1242 GI/2017

(1455)

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- 11]

ubZ fnYyh] ekpZ 12— ekpZ 18] 2017] 'kfuokj@ iQkYxqu 21—iQkYxqu 27] 1938

No. 11]

NEW DELHI, MARCH 12— MARCH 18, 2017, SATURDAY/ PHALGUNA 21—PHALGUNA 27, 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)

िवᱫ मंᮢालय

(िवᱫीय सेवाएं िवभाग)

नई ᳰद᭨ली, 16 माचᭅ, 2017

का.आ. 694.—बᱹककारी िविनयमन अिधिनयम, 1949 (1949 का 10) कᳱ धारा 53 कᳱ उप-धारा (1) ᳇ारा ᮧदत शिᲦयᲂ का

ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ ᮤीय सरकार, भारतीय ᳯरजवᭅ बᱹक कᳱ िसफाᳯरश पर, एत᳎वारा, यह घोषणा करती है ᳰक बᱹककारी िविनयमन

अिधिनयम, 1949 कᳱ धारा 19 कᳱ उप-धारा (2) के उपबंध, आईसीआईसीआई बᱹक िलिमटेड पर लागू नहᱭ हᲂगे, जहां तक इसका संबंध

इंिडया इंᮨाडेट िलिमटेड कᳱ चुकता पंजी के 30 ᮧितशत से अिधक रािश का शेयर धारण करने से है।

[फा.सं. 7/164/2011–बीओए]

िशवे᭠ ᮤ चतुवᱷदी, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 694.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act,

1949 (10 of 1949), the Central Government, on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declare that

1456 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 18, 2017/PHALGUNA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 19 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, shall not apply to the ICICI Bank

Limited in so far as they relate to its holding shares of an amount exceeding thirty percent. of the paid-up capital of the

India Infradebt Limited.

[F.No. 7/164/2011-BOA]

SHIVENDRA CHATURVEDI, Under Secy.

नई ᳰद᭨ली, 16 माचᭅ, 2017

का.आ. 695.— बᱹककारी िविनयमन अिधिनयम, 1949 (1949 का 10) कᳱ धारा 53 कᳱ उप-धारा (1) ᳇ारा ᮧदत शिᲦयᲂ का

अिधिनयम, 1949 कᳱ धारा 19 कᳱ उप-धारा (2) के उपबंध, बᱹक आफ बड़ौदा पर लागू नहᱭ हᲂगे, जहां तक इसका संबंध इंिडया इंᮨाडेट

िलिमटेड कᳱ चुकता पंजी के 30 ᮧितशत से अिधक रािश का शेयर धारण करने से है।

[फा.सं. 7/164/2011–बीओए]

िशवे᭠ ᮤ चतुवᱷदी, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 695.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act,

1949 (10 of 1949), the Central Government, on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declare that

the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 19 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, shall not apply to the Bank of

Baroda in so far as they relate to its holding shares of an amount exceeding thirty percent. of the paid-up capital of the

India Infradebt Limited.

[F.No. 7/164/2011-BOA]

SHIVENDRA CHATURVEDI, Under Secy.

dkfeZd] yksd f’kdk;r rFkk isa’ku ea=ky;

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf’k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 696-&dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e la- 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi/kkjk ¼8½ }kjk iznRr ‘kfä;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] fnYyh fo’ks”k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼lhchvkbZ½ }kjk laLFkkfir ekeyksa dk dukZVd mPp U;k;ky; dh /kkjokM fLFkr ihB rFkk fo’ks”k

iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼lhchvkbZ½ }kjk tkap fd, x, ekeyksa dh vihy] iqujh{k.k ;k muls mRiUu vU; ekeyksa ds vfHk;kstu dk lapkyu djus ds fy,

Jh ,e-ch- dukoh] vf/koDrk dks muds fu;qfDr dh frfFk ls rhu o”kZ ;k vxys vkns’k rd] tks Hkh igys gks] ds fy, fo’ks”k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i

esa fu;qfDr djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 225@27@2016&,ohMh &II]

,l- ih- vkj- f=ikBh] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 17th March, 2017

S.O. 696.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri M.B. Kanavi, Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) before

the Karnataka High Court at Dharwad Bench and appeals, revisions or other matters arising out of the cases

investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) for a period of three years from the date of appointment

or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 225/27/2016-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 18] 2017@iQkYxqu 27] 1938

1457

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 697-&dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e la- 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi/kkjk ¼8½ }kjk iznRr ‘kfä;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] fnYyh fo’ks”k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼lhchvkbZ½ }kjk rsyaxkuk jkT; vkSj vkU/kz izns’k jkT; gsrq laLFkkfir ekeyksa dk gSnjkckn mPp

U;k;ky; rFkk fo’ks”k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼lhchvkbZ½ }kjk tkap fd, x, ekeyksa dh vihy] iqujh{k.k ;k muls mRiUu vU; ekeyksa ds vfHk;kstu dk

lapkyu djus ds fy, Jh ds- lqjsUnz] vf/koDrk dks muds fu;qfDr dh frfFk ls rhu o”kZ ;k vxys vkns’k rd] tks Hkh igys gks] ds fy, fo’ks”k yksd

vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qfDr djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 225@27@2016&,ohMh&II]

,l- ih- vkj- f=ikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th March, 2017

S.O. 697.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri K. Surender, Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) before

the Hyderabad High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh and appeals, revisions or other

matters arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) for a period of three years

from the date of appointment or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 225/27/2016-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ukxj foekuu ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 898-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e

(4) ds vuqlj.k esa] ukxj foekuu ea=kky; ds lac¼ dk;kZy; ukxj foekuu egkfuns'kky; ds mi {ks=kh; dk;kZy;] mi funs'kd]

mM+u;ksX;rk dk dk;kZy;] Hkksiky dks muds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa }kjk ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj ysus ij ,rn~}kjk

vfèklwfpr djrh gS A

¹la- bZ&11014@9@2015&jk-Hkk-º

vfuy JhokLro] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

New Delhi, the 9th March, 2017

S.O. 698.—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 the Directorate General of Civil Aviation’s Sub-regional

Office, Deputy Director, Office of Airworthiness, Bhopal, an attached office of Ministry of Civil Aviation, whereof,

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

[No. E-11014/9/2015-OL]

ANIL SRIVASTVA, Jt. Secy.

1458 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 18, 2017/PHALGUNA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 699-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj {ks=kh;

funs'kd] bafnjk xka/h jk"Vªh; eqDr fo'ofo|ky; vkSj mudh deZdkj] 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;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

38@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@176@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017

S.O. 699.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 38/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

The Regional Director, Indira Gandhi National Open University and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 08.12.2016.

[No. L-42012/176/2015-IR (DU)]

RAJENDER JOSHI, Dy. Director

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. 38/2015

No. L-42012/176/2015-IR(DU), dated 02.11.2015

Date of Passing Order – 3^rd November, 2016

Between :

1. The Director,

M/s. G.A. Digital Web Word,

Plot No. 1, Hargovind Enclave,

Vikas Marg Extn., New Delhi – 110 092.

2. The Regional Director,

Indira Gandhi National Open University,

Bhubaneswar Regional Centre,

C-1, Institutional Area,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa) – 751 016

…1^st Party-Managements

(And)

Shri Bismita Ranjan Parida,

Maruti Villa, Phase-II, Plot No. S-84,

Patia, Bhubaneswar (Orissa) – 751 001

…2^nd Party-Workman

Appearances :

None

…

For the 1^st Party-Managements

None

…

For the 2^nd Party-Union

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 18] 2017@iQkYxqu 27] 1938

1459

ORDER

Case taken up. Parties are absent. The 2^nd Party-Union has not filed any statement of claim despite sending

notices through ordinary as well as regd. post. In order to give a last opportunity to the 2^nd party-Union notice was

issued on 29.07.2016 fixing 15.09.2016 for appearance and for filing of statement of claim, but neither the 2^nd party-

Union caused appearance nor has filed any statement of claim. In order to give a last chance/opportunity to the 2^nd

party-Union the case was posted to 03.11.2016 for filing of statement of claim, but the 2^nd party-Union did not respond

and file the statement of claim. As such it seems that the 2^nd party-Union is not interested in prosecuting its case.

However the dispute cannot be adjudicated upon for want of pleadings on behalf of the parties. As such there is no

other alternative except to return the reference to the Government for necessary action at its end.

Accordingly the reference is returned to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour unanswered for necessary

action at its end.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 700-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj funs'kd]

lsaVªy baLVhV~;wV vkWiQ izsQ'k okVj ,DokdYpj vkSj mudh deZdkj] 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;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 43@2011) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@03@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017

S.O. 700.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 43/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the The Director, Central Institute of Fresh Water Aquaculture (CIFA) and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 08.12.2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2017-IR (DU)]

RAJENDER JOSHI, Dy. Director

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. 43/2011

Date of Passing Order – 4^th November, 2016

Between :

The Director, Central Institute of Fresh

Water Aquaculture (CIFA), Kausalyaganga,

Bhubaneswar – 02

…1^st Party-Management

(And)

The General Secretary, CIFA Shramik Sangh,

At. CIFA, Kausalyaganga, Bhubaneswar-02

…2^nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

Shri Indramni Muduli, Asst. Admn. Officer

…

For the 1^st Party-Management

Shri Debendra Nath Mallik

…

For the 2^nd Party-Union

1460 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 18, 2017/PHALGUNA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The common award arises out of an application preferred directly in this Tribunal by CIFA Shramik Sangha

represented through its General Secretary under section 2-A(2) of the Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act) and out

of a reference as made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred in clause (d) of

Sub-section 2-A of Section 10 of the following schedule :-

“Whether the action of the management of the Director, Central Institute of Fresh Water Aquaculture,

Bhubaneswar, in not paying the attention to the 7 point charter of demands (copy enclosed) raised by the CIFA

Shramik Sangh in the entire decision making process is legal and justified? What relief the concerned Shramik

Sangh is entitled to”?

