3599 GI/2016

(3271)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 31]

ubZ fnYyh] tqykbZ 24—tqykbZ 30] 2016] '[email protected] 2—Jko.k 8] 1938

No. 31]

NEW DELHI, JULY 24—JULY 30, 2016, SATURDAY/SRAVANA 2—SRAVANA 8, 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)

foÙk ea=kky;

(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 29 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1489-—भारतीय रजव बक अिधिनयम, 1934 क धारा 8 क उप-धारा (4) के साथ पठत उपधारा (1)

के खंड (क) ारा द शिय का योग करते ए, केीय सरकार, एतारा, भारतीय रजव बक के कायपालक िनदेशक

!ी एन.एस. िव"नाथन (जम ितिथः 27.06.1958) को 04 जुलाई, 2016 को या उसके बाद पदभार &हण करने क

तारीख से तीन वष क अविध के िलए या अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, !ी एच.आर. खान के +थान पर भारतीय

रजव बक के िड-टी-गवनर के पद पर िनयु करती है।

¹iQk- la- 1@1@2011&chvks&Iº

,l- vkj- esgj] mi lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2016

S.O. 1489.— In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Sub-section 1 read with Sub-section (4) of

Section 8 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri N.S. Vishwanathan

(DOB: 27.06.1958), Executive Director, Reserve Bank of India as Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India for a

3272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

period of three years from the date of his taking over charge of the post on or after 4^th July, 2016 or until further order,

whichever is earlier vice Shri H.R. Khan.

[F. No. 1/1/2011-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1490-— भारतीय +टेट बक (समनुषंगी बक) अिधिनयम, 1959 क धारा 25 क उप-धारा (1) के खंड (ख)

ारा द शिय का योग करते ए, केीय सरकार, एतारा, नीचे दी गई सारणी के कालम (3) म0 िविन1द2 3ि को

उ सारणी के कालम (2) म0 िविन1द2 3ि के +थान पर कालम (1) म0 िविन1द2 +टेट बक आफ पटयाला म0 त5काल

भाव से और अगले आदेश तक, िनदेशक नािमत करती हैः-

म

संसंसंसं.

बक

बक का

का

का नाम

नाम

वतमान

वतमान िनदेशक

िनदेशक

िनदेशक का

का

नाम

तािवत

तािवत ि

ि

ि का

का

का नाम

नाम

1

2

3

1.

टेट

बक

आफ

पटयाला

ीजे.एल. नेगी

ी पी. िवजयकुमार, मुय महाबंधक, डीसीएम, करसी

बंधन िवभाग, भारतीय रजव बक, अमर भवन, चौथा

तल, सर पी. एम. रोड, मुबई-400001

[फा.सं. 6/3/2011-बीओ-I]

7ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2016

S.O. 1490.— In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of the sub-section (1) of Section 25 of The State

Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, the Central Government, hereby nominate the person specified in column

(3) of the table below as Director of State Bank of Patiala specified in column (1) thereof in place of the person

specified in column (2) of said Table, with immediate effect and until further orders:-

SI.

No.

Name of the Bank

Name of the Existing

Director

Name of the Persons proposed

State Bank of Patiala

Shri J.L. Negi

Shri P. Vijayakumar, CGM, DCM, Department of

currency Management, Reserve Bank of India, Amar

Building,

4^th

Floor,

Sir

P.M.

Road,

Mumbai- 400 001.

[F.No. 6/3/2011-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई :द; ली, 11 जुलाई, 2016

का.आ.

का.आ. 1491.

1491.

1491.—बककारी िविनयमन अिधिनयम, 1949 (1949 का 10) क धारा 53 ारा द शिय का

योग करते ए, भारत सरकार, भारतीय रजव बक क िसफारश पर एतारा, यह घोषणा करती है :क उ अिधिनयम

क धारा 16 क उप-धारा (1) के उपबंध !ी अंशुमन शमा, उप सिचव एवं इलाहाबाद बक के बोड म0 सरकारी नािमती

िनदेशक पर लागू नह> हगे, जहां तक इसका संबंध !ी अंशुमन शमा को भारतीय डाक भुगतान बक के बोड म0 सरकारी

नािमती िनदेशक नािमत करने से है।

[फा.सं. 7/2/2012-बीओ-I]

7ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2016

S.O. 1491.— In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of

1949), the Government of India on the recommendations of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declare that the

provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the said Act shall not apply to Shri Anshuman Sharma, Deputy Secretary

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3273

and Government Nominee Director on the Board of Allahabad Bank in so far as it relates to the nomination of

Shri Anshuman Sharma as Government Nominee Director on the Board of India Postal Payments Bank.

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

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

(राज व

राज व

राज व िवभाग

िवभाग

िवभाग)

(हदी अनुभाग

(हदी अनुभाग – 2)

नई :द; ली, 5 जुलाई, 2016

का.आ.

का.आ. 1492.

1492.

1492.—के ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासक य योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम

10 के उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण म0 राज+ व िवभाग के के ीय उ5 पाद शु; क और सीमाशु; क बोड के अधीन सीमाशु; क

आयुE त (:द; ली हवाई अFा) का कायालय, नई :द; ली, िजसके 80 ितशत से अिधक कमचारय ने Iहदी का काय साधक

7ान ा- त कर िलया है, को अिधसूिचत करती है।

[फा. सं. ई-11017/1/2015-ए.डी. (Iहदी-2)]

मीमांसक, संयुE त िनदेशक (राजभाषा)

(Department of Revenue)

(Hindi Section-2)

New Delhi, the 5th July, 2016

S.O. 1492.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rulle 10 the Official Languages (Use for Official purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby Notifies Office of the Commissioner Customs (Delhi Airport),

New Delhi under CBEC, D/O Revenue, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :

[F. No. E-11017/1/2015-AD(Hindi-2)]

MIMANSAK, Jt. Director (OL)

कामक

कामक, लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय

लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय

(कामक और िशण िवभाग)

नई द! ली, 14 जुलाई, 2016

dk- vk- 1493-—dsanzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo”ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e la- 25½ dh

/kkjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds }kjk iznRr “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] egkjk"Vª ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] egkjk"Vª

dh i=@vf/klwpuk la-&ih-lh-vkj-@0815@lh-vkj- 476@fo”ks"k&6 fnukad 05 uoEcj 2015 }kjk izkIr lgefr ls Fkkuk ,e-vkbZ-Mh-

lh- ftyk ykrwj izkFkfedh la- 80@2014 varxZr /kkjk 302@354@376¼2½¼th½@ 364@203@201@120 ¼ch½@34 Hkk-n-la- esa ntZ

dqekjh dYiuk fxjh dh gR;k ds lEca/k esa vFkok mi;qZDr vijk/kksa ds laca/k esa ;k mlls lEc) iz;kl] nq"izsj.k rFkk "kM;a= rFkk

mlh laO;ogkj ds vuqØe esa fd;s x;s vFkok mUgha rF;ksa ls mnHkwr fdlh vU; vijk/k ;k vijk/kksa dk vUos"k.k djus ds laca/k esa

fnYyh fo”ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh “kfDr;ksa vkSj vkf/kdkfjrk o foLrkj lEiw.kZ egkjk"Vª jkT; ij djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 228@40@2015&,ohMh&II]

Ekks- unhe] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Trainning)

New Delhi, the 14^th July, 2016

S.O. 1493.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, Home Department Mantralaya, Madam Cama Marg, Mumbai, vide Notification No.

PCR/0815/C.R. 476/Special-6 dated 05.11.2015, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Maharashtra for investigation of the case of M.I.D.C. Police

Station, Latur C.R. No. 80/2014 under sections 302, 354, 376 (2)(g), 364, 203, 201, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) relating to the murder of Kalpana Giri, Latur and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation

to or in connection with the offences in the said case and any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction

or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/40/2015-AVD-II]

MD. NADEEM, Under Secy.

3274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1494--— के सरकार, :द; ली िवशेष पुिलस + थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम सं. 25) क

धारा 6 के साथ पठत धारा 5 क उप-धारा 1) ारा द5 त शिय का योग करते ए और राजेश शमा बनाम राQ य और

अ य के मामले म0 ओडS ; यूपी सं. 663/2015 के अंतगत् पारत :दनांक 08/02/2016 के माननीय उV च यायालय के आदेश

के अनुपालन म0 जW मू और कX मीर राQ य सरकार, गृह िवभाग, िसिवल सिचवालय !ीनगर/जW मू क :दनांक 29 माच, 2016

क अिधसूचना संZ या एसआरओ 100 संZ या/गृह/ओडS ; यूपी/121/2015/1653 क सहमित से, िवशाल शमा सुपु^ राजेश

शमा, िनवासी, नजदीक सS जी मंडी िवजयपुर साW बा के लापता होने के मामले के बारे म0, पुिलस थाना िवजय पुर म0 दज

ाथिमक रपोट संZ या 06/2015 के अंतगत् रणबीर दंड संिहता क धारा 363क, सW वत 1989 (1989 क अिधिनयम

संZ या II)(1932 एडी) से उ_भूत अपराध के अ वेषण के सW बंध म0 :द; ली िवशेष पुिलस + थापन के सद+ य क शिय एवं

`े^ािधकार का िव+ तार एतद् ारा संपूण जW मू और कX मीर राQ य पर करती है।

[Qk- la- 228@12@2016&,ohMh&II]

Ekks- unhe] voj lfop

New Delhi, the 19^th July, 2016

S.O. 1494.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No.25 of 1946) and in compliance to orders of the Hon’ble High Court dated

08.02.2016 passed in OWP No.663/2015 titled Rajesh Sharma Vs. State and others, the Central Government with the

consent of the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu vide

Notification SRO 100 No.Home/OWP/121/2015/1653 dated 29^th March, 2016, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction

of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the state of Jammu and Kashmir for investigation

of the offences(s) arising out of FIR No.06/2015 under Section 363-A of the Ranbir Penal code, Samvat 1989 (Act No.II of

1989) (1932.A.D) regarding missing case of Vishal Sharma S/o Rajesh Sharma R/o Near Sabzimandi Vijaypur, Samba,

registered in Police Station, Vijaypur.

[F. No. 228/12/2016-AVD-II]

MD. NADEEM, Under Secy.

Lkwpuk vkSj izlkj.k ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1495-—dsUnz ljdkj] jktHkk‘kk ¼la?k ds “kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds

mifu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa vkdk“kok.kh egkfuns“kky;] izlkj Hkkjrh ¼lwpuk vkSj izlkj.k ea=ky;½ ds v/khuLFk dk;kZy;] izlkj

Hkkjrh vfHkys[kkxkj ¼dsUnzh; o mÙkjh {ks=½ ubZ fnYyh ftlds 80% ls vf/kd deZpkjho`Un us fganh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj

fy;k gS] dks vf/klwfpr djrh gSA

[Qk- la- bZ&11017@06@2012&fganh]

fiz;Eonk] funs“kd ¼jktHkk‘kk½

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

New Delhi, the 12^th July, 2016

S.O. 1495.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies Prasar Bharti Archieves (Central and North Zone), New Delhi

under Directorate General, All India Radio, Prasar Bharti (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting) more than 80% of the

staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11017/06/2012-Hindi]

PRIYAMVADA, Director (O.L.)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3275

Ñf“k ea=ky;

¼Ñf“k vuqla/kku ,oa f‘k{kk foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 20 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1496-—dsUnzh; ljdkj Ñf‘k ea=ky; Ñf‘k vuqla/kku ,oa f“k{kk foHkkx] jktHkk‘kk ¼la?k ds “kkldh; iz;kstuksa

ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;ekoyh 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkk-Ñ-v-i- {ks=h; dsUnz vkyw vuqla/kku dsUnz]

eqrksjkbZ] mnxeaMye] uhyfxjh] rfeyukMw dks ftlesa 80 izfr“kr ls vf/kd deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj

fy;k gS] ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 13&10@2009&fganh@151]

jkts“k dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(Department of Agricultural Research and Education)

New Delhi, the 20^th July, 2016

S.O. 1496.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the

Union) Rules 1976, the Central Government, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Research and Education

hereby notifies the ICAR, Regional Centre, Central Potato Research Station, Muthorai, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris,

Tamilnadu where more than 80% of staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. 13-10/2009-Hindi/151]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

िवुत मंालय

नई :द;ली, 20 जुलाई, 2016

का.आ.

का.आ. 1497.

1497.

1497.—17.08.2006 को अिधसूिचत मुZय वैdुत िनरी`क और वैdुत िनरी`क क अहता, शि और

काय िनयम, 2006 के साथ पठत िवdुत अिधिनयम, 2003 (2003 का 36) क धारा 162 क उपधारा (1) ारा द

शिय का योग करते ए क0 सरकार एतद ारा बीएमआरसीएल के !ी संजीव कुमार िसहा, मुZय अिभयंता (रोIलग

+टॉक-II) को इस अिधसूचना क तारीख से बीएमआरसीएल म0 उनके कायकाल तक, उपयु िनयम म0 उि;लिखत अहता और

शत को पूरा करने के अhयधीन बगलोर मैiो रेल कारपोरेशन िलिमटेड के िलए वैdुत िनरी`क के jप म0 िनयु करती है।

!ी संजीव कुमार िसहा को !ी देव0 द िम!ा, मुZय वैdुत अिभयंता, बीएमआरसीएल, िजह0 उनके 5याग-प^ के पlात

मु :कया जा चुका है, के +थान पर िनयु :कया जाता है।

उपयु उि;लिखत अिधकारी समय-समय पर यथासंशोिधत क0ीय िवdुत ािधकरण (सुर`ा और िवdुत आपूmत से संबंिधत

उपाय) िविनयम, 2010 म0 दी गई :nया के अनुसार, बीएमआरसीएल के अिधकार वाले `े^ म0 चालनाधीन वैdुत

कायo, वैdुत सं+थापनाp तथा वैdुत रोIलग +टॉक अथवा बीएमआरसीएल के िनयं^णाधीन/बीएमआरसीएल से संबंिधत

कायo तथा वैdुत सं+थापनाp के संबंध म0 अिधकार का योग कर0गे और अपना काय िनqपा:दत कर0गे।

बीएमआरसीएल यह सुिनिlत करेगा :क !ी संजीव कुमार िसहा,बीएमआरसीएल म0 मुZय अिभयंता (रोIलग +टॉक-II) के

jप म0 :दये गये कायo के संबंध म0 वैdुत िनरी`क नह> हगे।

वैdुत िनरी`क के jप म0 िनयु अिधकारी वह िश`ण ल0गे िजसे क0 सरकार इस उrेXय के िलए आवXयक समझे तथा

ऐसा िश`ण सरकार क संतुि2 के +तर तक पूरा :कया जाएगा।

[फा.सं.-42/5/2016-आरएuडआर]

Qयोित अरोरा, संयु सिचव

3276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, 20^th July, 2016

S.O. 1497.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(1) of Section 162 of the Electricity Act, 2003

(36 of 2003) read with Qualifications, Powers and Functions for Chief Electrical Inspector and Electrical Inspectors

Rules, 2006 notified on 17.8.2006, the Central Government hereby appoints Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Sinha, Chief Engineer

(Rolling Stock-II), BMRCL as Electrical Inspector for Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, from the date of this

Notification till his tenure in BMRCL, subject to fulfilment of the Qualification and Condition mentioned in the above

Rule. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Sinha is appointed in place of Sh. Devendra Dutta Mishra, Chief Electrical Engineer,

BMRCL, who have been relieved after his resignation.

The above mentioned officer shall exercise the powers and perform his functions in respect of electrical works,

electrical installations and electrical rolling stock in operation within the areas occupied by the BMRCL or in respect of

works and all electrical installations under the control of BMRCL/belonging to BMRCL as per the procedure provided

in Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electricity Supply) Regulations, 2010, as amended

from time to time.

BMRCL will ensure that Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Sinha will not be the Electrical Inspector in respect of the work assigned

to him as Chief Engineer (Rolling Stock-II) in BMRCL.

The person appointed as Electrical Inspector shall undergo such training as the Central Government may consider

necessary for the purpose and such training shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Government.

[F. No.-42/5/2016-R&R]

JYOTI ARORA, Jt. Secy.

कोयला मंालय

आदेश

नई :द;ली, 26 जुलाई, 2016

का.आ.

का.आ. 1498.

1498.

1498.— कोयला धारक `े^ (अजन और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (िजसे इसम0 इसके

पlात् उ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी क गई भारत सरकार के कोयला मं^ालय

क अिधसूचना संZयाक का.आ. 1261(अ), 29 माच, 2016, जो भारत के राजप^, भाग II, खuड 3, उप-खuड (ii), 30

माच, 2016 म0 कािशत होने पर, उ अिधसूचना से संलw अनुसूची म0 वmणत भूिम और भूिम म0, या उस पर के सभी

अिधकार (िजसे इसम0 इसके पlात् उ भूिम कहा गया है) उ अिधिनयम क धारा 10 क उपधारा (1) के अधीन, सभी

िव;लंगम से मु होकर, आ5यांितक jप म0 केीय सरकार म0 िनिहत हो गए थे;

और केीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है :क महानदी कोलफ ; yस िलिमटेड, जागृित िवहार, बुला, िजला

सW बलपुर, ओिडशा (िजसे इसम0 इसके पlात सरकारी कंपनी कहा गया है), ऐसे िनबधंन और शतo का, जो केीय

सरकार इस िनिमत अिधरोिपत करना उिचत समझे, अनुपालन करने के िलए तैयार है ;

अत:, अब, के ीय सरकार, उE त अिधिनयम क धारा 11 क उप-धारा (1) ारा द शिE तय का योग करते ए,

यह िनदेश देती है :क इस कार िनिहत उ भूिम और उस पर के सभी अिधकार, तारीख 30 माच,2016 से केीय सरकार

म0 इस कार िनिहत बने रहने क बजाय, िनzिलिखत िनबंधन और शतo के अधीन रहते ए, सरकारी कंपनी म0 िनिहत हो

जाएंगे, अथात्;

1. सरकारी कंपनी, उ अिधिनयम के उपबंध के अधीन यथा अवधारत ितकर, Sयाज, नुकसािनय और वैसी

ही मद क बाबत् :कए गए सभी संदाय क केीय सरकार को ितपूmत करेगी ;

2. सरकारी कंपनी ारा शत (1) के अधीन, केीय सरकार को संदेय रकम का अवधारण करने के योजन के िलए

उE त अिधिनयम क धारा 14 के अधीन एक अिधकरण का गठन :कया जाएगा तथा ऐसे :कसी अिधकरण और

अिधकरण क सहायता करने के िलए िनयु 3िय के संबंध म0 उपगत सभी 3य, सरकारी कंपनी ारा गठन

:कए जाएंगे और इस कार िनिहत उ भूिम म0 या उस पर के अिधकार के िलए या उसके संबंध म0 जैसे अपील

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3277

आ:द सभी िविधक कायवािहय क बाबत उपगत, सभी 3य भी, इस कार सरकारी कंपनी ारा वहन :कए

जाएंगे ;

3. सरकारी कंपनी, केीय सरकार या उसके पदधारय क ऐसे :कसी अय { यय के संबंध म0, `ितपूmत करेगी जो

इस कार िनिहत उ भूिम म0 या उस पर के अिधकार के बारे म0 केीय सरकार या उसके पदधारय ारा या

उनके िवj| कायवािहय के संबंध म0 आवXयक हो ;

4. सरकारी कंपनी को, केीय सरकार के पूव अनुमोदन के िबना, उ भूिम और भूिम म0 या उसके ऊपर इस कार

िनिहत अिधकार को :कसी अय 3ि को अंतरत करने क शि नह> होगी ; और

5. सरकारी कंपनी, ऐसे िनदेश और शतo का, जो केीय सरकार ारा, जब कभी आवX यक हो, उ भूिम के िविश2

`े^ के िलए :दए जाएं या अिधरोिपत :कए जाएं, पालन करेगी ।

[ फा.सं. 43015/9/2013-पीआरआईडS ; यू-I]

सुजीत कुमार, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF COAL

ORDER

New Delhi, the 26^th July, 2016

S.O. 1498.Ñ Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of

coal, number S.O. 1261(E), dated 29^th March, 2016 published in the Gazette of India, Part II Section 3, Sub-section

(ii), dated the 30^th March, 2016 issued under Sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and

development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the lands and all rights in or over the land

described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested absolutely in

the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act;

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla,

District Sambalpur, Odisha (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is willing to comply with such terms

and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby directs, that the said lands and rights in or over the said lands so vested shall with effect

from dated the 30^th March, 2016 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the

Government Company, subject to the following terms and conditions, namely:-

The Government Company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of

compensation, interest, damages and the like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act;

A Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act for the purpose of determining the amounts

payable to the Central Government by the Government Company under conditions (1) and all expenditure incurred in

connection with any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal shall be borne by the Government

Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals, etc., for or in

connection with the rights, in or over the said lands, so vesting, shall also be borne by the Government Company;

The Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other

expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its

officials, regarding the rights in or over the said land so vested;

The Government Company shall have no power to transfer the said lands to any other persons without the

prior approval of the Central Government ; and

The Government Company shall abide by such direction and conditions as may be given or imposed by the

Central Government for particular areas of the said lands, as and when necessary.

[F. No. 43015/9/2013-PRIW-I ]

SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.

3278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1499-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjr

isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 25@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 12-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30012@6@2009&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2016

S.O. 1499.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Asansol now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 12.07.2016.

[No. L-30012/6/2009-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 25 OF 2009

PARTIES: The management of Territory Office and LPG Plant, BPCL, Durgapur.

Vs.

Shri Joy Gopal Dey & 2 others

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management

Sri Sunith Kumar Roy, Dy. Mgr. (LPG)

For the union (Workman)

Sri. Joy Gopal Dey

Industry: Petroleum

State : West Bengal

Dated: 13.06.2016

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-30012/6/2009–IR(M) dated 08.09.2009 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Territory Office & LPG

Plant, Rajbandh Chatty, Durgapur in deducting one day wages of Shri Joy Gopal Dey, EDP No. 44328, Sri

Dhiren Ch. Shaw, EDP No. 44337 & Sri D. Paul EDP No. 44325 and not allowing them CL on 20.04.2007 is

legal and justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to? ”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3279

Having received the Order No. L-30012/6/2009 – IR(M) dated 08.09.2009 of the above said reference from

the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 25 of 2009 was

registered on 05.10.2009 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post

to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along

with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by

the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

Case called out. Both parties are absent.

On perusal of case record I find that neither the workmen nor their representatives appearing before the court

since 25.01.2012. So far 16 dates have been granted to them. Registered notices were also issued on 04.06.2012 and

16.10.2014 but all in vain. Several opportunities have so far been granted but the union neither appearing nor taking

any step. It seems that the union is now not at all interested to proceed with the case further. As such the case is closed

and a ‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby passed accordingly.

O R D E R

Let an “Award” be and same is passed as no dispute existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1500-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,u-

,y- ikaMs;] dkWUVªDVj vkWiQ ftfyax ykWxyksVk vk;ju ,.M eSaxuht ekbUl ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 35@2014)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&26012@3@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2016

S.O. 1500.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 35/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. N.L. Pandey, Contractor of Jilling Longalota Iron and Manganese Mines and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on 12.07.2016.

[No. L-26012/3/2014-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present: Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 35/2014

No. L-26012/3/2014-IR(M), dated 05.06.2014

Date of Passing Order – 01^st June, 2016

Between:

M/s. N.L. Pandey,

Contractor of Hiling Longalota Iron &

Manganese Mines, At./Po. Jhiling,

Dist. Keonjhar.

…1^st Party Management

AND

Shri Sushil Munda,

Vill. Jalahari, Po. Jajang,

Dist. Keonjhar.

3280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The General Secretary,

Shramik Surakhsa Sangha,

At./Po. Sarai, Via. Champua,

Dist. Keonjhar.

…2^nd Party-Workman/Union

Appearances:

None

…

For the 1^st Party-Management

None

…

For the 2^nd Party-Workman/Union

O R D E R

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between the employers in relation to the Management of M/s. N.L. Pandey, Contractor of Jhiling Longalota Iron &

Manganese Mines and their workman Shri Sushil Munda in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) vide their Letter

No. L-26012/3/2014 – IR(M), dated 05.06.2014 to this Tribunal for adjudication.

That the 2^nd Party-workman has filed his statement of claim on 27.10.2014. He has not filed any documents to

substantiate his case. Since he did not take any step except filing of his statement of claim the 2^nd Party-workman was

noticed on 07.04.2016 after the new P.O. Joins. Notice issued to him seems to have been duly served. But, neither the

General Secretary of the 2^nd party-Union nor the workman did appear and take steps.

On the other hand, the 1^st Party-Management did not file its written statement, though the 2^nd Party-workman

has served a copy of the statement of claim on them through post. Also, notice was issued to the 1^st Party-Management

to file its written statement on 07.04.2016 from this Tribunal, but, neither the 1^st Party-Management appeared nor any

step is taken by it.

It appears from the above acts of the parties that either they have lost their interest in the case or they might

have resolved their disputes amicably out of the court. In the given circumstances, a no-dispute award is required to be

passed and accordingly a no-dispute award is passed in the case.

The reference is answered in the above terms.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1501-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

;wvkj,l bathfu;fjax dkWUVªSDVlZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 54@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 12-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30012@29@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2016

S.O. 1501.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. URS Engineering Contractor and their workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 12.07.2016.

[No. L-30012/29/2015-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No.54/2015

Registered on 18.01.2016

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3281

Sh. Amit Kumar, S/o Sh. Prem Singh, Vill-Mohiudinpur Thirana,

Teh. & P.O.-Mathloda, Distt. Panipat (Haryana)

…Petitioner

Versus

M/s. URS Engineering Contractors, H.No.339-L, Model Town,

Near Shivaji Stadium, Panipat (Haryana)-132103

…Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

: Workman ex parte

For the Management

: Management ex parte

AWARD

Passed on : 31.05.2016

Vide Order No.L-30012/29/2015-IR(M), dated 02.12.2015 the Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in

short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. URS Engineering Contractor, Panipat(Haryana) in

terminating the services of the workman Sh. Amit Kumar S/o Sh. Prem Singh is legal and justified? If not,

what relief is entitled to and from which date?”

Notice was given to the workman as well as to the management through registered cover, duly posted on

3.2.2016. ADs’ not received within 30 days and it was declared that notices were served on the parties. None came

present for the workman or the management and therefore, both the parties were proceeded against ex parte.

Since the workman was proceeded against ex parte, no statement of claim was filed to plead that the

termination of the services of the workman were not legal and justified.

In the absence of any pleading or evidence thereon, the present reference is decided against the workman

holding that he is not entitled to any relief.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1502-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

vacqtk lhesaV fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 25@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

12-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@15@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2016

S.O. 1502.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Ambuja Cement Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

12.07.2016.

[No. L-29012/15/2015-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No.25/2015

Registered on 24.06.2015

3282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sh. Vikram Singh, S/o Sh. Sant Ram, R/o Vill-New Chakkar,

P.O.-Kashlog, Tehsil-Arki, Distt.Solan(HP).

…Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager(Personnel)Ambuja Cement Ltd., Unit Suli,

Tehsil-Darlaghat, Distt.-Solan(HP).

…Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

: Workman ex parte

For the Management

: Sh. Pawan Kumar Mutneja

AWARD

Passed on:-17.05.2016

Vide Order No.L-29012/15/2015-IR(M), dated 01.06.2015 the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred

by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short Act) has

referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.

“Whether the action of the management of Ambuja Cement Limited in terminating the services of Sh. Vikram

Singh S/o Sh. Sant Ram w.e.f. 13.4.2014 is just, valid and legal? If not, to what relief the concerned workman

is entitled to and from which date?”

In response to the notice, the notice was given to the workman through registered cover duly posted on 13.10.2015. AD

not received within 30 days and it was declared that notice was served on the workman but he did not appear and was

proceeded against ex part vide order dated 08.12.2015.

Since the workman was proceeded against ex parte, no statement of claim was filed and the case of the workman is

unknown. Since the workman did not plead anything challenging his termination orders and leading any evidence

thereon, it cannot be said that the termination of his services is illegal and invalid and he is not entitled for any relief.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1503-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

izdk'k dalVªDlu ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 17@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-

2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30012@9@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2016

S.O. 1503.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Prakash Construction and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

12.07.2016.

[No. L-30012/9/2015-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No.17/2015

Registered on 18.05.2015

Sh. Raju, S/o Sh. Dariya, Village Sithana Colony,

Post-Kabri, Distt. Panipat, Haryana.

…Petitioner

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3283

Versus

M/s. Prakash Construction, House No.1069-P,

Sector-13-17, HUDA, Panipat, Haryana.

…Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

: Workman ex parte

For the Management

: Management ex parte

AWARD

Passed on:-10.05.2016

Vide Order No.L-30012/9/2015-IR(M), dated 27.04.2015 the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred

by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short Act) has

referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Prakash Construction in terminating the services of Sh. Raju

S/o Sh. Dariya Ram w.e.f. 20.03.2014 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from

which date?”

On receipt of the reference, notice was given to the workman through registered cover but he refused to take

its service. He did not appear and was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 4.11.2015.

The management was also proceeded against ex parte vide said order dated 4.11.2015.

Since the workman has failed to put in appearance and file statement of claim to show how the termination of his

services is illegal, and he is entitled to any relief, and therefore, the reference is answered against the workman, and it is

held that he is not entitled to any relief.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1504-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

bafM;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 220@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30012@22@2010&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2016

S.O. 1504.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 220/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And others and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 12.07.2016.

[No. L-30012/22/2010-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No.220/2011

Registered on 12.10.2011

Sh. Sunil Kumar Jha, S/o Sh. S.N. Jha,

resident of H.No.125/14, Old Sabzi Mandi Sanoli Road, Panipat.

…Petitioner

3284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(Through its Deputy General Manager)

Marketing Division, Panipat, Haryana.

M/s. Shiv Trading Co.(Through its Managing Director) C/o

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Marketing Division, Panipat, Haryana.

M/s. Hindustan Fabricators (through its Managing Director)

C/o Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Marketing Division, Panipat, Haryana.

…Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

: Sh. Arun Batra, Adv.

For the Management

: Sh. Paul S. Saini for Resp. No.1

Sh. Parminder Singh for Resp. No.2&3

AWARD

Passed on:- 13.06.2016

Vide Order No.L-30012/22/2010-IR(M), dated 20.09.2011 the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred

by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short Act) has

referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.

“Whether the contract awarded by IOCL, Panipat is a sham contract and contractor M/s. Shiv Trading Co. &

Hindustan Fabricators are a camouflage? Whether the demand of workman Sh. Sunil Kumar Jha S/o Sh. S.N.

Jha, Ex. Grade-III for reinstatement and regularization with the management of IOCL, Panipat w.e.f.

13.8.2007 is just, fair and legal? To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?”

In response to the notice, Sh. Sunil Kumar Jha appeared and submitted statement of claim, pleading that he was

appointed by respondent No.1 as Grade-III in April 1999 on monthly salary of Rs.3,000/-. He was working on the post

of Typist Clerk/White Collar. He was also assigned the task of collection of sale tax forms beside other office work. He

made representations to respondent No.1 for the grant of regular pay-scale and his request was not agreed to. He filed

Civil Writ Petition No.12800 of 2007, claiming pay-scale for Rs.5400-10,500. It is pleaded that his services were

terminated by respondent No.1 on 13.8.2007 without serving any notice or paying him any retrenchment compensation.

It is further pleaded that respondent No.1 had taken the stand in the writ petition that the workman was an employee of

respondent No.2 and 3. Thus, his termination is in violation of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Act and therefore, he is

entitled to be reinstated in service.

Respondent No.1 filed written statement, pleading that it has given Haulage contract for performing

miscellaneous jobs such as gardening, housekeeping, loading and unloading, grass cutting, electrical maintenance etc.

That it gave haulage contract to respondent No.3 vide contract dated 15.04.1999(Exb.M1) and on the expiry of the

period of contract, the same was extended to 31.03.2001 vide letter dated 31.03.2000(Exb.M3). The contract was again

extended on 31.03.2000. That respondent No.3 changed the name of the firm from M/s Hindustan Fabricators and

Contractors to M/s Shiv Trading Company. On the request of the contractor, the corporation again extended the period

of contract for one year till 31.03.2002 vide letter dated 02.05.2001(Exb.M4) in the name of Shiv Trading Company.

On the expiry of the said contract, a fresh haulage contract was awarded to respondent No.2 for the period

from 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2003 for a term of two years vide letter dated 30.3.2002(M-5). The contract was again extended

for one year vide letter dated 1.4.2003(Exb.M6), further extended vide letter dated 1.4.2005(Exb.M8). A fresh haulage

contract was awarded in favour of respondent No.2 for a period of two years till 30.9.2007 vide letter dated 1.10.2005.

Payment is made to the contractors as per the bills submitted by them for the work performed and the corporation has

no concern with the workers employed by the contractor.

It is further pleaded that the workman is not an employee of the corporation who have its rules and regulations

for giving appointments and he may be the man of the contractor. That the contract was given for performing a

particular job. It is for the contractor to engage the persons for the work given in the contract and the corporation has no

concern with the workman.

Respondent No. 2 and 3 filed their separate written statement taking the same stand as taken by the respondent

No.1 and further pleaded that the workman was engaged by respondent No.2 and 3 and he suddenly stopped coming to

the duty and as such, voluntarily abandoned the services.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

In support of his case, the workman Sh. Sunil Kumar Jha appeared in the witness-box and filed his affidavit

reiterating the stand taken by him in the statement of claim. He also placed on record the documents Ex.W1 to Ex.W9.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3285

On the other hand, respondent No.1 has examined Sh. Sanjay Kumar, who filed his affidavit along with

documents Ex.M1 to M11, reiterating the stand of respondent No.1.

Sh. Ramphal has appeared on behalf of Resp. No.2 and 3 being its Managing Director and stated that the

workman was working with him and used to work in the office of IOCL on his behalf.

I have heard Sh. Arun Batra for the workman, Sh. Paul S. Saini for respondent No.1 and Sh. Parminder Singh

for respondent No.2 and 3 and perused the file carefully.

It was argued by Sh. Arun Batra that the workman is an employee of the respondent No.1 and he did not

received any salary from respondent No. 2 and 3 and the contract awarded to them is a sham transaction. The workman

was an employee of respondent No.1 as is clear from the documents Ex.W1 to W9 placed on file.

I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.

So far as the documents Ex.W1 to W9 are concerned, the same do not establish that the workman was ever

appointed by the corporation. Ex.W1, W2, W3 are simply challan forms and do not advance the case of the workman in

any away and name of the workman do not find mention therein anywhere.

Similarly a letter Ex.W4 which is written to the Senior Divisional Manager again do not show that the

workman was an employee of the corporation. A letter Ex.W5 which has been written by Sub Divisional Engineer to

the Branch Manager of respondent mentioning that their representative Mr. Jha Collected VAT C-3 and similarly his

name find mention in letter Ex.W7 regarding the return of bills and Mr. Sunil Jha was authorized to receive ST-38 form

by the Assistant Manager vide letter dated 21.8.2003(Exb.W8). If the workman has collected certain forms or was

authorized to collect the same, the same do not show that he was an employee of the corporation.

Sh. Ramphal, contractor has specifically stated that the workman was working for him in the office of IOCL,

and if the workman performed certain duties while working as a man of contractor, the same do not ipso facto show

that he was an employee of the corporation.

The workman has himself stated that there no advertisement was given for Grade-III employee and his name

was not sponsored by the employment exchange. He even stated that he did not move any written application for

seeking appointment nor any appointment letter was given to him. That respondent No.1 did not issue him any ID card

and nor enrolled him for P.F. That the corporation did not issue any pay slip to him for disbursing the salary. It was for

the workman to prove by leading cogent evidence that he used to receive payment from the corporation which he

failed. He did not move any application for seeking employment in the corporation and no appointment letter was

issued to him. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any relationship of employer and employee

between the workman and respondent No.1.

My attention is also drawn towards certificate Ex.P9 which was issued by someone for Deputy General

Manager that Sh. Sunil Kumar Jha was working in the Plant since May 1999. If he has been working in the plant as

mentioned in the said certificate, it cannot be held that he was appointed by respondent No.1 in the circumstances

discussed above.

Respondent No.2 and 3 are owned by Sh. Ramphal who appeared in the witness-box, and has specifically

admitted that Sunil Kumar Jha was his employee and also stated so in his written statement.

