Vs. Union Territory

Chandigarh & others ( 2004 1 SCC 126). It was also

observed that the test for determining as to whether

workers hired through contractor can be treated as

employees of the principal employer rests on the nature of

the activity entrusted. Where nature of work entrusted to

the contract workers are integral part of the activity of the

management and intervention of intermediary or contractor,

absence of direct relationship between worker and principal

employer, including control by the principal employer,

payment of salary by the contractor and maintenance of

attendance register by the contractor are not of any

consequence, particularly more so when the nature of job

entrusted to such contract workers is the same as one

done by regular employees. Agreement in the said case

was held to be sham and camouflage. Situation in the

case in hand is in no way different. It is clear from evidence

on record that workmen herein were being paid salary by

the contractor through officials of Ashok Hotel. Work of

cashier, as per statement of MW1 is regular and perennial

in nature. It is further clear that contract Ex.WW4/3 was

awarded to M/s. Recruitment Bureau initially for a period

of three years and he has simply provided workforce to

Ashok Hotel, whose officials were supervising and were

having effective control over working of such employees.

Further, job of casher is very delicate and is in fact being

performed by regular employees of Ashok Hotel also. As

a result of the discussions above and in the light of the

ratio of decisions in the above judgements coupled with

evidence on record, contract Ex.WW4/3 in the case is

held to be sham and a mere camouflage so as to deny

relationship of employer (Ashok Hotel) and workmen

herein.

25.

It is further clear from the critical appraisal of the

above judgements that services of the workman is taken

in connection with the work of the establishment, by the

principal employer through contractor, in that eventuality,

contractor merely acts as an agent or a broker on behalf of

the principal employer and the workman in such a situation

would continue to the a direct employee of the principal

employer and not that of the agent or the broker. In the

case in hand also, it is clear from the evidence on record,

that the workmen herein were admittedly working as

Cashiers with the management regularly, though alleged

to be in the employment of M/s. Recruitment Bureau.

Supervisory control upon them remained with that of the

management.

26.

It is also clear from perusal of the Certified Standing

Orders Ex.WW1/1 that Section III details with the

classification of employees and the same is reproduced as

under:

Section 3 : Classification of Employees

a) Permanent

b) Temporary

c) Badlis

d) Casuals

e) Probationers

27.

Since appointment of contact labour is not

contemplated in the above Certified Standing Orders, as

such, the engagement of workmen through contract labour

is patently against the law and Standing Orders Ex.WW1/1.

28.

Workmen have also filed documents Ex.WW1/2

which deals with the deposit of provident fund of the

employees engaged by the employer. Similarly, document

Ex.WW1/3 shows that contractor or the employer was not

depositing the provident fund etc. with the Trust so

constituted under the Regulation, as a result of which

exemption granted to the management was withdrawn by

the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Delhi, North.

There is another document, Ex.WW1/4, which shows the

position of employees who were working in the

establishment of the management. During the course of

arguments, it was not disputed that several posts of various

categories are lying vacant in the establishment of the

management and have not been filled up so far as the

Central Government has not granted permission to fill up

the same. In such a situation, one thing is crystal clear

that though the work of the workmen herein who were

admittedly working as Cashiers with the management is

regular in nature, yet the management is deploying workers

through contractors.. It is further clear that management

has adopted this devise so as to deprive the workmen of

regular employment and deprive them of their permanent

livelihood, which is totally against the spirit of Contract

Labour Act, 1970 wherein it is clearly provided that when

a work is regular or permanent in nature, there is no question

of employing contract labour, particular when such labour

is not covered by any clause mentioned in Section III of

the Certified Standing Order. This also amount to unfair

labour practice.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1279

29.

Admittedly, no notice whatsoever was served upon

the workmen herein before ordering their termination, as

they have been working since July 2004 and January 2006.

Thus, in the case in hand, there is violation of Section 25F

of the Act, which requires that if a workman has worked

continuously for 240 days in a calendar year, then the

management is required to issue notice to such workman,

which has not been done in the case in hand. Thus, there

is no merit in the contention of the management that the

workmen herein were directly employed by M/s.

Recruitment Bureau. when the overall control and

supervision remained with the management.

30.

So far as question of regularization of the workmen

herein is concerned, this Tribunal cannot give directions

for regularization of the workmen in view of the clear cut

ratio of law in Steel Authority of India (supra) wherein it

was held that question of regularization is to be decided

by the principal employer after taking into consideration

the minimum qualification, age as well as availability of

posts. There is no such evidence to this effect brought on

record, either by the workmen or the management. As

such, plea of the workmen for regularization cannot be

entertained at this stage. This is to be decided by the

management after taking into consideration the necessary

rules applicable to such employees governing such

regulation.

Findings on Issue No. (iii) & (iv)

31.

During the course of arguments, it was strongly

urged on behalf of the management that M/s. Recruitment

Bureau was a necessary party to the controversy and in

the absence of its impleadment as a necessary party,

reference filed by the workmen herein is not legally

maintainable. Shri Upadhyay, authorized representative

on behalf of the workmen countered the above

submissions by urging that the workmen herein were in

the employment of the management and that payment of

wages were made to them through contractor with the

prior approval of the management, as such M/s.

Recruitment Bureau is not a necessary party. To my mind,

when reference has been made under Section 10 of the

Act by the appropriate Government, this Tribunal does

not have the power to implead a party. Hence, there is no

force in the contention of the management inasmuch as

the management should have examined the contractor

M/s. Recruitment Bureau so as to ascertain its terms and

conditions. Moreover, M/s Recruitment Bureau is simply

a proper party and is not the necessary party for the

adjudication of the controversy in question. Hence, this

issue is answered accordingly.

