2574 GI/2016
(2381)
jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- ¼,u½ 04@0007@2003—05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 23]
ubZ fnYyh] ebZ 29—twu 4] 2016] 'kfuokj@T;s"B 8—T;s"B 14] 1938
No. 23]
NEW DELHI, MAY 29—JUNE 4, 2016, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 8—JYAISTHA 14, 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)
िवदेश
िवदेश
िवदेश
िवदेश मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
(सी.पी.वी. भाग)
नई द ली, 25 मई, 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1066
1066
1066
1066.—राजनियक और कसुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फ स) के अिधिनयम, 1948 क धारा 2 के
खंड (क) के अनुसरण म) वैधािनक आदेश।
एत.ारा, क)/ सरकार भारत के 1धान कसलावास, दुबई म) 3ी िजत)दर 4सह ख6ी, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी,
3ी 1स7 ता कुमार बै8 नव, ए.पी. ड: यू. ओ., 3ी अिनल कुमार मुखी, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी, 3ी जेठू राम, जूिनयर
सिचवालय सहायक, 3ी जसपाल अ=जा, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी, महे7 दर कुमार, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी और
3ी कनवलजीत 4सह, जूिनयर सिचवालय सहायक को दनांक 25 माचA, 2016 से सहायक कसुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर
कसुलर सेवाC के िनवAहन के िलए 1ािधकृत करती है।
[सं. टी.-4330/07/2016]
1काश च7 द, उप सिचव (कसुलर)
2382
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2016
S.O. 1066.– Statutory Order : In pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints (1) Shri Jitender Singh
Khatri, Assistant Section Officer, (2) Shri Prasanta Kumar Baisnab, APWO (3) Shri Anil Kumar Mukhi, Assistant
Section Officer (4) Shri Jethu Ram, Junior Secretariat Assistant (5) Shri Jaspal Ahuja, Assistant Section Officer (6) Shri
Mahender Kumar, Assistant Section Officer and (7) Shri Kanwaljit Singh, Junior Secretariat Assistant as Assistant
Consular Officer in the Consulate General of India, Dubai to perform Consular services with effect from 25 May, 2016.
[No. T.-4330/07/2016]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
नई द ली, 26 मई, 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 106
106
106
1067.—राजनियक और कसुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फ स) के अिधिनयम, 1948 क धारा 2 के खंड
(क) के अनुसरण म) वैधािनक आदेश।
एत.ारा, के7 / सरकार भारत के दूतावास, िनयामे म) 3ी सतीश भारती, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को दनांक
26 मई, 2016 से सहायक कसुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर कसुलर सेवाC के िनवAहन के िलए 1ािधकृत करती है।
[सं. टी.-4330/01/2016]
1काश च7 द, उप सिचव (कसुलर)
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1067.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Satish Bharti, Assistant
Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India, Niamey to perform the Consular Services with effect
from 26 May, 2016.
[No. T.-4330/01/2016]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
कामक
कामक
कामक
कामक, लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय
लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय
लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय
लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय
(कामक और िशण िवभाग)
(कामक और िशण िवभाग)
(कामक और िशण िवभाग)
(कामक और िशण िवभाग)
नई द ली, 27 मई, 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 106
106
106
1068.—के7 / सरकार एत.ारा द ली िवशेष पुिलस 8 थापन अिधिनयम, 1946 (डीएसपीई अिधिनयम,
1946) क धारा 3 Kारा 1दL शिMय का 1योग करते =ए डीएसपीई अिधिनयम क धारा 5 के अंतगAत द ली िवशेष
पुिलस 8 थापन के सद8 य को भारतीय दंड संिहता क धारा 4 के अंतगAत वNणत अपराध अथाAत् के7 / सरकार Kारा समय-
समय पर संदNभत भारत के 1ादेिशक Oे6ािधकार के बाहर कए गए अपराध क जांच-पड़ताल तथा अिभयोजन करने क
शिM 1दान करती है तथा Oे6ािधकार का िव8 तार करती है। के7 /ीय अ7 वेषण : यूरो (सीबीआई) को दंड 1Pया संिहता क
धारा 188 के अंतगAत गृह मं6ालय से ऐसे मामल से िनपटने और 8 वीकृित 1ाS त करने के िलए के7 /ीय एज)सी के Tप म) भी
नामोदU ट कया जाता है।
यह अिधसूचना सरकारी राजप6 म) इसके 1कािशत होने क तारीख से 1वृL होगी।
[सं. 245/41/2015-एवीडी-II]
मो. नदीम, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIVEANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2016
S.O. 1068.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946
(DSPE Act, 1946) (DSPE Act, 1946) the Central Government hereby empowers and extends the jurisdiction of members
of Delhi Special Police Establishment u/s 5 of DSPE Act, to investigate and prosecute the offences and described u/s 4
of IPC i.e., the offences committed outside territorial jurisdiction of India referred by Central Government from time to
time. CBI is also hereby designated as nodal authority to deal with and obtain sanction for prosecution from MHA under
section 188 Cr. P.C.
This Notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the official gazette.
[No. 245/41/2015-AVD-II]
Md. NADEEM, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2383
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1069-—dsUnz 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, uSuhrky fLFkr mRrjk[kaM mPp U;k;ky; esa fnYyh fo‘ks’k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼lhchvkbZ½
}kjk laLFkkfir ekeyksa ds vfHk;kstu rFkk buls mRiUu fnYyh fo‘ks“k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼lhchvkbZ½ }kjk vUosf“kr izklafxd vU;
ekeyksa esa vihy] iqujh{k.k dk lapkyu djus ds fy, Jh lanhi VaMu] vf/koDrk dks mudh fu;qfDr dh rkjh[k ls rhu o’kks± ds
fy, vFkok vxys vkns‘kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] fo‘ks’k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
[Qk- la- 225/14/2016&,-oh-Mh-&II½]
Ekks- unhe] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2016
S.O. 1069.—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 Shri Sandeep Tandon, Advocate as
Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of cases instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) in
the Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital and appeals, revisions or other matters arising out of the cases investigated by the
Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) for a period of three years from the date of appointment or until further orders,
whichever is earlier.
[F.No. 225/14/2016-AVD-II]
Md. NADEEM, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 31 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1070-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e la-2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi/kkjk
¼8½ }kjk iznÙk ‘kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, iksVZ Cys;j fLFkr fopkj.k U;k;ky;ksa esa dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks }kjk mUgsa lkSais x,
fnYyh fo'ks’k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼ds-v- C;wjks½ }kjk laLFkkfir ekeyksa ds vfHk;kstu dk lapkyu 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 fuiVku rd]
tks Hkh igys gks] fo'ks’k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :Ik esa fu;qDr djrh gS %
loZJh
¼1½ ds- ,e- ch- t;iky
¼2½ vfuy dqekj pØorhZ
[Qk- la- 225@24@2015&,-oh-Mh-&II]
Ekks- unhe] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 31st May, 2016
S.O. 1070.—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 the following Advocates as Special Public
Prosecutors for conducting prosecution of cases instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) as entrusted to them
by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the trial courts at Port Blair 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)
K.M.B. Jayapal
(2)
Anil Kumar Chakraborthy
[F. No. 225/24/2015-AVD-II]
Md. NADEEM, Under Secy.
LokLF; vkSj ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky;
¼LokLF; vkSj ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx½
‘kqf)&i=
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-1071-—foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk la[;k ;w- 12012@84@2012&,ebZ&1 Hkkx fnukad 29-03-2016 esa fo‘of|ky;
dk uke tgka dgha Hkh Lokeh jkek fgeky; fo“ofo|ky;] nsgjknwu gS] muds LFkku ij Lokeh jkek fgeky;u fo“ofo|ky;]
nsgjknwu i<+k tk,A
[la-;w&12012@84@2012&,ebZ&I Hkkx&I]
vfer fcLokl] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and Family Welfare)
CORRIGENDUM
New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2016
S.O. 1071.—In the Department’s Notification No. U.12012/84/2012-ME.I Pt dated 29.03.2016, the name of the
University may be read as Swami Rama Himalayan University, Dehradun in place of Swami Rama Himalaya
University, Dehradun wherever it occurs.
[No. U.-12012/84/2012-ME.-I Part-I]
AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.
2384
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
‘kqf)&i=
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1072.—bl Hkkx dh vf/klwpuk la- ;w&12012@482@2015&,ebZ¼ih-II½ fnukad 04-08-2015 ds vuqØe esa]
Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 11 dh mi /kkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] dsUnz ljdkj] Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djds mDr vf/kfu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa] fuEufyf[kr vkSj la'kks/ku
djrh gS] vFkkZr~%&
mDr izFke vuqlwph esa&
^^egkjk"Vª LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] ukfld] egkjk"Vª** ds le{k iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kfIrdj.k* dkye ¼3½ 'kh"kZd ds
varxZr ,eMh@,e,l ¼'kjhj jpuk½ ekU;rk izkIr ^vk;qfoZKku vgZrk gksxh tc ;g MkWDVj 'kadj jko pOgk.k xouZesaV esfMdy
dkWyst] ukansM+] egjk"Vª esa 2014 dh ctk, 2013 vFkok mlds i'pkr~ izf'kf{kr fd, x, Nk=ksa dks egkjk"Vª LokLF; foKku
fo'ofo|ky;] ukfld] egkjk"Vª }kjk iznÙk gksxhA
[Lak- ;w&12012@482@2015&,ebZ&I]
vfer fcLokl] la;qDr lfpo
CORRIGENDUM
New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2016
S.O. 1072.—In continuation to this Department’s Notification No. U.-12012/482/2015-ME(P.II) dated
4.08.2015, and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council
Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the
following further amendments in the First Schedule of the said Act, namely :
In the said Schedule –
against ‘‘Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra’’ under the heading ‘Abbreviation for
Registration’ column (3), the MD/MS (Anatomy) qualification shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted
by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra in respect of students being trained at
Dr. Shankarrao Chavan Govt. Medical College, Nanded, Maharashtra on or after 2013 instead of 2014’’.
[No. U-12012/482/2015-ME.I]
AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.
नई दली, 30 मई, 2016
का
का
का
का.आ. 1073
. 1073
. 1073
. 1073.—जबक भारतीय आयुNवXान पYरषद् (संशोधन) अZयादेश, 2013 क धारा 3क क उप-धारा (1)
Kारा 1दL शिMय का 1योग करते =ए दनांक 6 नवंबर, 2013 को भारतीय आयुNवXान पYरषद् का पुनगAठन कया गया
था;
और, जबक क)/ सरकार ने भारतीय आयुNवXान पYरषद् अिधिनयम, 1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 3 क उप-
धारा (1) के खंड (ख) के अनुसरण म) और संबंिधत िव\िव]ालय / 8वा8_य िवXान िव\िव]ालय Kारा यथासूिचत
िन`िलिखत को इस अिधसूचना के जारी होने क तारीख से चार वषA के िलए भारतीय आयुNवXान पYरषद् के सद8य के Tप
म) िनवाAिचत कया गया है।
अब, इसिलए, उM अिधिनयम क धारा 3 क उप-धारा (1) के 1ावधान के अनुसरण म) क)/ सरकार एत.ारा
दनांक 9 जनवरी, 1960 को 8वा8_य मं6ालय के तaकालीन का.आ. 138 म) भारत सरकार क अिधसूचना म) िन` संशोधन
करती है, नामत :
भारत सरकार क अिधसूचना म) 8वा8_य एवं पYरवार कयाण मं6ालय के दनांक 6 नवबंर, 2013 के का. आ.
सं. 3324 (अ.) म), अंितम 1िविb तथा इससे संबंिधत 1िविb के बाद िन`िलिखत को शािमल कया जाएगा, नामत:
. सं.
. सं.
. सं.
. सं.
िविवालय का नाम
िविवालय का नाम
िविवालय का नाम
िविवालय का नाम
िनवािचत सदय का िववरण
िनवािचत सदय का िववरण
िनवािचत सदय का िववरण
िनवािचत सदय का िववरण
चुनाव का
चुनाव का
चुनाव का
चुनाव का मा यम
मा यम
मा यम
मा यम
46
एलएनसीटी िव\िव]ालय, भोपाल
डॉ. भानु 1काश दूबे, संकायाZयO,
एल.एन. मेिडकल कालेज, भोपाल
सीनेट Kारा िनNवरोध Tप
से िनवाAिचत
[सं. वी.-11013/02/2015-एमईपी]
अिमत िब8वास, अवर सिचव
पाद ट!पणीः
पाद ट!पणीः
पाद ट!पणीः
पाद ट!पणीः मूल अिधसूचना को दनांक 9 जनवरी, 1960 के का.आ. सं. 138 के तहत भारत के राजप6 म) 1कािशत कया
गया था तथा इसम) अंितम संशोधन भारतीय आयुNवXान पYरषद् (संशोधन) िवLीय अZयादेश, 2013 (2013 का 11) Kारा
कया गया था।
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2385
New Delhi, the 30th May, 2016
S.O. 1073.—Whereas on 06th November, 2013, the Medical Council of India was re-constituted in exercise of
the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3A of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013;
And, whereas the Central Government, in pursuance of Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) and as informed by the respective universities/health sciences universities, the
following has been elected to be a member of the Medical Council of India for four years with effect from the date of
issue of this notification.
Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby makes the following amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry
of Health number S.O. 138 dated 9th January, 1960, namely:-
In the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare number
S.O. 3324(E) dated 06th November, 2013 and amendments thereto, after the last entry and entry relating thereto, the
following shall be inserted, namely:
S. No.
Name of the University
Details of the Elected Member
Mode of Election
46.
LNCT University, Bhopal
Dr. Bhanu Prakash Dubey, Dean,
L.N. Medical College, Bhopal.
Elected unanimously by
Senate.
[No.V.-11013/02/2015-MEP]
AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.
Foot Note: The principal notification was published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 138 dated the 9th January,
1960 and was last amended vide Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013 (11 of 2013).
'kgjh fodkl ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 23 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1074-&dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 'kgjh fodkl ea=ky; ds iz'kklfud fu;a=.kk/khu fnYyh fodkl izkf/kdj.k
dk fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;] ftlds 80% ls vf/kd vf/kdkfj;ksa vkSj deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]
dks jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e 1976 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr 1987½ ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e ¼4½ ds
varxZr vf/klwfpr djrh gS %
eq[; vfHk;ark ¼fo|qr½]
fnYyh fodkl izkf/kdj.k]
olar dqat] ubZ fnYyh
[Qk- la- bZ&11017@5@2013&fgUnh]
/kesZUnz] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2016
S.O. 1074—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of Official Language (Use for official purpose of the Union)
Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notified the following office of the Delhi Development Authroity, Ministry of
Urban Development, where more than 80% of officers/employees have attained working knowledge of Hindi :
Chief Engineer (Electrical)
Delhi Development Authority
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi
[F. No. E-11017/5/2013-Hindi]
DHARMENDRA, Jt. Secy.
dks;yk ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-1075-&dks;yk [kku Hkfo"; fuf/k ,oa izØh.kZ mica/k vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 46½ ds [kaM 9 ds mi[kaM ¼2½
ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnz ljdkj Jh ch- ds- ikaMk] vkbZoks,Q,l ¼88½] dks;yk [kku Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr] /kuckn dks mDr mi[kaM
ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, 25-05-2016 ¼iwokZgu½ ls ikap o"kks± dh vof/k ds fy;s izkf/kdkjh ds :Ik esa fofufnZ"V djrh gSA
[la- 20@1@2016&,,lvks&II]
lathc HkV~Vkpk;Z] voj lfpo
2386
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 30th May, 2016
S.O. 1075.—In pursuance of Sub-section (2) of section 9 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and
Miscellanceous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), the Central Government hereby specifies Srhi B. K. Panda,
IOFS(88), the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner, Dhanbad as the authority with effect from 20.05.2016
(forenoon) for a period of five years for the purposes of the said sub section.
[No. 20/1/2016-ASO-II]
SANJIB BHATTACHARYA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1076-&dks;yk [kku Hkfo"; fuf/k ,oa izØh.kZ mica/k vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 46½ ds [kaM 3lh ds mi[kaM
¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnz ljdkj Jh ch- ds- ikaMk] vkbZoks,Q,l ¼88½] dks dks;yk [kku Hkfo"; fuf/k laxBu] /kuckn esa dks;yk
[kku Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr ds :Ik 25-05-2016 ¼iwokZgu½ ls ikap o"kksZa dh vof/k ds fy;s vFkok vxys vkns'kksa] blesa tks Hkh igys
gks rd fu;qfDr djrh gSA
[la- 20@1@2016&,,lvks&I]
lathc HkV~Vkpk;Z] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 30th May, 2016
S.O. 1076—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of section 3C of the Coal Mines Provident
Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri B.K. Panda,
IOFS(88) as the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner in the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation, Dhanbad
with effect from 20.05.2016(F.N.) for a period of five years or unitl further orders, whichever is earlier.
[No. 20/1/2016-ASO-I)
SANJIB BHATTACHARYA, Under Secy.
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1077-& vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy
,Dlkbt ,aM dLVEl fMikVZesaV] Hkksiky ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ dsl
lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@100@2007½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@68@2006&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2016
S.O. 1077.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D Case No.CGIT/LC/R/100/2007) 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 Central Excise & Customs Department, Bhopal and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-42012/68/2006-IR(DU)]
P.K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/100/2007
Shri Ashok Kumar Singh,R/o 392, B,
Ashoka Garden, Bhopal.
…Workman
Versus
The Commissioner,
Central Excise & Customs Department, 48,
Administrative Area, Arera Hills,
Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal.
…Management
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2387
AWARD
Passed on this 29th day of April 2016
1. As per letter dated 4-10-07 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-42012/68/2006-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of the Dy.Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal in
terminating the services of their workman Shri Ashok Kumar Singh w.e.f. 11-3-03 is legal and justified? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
on 6-11-08. Case of Ist party workman is that he was appointed against clear vacant post of Farrash/ peon in
1992 following recruitment procedure. That he was continuously working till termination of is services on
31-3-03. His services were terminated without giving opportunity of hearing. The service record was
satisfactory. 2nd party establishment is covered as industry under ID Act. He was continuously in service for 10
years. His services were terminated violating provisions of ID Act. He was not served with showcause notice.
Any enquiry was not conducted against him. He was not paid retrenchment compensation. On such ground, Ist
party submits that termination of his service without permission of Government is illegal. Workman prays for
his reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3. 2nd party despite of repeated notices did not participate in reference proceedings. 2nd party was proceeded
exparte on 2-8-2010.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the management of the
Dy.Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise,
Bhopal in terminating the services of their
workman Shri Ashok Kumar Singh w.e.f. 11-3-03 is
legal and justified?
In Affirmative
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
REASONS
5. Ist party workman filed statement of claim contending that his services are terminated without notice,
retrenchment compensation is not paid. 2nd party did not participate in reference proceeding and as such
proceeded exparte. Case was repeatedly fixed for evidence of workman. Ist party workman also did not
participate in reference proceeding. He failed to adduce evidence in support of his claim. For absence of
evidence of workman, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
6. 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] 25 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1078-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
VsyhdkWe QSDVªh] tcyiqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ dsl la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@10@09½ dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&40011@35@2008&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2016
S.O. 1078.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D Case No.CGIT/LC/R/10/09) 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 Telecom Factory, Jabalpur and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 25/05/2016.
[No.L-40011/35/2008-IR(DU)]
P.K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
2388
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/10/09
The Circle Secretary,
National Federation of Telecom Employees (BSNL),
(NFTE), Telecom Factory, Wright Town,
Jabalpur (MP)
… Workman/Union
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Telecom Factory,
Wright Town,
Jabalpur.
…Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 25th day of April 2016
1. As per letter dated 17-2-09 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-40011/35/2008- IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom Factory, Jabalpur in not paying
overtime allowance at double the rates as per provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 from 1-10-98 to its workers
is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party submitted statement of claim through
Secretary. Case of Ist party is that Telecom Factory at Wright Town and Richhai are registered under Factories
Act. Said Factory are under control of Chief General Manager, Telecom Factory, Wright Town, Jabalpur is
under control of BSNL from 1-10-2000. Prior to it, said factory was under control of Department of Telecom
and Ministry of Communication. That large number of industrial, non-industrial employees are working in
those factories. Their service conditions are identical. The industrial employees are strictly involved in
production are getting benefit under Section 59 of Factory Act. Non-industrial employees are denied benefit of
overtime under Section 59 of the Act. They are paid overtime beyond 9 hours in a day, 48 hours in a week at
Ordinary rates of wages. Employees working in different sections of factories like OS, Stationery purchase
Muster, Budget Accounts costing pension etc are not involved in production work. They are denied overtime
wages under Section 59 of the Factory Act under the pretext that they are not workman under Factory Act,
1948. That other telecom factory are located at Mumbai under BSNL. No industrial employees of said factory
filed proceeding under Section 33(C)(2) of ID Act claimed calculation of overtime under Section 59 of Factory
Act. Their claim was allowed by Central Labour Court, Mumbai as per order dated 1-7-90, 6-8-90.
Management challenged said order filing Writ Petition 1643/99, 1644/99. Hon’ble High Court Bombay
dismissed Writ Petitions on 26-6-95. The order passed by Central Labour Court Bombay was upheld in
compliance of above said judgments, Chief General Manager, Telecom Factory issued memorandum dated
17-12-07 directing to calculate overtime to non-industrial employees at Telecom Factory, Mumbai as per
Section 59 of Factories Act w.e.f. 1-10-98. It is submitted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that workman
are covered under Section 2(1) of Factory Act.
3. Ist party Union on behalf of non-industrial employees working in establishment of 2nd party claimed overtime
wages under Section 59 of Factory Act vide letter dated 3-1-08. Management did not settle the issue after
obtaining legal opinion, the dispute has been referred. Ist party submits that claim is identical as decided by
Hon’ble High Court Bombay. Applicant’s claim for benefit of overtime wages as per Section 59 of Factory
Act from 1-10-98 and also claims difference of amount.
4. 2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of Ist party Union. 2nd party submits that the dispute pertains
to overtime at double rate as per provisions of Factory Act from 1-10-98 to non-industrial staff. That 2nd party is
registered under Factories Act 1948. Staff working in the factory is divided in industrial and non-industrial
workers. Industrial workers are different from non-industrial workers. The industrial workers are covered
through certified standing orders and wages at hourly rates of work performed. Work carried out by non-
industrial worker is different from the work of industrial workers. Non-industrial workers are posted in
different sections of the factories like establishment, OS, Stationary Section, Purchase Section, costing section,
pay and accounts section, Bills Section, computer Section, Stores Section, Plant and Building maintenance
section etc. Non-industrial workers are covered by the fundamental rules and supplementary rules of CCS
Rules 1965. They are not covered by Factories Act even for the purpose of overtime. Non-industrial workers
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2389
are paid overtime at single rate irregular of whether overtime exceeded their weekly hours upto 48 hours or
beyond 48 hours. 2nd party has reiterated above contentions by submitting parawise reply. With respect to
judgment by Hon’ble Bombay High Court , it is contented that said judgment is personem, it cannot be made
applicable to other telecom factories. That BSNL Hqr. is ultimate Controlling Authority to all type of facts
situated at Deonar Mumbai, Telecom Factory, Jabalpur and Calcutta. The matter was referred immediately
without delay in guidelines in the matter. The management submits that reference be answered in its favour.
5. Ist party Union submitted rejoinder reiterating its contentions in statement of claim.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the management of Chief
General Manager, Telecom Factory, Jabalpur in not
paying overtime allowance at double the rates as per
provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 from 1-10-98
to its workers is legal and justified?
In Negative
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
As per final order.
REASONS
7. The term of reference pertains to legality of denial of overtime wages as per provisions of Factories Act to non-
industrial workers. Claim of Ist party is opposed by the 2nd party management only on the ground that work of
industrial worker and non industrial worker is different. Non-industrial workers are posted in different sections.
Their services are covered by various rules and regulations of 1965, that judgment by Bombay High Court in
the matter is judgment in personem and it cannot be applied to 2nd party. Affidavit of evidence of Mukesh Patel
is submitted by Ist party. His affidavit covers all contentions of statement of claim of Ist party including the
matter decided by Central Labour Court, Mumbai and Writ Petition filed by management was dismissed. The
witness of Ist party in his cross-examination says he is President of Union. He become Union President in the
year 2012. The dispute is raised on behalf of non-industrial workers who are not directly concerned with the
production activities.
8. 2nd party filed affidavit of evidence of Shri R.Sapre Asstt. General Manager supporting contentions in Written
statement of 2nd party. That non-industrial workers are not directly involved in production. They are working in
different sections of factory. Therefore they are not paid double rate of overtime beyond 9 hours in a day or 48
hours in a week. Their judgment by Hon’ble High Court Bombay is judgment in personem and cannot be
made applicable to the employees represented by Union. In his cross-examination, management’s witness says
that he is working in Telecom Factory Jabalpur from 1987. There are separate units of telecom factory at
Calcutta Mumbai, Jabalpur. Till 1-10-2000, all those units were working under DOT. All factories are engaged
in production work. There are industrial and non-industrial workers in all those factories. Non-industrial
workers are carrying official work. Management witness denies that non-industrial workers doing official work
are concerned with the production. Employees working in store look after the work of keeping the articles in
store. The employees working in other sections are doing the work of purchase, cashier, maintaining accounts
of salary and allowances, upkeeping stationery etc. the service conditions of employees in industrial workers,
non-industrial workers are similar. The orders issued by Controlling Authorities are equally applicable to the
employees working in all the factories.
9. The demand has been raised by Union on behalf of non-industrial workers. There is no dispute that they are
working in different sections discharging work assigned to them. In Written Statement, 2nd party submits that
non-industrial workers are not covered as workman under Factories Act. Section 2(l) defines-
“Worker means a person employed directly or by or through any agency including a contractor with or without
the knowledge of the principal employer, whether for remuneration or not, in any manufacturing process or in
cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for a manufacturing process or in any other kind of work
incidental to, or connected with the manufacturing process or the subject of the manufacturing process but
doesnot include any member of the armed forces of the Union.”
Thus the definition of workman is clear that only armed forces of Union are excluded from the scope of
Section 2(l) of Factories Act. Ist party relies on ratio held in case of
Chief General Manager, Telecom Factory, Bombay and others versus All India Telecom Engineering
Employees Union and others reported in 1996-I-CLR-336. Their Lordship dealing with Section 2(1) , 59 of
Factories Act claimed for overtime wages considering the respondents workmen in Administrative or Accounts
Sections and not working on shop floor of factory claimed overtime wages denying claim on the ground that
they are non industrial workmen. Labour Court granted the claim of respondent for overtime wages. The order
of Labour Court was challenged filing Writ Petitions. Hon’ble High Court agreed with the conclusion of the
2390
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Labour Court that the concerned workmen are workers within the meaning of Section 2(l) of Factories Act and
therefore they are entitled to the benefit of Section 59 of Factories Act so far as the payment of overtime wages
are concerned.
Above judgment supports claim of workman. Exhibit W-2 is letter issued by 2nd party to the Dy.Director
General obtaining legal opinion from Government standing counsel w.r.t. judgment by Mumbai High Court.
The opinion given by standing council cannot be preferred to judgment by Hon’bl;e High Court referred above.
I find no reason to take different view considering definition of worker under Section 2(l) of ID Act discussed
above. Only the armed forces of the Union have been excluded from the scope of worker defined under Section
2(l) of the Act. Therefore denial of overtime wages at double rate under Section 59 of Factories Act is not legal.
Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
10. Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1, the non-industrial workers are entitled to overtime wages
double the rate under Section 59 of Factories Act. Union is claiming said benefit from 1-10-98. The dispute has
been referred as per order dated 17-2-09 after delay of almost 10 years. The legal position is clear that relief
could be allowed under the reference from the date of order of reference and not prior to it therefore the benefit
of overtime wages double the rate under Section 59 of Factory Act shall be allowed only from the date of order
of reference 17-2-09. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) Action of the management is not legal.
(2) 2nd party management is directed to pay overtime allowance to non-industrial workers working on its
establishment w.e.f. 17-2-09. The difference of allowance as per above award be paid within 30 days from
date of publication of award.
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] 25 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1079-& vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Oghdy QSDVªh] tcyiqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ dsl lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@69@05½ dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&14011@01@2005&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2016
S.O. 1079.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D Case No.CGIT/LC/R/69/05) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of the Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-14011/01/2005-IR(DU)]
P.K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/69/05
Shri K.S.Raghuwanshi, General Secretary,
Ayudh Nirmani Vahan Chaalak Sangh,
MP Zone. Ar.No. 1369, Type-I,
Sector-I, VFJ Estate, Jabalpur.
…Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager,
Vehicle Factory,
Jabalpur.
…Management
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2391
AWARD
Passed on this 25th day of April 2016
1. As per letter dated 28-6-05 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.
L-14011/1/2005-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Union of Ayudh Nirmani Vahan Chaalak Sangh, MP Zone Jabalpur in nor
utilizing the services of their own staff and engaging the drivers on contract inspite of sufficient number of civil
Motor Drivers available with the management is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the Union is entitled?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 6/1
to 6/4. Case of Union is that it is registered under Trade Union Act, 1926 holding Registration No. 573. 2nd
party manufactures about 9000 vehicles annually of various kinds i.e. Stalin and APTA-713 for armed forces.
These vehicles are sent to army depots in different states by railways, through contractors by road and vehicles
which are not sent through contractor are sent by vehicle factory itself through its employees by road. Earlier
one CMD and one fitter were deputed for delivery of each vehicle and for routine trial of 2000 & 5000 Kms
but now the vehicles are sent through employees who belong to other trades such as wireman, auto fitter,
machinist or labours who are not CMD. Employees are not authorized to drive Government vehicles under the
recruitment rules. such situation prevails only in Vehicle Factory Jabalpur. That total number of posts of civil
Motor Drivers in Vehicle factory is 76, out of which presently 70 posts are filled leaving 9 posts vacant. There
are 9 school buses run by factory out of which 4 are CMD Drivers and 5 are private persons. That as per
Section 9-A of ID Act, if work of any other trade is taken from an employee, his consent is necessary after
communicating the same to him through notice. Union contends that no such consent are taken. There is no
agreement between Union ad management for such working. Non-utilisation of service of engaging persons
not belonging to CMD Trade as Drivers is illegal and unjustified. On such ground, Union prays to direct 2nd
party to utilize own staff according to SRO and service book and prohibit the persons not belonging to CMD
trade to work as drivers.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/4 opposing claim of Union. 2nd party submits that Vehicle
Factory at Jabalpur is undertaking of Government of India, Ministry of Defence. It is controlled by Ordnance
Factory Board. Calcutta. The factory is engaged in manufacturing of stallion and LPTA vehicles as per
requirement of Armed Forces. About 7000 vehicles are produced in the factory are delivered in various
destinations in the country rendered by Armed forces. The vehicles produced used to be dispatched by (a)
through Railways in rakes, (b) through COD Jabalpur. That later it was decided to handover the vehicles to the
customer doors/ depots located in the country at different destinations and to classify them properly by deputing
the team for calibrations of vehicles, delivery of tools to make good replace the discrepant item for vehicles
already supplied. That presently 2nd party has 59 civilian motor drivers who are deployed at various work
places connected with production, delivery of goods in various plants, transportation of man and machines in
connection with production, maintenance, quality control and related activities. They are also deployed for
plying school buses for children of factory employees and other obligatory and welfare works. The existing
strength of CMD is not enough to meet the essential and obligatory internal and extyernal services. The factory
has to detail some workmen who are skilled in driving and are in possession of valid driving licence and who
have the experience in production/ assembly/ test and proof etc to maintain delivery schedules of vehicles to the
army defence unit. CMD are also detailed on outside duties based on the requirement in the interest of state.
Such workmen are occasionally outside along with the team as and when required to meet the requirement of
army defence units. In normal course the vehicles are dispatched through contractors only to army depots by
road but in exceptional cases, vehicles have been sent by factory employees also to deliver spares or tool kits
and for calibration/ classification purpose etc. As regards to long run trials, factory employees have sufficient
knowledge of repairing the defects and maintenance of the vehicles in addition to drive the vehicles are
assigned to carry out routine long run trials of 200 to 5000 Kms. W.r.t. the vacancies, 2nd party submits
vacancies in grade of CMDs to the extent possible are being filled up subject to fulfillment of eligibility criteria.
The Ministry of Finance, Deptt. Of Expenditure, New Delhi vide OM dated 22-7-06 has imposed ban on any
fresh appointment of drivers. 2nd party submits that whenever vehicles are sent for long trials, verbal consent is
taken from the person. There has been no objection received from any employee assigned for said trial ride. The
services of CMD is always utilised for driving vehicles only for smooth functioning of production. No CMD is
kept idle or without assigning of their duty as per their appointments. 2nd party prays reference be answered in
their favour.
4. Ist party filed rejoinder reiterating its contentions in statement of claim.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
2392
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(i) Whether the demand of the Union of Ayudh Nirmani
Vahan Chaalak Sangh, MP Zone Jabalpur in nor utilizing
the services of their own staff and engaging the drivers on
contract inspite of sufficient number of civil Motor Drivers
available with the management is legal and justified?
Action of management cannot be said illegal
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
REASONS
6. Term of reference pertains to legality of action of management engaging other persons not belonging to CMD
as drivers on contract inspite of sufficient number of CMDs available with the management. The pleading in
statement of claim are silent whether establishment of 2nd party is registered under Section 7 of CL(R&A)Act,
whether 2nd party employees contract labours in violation of Section 10 of CL(R&A)Act.
7. Ist party workman filed affidavit of evidence of Ghansham Kumar. Affidavit of said witness is devoted on the
point that vehicle Factory Jabalpur produced about 9000 vehicles of Stalin and APTA-713 for armed forces.
Those trucks are sent by road through contractors and employees working in the factory. The long run list of
2000 to 5000 kms is conducted. Person from wireman T&P Machinist cadre are engaged for such test contrary
to the rules. the work of different nature is extracted in violation of Section 9-A of ID Act without notice. The
consent of CMDs are not obtained . Witness of Ist party in his cross says he is working in Vehicle Factory since
past 12 years. He is working as Motor Driver since 2005. Prior to it, he was working as gardner. Since he is
appointed as Driver, he is carrying work of Driver itself. The person hold valid driving licence as per rules in
driving the vehicles. He claims ignorance whether the workman from other trade holding licence could drive
the vehicle or not.
8. Identical affidavit of witness Shri Pyarelal is filed. Said witness of Ist party in his cross says since 5-5-94, he is
working as Driver. He is Joint Secretary of Union. There is no change in his working.
9. Shri Siyyed Sharif filed affidavit of his evidence but remained absent for cross-examination. Shri Jagat
Narayan Tiwari filed identical affidavit . In his cross examination, he is appointed as Driver. He is appointed
for driving vehicle of 2nd party. He admits that as per need, he was required to drive licence etc. he was working
only as Driver and he did not do any other work. He had no grievance about his service conditions.
10. Ist party filed affidavit of witness Shri Raghuwanshi supporting contentions of claim of Ist party that
management of 2nd party has sanctioned 75 posts of CMDs. Out of it, 42 posts are filled, 32 are lying vacant.
That CMD are used for plying school buses. That 30 drivers from outside are used for carrying the vehicles of
different destinations. He also alleged that service conditions of CMD are changed without notice under Section
9- A of ID Act. In his cross examination, witness says he is working as Civil Motor Driver Grade-I. he was
appointed as Driver Grade II. Thereafter he was appointed as Ordinary Driver. After promotion, he was
appointed as Driver Grade I. the members of the association are working as Drivers. He denies that they were
not appointed in VFJ as test drivers, he denies that for test of vehicle, fitter , auto fitter , wireman etc. services
are required. He further says since 2005, 2nd party sent vehicles through contractors. This witness admits there
are no service rules that new vehicles should be sent through CMD. Ist party has not produced any regulations.
Service conditions that only CMD should be engaged for sending the vehicles to different destination as per
instructions of military authorities.
11. Affidavit of witness Nitin Bergman is by way of denial. Management’s witness says that because of cut in non
plan expenditure by Government of India, a ban on direct recruitment had been imposed in 2006. The evidence
on record shows that sanctioned post of CMD are reduced in due course of time. Only 42 CMDs are presently
working as per evidence in cross examination of management’s witness.
12. From evidence, it is apparent that as trucks manufactured by 2nd party are sent through contractor’s employees,
it must have affected the total working of CMDs but it cannot be only reason as Government has also
prohibited recruitment of Drivers. The total post of CMD must have increased.
13. Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri P.Shankaran pointed out my attention to provisions of Section 9-A of ID
Act. For convenience, verbatim of Section 9-A is reproduced below:-
9A. Notice of change.—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 Fourth Schedule, shall effect such
change,—
(a) without giving to the workmen likely to be affected by such change a notice in the prescribed manner of the
nature of the change proposed to be effected; or
(b) within twenty-one days of giving such notice:
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2393
Provided that no notice shall be required for effecting any such change—
(a) where the change is effected in pursuance of any 2 [settlement or award];
Or
(b) where the workmen likely to be affected by the change are persons to whom the Fundamental and
Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Civil Services
(TemporaryService) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil Service Regulations, Civilians in Defence Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or the Indian Railway Establishment Code or any other rules or
regulations that may be notified in this behalf by the appropriate Government in the Official Gazette, apply.
Schedule IV of ID Act includes-
(1) Wages including period and mode of payment
(2) Contribution paid or payable by the employer to any provident fund or pension fund or for the benefit of
the workmen under any law for the time being in force
Schedule IV doesnot include prohibition of engagement of employees of contractor or outsider therefore the
allegation of Ist party Union are not covered under Section 9-A of ID Act. The specific illegality apprehended
by Union cannot be upheld. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
14. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The demand of Union is not proper.
(2) Workmen are not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1080-& vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr
lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ dsl lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@85@07½ dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&40012@37@2007&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2016
S.O. 1080.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D Case No.CGIT/LC/R/85/05) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of the BSNL Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
25/05/2016.
[No. L-40012/37/2007-IR(DU)]
P. K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/85/07
Shri Murari Singh Gaur,
S/o Shri Prabhu Singh Gaur,
R/O PO & Village Kasba Shar,
Tehsil Nadoti,
Karauli
…Workman
Versus
Divnl. Engineer Telecom,
Railway Electrification,
BSNL Ltd.
O/o Dy.General Manager(TP),
Western Telecom Project,
B-1/10, Community Centre,
Jabakpuri,
New Delhi.
…Management
2394
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Passed on this 11th day of May 2016
1. As per letter dated 20-8-07 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-40012/37/2007-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Divisional Engineer, Telecom BSNL in terminating the services of
their workman Shri Murari Singh Gaur w.e.f. May 98 and not considering him for granting of temporary status
and regularisation is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was appointed as labour in 1986 in department relating to
work of Railway Electrification. He continued to work in said department till 1990. He was roped in Crime
No. 64/90 for offence under section 302 and 447 read with Section 34 of IPC on 11-6-90. He was convicted by
sessions Court. The workman preferred appeal before Hon’ble Rajasthan High court as per order dated
17-1-97. After his acquittal by Hon’ble High Court, workman submitted representation of Asstt. Engineer,
telecom department, Railway electrification project, Itarsi, Bhopal on 18-2-98. He had also submitted
representation to the Director of Telecom, Bhopal but no action was taken on his representation. Workman
went legal notice on 13-10-98. Original application 670/98 was filed by workman before CAT, Jabalpur
claiming re-employment and regularisation of his service. Said original application was dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. Workman was directed to file application before appropriate forum. Workman challenged said
order filing Writ Petition no. 8768/04 before Hon’ble High court Jabalpur. On 6-5-05, Hon’ble High court
directed workman to file application before appropriate forum. Thereafter workman raised present dispute. The
dispute is referred to this Tribunal vide order dated 14-5-07.
3. Workman further submits that identical cases were decided by CAT in OA 412/90, 229/90, 462/90, 463/90,
556/90, 638/91, 464/01, 801/91, 827/90, 40/92, 41/92. All those original applications were decided by CAT,
Jabalpur. On 28-8-05 allowing regularisation of casual labours who worked in the department prior to 1998.
That workman was also working in the department prior to 1998. Workman was acquitted by Hon’ble High
Court, Rajasthan. Workman submits that he is entitled for re-employment in the department as he worked
during the period 86 to 89 for more than 240 days in each of the calendar year. As per order passed by CAT
dated 20-8-95, services of employees were regularized in Railway Electrification department. Workman also
claims entitlement to said benefit.
4. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/3 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that in his
statement of claim, workman has claimed he was working till January 1990 and not till May 1998. The dispute
has been referred. Workman was not appointed or terminated by the management. Workman himself left work
in 1990. Workman was not recruited or legally appointed following the service rules. He was engaged as per
the need and exigencies of the project on daily rate basis. his engagement was not against permanent vacant
post. No such post was vacant with the management. Therefore workman is not entitled for regularisation of
benefit of regular appointment. 2nd party submits that workman was not appointed or engaged in Railway
Electrification project in 1986. He left work at his own accord in March 1987. After 139 days, he joined on
16-7-87. Thereafter he worked till 1-1-1990. Workman left work in January 1990 on his own accord. The
project work was in progress. 2nd party denies termination of workman contending that workman himself left
the job. Workman was involved in criminal case on 11-6-90. There was not question of termination of his
service. 2nd party submits that after completion of project work, office was closed in 1990 itself. In 1998, there
was no office of Asstt. Engineer, electrification at Itarsi or Bhopal. The representations and legal notice of
workman were not received by the management. The cases referred by workman and decided by CAT are not
identical to the case of workman. The decision cannot be applied in present case. Workman had not completed
240 days uninterrupted service 12 months before leaving the work from May 1998 mentioned in the reference.
The nature of job was not of perennial nature. The work of department in which workman was engaged was
purely project work. When project work ended, work on which workman was engaged as come to end.
Workman was not retrenched or terminated. He left work on his own accord. On such ground, 2nd party submits
that reference be answered in its favour.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the management of
Divisional Engineer, Telecom BSNL in terminating
the services of their workman Shri Murari Singh
Gaur w.e.f. May 98 and not considering him for
granting of temporary status and regularisation is
legal and justified?
Workman himself left work in 1990, his services
were not terminated by 2nd party. Workman is not
entitled to regularisation in service.
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2395
REASONS
6. The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of workman from May 98 and denial of
temporary status and regularization. At the time of argument, learned counsel for Ist party workman Shri
Pranay Choubey submits that in term of reference, termination of workman is shown from May 98 will be
considered 1990. Workman did not approach Government for correction of order of reference. Therefore this
Tribunal cannot connect the term of reference.
7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence , workman has stated in his affidavit that he was working in
department till 1990. He was roped in criminal Case 64/90 for offence under Section 302 and 447 read with
Section 34 of IPC on 11-6-90. He was convicted by Sessions Court, he was acquitted by Hon’ble High Court in
appeal as per order dated 17-1-97. Thereafter workman submitted representations to Asstt. Engineer, Telecom
Department, Railway Electrification Project, Itarsi, Bhopal on 18-2-98. He issued legal notice on 13-10-98. His
affidavit is also devoted on the point that Original Application 670/98 before CAT was filed by him. He was
directed to approach proper forum in Writ Petition No. 8764/2004. Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 6-5-05
also directed workman to file application before appropriate forum. In para-9of his affidavit, workman has
stated various original applications decided by CAT allowing regularizing to casual labours working in the
department prior to 1998. That he had worked during the period 1986 to 1989 more than 240 days during each
calendar year. He is entitled for regularization. He also claims benefit of regularization as it is decided by CAT
in OA dated 28-8-95. In his cross, workman says he passed 8th standard. Appointment letter was not received
by him. He was not called for interview. He was working under the project. He denies that he not completed
240 days in 1987. He has produced original documents about his working. Criminal case was prosecuted
against him in June 1990. He was acquitted in 1997. He was in jail during above said period he was acquitted
on 17-1-97 by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. As he was in jail, he could not inform the management. He
denies that he did not work more than 240 days during any of the year.
8. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri D.S.Thakur supporting contentions in Written Statement that
workman had not completed 240 days during 12 preceding months. Workman left the work of his own accord.
Workman rendered work till 1990 and not till 1998. Workman was not appointed or terminated by
management. He was not engaged against regular vacant post following recruitment procedure. Workman was
engaged only for need and exigencies of work. Workman was not appointed in Railway Electrification Project
in 1986. Workman left work on his own in March 1987. Again workman joined project work on 16-7-87 and
worked till 1-1-1990 thereafter workman left job on his own workman was not engaged for specific project. He
was not appointed as per recruitment policy. Management’s witness in his cross examination says he was
working as Asstt. Engineer. H has seen documents in office file. On its basis, he stated that workman not
completed 240 days working. He denies that ITO was competent to engage casual labours. The work of laying
cables was done through casual labours. Management’s witness denies that workman worked from April 86 to
April 90. He claims ignorance about regularization of Shri Ramnaresh and Ramdeen working with workman.
Workman was not paid retrenchment compensation, retrenchment notice was not issued to him. Workman
himself left work. Project work is carried at difference places and different project. He was not working in the
project where workman was engaged. Evidence of management’s witness that project work and office is closed
in 1990 is not challenged.
9. Workman has produced documents, copy of casual card, the original is also produced on record. Exhibit W-1
shows that workman was working in the department from November 1986 to 1-4-90. Original of casual card
shows that workman had worked more than 240 days during the period May 89 to April 90. Pleading and
evidence of workman are clear that he was prosecuted in criminal case, he was in jail from 11-6-90 till his
acquittal on 17-1-97. Copy of judgment in criminal appeal is produced on record. Copy of judgment in
Original OA 512/98 filed by workman is also produced. Hon’ble CAT had directed workman to file
application before appropriate authority.
10. Learned counsel for workman Shri Pranay Choubey produce copy of judgment by CAT in OA 411/90 and
others.
The scheme known as casual labours ( grant of temporary status and regularization) scheme of the department
of Telecom 1989 is reproduced. The scheme came in force from 1-10-89. Scheme is applicable to casual
labours employed by department of Telecom. The scheme provided vacancies in Grade D cardre in various
offices of the department of Telecom would exclusively filled by regularization of casual labours and no
outsiders would be appointed to the cadre except in the case of appointments on compassionate grounds, till the
absorption of all existing casual labourers fulfilling the eligibility conditions including educational
qualifications prescribed in the recruitment rules.
The temporary status would be conferred on all the casual labourers currently employed and who rendered a
continuous service of atleast one year, out of which they must have been engaged on work for a period of 240
days, such casual labourers will be designated as temporary mazdoors. (ii) such conferment of temporary status
2396
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
would be without reference to the creation/ availability of regular Grade D Post. (iii) conferment of temporary
status on a casual labour would not involve any change in his duties and responsibilities. The engagement will
be on daily rates of pay on a need basis.
Para 6 of the scheme deals with benefits to the casual labours getting temporary status. The wages at daily rates
w.e.t minimum of pay scale for regular Gr D benefits in respect of increments in pay scale will be admissible
for every one year of service subject to performance of duty for atleast 240 days, Para 6(0v) provides after
rendering 3 years service, on attainment of temporary status, the casual labourers would be treated on a par
with temporary Gr D employees for the purpose of contribution to GPF and would also further be eligible for
the grant of Festival Advance/ Food Advance on the same conditions as are applicable to temporary Gr D
employees.
11. The evidence of management that the scheme work is completed, office has been closed in 1990 remained
unchallenged. When office of Railway Electrification is not functioning, the claim of workman for temporary
status and regularization of his service as per above scheme would not be granted.
12. Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri R.S.Khare relied on ratio held in
Case of Vice Chancellor, Lucknow, UP versus Akhilesh Kumar Khare and another reported in
2016(1)SCC(L&S)-186. Their Lordship held that casual labour, daily wager, temporary employees are not
entitled to regularization. Considering the working of the employees for 10 years or more, compensation Rs. 4
Lakh was granted.
In present case, workman was not terminated by 2nd party, workman himself remained absent as he was
detained in jail for criminal case. The principles cannot be applied to present case.
Reliance is also placed on ratio held in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi
reported in 2006(4)SCC-1. As 2nd party has introduced scheme for regularization of casual temporary
employees, ratio held in the case cannot be applied to case at hand.