It is the case of the workman that he continuously worked from April 1999 to 13.8.2007 which is not denied

by respondent No.2 and 3. Thus he has completed 240 days of service in a calendar year prior to the termination of his

service. Sh. Ramphal has taken the plea that it was the workman who abandoned the service, which cannot be believed

on its face value and if the workman did not come present for the job, the contractor was required to issue a notice to

him to come and join the duty but no such step was taken and his bare statement that the workman abandoned the job,

cannot be believed.

It is not the case of the respondent No.2 and 3 who are actually owned by Sh. Ramphal witness that any notice

was served on the workman for termination of his service.

Since the workman worked continuously for a long period, he was required to be served with a notice or

payment of retrenchment compensation as required under Section 25-F of the Act. Since he was removed from service

without payment of any retrenchment compensation or service of notice, the termination of his services by respondent

No.3 is illegal and invalid.

Now the question is whether he is to be reinstated in service. The workman was working with the contractor

and in the circumstances, his reinstatement in service cannot be ordered. He is entitled to compensation for illegal

termination of his services by respondent No.2. The workman has worked for more than 8 years and drawing a salary

of Rs.3,000/- per month as pleaded by him.

Considering the entire circumstances, the workman is held entitled to a compensation of Rs.2.50 lac which he

is entitled to receive from the respondents jointly and severely.

3286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Though the reference was whether the contract awarded by IOCL is a sham contract and the contractor M/s

Shiv Trading Company and Hindustan Fabricators are a camouflage. Though an argument was raised to show that the

contract is a sham contract but nothing has been pleaded that of contract entered into by respondent No.1 with

respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from time to time are a camouflage and a sham transaction. Therefore in the absence of any

pleading or evidence thereof, it cannot be said that the agreement executed by respondent No.1 awarding contract to

respondent No.2 and 3 for haulage is illegal or a sham transaction.

In result, the reference is answered holding that the contracts awarded by the IOCL to respondent No.2 and 3

from time to time are not a sham transaction and the workman is not entitled to reinstatement and regularization of

service with respondent No.1; and he is entitled to get a compensation of Rs.2.50 lac from the respondents jointly and

severely as it is the admitted case that respondent No.1 is the principal employer. If respondent No.1 pay the amount, it

is at liberty to recover the same from respondent No.2 and 3. The respondents are further directed to pay the amount

within 3 months of the publication of the award failing which the claimant shall be entitled to recover the interest @

6% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of award till realization.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1505-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,e-

ih- LVsV ekbfuax dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 186@1993) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 12-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@50@1992&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2016

S.O. 1505.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 186/1993) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. MP State Mining Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 12.07.2016.

[No. L-29012/50/1992-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/186/93

General secretary,

MP Khadan Swatantra Mazdoor Sangathan,

Baradwar, Post Baradwar,

Distt. Bilaspur

…Workman/Union

Versus

Dy.General Manager (M),

MP state Mining Corporation Ltd.

Sub office Baradwar,

Post Baradwar,

Distt. Bilaspur.

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 7^th day of June 2016

As per letter dated 6-9-93 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-29012/50/92-IR(Misc) The dispute under reference relates to:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3287

“Is the management of MP. State Mining Corporation Ltd. justified in placing Shri Fekulal Gupta Office

Assistant (skilled category) in the scale of pay of Rs.725-900 while allowing helpers (semi skilled0 to draw a

scale of pay of Rs.800-1200? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim

through General Secretary of Union. Case of Ist party is that Ist party workman was appointed on the post of Assistant

on 10-4-84 in pay scale 485-10-575-740. Since his appointment, he was working on the post of Assistant. After six

months of his appointment, his pay owas reduced to rs.380/- illegally. The pay of the employees of State Mining

Corporation was revised. Workman was not given benefit of revgised pay scale. In the year 1989, pay scales of

employees were revised. The pay scale of Assistant was Rs.800-15-1150-25-1200. However the pay of Ist party was

fixed at Rs.725/-. Ist party submits that his pay should have been fixed Rs.800/-. That since date of his appointment, he

is entitled to revise pay of the post of Assistant. That he suffered loss of Rs.30,000 as he was not given benefit of

revised pay.

After appearing, 2^nd party submitted application for deleting name of MP. State Mining Corporation on the

ground that MP. State Mining Corporation was bifurcated. However Written Statement in the matter is not filed either

by MP. State Mining corporation or by CG Mining Corporation.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the management of MP State Mining

Corporation Ltd. justified in placing Shri Fekulal

Gupta Office Assistant ( skilled category) in the

scale of pay of Rs.725-900 while allowing helpers

(semi skilled0 to draw a scale of pay of Rs.800-

1200?

Parties failed to participate in reference. Dispute could not

be decided on merit.

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

As stated above, Ist party workman filed statement of claim through Union. 2^nd party Mining Corporation not

filed Written Statement. Workman failed to adduce evidence. Evidence of workman is closed on 9-12-15. Management

also failed to adduce evidence. Both parties not participated in reference proceeding, no evidence is adduced by

workman therefore the dispute could not be decided on merit.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The dispute under reference could not be decided on merit as parties failed to participate.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1506-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,e-

ih- LVsV ekbfuax dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 132@1995) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 12-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@131@1994&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2016

S.O. 1506.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 132/1995) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

3288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management of M/s. MP. State Mining Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 12.07.2016.

[No. L-29012/131/1994-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/132/95

General Secretary,

Madhya Pradesh Khadan swatantra Mazdoor Sanghathan,

Baraduar,

Distt. Bilaspur

…Workman/Union

Versus

Managing Director,

MP State Mining Corporation Ltd.,

Head Office- E/5/14, Arera Colony,

Ravi Shankar Nagar,

Bhopal.

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 8^th day of June, 2016

1. As per letter dated 2-7-95 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-29012/131/94-IR(Misc).The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether management of MP State Mining Corporation Ltd., Bhopal appointed Shri Nand Kumar Pandey as

Junior Supervisor in sand Mines , Bhilai Khurd- Korba ? 2. Whether management of MP. State Mining Ltd in

terminating the services of Shri Nand Kumar Pandey 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

through Union at Page 3/1 to 3/2. Case of Ist party is from 20-4-85, he was working as junior supervisor in office of

State Mining Corporation at Korba. His services were terminated without notice from 20-7-85. No enquiry was

conducted against him, he was not given opportunity for his defence. Ist party workman Nand Kumar Pandey was

doing the work of issuing receipts book from 424, 3920, 3921, 3947, 3948. Said record is available in the office of

Corporation. the circular issued by Shri B.N. Tiwari Transport contractor and RDC Transport contractor are submitted

along with statement of claim. Ist party further submits that junior employees are continued to work. On such ground

Union submits that workman is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service.

3. 2^nd party appeared in the proceeding and filed application for setting aside ex parte order dated 28-9-05.

Thereafter case was fixed for filing Written Statement on various dates from 10-5-07 to 5-9-13. Management not filed

Written statement and as such proceeded ex parte.

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 management of MP State Mining

Corporation Ltd., Bhopal appointed Shri Nand Kumar

Pandey as Junior Supervisor in sand Mines , Bhilai

Khurd- Korba ?

Parties not participated in reference proceeding, dispute

could not be decided on merit.

(ii) Whether management of MP State Mining Ltd. in

terminating the services of Shri Nand Kumar Pandey is

justified?

Parties not participated in reference proceeding, dispute

could not be decided on merit.

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3289

REASONS

5. Ist party Union has filed statement of claim. Thereafter failed to participate in reference proceeding. Though the

case was fixed for evidence on various dates, Ist party did not adduce evidence. Evidence of Ist party was closed on

10-12-05. 2^nd party also failed to adduce evidence. Evidence of 2^nd was closed on 26-5-2016. As both parties failed to

participate in reference, the dispute could not be decided on merit. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.1.

6. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The reference could not be decided as both parties failed to participate in reference.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1507-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,e-

ih- LVsV ekbfuax dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 51@1998) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 12-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29011@21@1997&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2016

S.O. 1507.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. MP State Mining Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 12.07.2016.

[No. L-29011/21/1997-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/51/98

General Secretary,

MP Khadan Swatantra Mazdoor Sangathan,

Baraduar, Distt. Bilaspur (MP)

…Workman/Union

Versus

Managing Director,

MP State Mining Corporation Ltd.,

Paryavas Bhawan, Block No.1,

2^nd Floor (A), Jail Road, Arera Hills,

Bhopal (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 8^th day of June, 2016

1. As per letter dated 3-3-98 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification

No .L-29011/21/97/IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

3290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of the management of MP.State Mining Corporation in not paying the wages to workers

working in mines at par with the regular employees of the Corporation is justified? If not, to what relief the

workmen are entitled for? (2) Whether the action of the management of MP. State Mining Corporation in

terminating the workers ( as per annexure enclosed by union) working in Mines is justified? If not, to what

relief the workmen are entitled for? (3) Whether the action of the management of MP. state Mining

Corporation in not enhancing the piece rated wages to the workers working in miens w.e.f. 1-4-93 is justified?

If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Union filed statement of claim at Page 7/1 to 7/2.

Case of Union is that MP. State Mining Corporation was operating raw phosphate mines at Meghnagar, Heerapur

Rock Phosphate Mine, Satna Bauxite Khadan and Baraduar Dolomite Mine etc., Standing orders of MP. State Mining

Corporation are applicable to employees working in all those mines as per Section 17 of standing orders Act 1946. The

notification dated 12-9-80 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Labour prescribing minimum wages for skilled,

unskilled clerical categories of workman. The rates of wages prescribed by Government should be applied without

making any kind of designation. However the wages for daily wage employees are discriminatory that the clerk,

supervisor, helper, dealer are prescribed 2 ½ times wages, 15 days leave, 13 days CL, Medical leave-10 days, HRA -2

½ times, LTC in 3 years are allowed. That all workers engaged on daily wages in the mine are entitled to similar

benefits with arrears. The State Mining Corporation make a limited Meghnagar raw mine terminated 44 employees in

1995 without conducting enquiry, no permission of Government are shown in para-6 of the Statement of Claim. Union

prays that all piece rated labours be allowed arrear, that 44 employees terminated by corporation be reinstated.

3. 2^nd party filed application for deleting name of 2^nd party MP. State Mining corporation. However no Written

Statement was filed in the matter though the case was repeatedly adjourned. 2^nd party management was proceeded ex

parte on 5-9-13.

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 MP. State

Mining Corporation in not paying the wages to workers

working in mines at par with the regular employees of the

Corporation is justified?

Parties not participated in reference,

dispute could not decided on merit.

(ii) Whether the action of the management of MP. State

Mining Corporation in terminating the workers (as per

annexure enclosed by union) working in Mines is justified?

Parties not participated in reference,

dispute could not decided on merit.

(iii) Whether the action of the management of MP. state

Mining Corporation in not enhancing the piece rated wages

to the workers working in miens w.e.f. 1-4-93 is justified?

Parties not participated in reference,

dispute could not decided on merit.

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

Workmen is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

5. The dispute under reference pertains to non-payment of wages working at mine at par with regular employees

terminating services of 44 employees shown in annexure and not enhancing piece rated wages from 1-4-93. After

notice, though 2^nd party MP. State Mining through Advocate Shri R.C.Shrivastava, Sajid and M.P.Kapoor appeared but

Written Statement is not filed. Application for deleting name of 2^nd party No.1 was filed. As Written Statement is not

filed on behalf of 2^nd party, it was proceeded exparte. Union has also not participated in reference proceeding. No

evidence is adduced in support of his claim. 2^nd party also not participated, therefore could not be decided on merit.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.1, 2 & 3.

6. In the result, award is passed as under;-

(1) As parties failed to participate in reference proceeding, reference could not be decided on merit.

(2) Workers are not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1508-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,e-

ih- LVsV ekbfuax dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3291

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 175@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 12-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29011@47@1998&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2016

S.O. 1508.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 175/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. MP State Mining Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 12.07.2016.

[No. L-29011/47/1998-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/175/99

Shri Beniram Sahu, Secretary,

Madhya Pradesh Khadan Swatantra Mazdoor Union,

Village & PO Sakti,

Distt. Janjgir Champa

…Workman/Union

Versus

Managing Director,

MP State Mining Corporation Ltd.,

Paryavas Bhawan, Block No.1, 2^nd Floor,

Jail Road, Arera House,

Bhopal (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 8^th day of June 2016

1. As per letter dated 22-4-99 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-29011/47/98/IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Dumarapara Dolomite Mines of M/S Madhya Pradesh State

Mining Corporation Ltd., Distt. Janjgir Champa in closing their mines w.e.f. 15-2-97 is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman employed in the said mines are entitled?

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party Union filed statement of claim at Page

10/1 to 10/2. Case of Ist party Union is 484 workmen connected with the dispute were working in Duman Pala

Dolomite Mines since 1976. Said mine was closed on 15-2-97 without paying retrenchment compensation to the

workers. Consequently 484 workers were rendered unemployed. The management of 2^nd party had issued notice of

retrenchment of workers in Duman Pala Dolomite Mines on 26-11-96. Management had issued letter dated 6-1-97 to

Government of India, Ministry of Labour regarding payment of retrenchment compensation. The meeting of

management and Union was called at Delhi on 29-1-97. The Government had not granted permission for retrenchment

and closure of mine as per letter dated 20-2-97. The mine was illegally closed on 15-2-97. Management had given land

of mine on lease to private agency. The higher officers of State Mining Corporation had actively approved the closure

of mine. Principal Secretary of Mining had approved lease of mine. On such ground, Union prays for reinstatement of

all workers in the mine with continuity of service. On behalf of 2^nd party management, application for setting aside

exparte order dated 28-9-05 appears to have been filed. The application was also filed by Advocate R.C.Shrivastava on

25-7-05 for deleting name of MP State Mining Corporation. However Written Statement was not filed in the matter.

Dispute raised was repeatedly fixed for filing Written Statement since 24-8-2010.

3. Management of 2^nd party was proceeded exparte on 5-9-2013.

3292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 Dumarapara

Dolomite Mines of M/s. Madhya Pradesh State Mining

Corporation Ltd., Distt. Janjgir Champa in closing their

mines w.e.f. 15-2-97 is justified?

As parties failed to participate in reference proceeding,

the dispute could not be decided on merit.

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

Workmen are not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

5. After Union filed statement of claim, Union has failed to participate in reference proceeding. Management has

filed application for setting aside exparte order and application for deleting name of 2^nd party but did not participate in

reference. Union failed to adduce evidence. Evidence of Union was closed on 11-2-2015. Union was issued notice on

22-12-2015 but Union failed to adduce evidence. Management also failed to adduce evidence. Evidence of

management was closed. As both parties failed to participate in reference proceeding, dispute under reference could not

be decided on merit. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.1.

6. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The reference could not be decided as both parties failed to participate in reference.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1509-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

fgUMkYdks baMLVªht fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 133@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

12-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@18@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2016

S.O. 1509.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 133/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

12.07.2016.

[No. L-29012/18/2000-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/133/00

Shri Sharda Prasad Tiwari,

S/o Shri Radhika Prasad Tiwari,

Vill. Raigaon, PO Dhunwara,

Satna (MP)

…Workman

Versus

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3293

Hindalco Industries Limited,

PO Renkoor,

Distt. Sonbhadra, UP

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 22^nd day of June 2016

1. As per letter dated 10-7-00 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-29012/18/2000/IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Raw Materials Division of HIndalco Industries Ltd. Situtated at

Katni/ Satna in terminating the services of Shri Sharda Prasad Tiwari w.e.f. February 1996 after engaging him

continuously from August 1985 is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at Page

8/1 to 8/3. Case of Ist party workman is in August 1985, he was appointed as Supervisor. His duty was to check quality

of Bauxite at the sixing and submit daily report to the office of the company at Katni. That he was continuously

working till March 96. His services were terminated without notice. 2^nd party No. 2 was in administrative control of 2^nd

party No.1. salary of workman was paid by 2^nd party No.2. Ist party workman reiterated that he was continuously

working from August 85 to March 96. He was checking quality of bauxite and used to submit daily report to the office

of the company at Katni. He did not received any showcause notice during entire service period. His performance was

excellent. After termination of his service without notice in March 96, proceeding was filed at Labour Court, Satna.

Management has admitted in his reply about termination of its employee in March 96. The order of termination was not

served on him. Ist party workman was orally given understanding that as work was not available, his services were

terminated violating provisions of ID Act, he was not paid retrenchment compensation, termination notice was not

issued to him. One month salary in lieu of notice was not paid. Policy of last come first go was not followed.

Termination is illegal. On such ground, workman prays for reinstatement with backwages.

3. 2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 11/1 to 11/3 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party denied all material

contentions of workman. 2^nd party submits that it is engaged in production of primary aluminium metal. For its

production, raw material is received from its captive mines located at different states. That due to scarcity of abandoned

bauxite, sometimes bauxite was purchased from outside contractors. Accumulated bauxite was loaded at Railway

siding once or twice in a month subject to availability. Such loading was carried by casual labour occasionally. Work

was irregular, intermittent nature. Regular work should not be maintained. Workman was occasionally engaged on

casual basis carried out job for few days in a month. Workman was not employed on permanent basis. He did not work

continuously . Workman never worked for 240 days preceding 12 months claimed by him.

4. 2^nd party further submits that work of checking quality is highly technical job by technically qualified persons.

That unskilled workman like Ist party can never perform such job. The material purchase was excessively transported

from mining side to the siding by individual contractor at his sole responsibility. That no employee was engaged or has

been engaged for casual work as there was no such work carried out. Workman could not be employed on regular basis

unless the work of regular nature was available. On such contentions, 2^nd party submits that provisions of ID Act are

not applicable as workman did not work for 240 days. Claim of workman is not tenable.

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 Raw

Materials Division of HIndalco Industries Ltd.

Situtated at Katni/ Satna in terminating the

services of Shri Sharda Prasad Tiwari w.e.f.

February 1996 after engaging him continuously

from August 1985 is justified?

In Negative

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

As per final order.

REASONS

6. The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of workman. Ist party filed affidavit of his

evidence. Workman has stated that he was appointed as supervisor from August 1985. He was checking quality of

bauxite and used to prepare daily report. 2^nd party No.2 used to pay monthly salary to him. He referred salary till March

95. His services were orally terminated in March 96. Other employees employed after him were retained in service.

policy of last come first go was not followed. He rendered service more than 240 days in 12 months prior to his

3294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

retrenchment from service. In his cross-examination, workman says he studied upto 8^th standard. He cannot read

English. He was supervising raw materials, he was taking samples. He confirm that in statement of claim that he was

taking samples of raw materials is true. That he has not received education for testing the metal. That he worked with

the management from August 85 to March 96. Any document is not produced by him about his working or payment of

salary. He was unable to tell how much metal was purchased during the year. Prior to 1985, he was doing the work in

Agriculture. His date of birth is 1-1-58. Workman was unable to tell date without his affidavit of evidence was

prepared. He confirmed contents of para8 of his affidavit as true. In para-8 of his affidavit, workman has stated that he

is not gainfully employed.

7. Witness No.2 Dr. Pramod chandra Sharma in his evidence says during 1987 to 1996, he was working in

Hindalco as Raw Material Manager. Workman was working as Siding Supervisor. During said period, workman was

not paid retrenchment compensation. He was not served with notice of termination. Work of Hindalco company was

continuously carried. Performance of workman was satisfactory. In his cross examination Dr. P.C.Sharma says his

appointment letter is not produced. Appointment letter of workman is not produced. All documents are at headquarter

of 2^nd party. The witness did not remember educational qualification of workman. For post of supervisor, educational

qualification is passing 8^th, 10^th standard is required. Ist party workman was doing work of unloading bauxite from

truck looking after the shortage , the trucks were regularly coming to the siding Dr. P.C.Sharma has corroborated the

evidence of workman.

8. Evidence of management’s witness Shri S.K.Brahmachari on affidavit supported contentions of management

that workman was never engaged, workman was not continuously working for 240 days. Bauxite Metal was purchased

from contractors. Contractor was responsible for its quality. Work was carried for 7-8 days in a month. Management’s

witness in his cross-examination denies that workman was checking quality of bauxite received from other sources

other than captive mines. That he had not seen record of bauxite loading and unloading. He filed affidavit of his

evidence as per the available record. He claims ignorance about the contractors engaged by 2^nd party. He denies that

salary of workman was paid by 2^nd party. He denies that workman had worked for more than 240 days. Workman was

not paid compensation, notice of termination was not issued to him.

9. If evidence of workman and management’s witness is considered carefully, evidence of workman is

corroborated from evidence of Dr. P.C. Sharma. that workman was continuously working during his tenure 1987 to

1996. I donot find reason to disbelieve his evidence. Workman has established that he was working more than 240

days preceding 12 months of termination of his service. workman was not paid retrenchment compensation.

Termination notice was not served on him. Management’s witness has not produced documents about working days,

therefore I hold that termination of services of workman is illegal for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. For above

reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

10. Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 termination of services of workman is illegal, question

remains for consideration is whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. The evidence of Ist party

workman is clear that he was engaged on casual basis. Reinstatement of workman with backwages would not be

appropriate. Considering the period of working of workman, compensation Rs. One Lakh would be appropriate.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

11 In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management is not proper and legal.

(2)

2^nd party management is directed to pay compensation Rs.One Lakh to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In case of

default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1510-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

fgUMkYdks baMLVªht fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 138@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

12-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@13@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2016

S.O. 1510.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 138/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3295

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

12.07.2016.

[No. L-29012/13/2000-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/138/00

Shri Nandilal Yadav,

S/o Shri Budhulal Yadav,

Vill Karhivakalan No.2,

Post Gulwara, Tehsil Katni,

Katni (MP)

…Workman

Versus

Hindalco Industries Limited,

PO Renkoor,

Distt. Sonbhadra, UP

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 22^nd day of June 2016

1. As per letter dated 12-7-00 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-29012/13/2000/IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Raw Materials Division of HIndalco Industries Ltd. Situtated at Renukoot,

Katni in terminating the services of Shri Nandilal Yadav S/o Shri Budhulal Yadav w.e.f. July 1990 after engaging him

continuously from February 1996 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman filed statement of claim at Page 8/1 to

8/3. Case of Ist party is that he was appointed as Driver in 1990 by 2^nd party. He was continuously working till

termination of his services in March 96. His services were terminated without notice. 2^nd party was Controlling

Authority. Workman further submits that from August 1985 to 1996, he was continuously working. His services were

terminated without notice. Chargesheet was issued to him. That he holds the required qualification for his work. He

was continuously working more than 240 days. After termination of his service without notice, 2^nd party has engaged

employees of contractor policy of first come last go was not followed. Intimation of closing work was not given to the

authority. After termination of his service, he is unemployed.

3. 2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 11/1 to 11/3 opposing claim of workman 2^nd party denied all material

contentions of Ist party. It is submitted that 2^nd party No.1 is registered under Company’s Act engaged in production of

Aluminium Metal using bauxite. Due to scarcity of bauxite, said metal was purchased from contractor. The metal

bauxite used to be accumulated at Railway sidings once in a month subject to availability. Workman was occasionally

engaged on casual basis for intermittent nature of job. Ist party was not employed on permanent basis. He did not work

for 240 days during any 12 months. Termination of workman in violation of Section 25-F is denied. That work of

wagon loading was done 7-8 days in a month it is alleged workman is throwing arrows in dark for unknown gains.

Workman has not worked for 240 days. He is not entitled to any relief.

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 Whether the action of the

management of Raw Materials Division of HIndalco Industries Ltd.

Situtated at Renukoot, Katni in terminating the services of Shri

Nandilal Yadav S/o Shri Budhulal Yadav w.e.f. July 1990 after

engaging him continuously from February 1996 is legal and justified?

In Negative

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

As per final order

3296

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REASONS

5. Point No.1- The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of workman. Ist party filed affidavit of his

evidence. Workman says that he was appointed as Driver from 1-7-90. He was continuously working till March 96. He

was orally discharged from March 96 without any notice, compensation was not paid to him in lieu of notice. He was

discharged without following principles of last come first go. He worked more than 240 days during 12 months

preceding date of his retrenchment. In his cross, workman says he studied upto 8^th standard. He cannot read English. He

could not read his affidavit of evidence but it was read over to him by his Advocate. He was unable to tell contents of

para 1 to 8 of his affidavit. He has not produced his driving licence but he was ready to produce his Driving Licence if

required. He was appointed on 1-7-90. He did not remember whether appointment order is produced by him. Jeep No.

MP 21-339 was given to him dor driving by Dr.P.C.Sharma. prior to 1999, he was driving taxi. Presently he was doing

work in agriculture. The place where he was engaged, bauxite work was carried. He was paid salary. He did not

remember whether its documents are produced. He filed proceeding before Labour Court, Satna when said case was

withdrawn. He was working with 2^nd party till 1996. He was paid Rs.500 permonth. He denies that he never worked

with 2^nd party.

6. Witness Dr.P.C.Sharma in his evidence says during 1990 to 1996, he was working as Manager in Hindalco

Industry. Workman was working as Driver during 1990 to 1996-97. He was continuously working. Workman was not

paid retrenchment compensation. He was unable to tell after retrenchment of workman, who was engaged for said

work. Documents about attendance, payment of wages, deduction of PF Etc. were maintained. Those documents are

not available. In his cross, above witness says documents about his appointment as Manager are not produced.

Documents pertaining to dispute are not produced. During 1990 to 1996, Hindalco company was engaged in bauxite

Lime Mine. Work was of continuous nature. Witness denied that Hindalco was carrying its work for some period.

7. Evidence of management’s witness Shri S.K.Brahmachari is in the nature of denial of claim of workman.

Workman was not appointed, he was engaged for casual work. Workman did not work for 240 days. Workman was

not served with showcause notice or chargesheet as he was engaged casually. In his cross-examination, management’s

witness says employees of B.K.Jha Company were checking bauxite received from other sources than the captive

mines. ShriB.K.Jha was not doing the work of checking metals. Ist party workman was doing work of checking metals.

Documents are not produced. He did not recollect name of contractor. He denied that work of checking bauxite was

carried more than 240 days in a year. Witness denied suggestion that workman worked more than 240 days. If evidence

of Ist party and his witness is carefully appreciated, evidence of Dr. Sharma is corroborated with evidence of workman

that he was engaged as driver and continuously working from 1990 to 1996. Management’s witness admits that

workman was not paid retrenchment compensation. Notice was not issued to him. Evidence of workman is

corroborated by Dr.P.C.Sharma that workman had completed more than 240 days. Service of workman are terminated

without notice, retrenchment compensation is not paid. Termination of service of workman is 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 that termination of service of workman is illegal, question

remains for decision is whether workman is entitled for reinstatement. Workman has not produced appointment letter

therefore reinstatement of workman with backwages will not be appropriate. Considering the workman was working

from July 1990 to March 96, compensation Rs.75,000/- would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point

No. 2.

9. In the result, award is passed as under:

(1) The action of the management is not proper and legal.

(2) 2^nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 75,000/- to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In case of

default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1511-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,e-

ih- LVsV ekbfuax dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM vkSj nwljs ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 33@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29011@66@2002&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3297

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2016

S.O. 1511.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. MP State Mining Corporation Ltd. And other and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 12.07.2016.

[No. L-29011/66/2002-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/33/03

Shri Beni Ram Sahu, President,

Madhya Pradesh Khadan Swatantra Mazdoor Sangathan,

Vill Deragarh, PO Baradwar,

Distt. Janjgir,

Champa(CG)

… Workman/Union

Versus

Managing Director,

Madhya Pradesh State Mining Corporation,

Paryawas Bhavan, IInd floor,

Arera Hills, Jail Road,

Bhopal (MP)

Dy.General Manager(Mines),

Mainpat Bauxite Mines, Shivahar Colony,

Pratappur Naka,

PO Ambikapur

Sarguja (CG).

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 7^th day of June 2016

1. As per letter dated 4-2-03 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-29011/66/2002-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ (1) Whether the action of the management of Madhya Pradesh state Mining corporation, Bhopal(Owner of Mainpat

Bauxite Mines) in terminating the services of 335 workers on the plea of absenteeism is justified? If not, to what relief

the workers are entitled” (2) whether the action of the management of Madhya Pradesh State Mining Corporation Ltd.

Bhopal (Mine owners of Mainpat Bauxite Mines) in terminating the services of the following workers without issuing

any chargesheet/ conducting enquiry/ obtaining permission for such type of retrenchment is justified? 1. Shri Man

Kumar- Chowkidar,2 Shri Chandrika Prasad- Chowkidar, 3. Shri Vijay Kumar Singh- Typist, 4. Shri Dhaniram Water

Carrier, 5. Shri Devnath- water carrier, 6. Shri Tejram- Water carrier and 7. Shri Jeroram chowkidar. If not, to what

relief the said workmen are entitled? (3) whether the action of the management of Madhya Pradesh State Mining

Corporation Ltd. Bhopal (Owner of Mainpat Bauxite Mines) in not paying the compensation to the terminated/

retrenched employees is justified? If not, to what relief the affected worker are entitled?”(4) whether the action of the

management of Madhya Pradesh State Mining Corporation Ltd., Bhopal ( Mine owner of Mainpat Bauxite Mines) in

not attending the conciliation proceedings from their end and shifting their responsibility to the new bifurcated concern-

3298

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. on 26-4-02 is justified? If not, to what type of strictures are to be

passed against MPSMC?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim at

Page 7/1 to 7/2., case of Union is that 335 workers connected with the dispute under reference were transferred from

Baraduar Mine to Mainpat Bauxite Mine, Distt. Surguja in November 1995. That at Mainpat Bauxite mines, there were

no proper facilities for residence, drinking water, medical facilities. The management illegally terminated services of

335 workers for absence from duties. Any chargesheet was not issued to workers , opportunity of hearing or defence

was not given to them. The workers were not paid retrenchment compensation. Their services were terminated

violating Section 25-F of ID Act as retrenchment compensation was not paid.

3. Union in Para 4 of the statement of claim has specifically pleaded that chargeman Mankumar, Chandrika

Prasad- Chowkidar, Shri Vijay Kumar Singh- Typist, Shri Dhaniram Water Carrier Shri Devnath- water carrier, Shri

Tejram- Water carrier and Shri Jeroram chowkidar were retrenched in 1995. Chargesheet was not issued to them. No

enquiry was conducted against them. Retrenchment compensation was not paid, termination of their service is not

legal. They are entitled to reinstatement with backwages. All 342 workers are entitled for reinstatement.

4. 2^nd party despite of repeated notices failed to file Written Statement. Personal Manager has produced letters

addressed to the Director of MP State Mining Corporation. The ordersheet shows that Advocate Shri R.C.Srivastava,

M.P.Kapoor undertaken to submit vakalatnama but vakalatnama were not filed. Management was proceeded exparte on

5-9-2013.

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 Madhya

Pradesh state Mining corporation, Bhopal(Owner of

Mainpat Bauxite Mines) in terminating the services of 335

workers on the plea of absenteeism is justified?

As parties failed to participate in reference proceeding,

dispute under reference could not be decided on merit.

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

Workmen are not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

6. The term of reference pertains to the legality of termination of 335 workers on the ground of absenteeism,

issuing chargesheet, conducting enquiry, not paying retrenchment compensation and failure of 2^nd party in attending

conciliation proceeding and as to what kind of directions could be passed. In order of reference Item 4 pertains to

failure to attend the conciliation proceedings from their end and shifting their responsibility to the new bifurcated

concern- Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. on 26-4-02 is justified cannot be said matter pertaining

to ID. Parties failed to participate in conciliation proceedings. The superior authorities of the concerned offices of the

management can take appropriate action. So far as legality of termination of workman is concerned, on the ground of

absence from duty without issuing chargesheet or conducting enquiry non-payment of retrenchment compensation. Ist

party Union despite of repeated notices issued to it failed to participate in reference proceeding. Union has failed to

adduce evidence in support of his claim. Though management was proceeded exparte, inadvertently case was fixed for

evidence of management on certain dates. Management also failed to participate in the reference proceeding. The

dispute under reference could not be decided on merit. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.1 that workmen are

not entitled to any relief.

7. In the result, award is passed as under:

(1) The dispute under reference could not be decided on merit as parties failed to participate.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1512-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

lhesaV dkiksZjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 50@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 12-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29011@61@2002&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3299

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2016

S.O. 1512.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Cement Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 12.07.2016.

[No. L-29011/61/2002-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/50/2003

Shri P.K.Soni, General Secretary,

Rashtriya Cement and Khadan Shramik Sangathan,

C/o Cement Corpn of India,

Champa(CG)

…Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

Cement Corporation of India,

Vill & PO Akaltara,

Distt. Janjgir,

Champa (CG).

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 13^th day of May 2016

1. As per letter dated 7-2-03 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-29011/61/2002/IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Cement Corporation of India, Akaltara, Distt. Janjgir- Champa

(CG) in reverting Shri Jeeth Singhy Kshathri from the post of Accountant to the post of Assistant Accountant

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

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at page

5/1 to 5/2. Case of workman is that he was appointed on post of Assistant Accountant on 15-7-76 at Akaltara. That the

condition of transfer in appointment order was calcelled. Letter in that regard is relied. Workman submits violating the

conditions of service, he was transferred as per order dated 21-6-89, workman challenged order of his transfer in WP

No. 4366/89. Vide order dated 22-11-90, Hon’ble High court directed that on reversion, workman be posted at

Akaltara. Workman was working at Akaltara. After the dispute was raised and failure of conciliation proceeding, the

dispute is referred for adjudication. That as per order dated 28-8-03, workman was transferred to Himachal Pradesh. Ist

party prays for cancellation of order of transfer and promotion and posting on appropriate posts.

3. 2^nd party filed written statement at Page 6/1 to 68 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party raised preliminary

objection that workman filed WP No. 2821/03 in High Court at Bilaspur. The petition is pending for decision. The

reference is not tenable and deserves to be dismissed. 2^nd party further submits that due to exigency of work and

requirement of finance staff at Calcutta office. Management decided to transfer office from Akaltara to Calcutta Zonal

Office. Message in that regard was received by Akaltara plant. Accordingly workman was transferred to Calcutta vide

order dated 25-6-89. Workman had requested cancellation of order of his transfer. Vide order dated 19-7-89, General

Manager asked workman for duty at Calcutta Zonal Office. Workman submitted representation regarding his transfer.

Vide order dated 8-9-89, management informed workman that he may approach management and draw payment from

cash counter. Workman represented for consideration of his transfer. It is submitted that if his transfer is not concerned,

he will be reverted in his previous post. Workman had subsequently reported to zonal office on 28-10-89. He

3300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

unauthorisely remained absent without sanctioned leave or permission. During the period of his absence, workman

filed Writ petition 4366/89 in MP High Court seeking reversion of wage board scaler and posting back to Akaltara unit.

Vide order dated 22-11-90, Hon’ble High Court directed management to decide representation of workman within one

month. Management considered his representation and issued order dated 5-3-91 transferring workman back to

akaltara unit. Workman submitted representation dated 13-2-91 that he may be reverted to his earlier post in wage

board Grade and post him at Akaltara. Workman agreed for his pay fixation in above grade. Accordingly order dated

5-3-91 was issued. Consequent upon reversion of workman was to draw pay as Assistant Account in wage Board Scale

Rs.700-40-1500. That taking into account, notional increment agreed to him, he was not promoted as accountant in

central scale of pay. Workman reported to Akaltara on his transfer and reversion submitting joining report on 29-3-91.

Workman was promoted vide order dated 12-3-01 to payscale under CCI Stagnation scheme. Later in March 2001

clarification regarding terms and conditions of his service after promotion had not given his acceptance of his

promotion order dated 12-3-01. Workman continued to draw pay in wage board scale since he had not given letter of

assurance to pay scale. Workman filed letter dated 30-11-2001 sought clarification regarding terms and conditions of

his service on promotion. 2^nd party admits order of transfer of workman was cancelled. In view of undertaking given by

the workman, he maybe reverted to the post he was holding at the time of his transfer. That transfer of workman was

made according to the terms of appointment. It is submitted that workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 18/1 to 18/3 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 Cement

Corporation of India, Akaltara, Distt. Janjgir- Champa

(CG) in reverting Shri Jeeth Singhy Kshathri from the

post of Accountant to the post of Assistant Accountant is

justified?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is entitled to any relief.