The case of the applicants-2^nd party-Union, as revealed from its statement of claim filed in the above noted cases,

is that CIFA Shramik Sangha is a registered trade Union and functioning for welfare of individual workers employed in

the establishment of the 1^st Party-Management. The 1^st Party-Management, CIFA is an organization under ICAR,

under the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India functioning at Kausalyagang at Bhubaneswar and the said

institution was established with an objective of development of pisciculture and similar related firms like prawn, pearl,

fish diary firm and agriculture sector with financial assistance of Government of India. The organization takes the help

of manual works in its day to day work carried out in its farms and scientific research centers. 169 workers are stated

to have been giving manual service in the firming and research centers of the 1^st party-Management for more than 15 to

20 years continuously and they are engaged for more than 240 days continuously in each calendar year. The nature of

their job is different and the same is perennial. Inspite of their engagement for a considerable period and they are

discharging of duties with all sincerity and devotion for the last 15 to 20 years, no effort has been taken by the

Management for regularization of their services or to cover them in the Scheme of 1/30^th of wages of the Central

Government. Hence, the 2^nd party-Union raised a dispute before the labour machinery demanding regularization of the

service of those 169 workers or in alternate to extend the benefit of temporary status to them as contemplated under the

Scheme of 1/30^th of wages of the Central Government. The Management did not participate in the conciliation

proceeding initiated before the labour machinery taking a stand that the workers being casual labourers and engaged

intermittently whenever their service is necessary cannot be covered by the provisions of the I.D. Act. When the labour

machinery fails to take timely steps in adjudicating the dispute raised by the 2^nd party-Union inspite of a lapse of 45

days from the date of raising the dispute before the labour machinery, a claim petition is filed directly by the Secretary

of the Union resorting to the provision of Section 2-A(2) of the Act. While the said application was pending for

disposal being registered in I.D. Case No. 43/2011, on receipt of the reference as stated in supra I.D. Case No. 41/2012

has been registered for adjudication of the dispute raised before the labour machinery. Since the subject matter of both

the disputes are identical order was passed for analogous hearing of both the cases. The genesis of the dispute is for

implementation of 7 Point Charter of Demands put forth by the 2^nd party-Union which are as follows:-

All the casual workmen working under CIFA should receive their wages directly from CIFA like payment

made to them prior to July, 2001.

That all the workmen have been working more than 240 days in each calendar year and eligible to receive

1/30^th wages. Hence, payment to be made accordingly.

That, the work of all the above workmen are permanent and perennial in nature. Hence, their services

should be made regular without any further delay.

That all the above workmen are eligible to receive bonus, Hence bonus to be paid to them immediately.

That the medical facilities to be extended to all the casual workmen as a social responsibility of the

employer.

Safety equipment Uniform, Boots etc. to be provided to all the above workmen.

That the workmen who are eligible to be promoted to T.S. category should be given at an early date.

Being noticed the 1^st Party-Management made its appearance and filed a common written statement in both the

cases challenging the maintainability of the cases as well as denying the claim of the 2^nd party-Union. A stand has also

been taken that the Management not being an Industry is not coming under the purview of the I.D. Act. It is its stand

that some labourers are engaged locally for various miscellaneous jobs as and when required and their engagement was

in sponsored projects. By efflux of the said projects they are allowed to work in other projects, if available and like-

wise they have been engaged intermittently to work in different projects. It has also been pleaded that some casual

workers are working directly under the Management and getting their wages and other financial benefits as per

guidelines of Government of India whereas rest are working as contract labourers being engaged through labour supply

contractors. Both the groups of labourers are different categories and they cannot be covered by temporary status

scheme on account of they being employed casually/temporarily on the need basis.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 18] 2017@iQkYxqu 27] 1938

1461

Since they have been employed for temporarily on daily wage basis to carry out certain work for certain hours in

specific projects, they have no right to claim for their permanent absorption or regularization of their services. Further,

having been engaged through labour contractors there is no relationship of “employer and employee” between the

workmen and the Management and as such, no relief can be extended to the workmen-Union. It has also been pleaded

that the matter was taken for consideration earlier in this Tribunal in the event of a reference made by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour vide I.D. Case No. 22/2000 and the claim was rejected. The Union had preferred a Writ

Appeal against such order of this Tribunal and the same having been dismissed the present reference has no merit for

adjudication. Hence, prayer has been made for dismissal of the application.

On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties following issues have been settled.

ISSUES

Whether the cases are maintainable?

Whether the action of the Management of CIFA in changing the service condition of 111 numbers of casual

workers through signing a minutes with an unregistered trade union in the year 2001 is legal and/or

justified?

Whether the present 111 numbers of contract workers are doing same and similar nature of job like their

counter part casual and regular employees of CIFA are eligible to receive direct payment from the principal

employer?

Whether the present 111 numbers of contract workmen are eligible to receive 1/30^th wages like their

counter part casual workmen from the date their counter part casual workmen are receiving?

What relief the workmen are entitled to?

The 2^nd party-Union has examined two witnesses namely Shri Debendranath Mallik and Shri Dhaneswar Behera

and filed the xerox copy of Office Order No. 35/CIFA/Estbb./2007-4488(3) dated 27.12.2007 of A.O., CIFA, xerox

copy of letter dated 11.11.2003 of A.P.F. communication, xerox copy of letter No. CIFA/Labour/2012, dated 28.3.2012

of Director to D.G., New Delhi, xerox copy of cadre strength of CIFA from 1.1.1995 to 2010 and xerox copy of charter

demands dated 6.1.2011 of the Union in support of their claim whereas, the Management declined to adduce any

evidence.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. 1

As the Management has challenged the maintainability of the case in I.D. Case No. 43/2011 on various reasons

including the reason that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain dispute of the Union directly under Section 2-A(2)

of the I.D. Act unless the same dispute being referred by the appropriate government in exercising of its authority under

sub-section 2 of Section 10 of the I.D. Act. It is also contended on behalf of the Management that the demands raised in

the Seven Point Charter of Demand have already been adjudicated by this Tribunal in an earlier reference in I.D. Case

No. 20/2000 the present I.D. Case No. 43/2011, which has been ordered to be heard analogously with I.D. Case No.

41/2012, is also not maintainable on the principle of resjudicata.

Undoubtedly Case No. 43/2011 has been registered in the event of 2^nd party-Union presenting an application

directly before the Tribunal resorting to the provisions of Section 2-A(2) of the Act. Such an application has been filed

on a contention that the matter was raised in a shape of dispute before the labour machinery and as no action was taken

by the conciliation officer within 45 days of raising the dispute, the 2^nd party-Union is forced to file the present

application under the above provisions of the Act. But, Section 2-A provides as follows:-

2-A. 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 in 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

1462 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 18, 2017/PHALGUNA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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).

On a mere reading of the above provisions it is crystal clear that an Industrial Dispute can be agitated directly

before the Tribunal by an individual workman only in a matter of dispute relating to his illegal discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or termination of service and otherwise and such dispute can be raised by filing an application directly

before the Labour Court and the Tribunal for its adjudication after expiry of 45 days from the date of application to the

conciliation officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute and then only the Tribunal and the

Labour Court have power and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute as if the same is referred to it by the

appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of the I.D. Act provided such application is filed within

three years from the date of such alleged discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service. Be

that as it may, there is no scope for a workman or an Union to make an application directly to the Labour Court or

Tribunal for raising a dispute involving other issues than the dismissal/termination/retrenchment of a workman.

Admittedly, the 2^nd party-Union has preferred the present application in I.D. Case No. 43/2011 on seven points charter

of demands including the demand for regularization of services of 169 workmen or in alteration implementation of

1/30^th Wage Scheme for those workers. The application does not reveal that any of the disputant workmen is facing

termination, dismissal or disengagement. Hence, the application preferred in I.D. Case No. 43/2011 is not maintainable

and the dispute raised therein cannot be taken into consideration in this adjudication process in view of provisions made

in Section 2-A(2) of the Act. Thus, it can be safely said that I.D. Case No. 43/2011 is not maintainable.

10.

Coming to the maintainability of the I.D. Case No. 41/2012 registered in the event of receipt of a reference made

by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercising its authority under sub-section 2-A of Section 10 of the

I.D. Act the stand of the 1^st Party-Management is that the dispute having been adjudicated earlier by this Tribunal vide

I.D. Case No. 20/2000 the reference is not maintainable. On a close reading of the photocopy of the award pronounced

in the case of 20/2000, the schedule of the reference and pleadings advanced by the 2^nd party-Union in its statement of

claim it is found that in the earlier reference regularization of service of the casual workers/daily wagers engaged in the

establishment of the 1^st Party-Management was the subject matter of the dispute and the award does not reveal that

issue of whether the Scheme of 1/30^th wage is applicable to the disputant workmen was not taken into consideration

while adjudicating the said reference. Besides, certain other demands relating to service conditions of the disputant

workmen have been raised in the present reference and those demands were not taken for adjudication in the earlier

reference. Therefore, the contentions raised by the Management regarding maintainability of the reference on the

principle of resjudicata does not seem to have any merit.

11.

