1852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 15, 2017/CHAITRA 25, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

—

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2017

S.O. 886.—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. 145/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

Chief General Manager, Department of Telecommunication, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 08.03.2017.

[No. L-40012/202/2000-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/145/2000

Shri Premnarayan Sen

S/o Shri Shambulal Sen

Vill & PO Barkheda,

Tehsil Biaora,

Rajgarh

…Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Department of Telecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road, MP Circle,

Bhopal (MP)

TDE, Rajgarh, At: Biaora,

Rajgarh

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 14^th day of February, 2017

As per letter dated 7-8-2000 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-40012/202/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom/TDE in terminating the services

of Shri Premnarayan Sen S/o Shambulal Sen w.e.f. 1995 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

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

6/1 to 6/4. Case of workman is that he was working as casual labour in Karanvas exchange from 1987 to 1995. His

services were terminated without notice in 19956. Ist party workman further submits that Mohd. Ahmad was working

with 2^nd party since 1987 to March 1988 and onwards from 88 to February 989. Shri Jagram Singh Jadhav was working

(ii)

1853

during 1989 to 1990. Nasir Khan was working at Karanvas Exchange from January 1990 to 1995. 2^nd party No. 3 is

competent authority. 2^nd party No.2 is Controlling Authority. The decisions for management are taken by 2^nd party

No.1. that the Union had fileld proceeding for regularization of the casual workers was decided by Hon’ble Supreme

Court recorded in AIR-1988-SC-2342. Hon’ble Supreme Court had given directions to frame scheme for regularization

of casul labours. The scheme for regularization of casual labours was introduced by Government on 7-11-89. As per the

scheme, casual employees engaged prior to 30-3-85 were eligible for regularization. The cut off date was held illegal

by CAT, Delhi in Original application No. 1476/90. Ist party workman claims to be eligible for regularization in

service. That oral termination of his service is illegal. No chargesheet was issued to workman. Enquiry was not held

against him. Workman completed more than 240 days continuous service. His services are terminated in violation of

Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman was paid Rs.1200 per month less than minimum wages by the management

exploiting workman. Management intentionally not obtained his signatures about his attendance. It is reiterated that

oral termination of his services is illegal. On such ground workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of Ist party workman at Page 6/5. 2^nd party contented that there

was no question of illegally terminating services of workman, appointment letter was not issued to workman. Workman

was engaged for repairing work. Workman himself remained absent. In 1987, workman worked for 24 days, in 1988

for 128 days, in 1989 for4 149 days. Workman did not worked for a single day in 1990. In 1991, workman worked for

30 days. It is denied that workman had worked continuously more than 240 days. Workman was paid wages for his

working days. Workman is not eligible for regularisation

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

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

(i) Whether the action of the management of Chief

General Manager, Telecom/TDE in terminating the

services of Shri Premnarayan Sen S/o Shambulal

Sen w.e.f. 1995 is justified?

In Negative

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

As per final order.

REASONS

The term of reference pertains to legality of the termination of services of Ist party workman. Workman filed

affidavit of his evidence on 20-10-15. In his affidavit of evidence, workman has stated that he was working with 2^nd

party from December 1987 till termination of his services in the year 1995. He worked with devotion. His initial

appointment was as casual labour by Sub Divisional Engineer, Rajgarh. He completed more than 240 days continuous

working during each of the years. He was paid Rs.1200 per month. His services were orally terminated without notice,

he was not paid one months pay in lieu of notice. In his cross examination, workman says post on which he was

working was not advertised. He was orally interviewed. Written exam was not held. Appointment letter was not issued

to him. He was paid wages for his working days. He was allowed 4 days leave in a month. He worked 24 days in 1987,

he was engaged in the month of December. He denied to have worked for 128 days in 1988, 49 days in 1989 and did

not work in a day in 1990 and worked for 30 days in 1991. Workman denied that he was engaged as per exigencies.

Workman denied he not completed 240 days continuous service during any of the year.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Ramgopal. The witness in his affidavit says workman was

engaged as casual labour for specific period. The working days pleaded in Written Statement are also narrated in para 4

of his affidavit. Management’s witness in his cross says he is posted at Rajgarh office from 30-12-2010, he was not

posted in said office during 1987 to 1995. That affidavit of his evidence is filed as per available record. He had seen

attendance and payment registers pertaining to work. On its basis, he has stated about his working days. Witness of

management was unable to tell why documents as per order dated 14-8-13 are not produced. He had not seen any

documents or retrenchment notice or payment of compensation to the workman. He claims ignorance about preparing

seniority list of daily wage labours. Workman was not engaged for specific work. Workman was engaged as unskilled

labour as per requirement digging ditches. Work of line fault was done in the department in the past. Suggestion is

denied that workman worked more than 240 days during each of the year 1987 to 995.

Application for production of documents was submitted by workman on 29-5-06. The perusal of record shows

that on 9-9-09, management was directed to produce documents. Management did not file documents as per order

dated 11-6-14. Workman as allowed to lead secondary evidence. Workman has not adduced secondary evidence.

1854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 15, 2017/CHAITRA 25, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Learned counsel for Ist party Shri Arun Patel relies on ratio held in case between-

Director, Fisheries Terminal Department versus Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda reported in 2010(2)MPLJ-30.

Their Lordship dealing with workman hired on daily wage basis deposed that he worked for 240 days during 1985 to

1991. Burden of proof shifts to the employer to prove that he did not complete 240 days of service in the requisite

period to constitute continuous service.

In present case, engagement of workman as casual labour is admitted in Written Statement and evidence of

management. Management has failed to produce documents despite the orders passed by the Court. Evidence of

management’s witness that workman did not work for more than 240 days cannot be accepted as the documents in

question are not produced. Management’s witness in his cross says he had seen attendance and payment register. The

documents are not produced therefore evidence of workman deserves to be accepted. Management’s witness in his

cross says he had not seen documents about notice issued to workman or payment of one months pay in lieu of notice

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

record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

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

for decision is whether Ist party workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. As per evidence of workman,

he was working with 2^nd party from December 87 till 1995- date is not specified from pleadings or evidence.

10.

Shri Arun Patel relies on ratio held in case between

Tapash Kumar Paul versus BSNL reported in 2014(4)S.C.R.875. Their Lordship held that Divisional bench of

High Court gravely erred in ignoring the normal rule that ordinarily a workman whose service has been illegally

terminated would be entitled to full backwages expect to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced

idleness.

In case between Deepali Gundu surwase versus Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and others reported in

2013(10)SCC-324. The Tribunal’s order was restored for full backwages. Their Lordship dealing with reinstatement

and backwages considering conduct of employer and suffering of employees held denial of backwages would amount

to indirectly punishing the employee and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay backwages.

In case between Engineer in Chief, Water Resources Department, Bhopal versus Manharan reported in 2016(4)

MPLJ-63. Their Lordship dealing with Section 25-F, B retrenchment of workman. Workman was in continuous

service for 258 days. The reinstatement without backwages challenged by the department was dismissed.

11.

Shri Arun Patel also relies on ratio held in case between-

Gauri Shanker versus State of Rajasthan reported in 2016(1)SCC-L&S-546. Their Lordship held that

modification of award by awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement by High Court is contrary to the well settled

principles of law laid down in a catena of cases by Supreme Court.

Reliance is also placed in case between Ajaib Singh versus Sirhind Cooperative Marketing cum Processing

Service Society Limited and another reported in 1999(6)SCC-82. Ratio held in the case pertains to that proceeding

under Section 10 & 33(C) of ID Act are not subject to limitation under Article 137 of Limitation Act. Their Lordship

held even in cases of proved delay, relief can be moulded by declining whole or part of backwages.

In Tapash Kumar case of 2014, reported at Page 885, their Lordship observed the Court may deny relief of

reinstatement where reinstatement is impermissible because the industry is closed down, the court may deny relief of

backwages as that would place impossible burden on the employer.

In present case, dispute is raised in the year 2002. Workman was not diligent in prosecuting the reference. He

remained absent on several dates. Statement of claim was filed on 1-2-05, affidavit of evidence was filed on 20-10-

2015. Considering above aspects, relief needs to be suitably modified. Considering ratio discussed above, workman

deserves to be allowed reinstatement with 25 % back wages from date of reference. Accordingly I record my finding in

Point No.2.

12.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom/TDE in terminating the services of Shri

Premnarayan Sen S/o Shambulal Sen w.e.f. 1995 is not legal and proper.

(2)

2^nd party is directed to reinstate workman with 25 % back wages from date of order of reference i.e.

7-8-2000.

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

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

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

(ii)

1855

—

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2017

S.O. 887.—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. 182/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

Chief General Manager, Telecom Factory, Jabalpur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 08.03.2017.