REASONS

6. Before dealing with the points on merit of the reference, it is appropriate to consider the certain circumstances

appearing from record. Workman had submitted application dated 29-9-04 for transfer of the reference apprehending

he may not get justice. Letter dated 4-10-04 & 7-10-04 was submitted by workman that he had tried to serve

application relating to contempt of Court, the management had refused. The remarks of Presiding Officer in the matter

of transfer of reference were called vide dated 20-7-62, 6-11-12. The remarks were submitted by my predecessor as

per letter dated 1-8-12, 21-11-12, however no order of transfer of reference was received.

7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence dated 14-3-2011. However workman failed to appear for his cross-

examination. Despite notices were issued to workman on 17-10-13, 27-1-14, workman did not appear, his evidence was

closed on 26-2-14. As workman failed to appear for his cross examination, his evidence cannot be considered.

8. Exhibit W-1 is order dated 22-11-90 passed by Hon’ble High Court. Management was directed to decide

representation of workman within a period of one month. Exhibit W-2 is copy of office order dated 5-3-91. The pay of

workman was fixed in reverted wage Board Scale Rs.700-14-1500. Exhibit W-4 is copy of Exhibit W-1 only. Exhibit

W-5 is copy of order dated 5-3-91 i.e. copy of Exhibit W-2. Exhibit W-6 is office order dated 2-9-2013. Workman

along with other employees were transferred. Ist party workman was transferred as Assistant Accountant II Rajbhan

Cement Factory as Assistant Accountant. Exhibit W-7 is office order dated 21-6-89. Workman was transferred and

posted to Calcutta Zonal Office as Accountant. Exhibit W-8 is letter dated 9-8-04 in the matter of representation

submitted by workman.

9. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness Umashankar, Assistant Manager supporting contentions of

management. Workman was appointed as Junior Asstt on 8-6-76. Appointment Letter Clause-V provided that service

of workman were transferred anywhere in India in any branch etc. workman had accepted conditions of his service

submitting joining report. Workman was promoted as per order dated 24-9-85. Joining Report was submitted by

workman on 3-10-85. Workman as transferred from Akaltara plant. Workman had requested cancellation of his transfer

but his request5 was not acceded. After order passed in WP 4366/89 dated 22-11-90, representation submitted by

workman dated 13-2-91 was allowed. The office order dated 5-3-91 was issued upon reversion of workman as

Assistant Accountant in Wage Board Scale 700-400-1500. Evidence of management’s witness remained unchallenged.

From evidence of management’s witness documents Exhibit M-1 to 6 are admitted in evidence. Exhibit M-1 is copy of

Writ Petition No. 2821/03 filed in Chattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur. Exhibit M-2 is letter dated 12-7-76 sent to

workman regarding acceptance of appointment and terms and conditions. Exhibit M-3 is copy of joining report

submitted by workman. Exhibit M-4 is copy of office order dated 24-9-85. Exhibit M-5 is copy of joining report

submitted by workman. Exhibit M-6 is copy of letter dated 2-9-89. Exhibit M-7 is copy of order passed by Hon’ble

High Court in WP No. 4366/89. Exhibit M-8 is copy of Joining report submitted by workman.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3301

10 The evidence on record shows that after workman was promoted to the post of accountant and transferred to

Calcutta Zonal Office, he had submitted representation and willingly accepted reversion. His representation was

accepted by the management and workman was transferred back to Akaltara. Exhibit M-9 appointment order shows

that services of workman were liable to be transferred at sole discretion of corporation anywhere in India or to any

branch/ section/unit of the corporation. As the evidence on record shows that workman as promoted, he submitted

representation accepting reversion to the post held by him. The case of Ist party workman for promotion is not

established. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

11. 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] 18 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1513-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

Ý;wpj tsusjyh bafM;k ykbiQ ba';ksjsal daiuh fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 39@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&17012@9@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2016

S.O. 1513.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Future Generali India Life Insurance Company Ltd. and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 12.07.2016.

[No. L-17012/9/2011-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/39/2012

Shri Atul Bhatia,

C/o Shri Pankaj Dubey, Advocate,

Near Bridge No.2,

North Civil Lines,

Jabalpur.

…Workman

Versus

Future Generali India Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

1276- Raj leela Towers,

Wright town,

Vishal Megamart road,

Jabalpur.

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9^th day of June 2016

1. As per letter dated 22-2-12 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-17012/9/2011-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

3302

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of the management of Future Generali India Life Insurance company Ltd., Jabalpur in

terminating the services of Shri Atul Bhatia, Ex-Sales Manager Agency w.e.f. 27-9-2010 is legal and

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. After receiving order of reference, notices were issued to the parties. Despite of notice issued on 15-7-2013,

21-2-2014 by RPAD, workman failed to appear in the matter. Ist party workman is proceeded exparte on 26-3-2014.

3. 2^nd party filed exparte Written Statement. Case of 2^nd party that it is registered under Company’s Act 1956

carrying insurance business. Ist party is not covered as workman under ID Act as he was to carry out policy in

accordance with mutually agreed targets. The performance of Ist party was not satisfactory. Ist party workman had to

identify the potential LIC Agent capable to attain said targets. He was also required to arrange training of potential

advisors for conducting insurance business. It is reiterated that Ist party is not covered as workman. He was earning

salary Rs.24000/- per month. Ist party workman carrying supervisory and managerial role, as such Ist party is covered

in exception under section 2(s)(iv) . Ist party is not covered under ID Act. His services are covered by the conditions of

his appointment within contractual rights. Ist party was appointed as Sales Manager. It is denied that workman was not

assigned with any administrative or supervisory work. Workman had failed to achieve targets of insurance business.

His services were terminated considering his performance in service. His work was regularly monitored and found

poor. Workman doesnot deserve any kind of relief.

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 Future

Generali India Life Insurance company Ltd., Jabalpur in

terminating the services of Shri Atul Bhatia, Ex-Sales

Manager Agency w.e.f. 27-9-2010 is legal and justified?

Ist party has not participated in the reference proceeding,

the dispute could not be decided on merit.

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

5. The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of Ist party workman. However he has

failed to participate in reference proceeding. Workman is proceeded exparte on 26-3-2014. 2^nd party filed exparte

Written Statement but 2^nd party failed to adduce evidence. Thus both parties have not properly participated in the

reference proceeding, the dispute could not be decided on merit. Workman is not entitled to any relief.

6. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The reference could not be decided as both parties failed to participate in reference.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1514-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,u-

,e- Mh- lh- fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 81@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

12-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&26011@4@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2016

S.O. 1514.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 81/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. NMDC Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12.07.2016.

[No. L-26011/4/2014-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3303

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/81/14

Secretary,

Bhartiya Khadan Mazdoor Sangh,

Bacheli Branch, BIOM, Bacheli Complex,

Distt. Datewada, CG

…Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

NMDC, BIOM,

Bacheli Complex,

Bacheli, Distt. Datewada(CG).

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 16^th day of June 2016

1. As per letter dated 27-10-14 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-

26011/4/2014-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of NMDC Ltd. Bacheli Complex, BIOM Dantewada (CG) awarding

punishment of demotion to the post of Field Attendant I the scale of Rs.8900-3%-12,400 (RS-1) to Shri Vijay

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

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman failed to appear in reference proceeding

despite repeated notices issued to him.

3. 2^nd party appeared in the reference proceeding through Advocate Shri A.K.shashi. during pendency, letter is

received from Union Secretary, Vijay Masih that he is withdrawing his claim. Management has given no objection.

After verifying Ist party was promoted to withdraw his claim. Consequently No dispute Award is passed.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1515-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

fHkykbZ LVhy IykaV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 84@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

12-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&43012@2@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2016

S.O. 1515 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 84/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Bhilai Steel Plant and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

12.07.2016.

[No. L-43012/2/2014-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

3304

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/84/14

Shri Kuldeep Singh

H. No.276, 4- Shanti Nagar,

Bhilai,

Distt. Durg (CG)

…Workman

Versus

Executive Director(P),

Bhilai Steel Plant,

Bhilai Ispat Bhawan,

Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 6^th day of June 2016

As per letter dated 31-10-2014 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-

43012/2/2014-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Bhilai Steel Plant in denying the employment to Shri Kuldeep

Singh and 601 other workmen on the ground of violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India even

when their names were sent under Employment Exchange ( Compulsory Notification of vacancies) Act, 1959

by employment Exchange complying Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution is justified? If so, what relief these

workmen represented by Shri Kuldeep Singh and 601 other are entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workmen submitted statement of claim.

Case of 1st party workmen is that workman Kuldeep Singh and 601 others passed ITI. Their names were registered in

Employment exchange at relevant time. Their names were called for written test for post of Trade Apprentice ( non-

executive cadre) at Bhilai steel Plant by 2^nd party. Their names were called by Employment Exchange in terms of

Employment Exchange ( compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. All the workmen of ist party had cleared

Written test, interview for said post. After their medical examination, they were sent for training. All workmen

completed training and are from batch of 68 to 75. Ist party submits that term Apprentice provided under standing

orders of Bhilai Steel Plant means persons engaged for training with a view to their eventual employment under the

company on satisfactory completion of training and who will be paid a stipend or allowances during the period of

training. The term eventual employment under the company on satisfactory completion of training is important part of

said definition. Ist party workman on satisfactory completion of training ought to have been made permanent in

establishment of 2^nd party. They were entitled for eventual employment. However for extraneous considerations, they

were not made permanent. The employee junior to Ist party workman and so similarly placed employees who went

through the same recruitment procedure on the post of Trade apprentices as cleared by the workmen were regularized

in Grade S-3 and S-1. Total 8007 trained Aprentices were regularized till 2001 in Grade S-3 and in the year 2004

Grade S-3 was changed to Grade S-1 and 127 trained Apprentices were regularized by way of Part II order. It is alleged

that in discriminatory manner without following the principles of seniority, the respondent had regularized total 8134

Trained Apprentices whereas the workmen were not given said benefit. Ist party alleged discriminatory approach

against Ist party workman Trained Apprentices. That some of the trained apprentices committed suicides as their

legitimate expectation for permanent job was denied. The trainees who were sent in Nandani Mines and Dalli Rajhara

Mines were regularized whereas the persons like workmen who remained in the Plant were not regularized. Ist party

further submitted workman approached 2^nd party for redressal of their grievance was of not avail. Workman got their

grievance in newspaper to show that respondent was not taking action. Respondent had given false assurance that

some day workmen will be regularized. Workman further submits that there is requirement of man power in

establishment of 2^nd party instead of permanently absorbing workman. 2^nd party started denying claims of workmen.

The vacancies were notified to be filled through open competition. That most of workman have become overage for

the post in question. They cannot be made to undergo the Written Test once again and face present day competition.

That they had already undergone procedure for appointment for said post. They have preferential right for the claim.

Action of management providing only age relaxation to the workman but it was no use to workman. 2^nd party wants to

burry the claim of those workmen abusing their powers high handedly.

Ist party workmen further refers to ratio held in case of UP State Road Transport Corporation and another

versus UP Parivahan Nigam Shikshit Berozgar Sangh reported in AIR 1995-SC-1115. The Ministry of Labour,

Directorate of Employment and Training issued circular dated 22-5-96 addressed to all Ministries etc. stating that

trained apprentices should be given preferential treatment direct recruit candidates and a list of trained apprentices

should be prepared yearwise and those who have passed the training earlier than their compatriot shall be treated as

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3305

senior and they are entitled for job as per the seniority. 2^nd party knowing said circular and the ratio held by Apex Court

in above said case disobeyed the circular and the judgment by Apex Court by absorbing junior workmen to Ist party

workmen. It is further submitted that management filled up said post through direct recruitment time and again instead

of absorbing them. Action of the management of 2^nd party alleged to be violative of Article 14,16 of constitution and

also colourable exercise of powers. Ist party workmen submits that it is necessary to absorb those workmen

permanently.

Workmen further submits that Government of India, Director of Training and Employment in its letter dated

31-8-78 emphasized on the facts that scheme of unemployed persons and that if employers would not provide chances

of employment to the qualified apprentices the same would amount to destruction of developed human resources.

However it was desired that other things being equal trained apprentices should be given preference in case of

employment. The government of India in its letter dated 23-3-83 even desired reservation of 50 % vacancies for trained

apprentices. The management’s action is dehors the desire of Government of India and to the detriment of the persons

like the present workmen.

Ist party workmen raised ID, matter was taken into conciliation by Competent Authority under the Act. The

respondent denied to settle the matter during conciliation proceeding. The lisit of workmen was submitted to the

management for verification and verified list was sent to Ministry of Labour. On failure of conciliation, the matter is

referred for adjudication to this Tribunal as per order dated 31-10-2014. After knowledge of the order of reference, 2^nd

party management published advertisement in Navbharat dated 20-12-2014 for filling of various posts including the

post for which workman have preferential right. Office of the Collector, Durg and Dy.Director Industrial health, Labour

Department vide letter dated 20-10-14 had directed 2^nd party management to take positive steps about regularization of

those workmen. Vide letter dated 31-12-14, General Manager, Bhilai Steel Plant was contented that the dispute was

already referred for adjudication to this Tribunal. Management was aware about the order of reference to this Tribunal

in violation of Section 33 of ID Act, management is filling up post through direct recruitment. Workman had

approached Conciliation Officer, Dy.Chief Labour Commissioner, Raipur with regard to violation of Section 33 of ID

Act. The complaint was submitted on 1-1-15. After preliminary enquiry/ joint discussion, the Conciliation Officer

found the existence of ID between the present parties. Management submitted reply dated 9-1-2015 contending that

workmen are Ex.Trade Apprentices and they are not workman as per law. That instead of admitting their apparent

mistake and violation of Section 33 of ID Act, they stated that the matter is pending before this Tribunal. Workman

should wait till adjudication of the dispute. Management is having no regards to the provision of ID Act. The failure

report was submitted by Conciliation Officer vide letter dated 20-1-15.

Workman had submitted application for interim relief praying stay of further action in pursuance of

advertisement dated 28-12-14 and restrain the respondents from filling up the posts as mentioned in the advertisement

till adjudication of the present case. Ist party workman alleged violation of Section 33 of ID Act and prays suitable

action may be taken against the erring Officer by punishing him with imprisonment for a period of six months or by

imposing fine.

The contentions of management was to show initial entry of workman as workman for training as Trade

Apprentice is governed by the provisions of Apprentice Act, 1961. In fact the provisions of the said Act is not

applicable because no contract of apprenticeship as is required to be made was entered into between the workmen and

the management and even if it was there in existence the same was not sent by the respondent under Section 4 of said

Act to the Apprenticeship Adviser for registration. So the plea of management that Ist party workmen are not workmen

in view of provisions of Apprenticeship Act is absolutely misconceived and baseless. On such contentions, workman

prays that reference be answered in their favour. That action of 2^nd party management not regularizing services of

workmen making them permanent on post of attendant is discriminatory is illegal. That management be directed to

regularize workmen Kuldeep Singh and 601 others on the post from the date when other similarly placed employees

and juniors were regularized. The consequential benefits and cost be allowed.

2^nd party management filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. Preliminary objection is raised

that claim of Ist party that they are Trade Apprentice is covered by Trade Apprentice Act 1961. Ist party are not

workmen. Provisions of ID Act are not applicable in the matter. The dispute is not maintainable. The present dispute is

not raised by Union rather it is raised by individual Kuldeep. He was not authorized by others to take up issue on their

behalf. The other claimants have not authorized Shri Kuldeep Singh to represent them as no authorization has been

filed before before this Tribunal. That statement of claim is signed and verified by Shri Kuldeep Singh, it cannot be

treated as statement of claim on behalf of rest of claimants. The order of reference dated 31-10-14 is not accompanied

with list of claimants. In absence of particulars of 601 claimants, the reference cannot be adjudicated.

2^nd party further submits that Bhilai Steel Plant is unit of Steel Authority of India Limited. As per provisions

of Trade Apprentices Act, 1961, the management of Bhilai Steel Plant has to provide training to certain number of

apprentices. The apprentices are to be sponsored by the authority under the provisions of said Act. The management of

Bhilai Steel Plant provides training to the apprentice each year in all trades. Trade Apprentices were given training in

Bhilai Steel Plant for a period of 1-2 years depending on trade. The number of apprentices to be engaged in training

was decided by notifications from the Competent Authority of Central Government (Director of Training, Board of

3306

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Apprentice Training, Kanpur). That as per Section 22(1) of Trade Apprentice Act 1961, it is not obligatory on the part

of employer to offer any employment to any apprentice who has completed the period of his apprentice training in his

establishment nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the apprentice to accept an employment under the employer.

10.

Management of 2^nd party has recruitment policy. The recruitment is done in accordance with said policy. In

order to meet manpower requirement of Bhilai Steel Plant and to induct competent personnel in terms of requisite

qualification, skill, physical status, aptitude and merit, vacant posts in non-executive cadre were notified to the local

Employment exchange in accordance with the provisions of the Employment Exchange Act 1959. Said notification of

vacancy to the Employment Exchange was done time to time depending upon the number of posts and the level

required to fill up so as to take care of not only the immediate present vacancies but also the vacancies which are

likely to arise in future either due to separation of employees, retirement or any other count and also making provisions

for future expansion of various units of Bhilai Steel Plant. Panels of selected candidates after selection were drawn

which were used to fill up the immediate vacancies as well as vacancies likely to arise in future as per the need and

requirement of the Plant. . Bhilai Steel Plant in past had recruited technician cum operative trainees with ITI

qualification in two categories. One as TOT- 6 months was recruited from Trade Apprentice trained by BSP after they

cleared All India trade Test. 2^nd known as TOT 18 months were recruited on notifying the vacancies to the Employment

Exchange and from out of the candidates sponsored by them. That as per provisions of Trade Apprentice Act 1961,

Bhilai Steel Plant had to give training for atleast 385 persons on different trades. The candidates for Trade apprentices

were obtained on sponsoring by the Employment Exchange and they were selected after qualifying through a written

test and interview. The trade apprentices were required to clear the All India Trade Test conducted by National Council

for Vocational Training. It is submitted that in the offer of training to Trade Apprentices, there is a stipulation that there

is no guarantee of their employment in Bhilai Steel Plant on completion of training. However the company has been

recruiting TOT six months out of these Trade apprentices trained by the Bhilai Steel Plant who have cleared AITT.

Such Trade Apprentices are required to undergo training for six months. But their names are not sponsored by the

Employment Exchange for the purpose recruitment during the period from 96 to 2003. Bhilai Steel Plant has inducted

around 900 TOTs from Trade Apprentices. Presently there are about 1000 Trade Apprentices who have cleared All

India Trade Test and have not been considered for employment in Bhilai Steel Plant.

11.

2^nd party management fur4ther contends till AITT batch No.67 candidates were appointed as TOT 6 months

and after training regularized in S-3 grade. In the year 2002, considering the requirement of skilled as well as unskilled

manpower at lower level, a new designation named Attendant cum Technician Trainee(ATT). Attendant cum operative

Trainee in S-1grade was introduced. All the 84 candidates from AITT branch No. 68 were appointed is as ATT. The

particulars of TAs not absorbed in Bhilai Steel Plant is shown in Para-10 of the Written Statement. For 68 batch-

passing year98 is 51, for batch 69-passing year- 1998 is 205, for 70 batch-passing year 1999 is 221, for 71- passing

year 1999 is 233, for batch 72 passing year 2000 is 135, for batch 73 passing year 2000- 156, for batch 74 passing year

2001 is 39, for batch 75 passing year 2001 is 7- total 1047 were not absorbed in Bhilai Steel Plant.

12.

2^nd party further submits that one Shri Srilal had filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of

Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. Hon’ble High Court passed order dated 19-1-04 on the report dated 3-12-03 of Managing

Director duly supported by an affidavit has been filed. Management had submitted that no further recruitment from

old panel will be made by Bhilai Steel Plant. It was also submitted that Bhilai Steel Plant will inform all future

vacancies in the category of Trade Apprentice to the Employment Exchange and the recruitment will be done strictly in

accordance with provisions of Employment Exchange Act 1959. And open advertisement will also be made in

newspaper. 2^nd party management submits that Hon’ble High Court specifically held that recruitment in future should

be through the Employment Exchange as per the provisions of Employment Exchange Act 1959. And open

advertisement in newspaper. The process of recruitment from among Trade Apprentices was stopped after 2003

consequent to order of Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur. That from the year 2004 onwards as soon as

vacancy arose, management had given vide publicity through newspaper as well intimated vacancy position to the

Local Employment Exchange time to time. In all advertisement, it was specifically stated that in case of Trade

Apprentice, age relaxation would be given. Yearwise vacancy position as to vacancies received against those vacancies

and selections made out of 1047 trade apprentice is given in Para 15 of the Written Statement. In 2004 post advertised

is 40 SRD-ST, applications received is 4000 and 5 joined, in the year 2005, post advertised were 1000, applications

received were 10,000 and nil joined, in the year 2007-08 posts advertised were 3, applications received were 138 and

none joined. In the year 2008- 90 posts were advertised, 11,444 applications received and none joined, In the year

2009, 37 posts were advertised, 4255applications received and 13 joined, in the year 2011, 83 posts were advertised,

9374 applications received and 27 joined. In the year 2013- 358 posts advertised, 1,24,741 applications received and 18

joined. In the year 2014- 119 posts advertised and recruitment activity is under process.

13.

2^nd party submits that advertisement issued in daily newspapers from the year 2004 to 14 are produced. Letter

issued to Local Employment Exchange intimating them the vacancy positions are also submitted. That as per

advertisement and intimation given to Employment Exchange, management issued number of applications including

the applications out of 1047 Trade Apprentices. The selections were against these Trade Apprentices are shown

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3307

above. The vacancies were published in newspaper as well as information was given to Employment Exchange as per

order dated 19-1-04 passed by Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 258/03 2^nd party also refer to the recent

judgment by Apex Court dated 7-8-2014 in case of State of Bihar versus Chandreshwar Pathak. Management had

invited applications for selection of post of Operator-cum-Technician (Trainee), operator-cum-Technician), Attendant

–cum-Technician (Trainee), Mining Foreman and Mining Mate by publishing employment notification in several

newspapers. The extracts of publication are produced. Information was also given to Local Employment Exchange

vide letter dated 29-12-2014. 2^nd party reiterates that as per the order passed by High Court, CG dated 19-1-04 in Writ

Petition No. 258/03, it is mandatory on part of management of BSP to intimate the vacancy position to the employment

exchange and open advertisement will also be made in newspaper. That Bhilai Steel Plant is Central Public Sector

Undertaking and bound to follow the provision of the constitutions of India. The entire vacancy cannot be exclusively

reserved for the claimants only because they were given training of trade apprentice. They will have to compete with

other eligible candidates. The maximum reservation they may ask for preference over non-trained direct recruit as held

by Honble Supreme Court in case of UP State Road Transport Corporation reported in AIR 1995-SC-1115. The

demand of claimants that the management should be prevented from selection from open competition is unknown to

the law and contrary to the settled law of the land. It is reiterated that the Ist party claimants are not workmen, they are

only apprentice. Management has only provided them training under Apprentice Act 1961. That Apprentice is included

in the standing order as the standing order specifies the working conditions inside the factory premises in order to

maintain discipline and safety of the persons entering the factory. That in factory premises, permanent employees,

temporary employees, probationers, apprentices, casual employees, substitutes or badlies are entering. 2^nd party

management denies that similarly placed and junior to Ist party claimants were given employment. Trade Apprentice

Act doesnot make it obligatory on part of the establishment to eventually provide employment in the trade they were

given apprentice training as the vacancy exists in the relevant trade and those trained TAs who were well versed with

the factory working were given permanent employment. Management started recruitment process in the year 2003, out

of TA Batch No.68 consisting of 151. BSP had offered permanent employment to 100 TAs and only 84 finally joined

after clearing selection process. The claimants have filed list of trade apprentice. The particulars given in the list of

claimants are incorrect and misleading.

14.

Management submits that one Shri Srilal had filed a petition challenging the procedure adopted by the

management for providing employment to the trade apprentice alleging that the management is adopting the pick and

choose method to provide employment to the interested persons. The selection procedure adopted by management

including appointment made of Trade Apprentice were challenged. Hon’ble High Court specified the guidelines for

future appointments to be made by the management. The practice of appointing AITT passed TAs to the post of TOTs

6 months without notifying the vacancies to Local employment exchange and also appointing persons from among the

candidates empanelled earlier for the post of TOTs were challenged. It is reiterated that vacancies were reported to

Employment Exchange as per Act of 1959 and advertisement was issued in the newspaper. That Hon’ble High Court

repeatedly in different petitions struck down the said procedure being contrary to the Articles 14 & 16 of the

Constitution of India. Hon’ble High Court has specified guidelines to be followed in future appointment. On such

ground, 2^nd party prays that reference be answered in its favour.

15.

Workmen filed rejoinder reiterating their contentions in statement of claim. The action of management

calling names from Employment Exchange shows the intimation to fill the post and it was not exercised to provide

training as Trade Apprentice. It is submitted that there is huge difference between a mere trainee who is selected

through campus selection ITI and provided training under the Apprentice Act 1961. The certified standing order

provides for eventual employment to the apprentice. Respondent had not followed provisions of Apprentice Act 1961.

The Ist party claimants were not paid stipend Rs.1490 per month. They were paid only Rs. 770/- per month. That

contention of management that it is not under obligation to provide employment under Apprentice Act is misconceived.

That Bokaro Steel Plant which is one of the unit of Steel Authority of India Limited is following provisions of standing

orders by recruiting only those who have passed Apprentice Training from AITT . Denial of permanent appointment to

Ist party would result in loss of public money. That the provisions of standing orders prevail over provisions of

Apprentice Act. The rejoinder is submitted by Ist party claim is argumented to support their claim for permanent

appointment.

16.

Interim application was decided vide order dated 8-2-2015. Application to stay recruitment process was

rejected with observation that advertisement dated 28-12-2014 shall be subject to decision of present reference.

17.

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 Ist party claimants are covered as

workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act?

In Negative

(ii) Whether the reference is maintainable?

In Negative

3308

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(iii) Whether the action of the management of Bhilai

Steel Plant in denying the employment to Shri Kuldeep

Singh and 601 other workmen even when their names

were sent under Employment Exchange by employment

Exchange complying is violative of Article 14 & 16 of

the Constitution?

Redundant

(iv) If so, to what relief the workmen is entitled to?”

Workmen are not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

18. The parties are in serious dispute whether Ist party claimants are covered as workmen under Section 2(s) of

ID Act. Consequently whether parties are also in serious dispute about tenability of reference. In para-1 of statement of

claim, Ist party has pleaded that their names were called for Written Test for the post of Trade Apprentice ( Non-

executive). In Para 2 of the statement of claim, it is pleaded that after clearing Written Test and interview for said post,

after medical examination, workman was sent for training. They have successfully completed training also. Workmen

belongs to 68-75 batch. The standing orders of Bhilai Steel Plant defines apprentice means persons engaged for training

with a view to their essential employment under the company on satisfactory completion of training and who will be

paid stipend or allowances during the period of training. In Para 4 of the statement of claim, it is pleaded that Trade

Apprentice Test cleared by workman were regularized in Gr.S-3, S-1. Total 8134 TAs were regularized in S-1, S-3

grade. Claimants were denied permanent appointment. 2^nd party in its Written Statement submits that apprentices are

covered by the provisions of Apprentice Act 1961, Apprentices are not workmen. The definition of workmen under

Section 2(s) of ID Act provides –

“ Workman means any person including an apprentice employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled,

skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of

employment be express or implied and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an

industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection

with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that

dispute, but doesnot include any such person-

(i)

Who is subject to Air force Act, 1950 or the Army Act, 1950 or

(ii)

Who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or

(iii)

Who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity or

(iv)

Who being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred

rupees per mensem or exercises a either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason

of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.”

Section 18 of Apprentice Act 1961 provides-

Save as otherwise provided in this Act-

(a)

Every apprentice undergoing apprenticeship training in a designated trade in an establishment shall

be a trainee and not a worker and;

(b)

The provisions of any law with respect of labour shall not apply to or in relation to such apprentice.

19.

Keeping above definition in view, it is required to consider the evidence of parties. In his affidavit of

evidence, Kuldeep Singh says that he alongwith 601 others receiving training from Industrial Training Institute and got

certificate from ITI sought names from Employment Exchange for filling up sanctioned post of TA ( non- executive

cadre), his name as well as names of 601 employees of present case were sponsored by Employment Exchange. He and

601 others involved in present case cleared Written Test and interview for said post and after medical examination,

Bhilai Steel Plant sent us for the training. Educational Council for Vocational Training awarded certificate to us after

successful completion of training. Bhilai Steel Plant provided temporary appointment on NMR for period of 3 months

in the year which was extended.

20.

Shri Balbadra Soni in his affidavit of evidence has made similar statement that Bhilai Steel Plant sought

names from Employment Exchange for filling up the vacant and sanctioned opost for TAs(non-executive cadre) . His

name as well as names of 601 employees of present case were sponsored by Employment Exchange at relevant time for

said post in response to the requisition made by Bhilai Steel Plant. He and 601 others in the case cleared Written Test

and interviewed for said post after medical examination and police verification. Bhilai Steel Plant sent them for

training. National Council for vocational training awarded certificate to them after successful completion of training.

21.

Manharlal Sahu in his affidavit of evidence says he belong to 70 batch. He completed Apprentice training in

March 99. After completion of training, despite filling of attestation form, permanent employment was not given to

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3309

him. All the witnesses have stated that they are giving evidence for themselves and other claimants. Kuldeep Singh in

his cross-examination says that list of 602 persons is annexed with his affidavit. The claimants were for fitter trade,

262 candidates had passed ITI. He doesnot know whether Bhilai Steel Plant had given requisition letter to Employment

Exchange for particular post. He denies that the claimants were engaged as Apprentice under Act of 1961. That he was

given appointment letter in writing. All the claimants were given appointment letters. The appointment letters are not

produced. Appointment letter of Dek Singh Charu is produced. Before appointing him, he was given training during

March 98 to March 99,, training was given for 2 years to the claimants passing 2 years ITI and one year training to the

claimants passing one year ITI. He was unable to tell whether he was paid salary or stipend during training period. He

knows that under Apprentice Act, the candidates in ratio of 7: 1 are given training. Manharlal Sahu in his cross-

examination says he was not given appointment letter, he claims that attestation form is the appointment letter, no

separate appointment letter was given to him. He doesnot know the name of form got filled by Bhilai Steel Plant from

him. He further says that he was not kept as apprentice. He received letter from Employment Exchange for interview

for post of fitter. He denies that he signed on blank attestation form and retained its zerox copy with him. Only he

submitted attestation form. He did not submit any documents. He received training during 28-3-98 to 28-3-99.

22.

Management’s witness Shri Vikas Chandra in his affidavit of evidence says as per provisions of Apprentice

Act 1961, Bhilai Steel Plant given training of different trades. The candidates for Trade Apprentice were obtained

through Employment Exchange were selected by Written Test, interview for training under Apprentice Act. In his

cross-examination, management witness admits that during 1995-200, request for apprentice was sent to recruitment

section. There is no post of Trade Apprentice. He denies that Trained Apprentice is regularized on post of Trade-cum-

operating Training. Management’s witness admits that 8134 apprentice are regularized as Technician cum Operating

trainee. He claims ignorance whether written test was held for apprentice. Certified standing orders are applicable to

establishment of 2^nd party. Management’s witness further explains that Trade Apprentice were not regularized. They

were appointed after interview in TOT Section. That apprentice was not regularized as per Exhibit W-6.

23.

Documentary evidence produced by Ist party Exhibit W-30 is letter issued by Employment Exchange Officer,

Durg for interview for post of TA(Fitter) – stipend Rs.580 per month. Exhibit W-31 is copy of Employment Exchange

card of Pawan Kumar. Exhibit W-1 is interview call for TA(Motor Mechanic) of Pawan Kumar for Written test to be

held on 6-7-96 at 2.30 PM. Exhibit W-2 is interview call for candidates passing Written Test, candidates were called to

attend interview alongwith Employment Exchange Card, documents of matriculation, ITI passed certificate, I card etc.

the interview was to be held on 23-8-96. Exhibit W-3 is letter issued to the successful candidates in view for medical

examination directing to attend along with Employment Exchange Card, documents of educational qualifications, ITI

passed certificate and admit card. Exjhibit W-4 is letter issued to Pawan Kumar for engaging him for 3 months from

April 99 to June 99. Exhibit W-33is the attestation form. My attention was pointed out by Shri Pranay Choubey for Ist

party , last column to be filled by office leaving blank space for filling P.No. The evidence of Kuldeep Singh that he

was not appointed as Apprentice but he was directly appointed to the post of Trainee Apprentice is not consistent with

the pleadings in statement of claim. His evidence that he was appointed on post of Trainee Apprentice cannot be

accepted as he was unable to tell whether he was paid salary or stipend.

24.

The documents Exhibit W-5,6,7 are the orders of regularization after completion of training are Part II order

has no direct bearing as to whether Ist party claimants are covered as workman. Similarly documents exhibit W-9, 10,

12 to 21 are not relevant for decision of above point. Evidence of Ist party claimants and evidence of management’s

witness is cconsistent that Ist party workmen were selected for apprentice training after their names were sponsored

through Employment Exchange.

25.

Learned counsel for Ist party Shri P.Choubey submits that certified standing order of 2^nd party Exhibit W-

27,28 defines Apprentice means a person engaged for training with a view to their eventual employment under

company on satisfactory completion of training and who will be paid stipend or allowance during a period of training.

Emphasizing the definition of apprentice in standing order, learned counsel submits that Ist party claimant are covered

as workman. Provision in standing order for eventual employment itself cannot cover them as workman. In support of

arguments, Shri P.Choubey relies on ratio held in case of

M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd versus State of Orissa and others in Writ Petition No. 18088 of 2010. In Para-6

of the judgment, it is observed that at this Juncture, it may be noted that Section 2(s) of ID Act was substituted

in 1984, it provide that workman includes apprentice and said definition is adopted in Rule 3© of Rules 1994

for purpose of verification of membership and recognition of Trade Unions whereas Apprentices Act was

enacted in 1961 with a view to regularize the training condition of the apprentices. The provisions of

Apprentice Act 1961 governs the field for which the said Act was enacted. We are here concerned with

verification of membership and recognition of trade Unions. Therefore provisions of the rules 1994 as well

as Section 2(s) of ID Act 1947 which was substituted in the year 1984 being Special Statutes those prevail

over the Apprentice Act, 1961 which is a general law.

26.

Learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri A.K.Shashi on the point relies on catena of cases.

3310

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In case of National Small Industries Corporation Ltd versus Lakshminarayan reported in equivalent citation

2007-1 SCC(L&S)-145. Their Lordship of Apex Court dealing with Section 18 of Apprentice Act 1961 and

Section 2(s) of ID Act. Under Section 18 of Apprentice Act, he is not workman within meaning of Section

2(s) of ID Act was answered in Negative by Apex Court.

In case between Hussan Mithu Mhasvadkar versus Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Board and another reported

in equivalent citation AIR-2001-SC-3290. Their Lordship held Appellant working in Board constituted

under Act of 1969- Board was not industry and appellant was not employed in industry- appellant cannot be

considered to be engaged in doing any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or

supervisory work. Appellant doesnot fall within definition of workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act.

In Para 5 of the judgment, their Lordship observed on careful consideration of respondent, submissions of

learned counsel on other side, they are of view that in a case of the nature where the Labour court as well as

the High Court entertained doubts about the status of the appellant as a workman within the meaning of

Section 2(s) of ID Act instead of embarking upon an adjudication in the first instance as to whether the

respondent Board is an Industry or not so as to attract the provisions of the ID Act ought to have refrained

from doing so and taken up the question about the status of the appellant for adjudication at the threshold and

if only the finding recorded was against the appellant refrained from adjudicating on the larger issue affecting

the various kinds of other employees as the character of the Board as an industry or not. The larger issue

should have been entertained for consideration only in a case where it could have been disposed of otherwise

without going into the nature and character of the undertaking itself. For the said reason and also having

regard to the submission made by the learned senior counsel of workman may itself be considered on the

supposition that the Board is an industry, they propose to deal with the status of the appellant as to whether he

is a workman or not at the first instance and if necessitated on account of our decision on that issue, undertake

the larger issue for our consideration and decision.