The Management has also challenged the maintainability of the reference contending that the organization of the

Management is not covered by the definition of “Industry” as contemplated under section 2(j) of the Act and the

workers being contract labourer and engaged temporarily and intermittently on need basis there is no relationship of

”employer and employee” between the parties and those workers are not coming under the purview of the “workman”

of the 1^st Party-Management as defined under section 2(s) of the Act.

12.

The Management has filed the copies of the award of this Tribunal in the case of 20/2000 and copy of the

judgement of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P(C) No. 12054. Perusal of these orders clearly suggest that the

Management had not taken any such stand or raised any such contention either in the Tribunal or in the Hon’ble High

Court. Besides, if the principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Sewerage Board –

Versus – A Rajappa & Others reported in AIR 1978 SC 969 are taken into consideration, the 1^st Party-Management

cannot be excluded from the definition of “Industry” as products or procurements from the research centers or its firms

are being sold to the public. Further, the Management admits engagement of the workers in the firms or its research

centers. As per the I.D. Act there is no separate distinction in the definition of “workman” for distinguishing such

workmen having temporary status or permanent status whose cause would be protected under the I.D. Act. Whether

the disputant workmen are contract labourer or they are working directly under the Management is to be looked into in

the present adjudication. In the above back-drops the contentions raised by the Management on the maintainability of

the reference has no force and as such, the issue is answered in favour of the Management.

13.

Since other issues are inter-related to each other they are taken up together for the sake of convenience. It is seen

from the pleadings and evidence advanced by the 2^nd party-Union that disputes raised in Seven Point Charter of

Demands is nothing more or less than the facilities extended to a temporary status workman covered by 1/30^th wage

scheme and regularization of their service. It is the main plank of the Management that the scheme is not applicable to

the contract labourers and since the disputant workmen are being engaged through labour contractors and their

engagement/employment is seasonal and intermittent and they are not being engaged continuously for 240 days in a

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 18] 2017@iQkYxqu 27] 1938

1463

year or 206 days in a year where five day office being held in a week, they have no right to claim benefit under 1/30^th

Wages Scheme.

14.

In view of the stand taken by the Management and the settled principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court

that initial burden lies on the workman to establish that he worked 240 days continuously in a year in order to avail any

benefit extended under the Industrial Disputes Act. The 2^nd party-Union is required to establish the relationship of

“employer and employee” as well as engagement of 169 disputant workmen for continuous 240 days work in a year by

credible and unimpeachable evidence. In this regard except oral assertions by two witnesses not a single scrap of paper

has been filed to show that the workmen were paid directly by the Management towards their wages, any letter towards

their engagement or any document by which they were approached to work as a casual/temporary labourer directly in

the various centers of the Management. As per the pleadings of the Union the disputant workmen are employed in field

work in various farms and research centers. It cannot be over-sighted that manual work in the farms or research centers

is usually seasonal in nature and as such, the contention advanced by the Management cannot be lightly brushed aside.

When the Union fails to file any document to show the engagement of the workmen, mode of payment and amount of

wages received by each workmen in a year, a mere bald statement by the workman witnesses cannot be sufficient to

hold that the disputant workmen are being engaged directly and working continuously for 240 days in a year in the

establishment of the Management. Undisputedly the workmen are claimed to have been engaged temporarily/casually

and as such they are not expected to be provided with any appointment/engagement letter or wage slip. However, a

muster roll and wage register are expected to be maintained in the establishment of the Management from which the

term and mode of employment as well as period of employment of disputant workmen can be ascertained. Having

required to prove their engagement the workmen could have called up the Management to produce those muster roll

and wage register to prove that they were not contract labourers and they were engaged and working directly in the

establishment of the Management. On a close scrutiny of the documents filed by the workmen it is seen that it does not

disclose that any of the disputant workmen are working continuously in the establishment of the Management or their

engagement was not through contract labourer. The list of the disputant workmen furnished by the 2^nd party-Union

does not seem to have been issued by the office of the Management.

15.

That apart, if the list furnished during the examination of workmen witnesses is accepted for argument sake, the

engagement of the disputant workmen appears to be after the year 1994. The DoPT formulated the Scheme of

temporary status with certain features and the Scheme came into force with effect from 1.9.1993. Clause 4(1) of the

Scheme reads as follows:-

“Temporary status”(1) “temporary” status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment

on the date of issue of this O.M. and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, which means

that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing

5 days “week”.

16.

From which it is clear that the conformant of temporary status is to be given to the casual labourers who were in

employment as on the date of commencement of the Scheme. The Scheme does not envisage that it is an on-going

Scheme. In order to acquire temporary status the casual labourer should have been in employment as on the date of

commencement of the Scheme and he should have rendered a continuous service for at least one year which means he

should have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days in a year or 206 days in a case of offices observing five days

in a week. This view has been taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India –Versus- Gagan passed in

Civil Appeal 1026/2003 and in the case of Union of India and Another –Versus Mohan Pal etc. etc. passed in Civil

Appeal 3168/2002. Neither the pleadings nor the evidence of the 2^nd party-Union is specific that any of the disputant

workmen was under employment of the Management when the Scheme was introduced. On the other hand it is

emerging from the oral as well as documentary evidence of the 2^nd party-Union that 29 casual workers have been

conferred with temporary status. It is not out of place to mention here that some office orders relating to conformant of

temporary status to different workmen/casual labourer working in different organizations of Central Government have

been filed by the 2^nd party-Union in support of the dispute raised by the Union. But, the copies of the orders are no way

helpful to determine the cause of the 2^nd party-Union as the same do not disclose whether the casual labourers named in

the order were eligible or not ineligible for conformant of such temporary status in view of the provisions enumerated

in the Scheme. On the other hand no claim has been made that any of the disputant workmen though being engaged

prior to the commencement of the Scheme has been left-out being treated as temporary status workmen.

17.

Further, it is pertinent to mention here that a demand has been raised for implementation of 1/30^th Wage Scheme

to the disputant workmen. But the 2^nd party-Union has not filed a copy of the Scheme for perusal of the Tribunal to

determine whether any of the disputant workmen or contract labourer can be covered by the Scheme. No evidence

either in shape of oral or documentary has been led to show that the disputant workmen are eligible to be covered by

the Scheme and as such the demands raised under seven point charter of demand should be extended to them. Regard

being had to the discussions made above the claim statement submitted by the 2^nd Party-Union does not seem to have

any merit.

1464 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 18, 2017/PHALGUNA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

18.

On the other hand, there is no serious dispute to the fact that this Tribunal vide its I.D. Case No. 20/2000

adjudicated a dispute raised by the 2^nd party-Union wherein claim was raised for regularization of service of temporary

workers numbering 50 and the adjudication went against the Union. A Writ Appeal was also preferred before the

Hon’ble High Court against the Award of this Tribunal passed in above I.D. Case. The said Writ was also disposed of

confirming the term of the Award passed by this Tribunal with a direction that the Management may frame an

appropriate Scheme and consider the case of the concerned workmen for absorption or regularization keeping in view

their previous experience in work and the fact that they have been working under the Management since long. Be that

as it may the Management may frame appropriate scheme and consider the case of the concerned workmen for

absorption/regularization pursuant to the observations of the Hon’ble High Court in the above Writ. That apart, the

Management is to consider to extend benefits, if any under the Scheme of Temporary Status or 1/30^th Wage to the

disputant workmen if they are found to be eligible to avail of such benefits under the said Scheme.

19.

Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 701-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]

Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM vkSj mudh deZdkj 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;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 43@2006) dks çdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@123@2005&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017

S.O. 701.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 43/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General

Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

28.02.2017.

[No. L-40012/123/2005-IR (DU)]

RAJENDER JOSHI, Dy. Director

vuqca/k

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj

lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 43 / 2006

Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

jsQjsUl ua- L- 40012/123/2005–IR(DU) fnukad 6/06/2006

Shri Damodar S/o. Shri Girdhari Singh Rajput,

R/o Village Dabri, Post Sadinser

Teh. Fatehpur, Shekhawati

Sikar Bikaner (Rajasthan)

V/s

The General Manager,

Office of the General Manager Telecom District,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Bikaner- Rajasthan

Deputy Divisional Engineer, B.S.N.L.,

Shri Dungargarh, Bikaner, Rajasthan

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 18] 2017@iQkYxqu 27] 1938

1465

izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh lh-,y-lSuh & ,MoksdsV

vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh lqjsUnz flag & ,MoksdsV

% iapkV %

fnukad % 21-1-2017

dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 10 mi/kkjk 1 [k.M+ (?k) ds

vUrxZr fnukad 6-6-2006 ds vkns’k ls izsf"kr fookn ds vk/kkj ij ;g izdj.k U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lafLFkr gSA

dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr fookn fuEuor~ gS %&

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Bikaner through General

Manager in terminating the Services of claimant Shri Damodar S/o. Shri Girdhari Singh, Lineman

w.e.f. 24-9-03 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the claimant is entitled to and from which

date?”

LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse es fn;s x;s rF;ksa ds vuqlkj laf{kIrr% izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed us

vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 mie.My vfHk;Urk JhMwxjx< chdkusj ds ekSf[kd vkns'k fnukad 3-5-2001 ls ykbuesu ds

in dk dk;Z lwMlj] nwjHkk"k dsUnz ds v/khu fd;kA izkFkhZ Jfed us lsok ds nkSjku VsyhQksu Bhd djus] u,

dusD'ku yxkus] dsfcu tksbafVax djus rFkk ,Dlpsat o ykbuksa ds j[kj[kko ,oa ejEer dk dk;Z fd;kA

lsok ds nkSjku izkFkhZ Jfed dks mDr dk;Z ds cnys 60 :i;s izfrfnu ds fglkc ls etnwjh nh tkrh Fkh

rFkk 200 :i;s ekfld edku fdjk;k Hkh vizkFkhZx.k ds }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed dks le;≤ ij Hkqxrku

fd;k x;kA

izkFkhZ Jfed dh lsok,a larks"kizn FkhA izkFkhZ Jfed dh lsokvksa ds lEcU/k esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ

izfrdwy izfof"B ;k vizkFkhZx.k dks dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha jgh gSA

izkFkhZ dks fnukad 24-9-2003 dks vpkud ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lsoki`Fkd dj fn;k x;kA lsoki`Fkd

vkns'k nsus ls iwoZ izkFkhZ Jfed dks u rks ,d ekg dk uksfVl fn;k x;k vkSj u gh uksfVl vof/k ds osru

dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA ;gka ;g Li"V fd;k tk jgk gS fd tks dk;Z vizkFkhZx.k@fu;kstd }kjk Jfed

izkFkhZ ls fy;k tkrk Fkk og LFkkbZ izd`fr dk Fkk rFkk og dk;Z orZeku esa Hkh cuk gqvk gS rFkkfi vizkFkhZx.k

us xSj dkuwuh :i ls izkFkhZ Jfed dks ekSf[kd vkns'k fnukad 24-9-2003 }kjk lsokls i`Fkd dj fn;kA

izkFkhZ Jfed us vizkFkhZx.k fu;kstd ds ;gka yxkrkj 240 fnu rd dk;Z fd;k gSA vizkFkhZx.k us

izkFkhZ Jfed dks ekSf[kdr% lsok i`Fkd djus ls iwoZ /kkjk 25&,Q vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh

ikyuk ugha dh gS] vr% ekSf[kd lsok i`Fkd vkns'k fnukad 24-9-03 xSj dkuwuh gSA

izkFkhZ dh lsok vizkFkhZ fu;kstdx.k us vius ekSf[kd vkns'k fnukad 24-9-2003 dks ckn nksigj crkSj

NaVuh ds lekIr dj nh rFkk ,slk djus ls iwoZ izkFkhZ tSls dk;Zjr deZdkjksa dh dksbZ ojh;rk lwph

vizkFkhZ@fu;kstdx.k }kjk tkjh ugha dh xbZA vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa izkFkhZ tSls djhc 300 ls vf/kd deZdkj

dk;Zjr jgs gSA vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa izkFkhZ ds in dk dk;Z ,oa in fjDr gksrs gq, Hkh vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk

izkFkhZ dks mldh lsok vof/k ds vuq:i fu;fer lsok dk ykHk ugha fn;k x;k gS rFkk cnuh;fr ls izkFkhZ

dh lsok voS/k o vuqfpr rFkk xSj dkuwuh :i ls lekIr dh xbZ gSA

izkFkhZ dks lsoki`Fkd djus ls iwoZ vizkFkhZx.k }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q ,oa

,p ds rgr fu/kkZfjr osru vFkok uksfVl osru rFkk NaVuh eqvkotk jkf'k dk Hkqxrku Hkh ugha fd;k x;k

rFkk u gh izkFkhZ dks lsokls i`Fkd djus ls iwoZ ofj"Brk lwph izdkf'kr dhA

izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZx.k }kjk lsoki`Fkd fd, tkus ds i'pkr ges'kk fu;kstu gsrq rRij jgk ijUrq

vizkFkhZx.k us mls fu;kstu esa okil ugha j[kk vkSj izkFkhZ dks fu;kstu ds fy, fu;ksftr fd, x, deZdkjksa

ls igys vkgwr ugha fd;k] bl izdkj vizkFkhZx.k }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,p dk Hkh

mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA

1466 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 18, 2017/PHALGUNA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vizkFkhZx.k }kjk izkFkhZ ds in dk dk;Z ,oa in gksrs gq, Hkh izkFkhZ dks voS/kkfud :i ls lsoki`Fkd

fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dh lsok vizkFkhZx.k }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh ikapoh vuqlwph ds rgr Jfed

fojks/kh uhfr dks viukrs gq, lekIr dh xbZ gSA izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZx.k ls iqu% lsok esa ysus dk ckj&ckj

vuqjks/k fd;k ijUrq foi{kh }kjk ek= vk'oklu gh fn;k x;k iqu% lsok esa ysus dk ckj ckj vuqjks/k fd;k

x;k ijUrq foi{kh }kjk ek= vk'oklu gh fn;k x;k ,oa iqu% lsok esa ugha fy;k x;kA ckn esa foi{kh }kjk

lsok esa iqu% ysus ls Li"Vr% bUdkj djus ij ;g fookn mRiUu gqvkA

10-

izkFkhZ@Jfed vius ifjokj esa bdykSrk dekus okyk gS ftls iqu% lsok esa ugha ysus ij mls o mlds

ifjokj dks dkQh vkfFkZd dfBukb;kas dk lkeuk djuk iM jgk gSA

11-

izkFkhZ Jfed us mijksDr lsoki`Fkd vkns'k fnukad 24-9-2003 ls O;fFkr gksdj ,d le>kSrk izkFkZuk

i= le{k {ks=h; Je vk;qDr dsUnzh;] t;iqj ds izLrqr fd;k ijUrq le>kSrk vf/kdkjh us vlQy okrkZ

izfrosnu dsUnz ljdkj Je foHkkx dks izLrqr dj fn;k ftl ij ;g jsQjsal dsUnz ljdkj }kjk ekuuh;

U;k;ky; dks U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq Hkstk x;k gSA

12- vUr esa izkFkZuk dh x;h gS fd izkFkhZ dh Dyse LVsVesUV dks Lohdkj dj izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZx.k dh lsok

iqu% fu;qDr djus dk vkns'k iznku djsa rFkk lsoki`Fkd dh fnuakd ls izkFkhZ Jfed dks foi{kh dh lsok esa

fujUrj ekurs gq, lsok ds leLr ykHkksa lfgr izkFkhZ Jfed dks lsok esa cgky djus dk vkns'k iznku djsa

rFkk leLr ns; ifjykHk tks izkFkhZ vizkFkhZx.k ds fu;kstu esa jgrs gq, izkIr djrk] izkFkhZ Jfed dks foIk{kh

ls iznku djk, tkoas rFkk lsoki`Fkd vkns'k fnukad 24-9-2003 dks vikLr ,oa fujLr djus dk vkns'k iznku

djus dh d`ik djsaA

foi{k dh rjQ ls oknksRrj izLrqr dj LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse ds en la[;k 1 dks Lohdkj fd;k x;k

gS vkSj dgk x;k gS fd foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dks u rks lsok esa j[kk x;k vkSj uk gh lsok ls gVk;k x;k FkkA

14-

izkFkhZ us izLrqr LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse dk en la 2 ftl izdkj izLrqr fd;k gS Lohdkj ugha gSA ;g

xyr gS fd izkFkhZ us fnukad 3-5-2001 dks vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 mie.My vfHk;Urk JhMwxjx< ds ekSf[kd

vkns'k ls ykbZuesu ds in dk dk;Z lwMlj] nwjHkk"k dsUnz ij fd;k gksA ;g Hkh xyr gS fd dk;Z ds nkSjku

foi{kh ds }kjk izkFkhZ dks 60 :i;s izfrfnu etnwjh rFkk 200 :i;s ekfld edku fdjk;k vnk fd;k tkrk

FkkA

15-

izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse dk en la- 3 ftl izdkj izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] Lohdkj ugha

gSA izkFkhZ ,oa vizkFkhZx.k ds e/; Jfed ,oa fu;kstd dk lEcU/k ugha Fkk ,oa tc lEcU/k gh ugha Fkk rks

f'kdk;r dk iz'u gh ugha gSA iw.kZ rF; vfrfjDr dFku esa of.kZr gSA

16-

izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse dk en la- 4 ftl izdkj izLrqr fd;k x;k gS Lohdkj ugha

gSA ;g xyr gS fd izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZx.k }kjk fnukad 24-9-2003 dks vpkud ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lsokls

i`Fkd fd;k x;k gksA tSlk fd mij of.kZr fd;k x;k gS] izkFkhZ ,oa vizkFkhZx.k ds e/; Jfed ,oa fu;kstd

ds lEcU/k ugha Fks] tc lEcU/k gh ugha Fks rks ,d ekg dk uksfVl ;k ,d ekg uksfVl vof/k dk osru

Hkqxrku djus dk iz'u gh ugha FkkA ;g Hkh xyr gS fd vizkFkhZx.k ds vf/kdkj {ks= esa fdlh izdkj dk

LFkkbZ izd`fr dk dk;Z gks rFkk og dk;Z orZeku esa cuk gqvk gksA ;g Hkh xyr gS fd vizkFkhZx.k }kjk xSj

dkuwuh :i ls izkFkhZ Jfed dks ekSf[kd vkns'k fnukad 24-9-2003 }kjk lsok ls i`Fkd dk fn;k x;k gksA

iw.kZ rF; vfrfjDr dFku esa of.kZr gSaSA

17-

izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse dk en la- 5 ftl izdkj izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] Lohdkj ugha

gSA ;g xyr gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed us foi{kh fu;kstd ds ;gka yxkrkj 240 fnu vFkok blls de fnol

rd dk;Z fd;k gksA ;g Hkh xyr gS fd foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed dks ekSf[kd :i ls lsok i`Fkd fd;k x;k

gksA ;g Hkh xyr gS fd 25 ,Q vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh ikyuk ugha dh x;h gksA ;g Hkh xyr gS

fd dksbZ ekSf[kd lsok&i`Fkd vkns'k fnukad 24-9-2003 xSj dkuwuh :i ls fd;k x;k gksA iw.kZ rF;

vfrfjDr dFku esa of.kZr gSA

18-

izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse dk en la- 6 ftl izdkj izLrqr fd;k x;k gS Lohdkj ugha

gSA ;g xyr gS fd izkFkhZ dh lsok vizkFkhZ fu;kstdx.k }kjk ekSf[kd vkns'k fnukad 24-9-2003 dks ckn