Shri Khare further relies on ratio held in case of MP State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. And
another versus S.C.Pandey reported in 2006(2)SACC-716. Their Lordship dealing with casual labour temporary
employees held daily wager doesnot hold a post as he is not appointed in terms of the provisions of the Act and
rules framed thereunder.
Ratio in above case also cannot be applied as department has introduced scheme considered in above paras.
However the evidence of management’s witness that Railway Electrification Project is completed in 1990 and
office of said project at Itarsi and Bhopal were closed in 1990 itself, claim of workman for temporary status and
regularization cannot be allowed. For above reasons, I record my finding in point no.1 that workman was not
terminated by 2nd party, he is not entitled to temporary status.
13. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) Workman was not terminated by 2nd party. He was not attending the work as he was detained in jail during
1990 to 1997.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1081-& vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
fMikVZesaV vkWQ VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] Hkksiky ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ dsl la-
lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@130@2001½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&40012@60@2001&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2016
S.O. 1081.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D Case No.CGIT/LC/R/130/2001) 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 25/05/2016.
[No. L-40012/60/2001-IR(DU)]
P. K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2397
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/130/2001
Shri Mangilal Jatav,
S/o Shri Chhitariya Ram Jatav,
Vill & Post Tantra, Tehsil Sabalgarh,
Distt. Morena (MP)
…Workman
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Deptt. of Telecommunication,
Hoshangabad Road, MP Circle,
Bhopal (MP)
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 6th day of May 2016
1. 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-40012/60/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs,
Gwalior in terminating the services of Shri Mangilal Jatav S/o Shri Chitariya Ram Jatav w.e.f. 1-5-88 is
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of workman is that on 2-4-86, he was engaged as labour in Morena Sub Division of P&T
deptt. He worked till May 1987. Thereafter he was transferred to Sub Division. He worked at Bhind from 30-4-
88. Workman contends that he was continuously working as labour from 2-4-86 to 13-4-88. He had worked
more than 240 days during each of the year. On 1-5-88, his services were terminated without notice. He was not
paid retrenchment compensation under ID Act. He is covered as workman under Section 2(s). 2nd party is
covered as industry under Section 2(j) of ID Act. From 1-5-88, without his consent, he was transferred to
contractor. He worked with contractor till Sept.1988. the contractor had discontinued him.
3. He had filed Writ Petition in High Court. The said Writ Petition was transferred to CAT under registered as OA
325/93. The order was passed on 21-9-99. After conciliation proceeding the dispute is referred. Workman prays
for his reinstatement with backwages.
4. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/3 opposing claim of workman. Workman was not appointed.
He was engaged on daily wages as per the need of work. His working doesnot give him any right. 2nd party
denies that he was continuously working for 2 years. It is denied that workman completed 240 days continuous
service. It was not necessary to issue notice or to pay retrenchment compensation. Provisions of ID Act are not
applicable. Workman was paid wages for his working days. Work was completed. Workman was not engaged.
Workman has not disclosed with which contractor, he was working and name of contractor and disengaged
him. On such contentions, 2nd party prays for rejection of claim.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the management of
Chief General Manager, Telecom Divisional
Engineer, Telegraphs, Gwalior in terminating
the services of Shri Mangilal Jatav S/o Shri
Chitariya Ram Jatav w.e.f. 1-5-88 is
justified?
In Negative
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
As per final order.
2398
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REASONS
6. The terms of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of workman. Workman filed affidavit of
his evidence. In his affidavit of evidence, workman says he was engaged on daily wages on 2-4-86 at Morena
Sub Division. In May 1987, he was transferred to Bhind Sub Division. He worked at Bhind Sub Division till
30-4-88. His services were orally terminated from 1-8-88. That he completed more than 240 days service
during each of the year. In Para-4 of his affidavit, number of working days are mentioned from 80 to 88. That
12 months preceding his termination on 30-4-88, he completed 275 days. He was paid wages Rs.10,11,12 per
day. He was paid difference of wages Rs.8146/- by cheque dated 20-11-92. In his cross-examination, workman
says he was working in Telecom Department since his appointment in 1986. He submitted application for the
job 2 months before his engagement. Muster roll was maintained. He was doing work of laying telephone lines,
digging ditches, erecting poles. His attendance was maintained by Bhagwan Singh and 3-4 other persons.
Workman denied he was not continuously working from 86 to 88. He denied that he intermittently left the job.
He was not getting paid holidays. Workman has produced document Exhibit W-3. Working days of workman
are shown from April 86 to April 88. The working days of workman during period May 876 to April 88 are
more than 240 days.
7. Affidavit of evidence of management’s witness Shri D.C.Mahor is filed supporting contentions of
management in Written statement. However the management’s witness remained absent for cross examination.
His evidence cannot be considered. Evidence of workman is corroborated by casual card Exhibit W-3.
Workman was also paid difference of wages Rs.8146/- as per Exhibit W-1,2. The evidence of workman and
documents proves that workman had worked more than 240 days preceding 12 months of his termination in
April 1988. His services are terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation is not paid. The termination
of workman is illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. in Negative.
8. Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 termination of workman is illegal for violation of Section
25-F of ID Act. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri Pranay Choubey submits that his services of workman are
terminated without notice in violation of Section 25-F, workman be allowed reinstatement with backwages.
Reliance is placed on ratio held in case of Tapash Kumar Paul versus BSNL and another reported in 2014-15-
SCC-313- Termination of workman in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act is entitled to reinstatement with
backwages since in absence of full back wages, employee would be distressed and suffer punishment for no
fault of his own in absence of proof of gainful employment.
In present case, judicial notice can be taken that Telecom Deptt. is merged in BSNL in the past. BSNL is not
impleaded as party therefore reinstatement of workman would not be appropriate. Considering above facts,
reasonable compensation would be justified. Considering the period of working of workman, compensation
Rs.One Lakh would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.
9. 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 pay compensation Rs. One Lakh to the workman.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1082-& vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
fMikVZesaV vkWQ VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] Hkksiky ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ dsl la-
lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@96@05½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&40012@121@2004&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2016
S.O. 1082.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D Case No.CGIT/LC/R/96/05) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-CUM-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of the Department of Telecommunication, Bhopal and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-40012/121/2004-IR(DU)]
P.K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2399
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/96/2005
Shri Kamal Shankar Singh,
R/o Pattani Barkhedi,
Rajesh Shri Saini Traders,
Main Road,
Bhopal.
…Workman
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Deptt. Of Telecommunication,
BSNL, Hoshangabad Road,
MP Circle,
Bhopal.
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 10th day of May 2016
1. As per letter dated 8-9-05 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-40012/121/2004-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom, BSNL Bhopal in terminating the
services of Shri Kamal Shankar Singh w.e.f. 9-8-90 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
for?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 7/1 to 7/4. Case of workman is that he was engaged as labour in establishment of 2nd party in 1986.
Thereafter he was transferred to different places. He was working under Assistant Engineer, Railway
Electrification, Itarsi. Workman was paid Rs. 1100/- per month. His services were terminated illegally from
9-8-90 in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. He was not paid retrenchment compensation. Workman had
completed more than 240 days continuous service, he was entitled for retrenchment compensation. His services
were terminated illegally. 2nd party violated Section 25-G,H,N of ID Act. After termination of his service, 2nd
party engaged other employees Kanhaiyalal, shambu Dhurve at Lalitpur, Vidisha, Bhopal. Workman was not
given opportunity to work. During conciliation proceeding on 24-8-02, 2nd party had assured to workman for
engaging him on work but workman was not engaged by 2nd party. Termination of his service is in violation of
principles of natural justice. Workman alleged violation of Article 14,16 of the constitution. On such ground,
workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at 18/1 to 18/3 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that the work of
Railway Electrification Project was undertaking having office at Bhopal. Said work was completed in 1990.
The record with respect to said project was destroyed. 2nd party denies engagement of workman by it. Its record
is not available. Casual employees engaged for project were paid retrenchment compensation. It is denied that
workman had completed more than 240 days service. It is denied that 2nd party not followed seniority while
retrenching the casual workers. All adverse contentions of workman are denied.
4. Ist party workman filed rejoinder on 7-5-08 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the management of Chief General
Manager, Telecom, BSNL Bhopal in terminating the
services of Shri Kamal Shankar Singh w.e.f. 9-8-90 is
justified?
In Negative
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
As per final order.
2400
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REASONS
6. The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of workman. Workman filed affidavit of his
evidence supporting contentions in statement of claim. In his affidavit of evidence, workman says that he was
engaged as labour on 8-5-86. His name was sponsored through Employment Exchange. He was working with
Asstt. Engineer, Railway Itarsi. He was paid Rs.1110/- per month. His services were terminated on 9-8-90
while he was working at Khandwa under Bhopal Division he was not paid retrenchment compensation.
Seniority list of workers was not displayed on notice board. He was not re-engaged after his termination. Other
persons were engaged after termination of his service. He is unemployed after termination of his service. 2nd
party remained absent and failed to cross-examination workman. His evidence remained unchallenged.
7. Workman has produced copy of retrenchment notice issued by Asstt. Engineer dated 30-8-90. The retrenchment
compensation was calculated. The calculation sheet shows 1124/- working days of workman. The
compensation was not paid for the reason that permission for retrenchment was applied to the Ministry of
Labour. 2nd party has not participated in reference proceeding. No evidence is adduced by 2nd party.
Considering the evidence on record, it is clear that services of workman are terminated in violation of Section
25-F of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
8. Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 termination of workman is illegal, question remains for
consideration whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. On the point, learned counsel for
workman relies on ratio held in
Case of Mackinon Machenzie and company Ltd versus Mackinnon Employees Union reported in 2015
LAB.I.C.1645. Their Lordship dealing with retrenchment one months notice is not given to the concerned
workmen before their retrenchment came into effect nor one month’s salary in lieu of the retrenchment notice
was paid to the concerned workmen. Therefore said action by appellant company is clear cut breach of the
provision of condition precedent for retrenchment of the workman as provided under Section 25 F.Termination
in violation of Section 25-F F was held void ab initio.
Ratio held in case of state of UP versus Charan Singh reported ion 2015(4)SCCD1846(SC) supports claim of
workman.
9. Evidence of workman is not disclosing how he is surviving after termination of his service for such a long
period. In my considered view, reinstatement with 50 % backwages of workman would be appropriate.
10. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) Action of the management is not proper.
(2) 2nd party is directed to reinstate workman with 50 % back wages.
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] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1083-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fefyVªh
bathfu;fjax lfoZl ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 308] 314] 315] 316] 320] 322] 325] 326] 327]
332] 333] 334] 335] 337@2001 vkSj 98@2002½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@05@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&14012@47@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14012@41@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14012@40@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14012@17@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14012@39@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14012@35@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14012@33@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14012@30@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14012@29@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14012@28@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14012@23@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14012@22@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14012@21@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14012@20@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14012@15@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14012@35@2002&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2401
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1083.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 308, 314, 315, 316, 320, 322, 325, 326, 327, 332, 333, 334, 335,
337/2001 and 98/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-CUM-Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Military Engineering
Service and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-40012/47/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/41/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/40/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/17/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/39/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/35/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/33/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/30/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/29/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/28/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/23/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/ 22/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/21/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/20/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/15/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/35/2002-IR(DU)]
P.K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Thursday, the 26th April, 2016
Present: K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
I.D. Nos. 308, 314, 315, 316, 320, 322, 325, 326, 327, 332, 333, 334, 335, 337 of 2001 and 98 of 2002
(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 Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering
Service, INS Rajali, Arakkonam and their workman)
BETWEEN
Sri V. Dharani & 14 Others
:
1st Party/Petitioners
AND
1.
The Management
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
Military Engineering Service
INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
2.
The Commanding Officer
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Naval Air Force
INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
2402
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sl.
No.
I.D. No.
Reference No. & Date
Name of the I Party
S/Sri
Name of the II Party
1.
308/2001 L-14012/47/2000/IR (DU) dated
30.11.2000
V. Dharani
1. Garrison Engineers, Military Engineering
Service, INS Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer, Naval Air
Station, INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
2.
314/2001 L-14012/41/2000/IR (DU) dated
30.11.2000
R. Ramesh
1. Garrison Engineers, Military Engineering
Service, INS Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer, Naval Air
Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
3.
315/2001 L-14012/40/2000/IR (DU) dated
30.11.2000
S. Umashankar
1. Garrison Engineers, Military Engineering
Service, INS Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer, Naval Air
Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
4.
316/2001 L-14012/39/2000/IR (DU) dated
30.11.2000
K. Radhakrishnan
1. Garrison Engineers, Military Engineering
Service, INS Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer, Naval Air
Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
5.
320/2001
L-14012/35/2000/IR (DU) dated
30.11.2000
P. Kudiarasu
1. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service, INS Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer, Naval Air
Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
6.
322/2001 L-14012/33/2000/IR (DU) dated
30.11.2000
P. Rajasekar
1. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service, INS Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer, Naval Air
Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
7.
325/2001 L-14012/30/2000/IR (DU) dated
30.11.2000
A. Chandrasekaran
1. Garrison
Engineers,
Military
Engineering Service, INS Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer, Naval Air
Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
8.
326/2001 L-14012/29/2000/IR (DU) dated
30.11.2000
A. Victor
1. Garrison
Engineers,
Military
Engineering Service, INS Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer, Naval Air
Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2403
9.
327/2001 L-14012/28/2000/IR (DU) dated
30.11.2000
M. George
1. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service, INS Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer, Naval Air
Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
10.
332/2001 L-14012/23/2000/IR (DU) dated
30.11.2000
P. Jayakumar
1. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service, INS Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer, Naval Air
Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
11.
333/2001 L-14012/22/2000/IR (DU) dated
30.11.2000
S. Mohanarangam
1. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service, INS Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer, Naval Air
Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
12.
334/2001 L-14012/21/2000/IR (DU) dated
30.11.2000
A. Baskar
1. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service, INS Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer, Naval Air
Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
13.
335/2001 L-14012/20/2000/IR (DU) dated
30.11.2000
S. Ibrahim
1. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service, INS Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer, Naval Air
Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
14.
337/2001 L-14012/15/2000/IR (DU) dated
30.11.2000
T. Winfred
Prabhakaran
1. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service, INS Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer, Naval Air
Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
15.
98/2002
L-14012/35/2002/IR (DU) dated
21.10.2002
K.R. Sarath Babu
1. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service, INS Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer, Naval Air
Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioners
:
Sri R. Dakshina Moorthy, Advocate
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
:
Set-Ex-parte
COMMON AWARD
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as IDs 308/2001, 314/2001, 315/2001,
316/2001, 320/2001, 322/2001, 325/2001, 326/2001, 327/2001, 332/2001, 333/2001, 334/2001, 335/2001, 337/2001,
98/2002 and issued notices to the parties. In all the matters both sides have entered appearance and filed Claim and
Counter Statement respectively. However, subsequently, the Respondents have remained absent and have been set ex-
parte.
3.
The Schedule mentioned in the orders of reference in the above IDs are as under:
2404
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ID 308/2001
“Whether the action of Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service, INS Rajali, Arakkonam in terminating the
services of Sri V. Dharani who has been engaged through TNR Enterprises for operation and maintenance of DG Sets
w.e.f. 02.02.2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
ID 314/2001
“Whether the action of the Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service, INS Rajali, Arakkonam in terminating the
services of Sri R. Ramesh who has been engaged through TNR Enterprises for operation and maintenance of DG sets
w.e.f. 02.02.2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
ID 315/2001
“Whether the action of the Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service, INS Rajali, Arakkonam in terminating the
services of Sri S. Umashankar who has been engaged through TNR Enterprises for operation and maintenance of DG
sets w.e.f. 02.02.2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
ID 316/2001
“Whether the action of the Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service, INS Rajali, Arakkonam in terminating the
services of Sri K. Radhakrishnan who has been engaged through TNR Enterprises for operation and maintenance of DG
sets w.e.f. 02.02.2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
ID 320/2001
“Whether the action of the Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service, INS Rajali, Arakkonam in terminating the
services of Sri P. Kudiarasu who has been engaged through TNR Enterprises for operation and maintenance of DG sets
w.e.f. 02.08.1998 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
ID 322/2001
“Whether the action of the Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service, INS Rajali, Arakkonam in terminating the
services of Sri P. Rajakumar who has been engaged through TNR Enterprises for operation and maintenance of DG Sets
w.e.f. 02.02.2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
ID 325/2001
“Whether the action of the Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service, INS Rajali, Arakkonam in terminating the
services of Sri A. Chandrasekaran who has been engaged through TNR Enterprises for operation and maintenance of
DG sets w.e.f. 02.02.2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
ID 326/2001
“Whether the action of the Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service, INS Rajali, Arakkonam in terminating the
services of Sri A. Victor who has been engaged through TNR Enterprises for operation and maintenance of DG sets
w.e.f 02.02.2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
ID 327/2001
“Whether the action of the Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service, INS Rajali, Arakkonam in terminating the
services of Sri M. George who has been engaged through TNR Enterprises for operation and maintenance of DG sets
w.e.f. 02.08.1998 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
ID 332/2001
“Whether the action of the Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service, INS Rajali, Arakkonam in terminating the
services of Sri P. Jayakumar who has been engaged through TNR Enterprises for operation and maintenance of DG sets
w.e.f. 02.02.2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is justified?”
ID 333/2001
“Whether the action of the Management of Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service, INS Rajali, Arakkonam in
terminating the services of Sri S. Mohanarangam who has been engaged through TNR Enterprises for operation and
maintenance of DG sets w.e.f. 02.02.2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
ID 334/2001
“Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service, INS Rajali, Arakkonam in
terminating the services of Sri A. Baskar who has been engaged through TNR Enterprises for operation and
maintenance of DG sets w.e.f 02.02.2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2405
ID 335/2001
“Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service, INS Rajali, Arakkonam in
terminating the services of Sri S. Ibrahim who has been engaged through TNR Enterprises for operation and
maintenance of DG sets w.e.f. 02.08.1998 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
ID 337/2001
“Whether the action of the Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service, INS Rajali, Arakkonam in terminating the
services of Sri T. Winfred Prabhakaran who has been engaged through TNR Enterprises for operation and maintenance
of DG sets w.e.f. 02.02.2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
ID 98/2002
“Whether the action of the Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering service, INS Rajali, Arakkonam in terminating the
services of the workman Sri K.R. Sarath Babu who has been engaged through TNR Enterprises for operation and
maintenance of DG sets with effect from 02.08.1998 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
4.
The averments in the Claim Statement in ID 308/2001 are as below:
The petitioner had entered the service of the Respondents as Diesel Generator Operator on 04.04.1994. He was
working through Contractors. However, even when the Contractor’s changed, the petitioner continued to work with the
Respondent. The petitioner was doing the same work that was carried out by the permanent employees of the
Respondents. The work performed by the petitioner was perennial in nature. The overall control of the petitioner was by
the Officers of the Respondents. The so-called contract system was only a sham one. The petitioner, along with other
workmen had joined the Socialist Workers Union and the Union had placed certain Charter of Demands on 16.08.1999.
Since this was not considered by the Management the Union had raised Industrial Dispute before the Labour
Commissioner. In retaliation the petitioner and other workmen were retrenched from 02.02.2000 without any notice or
compensation. The termination of the petitioner from service is improper and illegal. The petitioner is entitled to be
reinstated in service with full back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
5.
The Respondents had filed Counter Statement contending that there was no employer-employee relationship
between them and the petitioner, that the petitioner was working under the Contractor, that the Contractor was availing
service of the petitioner temporarily according to necessity etc. It was also contended in the Counter Statement that the
First Respondent is not an industrial establishment and therefore the dispute is not maintainable before this Tribunal.
6.
The petitioners in the other connected disputes also have raised similar disputes. All of them have claimed that
they have started to work with the First and Second Respondents on different dates and were working continuously with
them, that though they were working through the Contractor the contract was only sham and nominal, that their work
was perennial in nature, that they were working continuously, that they were terminated illegally and they are entitled to
be reinstated in service.
7.
Some of the petitioners have filed Writ Petition No. 36619/2004 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras
against the order of this Tribunal dismissing the applications filed by them to implead three more persons who are
Contractors in the party array. The case has been stayed during the pendency of the Writ petition. The Writ Petition
was dismissed as not pressed on 08.12.2015 and thus the stay in the matters have been vacated. When the matter was
taken up after disposal of the Writ Petition the Respondents have failed to enter appearance in spite of postings given for
their appearance. So Respondents have been set ex-parte.
8.
The evidence in the case consists of the Affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination filed by the respective
petitioners and the documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W50.
9.
The points to be considered are:
(i)
Whether the action of the Respondents in terminating the service of the respective petitioners is legal and
justified?
(ii)
What, if any is the relief to which the petitioners are entitled?
The Points
10.
The petitioners have given the details of their service for the First and Second Respondents in the respective
affidavits filed by them. The petitioner in ID 308/2001 has started to work for the First Respondent as Diesel Generator
Operator on 04.04.1994. The Petitioner in ID 314/2001 had started to work on 15.06.1994. the Petitioner in ID 315/2001
on 03.05.1992, the Petitioner in ID 316/2001 on 05.08.1996, the Petitioner in ID 320/2001 on 30.11.1995, the Petitioner
in ID 322/2001 on 15.06.1994, the Petitioner in ID 325/2001 on 01.08.1996, the Petitioner in ID 326/2001 on
01.08.1996. the Petitioner in ID 327/2001 on 15.06.1994, the Petitioner in ID 332/2001 on 15.08.1995, the Petitioner in
ID 333/2001 on 15.06.1994, the Petitioner in ID 334/2001 on 10.07.1995, the Petitioner in ID 335/2001 on 02.05.1992,
2406
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the Petitioner in ID 337/2001 on 10.04.1992 and the Petitioner in ID 98/2002 on 10.04.1994. A few of the petitioners
were working as Diesel Generator Helper and all others as Diesel Generator Operators. All of them were terminated on
02.02.2000. They are said to have been stopped at the entry gate, their Identity Card snatched and sent out.
11.
All the petitioners have reiterated in their Proof Affidavits that they were continuously working for the
Respondents though through the Contractors and that even when the contract was changed from time to time they
continued to work in the same position under the Respondents. They have specifically stated in the affidavit that they
were controlled and supervised not by the so-called Contractors but by the Officers of the Respondents. They were
working hand in hand with the permanent workers and their work was perennial and continuous in nature. They have
stated that the contract said to have been entered into by the Respondents were only sham and nominal, that they were
always working for the Respondents only. It is further stated that they have been receiving salary from the Respondents.
12.
The petitioners have also produced documents to substantiate their case. They have produced Attendance
Registers in support of their case that they were continuously working. The Duty Roster containing the signature of the
Officers of the Respondents also are produced. There is no evidence contrary to the evidence given by the petitioners
that their work was perennial in nature, that they were working continuously, that they continued to work with the
Respondents without any break even when the Contractors changed. This evidence of the petitioners is sufficient to
prove that they were doing work perennial in nature and were under the control and supervision of First and Second
Respondents. The contract entered into by the Respondents to employ the petitioners are to be treated as sham and
nominal. In that case all these petitioners are to be considered as employees of the Respondents.
13.
A contention has been raised in the Counter Statement that the First Respondent being Military Engineering
Service, its function is sovereign in nature and it does not come under the definition of “industry” as defined in the
Industrial Disputes Act. In answer to this the counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the First Respondent is only a
wing of the Military which does not do any sovereign function but is a wing that can be severed from the main function
of the Military. In this respect the counsel has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in VISWAN AND OTHERS
VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS AND OTHER CASES reported in AIR 1983 SC 658. The Apex Court while
considering the Army Act and Rules has stated how the General Reserve Engineering Force happened to be constituted.
It is extracted below:
“In or about 1960 it was felt that economic development of the North and North Eastern Border
Region were greatly handicapped by meagre and inadequate communications and defence of these
areas also required a network of roads for effective movement and deployment of Armed Forces.
This was rendered all the more necessary because the relations of India with its neighbours were in
a state of potential conflicts and part of the Indian Territory was under foreign occupation and there
were also hostile forces inviting some sections of the people to carry on a campaign for secession.
The Government of India therefore, with a view to ensure co-ordination and expeditious execution of
projects designed to improve existing roads and constructing new roads in the border areas in order
to prove the defence preparedness of the Country created several posts in the Directorate General of
Works, Army Headquarters for work connected with the development of border roads”.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
“The General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF) is organized on Army pattern with units and sub-
units with distinctive badges of ranks and a rank structure equivalent to that in the Army. The
Officers and other personnel of GREF are required to be in uniform right from Class-IV to Class-I
personnel though GREF is undoubtedly a departmental construction agency, it is maintained by the
Government of India to meet the operational requirements of the Army whose operational planning
is based on the availability of the units of GREF for operational purposes”.
14.
The counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the portion taken from the website of the Ministry of
Defence.
It states:
“MES is a Military Organization but has both Army and Civilian component of Officers and other
Subordinate Staff. The MES is responsible for the design construction and maintenance of all
buildings, air fields, dock installations, etc. along with accessory services such as Military roads,
bulk water and electricity supply, drainage, refrigeration and furniture required by the Army, Navy
and Air Force in India. It functions under the overall control of the Engineer-in-Chief who is Advisor
to the Ministry of Defence and the three services on operational and peace-time construction
engineering”.
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2407
15.
Reference was also made to the guidelines on cadre management of Military Engineering Service Civilian
Officers. The counsel pointed out to the fact that the Officers are referred to as Civilian Officers. The preamble to the
guidelines states that MES is an organization providing engineering/technical services to the services of the Defence
forces. Thus what is to be seen is that though the employees of the MES except those Officers who come on
deputation from the defence services, others are treated separately though they are also part of Military service.
The MES is something that cater to the proper functioning of the Military service itself. Its function is something that
can be separated. It has nothing to do with the sovereign function that is carried out by the Military establishment. So
the argument of the counsel that it comes under the definition of industrial establishment and therefore the dispute is
maintainable before this Tribunal is to be accepted.
16.
All the petitioners have worked for years with the Respondents continuously. They are to be deemed to have
been under the service of the Respondents. Their prayer in the Claim Statements is to reinstate them with full backwages
and continuity of service and other attendant benefits. I am not inclined to grant the relief of backwages to the petitioners
considering the circumstances. However, they are to be treated as permanent employees and are entitled to the relief of
reinstatement and continuity of service.
17.
In the result Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in each IDs in service within a month of
publication of the award. They will be entitled to continuity of service and shall be paid salary as per the regular scale,
from the date of reinstatement.
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
26th April, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioners
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
:
None
Documents Marked
On the Petitioner’s side
Ext.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
1998-1999
Petitioner’s Attendance Register of the 1st Respondent
Ext.W2
Oct. 1998
Duty Roster of the Petitioner duly endorsed by the
Dec. 1999
Officer of the 1st Respondent
Ext.W3
2015/1986
Petitioner’s Driving License and School Leaving
Certificate
Ext.W4
Aug. 1998
Petitioner’s Attendance Register of the 1st Respondent
Nov. 1999
Ext.W5
Aug. 1998
Duty Roster of the Petitioner duly endorsed by the
Dec. 1999
Officer of the 1st Respondent
Ext.W6
29.03.1996
Petitioner’s Gate Pass of the 1st Respondent
Feb. 2000
Ext.W7
2005/2014
Petitioner Ration Card, Aadhar Card and Voter
/2013
Identity Card
Ext.W8
1998-1999
Log Sheet
Ext.W9
Aug. 1998
Petitioner’s Attendance Register of the 1st Respondent
Nov. 1999
Ext.W10
Aug. 1998 to
Duty Roster of the Petitioner duly endorsed by the
Dec. 1999
Officer of the 1st Respondent
Ext.W11
30.09.1996 to
Petitioner’s Gate Pass of the 1st Respondent
Feb. 2000
Ext.W12
2009
Petitioner’s Voter Identity Card
Ext.W13
Aug. 1998
Petitioner’s Attendance Register of the 1st Respondent
Nov. 1999
Ext.W14
Sept. 1998
Duty Roster of the Petitioner duly endorsed by the
Dec. 1999
Officer of the 1st Respondent
2408
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.W15
12.07.1998
Petitioner’s Gate Pass of the 1st Respondent
Feb. 2000
Ext.W16
2003
Petitioner PAN Card Driving License
Ext.W17
1998
Picture showing Substation “E” ATC with Grass within
the Compound wall of ATC
Ext.W18
Nov. 1995
Duty Roster of the Petitioner duly endorsed by the
1999
Officer of the 1st Respondent
Ext.W19
30.11.1995
Petitioner’s Gate Pass of the 1st Respondent
April 1998
Ext.W20
16.03.2016
Petitioner Aadhar Card
Ext.W21
15.06.1998
Petitioner’s Gate Pass of the 1st Respondent
May 2000
Ext.W22
2015/1997
Petitioner Aadhar Card, Voter Identity Card
Ext.W23
Aug. 1998
Petitioner’s Attendance Register of 1st Respondent
Nov. 1999
Ext.W24
Aug. 1998
Duty Roster of the Petitioner duly endorsed by the
Dec. 1999
Officer of the 1st Respondent
Ext.W25
19.02.1999
Petitioner’s Gate Pass of the 1st Respondent
Feb. 2000
Ext.W26
2015/1997
Petitioner Aadhar Card and Voter Identity Card
Ext.W27
Sept. 1998
Duty Roster of Petitioner duly endorsed by the Officer of
the 1st Respondent
Ext.W28
Aug. 1998
Petitioner’s Attendance Register of 1st Respondent
Nov. 1999
Ext.W29
17.05.1998
Petitioner’s Gate Pass of the 1st Respondent
Feb. 2000
Ext.W30
2015
Petitioner Aadhar Card
Ext.W31
2015/2005
Petitioner Aadhar Card and Ration Card
Ext.W32
Aug. 1998
Petitioner’s Attendance Register of the 1st Respondent
Nov. 1999
Ext.W33
Sep. 1998
Duty Roster of the Petitioner duly endorsed by the
Jan. 2000
Officer of the 1st Respondent
Ext.W34
12.01.1996
Petitioner’s Gate Pass of the 1st Respondent
Feb. 2000
Ext.W35
2015/2008
Petitioner Aadhar Card and Voter Identity Card
Ext.W36
Aug. 1998
Extract of the Attendance Register of the petitioner in the Nov. 1999 1st
Respondent Office/Site
Ext.W37
Aug. 1998
Extract of the Duty Roster assigned to the petitioner in
Nov .1999
the 1st Respondent Office / Site
Ext.W38
Sept. 1997
Extract of the Entry Gate Pass / Gate Pass issued by
Feb. 2000
the 1st Respondent to the Petitioner
Ext.W39
2013/2007/
Petitioner Aadhar Card, Voter Identity Card, Ration
2005
Card
Ext.W40
Sept. 1998
Duty Roster of the petitioner duty endorsed by the
Jan. 2000
Officer of the 1st Respondent
Ext.W41
Aug. 1998
Petitioner’s Attendance Register of the 1st Respondent
Nov. 1999
Ext.W42
Feb. 1999
Petitioner’s Gate Pass of the 1st Respondent
Feb. 2000
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2409
Ext.W43
2014
Petitioner Aadhar Card
Ext.W44
2014
Petitioner Aadhar Card
Ext.W45
Aug. 1998
Petitioner’s Attendance register of the 1st Respondent
Nov. 1999
Ext.W46
Sept. 1998
Duty Roster of the Petitioner duly endorsed by the
Dec. 1999
Officer of the 1st Respondent
Ext.W47
15.01.1998
Petitioner’s Gate Pass of the 1st Respondent
Feb. 2000
Ext.W48
2014/2003
Petitioner Aadhar Card and Voter Identity Card
Ext.W49
Nov. 1995
Duty Roster of the petitioner duly endorsed by the
1995
Officer of the 1st Respondent
Ext.W50
2004
Petitioner Driving License and School Leaving Certificate
On the Management’s side
Ext.No.
Date
Description
______________Nil____________________________
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1084-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fefyVªh
bathfu;fjax lfoZl ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 349] 351] 352] 353] 355] 356] 357] 358] 359] 360] 361]
362] 363] 368] 369 vkSj 374@2001½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&14011@12@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14011@41@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14011@16@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14011@17@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14011@19@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14011@20@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14011@21@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14011@22@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14011@23@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14011@24@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14011@25@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14011@26@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14011@27@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14011@32@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14011@35@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
la- ,y&14011@40@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1084.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 349, 351, 352, 353, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 368,
369 and 374/2001) 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 Military Engineering
Service and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25.05.2016.
[No. L-14011/12/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-14011/41/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-14011/16/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-14011/17/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-14011/19/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-14011/20/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-14011/21/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-14011/22/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-14011/23/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-14011/24/2000-IR(DU),
2410
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
No. L-14011/25/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-14011/ 26/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-14011/27/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-14011/32/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-14011/35/2000-IR(DU),
No. L-14011/40/2000-IR(DU)]
P.K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Thursday, the 26th April, 2016
Present :
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
I.D. Nos. 349/2001, 351/2001, 352/2001, 353/2001, 355/2001, 356/2001, 357/2001, 358/2001, 359/2001, 360/2001,
361/2001, 362/2001, 363/2001, 368/2001, 369/2001 and 374/2001
(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 Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering
Service, INS Rajali, Arakkonam and their workman)
BETWEEN
Sri P.T. Jagadeesh Kumar and 15 Others
:
1st Party/Petitioners
AND
3.
The Management
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
Military Engineering Service
INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
4.
The Commanding Officer
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Naval Air Force
INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
S.
No.
I.D. No.
Reference No. & Date
Name of theI Party
S/Sri
Name of theII Party
1.
349/2001
L-14011/12/2000/IR (DU)
dated 27.12.2000
P.T. Jagadeesh Kumar
1. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service, INS
Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer,
Naval Air Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
2.
351/2001
L-14011/41/2000/IR (DU)
dated 27.12.2000
L. Edwin Rajan
1. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service, INS
Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer,
Naval Air Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
3.
352/2001
L-14011/16/2000/IR (DU)
dated 27.12.2000
K. Parthasarathy
1. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service, INS
Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2411
2. The Commanding Officer,
Naval Air Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
4.
353/2001
L-14011/17/2000/IR (DU)
dated 30.11.2000
P. Joseph Rajakumar
1. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service, INS
Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer,
Naval Air Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
5.
355/2001
L-14011/19/2000/IR (DU)
dated 27.12.2000
A. Ragamatullah
1. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service, INS
Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer,
Naval Air Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
6.
356/2001
L-14011/20/2000/IR (DU)
dated 27.12.2000
B. Muniendhran
1. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service, INS
Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer,
Naval Air Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
7.
357/2001
L-14011/21/2000/IR (DU)
dated 27.12.2000
C. Rajasekharan
1. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service, INS
Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer,
Naval Air Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
8.
358/2001
L-14011/22/2000/IR (DU)
dated 27.12.2000
A. Syed Karimullah
1. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service, INS
Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2.The Commanding Officer,
Naval Air Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
9.
359/2001
L-14011/23/2000/IR (DU)
dated 27.12.2000
J. Muthu
2. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service, INS
Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer,
Naval Air Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
10.
360/2001
L-14011/24/2000/IR (DU)
dated 27.12.2000
S. Simon Sundarraj
3. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service, INS
Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
4. The Commanding Officer,
Naval Air Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
11.
361/2001
L-14011/25/2000/IR (DU)
dated 27.12.2000
A. Thivya Raj
2. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service, INS
Rajali
2412
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer,
Naval Air Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
12.
362/2001
L-14011/26/2000/IR (DU)
dated 27.12.2000
N. Chandrasekhar Kumar
1. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service,
INS Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer,
Naval Air Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
13.
363/2001
L-14011/27/2000/IR (DU)
dated 27.12.2000
A.S. Andrews Babu
1. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service,
INS Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer,
Naval Air Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
14.
368/2001
l-14011/32/2000/IR
(DU)
dated 27.12.2000
M. Murugan
1. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service, INS
Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer,
Naval Air Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
15.
369/2001
L-14011/35/2000/IR (DU)
dated 27.12.2000
D. Divakaran
1. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service, INS
Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer,
Naval Air Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
16.
374/2001
L-14011/40/2000/IR (DU)
dated 27.12.2000
V. Dhandapani
1. Garrison Engineers, Military
Engineering Service, INS
Rajali
Arakkonam-651002
2. The Commanding Officer,
Naval Air Station INS Rajali
Arakkonam-631002
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioners
:
Sri R. Dakshina Moorthy, Advocate
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
:
Set-Exparte
3.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as IDs 349/2001, 351/2001, 352/2001,
353/2001, 355/2001, 356/2001, 357/2001, 358/2001, 359/2001, 360/2001, 361/2001, 362/2001, 363/2001, 368/2001,
369/2001 and 374/2001 and issued notices to the parties. In all the matters both sides have entered appearance and filed
Claim and Counter Statement respectively. However, subsequently, the Respondents have remained absent and have
been set ex-parte.
4.
The averments in the Claim Statement in ID 349/2001 are as below:
The petitioner entered service of the Respondent on 29.10.1992 as AC Operator. He was working through
Contractors. However, even when the Contractors changed the petitioner continued to work in the same position. The
petitioner was performing the same work as that was carried out by the permanent employees of the First Respondent.
The work of the petitioner was very essential for the First Respondent establishment. The so-called contract system was
only a sham one. The contractor did not possess any valid license as required under the Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act. The petitioner and other similar workers were under the overall control of the Respondents. The
petitioner and other workers had joined Socialist Workers Union and had placed Charter of Demands dated 16.08.1999
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2413
regarding confirmation in the establishment and wage revision on par with the permanent workmen. This was not
considered by the Management. So the Union has raised Industrial Dispute. In retaliation the petitioner and similar other
workmen were retrenched on 19.11.1999 without any notice or communication. There is no justification in the illegal
termination of the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service with full backwages, continuity of
service and all other attendant benefits.
5.
The Respondents had filed Counter Statement contending that there was no employer-employee relationship
between them and the petitioner, that the petitioner was working under the Contractor, that the Contractor was availing
service of the petitioner temporarily according to necessity etc. It was also contended in the Counter Statement that the
First Respondent is not an industrial establishment and therefore the dispute is not maintainable before this Tribunal.
6.
The petitioners in the other connected disputes also have raised similar disputes. All of them have claimed that
they have started to work with the Respondents on different dates and were working continuously with them, that though
they were working through the Contractor the contract was only sham and nominal, that their work was perennial in
8nature, that they were working continuously, that they were terminated illegally and they are entitled to be reinstated in
service.
7.
Some of the petitioners have filed Writ Petition No. 36619/2004 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras
against the order of this Tribunal dismissing the applications filed by them to implead two more persons who are
Contractors in the party array. The case has been stayed during the pendency of the Writ petition. The Writ Petition was
dismissed as not pressed on 08.12.2005 and thus the stay in the matters have been vacated. When the matter was taken
up after disposal of the Writ Petition the Respondents have failed to enter appearance in spite of postings given for their
appearance. So Respondents have been set ex-parte.
8.
The evidence in the case consists of the Affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination filed by the respective
petitioners and the documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W66.
9.
The points to be considered are:
(i)
Whether the action of the Respondents in terminating the service of the respective petitioners is legal and
justified?
(ii)
What, if any is the relief to which the petitioners are entitled?
The Points
10.
The petitioners have given the details of their service for the First and second respondents in the respective
Proof Affidavits filed by them. The petitioner in ID 349/2001 has stated in his affidavit that he has joined Indian
Naval Service, Military Engineering Service, Arakkonam as early as on 29.10.1992 as AC Plant Operator. The petitioner
in ID 351/2001 has joined the service on 19.12.1992 as AC Helper and has subsequently become Operator. The
petitioner in ID 352/2001 has joined on 01.07.1992 as AC Helper and had continued to work so till his termination on
19.11.1999. The petitioner in ID 353/2001 has joined on 15.06.1994 and was working as AC Mechanic. The petitioner
in ID 355/2011 has joined on 19.04.1995 as AC Operator. The petitioner in ID 356/2001 has joined on 18.07.1992 in the
same position. The petitioner in ID 357/2001 has joined on 08.03.1993 as AC Operator. The petitioner in ID 358/2001
also has joined as AC Operator on 06.06.1992. The petitioner in ID 359/2001 has joined in the same position on
18.10.1996. The petitioner in ID 360/2001 who joined on 01.06.1992 and the petitioner in ID 361/2001 who joined on
18.03.1992 also were AC Operators. The petitioner in ID 362/2001 has joined in the service on 19.01.1996 as AC
Helper. The petitioner in ID 363/2001 has joined on 03.05.1992 as DG Operator. The petitioners in ID 368/2001, ID
369/2001 and ID 374/2001 who joined on 18.03.1992, 03.07.1973 and 17.08.1993 respectively also were AC Operators.
All of them were terminated on 19.11.1999. They are said to have been stopped at the entry gate and their Identity Card
snatched and sent out. All these petitioners have stated in their affidavits and their termination was illegal and without
compliance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
11.
All the petitioners have reiterated in their Proof Affidavits that they were continuously working for the
Respondents though through the Contractors and that even when the contract was changed they continued to work in the
same position under the Respondents. They have specifically stated in the affidavit that they were controlled and
supervised not by the so-called Contractors but by the Officers of the Respondents. They were working hand in hand
with the permanent workers and their work was perennial and continuous in nature. They have stated that the contract
said to have been entered into by the Respondents were only sham and nominal, that they were always working for the
First and Second Respondents only. It is further stated that they have been receiving salary from the Respondents.
12.
The petitioners have also produced documents to substantiate their case. They have produced Attendance
Registers in support of their case that they were continuously working. The Duty Roster containing the signature of the
Officers of the Respondents also are produced. There is no evidence contrary to the evidence given by the petitioners
that their work was perennial in nature, that they were working continuously, that they continued to work with the
Respondents without any break even when the Contractors changed. This evidence of the petitioners is sufficient to
prove that they were doing work perennial in nature and were under the control and supervision of the Respondents. The
2414
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
contract entered into by the Respondents to employ the petitioners are to be treated as sham and nominal. In that case all
these petitioners are to be considered as employees of the first and Second Respondents.
13.
A contention has been raised in the Counter Statement that the First Respondent being Military Engineering
Service, its function is sovereign in nature and it does not come under the definition of the “industry” as defined in the
Industrial Disputes Act. In answer to this the counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the First Respondent is only a
wing of the Military which does not do any sovereign function but is a wing that can be severed from the main function
Military. The counsel has, in this respect, referred to the decision of the Apex Court in VISWAN AND OTHERS VS.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS AND OTHER CASES reported in AIR 1983 SC 658. The Apex Court while
considering the Army Act and Rules has stated how the General Reserve Engineering Force happened to be constituted.
It is extracted below:
“In or about 1960 it was felt that economic development of the North and North Eastern Border
Region were greatly handicapped by meagre and inadequate communications and defence of these
areas also required a network of roads for effective movement and deployment of Armed Forces.
This was rendered all the more necessary because the relations of India with its neighbours were in
a state of potential conflicts and part of the Indian Territory was under foreign occupation and there
were also hostile forces inviting some sections of the people to carry on a campaign for secession.
The Government of India therefore, with a view to ensure coordination and expeditious execution of
projects designed to improve existing roads and constructing new roads in the border areas in order
to prove the defence preparedness of the Country created several posts in the Directorate General of
Works, Army Headquarters for work connected with the development of border roads”.
…………………………………………………………………………………..………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
“The General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF) is organized on Army pattern with units and sub-
units with distinctive badges of ranks and a rank structure equivalent to that in the Army. The
Officers and other personnel of GREF are required to be in uniform right from Class-IV to Class-I
personnel though GREF is undoubtedly a departmental construction agency, it is maintained by the
Government of India to meet the operational requirements of the Army whose operational planning
is based on the availability of the units of GREF for operational purposes”.
14.
The counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the portion taken from the website of the Ministry of
Defence.
It states:
“MES is a Military Organization but has both Army and Civilian component of Officers and other
Subordinate Staff. The MES is responsible for the design construction and maintenance of all
buildings, air fields, dock installations, etc. along with accessory services such as Military roads,
bulk water and electricity supply, drainage, refrigeration and furniture required by the Army, Navy
and Air Force in India. It functions under the overall control of the Engineer-in-Chief who is Advisor
to the Ministry of Defence and the three services on operational and peace-time construction
engineering”.
15.
Reference was also made to the guidelines on cadre management of Military Engineering Service Civilian
Officers. The counsel pointed out to the fact that the Officers are referred to as Civilian Officers. The preamble to the
guidelines states that MES is an organization providing engineering/technical services to the services of the Defence
forces. Thus what is to be seen is that though the employees of the MES, except those Officers who come on deputation
from the defence services, others are treated separately though they are also part of Military service. The MES is
something that cater to the proper functioning of the Military service itself. Its function is something that can be
separated. It has nothing to do with the sovereign function that is carried out by the 3 categories of Military. So the
argument of the counsel that it comes under the definition of industrial establishment and therefore the dispute is
maintainable before this Tribunal is to be accepted.
16.
All the petitioners have worked for years with the Respondents continuously. They are to be deemed to have
been under the service of the Respondents. Their prayer in the Claim Statements is to reinstate them with full backwages
and continuity of service and other attendant benefits. I am not inclined to grant the relief of backwages to the petitioners
considering the circumstances. They are entitled to the relief of reinstatement and continuity of service.
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2415
17.
In the result the Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in each IDs in service within a month of
publication of the award. They are entitled to continuity of service and shall be paid salary as per the regular scale, from
the date of reinstatement.