Relief

32.

Consequently, it is held that termination of the

workmen herein, i.e. from 20.09.2011 is held to be illegal

and workmen herein are entitled to be reinstated. Since it

has come in the evidence of the workmen that they are

unemployed since the date of their termination and there

being no evidence to the contrary led by the management,

as such, the workmen herein are liable to be reinstated

with full back wages from the date of their termination. An

award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the

appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : March 29, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 637-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vkbZ-ch-

ih- daiuh fyfeVsM vkSj nwljs ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] iq.ks ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 06@2007) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

31-03-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@26@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2016

S.O. 637.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/2007)

of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Pune now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of M/s. IBP

Company Ltd. and Other and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 31-03-2016.

[No. L-30011/26/2007-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL MAHARASHTRA

AT PUNE

Reference (IT) No. 06/2007

The Senior Divisional Manager,

IBP Co. Ltd., Pune Divisional Office,

4, Aditi Commerce Centre, 5th Floor,

2406 East Street, Pune-1.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

Loni, Tal-Haveli, Pune.

...First Party

AND

Shri Shivlingappa H. Roli,

Atre Vasti, Loni Station,

Pune-Solapur Road, Pune

...Second Party

CORAM : Shri. A.M. Tamboli, Presiding Officer

1280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances :

Mr. D.V. Kulkarni, Advocate for First Party

Mr. Gopale, Advocate for Second Party

AWARD

( Dated :11.03.2016 )

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, has

made this reference for the adjudication of the dispute

between Shri. Shivlingappa H. Roli (the Second Party),

and Senior Divisional Manager, IBP Co. Ltd., (the First

Party employer). The dispute is regarding termination of

services of the Second Party.

It is the case of the second party workman that, he

was employed by the first party after he was interviewed,

as a helper in 1990, on monthly wages of Rs.6000/-. The

first party is engaged in the business of distribution of

petroleum products. It is the case of the second party

that, during his employment he was not getting wages

and other benefits such as leaves, and therefore, he had

made a request to the first party to give him the said

benefits, and therefore, the first party got annoyed and

due to the same the Manager of the first party started

harassing him. It is also alleged that, the second party

while on duty over a tanker owned by the first party as a

cleaner met with an accident and suffered injuries, but no

compensation was paid by the first party to him. On the

contrary on the very day the first party removed him from

the services orally without complying with the provisions

of law.

It is also alleged by the second party that, during

his period of employment he has worked continuously for

more than 240 days in a year. Despite this, he was not

given the benefits of permanent employees, and the first

party want to deprive him of the said benefits, and therefore,

he has claimed for reinstatement with continuity of service

and full back wages. It is also contended by the second

party that, after he was removed by the first party, he has

tried to secure another employment, but could not get any

employment.

The first party filed its written statement and denied

all the allegations made by the second party workman. It

is stated that, the first party comes directly under the

Ministry of Natural Gas & Petroleum, and rules and

regulations framed by the government in respect of

recruitment are binding on the first party.

It is also stated that, the first party no.1 merged with

first party no.2 w.e.f. 02.05.2007, and therefore the first

party no.1 is not in existence. It is also stated by the first

party that, the second party was engaged by the erstwhile

company (which is now not in existence) as a casual

labourer during September 1994 to May 2000, whenever

there was need of casual labourer. It is also stated that,

during all these years from 1994 till 2000, the second party

workman did not work for 240 days in any year as alleged

by him. It is stated that in the year 1994 he worked hardly

for 26 days; in the year 1995 he worked for 79 days; in the

year 1996 he worked for 110 days; in the year 1997 he

worked for 100 days; in the year 1998 he worked for 118

days; in the year 1999 he worked for 44 days; and in the

year 2000 he worked for 40 days. Thus, according to the

first party the second party did not work for 240 days in

any year as alleged by him. It is also stated that, the second

party is not appointed as an employee as per the rules. It

is stated that, it is the attempt of the second party to have

a back-door entry.

It is stated that after Lorry No.MH-12 AQ-825 met

with an accident, the first party disposed of the said lorry

and there was no need of cleaner (casual labourer) for the

said lorry. Similarly, it is stated that after the merger of first

party no.1 and first party No.2, the first party employer

has changed its policy and has decided not to have their

own lorries, and as such No work is available with the first

party of a casual labourer to provide to the second party

workman. It is denied by the first party that, any casual

labourers who were junior to the second party were

confirmed in the employment of the first party.

It is stated that, after the second party met with an

accident, the first party provided him medical treatment in

a reputed hospital simply on humanitarian grounds. In a

nutshell, it is stated that the second party workman is not

entitled for the benefits of permanency with continuity of

service and back wages, and therefore the first party

prayed for rejection of the claim made by the second party.

Upon the rival pleadings of the parties, my Ld.

Predecessor Shri K.W. Thakare, the then Member of this

Tribunal, has framed the following issues on 21.01.2011,

and I have given my findings against each of them for the

reasons mentioned below:-

ISSUES

FINDINGS

1 Does the second party workman prove

No;

that he had been in the continuous

employment of the first party since 1990

as a helper on the last drawn monthly

salary of Rs.600/- up to 27.5.2000 and

completed 240 days continuous service

in a calender year?

2 Does the second party prove that, his

No;

services were orally terminated by the

first party w.e.f. 27.5.2000 and termination

of his services is unjustified & without

following due process of law?

3 Does the second party prove that he is

No;

entitled to the relief of reinstatement with

continuity of service and full back wages

with attendant benefits?