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 18] 2017@iQkYxqu 27] 1938

1467

nksigj crkSj NaVuh lekIr dj nh x;h gksA vizkFkhZ] izkFkhZ dk fu;kstd gh ugha Fkk] rks NaVuh ls iwoZ

ojh;rk lwph fu;kstdx.k }kjk tkjh djus dk iz'u gh ugha mBrkA ;g Hkh xyr gS fd vizkFkhZ laLFkk esa

izkFkhZ tSls djhc 300 ls vf/kd deZdkj dk;Zjr jgs gksA ;g Hkh xyr gS fd vizkFkhZ laLFkk esa izkFkhZ ds in

dk dk;Z ,oa in fjDr gksrs gq, Hkh vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ dks mldh lsok vof/k ds vuq:i fu;fer lsok dk

ykHk ugha fn;k gksA iw.kZ rF; vfrfjDr dFku esa of.kZr gSA

19-

izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse dk en la- 7 ftl izdkj izLrqr fd;k x;k gS Lohdkj ugha

gSA ;g xyr gS fd vizkFkhZx.k }kjk izkFkhZ dks lsok i`Fkd fd;k x;k gksA ;g Hkh xyr gS fd izkFkhZ

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,p ds vUrxZr vizkFkhZx.k ls fu/kkZfjr osru vFkok uksfVl osru

rFkk NaVuh eqvkotk jkf'k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gks vFkok izkFkhZ dh lsok i`Fkd djus ls iwoZ fdlh

ofj"Brk lwph izdkf'kr djus dh vko';drk gksA lkjh ckrsa vFkZghu gSaA tc izkFkhZ o vizkFkhZx.k dk lEcU/k

fu;ksDrk o deZdkj dk Fkk gh ugha rks lsoki`Fkd djuk] NaVuh djuk ;k uksfVl ;k osru uksfVl] NaVuh

eqvkotk jkf'k dh ckr djuk vFkZghu gS] vLi"V gSA iw.kZ rF; vfrfjDr dFku esa of.kZr gSA

20-

izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse dk en la- 8 ftl izdkj izLrqr fd;k x;k gS Lohdkj ugha

gSA ;g xyr gS fd vizkFkhZx.k }kjk izkFkhZ ds lkFk esa ;k izkFkhZ ds ckn esa dfu"B deZdkjksa dks lsoki`Fkd

ugha fd;k x;k rFkk mUgsa cnLrwj lsok esa cuk;s j[kk x;kA ;g Hkh xyr gS fd izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZx.k ds

fu;kstu esa fu;ksftr jgrs gq;s fu;fer lsok dk ykHk izkIr dj pqds gksA ;g Hkh xyr gS fd izFke vk;s

vkf[kj tk;s fl)kUr dh ikyuk ugha dh xbZ gksA ;g en ek= Jheku dks fizT;wfMl djus ds iz;kstu ls

fy[kk x;k gS tks vFkZghu ,oa vLi"V gSA iw.kZ rF; vfrfjDr dFku esa of.kZr gSA

21-

izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse dk en la- 9 ftl izdkj izLrqr fd;k x;k gS Lohdkj ugha

gSA ;g xyr gS fd izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ }kjk lsoki`Fkd fd;k x;k gksA ;g Hkh xyr gS fd vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,p dk dksbZ mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA iw.kZ rF; vfrfjDr dFku es of.kZr gSA

22-

izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse dk en la- 10 ftl izdkj izLrqr fd;k x;k gS Lohdkj ugha

gSA ;g xyr gS fd vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 77 o 78 dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/kfu;e esa ek= 40 /kkjk;sa gSA vHkh rd vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 77 o 78 xfBr ugha

dh xbZ gSA

23-

izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse dk en la- 11 ftl izdkj izLrqr fd;k x;k gS Lohdkj ugha

gSA vizkFkhZx.k }kjk tc lsoki`Fkd fd;k gh ugha x;k gS rks voS/kkfud :i ls lsoki`Fkd djus dk iz'u gh

ugha mBrk gSA ;g xyr gS dh izkFkhZ lsok vizkFkhZx.k }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh 5 oh vuqlwph ds

vUrxZr Jfed fojks/kh fufr dks viukrs gq, lekIr dh xbZ gksA ;g Hkh xyr gS fd izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZx.k ls

iqu% lsok esa ysus dk ckj ckj vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gksA ;g Hkh xyr gS fd vizkFkhZx.k us dksbZ vk'oklu

fn;k gksA tc izkFkhZ vizkFkhZx.k dh lsok esa Fkk gh ugha rks vk'oklu nsus dk iz'u gh ugha FkkA ek= Jheku

dks fizT;wfMl djus gsrq vlR; opu fy[k x;s gSA iw.kZ rF; vfrfjDr dFku esa of.kZr gSA

24-

izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse dk en la- 12 ftl izdkj izLrqr fd;k x;k gS Lohdkj ugha

gSA

25-

izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse dk en la- 13 ftl izdkj izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] Lohdkj ugha

gSA

26-

vfrfjDr dFku esa dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ Dyhu gS.Ml ls Jheku ds le{k ugha vk;k gSA og

Jheku ls dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA

27-

izkFkhZ us ;g rF; fNik;k gS fd VsfydkWe ftyk izcU/kd] pw: ,oa izsthMsUV] >wU>wuq fMfLV~DV ,Dl

lohZlesu osyQs;j ,tsUlh] >wU>wuq ds e/; ,d vuqcU/k 14-7-2000 dks fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlds

vuqlkj mDr Bsdsnkj us vLFkkbZ izd`fr dk Bsdk fy;k FkkA ,tsUlh }kjk M~kbZoj] flD;ksfjVh lqijokbZtj]

flD;ksfjVh xkMZ bR;kfn ds dk;Z ds iz;kstu ls vkneh miyC/k djok dj dk;Z djuk FkkA bl vuqcU/k dh

ikyuk esa ,tsUlh }kjk le;≤ ij vko';drk ds vuqlkj vkneh miyC/k djok;s ,oa vko';drkuqlkj

muls dk;Z djok;k x;k ,oa ,tsUlh dks Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA

1468 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 18, 2017/PHALGUNA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

28-

dk;Z djus okys O;fDr dHkh Hkh vizkFkhZx.k ds fu;kstu esa ugha jgsA og vLFkkbZ :i ls dk;Z ds

izd`fr ds vuqlkj ,tsUlh ds gh fu;kstu esa jgsA

29-

Mh-bZ- (iz'kklu)] Vh-Mh-,e- pw: ,oa v/;{k] ,Dl lfoZlesUk osyQs;j ,tsUlh] >wU>wuq }kjk fnukad

14-7-2001 dks fQj Bsdk ,d o"kZ ds fy, c<k;k x;k o mudh lqfo/kk ds vuqlkj muds }kjk vkoafVr

O;fDr;ksa us le;≤ ij dk;Z fd;k gSA og Hkh vizkFkhZx.k ds fu;kstu esa ugha jgs cfYd Bsdsnkj ds

v/khu vLFkkbZ :i ls jgsA

30-

izkFkhZ us ;g rF; Hkh fNik;k gS fd fnukad 8-2-2004 dks VsfydkWe ftyk izcU/kd] pw: Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fy- (tks iwoZ esa VsfydkWe foHkkx bf.M;k Fkk) ,oa izsthMsUV ,Dl lfoZlesu osyQs;j ,tsUlh] >wU>wuq

ds e/; Hkh blh izdkj dk;Z ckcr vuqcU/k fd;k x;k Fkk ftlds }kjk fnukad 8-8-2002 ,oa fnukad 8-11-

2002 dks vuqcU/k foLrkj fd;k x;k tks vuqcU/k foLrkj fQj fnukad 25-8-2003 dks fd;k x;kA

31-

izkFkhZ Bsdsnkj ds fu;kstu esa vLFkkbZ :i ls jgk gS rks mldk dksbZ vf/kdkj vizkFkhZx.k ds fu;kstu

esa jgus dk ugha curk gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd ftu rF;ksa dks Li"V :i ls Lohdkj ugha fd;k x;k gS

mUgsa vLohdkj ekuk tkos ,oa izkFkhZ dh ;kfpdk gtsZ lfgr [kkfjt fd;k tk;A

32-

fjTok;UMj esa izkFkhZ us tokc ds vfHkdFkuksa dks vLohdkj fd;k gS ,oa ;kfpdk ds dFku dks lgh

Bgjkus lEcfU/kr dFku izLrqr fd;k gSA

33-

eSusa foi{kh ds fo}ku izfrfuf/kx.k dh cgl lquh rFkk i=koyh dk lE;d~ voyksdu fd;kA

34-

izkFkhZ us fnukad 21-5-13 dks lk{; esa viuh 'kiFk&i= izLrqr dh gS ysfdu rc ls fnukad 28-4-16

rd izkFkhZ izfrijh{kk ds fy, mifLFkr ugha vk;kA fnukad 28-4-16 dks ;kph ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us mYys[k

fd;k fd ;kph ls lEidZ ugha gks ik jgk gS vr% ;kph dks izfrijh{kk gsrq vfUre volj iznku dj fnukad