[No. L-40011/25/2001-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/182/2001

Shri A.J. Sunny, Secretary,

All India Telecom Engineering Employees Union,

Class III, Telecom Factory,

Mary Manzil 12, Sanjeevni Nagar,

Jabalpur

…Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Telecom Factory,

Jabalpur

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 30^th day of January, 2017

As per letter dated 27-11-2001 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

40011/25/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Telecom Factory, Jabalpur in awarding punishment of reduction to the

minimum of the pay scale for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect and not to grant annual increments for

participating in Union activities in the factory on 5-0-88 to Shri A.J.Sunny, Section Supervisor and Shri

M.K.Patel, Office Assistant is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled?”

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

Case of Ist party is on 30-9-88, Trade Union agitation took place in the factory on the issue of wearing of protective

appliance in which 6 trade Union leaders, 4 belonging to All India P&T Industrial Workers Union and 2 from applicant

union namely Shri A.J.Sunny and Mukesh Kumar Patel were placed under suspension that for revocation of suspension

of 6 trade Union leaders, another round of trade union agitation took place on 5-10-88 inside the factory. That above

named persons did not participate in the agitation but due to revengeful and prejudiced attitude of the management and

with ulterior motive to victimize Shri A.J.Sunny and Mukesh Patel of applicant union besides 4 persons of P&T

Industrial Workers union chargesheets under Rule 14 of CCS CCA Rules, 1965 were issued against the above named

workmen alleging that they were indulged in demonstration and gherao of officers inside the factory on 5-10-88. That

departmental enquiry was ordered. Shri J.P. Khare was appointed as Enquiry Officer. After completion of enquiry,

report was submitted holding that charges against Shri A.J. Sunny and Patel were established. On basis of Enquiry

report, punishment of dismissal from service was awarded on them. On appeal, punishment of dismissal was reduced to

punishment of reduction of minimum pay scale for period of 3 years with the effect to postpone future increments. The

official preferred revision against order of punishment dated 2-9-97 effective from 27-5-97. And penalty of reduction to

minimum of pay scale for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect has been allowed to continue. According to Ist

1856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 15, 2017/CHAITRA 25, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

party, said action of management is unfair, illegal and liable to be set aside. Ist party further submits that extreme

punishment was awarded to the office bearer of the Union with ulterior motive to victimize them for trade Union

activities prohibited under ID Act. That said punishment was awarded without proper enquiry. Enquiry Officer was

junior to the principal complainant of the case i.e. Dy.General Manager. The complainant was under influence of

higher authorities, fair decision was not taken. Disciplinary Authority being junior to the complainants did not take

independent decision and simply acted as per the directions of his superiors to victimize the above named officials.

Punishment was awarded in breach of settlement in meeting between Member, Telecom Commission, New Delhi and

the representatives of P&T Industrial workers Union arrived at in a meeting held on 5-11-90, the applicant Union

submits that as per said settlement, the cases should have been condoned and closed as has been done in other cases of

workmen. Similarly involved workmen like A.K.Ray against whom similar charges alleged were awarded lesser

punishment of reduction of six months. Ist party prays that full pay and allowances for the period of dismissal in case of

Mukesh Kumar Patel punishment of reduction of minimum pay scale for 3 year be quashed and period of dismissal be

treated as duty period for all purpose.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman at Pages 5/ to 5/8. 2^nd party reiterates that both

workman are civil servants, their services are covered under CCS CCA Rules. Enquiry was held against them as per

rules. This Tribunal has no jurisdiction against respective workmen. Workman are not entitled to any relief. That Shri

S.J.Sunny Ex-employee of Telecom factory Jabalpur, Mr. Mukesh Patel presently employed in Telecom Factory

Jabalpur were working as Section Supervisor and office assistant respectively. That Shri Sunny and Patel while

functioning as Supervisor, Office Assistant exhibited lack of devotion to duty by leaving the place of their duty

without permission and instigated others to struck the work by calling and collecting a mob of workers, committed tress

pass into the chamber of general Manager, Telecom Factory Jabalpur without prior intimation and permission., they

along with others gheraoed General Manager and Dy.General Manager shouted filthy slogans and defaming General

Manager and DGM. The applicants participated in the act of demonstration and wrongful confinement of General

Manager and DGM. 2^nd party reiterates that concerned worker given provocative speech to the mob and the mob was

highly charged and the mob tore sofa in General Manager’s chamber, broke call bell of General Manager’s table and

put off frequently lights and fans of General Manager’s chamber. That Ist party committed willful insubordination and

disobedience of the lawful and reasonable order of appropriate authority by unauthorizedly entering into the factory.

Shri A.B.Samanta, Asstt. Manager, Telecom Factory was appointed as Enquiry Officer, S.S.Jangi Assistant Engineer

was appointed as Presenting officer. Workman had requested for change of Enquiry Officer. The representation were

forwarded to department of Telecom, New Delhi. Request for change of Enquiry Officer was approved. Shri J.P.Khare

was appointed as Enquiry Officer. It is reiterated that enquiry was committed by independent officer. Enquiry Officer

held charges against Sunny and Patel proved. Considering the proved charges, punishment of dismissal was imposed

vide order dated 9-10-91 against Sunny and Patel. In appeal preferred by both workers, the punishment was reduced to

minimum of time scale for 3 years with cumulative effect. The appeal by Patel was rejected by Appellate Authority

vide order dated 5-6-92. Both Sunny and Patel preferred revision which was rejected on 2-9-97 after giving full

opportunity of hearing. 2^nd party denied adverse contentions of Ist party. 2^nd party contented that both workers had

participated in agitation dated 5-10-88. The contentions of Ist party they did not participate in agitation is incorrect.

The mercy petition was filed by Sunny on 25-10-2000. 2^nd party submits that looking to the grave misconduct by

workman and long service in department, good service record, Appellate Authority modified punishment of dismissal

to reduction of pay to minimum of time scale for 3 years. It is reiterated that both the workmen committed grave

misconduct by forcibly and physically overpowering security persons, the act of gherao giving provocative slogans,

threatening language, physical obstruction etc. the charges are proved. The claim of Ist party workman deserves to be

rejected.

As per order dated 14-5-15, enquiry conducted against workman was found legal though the record of enquiry

proceeding was not produced.

Considering pleadings on record and findings on enquiry, the points which arise for my consideration and

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

(i) Whether the misconduct alleged against

workman is proved from evidence in Enquiry

proceedings?

In Negative

(ii) Whether the punishment of reduction of pay to

lowest scale for 3 years with cumulative effect

imposed on workman is proper and legal?

In Negative

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

As per final order.

(ii)

1857

REASONS

Point No.1- As per order dated 14-5-15, enquiry conducted against workman was found proper and legal. While

dealing with legality of enquiry conducted against workman, it is noticed that enquiry conducted by Officer junior in

rank itself cannot be a ground for vitiating the enquiry. Though record of Enquiry Proceeding was not produced, issue

was answered in Affirmative.

Though enquiry against workman is found legal, question whether charges / misconduct alleged against workman

are proved requires to be decided from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings.

Management has produced documents Exhibit M-,2 memorandum of charges. Exhibit M-3 Enquiry Report-

Enquiry Officer has discussed evidence and evidence in their cross-examination Exhibit M-4 is copy of Enquiry report.

Exhibit M-5,6 is articles of charges. Exhibit M-7,8 is orders dated 27-3-92 passed by Appellate Authority. As per

exhibit M-9 order dated 2-9-97, M-10 order dated 7-1-93 revision were rejected. Despite long litigation between parties

and proceeding of enquiry conducted against both workmen is not produced. As such evidence in Enquiry Proceedings

is not produced by the management for unexplained reasons.

Learned counsel for Ist party Shri S.K.Mishra emphasized as per the settlement between management and Union

Exhibit M-12, cases should have been closed. Perusal of Exhibit M-12 shows it is not signed by any of the office bearer

of the Union or management representative shown in M-2. The document M-12 appears incomplete and cannot be

accepted as genuine document., however as management has failed to produce record of Enquiry Proceeding, in

absence of evidence in Enquiry Proceedings, I am constrained to hold that misconduct alleged against workmen are not

proved. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

10.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 as record of Enquiry Proceeding is not produced by

management- charges against workman Sunny and Patel are not proved, punishment of reduction of minimum pay

scale for 3 years with cumulative effect cannot be sustained, it deserves to be quashed and set-aside. For above reasons,

I record my finding in Point No.2 in Negative.

11.

Point No.3- In view of my finding in Point No.1,2 charges against workman Shri Sunny and Patel are not

proved, punishment of reduction of pay scale to minimum for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect deserves to be

set-aside. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.3.