4 What award/order?

As per

final

award.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1281

REASONS

In order to prove his case, the second party workman

has given his oral evidence and closed his evidence.

Similarly, the first party has examined Shri Pravin Shrivastva

and closed their evidence.

10.

Before starting discussion as to issues above, it is

worth to mention that, this reference was decided by this

Tribunal on 17.07.2013 ex-parte, and the first party had

challenged the said award passed by this Tribunal before

the Hon’ble High Court by filing W.P. No.10178/14. In the

said writ petition Her Ladyship Justice Smt. R.P. Sondur

Baldota, passed orders on 15.07.2015 and thereby set aside

the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated

17.07.2013, and ordered to give an opportunity to the first

party to establish their claim i.e. the second party workman

did not work for 240 days in any year as contended by

him. Under the circumstances, the reference was remanded

back before the court for rehearing, and accordingly the

parties have lead their evidence as mentioned above.

11.

As to Issue No.1 : According to the second party

workman, he has worked with the first party from 1990 till

27.05.2000 as a cleaner over a lorry bearing No.MH-12

AQ-825, and the said lorry met with an accident on

27.05.2000 and the driver of the said lorry died in the said

accident, and on the very day his services were terminated

by the first party orally. But, prior to that he was working

with the first party from 1990 and in every year he has

completed 240 days of service. Infact, in support of his

contentions besides his bare words nothing is brought

on record by the second party. It was possible for him to

produce his salary slips and/or examine any co-workers to

show that he has infact worked for more than 240 days in

every year. Thus no positive evidence has been produced

by the second party to establish his claim.

12.

During the course of arguments, the learned

Advocate for the second party has submitted that, he has

given a notice to the first party calling upon the first party

to produce on record the muster-roll and other relevant

documents which will throw light over the controversy

and it would be glaring by the said documents as to

whether the said second party has worked for 240 days in

any year. However, the first party did not produce the said

documents. Consequently, according to the second party

adverse inference is necessary to be drawn. As regards

this submission of the second party, the first party has

attracted my attention towards the observations of His

Lordship Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, of our Hon’ble

High Court in the case of chief Executive Officer, Zilla

Parishad V/s. Shahezadbee & Anr., reported in 2002-(94)-

FLR-479. In the said cited case also, the employer was

directed to produce the muster roll for the relevant period,

but the employer had failed to produce the same, and

therefore, Labour Court has drawn adverse inference as

regards employment of the employee in the said matter,

and has held that employee has rendered services for the

period of more than 240 days in the year preceding to her

termination. No doubt, that in the present case also such

a notice to produce documents were given, however,

according to the first party at the relevant time first party

No.1 was in picture which was subsequently merged with

the first party No.2, but the first party No.1 did not hand

over any such documents to the first party No.2,

consequently, they cannot produce the same. Thus, the

reasonable explanation is forth coming from the first party

as to why they could not produced the said muster-rolls.

However, the witness of the first party has produce on

record a copy of internal correspondence of the company

over which he could lay his hands i.e. letter dated 20.11.2000

which is at Exh.C-15. Infact, in view of the provisions under

Section-32(2) of the Evidence Act,it is a relevant fact, and

therefore the said letter can be taken into consideration.

In the said letter it has been mentioned that the second

party did not work with the first party for 240 days in any

year. Infact the break-up of month wise work done by the

second party has been mentioned in the said letter

commencing from September 1994 to May 2000, and in the

break-up there is nothing to infer that in any particular

year he has worked for more than 240 days in any year.

13.

It is also pertinent to note that, it is clearly mentioned

that he was not employed as a permanent employee. He

was called to work as a casual labourer whenever the

company’s cleaners were going on leave. Thus, it is clear

that he was given job in the first party company on leave

vacancy, and thus it is clear that his employment was not

on a permanent vacant post nor he had worked for 240

days in any year.

In the above cited case our Hon’ble High Court has

observed that, under the circumstances this attempt of an

employee to have a backdoor entry which cannot be

allowed. Consequently, I am of the opinion that it is clear

that, the second party workman failed to prove that he has

worked for more than 240 days in any year from 1990 to

2000. Hence I answer this Issue in the negative.

14.

Issue No. 2 : According to the second party his

services were terminated by the first party w.e.f. 27.05.2000,

and his such a termination without payment of

compensation as provided under the I.D. Act is unjustified.

During the course of arguments, the learned Advocate for

the second party has submitted that, since the second

party was in a permanent employment of the first party

when his services were terminated, the first party ought to

have given him retrenchment benefits. Thus, it appears

that, according to the second party he has been retrenched

by the first party. In a definition of retrenchment given

U/s. 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, a person whose

services have been terminated for non-renewal of contract

of employment is excluded. In the present case, it is clear

that, the second party did not work 240 days in any

particular year, and he was being appointed as a casual

1282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

labourer on leave vacancy, and thus on given date i.e. on

27.05.2000 his services came to an end for non renewal of

the contract, and he was not terminated and thus he was

not entitled to be called as retrenched workman within the

meaning of I.D. Act. Consequently, his termination cannot

be said to be unjustified. Hence I answer this Issue in the

negative.

15.

Issue No. 3 : According to the second party, he is

entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and

full back wages and other relevant benefits. As discussed

above, he is not in permanent employment of the first

party, his services came to an end due to lapse of contract

of casual labourer, and therefore, he is not entitled for

reinstatement with continuity of service. Similarly, when

he is not entitled for the reinstatement, he is not entitled

for back wages also. Hence I answer this Issue in the

negative.

16.