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
26th April, 2016)
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioners
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
:
None
Documents Marked:
On the Petitioner’s side
Ext.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
Oct. 1997
Petitioner’s Attendance Register of the 1st Respondent
Aug. 1999
Ext.W2
Nov. 1998
Duty roster of the petitioner duly endorsed by the Officer
Nov. 1999
of the 1st Respondent
Ext.W3
09.07.1995
Petitioner’s Gate Pass of the 1st Respondent
Dec. 1999
Ext.W4
2015/2016
Petitioner copy of gas connection and Union Bank
Passbook
Ext.W5
18.08.1995
Petitioner’s Gate Pass of the 1st Respondent
Dec. 1999
Ext.W6
Oct. 1997
Petitioner’s Attendance Register of the 1st Respondent
July 1999
Ext.W7
Dec. 1998
Duty Roster of the petitioner duly endorsed by the
Nov. 1999
Officer of the 1st Respondent
Ext.W8
2015
Petitioner copy of Aadhar Card
Ext.W9
Oct. 1997
Petitioner’s Attendance Register of the 1st Respondent
July 1999
Ext.W10
Nov. 1998
Duty Roster of the petitioner duly endorsed by the
Nov. 1999
Officer of the 1st Respondent
Ext.W11
Aug. 1995
Petitioner copy of Gate Pass or entry Gate Pass
Dec. 1999
Ext.W12
2005/1997
Petitioner’s Aadhar Card Voter Identity Card and Ration
Card
Ext.W13
1998-1999
Model Log – Sheet (appraisal sheet)
Ext.W14
1997-1998
Pictures of the ATC – AC Plant compressor and the
Workmen or Petitioners at work
Ext.W15
March 1999
Petitioner’s re-entry Gate Pass of the 1st Respondent
06.05.2000
Ext.W16
Nov. 1997
Petitioner’s Attendance Register of the 1st Respondent
July 1999
Ext.W17
25.11.1994
Petitioner’s Gate Pass of the 1st Respondent
Ext.W18
1989-2007
Petitioner copy of School Transfer Certificate and
Aadhar Card
Ext.W19
1998
Pictures of the ATC – AC Plant I, II, III and the
Workmen or Petitioners at work
2416
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.W20
Oct. 1997
Petitioner’s Attendance Register of the 1st Respondent
July 1999
Ext.W21
Nov. 1998
Duty Roster of the Petitioner duly endorsed by the
Nov. 1999
Officer of the 1st Respondent
Ext.W22
Oct. 1996
Petitioner’s Gate Pass of the 1st Respondent
Dec. 1999
Ext.W23
2006
Petitioner’s Voter Identity Card
Ext.W24
Nov. 1998
Duty Roster of the Petitioner duly endorsed by the
Nov. 1999
Officer of the 1st Respondent
Ext.W25
Oct. 1997
Petitioner Attendance Register of the 1st Respondent
April 1999
Ext.W26
July 1995
Petitioner’s Gate Pass of the 1st Respondent
March 1999
Dec. 1999
Ext.W27
2015/1986
Petitioner copy School Certificate, ration card and
Aadhar Card
Ext.W28
Oct. 1997
Petitioner’s Attendance Register of the 1st Respondent
July 1999
Ext.W29
Nov. 1998
Duty Roster of the Petitioner duly endorsed by the
Nov. 1999
Officer of the 1st Respondent
Ext.W30
Dec. 1998
Petitioner’s Gate Pass of the 1st Respondent
Dec. 1999
Ext.W31
2013
Petitioner copy of Aadhar Card
Ext.W32
Oct. 1997
Petitioner’s Attendance Register of the 1st Respondent
July 1999
Ext.W33
Nov. 1998
Duty Roster of the Petitioner duly endorsed by the
Nov. 1999
Officer of the 1st Respondent
Ext.W34
01.12.1998
Petitioner’s Gate Pass of the 1st Respondent
01.08.1999
Ext.W35
2013/1998/
Petitioner copy of Aadhar Card Voter Identity, PAN
2005
Card and Ration Card
Ext.W36
1998
Pictures of the ATC – AC Plant I, II, III and the Workmen
or Petitioners at work
Ext.W37
Oct. 1997
Petitioner’s Attendance Register of the 1st Respondent
July 1999
Ext.W38
Nov. 1998
Duty roster of the Petitioner duly endorsed by the Officer
Nov. 1999
of the 1st Respondent
Ext.W39
Dec. 1998
Petitioner’s Gate Pass of the 1st Respondent
Dec. 1999
Ext.W40
2013/2005
Petitioner copy of Aadhar Card and Ration Card
Ext.W41
Nov. 1998
Petitioner’s Attendance Register of the 1st Respondent
June 1999
Ext.W42
Nov. 1998
Duty Roster of the Petitioner duly endorsed by the
Sept. 1999
Officer of the 1st Respondent
Ext.W43
Aug. 1995
Petitioner’s Gate Pass of the 1st Respondent
Dec. 1999
Ext.W44
2013/2005
Petitioner Copy of Ration Card and Aadhar Card and
Driving License
Ext.W45
Oct. 1996
Petitioner’s Attendance Register of the 1st Respondent
Nov. 1998
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2417
Ext.W46
July 1995
Petitioner’s Gate Pas of the 1st Respondent
Oct. 1997
Ext.W47
2015/1986
Petitioner’s copy School Certificate
Ext.W48
Nov. 1998
Petitioner’s Attendance Register of the 1st Respondent
June 1999
Ext.W49
Dec. 1998
Duly Roster of the Petitioner duly endorsed by the
Sept. 1999
Officer of the 1st Respondent
Ext.W50
Dec. 1998
Petitioner’s Gate Pass of the 1st Respondent
Dec. 1999
Ext.W51
2015/1986
Petitioner’s copy Aadhar Card and PAN Card
Ext.W52
1998
Pictures of the ATC – Penal Board examined at work by
the Workmen and Petitioners
Ext.W53
Oct. 1997
Petitioner’s Attendance Register of the 1st Respondent
July 1999
Ext.W54
Nov. 1996
Petitioner’s Gate Pass of the 1st Respondent
Dec. 1999
Ext.W55
2013
Petitioner’s copy of Aadhar Card
Ext.W56
Oct. 1997
Petitioner’s Attendance Register of the 1st Respondent
June 1999
Ext.W57
Nov. 1998
Duty Roster of the Petitioner duly endorsed by the
Sept. 1999
Officer of the 1st Respondent
Ext.W58
Dec. 1998
Petitioner’s Gate Pass of the 1st Respondent
Dec. 1999
Ext.W59
2013
Petitioner copy of Aadhar Card
On the Management’s side:
Ext.No.
Date
Description
______________Nil____________________________
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1085-& vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr gSoh
bysfDVªdYl fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ vkbZ-Mh- la[;k 113@2014½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 25@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42011@101@2014&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1085—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No.113/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-42011/101/2014-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
2418
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM- ABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 13th April, 2016
Present :
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 113/2014
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of BHEL and their workman)
BETWEEN
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
BHEL Mazdoor Sangam (BMS)
Opp. To Building No. 79
Tiruchirappali-620014
AND
The Executive Director
:
2nd Party/Respondent
M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.
Kailasapuram
Tiruchirappali-620014
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
M/s. B. Rajagopal, K. Sathiyamoorthy, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
:
M/s. A.V. Arun, Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-42011/101/2014-IR (DU)
dated 27.11.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The Schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the demand of the Union seeking revised pay progression with consequential benefits to those employees who
were recruited against Advt. Nos. 276, 277(i), 277(ii) and 278 after completion of one year period as per their own
advertisement is legal and unjustified?” If so, to what relief they are entitled?”
2.
On receipt of Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 113/2014 and issued notices to both sides.
Both sides entered appearance through their counsel and filed their Claim and Counter Statement respectively. The
petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter Statement.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement are as below:
The Petitioner Union is affiliated to Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh and the All India Federation Public Sector
Employees National Confederation. The Respondent is one of major units of BHEL established in 1963. It is running in
huge profit. The workers of the BHEL are categorized in grades starting from A1/B1 to A12/B12. The fixation of pay
scales, wages, other service matter and personnel policies for the workers are being arrived at in the Joint Committee
which is the Apex Committee represented by Trade Unions from various units and their central leaders on one side and
the Management on the other side. As per the minutes of the first meeting of the Joint Committee the terms of reference
of the Committee are spelt out. Vide Employment Notice No.276 advertisement was issued in the year 2005 for the
selection of 90 posts of Artisan Grade-IV in the Respondent establishment. As per the advertisement the selected
candidates were to be taken as temporary employees for one year and they were to be absorbed in the regular
establishment on successful completion of the period. However, contrary to the employment notice intimation letter was
sent to the candidates informing them about the date and time of the written examination enhancing the temporary
period as 2.5 years. In the offer of appointment given to the selected candidates also the period of temporary
employment was given as 2.5 years. The candidates selected as per Employment Notice No. 276 have joined the
respondent establishment on various dates commencing from 05.09.2005. They were absorbed in the regular
establishment of the company on completion of 2.5 years period from 05.03.2008 onwards. Employment Notices 277
and 278 also were advertised by the Respondent and temporary workers were recruited on the basis of these notices. For
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2419
them also the period of temporary employment was mentioned as 2.5 years. Since period of 2.5 years of temporary
employment was felt too long, representations were made to the Management. Accordingly, the Management issued
circular stating that the temporary workers recruited against regular sanctioned vacancies have to spend only one year
service during temporary period. Based on the above circular, temporary employee Artisans selected under Employment
Notice No. 277(i) and 277(ii) who were working for more than 1 year at that point of time as temporary were absorbed
in the regular establishment. Those who were recruited as per Employment Notice No. 278 also were absorbed in the
regular establishment on completion of one year period. Revised circulars were issued by the Management on
07.04.2008, 22.05.2008 and 04.06.2008 explaining the dispensation to be followed in dealing with the past cases.
Withdrawing the above three inter-office memorandum a new revised circular was issued on 12.02.2009. It was stated in
this that since there was disturbances in the interse seniority between different batches of Artisans because of the three
circulars the present circular is being issued. As per the circular dated 12.02.2009 changes in the designations of the
respective workers were made based on their notional absorption after completion of one year period as temporary
employee Artisan. Notional pay fixation was made in the pre-revised scale of pay as applicable to A3 grade from the
deemed date of absorption. However, wage arrears were paid only from June, 2008 onwards as per the circular. The
original circular dated 18.04.1998 fixing temporary employment period as 2.5 years is not in accordance with the spirit
of Joint Committee decision. The decision is void one. The issue ought to have been put before the Joint Committee and
got approved. Implementation of the above decision without approval and concurrence of Joint Committee is null and
void. The act of the Management in revising the period of temporary employment without following the laid-down
procedures had affected the workers. On 30.12.2009 a Memorandum of Agreement was made for the revision of pay-
scales of the workers of BHEL retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2007. As per the agreement all regular workmen of the
establishment are covered by the Agreement. Those who joined as regular employees on 01.01.2007 or thereafter are to
be deemed to have joined in the new pay structure. Payment of arrears is effective from 01.01.2007 for such of those
employees who were on service of the Company upto 31.12.2006 and continued to be in service as on 06.02.2010. The
payment of arrears is effective from the actual date of absorption for those who joined on or after 01.01.2007. As per the
circular dated 12.02.2009, those temporary employee Artisans who were absorbed in the regular establishment on or
after 01.01.2007 were eligible to get arrears from their actual date of completion of one year temporary employee
Artisan period. The decision given in the OM dated 18.02.2010 regarding payment of wage arrears is without any basis.
The temporary employee Artisans who had been recruited as per Advertisement Nos. 276, 277 and 278 are entitled to
wage arrears from the date on which they were absorbed in the regular establishment. The workers who were recruited
as per employment notices mentioned above are eligible for Casual Leave and Earned Leave as per the Leave Rules of
the Company. However, they were given only 7 days Casual Leave during the entire temporary period. They were also
given one day non-encashable Earned Leave for every 20 working days. No other leave benefits were given to them.
BHEL Leave Rules are applicable to all the employees. But those who were recruited as per Employment Notices No.
276, 277 were not provided with the leave to which they were entitled. The Management had not considered the
representations made by petitioner demanding arrears of wages and leave benefits. It is accordingly the dispute is raised.
An award may be passed revising pay progression with consequential benefits to those who were recruited against
Advertisement Nos. 276, 277 and 278 after completion of one year temporary period. Instead of notional pay fixation
and pay progression the concerned workmen should be paid wage arrears in full with all allowances. So also leave
should be granted as per the Leave Rules of the Company upon absorption as regular employees on completion of one
year. Carry forward facility should be given for un-availed leaves. Equivalent wages should be paid for leaves which
cannot be carried forward.
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:
The Respondent is a Government Company and is a major integrated power plant manufacturer in the world. It
has 17 manufacturing units including the Respondent unit. The tradition in the Respondent Company is that the parties
conduct collective bargaining in the form of mutual discussions in the Apex Level Bipartite Forum mainly the Joint
Committee of BHEL which consists of representatives of the Management and representatives of the workmen. The
Petitioner Union could not succeed in election for having representation in the Joint Committee. The very same issue has
been discussed in the Joint Committee by the duly elected participative unions. The petitioner does not command
membership from a substantial section of workmen of the Respondent. The dispute raised by the Union is not a valid
Industrial Dispute as it has no locus-standi to raise the dispute. It is true that the terms of reference of the Joint
Committee mentioned various aspects which can be taken up for discussion and decision. However, it is false that policy
decisions with regard to the points mentioned in the terms of reference have to be decided only at the Joint Committee.
In the year 1980 a policy was introduced regulating selection of Artisans which provided that while filling the
skilled/clerical vacancies the employees would be recruited on daily rated basis for 6 months and thereafter will be
placed on consolidated monthly wages for another 6 months and on completion of 1 year temporary service they will be
absorbed to the regular grade A3. In the year 1998 the period of one year was enlarged to 2.5 years consisting of 1.5
years as daily rated employee and 1 year on consolidated wages before being absorbed into regular scale of A3 pursuant
to the decision taken in the HR Heads Meeting. This policy decision was taken by the Management and was in vogue
until it was revised in the year 2008. Employment Notification was issued as per Advertisement No. 276 in the year
2005. In the notification it was mentioned that candidates would be taken as temporary employees for a period of one
year, though the prescribed policy of the company was temporary period of 2.5 years. This was noticed only after
2420
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
closure of the date for receipt of applications from candidates. When call letters were sent to the candidates for written
test it was specified that the candidates will be engaged as temporary employees for a period of 2.5 years and on
completion of this period alone they will be absorbed in the regular establishment. The candidates have acted upon the
letter and had participated in the written test. In the offer of appointment issued to the selected candidates also it was
specified that the temporary employment period is 2.5 years. Acceptance of the offer of appointment by the members of
the petitioner union would operate as a contract by itself. It is now not open to the petitioner to question the same. In
Employment Notifications No. 277 and 278 the period of employment was mentioned as 2.5 years itself. The issue of
period of temporary employment was raised in the Joint Committee and on mutual discussion the Management took a
decision to reduce the period of temporary employment to one year by circular dated 01.04.2008. As per the circular
those who have been regularized under the earlier policy of 2.5 years will be allowed one time dispensation of one year
service weightage of their past service at the time of their next promotion. Circular dated 01.04.2008 is prospective only.
There were disturbances in the interse seniority between different batches of Artisans after circular dated 01.04.2008. In
order to settle the various issues the Corporate Office issued circular dated 12.02.2009 by providing notional absorption
for temporary employees upon their completion of one year as temporary employee, but monetary benefits were given to
them. Accordingly, necessary pay protection and promotions were given to the members of the Petitioner Union. But
monetary benefits were given only w.e.f. June, 2008. Notional absorption and pay protection is a special dispensation
granted by the Management and not in appreciation of legal rights and entitlement of the affected group. The case of the
petitioner that the decisions have to be placed before the Joint Committee and necessary approval has to be obtained
from the Joint Committee are all false. The circular dated 12.02.2009 had closed the related issues once and for all. It
was not an issue before the Joint Committee Meeting held on 30.12.2009. The said meeting was arranged only for the
purpose of revision of pay-scales for the workers effective from 01.01.2007. Fixing of pay as per the Joint Committee
Meeting held on 30.12.2009 followed by the circular dated 06.02.2010 will not entitle the members of the Petitioner
Union for arrears as their rights are restricted to the extent of special dispensation provided by circular dated 12.02.2009.
It was as per circular dated 10.06.2008 the leave entitlements of temporary employees were rationalized. The petitioners
having been recruited in the years 2005, 2006 and 2007, they are governed by the policy note dated 29.10.2005 with
regard to their entitlements of leave. Necessary leave benefits have been extended to the concerned employees as per
this. There are no valid grounds available to the petitioner for maintaining the Industrial Dispute. The petitioner is not
entitled to any relief.
5.
The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the averments in the Counter Statement and reiterating his case in the
Claim Statement.
6.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MWs 1 and 2 and documents marked as
Ext.W1 to Ext.W46, Ext.M1 to Ext.M4 and Ext.C1 to Ext.C3.
7.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the employees who were recruited against Advertisement Nos. 276, 277(i), 277(ii) and 278 are entitled
to arrears of pay and other benefits after completion of one year period of temporary employee?
(ii)
Whether they are entitled to leave on par with the regular employees after the said period of one year?
(iii)
What, if any is the benefit to which the petitioner is entitled?
The Points
8.
Petitioner Union has raised the dispute on behalf of the workmen who were recruited by the Respondent on the
basis of Employment Notices No. 276, 277 and 278. The policy of the Respondent establishment while recruiting
employees was to take them as temporary employees for a period of one year after which alone they will be absorbed as
regular employees. Subsequently, the Respondent changed the policy and decided to put the recruited employees under
temporary category for a period of 2.5 years after which alone they will be entitled to be absorbed in the regular service.
The concerned workmen who were recruited on the basis of Employment Notices No. 276, 277 and 278 are those who
were recruited after the Respondent took the decision to extend the temporary period of service by 1.5 years. However,
subsequently, on 01.04.2008 the Respondent again reverted to the previous practice of retaining the recruited employees
as temporary for one year and then making them regular in service. After taking this decision, so far as those employees
who were recruited by Employment Notices No. 276, 277 and 278, circulars were issued by which they were deemed to
have been made permanent after a period of one year though many of them have already worked for one year or even 2.5
years depending on the date of their joining. While granting such deemed permanency and consequent pay progression
and even progression in pay based on revised pay structure the Respondent decided that these employees will not be
entitled to monetary for the whole period in spite of their deemed promotion and other benefits. They were to get the
financial benefits consequent to the above decisions only from June, 2008. The demand of the petitioner is that the
concerned employees are entitled to wage arrears from the date on which they were deemed to have been made
permanent. It is also their case that they are entitled to all the leave benefits as in the case of permanent employees on
their becoming permanent in the establishment.
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2421
10.
Before coming to the question whether the employees will become entitled to all the benefits including wage
arrears consequent to their deemed permanency, a contention that was raised in respect of Employment Notice No. 276
in particular and all the three Employment Notices in general have to be considered. Ext.W4 is the Employment Notice
No. 276 which does not bear any date. However, the last date for receipt of applications on the basis of this notice is
given as 10.06.2005. The decision of the Management to enhance the period to 2.5 years was taken even earlier by
Ext.W3 dated 18.04.1998. In spite of this, Ext.W4 Employment Notice No. 276 specify the period of temporary
employment as one year only. It is stated in the notice that the post of Artisan-IV in the Trades of Fitter, Machinist,
Turner and Electrician selected candidates would be initially taken as temporary employees for one year with
remuneration and dearness allowance as per rules and guidelines issued by the State Government from time to time and
on successful completion of this period they will be absorbed in the regular establishment. An argument has been
advanced on behalf of the petitioner that in spite of Ext.W4 specifying the temporary period of employment as one year,
the persons recruited as per this Employment Notice were retained as temporary employees for a period of 2.5 years and
there is no justification for this in any case. The stand of the Respondent is that it had already taken the decision to
enhance the temporary period to 2.5 years and the mention in Ext.W4 that temporary period is one year is only an error
which has been subsequently corrected. According to the Respondent in the call letters to the applicants as well the in
the offer of appointments to the recruited persons it was specified that the period of temporary employment will be 2.5
years.
11.
As stated earlier by Ext.W3 the period of temporary employment was enhanced to 2.5 years even before
Ext.W4 notice was published. It could be seen on going through the documents that in the subsequent documents
concerning those who were recruited on the basis of Ext.W4 the period of temporary employment was mentioned as 2.5
years itself. Ext.M1 (series), 108 in number, all of the year 2005 are the offer of appointment given to the different
recruitees under Employment Notice No. 276 specifying that the period of temporary employment is 2.5 years. All those
who were recruited had accepted the terms and conditions including the condition that they should remain as temporary
employees for a period of 2.5 years. It is stated by the Respondent that even in the call letter it has been stated. This
seems to be correct even from the very claim statement which states that even though one year period was mentioned in
the Employment Notice, the intimation letter sent to the applicants informing them of the date and time of the written
examination showed the temporary employment as 2.5 years. Thus it could be seen that immediately after it was noticed
that the employment notice gave the period of temporary employment as one year, steps have been taken to bring it to
the notice of the applicants that the period is actually 2.5 years though a notice specifying this has not been published.
WW1, the General Secretary of the Petitioner Union was recruited on the basis of Employment Notice No. 276.
Document No. 88 among Ext.M1 (series) is the offer of appointment to this witness and he has admitted that the
document contains his signature. He added during his cross-examination that he was pressurized to put his signature
in the document. However, there is no such case in the Claim Statement. Never before his examination, the witness has
stated anything about his having been put under pressure to sign the document. Being an offer of appointment only there
could not have been any pressure in accepting the offer. So it is apparent that the employees have joined the
establishment very much aware that the period of temporary employment will be 2.5 years. Merely because
inadvertently it was stated in the Employment Notice that the period of temporary employment is one year the
Respondent could not be taken to task.
12.
The counsel for the Respondent has referred to two decisions of the Apex Court in support his argument
justifying the period of 2.5 years in spite of a different period shown in the Employment Notice. In the decision in AIR
1990 SC 405 (MAHENDRAN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA) it has been held that a candidate does
not get any right to the post by merely making an application for the same but right is created in his favour for being
considered for the post in accordance with the terms and conditions of advertisement and the existing recruitment rules.
In the decision in 1993 Supp (2) SCC 600 (JAISINGH DALA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND
ANOTHER) it was held that if there is an error in the advertisement which is not in conformity to the rules it is open to
the Management to rectify such error during the recruitment process itself. So it is clear that merely because the
employment notice specified the period of one year even while as per previous decision, the period has been fixed as 2.5
years, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the course adopted by the Management is not proper.
13.
There is a general contention raised by the petitioner that the very decision of the Management to enhance the
period of temporary employment as 2.5 years is not valid or proper one. According to the petitioner Ext.W3 is not a
decision in the Joint Committee and therefore this could not have been imposed. Ext.W3 is a communication from the
Dy. General Manager of the Corporate establishment to all the Head of Personnel. It is asking the personnel heads to
refer to the minutes of the meeting held on 5th and 6th of December, 1997 and it is stated that the practice of the time
spent on daily rated basis for 1.5 years and on consolidated wages for one year has to be followed uniformly by all the
divisions for new recruits. This in fact is not a circular as such. Ext.C3 is a previous communication in this respect.
Though according to MW2 there was a circular enhancing the period of temporary employment, the same is not
produced. At the same time the previous decision dated 25.11.1980 marked as Ext.W2 by which the period was fixed as
one year is in the form of a corporate personnel circular. According to the petitioner Ext.W1, the minutes of the first
Joint Committee of 1973 shows that recruitment and promotion are also matters to be decided by the Joint Committee
consisting of the representatives of the employees and of the employees. Item No. 7 in Ext.W1 which is one of the terms
of reference of the Joint Committee shows recruitment and promotion also. However, it could be seen that it is not the
2422
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
recruitment and promotion itself that is to be referred to the Joint Committee but the personnel policies regarding the
same. It must be because of this Ext.W2 fixing one year as the temporary period of employment is a corporate circular
and not a decision of the Joint Committee. In that case the decision to enhance the period also could not have been by
the Joint Committee but by the corporate establishment as a policy decision. So the petitioner cannot take shelter under
the fact that Ext.W3 is not based on decision of the Joint Committee. In any case the employees have accepted their offer
of appointment specifying the period of temporary employment as 2.5 years and most of them have crossed the period of
2.5 years specified also. Having accepted the terms and conditions of employment they cannot turn around and claim
that the very condition upon which they were appointed is not a valid one.
14.
Now the core issue that is whether the concerned workmen are entitled to wage arrears as claimed by them
consequent to Ext.W18 by which the period of temporary employment was reduced to one year has to be considered. As
seen from Ext.W18 the issue of period spent as temporary employee was raised in the Joint Committee and it was agreed
to have a relook on the matter. It is accordingly Ext.W18 circular has been issued. Clause-2 of the circular states that
temporary workers recruited against regular sanctioned vacancies will have to spend only one year service during
temporary period, in supersession of the existing policy. Clause-5 and 6 of the circular refer to those who were
continuing as temporary employees and those who had already completed 2.5 years as per the previous policy. Clause-5
states that the temporary employees who have already completed one year or more service under the existing policy will
be screened and placed in the regular scale after due screening immediately. As per Clause-6 those employees who have
been regularized under the earlier existing policy of 2.5 years will be allowed one-time special dispensation of one year
service weightage for their past service. This dispensation of one year service weightage will also be allowed to those
temporary employees who as on date have completed more than 2 years service on daily rated / consolidated wages and
are yet to be regularized. It is further provided that the service weightage will be allowed at the time of their next
promotion. Thus on going through Ext.W18 it could be seen that no monetary benefit was provided for the temporary
employees who were already in service but they were only allowed one-time special dispensation of one year service
weightage.
15.
Ext.W23, Ext.W24 and Ext.W25 are the inter office memos that came into existence regarding how temporary
employees are to be treated after reduction of the period of temporary employment to one year. Ext.W23 states that some
of the units have raised query regarding the methodology to be followed for giving service weightage to such of the
employee who in the normal course are due for promotion w.e.f. June 2008 as per Ext.W18. This states that promotion
will be made effective notionally from June 2007 by allowing service weightage in the existing grade. It is further stated
that no monetary benefit will accrue in such cases for the period from June 2007 to June 2008 i.e. the time from which
notional promotion was to be given. Ext.W24 the Office Memorandum dated 22.05.2008 states that the benefit as per
Ext.W18 will be applicable to all the temporary employees who were recruited against regular sanctioned vacancies on
or after 18.04.1998. Even after these, representations were received from the units regarding the date of effect of the new
policy, as seen from Ext.W25. So Ext.W25 the inter-office memo dated 04.06.2008 superseded Ext.W24 and provided
that Ext.W18 has to be followed with a cut-off date as 25th November in respect of those recruited as temporary
employees. The weightage provided by Ext.W18 was to be extended to those employees wherever cadre change might
have taken place.
16.
Ext.W26 is the circular that is now prevailing. This superseded Ext.W23 to Ext.W25. The reason for
supersession is given as representations from the employees that interse seniority between different batches of Artisans
has been disturbed due to the application of the above circulars and so it was decided to withdraw those three circulars.
Clause-3 of the circular states how temporary employees who have joined services of the Company on or after
18.04.1998 against sanctioned vacancies are provided. All the workmen concerned in the present dispute are those who
were employed as per Employment Notices of 2005, 2006 and 2007. As stated in Ext.W26 those temporary employees
who have completed one year on daily rated / consolidated wages are to be deemed to be notionally absorbed in A3
grade as Artisan Grade-IV on the date on which they completed one year as temporary employees. As per Clause-3.2
their future career progression will be regulated from the date of their notional absorption. Clause-3.3 states that their
pay would be notionally fixed in the regular scale of Artisan Grade-IV at the minimum of the grade on the date of
their notional absorption. Their notional pay progression has to be worked out till June 2008. The same treatment is
provided to be given in the revised scale after the wage revision due from 01.01.2007 is implemented. Clause-3.4 states
that no monetary benefit for past period upto June 2008 will accrue to those employees on account of the application of
the above dispensation. However, financial benefits will accrue to them from June 2008 onwards.
17.
It could be seen on going through the circulars Ext.W23 to Ext.W25 and also Ext.W26 that there was never any
intention to give financial benefit accruing from the change for the period prior to June 2008. Though, continuously
changes were made by Ext.W23, Ext.W24 and Ext.W5, all these maintained the position that financial benefit will not
accrue to the employees on implementing these circulars. So there is no justification in the argument advanced on the
side of the petitioner that Ext.W26 has done away with the financial benefit that was provided by the earlier circulars.
Ext.W32 is only inter office memo explaining Ext.W26. This is of course inter-office memo issued after pay revision
was effected. This was issued in response to the queries received from different units regarding implementation of the
wage revision. Col.4 of the memo is as to how Ext.W26 will be working consequent to the wage revision. It is specified
against the column that arrears have to be worked out as per normal pay progression without giving them the benefit of
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2423
reduction in temporary period. It is further explained that the calculation should be as if the temporary period had not
been reduced upto June 2008 and w.e.f. June 2008 arrears have to be calculated on the basis of the dispensation allowed
as per Ext.W26.
18.
The claim made by the petitioner on the basis of Ext.W30 the wage agreement on wage revision and Ext.W31
the consequent circular also is without any basis. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that wage
agreement provides for full monetary benefit to the temporary employees from 01.01.2007 the date on which wage
revision is to be implemented and such wage revision having been provided in respect of those who have been absorbed
considering the temporary period as one year also they are entitled to the monetary benefit from the date of the
absorption. The petitioner has been relying upon Clause-7 of Ext.W30 the wage agreement. Clause-7.1 states that the
employees who have joined the services of the Company in the regular salary grades on or after 01.01.2007 will be
deemed to have joined in the new wage structure. Clause-7.2 states that employees who have been regularized between
01.01.2007 and upto 31.1.2009 will also be granted 2.5 increments at the rate of 3% i.e. total 7.5% of revised basic pay
w.e.f. the date of the regularization as a special one-time dispensation. In fact Clause-7.2 is the only clause in respect of
the temporary employees involved in the dispute. Employees who were recruited as per Employment Notice No. 276
have joined on 05.09.2005 and their due date of absorption was 05.03.2008. Consequent to Ext.W26 they were
notionally absorbed as on 05.09.2006. Those who were recruited as per Employment Notice No. 277(i) joined on
16.10.2006 and their due date of absorption was 16.04.2009. Their notional absorption was on 16.10.2007. The second
set of employees as per Employment Notice No. 277(ii) joined on 29.01.2007 and were to be absorbed on 29.07.2009.
By Ext.W26 they were notionally absorbed on 29.01.2008. Those who were recruited as per Employment Notice No.
278 joined on 16.04.2007. Though their due date of absorption was 16.10.2009 they were notionally absorbed on
16.04.2008. These persons who were thus regularized between 01.01.2007 and 31.12.2009 got 2.5 increments @ 3% as
special one-time dispensation. WW1, the Joint Secretary of the Petitioner Union has admitted during his cross-
examination that the concerned employees have received this benefit. It could be seen that it was because notional
absorption was given to the concerned employees they were given 2.5 increments as a consideration. The employees
having received this benefit also cannot be heard to say that they were entitled to the monetary benefit. Some distinction
is to be made between notional absorption and regular absorption. If an employee is absorbed in regular service after one
year of temporary service he will be entitled to all the benefits of the permanent employees from the date of absorption.
However, the absorption in the case of the concerned employees is only notional in nature to enable them to have the
prospectus of faster promotion and also pay progression on the basis of the notional absorption. The very word
“notional” connotes that it is distinct from regular absorption and is intended only for the purposes specified in Ext.W26
or the previous circular as the case may be. The wage revision has come into existence after Ext.W26 circular was
issued. Even in this it is stated that once the pay is revised the pay progression would be worked out based on the revised
wage from 01.01.2007 on which date the wage revision is to be implemented. Clause-7.2 in Ext.W30 and Ext.W31 are
only the special consideration or concession given to those on whom this benefit of notional absorption was conferred by
the earlier circular. The petitioner cannot claim monetary benefit calculated on the basis of such notional absorption or
on the basis of the wage revision. The concerned employees are not entitled to any relief in this respect.
19.
In the Claim Statement the petitioner has also claimed to grant leave to the concerned employees as per Leave
Rules of the Company upon absorption as regular employee after completion of one year temporary employee Artisan
period, to grant carry forward facility of un-availed leaves which can be accumulated and also to pay equivalent wages
for the un-availed part of leave which cannot be carried forward i.e. Casual Leave and Optional Holiday.
20.
The schedule of reference does not refer to any particular claim for leave benefits. However, it can be assumed
that it is as part of the benefits that will be accrued consequent to the absorption as regular employees after reduction of
the temporary period of one year that it has been claimed.
21.
It is necessary to see the leave rules in respect of the employees while considering this claim of the petitioner.
Ext.C2 is the extract of Leave Rules from the Personnel Manual of the BHEL which is of the year 1997. As per the
coverage clause of the Leave Rules this shall apply to all the regular employees of the Company and those rules as
specifically provided only apply to probationers, trainees, casual and temporary employees. Thus it could be seen that
the rules are intended for the regular employees and there is special provision for leave in respect of others including
temporary employees. Clause-3.2.8 states that the number of years of service for the purpose of calculation of leave
entitlements of temporary / casual employees who are subsequently absorbed in the regular service shall be reckoned
from the date of the absorption in regular service only. It is further stated that the leave remaining at the credit of such
employees at the time of absorption cannot be carried forward on their absorption as regular employees. Thus, it is clear
from this that carry-forward facility was not available to temporary employees.
22.
Ext.C1 is the note issued by the Tiruchirappalli Human Resource Management after employees were recruited
as per Employment Notice No. 276. This states that the temporary employees were seeking clarification on their
entitlement and eligibility where benefits are concerned. It further states that the Personnel Manual is silent in the case of
the benefits to be extended to temporary employees. Ext.C1 guideline is said to have been formulated on account of this.
2424
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Regarding leave facility it is stated that they will be eligible for 7 days Casual Leave per calendar year. Regarding
Earned Leave it is stated that after completion of one year one day non-encashable Earned Leave can be taken for every
20 working days. So far as carry forward facility of Earned Leave is concerned it is stated that within the stipulated
period that is 2.5 years for temporary employees it may be allowed and no leave will be allowed to be carried forward on
regularization. Thus it could be seen from this that carry forward facility is within the temporary period only and could
not be extended beyond the date of absorption. The petitioner has been attacking the validity of Ext.C1 on the ground
that this is one issued by the Trichy Unit and could not have been implemented since the Corporate Management has not
taken the decision. There is no case for the petitioner that there is any circular issued by the Corporate Management
regarding the leave facility to be given to the temporary employees. Ext.C2 does not state anything specifically about it.
The recruited employees have been acting on the basis of Ext.C1. Subsequently, by Ext.W37 there was change in the
leave benefits applicable to the temporary employees. This also was acted upon. Only on the notional absorption the
issue has been raised by the petitioner.
23.
Ext.W37 is a corporate circular, the subject of which is rationalization of leave in respect of temporary
employees recruited against regular vacancies. This states that it has been decided that BHEL Leave Rules will be made
applicable to such employees appointed on or after 25.06.2008. Clause-2 of the circular states that the leave remaining to
the credit at the time of absorption in respect of temporary employees recruited against regular vacancies on or after
25.06.2008 will be carried forward as per rules. As per Clause-2.2 in respect of those appointed prior to 25.06.2008 un-
availed leave accrued upto 24.06.2008 as temporary employees will be permitted to be carried forward as non-
encashable Earned Leave. Further change was made regarding the leave entitlement of temporary employees by
Ext.W38. This was necessitated because the temporary employees appointed prior to 25.06.2008 and yet to be absorbed
by 25.06.2008 were found to be getting less quantum of leave till their absorption as compared to their juniors appointed
on or after 25.06.2008, during the balance period of their temporary employment. Thus it was decided by the circular
that for such temporary employees who had not yet been absorbed as on 25.06.2008 the leave entitlement for the balance
period of their temporary service from 25.06.2008 may be made at par with those appointed on or after 25.06.2008. Thus
this is the circular that rules the temporary employees who were still remaining temporary as on 25.06.2008.
24.
The petitioner seems to be claiming leave benefits applicable to the regular employees from the date of their
notional absorption. I have been referring to Ext.W26 already. This does not make any specific reference to the leave
entitlement of the employees on notional absorption. The benefit to which the employees will be entitled on their
notional absorption is only what is provided by the circular. The circular specifically states what are the benefits to
which the employees are entitled on the basis of the circular, on their notional absorption. Just like the employees are
not entitled to wage arrears on the basis of notional absorption they will not be entitled to leave benefits applicable to the
regular employees as if they were absorbed after expiry of period of one year in temporary employment and not
notionally absorbed. So they will be entitled to leave benefits on the basis of Ext.W38 read with Ext.W37 only. If
benefit as per these were not given it will be against what is provided by the circulars.
25.
A contention has been raised by the Respondent in the Counter Statement that the Petitioner Union has no
locus-standi to raise the dispute. In answer to this the petitioner has pointed out that its Central Union was a party to the
settlement entered into by the Corporate Office of the Respondent Company. The petitioner has also referred to the
decision of the Apex Court reported in 1978 2 LLJ 22 where it was held that a case raised by a minority union during the
currency of the settlement and even on the acceptance of the benefits by its members was proper. Reference was also
made to the decision of the High Court of Kerala reported in 2008 2 LLJ 1150 where it has been held that an Industrial
Dispute within Section-2(i) of the ID Act need not necessarily be raised by a recognized or a majority union.
26
Though the contention that the petitioner has no locus-standi to raise the dispute has been raised in the Counter
Statement the Respondent has not referred to this aspect at all in the written argument submitted by it. For this reason it
is to be assumed that the Respondent has given up the contention regarding locus-standi of the petitioner to raise the
dispute also. In view of my discussion above the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
The reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the
13th April, 2016)
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
WW1, Sri G. Sankar
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
:
MW1, Smt. Krishnaveni Sekar
MW2, Sri Ajesh Sharma
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2425
Documents Marked:
On the Petitioner’s side
Ext.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
-
First Joint Committee Minutes dated 14th May, 1973
Ext.W2
-
Corporate Personnel Circular dated 25.11.1980
Ext.W3
-
BHEL Corporate HR Circular dated 18.04.1998
Ext.W4
-
Employment Notice No. 276
Ext.W5
-
Intimation Letter – For written test dated 28.07.2005
Ext.W6
-
Offer of Appointment dated 29.08.2005
Ext.W7
-
Office Order – Posting Order dated 05.09.2005
Ext.W8
-
Employment Notice No. 277
Ext.W9
-
Office Order – Posting Order – dated 14.10.2006
Ext.W10
-
Office Order – Posting Order – dated 16.10.2006
Ext.W11
-
Relieving Order – dated 27.01.2007
Ext.W12
-
Intimation letter for Written Exam – 05.01.2007
Ext.W13
-
Office Order – Posting Order – 29.01.2007
Ext.W14
-
Employment Notice No. 278
Ext.W15
-
Office Order – Posting Order – dated 16.04.2007
Ext.W16
MOM of the Joint Committee Meeting held on 22nd
August 2007 at New Delhi (No. AA/HR/515 (15) dated
05.09.2007)
Ext.W17
-
Office Order – Absorption of Temporary Employee
Artisan – 25.03.2008
Ext.W18
-
BHEL Corporate HR Circular dated 01.04.2008
Ext.W19
-
BHEL/Corporate Office letter to Under Secretary,
GoI, New Delhi (Lr. No. AA/HR/IR/523 dated
07.07.2014)
Ext.W20
-
Office Order – Absorption Order – dated 20.05.2008
Ext.W21
-
Office Order – Absorption Order – 20.05.2008
Ext.W22
-
Office Order – Absorption Order - 20.05.2008
Ext.W23
-
Inter Office Memorandum of GM/Hr/Corporate Office
dated 07.04.2008
Ext.W24
-
Inter Office Memorandum of AGM/HR/corporate Office
dated 22.05.2008
Ext.W25
-
Inter Office Memorandum of AGM/HR/Corporate Office
dated 04.06.2008
Ext.W26
-
Corporate HR Circular dated 12.02.2009
Ext.W27
-
Advancement of date of Absorption – dated 28.04.2009
Ext.W28
-
Absorption and Completion of Probation Order dated 15.07.2009
2426
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.W29
-
Advancement of date of absorption – dated 28.04.2009
Ext.W30
-
Minutes of Meeting of Joint Committee Meeting for MOA dated
10.02.2010
Ext.W31
-
BHEL Corporate HR circular dated 06.02.2010
Ext.W32
-
Inter Office Memorandum dated 18.02.2010
Ext.W33
-
Working Sheet – For Employment Notice 276 – Monetary Benefit
Calculation
Ext.W34
-
Working Sheet – For Employment Notice 277 (i) – Monetary Benefit
Calculation
Ext.W35
-
Working Sheet – For Employment Notice 277 (ii) – Monetary Benefit
Calculation
Ext.W36
-
Working Sheet – For Employment Notice 278 – Monetary Benefit
Calculation
Ext.W37
-
Corporate HR Circular dated 10.06.2008
Ext.W38
-
Corporate HR Circular dated 12.09.2008
Ext.W39
-
Working Sheet – For Employment Notice 276 – Shortfall of leave
because of non-implementation of BHEL Leave Rules
Ext.W40
-
Working Sheet – For Employment Notice 277 (i) – Shortfall of leave
because of non-implementation of BHEL Leave Rules
Ext.W41
-
Working Sheet – For Employment Notice 277(ii) – Shortfall of leave
because of non-implementation of BHEL Leave Rules
Ext.W42
-
Working Sheet – For Employment Notice 278 – Shortfall of leave
because of non-implementation of BHEL Leave Rules
Ext.W43
-
Supplementary submission by Petitioner Union – Copy of the letter to
Joint Committee Secretary dated 31.05.2014
Ext.W44
05.06.2013
Representation submitted to Respondent Management by the Petitioner
Union
Ext.W45
19.05.2009
Representation to CMD/BHEL/New Delhi by the affected workers
recruited vide Emp. Notice 276
Ext.W46
05.08.2014
Copy of Minutes of Sub-Committee of Joint Committee dated
16.07.2014
Ext.C1
29.10.2005
Note Ref No. HE:RECT:ADVT 276 issued by Respondent with regard
to entitlement of various benefits for Temporary Employee/Artisans
Ext.C2
1997
Extract of Leave Rules from the Personnel Manual of BHEL
Ext.C3
29.10.2005
Note Ref No. HE:RECT:ADVT 276 issued by Respondent with regard
to entitlement of various benefits for Temporary Employee/Artisans
On the Management’s side
Ext.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri V.S. Dhandapani
(Series)
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri G. Dinagaran
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri C. Albert Robin
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri R. Jayakumar
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2427
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri J. Arun Prakash
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri S. Sudulai Muthu
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Ms. S. Radha
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri T. Siva
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri K. Thirunavukkarasu
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri N. Senthilnathan
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri M. Selvam
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri A. Gunasekaran
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri D. Saravanan
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri P. Paul Ebenezer
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri S. Ramachandran
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri P. Elangovan
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri B. B. Saravanan
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri O.S. Senthil Kumar
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri K. Selvam
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri M. Balu
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri S. Rajesh
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri E. Sudharkar
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri S. Amaresan
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri A.
Dennisvallabanathan
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri K. Mariappan
01.09.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri A. Selvakumar
01.09.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri V.S. Prabhu
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri N. Rameshkumar
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri V.L. Ajikumar
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri G. Veermani
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri K. Thandayudhapani
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri A. Karunakaran
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri S. Suresh
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri J. Lakshmanan
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri P. Ganesan
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri S. Thirumurugan
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri R. Balasubramanian
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri K. Balamurugan
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri P. Mahalingam
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri R. Kartheeban
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri A. Alexander
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri V. Babu
2428
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri A. Jerald
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri P. Arumugam
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri A. Robert Richard
Prabhu
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri H. Ramesh
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri R. Samuel
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri A. Antony Savaridoss
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri K. Manivannan
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri S. Sankar Ganesan
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri K. Sakthivel
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri K. S. Ranjith Kumar
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri M. Gopalakrishnan
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri T. Sathish
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri K. Nandakumar
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri K. Loganathan
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri P. Thivan
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri K. Ramesh
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri R. Balamurugan
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri M. Jagannathan
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri V. Gopinath
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri P. Balasubramaniam
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri K.K. Murugan
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri P. Alagumohan
01.09.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri P. Jeganathan
01.09.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri P. Saravanakumar
01.09.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri R. Selvamurugan
19.09.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri P. Jothimurugan
25.11.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri M.P. Prashanth
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri R. Kumaresan
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri A. John Samuel
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri B. Densingh
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri S. Kannan
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri P. Pugazhendhi
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri D. Vimal Prsanna
Anand
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri R. Sasikumar
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri M. Abdullasha
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri A. Paul Andrews
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri M.A. Prakash
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri M. Felix Jayakumar
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2429
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri J. Sasikumar
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri M. Satishkumar
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri P. Velmurugan
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri A. Promin Raja
Regam
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri M. Priyadarshini
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri V. Manickam
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri R. Swaminathan
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri G. Sankar
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri S. Prabhakaran
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri P. Shahul Hameed
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri K. Sivalingam
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri R. Kalyanakumar
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri R. Mahesh
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri R. Anandakumar
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri Yalavarti Srinivas
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri G. Devarajan
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri T. Gnanasekaran
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri S. Maruthachalam
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri A. Nagappan
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by P.S. Ramkumar
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri A. Mani
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri Neelamadhab Sahoo
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri R. Sakthivel
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri S. Pachaimai
01.09.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri K.P. Thirunal
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri M. Raja
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri M. Veera Prabakaran
26.08.2005
Offer of Appointment accepted and signed by Sri B. Raja
Ext.M2
23.04.2002
G.O. (2D) No. 17 of Labour and Employment Department of Tamil
Nadu with regard to notification of minimum wages in respect to
employment in General Engineering and Fabrication Industry
Ext.M3
01.03.2005
Letter No. Z3/10250/2005 from the Commissioner of Labour, Cehnnai
with regard to Dearness Allowance payable with effect from 01.04.2005
in respect of various scheduled employment under Minimum Wages
Act, 1948
Ext.M4
29.10.2005
Note Ref. No. HR:RECT:ADVT 276 issued by Respondent with regard
to entitlement of various benefits for Temporary Employee / Artisans.
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1086-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ukFkZ fnYyh
E;qfufliy dkjiksjs'ku ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
2430
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ vkbZ Mh la- 222@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 25-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42011@121@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1086.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 222/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the North Delhi Municipal Corporation and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 25.05.2016.
[No. L-42011/121/2015-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. 222/2015
Shri Dharamvir Singh, S/o Shri Harswarup Singh,
Through the President,
MCD General Mazdoor Union,
Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10,
Jam Nagar House,
New Delhi
…Workman
Versus
The Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
4th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi 110 002
…Management
AWARD
Reference under Section 10 sub section (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) was received
from the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment vide it orders No.L-42011/121/2015-IR(DU) dated
05.10.2015 for adjudication of the industrial dispute with the following terms:
‘Whether Shri Dharamvir Singh S/o Shri Harswarup Ram is entitled to the status of Chaudhary in the pay scale
of Rs.195-1500 with effect from 01.01.1990 revised from time to time alongwith all consequential benefits? If
so, what directions are necessary in this respect?
2.
Vide letter No.L-42011/121/2015-IR(DU) dated 26.10.2015, corrigendum was issued, amending terms of
reference as follows:
‘Whether Shri Dharamvir Singh S/o Shri Harswarup Ram is entitled to the status of Chaudhary in the pay scale
of Rs.950-1500 with effect from 01.01.1990 revised from time to time alongwith all consequential benefits? If
so, what directions are necessary in this respect?
3.
Both the parties were put to notice and the workman Shri Dharamvir Singh filed his statement of claim,
wherein it is alleged that he has been allotted work of Chaudhary with effect from 01.01.1990 by the competent officers
of Horticulture Department. He was initially posted in West Zone to work under Deputy Director of Horticulture.
Thereafter, he was transferred to Karol Bagh Zone and presently working under Rohini Zone of Horticulture
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2431
Department. However, he has been denied pay scale of Chaudhary, revised from time to time. No qualification is
prescribed for promotion to the post of Garden Chaudhary. Shri Dharamvir Singh is 10th pass. The workman has got
payment of salary in the lower pay scale of mali, i.e. Rs.750-940 revised from time to time and has been denied the scale
of Chaudhary, i.e. Rs.950-1500 for his performing the duty of Chaudhary with effect from 01.01.1990. Action of the
management is alleged to be illegal & unjustified and amounts to unfair labour practice.
4.
It is also averred in para 9 of the statement of claim that Hon’ble High Court, Delhi, in the matter of Jai Chand
vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi (CW 6514/2001) has disapproved the non-payment of wages for those malis who are
working on the post of Chaudhary vide its judgement dated 02.05.2003. After the above judgement of the Hon’ble
Court, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Horticulture Department) has also issued order No.ADC(Hor.)/AO(Hort)/DA-
VII/05/457 dated 04.03.2005 (Annexure B). There is also reference to the judgment of Division Bench of High Court of
Delhi in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Sultan Singh wherein also plea of the MCD regarding non-
payment of wages of Chaudhary to malis who are doing working of Chaudhary, was turned down by the Hon’ble High
Court in judgement dated 27.07.2011, copy of which is annexed as Annexure B.
5.
It is also averred that similar situated workmen (Mali and Chowkidar) who were performing duty of
Chaudhary were granted pay scale of Chaudhary from the date when they were asked to perform duty on the higher post
and management has challenged the order dated 27.07.2011 of the Labour Court in the matter of MCD vs Sultan Singh
as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by Special Leave to Appeal No.S20069/2011 and the plea by
MCD all the time has been dismissed by both, before the High Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Workman
herein is also similarly situated and doing work of Chaudhary and as such entitled to same benefits.
6.
Management, despite granting of four opportunities, failed to put in their appearance and hence were proceeded
ex-parte on 17.03.2016.
7.
The only issue which requires determination in the case in hand is whether the workman herein is entitled for
grant of pay scale of Rs.950-1500 as revised from time to time alongwith consequential benefits. It is clear from
statement of claim that initially the workman herein was appointed as mali on muster and later on he was regularized on
the same post of mali in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500 alongwith usual allowances.
8.
There is also ample evidence on record that the workman herein was performing duty as officiating Chaudhary.
It is clear from perusal of document dated 24.09.2005 (List of Chaudharys working in West Region) Ex.WW1/3 that
name of the workman, Shri Dharamvir Singh finds mention at serial No.7 and working as Chaudhary since January
1990. Workman, in order to prove his case, has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.WW1/A, wherein material
averments contained in statement of claim has been reiterated. It is specifically alleged in the affidavit that he was doing
work of Chaudhary/officiating Chaudhary with effect from 01.01.1990.