12.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Telecom Factory, Jabalpur in awarding punishment of reduction to the

minimum of the pay scale for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect and not to grant annual increments

for participating in Union activities in the factory on 5-0-88 to Shri A.J.Sunny, Section Supervisor and Shri

M.K.Patel, Office Assistant is not proper and legal.

(2)

Order of imposing punishment of reduction of pay scale to minimum to both the workers is set-aside.

(3)

Management is directed to allow consequential monetary benefits to both the workmen A.J.Sunny and

M.K.Patel.

Amount of monetary benefits be paid to the workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

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

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

—

[

]

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2017

S.O. 888.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

1858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 15, 2017/CHAITRA 25, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food

Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.03.2017.

[No. L-22011/02/2015-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED

2^nd FEBRUARY 2017

PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

C R No. 18/2015

I Party

II Party

The State President,

The General Manager,

Bhartiye Khadya Nigam

Food Corporation of India,

Karmachari Sangh

Regional Office No.10,

No. 785, D-1, BDA Apartment,

East End Main Road, Jayanagar 4^th T block,

Bangalore

Bangalore - 560041

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No.L-22011/02/2015-IR(CM-II) dated 08.05.2015 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has

made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management in transferring Shri. Hareesh Shetty, workman, from Regional

Office, Food Corporation of India, Bangalore to BSC White Field is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled for?”

Brief details mentioned in the claim statement are as follows:-

The I Party states that, on 20.01.1989, the workman/Hareesh Shetty has been appointed as Assistant Grade-III

General under Sports quota. In the month of February 2001, he has been promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II

General. The I Party/Workman is an internationally acclaimed sportsperson and has participated in innumerable events

and contests in Hammer Throw event. The I Party has won accolade, and medals galore him and he brought laurels to

the Nation in the said event. After the I Party has been selected as President for the Karnataka Region, a Notification

dated 17.10.2013 came to be issued by the Assistant General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Head Quarters,

declaring the names mentioned in the notification as the protected workmen. The I Party workman’s name is at

Sl.No.31. Even after the removal of Sri A. Shibu from the post of General Secretary of BKNK Sangh, he has falsely

claimed to be the protected workman and he has also indulged in criminal activities by removing the notice board of the

Food Corporation of India Association and breaking open the door of BKNK Sangh office. Therefore, the I

Party/workman in capacity of President of the BKNK Sangh addressed a communication to the 2^nd Respondent as per

the letter dated 20.08.2013 to take action against Sri. A.Shibhu for showing his indecency. Further, one more

representation has been submitted by the I Party workman to the 2^nd Respondent as per the letter dated 29.08.2013.

Further, a complaint has been made to the local police station by the I Party workman on 21.05.2014. It is submitted

that without taking any action against Sri A.Shibhu, an order came to be passed by the II Party/Management

transferring the I Party/Workman from the post of Assistant Grade-II General, District Office, Bangalore to District

Office, Hubli as per the order bearing No. 091/2014/e.1 dated 04.06.2014. Further, Clause 15 of the transfer guidelines

states that the sports person representing Zone/State may not be transferred out so long as he/she represents the

concerned Zone/State. In spite of the aforesaid clear exemption, the impugned order has been passed by the 2^nd

Respondent transferring the I Party Workman from Bangalore to Hubli. In the meanwhile, on 20.09.2014, the I Party

workman also participated in Asia Maters Athletic Championship held in Kitakami City, Japan. Further, due to the

adamant ad non-cooperative attitude of the 2^nd party, the protracted conciliation ended in failure notwithstanding the

very honest and sincere efforts made by the Regional Labour Commissioner and finally the Conciliation Officer

submitted a failure report the Government of India. Based on the report of the RLC, the Government of India has

referred the dispute for Industrial adjudication on the file of this Hon’ble Court, referring the terms for adjudication as

already stated. It is manifest that the impunged order passed by the 2^nd Respondent transferring 1^st Party to Buffer

Storage Complex Whitefield is illegal, unjust and untenable. The impugned order passed by the 2nd party is in utter

(ii)

1859

contravention of its own transfer guidelines. Hence, on this ground also, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

The 1^st party workman has been posted to the said place as an eye wash in the pretext of compliance of the order passed

by the Hon’ble High Court. The 1^st party workman has been subjected to transfer for his trade union activities and also

to victimize him. Hence, the 1^st Party has prayed to pass an award as prayed for in the claim statement.

On a careful perusal of material records, it is seen that RPAD notice has been sent to the II Party in Transaction

No. A RK345401378 IN dated 26.10.2016, and served postal acknowledgment, also, received, regarding the RPAD

notice served to II Party by this Court through Department of Post, Government of India. Still, no representation

has been made by II Party and II Party also called absent.

The crucial point that arises for consideration in the present matter is, as follows:-

‘Whether the I Party is entitled to get relief as prayed for in the claim statement for the reasons stated herein?’

Point:-

In the present case, the workman namely. Sh. Hareesh Shetty, has fled the affidavit and also filed documents Ex-

W1 to W5. On a careful and complete perusal of the said documents, it is found that the workman has filed relevant

documents namely, Transfer Policy Guidelines as Ex-W1 and FCI Sports Promotion Board letter as Ex-W2 and 2^nd

party Office order as Ex-W3 and Email from FCI, Zonal Office South as Ex-W4 and also Notification of the FCI as Ex-

W5 and also established that the 1^st Party workman has been continuously harassed and victimised and not only he has

been transferred and also, promotion has been with held. Further the 1^st Party workman has no other option but to

participate in the sports event and to win the gold medal and 2^nd party, instead of appreciating 1^st party has resorted to

condemn him by transferring and also, by declining to promote him, although 1^st party has been found eligible and

qualified for promotion. Further, on a careful scrutiny of Ex-W1 to Ex-W5, it is found that there is significant,

sufficient and substantial force in the said submission made by WW1. Further, 2^nd party though served with notice of

hearing, has not even present before this court and also, not raised any objection to the present case. Further, 2^nd party

has not established that the action has been taken against 1^st party after, following the appropriate and proper rules and

regulations. In such, circumstances, it is found that the 1^st party is entitled to get relief as prayed for in the claim

statement. Hence the following award is passed by this Tribunal.

AWARD

The office order passed by the II Party, bearing Ref No.124/2014/E.I dated 17.07.2014, as the said order is

unjust, illegal, malafide and contrary to the transfer guidelines dated 21.11.2002 and also amounts to unfair

labour practice as defined in section2(ra) read with V schedule of the ID Act.

Also, the 2^nd party shall release the promotion order as per the Office Order No.23/RPI/2013 dated

07.06.2013 which is issued by the Zonal Office Chennai.

And further the II Party shall consider the Casual Special Leave as on duty dates from 18.06.2014 to

26.09.2014 by cancelling the leave applied by the workman.

Accordingly, award is passed without cost for the above mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 2^nd February, 2017)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

List of Witness on the side of I Party:

WW1

Sh. Hareesh Shetty, I Party

Exhibits marked on behalf of I Party:

Exhibits

Date

Description of Document

Ex W-1

21.11.2002

Transfer Policy Guidelines of FCI

Ex W-2

20.09.1999

DO letter of FCI, Sports Promotion Board

Ex W-3

07.06.2013

FCI Office Order No.23/RPI/2013

Ex W-4

21.04.2015

Fax/E-mail from FCI, Zonal Office South

Ex W-5

07.07.2014

Notification No. IR(P&ID)/9-2/2013

1860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 15, 2017/CHAITRA 25, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

—

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2017

S.O. 889.—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. 141/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

Chief General Manager, Telecom and others Bhopal and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 08.03.2017.

[No. L-40012/18/2000-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/141/2000

Shri Jagdish S/o Madura Prasad,

Vill: Suthalia, Tehsil Biaora,

Rajgarh

…Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Telecom, MP Circle,

Telecom Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal (MP)

TDE, Rajgarh, At: Biaora,

Rajgarh

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 14^th day of February 2017

As per letter dated 21-6-2000 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

40012/18/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom in terminating the services of Shri

Jagdish S/o Mathura Prasad w.e.f. February-97 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Pages 2/1

to 2/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was initially appointed as casual labour in November 1989 in Telecom

Exchange, Biaora, Distt. Rajgarh. That since his initial appointment, he was working till February 1997. He was

continuously working without break. He completed more than 240 days continuous service during each of the calendar

year. He was eligible for regularization in the department. His services were terminated without any reason. The action

of the management terminating his services is arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of principles of natural justice. That

termination of his service without notice, without payment of retrenchment compensation is in violation of Section 25-

F of ID Act. That after termination of his service, he is not gainfully employed, his family members are starving. On

such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Pages 3/1 to 3/2 opposing claim of Ist party workman. 2^nd party submits that

workman did not worked for 240 days during any of the year. Appointment letter was not issued to him. There was no

question of termination of services of workman. Workman worked for 107 days in 987, 125 days in 1988, 53 days in

1989, 91 days inn 1990, 84 days in 1991. The workman as engaged for casual work of repairing. Workman did not

attend and automatically his services came to end. It is reiterated that as workman did not work for 240 days during any

(ii)

1861

of the year, there was no question of issuing notice or payment of retrenchment compensation. The claim of Ist party

workman be rejected.