Issue No. 4 : In view of my above discussion, and in

consequence of my findings as to Issue No.1, 2 & 3, I am

of the opinion that as the Reference is made by the

appropriate government raising question as to whether

the action of the first party terminating the services of the

second party without giving any notice is legal and

justified, I am of the opinion that the reference is to be

answered in the affirmative i.e. to say that the termination

of the second party is legal and justified. Hence I propose

to pass the following award.

AWARD

1. The reference is answered in the affirmative, i.e.

the action on the part of the first party terminating

the services of the second party is legal &

justified.

2. No orders as to cost.

Pune:

Dated: 11.03.2016

A. M. TAMBOLI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 638-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fHkykbZ

bLikr la;a=k ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

62@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-03-

2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&26012@5@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2016

S.O. 638.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 62/2015)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. Bhilai Steel Plant and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 31-03-2016.

[No. L-26012/5/2015-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/62/2015

Shri Kuldeep Singh and 601 Others,

Technical Apprentice (Batch 68 to 75),

R/o House No. 276, Street No.4,

Shanti Nagar, Bhilai

Distt. Durg (CG).

...Workman

Versus

Chief Executive Officer,

Bhilai Steel Plant,

Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 10th day of March, 2016

As per letter dated 19-2-2015 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-

26012/5/2015-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates

to:

“Whether the action of the management of Bhilai

Steel Plant in publishing the advertisement of the

recruitment of Technical Apprentices ignoring the

preference of the Technical Apprentice batch 68 to

75 against the order of the Supreme Court of India is

justified? If not, as to what relief these workmen

should get?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued

to the parties. Workman submitted not to submit statement

of claim on 10-2-2016. Management also desire to file

Written Statement. Parties donot participate in reference

proceeding. However Ist party submitted application that

as complaint A/1/2015 is filed covering both advertisement

dated 28-12-2014 and 5-8-2015. Present case ought to have

merged with R/62/2015 as it doesnot cover advertisement

dated 5-8-2015. The application for merger was not

accepted. As both parties failed to participate in present

reference. The dispute under reference could not be

adjudicated on merit. As the workman requested for

withdrawal, the reference stands disposed off.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1283

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy 2016

dk-vk- 639-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fHkykbZ

bLikr la;a=k ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

91@2009) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

31-03-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&26012@3@2009&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2016

S.O. 639.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 91/

2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. Bhilai Steel Plant and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 31-03-2016.

[No. L-26012/3/2009-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/91/09

The President,

Metal Mines Workers Union (INTUC),

Dallirajhara, 26/B, W Type,

Durg (CH)

...Workman/Union

Versus

Assistant General Manager (P Minhes & ES),

Bhilai Steel Plant,

Bhilai

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 16th day of March, 2016

As per letter dated 22-10-09 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-26012/

3/2009-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the management of Bhilai Steel Plant in

Dalli Manual Mines, Dallirajhara is justified in

changing the date of birth of Shri A.R.Dewangan,

P.No. 856069 from 1-4-49 to 1-8-49 without

considering date of birth of Shri A.R.Dewangan as

21-11-1950 as mentioned in his marksheet of the High

School Certificate Examination of Board of Secondary

Education, MP Bhopal? To what relief the workman

is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim on

27-2-2010. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

initially engaged through contractor on 1-8-74. On

24-5-96, he was posted as DPR Labour. Workman has

retired from post of ATC from Dalli Manual Mine. Workman

was earlier engaged orally by the contractor on 1-8-94.

Contractor had not called any documents regarding his

qualification. While workman was working as DPR, on

temporary basis from 31-5-86, he was appointed as DPR

Skilled from 31-5-96. Management did not call any

documents relating to his qualification.

In 2007, workman inspected his service record and

came to know that his date of birth was wrongly recorded

1-4-49 instead of 21-11-90. That he has passed 11th class

Higher Secondary Examination in 1968. In his marksheet,

his date of birth was recorded 21-11-1950. Workman had

submitted representation alongwith higher secondary

examination certificate. Workman reiterates that

management without verifying the documents submitted

by him, his date of birth was corrected from 1-4-49 to

1-8-49 vide order dated 1-3-08. His date of birth was

corrected as such without any basis. His date of birth

should have been corrected 21-11-1950 as per the

certificate. Workman was retired prematurely on 31-7-2009.

The act of management is alleged to be unfair labour

practice and victimization.

2nd party filed Written Statement on 23-2-2011

opposing claim of workman. Workman joined as contractual

labour on 1-8-74 after departmentalization on 31-5-86.

Workman declared his date of birth as 1-4-49. Prior to

departmentalization, workman had filled up medical

examination form on 25-2-96 recorded his date of birth as

1-4-49 . Workman also shown his same date of birth at

first page of service book, attestation form, CPF form etc.

In the year 2007, workman prayed for correction of

date of birth from 1-4-49 to 21-11-90. His request was not

considered as workman is educated person and he failed

to submit documents about his date of birth at the time of

his appointment as DPR. The ownus of producing

documents was on the workman. As per circular dated

10-4-07, if there is conflict between date of birth declared

by workman in earlier B Form and date of birth declared

subsequently, the earlier document relating to his date of

birth is to be accepted. The date of birth declared by

workman on 1-8-74 is to be considered as final. However

as age of workman was shown 25 years on 1-8-74, his date

of birth was corrected to 1-8-49 instead of 1-4-49. Above

contentions are reiterated by 2nd party. Workman himself

shown his date of birth 1-4-49 in medical examination form,

1284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

service book attestation form, CPF nomination, LTC

application etc. it is reiterated that correction of his date of

birth was properly made by 2nd party considering his age

shown in Form B Register of 1974. 2nd party prays for

reference be answered in its favour.