18-7-16 lk{; gsrq frfFk fu;r dh x;hA fnukad 18-7-16 dks mHk;i{k vuqifLFkr jgs vr% U;k;kf/kdj.k us

U;k;fgr esa dk;Zokgh eqYroh dj iqu% ;kph dks vfUre volj iznku djrs gq, fnukad 23-8-16 lk{; gsrq

frfFk fu;r dhA fnukad 23-8-16 dks Hkh ;kph mifLFkr ugha vk;kA mHk;i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k mifLFkr

vk;sA foi{k dh eqYroh vkosnu ij vxyh frfFk fnukad 1-11-16 fu;r dh x;hA fnukad 1-11-16 dks

mHk;i{k vuqifLFkr jgs rFkk ihBklhu vf/kdkjh vodk'k ij Fks vr% vxyh frfFk 26-12-16 fu;r dh x;hA

35-

fnukad 26-12-16 dks u ;kph vkSj u gh ;kph ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k mifLFkr vk;sA foi{kh ds fo}ku

izfrfuf/k mifLFkr vk;sA U;k;ky; dh le; lekfIr rd bUrtkj fd;k x;k vkSj ;kph ds mifLFkr u

vkus ds dkj.k ;kph dks izfrijh{kk djkus dk volj lekIr fd;k x;kA foi{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us foi{k

ds lk{; ds lEcU/k esa c;ku fd;k fd ;kph dh rjQ ls lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS blfy, foi{k dks

lk{; ugha izLrqr djuk gS] vr% foi{k dk lk{; Hkh lekIr fd;k x;kA

cgl

36-

foi{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us cgl dh gs fd ;kph us ;kfpdk esa dFku ds leFkZu esa dksbZ lk{;

ugha izLrqr fd;k gS rFkk viuh izfrijh{kk Hkh ugha djk;h gS vr% ;kph dh lk{; esa izLrqr 'kiFk&i= Hkh

lk{; esa xzg.k ugha dh tk ldrh gSA ;g cgl Hkh dh gS fd ;kph dHkh foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa ugha jgk

rFkk fu;ksDrk ,oa deZdkj dk lEcU/k mHk;i{k ds chp dHkh ugha jgk gS vr% ;kph Bsdsnkj dk deZpkjh

jgk gS] vr% ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh tk;A

fu"d"kZ

37-

foi{kh ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dh cgl lkjoku gS fd ;kph izfrijh{kk esa mifLFkr ugha gqvk gS

blfy, mldh eq[; ijh{kk ds :i esa izLrqr 'kiFk&i= lk{; esa xzg.kh; ugha gSA ;gkW ij bl rF; dk

mYys[k djuk egRoiw.kZ gS fd ;kph us lk{; eas tks 'kiFk&i= fnukad 21-5-2013 dks izLrqr dh gS bl

'kiFk&i= dks izkFkhZ us fnukad 31-5-2011 dks 'kiFk dfe'uj ds le{k lR;kfir djok;k gS ijUrq yxHkx

nks lky rd vius ikl j[kus ds ckn fnukad 31-5-2015 dks U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr fd;k gS vkSj

izLrqfr ds ckn vusd volj fn;s tkus ds ckotwn izfrijh{kk gsrq mifLFkr ugha vk;k gSA mDr fLFkfr ls

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 18] 2017@iQkYxqu 27] 1938

1469

;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks bl ekeys dks vkxs pykus esa dksbZ :fp ugha gS rFkk ekeyk vuko';d

yfEcr py jgk gS ftlls lk{; dk volj lekIr fd;k x;k gSA mDr rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr esa eSa bl

fu"d"kZ ij gwW fd ;kph bl rF; dks fl) djus esa lQy ugha gS fd fnukad 24-9-2003 ls ;kph Jh

nkeksnj iq= Jh fxj/kkjh flag] ykbuesu dh lsok;sa Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] fcdkusj ds izcU/ku }kjk

otfj;s egkizcU/kd lekIr djuk fof/klaxr ,ao mfpr ugaha gSA ;kph rn~uqlkj ;kfpr vuqrks"k dks ikus ds

gdnkj ugha gSA ;kph dh ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA eU=ky; }kjk bl ekeys esa U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr

fjQjsUl dk mRrj rn~uqlkj fn;k tkrk gSA iapkV rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 702-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mkd?kjksa dk

v/h{kd] Mkd?kj o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 19@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@133@2004&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017

S.O. 702.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 19/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

Superintendent of Post Offices, Post Office and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

02.11.2016.

[No. L-40012/133/2004-IR (DU)]

RAJENDAR JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 13^thOctober, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 19/2005

The Supdt. of Post Offices,

Deptt. of Post,

Divisional Post Office,

Gandhigram,

Junagadh (Gujarat) – 362001

…First Party

V/s

Shri A.H. Vasavada C/o Shri R.H. Dhebar,

Madh Street, Divan Khadki,

Opp. Moti Bhuvan, Junagadh (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri P.M. Rami

For the Second Party :

1470 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 18, 2017/PHALGUNA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-

40012/133/2004-IR(DU) dated 09.12.2004/28.01.2005 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 Supdt. Of Post Offices, Junagadh in terminating the services of Shri

Ahailesh H. Vasavada, Extra Departmental Packer w.e.f. 18.05.1999 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the

workman concerned is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 09.12.2004/28.01.2005. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 7 on

06.08.2008 and first party submitted the written statement Ext. 14 on 25.10.2012. Since then the second party has been

absent and has not been leading his evidence. The first party has also moved applications Ext. 16 and 17 on 23.09.2013

and 13.10.2016 respectively for disposing off the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party. Thus it

appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of as “the action of the management of Supdt. Of Post Offices, Junagadh in

terminating the services of Shri Ahailesh H. Vasavada, Extra Departmental Packer w.e.f. 18.05.1999 is legal and

justified” in the absence of the evidence of the second party.

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 703-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwj lapkj

ftyk egkizca/d] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

122@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@34@2003&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017

S.O. 703.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 122/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the Telecom District General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 15.02.2017.

[No. L-40012/34/2003-IR (DU)]

RAJENDAR JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 30^thJanuary, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 122/2005

The Telecom District Manager,

BSNL, 3^rdFloor, Diamond Market,

Jamnagar (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 18] 2017@iQkYxqu 27] 1938

1471

Shri Ramdeep Verma

C/o Mazdoor Mahajan Sangh,

Opp. Engineer Office,

K.V. Road,

Jamnagar

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri H.R. Raval

For the Second Party

Shri Chintan Gohel and R.C. Pathak

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/34/2003-

IR(DU) dated 15.12.2005 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 Telecom District Manager, BSNL, Jamnagar in terminating the

services of Shri Ramdeep Vasudevprasad Verma w.ef. 30.06.1985 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 15.12.2005. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 11 on 20.11.2013.

First party submitted the written statement Ex. 13 on 26.03.2015. Thereafter the workman died and the legal heir of the

workman moved an application Ex. 14 for substitution as legal heir of the second party workman. Now today on

30.01.2017, the advocate of the legal heir of the second party Chintan Gohel and R.C. Pathak moved an application Ex.

19 in which they expressed unwillingness to lead any evidence. Consequently the first party has also orally expressed

unwillingness to lead any evidence.

As second party has not lead any evidence as to whether was the deceased workman Ramdeep Vasudevprasad

Verma of the first party employer or not and has also not lead any evidence as to whether he worked for the period

which may entitle the workman for declaring his termination from service as illegal and just.

Thus in the absence of evidence, the deceased workman cannot be treated as workman which may entitle him for

any benefit and as well as of declaring the termination of service as illegal.

Thus in the absence of the evidence of the workman, the reference is decided with the observation as under: “the

action of the management of Telecom District Manager, BSNL, Jamnagar in terminating the services of Shri Ramdeep

Vasudevprasad Verma w.ef. 30.06.1985 is just and legal and therefore, no relief can be granted.”

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 704-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d

nwj lapkj ftyk] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 93

dk 2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40011@42@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017

S.O. 704.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 93/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

General Manager Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 17.01.2017.

[No. L-40011/42/2012-IR (DU)]

RAJENDAR JOSHI, Dy. Director

1472 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 18, 2017/PHALGUNA 27, 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 3^rdJanuary, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 93/2013

The General Manager Telecom District,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

New Telephone Exchange Building, Halar Road,

Valsad (Gujarat) – 396001

…First Party

V/s

The Secretary,

Gujarat Rajya Ardgsarjaru Audhyogik Karmachari Sangh,

4, Deeplex Apartments, 1^st Floor, Vastrapur,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

…Second Party

For the First Party :

For the Second Party :

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40011/42/2012-

IR(DU) dated 15.04.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the union for cancellation of transfer order dated 18.05.2012 in respect of Shri N.J.

Tandel within the meaning of deemed recognized workman in response to their application dated 28.03.2012 for

declaration of protected workman is legal, proper and just? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 15.04.2013. Both the parties were served by registered post. Acknowledgement of

service on second party workman was received vide Ext. 3 on 10.02.2015. Despite a lapse of about 2 years, second

party has not submitted the statement of claim. It is noteworthy that despite service, the second party did not appear and

has also not filed the statement of claim. A last opportunity was given to the second party workman in his absence to

submit the statement of claim on 25.05.2016 but on subsequent every date 25.05.2016, 04.10.2016 and today on

03.01.2017, the second party did not appear and also did not care to submit the statement of claim. Thus it appears that

the second party has no willingness to prosecute the case.