The perusal of record shows identical Written Statement is also filed on 12-12-2011.

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

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

(i) Whether the action of the management of Chief

General Manager, Telecom in terminating the

services of Shri Jagdish S/o Mathura Prasad w.e.f.

February-97 is justified?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of Ist party workman. Ist party workman

didnot adduce evidence. Evidence of workman was closed on 3-12-2013.

Management filed affidavit of witness of Shri Ramgopal supporting contentions in Written Statement filed by the

management. Workman failed to cross examine witness of management. His evidence remained unchallenged. As

workman has failed to adduce evidence, claim of Ist party is not supported by any evidence. For above reasons, I record

my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom in terminating the services of Shri

Jagdish S/o Mathura Prasad w.e.f. February-97 is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

—

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2017

S.O. 890.—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. 31/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Cantonment Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Mhow, Madhya Pradesh and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 08.03.2017.

[No. L-13012/2/2005-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/31/2005

Smt. Raju Bai, W/o Shri Prakash

R/o 177, Yadav Mohalla,

Near House of Shri Jawji, Mhow

Mhow (MP)

…Workman

1862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 15, 2017/CHAITRA 25, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

Cantonment Executive Officer,

Cantonment Board.

Mhow (MP)

… Management

AWARD

Passed on this 16^th day of February, 2017

As per letter dated 27-4-05 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

13012/2/2005-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Cantonment Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Mhow in terminating

the services of Smt. Raju Bai W/o Shri Prakash w.e.f. 28-8-87 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party filed statement of claim at Page 5/1 to 5/3.

Case of Ist party is that she belongs to SC ST category. She was appointed on post of sweeper on 3-3-94 after

conducting process of recruitment holding personal interview. She worked sincerely. She was continuously working

without any interruption from her initial appointment till date of termination 28-8-97. Her appointment was against

vacant post of sweeper. She was paid Rs.750 per month obtaining her attendance maintained in the register. She

continuously worked more than 240 days each of the year. He claims to be employee covered under Section 25 B of ID

Act. Her services were discontinued on 28-8-97 without assigning any reasons. She was not paid compensation.

Management not followed provisions of Section 25-F,N of ID Act. Termination of her service amounts to illegal

retrenchment. After her termination, management has made appointments of sweeper. Intentionally she was not

considered. After termination of her service, she is facing financial hardship. After termination of her service, many

post were lying vacant but management did not consider to engage her. On such ground, workman prays for her

reinstatement with consequential benefits.

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 10/1 to 10/4 opposing claim of workman. The contentions of 2^nd party

are that Ist party workman was engaged on daily wages Rs.28 per day on temporary basis since March 1994. Her

engagement was to meet out emergent requirements. Her husband Shri Prakash is working with 2^nd party as permanent

sweeper. The engagement of Ist party was without following process for regular or temporary appointment. When

vacancies were available, Ist party workman was given liberty to apply for the post. She was not found eligible. Ist

party cannot claim regular appointment on the post of sweeper as he was working on daily wages. The termination of

workman was in the year 1997. The dispute is raised in 2003 is not tenable due to delay. 2^nd party has reiterated that Ist

party workman was engaged on daily wages for emergent work. Her services were not terminated by management,

workman was not appointed against vacant post. That workman was engaged on daily wages Rs.28 per day in March

94 without following selection process. Her appointment was not against sanctioned post. That Ist party workman had

not completed 240 days continuous service. It is denied that Ist party workman was orally discontinued from work. Ist

party had not immediately approached Competent Authority for redressal of grievances after the alleged termination of

his service. Violation of Section 25-F,N is denied. That the management had appointed safaiwala in 1999 after

selecting the candidates holding screening tests and considering the merit. Ist party was not found suitable. On such

ground, 2^nd party submits that claim of workman is not tenable.

Ist party filed rejoinder at Page 11/1 to 11/2 reiterating her contentions in statement of claim.

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

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

(i) Whether the action of the management of

Cantonment Executive Officer, Cantonment Board,

Mhow in terminating the services of Smt. Raju Bai

W/o Shri Prakash w.e.f. 28-8-87 is just and legal?

In Negative

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

As per final order.

REASONS

Point No.1 The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of Ist party on 28-8-97. Ist party

filed affidavit of her evidence. She has stated in her affidavit that on 3-3-90, after interview and physical test, she was

(ii)

1863

engaged as sweeper on 3-3-94. That she was continuously working till 28-8-97. She was paid Rs.750 per month. Her

services were terminated without notice. She was not paid retrenchment compensation, she completed more than 240

days continuous service during each of the year. She was continuously working for about 4 years. In her cross-

examination, Ist party says she was called for interview on 3-3-99 and physical test on 20-3-99. Her averments in

statement of claim she was called for interview on 3-3-90 and physical test on 20-3-90 is incorrect. She denies that she

was not called for interview before her engagement on 1994. She was engaged on daily wages. She was paid monthly

wages. She denies that her name was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. She was unable to tell whether in

her Employment Exchange card, entries was taken. That she had not pleaded in her statement of claim or averred in her

affidavit of evidence that clerk had prevented her from working. She had participated in interview held in 999. She was

unable to tell whether she was found not suitable after the interview. The candidate selected in 1999, she has not filed

the case against them. Her husband Prakash is still working on regular post. Her husband was working in the year 1994.

She denied suggestion that in 1997, she got better job and stopped the working with 2^nd party. That she had not made

efforts for getting the work.

2^nd party filed affidavit of evidence of witness Rajendra Pawar supporting contentions in Written Statement filed

by 2^nd party. In March 1994, Ist party was engaged on wages Rs.28 per day. Her engagement was purely temporary on

need basis. No process for regular or temporary appointment was followed. Ist party himself absconded her services

were not terminated. Ist party had appeared for interview, she was not found eligible for selection committee. Ist party

was not continuously working more than 240 days during any year. The dispute raised in the year 2003 is afterthought.

In his cross examination, management’s witness says Ist party was engaged on daily wages for cleaning work.

Permission of higher authorities was not taken at the time of her engagement. He was unable to tell how many posts of

sweepers were vacant in 1994. On the basis of record, he stated in his affidavit that workman had not worked more than

240 days during any year. Attendance of Ist party was maintained. He had seen attendance register, witness shown

readiness to produce the same. Ist party was paid at the end of month. Ist party was not served with notice,

retrenchment compensation was not paid to her. In 1999, Ist party was called for interview for regular appointment. It

was necessary to pass skill test and approval of committee. The contents in para-2 of Written Statement that besides

Ist party, other workers working on daily wages is correct. Management’s witness admitted reply submitted before

ALC. The working days of Ist party are shown more than 240 days preceding 12 months of her disengagement in

August 1997 is not in dispute. As per evidence of management’s witness, notice of termination was not issued, Ist

party workman was not paid retrenchment compensation though the workman had worked continuously more than 240

days as per the document Exhibit W-1. Therefore termination of services of Ist party is in violation of Section 25-F of

ID Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

Point No.2- 2^nd party in its Written Statement has pleaded that alleged termination of workman was in 1997 and

dispute raised is in 2003 is not tenable due to delay. On said point, reliance is placed on ratio held in case between-

Nedungadi Bank Ltd. versus K.P.Madhavankutty and others reported in 2000(2)SCC-455. Their Lordship

considering workman was dismissed after lawfully and properly conducting the disciplinary proceedings, his

dismissal was upheld in appeal. Dispute raised after 7 years was held bad on both ground of delay as well as non-

existence of industrial dispute.

In case between Prabhakar versus Joint Director Soriculture Department reported in AIR 2016-SC-2984. Their

Lordship held no period of limitation is prescribed. Limitation doesnot apply. The dispute alleging termination as

wrongful and demanding reinstatement not raised by workman for 14 years , dispute no longer can be held to exist and

there is no live dispute.

In present case, as per pleadings in Written Statement, dispute was raised in 2003, alleged termination of Ist party

was of 18-8-97. Ratio held in the case cannot be applied to present case.