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 management of Bhilai

In Negative

Steel Plant in Dalli Manual Mines,

Dallirajhara is justified in changing

the date of birth of Shri A.R. Dewangan,

P.No. 856069 from 1-4-49 to 1-8-49

without considering date of birth of

Shri A.R.Dewangan as 21-11-1950

as mentioned in his marksheet of

the High School Certificate Exami-

nation of Board of Secondary

Education, MP Bhopal?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Workman did not file evidence. His evidence was

closed on 10-3-2015. However documents produced by

management are admitted. Exhibit M-1 is the form for

medical examination., his date of birth is shown 1-4-49. In

Exhibit M-2 to M-4, date of birth of workman is shown. In

Exhibit M-2 educational qualification of workman is shown

HSc passed in 1968 in 3rd Division. Said form was

submitted on 5-2-98. Exhibit M-5 is copy of guidelines

regarding determination of date of birth.

Para 2 Clause iv provides – In cases where

documentary evidenced in support of date of birth

is not available as per Sl.No.(iii) Date of birth shall

be determined as per the certificate of Medical

Examination by the Medical Board. Whereever the

Medical Board certifies a particular age in respect of

an employee, the date of birth shall be arrived at

after deducting the number of years representing

his her age from the date of his her medical

examination. Illustration has been given.

Para 3 clause ii provides no change in date of birth

shall be allowed if such requests are received from

employees during the last five years of their service

for any reason whatsoever,

Clause iii provides – if age/ date of birth has already

been declared by the employee at the time of

appointment as per the matriculation/ 10th Board

Certificate School Leaving Certificate issued by the

Competent Authority of the Board or school, the

same shall be as final and no morechange will be

allowed at a subsequent stage.

Clause viii provides- if no document regarding date

of birth is available in any personal records of the

employee, he may be communicated in writing that

there are no records/ documents of your date of

birth available in your personal records and hence

you are directed to appear before the Medical Board

for determination of age.

The pleadings and evidence of 2nd party are silent

that Ist party workman was referred for medical examination

for determination of his age. Workman had submitted

representation for correction of his date of birth as per the

entry in School Certificate as 21-11-1950.

His representation was not rejected on the ground

that correction of date of birth could not be changed

during last 5 years of his service as per clause 3(ii). The

correction of date of birth was allowed by the management.

Considering his age show in Form B submitted on 1-8-74,

claim of Ist party workman for correction of his date of

birth as per his date of birth shown in the marksheet was

rejected only on the ground that he was a educated person.

Educational qualification of workman was show long back

on 5-2-82. Management did not issue notice for production

of documents neither he was referred for medical

examination. Correcting date of birth of workman as

recorded in Form B Register on 1-8-74 therefore cannot be

said proper.

The cross examination of management’s witness

shows that his date of birth was shown 1-8-49 in Form B at

the time of joining service. Management’s witness denies

that on 31-5-96, when workman joined service under Bhilai

Steel Plant, he was given opportunity to produce

documents of his educational qualification. The date of

birth of workman was corrected as per Exhibit M-6.

Documents submitted by workman were considered. Those

documents are not produced. Exhibit M-6 shows that date

of birth of workman was corrected to 1-8-49. Management

did not consider date of birth of workman recorded in

marksheet of HSc 21-11-1950. Therefore the action of 2nd

party cannot be justified. For above reasons, I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

10.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in point no.1, 2nd

party is directed to correct date of birth of workman as

21-11-1950. Workman has prematurely retired, workman

deserves payment of salary for the period 2-8-09 to

21-11-90.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management is not proper and

legal.

(2)

2nd party is directed to correct date of birth of

workman 21-11-1950 recorded in marksheet of HSc.

2nd party is directed to pay salary for the period of

premature retirement treating his date of birth as

21-11-1950.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1285

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 640-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjr

vY;qehfu;e daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 136@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 31-03-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&43011@21@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2016

S.O. 640.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 136/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd.

(BALCO) and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 31-03-2016.

[No. L-43011/21/2012-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/136/2012

General Secretary,

Bharat Aluminum Mazdoor Sangh

Post Balco Nagar, Korba (CG)

...Workman/Union

Versus

Chief Executive Officer,

Balco, Post Balco Nagar,

Korba

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of March 2016

As per letter dated 29-11-2012 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-

43011/21/2012-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates

to:

“Whether the action of the management of Chief

Executive Officer4, BALCO, Korba in change of

designation as Assistant Manager of Shri Chhedi

Shahi Sr. Technical Officer (Mining), Mainpat Bauxite

Mines of Balco without changing his service

conditions under Section 9-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act 1947 is legal and justified? What relief

the workman is entitled to and from which date?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Despite of repeated notices, workman failed

to appear, he was proceeded exparte as per order dated

13-8-2014.