The pleadings and evidence of Ist party claimant are that after completing Apprentice Training around year

1998 to 2000, Ist party workmen were not continued or regularized. The claimants were not working in establishment

of 2^nd party prior to raising dispute. Their evidence is silent what kind of work they were doing. In view of ratio held

by their Lordship of Apex Court in above cited case, the cases by the Apex Court , ratio held by Orissa High Court

cannot be preferred to the ratio held by their Lordship of the Apex Court.

27.

Shri P.Choubey further submits that apprentice agreement was not sent to Competent Authority for

registration , agreement is not produced. 2^nd party management has not followed provisions of Apprentice Act. The

provisions of Apprentice Act are not applicable. On above point , Shri A.K.Shashi submits that non-compliance of

Section 4(4) of Apprentice Act 1961 and its directory doesnot change character of Apprentice Agreement. He relies on

Ratio held in UPSEB versus Shiv Mohan Singh reported in 2005-I-LLJ-117. Their Lordship held non-

registration of the contract of apprenticeship wouldnot change the character of the apprentice and he would

not acquire the status of a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of ID Act.

In case between Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Versus Bhola Singh reported in AIR2005-SC-1790. Their

Lordship of the Apex Court dealing with Section 3, 5 of Employment – respondent was appointed as

apprentice in terms of Apprentice Act held he is not workman. Even if he is workman, Labour Court

unhesitatingly coming to the conclusion that statutory requirements for affecting valid retrenchment complied

with finding of fact recorded by Labour court that Scheme of state Government under which respondent

appointed had come to end.

28.

Shri A.K.Shashi further relies on ratio held in –

Case between Rajkumar Rastogi versus PO, Labour court reported in 2015(146)FLR188. Their Lordship

considering petitioner never being appointed as Trainee and paid stipend of Rs.400 per month. The finding of

the Labour Court that workman was appointed as Grainer and period of training was liable to be extended

from time to time. In case of absence from training without prior information woujld be deemed to have

voluntarily abonded his training. The finding of Court that workman was simply a trainee and not a workman

based on material on record was upheld.

As pointed out in Written arguments by Shri Pranay choubey, any such scheme is not involved in present case.

Ratio cannot be applied to case at hand. For reasons discussed above, the Ist party claimants were working as

apprentice and received training with 2^nd party. They are not doing work as provided under Section 2(s) of ID Act.

Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

29.

Point No.2- The tenability of dispute is in serious dispute. In view of my finding in Point No1, Ist party

claimants are not workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act, the dispute referred under Section 10 is not tenable. 2^nd party

submits that dispute under reference is not tenable. Learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri A.K. Shashi pointed out my

attention to order of reference. Dispute mentioned in the Schedule is whether action of management of Bhilai Steel

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3311

Plant in denying the employment to Shri Kuldeep Singh and 601 other workmen even when their names were sent

under Employment Exchange by employment Exchange complying is violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution.

The jurisdiction of Industrial Court is restricted to the matters provided in Schedule II and jurisdiction of Industrial

Court is restricted to the matters covered under Schedule III of ID Act.

In 2^nd schedule the matters are included pertains to(1) propriety or legality of an order passed by an employer

under the standing orders, (2) the application and interpretation of standing orders, (3) Discharge or dismissal

of workmen including reinstatement of or grant of relief to workmen wrongfully dismissed, (4) withdrawal of

any customary concession or privilege, (6) all matters other than those specified in the 3^rd schedule.

In 3^rd schedule, matters covered pertains to –

(1)

Wages, including the period and mode of payment, (2) compensatory and other allowances, (3) hours

of work and rest intervals, (4) leave with wages and holidays, (5) bonus, profit sharing, provident

fund and gratuity, (6) shift working otherwise than in accordance with standing orders,

(7) classification of grades, (8) rules of discipline, (9) rationalization, (10) Retrenchment of workmen

and closure of establishment and (11) any other matter that may be prescribed.

30.

Ist party claimants by the dispute under reference are claiming their absorption/ regularization in service from

the time employees junior to them were regularized or given permanent appointment, such matter is not included either

in Schedule II or III of ID Act.

31.

Learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri A.K.Shashi in Para 28 of notes of argument submits that it is settled

principle of law that absorption and regularization of service can be claimed or granted only when the contract of

employment subsists and is in force inter se employee and employer. Once it comes to an end either by efflux of time

or as per the terms of the contract of employment or by its termination by the employer, then in such event the

relationship of employee and employer comes to an end and no longer subsists except for the limited purpose to

examine the legality and correctness of its termination. In present case, Ist party is not alleging termination of their

services. After completion of Apprentice raining, they are not working with 2^nd party therefore jurisdiction of Labour

Court and Industrial Court is restricted to matters covered under Schedule II & III narrated supra. The dispute under

reference doesnot fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

32.

With respect to above, learned counsel for Ist party Shri P.Choubey submits that this Tribunal is bound to

decide the reference made by Competent Government. Learned counsel relies on ratio held in-

Case between State of Himachal Pradesh versus Raj Kumar reported in 2015-LIC-3954. Their Lordship held

the Labour Court is bound to decide reference made by State Government without touching aspect of delay

and latches.

In present case, in view of finding in Point No.1,Ist party are not covered as workman. The claim of workman

for absorption/ appointment is beyond the matters covered under Schedule II & III. Therefore the ratio held in above

cited case cannot be benefitially applied to case at hand.

33.

Learned counsel for Ist party Shri P.Choubey further submits that the Ist party claimants are denied

regularization and thereby the management has committed unfair labour practice and this Tribunal has adequate

powers to grant appropriate relief to Ist party claimants. Learned counsel pointed out ratio held in

Case of Harinandan Prasad and another versus Employer IR to Mgt of FCI and another. The order of

reference is silent w.e.t. any unfair labour practice. The pleadings in statement of claim are silent about the

unfair labour practice on part of 2^nd party. In above cited case, their Lordship have considered powers of

Industrial Court under Section 30, 32 of MRTU & PULP Act. The provisions of MRTU & PULP Act are not

applicable in the matter. Therefore submissions advanced by Shri P.Choubey on the point cannot be accepted.

For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.2 as reference is not tenable.

34.

Point No.3- In view of my finding in Point No.1, 2- Ist party claimants are not workman under Section 2(s)

of ID Act, the dispute under reference pertains to matters not covered by Schedule II & III of ID Act, the reference is

no tenable, the Point No.3 has become redundant. Large number of citation relied by both sides on merit could not be

considered as reference itself is not maintainable.

35.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

As Ist party claimants are not covered as workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act, reference is not

tenable.

(2)

The dispute under reference could not be decided on merit.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

3312

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1516-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 43@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-

07-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@53@2014&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2016

S.O. 1516.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 43 of 2014) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 18.07.2016.

[No. L-20012/53/2014-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) OF I.D. ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 43 of 2014

Employers in relation to the management of Kusunda Area, M/S BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present:- Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

None

For the workman

Shri K.D.P. Yadav, In person

State : Jharkhand

Industry:-Coal

Dated 13/06/2016

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/53/2014-IR (CM-I), dated. 07/05/2014, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

“Whether the action of the management of East Basuria Colliery of M/S BCCL in not providing

employment

the

dependant

son

Sri

Krishnadeo

Pd.

Yadav

under

circular

No.

BCCL/PA/II/5/2/128/77/31457-618 dated 22.06.1977 issued by BCCL is fair and justified? To what relief the

dependant son of Sri Krishnadeo Pd. Yadav is entitled to?”

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 21.05.2014. After receipt of the reference, both parties

are noticed. The sponsoring Union files their written statement on 02.06.2014. The management also files their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 02.09.2015. Thereafter rejoinder and document filed by the parties.

The case of the workman is that the workman concerned appointed on 18.08.1970 in East Basuria Colliery of

M/s. BCCL and superannuated on 31.07.2009, as such the length of service is Aprox. 39 years .

It is further submitted by the workman that on the basis of NCWA III clause 9.4.4 wherein specifically been

mentioned that if a workman has completed 35 years of continuous service his son/ dependant is entitled for

employment.

It is also submitted by the workman that till date NCWA I to NCWA VII is also effective. And at the time of

notification of NCWA VIII the clause 1.2 clearly stipulated that the agreement was covered with all categories of

employees in coal industries who were also covered under NCWA I to NCWA-VII.

He is also submitted that the circular no. BCCL /PA/II/5/2/128/77/31457-618 dated 22/06/ 1977 issued by

M/s. BCCL . Wherein also notified that the employee who retired after completion of 35 years of continuous service

his son/ dependant is entitled to be employed under the coal companies Act. But after demand made by the workman,

management refused to do so , hence Industrial dispute arose.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3313

On the other hand, the case of the management is that the employee concerned has retired on 31.07.2009. At

the relevant time NCWA VIII was in vogue . As such the benefit covered under NCWA-III which was operative from

01.01.1983 to 31.12.1986, cannot be fastened to a retiring employee who is covered under NCWA VIII.

It is also submitted that the provision of clause 9.4.4 of NCWA is available for retiring employee during the

tenure of NCWA III. The concerned workman retired on 31.07.2009 as such he is covered under NCWA- VIII which

does not provide any such advantage. Hence the claim of the applicant for employment of son/dependant in lieu of

retirement of himself after 35 year continuous service is not legal and justified.

The short point is decided in this reference is that the concerned workman is entitled one another service of

son/dependent in lieu of 35 years service as per circular of BCCL or not.

The management submitted that the such provision of NCWA was struck down by the Apex Court with a

finding, if this type of provision will be allowed to continue in NCWA other meritorious people will be debarred from

company, only back door entry will be encouraged. On the other hand the workman himself submitted that the circular

of BCCL i.e BCCL/PA/-II/5/2/128/77/31457-618 not struck it is now in power and continue.

10.

On perusal of record and judgment of apex Court and In WP (L) 2412 of 2002 of Jharkhand High Court

Ranchi Judgment dated 26/07/2012 in same circular & same type of case clearly speaks is quoted below:-

xxx

“The issue that employment of dependant on the basis of the service of his father /parent is no longer res-

integra in view of the specific provision contain in part III of the constitution of India and also laid down in

the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in number of cases.

xxx

Therefore in question of reference is wholly unsustainable in law and clearly against the settled principle as

held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court .

xxx

11.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the action of the management of East Basuria

Colliery of M/S BCCL in not providing employment to the dependant son of Sri Krishnadeo Pd. Yadav under circular

No. BCCL/PA/II /5/2/128/77/31457-618 dated 22.06.1977 issued by BCCL is fair and justified. Claim disallowed.

Hence the dependant son of Krishnadeo Pd. Yadav is not entitled to get any relief.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1517-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 68@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-

07-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@27@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2016

S.O. 1517.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 68 of 2005) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 18.07.2016.

[No. L-20012/27/2005-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) OF I.D.ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 68 of 2005

Employers in relation to the management of Sijua Area, M/s. BCCL

AND

3314

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Their workman

Present:- Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Shri B.B Pandey, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry:-Coal

Dated 21/06/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/27/2005-IR (C-1) dated 26/07/2005, the central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referr4ed the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Dhanbad colliery Karmchari sangh from the management of BCCL , Sijua Area

that sh. Ruplal Manjhi son-in-law- of late Sitaram Manjhi, deceased workman be given employment on

compassionate ground under the provission of NCWA is justified? If so, to what relief is the said Sh. Ruplal

Manjhi entitled?”

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 22.08.2005. After receipt of reference, both Parties are

noticed, The workman files his written statement on 13.12.2005. After long delay, management files their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 10.06.2014. No witnesses examined from both side. But document of workman is marked

as W-1 to W--9 as exhibit.

The case of the workman is that sri Sitaram Manjhi had been working at sendra Bansjora Colliery as Coal

dressar and expired on 20.11.1996 at Central Hospital, Dhanbad while in service period of M/S BCCL. After the death

of Sitaram Manjhi his dependent son-in-law shri Ruplal Manjhi applied for employment under the provision of NCWA

alongwith relevant document. But the management to harase the applicant adopting delaying tactis and without any

sufficient reason put some irrelevant question to be answered by the claimant .

It is further submitted by the workman that the matter enquired and verified by the administration, as such no

delay caused by the claimant, and whatever time was consumed , that was due to faulty and wrong process adopted by

the management. Ultimately the management rejected the application under the plea of belated case. Hence Industrial

dispute arose.

On the other hand the case of the management is that according to provision of NCWA in the event of death of

worker only the wife/ husband as the case may be get employment in their absence unmarried daughter, son and legally

adopted son shall be entitled to compassionate employment provided the aforesaid dependant applied for employment

within 18 months from the date of death of deceased employee.

It is also submitted by the management that, in the year 1998 the applicant Shri Ruplal Manjhi applied for

employment in place of his father –in-law claiming himself as dependant son-in-law of the deceased employee. But

during the life time the deceased employee has not informed the management that Shri Ruplal Manjhi is his dependant

son-in-law, and the name of the applicant does not appear in any service record. The deceased employee never took any

steps for inclusion of the name of his son-in-law as his dependant during his life time, in service records.

It is further submitted by the management that the Hon’ble High Court in catena of cases held that

employment can not be claimed in favour of brother, widow daughter, widow daughter –in-law or son-in-law of the

deceased employee as thy are not direct dependant of the deceased employee.

The short point to be decided in this case, is whether the applicant who said to be the dependant of the

deceased workman will be entitled to the job, after the death of the workman. In this case BDO certificate and other

documents filed by the applicant. But he has not come to the court to give any oral evidence what so ever. He has also

not filed any service excerpt or any family tree to know that he is the only dependent of the deceased. It is also not

known that his mother in law is alive or not. If she is alive her recomandation is also necessary. In the absence of

that the applicant’s identity and dependany is not proved. Therefore this Tribunal is unable to give any relief in the

absence of inadequate evidence.

Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, I hold that the demand of the Dhanbad colliery Karmchari

sangh is not maintainable and Ruplal Manjhi is not entitled to get any relief.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3315

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1518-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 192@1994) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-

07-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@8@1994&vkbZvkj (lh,e &I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2016

S.O. 1518.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 192 of 1994) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 18.07.2016.

[No. L-20012/8/1994-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

In the matter of Reference U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 192 of 1994

Employer in relation to the management of Ramkanali Colliery, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present:- Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry:-Coal

Dated 22/06/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /8/1994-IR(C-1) dated 28/07/1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the management of Ramkanali Colliery under Katras Area No. IV of M/s BCCL in

dismissing Shri Bishwanath Mandal, Drillman w.e.f. 06/04/1991 is justified? If not, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled?

After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears

subsequently on behalf of the workman. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have

been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1519-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

3316

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 56@2001) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-

07-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@482@2000&vkbZvkj (lh,e &I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2016

S.O. 1519.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 56 of 2001) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 18.07.2016.

[No. L-20012/482/2000-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

In the matter of a Reference U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 56 of 2001

Employers in relation to the management of Kustore area, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present:- Shri Rajan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Shri B.K. Mishra, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 28/06/2016

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/482/2000-IR (C-I), dated 19/02/2001, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal :

SCHEDULE

“ या राीय कोिलयरी मजदूर संघ क मांग क भारत कोकग कोल िलिम॰ कुसटोर े के बंधतं "ारा #ी

आिखलेर साद , सहायक फोरमैन को जुलाई 1982 से उ पद म िनयिमत !कया जाए तथा काड़र %क&म

के अनुसार वष* 1989 से उ+ह टेकिनकल -ेड ‘ए’ !दया जाए तथा 1.7.93 से ‘ फोरमैन’ के पद पर पदो/त

!कया जाए िनयमानुसार एवं +यायोिचत है ?

2. 2या यूिनयन क& मांग !क कम*कार को जनवरी 1995 से 27-11-95 तक का बकाया वेतन !दया जाए

उिचत एवं +याय संगत है ? य!द हाँ , तो कम*कार !कस राहत के पा: ह; ?

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 08.03.2001. After receipt of reference , both parties are

noticed. workman files their written statement on 06.09.2001. The management also files their written statement -cum-

rejoinder on 23.05.2002. Thereafter rejoinder and document filed by the parties. Document of workman marked as W-

1 to W-16 and one witness each examined from either side.

The case of the workman is that the concerned workman was appointed in Sudamdih Colliery in June 1970 as

Mec. Fitter Helper under NCDC. Thereafter he was promoted as Fitter in Cat-iV and after that Cat-V in 1978.He was

transferred to Basuria Collier thereafter at BTA.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3317

It is also submitted that in 13.07.1982 he was authorized and engaged as Asstt. Foreman by order of Sr.

Administrative Officer, BTA and he was worked on that post continuously because on Transfer of Sri S.N.Upadhyay

Asstt. Forman continuously and completed 3 years service hence the concerned workman was entitled to be regularized

as Asstt. Forman in T & S Grade “C” but after regular representation the management has not done so . Hence the

concerned workman was entitled to get regularization w.e.f 1985

On the other hand , the case of the management is that the concerned workman was previously appointed at

Katras Project as Mech. Fitter . He was transferred from Katras Project to Bhalgora Area and he was released from the

service but he did not report for duty at Bhalgora Area immediately. After lapse of about 11 months he joined his duty

in Bhalgora Project in Nov. 1995.

It is also submitted by the management that the concerned workman disobeyed the order of the management

and did not join in Bhalgora immediately after his transfer from Katras Project Hence he is not entitled to any wages

for the period of his idle period from January 1995 to Nov. 1995.

The concerned workman was not posted in Kustore /Bhalgora Area. Hence the dispute related to

regularization as Asstt. Foreman on the basis of his work in the year 1982 is not correct..

It is also submitted by the management that , on the basis of the representation of the joint Committee , the

concerned workman was promoted from Mech. Cat-V to Cat-VI w.e.f. 01.06.1989 and it was decided to consider his

case of promotion as Asstt. Foreman as Techinal Grade-C through D.P.C as per the cadre Scheme of Company . The

DPC considered the case of promotion of the concerned workman but he could not be promoted as Asstt. Foreman as

he did not quality for promotion as par the norms fixed by the committee. Therefore the claim of the concerned

workman for regularization in the grade of Asstt. Foreman from 1982 and further claim of Tec. Grade “A” from 1989

as per Cadre Scheme is baseless.

During the pendency of this case the concerned workman died and Smt Meena Devi w/o of concerned

workman is substituted in this case.

10.

The claim of the workman is promotion and regularization. The workman has admitted that he got promotion.

He further claims benefits under Ext.W-4 . He says Ext-W-4 was not signed by the Competent authority. Author of

ExtW-4 has already been dismissed. He further admits that, many senior above him have not been promoted . He has

not stated regarding the DPC. Management said as the workman has not appeared for DPC, he was not promoted.

Moreover the workman did not join at Kustore/Bhalgora Area. Hence the demand of wage of 11 month is not justified.

11.

From the Cross examination of workman(WW-1) every thing will be clear. Which is quoted below:-

“It is a fact that in the year 1989. The management gave me promotion from Grade V to Grade VI . I

worked in the promotional post. It is also a fact that in the year 2000 , I got promotion to Grade “C”

and I worked in the said post. Ext-W-4 does not bear letter number or date . I am claiming here as per

Ext-W-4 . The signatory of Ext W-4 has been dismissed. Before Ext-W-4 , there is no DPC for the said

post. Then there were many senior to me.

12.

This being the position, and considering the facts and circumstance of this case , I hold that the demand of

RCMS from Kustore Area for regularization of Sri Akhileshwar Prasad as Asstt. Foreman as well as Tech. Grade A

and promotion as Foreman is not justified, and he is not entitled to wages of 11 months. Hence he is not entitled to get

any relief.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1520-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 131@1999) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-

07-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@85@1999&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

3318

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2016

S.O. 1520.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 131 of 1999) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 18.07.2016.

[No. L-20012/85/1999-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

In the matter of Reference U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 131 of 1999

Employer in relation to the management of Baroda Area, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present:- Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry:-Coal

Dated 2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /85/1999-IR(C-1) dated 04/06/1999, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demands of the Union That Shri Hari Jena may be allowed pay Protection consequent upon his

regularization w.e.f. 28/05/1991 as Helper Exev. Cate II and further allowed Scale / Pay equal to those of his

Juniors w.e.f. 22/10/1996 consequent upon promotion as Fitter helper, Cat- E are justified? If so, to what relief

the concerned worman is entitled?

After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears on behalf

of the workman subsequently. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved

in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk-1521-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,ltslh,ebZ

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 58@1991) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-07-2016

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@51@1991&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2016

S.O. 1521.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3319

No. 58 of 1991) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of M/s. SJCME and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 18.07.2016.

[No. L-20012/51/1991-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

In the matter of a Reference U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 58 of 1991

Employers in relation to the management of M/s. Jagadamba Coke Manufacturing Enterprises

AND

Their workman

Present:- Shri Rajan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Shri U.N. Lall, Advocate

For the workman

Shri S.N. Ghosh, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry:-Coal

Dated : 27/6/2016

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/51/1991-IR (C-I), dated 29/05/1991 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/S Shree Jagadamba Coke Manufacturing Enterprises in

terminating the services of Shri Dhurli Mahto, Bhatta Supply Mazdoor, w.e.f August 1990 is justified? If not

to what relief the workman is entitled?”

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 18.06.1991. After receipt of reference , both parties are

noticed. After long delay and after many adjournment workman files their written statement on 07.03.1994. The

management files their written statement -cum-rejoinder on 21.09.1994. Thereafter document of management marked

as M-1 to M-6/1 and one witnessfrom each side has been examined.

The case of the workman is that the concerned workman was a permanent workman of M/S Jagadamba Hard

Coke Manufacturing Enterprises and was working as Bhatta Supply Mazdoor for more than ten years. But without and

reason the workman was prevented from coming and joining his duty w.e.f August 1990. He had been requesting the

management to permit him to join duty but of any effect. Hence Industrial Dispute arose.

On the other hand the case of the management is that on 11.06.1990 at about 11 AM the concerned workman

sitting idle at duty place, and after asking to perform duty he all on a sudden decline to perform his duties and abused

the supervisor of company, and caught his shirt collar and started biting Then other workers separated him. Thereafter

the workman left the work place.

It is also submitted by the management that enquiry was setup and after enquiry he is found guilty, then the

concerned workman was dismissed.

The case is that the workman was dismissed from service as he assaulted his supervisor when the supervisor

asked him to work while he was sitting inside mines in duty at duty hours. The enquiry held fair and proper, workman

also found absent during enquiry.

Misbehavior is not at all tolerated in any workplace. Therefore the action of the management is justified.

Tribunal is not inclined to interfare with the management decision.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the action of the management of M/S Shree

Jagadamba Coke Manufacturing Enterprises in terminating the services of Shri Dhurli Mahto, Bhatta Supply Mazdoor,

w.e.f August 1990 is justified. Hence he is not entitled to get any relief.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

3320

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1522-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 115@1997) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-

07-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@116@1996&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2016

S.O. 1522.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 115 of 1997) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 18.07.2016.

[No. L-20012/116/1996-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

In the matter of Reference U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 115 of 1997

Employer in relation to the management of Barora Area, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present:- Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Shri D. Mukharjee, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry:-Coal

Dated : 21/6/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /116/1996-IR(C-1) dated 26/05/1997, the central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand raised by the Union in the year 1995 for the promotion of Sh. G. C. Lalla as Clerical

Grade-I w.e.f. 01/04/1978, as Special Grade Clerk w.e.f. 13/11/1986 as Special Grade Clerk w.e.f.13.11.1986

and as Grade A w.e.f. 06/01/1992 is legal and justified? If so, to what relief is the concerned workman

entitled?

This Case is received from the Ministry on 03.06.1997. During the pendency of the case concerned, The

sponsoring Union representative submits that workman is not interested to contest the case. It is felt that the dispute

between parties is resolved. Hence “No dispute” award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3321

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1523-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhlh,y

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 229@1994) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-07-2016

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@208@1994&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2016

S.O. 1523.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 229 of 1994) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 18.07.2016.

[No. L-20012/208/1994-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

In the matter of Reference U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 229 of 1994

Employer in relation to the management of M/s. CCL

AND

Their workman

Present:- Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry:-Coal

Dated : 21/6/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /208/1994-IR(C-1) dated 31/08/1994, the central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether workmen S/Shri Govind Munda, Kameshwar Parasad and Mithilesh Kumar Singh employed as

Generator Operator w.e.f. 16/10/1991, 01/02/1991 and 19/10/1992 respectively through contractor M/S power

engineers, Ratu Road, P.O- Hehal, District Ranchi at Jawahar nagar Colony of M/s Central Coalfields ltd.

Ranchi whose services were terminated w.e.f. 17. 08 . 1993 on the terminaisation of contract by the contractor

are entitled for regularisation and employment with the management of central coalfields ltd. Ranchi? If not,

to what relief these workmen are entitled?”

After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates. Subsequently the

workman does not appears. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved

in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

3322

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk-1524-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 26@2001) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-07-2016

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@424@2000&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2016

S.O. 1524.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 26 of 2001) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 18.07.2016.

[No. L-20012/424/2000-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

In the matter of Reference U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 26 of 2001

Employers in relation to the management of Bastacolla Area, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present:- Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Shri U.N. Lall, Advocate

For the workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 10/06/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /424/2000-IR(C-1) dated 25/01/2001, the central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“2या रा<ीय कोिलयरी मजदूर संघ क& मांग क& बी. सी. सी. एल. , घानूडीह कोिलयरी के कम*कार >ी अर?वद

साद ?सह का वेतन -ेड ‘बी’ एंव -ेड ‘सी’ म सव*>ी एस. एन. पंिडत एंव अज@बर िबAली के समBप िनधा*Dरत

!कया जाए तथा उ+ह 10/04/1991 से -ेड ‘ए’ म पदो/त !कया जाए उिचत एंव +याय संगत ह; ? य!द हाँ तो

कम*कार !कस राहत के पा: है ?”

After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears

subsequently on behalf of the workman. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have

been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3323

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1525-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 232@1994) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-07-2016

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20025@3@1994&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2016

S.O. 1525.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 232 of 1994) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 18.07.2016.

[No. L-20025/3/1994-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

In the matter of Reference U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 232 of 1994

Employer in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present:- Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

None

For the workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry:-Coal

Dated : 20/6/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20025 /3/1994-IR(C-1) dated 31/08/1994, the central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s BCCL in dismissing Shri P.Madhaban Nair, Ex-cashier from

service is justified, when the workman has been acquitted of the charges by the SD, JM Dhanbad vide their

order dated 29/04/1992? If not, what relief is the above said workman entitled to? ?”

After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears

subsequently. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

3324

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 20 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1526-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

LVsV cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 170@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@329@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th July, 2016

S.O. 1526.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 170/2004) of the Central Government Industrial 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 12.07.2016.

[No. L-12012/329/98-IR (B-I)]

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 27^th June, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 170/2004

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Shahalam gate Br. Shahalam,

Ahmedabad

…First Party

V/s

Shri Damodardas T. Tapodhan,

BIdg. No. 19, Narayan Colony, Gamkuva,

Danilimda, Ahmedabad

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri B.K. Oza

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.

L-12012/329/98-IR (B-I) dated 26.02.1999 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 is justified in terminating/discontinuing the

service of Shri Damodardas T. Tapodhan w.e.f. 22.04.1997 instead of paying him correct wages and

regularising his service? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 26.02.1999. Second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 3 on

10/22.09.1999. First party submitted the written statement Ext. 5 on 08.02.2000. The examination chief Ext. 12 of the

second party was recorded on 14.09.2002. Since then, despite giving dozens of opportunities to the second party for his

cross-examination, he did not turn up for cross-examination. Then lastly on 22.02.2016, second party was given last

opportunity for cross-examination but again he did not turn up.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3325

Thus, the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case and also non-appearance of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1527-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad

vkWiQ lkSjk"Vªk ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 511@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-

2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@118@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th July, 2016

S.O. 1527.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 511/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank

of Saurashtra and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12.07.2016.

[No. L-12012/118/2002-IR (B-I)]

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 28^th June, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 511/2004

The Manager,

State Bank of Saurashtra,Bhadra Branch, Bhadra,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 38000

…First Party

V/s

Shri Kanubhai Babubhai Solanki,

4/119, Chanakyapuri, Ghatlodia,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 38000

…Second Party

For the First Party

Advocates Meenaben Shah and Chalishazar

For the Second Party

Shri V.J. Patel

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide reference adjudication Order No.

L-12012/118/2002-IR (B-I) dated 21.08.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Kanubhai Babubhai Solanki for reinstatement in service with full

back wages is justified? If so, what relief the workman is entitled and what other directions are necessary in

the matter?”

The brief facts of the reference are that the Second Party KanuBhaiSolankivide his statement of claim Ex-7

stated that he had been working as peon under the employment of the First party, State Bank of Saurashtra His career

was clean and blotless. He had never been with any show cause notice for any misconduct during last eight years. He

3326

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

had been discharging the duties faithfully, diligently and honestly. He also completed 240 days of service in each year.

On 24.08.2000 he has been performing his duties with First Party Bank. Suddenly on that day at about 1.30 PM he was

asked by his senior officers of the Bank to go somewhere outside for official work where he met with an accident near

the Bank premises. He was taken by the Bank’s employees to V S Hospital in the injured condition for medical

treatment as indoor patient. Where he underwent medical treatment for 10 days. Thereafter he was given medical

treatment as outdoor patient for some time. After full recovery, he tried repeatedly to report for duty but he was denied

to join the duty. Lastly on 1.10.2001 Branch Manager denied him to join the duty. He further submitted he served the

Bank, First Party for more than 240 days in each last 8 preceding years. At the time of termination of his service junior

employees were retained and after termination new employees were appointed the Bank. He was also not paid

retrenchment compensation at the time of termination of his service. Thus Bank, First Party violated the provisions of

the sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act and also the principles of Natural Justice. He further

stated that he was provided any opportunity of hearing at the time of termination of his service to defend himself. Thus

the action of the First Party Bank is improper, illegal and amounting to unfair labour practice. Therefore, he has prayed

for reinstatement with full back wages.

The First Party vide his written statement Ex-17 denied the averments of statement of claim to the effect that

second party served the First Party Bank for more than 240 days in each last eight preceding years. However it is not

absolutely denied that second party met an accident near theFirst Party Bank’s premises when he was sent by senior

officers of the Bank for some official work. Some short of ignorance has been shown to this fact He was given

appointment letter on 31.1.1994 in leave vacancy for 27 days from 1.2.1994 to 27.2.1994. It is further stated that he

worked as daily wager for 209,143 and 132 days during the year 1995, 1996 and 1997 respectively. He was also work

experience certificate to this effect. He was taken work on temporary basis as and when arises.

From the perusal of pleadings following issues arise:

(a)

Whether the second party served the First Party Bank for more than 240 days during last each 8

preceding years to his appointment?

(b)

Whether second party met an accident while on duty and was hospitalised for treatment?

(c)

Whether denial of regularisation of services amounts toviolation of the provisions of the sections 25F,

25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act?

(d)

Whether the demand of workmen for reinstatement with back wages is justified?

Issue No. 1 Whether the second party served the First Party Bank for more than 240 days during last each 8

preceding years to his appointment?-The burden to prove this issue was on workman, second party. He in his statement

on oath Ex-12 stated that he had been working as peon under the employment of the First party, State Bank of

Saurashtra he used to do sweeping work in the Bank from 8AM TO 11AM and thereafter he used to do the peon’s

work. He was paid Rupees. 440 and Rupees 1500 for aforesaid works in the month. He also stated that he served the

First Party Bank in the aforesaid manner for more than 240 days during last 8 preceding years. He further stated that on

24.08.2000 he has been performing his duties with First Party Bank. Suddenly on that day at about 1.30 PM he was

asked by his senior officers of the Bank to go somewhere outside for official work where he met with an accident near

the Bank premises. He was taken by the Bank’s employees to V S Hospital in the injured condition for medical

treatment as indoor patient. Where he underwent medical treatment for 10 days. Thereafter he was given medical

treatment as outdoor patient for some time. After full recovery, he tried repeatedly to report for duty but he was denied

to join the duty. Lastly on 1.10.2001 Branch Manager denied him to join the duty. But in his cross-examination he

admitted that after accident he did not reported the Bank. He has also not stated that any junior workman was retained

in service or in his place somebody was given appointment. He has filed the certificated issued by First party which

reveals that he worked as daily wager for 209,143 and 132 days during the year 1995, 1996 and 1997 respectively. He

was also work experience certificate to this effect. On behalf of First Party witness DhirajMakwana was examined who

in his statement on oath Ex-31 supported the written statement but admitted that second party workman while on duty

met an accident, he was hospitalised. But after recovery from the injuries he did report to the Bank for duty. Thus the

whole evidence reveals that second party did not work for more than 240 days during last each preceding 8 years. Thus

this issue is decided in negative and against second party.

Issue No. 2 Whether second party met an accident while on duty and was hospitalised for treatment? Second

party workman is his statement on oath stated that suddenly on that day at about 1.30 PM he was asked by his senior

officers of the Bank to go somewhere outside for official work where he met with an accident near the Bank premises.

He was taken by the Bank’s employees to V S Hospital in the injured condition for medical treatment as indoor patient.

Where he underwent medical treatment for 10 days. Thereafter he was given medical treatment as outdoor patient for

some time. After full recovery, he tried repeatedly to report for duty but he was denied to join the duty. Lastly on

1.10.2001 Branch Manager denied him to join the duty. This fact has been admitted by DhirajMakwana in his

statement on oath Ex-31. Thus this issue is decided in affirmative in the favour of second party, workman. But no relief

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3327

can be granted on this basis as this comes under Workmen’s Compensation Act and for that there is separate forum and

this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate under Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Issue No.3 Whether the denial of regularisation of service amounts toviolation of the provisions of the

sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act? This issue is also inter-related to issue no1.

The Advocate for First party has filed written arguementreferring M.P.Housing Board and another v/s Manoj

Srivastava, 2006 SCC (L&S) 422 that a daily wager does not hold a post or derive any legal right in relation thereto,

unless he has been appointed against a duly sanctioned vacant post and also upon following the due procedure of

appointment.

He also argued relying on Nand Kumar v/s State of Bihar and others, (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases (L&S)

171, that daily wagers are never appointed are always appointed following the proper procedure and consequences are

always remain in their mind or knowledge, therefore, they/daily wager cannot invoke the theory of legitimate

expectation for being confirmed on the said post.

Further he argued that the judgement in Range Forest Officer v/s S.T.Hadimani (2002) 2 LLJ 1053 has been

wrongly interpreted by the second party’s counsel because in that case Apex Court has held that mere filing of affidavit

on the point of working for 240 days will not be sufficient evidence to show of completion of evidence as in his own

statement workman or daily wager ha to lead evidence to prove this fact which has not been proved by the second

party.

He further argued that in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd v/s Their Workmen, 1967 1 LLJ428

The tribunal cannot widen the scope of enquiry beyond the terms of reference.

On the basis of the arguments he argued that reference has no force and liable be dismissed.

Contrary to the arguments of first party, learned Counsel of the second party referred Senior Superintendent

Telegraph v/s Santosh Kumar Seal, 2010GLHEL-SC 48285 wherein it been held,

“in a recent judgement authored by one of Us (R.M.Lodha J) in the case of Jagbir Singh v/s Haryana State

Agriculture Marketing Board, 92009) 15 SCC 327 the aforesaid decisions were noted and it was stated,

“It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the

termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement will full back wages would ordinarily

follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position in long line of cases, this court has

consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly

inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the procedure.

Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. It would be thus, seen that by a catena

of decisions in recent time, this court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of section

25 F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however be automatically passed. The award

of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead

compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a

permanent employee.

In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers about 25

years back and they worked hardly 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be

justified and instead monetary compensation would sub serve the end of justice.”

Here it would be necessary to reproduce the provisions of section 25B,25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial

Disputes Act, which are reproduced as below:--

Section 25F provides for Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen as under: No workman employed in

any industry who has been in continuous service for not less one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that

employer until---

(a)

The workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment

and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for

the period of notice;

(b)

The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to

fifteen days’ average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess

of six months; and

(c)

Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be

specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.

3328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Section 25 G provides for Procedure for Retrenchment--- Where any workman in any industrial

establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that

establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and workman in this behalf, the employer shall

ordinarily retrench the workman who shall be last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be

recorded the employer retrenches any workman.