On this point learned counsel for Ist party Shri Arun Patel relies on ratio held in case between-

Ajaib Singh versus Sirhind Co-operative Marketing cum processing Service Society Ltd and another reported in

1999(6)SCC-82. Their Lordship dealing with effect of delay and latches held employer’s plea of delay in seeking

reference held not sufficient to deny relief to the workman.

In present case, management has raised contentions about delay in raising dispute in Written Statement. Delay

appears about 6 years in raising dispute. Considering ratio held in the case, the dispute cannot be rendered untenable.

The relief sought by workman can be suitably moulded. In above cited case, their Lordship also considered ratio held in

case between HMT Ltd versus Labour Court- delay of 14 years invoking jurisdiction of court instead of full wages, 60

% backwages with reinstatement was allowed.

In case between Jasmer Singh versus State of Haryana and another reported in 2015(2)SCC(L&S)-46- 3 years

delay in approaching Tribunal was held inconsequential since no period of limitation is prescribed under the Act.

1864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 15, 2017/CHAITRA 25, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In view of Ajaib Singh case of 1982, considering the delay in raising dispute, relief can be suitably moulded.

10.

Turning to the point whether Ist party workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages in view of

termination is found illegal as per my finding in Point No.1. the evidence of Ist party workman is in cross-examination,

it is clear that she participated in selection process in the year 1999. She was interviewed, she claims ignorance whether

she was not found suitable. Evidence of management’s witness on the point is that selection committee found Ist party

not eligible for selection.

11.

Learned counsel for Ist party Shri Arun Patel in support of claim for reinstatement with backwages relies on ratio

held in case between-

Jasmer singh versus State of Haryana and another reported in 2015(2)SCC(L&S) 46. The award passed by

Industrial Labour Court for reinstatement with full backwages was upheld.

In case between Gaurishankar versus State of Rajasthan reported in 2016(1) SCC(L&S)-546. Their Lordship held

modification of award by awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement by High Court is contrary to the well settled

principles of law laid down in a catena of cases by Supreme Court.

In case between Ajay Pal Singh versus Haryana Warehousing Corporation reported in 2015(6)SCC-321. Their

Lordship dealing with violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Provision is in conformity with Articles 14 & 16 of the

constitution and compliance therewith even by public sector employer is mandatory. The retrenchment of workman

was found invalid for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act, the relief of reinstatement with full backwages was awarded

by Labour Court was restored.

In case between Tapash Kumar Paul versus BSNL reported in 2014(4)S.C.R.875. their Lordship held Division

Bench of High Court gravely erred in ignoring the normal rule that ordinarily a workman whose service has been

illegally terminated would be entitled to full back wages except to the extent he ws gainfully employed during the

enforced idleness. Relying upon the view expressed in Deepali Gundu case to the effect that the order of termination

affects the entire family of the employee and deprives them of food, education and advancement in life. The appellant

was reinstated with full back wages. Their Lordship observed it is no doubt that court may pass an order substituting an

order of reinstatement by awarding compensation but the same has to be based on justifiable grounds (1) where

industry is closed, (ii) where employee has superannuated or going to retire shortly and no period of service is left to

his credit, (iii) where the workman has been rendered incapacitated to discharge the duties and cannot be reinstated and

(iv) when he has lost confidence of the management to discharge duties.

In case between Deepali Gundu Surwase versus Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and others reported in

2013(10)SCC-324. Their Lordship held denial of back wages would amount to indirectly punishing the employee and

rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages. Where employer wants to deny back

wages or contest the employee’s entitlement to get consequential benefits. Employer has to plead and prove that

employee was gainfully employed during the intervening period.

In case between Oshiar Prasad and others versus employers in relation to management of sudamdih coal washery

of M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, Jharkhand reported in 2015(1)SCC(L&S) 789. Their Lordship held

Tribunal while answering reference as to confine its enquiry to questions referred and has no jurisdiction to travel

beyond or and terms of reference. The appellants were held entitled to compensation.

In case between Sudarshan Rajpoot versus UP State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2015(2)SCC-317.

Their Lordship considering services of appellant workman who was continuously working more than 3 years and

rendered more than 240 days service in calendar year terminated without notice amount to unfair labour practice.

Labour Court was justified in directing reinstatement with consequential benefits.

In case between ONGC Ltd. versus Petroleum Coal Labour Union reported in AIR-2015-SC-2210. Ratio

pertains to denial of regularization under provisions of certified standing orders.

The terms of reference in present case not pertain to denial of regularization, ratio held in the case cannot be

applied to case at hand.

12.

Learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri P.C.Chandak relies on ratio held in case between

Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited versus Shamim Mirza reported in 2009(1)SCC-20. Their Lordship

dealing with question of backwages held the entitlement of an employee to get reinstated doesnot necessarily result in

payment of full or partial backwages, which is independent of reinstatement. While dealing with the prayer for

backwages, factual scenario, equity and good conscience and a number of other factors like manner of selection, the

nature of appointment, period for which the employee has worked with the employer etc have to be kept in view.

(ii)

1865

I appreciate the efforts taken by counsel for Ist party Shri Arun Patel, however facts of present case are different.

Considering said aspects of the matter when Ist party workman was engaged on daily wages on temporary basis, prior

to the process for selection on regular post was initiated, her services were terminated on 28-8-97 violating Section 25-

F of ID Act. The Ist party workman had worked about 4 years, compensation Rs.75,000/- would be appropriate.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

13.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Cantonment Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Mhow in terminating

the services of Smt. Raju Bai W/o Shri Prakash w.e.f. 28-8-87 is not proper and legal.

(2)

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

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

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

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

—

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2017

S.O. 891.—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. 463/2004) 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 Manager, Telecom Department, Palanpur-385001 and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 03.03.2017.

[No. L-40011/27/2000-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA 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 21^stFebruary, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 463/2004

The Telecom District Manager,

Telecom Department,

Palanpur, Telecom District,

Joravar Palace,

Palanpur (B.K.) – 385001

…First Party

V/s

Shri Sabatsingh Mulabhai Patel,

Village – Salia (Kheda Falia),

PO: Sant Road, Tal. Morva Hadaf,

Panchmahal (Gujarat)

…Second Party

1866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 15, 2017/CHAITRA 25, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the First Party : Shri H.R. Raval

For the Second Party : Shri J.K. Ved

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40011/27/2000-

IR(DU) dated 15.01.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Telecom District Manager, Telecom Department, Palanpur in

terminating the services of their workman Shri Sabatsingh Mulabhai Patel from 11.10.1995 is legal and justified?

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

The reference dates back to 15.01.2002. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 10 on 28.04.2004

and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 11 on 04.10.2004. Now today on 21.02.2017, Shri J.K. Ved, the

advocate for the second party, requested to withdraw the reference as appears that the workman has died on

21.04.2006.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

—

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2017

S.O. 892.—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. 115/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

Chief General Manager, Telecom and others Bhopal and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 08.03.2017.

[No. L-40012/17/2000-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/115/2000

Shri Ranglal Chamar, S/o Shri Jaganath Chamar,

R/o Village Lakanwas,

Tehsil Biaora, Rajgarh,

Rajgarh

…Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Telecom, MP Circle,

Telecom Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal

(ii)

1867

TDE, Rajgarh,

At Biaora,

Rajgarh

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 2^nd day of February 2017

As per letter dated 21-6-00 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

40012/17/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom in terminating the services of Shri

Ranglal Chamar S/o Jaganath Chamar w.e.f. December 98 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

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

Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was appointed in July 1994 in 2^nd party department at Lakhanwas,

Distt. Rajgarh as casual labour. He was posted at Narsingarh, Kurawar and lastly posted in Narsingarh. He was working

honestly to satisfaction of his superiors. Since his initial appointment in July 994 till December 98, he was

continuously working without any break. He completed more than 240 days continuous service in a calendar year on

permanent vacant post. He acquired status of permanent employee. His services were dispensed in December 1998

without following statutory provisions. Termination of his service without sufficient reasons is arbitrary and in

violation of principles of natural justice. Workman has reiterated that he completed 240 days continuous service, his

services were terminated without reasons or any hearing is illegal. Termination of his service is in violation of Section

25 of ID Act. The act of management is by way of victimization. On such ground, Ist party workman prays for his

reinstatement with backwages.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. Case of 2^nd party management is workman had

never worked with the management of 2^nd party. Reference is not tenable. It is reiterated that workman was never

appointed by the management in Sub Division. There is no point of allowing regularization of workman as Ist party

workman never worked in 2^nd party. There is no question of violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. There is no question

of working for 240 days in a calendar year. Consequently workman is not entitled for retrenchment compensation or

absorption in service. 2^nd party submits workman is not entitled to any relief.