Therefore, the reference in the absence of the statement of claim and supporting evidence of the second party

workman is disposed of with the observation as under: “the demand of the union for cancellation of transfer order dated

18.05.2012 in respect of Shri N.J. Tandel within the meaning of deemed recognized workman in response to their

application dated 28.03.2012 for declaration of protected workman is not legal, proper and just.”

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 18] 2017@iQkYxqu 27] 1938

1473

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 705-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; funs'kd izkS|ksfxdh

ds ,e@,l ljnkj oYyHkHkkbZ jk"Vªh;] o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 132@2013)

dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@39@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017

S.O. 705.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 132/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the Director, M/s. Sardar Vallabhabhai National of Technology, and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 15.2.2017.

[No. L-42012/39/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDAR JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 18^th January, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 132/2013

The Director,

M/s. SardarVallabhbhai National Institute of Technology,

Ichchhanath,

Surat (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

Mr. Chandrakant Tukaram Chandlekar,

Post Madel, Tal. Mahad, Distt. Raigadh,

Maharashtra

…Second Party

For the First Party : None

For the Second Party : Shri L.M. Patil

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42012/39/2013-

IR(DU) dated 18.07.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the establishment of Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat falls under the

definition of ‘Industry’ as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not?”

“If yes, whether the demand of the workmen Mr. Chandrakant Tukaram Chandlekar, Rajgarh (terminated

orally on 14.07.2012) for reinstatement in service in his original post will full back wages is legal, proper and

just? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

1474 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 18, 2017/PHALGUNA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1. The reference dates back to 18.07.2013. In response to the notice issued to both the parties by the tribunal, the

second party workman ChandrakantTukaramChandlekar submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 3 and statement of

claim Ex. 4 on 02.02.2016. The first party was issued notice twice, firstly on 17.07.2013 to appear on

25.06.2014 and secondly on 02.02.2016 to appear on 07.06.2016 which were served on the first party.

Acknowledgement of service Ex. 6 was received by the tribunal but first party did not prefer to submit the

written statement, therefore, on 24.08.2016; a last opportunity was given to the first party to submit written

statement failing which the case was ordered to proceed ex-parte against the first party. The first party did not

prefer to submit the written statement despite giving last opportunity in absentia. Therefore, the matter was

taken up as ex-parte against the first party.

2. The second party workman submitted his affidavit Ex. 7 in lieu of his oral evidence. The said affidavit was

also served on the first party The Director, M/s SardarVallabhbhai National Institute of Technology,

Ichchhanath, Surat but the first party did not prefer to take the notice of the affidavit. Therefore, this tribunal

has no option but to pass the award as per law.

3. The second party workman in his statement of claim Ex. 4 has alleged that he was working as hostel boy in the

first party establishment and his services were terminated illegally and arbitrary by the first party. He raised an

industrial dispute under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner cum Conciliation Officer where both the parties appeared and submitted their written

submission. The conciliation failed therefore, Assistant Labour Commissioner cum Conciliation Officer

referred the dispute to the appropriate government for the reference in question before the tribunal. He has

further alleged that he had been working with the first party for last 17 year as hostel boy drawing Rs. 203/-

per day as daily wager. His duty was to keep the hostel room neat and clean. He worked for more than 240

days in each and every calendar year but his services were arbitrary terminated by an oral order on 14.07.2012

without giving any cause and proper reason. The first party never prepared the seniority list of the daily wager.

At the time of termination of his service, junior employees were kept in service, violative in the seniority

principle. He was not served with any retrenchment notice and also was not paid any retrenchment

compensation at the time of termination of service. He has further alleged that after terminating his service,

first party employer engaged some other daily wage employee in his place without inviting him to join as daily

wager, thus violated the provisions of Section 25 G & H of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has further alleged

that Government of India introduced a new scheme as per the 6^th pay commission recommendation to engaged

supporting staff but the first party did not engaged the supporting staff and switch over to the contract system

which was not permissible. He expressed his willingness to work as daily wager but he was denied his

engagement as daily wager. The first party is an industry within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, for the purpose of running the hostel providing the students to stay with the facility of

kitchen/canteen/mess for the students studying in the first party institution. Therefore, the termination of his

service was illegal and violative of Section 25 F, G & H of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, he has

prayed for reinstatement of his service with back wages.

4. As already stated, the first party did not prefer to appear and file the written statement, therefore, the case was

ordered to proceed ex-parte against the first party and the second party workman filed his affidavit Ex. 7

reiterating the averments made in the statement of claim Ex. 4.

5. There is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit Ex. 7 of the workman wherein he has stated on oath that he

worked for more than 17 years as hostel boy for keeping up the hostel meant for the students studying in the

first party institution for than 240 days in each and every calendar year. He has further stated that his service

was terminated arbitrarily and illegally without serving notice and praying retrenchment compensation. He has

further stated that after termination of his service; some other boys were engaged who were either junior to

him or new one.

6. As regards the question of first party institution as industry under Section 2 (J) of Industrial Disputes Act, the

hostel activity attached to the institution is of commercial nature. Therefore, the institution can be said to be an

industry within the meaning of the Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and removal of the workman

without serving notice and paying retrenchment compensation will definitely come within the meaning of

Section 25 F, G & H of the Industrial Disputes Act.

7. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the second party was illegally removed and deserves reinstatement in

service in his original post within 60 days from the date of the publication of this award.

8. The award is passed accordingly.

P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 18] 2017@iQkYxqu 27] 1938

1475

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 706-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; funs'kd izkS|ksfxdh

ds ,e@,l ljnkj oYyHkHkkbZ jk"Vªh;] o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 139@2013)

dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@37@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017

S.O. 706.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 139/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the Director, M/s. Sardar Vallabhabhai National of Technology, and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 15.2.2017.

[No. L-42012/37/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDAR JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer,

CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad,

Dated 18^th January, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No- 139/2013

The Director,

M/s. SardarVallabhbhai National Institute of Technology,

Ichchhanath,

Surat (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

Mr. Gurjibhai Chemabhai Gamit,

Village Borepada, Nichlu Faliyu,

Tal. Sonagadh, Tapi

…Second Party

For the First Party : None

For the Second Party : Shri L.M. Patil

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42012/37/2013-

IR(DU) dated 17.07.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the establishment of SardarVallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat falls under the

definition of ‘Industry’ as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not?

“If yes, whether the demand of the workmen Shri Gurjibhai Chemabhai Gamit (terminated orally on

14.07.2012) for reinstatement in service in his original post will full back wages is legal, proper and just? To

what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 17.07.2013. In response to the notice issued to both the parties by the tribunal, the

second party workman Gurjibhai Chemabhai Gamit submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 3 and statement of claim Ex. 4 on

02.02.2016. The first party was issued notice twice, firstly on 17.07.2013 to appear on 25.06.2014 and secondly on

02.02.2016 to appear on 07.06.2016 which were served on the first party. Acknowledgement of service Ex. 6 was

1476 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 18, 2017/PHALGUNA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

received by the tribunal but first party did not prefer to submit the written statement, therefore, on 24.08.2016, a last

opportunity was given to the first party to submit written statement failing which the case was ordered to proceed ex-

parte against the first party. The first party did not prefer to submit the written statement despite giving last opportunity

in absentia. Therefore, the matter was taken up as ex-parte against the first party.

The second party workman submitted his affidavit Ex. 7 in lieu of his oral evidence. The said affidavit was

also served on the first party The Director, M/s SardarVallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Ichchhanath, Surat

but the first party did not prefer to take the notice of the affidavit. Therefore, this tribunal has no option but to pass the

award as per law.

The second party workman in his statement of claim Ex. 4 has alleged that he was working as hostel boy in the

first party establishment and his services were terminated illegally and arbitrary by the first party. He raised an

industrial dispute under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the Assistant Labour Commissioner cum

Conciliation Officer where both the parties appeared and submitted their written submission. The conciliation failed

therefore, Assistant Labour Commissioner cum Conciliation Officer referred the dispute to the appropriate government

for the reference in question before the tribunal. He has further alleged that he had been working with the first party for

last 17 year as hostel boy drawing Rs. 203/- per day as daily wager. His duty was to keep the hostel room neat and

clean. He worked for more than 240 days in each and every calendar year but his services were arbitrary terminated by

an oral order on 14.07.2012 without giving any cause and proper reason. The first party never prepared the seniority list

of the daily wager. At the time of termination of his service, junior employees were kept in service, violative in the

seniority principle. He was not served with any retrenchment notice and also was not paid any retrenchment

compensation at the time of termination of service. He has further alleged that after terminating his service, first party

employer engaged some other daily wage employee in his place without inviting him to join as daily wager, thus

violated the provisions of Section 25 G & H of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has further alleged that Government of

India introduced a new scheme as per the 6^th pay commission recommendation to engaged supporting staff but the first

party did not engaged the supporting staff and switch over to the contract system which was not permissible. He

expressed his willingness to work as daily wager but he was denied his engagement as daily wager. The first party is an

industry within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, for the purpose of running the hostel

providing the students to stay with the facility of kitchen/canteen/mess for the students studying in the first party

institution. Therefore, the termination of his service was illegal and violative of Section 25 F, G & H of the Industrial

Disputes Act. Therefore, he has prayed for reinstatement of his service with back wages.

As already stated, the first party did not prefer to appear and file the written statement, therefore, the case was

ordered to proceed ex-parte against the first party and the second party workman filed his affidavit Ex. 7 reiterating the

averments made in the statement of claim Ex. 4.

There is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit Ex. 7 of the workman wherein he has stated on oath that he

worked for more than 17 years as hostel boy for keeping up the hostel meant for the students studying in the first party

institution for than 240 days in each and every calendar year. He has further stated that his service was terminated

arbitrarily and illegally without serving notice and praying retrenchment compensation. He has further stated that after

termination of his service; some other boys were engaged who were either junior to him or new one.