9.
To my mind, as similarly situated other workers who were performing duties of Chaudhary, i.e. acting
Chaudhary have been granted pay scale of Garden Chaudhary after judgement dated 27.07.2011 rendered by the
Hon’ble High Court in the case of MCD vs. Sultan Singh as well as MCD vs. Mahipal(WP 5550 of 2010). Operating
portion of the judgement in Sultan Singh (supra) of the Hon’ble Division Bench is as under:
“28.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances it is apparent that the claim of the respondents have
always been that they should be paid the difference in pay of Mali/Chowkidar and the Garden Chaudhary as
they were made to work on the post of Garden Chaudhary whereas the petitioner had first denied that they
worked as Garden Chaudharies, then took the plea that the Assistant Director (Horticulture) was not competent
to ask the respondents to work as Garden Chaudharies and that the respondents cannot be appointed to the post
of Garden Chaudharies in accordance with the recruitment rules. There is no doubt that respondents are not
claiming appointment to the post of Garden Chaudharies on account of having worked on ad-hoc basis on the
post of Garden Chaudhary contrary to rules or that some of them not having the requisite qualifications are
entitled for relaxation.
29. In the entirety of facts and circumstances therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make
out any such grounds which will impel this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution to set aside the orders of the Tribunal dated 29th January, 2010 and 7th October, 2010 as no
illegality or un-sustainability or perversity in the orders of the Tribunal has been made out.
30. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.”
10.
It is further clear that SLP was also filed by MCD before the Hon’ble Apex Court by special leave to Appeal
(C) No.S20069/2011 MCD vs. Sultan Singh and others, which was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
09.04.2012. It is further clear that the Hon’ble High Court in Sultan Singh case strongly deprecated the stand taken by
the management that the workmen were not possessing requisite qualification or have not qualified the test etc. It was
clarified that since the workmen were discharging duties to the post of Garden Chaudhary, as such, workmen were
entitled for the salary of Garden Chaudhary and competent authority need not look into anything else except the fact that
the workman had worked as Garden Chaudhary.
2432
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11.
It is not out of place to mention here that even if the workman herein was not a party in Sultan Singh case
referred above, judgement of the Hon’ble High Court is binding on the management and management is required to
implement the same in letter and spirit and the same is judgement in rem, and all similarly situated workmen are
required to be accorded the benefit of the said judgement of the Hon’ble High Court, which have become final. The
Hon’ble High Court has decided an abstract proposition of law, i.e. a mali who is performing duty as officiating/acting
Chaudhary is entitled to the salary/wages of Chaudhary. Law is fairly settled that if a person is working on a higher
post, on adhoc or temporary basis, even such workman is entitled to salary/wages of higher post, unless rules or
regulations specifically provides otherwise. I find support to this view from Secretary vs. Lieutenant Governor Port
Blair (1998 Lab.I.C. 598), yet in another case, Hon’ble Apex Court while considering that question of grant of benefits
to similarly situated employees who were not party to the writ petition or lis in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs.
Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347 observed as under:
“The moot question which requires determination is as to whether in the given case, approach of the Tribunal
and the High Court was correct in extending the benefit of earlier judgment of the Tribunal, which had attained
finality as it was affirmed till the Supreme Court. The legal principles that can be culled from the judgments,
cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under:
(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically
situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination
and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service
matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that
all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely
because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
(2) However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as
acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the
same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the
Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the
judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as
fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
(3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was
judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the
Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit
thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision
touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularization and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of
India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said
judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment
or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit
of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches
and delays or acquiescence.”
12.
In view of the discussions made herein above, it is held that the workman is entitled to the pay scale of Garden
Chaudhary with effect from January 1990 and as a corollary, management is liable pay the difference of wages of mali
vis-a-vis Garden Chaudhary from the date when the workman herein was performing duties and functions of Garden
Chaudhary till date. 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.
May 24, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1087-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh ,;jiksVZ
ik²dx l£ol 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ vkbZMh la- 168@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
25-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@116@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2433
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1087.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 168/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Delhi Airport Parking Service and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 25.05.2016.
[No. L-42012/116/2015-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. 168/2015
Shri Dinesh, S/o Shri Gokul,
R/o A-5/325, J.J. Colony, Bhalaswa Dairy
…Workman
Versus
The Manager,
Delhi Airport Parking Service,
MLCP, 6-Pillar, Terminal 3,
IGI Airport,
New Delhi 110 037
…Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-42012/116/2015-IR(DU) dated 21.07.2015, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the services of the workman Shir DInesh S/o Gokul have been terminated illegally and/unjustifiably
by the managements of AIIMS and Sulabh International and if so what relief is the workman entitled and what
directions are necessary in this respect and to what extent each of the management is liable?
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of
the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Despite directions so given, Shri Dinesh opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman herein as well as the managements. Neither
the postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was
served upon the workman herein. Despite service of the notice, neither the claimant nor any authorized representative
appeared on behalf of the workman herein despite granting of several opportunities. Thus, it is clear that the workman
herein is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman herein has neither filed his statement of claim nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his
cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award.
Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
for publication.
Dated : May 20, 2016
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1088-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy ifCyd
oDlZ fMikVZesaV 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ vkbZMh la- 330@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
25-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42011@64@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
2434
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1088.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 330/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Central Public Works Department and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 25.05.2016.
[No. L-42011/64/2011-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. 330/2011
The General Secretary,
CPWD Mazdoor Union,
Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10,
Jam Nagar House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi
…Workmen
Versus
The Director General,
Central Public Works Department,
Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi 110 00
…Management
AWARD
Consequent upon receipt of the reference from Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide letter No.L-
42011/64/2011-IR(DU) dated 14.10.2011 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section(2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act), both the parties were put to notice for adjudication of the dispute, the
terms of reference are as under:
“Whether the contracts between the management of CPWD and its contractors mentioned under column no.9 of
Annexure A with regard to employment of the workmen listed under column 2 of the annexure are sham and
bogus. If yes, then whether the demand of CPWD Mazdoor Union for equal pay for equal work from the date of
their initial employment or and regularization of their services by the management of CPWD is legal and
justified? If yes, to what relief the respective workmen are entitled for?”
2. Claimants, through their union CPWD Mazdoor union filed statement of claim wherein it is averred that their
union is representing the workmen at all India level. Workmen whose names are mentioned in the Annexure attached
with the claim have been performing their duties in the establishment of CPWD at all India Level as indicated in
Annexure A. Employer of the workmen is Director General (Works) CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi and as such
he is competent to resolve the dispute between the workmen and the management. It is the case of the workmen that
Ministry of Labour vide its notification dated 31.07.2002 has abolished contract labour . Workmen have been
performing their duties consciously from the date of their employment as indicated in column no.5 of Annexure A and
the Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer of CPWD have been supervising their work and
contractors are performing their duties as agent of CPWD. Ministry of Labour under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regulation& Abolition) Act, 1970(in short the CLRA Act) in consultation with the Central Advisory
Contract Labour Board prohibited employment of contract labour in the following category as per notification dated
21.07.2002.
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2435
(i) Air Conditioner Mechanic
(ii) Air Conditioner Khalasi/Helper
(iii) Electrician
(iv) Wiremen
(v) Khalasi(Electrical)
(vi) Carpenter
(vii) Mason
(viii) Fitter
(ix) Plumber
(x) Helper/Beldar
(xi) Mechanic
(xii) Sewerman
(xiii) Sweeper
(xiv) Foreman
3. After issuance of the said notification, the workmen were covered under the employment as referred in the above
notification and are to be treated as direct employees of the management of CPWD and their status is that of the daily
rated workers directly in the management of CPWD. Workers are performing duties, which is of permanent nature, as
such, they cannot be treated as contract labour.
4. There are averments that contractors neither have licence to engage contract labour nor the management of
CPWD being the principal employer as got registration as required under provisions of the CLRA Act to engage contract
labour through contractors. Workmen connected with the dispute are performing their duties directly under supervision
and control of Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer etc. and the contractors are doing the duty
only of cashier in respect of payment of wages , which is even less than the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948. The above contracts are sham, camouflage, illegal as well as unjustified. Further, CPWDs daily rated
workers are getting wages in time scale plus DA, ADA, HRA, CCA, except increments. This, as per the case of the
workmen there also entitled to get wages fixed in the minimum of time scale from the date of their initial employment,
being unskilled, semi skilled, skilled and highly skilled workmen. Workers as per order No.45/1/87-Ec.X(Vol.IV) dated
21.10.1990 and 28.01.1991 issued by Director General (Works), CPWD for payment of equal pay for equal work for
daily rated workers are as per Annexure 2 and 3 of the statement of claim. As per judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Surender Singh & Others vs. Engineers in Chief CPWD are daily rated workers and also entitled to be
regularized in the timescale after completion of 6 months of their continuous service. All the workmen in the case are
having technical qualification for regularization of their services under the management of CPWD and have also
sufficient experience for working in the different categories and the workmen herein are to be treated as direct employee
of CPWD and are entitled for equal pay for equal work as well as regularization. Some officials of the CPWD are
wrongly continuing contract labour system for their personal benefits, including the contractors. Hundreds of workers
are appointed against the direct recruitment quota in the trades in which the workmen are employed, including the claim
of the workmen herein, just to perpetrate the vested interest of the concerned officials. Workmen remained under the
belief that after judgement of Supreme Court, they would be placed on a better footing but the management exploited the
workmen miserably.
5. Workmen, in para 24 of the petition specifically referred to the case of Steel Authority of India & others vs.
National Union Waterfront Workers & Others (2001(7) SCC 1) wherein the proposition of law regarding contract labor
has been finally settled and the same is as under:
125 (5) On issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment
of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to
conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the 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 work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere
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 have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the
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.
2436
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(6) If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act in
respect of the establishment concerned 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.”
6. It is also the case of the workmen that the management did not obtain registration certificate under section 7 of
the CLRA Act nor the contractor was licenced under section 12 of the said act. Therefore, the so called contract is a
mere sham, camouflage and illegal. In the pleadings there is reference to the other judgements of supreme Court. It is
also alleged that DPWD daily rated workers have been getting their wages in the time scale + DA, ADA, HRA CCA
etc. whereas their counter parts are not getting similar wages under the contract labour system Reference is also made
to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shyamal K Chatterjee and others vs. Food Corporation of India
(2000 Lab.IC 3323) so as to justify the claim of the workmen herein for equal wages under the law. Finally, prayer has
been made to direct the management to regularize services of the workmen connected with the dispute as per policy of
the management of CPWD with effect from 11.12.2006 in the time scale and also for allowing the workmen equal pay
for equal work in the minimum time scale with all allowances except increment from the date of their initial
appointment.
7. Management filed written statement, taking preliminary objections regarding the reference being bad in law for
non-joinder of necessary parties , no relationship of employer/employee between the parties, no cause of action and
workmen being employees of contractor etc. In merits management has denied most of the averments made in the
statement of claim. Management has not admitted correctness of the attached list of the workmen filed by the claimant
union They have also filed final list of workmen who were working at different places. It is also denied that Director
General (Works) CPWD is the appropriate authority to decide services matter raised by the union. Workmen herein are
employees of the contractor and are not under the direct control and supervision of the management of CPWD.. It is
also alleged that nowhere notification dated 31.07.2002 issued by Ministry of Labour it is mentioned that after
prohibition of the contract labour engaged by the contractor are to be treated as employees of the management of
CPWD. Workers are not performing duties of permanent nature. It is specifically denied that the workmen herein have
been performing their duties in the management of CPWD, like the Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer and Executive
Engineer. It is further denied that the contractors have been performing duties of cashier. Workmen are in fact
engaged by different contractors and there is no fundamental right of the workmen herein to seen regular employment,
which can only be made by making appointment consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. Right to be treated equally with the other employees on daily wages cannot be extended to the
workmen for equal treatment with those who are regularly employed. It is also denied that officials of CPWD are
working in collusion with the contractors. Rulings relied by the workmen is not applicable to the employees of the
contractor but to such employees who are under the direct management and control of CPWD.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that my learned predecessor vide a order dated 14.06.2012 observed that though
several preliminary objections are taken in the written statement, yet there is no need to frame issue on such objections
since they are frivolous. No specific issue was framed by my learned predecessor as he was of the considered opinion
that no other issue, other than the one referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication is made out from the
pleadings of the parties.
9. Workmen in order to prove its case examined Shri Ranjit Kumar Mehto and Shri B.K. Prasad as WW1 and WW2
respectively, who have tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.WW1/A and Ex.WW2/B respectively and tendered in
evidence documents.
10. In order to rebut the case of the workmen, management examined Shri Rahul Ranjan Singh as MW1 and his
affidavit is Ex.MW1/A. Alongwith his affidavit, Shri Singh has tendered in evidence document Ex.MW1/1.
11. I have heard Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant and Shri Atul Bhardwaj, A/R for the management.
12. It was strongly urged on behalf of the claimant union that the workmen whose names are mentioned in Annexure
A are working in the management of CPWD at various places. Most of them are skilled workmen. They are doing work
under supervision and control of the officials of CPWD, such as Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer and Executive
Engineer of CPWD. The so called agreement referred by the management, in the contention of the claimant union, are
bogus, sham and a camouflage, inasmuch as management has not examined any contractor so as to prove that it was the
contractor who was exercising effective and supervisory control over the workmen nor such contracts have been proved
on record in accordance with law.
13. Secondly, it was urged that the department has not obtained registration as required under section 7 of the CLRA
Act nor the so called contractor was duly registered as required under section under section 12 of the said Act. Job of
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2437
the workmen herein is regular and perennial in nature and their counterparts who are working directly under CPWD are
getting higher wages than the workmen herein. Learned A/R for the claimant also proceeded to urge that this conduct of
the management is highly arbitrary and illegal as the management has denied equal wages to the workmen herein, to
which they are legally entitled in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Surender Singh Vs. Engineer in
Chief CPWD. Learned A/R for the claimant also heavily relied upon the ratio of the judgement of Steel Authority of
India & others (supra) as well as Haryana State Electricity Board Vs Suresh Kumar & Others (1999 LLJ 1086) and a few
other judgements. I would be referring to the same in the subsequent paras while drawing my conclusions.
14.
Lastly, Shri Prasad strongly urged that prohibition notification Ex.WW2/1 dated 08.09.1994 issued by the
Central Government clearly shows that the categories of the workmen mentioned in the said notification cannot be
employed by way of contract labour. As such, engagement of workmen against the said posts through contract labour is
totally illegal and against the law.
15. Per contra Shri Atul Bhardwaj, authorized representative appearing on behalf of the management strongly argued
that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the workmen herein and CPWD, i.e. management.
Salary of the workmen was being paid by the contractor as is clear from the pleadings contained in statement of claim.
Since the workmen herein are employees of the contractors as such in the contention of the management they do not
answer the definition of the word ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. Learned A/R for the management
also urged that it was very difficult for the management to place on record various contracts which the management had
entered into with the contractors because the workmen are employed at different places throughout the country and some
of the contracts were not even traceable. It was the contractor who was having absolute control over the said workmen.
Management merely had control and supervision to ensure that the work is done in an efficient manner. During the
course of arguments, learned A/R for the management fairly admitted that the management has not placed on record any
proof to the effect that the contractor was duly licenced under Section12 of the CLRA Act or the management was duly
registered with the Government under Section 7 of the CLRA Act. However, learned A/R for the management
submitted that the department, in fact, is duly registered and no contract can be awarded to any private contractor unless
such contractor fulfills conditions of registration as required under Section 12 of the CLRA Act. During the course of
arguments, learned A/R for the management heavily relied on the ratio of judgements in Workmen Vs. Coates of India
Ltd. (2004 (3) SCC 547), Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2005(6) SCC 51),
Balwant Rai Saluja Vs. Air India Ltd. (2014 (9) SCC 407), Ram Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh (2004(1) SCC
126, Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Vs. Bharat Lal (2011 (1) SCC 635, Workmen of Nilgiri Co-op Market Society Ltd. Vs
State of Tamil Nadu ( 2004 (3) SCC 514). I would be refereeing to the ratio of these authorities while evaluating the
comparative merits of the submissions during the course of discussion in the subsequent paras.
16.
Before I proceed to consider evidence as well as merits of submissions raised on behalf of either parties, it is
necessary to refer to the ratio of judgement by a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of
India and others Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and others (2001) 7 SCC 1) wherein Supreme Court was
primarily concerned with the meaning of the expression ‘appropriate Government’ as used in Section 2(1)(a) of the
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and in Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in
relation to State Government or the Central Government. The other issue involved before the Apex Court was the
automatic absorption of contract labour in the establishment of the principal employer as a consequence of abolition
notification issued under Section 10A of the CLRA Act 1970. Supreme Court while partly overruling the Judgement in
Air India Statutory Corporation vs. United Labour Union (1997 (9) SCC 377) prospectively held that neither section 10
of the CLRA Act nor any other provisions of the Act, whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides for
automatic absorption of the contract labour on issuance of notification under the said section, prohibiting contract labour
and consequently principal employer is not required to absorb contract labour working in such establishments. In the
said case, another incidental issue whether relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and
contract labour emerges after issuance of notification under section 10 of the CLRA Act was also considered by the
Court. After discussing the entire spectrum of the case law on the subject in Para 125 of the judgement, it was held as
under:
(3) Neither Section 10 of the CLRA Act nor any other provision in the Act, whether expressly or by necessary
implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification by appropriate
Government under sub-section (1) of Section 10, prohibiting employment of contract labour, in any process,
operation or other work in any establishment. Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order
absorption of the contract labour working in the concerned establishment;
“(4) We overrule the judgment of this Court in Air India case prospectively and declare that any direction
issued by any industrial adjudicator/any court including the High Court, for absorption of contract labour
following the judgment in Air India case shall hold good and that the same shall not be set aside, altered of
modified on the basis of this judgment in cases where such a direction has been given effect to and it has
become final.”
2438
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(5) On issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of
contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to
conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the 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 work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere
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 have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the
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 establishment concerned 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.”
17. A critical examination judgement in SAIL case (supra) would show that this judgement shines like a pole star in
the galaxy of precedents in the field of industrial laws and provides a beacon light to all those who are lost in the mist of
legal confusion. It is further clear from the above judgements that purpose of issuance of notification appears to be clear
and Parliament has intended to create a bar by incorporating provision on engagement of contract labour in any
establishment covered by such prohibition notification. Thus, no option is left with the employer to employ contract
labour in the category of jobs mentioned in the said notification. In fact, Section 10 is enacted to work as a permanent
solution to the problem and there is no legal justification for engagement of contract labour after issuance of such
notification issued under Section 10 of the CLRA Act and incase of violation, employer can be imposed with
punishment under Section 21 to 23 of the CLRA Act.
18.
Supreme Court in International Airport Authority of India vs. International Air Cargo Workers Union (2009
(13) SCC 37) again considered the question of contract labour as well as impact of issuance of notification under Section
10 of the CLRA Act, and held as under:
‘20. But where there is no abolition of contract labour under section 10 of CLRA Act, but the contract labour
contend that the contract between principal employer and contractor is sham and nominal, the remedy is purely
under the ID Act. The principles in Gujarat Electricity Board continue to govern the issue. The remedy of the
workmen is to approach the industrial adjudicator for an adjudication of their dispute that they are the direct
employees of the principle employer and the agreement is sham, nominal and merely a camouflage, even when
there is no order under section 10(1) of CLRA Act. The industrial adjudicator can grant the relief sought if it
finds that contract between principal employer and the contractor is sham, nominal and merely a camouflage to
deny employment benefits to the employer and that there is in fact a direct employment, by applying tests like:
who pays the salary; who has the power to remove/dismiss from service or initiate disciplinary action; who can
tell the employee the way in which the work should be done, in short who has direction and control over the
employee. But where there is no notification under section 10 of the CLRA Act and where it is not proved in
the industrial adjudication that the contract was sham/nominal and camouflage, then the question of directing
the principal employer to absorb or regularize the services of the contract labour does not arise. The tests that
are applied to find out whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor may not automatically
apply in finding out whether the contract labour agreement is a sham, nominal and is a mere camouflage. For
example, if the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily, the labour supplied by the contractor will work
under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer but that would not make the worker a
direct employee of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by contractor, if the right to regulate
employment is with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor. The
principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labour, when such labour is
assigned/allotted/sent to him. But it is the contractor as employer, who chooses whether the worker is to be
assigned/allotted to the principal employer or used otherwise. In short worker being the employee of the
contractor, the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor as he decides where the employee will
work and how long he will work and subject to what conditions. Only when the contractor assigns/sends the
worker to work under the principal employer, the worker works under the supervision and control of the
principal employer but that is secondary control. The primary control is with the contractor.
19. Admittedly, in the case in hand, management has not obtained registration as required under Section 7 of the
CLRA Act nor there is any evidence on record to show that the so called contractors were duly licenced under Section
12 of the CLRA Act. It is pertinent to mention here that the management in the present case has not proved even a single
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2439
contract so as to ascertain terms and conditions of the said contract, its duration and nature of the work, which was to be
taken by the contractor from the workmen herein. Workmen herein have filed list Ex.WW1/1 alongwith the statement
of claim showing details of the workmen. No specific evidence has been led by the management on record so as to
prove that list of the workmen annexed with the statement of claim is fake and not genuine.
20.
Shri Ranjeet Kumar Mehto was examined as WW1 whose affidavit Ex.WW1/A is on the same lines as per
statement of claim. There is not much cross-examination of this witness except reference to the employment of
workmen at different places as per list Ex.WW1/M1. Shri B.K. Prasad, examined himself as WW2 and his
Ex.WW2/A. There is no cross examination of Shri Prasad on this point and cross examination of the management is
primarily on the point as to whether the workmen herein were members of the Union headed by Shri Prasad.
Ex.WW2/1 is the prohibition notification issued by the Government under Section 10 of the CLRA Act. It is clear from
the above notification that contract labour in 15 categories of workmen, i.e. Air Conditioner Mechanic, Air Conditioner
Khalasi/Helper, Electrician, Wiremen, Khalasi(Electrical), Carpenter, Mason, Fitter, Plumber, Helper/Beldar, Mechanic,
Sewerman, Sweeper, and Foreman have been abolished. Bare perusal of list of workmen in Ex.WW1/M1 would show
that the date of appointment of majority of the workmen (as per Annexure A) is after 08.09.1994 when prohibition
notification was issued under Section 10 of the CLRA Act. This Tribunal wanted to know from the management as to
why the workmen were being engaged after issuance of the above notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act on
08.09.1994; more so, when the workmen who were engaged after 1994 were skilled or semi-skilled workmen There was
no satisfactory reply from the side of the management nor the management could show any letter where there was any
direction from the higher officials so as to recruit the workmen through contract labour after 08,09.1994 despite
issuance of notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act.
21.
During the course of arguments, reference was also made to the judgement of Surender Singh case which is
mentioned in office order Ex.WW2/2 and this office order deals with equal pay for equal work and method of
calculation of wages to daily rated workers of CPWD. It is clear from perusal of notification that total monthly
emoluments admissible to regular counter parts of daily rated workers on the minimum of respective scale of pay may
be multiplied by the number of days in a particular month so as to calculate the wage of daily rated workers. Senior
Official of the management also present at the time of arguments has not refuted the office order at all.
22. At this stage it is also necessary to refer to the evidence of the management and the cross-examination of Shri
Rahul Ranjan Singh, MW1, Deputy Director(CPWD) whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A. He deposed that he joined only in
January 2014 and had come from Ministry of Urban Development where he was posted as Under Secretary. Workmen
herein were employees of some contractor and not employees of the management. Some of the workmen are doing
work of CPWD. Since no worker was terminated by the management, as such, question of permission from the court
does not arise. He also made reference to the workers mentioned as serial numbers 12, 23, 24 to 31, 38, 39, 56, 59, 60,
61, 63, 65, 71 to 73, 93 to 97, 100, 101, 104, 105, 110, 111, 117, 121 to 136, 162, 163, 187, 192, 195, 197 and 203of
Ex.WW1/M1 that they are not working for CPWD through contractor. In fact, they never worked for CPWD. He also
made reference to one worker, who is since dead. He further admitted that remaining workmen a mentioned n
Ex.WW1/M1 might have worked in the past or are still working for the management. It is rather strange that the
management has not taken any steps so as to bring authentic evidence on record regarding engagement of the workmen
herein with different contractors. It was incumbent upon the management to have produced authentic list of workmen
engaged by the different contractors. Since management herein is the principal employer who has admittedly outsourced
work as per the case of the management to the various private contractors, in that eventuality, list of the workmen is also
legally required to be in possession of the management as required under the CLRA Act. Not only this, when payment is
made to the workmen regarding wages, it is requirement under Section 21(2) of the CLRA Act that an official of the
department should be present so as to ensure payment of full wages to the workmen employed by the contractor. List of
workmen and salary slips etc. is also then sent to the management so as to ensure compliance of provisions of the
Act. . It is pertinent to mention here that under Section 29 of the CLRA Act, every principal employer as well as every
contractor is required to maintain such registers and records giving full particulars of the contract labour employed,
nature of the work performed by such contract labour, register of wages to be paid in such form as may be prescribed.
Rule 72 of the Contract Labour (Central Rules) 1971 deals with the presence of authorized representative at the place of
disbursement of wages by the contractor to workmen and Rule 73 further provides that authorized representative of the
principal employer shall record under his signature a certificate at the end of the entries in the Register of Wages in the
following form:
“Certified that the amount shown in column No. ... has been paid to the workman concerned in my presence on
..... at .....”
23.
Rule 74 deals with register of Contractors, which the principal employer is mandatorily required to maintain in
respect of each contractor in form XII. Similarly, every contactor shall also maintain such register in form XIII in
respect of workers employed at the establishment. Not only this, Rule 78 deals with the maintenance of muster roll,
wage register, Overtime register etc. by the contractor. All these registers must remain upto date as required under Rule
80 and is to be complete in every respect and shall be kept at a place convenient to the workmen. Section 81(3) requires
the principal employer to submit return to the Inspector within 15 days of the commencement or completion of each
2440
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
contract work under each contractor, intimating the exact date of commencement and completion in the prescribed form.
It is, thus, clear from the provisions of the CLRA Act that the principal employer is also required to keep control on the
contractor so as to ensure compliance of the provisions of CLRA Act. It does not lie in the mouth of the management to
say that the management is not in possession of copies of the contract or the management can’t tell names of the
contractor who were deployed at different places to do various work. Perusal of Ex. MW1/1, containing several pages,
would show that after filling of the present case, letters were written to the Executive Engineers by the Director
General , CPWD regarding regularization of such workmen as well as payment of equal wages etc. perusal of the
various letters would also show that name of the contractors are mentioned in some letters alongwith estimate cost of the
work, security deposit etc. by such contractors. There is also mention of agreement in some of the letters alongwith
names of the contractors. However, management has not cared to examine any one of such contractors so as to prove
what was the exact nature of the work and who was having over all administrative and supervisory control over them,
who was the disciplinary authority regarding engagement/disengagement of the workmen. Simply because on paper
payment was being made through contractors, that would not mean that workmen herein are employees of the
contractor. This point has been fully clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SAIL case (supra) as well as in the
subsequent authorities. It is not out of place to mention that MW1 has admitted in evidence that some of the workmen
mentioned in the list filed with the statement of claim were in fact working with the management. This witness also
made a vital admission about the correctness of the list annexed to the reference ExWW1/M1. Thus, it does not lie in
the mouth of the management to say that the workmen are not doing work of the management.
24. Now the vital question which requires determination is whether the so called contracts entered into between the
management and the contractors, which have neither been exhibited nor proved on record, as per requirement of law
are sham and bogus.
25. During the course of arguments, both the learned A/Rs for the respective parties relied upon the ration of
judgment in SAIL case (supra). In the said case as discussed above, the Hon’ble Apex Court has cast a duty upon the
Industrial Adjudicator to examine in the light of facts and circumstances of each case whether so called contract
entered into between the management and the contractor is sham or nominal it is just a device to defeat the provisions of
the law so as to ensure that the workmen do not claim to be employees of the management. It is apt to mention here that
CLRA Act was enacted by the Parliament to deal with the abuse of contract labour system and the Act was framed by
the Parliament to curb abuse of contract labour by contractor. Primary object of the Act was to regulate employment
under the contract labour system in certain categories of employment. This approach is clearly discernable from the
overall provisions of the Act. Further this Tribunal has to keep in mind noble object of these social beneficial legislation
which needs to be construed in favour of the workmen.
26. During the course of arguments, reliance was placed by the management on Workmen Vs Coates of India Ltd.
(2004(3) SCC 547). It was a case where the workmen were employed in the canteen run in the premises of the company.
The canteen was being run by the contractor in the industrial establishment and main question before the court was
whether the workman was an employee of the contractor who was running the canteen in the premises of the
establishment or directly that of the management. Industrial Tribunal decided in favour of the workman and matter was
taken by way of writ petition before the High Court and Single Judge dismissed the writ filed by the management.
However, in the writ appeal, Division Bench set aside the judgement of the Single Judge and held that employees were
not employees of the Company. Hence, an appeal was filed by the workmen before the Supreme Court wherein decision
of the Division Bench was upheld. A critical appraisal of the judgement would show that there was ample evidence on
record to show that as per the contract, employees were not contractual employees of the company nor they have ever
moved the company for leave or enjoyed other benefits which the regular employees were enjoying. Tribunal also
found that canteen employees were getting their wages from the respective contractors after signing the registers and
attendance register was also maintained by the caterers/contractors. It was against this background it was held by the
Hon’ble Apex Court that there is no escape from the conclusion that the workmen cannot be held to be employees of the
respondent company.
27. To buttress his submissions, reliance was placed by the management on Ram Singh & Othrs Vs. Union Territory
of Chandigarh (2004 (1) SCC 126). It was also a case of contract labour and the workman in the said case were trained
electricians employed by the management and were claiming regularization of their services in the Engineering
Department. Contract was alleged to be sham, camouflage and not genuine. The Hon’ble Apex Court after considering
spectrum of the case on the subject held as under:
‘In determining the relationship of employer and employee, no doubt 'control' is one of the important tests but is
not to be taken as the sole test. In determining the relationship of employer and employee all other relevant
facts and circumstances are required to be considered including the terms and conditions of the contract. It is
necessary to take a multiple pragmatic approach weighing up all the factors for and against an employment
instead of going by the sole 'test of control'. An integrated approach is needed. 'Integration' test is one of the
relevant tests. It is applied by examining whether the person was fully integrated into the employer's concern or
remained apart from and independent of it. The other factors which may be relevant are - who has the power to
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2441
select and dismiss, to pay remuneration, deduct insurance contributions, organize the work, supply tools and
materials and what are the 'mutual obligations' between them’.
28.
Normally, the relationship of employer and employee does not exist between an employer and Contractor and
servant of an independent Contractor. Where, however, an employer retains or assumes control over the means and
method by which the work of a Contractor is to be done it may be said that the relationship between employer and the
employee exists between him and the servants of such a Contractor. In such a situation the mere fact of formal
employment by an independent Contractor will not relieve the master of liability where the servant is, in fact, in his
employment. In that event, it may be held that an independent Contractor is created or is operating as a subterfuge and
the employee will be regarded as the servant of the principal employer. Where a particular relationship between
employer and employee is genuine or a camouflage through the mode of Contractor is essentially a question of fact to be
determined on the basis of features of relationship, the written terms of employment, if any, and the actual nature of the
employment. The actual nature of relationship concerning a particular employment being essentially a question of fact,
it has to be raised and proved before an industrial adjudicator.
29. Reliance was also placed upon the case of Nilgiri Co-operative Market Society Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
(2004 (3) SCC 5614) In the said case, it was observed that burden of proof lies upon the party who set up the plea that
the workmen are employees of the principal employer and not of the contractor and this question is to be decided by the
Tribunal on the basis of evidence on record. Normally, findings of the Tribunal would not be interfered with by the
High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hon’ble Apex Court also held that the
question whether workmen are employees of the principal employer or contractors depends upon a number of factors
and the test of organization or control and supervision test is not always the decisive test. There are other factors to be
construed by the Tribunal to be taken into consideration and Tribunal can also pierce the veil having regard to provisions
of the Act. In the said case there were more than 400 workers, who were porters, who formed a Co-operative Society.
The said workers claimed themselves to be employees of the Co-operative Society and Tribunal held that there does not
exist any relationship of employer and employee between the society and the workmen. Writ petition preferred before
the High Court was also dismissed and decision of the Tribunal approved by the High Court was also upheld by the
Apex court, by observing as under:
‘Determination of the vexed questions as to whether a contract is a contract of service or contract for service
and whether the concerned employees are employees of the contractors has never been an easy task. No
decision of this Court has laid down any hard and fast rule nor it is possible to do so. The question in each case
has to be answered having regard to the fact involved therein. No single test - be it control test, be it
organization or any other test - has been held to be the determinative factor for determining the jural
relationship of employer and employee. There are cases arising on the borderline between what is clearly an
employer-employee relation and what is clearly the independent entrepreneurial dealing. Different tests have
been applied in different cases having regard to the nature of the problem arising in the fact situation obtaining
therein. Emphasis on application of control test and organization test have been laid keeping in view the
question as to whether the matter involves a contract of service vis-à-vis contract for service; or whether the
employer had set up a contractor for the purpose of employment of workmen by way of a smoke screen with a
view to avoid its statutory liability. Supervision and control test is the prima facie test for determining the
relationship of employment. The nature or extent of control required to establish such relationship would vary
from business to business and, thus, cannot be given a precise definition. The nature of business for the said
purpose is also a relevant factor. In a given case it may not be possible to infer that a relationship of employer
and employee has come into being only because some persons had been more or less continuously working in a
particular premises inasmuch as even in relation thereto the actual nature of work done by them coupled with
other circumstances would have a role to play.’
30.
The control test and the organization test, therefore, are not the only factors which can be said to decisive. With
a view of elicit the answer, the court is required to consider several factors which would have a bearing on the result : (a)
who is appointing authority; (b) who is the pay master; (c) who can dismiss; (d) how long alternative service lasts; e) the
extent of control and supervision; (f) the nature of the job, e.g. whether, it is professional or skilled work; (g) nature of
establishment; (h) the right to reject.
31. Similarly, reliance was placed upon Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Vs. Bharat Lal (2001 (1) SCC 635) wherein
question regarding sham and bogus agreements is also considered. Hon’ble Apex Court also considered the question
whether contract labour were employees of the principal employer or that of the contractor. It was observed that merely
because some officers of the principal employer were giving some instructions to the employees of the contractors, they
would not make them employees of the principal employer.
32. Lastly, strong reliance was placed by the management upon the case of Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees
Union Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.) 2005 (6) SCC 51) and Balwant Rai Saluja Vs. Air India Ltd. (2014 (9) SCC
407). Both were cases of statutory canteens managed by contractor in the premises of the principal employer. In this
case, it was held that the workmen working in the canteen are employees of the principal employer for the purpose of
2442
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Factory Act only and not ipso facto workers of the establishment for other purposes like absorption etc. under the ID
Act.
33. This Tribunal cannot ignore the vital fact that Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948, requires establishment of a
canteen in a factory employing more than 250 workers. State Government have been given powers under the Act to
make rules requiring such canteens to be provided in the factories so as to ensure welfare of the workmen working
therein. Factories Act is otherwise a social legislation and it provides for the health, safety, welfare, working hours and
leave and other benefits for workers employed in factories. Even Section 16 of the CLRA Act specifically provides that
the appropriate Government may make rules requiring every establishment setting up one or more canteens for the use
of contract labour. There is even provision for rest rooms as well as other facilities to be provided to ensure that all
these above requirements as well as amenities which are required to be provided under the above Acts for the benefit of
contract labour in the establishment is fully complied with. Therefore, it was against this background that Apex court
held that labour working in the factor was the employee of the Company, i.e. principal employer for the purpose of
Factories Act and not for the purpose of Industrial Disputes Act.
34. A close reading of the judgements relied upon by the management would show that facts and circumstances in
each case were different and facts in none of these cases were similar to each other except the case of Coates of India
Ltd. Case(supra), Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union case(supra) and Balwant Rai case (supra) where workmen
were admittedly working in the canteen or premises of the establishment or factory.
35.
However, situation in the case on hand is different. It is not the case of the management that administrative or
supervisory control over the workmen was being exercised because of statutory requirements as was the position
in Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union case(supra) and Ram Singh case (supra). Management has not whispered
a word that contractor was giving directions to the workman to do a particular kind of duty on the spot so as to show that
supervisory and effective control was with the contractor. Rather, it has been admitted by MW1 that they were giving
directions to the workers who were doing work on the spot. In the case in hand, there other peculiar factors which were
not present in the authorities relied upon by the management. There was no issuance of prohibition notification under
Section 10 of the Act in most of the cases relied upon by the management, whereas in the case on hand, vide Ex.WW2/1
prohibition notification was admittedly issued. Workmen as per list Ex.WW1/M1 are mostly skilled and semi-skilled
workmen who are admittedly performing their duties at the respective sites as per directions of the Assistant Engineer,
Junior Engineer, etc. Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that duties of khalasi, beldaars, wiremen, lift operators, AC operator
etc. is of such nature that the same can be performed only under the directions and direct supervision of superior officers
and there cannot be any role of contractor in the performance of such duties. Management has admittedly flouted the
notification Ex.WW2/1 and it was followed more in breach than in observance. Management has neither proved any
contract nor examined any contractor so as to prove that supervisory or administrative control was that of the contractor
whereas in the cases relied upon by the managements contracts were proved on record so as to determine nature of
work, control and duration of such contracts. It was also proved in some of the cases that the contractor was marking
attendance of the workmen, issuing wage slips etc. Thus, in said cases, control over the workmen was that of the
contractor whereas in the case on hand, all such material facts are missing as the same have not been pleaded or proved
on record by the management. Moreover, in the case in hand, management has not examined any contractor nor
proved/exhibited any contract awarded to the said contractors so s to ascertain terms and conditions of the contract and
nature of control which the principal employer or contractor was to exercise upon the workmen employed at the spot. In
such circumstances, this Tribunal is bound to drawn adverse inference against the management.
36. Learned A/R for the workmen relied upon the case of BHEL s. State of Uttar Pradesh (2003 Lab.IC 230) Hon’ble
Apex Court dealt with the question of contract employee. It was a case where workmen were engaged as gardeners(mali
and sweepers) to maintain lawns and parks inside the factory premises of the company. Their services were terminated
ion 01.12.1988 and workmen took matter to the Labour Court, who directed the Company to reemploy them and pay
compensation. Ultimately matter reached before the Supreme Court wherein plea was taken that the workmen were
engaged for working as gardeners in the factory premises and campus of the Company and the Hon’ble Apex Court
finally upheld decision of the Labour Court by observing as under:
"5. The true test may, with brevity, be indicated once again. Where a worker or group of workers laborers, to
produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is, in fact, the
employer. He has economic control over the workers' subsistence, skill, and continued employment. If he, for
any reason, chokes off, the worker is, virtually, laid off. The presence of intermediate contractors with whom
alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex contracts is of no consequence when, on lifting the
veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment, we discern the naked truth though draped in
different perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer is the Management, not the immediate contractor,
Myriad devices, half-hidden in fold after fold of legal form depending on the degree of concealment needed the
type of industry, the local conditions and the like may be resorted to when labour legislation casts welfare
obligations on the real employer based on Articles 38, 39, 42,43 and 43-A of the Constitution. The court must
be astute to avoid the mischief and achieve the purpose of the law and not be misled by the maya of legal
appearances.’
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2443
37.
It is not out of place to mention here that in SAIL case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court approved ratio of
judgement in Hussainbhai, Calicut Vs. The Alath Factory Thezhilali Union, Kozhikode & Othrs(1978(4) SCC 257).
Supreme Court in the said case also considered the vital question of status of the workmen who have been employed
through contractor by the principal employer. Issue in the said case was hiring of workmen through contractor by
industry manufacturing ropes. Supreme Court pointed out that work done by the contract labour was integral part of the
industry concerned and the workmen were broadly under the control of the management. Payment of wages was being
made through the contractor as is the position in the present case. In order to ascertain the real nature of the contract, the
Apex Court observed that where a worker or a group of workers labour to produce goods or services and these goods or
services are for the business of another, that other is in fact the employer. He has economic control over the
workers’ subsistence, skill, and continued employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off the worker is, virtually, laid
off. The presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex-
contractu is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment,
Courts discern the naked truth, though draped in different perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer is the
management, not the immediate contractor.
38.
Yet in another case, Sankar Mukherjee & Others Vs. Union of India & Others (1990 (Supp.) SCC 668), The
Apex Court considered the notification under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Prohibition)
Act,1970. The said notification by the Government of West Bengal dealt with prohibiting the employment of contract
labour in 16 departments covering 65 jobs in the establishments of M/s. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. The list of the
departments and the jobs are annexed in the schedule to the notification. One of the Departments related to Brick
Department excluding the job of loading and un-loading of bricks from wagons and trucks. On a challenge made by the
affected workers that they had been subjected to hostile discrimination so much so that the workmen doing the same job
in other departments and allied jobs in the same department have been rescued from the system of contract labour, the
Supreme Court pointed out that bricks handled by the brick department were used in furnaces of the company as
refractory and incidental to the industry carried on by the company. The petitioners herein were employed as contract
labour by the company for the last 15 to 20 years. The Supreme Court further pointed out that even though the
petitioners were not doing the job of stacking the bricks, there was no denial nor any averment or material on the record
to show that the job of loading and unloading of bricks was not incidental or alike to the stacking of the bricks. On the
other hand, they are one continuous process. That being so, the workers performing these jobs which are of perennial
nature, are to be treated alike. The Supreme Court pointed out that the workers doing the job of loading and unloading
from the wagons and trucks in the Brick Department are to be treated on par with those who are doing the job of
cleaning and stacking in the said Department. The Supreme Court further pointed out that there was o reason as to why
others doing the same job should be treated differently.
39.
During the course of arguments, great emphasis was placed by the learned counsel for the workmen on the
fact that when the nature of job done by the workmen herein is regular and perennial in nature and workers are doing
same work which was being done by regular workmen, who were admittedly drawing salary double the amount of the
salary of the workmen herein, in such a situation , so called contracts with the contractors in the face of prohibition
notification under Section 10 cannot be termed to be legally valid. Such agreements are against public policy and any
agreement against public policy is liable to be termed as a void agreement. Consequently, such a contract itself becomes
void, sham, nominal and bogus in the eyes of law, such contracts are bogus and sham in law. . Since majority of the
workmen are doing the work of skilled or semi-skilled in nature, which is an integral part of the activity of the
department, i.e. CPWD as such there was no question of engaging contract labour after issuance of notification under
Section 10 of the CLRA Act.
40.
In this regard, reliance was placed by the workmen on the case of Catering Cleaners of Southern Railway vs.
Union of India and another (1987 (1) SCC 700). This decision relates to a case of contract labour engaged for cleaning
catering establishments and pantry cars in Southern Railway. The Supreme Court pointed out that although the contract
system has been abolished in almost all the other Railways, the Southern Railway persists in employing contract labour
for cleaning its catering establishments and pantry cars to serve public better. In considering the claim of the contract
labour , the Supreme Court pointed out that the work of cleaning catering establishments and pantry cars is necessary
and incidental to the industry or the business of the Southern Railway; the employment is of perennial nature and that
the work required employment of sufficient number of whole-time workmen. Thus, these factors satisfy the provisions
under Section 10(2) of the CLRA Act. Considering such facts, instead of issuing a Mandamus, the Supreme Court
directed the Central Government to take appropriate action under Section 10 of CLRA Act in the matter of prohibiting
employment of contract labour in the work of cleaning catering establishments and pantry cars in Southern Railway.
The Supreme Court further directed that these workmen, who were previously employed by the contractor on the same
wages and conditions of work as are applicable to those engaged in similar work in Western Railway, be absorbed
without waiting for the decision of the Central Government.
41. Question of contract labour was also considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suresh vs Haryana
State Electricity Board (1999 LLJ 1086). It was also a case where question of right of equality, i.e. equal pay for equal
work as well as question of contract labour was considered. In the said case also Haryana State Electricity Board
awarded contract for keeping plants and service station clean and hygienic conditions to a private contractor. There was
2444
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
a stipulation in the contractor to employ minimum number of workmen. Workmen had put in more than 240 days in a
calendar year and worked for several years. Labour Court ordered their reinstatement with continuity of services when
contractor had terminated their services. Hon’ble High Court also held that there existed relationship of employer and
employee between the Electricity Board and the workmen and upheld the award of the Labour Court. Hon’ble Apex
Court also upheld the judgement of the High Court and observed that maintenance work in the plant is not seasonal in
nature and overall control of contract labour, including administrative control rested with the Electricity Board. Neither
the contractor was licenced nor Electricity Board was registered as principal employer. Therefore, so called contract
system was merely a camouflage, bogus and a smoke screen. In the case in hand also as observed above, admittedly
there is no evidence on record to show that the management was duly registered nor there is any evidence worth the
name that the so called contractor was duly licenced under the law. Work in the case in hand is also not of seasonal
nature and most of the workmen are doing this work regularly for the last several years. Same cannot be termed to be
seasonal or temporary work.
42.
Conspectus of the above judgements would clearly show that heavy duty has been case on the Industrial
Adjudicator so as to decide whether the contract in question is genuine one or sham, camouflage or bogus. As
discussed above, no such contract has been proved on record by the management, who has admittedly engaged workers
after issuance of prohibition notification Ex.WW1/1 dated 08.09.1994. No doubt, CPWE, i.e. the management has its
offices throughout the country and they are engaging labour for different projects but being an important organ of the
Government, it is expected from such a big organization that it should act like a model employer and cannot engage any
labour which is in derogation of the prohibition notification issued under Section 10 of the CLRA Act. Simply because
punishment is provided under Section 23 of the CLRA Act for contravention of the provisions regarding employment of
contract labour, that would not itself mean that the Government can engage contract labour in defiance of the statutory
prohibition or notification issued under Section 10 of the Act. The Act does not even exclude prosecution of the
officers of the State Government or any of the Instrumentalities under the State Government for contravening provisions
of the Act. However, the fact remains that no such prosecution has ever been launched against officials of CPWD for
violation of Section 23 of the CLRA Act nor any other law. In view of my detailed discussion hereinabove, it is held
that so called contracts between the management of CPWD and contractors are held to be sham, bogus or nominal; as
such, workmen are held to be directly in the employment of the management.
43.
Now, the next question which is also required to be answered by this Tribunal is whether workmen herein are
entitled for equal pay for equal pay from the date of their initial appointment or regularization of their services by the
management ? In this regard, learned A/R for the management invited attention of this Tribunal to office order
Ex.WW2/2 which deals with equal pay for equal work and method of calculation of such daily rated workers of CPWD.
Perusal of the above office order would show that the same was issued by Directorate General of Works of CPWD, New
Delhi and subject of the letter is as under:
Subject
Implementation of Supreme Court judgement dated 17.01.1986 on Surender Singh’s case
regarding equal pay for equal work’ – Method of calculation of wages of the daily rated
workers regarding
Reference have been received from some of the superintending Engineers/Executive Engineers etc.
seeking clarification regarding method of computing daily rates payable to daily rated workers of CPWD on the
concept of ‘equal pay for equal work’. It has been decided that the following formula may be adopted for the
purpose of working out daily rates of wages of daily rated workers of the CPWD:
“The total monthly emoluments admissible to regular counterparts of the daily rated workers at the
minimum of the respective scale of pay may be multiplied by number of days in a particular month after
deducting there-from the days of absence plus the days of rest falling in the week/weeks in which the worker
remained absent and the result may be divided by number of days in the month. The figure so arrived will be
the daily rate of wages of the worker.”
44.
There is also another letter Ex. WW2/3 which also deals with implementation of decision of the Court in
Surender Singh Vs. Engineer In Chief case (supra) regarding equal pay for equal work. In this letter also there is
clarification given by the Department regarding calculation of arrears of wages. Further, letter Ex.WW2/4 deals with
regularization of workers working on muster roll under CPWD. This letter simply clarifies that persons working on
work order and contract basis cannot be considered for regularization as they are not on direct rolls of CPWD.