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

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

(i) Whether the action of the management of Chief

General Manager, Telecom in terminating the

services of Shri Ranglal Chamar S/o Jaganath

Chamar w.e.f. December 98 is justified?

In Negative

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

As per final order.

REASONS

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

of his evidence. In his affidavit of evidence, workman says he was engaged as casual labour in July 94. Since his

appointment as casual labour, he was working continuously till 1998. He worked with devotion at Narsinghgarh,

Kurawar and lastly at Narsinghgarh. He completed more than 240 days working during each of the calendar years. In

December 1998, his services were orally discontinued, he was not served with notice or paid one months salary. He

was not paid retrenchment compensation. The documents about his working, attendance register, muster roll are in

custody of 2^nd party. In his cross-examination, Ist party workman says post on which he was working was not

advertised. Appointment letter was not given to him. He was doing work of digging ditches or raising poles. He was

paid wages at end of month. Any document about payment of wages was not given to him. At the time of payment, his

signatures were obtained on the papers. He denied that he was not working in the department at any time.

Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Shailendrda Surjan. witness of management in his affidavit of

evidence states that workman was not appointed, he did not work in the department. Workman was never engaged on

casual basis or otherwise. There was not question of his completing more than 240 days in a calendar year. There was

no question of paying retrenchment compensation to him. Management’s witness in his cross says he is posted at

1868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 15, 2017/CHAITRA 25, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Rajgarh office in July 2013. He was not posted in Rajgarh office during the period July 94 to Dec-98. He had seen staff

service book. The service book of workman was not found. The service book of daily wage employees is not

maintained. Daily wage employee was paid wages by the officer. Daily wage employees used to be engaged as per

need. Their attendance register is not maintained. The record of payments to daily wage employees was maintained by

the concerned officer. In his further cross, management’s witness was unable to tell during July 94 to Dec-98, who was

the officer dealing with payment to daily wage employee. Work of fault and joint was taken from workman.

Management’s witness further explained that work of cable fault and joints was done by daily wage employees and not

by the workman. Presently said work is done through contractor. Any documents related to the workman are not

produced. Workman was not served with notice. He was not paid retrenchment compensation. Considering the

evidence of management’s witness in his cross examination that the record about payment to the daily wage employees

was maintained by concerned officer, work of cable fault and joint was taken from workman, it is clear that if the

workman was working with 2^nd party, management witness was not posted at Rajgarh during 1994 to 1998. He has no

personal knowledge. The service book of daily wage employee is not maintained therefore there was no question to see

service book of workman by the witness of management. The concerned officer who deal with payment of daily wage

workers is not examined.

Learned counsel for Ist party Arun Patel relied on ratio held in case between

Director, Fisheries Terminal Department versus Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda reported in 2010(2)MPLJ-30.

Their Lordship dealing with Section 25B of ID Act and continuous service. Workman hired on a daily wage basis

deposed that he had worked for 240 days during the period 1985 to 199 burden of proof shifts to the employer to prove

that he did not complete 240 days of service in the requisite period to constitute continuous service.

In present case, the evidence of workman that he was working more than 240 days during each of the year July

94 to December 98. Management’s witness in his cross has admitted work of cable fault and joint were taken from

workman. Management has not adduced evidence in rebuttal that workman had not completed 240 days continuous

service. The application for production of documents was filed by workman on 25-8-05. Though the exparte order

against 2^nd party management was called back and management filed Written Statement, no reply is filed to the

application for production of documents and no evidence in rebuttal is also adduced by management. Evidence of

workman deserves to be accepted. As per evidence in cross examination of management’s witness, workman was not

served with notice, he was not paid retrenchment compensation. Therefore termination of workman is in violation of

Section 25-F(a,b) of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 termination of services of workman is illegal for violation of

Section 25-F(a,b) of ID Act, question remains for consideration is whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with

backwages. Workman in his cross examination says post was not advertised, appointment letter was not given to him.

Workman was engaged on daily wages.

Learned counsel for Ist party Arun Patel in support of relief of reinstatement with backwages relies on ratio held

in case between

Tapash Kumar Paul versus BSNL and another reported in 2014(4)SCR-875. Their Lordship dealing with

termination in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act held it is no doubt true that a Court may pass an order substituting

an order of reinstatement by awarding compensation but the same has to be based on justifiable grounds- (i) where the

industry is closed, (ii) where the employee has superannuated or going to retire shortly, (iii) where the workman has

been rendered incapacitated to discharge the duties and cannot be reinstated, (iv) when he has lost confidence of the

management to discharge duties. Ist party workman was not issued appointment letter, he was engaged on daily wages.

At Page 885, their Lordship observed the Court will deny relief of award of full back wages where that would place an

impossible burden on the employer. In such and other exceptional cases, the court may mould the relief but ordinarily

the relief to be awarded must be reinstatement with full back wages.

Evidence of workman that he is unemployed after termination of his service is difficult to accept, how he could

survive without any earning all those years. Therefore claim for backwages would not be justified in present case.

Reliance is also placed in case between Deepali Gundu Surwase versus Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya

and others reported in 2013(10)SCC-324. Their Lordship dealing with illegal termination allowed reinstatement with

backwages.

As the evidence of workman that he was unemployed after termination of his service appears not acceptable. In

my considered view, relief of reinstatement without backwages would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding

in Point No.2.

(ii)

1869

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom in terminating the services of Shri

Ranglal Chamar w.e.f. December 98 is not proper and legal.

(2)

Termination of workman is set-aside. 2^nd party is directed to reinstate workman in his original post but

without backwages.

(3)

In the circumstances, 2^nd party shall pay cost of Rs.3000/- to the workman.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

—

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2017

S.O. 893.—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. 92/2004) 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 Department, Mehsana and other, Gujarat and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 03.03.2017.

[No. L-40012/112/97-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA 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 23^rdFebruary, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 92/2004

1. The General Manager,

Telecom Department,

Mehsana (Gujarat) – 384001

2. The Divisional Engineer,

Telecom,

Padmavati Complex,

Mehsana (Gujarat) – 384001

…First Party

V/s

Shri Mohammed Azgar M. Ansari,

C/o Abdul Subhan, L.M.P. Telecom,

Kukarwada,

Mehsana (Gujarat) – 384001

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri N.K. Trivedi

For the Second Party : Shri Z.M. Kadri

1870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 15, 2017/CHAITRA 25, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/112/97-

IR(DU) dated 16.06.1998 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the department of Telecommunication in denying temporary status to Shri Mohhamed

Azgar M. Ansari, Muster Roll workman from 31.05.1989 but terminating his service w.e.f. 11.09.1995 without

notice or compensation is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from

which date?”

The reference dates back to 16.06.1998. In response to the notice, the second party workman Mohhamed Azgar

M. Ansari submitted his statement of claim alleging that he was engaged as casual workman by the first party,

General/Divisional Manager, Telecom Department, Mehsana in November 1985 where he worked for 137 days in

1985-86, 311 days in 1986-87 and 224 days in 1987-88. He also completed 159 days in 1988-89 but his services were

terminated suddenly on 11.09.1995 by the first party without issuing show notice or paying notice pay with ulterior and

malafide motive. First party has also given permanent appointment to another workman who joined as casual workman

later. He has further alleged that first party did not offer him any work from 1999 to 10.09.1995 despite a demand to

work made by him to the first party. He met several times to the Sub-Divisional Officer of Telecom to engage him and

to give him work but to no result. Thus he has prayed for appointment as a permanent employee.

The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 5 denying the averments made in the statement of claim

alleging that the reference is not tenable, being vague in law, therefore, liable to be dismissed as this tribunal has no

jurisdiction to try it. He has further alleged that the first party organisation is not an industry as per the decision made in

P.K. Vijay Nair V/s Assistant Superintendent of Post Officers 1995 ATC 414 wherein it has been held by the Division

Bench of the Central and Industrial Tribunal that where the rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India or

otherwise have been framed for recruitment of the services, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act shall not

apply. The second party workman Mohhamed Azgar M. Ansari has no locus standee to claim for appointment as a

permanent employee because said appointment can only be made by following a due procedure of recruitment. It is

further alleged that the workman was not regular employee. He was given casual work on the new basis and worked

137 days in 1985-86, 312 days in 1986-87, 224 days in 1987-88 and 66 days in 1988-89. Since the he has been

absconding and has not reported to work. The allegation that the first party department did not give him work after

1989 is incorrect and far from truth. The directions of the Supreme Court dated 17.04.1990 is not applicable to this

case, therefore, he is not entitled to appointed as regular employee as he himself left the casual work and remained

unavailable for a long time till he raised the dispute. It has been further alleged that the he casual job was never

terminated and he himself left the job. Therefore, no relief can be granted to him.