Management filed exparte Written Statement. As

per pleadings in Written Statement dispute was raised by

workman about change of service conditions in violation

of Section 9-A of ID Act. That as per settlement dated

15-5-93, it was alleged management has suddenly changed

his designation as Assistant Manager which is contrary

to the agreement of 1993 is illegal. The Union also agitated

some technical officers have already been objected for

illegal change in their designation. The contentions of

Union were opposed by management. The ground that

others have been promoted having policy of promotion,

workman being an executive is governed by promotion

policy applicable to the executives. Management promoted

employees as per promotion policy of 2005 and not

promoted as per policy of 1993. The revised cadre was

framed in January 2005,. Workman was executive of the

company. The rationalization of designation of the

executive is not an industrial dispute. The executive of

company is covered by provisions of Balco Conduct,

Discipline and Appeal Rules 1975. The revised line of

promotion chart illustrating career growth opportunities

for BALCO workman as agreed on 5-1-2005 which clearly

indicates that workman have career growth upto wage

Category X. He was promoted from Technical Officer to

Sr.Technical Officer which was in accordance to the

executive promotion policy and not in accordance to the

policy referred by the Union of 1993. Bharat Aluminium

Mazdoor Sangh cannot take up issue in respect of the

applicant as he is an executive of the company. 2nd party

submits that looking to the facts and circumstances,

workman is not entitled to any relief.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the manage-

In Affirmative

ment of Chief Executive Officer,

BALCO, Korba in change of

designation as Assistant Manager

of Shri Chhedi Shahi Sr. Technical

Officer (Mining), Mainpat Bauxite

1286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Mines of BALCO without changing

his service conditions under

Section 9-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act 1947 is legal and

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

Workman is

is entitled to?”

not entitled to

any reliefs.

REASONS

Workman failed to participate in present reference.

No statement of claim is filed by workman. Management

filed exparte Written Statement. Affidavit of evidence of

witness Shri T.P.Jerald is filed supporting contentions of

2nd party in Written Statement. From evidence of

management’s witness, documents Exhibit M-1 to M-11

are proved. As no statement of claim is filed by Ist party

workman, neither participated in reference proceeding, any

kind of illegality in change of designation of workman as

Assistant Manager is not established. For above reasons,

I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 641-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ cksdkjks

bLikr la;a=k (lsy) ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] /uckn ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 13@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 31-03-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&43012@6@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2016

S.O. 641.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant (SAIL) and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 31-03-2016.

[No. L-43012/6/2011-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference u/s 10 (1) (d) (2A)

of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 13 of 2012

Employers in relation to the management of

Bokaro Steel Plant (SAIL)

AND

Their workmen

Present :

Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Shri Pintu Mondal, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Steel

Dated 17/03/2016

AWARD

By Order No. L-43012/6/2011 -IR (M), dt. 19/01/2012,

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the of Bokaro Steel Plant,

SAIL in Superannuating Shri H.R.Mahato w.e.f

31/01/2010 in place of 31/12/2010 as claimed by the

workman is justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

06.02.2012. After notice, both parties appeared. The

workman files their written statement on 14.06.2012, The

management files written statement on 12.04.2013.

Thereafter rejoinder and documents filed by the respective

parties. One witness examined from each side as well as

document of management marked as M-1 to M-4.

The case of the workman is that the workman was

displaced person, he was appointed by the management

of Bokaro Steel Plant, SAIL as displaced on 04.12.1972 .

He was uneducated workman so all forms namely personal

Date, Attestation Form, Marriage Declaration Form,

Recruitment particulars etc are used to have been filed by

the Departmental Officials of the company. Since then all

the above forms remained under the custody, control and

possession of the management.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1287

It is submitted by the workman that the workman

declared his age 22 years on 04.12.1972 i.e on the date of

his joining in the services therefore the date of birth of the

workman comes to 4.12.1950 and it was accepted by the

employer as such he is to be retired on 31.12.2010 on

attaining the age of 60 years. But he has been wrongfully

retired on 31.01.2010 by the management. That means it is

premature retirement. Moreover provision 25 F of the I.D

Act is not complied. It is further submitted by the workman

that the service condition of the workman are governed

by the certified standing order of the company . But it is

not followed by the management.

The case of the management is that the workman

concerned was superannuated from the service of the

Bokaro Steel Plant on 31.01.2010 on attaining the age of 60

years. After superannuation the workman raised an

industrial dispute in individual capacity vide his application

Superannuated employee does not come under the

definition of the workman and that being the position he

has no right to raise an Industrial dispute under section

2A of the I.D.Act 1947.

It is also submitted by the management that , at the

time of appointment the workman concerned submitted

particulars of his own interview for the post of Khalasi of

27.06.1972 mentioning his date of birth as 15.01.1950. he

was also submitted attestation form mentioning the date

of birth as 15.01.1950 as well as personal bio-data form

and issuance of medical book .

It is further stated by the management that the date

of birth/age filed in personal data form has been reckoned

and considered for all practical purpose like pension, PF,

Gratuity, nomination and superannuation etc. Hence the

workman concerned superannuated from the service of

the company according to the provision of certified

standing order on reaching the age of superannuation, i.e.

legal and justified.

The short point to be decided in the case is as to

whether the workman has been retired prematurely though

he had some more days to work or not.

The management counsel solely relied upon the

Form”B” register as well as attestation form and all other

document which was filed at the earliest stage signed and

authenticated by the workman. The management also kept

that on record. But the workman filing some stray document

has claimed that he was retired prematurely.

10.

The workman examined as ww-1, has says in cross

examination that “ I filed the case after retirement”.

11.

The workman raised the claim after retirement and at

the fag end of his carrier . The belated claim is always after

thought and as such this Tribunal did not attach any

importance on it.

12.

In this contains very much matrial of this judgement

is as below:

As per civil appeal No.2331 of 2004 page 279 in

which — Court to be circumspect,cautions and

careful while issuing direction for correction in date

of Birth of a Govt. servant — particularly at the fag

end of his carrier or on the eve of his superannuation

— Employee cannot claim as a matter of right for

correction in his date of birth even if has good

evidence

13.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,

I hold that the action of the management of Bokaro Steel

Plant, SAIL in Superannuating Shri H.R.Mahato w.e.f 31/

01/2010 in place of 31/12/2010 as claimed by the workman

is justified. Hence he is not entitled to get any relief.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 642-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ lyse

bLikr la;a=k (lsy) ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] pSUUbZ ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 86@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 31-03-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&26011@9@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2016

S.O. 642.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 86/2015)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. Salem Steel Plant (SAIL) and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 31-03-2016.