Section 25 H Re-employment of retrenched workman—Where any workmen are retrenched, and the

employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an

opportunity to the retrenched workman who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such

retrenched workmen who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.

Thus the aforesaid provisions provides the protection only to those workman who are workmen within the

definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act which provides as under “Workman” means any person

(including any apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,

clerical or supervisory work for hire or award, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the

purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to any industrial dispute, includes any such persons who has been

dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with , or as a consequence of, thatdispute, or whose dismissal,

discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person---

(i)

Who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950, or the Army Acy, 1950, or the Navy Act, 1950; or

(ii)

Who is employed in the Police Service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or

(iii)

Who is employed mainly in managerial or administrative capacity; or

(iv)

Who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per

mensem or exercises, either by nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers

vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.

Section 25 B provides as who 9 workman will be treated in continuous service for the purpose of this Chapter

i.e. Strikes and Lockouts.

Section 25 B. Definition of continuous service. ---For the purpose of this chapter,---

(1)

A workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in

interrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised

leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lockout or a cessation of work which is not

due to any fault on the part of workman;

(2)

Where a workman is not in continuous within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or

six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer---

(a)

for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months

preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked

under the employer for not less than ---

(i)

One hundred and ninety days in the case of workman employed below ground in a

mine; and

(ii)

Two hundred and forty days in any other case;

(b)

for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding

the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the

employer for not less than---

(i)

ninety five days, in the case of workman employed below the ground in a mine;

and

(ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.

Explanation. ---- For the purpose of clause (2), the number of days on which a workman has actually worked

under an employer shall include the days on which---

(i)

He has been laid-off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the

Industrial Employment ( Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946), or under the Act or under

any other law applicable to the industrial establishment;

(ii)

He has been on leave with full wages, earned to the previous years;

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3329

(iii)

He has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in

the course of employment; and

(iv)

In the case of a female, she has been on maternity leave; so, however, that the total period of

such maternity leave does not exceed twelve weeks.

These aforesaid provisions in Industrial Disputes Act make it very clear that in the case of second party

workman theseprovisions of Section 25 G and 25 H areviolated because after termination he was not given opportunity

re-employment despite the fact that number of persons were employer after his termination.

But the second party workman in this case had been working since last more than four years as appears from

the documents filed by both the parties. In the year 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 he worked for 209, 143, 132 and 27

days. He met an accident while on duty. He was not attended by the First Party for the purpose of medical treatment, as

discussed earlier. He was not given work as daily wager after recovery of injuries sustained by him and appears to have

not been given appointment as daily wager as partly physically disabled while first party gave appointment as daily

wagers to others who were definitely junior to him. Thus in this case the provisions of section 25GAND H are violated.

Thus this issue is decided in the accordingly. Thusit would be equitable to ask First Party Bank to pay equitable

monetary compensation to the second party.

Whether the demand of workmen for reinstatement with back wages is justified? In the light of the aforesaid

discussion demand of workmen forreinstatement with back wages is not justified and cannot be awarded in this

reference.

However, it is proved thatsecond party workman met an accident and sustained serious injuries causing

fracture of right leg of his body while on duty or serving the First Party Bank as he being orderly peon was ordered by

senior Bank’s to go somewhere outside the Bank premises for work which he was supposed to obey. This is common

sense and equity for the employer too to provide medical aid and treatment as well to his employee whether temporary,

permanent or daily wager. The provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act also put the employer under a duty to pay

or compensate his employee who has sustained bodily injuries while working/ serving the employer. Though second

party workman has neither pleaded it in his statement of claim nor has stated in his statement on oath as to how much

he incurred the loss or money on his treatment. But he has stated in his statement on oath that he sustained injuries to

the extent of fracture of right leg. He had been hospitalised for 10 days. Surgery was also done. He had also been put

for outdoor medical treatment for three months. It can also be assumed that said injury made him so crippled that First

Party Bank, employer by implication refused him job of daily wager which might have made him regular employee.

Therefore, in the said circumstances of the case, second party workman being retrenched in violation of Section 25 G

and H Industrial Disputes Act ought to be compensated for Rupees one lac as a token compensation for his

employment dues including medical treatment.

10.

This is the award passed by the Tribunal and thus the reference is decided accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1528-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

jsyos ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 839@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@266@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th July, 2016

S.O. 1528.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 839/2004) of the Central Government Industrial 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 12.07.2016.

[No. L-41012/266/2003-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

3330

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 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 28^th June, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 839/2004

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Pratapnagar,

Baroda – 390004.

The General Manager,

Western Railway,

Churchgate, Mumbai

…First Party

V/s

The Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway KarmachariParishad,

Shastri Pole Kothi,

Baroda – 390001

…Second Party

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

Shri H.D. Kathrotiya

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.

L-41012/266/2003-IR (B-I) dated 08.03.2004 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 for fixing the seniority of Shri Mekwan Joseph Simon properly and to

grant promotion to him as ‘Electrical Khalasi’ from the date of eligibility i.e. from 1989 is legal, proper and

justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman Shri Mekwan Joseph Simon is entitled to and from

which date?”

The reference dates back to 08.03.2004. The second party submitted the vakalatpatra Ext. 5 and statement of

claim Ext.6 on 27.11.2006. The first party also submitted the vakalatpatra Ext. 3 on 09.06.2004 but since then first

party did not file the written statement. Both the parties have been absent since 26.11.2012. On 22.02.2016, despite the

aforesaid facts the reference was ordered to proceed ex parte against the first party but today second party did not

appear to lead his evidence. Therefore, the case is fit to be dismissed in non-prosecution of the case by the second

party. Thus, this tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in non-prosecution by the second party.

Thus, the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1529-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

jsyos ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 71@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@28@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3331

New Delhi, the 20th July, 2016

S.O. 1529.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 71/2007) of the Central Government Industrial 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 12.07.2016.

[No. L-41012/28/2007-IR (B-I)]

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 27^th June, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 71/2007

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Kalupur Railwaypura,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

E/209, Sarvottamnagar, New Railway Colony,

Sabarmati, Ahmedabad

…Second Party

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-

41012/28/2007-IR (B-I) dated 27.07.2007 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 for cancellation of transfer order dated 14.09.2004 in respect of Shri

Shailendra Singh R.ELF Grade-III from Ahmedabad to Gandhidham, is legal, proper and justified? If so, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 27.07.2007. Both the parties were served. The second party submitted the

statement of claim Ext. 7 on 29.07.2010. First party submitted written statement Ext. 9 on 22.09.2011. The application

Ext. 10 and Ext. 11 has been moved by the first party informing that second party’s workman has expired on

20.04.2010. Therefore, case has been abate.

It is noteworthy that the legal heirs of the workman second party have not moved any application for

substitution of the legal heirs.

Thus, the reference is dismissed as abate.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1530-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

LVsV cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

3332

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 148@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@123@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th July, 2016

S.O. 1530.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 148/2004) of the Central Government Industrial 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 12.07.2016.

[No. L-12012/123/98-IR (B-I)]

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 28^th June, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 148/2004

1. The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India, L.H.O.,

Bhadra, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001.

2. The Regional Manager,

S.B.I., Regional Office,

Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380001.

3. The Branch Manager,

S.B.I., Pragati Nagar Branch,

Nr. Ankur Bus Stand, Nr. Jain Derasar, Ankur,

Ahmedabad – 380001

…First Party

V/s

Mrs. Dhirajben R. Kadia,

38, Alka Part Society, Haribhai, Ni-wadi, Jaivrajpark,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri K.I. Oza & Shri B.K. Oza

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-

12012/123/98-IR (B-I) dated 06.01.1999 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/discontinuing the services of

Smt. Dhirajben R. Kadia w.e.f. 12.04.1997 instead of regularising her services and not paying wages half of

the time-scale for the period she has worked as sweeper and cleaner on daily wages, is justified? If not, what

relief the workman is entitled to?”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3333

The reference dates back to 06.01.1999. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 4 on

06.10.1999. First party submitted the vakalatpatra Ext. 3 of his advocate Shri B.K. Oza on 07.04.1999 and also

submitted the written statement Ext. 5 on 06.10.1999. Since then, second party did not prefer to lead evidence.

Therefore, a last opportunity was given to second party for leading evidence on 01.03.2016. Shri B.K. Oza

learned counsel for the first party moved an application Ext. 16 for closure of the evidence of the second party.

As second party has not been sincere in the prosecution of the case. Therefore, this tribunal has no option but

to close the evidence of the second party and dismissed the reference in non-prosecution of the case by the

second party.

The case is dismissed in non-prosecution of the reference by the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1531-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vks,uthlh

fy- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 142@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30012@6@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th July, 2016

S.O. 1531.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 142/2004) of the Central Government Industrial 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 12.07.2016.

[No. L-30012/6/98-IR (B-I)]

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 20^th June, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 142/2004

The Group General Manager(Project) / IRS,

ONGC Ltd.,

AvaniBhavan, 5^th Floor, Chandkheda,

Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

… First Party

Vs.

Their Workmen,

Through The General Secretary,

Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union,

434-46, Gandhivas, Koba Road,

Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

… Second Party

For the First Party

Shri K.V. Gadhia, Advocate

For the Second Party

--------

3334

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/6/98-

IR(B-I) dated 18.12.1998 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether to give Rs. 3500/- per driver for their Uniform, Helmat, Security shoes and Security kit to each

driver which are appointed by the contractors of the management, as per the demand of Gujarat Petroleum

Employees Union (list of drivers copy enclosed), is legal and justified? If so then what relief, the workmen

are entitled to?”

This Reference dates back to 18.12.1998. Both the parties filed the Vakalatpatra of their respective advocates.

Second party also filed the statement of claim Ext. 4 on 12.10.1999 and first party submitted the written statement Ext.

7 on 14.06.2000. Since then, second party did not prefer to give his evidence despite giving dozen of opportunities. The

advocate Smt. Santoshben Shah representing the second party give in writing that the demands raised by the union are

already satisfied. Union does not press the matter and the reference be disposed off.

Thus, the reference is disposed off as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1532-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

LVsV cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 282@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@460@99&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th July, 2016

S.O. 1532.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 282/2004) of the Central Government Industrial 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 12.07.2016.

[No. L-12012/460/99-IR (B-I)]

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 20^th June, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 282/2004

The Zonal Manager,

State Bank of India, C.N. Vidhyalaya Complex,

Ahemdabad (Gujarat) – 380015

…First Party

v/s

Shri Rajesh Khemchandbhai Solanki,

Behind V.S. Hospital, Kacha Chhapara,

Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380006

…Second Party

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3335

For the First Party

Shri D.C. Gandhi, Advocate

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-

12012/460/99-IR(B-I) dated 24.03.2000 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 engaging Shri Rajesh Khemchandbhai

Solanki on repeated appointment letters for 30 days during the period from 07.10.1997 to June, 1998 and

thereafter orally terminating the service of the concerned person w.e.f. 01.07.1998 without any notice or

compensation is legal and justified? If not then to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 24.03.2000. Both the parties submitted the Vakalatatpatra Ext. 4 & Ext. 5 of their

respective advocates on 08.06.2000 and 20.11.2000. Second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 6 on

25.01.2001. First party, State Bank of India also filed the written statement Ext. 13 on 27.03.2004. But second party,

since then, did not prefer to give his evidence. Thus it appears that second party is not willing to prosecute/proceed with

the reference.

Thus, in the light of the above, the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the reference by the second

party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1533-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

jsyos ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 96@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@212@97&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th July, 2016

S.O. 1533.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 96/2004) of the Central Government Industrial 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 12.07.2016.

[No. L-41012/212/97-IR (B-I)]

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 27^th June, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 96/2004

3336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The General Manager,

Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai

The Workshop Manager (Loco),

Western Railway, Freeland Gunj, Dahod, Panchmahal,

Gujarat – 398151

The Chief Workshop Engineer,

Western Railway, Head Quarter Office, Churchgate,

Mumbai

…First Party

v/s

Shri Bipin Chandra P. Khalasi,

C/o J.K. Ved, Sinduri Mata Devasthan,

S.T. Nagar Road, P.O. – Godhra,

Panchmahal (Gujarat) – 398151

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri H.B. Shah

For the Second Party

Shri J.K. Ved

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.

L-41012/212/97-IR (B-I) dated 30.04.1998 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 Chief Workshop Manager, Western Railway, Dahod in terminating the services of

Shri Bipinchandra Pal Khalasi Loco Workshop Dahod with effect from 26.08.1995 on misconduct vide

charges heet No. E/308/16743/GP/DAR dated 29.09.1994 is legal and justified? If not to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 30.04.1998. Second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 3 on 29.09.1998.

First party also filed the written statement Ext. 6 on 28.04.1999. Second party also filed his affidavit-cum-examination

Chief Ext. 12 on 10.04.2005 but has not been turning up for cross-examination by the second party.

Thus, the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1534-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

jsyos ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 97@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@32@97&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th July, 2016

S.O. 1534.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 97/2004) of the Central Government Industrial 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 12.07.2016.

[No. L-41011/32/97-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3337

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 27^th June, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 97/2004

The General Manager,

Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400001

The Chief Workshop Engineer,

Western Railway, Loco Workshop,

Dahod (Gujarat) – 389151

…First Party

V/s

The Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Devdattt Pathak, Navrang Society,

Dahod – 38915

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri Bipin D. Thakar

For the Second Party

Shri B.K. Sharma

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/32/97-

IR (B-I) dated 06.07.1998 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 Loco Workshop, Dahod (Gujarat) in denying Tribal allowance to

its 2500 employees and paying the same to certain cadre of employees only at Dahod workshop is legal and

justified. If not to what relief the concerned employees are entitled to and from which date?”

The reference dates back to 06.07.1998. Second party submitted the statement of claim on 05.04.1999 and first

party also filed written statement Ext. 8 on 09.09.2001. First party also filed the No. of documents. Since then, second

party has not been leading any evidence and has also been absent.

Thus, the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1535-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

LVsV cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 147@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@122@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th July, 2016

S.O. 1535.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 147/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

3338

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 12.07.2016.

[No. L-12012/122/98-IR (B-I)]

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 27^th June, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 147/2004

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Shahalam gate Br. Shahalam,

Ahmedabad – 380001

The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India, Local Head Office,

Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad – 380001

…First Party

V/s

Shri Ishwarlal R.

D-63, Maya Rohidas Society,

Near Kashi Vishawanath Part -1,

Next to Mahavir School, Isanpur,

Ahmedabad – 382423

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri B.K. Oza

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-

12012/122/98-IR (B-I) dated 06.01.1999 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 in terminating the services of Shri Ishwarlal R. Makwana by the

management of State Bank of India w.e.f.30.09.1996 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled

to?”

The reference dates back to 06.01.1999. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 5 on

06.02.1999 and first party also submitted the written statement Ext. 9 on 16.02.2000. Thereafter both the parties filed

the No. of documents, lastly on 21.11.2000 by second party. Since then, second party did not prefer to lead evidence.

Then lastly on 22.02.2016, second party was given last opportunity for cross-examination but again he did not turn up.

Thus, the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case and also non-appearance of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1536-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

LVsV cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3339

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 510@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@49@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th July, 2016

S.O. 1536.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 510/2004) of the Central Government Industrial 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 12.07.2016.

[No. L-12012/49/2002-IR (B-I)]

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 20^th June, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 510/2004

The Circle Development Officer,

State Bank of India, Bhadra,

Ahemdabad (Gujarat) – 380001.

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India, Patan Branch,

Patan (Gujarat)

…First Party

v/s

Shri Nathabhai C. Makwana,

C/o Sh. Nalin U. Bhatt, Bhadra,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri D.C. Gandhi, Advocate

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.

L-12012/49/2002-IR(B-I) dated 19.08.2002 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 discontinuing the services of Shri Praveen

Nathabhai Bhavsar w.e.f. 13.07.2001 is justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 19.08.2002. Both the parties submitted the Vakalatatpatra Ext. 4 and Ext. 5 of

their respective advocates on 03.02.2003 and 20.11.2002. Second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 6 on

03.02.2003. First party, State Bank of India also filed the written statement Ext. 9 on 17.11.2003. But second party,

since then, did not prefer to give his evidence. Thus it appears that second party is not willing to prosecute/proceed with

the reference.

Thus, in the light of the above, the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the reference by the second

party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

3340

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 20 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1537-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vks,uthlh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 205@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-

07-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@74@1998&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th July, 2016

S.O. 1537.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 205/2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. ONGC and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 20.07.2016.

[No. L-30012/74/1998-IR (C-I)]

M. K. 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 27^th June, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 205/2004

The Group General Manager (P),

ONGC Ltd., K.D.M. Bhawan,

Mehsana (Gujarat) – 380001

...First Party

V/s

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

None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/74/98-

IR (C-I) (dated nil) 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 ONGC Employees Union for to promote Shri ChamanlalPopatlal in the salary

grade of Supervisor (H.B. Class - II) from 01.01.1993 is legal, proper and just? If yes, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled?”

Second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 4 on 26.10.1999. First party filed the written statement

Ext. 7 on 24.08.2001. Since then, the second party has not been leading evidence.

Thus, the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3341

ubZ fnYyh] 20 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1538-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vks,uthlh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 249@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-

07-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@105@1997&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th July, 2016

S.O. 1538.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 249/2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. ONGC and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 20.07.2016.

[No. L-30012/105/1997-IR (C-I)]

M. K. 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 28^th June, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 249/2004

The Group General Manager (P),

ONGC Ltd., Mehsana Project, K.D.M. Bhawan,

Palvasana,Mehsana (Gujarat) – 380001

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union, 434/46,

Gandhivas Koba Road, Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380005

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri K.V. Gadhia, Advocate

For the Second Party

Kum. Santoshben

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.

L-30012/105/97-IR (C-I) dated 25.10.1999 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 Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union for to reinstate in services of Shri Bhikhabhai

M. Goswami on the post of Typist and Clerk from dated 01.07.1996 in ONGC, Mehsana Project and also

approved him exact and regular status from same date, is legal and justified?If yes, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 25.10.1999. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 3 on

29.03.2000. First party also filed written statement Ext. 4 on 04.10.2000. The case was fixed for leading evidence by

second party on 12.08.2011 but since then the second party has been absent and also has failed to lead evidence. Thus,

this tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in non-prosecution by the second party.

3342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Thus, the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1539-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vks,uthlh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 177@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-

07-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@146@1998&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th July, 2016

S.O. 1539 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 177/2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. ONGC and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 20.07.2016.

[No. L-30012/146/1998-IR (C-I)]

M. K. 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 22^nd June, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 17/7/2004

The Executive Director,

ONGC Ltd., Western Region, Makarpura Road,

Baroda(Gujarat) – 390009

…First Party

v/s

The General Secretary,

ONGC Employees Union,

8, Samarpan Shopping Complex, Highway,

Mehsana(Gujarat) – 384002

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri K.V. Gadhia, Advocate

For the Second Party

Shri A.S. Kapoor

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.

L-30012/146/98-IR(C-I) dated 15.03.1999 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 ONGC Employees Union in asking promotion of Shri J. H. Choudhary to the post of

Khalasi Gr. I upgraded in the pay scale of Rs. 2532/- w.e.f. 01.01.1993 with all consequential benefits is

justified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 15.03.1999. Second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 4 on 09.12.1999.

First party also submitted the written statement on 10.10.2000. Since then, the second party has been absent and has

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3343

also not been leading evidence. Thus, it appears that second party has no willingness to prosecute his case. Therefore,

the tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the second party.

Thus, the reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1540-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u

cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 13@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-07-2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@206@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2016

S.O. 1540.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Union Bank of

India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21.07.2016.

[No. L-12012/206/2004-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/13/2005

Shri Nobert Anthony,

C/o Mrs. Celina Devi,

Geetanjali Colony, House No.105, Sector-I,

Suklu Dhana,

Chhindwara (MP)

…Workman

Versus

General Manager,(Personnel),

Union Bank of India,

Industrial Relations Department, Central Office,

Union Bank Bhawan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg,

Mumbai

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 27^th day of June 2016

As per letter dated 19-1-2005 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-12012/206/2004-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India, Central Office4, Mumbai in dismissing Shri

Nobert Anthony Head Cashier, Parasia Branch, Distt. Chhindwara MP from service from 29-9-97 vide

chargesheet dated 2-12-96 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page

2/1 to 2/18. Case of Ist party workman is that Government has referred dispute pertaining to his dismissal from service

from 29-9-97. He had submitted representation dated 8-1-02 contending that a breach of settlement is punishable under

Article 29 of ID Act. That he was working as Head Cashier in District Sidhi during 1993-94. He was also deputed to

Saroundha branch. During deputation, he was assigned duties at Deosar branch. Blindly believing and without

3344

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

verifying the veracity of a complaint, he was placed under suspension on 10-10-96. Chargesheet was issued to him on

10-1-97 alleging fraudulent withdrawal of amount Rs. 4000 on 19-11-93, Rs.8000 on 16-12-93, Rs.6500 on 26-12-93

& Rs.6500 on 10-1-94 by cheque. The charges alleged against him are of minor and gross misconduct. However

chargesheet was issued to him w.r.t. doing act prejudicial to the interest of Banks and individuals involving serious

loss. That order of his suspension dated 23-9-96 was issued by some one whose name, designation or rank were not as

Disciplinary Authority. Chargesheet was issued by other person whose name, designation or rank were not disclosed as

Disciplinary Authority. Memorandum dated 2-1-97 was also similarly issued. Those matters goes to the root of the

matter. Memorandum issued by Dy.Manager (Industrial Relations) Shri G.V.Joshi Presenting Officer who was

appointed as Enquiry Officer as well as Disciplinary Authority. His appointment as Disciplinary Authority and

Enquiry Officer are contradictory. Workman relies on staff circular No. 2309 dated 20-5-81. Bipartite settlement dated

19-10-66 was modified by Bipartite settlement dated 22-11-79. Schedule showing office establishment by Disciplinary

Authority and Appellate authorities for the purpose of Disciplinary action. In any case, there cannot be numerous

Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities either for an establishment or for an employee because such a chaotic

dispensation would defeat the very purpose of nomination and notification of such authorities by designation. The last

para of the chargesheet reading, Disciplinary action including holding of a departmental enquiry will be conducted by

another Disciplinary Authority Shri G.V.Joshi, Personnel Officer, Regional Office, Rewa corroborates the facts that

for every employee there were several players for the role of Disciplinary Authority . Appointment of Shri G.V.Joshi

was therefore highly irregular and illegal. Ist party workman reiterated that he had not committed any misconduct

alleged against him. The charges alleged against him were not proved. The allegation that he had nexus to all

withdrawals and committed act of omission are based on surmises and conjuctures. There is no evidence to prove the

charges. The Ist party has also made various comments about evidence of management’s witnesses. That departmental

action was initiated against Shri S.K.Sethia Branch Manager, clerk cum cashier. Shri Sethi and many others were also

placed under suspension were subsequently reinstated.

Ist party workman further contends that he was not given opportunity to submit representation w.r.t. Enquiry

Report, showcause notice was not issued to him. He was not given time for his submissions w.r.t. proposed

punishments. That Enquiry Officer/ Disciplinary Authority Shri G.V.Joshi had already concluded that the charges of

gross misconduct and minor misconduct were proved and predetermined to impose penalty of dismissal. Workman

had challenged order of his dismissal filing appeal. Workman was granted personal hearing after 2 ½ years at Mumbai.

Workman had complied with the directions. However his appeal was rejected vide order dated 6-11-2000. Workman

reiterates that enquiry conducted against him is illegal. Principles of natural justice were not followed. The powers of

Disciplinary Authority could not be delegated. In departmental proceeding initiated against him in violation of clause

19.11, 12(C), 19(4) of Bipartite settlement. Workman claims to be innocent . chargesheet issued against him was based

on presumption w.r.t. amount withdrawn. Management’s witnesses were not produced for cross-examination by him.

On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

2^nd party filed exhaustive Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/23 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits

that the contentions of workman in statement of claim are false, fabricated, not tenable in law. That Ist party workman

was dismissed for proved fraudulent withdrawals of amount forging signatures of Account Holder No. 390. The act

committed by Ist party workman amounts to gross misconduct as per Bipartite Settlement. The said act is prejudicial to

the interest of Bank involving negligence of workman. That 2^nd party is carrying banking business. Employee working

in the Bank is required to work with absolute devotion, integrity, honesty. Looking to the circumstances, Government

should not have referred the dispute.

2^nd party further contends that workman was initially recruited as clerk cum typist on 20-12-86 at Sidhi

branch. After serving in said branch, he was given higher assignment on post of Head Cashier Cat-C from 20-6-89 at

Devsar branch. Workman worked in Devsar branch till 30-5-94, he was transferred to Parasia branch where he worked

from 1-6-94 to 10-10-96. Workman was dismissed for proved misconduct holding enquiry. Workman committed act

prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and negligence in the duty. Amount from SB Account No. 390 of Malti Singh

were illegally withdrawn. Workman was suspended as per order dated 23-9-96. Chargesheet was issued to him on

2-12-96. Personnel Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer. As per staff circular No. 2309 dated 20-5-81, norms of

Disciplinary Authority were vested with Shri Joshi, Presenting Officer. That Shri A.K.Ajmera was appointed as

Management Representative. Enquiry was conducted, statement of witnesses were recorded and cross-examined.

Workman was allowed personal hearing. Workman had preferred appeal challenging order of his dismissal. It is

reiterated that the dismissal of workman is proper and legal. Enquiry was conducted against workman following

principles of natural justice. 2^nd party submits that workman is not entitled to any relief.

Ist party workman filed rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/3 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

After recording evidence of the parties and hearing argument, enquiry conducted against workman was found

illegal as per order dated 13-5-14 mainly on the ground that Enquiry Officer Shri G.V.Joshi himself acted as

Disciplinary Authority.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3345

Considering pleadings on record and order on preliminary issue, 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 2^nd party proves charges alleged against

workman?

In Negative

(ii) Whether the action of the management of Union

Bank of India, Central Office4, Mumbai in dismissing

Shri Nobert Anthony Head Cashier, Parasia Branch,

Distt. Chhindwara MP from service from 29-9-97 vide

chargesheet dated 2-12-96 is legal and justified?

In Negative

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

As per final order

REASONS

Point No.1- Vide order dated 13-5-2014, enquiry conducted against workman was found vitiated and illegal.

2^nd party was granted permission to prove misconduct alleged against workman. Management has filed affidavit of

evidence of witness Shri Purushottam. His affidavit of evidence is devoted on the aspect Ist party was posted as Head

Cashier at Devsar branch, order of suspenhsion was issued to him. Chargesheet was issued to him, Shri G.V.Joshi was

appointed as Enquiry Officer. Workman was granted opportunity for his defence. Punishment of dismissal was

imposed against him. That workman is not entitled to any relief. The affidavit of his evidence is only narration of the

proceeding of the enquiry about how the enquiry was conducted. The affidavit of evidence of management’s witness is

absolutely silent about the fraudulent withdrawal of amount from Account No. 390 held by Account Holder. His

affidavit of evidence doesnot disclose his knowledge about the manner the amount was fraudulently withdrawn. In his

cross-examination, management witness says he had not seen original of Certificate Exhibit M-3 w.r.t. withdrawal of

amount from Saving Account No. 390 that chargesheet was issued to Branch Manager Shri S.K.Sethia. he was unable

to tell whether chargesheet was issued to Shri S.C.Punia. he claims ignorance in what regard chargesheet was issued to

him himself. As per rules, check book remains in custody of the Branch Manager. Any other witness is not examined

by management to prove the charges alleged against workman. For sake of convenience, I may refer to the charges

alleged against workman. In Exhibit W-3, the amount of Rs.4000 withdrawn on 19-11-93, Rs.8000 on 16-12-93,

Rs.6500 on 26-12-93, Rs.6500 on 0-1-94 withdrawn by cheque from SB Account of Malti Singh. Affidavit of evidence

of management’s witness is absolutely silent about these facts.

10.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence denying charges alleged against him. In his cross examination,

workman says he had not admitted charges of fraud during Enquiry Proceedings. After dismissal from service, he is

unemployed. The evidence on record cannot prove the charges alleged against workman. Therefore I record my finding

in Point No.l in Negative.

11.

Point No.2: In view of my finding in Point No.1 charges alleged against workman are not proved from

evidence, punishment of dismissal imposed against workman cannot be sustained. Therefore I record my finding in

Point No.2 in Negative.

12.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management is not proper and legal.

(2)

Order of punishment of dismissal imposed against workman is set aside. 2^nd party is directed to

reinstate workman with continuity of service and full back wages.

Amount of back wages 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] 21 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1541-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 58@08) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@58@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

3346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2016

S.O. 1541.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 58/08) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 21.07.2016.

[No. L-12011/58/2007-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/58/08

General Secretary,

Anusuchit Jaati Karamchari Kalyan Parishad,

F-1, Karambhoomi, Tripti Vihar,

Indore Road, Ujjain(MP)

… Workman/Union

Versus

Zonal Manager,

Bank of India, Zonal Office,

18, Shanku Marg,

Freeganj, Ujjain (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 21^st day of June 2016

As per letter dated 17-3-08 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-

12011/58/2007-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the claim of the Union that Shri Bahadur Sakrati has completed 240 days of service in a calendar

year is legal and justified? If so, whether the action of the management of Bank of India in terminating his

services w.e.f. 3-7-05 without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is

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

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page

3/1to ¾. Case of Ist party workman is that he was engaged on daily wages on vacant post of peon from April 99. He

was engaged for providing drinking water. That he was continuously working after the initial engagement. He was

paid Rs.5/- wages per day. Wages were increased to Rs.30. he was paid Rs.15 for filling water, Rs.30/60 for rendering

work of employees on leave. He was working from Monday to Saturday six days in a week. Sunday was holiday. He

was not paid wages for National Holidays. He completed more than 240 days during each of the calendar year. His

services were terminated on 3-7-05 without notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. After the dispute

was raised and conciliation failed, the dispute is referred. Workman claims to be covered as employee under Section 25

B of ID Act. His services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Policy of last come first go was not

followed. Thereby 2^nd party violated Section 25 G, N of ID Act. After termination of his services on 3-7-05, 2^nd party

engaged other persons. Workman was not engaged. Thereby 2^nd party violated Section 25 H of ID Act. On such

contentions, workman prays for reinstatement with backwages.

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 7.1 to 7/5 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits that term of

reference is highly prejudicial, the reference is not tenable. Ist party workman was never engaged or employed by the

Bank. Provisions of ID Act are not applicable. The order of reference is vague. Particulars regarding engagement of

workman are not given. Relationship of employer employee doensot exist between management and workman. The

dispute has been raised by General Secretary of Union. Said Union has no locus standi to raise the dispute. Ist party

workman is not member of alleged Union. Union is not in existence. Ist party is not covered under section 2(s) of ID

Act. On such ground, it is submitted that order of reference is not legal.

2^nd party further submits that dispute raised by Ist party workman claiming reinstatement and other benefits

alleging termination of his service in violation of ID Act. That the appointments in the Bank is covered by statutory

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3347

rules and regulations. Ist party workman was not engaged following recruitment rules, his name was not sponsored

through Employment exchange. Branch Manager has no power to appoint. The reservation policy for SC/ST OBC is

binding on the management while making appointments. Bank employment is public employment covered under

Article 16 of the constitution. For such employment, employment exchange is only agency where any person can

Government of India cannot be ignored or deleted. Payment of wages made to persons engaged on casual basis, daily

wages intermittently in absence of regular sub staff nor give right for permanent appointment. Branch Manager

engaging casual daily wagers used to reimburse the expenses incurred. Engagement for stop gap arrangement. Such

employees could not be made permanent under orders of Court bypassing the rules. 2^nd party reiterates that workman

was never employed by Bank. There was no question of working more than 240 days in a calendar year by workman.

There was no question of giving one months notice or retrenchment compensation to the workman. On such ground, 2^nd

party prays reference be answered in its favour.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the claim of the Union that Shri

Bahadur Sakrati has completed 240 days of service

in a calendar year is legal and justified?

In Negative

(ii) Whether the action of the management of Bank

of India in terminating his services w.e.f. 3-7-05

without following the provisions of Section 25-F of

the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and

justified?

Termination of workman is not violative of Section

25-F of ID Act.

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

The term of reference pertains to workman has completed more than 240 days working during each of the

calendar year, whether termination of workman is violative of Section 25-F of ID Act? 2^nd party management has

denied engagement of workman.

Affidavit of evidence is filed by workman supporting his contentions that he was continuously working from

April 99 to 3-7-06 for six years in Kheda khajuriya branch. He was doing work of cleaning, sweeping, filing water,

supplying drinking wager etc. From evidence of workman, certain documents are admitted in evidence. Exhibit W-3 is

order of transfer of Darbarilal Vishwakarma. It has no direct bearing to the controversy between parties. Exhibit W-4

is order of appointment of Marmatt on pay scale Rs.4060-7560. Even said document has no direct bearing about the

working of Ist party workman more than 240days. Exhibit W-1 is reply submitted by Ist party before RLC, Bhopal. In

Para-6 of Exhibit W-1, management has contented that it is possible that when substaff was on leave, some persons

may have been engaged as casual labour. Service of casual labour engaged was to end at end of the day. Exhibit W-1

is silent about workman working more than 240 days. Similarly Exhibit W-2 reply submitted before RLC finds

reference to engagement of casual labour for filling water. Said document also is silent about engagement of Ist party

workman more than 240 days. The inconsistency about working days of workman 240 days and he claimed to have

worked more than 300 days were appointed out in Exhibit W-3 as false. Ist party in his cross-examination says

intermittently payment vouchers were prepared in his name. He was paid Rs.15/ for filling water, Rs.50/- for cleaning

work, Rs.30/- for service of notice. He was fetching 4 containers of water in cycle. It was taking one hour. Sometimes

his signatures were taken on the Attendance Register. He denies that he was intermittently engaged on daily wages. He

denies that in Kheda Khajuria branch, when water was not supplied, he was engaged for supplying water. There was no

water tap in the branch. He denies that he was supplying water to other persons.

Management’s witness Devki Nandan Lahoti in his affidavit of evidence has stated that sometimes in absence

of water supply, branch used to purchase water from local. Claimant might have been supplying water against which

he was paid. The payment made against water supply cannot be treated as wages. Workman was never employed.

There was no question of completing 240 days in a calendar year. Management has produced documents Exhibit M-1

to M-7 relates to the recruitment rules of subordinate staff. All those documents were that for recruitment, the person

requires to be sponsored through Employment Exchange. There is no evidence that workman was sponsored through

Employment Exchange or the workman was engaged following recruitment policy. Management’s witness in his cross

examination says that while engaging workman on work, Exhibit M-1 to 7 were not followed. He claims ignorance

3348

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

about appointment of Ist party in Kheda Khajuria branch. Management’s witness was unable to tell any kind of

recruitment process was followed before engagement of workman. That during 2004 to 07, he was working in the

branch. Prior to said period, he was not working in Kheda Khajuria branch. Management’s witness claims ignorance

whether Kacharulal was working as daftary. There was no sweeper working in Kheda Khajuria branch, witness of

management was unable to tell at what rate workman was paid wages. Appointment letter was not given to workman.

Payments were made by Branch Manager and the amount was reimbursed to him. Rules regarding reinstatement of

payment of wages are not produced. Document about payment of retrenchment compensation are not available in the

Bank.

The evidence of Ist party about his working days is not corroborated by the documentary evidence

management’s witness has denied workman had worked more than 240 days.

10.

Learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in

Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and others versus Jadega Govubha Chanubha and another reported in

2015(2)SCC(L&S) 513. Their Lordship held burden of proving such continuous service lies on workman.

In case between Surendra Nagar District Panchayat versus Dahyabhai Amarsingh reported in 2005(8)SCC-

750. Their Lordship dealing with Section 25-F, B of ID Act held facts must be proved by workman to claim

protection under Section 25-F. facts that must be proved to claim relief from court held facts to claim

protection of Section 25-F are that (i) there exists relationship of employer and employee, (ii) he is a workman

under Section 2(s) of ID Act.

Their Lordship further held burden of proof lies on workman. It is for workman to adduce evidence apart from

examining himself or filing an affidavit to prove the said factum. Such evidence may be in form of receipt of

salary or wages for 240 days or record of his appointment or engagement for that year to show that he has

worked with the employer for 240 days or examination of a co-worker.