As regards the question of first party institution as industry under Section 2 (J) of Industrial Disputes Act, the

hostel activity attached to the institution is of commercial nature. Therefore, the institution can be said to be an industry

within the meaning of the Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and removal of the workman without serving

notice and paying retrenchment compensation will definitely come within the meaning of Section 25 F, G & H of the

Industrial Disputes Act.

Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the second party was illegally removed and deserves reinstatement in

service in his original post within 60 days from the date of the publication of this award.

The award is passed accordingly.

P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 707-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; funs'kd izkS|ksfxdh

ds ,e@,l ljnkj oYyHkHkkbZ jk"Vªh;] o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 142@2013)

dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@38@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 18] 2017@iQkYxqu 27] 1938

1477

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017

S.O. 707.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 142/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the Director, M/s. Sardar Vallabhabhai National of Technology, and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 15.2.2017.

[No. L-42012/38/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDAR JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : PRAMOD KUMAR CHATURVEDI,Presiding Officer,

CGIT cum -Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 18^th January, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 142/2013

The Director,

M/s. Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology,

Ichchhanath, Surat (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

Mr. Tukaram Sitaram Parmar,

Post Madel, Tal. Mahad,

Dist. Raigadh, Maharashtra

…Second Party

For the First Party : None

For the Second Party : Shri L.M. Patil

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-

42012/38/2013-IR(DU) dated 19.07.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the establishment of Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat falls under the

definition of ‘Industry’ as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not?

“If yes, whether the demand of the workmen Mr. Tukaram Sitaram Pawar, Rajgarh (terminated orally on

14.07.2012) for reinstatement in service in his original post will full back wages is legal, proper and just? To

what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

1. The reference dates back to 19.07.2013. In response to the notice issued to both the parties by the tribunal, the

second party workman Tukaram Sitaram Parmar submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 3 and statement of claim Ex. 4 on

02.02.2016. The first party was issued notice twice, firstly on 17.07.2013 to appear on 25.06.2014 and secondly on

02.02.2016 to appear on 07.06.2016 which were served on the first party. Acknowledgement of service Ex. 6 was

received by the tribunal but first party did not prefer to submit the written statement, therefore, on 24.08.2016; a

last opportunity was given to the first party to submit written statement failing which the case was ordered to

proceed ex-parte against the first party. The first party did not prefer to submit the written statement despite giving

last opportunity in absentia. Therefore, the matter was taken up as ex-parte against the first party.

2. The second party workman submitted his affidavit Ex. 7 in lieu of his oral evidence. The said affidavit was also

served on the first party The Director, M/s Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Ichchhanath,

Surat but the first party did not prefer to take the notice of the affidavit. Therefore, this tribunal has no option but

to pass the award as per law.

1478 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 18, 2017/PHALGUNA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. The second party workman in his statement of claim Ex. 4 has alleged that he was working as hostel boy in the

first party establishment and his services were terminated illegally and arbitrary by the first party. He raised an

industrial dispute under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the Assistant Labour Commissioner

cum Conciliation Officer where both the parties appeared and submitted their written submission. The conciliation

failed therefore, Assistant Labour Commissioner cum Conciliation Officer referred the dispute to the appropriate

government for the reference in question before the tribunal. He has further alleged that he had been working with

the first party for last 17 year as hostel boy drawing Rs. 203/- per day as daily wager. His duty was to keep the

hostel room neat and clean. He worked for more than 240 days in each and every calendar year but his services

were arbitrary terminated by an oral order on 14.07.2012 without giving any cause and proper reason. The first

party never prepared the seniority list of the daily wager. At the time of termination of his service, junior

employees were kept in service, violative in the seniority principle. He was not served with any retrenchment

notice and also was not paid any retrenchment compensation at the time of termination of service. He has further

alleged that after terminating his service, first party employer engaged some other daily wage employee in his

place without inviting him to join as daily wager, thus violated the provisions of Section 25 G & H of the Industrial

Disputes Act. He has further alleged that Government of India introduced a new scheme as per the 6^th pay

commission recommendation to engaged supporting staff but the first party did not engaged the supporting staff

and switch over to the contract system which was not permissible. He expressed his willingness to work as daily

wager but he was denied his engagement as daily wager. The first party is an industry within the meaning of

Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, for the purpose of running the hostel providing the students to stay with

the facility of kitchen/canteen/mess for the students studying in the first party institution. Therefore, the

termination of his service was illegal and violative of Section 25 F, G & H of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Therefore, he has prayed for reinstatement of his service with back wages.

4. As already stated, the first party did not prefer to appear and file the written statement, therefore, the case was

ordered to proceed ex-parte against the first party and the second party workman filed his affidavit Ex. 7 reiterating

the averments made in the statement of claim Ex. 4.

5. There is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit Ex. 7 of the workman wherein he has stated on oath that he worked

for more than 17 years as hostel boy for keeping up the hostel meant for the students studying in the first party

institution for than 240 days in each and every calendar year. He has further stated that his service was terminated

arbitrarily and illegally without serving notice and praying retrenchment compensation. He has further stated that

after termination of his service; some other boys were engaged who were either junior to him or new one.

6. As regards the question of first party institution as industry under Section 2 (J) of Industrial Disputes Act, the

hostel activity attached to the institution is of commercial nature. Therefore, the institution can be said to be an

industry within the meaning of the Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and removal of the workman without

serving notice and paying retrenchment compensation will definitely come within the meaning of Section 25 F, G

& H of the Industrial Disputes Act.

7. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the second party was illegally removed and deserves reinstatement in

service in his original post within 60 days from the date of the publication of this award.

8. The award is passed accordingly.

P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 708-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; funs'kd izkS|ksfxdh

ds ,e@,l ljnkj oYyHkHkkbZ jk"Vªh;] o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 151@2013)

dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@82@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017

S.O. 708.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 151/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the Director, M/s. Sardar Vallabhabhai National of Technology, and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 15.2.2017.

[No. L-42011/82/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDAR JOSHI, Dy. Director

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 18] 2017@iQkYxqu 27] 1938

1479

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : PRAMOD KUMAR CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad,

Dated 18^th January, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No- 151/2013

The Director,

M/s. Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology,

Ichchhanath,

Surat (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

Mr. Chandrakant Tukaram Chandlekar,

Post Madel, Tal. Mahad,

Distt. Raigadh, Maharashtra

AND

Virubhai Narsinhbhai Patel,

Residing at Jari, Suwad Faliyu, Tal. Pansada,

Navsari (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party : None

For the Second Party : Shri L.M. Patil

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42011/82/2013-

IR(DU) dated 21.08.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the establishment of Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat falls under the

definition of ‘Industry’ as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not?

“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Virubhai Narsinhbhai Patel for reinstatement in service in his

original post will full back wages is legal, proper and just? To what relief the concerned workman Shri

Virubhai Narsinhbhai Patel is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 21.08.2013. Both the parties were issued notice to appear on 27.06.2014

consequently the second party submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 3 on 10.03.2014 and also statement of claim Ex.

4 on 02.02.2016. First party did not prefer to appear and submit the written statement despite service of notice

twice. Therefore, the case was ordered to proceed ex-parte against the first party but the second party did not

prefer to submit the evidence.

Thus it appears that the second party workman has not been willing to prosecute the reference. Therefore, this

tribunal has no alternative but to dispose of the reference in the absence of the second party workman with the

observation as under: “the demand of the workman Shri Virubhai Narsinhbhai Patel for reinstatement in

service in his original post will full back wages is not legal, proper and just.”

P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 709-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; funs'kd izkS|ksfxdh

ds ,e@,l ljnkj oYyHkHkkbZ jk"Vªh;] o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 143@2013)

dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@40@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

1480 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 18, 2017/PHALGUNA 27, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017

S.O. 709.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 143/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the Director, M/s. Sardar Vallabhabhai National of Technology, and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 15.2.2017.

[No. L-42012/40/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDAR JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : PRAMOD KUMAR CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 18^th January, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 143/2013

The Director,

M/s. Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology,

Ichchhanath,

Surat (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

Mr. Saileshbhai Fuljibhai Patel,

Village Rupvail Faliyu,

Rayawadi, Tal. Vansda,

Navsari (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party : None

For the Second Party : Shri L.M. Patil

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-

42012/40/2013-IR(DU) dated 19.07.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the establishment of Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat falls under the

definition of ‘Industry’ as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not?

“If yes, whether the demand of the workmen Mr. Saileshbhai Fuljibhai Patel, Navsari (terminated orally on

14.07.2012) for reinstatement in service in his original post will full back wages is legal, proper and just? To

what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 19.07.2013. In response to the notice issued to both the parties by the tribunal, the

second party workman Saileshbhai Fuljibhai Patel submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 3 and statement of claim Ex.

4 on 02.02.2016. The first party was issued notice twice, firstly on 17.07.2013 to appear on 25.06.2014 and

secondly on 02.02.2016 to appear on 07.06.2016 which were served on the first party. Acknowledgement of

service Ex. 6 was received by the tribunal but first party did not prefer to submit the written statement,

therefore, on 24.08.2016; a last opportunity was given to the first party to submit written statement failing

which the case was ordered to proceed ex-parte against the first party. The first party did not prefer to submit

the written statement despite giving last opportunity in absentia. Therefore, the matter was taken up as ex-

parte against the first party.

The second party workman submitted his affidavit Ex. 7 in lieu of his oral evidence. The said affidavit was

also served on the first party The Director, M/s Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 18] 2017@iQkYxqu 27] 1938

1481