[No. L-26011/9/2015-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 16th March, 2016

Present :

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

1288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Industrial Dispute No. 86/2015

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

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

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

the Management of Salem Steel Plant and their workman]

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary

: 1st Party/Petitioner

Steel Plant Employees Union

Union

C-27/1, Mohan Nagar

Salem-636030

AND

The General Manager (P&A)

: 2nd Party/Respondent

Steel Authority of India Ltd.

Salem Steel Plant

Salem-636013

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/

Mr. K. P. Suresh Kumar,

Petitioner Union

Authorized Representative

For the 2nd Party/

Sri Jagdish Prasad, Authorized

Respondent

Representative

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No.L-26011/9/2015-IR (M) dated

04.06.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of Sail, Salem

regarding the withdrawal of existing facility of

Homeo and Ayurvedic Medical Treatment to

employees is justified or not? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 86/2015 and issued notices to both

sides. The petitioner has appeared in person and the

Respondent through its Authorized Representative and

filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively. The

petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter

Statement.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner are as below:

The employees of the Respondent establishment

were availing medical facilities of allopathic treatment as

well as the alternate methods of treatments like Homeo,

Ayurvedic, Siddha, etc. even from the project stage of the

plant till 12.02.2012. The Respondent has issued a circular

on 13.02.2012 denying the facility of reimbursement of

expenses incurred on Homeo, Ayurvedic and other

Alternate Treatment to the employees. An order may be

passed directing the Respondent to restore Homeo,

Ayurvedic and other alternate medicine facility to the

workers of the establishment.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as below:

The Respondent is engaged in manufacturing and

fabricating iron and steel products like cold rolling

stainless steel, hot rolling stainless steel, etc. The

Respondent has its own medical policy to provide

comprehensive healthcare to their employees and their

dependents and to provide healthcare facility to retired

employees. The Respondent is maintaining a hospital with

40 beds to achieve this objective. The SAIL Medical

Attendance Rules are applicable to all the employees.

The Respondent has a liberal policy for providing free

medical treatment to all the employees as well as its

dependents. When the company has its own hospital for

treatment, reimbursement for expenses incurred by

treatment through alternate methods of medicine like

Homeopathy, Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani, etc. are not

allowed. When the Respondent plant was in the process

of setting up its own hospital the system of availing

treatment by the employees on their own arrangement had

been allowed and some of the employees have been

availing homeopathy and ayurvedic treatment. This was

continued till March 2012. In 2012 a number of claims for

medical reimbursement came under the scrutiny of the

Vigilance department as a number of irregularities were

noticed. It was informed by the sister plants of SAIL that

they did not have the practice of reimbursement of alternate

method of treatment or had withdrawn the same. If facilities

for treatment are not available in the hospital of the

Respondent the employees used to be referred to

specialized institutions. Discontinuing of reimbursement

of expenses incurred on Homeo, Ayurvedic and other

alternate treatment will not fall within the ambit of Section-

9A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Respondent has

not committed any illegality by withdrawing the facility

for reimbursement of expenses incurred on alternate

method of treatment. Reimbursement is admissible only in

the case of treatment under the allopathic system of

medicine. The circular discontinuing the facility was

issued in accordance with the service conditions of the

employees and prevailing rules. The petitioner is not

entitled to any relief.

The petitioner has filed a rejoinder in answer to the

Counter Statement reiterating the contentions in the Claim

Statement.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to

Ext.W9 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M5.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Respondent in

withdrawing the existing facility of reimbursement

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 9] 2016@pS=k 20] 1938

1289

on alternative medical treatment to employees is

justified?

(ii)

What if any is the relief to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The Points

The Industrial Dispute is raised by the General

Secretary of the Steel Plant Employees Union of the

Respondent establishment. It is the case of the petitioner

that the employees were enjoying the facility of

reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on treatment

through alternate methods such as Homeo, Ayurveda,

Siddha, etc. and this was continued till 13.02.2012 on which

date a circular was issued by the Respondent restricting

the right of medical reimbursement towards expenditure

incurred by allopathic treatment only. The petitioner has

contended that this action of the Respondent is against

Section-9A of the ID Act and also against the provisions

of the settlement entered into between the Management

and the Union.

It is beyond doubt that the employees of the

Respondent establishment were enjoying the facility of

reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on treatment

by alternate methods such as Homeo, Ayurvedic, Unani,

etc. This is clear even from the Counter Statement of the

Respondent. It is stated in the Counter Statement that at

the time of setting up of the Steel Plant by the Respondent

during the late 1970s and early 1980s it was in the process

of setting up its own hospital and for convenience of the

employees the system of availing treatment on their own

arrangement had been allowed and some of the employees

have been availing Homeo and Ayurvedic treatment and

this was continued till March 2012 by default and omission

as no decision contrary to the same was communicated to

the employees. This statement itself implies that from the

very inception the employees of the Respondent

establishment were enjoying the facility of reimbursement

of medical expenditure incurred on treatment by alternate

methods of medicines. MW1 has reiterated his case in the

Proof Affidavit filed by him also.

10.

It is clear that Ext.W2 circular was issued by the

Respondent on 13.02.2012 with the intention to do away

with the facility of reimbursement of expenditure incurred

on resorting to alternate method of medicines. Though it

is not specifically stated in the circular, the circular states

that reimbursement of medical expenses to the employees

and their dependents would be allowed only in case of

treatment under the allopathic system of medicine. Thus,

alternate method of treatments like Homeo, Ayurvedic,

Unani, etc. are taken away from the purview of medical

reimbursement.