On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise.

Issue No. i: Whether the action of the department of Telecommunication in denying temporary status to Shri

Mohhamed Azgar M. Ansari, Muster Roll workman from 31.05.1989 but terminating his service w.e.f. 11.09.1995

without notice or compensation is legal and justified?

Issue No. ii: To what relief, if any, the workman is entitled?

The second party workman submitted the number of documents vide list Ex. 6 showing that he worked for 137

days in Kalol in the year 1986-87, 118 days from 03.04.1986 to 31.08.1986, 29 days in Vijapur from 02.02.1986 to

30.09.1986, 218 days from 10.10.1986 to 31.07.1987, 172 days in Vijapur from 06.10.1987 to 28.03.1988. All these

documents are also filed by first party, therefore, can be said to be admitted and can also be read in evidence.

Issue No. i: The second party workman Mohhamed Azgar M. Ansari was examined vide Ex. 16 on 04.03.2001 in

State Industrial Tribunal and re-examined in this tribunal on 16.05.2004 wherein he reiterated the averments made in

the statement of claim.

On behalf of the first party witness Jayantilal Nathalal Patel, Divisional Telecom Engineer, Kalol was examined

on 16.08.2005 wherein he has stated on oath that he has been serving as Divisional Engineer Telecom Kalol. He has no

personal knowledge and acquaintance with the second party workman. He has stated on the basis of the record

available on the record. The workman was engaged in the year 1985 as a casual worker for installation and fault of the

telephone lines. He did not work continuously. He can state that the second party workman worked for 240 days in the

year 1986, 1987 and 1988. He was not terminated by the office rather he stopped coming to the office for the casual

work since 1989. No notice was served on him for non-coming. He came in 1995 for work. He was not given work. He

has further stated that notice was not served on him as he himself stopped coming and notice is always served on the

regular employee. He doesn’t know as to whether casual labours prior to 1988 were made regular or not. He also

(ii)

1871

doesn’t know that the workmen named Kamlesh Pal, Rajubhai, Mahesh Parmar, Rafiq Hansari, Ranchhod Thakur were

engaged or not. It is true that this workman worked for more than 240 days in the last year prior to termination. No

inquiry was ordered or made for his long absence from 1989 to 1995.

The first party advocate submitted the following written arguments which are recorded as under:

The first party is a Central Govt. undertaking and providing the services throughout the territory of nation.

It has engaged employee as per their requirements. The second party was a casual daily worker engaged by

the first party on where and when requirement basis on daily wages.

ii.

The second party has admitted that he was a daily rated casual workman at Ex. 13 in his chief examination.

According to the judgement of Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh V/s Suresh

Kumar Varma and Anr 1996(2)SLR PAGE 321 it is stated – Appointment/Ad hoc appointment –

appointment on daily wage basis is not an appointment to a post according to the rules – state is bound to

follow the rules made by it – Selection has to be according to recruitment rules. In the present said case the

second party was a casual daily wager and his appointment was not made according to recruitment rules

and hence cannot be entitled to reinstate with first party.

Supreme Court of India has also decided in the case of Himanshukumur Vidhyarthi and Others and State of

Bihar FLR 1997 (76) Page 2367 it state that Industrial Dispute Act – Section 25 – F daily wager -

termination of service – service of daily wager, a temporary employee is terminated – he had no right to the

post – his disengagement held not arbitrary – his case cannot be treated under the Industrial Dispute Act.

Looking to this decision also the second party has no right for reinstatement.

Supreme Court has also held in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceutical Ltd. V/s workman in Indian Drugs &

Pharmaceutical Ltd. – that rules of recruitment cannot be relaxed and court/tribunal cannot direct

regularization of temporary appointment do hors rules nor direct continuation of their services or payment

of regular salaries to them. {2006(0)GLHEL-SC 38282}

Even in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and others V/s Umadevi (3) and others 2006 Supreme

Court Cases (L&S) 753 is stated as –J- Appointment – modes of appointment - permissible modes –

absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage ad hoc

employee appointed/recruited do hors the constitutional scheme of public employment on issuance of

directions by court therefore – held issuance of such directions amount to creating another mode of public

appointment, which is not permissible. So the concerned second party is not entitled to reinstate with first

party.

iii.

The second party has worked 137 days in the year 1985-86, 311 days in the year of 1986-87, 224 days in

the year of 1987-88, 159 days in the year of 1988-89 and as such he had not worked continuously for 240

days in each year during he worked as per his examination in chief at Ex. 16. Thus he cannot claim for the

reinstatement with the first party.

iv.

The second party has stop coming for work at his own accord and was not orally terminated by the first

party. He was daily rated casual workman not employed by following due procedure like regular or

permanent employee and hence he cannot be reinstate with full back wages. As such question does not

arise to give him any legal notice and to hold any departmental inquiry for absenteeism against him. He

cannot reinstate with full back wages.

The second party was daily rated casual workman not appointed by following due procedure of law and the

second party has stop coming for work at his own accord so the question doesn’t arise of following due

procedure of law for termination of his employment as well as with prejudice mind.

vi.

It is also far from the truth that the daily rated workman those ae working with him are made regular. It is

also not true that the second party has met the officer of first party for work.

vii.

The second party has failed to prove before the Hon’ble Court that he has tried for employment and not

produce any documents for the same. The burden of proof lies on the second party as per the Supreme

Court Judgement 2005 LLR 275 in Kendriya Vidyalay Sanghathan and Anr V/s S.C. Sharma.

viii. The second party has raised the dispute after long period and no any justification is mentioned and hence

no any relief should be granted in the interest of justice.

It is noteworthy that both the parties have admitted that the second party workman during the years 1986, 1987,

1988 and 1989, he worked for more than 240 days but the second party workman has not lead any evidence as to

whether he was denied to work from 1989 to 1995 by the first party by way of submitting the correspondence with the

authorities of the first party or that he had been actually serving the first party from 1989 to 1995. In the absence of the

1872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 15, 2017/CHAITRA 25, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

said evidence, it can be assumed that he left his job in 1989 and suddenly appeared in 1995 claiming his regularisation

in the first party establishment. Thus a person who himself left the job cannot be permitted to take advantage of his

misconduct of absconding from the job for a long period of 6 years from 1989 to 1995 without any satisfactory reasons.

Thus in the light of the aforesaid reasons, the second party workman is not entitled for any relief and the denial of

the relief by the first party is legal and justified.

10.

Thus, the reference is disposed of accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

—

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2017

S.O. 894.—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. 875/2004) 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 Manager, Telecom Department and other, Amreli, Gujarat and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 30.03.2017.

[No. L-40012/35/2000-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA 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 16^thMarch, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 875/2004

1. The Telecom District Manager,

Telecom Deptt.,

Amreli (Gujarat)

2. The Divisional Engineer Telecom,

Telecom Deptt.,

Amreli (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

Shri Mohanbhai Shamjibhai Kambodiya

C/o

J.B. Rajyaguru,

S/10, Sahjanand Mkt.,

Station Road,

Amreli (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party : P.V. Kharsani

For the Second Party : R.C. Pathak

(ii)

1873

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/35/2000-

IR(DU) dated 30.05.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the department of Telecom, Amreli in denying engagement as full time sweeper to Shri

Mohanbhai Shamjibhai Kambodiya as per letter No. E-2/34/98/1500 dated 28.08.1989 w.e.f. 11.03.1995 and

thereafter terminating his services w.e.f. 31.01.1999 in the guice of termination of contract is legal and justified?

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

The reference dates back to 30.05.2000. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 on 13.01.2003.

The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 11 on 18.07.2005. Since then both the parties have been absent and

the advocate Shri Chintan Goyal and Shri R.S. Pathak vide application Ex. 12 has stated that the workman has not been

contacting him despite knowledge. Therefore, it appears that the second party workman is not willing to prosecute the

reference.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of with the observation as under: the action of the department of Telecom,

Amreli in denying engagement as full time sweeper to Shri Mohanbhai Shamjibhai Kambodiya as per letter No. E-

2/34/98/1500 dated 28.08.1989 w.e.f. 11.03.1995 and thereafter terminating his services w.e.f. 31.01.1999 in the guice

of termination of contract is legal and justified.”

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

—

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2017

S.O. 895.—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. 1084/2004) 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 Superintendent of Post Office, General Division, Gujarat and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 30.03.2017.