Regularization of these workers will be strictly subject to fulfillment of eligibility conditions prescribed in the
recruitments rules of the respective posts. This letter also clarifies that daily wage worker should be eligible in respect
of maximum age limit on the date of appointment to the regular post. For this purpose, the period spent by him as daily
wage worker is deducted from the actual age on the date of his regularization. Normally casual workers are regularized
against the direct recruitment quota vacancies. Compliance report of the above letter was also be be furnished to the
contractor of CPWD by the concerned officials.
45.
There is another circular Ex.WW2/5, filed on behalf of the workmen, deals with the charter of demands of
CPWDM Mazdoor union and the same is as under:
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2445
Subject Maintenance work in CPWD
One of the ten charter of demands of the CPWD Mazdoor Union for which the Union had survived
notice on 28.09.1989 for indefinite strike with effect from 16.11.1989 was that the maintenance work be not
given to contractors. During the conciliation proceedings held in the office of the CLC(C), Ministry of Labour
on 15.11.01989, it was agreed that before awarding maintenance work to the contractors, Chief
Engineers/Superintending Engineers will hold discussions in future with the representatives of the CPWD
Mazdoor Union in pursuance of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 05.09.1986.
Accordingly, all Chief Engineers/Superintending Engineers should hold discussions in future with the
representatives of the CPWD Mazdoor Union before awarding any maintenance work to the contractors, to
explore the possibility of getting the maintenance work done through departmental labour.’
46.
It is clear from the overall examination of the above letter that maintenance work was not to be given to any
contractor in future and before awarding maintenance contract to the contractors, officers of the CPWD, as mentioned
in the letter, will hold discussions in future with the representatives of the CPWD Mazdoor Union. In the case in hand,
no such discussion ever took place between representatives of the CPWD Union and the management after issuance of
Ex.WW2/5 dated 28.12.1989. It is not out of place to mention here that prohibition notification Ex.WW1/1 dated
08.09.1994 is after issuance of the above circular. During the course of arguments, it was fairly conceded on behalf of
the management that no consultation/ discussion or meeting was held with the representative of the union after 1989
when Ex.WW2/5 was issued. This also shows that management has not followed the undertaking or promise made to the
representatives of the union of the workmen. Evidence on record is also explicit that workmen herein are doing same
job which is being performed by the regular employees working directly under CPWD. However, workmen herein are
hardly getting minimum wages whereas salary of the regular workmen is almost two fold. In view of the judgement of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surender Singh case (supra) which is mentioned in office order Ex.WW2/2, it is clear
that equal pay for equal work is to be given to the workmen and the method of calculation has also been mentioned in
the said letter.
47. There is another letter dated 11.03.2011 Ex.WW2/4 which deals with the regularization of muster roll workers
as one time measure and an overall examination of the letter would show that reference has been made to the case of
State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and as a one-time measure, there is reference for regularization of such casual workers
engaged in various categories of work charge posts. Thus both these letters, Ex.WW2/2 and Ex.WW2/4 fortifies
statement of the workmen that they were entitled for equal wage with their counterparts in CPWD and even their
regularization as one time measure was also envisaged in the said letters. There is another circular dated 28.12.1999
Ex.WW2/5, wherein there is mention of charter of demands by CPWD Mazdoor Union in which this union has served
notice of indefinite strike from 16.01.1989 and in the said demand, there is mention that maintenance work be not given
to contractors. It was decided in principle that all the Chief Engineers/Superintending Engineers to hold discussion with
the representatives of the CPWD Mazdoor Union before awarding any maintenance work to the contractors and to
explore possibility of getting maintenance work done through departmental labour. Thus after the year 1989, officers of
the management (CPWD) were required to hold discussion with CPWD Mazdoor Union before award of any contract to
contractors for maintenance work at various places. In the case in hand, there is no evidence worth the name to suggest
that any such meeting ever took place after the year 1989 between the office bearers of the CPWD Mazdoor Union and
officials of the management. Therefore, award of any contract regarding maintenance as well as regarding categories
mentioned in the notification Ex,WW2/1 is apparently against the circular Ex.WW2/5.
48.
During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the claimant relied upon the provisions of Rule 25(v)(a) of the
Contract Labour (Central) Rules 1971, which provides that where workmen employed by the contractor performs same
or similar kind of work as the workmen directly employed by the principal employer wage rates, holidays, hours of work
and other conditions of service of the workmen of the contractor shall be the same as applicable to the workmen directly
employed by the principal employer of the establishment for the same kind of work.
49.
Reliance was also placed upon the case of Indian Airlines vs. Central Government Labour Court (1987 (II) LLJ
512) . It was a case where question of equal pay for equal work was considered. In fact management of Indian Airlines
has engaged workers for rendering services for sanitary water supply, sewage work etc. Later on, their services were
transferred to the contractor, who terminated their services. It was held that remedy to the workmen is either to file
reference under Section 10 of the Act or file application under Section 33(C)(2) for equal wages which their regular
counter parts are getting. It was further observed that in case of less wages being paid to the contract workmen, principal
employer is bound to pay wages and recover the same from the contractor. Resultantly, it is held that workmen herein
are entitled for equal pay with their regular counterparts performing similar duties on the similar posts from the date of
their appointments.
50.
Another residual question in the case in hand is whether the reference petition filed is legally maintainable? It
was urged on behalf of the management that in the present case so called union being headed by Shri B.K. Prasad is not
registered. No evidence has been led or placed on record to prove its registration. It was also urged that there is also no
2446
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
valid espousal and the reference suffers for serious infirmity of non-espousal. Therefore, reference made in the present
case is not legally maintainable. 5
51.
It has come in evidence of Shri B.K. Prasad WW2 that meeting of the union was held on 02.07.2007 as is clear
from the original minute book, though the same was not attended by the workmen herein. This clearly shows that in fact
meeting has taken place and attendance of the workmen herein was not legally necessary at the said meeting. It is
further clear from the record, that Shri B.K. Prasad has filed with the statement of claim certified copy of the
espousal/sponsorship dated 05.11.2008, which clearly shows that meeting of Management Committee of CPWD
Mazdoor Union was held on 05.011.2008 and has espoused/sponsored the cause of Shri B. Balamurali Krishan and 286
others. There is also photocopy of the registration certificate of the union being represented by Shri B.K. Prasad which
shows the serial number of certificate as 2562 and the same is registered under Trade Union Act. There is no evidence
on record to suggest that the said union has ceased to exist. Moreover, it is necessary to mention here that under Section
11 (1) of the ID Act, this Tribunal is not required to follow strict procedure of civil procedure code as well as
provisions of Evidence Act. Tribunal is at liberty to adopt or follow such procedure as it considers fit. Since these
documents, i.e. registration certificate as well as espousal/sponsorship certificate on the face of it appears to be genuine.
As such, then can be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding maintainability of the reference petition.
Moreover, no evidence to the contrary has been adduced by the management. In view of the above discussions,
contention of the management regarding non-espousal of the dispute by the union and proof of registration etc. is held to
be meritless.
52.
Question whether the case has been sponsored by workmen or is otherwise not supported by sufficient number
of workmen was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Associated Cement Company Ltd. (AIR 1960 SCC 777). It is
necessary to mention here that there is no requirement for filing any certificate of registration under the law and if the
management was serious regarding this, then any concerned officials from the office of Registrar of Societies could
have been summoned so as to prove the factum of non-registration of the above union. Expression ‘union’ simply
indicates the union to which the employee belongs and it can be a union of minority of workmen. Purpose of espousal is
that when the workman raising the demand, union in its meeting has passed a resolution in respect of the said demand,
which are required to be raised by way of industrial dispute before the ALC. After passing of the resolution, it becomes
a dispute of the union and not that of any particular workman or set of workmen.
53.
In Associated Cement case (supra ) it was held that raising of dispute by majority of the workmen is not a
necessary condition in the Act and such dispute can be raised by group of workmen or by a union even though neither of
them represent majority of workmen. Thus, minority group of work can thus make a demand and thereby raise an
industrial dispute, which in a proper case, would be referred for adjudication under the Act.
54.
In the case of JH Jadhav Vs M/s Forbes Gokak Ltd. (2005 (3) SCC 202), almost a similar question came up for
consideration before the Apex Court wherein plea was taken by the management that cause of the workmen has not
been espoused by the workmen. Similar view, as discussed above, was taken in the above case by observing that it
would be open to the union to take up the cause of the workmen if it is sufficiently represented by those workmen.
55.
In the case of State of Bihar vs Kripa Shankar Jaiswal (1961 (2) – SCR 1) held that in order to constitute an
industrial dispute, it is not a requisite condition that it should be sponsored by recognized union. This, dispute can be
referred for adjudication even if it is not sponsored by majority members of the said union. Moreover, legitimate claim
of a party cannot be defeated on trivial grounds. Duty of the Tribunal is to heal the wound of the workmen by imparting
substantive justice. Yet in the latest judgement, Ultratech Cement Vs Industrial Tribunal (2016 LLR 523), it was
observed by the High Court that even if the case is filed directly by workmen before Industrial Tribunal without first
filing an application before the Conciliation Officer and waiting for expiry of 45 days as provided under the Act, the
same cannot be rejected merely on this ground. Though objection in the said case was taken by the management
regarding non-maintainability of reference petition, but non-compliance of provisions of section 2A was not held to be
fatal to the case of the workmen. As such, the provision was simply held to be directory or enabling one and not
mandatory.
56.
As a sequel to afore-mentioned discussions, it is held that the so called contracts between management of
CPWD and its contractors with regard to employment of the workmen whose names are mentioned in Column No.2 of
Annexure, Ex.WW2/M1 are held to be sham, nominal and bogus. It is further held that demand of CPWD Mazdoor
Union for equal pay with their regular counterparts performing similar duties on the similar posts from the date of their
employment and regularization of their services by the management of CPWD is legal and justified. Workmen shown
to be working through the contractor are entitled to be regularized in accordance with the Regulations/policy of the
management applicable in this behalf. While regularizing services of the workmen, management is required to keep in
mind their age, qualification and length of service etc. and any policy in this behalf. An award is accordingly passed. It
be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for
publication.
May 24, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2447
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1089-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy
os;jgkm¯lx dkjiksjs'ku paMhx<+ jhtu 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ vkbZMh la- 159@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@85@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1089.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. ID No. 159/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh region and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 25.05.2016.
[No. L-42012/85/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No 159 of 2013,
Reference no. L-42012/85/2013-IR(DU)
dated 28.01.2014
Sh.Ganga Ram S/o Sh. Nirdhan
Gandhi Nagar,Narwana,
Jind (Haryana) Jind
…Workman.
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation,
Chandigarh Region, Bay No. 35-38,Sector-4,
Panchkulla ( Haryana)-134112
…Respondent
Appearances :
For the Workman
:
None.
For the Management
:
Shri N.K. Zakhmi Advocate.
AWARD
Passed on: - 03.05.2016
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L--42012/85/2013-IR (DU) dated 28.01.2014,
the Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of the Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkulla in terminating the
services w.e.f. 26.01.2011 of Sh.Ganga Ram S/o Sh. Nirdhan, workman of Narwana Depot is just and
legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
Brief facts of the case according to the workman are that he was working as handling labour and was
performing the duties for loading/unloading the food grains for the Food Corporation of India storage thereof made by
the Central Warehousing Corporation. The management used to engage contractor by calling tender with certain terms
and conditions from the contractors and many complaints by the workman for not granting wages as per Minimum
Wages Act and other amenities against the contractor but management never taken any action against the labour
contractor. The inspection report clearly shows that contractor committed grave irregularities with the workman as no
attendance register was found at the spot, no notice was found with regard to the bases the workman, no representative
of the principal employer was found nominated and no annual return submitted to the authorised officer meaning thereby
the grave violation of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. When the workman agitated against the above violation, he was denied entry into the
2448
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
premises of the management on 26-1-2011 which amounts to illegal termination without notice in violation of section
25-F of ID Act 1947. It is further submitted by the workman that there is departmentalize labour in agencies like Food
Corporation of India but in the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, the workmen have been exploited.
It is further submitted by the workman that the state of Haryana and Punjab having its godowns and certain depots have
been put under the definition of prohibited areas for the Contract labour by the respective corporations are violating the
said prohibition by allowing the labour work done through contract labour. It is further submitted by the workman that
during the duty there was a police case and kalandra U/S 107/151 Cr.PC was prepared and accused persons were
restrained entry in the premises and workman not allowing performing duties at the depot of the management who is
very much employee of the respondent corporation. It is also submitted that as per the policy of the Haryana Govt., the
principal employer is responsible for the compliance of the labour laws. It is also submitted that contractors are violating
the agreement as well as the circular regarding departmentalization of the workers and the termination of the workman
without giving any specific reason, notice, despite the fact that he was working for more than 10 years is unjust,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provision of Section 2A and Section 25F of the ID Act 1947. It is prayed by the
workman that he may be reinstated in service with continuity of service, full back wages and the management may be
directed to pay wages to the workman as per minimum Wages Act along with all other attendant benefits.
3.
The management filed written statement, Preliminary objection has been taken by the management that the
workman was not in the employment of the management, therefore, there was indeed no privity of contract between the
workman and the management as the workman was engaged by the contractor M/S Sahib Transport Co. Who was
providing loading, unloading and handling of food grains bags of FCI during the period from 4/2010 to 2/2011 and as
such the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of clause(s) of Section 2 of the I.D.Act 1947 as he was not
engaged by the management of CWC. It is further submitted by the management that since the work of loading,
unloading and transportation of stocks of food grains is not a regular nature but seasonal and intermittent, so the
management does not recruit its own employees. It enter into an agreement with third party for providing the above
services to the management and the workman who was performing the duties of loading, unloading and handling the
food grains was deputed by the above agency. The entire payment for the work done was made to the contractor at the
mutually agreed rates and contractor thereafter paid the same to his workers. No appointment letter or termination letter
was ever issued by the management to the workman and there is no relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management. The management also had no administrative, economic and disciplinary control over the
workman, therefore, the present reference deserves to be dismissed being without jurisdiction and not maintainable. It is
further submitted by the management that as admitted by the workman , the workman was engaged for the work of
casual nature by the contractor and also paid by the contractor and there exists no relationship of employer and employee
between the workman and the management. On merits also denied the averments made by the workman in his claim
statement and it is prayed by the management that claim of the workman may be dismissed with cost in the interest of
justice, equity and fair play.
4.
After filing of the reply by the management, the workman was provided sufficient opportunity for evidence.
But the workman did not file any affidavit nor placed any documents on the record in support of his claim statement. In
support of the written statement so filed by the management, the management filed the affidavit of one Shri Movie
Krishan, Regional Manager of the Central Warehousing Corporation almost on the same line as that of the written
statement. As none appeared for the workman to cross-examine the witness of the management, the affidavit of the
witness of the management, has been taken on record and case was adjourned for arguments. As the case was fixed for
arguments, none again appeared for the workman to argue the case.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the management and gone through the pleadings of the parties as available
on the record.
6.
From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the workman was working with the contractor M/S Sahib
Transport Co, Kurukshetra who was given the contract by the management for loading, unloading and transportation of
the food grains. The workman was never employed/ engaged by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation.
The workman has not produced any documents to show that he was ever engaged by the management. The workman
also failed to produce any appointment letter and termination letter issued by the management. As admitted by the
workman he was working with the contractor, therefore, there exist no relationship of employer employee between
management and the workman and it is held that services of the workman were never terminated by the management of
Central Warehousing Corporation as there was no privity of contract between the workman and management of Central
Warehousing Corporation.
7
Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, as the workman was not the employee of the
management of Central Warehousing Corporation, therefore, there is no question of termination of the services of the
workman w.e.f. 26-01-2011 by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and the workman is not entitled to
any relief from the respondent/management.
8. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
03.05.2016
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2449
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1090-—vkS|kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy
os;jgkmÇlx dkjiksjs’ku paMhx<+ jhtu ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ vkbZMh la- 156/2013½
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@82@2013&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1090.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D No. 156/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum
Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh region and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-42012/82/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH
Case ID No 156 of 2013, Reference No. L-42012/82-2013-IR(DU) dated 28.01.2014
Sh. Ajmer Singh son of Shri Naphe Singh, Village Bailerkha, Tehsil Narwana Jind (Haryana)
…Workman.
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh Region, Bay No. 35-38,Sector-4, Panchkulla
(Haryana)-134112.
… Respondent
Appearances
For the Workman : None.
For the Management : Shri N. K. Zakhmi Advocate
AWARD
Passed on: - 03-05-2016
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L--42012/82/2013-IR(DU) dated 28.01.2014,the
Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of the Regional Manager,CWC, Panchkulla in terminating the services
w.e.f. 26.01.2011 of Shri Ajmer Singh son of Naphe Singh, workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
Brief facts of the case according to the workman are that he was working as handling labour and was
performing the duties for loading/unloading the food grains for the Food Corporation of India storage thereof made by
the Central Warehousing Corporation. The management used to engage contractor by calling tender with certain terms
and conditions from the contractors and many complaints by the workman for not granting wages as per Minimum
Wages Act and other amenities against the contractor but management never taken any action against the labour
contractor. The inspection report clearly shows that contractor committed grave irregularities with the workman as no
attendance register was found at the spot, no notice was found with regard to the bases the workman, no representative
of the principal employer was found nominated and no annual return submitted to the authorised officer meaning thereby
the grave violation of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. When the workman agitated against the above violation, he was denied entry into the
premises of the management on 26-1-2011 which amounts to illegal termination without notice in violation of section
25-F of ID Act 1947. It is further submitted by the workman that there is departmentalize labour in agencies like Food
Corporation of India but in the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, the workmen have been exploited.
2450
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/ JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II SEC. 3(ii)]
It is further submitted by the workman that the state of Haryana and Punjab having its godowns and certain depots have
been put under the definition of prohibited areas for the Contract labour by the respective corporations are violating the
said prohibition by allowing the labour work done through contract labour. It is further submitted by the workman that
during the duty there was a police case and kalandra U/S 107/151 Cr.PC was prepared and accused persons were
restrained entry in the premises and workman not allowing performing duties at the depot of the management who is
very much employee of the respondent corporation. It is also submitted that as per the policy of the Haryana Govt., the
principal employer is responsible for the compliance of the labour laws. It is also submitted that contractors are violating
the agreement as well as the circular regarding departmentalization of the workers and the termination of the workman
without giving any specific reason, notice, despite the fact that he was working for more than 10 years is unjust,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provision of Section 2A and Section 25F of the ID Act 1947. It is prayed by the
workman that he may be reinstated in service with continuity of service, full back wages and the management may be
directed to pay wages to the workman as per minimum Wages Act along with all other attendant benefits.
3.
The management filed written statement, Preliminary objection has been taken by the management that the
workman was not in the employment of the management, therefore, there was indeed no privity of contract between the
workman and the management as the workman was engaged by the contractor M/s. Sahib Transport Co. Who was
providing loading, unloading and handling of food grains bags of FCI during the period from 4/2010 to 2/2011 and as
such the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of clause(s) of Section 2 of the I.D.Act 1947 as he was not
engaged by the management of CWC. It is further submitted by the management that since the work of loading,
unloading and transportation of stocks of food grains is not a regular nature but seasonal and intermittent, so the
management does not recruit its own employees. It enter into an agreement with third party for providing the above
services to the management and the workman who was performing the duties of loading, unloading and handling the
food grains was deputed by the above agency. The entire payment for the work done was made to the contractor at the
mutually agreed rates and contractor thereafter paid the same to his workers. No appointment letter or termination letter
was ever issued by the management to the workman and there is no relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management. The management also had no administrative, economic and disciplinary control over the
workman, therefore, the present reference deserves to be dismissed being without jurisdiction and not maintainable. It is
further submitted by the management that as admitted by the workman , the workman was engaged for the work of
casual nature by the contractor and also paid by the contractor and there exists no relationship of employer and employee
between the workman and the management. On merits also denied the averments made by the workman in his claim
statement and it is prayed by the management that claim of the workman may be dismissed with cost in the interest of
justice, equity and fair play.
4.
After filing of the reply by the management, the workman was provided sufficient opportunity for evidence.
But the workman did not file any affidavit nor placed any documents on the record in support of his claim statement. In
support of the written statement so filed by the management, the management filed the affidavit of one Shri Movie
Krishan, Regional Manager of the Central Warehousing Corporation almost on the same line as that of the written
statement. As none appeared for the workman to cross-examine the witness of the management, the affidavit of the
witness of the management, has been taken on record and case was adjourned for arguments. As the case was fixed for
arguments, none again appeared for the workman to argue the case.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the management and gone through the pleadings of the parties as available
on the record.
6.
From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the workman was working with the contractor M/S Sahib
Transport Co, Kurukshetra who was given the contract by the management for loading, unloading and transportation of
the food grains. The workman was never employed/ engaged by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation.
The workman has not produced any documents to show that he was ever engaged by the management. The workman
also failed to produce any appointment letter and termination letter issued by the management. As admitted by the
workman he was working with the contractor, therefore, there exist no relationship of employer employee between
management and the workman and it is held that services of the workman were never terminated by the management of
Central Warehousing Corporation as there was no privity of contract between the workman and management of Central
Warehousing Corporation.
7.
Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, as the workman was not the employee of the
management of Central Warehousing Corporation, therefore, there is no question of termination of the services of the
workman w.e.f. 26-01-2011 by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and the workman is not entitled to
any relief from the respondent/management.
8.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
03.05.2016
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2451
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1091-—vkS|kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy
os;jgkmÇlx dkjiksjs’ku paMhx<+ jhtu ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,o Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ vkbZ Mh la- 190/2013½
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@141@2013&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1091.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D No. 190/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum
Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh region and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-42012/141/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH
Case ID No 190 of 2013, Reference No. L-42012/141/2013-IR(DU) dated 18.02.2014
Sh. Parket S/o Sh. Desa Ram, R/o Village & P.O.-Gurthil, Tehsil Narwana, Jind
… Workman
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh Region, Bay No. 35-38,Sector-4, Panchkulla
(Haryana)-134112.
… Respondent
Appearances
For the Workman : None.
For the Management : Shri N.K. Zakhmi Advocate
AWARD
Passed on: - 04-05-2016
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L--42012/141/2013-IR (DU) dated 18.02.2014,
the Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of the Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkulla in terminating the services
w.e.f. 26-01-2011 of Sh. Parket S/o Sh. Desa Ram , workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
Brief facts of the case according to the workman are that he was working as handling labour and was
performing the duties for loading/unloading the food grains for the Food Corporation of India storage thereof made by
the Central Warehousing Corporation. The management used to engage contractor by calling tender with certain terms
and conditions from the contractors and many complaints by the workman for not granting wages as per Minimum
Wages Act and other amenities against the contractor but management never taken any action against the labour
contractor. The inspection report clearly shows that contractor committed grave irregularities with the workman as no
attendance register was found at the spot, no notice was found with regard to the bases the workman, no representative
of the principal employer was found nominated and no annual return submitted to the authorised officer meaning thereby
the grave violation of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. When the workman agitated against the above violation, he was denied entry into the
premises of the management on 26-1-2011 which amounts to illegal termination without notice in violation of section
25-F of ID Act 1947. It is further submitted by the workman that there is departmentalize labour in agencies like Food
2452
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/ JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II SEC. 3(ii)]
Corporation of India but in the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, the workmen have been exploited.
It is further submitted by the workman that the state of Haryana and Punjab having its godowns and certain depots have
been put under the definition of prohibited areas for the Contract labour by the respective corporations are violating the
said prohibition by allowing the labour work done through contract labour. It is further submitted by the workman that
during the duty there was a police case and kalandra U/S 107/151 Cr.PC was prepared and accused persons were
restrained entry in the premises and workman not allowing performing duties at the depot of the management who is
very much employee of the respondent corporation. It is also submitted that as per the policy of the Haryana Govt., the
principal employer is responsible for the compliance of the labour laws. It is also submitted that contractors are violating
the agreement as well as the circular regarding departmentalization of the workers and the termination of the workman
without giving any specific reason, notice, despite the fact that he was working for more than 10 years is unjust,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provision of Section 2A and Section 25F of the ID Act 1947. It is prayed by the
workman that he may be reinstated in service with continuity of service, full back wages and the management may be
directed to pay wages to the workman as per minimum Wages Act along with all other attendant benefits.
3.
The management filed written statement, Preliminary objection has been taken by the management that the
workman was not in the employment of the management, therefore, there was indeed no privity of contract between the
workman and the management as the workman was engaged by the contractor M/s. Sahib Transport Co. Who was
providing loading, unloading and handling of food grains bags of FCI during the period from 4/2010 to 2/2011 and as
such the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of clause(s) of Section 2 of the I.D.Act 1947 as he was not
engaged by the management of CWC. It is further submitted by the management that since the work of loading,
unloading and transportation of stocks of food grains is not a regular nature but seasonal and intermittent, so the
management does not recruit its own employees. It enter into an agreement with third party for providing the above
services to the management and the workman who was performing the duties of loading, unloading and handling the
food grains was deputed by the above agency. The entire payment for the work done was made to the contractor at the
mutually agreed rates and contractor thereafter paid the same to his workers. No appointment letter or termination letter
was ever issued by the management to the workman and there is no relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management. The management also had no administrative, economic and disciplinary control over the
workman, therefore, the present reference deserves to be dismissed being without jurisdiction and not maintainable. It is
further submitted by the management that as admitted by the workman , the workman was engaged for the work of
casual nature by the contractor and also paid by the contractor and there exists no relationship of employer and employee
between the workman and the management. On merits also denied the averments made by the workman in his claim
statement and it is prayed by the management that claim of the workman may be dismissed with cost in the interest of
justice, equity and fair play.
4.
After filing of the reply by the management, the workman was provided sufficient opportunity for evidence.
But the workman did not file any affidavit nor placed any documents on the record in support of his claim statement. In
support of the written statement so filed by the management, the management filed the affidavit of one Shri Movie
Krishan, Regional Manager of the Central Warehousing Corporation almost on the same line as that of the written
statement. As none appeared for the workman to cross-examine the witness of the management, the affidavit of the
witness of the management, has been taken on record and case was adjourned for arguments. As the case was fixed for
arguments, none again appeared for the workman to argue the case.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the management and gone through the pleadings of the parties as available
on the record.
6.
From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the workman was working with the contractor M/S Sahib
Transport Co, Kurukshetra who was given the contract by the management for loading, unloading and transportation of
the food grains. The workman was never employed/ engaged by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation.
The workman has not produced any documents to show that he was ever engaged by the management. The workman
also failed to produce any appointment letter and termination letter issued by the management. As admitted by the
workman he was working with the contractor, therefore, there exist no relationship of employer employee between
management and the workman and it is held that services of the workman were never terminated by the management of
Central Warehousing Corporation as there was no privity of contract between the workman and management of Central
Warehousing Corporation.
7
Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, as the workman was not the employee of the
management of Central Warehousing Corporation, therefore, there is no question of termination of the services of the
workman w.e.f. 26-01-2011 by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and the workman is not entitled to
any relief from the respondent/management.
8.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
04.05.2016
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2453
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1092-—vkS|kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy
os;jgkmÇlx dkjiksjs’ku paMhx<+ jhtu ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ vkbZMh
la- 188½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@139@2013&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1092.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D No. 188/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum
Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh region and their workmen, which
was received by the Central Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-42012/139/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No 188 of 2013, Reference no. L-42012/139/2013-IR(DU) dated 18.02.2014
Sh. Kashmira S/o Sh. Dolat Ram, R/o Village Kalta, Tehsil Narwana,Jind
…… Workman.
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh Region, Bay No. 35-38,Sector-4,Panchkulla
(Haryana)-134112.
Respondent
Appearances
For the Workman : None.
For the Management : Shri N.K.Zakhmi Advocate.
AWARD
Passed on: - 04.05.2016
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L--42012/139/2013-IR (DU) dated 18.02.2014,
the Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of the Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkulla in terminating the services
w.e.f.26-01-2011 of Sh.Kashmira S/o Sh. Dolat Ram, workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
Brief facts of the case according to the workman are that he was working as handling labour and was
performing the duties for loading/unloading the food grains for the Food Corporation of India storage thereof made by
the Central Warehousing Corporation. The management used to engage contractor by calling tender with certain terms
and conditions from the contractors and many complaints by the workman for not granting wages as per Minimum
Wages Act and other amenities against the contractor but management never taken any action against the labour
contractor. The inspection report clearly shows that contractor committed grave irregularities with the workman as no
attendance register was found at the spot, no notice was found with regard to the bases the workman, no representative
of the principal employer was found nominated and no annual return submitted to the authorised officer meaning thereby
the grave violation of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. When the workman agitated against the above violation, he was denied entry into the
premises of the management on 26-1-2011 which amounts to illegal termination without notice in violation of section
25-F of ID Act 1947. It is further submitted by the workman that there is departmentalize labour in agencies like Food
2454
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/ JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II SEC. 3(ii)]
Corporation of India but in the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, the workmen have been exploited.
It is further submitted by the workman that the state of Haryana and Punjab having its godowns and certain depots have
been put under the definition of prohibited areas for the Contract labour by the respective corporations are violating the
said prohibition by allowing the labour work done through contract labour. It is further submitted by the workman that
during the duty there was a police case and kalandra U/S 107/151 Cr.PC was prepared and accused persons were
restrained entry in the premises and workman not allowing performing duties at the depot of the management who is
very much employee of the respondent corporation. It is also submitted that as per the policy of the Haryana Govt., the
principal employer is responsible for the compliance of the labour laws. It is also submitted that contractors are violating
the agreement as well as the circular regarding departmentalization of the workers and the termination of the workman
without giving any specific reason, notice, despite the fact that he was working for more than 10 years is unjust,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provision of Section 2A and Section 25F of the ID Act 1947. It is prayed by the
workman that he may be reinstated in service with continuity of service, full back wages and the management may be
directed to pay wages to the workman as per minimum Wages Act along with all other attendant benefits.
3.
The management filed written statement, Preliminary objection has been taken by the management that the
workman was not in the employment of the management, therefore, there was indeed no privity of contract between the
workman and the management as the workman was engaged by the contractor M/s. Sahib Transport Co. Who was
providing loading, unloading and handling of food grains bags of FCI during the period from 4/2010 to 2/2011 and as
such the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of clause(s) of Section 2 of the I.D.Act 1947 as he was not
engaged by the management of CWC. It is further submitted by the management that since the work of loading,
unloading and transportation of stocks of food grains is not a regular nature but seasonal and intermittent, so the
management does not recruit its own employees. It enter into an agreement with third party for providing the above
services to the management and the workman who was performing the duties of loading, unloading and handling the
food grains was deputed by the above agency. The entire payment for the work done was made to the contractor at the
mutually agreed rates and contractor thereafter paid the same to his workers. No appointment letter or termination letter
was ever issued by the management to the workman and there is no relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management. The management also had no administrative, economic and disciplinary control over the
workman, therefore, the present reference deserves to be dismissed being without jurisdiction and not maintainable. It is
further submitted by the management that as admitted by the workman , the workman was engaged for the work of
casual nature by the contractor and also paid by the contractor and there exists no relationship of employer and employee
between the workman and the management. On merits also denied the averments made by the workman in his claim
statement and it is prayed by the management that claim of the workman may be dismissed with cost in the interest of
justice, equity and fair play.
4.
After filing of the reply by the management, the workman was provided sufficient opportunity for evidence.
But the workman did not file any affidavit nor placed any documents on the record in support of his claim statement. In
support of the written statement so filed by the management, the management filed the affidavit of one Shri Movie
Krishan, Regional Manager of the Central Warehousing Corporation almost on the same line as that of the written
statement. As none appeared for the workman to cross-examine the witness of the management, the affidavit of the
witness of the management, has been taken on record and case was adjourned for arguments. As the case was fixed for
arguments, none again appeared for the workman to argue the case.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the management and gone through the pleadings of the parties as available
on the record.
6.
From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the workman was working with the contractor M/S Sahib
Transport Co, Kurukshetra who was given the contract by the management for loading, unloading and transportation of
the food grains. The workman was never employed/ engaged by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation.
The workman has not produced any documents to show that he was ever engaged by the management. The workman
also failed to produce any appointment letter and termination letter issued by the management. As admitted by the
workman he was working with the contractor, therefore, there exist no relationship of employer employee between
management and the workman and it is held that services of the workman were never terminated by the management of
Central Warehousing Corporation as there was no privity of contract between the workman and management of Central
Warehousing Corporation.
7.
Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, as the workman was not the employee of the
management of Central Warehousing Corporation, therefore, there is no question of termination of the services of the
workman w.e.f. 26-01-2011 by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and the workman is not entitled to
any relief from the respondent/management.
8.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
04.05.2016
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2455
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1093-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy
os;jgkmÇlx dkjiksjs’ku paMhx<+ jhtu ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,o Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ I.D No. 169½
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@95@2013&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1093.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D No. 169) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour
Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh region and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-42012/95/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Case No. ID No 169 of 2013, Reference no. L-42012/95/2013-IR(DU) dated 28.01.2014
Sh. Arjan S/O Sh.Kalar Singh R/O Birbal Nagar,Narwana, Jind (Haryana) Jind
….. Workman.
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh Region, Bay No. 35-38,Sector-4, Panchkulla
(Haryana)-134112.
….. Respondent
Appearances
For the Workman : None.
For the Management : Shri N.K.Zakhmi Advocate.
AWARD
Passed on: - 04-05-2016
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L--42012/95/2013-IR (DU) dated 28.01.2014,
the Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of the Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkulla in terminating the services
w.e.f. 26.01.2011 of Sh.Arjan S/O Sh.Kalar Singh , workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
Brief facts of the case according to the workman are that he was working as handling labour and was
performing the duties for loading/unloading the food grains for the Food Corporation of India storage thereof made by
the Central Warehousing Corporation. The management used to engage contractor by calling tender with certain terms
and conditions from the contractors and many complaints by the workman for not granting wages as per Minimum
Wages Act and other amenities against the contractor but management never taken any action against the labour
contractor. The inspection report clearly shows that contractor committed grave irregularities with the workman as no
attendance register was found at the spot, no notice was found with regard to the bases the workman, no representative
of the principal employer was found nominated and no annual return submitted to the authorised officer meaning thereby
the grave violation of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. When the workman agitated against the above violation, he was denied entry into the
premises of the management on 26-1-2011 which amounts to illegal termination without notice in violation of section
25-F of ID Act 1947. It is further submitted by the workman that there is departmentalize labour in agencies like Food
Corporation of India but in the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, the workmen have been exploited.
It is further submitted by the workman that the state of Haryana and Punjab having its godowns and certain depots have
2456
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/ JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II SEC. 3(ii)]
been put under the definition of prohibited areas for the Contract labour by the respective corporations are violating the
said prohibition by allowing the labour work done through contract labour. It is further submitted by the workman that
during the duty there was a police case and kalandra U/S 107/151 Cr.PC was prepared and accused persons were
restrained entry in the premises and workman not allowing performing duties at the depot of the management who is
very much employee of the respondent corporation. It is also submitted that as per the policy of the Haryana Govt., the
principal employer is responsible for the compliance of the labour laws. It is also submitted that contractors are violating
the agreement as well as the circular regarding departmentalization of the workers and the termination of the workman
without giving any specific reason, notice, despite the fact that he was working for more than 10 years is unjust,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provision of Section 2A and Section 25F of the ID Act 1947. It is prayed by the
workman that he may be reinstated in service with continuity of service, full back wages and the management may be
directed to pay wages to the workman as per minimum Wages Act along with all other attendant benefits.
3.
The management filed written statement, Preliminary objection has been taken by the management that the
workman was not in the employment of the management, therefore, there was indeed no privity of contract between the
workman and the management as the workman was engaged by the contractor M/S Sahib Transport Co. Who was
providing loading, unloading and handling of food grains bags of FCI during the period from 4/2010 to 2/2011 and as
such the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of clause(s) of Section 2 of the I.D.Act 1947 as he was not
engaged by the management of CWC. It is further submitted by the management that since the work of loading,
unloading and transportation of stocks of food grains is not a regular nature but seasonal and intermittent, so the
management does not recruit its own employees. It enter into an agreement with third party for providing the above
services to the management and the workman who was performing the duties of loading, unloading and handling the
food grains was deputed by the above agency. The entire payment for the work done was made to the contractor at the
mutually agreed rates and contractor thereafter paid the same to his workers. No appointment letter or termination letter
was ever issued by the management to the workman and there is no relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management. The management also had no administrative, economic and disciplinary control over the
workman, therefore, the present reference deserves to be dismissed being without jurisdiction and not maintainable. It is
further submitted by the management that as admitted by the workman , the workman was engaged for the work of
casual nature by the contractor and also paid by the contractor and there exists no relationship of employer and employee
between the workman and the management. On merits also denied the averments made by the workman in his claim
statement and it is prayed by the management that claim of the workman may be dismissed with cost in the interest of
justice, equity and fair play.
4.
After filing of the reply by the management, the workman was provided sufficient opportunity for evidence.
But the workman did not file any affidavit nor placed any documents on the record in support of his claim statement. In
support of the written statement so filed by the management, the management filed the affidavit of one Shri Movie
Krishan, Regional Manager of the Central Warehousing Corporation almost on the same line as that of the written
statement. As none appeared for the workman to cross-examine the witness of the management, the affidavit of the
witness of the management, has been taken on record and case was adjourned for arguments. As the case was fixed for
arguments, none again appeared for the workman to argue the case.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the management and gone through the pleadings of the parties as available
on the record.
6.
From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the workman was working with the contractor M/S Sahib
Transport Co, Kurukshetra who was given the contract by the management for loading, unloading and transportation of
the food grains. The workman was never employed/ engaged by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation.
The workman has not produced any documents to show that he was ever engaged by the management. The workman
also failed to produce any appointment letter and termination letter issued by the management. As admitted by the
workman he was working with the contractor, therefore, there exist no relationship of employer employee between
management and the workman and it is held that services of the workman were never terminated by the management of
Central Warehousing Corporation as there was no privity of contract between the workman and management of Central
Warehousing Corporation.
7.
Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, as the workman was not the employee of the
management of Central Warehousing Corporation, therefore, there is no question of termination of the services of the
workman w.e.f. 26-01-2011 by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and the workman is not entitled to
any relief from the respondent/management.
8.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
04.05.2016
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2457
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1094-—vkS|kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy
os;jgkmÇlx dkjiksjs’ku paMhx<+ jhtu ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ vkbZMh la-
167/2013½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@93@2013&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1094.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D No. 167/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum
Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh region and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-42012/93/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Case ID No 167 of 2013, Reference no. L-42012/93/2013-IR(DU) dated 28.01.2014
Sh. Sanjay Mehto S/O Sh. Baleshwar R/O Gandhi Nagar,Narwana, Jind (Haryana) Jind
….. Workman.
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh Region, Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4, Panchkulla
(Haryana)-134112.
…… Respondent
Appearances
For the Workman : None.
For the Management : Shri N.K.Zakhmi Advocate.
AWARD
Passed on: -04-05-2016
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L--42012/93/2013-IR (DU) dated 28.01.2014,
the Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of the Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkulla in terminating the services
w.e.f. 26.01.2011 of Sh.Sanjay Mehto S/O Sh. Baleshwar, workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
Brief facts of the case according to the workman are that he was working as handling labour and was
performing the duties for loading/unloading the food grains for the Food Corporation of India storage thereof made by
the Central Warehousing Corporation. The management used to engage contractor by calling tender with certain terms
and conditions from the contractors and many complaints by the workman for not granting wages as per Minimum
Wages Act and other amenities against the contractor but management never taken any action against the labour
contractor. The inspection report clearly shows that contractor committed grave irregularities with the workman as no
attendance register was found at the spot, no notice was found with regard to the bases the workman, no representative
of the principal employer was found nominated and no annual return submitted to the authorised officer meaning thereby
the grave violation of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. When the workman agitated against the above violation, he was denied entry into the
premises of the management on 26-1-2011 which amounts to illegal termination without notice in violation of section
25-F of ID Act 1947. It is further submitted by the workman that there is departmentalize labour in agencies like Food
Corporation of India but in the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, the workmen have been exploited.
It is further submitted by the workman that the State of Haryana and Punjab having its godowns and certain depots have
2458
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/ JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II SEC. 3(ii)]
been put under the definition of prohibited areas for the Contract labour by the respective corporations are violating the
said prohibition by allowing the labour work done through contract labour. It is further submitted by the workman that
during the duty there was a police case and kalandra U/S 107/151 Cr.PC was prepared and accused persons were
restrained entry in the premises and workman not allowing performing duties at the depot of the management who is
very much employee of the respondent corporation. It is also submitted that as per the policy of the Haryana Govt., the
principal employer is responsible for the compliance of the labour laws. It is also submitted that contractors are violating
the agreement as well as the circular regarding departmentalization of the workers and the termination of the workman
without giving any specific reason, notice, despite the fact that he was working for more than 10 years is unjust,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provision of Section 2A and Section 25F of the ID Act 1947. It is prayed by the
workman that he may be reinstated in service with continuity of service, full back wages and the management may be
directed to pay wages to the workman as per minimum Wages Act along with all other attendant benefits.
3.
The management filed written statement, Preliminary objection has been taken by the management that the
workman was not in the employment of the management, therefore, there was indeed no privity of contract between the
workman and the management as the workman was engaged by the contractor M/s Sahib Transport Co. Who was
providing loading, unloading and handling of food grains bags of FCI during the period from 4/2010 to 2/2011 and as
such the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of clause(s) of Section 2 of the I.D.Act 1947 as he was not
engaged by the management of CWC. It is further submitted by the management that since the work of loading,
unloading and transportation of stocks of food grains is not a regular nature but seasonal and intermittent, so the
management does not recruit its own employees. It enter into an agreement with third party for providing the above
services to the management and the workman who was performing the duties of loading, unloading and handling the
food grains was deputed by the above agency. The entire payment for the work done was made to the contractor at the
mutually agreed rates and contractor thereafter paid the same to his workers. No appointment letter or termination letter
was ever issued by the management to the workman and there is no relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management. The management also had no administrative, economic and disciplinary control over the
workman, therefore, the present reference deserves to be dismissed being without jurisdiction and not maintainable. It is
further submitted by the management that as admitted by the workman , the workman was engaged for the work of
casual nature by the contractor and also paid by the contractor and there exists no relationship of employer and employee
between the workman and the management. On merits also denied the averments made by the workman in his claim
statement and it is prayed by the management that claim of the workman may be dismissed with cost in the interest of
justice, equity and fair play.
4.
After filing of the reply by the management, the workman was provided sufficient opportunity for evidence.
But the workman did not file any affidavit nor placed any documents on the record in support of his claim statement. In
support of the written statement so filed by the management, the management filed the affidavit of one Shri Movie
Krishan, Regional Manager of the Central Warehousing Corporation almost on the same line as that of the written
statement. As none appeared for the workman to cross-examine the witness of the management, the affidavit of the
witness of the management, has been taken on record and case was adjourned for arguments. As the case was fixed for
arguments, none again appeared for the workman to argue the case.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the management and gone through the pleadings of the parties as available
on the record.
6.
From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the workman was working with the contractor M/s. Sahib
Transport Co, Kurukshetra who was given the contract by the management for loading, unloading and transportation of
the food grains. The workman was never employed/ engaged by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation.
The workman has not produced any documents to show that he was ever engaged by the management. The workman
also failed to produce any appointment letter and termination letter issued by the management. As admitted by the
workman he was working with the contractor, therefore, there exist no relationship of employer employee between
management and the workman and it is held that services of the workman were never terminated by the management of
Central Warehousing Corporation as there was no privity of contract between the workman and management of Central
Warehousing Corporation.
7.
Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, as the workman was not the employee of the
management of Central Warehousing Corporation, therefore, there is no question of termination of the services of the
workman w.e.f. 26-01-2011 by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and the workman is not entitled to
any relief from the respondent/management.
8.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
04.05.2016
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2459
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1095-—vkS|kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy
os;jgkmÇlx dkjiksjs’ku paMhx<+ jhtu ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ vkbZMh la-
166/2013½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@92@2013&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1095.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D No. 166/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum
Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh region and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-42012/92/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No 166 of 2013, Reference No. L-42012/92/2013-IR(DU) dated 28.01.2014
Sh.Subhash S/O Sh. Randhari V & PO: Belarkhan, Narwana, Jind (Haryana) Jind
…Workman.
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh Region, Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4, Panchkulla
(Haryana)-134112.
… Respondent
Appearances
For the Workman : None.
For the Management : Shri N.K.Zakhmi Advocate.
AWARD
Passed on: - 03.05.2016
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L--42012/92/2013-IR (DU) dated 28.01.2014,
the Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of the Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkulla in terminating the services
w.e.f. 26.01.2011 of Sh.Subhash S/O Sh. Randhari , workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
Brief facts of the case according to the workman are that he was working as handling labour and was
performing the duties for loading/unloading the food grains for the Food Corporation of India storage thereof made by
the Central Warehousing Corporation. The management used to engage contractor by calling tender with certain terms
and conditions from the contractors and many complaints by the workman for not granting wages as per Minimum
Wages Act and other amenities against the contractor but management never taken any action against the labour
contractor. The inspection report clearly shows that contractor committed grave irregularities with the workman as no
attendance register was found at the spot, no notice was found with regard to the bases the workman, no representative
of the principal employer was found nominated and no annual return submitted to the authorised officer meaning thereby
the grave violation of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. When the workman agitated against the above violation, he was denied entry into the
premises of the management on 26-1-2011 which amounts to illegal termination without notice in violation of section
25-F of ID Act 1947. It is further submitted by the workman that there is departmentalize labour in agencies like Food
Corporation of India but in the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, the workmen have been exploited.
2460
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/ JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II SEC. 3(ii)]
It is further submitted by the workman that the state of Haryana and Punjab having its godowns and certain depots have
been put under the definition of prohibited areas for the Contract labour by the respective corporations are violating the
said prohibition by allowing the labour work done through contract labour. It is further submitted by the workman that
during the duty there was a police case and kalandra U/S 107/151 Cr.PC was prepared and accused persons were
restrained entry in the premises and workman not allowing performing duties at the depot of the management who is
very much employee of the respondent corporation. It is also submitted that as per the policy of the Haryana Govt., the
principal employer is responsible for the compliance of the labour laws. It is also submitted that contractors are violating
the agreement as well as the circular regarding departmentalization of the workers and the termination of the workman
without giving any specific reason, notice, despite the fact that he was working for more than 10 years is unjust,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provision of Section 2A and Section 25F of the ID Act 1947. It is prayed by the
workman that he may be reinstated in service with continuity of service, full back wages and the management may be
directed to pay wages to the workman as per minimum Wages Act along with all other attendant benefits.
3.
The management filed written statement, Preliminary objection has been taken by the management that the
workman was not in the employment of the management, therefore, there was indeed no privity of contract between the
workman and the management as the workman was engaged by the contractor M/s. Sahib Transport Co. Who was
providing loading, unloading and handling of food grains bags of FCI during the period from 4/2010 to 2/2011 and as
such the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of clause(s) of Section 2 of the I.D.Act 1947 as he was not
engaged by the management of CWC. It is further submitted by the management that since the work of loading,
unloading and transportation of stocks of food grains is not a regular nature but seasonal and intermittent, so the
management does not recruit its own employees. It enter into an agreement with third party for providing the above
services to the management and the workman who was performing the duties of loading, unloading and handling the
food grains was deputed by the above agency. The entire payment for the work done was made to the contractor at the
mutually agreed rates and contractor thereafter paid the same to his workers. No appointment letter or termination letter
was ever issued by the management to the workman and there is no relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management. The management also had no administrative, economic and disciplinary control over the
workman, therefore, the present reference deserves to be dismissed being without jurisdiction and not maintainable. It is
further submitted by the management that as admitted by the workman , the workman was engaged for the work of
casual nature by the contractor and also paid by the contractor and there exists no relationship of employer and employee
between the workman and the management. On merits also denied the averments made by the workman in his claim
statement and it is prayed by the management that claim of the workman may be dismissed with cost in the interest of
justice, equity and fair play.
4.
After filing of the reply by the management, the workman was provided sufficient opportunity for evidence.