In present case, workman has not produced any document about payment of wages to him, any co-worker is

not examined. In absence of such evidence, affidavit of evidence filed by Ist party workman about his working more

than 240 days cannot prove his claim.

In case of State of UP and another versus Allahabad High Court reported in 2011-LAB.I.C.4322. their

Lordship held daily wager workman working for short period of 4 years, his initial recruitment was not in

accordance with procedure prescribed by law. Services terminated without complying with Section 6-N

Granting relief of reinstatement with backwages is not proper.

In present case, workman has failed to prove that he had worked continuously more than 240 days preceding

termination of his service therefore termination of Ist party cannot be said illegal for violation of Section 25-F of ID

Act. For reasons discussed above, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative and Point No.2 in Affirmative.

11.

Point No.3- In view of my finding in Point No.1,2 workman has failed to prove 240 days continuous working

preceding termination of his service, the action of the management is not illegal, workman is not entitled to any relief.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.3.

12.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Workman has failed to prove that he worked more than 240 days in any of the year. Termination of

his service is not illegal for violation of provisions of ID Act.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1542-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

cM+kSnk ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 70@2014) (dEiysu ua- 8@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

21-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@31@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3349

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2016

S.O. 1542.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 70/2014) (Complaint No. 8/2015) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21.07.2016.

[No. L-12011/31/2014-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD.

IN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT U/S 33 (A) OF I.D. ACT, 1947.

COMPLAINT NO. 8/2015

( Arising out of Ref. 70/2014)

Prahalad Paswan

S/o Janki Pawan

…Complainant

Vs.

1. Dy. General Manager

Bank of Baroda

Zonal Office

4^th floor, Anand Vihar,Patna

2. Branch Manager

Bank of Baroda

Lodipur Branch, Gaya

…Opp. Party

Present:- Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For Complainant

Shri Govind Kumar, Sr. Manager

For Opp. Party

Shri B. Prasad, Rep.

State :- Bihar

Industry:--Banking

Dated. 22/06/2016

AWARD

The Complaint case arises out from Ref No. 70/14 . In the meantime Ref. 70/2014 has been decided giving

some relief to the workman . Hence, it is felf to close the complaint case. It is closed, any no dispute award is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1543-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u

cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] iq.ks ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 27@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@33@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2016

S.O. 1543.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

3350

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Labour Court, Pune as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Bank and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21.07.2016.

[No. L-12012/33/2014-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL MAHARASHTRA AT PUNE

Reference (IT) No. 27 of 2014

BETWEEN

The Assistant General Manager

Indian Bank, Zonal Office

3^rd Floor, Progress House,

54, Pune Mumbai Road,

Shivajinagar, Pune 411 005

…First Party

AND

Shri Vishram Vasant Patankar

G-4, Nandadevi CHS, 15/10-A,

Kothrud, Pune - 411 029

…Second Party

CORAM : Shri. A.M.Tamboli, Presiding Officer

Appearances

First Party absent

Mr. R. G. Londhe, Advocate for Second Party.

AWARD

(Dated : 20.06.2016)

The Government of India has made this reference to this Tribunal by exercising its power u/s 10 of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

By the said reference, the Central Government has asked this Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute between the

first party and the second party, and has also posed question, which runs as under :-

“Whether the action of the Asstt. General Manager and Disciplinary Authority of Indian Bank, Pune in giving

the punishment of compulsory retirement to the workman Shri Vishram Vasant Patankar w.e.f. 15.09.2004 is

legal and justified ? What relief the workman is entitled to ?”

Upon receipt of the said reference, this Tribunal was pleased to issue notices to both the sides. The second

party appeared in the matter and filed his statement of claim. However, the first party bank despite the service failed to

appear and file their written statement and therefore, the reference was proceeded without written statement of the first

party.

The second party has put up his case by filing statement of claim as under.

It is alleged by the second party that he was working with the first party bank from 4-8-1980 to 15-9-2004 i.e.

till his illegal compulsory retirement from services of the bank. It is alleged that he joined the second party bank as a

Clerk in August 1980 at Mumbai and he worked in its various branches till 15-9-2004. It is alleged that he worked in

the branch of the bank at Nana Peth, Pune at the time of his compulsory retirement. It is also alleged that during his

tenure of service, he has worked with the bank with all honesty and he was performing his duties with utmost integrity

and honesty. It is alleged that on 22-5-2004 the bank issued him a charge-sheet for the alleged misconduct committed

by him while he was working at Nana Peth Branch. It is also alleged that the charge-sheet is false and baseless. The

charges levelled against him, are vague and without any merit. It is also alleged that there is no co-relation in respect of

imputation of alleged misconduct and the articles of charges.

It is alleged that first party bank appointed an Enquiry Officer who has conducted the enquiry as regards the

said charge-sheet. It is alleged that infact the enquiry was an empty formality and thereafter, the Enquiry Officer gave

its findings to the bank. So also, he had given his report. It is alleged that Enquiry Officer was partial to the

management and he did not observe the principles of natural justice while holding the enquiry. It is also alleged that

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3351

the findings of the Enquiry Officer are biased and perverse. It is also alleged that it is without application of mind and

thus there is miscarriage of justice.

It is alleged that the disciplinary authority of the first party, without taking into consideration the submission

of the second party, passed an order on 15-9-2004 as under :-

“Compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits i.e. pension and/or provident fund and gratuity as would

be due otherwise under the Rules and Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification

from future employment under Regulation 6(c) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10^th April 2002 and

Bipartite Settlement (1966) and amendments thereof.”

It is alleged that the punishment awarded to the workman is harsh, unreasonable, unjust and unwarranted. It is

shockingly disproportionate. It is also alleged that the first party was predetermined to impose the punishment of

compulsory retirement by farce of conducting an enquiry.

It is alleged that under the circumstances, the second party is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and/or

consequential benefits. It is also alleged that he is entitled for pension, commutation amount and encashment of

privilege leave.

It is alleged that subsequently he received a letter dt.10-6-2005 from the first party informing him that 2/3^rd of

eligible pension as per rules is granted to him. So also, he was informed that he is not entitled for the encashment of

privilege leave. The second party requested the bank to pay full pension and amount of encashment of privilege leave,

as he is compulsory retired with superannuation benefits. However, his request has been rejected by the bank. It is

alleged that due to said illegal order passed by the bank, the second party has suffered loss of Rs.2.50 lac. He has

suffered mental agony, and therefore, he is entitled for compensation of Rs. 5 lacs and therefore, he has raised

industrial dispute under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The conciliation proceedings were failed and

therefore, the Asstt. Labour Commissioner has referred the dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.

10.

It is alleged that due to unwarranted termination of the workman by first party, he has lost 16 years of balance

service and suffered huge monetary loss. So also, he has suffered mental agony and his image in the society is

tarnished and therefore, the second party prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dt.15-9-2004 passed by the

first party, and also prayed for directing the first party to reinstate the workman with full back wages and in alternative,

prayed for directing the employer to pay full amount of pension w.e.f. September 2004 together with the interest @

15% per annum till the date of actual payment, and also prayed for directing the bank to allow him to encash his

privilege leave and to pay him the encashment amount along with interest @ 15% per annum from September 2004 till

the date of actual payment. So also, he has prayed for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, costs of Rs.50,000/- and also

prayed for any other equitable reliefs.

11.

The first party as stated above, failed to appear and file its written statement, and thus the reference was

proceeded without written statement. The second party filed his affidavit of examination-in-chief. The first party

remained absent and therefore, his cross-examination was closed.

12.

The first party also failed to adduce their evidence and therefore, the Reference was fixed for arguments.

13.

Taking into consideration the affidavit of examination-in-chief filed by the first party i.e. the workman, it can

be seen that he has raised certain issues. The first one is that the enquiry conducted is not fair, proper and legal. It is

also his contention that the findings given by the Enquiry Officer are perverse. It is his further contention that the

punishment imposed of terminating him from the services, is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. It

also appears that his contention that granting him only 2/3^rd pension and not allowing him to encash the privilege leave

by the bank, is also not in consonance with the punishment awarded and therefore, he has sought for recovery of the

said sums with 15% interest per annum from September 2004. He has also sought for compensation of Rs. 5 lacs and

costs of the present litigation of Rs.50,000/-.

14.

It is pertinent to note that the bank failed to cross-examine him in the Court. Consequently, entire allegations

made by the second party remained unchallenged and therefore, I have no hesitation to accept the allegations made by

second party.

15.

Though I have come to the conclusion that this Tribunal has no hesitation to accept the contents of affidavit, it

is pertinent to note that this Tribunal cannot go beyond the reference made by the Government of India. The

Government of India has categorically referred the dispute wherein it has been asked to decide as to whether the

punishment of compulsory retirement given to workman Shri Vishram Vasant Patankar w.e.f. 15-9-2004, is legal and

justified. It is pertinent to note that the Government of India did not ask this Tribunal to decide as to whether the

second party is entitled for full pension or encashment of privilege leave and consequently, whether the second party is

entitled for the said sums along with interest @ 15% per annum. Consequently, these prayers made by the second

3352

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

party, are beyond the reference, and now what the Tribunal has to see is as to whether the punishment of compulsory

retirement awarded to him, is legal and justified. To my mind, when the bank who has imposed the punishment, has

remained absent despite the due service of the present reference, the allegations made by the second party, are to be

accepted in toto and therefore, I am of the opinion that the present reference made by the Government of India is

necessary to be answered, as the punishment of compulsory retirement given by the bank, is illegal and unjustified.

Hence I propose to pass the following award.

AWARD

The Reference is disposed of.

The punishment of compulsory retirement w.e.f. 15-9-2004 imposed on the second party workman by

the first party bank, is declared illegal and unjustified.

The said punishment of compulsory retirement is set aside, and the first party bank is directed to

reinstate the workman in the service with full back wages and consequential benefits. The Bank to

grant him benefits of continuity of service.

No order as to costs.

Pune :

Dated : 20.06.2016

A. M. TAMBOLI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1544-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 36@04) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@236@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2016

S.O. 1544.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 21.07.2016.

[No. L-12012/236/2003-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/36/04

Shri Ashok Khare,

S/o Late Babulal Khare,

142, Manorama Colony,

Sagar (MP) Jabalpur

…Workman

Versus

Zonal Manager,

Bank of India,

Govind Kunj Colony,

Napier Town,

Near Russel Chowk, Jabalpur

…Management

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3353

AWARD

Passed on this 14^th day of June 2016

As per letter dated 29-4-04 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-

12012/236/2003-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Jabalpur Zone, Jabalpur MP in terminating the

services of Shri Ashok Khare S/o Shri Babulal Khare vide order dated 10-12-2002 is legal and justified? If

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

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim through

President of Bank of India Employees Union at Page 3/1 to 3/5. Case of Ist party workman is that dispute pertaining to

termination of his service is referred after failure of conciliation proceedings. That Ist party workman was given

chargesheet prior to order of punishment dated 10-12-02, chargesheet was issued by Disciplinary Authority. Without

waiting for reply to the chargesheet, Enquiry Officer was appointed by 2^nd party. Workman is activated Union leader,

he was elected Vice President of the Bank of India, District Sagar. He held such post from 1992 to 1997. Again he was

elected as Assistant General Secretary in 1999. Management of Bank was annoyed due to his Union activities. The

management of 2^nd party had malafied against him. With such malafied intention, chargesheet was issued to workman.

In reply to chargesheet, workman explained circumstances regarding the charges alleged against him. Management

reiterates his reply to charges as admission of charges and did not conduct enquiry. The findings were submitted by

Enquiry Officer without conducting enquiry. Showcause notice was issued regarding proposed punishment to him.

Reply submitted to showcause notice by workman was not considered while passing order of dismissal. Ist party

workman submits that findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. Any charges against him are not proved from evidence

in Enquiry Proceedings. Punishment imposed against workman is illegal. 2^nd party was bound to hold and complete

enquiry against him. Chargesheet was issued under Clause 5(j) of the settlement dated 10-4-02. Said rule compels 2^nd

party and Enquiry Officer to conduct complete enquiry. No enquiry is required to be conducted as provided under

Clause 12(e) of the settlement. That workman had not admitted charges against him. He was given assurance by

Enquiry Officer. Workman had explained surrounding circumstances. Enquiry Officer had given assurance of lesser

punishment. 2^nd party adopted discriminatory manner while awarding punishment. Punishment imposed on him is

improper and disproportionate. 2^nd party has complied settlement. Order of Appellate Authority is also illegal and

passed without application of mind. Ist party prays to set aside order passed by Appellate Authority modifying

punishment of dismissal to compulsory retirement.

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/9 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits that

workman was initially appointed as clerk from 29-12-81.the service record of workman as unsatisfactory, several

punishments were imposed against him in the past, leniency was shown towards workman. Punishment of warnings on

several occasions, other punishments were imposed. Workman had apologized on all occasions and management had

shown leniency. Workman taken advantage of leniency shown to the management and continued the misconduct.

Punishment of warning was issued to workman on 25-5-00 in the matter of misuse of loan sanction for purchase of

Banks shares. Another punishment by way of penalty of reduction of basic pay by one stage for two years vide order

dated 30-9-00 was issued for deriving wrongful pecuniary gain by giving wrong information with regard to the balance

in SB Account., punishment of warning vide order dated 10-5-01 was issued for misuse of staff housing loan facility.

Workman was working as staff clerk at Sagbar branch, he was issued chargesheet on 26-9-02, corrigendum

dated 4-10-02 was issued under clause 5(j) of Bipartite Settlement for committing act of the interest of the Bank or

gross negligence involving or likely to involve Banks in serious loss. Executive Director as per order dated 14-6-02

ordered a departmental enquiry to the charges levelled against workman Shri Ajay Kher was appointed Enquiry

Officer, Shri Neeraj Rastogi was appointed Presenting Officer, enquiry was fixed on 10-10-02 for preliminary hearing.

Presenting Officer submitted documents Exhibit ME-1 to ME-31, its copy were supplied to workman. After workman

had gone through documents, admitted all those documents. When enquiry was fixed on 19-10-02, Defence

Representative of workman was not present. Workman requested to be defended by Shri Naresh Shrivastava, his

request was allowed. On same day, workman had submitted reply dated 10-10-02 to the chargesheet was taken on

record. Workman had submitted pointwise explanation in his reply admitting all charges against him. Workman had

requested to consider his case sympathetically. Workman did not produce Defence Witnesses. As workman admitted

all charges, enquiry was concluded on 19-10-02. Enquiry Proceeding was signed by Enquiry Officer, Presenting

Officer, Defence Representative and workman himself., Enquiry Officer submitted his findings on 28-10-02 holding

workman guilty of charges against him. The findings of Enquiry Officer were supplied to workman. Disciplinary

Authority imposed punishment of dismissal after issuing showcause notice. 2^nd party reiterates that workman

challenged order of his dismissal in appeal. The Appellate Authority had modified punishment of dismissal to

compulsory retirement as per order dated 21-4-03. 2^nd party submits that order of compulsory retirement passed by

Appellate Authority is proper. Workman committed serious kind of misconduct. Bank is financial institution deals with

3354

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

public funds on trust. Bank cannot retain any employee with doubtful integrity, punishment of dismissal is proper. It is

also commensurate to the gross misconduct proved against workman. Enquiry is properly taken. All adverse

contentions of workman are denied in parawise reply. Workman received his terminal dues PF- Rs.334440.62,

Gratuity- Rs.161488= Total Rs.495928.62. 2^nd party prays that reference be answered in its favour.

As per order dated 26-2-05, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal and proper.

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 misconduct alleged against

workman is proved from evidence in Enquiry

proceedings?

In Affirmative

(ii) Whether the punishment of compulsory

retirement imposed against workman is proper and

legal?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

The term of reference pertains to termination of Ist party workman as per order dated 10-12-03. The dispute

was referred as per order dated 29-4-04. Prior to dispute was referred, workman had challenged order of his dismissal

filing appeal. Punishment of dismissal was modified to compulsory retirement by Appellate Authority. Order of

Appellate Authority is produced at Exhibit M-24. Chargesheet was issued to workman is produced at Exhibit M-4.

Charges pertains to mis appropriation of amount in RD Account of Kumar Dhanvanti A/C No. 340-4, Smt. Vimal

Singh A/c No. 3405, Shri Vikram Singh- A/C No. 3406, Shri Nirmal Singh- A/C No. 3407 opened on 26-9-00 with

monthly instalment of Rs.200 each for 60 instalments. 14 instalments of Rs.200/- per instalment and RD A/cNo. 3411

of Manorama Singh opened on 10-10-10 monthly instalment of Rs.200 each for 60 instalments, 13 instalments amounts

Rs.200 each were misappropriated by workman. In RD Account 3411 fake entries were taken in the pass book of the

customer. Charge No.2 pertains to SB Account in name of Ram Kumari Rathore A/C No. 19024 workman received

cash for depositing amount received and the same were misappropriated and fake entries were made in the pass book.

Charge No.3 pertains to fake RD. in A/C No. 3451issued in name of Smt. Hemkumari Rathore and issued passbook on

4-10-01- monthly instalment Rs.1500 for 12 months. Charge No. 4 pertains to workman indiscriminately issuing

cheques without sufficient balance in his SB A/C No. 8512. Chargesheet was issued to workman, corrigendum Exhibit

M-37 was issued ton 26-9-02. Workman submitted explanation to the chargesheet Exhibit M-5 dated 18-10-02. The

point pertains to whether charges alleged against workman are proved. The Enquiry Proceeding dated 19-10-02 shows

that workman submitted explanation. Workman was asked whether he accepts or denied charges leveled against him.

As per memorandum dated 26-9-02, workman replied that he submitted his pointwise explanation vide his reply dated

18-10-02 and accept all charges, he would also like to mention that all concerned parties are satisfied with him and also

with the Bank. He humbly requests to consider his case sympathetically. Enquiry Proceedings Exhibit M-25 is signed

by Enquiry Officer, Presenting Officer, Defence Representative and CSE Ashok Khare. Enquiry Officer concluded that

since CSE accepted the charges leveled against him, enquiry proceedings concluded. As workman has admitted all

charges, enquiry was concluded.

Learned counsel for Ist party Shri S.Mishra however submits that management was bound to conduct enquiry.

My attention was pointed out to Clause 12(e). Relevant clause is reproduced for clarity purpose-

“An enquiry need not be held

(i)

The Bank has issued a showcause notice to the employee advising him of the misconduct and the

punishment for which he may be liable for such misconduct;

(ii)

The employee makes a voluntary admission of his guilt in reply to the aforesaid showcause notice;

and

(iii)

The misconduct is such that even if proved the Bank doesnot intend to award the punishment of

discharge or dismissal.

Learned counsel Shri S.Mishra emphasized that matter pertaining to dismissal of workman is in violation of

Clause c(iii). Workman has admitted charges against him Exhibit M-25 in my considered view, in light of clause e(ii),

as workman has admitted charges against him in the reply Exhibit M-5, matter is covered under Clause e(ii). As

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3355

charges are admitted, management was not required to conduct further enquiry. The admission of charges by workman

in Exhibit M-5 before Enquiry Officer needs no evidence about the charges against him. In view of Clause 58 of

Evidence Act, the admission of charges is sufficient to prove. For reasons discussed above, I record my finding in Point

No.1 in Affirmative.

Point No.2- Punishment of dismissal was imposed against workman after findings were submitted by Enquiry

Officer prior to the order of reference, Appellate Authority modified punishment of dismissal into compulsory

retirement, question involved for consideration is whether punishment of compulsory retirement imposed against

workman is excessive or disproportionate?

10.

Learned counsel for workman submits that Bank has not suffered any financial loss, negligence in duty not

proved. Chargesheet issued to workman pertains to misappropriation of amount. In Explanation Exhibit M-5, workman

has admitted receipt of amount and for compelling circumstances, amount was returned by him and he had deposited

amount of respective account holders. He received amount of instalments and not depositing in RD Accounts certainly

the Bank is under obligation to pay the interest. When amount of instalments was not received by Bank, despite it was

required to pay the interest, it is clear that Bank had certainly suffered loss. Receiving amount of RD Accounts and

taking entries in pass book without depositing amount shows not only negligence but fraudulent intention on part of

workman. Considering such serious kind of misconduct, charges admitted by workman, punishment modified in appeal

to compulsory retirement cannot be said excessive or disproportionate.

11.

Incidentally I may also refer to ratio relied by learned counsel by 2^nd party Shri A.K.Shashi in-

Case between Vivekanand Sethi versus Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd and others reported in 2005(5)SCC-337.

Their Lordship held when facts are admitted, enquiry would be an empty formality.

In case between South Indian Cashew Factories Workers Union versus Kerala State Cashew Development

Corporation Ltd. And others reported in 2006(5)SCC-201. Their Lordship held if enquiry is fair and proper

then in the absence of any allegations of victimization or unfair labour practice, the Labour Court has no

power to interfere with the punishment imposed. Section 11-A of the ID Act, 1947 gives ample power to the

Labour Court to reappraise the viodence adduced in the enquiry and also sit in appeal over the decision of the

employer in imposing punishment.

In view of ratio held in above cited case and punishment of dismissal was modified by appellate authority to

compulsory retirement, punishment of compulsory retirement imposed against workman calls no interference.

12. Shri A.K.Shashi further relies on ratio held in

Union Bank of India versus Vishwa Mohan reported in 1998-I-LLJ-1217. Their Lordship held in banking

business absolute devotion, diligence and integrity need to be preserved by every bank employee and in

particular by bank officer. If this is not observed, confidence of depositors would be impaired.

The charges alleged against workman pertains to negligence in duties, misappropriating amounts of monthly

instalments. Certainly the Bank would loose confidence in workman. Therefore reinstatement of workman imposing

some other punishment would not be justified.

Shri A.K.Shashi further relies on ratio held in case of P.V.Balkan Nair versus Suptd. Of Post Office reported in 2001-

LAB.I.C.3201, 2006(1)SCC-63, 1996(9)SCC-69 & 1996(3)SCC-364. I find it as not necessary to discuss ratio held in

those cases in view of charges admitted by workman and punishment of dismissal modified to compulsory retirement. I

record my finding in Point No.2 in Affirmative.

13. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1545-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 77@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-07-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@103@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

3356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 21st July, 2016

S.O. 1545.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 77/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21.07.2016.

[No. L-12011/103/2011-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/77/2012

General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karamchari Sangathan,

Central Office, F-1, Karmbhoomi,

Tripti Vihar,

Opp. Engineering College,

Ujjain

…Workman/Union

Versus

The Managing Director,

Bank of India,

Head Office, Star House,

C-5, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,

Bandra (East)

Mumbai

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 7^th day of June, 2016

As per letter dated 26-6-2012 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

12011/103/2011-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether Shri Ashok Kumar Vyas is entitled for payment of bonus for the period from 1-1-2006 to 2-6-2008?

If yes, what relief he is entitled to?”

In present reference, award was passed in favour of workman on 16-6-15. As per order dated 16-3-16,

miscellaneous application 8/2015 for correction of award was allowed.

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

on 16-11-2012. Case of Ist party workman is workman was orally engaged in extension branch in Dewas branch of the

Bank on daily wages Rs. 100/- as peon. Workman was required to work from opening till closing of the Bank. That

wages of the workman were increased from Rs.50 to 100 per day. He was continuously working more than 240 days

from 1-1-2006. When workman claimed appointment on permanent post and payment of bonus, his services were

terminated from 2-6-08. Workman was not served notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. The dispute

about denial of bonus was raised before ALC, the dispute has been referred.

IInd party filed Written Statement on 23-9-13 opposing claim of the workman. IInd party submits that

workman is not member of the Union. Union has no locus standi to raise the dispute. Employer employee relation is

not existing between parties. Workman is no covered under section 2(s) of ID Act. Employment of any person in

industry is variable. The apprentice is not covered as workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act. Branch Managers are

authorized to engage persons as per exigencies. The Branch Manager is not Appointing Authority. The Branch

Manager can engage sub staff temporarily when there is increase in work. In the matter of recruitment, the reserved

policy needs to be followed. The names are required to be called from Employment Exchange after advertising post. It

is further submitted that casual workman are paid wages as per the prevailing rates. It is reiterated that workman is not

covered under Section 25 B of ID Act. It is denied that workman was engaged from 1-1-2006. It is denied that his

services were discontinued without notice.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3357

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether Shri Ashok Kumar Vyas is entitled for

payment of bonus for the period from 1-1-2006 to

2-6-2008?

In Negative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

The terms of reference relates to entitlement of bonus to workman. his claim is denied by IInd party denying

employer employee relationship.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. He has stated that he was working with IInd party in extension

branch at Rewa from 1-1-06 to 2-6-08. He was paid Rs.50/- per day. The representative of workman Shri

R.Nagwanshi submitted workman is not desiring to adduce oral evidence. Secondly workman could not be cross-

examined with remark that his evidence shall not be considered. While passing earlier award, error was committed that

management has failed to cross examine workman and his evidence remained unchallenged. Said error is now

corrected. The evidence of workman could not be accepted as he failed to appear for his cross-examination. As such

there is no evidence to support claim of workman about his working from 1-1-06 to 2-6-08. Therefore claim of

workman for bonus cannot be accepted. The issue is answered in Negative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The workman Shri Ashok Kumar Vyas is not entitled for payment of bonus for the period from 1-1-

2006 to 2-6-2008.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1546-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

LVsV cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 70@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-07-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@90@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2016

S.O. 1546.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 70/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar 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 22.07.2016.

[No. L-12012/90/2008-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present :

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

3358

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 70/2008

Date of Passing Award – 2^nd March, 2016

Between:

The Asst. General Manager,

State Bank of India, Main Branch,

Cuttack

…1^st Party-Management

(And)

Their workman Shri Trilochan Behera,

Qr. No. VR-5/1, Kharvela Nagar,

Unit-3, Bhubaneswar, Odisha

…2^nd Party-Workman

Appearances:

Alok Das, Chief Manager (Law)

…

For the 1^st Party- Management

None

…

For the 2^nd Party- Workman

AWARD

An industrial dispute existing between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India,

and their workman has been referred to this Tribunal by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour exercising

the powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act vide its

letter No. L-12012/90/2008-IR(B-I) dated 10.10.2008.

The matter under dispute has been given under the Schedule of the aforesaid letter which reads as follows:-

‘‘Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Main Branch, Cuttack in terminating the

services of Shri Trilochan Behera w.e.f. 30.9.2004 without complying the provisions of the I.D. Act,

1947, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled?”

In nutshell the case of the 2^nd Party-workman is that he was engaged in the establishment of the 1^st Party-

Management in the 4^th grade cadre temporarily with effect from 27.7.1992 after being succeeded in an interview

conducted by the 1^st Party-Management. He worked as a Messenger on temporary/casual on daily wage basis being

assured of permanent absorption in the office of the 1^st Party-Management. Having worked as such from 27.7.1992 to

30.9.2004 he worked for more than 240 days continuously and uninterruptedly preceding to his alleged termination on

30.9.2004. According to him the termination was in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial

Disputes Act as well as principles of natural justice. Hence he raised a dispute before the Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central) vide his letter dated 29.10.2007 where-upon a conciliation proceeding was initiated. On failure

of conciliation proceedings the present reference has been made to this Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute to the

effect mentioned in supra.

Being noticed the 1^st Party-Management has made its appearance and contested the claim taking a stand that

the 2^nd Party-workman had never worked continuously and uninterruptedly for more than 240 days in any capacity. His

services were utilized on daily wage basis, intermittently at the time of exigencies and he was never assured of

absorption in the grade-IV category of post by the 1^st Party-Management. Further taking into consideration of the

settlement made between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management of State Bank of India an

interview of temporary/daily wager/casual worker engaged in different branches of the 1^st Party-Management was

conducted for making a panel so as to enable the 1^st Party-Management to absorb such above casual/temporary/daily

wagers like the 2^nd Party-workman in the 4^th grade cadre of the 1^st Party-Management. It is its further case that the 2^nd

party-workman could not succeed in the interview and failed to be empanelled. It is also the stand of the 1^st Party-

Management that some un-successful candidates like the 2^nd Party-workman and some wait-listed candidates had

preferred a Writ before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa for their permanent absorption in different establishments of

the 1^st Party-Management. The Hon’ble High Court vide its judgement dated 15.5.1998 in the case of Amhimanyu

Mandal and State Bank of India upheld the action of the Management as proper. Special Leave Petition preferred

against the said order of the Hon’ble High Court was also dismissed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In that view of the

matter the present reference is also not maintainable in the eye of law. Besides it is the specific stand of the 1^st Party-

Management that the 2^nd party-workman was never employed continuously and uninterruptedly for more than 240 days

in a year or in any period. His engagement, if any, was purely on daily and casual basis and it was intermittently and at

the time of exigencies and on need basis in the Branch-Bank. There was no question of disengagement or termination

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3359

of his service with effect from 30.9.2004. The Management has also challenged the maintainability of the reference on

account of dispute being raised after more than five years more particularly after dismissal of the Writ by the Hon’ble

High Court.

It is pertinent to mention here that despite extending several opportunities the 2^nd Party-workman did neither

come forward to adduce any oral evidence or he filed any documents in support of his claim. Rather he kept himself out

of the proceeding after filing his statement of claim and remained unrepresented. As such he was set exparte on

11.9.2012. On the other hand the 1^st Party-Management has examined one Shri Saroj Kanta Choudhury as M.W.-1 and

filed certain documents.

The 2^nd Party-workman having claimed to have worked for a period from 1992 to 2004 i.e. for twelve years, as

per the settled principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surendranagar District Panchayat –

Versus- Dahyabhai Amarsinh reported in AIR 2006 SC 110 and in the case of Mohan Das N. Hegde (Dead) by L.Rs –

Versus- State of Karnataka and Another reported in AIR 2005 SC 2178 the 2^nd Party-workman is required to prove that

he had worked for more than 240 days continuously and uninterruptedly in a period of 12 calendar months preceding to

his alleged termination. Mere assertion or statement in that regard would not sufficient to hold that such burden of

proof has been duly discharged by the 2^nd Party-workman. The 2^nd Party-workman has not filed a single scrap of paper

in respect of his engagement or employment in the 1^st Party-Management while filing his claim statement. The 1^st

Party-Management, on the other hand has adduced oral evidence through M.W.-1 to refute the assertion made by the

2^nd party-workman and he did not work continuously and interruptedly work more than 240 days in a calendar year. As

per M.W.-1 the disputant-workman was only engaged on daily wage basis, casually, in exigencies and on need basis.

His such service or engagement was never continuous and as such there was no question of termination as asserted by

the 2^nd Party-workman. Law is well settled that a temporary or daily wager has no right to claim his reinstatement and

other benefits particularly, when he is not engaged or worked for 240 days continuously during a period of 12 calendar

months preceding to the date of his so called termination. The 2^nd Party-workman having failed to adduce any evidence

or material before this Tribunal to discharge his onus in respect of his engagement this Tribunal is constrained to hold

that the 2^nd Party-workman has not worked for 240 days continuously during the period of 12 calendar months

preceding to his alleged disengagement and accordingly it can be safely held that the 2^nd Party-workman was never

employed or engaged by the 1^st Party-Management either temporarily or casually for more than 240 days during the

period of 12 calendar months. The employment of the 2^nd workman, if any, being in exigency and in need basis for

certain specific period/days which was less than 240 days continuous period and purely on contract basis there is no

question of termination of service of the 2^nd party.

In view of my findings given above the reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B.C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1547-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

LVsV cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 12@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-07-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@63@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2016

S.O. 1547.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar 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 22.07.2016.

[No. L-12012/63/2009-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

3360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present :

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 12/2011

Date of Passing Award – 29^th February, 2016

Between:

The General Manager,

SBI, Palsaguda Branch, Phulbain,

Odisha

…1^st Party-Management.

(And)

Their workman Shri Pravat Kumar Patnaik,

C/o Shri Kailash Chnadra Jena,

Qr. No. VR-5/1, Kharvela Nagar,

Unit-3, Bhubaneswar, Odisha

…2^nd Party-Workman.

Appearances:

Sunil Kr. Khatai, Asst. Manager (Law)

…

For the 1^st Party- Management

None

…

For the 2^nd Party- Workman

AWARD

An industrial dispute existing between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India, and their

workman has been referred to this Tribunal by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour exercising the

powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act vide its

letter No. L-12012/63/2009-IR(B-II) dated 18.02.2011.

The matter under dispute has been given under the Schedule of the aforesaid letter which reads as follows:-

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri

Pravat Kumar Patnaik, Ex-Messenger, SBI, Palasaguda Branch, Phulhani w.e.f. 30.09.2004 without

complying with provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and justified? To what relief the

concerned employee is entitled”

The case of the 2^nd Party-workman as emerges from his statement of claim is that he joined as Messenger in

the State Bank of India, Palasaguda Branch, District-Phulbani on 17.6.1985 on temporary/casual/daily wage basis

having succeeded in an interview conducted by the Branch Manager of the above State Bank of India Branch. He was

given assurance of permanent absorption in the 1^st Party-Management after completion of one year. It is his contention

that though he worked for more than 240 days continuously and uninterruptedly having been employed as a Messenger

in the said Branch from 17.6.1985 till his termination i.e. 30.9.2004, his service was not regularized. Rather the 1^st

party-Management terminated his service without complying the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act and Rules framed therein as well as not resorting to the principles of natural justice. His grievance petition

before the authority of the 1^st party-Management did not yield any result, as a result of which he raised an industrial

dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) vide his letter dated 29.10.2007. The conciliation

proceeding was followed and when the same was failed the present reference has been made. It is his further claim that

being terminated illegally without any reason he is entitled with reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of

service and other service benefits with effect from the date of his termination i.e. 30.9.2004.

Contesting the claim of the 2^nd Party-workman the 1^st Party-Management has filed its written statement taking

a stand that as per the settlement entered by the 1^st Party-Management with the State Bank of India Staff Federation it

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3361

was decided that modalities of drawing names from either panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wager

and casual labourer would be decided administratively on Circle to Circle basis depending upon the local requirements

in consultation with the Federation affiliated by the Circle Management and accordingly panel of temporary employee

and panel of daily wager and casual labourer were prepared and vacancies in the office of the Management were filled

up. The panels prepared by the Bank remained valid up to 31.3.1997. The services of the employees in the panel were

regularized by filling up the vacancies of up to the year 1994. Some of the wait-listed candidates like the 2^nd Party-

workman preferred a writ before the Hon’ble High Court when they were not absorbed and regularized in the service.

The Hon’ble High court vide its judgement dated 15.5.1998 in the case of Abhimanyu Mandal and State Bank of India

upheld the action of the Management as proper though the said judgement was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex

Court vide S.L.P. No. 3038/99. The Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court. It is the

further stand of the 1^st party-Management-Bank that another O.J.C. bearing No. 8948/98 was also initiated for

regularization of services of the wait listed candidates, but the same was dismissed. It is the stand of the 1^st party-

Management that the 2^nd Party-workman was employed purely on temporary and daily wage basis and his employment

was intermittent whenever it was required by the Branch or on the basis of the need of work. According to the 1^st Party-

Management the 2^nd Party-workman had never completed 240 days continuous, uninterrupted engagement in a calendar

year and he was never under employment after 1996. As such there was no question of disengagement or termination of

his service with effect from 30.9.2004. It has also challenged the maintainability of the reference on account of the

dispute being raised after more than five years and the 2^nd Party being not a workman under the 1^st party-Management

as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

It is pertinent to mention here that after filing of written statement by the 1^st Party-Management the 2^nd Party-

workman did not appear and contest the dispute as a result of which the 1^st party-Management had been allowed to

adduce its evidence alone. The 1^st Party-Management has filed sworn affidavit of one Shri Madhaba Chandra Mishra

and certain documents which were accepted by the Tribunal. Such oral and documentary evidence seems to have been

remained uncontroverted on account of the 2^nd party-workman remaining continuous absent in the proceeding before

this Tribunal. The sum and substance of the contents of the above evidence is nothing more or less than the pleadings

advanced by the Management in its written statement. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Surendranagar District Panchayat –Versus- Dahyabhai Amarsinh reported in AIR 2006 SC 110 and in the case of

Mohan Das N. Hegde (Dead) by L.Rs – Versus- State of Karnataka and Another reported in AIR 2005 SC 2178 that the

burden lies on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days continuous and uninterrupted service in a

preceding twelve months prior to his alleged retrenchment in order to obtain any relief under the Industrial Disputes

Act as mandate under Section 25. In the above back-drop of the settled principles it is found that the 2^nd Party-workman

has not come forward to adduce any evidence in support of his claim. On the other hand the evidence of the 1^st Party-

Management remains uncontroverted and the same having supported the pleading of the Management it can be safely

inferred that the workman is no more in service of the 1^st Party-Management after 1994. Having failed to prove that he

had worked continuously 240 days in the preceeding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment i.e. 30.9.2004 the 2^nd

Party-workman is not entitled to any protection and compliance under section 25-F of the Act. As a result the workman

is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.