11.

Whether the Respondent is justified in denying the

right of reimbursement of expenditure incurred on treatment

by alternate method of medicines? As already pointed out

it is clear from the counter statement itself that the facility

that was denied by Ext.W2 circular was something that

was being enjoyed by the employees from the very

inception of the plant itself. Thus by practice and usage

the workmen have been enjoying the facility of medical

reimbursement on treatment by alternate method of

medicine as well. Ext.W1 is the Memorandum of

Agreement that was prevailing at the time when the

dispute was raised. Clause-5.1 of the agreement is regarding

protection of existing benefit availed by the workers.

Clause-5.1.1 states that merely as a consequence of the

implementation of the agreement any facility, privilege,

amenity, benefit, monetary or otherwise or concession to

which an employee might be entitled by way of practice

or usage shall not be withdrawn or curtailed except

in the manner provided for in the agreement. Thus this

clause acts as a protection of the practice that was being

enjoyed by the workmen. There is nothing in Ext.W1

against enjoyment of the facility for reimbursement by the

workmen. Ext.W9, the Memorandum of Agreement that

was entered into on 01.07.2014 after the dispute was raised

retains the clause in the earlier agreement. So if Ext.W1 is

construed and read alongwith Ext.W9 it could be seen

that whatever benefits the employees were having by

practice or usage were retained.

12.

While the agreement was in force the Respondent

has issued Ext.W2 circular withdrawing those facilities

that were retained by the Agreement. The Respondent

has not issued any notice under Section-9A of the ID Act

before discontinuing the facility. As pointed out by the

petitioner Ext.W2 circular could not be enforced also

because it is issued in violation of Section-9A of the ID

Act also. Section-9A states that no employer who

proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service

applicable to any workman in respect of any matter

specified in the 4th Schedule shall effect such change

without giving to the workman, likely to be affected by

such change, a notice in the prescribed manner, of the

nature of the change proposed to be effected. Item-8 of

the 4th Schedule, a condition of service for change of

which notice is to be given is withdrawal of any customary

concession or privilege or change in usage. So it is

apparent that even though the facility enjoyed by the

workmen is not included in the service conditions, notice

is to be given as it is a customary concession or privilege

enjoyed by the workmen. So in the absence of notice the

circular has no legal validity. The contention of the

Respondent that the sister concerns of the Respondent

has not been giving such facility is not an answer to the

contention raised by the petitioner. If the facility has

become customary privilege it cannot be changed without

notice under Section-9A of the ID Act. The act of the

Respondent in discontinuing the facility by issuing Ext.W2

could not be approved. The petitioner is entitled to the

relief claimed.

1290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2016/CHAITRA 20, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13.

In view of my discussion above, an award is passed

as below:

The Respondent is directed to restore the facility of

reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on

treatment using alternate methods of medicine.

The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 16th March, 2016).

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/

WW1, Sri K.P. Suresh Kumar

Petitioner Union

For the 2nd Party/

MW1, Sri M. Subba Rao

Management

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

29.04.2010

Memorandum of Agreement

(National Joint Committee for the

Steel Industry)

Ext.W2

13.02.2012

Circular

issued

the

management of SAIL, Salem Steel

Plant

curtailing

reimbursement of expenses

incurred on other than Allopathic

system of medicine

Ext.W3

10.03.2012

Letter to the Director (Pers. &

Tech.), SAIL, New Delhi, Camp at

Salem on issues/demands

Ext.W4

17.03.2012

Notice exhibited to seek the

attention of the management on

the issues/demands

Ext.W5

28.03.2012

Letter to the GM (P&A) SAIL,

SSP

Ext.W6

30.03.2012

Hand Bill circulated among

workers to seek attention of the

management to address the

genuine issues/demands

Ext.W7

30.03.2012

Strike notice issued to the

management of SAIL, Salem Steel

Plant to resolve the issues/

demands

Ext.W8

25.10.2012

Minutes

Conciliation

Proceeding – advice of ALC (C),

Chennai agreed by the unions and

the management on the issues/

demands where the curtailment of

the reimbursement of expenses

incurred

Ayurvedic,

Homeopathic treatment and other

pending issues would be a

resolved bilateral level

Ext.W9

01.07.2014

Memorandum of Agreement

(National Joint Committee for the

Steel Industry)

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

SAIL Medical Attendance

Rules and the Rules regarding

reimbursement of expenses

towards specialized Medical

Treatment not available at the

HQ of the employees

Ext.M2

VISA Fax

Confirmation letter of sister

Message

plants/units of the Respondent

Dated

regarding reimbursement

12.11.2011

Alternative

systems

medicine

BSL/PERS/

OD/NW/2012

dated

08.02.2012

And

OL/OF/4/1

467 dated

21.11.2011

Ext.M3

PER/PP/4006

Letter of SAIL Corporate

Dated

Office regarding follow up the

07.12.2011

guideline and rules framed at

Corporate level on the basis of

the direction of the Ministry

of Steel, Govt. of India

Ext.M4

Note No.

Observations of the Vigilance

COM/SSP/

Department of SAIL/SSP and

VOG/2011/

compliance report

16/dated

25.01.2012

& Vig./SSP/

QMS/REC/

43 dated

16.06.2012

& PL – 1

(13) dated

20.06.2012

Ext.M5

PL-2(15)

Format of Offer of the

dated

Appointment Letter of Junior

27.04.1990

Operative Trainee.

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.