But the workman did not file any affidavit nor placed any documents on the record in support of his claim statement. In
support of the written statement so filed by the management, the management filed the affidavit of one Shri Movie
Krishan, Regional Manager of the Central Warehousing Corporation almost on the same line as that of the written
statement. As none appeared for the workman to cross-examine the witness of the management, the affidavit of the
witness of the management, has been taken on record and case was adjourned for arguments. As the case was fixed for
arguments, none again appeared for the workman to argue the case.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the management and gone through the pleadings of the parties as available
on the record.
6.
From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the workman was working with the contractor M/s. Sahib
Transport Co, Kurukshetra who was given the contract by the management for loading, unloading and transportation of
the food grains. The workman was never employed/ engaged by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation.
The workman has not produced any documents to show that he was ever engaged by the management. The workman
also failed to produce any appointment letter and termination letter issued by the management. As admitted by the
workman he was working with the contractor, therefore, there exist no relationship of employer employee between
management and the workman and it is held that services of the workman were never terminated by the management of
Central Warehousing Corporation as there was no privity of contract between the workman and management of Central
Warehousing Corporation.
7.
Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, as the workman was not the employee of the
management of Central Warehousing Corporation, therefore, there is no question of termination of the services of the
workman w.e.f. 26-01-2011 by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and the workman is not entitled to
any relief from the respondent/management.
8.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
03.05.2016
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2461
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1096-—vkS|kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy
os;jgkmÇlx dkjiksjs’ku paMhx<+ jhtu ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ I.D No. 158/2013½ dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@84@2013&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1096.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D No. 158/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum
Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh region and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-42012/84/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Case No. ID No 158 of 2013, Reference No. L-42012/84/2013-IR(DU) dated 28.01.2014
Sh. Ramdaresh son of Shri Kalar Singh, R/o Birbal Nagar, Narwana, Jind (Haryana) Jind
…..Workman
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh Region, Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4, Panchkulla
(Haryana)-134112.
….. Respondent
Appearances
For the Workman : None
For the Management : Shri N.K.Zakhmi Advocate
AWARD
Passed on: - 03.05.2016
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L--42012/84/2013-IR (DU) dated 28.01.2014,
the Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of the Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkulla in terminating the services
w.e.f. 26.01.2011 of Sh. Ramdaresh son of Shri Kalar Singh, workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
Brief facts of the case according to the workman are that he was working as handling labour and was
performing the duties for loading/unloading the food grains for the Food Corporation of India storage thereof made by
the Central Warehousing Corporation. The management used to engage contractor by calling tender with certain terms
and conditions from the contractors and many complaints by the workman for not granting wages as per Minimum
Wages Act and other amenities against the contractor but management never taken any action against the labour
contractor. The inspection report clearly shows that contractor committed grave irregularities with the workman as no
attendance register was found at the spot, no notice was found with regard to the bases the workman, no representative
of the principal employer was found nominated and no annual return submitted to the authorised officer meaning thereby
the grave violation of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. When the workman agitated against the above violation, he was denied entry into the
premises of the management on 26-1-2011 which amounts to illegal termination without notice in violation of section
25-F of ID Act 1947. It is further submitted by the workman that there is departmentalize labour in agencies like Food
Corporation of India but in the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, the workmen have been exploited.
It is further submitted by the workman that the state of Haryana and Punjab having its godowns and certain depots have
2462
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/ JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II SEC. 3(ii)]
been put under the definition of prohibited areas for the Contract labour by the respective corporations are violating the
said prohibition by allowing the labour work done through contract labour. It is further submitted by the workman that
during the duty there was a police case and kalandra U/s 107/151 Cr.PC was prepared and accused persons were
restrained entry in the premises and workman not allowing performing duties at the depot of the management who is
very much employee of the respondent corporation. It is also submitted that as per the policy of the Haryana Govt., the
principal employer is responsible for the compliance of the labour laws. It is also submitted that contractors are violating
the agreement as well as the circular regarding departmentalization of the workers and the termination of the workman
without giving any specific reason, notice, despite the fact that he was working for more than 10 years is unjust,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provision of Section 2A and Section 25F of the ID Act 1947. It is prayed by the
workman that he may be reinstated in service with continuity of service, full back wages and the management may be
directed to pay wages to the workman as per minimum Wages Act along with all other attendant benefits.
3.
The management filed written statement, Preliminary objection has been taken by the management that the
workman was not in the employment of the management, therefore, there was indeed no privity of contract between the
workman and the management as the workman was engaged by the contractor M/s. Sahib Transport Co. Who was
providing loading, unloading and handling of food grains bags of FCI during the period from 4/2010 to 2/2011 and as
such the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of clause(s) of Section 2 of the I.D.Act 1947 as he was not
engaged by the management of CWC. It is further submitted by the management that since the work of loading,
unloading and transportation of stocks of food grains is not a regular nature but seasonal and intermittent, so the
management does not recruit its own employees. It enter into an agreement with third party for providing the above
services to the management and the workman who was performing the duties of loading, unloading and handling the
food grains was deputed by the above agency. The entire payment for the work done was made to the contractor at the
mutually agreed rates and contractor thereafter paid the same to his workers. No appointment letter or termination letter
was ever issued by the management to the workman and there is no relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management. The management also had no administrative, economic and disciplinary control over the
workman, therefore, the present reference deserves to be dismissed being without jurisdiction and not maintainable. It is
further submitted by the management that as admitted by the workman, the workman was engaged for the work of casual
nature by the contractor and also paid by the contractor and there exists no relationship of employer and employee
between the workman and the management. On merits also denied the averments made by the workman in his claim
statement and it is prayed by the management that claim of the workman may be dismissed with cost in the interest of
justice, equity and fair play.
4.
After filing of the reply by the management, the workman was provided sufficient opportunity for evidence.
But the workman did not file any affidavit nor placed any documents on the record in support of his claim statement. In
support of the written statement so filed by the management, the management filed the affidavit of one Shri Movie
Krishan, Regional Manager of the Central Warehousing Corporation almost on the same line as that of the written
statement. As none appeared for the workman to cross-examine the witness of the management, the affidavit of the
witness of the management, has been taken on record and case was adjourned for arguments. As the case was fixed for
arguments, none again appeared for the workman to argue the case.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the management and gone through the pleadings of the parties as available
on the record.
6.
From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the workman was working with the contractor M/s. Sahib
Transport Co, Kurukshetra who was given the contract by the management for loading, unloading and transportation of
the food grains. The workman was never employed/ engaged by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation.
The workman has not produced any documents to show that he was ever engaged by the management. The workman
also failed to produce any appointment letter and termination letter issued by the management. As admitted by the
workman he was working with the contractor, therefore, there exist no relationship of employer employee between
management and the workman and it is held that services of the workman were never terminated by the management of
Central Warehousing Corporation as there was no privity of contract between the workman and management of Central
Warehousing Corporation.
7.
Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, as the workman was not the employee of the
management of Central Warehousing Corporation, therefore, there is no question of termination of the services of the
workman w.e.f. 26-01-2011 by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and the workman is not entitled to
any relief from the respondent/management.
8.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
03.05.2016
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2463
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1097-—vkS|kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy
os;jgkmÇlx dkjiksjs’ku paMhx<+ jhtu ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ I.D No.
163/2013½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@89@2013&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1097.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D No. 163) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour
Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh region and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-42012/89/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No 163 of 2013, Reference No. L-42012/89/2013-IR(DU) dated 28.01.2014
Sh. Koka S/O Sh. Rai Singh VPO – Litani. Teh – Barwala, Hisar (Haryana)
….Workman.
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh Region, Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4, Panchkulla
(Haryana)-134112.
……. Respondent
Appearances
For the Workman : None.
For the Management : Shri N.K.Zakhmi Advocate.
AWARD
Passed on: -03.05.2016
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L--42012/89/2013-IR (DU) dated 28.01.2014,
the Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of the Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkulla in terminating the services
w.e.f. 26.01.2011 of Sh.Koka S/o Sh. Rai Singh , workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
Brief facts of the case according to the workman are that he was working as handling labour and was
performing the duties for loading/unloading the food grains for the Food Corporation of India storage thereof made by
the Central Warehousing Corporation. The management used to engage contractor by calling tender with certain terms
and conditions from the contractors and many complaints by the workman for not granting wages as per Minimum
Wages Act and other amenities against the contractor but management never taken any action against the labour
contractor. The inspection report clearly shows that contractor committed grave irregularities with the workman as no
attendance register was found at the spot, no notice was found with regard to the bases the workman, no representative
of the principal employer was found nominated and no annual return submitted to the authorised officer meaning thereby
the grave violation of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. When the workman agitated against the above violation, he was denied entry into the
premises of the management on 26-1-2011 which amounts to illegal termination without notice in violation of section
25-F of ID Act 1947. It is further submitted by the workman that there is departmentalize labour in agencies like Food
Corporation of India but in the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, the workmen have been exploited.
It is further submitted by the workman that the state of Haryana and Punjab having its godowns and certain depots have
2464
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/ JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II SEC. 3(ii)]
been put under the definition of prohibited areas for the Contract labour by the respective corporations are violating the
said prohibition by allowing the labour work done through contract labour. It is further submitted by the workman that
during the duty there was a police case and kalandra U/S 107/151 Cr.PC was prepared and accused persons were
restrained entry in the premises and workman not allowing performing duties at the depot of the management who is
very much employee of the respondent corporation. It is also submitted that as per the policy of the Haryana Govt., the
principal employer is responsible for the compliance of the labour laws. It is also submitted that contractors are violating
the agreement as well as the circular regarding departmentalization of the workers and the termination of the workman
without giving any specific reason, notice, despite the fact that he was working for more than 10 years is unjust,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provision of Section 2A and Section 25F of the ID Act 1947. It is prayed by the
workman that he may be reinstated in service with continuity of service, full back wages and the management may be
directed to pay wages to the workman as per minimum Wages Act along with all other attendant benefits.
3.
The management filed written statement, Preliminary objection has been taken by the management that the
workman was not in the employment of the management, therefore, there was indeed no privity of contract between the
workman and the management as the workman was engaged by the contractor M/S Sahib Transport Co. Who was
providing loading, unloading and handling of food grains bags of FCI during the period from 4/2010 to 2/2011 and as
such the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of clause(s) of Section 2 of the I.D.Act 1947 as he was not
engaged by the management of CWC. It is further submitted by the management that since the work of loading,
unloading and transportation of stocks of food grains is not a regular nature but seasonal and intermittent, so the
management does not recruit its own employees. It enter into an agreement with third party for providing the above
services to the management and the workman who was performing the duties of loading, unloading and handling the
food grains was deputed by the above agency. The entire payment for the work done was made to the contractor at the
mutually agreed rates and contractor thereafter paid the same to his workers. No appointment letter or termination letter
was ever issued by the management to the workman and there is no relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management. The management also had no administrative, economic and disciplinary control over the
workman, therefore, the present reference deserves to be dismissed being without jurisdiction and not maintainable. It is
further submitted by the management that as admitted by the workman , the workman was engaged for the work of
casual nature by the contractor and also paid by the contractor and there exists no relationship of employer and employee
between the workman and the management. On merits also denied the averments made by the workman in his claim
statement and it is prayed by the management that claim of the workman may be dismissed with cost in the interest of
justice, equity and fair play.
4.
After filing of the reply by the management, the workman was provided sufficient opportunity for evidence.
But the workman did not file any affidavit nor placed any documents on the record in support of his claim statement. In
support of the written statement so filed by the management, the management filed the affidavit of one Shri Movie
Krishan, Regional Manager of the Central Warehousing Corporation almost on the same line as that of the written
statement. As none appeared for the workman to cross-examine the witness of the management, the affidavit of the
witness of the management, has been taken on record and case was adjourned for arguments. As the case was fixed for
arguments, none again appeared for the workman to argue the case.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the management and gone through the pleadings of the parties as available
on the record.
6.
From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the workman was working with the contractor M/s. Sahib
Transport Co, Kurukshetra who was given the contract by the management for loading, unloading and transportation of
the food grains. The workman was never employed/ engaged by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation.
The workman has not produced any documents to show that he was ever engaged by the management. The workman
also failed to produce any appointment letter and termination letter issued by the management. As admitted by the
workman he was working with the contractor, therefore, there exist no relationship of employer employee between
management and the workman and it is held that services of the workman were never terminated by the management of
Central Warehousing Corporation as there was no privity of contract between the workman and management of Central
Warehousing Corporation.
7.
Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, as the workman was not the employee of the
management of Central Warehousing Corporation, therefore, there is no question of termination of the services of the
workman w.e.f. 26-01-2011 by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and the workman is not entitled to
any relief from the respondent/management.
8.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
03.05.2016
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2465
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1098-—vkS|kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy
os;jgkmÇlx dkjiksjs’ku paMhx<+ jhtu ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ I.D No.
279/2013½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@173@2013&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1098.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D No. 279/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum
Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh region and their workmen, which
was received by the Central Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-42012/173/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Case No. ID No 279 of 2013, Reference No. L-42012/173/2013-IR(DU) dated 26.02.2014
Shri Dhyan Chand S/O Sh. Kulwant, Village & P.O.Surja Khera, Teh-Narwana, Jind.
….. Workman.
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh Region, Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4, Panchkulla
(Haryana)-134112.
…… Respondent
Appearances
For the Workman : None.
For the Management : Shri N.K.Zakhmi Advocate.
AWARD
Passed on: - 05-05-2016
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L--42012/173/2013-IR (DU) dated 26.02.2014,
the Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of the Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkulla in terminating the services
of Sh. Dhyan Chand S/O Sh. Kulwant , workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
2.
Brief facts of the case according to the workman are that he was working as handling labour and was
performing the duties for loading/unloading the food grains for the Food Corporation of India storage thereof made by
the Central Warehousing Corporation. The management used to engage contractor by calling tender with certain terms
and conditions from the contractors and many complaints by the workman for not granting wages as per Minimum
Wages Act and other amenities against the contractor but management never taken any action against the labour
contractor. The inspection report clearly shows that contractor committed grave irregularities with the workman as no
attendance register was found at the spot, no notice was found with regard to the bases the workman, no representative
of the principal employer was found nominated and no annual return submitted to the authorised officer meaning thereby
the grave violation of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. When the workman agitated against the above violation, he was denied entry into the
premises of the management on 26-1-2011 which amounts to illegal termination without notice in violation of section
25-F of ID Act 1947. It is further submitted by the workman that there is departmentalize labour in agencies like Food
Corporation of India but in the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, the workmen have been exploited.
It is further submitted by the workman that the state of Haryana and Punjab having its godowns and certain depots have
2466
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/ JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II SEC. 3(ii)]
been put under the definition of prohibited areas for the Contract labour by the respective corporations are violating the
said prohibition by allowing the labour work done through contract labour. It is further submitted by the workman that
during the duty there was a police case and kalandra U/s. 107/151 Cr.PC was prepared and accused persons were
restrained entry in the premises and workman not allowing performing duties at the depot of the management who is
very much employee of the respondent corporation. It is also submitted that as per the policy of the Haryana Govt., the
principal employer is responsible for the compliance of the labour laws. It is also submitted that contractors are violating
the agreement as well as the circular regarding departmentalization of the workers and the termination of the workman
without giving any specific reason, notice, despite the fact that he was working for more than 10 years is unjust,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provision of Section 2A and Section 25F of the ID Act 1947. It is prayed by the
workman that he may be reinstated in service with continuity of service, full back wages and the management may be
directed to pay wages to the workman as per minimum Wages Act along with all other attendant benefits.
3.
The management filed written statement, Preliminary objection has been taken by the management that the
workman was not in the employment of the management, therefore, there was indeed no privity of contract between the
workman and the management as the workman was engaged by the contractor M/s. Sahib Transport Co. Who was
providing loading, unloading and handling of food grains bags of FCI during the period from 4/2010 to 2/2011 and as
such the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of clause(s) of Section 2 of the I.D.Act 1947 as he was not
engaged by the management of CWC. It is further submitted by the management that since the work of loading,
unloading and transportation of stocks of food grains is not a regular nature but seasonal and intermittent, so the
management does not recruit its own employees. It enter into an agreement with third party for providing the above
services to the management and the workman who was performing the duties of loading, unloading and handling the
food grains was deputed by the above agency. The entire payment for the work done was made to the contractor at the
mutually agreed rates and contractor thereafter paid the same to his workers. No appointment letter or termination letter
was ever issued by the management to the workman and there is no relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management. The management also had no administrative, economic and disciplinary control over the
workman, therefore, the present reference deserves to be dismissed being without jurisdiction and not maintainable. It is
further submitted by the management that as admitted by the workman , the workman was engaged for the work of
casual nature by the contractor and also paid by the contractor and there exists no relationship of employer and employee
between the workman and the management. On merits also denied the averments made by the workman in his claim
statement and it is prayed by the management that claim of the workman may be dismissed with cost in the interest of
justice, equity and fair play.
4.
In evidence, the workman filed his affidavit along with documents in support of his claim statement. Despite
sufficient opportunity, workman failed to enter in the witness box for the acid test of cross-examination by the
management. Vide order of this Tribunal dated 12.4.2016 as the workman did not appear for cross-examination, his
evidence was closed and the affidavit filed by the workman ordered to be not to be read in evidence. In support of the
written statement so filed by the management, the management filed the affidavit of one Shri Movie Krishan, Regional
Manager of the Central Warehousing Corporation almost on the same line as that of the written statement. As none
appeared for the workman to cross-examine the witness of the management, the affidavit of the witness of the
management, has been taken on record and case was adjourned for arguments. As the case was fixed for arguments,
none again appeared for the workman to argue the case.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the management and gone through the pleadings of the parties as available
on the record.
6.
From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the workman was working with the contractor M/s. Sahib
Transport Co, Kurukshetra who was given the contract by the management for loading, unloading and transportation of
the food grains. The workman was never employed/ engaged by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation.
The workman has not produced any documents to show that he was ever engaged by the management. The workman
also failed to produce any appointment letter and termination letter issued by the management. As admitted by the
workman he was working with the contractor, therefore, there exist no relationship of employer employee between
management and the workman and it is held that services of the workman were never terminated by the management of
Central Warehousing Corporation as there was no privity of contract between the workman and management of Central
Warehousing Corporation.
7.
Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, as the workman was not the employee of the
management of Central Warehousing Corporation, therefore, there is no question of termination of the services of the
workman w.e.f. 26-01-2011 by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and the workman is not entitled to
any relief from the respondent/management.
8.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
05.05.2016
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2467
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1099-—vkS|kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy
os;jgkmÇlx dkjiksjs’ku paMhx<+ jhtu ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ vkbZMh la-
278/2013½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@172@2013&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1099.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D No. 278/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh region and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-42012/172/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No 278 of 2013, Reference No. L-42012/172/2013-IR(DU) dated 26.02.2014
Shri Satbir S/o Shri Gyasu Ram, Vill & P.O. Balerkha, Teh-Narwana, Jind.
….. Workman
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh Region, Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4, Panchkulla
(Haryana)-134112.
…. Respondent
Appearances
For the Workman : None
For the Management : Shri N.K. Zakhmi Advocate
AWARD
Passed on: -05-05-2016
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L--42012/172/2013-IR (DU) dated 26.02.2014,
the Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of the Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkulla in terminating the services
of Sh. Satbir S/o Sh. Gyasu Ram , workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
2.
Brief facts of the case according to the workman are that he was working as handling labour and was
performing the duties for loading/unloading the food grains for the Food Corporation of India storage thereof made by
the Central Warehousing Corporation. The management used to engage contractor by calling tender with certain terms
and conditions from the contractors and many complaints by the workman for not granting wages as per Minimum
Wages Act and other amenities against the contractor but management never taken any action against the labour
contractor. The inspection report clearly shows that contractor committed grave irregularities with the workman as no
attendance register was found at the spot, no notice was found with regard to the bases the workman, no representative
of the principal employer was found nominated and no annual return submitted to the authorised officer meaning thereby
the grave violation of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. When the workman agitated against the above violation, he was denied entry into the
premises of the management on 26-1-2011 which amounts to illegal termination without notice in violation of section
25-F of ID Act 1947. It is further submitted by the workman that there is departmentalize labour in agencies like Food
Corporation of India but in the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, the workmen have been exploited.
It is further submitted by the workman that the state of Haryana and Punjab having its godowns and certain depots have
2468
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/ JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II SEC. 3(ii)]
been put under the definition of prohibited areas for the Contract labour by the respective corporations are violating the
said prohibition by allowing the labour work done through contract labour. It is further submitted by the workman that
during the duty there was a police case and kalandra U/s. 107/151 Cr.PC was prepared and accused persons were
restrained entry in the premises and workman not allowing performing duties at the depot of the management who is
very much employee of the respondent corporation. It is also submitted that as per the policy of the Haryana Govt., the
principal employer is responsible for the compliance of the labour laws. It is also submitted that contractors are violating
the agreement as well as the circular regarding departmentalization of the workers and the termination of the workman
without giving any specific reason, notice, despite the fact that he was working for more than 10 years is unjust,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provision of Section 2A and Section 25F of the ID Act 1947. It is prayed by the
workman that he may be reinstated in service with continuity of service, full back wages and the management may be
directed to pay wages to the workman as per minimum Wages Act along with all other attendant benefits.
3.
The management filed written statement, Preliminary objection has been taken by the management that the
workman was not in the employment of the management, therefore, there was indeed no privity of contract between the
workman and the management as the workman was engaged by the contractor M/s. Sahib Transport Co. Who was
providing loading, unloading and handling of food grains bags of FCI during the period from 4/2010 to 2/2011 and as
such the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of clause(s) of Section 2 of the I.D.Act 1947 as he was not
engaged by the management of CWC. It is further submitted by the management that since the work of loading,
unloading and transportation of stocks of food grains is not a regular nature but seasonal and intermittent, so the
management does not recruit its own employees. It enter into an agreement with third party for providing the above
services to the management and the workman who was performing the duties of loading, unloading and handling the
food grains was deputed by the above agency. The entire payment for the work done was made to the contractor at the
mutually agreed rates and contractor thereafter paid the same to his workers. No appointment letter or termination letter
was ever issued by the management to the workman and there is no relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management. The management also had no administrative, economic and disciplinary control over the
workman, therefore, the present reference deserves to be dismissed being without jurisdiction and not maintainable. It is
further submitted by the management that as admitted by the workman , the workman was engaged for the work of
casual nature by the contractor and also paid by the contractor and there exists no relationship of employer and employee
between the workman and the management. On merits also denied the averments made by the workman in his claim
statement and it is prayed by the management that claim of the workman may be dismissed with cost in the interest of
justice, equity and fair play.
4.
In evidence, the workman filed his affidavit along with documents in support of his claim statement. Despite
sufficient opportunity, workman failed to enter in the witness box for the acid test of cross-examination by the
management. Vide order of this Tribunal dated 12.4.2016 as the workman did not appear for cross-examination, his
evidence was closed and the affidavit filed by the workman ordered to be not to be read in evidence. In support of the
written statement so filed by the management, the management filed the affidavit of one Shri Movie Krishan, Regional
Manager of the Central Warehousing Corporation almost on the same line as that of the written statement. As none
appeared for the workman to cross-examine the witness of the management, the affidavit of the witness of the
management, has been taken on record and case was adjourned for arguments. As the case was fixed for arguments,
none again appeared for the workman to argue the case.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the management and gone through the pleadings of the parties as available
on the record.
6.
From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the workman was working with the contractor M/s. Sahib
Transport Co, Kurukshetra who was given the contract by the management for loading, unloading and transportation of
the food grains. The workman was never employed/ engaged by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation.
The workman has not produced any documents to show that he was ever engaged by the management. The workman
also failed to produce any appointment letter and termination letter issued by the management. As admitted by the
workman he was working with the contractor, therefore, there exist no relationship of employer employee between
management and the workman and it is held that services of the workman were never terminated by the management of
Central Warehousing Corporation as there was no privity of contract between the workman and management of Central
Warehousing Corporation.
7.
Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, as the workman was not the employee of the
management of Central Warehousing Corporation, therefore, there is no question of termination of the services of the
workman w.e.f. 26-01-2011 by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and the workman is not entitled to
any relief from the respondent/management.
8.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
05.05.2016
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2469
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1100-—vkS|kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy
os;jgkmÇlx dkjiksjs’ku paMhx<+ jhtu ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ vkbZMh la-
276/2013½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@169@2013&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1100.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D No. 276/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh region and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-42012/169/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH
Case ID No 276 of 2013, Reference No. L-42012/169/2013-IR(DU) dated 26.02.2014
Sh. Rohtas S/o Sh. Nafe Singh, Village & P.O. Dablan, Teh-Narwana,Distt.-Jind, Haryana, Jind.
… Workman.
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh Region, Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4, Panchkulla
(Haryana)-134112.
… Respondent
Appearances
For the Workman : None
For the Management : Shri N.K. Zakhmi Advocate
AWARD
Passed on: - 05-05-2016
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L--42012/169/2013-IR (DU) dated 26.02.2014,
the Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of the Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkulla in terminating the services
of Sh.Rohtas S/o. Sh. Nafe Singh , workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
2.
Brief facts of the case according to the workman are that he was working as handling labour and was
performing the duties for loading/unloading the food grains for the Food Corporation of India storage thereof made by
the Central Warehousing Corporation. The management used to engage contractor by calling tender with certain terms
and conditions from the contractors and many complaints by the workman for not granting wages as per Minimum
Wages Act and other amenities against the contractor but management never taken any action against the labour
contractor. The inspection report clearly shows that contractor committed grave irregularities with the workman as no
attendance register was found at the spot, no notice was found with regard to the bases the workman, no representative
of the principal employer was found nominated and no annual return submitted to the authorised officer meaning thereby
the grave violation of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. When the workman agitated against the above violation, he was denied entry into the
premises of the management on 26-1-2011 which amounts to illegal termination without notice in violation of section
25-F of ID Act 1947. It is further submitted by the workman that there is departmentalize labour in agencies like Food
Corporation of India but in the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, the workmen have been exploited.
It is further submitted by the workman that the State of Haryana and Punjab having its godowns and certain depots have
2470
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/ JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II SEC. 3(ii)]
been put under the definition of prohibited areas for the Contract labour by the respective corporations are violating the
said prohibition by allowing the labour work done through contract labour. It is further submitted by the workman that
during the duty there was a police case and kalandra U/S 107/151 Cr.PC was prepared and accused persons were
restrained entry in the premises and workman not allowing performing duties at the depot of the management who is
very much employee of the respondent corporation. It is also submitted that as per the policy of the Haryana Govt., the
principal employer is responsible for the compliance of the labour laws. It is also submitted that contractors are violating
the agreement as well as the circular regarding departmentalization of the workers and the termination of the workman
without giving any specific reason, notice, despite the fact that he was working for more than 10 years is unjust,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provision of Section 2A and Section 25F of the ID Act 1947. It is prayed by the
workman that he may be reinstated in service with continuity of service, full back wages and the management may be
directed to pay wages to the workman as per minimum Wages Act along with all other attendant benefits.
3.
The management filed written statement, Preliminary objection has been taken by the management that the
workman was not in the employment of the management, therefore, there was indeed no privity of contract between the
workman and the management as the workman was engaged by the contractor M/S Sahib Transport Co. Who was
providing loading, unloading and handling of food grains bags of FCI during the period from 4/2010 to 2/2011 and as
such the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of clause(s) of Section 2 of the I.D.Act 1947 as he was not
engaged by the management of CWC. It is further submitted by the management that since the work of loading,
unloading and transportation of stocks of food grains is not a regular nature but seasonal and intermittent, so the
management does not recruit its own employees. It enter into an agreement with third party for providing the above
services to the management and the workman who was performing the duties of loading, unloading and handling the
food grains was deputed by the above agency. The entire payment for the work done was made to the contractor at the
mutually agreed rates and contractor thereafter paid the same to his workers. No appointment letter or termination letter
was ever issued by the management to the workman and there is no relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management. The management also had no administrative, economic and disciplinary control over the
workman, therefore, the present reference deserves to be dismissed being without jurisdiction and not maintainable. It is
further submitted by the management that as admitted by the workman , the workman was engaged for the work of
casual nature by the contractor and also paid by the contractor and there exists no relationship of employer and employee
between the workman and the management. On merits also denied the averments made by the workman in his claim
statement and it is prayed by the management that claim of the workman may be dismissed with cost in the interest of
justice, equity and fair play.
4.
In evidence, the workman filed his affidavit along with documents in support of his claim statement. Despite
sufficient opportunity workman failed to enter in the witness box for the acid test of cross-examination by the
management. Vide order of this Tribunal dated 12.4.2016 as the workman did not appear for cross-examination, his
evidence was closed and the affidavit filed by the workman ordered to be not to be read in evidence. In support of the
written statement so filed by the management, the management filed the affidavit of one Shri Movie Krishan, Regional
Manager of the Central Warehousing Corporation almost on the same line as that of the written statement. As none
appeared for the workman to cross-examine the witness of the management, the affidavit of the witness of the
management, has been taken on record and case was adjourned for arguments. As the case was fixed for arguments,
none again appeared for the workman to argue the case.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the management and gone through the pleadings of the parties as available
on the record.
6.
From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the workman was working with the contractor M/S Sahib
Transport Co, Kurukshetra who was given the contract by the management for loading, unloading and transportation of
the food grains. The workman was never employed/ engaged by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation.
The workman has not produced any documents to show that he was ever engaged by the management. The workman
also failed to produce any appointment letter and termination letter issued by the management. As admitted by the
workman he was working with the contractor, therefore, there exist no relationship of employer employee between
management and the workman and it is held that services of the workman were never terminated by the management of
Central Warehousing Corporation as there was no privity of contract between the workman and management of Central
Warehousing Corporation.
7.
Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, as the workman was not the employee of the
management of Central Warehousing Corporation, therefore, there is no question of termination of the services of the
workman w.e.f. 26-01-2011 by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and the workman is not entitled to
any relief from the respondent/management.
8.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
05.05.2016
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2471
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1101-—vkS|kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy
os;jgkmÇlx dkjiksjs’ku paMhx<+ jhtu ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ vkbZMh la-
I.D No. 275/2013½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@168@2013&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1101.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D No. 275/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh region and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-42012/168/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH
Case ID No 275 of 2013, Reference No. L-42012/168/2013-IR(DU) dated 26.02.2014
Sh.Ram Niwas S/o Sh. Nafe Singh, Village & P.O. Dablan, Teh-Narwana, Distt.-Jind, Haryana, Jind.
… Workman
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh Region, Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4, Panchkulla
(Haryana)-134112.
… Respondent
Appearances
For the Workman : None.
For the Management : Shri N.K.Zakhmi Advocate.
AWARD
Passed on: - 05-05-2016
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L--42012/168/2013-IR (DU) dated 26.02.2014,
the Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of the Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkulla in terminating the services
of Sh.Ram Niwas S/O Sh. Nafe Singh , workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
2.
Brief facts of the case according to the workman are that he was working as handling labour and was
performing the duties for loading/unloading the food grains for the Food Corporation of India storage thereof made by
the Central Warehousing Corporation. The management used to engage contractor by calling tender with certain terms
and conditions from the contractors and many complaints by the workman for not granting wages as per Minimum
Wages Act and other amenities against the contractor but management never taken any action against the labour
contractor. The inspection report clearly shows that contractor committed grave irregularities with the workman as no
attendance register was found at the spot, no notice was found with regard to the bases the workman, no representative
of the principal employer was found nominated and no annual return submitted to the authorised officer meaning thereby
the grave violation of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. When the workman agitated against the above violation, he was denied entry into the
premises of the management on 26-1-2011 which amounts to illegal termination without notice in violation of section
25-F of ID Act 1947. It is further submitted by the workman that there is departmentalize labour in agencies like Food
Corporation of India but in the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, the workmen have been exploited.
2472
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/ JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II SEC. 3(ii)]
It is further submitted by the workman that the State of Haryana and Punjab having its godowns and certain depots have
been put under the definition of prohibited areas for the Contract labour by the respective corporations are violating the
said prohibition by allowing the labour work done through contract labour. It is further submitted by the workman that
during the duty there was a police case and kalandra U/s 107/151 Cr.PC was prepared and accused persons were
restrained entry in the premises and workman not allowing performing duties at the depot of the management who is
very much employee of the respondent corporation. It is also submitted that as per the policy of the Haryana Govt., the
principal employer is responsible for the compliance of the labour laws. It is also submitted that contractors are violating
the agreement as well as the circular regarding departmentalization of the workers and the termination of the workman
without giving any specific reason, notice, despite the fact that he was working for more than 10 years is unjust,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provision of Section 2A and Section 25F of the ID Act 1947. It is prayed by the
workman that he may be reinstated in service with continuity of service, full back wages and the management may be
directed to pay wages to the workman as per minimum Wages Act along with all other attendant benefits.
3.
The management filed written statement, Preliminary objection has been taken by the management that the
workman was not in the employment of the management, therefore, there was indeed no privity of contract between the
workman and the management as the workman was engaged by the contractor M/s Sahib Transport Co. Who was
providing loading, unloading and handling of food grains bags of FCI during the period from 4/2010 to 2/2011 and as
such the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of clause(s) of Section 2 of the I.D.Act 1947 as he was not
engaged by the management of CWC. It is further submitted by the management that since the work of loading,
unloading and transportation of stocks of food grains is not a regular nature but seasonal and intermittent, so the
management does not recruit its own employees. It enter into an agreement with third party for providing the above
services to the management and the workman who was performing the duties of loading, unloading and handling the
food grains was deputed by the above agency. The entire payment for the work done was made to the contractor at the
mutually agreed rates and contractor thereafter paid the same to his workers. No appointment letter or termination letter
was ever issued by the management to the workman and there is no relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management. The management also had no administrative, economic and disciplinary control over the
workman, therefore, the present reference deserves to be dismissed being without jurisdiction and not maintainable. It is
further submitted by the management that as admitted by the workman , the workman was engaged for the work of
casual nature by the contractor and also paid by the contractor and there exists no relationship of employer and employee
between the workman and the management. On merits also denied the averments made by the workman in his claim
statement and it is prayed by the management that claim of the workman may be dismissed with cost in the interest of
justice, equity and fair play.
4.
After filing of the reply by the management, the workman was provided sufficient opportunity for evidence.
But the workman did not file any affidavit nor placed any documents on the record in support of his claim statement. In
support of the written statement so filed by the management, the management filed the affidavit of one Shri Movie
Krishan, Regional Manager of the Central Warehousing Corporation almost on the same line as that of the written
statement. As none appeared for the workman to cross-examine the witness of the management, the affidavit of the
witness of the management, has been taken on record and case was adjourned for arguments. As the case was fixed for
arguments, none again appeared for the workman to argue the case.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the management and gone through the pleadings of the parties as available
on the record.
6.
From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the workman was working with the contractor M/s Sahib
Transport Co, Kurukshetra who was given the contract by the management for loading, unloading and transportation of
the food grains. The workman was never employed/ engaged by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation.
The workman has not produced any documents to show that he was ever engaged by the management. The workman
also failed to produce any appointment letter and termination letter issued by the management. As admitted by the
workman he was working with the contractor, therefore, there exist no relationship of employer employee between
management and the workman and it is held that services of the workman were never terminated by the management of
Central Warehousing Corporation as there was no privity of contract between the workman and management of Central
Warehousing Corporation.
7.
Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, as the workman was not the employee of the
management of Central Warehousing Corporation, therefore, there is no question of termination of the services of the
workman w.e.f. 26-01-2011 by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and the workman is not entitled to
any relief from the respondent/management.
8.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
05.05.2016
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2473
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1102-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy
os;jgkmÇlx dkjiksjs’ku paMhx<+ jhtu ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ vkbZMh la-
274/2013½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@167@2013&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1102.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D No. 274/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum
Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh region and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-42012/167/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No 274 of 2013, Reference No. L-42012/167/2013-IR(DU) dated 26.02.2014
Ajay son of Shri Satbir,c/o Sh.Sanu S/o Sh. Hari Singh, Village & P.O. Data Singhwala, Jind.
….. Workman.
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh Region, Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4, Panchkulla
(Haryana)-134112.
….. Respondent
Appearances
For the Workman : None.
For the Management : Shri N.K. Zakhmi Advocate.
AWARD
Passed on: - 05-05-2016
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L--42012/167/2013-IR (DU) dated 26.02.2014,
the Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of the Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkulla in terminating the services
of Sh.Ajay S/O Sh. Satbir, workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled to?”
2.
Brief facts of the case according to the workman are that he was working as handling labour and was
performing the duties for loading/unloading the food grains for the Food Corporation of India storage thereof made by
the Central Warehousing Corporation. The management used to engage contractor by calling tender with certain terms
and conditions from the contractors and many complaints by the workman for not granting wages as per Minimum
Wages Act and other amenities against the contractor but management never taken any action against the labour
contractor. The inspection report clearly shows that contractor committed grave irregularities with the workman as no
attendance register was found at the spot, no notice was found with regard to the bases the workman, no representative
of the principal employer was found nominated and no annual return submitted to the authorised officer meaning thereby
the grave violation of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. When the workman agitated against the above violation, he was denied entry into the
premises of the management on 26-1-2011 which amounts to illegal termination without notice in violation of section
25-F of ID Act 1947. It is further submitted by the workman that there is departmentalize labour in agencies like Food
Corporation of India but in the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, the workmen have been exploited.
2474
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/ JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II SEC. 3(ii)]
It is further submitted by the workman that the state of Haryana and Punjab having its godowns and certain depots have
been put under the definition of prohibited areas for the Contract labour by the respective corporations are violating the
said prohibition by allowing the labour work done through contract labour. It is further submitted by the workman that
during the duty there was a police case and kalandra U/s 107/151 Cr.PC was prepared and accused persons were
restrained entry in the premises and workman not allowing performing duties at the depot of the management who is
very much employee of the respondent corporation. It is also submitted that as per the policy of the Haryana Govt., the
principal employer is responsible for the compliance of the labour laws. It is also submitted that contractors are violating
the agreement as well as the circular regarding departmentalization of the workers and the termination of the workman
without giving any specific reason, notice, despite the fact that he was working for more than 10 years is unjust,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provision of Section 2A and Section 25F of the ID Act 1947. It is prayed by the
workman that he may be reinstated in service with continuity of service, full back wages and the management may be
directed to pay wages to the workman as per minimum Wages Act along with all other attendant benefits.
3.
The management filed written statement, Preliminary objection has been taken by the management that the
workman was not in the employment of the management, therefore, there was indeed no privity of contract between the
workman and the management as the workman was engaged by the contractor M/s Sahib Transport Co. Who was
providing loading, unloading and handling of food grains bags of FCI during the period from 4/2010 to 2/2011 and as
such the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of clause(s) of Section 2 of the I.D.Act 1947 as he was not
engaged by the management of CWC. It is further submitted by the management that since the work of loading,
unloading and transportation of stocks of food grains is not a regular nature but seasonal and intermittent, so the
management does not recruit its own employees. It enter into an agreement with third party for providing the above
services to the management and the workman who was performing the duties of loading, unloading and handling the
food grains was deputed by the above agency. The entire payment for the work done was made to the contractor at the
mutually agreed rates and contractor thereafter paid the same to his workers. No appointment letter or termination letter
was ever issued by the management to the workman and there is no relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management. The management also had no administrative, economic and disciplinary control over the
workman, therefore, the present reference deserves to be dismissed being without jurisdiction and not maintainable. It is
further submitted by the management that as admitted by the workman , the workman was engaged for the work of
casual nature by the contractor and also paid by the contractor and there exists no relationship of employer and employee
between the workman and the management. On merits also denied the averments made by the workman in his claim
statement and it is prayed by the management that claim of the workman may be dismissed with cost in the interest of
justice, equity and fair play.
4.
After filing of the reply by the management, the workman was provided sufficient opportunity for evidence.
But the workman did not file any affidavit nor placed any documents on the record in support of his claim statement. In
support of the written statement so filed by the management, the management filed the affidavit of one Shri Movie
Krishan, Regional Manager of the Central Warehousing Corporation almost on the same line as that of the written
statement. As none appeared for the workman to cross-examine the witness of the management, the affidavit of the
witness of the management, has been taken on record and case was adjourned for arguments. As the case was fixed for
arguments, none again appeared for the workman to argue the case.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the management and gone through the pleadings of the parties as available
on the record.
6.
From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the workman was working with the contractor M/s Sahib
Transport Co, Kurukshetra who was given the contract by the management for loading, unloading and transportation of
the food grains. The workman was never employed/ engaged by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation.
The workman has not produced any documents to show that he was ever engaged by the management. The workman
also failed to produce any appointment letter and termination letter issued by the management. As admitted by the
workman he was working with the contractor, therefore, there exist no relationship of employer employee between
management and the workman and it is held that services of the workman were never terminated by the management of
Central Warehousing Corporation as there was no privity of contract between the workman and management of Central
Warehousing Corporation.
7.
Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, as the workman was not the employee of the
management of Central Warehousing Corporation, therefore, there is no question of termination of the services of the
workman w.e.f. 26-01-2011 by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and the workman is not entitled to
any relief from the respondent/management.
8.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
05.05.2016
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2475
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1103-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy
os;jgkmÇlx dkjiksjs’ku paMhx<+ jhtu ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 200/2013½
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@170@2013&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1103.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D No. 200/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum
Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh region and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-42012/170/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Case No. ID No 200 of 2013, Reference No. L-42012/170/2013-IR(DU) dated 26.02.2014
Sh.Harkesh S/o Sh. Katab Singh, Village & P.O. Latani, Tehsil Uklana, Distt. Hisar, Haryana
….. Workman.
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh Region, Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4, Panchkulla
(Haryana)-134112.
…. Respondent
Appearances
For the Workman : None.
For the Management : Shri N.K. Zakhmi Advocate.
AWARD
Passed on: - 05-05-2016
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L--42012/170/2013-IR (DU) dated 26.02.2014,
the Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of the Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkulla in terminating the services
of Sh.Harkesh S/o Sh. Katab Singh , workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
2.
Brief facts of the case according to the workman are that he was working as handling labour and was
performing the duties for loading/unloading the food grains for the Food Corporation of India storage thereof made by
the Central Warehousing Corporation. The management used to engage contractor by calling tender with certain terms
and conditions from the contractors and many complaints by the workman for not granting wages as per Minimum
Wages Act and other amenities against the contractor but management never taken any action against the labour
contractor. The inspection report clearly shows that contractor committed grave irregularities with the workman as no
attendance register was found at the spot, no notice was found with regard to the bases the workman, no representative
of the principal employer was found nominated and no annual return submitted to the authorised officer meaning thereby
the grave violation of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. When the workman agitated against the above violation, he was denied entry into the
premises of the management on 26-1-2011 which amounts to illegal termination without notice in violation of section
25-F of ID Act 1947. It is further submitted by the workman that there is departmentalize labour in agencies like Food
Corporation of India but in the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, the workmen have been exploited.
2476
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/ JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II SEC. 3(ii)]
It is further submitted by the workman that the state of Haryana and Punjab having its godowns and certain depots have
been put under the definition of prohibited areas for the Contract labour by the respective corporations are violating the
said prohibition by allowing the labour work done through contract labour. It is further submitted by the workman that
during the duty there was a police case and kalandra U/s 107/151 Cr.PC was prepared and accused persons were
restrained entry in the premises and workman not allowing performing duties at the depot of the management who is
very much employee of the respondent corporation. It is also submitted that as per the policy of the Haryana Govt., the
principal employer is responsible for the compliance of the labour laws. It is also submitted that contractors are violating
the agreement as well as the circular regarding departmentalization of the workers and the termination of the workman
without giving any specific reason, notice, despite the fact that he was working for more than 10 years is unjust,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provision of Section 2A and Section 25F of the ID Act 1947. It is prayed by the
workman that he may be reinstated in service with continuity of service, full back wages and the management may be
directed to pay wages to the workman as per minimum Wages Act along with all other attendant benefits.
3.
The management filed written statement, Preliminary objection has been taken by the management that the
workman was not in the employment of the management, therefore, there was indeed no privity of contract between the
workman and the management as the workman was engaged by the contractor M/s Sahib Transport Co. Who was
providing loading, unloading and handling of food grains bags of FCI during the period from 4/2010 to 2/2011 and as
such the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of clause(s) of Section 2 of the I.D.Act 1947 as he was not
engaged by the management of CWC. It is further submitted by the management that since the work of loading,
unloading and transportation of stocks of food grains is not a regular nature but seasonal and intermittent, so the
management does not recruit its own employees. It enter into an agreement with third party for providing the above
services to the management and the workman who was performing the duties of loading, unloading and handling the
food grains was deputed by the above agency. The entire payment for the work done was made to the contractor at the
mutually agreed rates and contractor thereafter paid the same to his workers. No appointment letter or termination letter
was ever issued by the management to the workman and there is no relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management. The management also had no administrative, economic and disciplinary control over the
workman, therefore, the present reference deserves to be dismissed being without jurisdiction and not maintainable. It is
further submitted by the management that as admitted by the workman , the workman was engaged for the work of
casual nature by the contractor and also paid by the contractor and there exists no relationship of employer and employee
between the workman and the management. On merits also denied the averments made by the workman in his claim
statement and it is prayed by the management that claim of the workman may be dismissed with cost in the interest of
justice, equity and fair play.
4.
After filing of the reply by the management, the workman was provided sufficient opportunity for evidence.
But the workman did not file any affidavit nor placed any documents on the record in support of his claim statement. In
support of the written statement so filed by the management, the management filed the affidavit of one Shri Movie
Krishan, Regional Manager of the Central Warehousing Corporation almost on the same line as that of the written
statement. As none appeared for the workman to cross-examine the witness of the management, the affidavit of the
witness of the management, has been taken on record and case was adjourned for arguments. As the case was fixed for
arguments, none again appeared for the workman to argue the case.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the management and gone through the pleadings of the parties as available
on the record.
6.
From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the workman was working with the contractor M/s Sahib
Transport Co, Kurukshetra who was given the contract by the management for loading, unloading and transportation of
the food grains. The workman was never employed/ engaged by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation.
The workman has not produced any documents to show that he was ever engaged by the management. The workman
also failed to produce any appointment letter and termination letter issued by the management. As admitted by the
workman he was working with the contractor, therefore, there exist no relationship of employer employee between
management and the workman and it is held that services of the workman were never terminated by the management of
Central Warehousing Corporation as there was no privity of contract between the workman and management of Central
Warehousing Corporation.
7.
Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, as the workman was not the employee of the
management of Central Warehousing Corporation, therefore, there is no question of termination of the services of the
workman w.e.f. 26-01-2011 by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and the workman is not entitled to
any relief from the respondent/management.
8.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
05.05.2016
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2477
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1104-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy
os;jgkmÇlx dkjiksjs’ku paMhx<+ jhtu ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ vkbZMh la-
19 dk 2013½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@166@2013&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1104.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D No. 199 of 2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh region and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-42012/166/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Case No. ID No 199 of 2013, Reference no. L-42012/166/2013-IR(DU) dated 26.02.2014
Sh. Kali Ram S/o. Sh. Rayat Ram, R/o. Village & P.O. Karam Ghar, Tehsil Narwana, Haryana, Jind
….Workman.
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh Region, Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4, Panchkulla
(Haryana)-134112.
….. Respondent
Appearances
For the Workman : None.
For the Management : Shri N.K. Zakhmi Advocate.
AWARD
Passed on: - 05-05-2016
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L--42012/166/2013-IR (DU) dated 26.02.2014,
the Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of the Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkulla in terminating the services
of Sh. Kali Ram S/o Sh. Rayat Ram , workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
2.
Brief facts of the case according to the workman are that he was working as handling labour and was
performing the duties for loading/unloading the food grains for the Food Corporation of India storage thereof made by
the Central Warehousing Corporation. The management used to engage contractor by calling tender with certain terms
and conditions from the contractors and many complaints by the workman for not granting wages as per Minimum
Wages Act and other amenities against the contractor but management never taken any action against the labour
contractor. The inspection report clearly shows that contractor committed grave irregularities with the workman as no
attendance register was found at the spot, no notice was found with regard to the bases the workman, no representative
of the principal employer was found nominated and no annual return submitted to the authorised officer meaning thereby
the grave violation of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. When the workman agitated against the above violation, he was denied entry into the
premises of the management on 26-1-2011 which amounts to illegal termination without notice in violation of section
25-F of ID Act 1947. It is further submitted by the workman that there is departmentalize labour in agencies like Food
Corporation of India but in the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, the workmen have been exploited.