12.

Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

3362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1548-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bude

VSDl fMikVZesaV ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- lhthvkbZVh 14@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 21&7&2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2016

S.O. 1548.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Reference No. CGIT-14 of 2012) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Mumbai now as shown in Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Income Tax Department and their workmen, which was received by

the Central Government on 21.07.2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR (DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1

MUMBAI

Present

JUSTICE S.P.MEHROTRA

Presiding Officer

APPLICATION CGIT-14 OF 2012

Parties: Imran Abdul Rashid Ansari

…Applicant

Vs.

The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik.

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nashik

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3, Dhule

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1) (Administration), Dhule.

The Income Tax Officer, Ward No.3 (3), Dhule.

Chetan Enterprises, Guruwar Peth, Pune-411042

…Opposite Parties/Respondents

Appearances:

For the Applicant

Mr.V.G.Indrale, Adv.

For the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 5

Mr.Vinod Joshi, Adv.

For the Opposite Party No. 6

None present.

State

Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 26^th day of May, 2016.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3363

AWARD

The present Application purporting to be under Section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, read with

Unfair Labour Practices as per Item 5(a), (b) and Item (10) of the V Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has

been filed by the Applicant, inter-alia, seeking the Reliefs as mentioned in Paragraph 27 of the said Application.

It is, inter-alia, stated in the said Application that the Applicant is working as a Data Entry Operator and

Typist/Computer Operator on daily rated basis in the Office of Income Tax Officer, Ward No.3 (3), Dhule; and that the

Applicant was initially receiving daily wages @ Rs.88/- per day; and that the daily wages were revised from time to

time; and that the Applicant continuously worked since 21.6.2004 till December, 2007; and that the Respondents

started showing technical breaks in the services of the Applicant only on record with a view to denying the benefits of

permanency; and that as a matter of fact, the Applicant worked even during the period of break in service and received

wages during such period, however, in somebody else’s name; and that the Applicant put in more than 240 days of

service in each year ever since 2004; and that the Applicant should have been absorbed against permanent sanctioned

post of Peon/Watchman/Sweeper/Record Keeper as the case may be; and that the Respondents indulged into Unfair

Labour Practices in its Establishment in relation to the matters enumerated in Item 5(a), (b) and Item 10 of Schedule V

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and that the service conditions of the Applicant are transferred from the Income

Tax Department to the private contractor namely; Chetan Enterprises, Pune for awarding contract for Unskilled Labour

for one year with the approval of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Nasik in total disregard to the provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and that the Respondents are handing over the Applicant and all other workmen working

as casuals or temporaries to a private Contractor; and that since the Applicant is a direct employee of the principal

employer, he has been receiving salary from the principal employer since beginning and, therefore, his services cannot

be entrusted to a private Contractor; and that the Respondents terminated the services of the Applicant in the evening

on 2.2.2012.

On the basis of the averments made in the said Application, the Applicant has sought various Reliefs as

mentioned in paragraph 27 of the said Application including the relief for directing the Respondents to reinstate the

Applicant with payment of full back wages, and to make the Applicant permanent as Peon/Watchman/Sweeper/Record

Keeper and confer all the benefits of permanency.

By the Order dated 4.4.2012, this Tribunal directed for issuance of Notice to the Opposite

Parties/Respondents to file Written Statement fixing 25.5.2012.

As noted in the Order dated 25.5.2012, Notices issued to the Opposite Parties/Respondents No.1 to 6 were

duly served.

Mrs.P.S.Shetty, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the Opposite Parties/Respondents No. 1 to 5.

However, despite service of notice, none was present for the Opposite Party/Respondent No.6 on the said date i.e.

25.5.2012.

On 2.8.2012, as noted in the Order passed on the said date, Written Statement was filed on behalf of the

Opposite Parties /Respondents No.1 to 5.

On 31.8.2012, as noted in the Order passed on the said date, appearance was put in on behalf of the Opposite

Party/Respondent No.6, and prayer was made for time for filing Written Statement. Time was accordingly granted to

the Opposite Party/Respondent No. 6 for filing Written Statement.

On 13.9.2012, as noted in the Order passed on the said date, Written Statement was filed on behalf of the

Opposite Party/Respondent No.6 also. It may be noted that after filing Written Statement on 13.9.2012, none has been

appearing on behalf of the Respondent/Opposite Party No.6, as is evident from the perusal of the order-sheet of the

case.

In the Written Statement dated 2.8.2012, filed on behalf of the Opposite Parties /Respondents No. 1 to 5,

certain Preliminary Objections have been raised in paragraph 1 of the Written Statement. It is, inter-alia, stated in

paragraph 1 of the Written Statement that the Preliminary Objections go to the root of the matter affecting the very

maintainability of the aforesaid Application and the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to entertain, hear and decide this

matter. It is, inter-alia further stated in paragraph 1 of the Written Statement filed on behalf of the Opposite

Parties/Respondents No. 1 to 5 (hereinafter also referred to as “the Answering Opposite Parties/ Respondents”) that the

Answering Opposite Parties/Respondents do not come within the ambit and scope of the definition of “industry” under

the provisions of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence the provisions of the said Act are not

applicable to the facts in issue; and that the Answering Opposite Parties/Respondents in the instant matter is the

Income-Tax Department and its Officers working under the Ministry of Finance, Government of India who are

performing sovereign functions of the Government of India in collecting the revenue in the form of direct taxes and

other incidental work related there-to. It is, inter-alia, further stated in paragraph 1 of the Written Statement filed on

behalf of the Answering Opposite Parties/Respondents that the Answering Opposite Parties/Respondents are not

“employer” within the meaning of the definition of “employer” under the provisions of Section 2(g) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 and hence there is no Employer-Employee relationship between the Applicant and the Answering

Opposite Parties/Respondents.

3364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

It is, inter-alia, further stated in paragraph 1 of the Written Statement filed on behalf of the Answering

Opposite Parties/ Respondents that the Application filed by the Applicant under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 is not maintainable as the Applicant is not “workman” in terms of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. It is, inter-alia, further stated in paragraph 1 of the Written Statement filed on behalf of the Answering Opposite

Parties/Respondents that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain, hear and decide the Application filed by the

Applicant as the Answering Opposite Parties/ Respondents perform Sovereign Functions of the State; and that the

activities performed by the Answering Opposite Parties/ Respondents do not come within the definition of “industry” in

terms of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and that the Application of the Applicant is not

maintainable, and the prayers sought by the Applicant cannot be invoked under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

11.

Besides raising Preliminary Objections in paragraph 1 of the Written Statement, the Answering Opposite

Parties/Respondents have, inter-alia, further stated in subsequent paragraphs of the Written Statement that the

Applicant was earlier working as a casual labour and he was paid as per the statutory norms applicable; and that the

said payments were made by the Answering Opposite Parties/Respondents and also revised by the Department in

terms of the guidelines issued by the Central Government; and that later the Applicant was intermittently doing the

work of Data Entry of Income Tax Returns in the Computer system when his services were required by the

Department; and that the Applicant was being paid based on the number of Returns whose data was entered into the

computer by him at prescribed rates; and that the Applicant was performing duties of a casual nature and the decision

of the Supreme Court in respect of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi and others decided on 10.4.2006 is not applicable

to a casual worker like the Applicant; and that the Applicant was never appointed to a permanent sanctioned post and

appointment to such permanent posts is only on the basis of recruitment in terms of the policy guidelines issued in this

regard by the Central Government from time to time. It is, inter-alia, further stated in the Written Statement that the

Applicant’s services were required only intermittently and hence he could not have been absorbed against permanent

sanctioned post of Peon/Watchman/Sweeper/Record Keeper; and that the Department of the Answering Opposite

Parties /Respondents has its own Rules and Regulations and cannot recruit or fill the vacant posts unless required and

without due procedure of law. It is, inter-alia, further stated in the Written Statement that as the Applicant was not

inducted in the regular post, he cannot claim and is not entitled for regularization of his services. It is, inter-alia, further

stated in the Written Statement that the Contractor has been appointed for unskilled labour whereas the Applicant is

doing a different work which is Data Entry of Returns. It is, inter-alia, further stated in the Written Statement that the

Applicant is not entitled to any of the Reliefs prayed for in Paragraph 27 of the aforesaid Application.

12.

In the Written Statement dated 13.9.2012, filed on behalf of the Opposite Party/Respondent No. 6, it is, inter-

alia, stated that the Opposite Party /Respondent No. 6 is a Proprietorship Concern providing Services of Contract

Labour to various Government Organizations; and that the Opposite Party /Respondent No. 6 was awarded the Labour

Contract and in terms of the said Contract an Agreement was made and signed at Nasik on 1.12.2011 between the

Opposite Party/Respondent No. 6 and the Commissioner of Income Tax – 1, Nasik for providing contract labour for

House-Keeping, cleaning, sweeping, dusting, etc., for the Offices and buildings of the Income Tax Department at

Nasik, Malegaon, and Dhule; and that the Agreement is effective from 1^st December 2011 to 30.11.2012.

ISSUES:

13.

On the basis of the Pleadings exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for

the parties, following Issues were framed on 22.11.2012:

(1)

Whether this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain and decide this application?

(2)

Whether the Opposite Party has committed unfair labour practice under Item 5(a), 5(b)

and Item 10 of the Schedule V of the Industrial Disputes Act?

(3)

Whether the applicant is entitled to be made permanent as Peon/Watchman/Sweeper/

Record Keeper and is entitled to all the benefits including the arrears of pay?

(4)

Relief?

14.

The Order dated 22.11.2012, passed on the Order-sheet, is reproduced below:

“Mr.V.G.Indrale, Adv. present on behalf of the applicant.

Mrs.P.S.Shetty, Adv. present on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 to 5 .

None present on behalf of the opposite party no.6

Learned counsel for the opposite party has filed reply of the applicant regarding production of

documents.

With the consent of learned counsels of the parties Issues framed.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3365

It is agreed that Issue No. 1 is preliminary in nature and it is purely legal and therefore, it has to be

decided first.

Put up for arguments on Issue No.1 on 6.12.2012.”

15.

In view of the above-quoted Order, Issue No. 1 is to be decided as Preliminary Issue first.

Accordingly, this Tribunal is proceeding to consider Issue no.1 namely;

Whether this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain and decide this application?

16.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

FINDINGS:

ISSUE NO. 1:

As noted above, Issue No.1 is as to whether this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction

to entertain and decide the aforesaid Application filed on behalf of the Applicant.

17.

In order to appreciate the above Issue, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act

1947.

18.

Preamble to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, inter-alia, states: “An Act to make provision for the

Investigation and Settlement of Industrial Disputes, and for certain other purposes”.

19.

Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, inter-alia, provides that where the Appropriate

Government is of opinion that any Industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing

refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute to a Labour Court or to a

Tribunal for adjudication as per the provisions contained in the said sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

20.

Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is relevant in the present case, is reproduced below:

“2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.- (1)

Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the

services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his

employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination

shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union

of workmen is a party to the dispute.

(2)

Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10, any such workman as is specified in

sub-section (1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication

of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the

application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the

dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and

jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate

Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall

apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it

by the appropriate Government.

(3)

The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or

Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or

otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-section (1).”

21.

A perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shows that where any employer

discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or

difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge , dismissal,

retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an Industrial Dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor

any Union of Workmen is a party to the dispute.

22.

Sub-section (2) of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 lays down that notwithstanding anything

contained in Section 10, any such workman as is specified in sub-section (1) may, make an application direct to the

Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of 45 days from the date he

has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the Appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute.

Sub-section (2) of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 further provides that on receipt of such application,

the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute

referred to it by the Appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

and all the provisions of the said Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an

Industrial Dispute referred to it by the Appropriate Government.

3366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

23.

From a combined reading of Section 10 and Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is evident that

both the said Sections contemplate adjudication of an “Industrial Dispute”. It is, therefore, relevant to refer to the

definition of “Industrial Dispute” as contained in Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is as under:

“2(k) industrial dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or

between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the

employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of

any person;”

24.

The word “employer” occurring in Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is defined in Section 2(g)

of the said Act as follows:

“2 (g) “ employer” means-

(i)

in relation to any industry carried on by or under the authority of any department of [the

Central government or a State Government,] the authority prescribed in this behalf, or where no

authority is prescribed, the head of the department;

(ii)

in relation to an industry carried on by or on behalf of a local authority, the chief

executive officer of that authority;”

25.

The word “Workman” occurring in Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is defined in Section 2(s) of

the said Act as under:

“2(s) “workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any

manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,

whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding

under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been

dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or

whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such

person-

(i)

who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950),

or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii)

who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or

(iii)

who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or

(iv)

who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten thousand

rupees] per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by

reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.”

26.

From a combined reading of Section 2(k), Section 2(g) and Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it

is evident that the word “employer” and the word “workman” are to be understood in the context of “industry”. In other

words, “industrial dispute” is basically dispute between an “employer “ in relation to an industry and the “workman”

working in such industry.

27.

The word ‘industry’ is defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as under:

“2(j)

“industry” means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers

and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of

workmen;”

28.

Hence, it is evident that the dispute in order to be the subject-matter of Section 10 or Section 2-A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as an “industrial dispute” must be a dispute in regard to an “industry” as defined in

Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

29.

Coming now to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, Mr.Vinod Joshi, learned counsel

for the Answering Opposite Parties /Respondents submits that the Income Tax Department represented by the

Answering Opposite Parties/Respondents does not fall within the ambit and scope of the definition of “industry” under

the provisions of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that the Income Tax Department and

its Officers working under the Ministry of Finance, Government of India are performing sovereign functions of the

Government of India in collecting the Revenue in the form of Direct Taxes and other incidental work related thereto

and, therefore, the Income Tax Department is not covered within the ambit and scope of the definition of “industry”

under the provisions of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that any alleged dispute

between the employer and the workman would be “industrial dispute” only when it pertains to “industry” as defined

under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and as the Income Tax Department does not fall within the

ambit and scope of the word “industry” under the provisions of 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the dispute

raised by the Applicant in the aforesaid Application is not covered within the ambit and scope of “industrial dispute” as

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3367

defined in Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Neither Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 could be made by the Appropriate Government in respect of the said dispute nor could the

aforesaid Application under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 be filed by the Applicant in regard to

such dispute. The aforesaid Application, the submission proceeds, is therefore, not maintainable, and the same is

liable to be dismissed as such.

30.

Mr.Vinod Joshi, learned counsel for the Answering Opposite Parties/Respondents has placed reliance on a

decision of a Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Forest Producers, Gatherers and Forest Workers, UNI

vs State of Gujarat, 2004-III LLJ 259(Guj).

31.

In reply, Mr.V.G.Indrale, learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Income Tax Department falls

within the ambit of the word “industry” as defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted

that functions discharged by the Income Tax Department cannot be categorized as sovereign functions and, therefore ,

the Income Tax Department cannot be excluded from the purview of the word “industry” as defined in Section 2(j) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

32.

Mr.V.G.Indrale, learned counsel for the Applicant has placed reliance on the following decisions:

(i)

Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A.Rajappa, AIR 1978 Supreme Court

548.

(ii)

Des Raj vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 1988 SC 1182.

(iii)

State of Gujarat vs. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar, 2001(9) SCC 713.

(iv)

Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs. Ashok Harikuni, 2000(8)SCC 61: AIR 2000

SC 3116.

(v)

Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. R.Suresh, 2008(11) SCC 319: AIR 2008 (supp)

1887.

(vi)

Asha Ram vs. Divisional Engineer, Telecom Department, 2001(9) SCC 382.

(vii)

All India Radio vs. Santosh Kumar and Another, 1998 I CLR 684(SC).

33.

In order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is pertinent to refer to

various decisions including those relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties.

34.

In the State of Bombay & Others vs. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and Others, AIR 1960 Supreme Court 610,

their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the question as to whether J.J. Group of Hospitals run by the State of

Bombay (Appellant) constituted an “industry” within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Their Lordships held in the affirmative and concluded that the conduct and running of the group of Hospitals by the

State of Bombay amounted to an Undertaking under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the relevant

provisions of the said Act were applicable. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under:

“16.In considering the question as to whether the group of Hospitals run by the appellant undoubtedly

for the purpose of giving medical relief to the citizens and for helping to impart medical education are

an undertaking or not, it would be pertinent to enquire whether an activity of a like nature would be an

undertaking if it is carried on by a private citizen or a group of private citizens. There is no doubt that if

a hospital is run by private citizens for profit it would be an undertaking very much like the trade or

business in their conventional sense. We have already stated that the presence of profit motive is not

essential for bringing an undertaking within S. 2(j). If that be so, if a private citizen runs a hospital

without charging any fees from the patients treated in it, it would nevertheless be an undertaking under

S.2(j). Thus the character of the activity involved in running a hospital brings the institution of the

hospital within S.2(j). Does it make any difference that the hospital is run by the Government in the

interpretation of the word “undertaking” in S.2(j)? In our opinion, the answer to this question must be

in the negative. It is the character of the activity which decides the question as to whether the activity in

question attracts the provision of S.2(j), who conducts the activity and whether it is conducted for profit

or not do not make a material difference.”

“17.We have yet to decide which are the attributes the presence of which makes an activity an

undertaking within S.2(j), on the ground that it is analogous to trade or business. It is difficult to state

these possible attributes definitely or exhaustively; as a working principle it may be stated that an

activity systematically or habitually undertaken for the production or distribution of goods or for the

rendering of material services to the community at large or a part of such community with the help of

employees is an undertaking. Such an activity generally involves the co-operation of the employer and

the employees; and its object is the satisfaction of material human needs. It must be organized or

arranged in a manner in which trade or business is generally organized or arranged. It must be casual

nor must it be for oneself nor for the pleasure. Thus the manner in which the activity in question is

3368

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

organized or arranged, the condition of the co-operation between employer and the employee necessary

for its success and its object to render material service to the community can be regarded as some of the

features which are distinctive of activities to which S.2(j) applies. Judged by this test there would be

no difficulty in holding that the State is carrying on an undertaking when it runs the group of Hospitals

in question.”

“14.It would be possible to exclude some activities from S.2(j) without any difficulty. Negatively stated

the activities of the Government which can be properly described as regal or sovereign activities are

outside the scope of S.2(j). These are functions which a constitutional Government can and must

undertake for governance and which no private citizen can undertake. This position is not in dispute.

An attempt is however made by the appellant to suggest that in view of the Directive Principles

enunciated in Part IV of the Constitution and in view of the ideal of a welfare State which has been

placed before the country, Governments, both at the level of the States as well as at the Centre,

undertake several welfare activities; and the argument is that the field of governmental or regal

activities which are excluded from the operation of S.2(j) should be extended to cover other activities

undertaken by the Governments in pursuit of their welfare policies. In our opinion, this contention

cannot be accepted. The activities which do not fall within S.2(j) and which are described as

governmental or regal or sovereign have been pithily described by Lord Watson as “the primary and

inalienable functions of a constitutional Government” [Vide: Coomber v. Justices of Berks, (1883) 9 AC

61); and it is only these activities that are outside the scope of S.2(j). It sounds incongruous and self-

contradictory to suggest that activities undertaken by the Government in the interests of socio-economic

progress of the country as beneficial measures should be exempted from the operation of the Act which

in substance is a very important beneficial measure itself.”

35.

This decision thus lays down that it is the character of the activity which decides the question as to whether the

activity in question attracts the provision of Section 2(j), who conducts the activity and whether it is conducted for

profit or not do not make a material difference. It has also been laid down that if an activity of a like nature would be

an Undertaking under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 if it is carried on by a private citizen or a group

of private citizens, then such an activity, if it is carried on by the Government, would also fall within the purview of

the word “Undertaking” in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been laid down that some

activities are excluded from the purview of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The activities of the

Government which can be properly described as Regal or Sovereign activities are outside the scope of Section 2(j) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. These are functions which a constitutional Government can and must undertake for

governance and which no private citizen can undertake.

36.

In The City of Nagpur Corporation vs Its Employees, AIR 1960 SC 675, their Lordships of the Supreme

Court considered the question as to whether and to what extent the activities of the Corporation of the City of Nagpur

came under the definition of “industry” in Section 2(14) of the C.P.& Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947.

Their Lordships noted that the Corporation of the City of Nagpur was constituted under the City of Nagar Corporation

Act, 1948 (Madhya Pradesh Act No.2 of 1950). Disputes arose between the Corporation and the employees in various

departments of the Corporation in respect of Wage Scales, Gratuity, Provident Fund, House Rent, Confirmation,

Allowances etc. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down as under:-

“11.

………..A corporation may, therefore, discharge a dual function” it may be statutorily

entrusted with regal functions strictly so-called, such as making of laws, disposal of certain cases

judicially etc., and also with other welfare activities. The former, being delegated regal functions,

must be excluded from the ambit of the definition of “industry”.

“15.

………Barring the regal functions of a municipality, if such other activities of it, if

undertaken by an individual, would be industry, then they would equally be industry in the hands of a

municipality. It would be unrealistic to draw a line between a department doing a service and a

department controlling or feeding it. Supervision and actual performance of service are integral part

of the same activity. In other words, whether these three functions are carried out by one department

or divided between three departments, the entire organizational activity would be an

industry………...”.

“17.

The result of the discussion may be summarized thus :(1) The definition of “industry” in the

Act is very comprehensive. It is in two parts: one part defines it from the standpoint of the employer

and the other from the standpoint of the employee. If an activity falls under either part of the

definition it will be an industry within the meaning of the Act. (2) The history of industrial disputes

and the legislation recognizes the basic concept that the activity shall be an organized one and not

that which pertains to private or personal employment. (3) The regal functions described as primary

and inalienable functions of State though statutorily delegated to a corporation are necessarily

excluded from the purview of the definition. Such regal functions shall be confined to legislative

power, administration of law and judicial power. (4) If a service rendered by an individual or a

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3369

private person would be an industry, it would equally be an industry in the hands of a corporation.

(5) If a service rendered by a corporation is an industry, the employees in the departments connected

with that service, whether financial, administrative or executive, would be entitled to the benefits of

the Act. (6) If a department of a municipality discharges many functions, some pertaining to industry

as defined in the Act and other non-industrial activities, the predominant functions of the department

shall be the criterion for the purposes of the Act”.

37.

Keeping in view the above principles, their Lordships examined the question as to which of the departments of

the Corporation would fall within the ambit of the word “industry” as defined in the aforesaid Act (paragraph 20 of the

said AIR). Thus for example examining the question in regard to Fire Brigade Department, Item No. (iii), their

Lordships observed as under:

“ Ex N. A. 22 gives the duties of the driver-cum-fitter of the Fire Brigade Department. This exhibit

indicates that the function of this department is to attend to fire calls. Witness No.3 for Party No. 1

says that it is the duty of the fire brigade to supply water at marriage functions and other public

functions. The fire brigade employees are not paid any extra amount for supplying water at public or

private functions. Though the department renders some extra services, the main function of the

department is to attend to “fire calls”. Private bodies also can undertake this service…………..These

services also satisfy all the tests laid down by us and therefore we hold that this department is also an

industry”

38.

Similarly, examining the question with regard to Health Department, Item No. (ix), their Lordships of the

Supreme Court observed as under:

“This Department looks after scavenging, sanitation, control of epidemics, control of food

adulteration and running of public dispensaries. Private institutions can also render these services.

It is said that the control of food adulteration and the control of epidemics cannot be done by private

individuals and institutions. We do not see why. There can be private medical units to help in the

control of food adulteration and in the control of epidemics for remuneration. Individuals may get

the food articles purchased by them examined by the medical unit and take necessary action against

guilty merchants. So too, they can take advantage of such a unit to prevent epidemics by having

necessary inoculations and advice. This department also satisfies the other tests laid down by us,

and is an industry within the meaning of the definition of “industry” in the Act.”.

39.

Again examining the question in regard to Public Gardens Department, Item No. (xi), their Lordships of the

Supreme Court observed as under:

“The functions of this department are the maintenance of public parks and gardens and laying of new

gardens and parks; and planting of trees on road sides. (See the evidence of Witness No. 5 for Party

No.1). This service is covered by the definition of “industry”. Any private individual can certainly

perform the functions stated above and the fact that the municipality has undertaken those duties

does not affect the nature of the service. This also satisfies the tests laid down by us. We, therefore,

hold that this Department is an industry”.

40.

Similarly, examining the question with regard to Public Works Department, Item No. (xii), their Lordships of

the Supreme Court opined as under:

“This department is in-charge of construction and maintenance of public works such as roads,

drains, building, markets, public latrines etc. For the convenience of the public, this department is

divided into zones and every zone has its office. The outdoor staff in the P.W.D. consists of assistant

engineer, overseers, sub-overseers, time-keepers, mates, carpenters, masons, blacksmiths and

coolies. The other staff, consisting of clerks and peons, performs indoor duties. (See the evidence of

Witness No. 5 for Party No.1). This department performs both administrative and executive

functions. The services rendered are such that they can equally be done by private individuals and

they come under the definition of “industry”, satisfying both the positive and negative tests laid

down by us in this regard. We, therefore, hold that this department is an industry”.

41.

Again, examining the question with regard to Education Department, Item No. (XV), their Lordships of the

Supreme Court held as follows:

“This department looks after the primary education, i.e., compulsory primary education within the

limits of the Corporation. (See the evidence of Witness No. 1 for Party No.1). This service can

equally be done by private persons. This department satisfies the other tests. The employees of this

department coming under the definition of “employees” under the Act would certainly be entitled to

the benefits of the Act.”

3370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

42.

The above decision thus lays down that the Regal Functions described as primary and inalienable functions of

State though statutorily delegated to a Corporation are necessarily excluded from the purview of the definition of

“industry”. It further follows from the decision that in case the functions performed by a Department of the

Corporation are such which can equally be performed by any private individual then such functions would not fall

within the ambit of Regal Functions so as to be excluded from the purview of the definition of the word “industry”. It

is further laid down that if a service rendered by an individual or a private person would be an industry, it would

equally be an industry in the hands of a Corporation. It has also been laid down that if a Department of a Municipality

discharges many functions, some pertaining to industry as defined in the aforesaid Act, and other non-industrial

activities, the pre-dominant functions of the Department shall be the criterion for the purposes of the said Act in order

to determine whether such Department falls within the purview of industry or not.

43.

In Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A.Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548, relied upon by Mr. V.G.

Indrale, learned counsel for the Applicant, their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered various decisions including

the decisions in the State of Bombay and Others vs. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and Others, AIR 1960 SC 610

(supra) and The City of Nagpur Corporation vs. Its Employees, AIR 1960 SC 675 (supra), and laid down the

following principles for determining the identity of “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:

“161. ‘Industry’ , as defined in S. 2 (j) and explained in Banerji (AIR 1953 SC 58) has a wide import.

(a)

Where (i) systematic activity, (ii) organized by co-operation between employer and

employee (the direct and substantial element is chimerical) (iii) for the production and/or distribution

of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but

inclusive of material things or services geared to celestial bliss i.e. making on a large scale Prasad

or food) prima facie, there is an industry’ in that enterprise.

(b)

Absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint,

private or other sector.

(c)

The true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the activity with special

emphasis on the employer-employee relations.

(d)

If the Organization is a trade or business, it does not cease to be one because of

philanthrophy animating the undertaking.

II.

Although Section 2(j) uses words of the widest amplitude in its two limbs, their meaning

cannot be magnified to overreach itself.

(a) ‘Undertaking’ must suffer a contextual and associational shrinkage as explained in Banerji and

in this judgment; so also, service, calling and the like. This yields the inference that all organized

activity possessing the triple elements in I (supra), although not trade or business, may still be

‘industry’ provided the nature of the activity, viz, the employer-employee basis, bears resemblance to

what we find in trade or business. This takes into the fold ‘industry’ undertakings, callings and

services, adventures ‘analogous to the carrying on of trade or business.’ All features, other than the

methodology of carrying on the activity viz. in organizing the co-operation between employer-

employee, may be dissimilar. It does not matter, if on the employment terms there is analogy.

III.

Application of these guidelines should not stop short of their logical reach by invocation of

creeds, cults or inner sense of incongruity or outer sense of motivation for or resultant of the

economic operations. The ideology of the Act being industrial peace, regulation and resolution of

industrial disputes between employer and workmen, the range of this statutory ideology must inform

the reach of the statutory definition. Nothing less, nothing more.

(a) The consequences are (i) professions, (ii) Clubs (iii) educational institutions (iv) co-operatives,

(v) research institutes (vi) charitable projects and (vii) other kindred adventures, if they fulfil the

triple tests listed in I (supra), cannot be exempted from the scope of Section 2(j).

(b) A restricted category of professions, clubs, co-operatives and even gurukulas and little research

labs, may qualify for exemption if, in simple ventures, substantially and, going by the dominant

nature criterion, substantively, no employees are entertained but in minimal matters, marginal

employees are hired without destroying the non-employee character of the unit.

(c) If, in a pious or altruistic mission many employ themselves, free or for small honoraria or like

return, mainly drawn by sharing in the purpose or cause, such as lawyers volunteering to run a

free legal services clinic or doctors serving in their spare hours in a free medical centre or

ashramites working at the bidding of the holiness, divinity or like central personality, and the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3371

services are supplied free or at nominal cost and those who serve are not engaged for

remuneration or on the basis of master and servant relationship, then, the institution is not an

industry even if stray servants, manual or technical, are hired. Such eleemosynary or like

undertakings alone are exempt – not other generosity, compassion, developmental passion or

project.

IV. The dominant nature test:

(a) Where a complex of activities, some of which qualify for exemption, others not, involves

employees on the total undertaking, some of whom are not ‘workmen’ as in the University of

Delhi case (AIR 1963 SC 1873) or some departments are not productive of goods and services if

isolated, even then, the predominant nature of the services and the integrated nature of the

departments as explained in the Corporation of Nagpur (AIR 1960 SC 675) will be the true test.

The whole undertaking will be ‘industry’ although those who are not ‘workmen’ by definition may

not benefit by the status.

(b) Notwithstanding the previous clauses, sovereign functions, strictly understood, (alone) qualify for

exemption, not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by government or

statutory bodies.

(c) Even in departments discharging sovereign functions, if there are units which are industries and

they are substantially severable, then they can be considered to come within S.2(j).

(d) Constitutional and competently enacted legislative provisions may well remove from the scope of

the Act categories which otherwise may be covered thereby.

V. We overrule Safdarjung (AIR 1970 SC 1407), Solicitors’ case (AIR 1962 SC 1080), Gymkhana

(AIR 1968 SC 554), Delhi University (AIR 1963 SC 1873), Dhanrajgirji Hospital (AIR 1975 SC

2032) and other rulings whose ratio runs counter to the principles enunciated above, and Hospital

Mazdoor Sabha (AIR 1960 SC 610) is hereby rehabilitated.”

44.

Thus this decision lays down that where (i) systematic activity, (ii) organized by cooperation between

employer and employee (the direct and substantial element is chimerical), (iii) for the production and/or distribution of

goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but inclusive of material

things or services geared to celestial bliss i.e. making on a large scale Prasad or food) prima facie, there is an ‘industry’

in that enterprise. It has further been laid down that the true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the

activity with special emphasis on the employer-employee relations. It has also been laid down that sovereign functions,

strictly understood, qualify for exemption from the purview of “industry” but not the welfare activities or economic

adventures undertaken by Government or statutory bodies. It has further been laid down that even in departments

discharging sovereign functions, if there are units which are industries and they are substantially severable, then they

can be considered to come within Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been laid down that

where a complex of activities, some of which qualify for exemption, others not, involves employees on the total

undertaking, then the pre-dominant nature of the services and the integrated nature of the departments as explained in

the Corporation of Nagpur case (AIR 1960 SC 675) (supra) will be the true test.

45.

In Des Raj vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 1988 SC 1182, relied upon by Mr.V.G.Indrale, learned

counsel for the Applicant, the question before their Lordships of the Supreme Court was as to whether the Irrigation

Department of the State Government of Punjab was an “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to various decisions including the decision in Bangalore Water

Supply and Sewerage Board v. A.Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548, and examined the question as to whether the functions of

the Irrigation Department were essentially Government functions so as to exclude it from the purview of “industry” as

defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Applying the Dominant Nature Test as laid down in

Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A.Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548, their Lordships concluded that the

Irrigation Department was covered within the definition of “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Their

Lordships held as under:

“The Administrative Report of the facts found by the High Court in the instant case have attempted to

draw out certain special features. The legal position has been indicated in the earlier part of our

judgment. On the tests, as already laid down in the judgments, we do not think these facts found in

this case can take out the Irrigation Department outside the purview of the definition of “industry”.

We have already referred to the Dominant Nature test evolved by Krishna Iyer J. The main functions

of the Irrigation Department when subjected to the Dominant Nature test clearly come within the

ambit of industry”.

3372

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

46.

It will thus be noticed that the decision in Desi Raj case (supra) accepted the proposition that the sovereign

functions undertaken by Government or Statutory bodies are excluded from the purview of the definition of ‘industry’.

Hence, the Departments discharging sovereign functions are not covered within the purview of “industry” under

Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, having regard to the functions of the Irrigation Department,

their Lordships of the Supreme Court relied upon the Dominant Nature Test as laid down in Bangalore Water Supply

and Sewerage Board v. A.Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548 (supra), and concluded that applying the said test , the main

functions of Irrigation Department come within the ambit of “industry” and, therefore, the Irrigation Department was

covered within the definition of “industry” as contained in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

47.

In State of Gujarat vs. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar, 2001 (9) SCC 713 relied upon by Mr.V.G.Indrale,

learned counsel for the Applicant, their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the question whether the Forest

Department in the State of Gujarat could be held to be an “industry” within the meaning of the said expression under

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 so that the Order of termination without complying with the provisions of Section

25-F of the said Act would get vitiated. Learned Single Judge followed the decision of the Supreme Court in

Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548 and held that the impugned Order of

termination was vitiated for non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Division Bench

of the High Court relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests and

Another vs. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare and Others, JT 1995 (9) SC 467, concluded that the work undertaken by the

Forest Department could not be regarded as part and parcel of the Sovereign functions of the State and, therefore, the

Order of termination of the concerned employee was liable to be set aside for non-compliance of Section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal filed by the State of Gujarat

and set-aside the Judgements of the High Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under:

“ 5. If a dispute arises as to whether a particular establishment or part of it wherein an appointment

has been made is an industry or not, it would be for the person concerned who claims the same to be

an industry, to give positive facts for coming to the conclusion that it constitutes “an industry”.

Ordinarily, a Department of the Government cannot be held to be an industry and rather it is a part

of the sovereign function. To find out whether the respondent in the writ petition had made any

assertion that with regard to the duty which he was discharging and with regard to the activities of

the organization where he had been recruited, we find that there has not been an iota of assertion to

that effect though, no doubt, it has been contended that the order of dismissal is vitiated for non-

compliance of Section 25-F of the Act. The State in its counter affidavit, on the other hand, refuted

the assertion of the respondent in the writ petition and took the positive stand that the Forest

Department cannot be held to be an industry so that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act cannot

have any application. In the absence of any assertion by the petitioner in the writ petition indicating

the nature of duty discharged by the petitioner as well as the job of the establishment where he had

been recruited, the High Court wholly erred in law in applying the principles enunciated in the

judgment of this Court in Jagannath Maruti Kondhare (supra) to hold that the Forest Department

could be held to be “an industry”.

“6. The learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have failed to carefully

examine the ratio of this Court’s judgment in the Jagannath Maruti Kondhare’s case (supra),

inasmuch as in para 15 of the said judgment, the Court has quoted the assertions made in the

affidavit of the Chief Conservator of Forests and then in para 17, the Court held that the scheme

undertaken cannot be regarded as a part of the sovereign function of the State. We are afraid that

the aforesaid decision cannot have any application to the facts of the present case where there has

not been any assertion of fact by the petitioner in establishing that the establishment to which he had

been appointed is “an industry”. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation to come to the

conclusion that the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench committed serious error of

law in holding that to the appointment in question, the provisions of the Act apply. We would

accordingly set aside the judgment of the Division Bench as well as that of the learned single Judge

and hold that the writ petition would stand dismissed.”