It is further submitted by the workman that the state of Haryana and Punjab having its godowns and certain depots have
been put under the definition of prohibited areas for the Contract labour by the respective corporations are violating the
2478
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/ JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II SEC. 3(ii)]
said prohibition by allowing the labour work done through contract labour. It is further submitted by the workman that
during the duty there was a police case and kalandra U/s 107/151 Cr.PC was prepared and accused persons were
restrained entry in the premises and workman not allowing performing duties at the depot of the management who is
very much employee of the respondent corporation. It is also submitted that as per the policy of the Haryana Govt., the
principal employer is responsible for the compliance of the labour laws. It is also submitted that contractors are violating
the agreement as well as the circular regarding departmentalization of the workers and the termination of the workman
without giving any specific reason, notice, despite the fact that he was working for more than 10 years is unjust,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provision of Section 2A and Section 25F of the ID Act 1947. It is prayed by the
workman that he may be reinstated in service with continuity of service, full back wages and the management may be
directed to pay wages to the workman as per minimum Wages Act along with all other attendant benefits.
3.
The management filed written statement, Preliminary objection has been taken by the management that the
workman was not in the employment of the management, therefore, there was indeed no privity of contract between the
workman and the management as the workman was engaged by the contractor M/s. Sahib Transport Co. Who was
providing loading, unloading and handling of food grains bags of FCI during the period from 4/2010 to 2/2011 and as
such the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of clause(s) of Section 2 of the I.D.Act 1947 as he was not
engaged by the management of CWC. It is further submitted by the management that since the work of loading,
unloading and transportation of stocks of food grains is not a regular nature but seasonal and intermittent, so the
management does not recruit its own employees. It enter into an agreement with third party for providing the above
services to the management and the workman who was performing the duties of loading, unloading and handling the
food grains was deputed by the above agency. The entire payment for the work done was made to the contractor at the
mutually agreed rates and contractor thereafter paid the same to his workers. No appointment letter or termination letter
was ever issued by the management to the workman and there is no relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management. The management also had no administrative, economic and disciplinary control over the
workman, therefore, the present reference deserves to be dismissed being without jurisdiction and not maintainable. It is
further submitted by the management that as admitted by the workman , the workman was engaged for the work of
casual nature by the contractor and also paid by the contractor and there exists no relationship of employer and employee
between the workman and the management. On merits also denied the averments made by the workman in his claim
statement and it is prayed by the management that claim of the workman may be dismissed with cost in the interest of
justice, equity and fair play.
4.
In evidence, the workman filed his affidavit along with documents in support of his claim statement. Despite
sufficient opportunity workman failed to enter in the witness box for the acid test of cross-examination by the
management. Vide order of this Tribunal dated 12.4.2016 as the workman did not appear for cross-examination, his
evidence was closed and the affidavit filed by the workman ordered to be not to be read in evidence. In support of the
written statement so filed by the management, the management filed the affidavit of one Shri Movie Krishan, Regional
Manager of the Central Warehousing Corporation almost on the same line as that of the written statement. As none
appeared for the workman to cross-examine the witness of the management, the affidavit of the witness of the
management, has been taken on record and case was adjourned for arguments. As the case was fixed for arguments,
none again appeared for the workman to argue the case.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the management and gone through the pleadings of the parties as available
on the record.
6.
From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the workman was working with the contractor M/s Sahib
Transport Co, Kurukshetra who was given the contract by the management for loading, unloading and transportation of
the food grains. The workman was never employed/ engaged by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation.
The workman has not produced any documents to show that he was ever engaged by the management. The workman
also failed to produce any appointment letter and termination letter issued by the management. As admitted by the
workman he was working with the contractor, therefore, there exist no relationship of employer employee between
management and the workman and it is held that services of the workman were never terminated by the management of
Central Warehousing Corporation as there was no privity of contract between the workman and management of Central
Warehousing Corporation.
7.
Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, as the workman was not the employee of the
management of Central Warehousing Corporation, therefore, there is no question of termination of the services of the
workman w.e.f. 26-01-2011 by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and the workman is not entitled to
any relief from the respondent/management.
8.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
05.05.2016
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2479
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1105-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy
os;jgkmÇlx dkjiksjs’ku paMhx<+ jhtu ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ I.D No.
157/2013½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@83@2013&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1105.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D No. 157/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh region and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-42012/83/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Case No. ID No 157 of 2013, Reference No. L-42012/83/2013-IR(DU) dated 28.01.2014
Sh. Hari Kant son of Shri Bansi Mehto, Gandhi Nagar, Narwana, Jind (Haryana)
….. Workman.
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh Region, Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4, Panchkulla
(Haryana)-134112.
…… Respondent
Appearances
For the Workman : None.
For the Management : Shri N.K. Zakhmi, Advocate
AWARD
Passed on: - 03.05.2016
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L--42012/83/2013-IR(DU) dated 28.01.2014,the
Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of the Regional Manager,CWC, Panchkulla in terminating the services
w.e.f. 26.01.2011 of Sh. Hari Kant son of Shri Bansi Mehto , workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
Brief facts of the case according to the workman are that he was working as handling labour and was
performing the duties for loading/unloading the food grains for the Food Corporation of India storage thereof made by
the Central Warehousing Corporation. The management used to engage contractor by calling tender with certain terms
and conditions from the contractors and many complaints by the workman for not granting wages as per Minimum
Wages Act and other amenities against the contractor but management never taken any action against the labour
contractor. The inspection report clearly shows that contractor committed grave irregularities with the workman as no
attendance register was found at the spot, no notice was found with regard to the bases the workman, no representative
of the principal employer was found nominated and no annual return submitted to the authorised officer meaning thereby
the grave violation of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. When the workman agitated against the above violation, he was denied entry into the
premises of the management on 26-1-2011 which amounts to illegal termination without notice in violation of section
25-F of ID Act 1947. It is further submitted by the workman that there is departmentalize labour in agencies like Food
Corporation of India but in the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, the workmen have been exploited.
It is further submitted by the workman that the state of Haryana and Punjab having its godowns and certain depots have
2480
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/ JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II SEC. 3(ii)]
been put under the definition of prohibited areas for the Contract labour by the respective corporations are violating the
said prohibition by allowing the labour work done through contract labour. It is further submitted by the workman that
during the duty there was a police case and kalandra U/s 107/151 Cr.PC was prepared and accused persons were
restrained entry in the premises and workman not allowing performing duties at the depot of the management who is
very much employee of the respondent corporation. It is also submitted that as per the policy of the Haryana Govt., the
principal employer is responsible for the compliance of the labour laws. It is also submitted that contractors are violating
the agreement as well as the circular regarding departmentalization of the workers and the termination of the workman
without giving any specific reason, notice, despite the fact that he was working for more than 10 years is unjust,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provision of Section 2A and Section 25F of the ID Act 1947. It is prayed by the
workman that he may be reinstated in service with continuity of service, full back wages and the management may be
directed to pay wages to the workman as per minimum Wages Act along with all other attendant benefits.
3.
The management filed written statement, Preliminary objection has been taken by the management that the
workman was not in the employment of the management, therefore, there was indeed no privity of contract between the
workman and the management as the workman was engaged by the contractor M/s. Sahib Transport Co. Who was
providing loading, unloading and handling of food grains bags of FCI during the period from 4/2010 to 2/2011 and as
such the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of clause(s) of Section 2 of the I.D.Act 1947 as he was not
engaged by the management of CWC. It is further submitted by the management that since the work of loading,
unloading and transportation of stocks of food grains is not a regular nature but seasonal and intermittent, so the
management does not recruit its own employees. It enter into an agreement with third party for providing the above
services to the management and the workman who was performing the duties of loading, unloading and handling the
food grains was deputed by the above agency. The entire payment for the work done was made to the contractor at the
mutually agreed rates and contractor thereafter paid the same to his workers. No appointment letter or termination letter
was ever issued by the management to the workman and there is no relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management. The management also had no administrative, economic and disciplinary control over the
workman, therefore, the present reference deserves to be dismissed being without jurisdiction and not maintainable. It is
further submitted by the management that as admitted by the workman , the workman was engaged for the work of
casual nature by the contractor and also paid by the contractor and there exists no relationship of employer and employee
between the workman and the management. On merits also denied the averments made by the workman in his claim
statement and it is prayed by the management that claim of the workman may be dismissed with cost in the interest of
justice, equity and fair play.
4.
In evidence, the workman filed his affidavit along with documents in support of his claim statement. Despite
sufficient opportunity workman failed to enter in the witness box for the acid test of cross-examination by the
management. Vide order of this Tribunal dated 12.4.2016 as the workman did not appear for cross-examination, his
evidence was closed and the affidavit filed by the workman ordered to be not to be read in evidence. In support of the
written statement so filed by the management, the management filed the affidavit of one Shri Movie Krishan, Regional
Manager of the Central Warehousing Corporation almost on the same line as that of the written statement. As none
appeared for the workman to cross-examine the witness of the management, the affidavit of the witness of the
management, has been taken on record and case was adjourned for arguments. As the case was fixed for arguments,
none again appeared for the workman to argue the case.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the management and gone through the pleadings of the parties as available
on the record.
6.
From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the workman was working with the contractor M/s. Sahib
Transport Co, Kurukshetra who was given the contract by the management for loading, unloading and transportation of
the food grains. The workman was never employed/ engaged by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation.
The workman has not produced any documents to show that he was ever engaged by the management. The workman
also failed to produce any appointment letter and termination letter issued by the management. As admitted by the
workman he was working with the contractor, therefore, there exist no relationship of employer employee between
management and the workman and it is held that services of the workman were never terminated by the management of
Central Warehousing Corporation as there was no privity of contract between the workman and management of Central
Warehousing Corporation.
7.
Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, as the workman was not the employee of the
management of Central Warehousing Corporation, therefore, there is no question of termination of the services of the
workman w.e.f. 26-01-2011 by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and the workman is not entitled to
any relief from the respondent/management.
8.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
03.05.2016
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2481
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1106-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy
os;jgkmÇlx dkjiksjs’ku paMhx<+ jhtu ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ vkbZMh
la- 164/2013½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@90@2013&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1106.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D No. 164/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh region and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-42012/90/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Case No. ID No 164 of 2013, Reference no. L-42012/90/2013-IR(DU) dated 28.01.2014
Sh.Sheela S/o Sh. Rattan Singh VPO – Dhakal, Narwana, Jind (Haryana) Jind
…….. Workman.
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh Region, Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4, Panchkulla
(Haryana)-134112.
…… Respondent
Appearances
For the Workman : None.
For the Management : Shri N.K. Zakhmi, Advocate
AWARD
Passed on : - 03.05.2016
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L--42012/90/2013-IR (DU) dated 28.01.2014,
the Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of the Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkulla in terminating the services
w.e.f. 26.01.2011 of Sh.Sheela S/o Sh. Rattan Singh , workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
Brief facts of the case according to the workman are that he was working as handling labour and was
performing the duties for loading/unloading the food grains for the Food Corporation of India storage thereof made by
the Central Warehousing Corporation. The management used to engage contractor by calling tender with certain terms
and conditions from the contractors and many complaints by the workman for not granting wages as per Minimum
Wages Act and other amenities against the contractor but management never taken any action against the labour
contractor. The inspection report clearly shows that contractor committed grave irregularities with the workman as no
attendance register was found at the spot, no notice was found with regard to the bases the workman, no representative
of the principal employer was found nominated and no annual return submitted to the authorised officer meaning thereby
the grave violation of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. When the workman agitated against the above violation, he was denied entry into the
premises of the management on 26-1-2011 which amounts to illegal termination without notice in violation of section
25-F of ID Act 1947. It is further submitted by the workman that there is departmentalize labour in agencies like Food
Corporation of India but in the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, the workmen have been exploited.
It is further submitted by the workman that the state of Haryana and Punjab having its godowns and certain depots have
2482
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/ JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II SEC. 3(ii)]
been put under the definition of prohibited areas for the Contract labour by the respective corporations are violating the
said prohibition by allowing the labour work done through contract labour. It is further submitted by the workman that
during the duty there was a police case and kalandra U/s 107/151 Cr.PC was prepared and accused persons were
restrained entry in the premises and workman not allowing performing duties at the depot of the management who is
very much employee of the respondent corporation. It is also submitted that as per the policy of the Haryana Govt., the
principal employer is responsible for the compliance of the labour laws. It is also submitted that contractors are violating
the agreement as well as the circular regarding departmentalization of the workers and the termination of the workman
without giving any specific reason, notice, despite the fact that he was working for more than 10 years is unjust,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provision of Section 2A and Section 25F of the ID Act 1947. It is prayed by the
workman that he may be reinstated in service with continuity of service, full back wages and the management may be
directed to pay wages to the workman as per minimum Wages Act along with all other attendant benefits.
3.
The management filed written statement, Preliminary objection has been taken by the management that the
workman was not in the employment of the management, therefore, there was indeed no privity of contract between the
workman and the management as the workman was engaged by the contractor M/s. Sahib Transport Co. Who was
providing loading, unloading and handling of food grains bags of FCI during the period from 4/2010 to 2/2011 and as
such the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of clause(s) of Section 2 of the I.D.Act 1947 as he was not
engaged by the management of CWC. It is further submitted by the management that since the work of loading,
unloading and transportation of stocks of food grains is not a regular nature but seasonal and intermittent, so the
management does not recruit its own employees. It enter into an agreement with third party for providing the above
services to the management and the workman who was performing the duties of loading, unloading and handling the
food grains was deputed by the above agency. The entire payment for the work done was made to the contractor at the
mutually agreed rates and contractor thereafter paid the same to his workers. No appointment letter or termination letter
was ever issued by the management to the workman and there is no relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management. The management also had no administrative, economic and disciplinary control over the
workman, therefore, the present reference deserves to be dismissed being without jurisdiction and not maintainable. It is
further submitted by the management that as admitted by the workman, the workman was engaged for the work of casual
nature by the contractor and also paid by the contractor and there exists no relationship of employer and employee
between the workman and the management. On merits also denied the averments made by the workman in his claim
statement and it is prayed by the management that claim of the workman may be dismissed with cost in the interest of
justice, equity and fair play.
4.
In evidence, the workman filed his affidavit along with documents in support of his claim statement. Despite
sufficient opportunity workman failed to enter in the witness box for the acid test of cross-examination by the
management. Vide order of this Tribunal dated 12.4.2016 as the workman did not appear for cross-examination, his
evidence was closed and the affidavit filed by the workman ordered to be not to be read in evidence. In support of the
written statement so filed by the management, the management filed the affidavit of one Shri Movie Krishan, Regional
Manager of the Central Warehousing Corporation almost on the same line as that of the written statement. As none
appeared for the workman to cross-examine the witness of the management, the affidavit of the witness of the
management, has been taken on record and case was adjourned for arguments. As the case was fixed for arguments,
none again appeared for the workman to argue the case.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the management and gone through the pleadings of the parties as available
on the record.
6.
From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the workman was working with the contractor M/s. Sahib
Transport Co, Kurukshetra who was given the contract by the management for loading, unloading and transportation of
the food grains. The workman was never employed/ engaged by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation.
The workman has not produced any documents to show that he was ever engaged by the management. The workman
also failed to produce any appointment letter and termination letter issued by the management. As admitted by the
workman he was working with the contractor, therefore, there exist no relationship of employer employee between
management and the workman and it is held that services of the workman were never terminated by the management of
Central Warehousing Corporation as there was no privity of contract between the workman and management of Central
Warehousing Corporation.
7.
Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, as the workman was not the employee of the
management of Central Warehousing Corporation, therefore, there is no question of termination of the services of the
workman w.e.f. 26-01-2011 by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and the workman is not entitled to
any relief from the respondent/management.
8.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
03.05.2016
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2483
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1107-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy
os;jgkmÇlx dkjiksjs’ku paMhx<+ jhtu ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ vkbZMh
la- 170/2013½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@96@2013&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1107.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D No. 170/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh region and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-42012/96/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Case ID No 170 of 2013, Reference No. L-42012/96/2013-IR(DU) dated 28.01.2014
Sh. Mahavir Singh S/o Sh.Dolat Ram, Hari Nagar, Ward No.21,Narwana, Jind (Haryana) Jind
….. Workman.
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh Region, Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4, Panchkulla
(Haryana)-134112.
….. Respondent
Appearances
For the Workman : None.
For the Management : Shri N.K.Zakhmi Advocate.
AWARD
Passed on: - 04-05-2016
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L--42012/96/2013-IR (DU) dated 28.01.2014,
the Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of the Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkulla in terminating the services
w.e.f. 26.01.2011 of Sh.Mahavir Singh S/O Sh.Dolat Ram , workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
Brief facts of the case according to the workman are that he was working as handling labour and was
performing the duties for loading/unloading the food grains for the Food Corporation of India storage thereof made by
the Central Warehousing Corporation. The management used to engage contractor by calling tender with certain terms
and conditions from the contractors and many complaints by the workman for not granting wages as per Minimum
Wages Act and other amenities against the contractor but management never taken any action against the labour
contractor. The inspection report clearly shows that contractor committed grave irregularities with the workman as no
attendance register was found at the spot, no notice was found with regard to the bases the workman, no representative
of the principal employer was found nominated and no annual return submitted to the authorised officer meaning thereby
the grave violation of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. When the workman agitated against the above violation, he was denied entry into the
premises of the management on 26-1-2011 which amounts to illegal termination without notice in violation of section
25-F of ID Act 1947. It is further submitted by the workman that there is departmentalize labour in agencies like Food
Corporation of India but in the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, the workmen have been exploited.
It is further submitted by the workman that the state of Haryana and Punjab having its godowns and certain depots have
2484
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/ JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II SEC. 3(ii)]
been put under the definition of prohibited areas for the Contract labour by the respective corporations are violating the
said prohibition by allowing the labour work done through contract labour. It is further submitted by the workman that
during the duty there was a police case and kalandra U/s 107/151 Cr.PC was prepared and accused persons were
restrained entry in the premises and workman not allowing performing duties at the depot of the management who is
very much employee of the respondent corporation. It is also submitted that as per the policy of the Haryana Govt., the
principal employer is responsible for the compliance of the labour laws. It is also submitted that contractors are violating
the agreement as well as the circular regarding departmentalization of the workers and the termination of the workman
without giving any specific reason, notice, despite the fact that he was working for more than 10 years is unjust,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provision of Section 2A and Section 25F of the ID Act 1947. It is prayed by the
workman that he may be reinstated in service with continuity of service, full back wages and the management may be
directed to pay wages to the workman as per minimum Wages Act along with all other attendant benefits.
3.
The management filed written statement, Preliminary objection has been taken by the management that the
workman was not in the employment of the management, therefore, there was indeed no privity of contract between the
workman and the management as the workman was engaged by the contractor M/s. Sahib Transport Co. Who was
providing loading, unloading and handling of food grains bags of FCI during the period from 4/2010 to 2/2011 and as
such the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of clause(s) of Section 2 of the I.D.Act 1947 as he was not
engaged by the management of CWC. It is further submitted by the management that since the work of loading,
unloading and transportation of stocks of food grains is not a regular nature but seasonal and intermittent, so the
management does not recruit its own employees. It enter into an agreement with third party for providing the above
services to the management and the workman who was performing the duties of loading, unloading and handling the
food grains was deputed by the above agency. The entire payment for the work done was made to the contractor at the
mutually agreed rates and contractor thereafter paid the same to his workers. No appointment letter or termination letter
was ever issued by the management to the workman and there is no relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management. The management also had no administrative, economic and disciplinary control over the
workman, therefore, the present reference deserves to be dismissed being without jurisdiction and not maintainable. It is
further submitted by the management that as admitted by the workman , the workman was engaged for the work of
casual nature by the contractor and also paid by the contractor and there exists no relationship of employer and employee
between the workman and the management. On merits also denied the averments made by the workman in his claim
statement and it is prayed by the management that claim of the workman may be dismissed with cost in the interest of
justice, equity and fair play.
4.
In evidence, the workman filed his affidavit along with documents in support of his claim statement. Despite
sufficient opportunity workman failed to enter in the witness box for the acid test of cross-examination by the
management. Vide order of this Tribunal dated 12.4.2016 as the workman did not appear for cross-examination, his
evidence was closed and the affidavit filed by the workman ordered to be not to be read in evidence. In support of the
written statement so filed by the management, the management filed the affidavit of one Shri Movie Krishan, Regional
Manager of the Central Warehousing Corporation almost on the same line as that of the written statement. As none
appeared for the workman to cross-examine the witness of the management, the affidavit of the witness of the
management, has been taken on record and case was adjourned for arguments. As the case was fixed for arguments,
none again appeared for the workman to argue the case.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the management and gone through the pleadings of the parties as available
on the record.
6.
From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the workman was working with the contractor M/s. Sahib
Transport Co, Kurukshetra who was given the contract by the management for loading, unloading and transportation of
the food grains. The workman was never employed/ engaged by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation.
The workman has not produced any documents to show that he was ever engaged by the management. The workman
also failed to produce any appointment letter and termination letter issued by the management. As admitted by the
workman he was working with the contractor, therefore, there exist no relationship of employer employee between
management and the workman and it is held that services of the workman were never terminated by the management of
Central Warehousing Corporation as there was no privity of contract between the workman and management of Central
Warehousing Corporation.
7.
Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, as the workman was not the employee of the
management of Central Warehousing Corporation, therefore, there is no question of termination of the services of the
workman w.e.f. 26-01-2011 by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and the workman is not entitled to
any relief from the respondent/management.
8.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
04.05.2016
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2485
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1108-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy
os;jgkmÇlx dkjiksjs’ku paMhx<+ jhtu ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ vkbZMh la-
172/2013½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@98@2013&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1108.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D No. 172/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh region and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-42012/98/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Case ID No 172 of 2013, Reference no. L-42012/98/2013-IR(DU) dated 28.01.2014
Sh.Raju S/O Sh.Suraj, R/o Gandhi Nagar, Narwana,Jind (Haryana) Jind
….. Workman.
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh Region, Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4, Panchkulla
(Haryana)-134112.
…… Respondent
Appearances
For the Workman : None.
For the Management : Shri N.K.Zakhmi Advocate.
AWARD
Passed on: -04-05-2016
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L--42012/98/2013-IR (DU) dated 28.01.2014,
the Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of the Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkulla in terminating the services
w.e.f. 26.01.2011 of Sh.Raju S/O Sh.Suraj , workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled to?”
2.
Brief facts of the case according to the workman are that he was working as handling labour and was
performing the duties for loading/unloading the food grains for the Food Corporation of India storage thereof made by
the Central Warehousing Corporation. The management used to engage contractor by calling tender with certain terms
and conditions from the contractors and many complaints by the workman for not granting wages as per Minimum
Wages Act and other amenities against the contractor but management never taken any action against the labour
contractor. The inspection report clearly shows that contractor committed grave irregularities with the workman as no
attendance register was found at the spot, no notice was found with regard to the bases the workman, no representative
of the principal employer was found nominated and no annual return submitted to the authorised officer meaning thereby
the grave violation of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. When the workman agitated against the above violation, he was denied entry into the
premises of the management on 26-1-2011 which amounts to illegal termination without notice in violation of section
25-F of ID Act 1947. It is further submitted by the workman that there is departmentalize labour in agencies like Food
Corporation of India but in the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, the workmen have been exploited.
It is further submitted by the workman that the state of Haryana and Punjab having its godowns and certain depots have
2486
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/ JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II SEC. 3(ii)]
been put under the definition of prohibited areas for the Contract labour by the respective corporations are violating the
said prohibition by allowing the labour work done through contract labour. It is further submitted by the workman that
during the duty there was a police case and kalandra U/s 107/151 Cr.PC was prepared and accused persons were
restrained entry in the premises and workman not allowing performing duties at the depot of the management who is
very much employee of the respondent corporation. It is also submitted that as per the policy of the Haryana Govt., the
principal employer is responsible for the compliance of the labour laws. It is also submitted that contractors are violating
the agreement as well as the circular regarding departmentalization of the workers and the termination of the workman
without giving any specific reason, notice, despite the fact that he was working for more than 10 years is unjust,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provision of Section 2A and Section 25F of the ID Act 1947. It is prayed by the
workman that he may be reinstated in service with continuity of service, full back wages and the management may be
directed to pay wages to the workman as per minimum Wages Act along with all other attendant benefits.
3.
The management filed written statement, Preliminary objection has been taken by the management that the
workman was not in the employment of the management, therefore, there was indeed no privity of contract between the
workman and the management as the workman was engaged by the contractor M/s. Sahib Transport Co. Who was
providing loading, unloading and handling of food grains bags of FCI during the period from 4/2010 to 2/2011 and as
such the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of clause(s) of Section 2 of the I.D.Act 1947 as he was not
engaged by the management of CWC. It is further submitted by the management that since the work of loading,
unloading and transportation of stocks of food grains is not a regular nature but seasonal and intermittent, so the
management does not recruit its own employees. It enter into an agreement with third party for providing the above
services to the management and the workman who was performing the duties of loading, unloading and handling the
food grains was deputed by the above agency. The entire payment for the work done was made to the contractor at the
mutually agreed rates and contractor thereafter paid the same to his workers. No appointment letter or termination letter
was ever issued by the management to the workman and there is no relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management. The management also had no administrative, economic and disciplinary control over the
workman, therefore, the present reference deserves to be dismissed being without jurisdiction and not maintainable. It is
further submitted by the management that as admitted by the workman , the workman was engaged for the work of
casual nature by the contractor and also paid by the contractor and there exists no relationship of employer and employee
between the workman and the management. On merits also denied the averments made by the workman in his claim
statement and it is prayed by the management that claim of the workman may be dismissed with cost in the interest of
justice, equity and fair play.
4.
In evidence, the workman filed his affidavit along with documents in support of his claim statement. Despite
sufficient opportunity, workman failed to enter in the witness box for the acid test of cross-examination by the
management. Vide order of this Tribunal dated 12.4.2016 as the workman did not appear for cross-examination, his
evidence was closed and the affidavit filed by the workman ordered to be not to be read in evidence. In support of the
written statement so filed by the management, the management filed the affidavit of one Shri Movie Krishan, Regional
Manager of the Central Warehousing Corporation almost on the same line as that of the written statement. As none
appeared for the workman to cross-examine the witness of the management, the affidavit of the witness of the
management, has been taken on record and case was adjourned for arguments. As the case was fixed for arguments,
none again appeared for the workman to argue the case.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the management and gone through the pleadings of the parties as available
on the record.
6.
From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the workman was working with the contractor M/s. Sahib
Transport Co, Kurukshetra who was given the contract by the management for loading, unloading and transportation of
the food grains. The workman was never employed/ engaged by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation.
The workman has not produced any documents to show that he was ever engaged by the management. The workman
also failed to produce any appointment letter and termination letter issued by the management. As admitted by the
workman he was working with the contractor, therefore, there exist no relationship of employer employee between
management and the workman and it is held that services of the workman were never terminated by the management of
Central Warehousing Corporation as there was no privity of contract between the workman and management of Central
Warehousing Corporation.
7.
Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, as the workman was not the employee of the
management of Central Warehousing Corporation, therefore, there is no question of termination of the services of the
workman w.e.f. 26-01-2011 by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and the workman is not entitled to
any relief from the respondent/management.
8.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
04.05.2016
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2487
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1109-—vkS|kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy
os;jgkmÇlx dkjiksjs’ku paMhx<+ jhtu ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ I.D No.
184/2013½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@127@2013&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016
S.O. 1109.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D No. 184/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh region and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 25/05/2016.
[No. L-42012/127/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Case ID No 184 of 2013, Reference No. L-42012/127/2013-IR(DU) dated 17.02.2014
Sh.Rajesh S/o Sh. Banwari Lal R/o Mirdha Colony, Narwana,Jind (Haryana) Jind
….. Workman.
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh Region, Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4, Panchkulla
(Haryana)-134112.
…… Respondent
Appearances
For the Workman : None.
For the Management : Shri N.K. Zakhmi Advocate.
AWARD
Passed on: - 04-05-2016
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L--42012/127/2013-IR (DU) dated 17.02.2014,
the Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of the Regional Manager, CWC, Panchkulla in terminating the services
of Sh.Rajesh S/O Sh. Banwari Lal , workman of Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
2.
Brief facts of the case according to the workman are that he was working as handling labour and was
performing the duties for loading/unloading the food grains for the Food Corporation of India storage thereof made by
the Central Warehousing Corporation. The management used to engage contractor by calling tender with certain terms
and conditions from the contractors and many complaints by the workman for not granting wages as per Minimum
Wages Act and other amenities against the contractor but management never taken any action against the labour
contractor. The inspection report clearly shows that contractor committed grave irregularities with the workman as no
attendance register was found at the spot, no notice was found with regard to the bases the workman, no representative
of the principal employer was found nominated and no annual return submitted to the authorised officer meaning thereby
the grave violation of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. When the workman agitated against the above violation, he was denied entry into the
premises of the management on 26-1-2011 which amounts to illegal termination without notice in violation of section
25-F of ID Act 1947. It is further submitted by the workman that there is departmentalize labour in agencies like Food
Corporation of India but in the management of the Central Warehousing Corporation, the workmen have been exploited.
It is further submitted by the workman that the state of Haryana and Punjab having its godowns and certain depots have
2488
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/ JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II SEC. 3(ii)]
been put under the definition of prohibited areas for the Contract labour by the respective corporations are violating the
said prohibition by allowing the labour work done through contract labour. It is further submitted by the workman that
during the duty there was a police case and kalandra U/s 107/151 Cr.PC was prepared and accused persons were
restrained entry in the premises and workman not allowing performing duties at the depot of the management who is
very much employee of the respondent corporation. It is also submitted that as per the policy of the Haryana Govt., the
principal employer is responsible for the compliance of the labour laws. It is also submitted that contractors are violating
the agreement as well as the circular regarding departmentalization of the workers and the termination of the workman
without giving any specific reason, notice, despite the fact that he was working for more than 10 years is unjust,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provision of Section 2A and Section 25F of the ID Act 1947. It is prayed by the
workman that he may be reinstated in service with continuity of service, full back wages and the management may be
directed to pay wages to the workman as per minimum Wages Act along with all other attendant benefits.
3.
The management filed written statement, Preliminary objection has been taken by the management that the
workman was not in the employment of the management, therefore, there was indeed no privity of contract between the
workman and the management as the workman was engaged by the contractor M/s. Sahib Transport Co. Who was
providing loading, unloading and handling of food grains bags of FCI during the period from 4/2010 to 2/2011 and as
such the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of clause(s) of Section 2 of the I.D.Act 1947 as he was not
engaged by the management of CWC. It is further submitted by the management that since the work of loading,
unloading and transportation of stocks of food grains is not a regular nature but seasonal and intermittent, so the
management does not recruit its own employees. It enter into an agreement with third party for providing the above
services to the management and the workman who was performing the duties of loading, unloading and handling the
food grains was deputed by the above agency. The entire payment for the work done was made to the contractor at the
mutually agreed rates and contractor thereafter paid the same to his workers. No appointment letter or termination letter
was ever issued by the management to the workman and there is no relationship of master and servant between the
workman and the management. The management also had no administrative, economic and disciplinary control over the
workman, therefore, the present reference deserves to be dismissed being without jurisdiction and not maintainable. It is
further submitted by the management that as admitted by the workman , the workman was engaged for the work of
casual nature by the contractor and also paid by the contractor and there exists no relationship of employer and employee
between the workman and the management. On merits also denied the averments made by the workman in his claim
statement and it is prayed by the management that claim of the workman may be dismissed with cost in the interest of
justice, equity and fair play.
4.
In evidence, the workman filed his affidavit along with documents in support of his claim statement. Despite
sufficient opportunity workman failed to enter in the witness box for the acid test of cross-examination by the
management. Vide order of this Tribunal dated 12.4.2016 as the workman did not appear for cross-examination, his
evidence was closed and the affidavit filed by the workman ordered to be not to be read in evidence. In support of the
written statement so filed by the management, the management filed the affidavit of one Shri Movie Krishan, Regional
Manager of the Central Warehousing Corporation almost on the same line as that of the written statement. As none
appeared for the workman to cross-examine the witness of the management, the affidavit of the witness of the
management, has been taken on record and case was adjourned for arguments. As the case was fixed for arguments,
none again appeared for the workman to argue the case.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the management and gone through the pleadings of the parties as available
on the record.
6.
From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the workman was working with the contractor M/s. Sahib
Transport Co, Kurukshetra who was given the contract by the management for loading, unloading and transportation of
the food grains. The workman was never employed/ engaged by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation.
The workman has not produced any documents to show that he was ever engaged by the management. The workman
also failed to produce any appointment letter and termination letter issued by the management. As admitted by the
workman he was working with the contractor, therefore, there exist no relationship of employer employee between
management and the workman and it is held that services of the workman were never terminated by the management of
Central Warehousing Corporation as there was no privity of contract between the workman and management of Central
Warehousing Corporation.
7.
Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, as the workman was not the employee of the
management of Central Warehousing Corporation, therefore, there is no question of termination of the services of the
workman w.e.f. 26-01-2011 by the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and the workman is not entitled to
any relief from the respondent/management.
8.
Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
04.05.2016
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2489
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1110.— vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vks
,u th lh fy- ds izca/kra=z ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 143/2004) vkbZ Vh lh (16/1999) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30012/18/98&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2016
S.O. 1110—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref.143/2004) ITC (16/1999) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of ONGC Ltd. and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/05/2016.
[No. L-30012/18/98-IR (B-1)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 16th March, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 143/2004
Reference (ITC) No. 16/1999
1. The Group General Manager (P) ,
ONGC Ltd., Palavasna,
Mehsana-384002
….First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Through the Secretary,
ONGC Employees Union,
8, Samarpan Shopping Complex,
Highway Road,
Mehsana-384002
….Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri K.V. Gadhia, Advocate
For the Second Party
: C/o. ONGC Employees Union
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New Delhi by reference adjudication Order
No. L-30012/18/98-IR(B-I) dated 21.12.1998 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
2490
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
Whether the termination of the services of H.B. Bhangi on 01.12.1992 by management of ONGC Mehsana are
legal and justified? If not, to what relief?”
2. This reference dates back to 21.12.1998.Second party filed statement of claim (Ext.6) on 27.04.1999 and first
party filed the written statement (Ext.7) on 15.12.1999. Despite giving dozens of opportunities second party
has not prefer to lead evidence. Thus, it appears that second party is not willing to proceed with the reference
as they have been absent since last several dates. Thus, Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in
default of the second party.
This reference is dismissed in default of the second party.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1111.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
if”pe jsyos ds izca/kra=z ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 99/2011) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
27/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk1
[la- ,y&41011/77/2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2016
S.O. 1111.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref.99/2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 27/05/2016.
[No. L-41011/77/2011-IR (B-1)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 11th March, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 99/2011
1. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway,
Bhavnagar Para,
Bhavnagar (Gujarat)
2. Sr. Divisional Engineer (Hq.)
Western Railway,
Bhavnagar Para,
Bhavnagar (Gujarat)
…….First Party
Vs.
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2491
Their Workman,
Through the President,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,
28/B, Narayan Park
Behind Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
...Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri H.B. Shah, Advocate
For the Second Party
: C/o. P.R.K.P.
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New Delhi by reference adjudication Order
No. L-41011/77/2011-IR(B-I) dated 18.12.2011 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial
Tribunal, Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad for promotion of Shri Ghanshyam Singh H.
in Motor Vehicle Grade-III, is legal and justified? To what relief the workmen/union is entitled?”
2. This reference dates back to 18.12.2011.Notice was served on the Present Paschim Railway Karmachari
Parishad on 09.04.2012. First party field vakalatnama (Ext.5) of his advocate of Shri H.B. Shah on
20.04.2011. But second party P.R.K.P. did not field the statement of claim and has also been absent since then.
Thus, it appears that second party is not willing to proceed with the reference as they have been absent since
last several dates. Thus Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the second party.
This reference is dismissed in default of the second party.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1112.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
if”pe jsyos ds izca/kra=z ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 85/2007) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
27/05/2016 izkIr gqvk Fkk1
[la- ,y&41012/17/2007&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2016
S.O. 1112.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 85/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 27/05/2016.
[No. L-41012/17/2007-IR (B-1)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, AHMEDABAD
Present….
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 16th March, 2016
2492
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Reference: (CGITA) No. 85/2007
1. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway,
Kalupur,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
2. The Assistant Divisional Mechanical Engineer,
Western Railway,
Diesel Shed,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
….First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Through the General Secretary,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,
E-209, Sarvottam Nagar,
Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
….Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri M.M. Makhija, Advocate
For the Second Party
: C/o. P.R.K.P
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-41012/17/2007-IR(B-I) dated 20.8.2007 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the union of Shri Premjit Singh, Diesel Mechanic Grade-II for the post of Diesel
Mechanic Grade-I is legal, proper and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman Shri Premjit
Singh is entitled to?”
3. This reference dates back to 20.08.2007.Both the parties are served. First party filed his vakalatpatra (Ext.6) on
02.09.2008 and (Ext. 8) on 02.12.2015. But the second party has not been present since long time and has not
filed the statement of claim.Thus, it appears that second party is not willing to proceed with the reference as
they have been absent since last several dates. Thus Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in
default of the second party.
This reference is dismissed in default of the second party.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1113.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
if”pe jsyos ds izca/kra=z ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 8/2006) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
27/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41012/66/2005&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2016
S.O. 1113.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 8/2006) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 27/05/2016.
[No. L-41012/66/2005-IR (B-1)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2493
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, AHMEDABAD
Present….
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 18th March, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 8/2006
3. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway,
Pratap Nagar,
Baroda
….First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Through the Divisional Secretary,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,
Shastri Pole, Kothi,
Vadodara-390001
….Second Party
For the First Party
: Sh. H.B. Shah, Advocate
For the Second Party
: C/o. P.R.K.P
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-41012/66/2005-IR(B-I) dated 10.01.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of western railway, Vadodara in not giving promotion as a result of
restructuring of Cadre for the post of MCF/SPA to Shri Manilal Shankar w.e.f. 1.3.1993 is legal, proper and
just? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”
2. This reference dates back to 10.01.2006. Second party Union representative R.S. Sisodia has note down on the
order sheet of the reference that second party does not want to peruse the reference and the same may be
dismissed as not pressed.
Thus, the reference is dismissed as not pressed.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1114.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
if”pe jsyos ds izca/kra=z ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1033/2004) vkbZ Vh lh ¼51@1996½ dks izdkf”kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41012/159/95&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
2494
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2016
S.O. 1114.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 1033/2004) ITC (51/1996) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/05/2016.
[No. L-41012/159/95-IR (B-1)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 4th March,2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1033/2004
Reference: (ITC) No. 51/1996
1. Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway,
Bhavnagar Division,
Bhavnagar Para
...First party
Vs.
Sh. BabuMuljiGohil,
C/s hri G.A. Vaghela,
Near Verad Gate,
PO Bhanvad 360510
Dist.: Jamnagar
…Second Party
For the First Party
: Sh. Nilam B. Shah, Advocate
For the Second Party
:
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
41012/159/95-IR(B-I) dated 03.12.1995 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Rajkot(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the DRM, Western Railway, Bhavnagar Div and through his officers in terminating the
services of Shri BabuMuljiGohil, Unskilled Labour, under PWI, Kukawav, Amreli w.e.f. 7/90 is legal and
justified? If not, to what benefits the workman is entitled?”
2. This reference dates back to 03.12.1995. Second party submitted statement of claim (Ext. 2) on 27.01.1997 and
first party filed the written statement (Ext.6) on 16.06.1998. Since then second party has been given dozen of
opportunity to lead evidence but he did not prefer to lead his evidence. He has also been absent since then.Thus,
it appears that second party is not interested in the proceedings of the reference. Therefore, Tribunal has no
option but to dismiss the reference in default of the second party.
The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2495
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1115.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
if”pe jsyos ds izca/kra=z ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 56/2010) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
27/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41011/38/2004&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2016
S.O. 1115.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 56/2010) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 27/05/2016.
[No. L-41011/38/2004-IR (B-1)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 4th March,2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 56/2010
1. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway,
Ahmedabad
(Gujarat)
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway,
Churchgate,
Mumbai
….First Party
Vs.
Their Workmen
Through the general secretary,
Western Railway Employees Union,
Railway Station Building, 1st Floor,
Opp. Railway Restaurant,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat)
….Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri Vilas G. Goswami, Advocate
For the Second Party
: C/o. Western Railway Employees
Union,
2496
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
41011/38/2004-IR(B-I) dated 12.07.2010 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management if Western Railway , Mumbai & others in not fixing proper seniority
and thus giving consequential benefits to Shri V. Sukumaran, is proper and justified? If not, what relief the
union/workman concerned is entitled to?”
2. This reference dates back to 12.07.2010. Both the parties were served. First party filed vakalatnama of his
advocate Shri Vilas G. Goswami on 8.10.2010 but second party did not respond and has also not filed the
statement of claim. Second party has also been absent since then. Thus, it appears that second party is not
interested in the proceedings of the reference. Therefore, Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in
default of the second party.
The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1116.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
iapegy oMksnjk xzkehu cSad ds izca/kra=z ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 717/2004) vkbZ Vh lh ¼33@2000½ dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012/196/2000&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2016
S.O. 1116.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 717/2004) ITC (33/2000) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Panchmahal Vadodara
Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/05/2016.
[No. L-12012/196/2000-IR (B-1)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 2nd March, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 717/2004
Reference: (ITC) No. 33/2000
1. The Chairman,
Panchmahal Vadodara Gramin Bank,
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2497
‘Kalindi’Mahavir Jain Society,
U/P Mission Church,
P.O. Godhra (Gujarat)-389001
….First Party
Vs.
Their workman
Shri GanpatsinghSomsinghVankar,
C/o. Shri Jitendra Ved,
Sinduri Mata Devasthan,
S.T. Nagar,
P.O. Godhra-389001
….Second Party
For the First Party
:
For the Second Party
: C/o. Shri Jitendra Ved
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
12012/196/2000-IR(B-I) dated 26.09.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Baroda(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Panchmahal Vadodara Gramin Bank, Godhra is justified in
terminating the services of Shri GanpatsinghSomsinghVankar w.e.f. 10-11-98? If not, what relief the workman
is entitled to?”
2. This reference dates back to 26.09.2000.Second party submitted statement of claim (Ext.4) on 1.11.2000. First
party filed written statement (Ext.9) on 10.09.2001 since then second party has not been leading evidence and has
also been absent. Thus it appears that second party has no inclination or willingness to proceed with the
reference. Thus, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the second party.
The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1117.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
if”pe jsyos ds izca/kra=z ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 96/2012) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
27/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41011/29/2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2016
S.O. 1117.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 96/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 27/05/2016.
[No. L-41011/29/2012-IR (B-1)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
2498
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 18th March, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 96/2012
1. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway,
Pratap Nagar,
Baroda
……….First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Through the President,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,
B/28, Narayan Park,
Behind Chandkheda Station,
Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad
……….Second Party
For the First Party
:
For the Second Party
: C/o. P.R.K.P
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
41011/29/2012-IR(B-I) dated 21.05.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Union, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad for regularizing Shri Rajesh K.
Parmar, Helper-Khalasi in group-C instead of Group-D by the Management of Western Railway, Baroda and
paying him salary of Group-C, is legal and justified? To what relief the workman/Union is entitled?”
2. This reference dates back to 21.05.2012. Second party Union representative R.S. Sisodia has note down on the
order sheet of the reference that second party does not want to peruse the reference and the same may be
dismissed as not pressed.
Thus, the reference is dismissed as not pressed.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1118.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
LVsV cSad vkWQ lkSjk’Vª ds izca/kra=z ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 4/2005) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 27/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012/230/2004&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2499
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2016
S.O. 1118.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 4/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of Saurastra and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 27/05/2016.
[No. L-12012/230/2004-IR (B-1)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, AHMEDABAD
Present….
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 1st February, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 4/2005
1. The Regional Manager,
State Bank of Saurastra,
NeelamBaug,
H.O.,
Bhavnagar (Gujarat)
……….First Party
Vs.
Their Workman
Sh. D.U. Gohil,
Through the General Secretary,
Kathiyawad Karmachari Sangh,
Vadva, Old Garasiyavad,
Beside BhavsarWadidni,
Bhavnagar (Gujarat)
……….Second Party
For the First Party:
Sh. Bhargav Joshi, Advocate
For the Second Party:
Sh. Ajit S. Vora, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
12012/230/2004-IR(B-I) dated 29.12.2004 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Saurastra in terminating Shri D.U. Gohil from the
post of Peon from their Rajula Branch is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled for?”
2. This reference dates back to 29.12.2004.Both the parties were served. Sh. S.N. Mishra filed the Vakalatnama
(Ext.5) on behalf of the first party thereafter advocate Sh. Bhargav Joshi filed the Vakalatnama on behalf of the
first party. But second party does not filed the statement of claim despite giving a number of opportunities.
Thus, it appears that second party is not interested in the proceedings of the reference. Therefore, Tribunal has
no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the second party.
The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
2500
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1119.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
if”pe jsyos ds izca/kra=z ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 110/2006) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
27/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41011/47/2004&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2016
S.O. 1119.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 110/2006) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 27/05/2016.
[No. L-41011/47/2004-IR (B-1)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, AHMEDABAD
Present….
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 18th March, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 110/2006
1. The General Manager,
Western Railway, Church gate,
Mumbai-
2. Divisional Railway Manager,,
Western Railway,
Pratapnagar,
Baroda-390004
…First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Through the divisional Secretary,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,
Shastri Pole,
Kothi, Baroda
…Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri H.B. Shah, Advocate
For the Second Party
: C/o. P.R.K.P
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2501
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-41011/47/2004-IR(B-I) dated 26.08.2005 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the union Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Baroda for fixation of pay to
S/Shri C.L. Oathariya, C.B. Singh Awdhrsh Kumar and Jitendra T., who are promoted as Passenger Driver
from Senior Goods Driver ide letter No. E/1/839/5/21 Vol. 5 dated 10.12.2002 is legal, proper and justified?
If so, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date and what other directions are
necessary in the matter?”
3. This reference dates back to 26.08.2005. Second Party Union representative R.S. Sisodia has note down on the
order sheet of the reference that second party does not want to peruse the reference and the same may be
dismissed as not pressed.
Thus, the reference is dismissed as not pressed.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1120.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
if”pe jsyos ds izca/kra=z ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 118/2012) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
27/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41011/33/2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2016
S.O. 1120.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 118/2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 27/05/2016.
[No. L-41011/33/2012-IR (B-1)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, AHMEDABAD
Present:
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 18th March, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 118/2012
1. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway,
Pratap Nagar,
Baroda,
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway,
Near Chamunda Bridge,
Asarva,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…First Party
2502
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Vs.
Their Workman,
Through the Assistant General Secretry,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,
B/28, Narayn Park,
Behind Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
For the Second Party
: C/o. P.R.K.P
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
41011/33/2012-IR(B-I) dated 17.08.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Union, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad for promotion of Shri Kanubhai
as J.E. , Gr. II at upper with his junior Shri Holivar P. is legal and justified? To what relief Shri Kanubhai is
entitled?”
3. This reference dates back to 17.08.2012. Second Party Union representative R.S. Sisodia has note down on the
order sheet of the reference that second party does not want to peruse the reference and the same may be
dismissed as not pressed.
Thus, the reference is dismissed as not pressed.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1121.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
if”pe jsyos ds izca/kra=z ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 124/2013) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
27/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41011/34/2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2016
S.O. 1121.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 124/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 27/05/2016.
[No. L-41011/34/2013-IR (B-1)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, AHMEDABAD
Present:.
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 18th March, 2016
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2503
Reference: (CGITA) No. 124/2013
1. The Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction)-II-BOT,
Western Railway,
Kalupur,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Through the President,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,
B/28, Narayan Park,
Behind Chandkheda Station,
Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad
…Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri Rajesh Singh Thakur, Advocate
For the Second Party
: C/o. P.R.K.P
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-41011/34/2013-IR(B-I) dated 08.07.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Ahmedabad
against the Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction)-II, BOT, W.R. Ahmedabad to change of category of Shri
Budhaji M. from Gangman to khalasi from the date of appointment is legal, fair and justified? If so, then what
relief the above workman is entitled to?”