This decision thus lays down that ordinarily, a Department of the Government cannot be

held to be an “industry” and rather it is a part of the Sovereign function. It would be for the person

concerned who claims the same to be an “industry”, to give positive facts for coming to the

conclusion that it constitutes an “industry”. Their Lordships have emphasized that in the absence of

requisite pleadings the decision in Chief Conservator of Forests and Another vs. Jagannath Maruti

Kondhare and Others, (supra) cannot have any application to the facts of the case under

consideration before their Lordships. It will thus be noticed that this decision has reiterated the

proposition that the Department of the Government exercising sovereign functions cannot be treated

to be an “industry”

48.

In Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs. Ashok Harikuni, 2000(8) SCC 61: AIR 2000 SC 3116,

relied upon by Mr.V.G.Indrale, learned counsel for the Applicant, their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3373

question as to whether an Agricultural Produce Market Committee (Appellant before the Supreme Court), established

under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 was an “industry” as contemplated under

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court concluded that the Agricultural Produce

Market Committee including its functionaries could not be said to be performing functions which were sovereign in

character, and most of its functions could be undertaken even by private persons, and therefore, the Agricultural

Produce Market Committee would fall within the definition of “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947.

Their Lordships held as under:

“32. SO, sovereign function in the new sense may have very wide ramification but

essentially sovereign functions are primary inalienable functions which only State could exercise.

Thus, various functions of the State, may be ramifications of ‘sovereignty’ but they all cannot be

construed as primary inalienable functions. Broadly it is taxation, eminent domain and police power

which covers its field. It may cover its legislative functions, administration of law, eminent domain,

maintenance of law and order, internal and external security, grant of pardon. So, the dichotomy

between sovereign and non-sovereign function could be found by finding which of the functions of the

State could be undertaken by any private person or body. The one which could be undertaken cannot

be sovereign function. In a given case even in subject on which the State has the monopoly may also

be non-sovereign in nature. Mere dealing in subject of monopoly of the State would not make any

such enterprise sovereign in nature. Absence of profit making or mere quid pro would also make

such enterprise to be outside the ambit of “industry” as also in State of Bombay and others case

(supra).

“35 In view of the aforesaid settled legal principle the width of “industry” being of widest amplitude

and testing it in the present case, in view of the preamble, Objects and Reasons and the scheme of the

Act, the pre-dominant object clearly being regulation and control of trading of agricultural produce,

thus appellant-committee including its functionaries cannot be said to be performing functions which

are sovereign in character. Most of its functions could be undertaken even by private persons. Thus

the appellant would fall within the definition of “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Central Act. In

view of this, we uphold that respondent employees are ‘workman” under the Central Act as held by

the Labour Court and confirmed by the High Court. The Labour Court has dealt with each

individual case and came to the conclusion in favour of respondent-employees which has also been

confirmed by learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court, which does not call for any

interference. Accordingly, the present appeals have no merits and are dismissed. Costs on the

parties.”

49.

This decision has thus reiterated that the State or its Department performing sovereign functions would not

fall within the ambit of the word “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been

emphasized that dichotomy between sovereign and non-sovereign functions could be found by finding which of the

functions of the State could be undertaken by any private person or Body. The one which could be undertaken by any

private person or Body cannot be sovereign functions.

50.

Giving examples of sovereign functions, the above decision, inter-alia, mentions “taxation, eminent domain

and police power”.

51.

In Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. R.Suresh, 2008 (11) SCC 319, relied upon by Mr.V.G.Indrale,

learned counsel for the Applicant, their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the question as to whether

jurisdiction of the Industrial Courts was ousted in regard to an Order of dismissal passed by the Life Insurance

Corporation of India, a Corporation constituted and incorporated under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956.

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that even though Life Insurance Corporation was a “State” within the

meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the same by itself, would not take Life Insurance Corporation

outside the purview of the definition of “industry” as contained in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 and

concluded that the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court was not ousted by the provisions of the said Act.

52.

Thus this decision mainly examined the question as to whether the jurisdiction of the Industrial Courts was

ousted in regard to the Order of dismissal passed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The said decision, in my

view, is not applicable for deciding the issue involved in the present case.

53.

In Asha Ram vs. Divisional Engineer, Telecom Department, 2001 (9) SCC 382, their Lordships of the

Supreme Court dealt with the question as to whether Telecom Department was an “industry”. Relying upon an earlier

decision in General Manager, Telecom vs. S. Srinivas Rao and Others, 1997 (8) SCC 767, their Lordships of the

Supreme Court held that the Telecom Department was an “industry”.

3374

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

54.

In All India Radio vs. Santosh Kumar and another, 1998 I CLR 684 (SC), their Lordships of the Supreme

Court considered the question as to whether All India Radio and Doordarshan Kendra (Appellants before the Supreme

Court) were covered within the definition of the word “industry” as contained in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that All India Radio as well as Doordarshan Kendra were

covered within the definition of the word “industry” as contained in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under:

“The solitary contention canvassed before us by the learned senior counsel for the appellants is to the

effect that All India Radio and Doordarshan Kendra discharge sovereign functions of the State and

they are not industries within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act. Now, it has to be kept in view

that as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court consisting of seven learned Judges in the case of

Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Bank etc v. A Rajappa and Others etc. reported in (1978) 2

SCC 213, save and except the sovereign function, all other activities of employers would be covered

within the sweep of term `industry' as defined under Section 2(j )of the Act. The functions which are

carried on by All India Radio and Doordarshan cannot be said to be confined to sovereign functions

as they carry on commercial activity for profit by getting commercial advertisements telecast or

broadcast through their various kendras and stations by charging fees. Looking to the functions of

Doordarshan and its set up, as seen from Annexure-1 (annexed to S.L.P. (C) Nos. 7722-7722A OF

1993), being the extracts from Doordarshan Manual Vol.I, it cannot be said that the functions

carried on by them are of purely sovereign nature. Day in and day out advertisements are being

telecast and even serials are being telecast on payment of appropriate charges and on which there

cannot be any dispute. Same is the position with All India Radio……….. Consequently, it must be

held that the appellant-All India Radio as well as Doordarshan are industries within the meaning of

Section 2(j) of the Act and the said definition is operative being applicable at present and as existing

on the Stature Book as on date.”

55.

This decision has thus reiterated the proposition that in case a Department discharges Sovereign functions of

the State, then such Department would not fall within the definition of the word “industry” as contained in Section 2(j)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the functions carried on by All India Radio and Doordarshan Kendra

could not be said to be of sovereign nature and, therefore, they were not excluded from the purview of the definition of

the word “industry” as contained in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

56.

In General Manager Telecom vs. S. Srinivasa Rao and others 1997 1 LLJ 255 (SC): 1997 (8) SCC 767,

which as noted above, has been relied upon by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Asha Ram vs. Divisional

Engineer, Telecom Department, 2001 (9) SCC 382, their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the question

whether the Telecom Department of the Union of India was an “industry’ within the meaning of the definition of

“industry” in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Relying upon the Dominant Nature test as laid down in

the Supreme Court decision in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A.Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548, their

Lordships concluded that the Telecom Department of the Union of India was an “industry” within the definition of the

word “industry” as contained in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 because the Department was engaged

in a Commercial activity and was not engaged in discharging any of the sovereign functions of the State.

57.

Thus, in this decision, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have reiterated the proposition that in case a

Department of the Government discharges sovereign functions of the State then such Department would not fall within

the definition of the word “industry” as contained in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the

functions carried on by the Telecommunication Department could not be said to be of sovereign nature and, therefore,

the said Department was not excluded from the purview of the definition of the word “industry” as contained in

Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

58.

In Gujarat Forest Producers, Gatherers and Forest Workers UNI vs. State of Gujarat,2004 - III LLJ 259

(Gujarat), relied upon by Mr.Vinod Joshi, learned counsel for the contesting Opposite Parties/Respondents, a Full

Bench of the Gujarat High Court considered various questions including the question as to “Whether the Forest

Department and the Irrigation Department of the State can be said to be an “industry” within the meaning of Section

2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not?”. Their Lordships of the Gujarat High Court held as under:

“Q.1

Whether the Forest Department and the Irrigation Department of the State can be said to be

an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not?

Q.2

Whether Forest Department of the State is an industry or not?

Ans.

(i)

The Forest and Environment Department of the State Government is not an

industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the question whether

any of its unit, establishment or undertaking is an industry or not will depend upon the

nature of the work done by such entity and only when the activity undertaken amounts to an

activity for production or distribution of goods and/or services for satisfying wants and

desires of consumers, in the sense in which the concepts are understood in the field of

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3375

industrial economy, satisfying the third ingredient of the triple ingredients test, that such

unit, establishment or undertaking of the Department can be said to be industry, unless

falling in the categories removed by constitutional and competently enacted legislative

provisions from the scope of the Industrial Disputes Act as indicated in clause (c ) of Item IV

of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage

Board’s case (supra), including the law falling under Articles 309 to 311 of the Constitution.

Ans.

(ii)

The activity of Irrigation and canal works undertaken by the Narmada Water

Resources and Water Supply Department is an “industry” under Section 2(j) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947”.

59.

In the above decision, their Lordships of the Gujarat High Court have also laid down as under:

“26.In Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board’s case (supra), the Supreme Court in the

judgment, indicated the following triple test for finding out whether an enterprise was prima facie an

“industry” within the meaning of Section 2 (j):

(i) The activity of the enterprises is systematic;

(ii) The activity is organized by co-operation between the employees and the employer; and

(iii) The organized activity is for the purpose of production and/or distribution of goods and services

calculated to satisfy human wants.”

“49. When the activity of the Government is an industry by virtue of its satisfying the triple

ingredients test and is undertaken for the purpose of production and/or distribution of goods and

services to satisfy the wants and desires of the consumers including the community wants, it is

obvious that the State acts in the economic field. The constitutional functions of the Government

which are inalienable and primary in nature, would be an exception in the sense that even if the triple

ingredients test is satisfied, the Government activity which amounts to a sovereign function i.e,

primary inalienable function, will qualify for exemption as declared in the judgement in Bangalore

Water Supply & Sewerage Board’s case (supra). Even welfare activities or economic adventures

undertaken by the State through its ruling organs are not exempted and would be within the purview

of the definition of “industry” if, and only if, such activity satisfies the triple ingredients test.”

60.

Thus, this decision of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court lays down that even if the triple ingredients

test as laid down in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A.Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548, is

satisfied in respect of the activity of the Government, the Government activity which amounts to a sovereign function,

that is, primary inalienable function, will qualify for exemption from the purview of the word “industry” as defined in

Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has been emphasized that the Constitutional functions of the

Government which are inalienable and primary in nature, would be an exception and would not fall within the purview

of the word “industry” as defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

61.

From the propositions laid down in the above decisions, the following principles, amongst others, may be

deduced:

(i)

It is the character of the activity which decides the question as to whether the activity in

question attracts the provisions of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The true

focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the activity.

(ii)

In order to find out as to whether an enterprise is prima facie an “industry” within the

meaning of Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the following three tests should be

satisfied:

(a) The activity of the enterprise is systematic;

(b) The activity is organized by co-operation between the employees and the employer;

(c)

The organized activity is for the purpose of production and/or distribution of goods and

services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes.

(iii)

Sovereign functions undertaken by Government or Statutory Bodies or Departments or

Entities or Instrumentalities are exempt from the purview of the word “industry” as defined

in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the Government or Statutory

Bodies or Departments or Entities or Instrumentalities performing the sovereign functions

would not fall within the purview of the word “industry” as defined in the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

3376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(iv)

Sovereign functions are regal functions described as primary and inalienable functions of

the State, and these are excluded from the purview of the definition of “industry” as

contained in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, in case the

functions performed by Government or Statutory Body or Department or Entity or

Instrumentality are such which can equally be performed by any private individual then

such functions would not fall within the ambit of sovereign functions so as to be excluded

from the purview of the definition of the word “industry”.

(v)

If a service rendered by an individual or a private person would be an “industry” it would

equally be an “industry” in the hands of the Government or Statutory Body or Department or

Entity or Instrumentality.

(vi)

Even in departments discharging sovereign functions, if there are units which are industries

and they are substantially severable, then they can be considered to come within Section 2(j)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(vii)

Where a complex of activities are performed by a department, some of which qualify for

exemption, while others not, then the pre-dominant nature of the services and the integrated

nature of the department will be the test in determining whether the department would fall

within the category of industry or not.

62.

Keeping in view the above principles, let us proceed to consider the question involved in the present case

namely, as to whether the Income Tax Department falls within the purview of the definition of “industry” under

Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

63.

The answer to this question would evidently depend on the question as to whether the Income Tax Department

exercises sovereign functions of the State. In case the Income Tax Department discharges sovereign functions of the

State, it would evidently not fall within the purview of the definition of “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

64.

In order to consider the above question, it is necessary to refer to Article 265 of the Constitution of India

which is reproduced below:

“265. Taxes not to be imposed save by authority of law – No tax shall be levied or collected except

by authority of law.”

65.

Article 265 of the Constitution of India thus provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by

authority of Law. The scope of the words “levy” and “collection” with reference to Article 265 of the Constitution of

India was considered by their Lordships of the Madras High Court in Rayalseema Constructions vs. Deputy

Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1959 Madras 382. Their Lordships of the Madras High Court quoted the following

passage from the decision in Whitney vs. Commissioner of Inland Revenue 1926 A.C. 37:

“27.Lord Dunedin in Whitney v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue, 1926 A.C. 37, stated as follows:

“Now, there are three stages in the imposition of a tax; there is the declaration of liability, that is the

part of the statute which determines what persons in respect of what property are liable. Next, there

is the assessment. Liability does not depend on assessment. That, ex hypothesi, has already” been

fixed. But assessment particularises the exact sum which a person liable has to pay. Lastly, come the

methods of recovery, if the person taxed does not voluntarily pay.”

66.

After quoting the above passage, their Lordships of the Madras High Court observed as under:

“30. We do not by any means feel assured that Article 265 can or ought to be cut up in the manner

that the argument of the learned Advocate General requires. The word “levy” is frequently used to

include both of the first two stages involved in the process of taxation, viz, the levy properly so-called

and the determination of the amount of the tax. It appears to us that the words “levy” and

“collection” are used in Article 265 of the Constitution in a comprehensive manner and that they are

intended to include and envelop the entire process of taxation commencing from the taxing Statute to

the taking away of the money from the pocket of the citizen And, what Article 265 enjoins is that

every stage in this entire process must be authorized by the law.”

67.

Hence, in view of the above decision, it is evident that Article 265 of the Constitution of India covers all the

aspects of taxation namely, declaration of liability, assessment and recovery.

68.

Entry 82 of List I (Union List) of the VII Schedule to the Constitution of India reads as under:

“82.Taxes on Income other than Agricultural Income.”

69.

It will thus be seen that Parliament has been given power in respect of “taxes on Income other than

Agricultural Income” in view of Article 82 of List 1 (Union List) of VII Schedule to the Constitution of India.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3377

70.

In exercise of the above power, Parliament has enacted the Income Tax Act, 1961. In exercise of the powers

conferred by Section 295 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Central Board of Revenue has framed the Income Tax

Rules, 1962.

71.

Section 4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the Charging Section and it, inter-alia, provides that the Income Tax

shall be charged for any Assessment Year in respect of the total income of the Previous Year of every person. The rate

or rates at which such Income Tax is to be charged for any Assessment Year is to be provided by enacting a Central

Act which is commonly known as the Finance Act.

72.

Section 5 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with the scope of Total Income .

73.

Chapter III of the Income Tax Act, 1961 consisting of Sections 10 to 13-B deals with “Incomes which do not

form part of Total Income”.

74.

Chapter IV of the Income Tax Act, 1961 consisting of Sections 14 to 59 deals with “Computation of Total

Income”.

75.

Chapter V of the Income Tax Act, 1961 consisting of Sections 60 to 65 deals with “Income of Other Persons,

included in Assessee’s Total Income”.

76.

Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 consisting of Sections 80-A to 80-VV deals with “Deductions to

be made in computing Total Income”.

77.

Chapter XIII of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with the “Income Tax Authorities”.

78.

Part-A of Chapter XIII of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 consisting of Sections 116 to 119 deals with

“Appointment and Control” of the Income Tax Authorities.

79.

Part-B of Chapter XIII of the Income Tax Act, 1961 consisting of Sections 120 to 130-A deals with

“Jurisdiction” of the Income-Tax Authorities.

80.

Part C of Chapter XIII of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 consisting of Sections 131 to 136 deals with “Powers” of

the Income Tax Authorities.

81.

Part D of Chapter XIII of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 consisting of Sections 137 and 138 deals with “disclosure

of information” respecting assessees.

82.

Chapter XIV of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 consisting of Sections 139 to 158 deals with “Procedure for

Assessment”.

83.

Chapter XVII of the Income Tax Act, 1961 consisting of Sections 190 to 234-E deals with “Collection and

Recovery of Tax”.

84.

Chapter XXI of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 consisting of Sections 270 to 275 deals with “Penalties Imposable”

for various defaults under the Income-Tax Act, 1961.

85.

Chapter XXII of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 consisting of Sections 275A to 280D deals with “Offences and

Prosecutions”.

86.

It will thus be seen that the Income-Tax Act, 1961 takes within its fold the entire process of taxation pertaining

to tax on Income, namely, Declaration of Liability, Assessment and Recovery. Various functions pertaining to

imposition of tax on Income as contemplated under the Income-Tax Act, 1961 have been entrusted to the Income Tax

Department of the Central Government. As noted above, the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been enacted by Parliament for

levying and collecting tax on Income other than Agricultural Income in exercise of its powers conferred under Article

265 of the Constitution of India. Power to impose tax on Income other than Agricultural Income is Constitutional

Power conferred on Parliament by Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Various functions contemplated under the

Income-Tax Act, 1961 regarding Charging of Tax on Total Income of every person, Computation of Total Income,

Assessment of Tax on Total Income, Collection and Recovery of Tax, Penalties for defaults under the Income Tax Act

etc, are evidently regal and inalienable functions of the State. These functions are discharged by the Income Tax

Department of the Central Government. Hence, the functions discharged by the Income Tax Department are sovereign

functions. It is noteworthy that the functions contemplated under the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be discharged by

any private person. The functions discharged by the Income-Tax Department being sovereign functions, the Income-

Tax Department will evidently be outside the purview of the word “industry” as defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

3378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

87.

In this regard, reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in New Delhi Municipal Committee

vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 1997 SC 2847. In this case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to

Article 265 of the Constitution of India and opined that Power to Tax is an incident of sovereignty. Relevant

Paragraphs of the Judgment are as under:

“91. We have great difficulty in accepting this assertion. Article 265 of the Constitution emphatically

mandates that “no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.” Under the framework of the

Constitution there are two principal bodies which have been vested with plenary powers to make laws, these

being the Union Legislature, which is described by Art.79 as “Parliament for the Union” and the State

Legislatures, which are described by Art. 168 in the singular as “Legislature of a State.” While certain other

bodies have been vested with legislative power, including the power of levying taxes, by the Constitution for

specific purposes, as in the case of District Committees and Regional Councils constituted under the aegis of

the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, the plenary power to legislate, especially in matters relating to revenue,

still vests with the Union and the State Legislatures. Even if the submission that Municipalities now possess,

under Part IXA of the Constitution, a higher juridical status is correct, the extension of that logic to the

proposition that they have plenary powers to levy taxes is not, as is clear from a perusal of the relevant part of

Art. 243X of the Constitution which reads as under:

:243 X. Power to impose taxes by, and Funds of, the Municipalities:- The Legislature of a State may, by law,-

(a) authorize a Municipality to levy, collect and appropriate such taxes, duties, tolls and fees in accordance

with such procedure and subject to such limits;

(b) to (d)

as may be specified in law.”

92. Article 243ZB provides that this provision will be applicable to Union Territories and the reference to the

Legislature of a State would apply, in relation to a Union Territory having a Legislative Assembly, to that

Legislative Assembly.

93.

It is, therefore, clear that even under the new scheme, Municipalities do not have an independent

power to levy taxes. Although they can now be granted more substantial powers than even before, they

continue to be dependent upon their parent Legislatures for the bestowal of such privileges. In the case of

Municipalities within States, they have to be specifically delegated the power to tax by the concerned State

Legislature. In Union Territories which do not have Legislative Assemblies of their own, such a power would

have to be delegated by Parliament. Of the rest, those which have Legislative Assemblies of their own would

have to specifically empower Municipalities within them with the power to levy taxes.

141. A Federation pre-supposes two coalescing units; the Federal Government/Centre and the

States/Provinces. Each is supposed to be supreme in the sphere allotted to it/them. Power to tax is an incident

of sovereignty. Basic premise is that one sovereign cannot tax the other sovereign. Articles 285 and 289

manifest this mutual regard and immunity but in a manner peculiar to our constitutional scheme. While the

immunity created in favour of the Union is absolute, the immunity created in favour of the States is a qualified

one. We may elaborate: Article 285 says that “the property of the Union shall…….be exempt from all taxes

imposed by a State or by any authority within a State’ unless, of course, Parliament itself permits the same

and to the extent permitted by it. (Clause (2) of Article 285 saves the existing taxes until the Parliament

otherwise provides, but this is only a transitional provision) The ban, if it can be called one, is absolute and

emphatic in terms. There is no way a State legislature can levy a tax upon the property of the Union. So far

as Article 289 is concerned, the position is different. Clause (1), had it stood by itself, would have been

similar to clause (1) of Article 285. It says that “the property and income of a State shall be exempt from

Union taxation”. But it does not stand alone. It is qualified by clause (2) and clause (3) is an exception to

clause (2). But before we refer to clause (2), a word with respect to the meaning and ambit of the expression

“property” occurring in this article. Expression “property” is wide enough to take in all kinds of property.

In Re the Bill to amend Section 20 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt

Act, 1944, (1964) 3 SCR 787: (AIR 1963 SC 1760), all the learned Judges (both majority and dissenting)

were agreed that the expression must be understood in its widest sense. There is no reason to put a restricted

construction thereon. Indeed, there is no controversy about this proposition before us. Coming to clause (2),

it says that the ban imposed by clause (1) shall not prevent the Union from imposing or authorizing the

imposition of any tax to such extent, if any, as the Parliament may by law provide, in respect of ( a )trade or

business of any kind carried on by or on behalf of the Government of a State or (b) any operations connected

with such trade or business or (c ) any property used or occupied for the purposes of such trade or business or

(d) any income accruing or arising in connection with such trade or business. (The inspiration for this

provision may perhaps be found in certain United States’ decisions on the question of the power of the units of

a federal polity to tax each others properties.) Clause (3) empowers the Parliament to declare, by law, which

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3379

trade or business or any class of trades or businesses is incidental to the ordinary functions of the

Government, whereupon the trades/businesses so specified go out of the purview of clause (2).”

(Emphasis supplied)

Hence, power conferred on Parliament to impose Tax on Income is an incident of sovereignty.

88.

In view of this, the functions discharged by the Income-Tax Department under the Income-Tax Act 1961 and

the Rules framed thereunder are sovereign functions. As such, Income-Tax Department will be outside the purview of

the word “industry” as defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

89.

It is also note-worthy that in Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs. Asok Harikuni, 2000(8) SCC 61:

AIR 2000 SC 3116, as mentioned earlier, their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while giving examples of sovereign

functions, mentioned “taxation” as a sovereign function.

90.

We may now deal with the submissions made by Shri V.G.Indrale, learned counsel for the Applicant, and the

same are being dealt with as under:

(1)

It is submitted by Shri V.G.Indrale, learned counsel for the Applicant that the Income-Tax

Department is covered within the ambit of the word “industry” as defined in Section 2(j) of the industrial Disputes Act,

1947. He refers to the provisions contained in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and has placed reliance

on the triple ingredients test laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and

Sewerage Board case (supra). He submits that the three tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the said case are

satisfied in respect of the Income-Tax Department, and as such, the Income-Tax Department falls within the ambit of

the word “industry” as defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

91.

I have considered the submissions made by Mr.V.G.Indrale, learned counsel for the Applicant, and I find

myself unable to accept the same for the following reasons:

(A) As noted earlier, the triple ingredients test laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage

Board case (supra) is as under:

“(i)

The activity of the enterprise is systematic;

(ii)

The activity is organized by co-operation between the employees and the employer;

(iii)

The organized activity is for the purpose of production and/or distribution of goods and

services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes.”

92.

However, as noted earlier, in the Full Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Forest Producers,

Gatherers and Forest Workers UNI case (supra), their Lordships of the Gujarat High Court have held that in case a

Government activity amounts to a sovereign function then such activity will not be covered within the definition of

“industry” even if the triple ingredients test is satisfied in respect of such activity. In view of this decision, it is evident

that even if it be assumed that the functions discharged by the Income-Tax Department satisfy the triple ingredients test

mentioned above, as contended by Mr.V.G.Indrale, learned counsel for the Applicant, still the functions discharged by

the Income-Tax Department being sovereign functions, the same would be outside the purview of the definition of

“industry” as contained in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Income-Tax Department would not

be covered within the ambit of “industry” as defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

93.

(B)

Third test as contained in the triple ingredients test mentioned above requires that the organized

activity is for the purpose of production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and

wishes. This test is evidently not satisfied in respect of the Income-Tax Department. The Income-Tax Department, as

noted earlier, performs sovereign functions as laid down in the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder,

and such functions have no direct nexus with the production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to

satisfy human wants and wishes. The allocation of the Income-Tax is done alongwith other Direct and Indirect Taxes

under the Union Budget every year. Hence, even if it be assumed that the first and second tests under the triple

ingredients test are satisfied in respect of the Income-Tax Department, still the third test as laid down in the triple

ingredients test is not satisfied. In view of this also, the Income-Tax Department is not covered within the purview of

the definition of “industry” as contained in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

94.

(2)

Mr.V.G.Indrale, learned counsel for the Applicant refers to various paragraphs of the decision in

Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board case (supra) wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have dealt

with in detail the decision of the Supreme Court in the City of Nagpur Corporation vs. Its Employees, AIR 1960 SC

675 (supra). Mr.V.G.Indrale, learned counsel for the Applicant particularly refers to paragraph 88 of the decision in

3380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board case (supra) as reported in AIR. The said paragraph 88 is reproduced

below:

“By these tokens, which find assent from us, the tax department of the local body is ‘industry’. The reason is

this (at pp. 685, 686 of AIR):

“The scheme of the Corporation Act is that taxes and fees are collected in order to enable the municipality to

discharge its statutory functions. If the functions so discharged are wholly or predominantly covered by the

definition of “industry”, it would be illogical to exclude the tax department from the definition. While in the

case of private individuals or firms services are paid in cash or otherwise, in the case of public institutions, as

the services are rendered to the public, the taxes collected from them constitute a fund for performing those

services. As most of the services rendered by the municipality come under the definition of “industry”, we

should hold that the employees of the tax department are also entitled to the benefits under the Act.”

95.

From a perusal of the above-quoted paragraph, it is evident that their Lordships of the Supreme Court in

Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board case (supra) have concurred with the view that the Tax Department of

the local body is an “industry” as laid down in the City of Nagpur Corporation case (supra). In the City of Nagpur

Corporation case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with the Tax Department of the

Corporation observed as under:

“(i)

Tax Department : The main functions of this department are the imposition and collection of

conservancy, water and property taxes. No separate staff has been employed for the assessment and levy of

property taxes : the same staff does the work connected with assessment and collection of water rates as well

as scavenging taxes. It is not disputed that the work of assessment and levy of water rate and scavenging rate

for private latrines is far heavier than the other works entrusted to this department. No attempt has been

made to allocate specific proportion of the staff for different functions. We, therefore, must accept the finding

of the State Industrial Court that the staff of this department doing clerical or manual work predominantly

does the work connected with scavenging taxes and water rate. The said rates are really intended as fees for

the service rendered. The services, namely, scavenging and supply of water, can equally be undertaken by a

private firm or an individual for remuneration and the fact that the municipality does the same duty does not

make it any the less a service coming under the definition of “industry”. We would, however, prefer to sustain

the finding on a broader basis. There cannot be a distinction between property tax and other taxes collected

by the municipality for the purposes of designating the tax department as an industry or otherwise. The

scheme of the Corporation Act is that taxes and fees are collected in order to enable the municipality to

discharge its statutory functions. If the functions so discharged are wholly or predominantly covered by the

definition of “industry”, it would be illogical to exclude the tax department from the definition. While in the

case of private individuals or firms services are paid in cash or otherwise, in the case of public institutions, as

the services are rendered to the public, the taxes collected from them constitute a fund for performing those

services. As most of the services rendered by the municipality come under the definition of “industry”, we

should hold that the employees of the tax department are also entitled to the benefits under the Act.”

96.

It will thus be seen that in view of the activities performed by the Tax Department regarding collecting taxes

and fees in order to enable the Municipality to discharge its statutory functions, the Dominant Nature Test was applied,

and it was concluded that the Tax Department would also fall within the ambit of “industry”. The said decision is not

applicable to the present case as the Income-Tax Department is only concerned with the imposition of Tax on Income

as contemplated under the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and, therefore, there is no occasion to apply the Dominant Nature

Test as was applied in the case of Tax Department of the Corporation in the City of Nagpur Corporation case (supra).

97.

(3)

As regards various decisions relied upon by Mr.V.G.Indrale, learned counsel for the Applicant

wherein various entities were held to be “industry”, the said decisions have already been dealt with in earlier part of

this Award. As noted earlier, the said decisions have accepted the proposition that in case an entity performs sovereign

functions, the same would not fall within the ambit of “industry” as defined Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. However, in the said decisions, the functions performed by various entities were held to be non-sovereign

functions and, therefore, the said entities were held to be covered within the ambit of “industry” as defined under

Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said decisions are, therefore, not applicable to the facts and

circumstances of the present case. As held above, the functions discharged by the Income-Tax Department are

sovereign functions and, therefore, the Income-Tax Department does not fall within the ambit of “industry” as defined

in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

98.

Hence, the dispute sought to be raised by the Applicant in the present Application is not an “Industrial

Dispute”.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3381

99.

Evidently, therefore, the present Application filed by the Applicant under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 read with Unfair Labour Practices as per Item 5(a), (b) and Item 10 of Schedule V of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 is not maintainable before this Tribunal.

100.

Issue No.1 is , therefore, answered by stating that this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain and

decide this Application.

HAVING DECIDED ISSUE NO.1, WE NOW PROCEED TO TAKE NOTE OF OTHER ISSUES FRAMED IN

THE PRESENT CASE.

101.

ISSUE No. 2 :

Issue No.2, as noted above, is as to “whether the Opposite Party has committed Unfair

Labour Practice under Item 5(a), 5(b) and Item 10 of the Schedule V of the Industrial Disputes Act?”

The said Issue thus pertains to the merits of the case of the Applicant as set up in the present Application.

102.

In view of the finding recorded in respect of Issue No. 1 that the present Application is not maintainable

before this Tribunal and this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present Application, it will

neither be proper nor permissible for this Tribunal to express any opinion on the merits of the case as set up in the

present Application. Therefore, no opinion is expressed by the Tribunal in respect of Issue No.2 as framed in the

present case.

103.

Issue No.2 stands disposed of accordingly.

104.

ISSUE No. 3:

Issue No.3, as noted above, is as to “whether the Applicant is entitled to be made

permanent as Peon/Watchman/Sweeper/Record Keeper and is entitled to all the benefits including the arrears of pay?”

105.

This issue again pertains to the merits of the case as set up by the Applicant in the present Application.

106.

In view of the finding recorded in respect of Issue No. 1 that the present Application is not maintainable

before this Tribunal and this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present Application, it will

neither be proper nor permissible for this Tribunal to express any opinion on the merits of the case as set up in the

present Application. Therefore, no opinion is expressed by the Tribunal in respect of Issue No.3 as framed in the

present case.

107.

Issue No.3 stands disposed of accordingly.

108.

ISSUE No. 4:

Issue No.4, as noted above, is regarding relief to which the Applicant is entitled in the

present Application.

109.

In view of the finding recorded above in respect of Issue No.1 that the present Application is not maintainable

before this Tribunal and this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present Application, no

relief can be granted by this Tribunal in the present Application.

110.

Issue No.4 stands disposed of accordingly.

111.

In view of the above discussion, it is concluded that the present Application filed by the Applicant under

Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Unfair Labour Practices as per Item 5(a), 5(b) and Item 10

of Schedule V of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not maintainable before this Tribunal, and the same is liable to be

dismissed as such.

112.

The present Application filed by the Applicant under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read

with Unfair Labour Practices as per Item 5(a), 5(b) and Item 10 of Schedule V of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is

accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.

113.

Award is passed accordingly.

JUSTICE S. P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1549-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bude

VSDl fMikVZesaV ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- lhthvkbZVh&15@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 21&7&2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

3382

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2016/SRAVANA 8, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2016

S.O. 1549.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Reference No. CGIT-15 of 2012) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Mumbai now as shown in Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Income Tax Department and their workmen, which was received by

the Central Government on 21.07.2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1

MUMBAI

Present

JUSTICE S.P.MEHROTRA

Presiding Officer

APPLICATION CGIT-15 OF 2012

Parties: Aniruddha Kalidas Zope

…Applicant

Vs.

The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik.

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nashik

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3, Dhule

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1) (Administration), Dhule.

The Income Tax Officer, Ward No.3 (1), Dhule.

Chetan Enterprises, Guruwar Peth, Pune-411042

…Opposite Parties/Respondents

Appearances:

For the Applicant

Mr.V.G.Indrale, Adv.

For the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 5

Mr.Vinod Joshi, Adv.

For the Opposite Party No. 6

None present.

State

Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 26^th day of May, 2016

AWARD

The present Application purporting to be under Section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, read with

Unfair Labour Practices as per Item 5(a), (b) and Item (10) of the V Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has

been filed by the Applicant, inter-alia, seeking the Reliefs as mentioned in Paragraph 26 of the said Application.

It is, inter-alia, stated in the said Application that the Applicant is working as a Peon on daily rated basis in

the Office of Income Tax Officer, Ward No.3 (1), Dhule; and that the Applicant was initially receiving daily wages @

Rs.119/- per day; and that the daily wages were revised from time to time; and that the Applicant continuously worked

since 16.8.2004 till December, 2007; and that the Respondents started showing technical breaks in the services of the

Applicant only on record with a view to denying the benefits of permanency; and that as a matter of fact, the Applicant

worked even during the period of break in service and received wages during such period, however, in somebody

else’s name; and that the Applicant put in more than 240 days of service in each year ever since 2004; and that the

Applicant should have been absorbed against permanent sanctioned post of Peon/Watchman/Sweeper/Record Keeper

as the case may be; and that the Respondents indulged into Unfair Labour Practices in its Establishment in relation to

the matters enumerated in Item 5(a), (b) and Item 10 of Schedule V of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and that the

service conditions of the Applicant are transferred from the Income Tax Department to the private contractor namely;

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 30] [email protected] 8] 1938

3383

Chetan Enterprises, Pune for awarding contract for Unskilled Labour for one year with the approval of Chief

Commissioner of Income Tax, Nasik in total disregard to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and that

the Respondents are handing over the Applicant and all other workmen working as casuals or temporaries to a private

Contractor; and that since the Applicant is a direct employee of the principal employer, he has been receiving salary

from the principal employer since beginning and, therefore, his services cannot be entrusted to a private Contractor;

and that the Respondents terminated the services of the Applicant in the evening on 2.2.2012.

On the basis of the averments made in the said Application, the Applicant has sought various Reliefs as

mentioned in paragraph 26 of the said Application including the relief for directing the Respondents to reinstate the

Applicant with payment of full back wages, and to make the Applicant permanent as Peon/Watchman/Sweeper/Record

Keeper and confer all the benefits of permanency.

By the Order dated 4.4.2012, this Tribunal directed for issuance of Notice to the Opposite

Parties/Respondents to file Written Statement fixing 25.5.2012.

As noted in the Order dated 25.5.2012, Notices issued to the Opposite Parties/Respondents No.1 to 6 were

duly served.

Mrs. P.S. Shetty, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the Opposite Parties/Respondents No. 1 to 5.