4. This reference dates back to 08.07.2013. Second Party Union representative R.S. Sisodia has note down on the
order sheet of the reference that second party does not want to peruse the reference and the same may be
dismissed as not pressed.
Thus, the reference is dismissed as not pressed.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1122.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
if”pe jsyos ds izca/kra=z ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 150/2006) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
27/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41012/176/2005&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2016
S.O. 1122.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 150/2006) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 27/05/2016.
[No. L-41012/176/2005-IR (B-1)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
2504
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, AHMEDABAD
Present:
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 18th March, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 150/2006
1. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway,
Pratapnagar,
Baroda, (Gujarat)
…First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Through the Divisional Secretary,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,
Shastri Pole, Kothi,
Vadodara-390001
…Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri H. B. Shah, Advocate
For the Second Party
: C/o. P.R.K.P
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-41012/176/2005-IR(B-I) dated 19.07.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Western Railway through Divisional Railway Manager, Baroda in
not giving the age relaxation to the SC/ST candidates for the promotion to the post of Junior Engineer, Grade-
II in the pay scale of 5000-8000 from Limited Departmental competitive Examination quota is legal, proper
and just? If not, to what relief the affected candidate are entitled?”
2. This reference dates back to 19.07.2006. Second Party Union representative R.S. Sisodia has note down on the
order sheet of the reference that second party does not want to peruse the reference and the same may be
dismissed as not pressed.
Thus, the reference is dismissed as not pressed.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1123.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
if”pe jsyos ds izca/kra=z ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 150/2010) vkbZ Vh lh ¼10@2009½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41011/72/2008&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2505
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2016
S.O. 1123.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 150/2010) ITC (10/2009) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/05/2016.
[No. L-41011/72/2008-IR (B-1)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 18th March, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 150/2010
Reference: (I.T.C.) No. 10/2009
4. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway,
Pratap Nagar,
Baroda
5. The Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (power),
Western Railway,
Pratap Nagar,
Baroda
…First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Through the Divisional Railway Secretary,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,
Shastri Pole,
Nr. Kothi,
Baroda-390001
…Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri K.J. Parikh, Advocate
For the Second Party
: C/o. P.R.K.P
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-41011/72/2008-IR(B-I) dated 18.06.2009 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Baroda(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of divisional railway manager, Western Railway, Baroda in not
giving the seniority to shri Mayur B. Kahar w.e.f. 31.8.1993, is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what
relief the concerned workman is entitled?”
5. This reference dates back to 18.06.2009. Second Party Union representative R.S. Sisodia has note down on the
order sheet of the reference that second party does not want to peruse the reference and the same may be
dismissed as not pressed.
Thus, the reference is dismissed as not pressed.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
2506
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1124.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
if”pe jsyos ds izca/kra=z ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 122/2012) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
27/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41011/47/2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2016
S.O. 1124.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 122/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 27/05/2016.
[No. L-41011/47/2012-IR (B-1)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 29th March, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 122/2012
1. The General Manager,
Western Railway,
Churchgate,
Mumbai-400020
….First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Through the President,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,
B/28, Narayan Park,
Behind Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad-382472
….Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri M.N. Pandit, Advocate
For the Second Party
: C/o. P.R.K.P
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-41011/47/2012-IR(B-I) dated 29.08.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2507
SCHEDULE
“Whether the allegation of the Union, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Ahmedabad that the
management has committed irregularities in making promotion to the post of JE-II(TMC) under Randers
Quota and IA Quota vide their orders dated 18(22) /03/2011 and 07/07/2011 respectively, is legal and
justified? Whether the demand of the Union quashing the promotion order is legal and justified? And whether
the demand of the Union for considering Shri Ashok Sharma and Shri Anil Kumar Dubey as deemed
successful for their promotion to the post of JE_II (TMC), is legal and justified?”
2. This reference dates back to 29.08.2012. Second party Union representative R.S. Sisodia has note down on the
order sheet of the reference that second party does not want to peruse the reference and the same may be
dismissed as not pressed.
Thus, the reference is dismissed as not pressed.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1125.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kra=z ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 310/2004) vkbZ Vh lh ¼71@2000½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012/442/99&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
j.kchj flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2016
S.O. 1125.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 310/2004) ITC No. (71/2000) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/05/2016.
[No. L-12012/442/99-IR (B-1)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 14th March, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 310/2004
Reference: (ITC) No. 71/2000
2. The Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Region-II,
C.N. Vidyalaya Complex, Ambawadi, (Guj.),
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380015
3. The personnel Officer ,
State Bank of India,
Zonal office,
Region-II, C.N. Vidhyalaya Complex,
Ambawadi, (Guj.),
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380015
….First Party
2508
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Vs.
Their Workman
Sh. Ashish Babulal Shah,
3467, Chhabila Odhva Ni Khadki,
ShahpurDarwajanoKhancho,
Shapur,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380001
….Second Party
For the First Party:
Sh. Bhargav Joshi, Advocate
For the Second Party:
Sh. N.U. Bhatt, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
12012/442/99-IR(B-I) dated 13.03.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating Shri Babulal Shah w.e.f.
1-12-1998 without observing the provisions of section 25 F,G, & H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal
and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”
2. This reference dates back to 13.03.2000.The second party submitted statement of claim (Ext. 7) 22.08.2000 and
first party submitted written statement (Ext.10) on 21.03.2001. Since then second party has not been leading
evidence and has also been absent since then. Learned Counsel for the first party today has also pointed out
that second party moved an application for production of documents(Ext.12) on 20.08.2001. Learned Tribunal
on 24.06.2002 directed first party to submit the documents as demanded but documents are not available,
therefore, same could not be produced. Even then second party did not turned up to lead evidence. Thus, it
appears that second party is not interested in the proceedings of the reference. Therefore, Tribunal has no
option but to dismiss the reference in default of the second party.
The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1126.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
gSoh ,yk; isusVsªVj izkstsDV fefuLVªh vkWQ fMQsUl ds izca/kra=z ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 13/2015)
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27/05/2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42011/133/2014&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2016
S.O. 1126.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 13/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai now as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Heavy
Alloy Penetrator Project, Ministry of Defence and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/05/2016.
[No. L-42011/133/2014-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2509
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Monday, the 27th April, 2016
Present :
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 13/2015
(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 Heavy Alloys Penetrator Project Trichy and
their workman)
BETWEEN
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
HAPP Contract Thozhilalar Sangam
1/594, Pallivasal Street, Poolangudi Colony
HAPP Post
Trichy-620025
AND
1. The General Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project
Ministry of Devence, Trichirappalli
Tamilnadu-620025
2. Sri Palanivel (Contractor)
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
M/s. Vannam Contractor
H-91, Anna Nagar
Trichy-620025
3. Sri S. Ramachandran (Contractor)
:
2nd Party/3rd Respondent
M/s. Sree Security Services, Pudukottai Main Road
Anna Nagar, Mathur Post, Pudukottai District
Tamilnadu-622001
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union :
Sri D. Muthukumar, Advocate
For the 2nd Party/1st Respondent :
Sri A. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the 2nd Party/2nd Respondent :
Set Ex-parte
For the 2nd Party/3rd Respondent :
Set Ex-parte
AWAR D
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-42011/133/2014-IR (DU)
dated 19.01.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the demand of the union seeking higher wages to the contract labourers working in the establishment
of HAPP is legal and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?”
2. On receipt of Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it is ID 13/2015 and issued notices to both sides. Only the
petitioner and R1 had entered appearance. R2 and R3 have remained absent and were set ex-parte.
3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner are as below :
The petitioner is a registered Trade Union affiliated to CITU. The Union has 110 members and all of them are
working under the First Respondent establishment as contract labourers. The petitioner is espousing the cause of its
members. The members of the Petitioner Union are doing sweeping, cleaning, dispatch work, cooking in the canteen,
cleaning garbage in the township, working in the garden, working as cooks for Officers, etc. The First Respondent is
2510
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
now paying Rs. 276/- per day as wages to a contract worker. The NLC Management is paying Rs. 480/- per day to the
contract workers who are doing similar work. Kamarajar Port Limited is paying HRA @ 30% of basic wages and other
allowances, and bonus at the rate of 8.33% of basic pay. The First Respondent is not paying HRA and basic allowances.
When similarly situated government organizations are paying fair wages to the contract workers the First Respondent
which is also a government organization is not paying fair wages to the contract workers. When the other Public Sectors
and other government organizations are paying more wages than minimum wages to the contract workers who are doing
similar work as that of members of the petitioner union the members of the petitioner union are also entitled to get wages
at par with the wages of the workers of Public Sector and government organizations. An order may be passed directing
the First Respondent to pay at the rate of Rs. 480/- per day as wages to each of the members of the Petitioner Union.
4. The First Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below :
The First Respondent is a defence production unit under the Ministry of Defence. The main work of the factory
is production of arms and ammunitions. Sundry works such as sweeping, cleaning, etc are carried out through various
contracts. Contractors are having their own labourers for execution of the work. The members of the Petitioner Union
are the labourers engaged by various Contractors for execution of the contract of sweeping and cleaning as per the terms
and conditions of the supply order. It was as per the Gazette Notification dated 7.8.2008, minimum wage rates was fixed
for employees engaged in the scheduled employment of sweeping and cleaning. The members of the Petitioner Union
are paid wages at the rate of Rs. 290/- as per the notification of minimum wages fixed by the Ministry of Labour and
Employment. The employees engaged in Neyveli Lignite Limited, Kamaraj Port Limited, etc. come under different
categories other than that of the members of the Petitioner Union who are employed in the scheduled employment of
sweeping and cleaning as per the order of the Ministry. The area in which the First Respondent factory is located is
classified as ‘‘B’’ area. The members of the Petitioner Union are engaged as unskilled category of workers for
scheduled employment of sweeping and cleaning. No employer-employee relationship exists between the First
Respondent and members of the Petitioner Union. They are working as engaged by different contractors for execution of
the contract of sweeping and cleaning. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext. W1 to Ext. W6
and Ext. M1 to Ext. M7.
6. The points for consideration are :
(i) Whether the members of the Petitioner Union are entitled to higher wages on par with the wages of the workers
of other Public Undertakings and other governments establishments?
(ii)
What, if any, is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?
The Points
7. The petitioner has raised the dispute on behalf of its 110 members who are working as contract labourers in the First
Respondent establishment. The Second and Third Respondents are the Contractors through whom the workers are
serving the First Respondent. The grievance of the Petitioner Union is that members of the its Union are paid only at the
rate of Rs. 276/- per day as wages while those workers working for the NLC Management, Kamarajar Port Limited, etc.
in similar capacity as that of the workers of the Petitioner Union are paid Rs. 480/- per day and also allowances like
HRA. The case in the Claim Statement seems to be that the workers of the Petitioner Union are doing the same kind of
work that is done by such workers in the NLC, Kamarajar Port Limited, etc. and so they are also eligible to be paid at the
rate in those establishments.
8. The First Respondent who is the only respondent who has come forward to contest the matter has stated in the
Counter Statement that the members of the Petitioner Union are paid as per the notification of the Ministry of Labour
and employment for payment of minimum wages. It is the further contention of the First Respondent that there is no
employer-employee relationship between the First Respondent and the members of the Petitioner Union and they are not
liable to make any payment to the members of the Petitioner Union.
9. The Secretary of the Petitioner Union has given evidence reiterating the case in the Claim Statement. Apart from other
documents, Ext. W3 the copy of the settlement entered into between the NLC and its Contract Workers is also marked
through WW1. This document is intended to show that contract workers of the NLC establishment are given more wages
than those workers who are members of the Petitioner Union. However, it has come out during cross-examination of
WW1 that the working conditions and circumstances of the NLC workers and Kamarajar port workers are not the same
as that of the workers of the Petitioner Union. It has been specifically pleaded by the First Respondent in its counter
Statement that minimum rate of wages fixed for workers who are working in the mines are different. WW1 has admitted
during his cross-examination that as per the Gazette Notification fixing minimum wages, the wages payable for
unskilled workers working in ‘‘B’’ area is Rs. 290/- per day while those workers working in the NLC and Kamarajar
Port are included in the ‘‘A’’ area. Ext. M6 is the notification revising the minimum wages of scheduled employment in
Central Sphere establishment. The category of workers are given as unskilled, semi-skilled, highly skilled, etc. So also
the area of work are classified as ‘‘A’’ area, ‘‘B’’ area, ‘‘C’’ area, etc. Thus it is very much clear that the contract
labourers who are working in the NLC and Kamarajar Port age getting higher wages as their work are in areas different
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2511
from the area in which the members of the Petitioner Union are working. The conditions of labour, the nature of work
done by the members of the Petitioner Union, etc. could not be said to be on par with that of the workers of NLC or of
Kamarajar Port Limited. So the petitioner cannot claim wages for its members on par with the contract workers of those
establishments on the ground that they are doing the same kind of work. For the above reason the petitioner is not
entitled to any relief.
In view of my discussion above the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed
accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the
9th May, 2016)
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
WW1, Sri C. Vinayagamurthy
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
MW1, Sri V. Ilancheliyan
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ext. W1
12.08.2013
Demand raised by the Petitioner Union
Ext. W2
09.09.2014
Strike notice issued by the Petitioner Union
Ext. W3
25.11.2014
Copy of the settlement between the NLC and its contract workers
Ext. W4
28.11. 2014
Reply given by the First Respondent Management
Ext. W5
2014
Tender notification of Kamarajar Port Limited
Ext. W6
-
Salary slips of the members of the Petitioner Union
On the Management’s side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ext. M1
07.08.2008
The Gazette of India, Part-II No. 1128 published Ministry of
Labour and Employment Notification S.O. 1994(E) dated
07.08.2008
Ext. M2
28.11.2014
Ministry of Labour and Employment, Office of the Assistant
Labour
Commissioner
(Central),
Puducherry
letter
No.
8/31/2014/PDY dated 28.11.2014
Ext. M3
18.12.2014
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi OM No. L-42011/133/2014
IR(DU)
Ext. M4
19.01.2015
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi Order No. L-42011/133/2014-IR
(DU)
Ext. M5
28.01.2015
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai notice in ID 13/2015
Ext. M6
06.04.2015
Ministry of Labour and Employment, Office of the Dy. Chief
Commissioner (Central), Chennai letter No. M. 92(01)/2015-C1
Ext. M7
-
Annexure-A and Terms and conditions to HAPP supply order for
service contract
2512
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 31 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1127.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
bf.M;u ,;jykbZUl fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] u0 2] ubZ fnYYkh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 24@2008½ dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&11012/8/2008&vkbZ vkj ¼lh-,e-&1½]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 31st May, 2016
S.O. 1127.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/08) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No
2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Airlines Ltd., and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 31/05/2016.
[No. L-11012/8/2008 - IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT - II
DELHI
Present: Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID.No. 24/08
Shri Beer Singh,
S/o Shri Pyare Lal, R/o K-221,
Kalibari Marg,
New Delhi -110001.
... Workman
Versus
The Regional Director,
Indian Airlines Ltd.,
Indian Airlines Complex,
IGI Airport Terminal –I,
New Delhi.
… Management
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour Vide Letter No. L-11012/8/2008-IR(CM-I) dated
28.05.2008 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-
“Whether the action of the management of Indian Airlines, Delhi (now NACIL) in dismissing Sh. Beer Singh,
Helper (Engg.) from the service w.e.f. 21.07.1988 is justified and legal? ii) To what relief is the concerned workman
entitled?
On 2.06.2008 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No.24/2008 and claimant was
called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.
After service of notice workman filed proper claim statement on 3.05.2010. Where-in he prayed as follows:-
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the enquiry
proceedings and the disproportionate punishment awarded on account of the alleged fabricated ground of unauthorized
absence and reinstate the workman in continuity of his service with full back wages and other consequential benefits.
Against claim statement management filed written statement on 30.05.2013. Through which it prayed as follows:-
The prayer clause of the statement of claim is denied in its entirety . It is respectfully prayed that the enquiry
conducted by the management should be upheld as fair and proper and the punishment imposed should be held as
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2513
proportionate to the misconduct committed by the workman which has been duly provided in the domestic enquiry and
accordingly the claim of the workman should be dismissed and the case should be decided in favour of the management.
That the management also seeks liberty to request this Hon’ble Tribunal to provide an opportunity to the
management to lead evidence to prove the charges leveled upon the workman in case the enquiry proceedings are
vitiated on any account.
Against which workmen filed rejoinder. Through which he reaffirmed the contents of claim statement.
My Ld. Predecessor on 30.05.2013 framed following issues:-
1.Whether the enquiry conducted by the management was just & fair
2.Whether punishment awarded to the claimant commensurate to his misconduct?
3.As in terms of reference.
On the stage of workman evidence. Several opportunities given to workman for workman evidence but workman failed
to adduce his evidence. Hence on 14.10.2014 workman evidence has been closed and I fixed 11.11.2014 for
management evidence.
Management in support of its case filed affidavit of Management witness on 12.1.2015.
MW1 tendered his affidavit on 21.07.2015. His statement of examination-in-chief is as follows:-
I tender my affidavit which is exht. MW1/A. Which bears my signature at point A and B.
I also rely on documents Exht. MW1/1 to MW1/18.
XXX:- Cross-examination marked nil as none is present on behalf of workman to cross-examine the management
witness.
I have heard the arguments of Ld. A/R for the management and perused the pleadings and evidence of management
only. Claimant has adduced no evidence.
In the instant case workman/claimant adduced no evidence to prove contents of his claim statement. So
pleadings without evidence cannot be relied upon as per settled law of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Moreover statement of MW1 supports the contents of written statement of management as statement of MW1
is unrebutted in want cross-examination. So it comes within category of reliable and credible evidence.
In these circumstances, this Tribunal has no option except to decide the reference in favour of management and
against workman.
Which is accordingly decided. Claim statement is accordingly dismissed.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-29/03/2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1128.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
bZlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 41@2007½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 31@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&22012/178/2006&vkbZ vkj ¼lh-,e-&2½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 31st May, 2016
S.O. 1128.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Satgram Area Workshop of
M/s. ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 31/05/2016.
[No. L-22012/178/2006 - IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
2514
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 41 OF 2007
PARTIES: The management of Satgram Area Workshop of M/s. E.C.L.
Vs.
Sri Bablu Bandopadhyay
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Management:
Sri P. K. Goswami, Ld. Advocate
For the union (Workman): Sri Sayantan Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate
INDUSTRY:
COAL
STATE : WEST BENGAL
Dated : 18.05.2016
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter NO. L-
22012/178/2006–IR(CM-II) dated 03.07.2007 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the demand of the Union for not placing Sri Bablu Bandopadhyay in Grade ’B’ and his
wages etc. accordingly for the period he worked as Foreman (Excavation) & Foreman Incharge (Excavation) is legal and
justified? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled? ”
________
1. Having received the Order NO. L-22012/178/2006–IR(CM-II) dated 03.07.2007 of the above said reference
from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 41 of 2007
was registered on 18.07.2007. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post
to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along
with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by
the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their
representative.
2.
In brief, the workman Sri Bablu Bandopadhyay has stated in his written statement that he was appointed on
03.01.1985 in M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited being Man Unique Number 813225. He was regularized as E.P.
Electrician in Excavation Grade-‘D’ on 28.08.1988. Later on he was transferred to J. K. Nagar Fire Project (Seetaldasji
O.C.P) in September, 1991 in the same grade. The workman was promoted in Grade-‘C’ on 03.09.1993, but his
designation remains unchanged. As sponsored candidate of employer he passed out Diploma in Electrical Engineering in
1st Class. After getting degree of Diploma he was authorized to work as Assistant Foreman in the year 1998-1999 and as
Foreman in 1999-2000. In the year 2000 in place of one Sri U.S. Sarkar, designated Forman-in-Charge, he performed the
duty of Foreman-in-Charge (Excavation). But he was getting wages of Technical and Supervisory Grade-‘C’ instead of
Technical and Supervisory Grade-‘B.’ Without taking re-course to the norms and promotion procedures, the workman
was selected to the post of Assistant Foreman (T) in Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘C’ on and from 22.02.2001, the
designation of workman was changed. All along the workman has been working as a Foreman-in-Charge (Excavation)
since July, 1998 to 23.03.2001. The workman is performing the duty as Foreman-in-charge (E&M) since 2001 till now.
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2515
Juniors are getting better pay-scale than the workman. The workman is suffering huge monetary loss as well as
promotion. The workman and Union raised various protests against the illegal change of cadre. Dy. C.P.M (P&IR),
E.C.L., H.Q. wrote the letter to Dy. C.P.M, Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited advising him to consider
the promotion of the concerned workman. But the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and concerned
Officers did not pay any heed. The workman has prayed that Tribunal may kindly direct the employer to place
concerned workman Sri Bablu Bandopadhyay in Technical and Supervisory Grade-‘B’. He has also prayed that
employer may be directed accordingly for awarding all back wages and consequential relief with retrospective effect
from the year 2000. The employer may also be directed to pay interest and costs as the Tribunal may deem fit.
3.
The General Manager, Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has stated in brief, in his written
statement that concerned workman Sri Bablu Banerjee was designated as E. P. Electrician, Grade-II in Excavation,
Grade-‘C’. As per Scheme for E&M discipline no one can be selected or posted to the post of Foreman (Electrical or
Mechanical) unless he is initially selected as Assistant Foreman (Trainee). A notice inviting application from the eligible
candidates for the post of Assistant Foreman and Assistant Foreman (Trainee) was served and Mr. Banerjee offered
himself as one of the candidates for consideration. DPC selected Mr. Banerjee vide Office Order No. SAT/PER/B-
24/2001/1140 dated 21/22.02.2001. Mr. Banerjee assumed charge of Assistant Foreman (Electrical) (Trainee) at Satgram
Workshop of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Therefore Mr. Banerjee was not entitled for the post of Foreman
(Electrical). According to norms he was not authorized to work as Foreman. The demand of Union is not justified under
any provision of law. So the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.
The workman has filed Exibit-1 to Extibit-12 as documentary evidence on his behalf. The workman Sri Bablu
Bandopadhyay has filed the affidavit in his oral evidence. He has been cross-examined by the Learned Advocate of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited. M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has filed copy of attendance register, copy of promotion
channel and Office order dated 21/22.2.2001.
4.
Sri Sayantan Mukherjee, Learned Advocate argued on behalf of workman and Sri P. K. Goswami the learned
Advocate argued on behalf of M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited. Besides oral argument Mr. Sayantan Mukherjee, Learned
Advocate has filed written argument on behalf of workman.
5.
Sri Sayantan Mukherjee has argued that concerned workman Sri Bablu Bandopadhyay has been performing the
job of Foreman-in-charge (Excavation) with full satisfaction of management with the wages of Technical and
Supervisory Grade-‘C’. He ought to have been granted wages of Technical and Supervisory Grade-‘B’ in which he has
been performing the job. The workman was suddenly selected for the post of Assistant Foreman (Trainee) (Electrical &
Mechanical) in Technical and Supervisory Grade-‘C’ on 22.02.2001, causing change of discipline in clear violation of
norms of Promotion procedures. He ought to have been granted wages of Technical and Supervisory Grade-‘B’ in which
he has been performing job since 2000. The juniors are getting better pay-scale than the concerned workman Sri Bablu
Bandopadhyay. On the other hand, Sri P. K. Goswami has argued that Sri Bablu Bandopadhyay was selected for the
post of Assistant Foreman (Electrical) (Trainee). Therefore he was not authorized and entitled to work as Foreman
(Excavation) and Sri Bablu Bandopadhyay is not entitled for any relief.
6.
It is admitted fact that concerned workman Sri Bablu Bandopadhyay was initially appointed on 03.01.1985. It is
also not disputed that he was designated as E. P. (Electrician) Grade-II in Grade-‘C.’ The workman has filed copy of
letter reference No. ECL/SAT/CGM/E&M/10-11/158 dated 13.10.2010 issued by Sri R. N. Kar, Area Manager of
Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. By this letter Sri R. N. Kar has certified that Sri Bablu Bandopadhyay
Assistant Foreman (E), U.M No. 813225 is working as Foreman-in-charge (E&M) at Satgram Workshop since February,
2001. On perusal of copy of Attendance Register filed by M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, it appears that Sri Bablu
Bandopadhyay was posted and performing the job as E. P. (Electrician) from 31.1.2000 to March 2001. As per
Annexure-A, the copy of Promotion Policy, it shows that an employee of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited having three
years minimum experience or Diploma in Electrical Engineering can be promoted for the post of Assistant Foreman
(Electrical) (Trainee). On perusal of Annexure-B, Office Order No. SAT/PER/B-24/2001/1140 dated 21/22.2.2001 filed
by M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, it reveals that Sri Bablu Bandopadhyay was selected for the post of Assistant
Foreman (Electrical) (Trainee) in Technical and Supervisory Grade-‘C’. By this order he has to perform as Probationer
for a period of one year i.e. till February, 2002. It is evident that initially Sri Bablu Bandopadhyay was selected by due
process on sanctioned post.
7.
From Exibit-6(b), Exibit-9, Exibit-9(b), Exibit-9(e), Exibit-9(f), Exibit-9(g), Exibit-9(h), Exibit-9(i) and Exibit-
9(l) it conforms that Sri Bablu Bandopadhyay was performing function as Foreman. He was directed to function as
Foreman (Excavation). It is relevant to mention that Sri Bablu Bandopadhyay was on probation period till February,
2002. But before completion of that period he was authorized to function on the job of Foreman (Excavation) in
Technical and Supervisory, Grade-‘B’. M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has authorized Sri Bablu Bandopadhyay to
perform the job on the post of Foreman (Excavation) from the year 2000 in violation of his own letter dated 22.02.2001.
2516
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8.
Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow University v/s Akhilesh Kumar Khare & Another, 2015 (147), FLR Page-410,
Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred B.N. Nagarjun case (1979) 4 SCC page 507 as
“ Duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more
but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such
employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above
referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their
instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who
have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals
and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to
be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in
motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub-judice,
need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement
and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. ”
9.
In the light of the above decision the initial appointment of the concerned workman Sri Bablu Bandopadhyay is
legal. He was promoted to Technical and Supervisory Grade-‘B’. He possesses necessary qualification. He is performing
the job on sanctioned post for more than 10 (Ten) years. Therefore he should be placed in Technical and Supervisory
Grade-‘B’ and accordingly he should receive wages and other perquisite, if any.
10.
The demand of the Union for placing Sri Bablu Bandopadhyay in the Grade-‘B’ and his wages accordingly, for
the period he worked as Foreman (Excavation) and Foreman-in-charge (Excavation) is legal and justified. Sri Bablu
Bandopadhyay is entitled to be regularized on the post of Foreman (Excavation) since February, 2001 and accordingly
he is entitled for wages and other perquisite, if any, from February, 2001 placing him in Technical and Supervisory,
Grade-‘B’. The order will be enforced within Two months after publication under section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 31 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1129.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
bZlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 40@2000½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 31@05@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012/513/1999&vkbZ vkj ¼lh-,e-&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 31st May, 2016
S.O. 1129.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2000) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Hospital,
Kalla of M/s. ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 31/05/2016.
[No. L-22012/513/1999-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2517
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 40 OF 2000
PARTIES: The management of Central Hospital, Kalla of M/s. E.C.L.
Vs.
Sri S. K. Namtirtha
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management:
Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate
For the union (workman):
Sri Sayantan Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate
INDUSTRY:
COAL
STATE : WEST BENGAL
Dated : 16.05.2016
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No.
L-22012/513/1999–IR(CM-II) dated 06.07.2000 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of Central Hospital, Kalla, in terminating Sri S. K. Namtirtha, Sr.
Clerk for service w.e.f. 26.11.1996 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled? ”
1. Having received the Order No. L-22012/513/1999–IR(CM-II) dated 06.07.2000 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 40 of 2000 was
registered on 01.08.2000. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to
the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along
with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by
the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their
representative.
2.
In brief, the delinquent workman Sri S. K. Namtirtha has stated in his written statement that he was working
under the administrative control of Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organization, Government of India. Later Coal Mines
Labour Welfare Organization was merged with Coal India Limited on 01.08.1985. M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited was
interested to run Central Hospital, Kalla on behalf of M/s. Coal India Limited. Since then from 01.08.1985 Central
Hospital, Kalla is Part and Percel of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited Coalfields Limited. During service period Sri S. K.
Namtirtha was charge sheeted for loss of 2 (Two) medical unfit case files namely Smt. Chunki Bai and Sri Mashi
Charan Masi. Sri S. K. Namtirtha was held responsible and he was charge sheeted for loss of the above two files.
Charge sheet was issued under the provision of Model Standing Order. Though, provision of Certified Standing Order
was in force at that relevant time. But instead of issuing charge sheet under Certified Standing Order, charge sheet was
issued under Model Standing Order. Sri S. K. Namtirtha, replied the charge sheet, denying all the charges levelled
against him. The Additional Chief Medical Officer, Central Hospital, Kalla of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited after
receiving the explanation of the delinquent workman Sri S. K. Namtirtha appointed Sri R. N. Ganguly, Deputy
Personnel Manager of Central Hospital, Kalla of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited as Enquiry Officer. The Chief Medical
Officer of Central Hospital, Kalla, appointed Sri Uday Chatterjee, A.C.V.O. as Presenting Officer for holding a
domestic enquiry in to the charge sheet No. ECL/CHA/DPM/Addl.CMO/93/8901 dated 12.07.1993 issued to Sri S. K.
Namtirtha, Sr. Clerk of Central Hospital, Kalla of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The copy of Appointment Letter of
Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were duly supplied to the delinquent workman. But the copy of preliminary
Enquiry Report and list of management’s witnesses who were examined during preliminary enquiry was not supplied
2518
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to Sri Namtirtha. The Enquiry Officer was biased because he was under the administrative control of the Chief Medical
Officer, Central Hospital, Kalla of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The Principle of Natural Justice was not complied
with. The delinquent workman was not provided the opportunity of defending himself during domestic enquiry. The
General Manager (Personnel) M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria vide letter no. ECL/CMD/C-6B/96/3359 dated
24.10.1996 passed the Order of Dismissal from service of Sri S. K. Namtirtha. The employment file of Smt. Chunki Bai
is still available at Central Hospital, Kalla on the basis of which employment has also been offered in that case. Another
file of Sri Pradip Kumar Bias is also available in Central Hospital Kalla Office and employment has also been offered in
that case against medical un-fitness of the existing employees. Both the persons appointed are still in service. Moreover,
as per Government of India, Department of Pen and Peng. Welfare Office Memo No. 4/18/87 P&PW(D) dated
05.07.1989 transferred employees from the Coal Mines Welfare Organization cannot be dismissed or removed from
service without the approval of Ministry.
3.
The Chief Medical Officer, Central Hospital, Kalla of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has stated in his written
statement that, Sri S. K. Namtirtha had joined in the services of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited at Central Hospital,
Kalla on 01.08.1985 as per terms and conditions in his letter of ‘Option’. Sri S. K. Namtirtha, while he was working as a
Senior Clerk at Central Hospital, Kalla of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited was issued charge sheet No.
ECL/CH/DPM/Addl./Cons/93/8301 dated 12.07.1993 for his act of misconduct as per Clause No. 17(1)(a) of Model
Standing Order applicable to the establishment. Sri S. K. Namtirtha was charge sheeted for misplacement of two
medical unfit case files after receiving the same from M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited’s Head Quarter on 24.07.1990.
Sri S. K. Namtirtha was not in any way connected for dealing the above files, nor was he authorized to collect the said
files from M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited’s Head Quarter. The charge sheeted workman submitted his reply of the
charge sheet on 02.09.1993 by denying all the charges leveled against him. As the reply of the delinquent workman was
found to be un-satisfactory, it was decided to hold domestic enquiry into the said charges as per provisions of Model
Standing Order. Sri R. N. Ganguly, Deputy Personnel Manager of Central Hospital, Kalla of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry by providing all reasonable
opportunity to the workman to defend himself during enquiry proceedings in accordance with the Principle of Natural
Justice. After completion of the enquiry proceedings a copy of the Enquiry Report was sent to the workman by the
management before imposing punishment upon him. After careful consideration of the Charge Sheet, reply to the
Charge Sheet, Enquiry Proceedings and Enquiry Report the competent authority was pleased to pass the Order of
Dismissal from service of Sri S. K. Namtirtha. The workman had filed T. S. No. 96/95 before Learned Civil Judge at
Asansol Court but it was dismissed on contest. Subsequently Sri S. K. Namtirtha filed a Title Suit before the senior
division which was also dismissed on contest. Sri S. K. Namtirtha thereafter preferred a Writ Petition before the
Hon’ble Calcutta High Court challenging the Order of Dismissal and the said case was also dismissed on contest. There
is no procedure for serving any report of preliminary enquiry or list of witness proposed to be examined along with the
Charge Sheet. The allegation of the workman that the concerned workman being transferred from Coal Mines Welfare
Organization to M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, Central Hospital, Kalla, the workman Sri S. K. Namtirtha cannot be
dismissed from service without approval of administrative ministry / department is also misconceived.
4.
The workman has also stated in his rejoinder written statement that the suit in the Civil Court of Asansol and
Writ petition at Hon’ble Calcutta High Court were dismissed not on merit. It was not adjudicated on merit. The files of
Smt. Chunki Bai and Sri Mashi Charan Masi are still available in the office of the Central Hospital, Kalla of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited. The enquiry is vitiated and biased. There is no compliance of natural justice. In compliance
of natural justice the supply of copy of preliminary enquiry report and list of proposed witness for examination are
mandatory.
5.
The delinquent workman has filed Annexure in documentary evidences. Sri S. K. Namtirtha filed affidavit in
his oral evidence. He has been crossed examined by the Learned Advocate of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.
Sri Sayantan Mukherjee, the Learned Advocate has filed written argument on behalf of the workman. Sri P. K. Das, the
Learned Advocate has filled written argument on behalf of Central Hospital, Kalla of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. I
perused the written argument of both parties, in addition I also heard the argument of Sri Sayantan Mukherjee.
Sri Sayantan Mukherjee Learned Advocate of the workman has stated in his written argument that Addl. Chief Medical
Officer and General Manager are not the appointing authority and as such they cannot issue Charge Sheet and pass
Dismissal Order from service. As per constitution of India only appointing authority can issue Charge Sheet and pass
the Dismissal Order. He has argued that vide Government of India’s O.M. No. 4/1887-P &PW dated 05.07.1989. As
such the Dismissal Order should be reviewed by the Administrative Ministry Department. In the event of dismissal
order he will get the pay protection. He has argued that at that relevant time Certified Standing Order was applicable.
But the Charge Sheet has been issued as per Model Standing Order which was not applicable at that relevant time.
Therefore, issuance of Charge Sheet under Model Standing Order is illegal. He has argued that the delinquent workman
was not served with the copy of Preliminary Enquiry Report. The enquiry is, therefore, absolutely vitiated and there is
no compliance of Natural Justice. He was not given any opportunity to defend himself. Before passing Dismissal Order
issuance of 2nd Show Cause Notice is mandatory as per provision of law but it was not issued to him. He has also argued
that the misplaced files for which the Charge Sheet was issued are still available in the office of Central Hospital, Kalla
of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Therefore, he cannot be punished for misplacement of files.
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2519
6.
It is admitted fact that Sri S. K. Namtirtha, the delinquent employee was an employee of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited and posted in Central Hospital, Kalla of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited after the Coal Mines
Welfare Organization was merged with M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited as per Government notification. It is also
admitted by both the parties that he was dismissed from service after enquiry. It is not essential that Charge Sheet is
required to be issued only by the Appointing Authority. The Charge Sheet can be issued by any officer even lower in
rank than appointing authority. But Dismissal Order can only be passed by any officer, equal in rank or superior in rank
to Appointing Authority. The Dismissal Order has been passed by the General Manager (Personnel) who is the
Appointing Authority.
7.
The Central Hospital, Kalla of Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organization was merged with M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited as per Government notification and Sri S. K. Namtirtha was posted at Central Hospital, Kalla which
is an unit of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The concerned delinquent employee before the above merger may be an
employee of Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organization, Govt. of India. But after merger of Coal Mines Labour Welfare
Organization with M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited the service conditions applicable to other employees of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited stands automatically applicable to Sri S. K. Namtirtha, being an employee of Central Hospital, Kalla
of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The lien of the employee concerned with Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organization
automatically comes to end after merger. Therefore after merger there is no need to take approval of the concerned
Ministry or Department for taking disciplinary action or punishment of dismissal.
8.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Panchraj Tiwari v/s M.P. State Electricity Board and Others, 2014 (141) FLR 288
has held :
“ Once a service is merged with another, merged service loses its original identity, if retains its original status, it
cannot be an absorption or merger or integration.”
9.
It transpires from records that the delinquent workman was Charge Sheeted as per Clause 17(1)(a) of Model
Standing Order for gross misconduct for misplacement of two important medical unfit case files. Model Standing Order
is described in Industrial Employment (Standing Order), 1946. The Charge Sheet was issued vide No.
ECL/CHA/DPM/Addl.CMO/93/8901 has been issued on 12.07.1993. Whereas, the Certified Standing Order was
enforced in M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited vide Ref. No. ECL/CMD/C-6D/2875 dated 23.12.1999. Therefore, it is
evident that in July, 1993 Model Standing Order was applicable in M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, not the Certified
Standing Order.
10.
It appears from record that before issuing Charge Sheet to the delinquent workman Sri S. K. Namtirtha no
preliminary enquiry was conducted. In Model Standing Order there is no provision for conducting preliminary enquiry
before conducting domestic or departmental enquiry. Therefore, question does not arise to supply copy of Preliminary
Enquiry Report to the workman who was charge sheeted as per Model Standing Order. The delinquent workman has
requested the management for an opportunity to inspect the records vide his letter dated 14.07.1993 to the Addl. Chief
Medical Officer, Central Hospital, Kalla of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.
11.
The delinquent workman has stated that he was issued Charge Sheet on 12.07.1993. After receiving the reply
of delinquent workman the Addl. Chief Medical Officer, Central Hospital, Kalla of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited
appointed Sri R. N. Ganguly, Dy. Personnel Manager, Central Hospital, Kalla of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited as
Enquiry officer by letter dated 18.11.1993. The Chief Medical Officer, Central Hospital, Kalla of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited appointed Sri U. Chatterjee, Addl.C.V.O. as Presenting Officer on 05.04.1994. Copies of these
letters were also served to the delinquent workman Sri S. K. Namtirtha.
12.
The first sitting of the enquiry was held on 20.05.1994. The delinquent workman was allowed to be
represented by Sri Bidyut Mondal, Clerk, Central Hospital, Kalla of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The enquiry was
conducted in presence of the delinquent workman. After recording the statement of Presenting Officer, the enquiry was
adjourned for 21.05.1994. Sri S. K. Namtirtha assisted by the co-worker Sri Bidyut Mondal, was allowed to cross-
examine the Presenting Officer on 21.05.1994. The delinquent felt uneasiness due to his respiratory trouble and as such
the enquiry was adjourned to 11.08.1994 and from 11.08.1994 to 14.11.1994. On 14.11.1994 the statement of Sri B.
Misra, PW-1 was recorded. Sri B. Misra, Dy.CVO of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, in his statement stated that the
signature of receiving the files from Sanctoria Office by Sri S. K. Namtirtha was verified by hand-writing experts and
the authenticity of the signature has been confirmed by them. The enquiry was adjourned to 17.11.1994. The delinquent
workman was permitted to cross-examine the PW-1, Sri B. Misra. Then the enquiry was adjourned. On application of
the delinquent workman, he was permitted to cross examine Sri U. Chatterjee, Presenting officer who was already cross-
examined by the delinquent on 21.05.1994. On 29.11.1994 Sri S. K. Namtirtha cross-examined Sri D. K. Bhaduri, PW-
4. On request of Sri S. K. Namtirtha, the enquiry proceeding was adjourned. Enquiry proceeding was fixed for
12.12.1994. On 12.12.1994 the presentation of prosecution witness was over. On request of Sri S. K. Namtirtha the date
of enquiry proceeding was fixed for 26.12.1994, Sri S. K. Namtirtha examined his defense witness namely Sri B. D.
Khan, Clerk, Central Hospital, Kalla of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited (DW-1) and Sri B. N. Sen, Ex-O.S., Central
Hospital Kalla of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited (DW-2). On 06.01.1995 the statement of Sri S. K. Namtirtha was
recorded.
2520
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13.
On perusal of Enquiry Report and Enquiry Proceedings it is evident that the Presenting officer has proved the
charges levelled against the delinquent workman and confirmed the receipt of files by the delinquent. Sri S. K.
Namtirtha has not filed rebuttal evidence in his defense on this point. The enquiry officer has given all reasonable
opportunities to the delinquent. The delinquent was allowed to be represented by co-worker of his choice. The
delinquent was allowed ample opportunity to cross-examine all the witnesses of management. The delinquent was
accorded opportunity to put his defense witnesses as well as to put his written argument if, he wishes. On the request of
delinquent the enquiry proceedings was adjourned on several dates. On perusal of Charge Sheet, Enquiry Report,
Enquiry Proceedings and Oral Evidences it is clear that there is complete compliance of Natural Justice in enquiry. The
Enquiry Officer has also taken all care for compliance of Natural Justice to the workman during domestic enquiry.
14.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nirmal J. Jhala v/s State of Gujrat and another, 2013 LAB. I.C. 2113 has held:
“ The disciplinary proceedings are not a criminal trial, and in spite of the fact that same are quasi-judicial and quasi-
criminal, doctrine of proof beyond reasonable doubt, does not apply in such cases, but the principle of preponderance of
probabilities would apply. The court has to see whether there is evidence on record to reach the conclusion that the
delinquent had committed a misconduct.”
15.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court the misconduct of the delinquent workman Sri S. K.
Namtirtha need not to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. His misconduct only needs to be proved on the basis of
preponderance of probabilities which has been proved in this present reference.
16.
So far as question of 2nd Show Cause Notice is concerned the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Delhi Transport
Corporation v/s Sri Mithan Lal, 2013 LAB. I.C. 2296 has held:
“ By way of amendment to Art. 311(2) by Constitution (42nd) Amendment Act, 1976, requirement of giving notice to
Government servant after conclusion of inquiry apprising him of penalty to be imposed was done away with, only
requirement now is to supply delinquent copy of report of Inquiry Officer for his response.”
17.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court there is no need to send 2nd Show Cause Notice
before imposing punishment of dismissal. Now only requirement is to supply the delinquent the copy of enquiry report
for his response. This has been complied in present reference. The delinquent has been supplied the copy of enquiry
proceeding after conclusion of enquiry and before passing order of punishment.
18.
The delinquent workman Sri S. K. Namtirtha has stated in Page-7 of his written statement as well as on written
argument that both the files are still available at Central Hospital, Kalla, at Asansol.
19.
But there is no piece of evidence on record that when missing file was traced. In enquiry proceeding it has been
proved that the delinquent workman Sri S. K. Namtirtha received the questioned file by putting his signature for
which he was charge sheeted. His signature regarding receipt of misplaced file was proved in enquiry proceeding. The
disputed signature was compared with specimen signature of Sri S. K. Namtirtha. There is no doubt that the delinquent
workman received the file by his own sign. At the time of receiving the file Sri S. K. Namtirtha put his signature but he
was unable to present the misplace file during the enquiry proceeding. If it is proved that Sri S. K. Namtirtha received
the file it was for the S. K. Namtirtha to trace the misplaced file. It is apparent that till conclusion of enquiry and till
passing of dismissal order Sri S. K. Namtirtha was unable to trace the missing file. Even if for sake of argument it is
assured that the misplaced file was recovered afterwards but there was no piece of evidence on record that when
misplaced file was recovered.
20.
The conception of misconduct on the part on an employee arises out of the terms and conditions of service and
is intimately connected with the nature of relationship between master and servant. Employees are subject to certain
discipline, rules and regulation governing their employment and any act in violations of such rules and regulation will be
misconduct. Hospitals are sensitive institution and are engaged in saving human life. Success of such institution depends
much upon the confidence generated by the staff working there. Misappropriation by an employee working in any
institution is a serious and grave misconduct and the dismissal on this ground by M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is
proportionate punishment.
21.
In view of the above discussion the action of management of Central Hospital of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited at Kalla in terminating Sri S. K. Namtirtha, Service Clerk from services is justified. The workman is not entitled
to any relief.
O R D E R
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2521
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1130.— jk’Vªifr] Jh ns”kik.Ms eygkj fo”oukFkjko] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd
vf/kdj.k lg Je U;k;ky] eqEcbZ&II dks dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k lg Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds ihBklhu
vf/kdkjh ds in dk vfrfjDr izHkkj 6&5&2016 ls N% eghuksa rd dh vof/k vFkok fu;fer vk/kkj ij in Hkjs tkus rd
vFkok vxys vkns'k rd] tks Hkh igys gks] lkSaik tkrk gS A
[la- ,&11016/03/2009&lh,y,l&II]
,l- ds- flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2016
S.O. 1130.—The President is pleased to entrust the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur to Shri Deshpande Malhar Vishvnathrao, Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Mumbai-II for a period of six months with effect from
6-5-2016 or till the post is filled on regular basis or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.
[No. A-11016/03/2009-CLS-II]
S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 1131.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 twu] 2016 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr
vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi
/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k mRrjk[k.M jkT; ds
fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %
^^gfj}kj ,oa m/keflag uxj ds ftys esa vkus okys lHkh jktLo xzkeA**
[la- ,l&38013/22/2016&,l,l&1]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 30th May, 2016
S.O. 1131.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State Insurance
Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st June, 2016 as the date on which the provisions of
Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI (except Sub-
section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act
shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Uttarakhand namely: -
“All the Revenue Villages in Haridawar and Udham Singh Nagar district.”
[No. S-38013/22/2016-SS-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk. 1132.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 twu] 2016 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr
vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi
/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k mM+hlk jkT; ds
fuEufyf[kr ftyksa ds laiw.kZ {ks= esa izo`Ùk gksaxs %&
^^vuqxksy] ckysÜoj] cjx<+] Hknzd] cykaxhj] dVd] <sadkuky] xatke] txrflagiqj] ;ktiqj] >kjlqxqMk] D;ksa>j] [kqnkZ]
dksjkiqV] e;wjHkat] iqjh] jk;xMk] lacyiqj] lksuiqj vkSj lqanjx<+**A
[la- ,l&38013/23/2016&,l,l-&1]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
2522
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 4, 2016/JYAISTHA 14, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 30th May, 2016
S.O. 1132.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State Insurance
Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st June, 2016 as the date on which the provisions
of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI (except
sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act
shall come into force in the following Districts in the State of Odisha where the Provisions of ESI Act, 1948 are already
in force: -
“Angul, Balasore, Bargarh, Bhadark, Bolangir, Cuttack, Dhenkanal, Ganjam, Jagatsinghpur, Jajpur,
Jharsuguda, Keonjhar, Khurda, Koraput, Mayurbhanj, Puri, Rayagada, Sambalpur, Sonepur and Sundargarh,”
[No. S-38013/23/2016-SS-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk. 1133.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e]1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 twu] 2016 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftudks mDr
vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½
vkSj /kkjk&77]78]79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k NRrhlx<+ jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa
izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%
Øe la[;k
ftykas ds uke
1-
jk;iqj
2-
CkykSnkckt+kj
3-
/kerjh
4-
Xkfj;kcan
5-
jktukanxkao
6-
nqxZ
7-
fcykliqj
8-
Tkkatxhj&Pkkaik
9-
dksjck
10-
jk;x<+
[la- ,l&38013/24/2016&,l,l&1]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 30th May, 2016
S.O. 1133.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State Insurance
Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st June, 2016 as the date on which the provisions
of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI (except
Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said
Act shall come into force in the following entire districts (including already implemented areas) in the State of
Chhattisgarh namely: -
¹Hkkx II [k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 4] 2016@T;s"B 14] 1938
2523
S.No.
Name of the District
1.
Raipur
2.
Baloda-Bazaar
3.
Dhamtari
4.
Gariaband
5.
Rajnandgaon
6.
Durg
7.
Bilaspur
8.
Janjgir-Champa
9.
Korba
10.
Raigarh
[No. S-38013/24/2016-SS-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
Uploaded by the Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.