[No. L-40012/24/96-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA 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 17^thMarch, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1084/2004

The Supdt. Of Post Office,

General Division,

Gondal (Gujarat) – 360311

…First Party

1874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 15, 2017/CHAITRA 25, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

V/s

Shri H.S. Vania,

EDBPM, Sanathali,

Via – Vasavad, Ta-Jasoan,

Rajkot (Gujarat)

………….Second Party

For the First Party : Shri P.M. Rami

For the Second Party : Shri B.B. Gogia

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/24/96-

IR(DU) dated 23.02.1998 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Gondal Division, Gondal in

terminating the services of Shri H.B. Vania, EDBPM, Sanathali is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 23.02.1998. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 on 06.08.1998

and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 8 on 12.09.2002. Since then the second party has not been

leading evidence, therefore, a fresh notice Ex. 13 was issued to both the parties to appear on 13.04.2011 thereafter on

30.11.2011, the second party submitted the application Ex. 15 for amending the statement of claim, same was allowed

on 08.01.2016. But since then the second party has not been leading evidence. On 27.01.2017 after number of dates,

Advocate B.B. Gogia who was representing the second party withdrew his vakalatpatra. It is noteworthy that the

second party has been absent in person since last several dates, therefore, on 27.01.2017, the second party was given

last opportunity for giving evidence even he was absent and the case was listed for 17.03.2017 for evidence. But he did

not appear on 17.03.2017 for leading evidence. Shri B.B. Gogia has also submitted a letter dated 12.07.2014 signed by

the workman that he has taken his file from Shri B.B. Gogia.

The said conduct of the workman reflects that he is not willing to prosecute the case.

Therefore, this tribunal has no alternative but to dispose of the reference with the observation as under: “the

action of the management of Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Gondal Division, Gondal in terminating the services of

Shri H.B. Vania, EDBPM, Sanathali is legal and justified.”

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

—

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2017

S.O. 896.—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. 185/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

Chief General Manager, Department of Telecommunication, Bhopal and others, Madhya Pradesh and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on 08.03.2017.

[No. L-40012/366/2000-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

(ii)

1875

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/185/2000

Shri Saabir Khan C/o Ruhi Tailor,

Rashid Khan,JP Nehru Colony,

Opp Union Carbide, Bhopal (MP)

…Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. Of Telecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road, MP Circle, Bhopal (MP)

DET, Deptt. of Telecom,

Near Gayathri Mandir, Hanuman Mandir Chouraha,

Ghuna

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this Ist day of February 2017

As per letter dated 30-10-2000 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

40012/366/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom District Engineer Telegraph in

terminating Shri Saabir Khan S/o Shri Mohd,. Murteja Khan w.e.f. 1-3-98 is justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled?”

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

Page 3/1 to ¾. Case of Ist party workman is that he was initially appointed as Driver from 1-4-93. He was continuously

working till 1-3-98. That he had completed more than 240 days continuous service during each of the calendar years.

He claims to be employee covered under Section 25 B of ID Act. He worked to the satisfaction of his superiors. That he

should have been considered for regularization. Inspite of regularizing his services, his services were terminated

without notice. He was not paid retrenchment compensation. His termination is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act

and as such illegal retrenchment. That 2^nd party also violated Section 25 G,H of ID Act, Rule 77, 78 of ID Rules 1957.

After termination of his service, he is unemployed despite repeated efforts made by him. On such ground, workman

prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 4/1 to 4/3 opposing claim of Ist party workman. 2^nd party denies that

workman appointed on 1-4-93 and he was continuously working till -3-98. It is submitted that since 1985, no outsiders

are posted at SSA, Guna. Workman was not appointed. There is no question of his consideration as employee under

Section 25 B of ID Act. It is reiterated that Ist party was never appointed in Telecom Department, no appointment letter

was issued to him. As per the procedure in department for petty workers, labours engaged for specific work for time

being on wages at collector rate. The workman was engaged in different months for paid works at collector rate of

wages. Workman had not completed 240 days continuous service during any of the year. Workman was not

continuously working for 5 years. Procedure for appointment/ recruitment is not applicable for petty workman. No

notice was required, termination of service of workman in violation of provisions of ID Act is denied. Rather it is

submitted that section 25-F,G,H of ID Act is not applicable. 2^nd party submits workman is not entitled to any relief.

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

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

(i) Whether the action of the management of Chief

General Manager, Telecom District Engineer

Telegraph in terminating Shri Saabir Khan S/o Shri

Mohd,. Murteja Khan w.e.f. 1-3-98 is justified?

In Negative

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

As per final order.

1876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 15, 2017/CHAITRA 25, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REASONS

Point No.1 The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of Saabir Khan. Ist party

workman filed affidavit of his evidence. Workman has stated in his affidavit that he was appointed as driver on daily

wages on 1-4-93. He was continuously working till 1-3-98. He completed 240 days continuous service during each of

the year. On 1-3-98, his services were orally terminated without notice, he was not paid retrenchment compensation he

was not given opportunity of hearing. Any chargesheet was not issued to him, no enquiry was conducted against him.

After termination of his service, 2^nd party engaged other employees on daily wages. His request for re-employment

was not considered. In his cross examination, Ist party workman says appointment letter was received by him.

Appointment letter is not produced in case. He denies that he was engaged on daily wages and he was paid wages every

day. He denied that he was called when work was available. He admits that logbooks are used to be signed by Driver.

In log book Exhibit M-1, his signature is not appearing. Workman explained that logbook pertaining to his working are

not produced. He denies that he not worked for 240 days during any of the year.

Application for production of documents was filed by Ist party on 1-2-75 requesting 2^nd party to produce copy of

credit sale voucher of the period 1-4-93 to 1-3-98, particulars of JeepNo. MP-8-7439, log book of Vehicle No.MP08-

2535, Log book of Vehicle No MKH 1970. It appears the management was proceeded exparte. Exparte order was set

aside and Written Statement was filed by management on 6-8-01. However no reply was filed to the application for

production of documents. 2^nd party has produced log books Exhibit M-1. Log Exhibit M-1 for the period March 93 till

31-8-95 is not bearing signature of the Driver rather it bears only signature of the officer using vehicle. Said log book

pertains to Vehicle No. MP08-7439. Register for the period 23^rd July 1997 till 31-3-99 bears signatures of Driver Sunil

Sharma since 14-10-98, Log book 17/7 for the period 1-1-97 to 31-3-98 bears signatures of Driver Sunil Sharma.

using vehicle. Register 17/9 for the period 1-3-96 to 31-1-97 bears signature of Driver Sunil Sharma and officer using

the vehicle. Said Register is of Vehicle MHK1970.

Management has not produced documents credit sale voucher for the period 1-4-93 to 1-3-98 and particulars of

Jeep No. 087439.

Affidavit of evidence of management’s witness Shri G.S.Sengar is filed. Witness of management has stated that

workman was engaged by the Telecom Department on temporary basis for a particular work. He was never appointed

by the management. Workman was not continuously working on daily wages. Workman had not worked continuously

for 240 days during any of the year. His engagement was subject to availability of work. Management’s witness in his

cross says personally he is not acquainted with workman. He filed affidavit of his evidence as per the contentions in

Written Statement. Management’s witness admits that Vehicle No.MP08 7439, MP08 2535, MKH 1970 were in the use

of the department. He denied that workman was continuously working from 1-4-93 to 1-3-98. Management’s witness

admits that in Register Exhibit M-1 ( 17/2 & 17/6), signatures of drivers are not appearing rather he explained that on

period 1-9-95 to 31-3-98 of Vehicle No. MP08-7439 are not produced. He also admits that said jeep was in use of the

department. Management’s witness admits that workman was not served with notice, retrenchment compensation was

not paid to him. 2^nd party ohas not produced documents as narrated above and therefore adverse inference deserves to

be drawn. If those documents would have been produced, claim of Ist party would have been supported. Management’s

witness has no personal knowledge. He has filed affidavit supporting contentions in Written Statement and therefore

evidence of Ist party workman deserves to be accepted. In my considered view, from evidence discussed above,

workman has established that he was continuously working from 1-4-93 to 1-3-98. He completed 240 days continuous

service. His services were terminated without notice. Workman was not paid retrenchment compensation. Termination

of services of workman is illegal for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Negative.

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

for consideration whether Ist party workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages.

10.

Learned counsel for Ist party Shri K.B.Singh relies on ratio held in case between-

Raj Kumar versus Director of Education and others reported in 2016(6)SCC-541. Their Lordship considering

notice of retrenchment required to be sent to appropriate Government in prescribed form in terms of Section 25-F(c)

not served on Government. There is nothing to indicate that Section 25-F(c) was intended to be directory while the

other two sub sections of the same section were mandatory in nature. Section 25 F(c) is a condition subsequent but is

still a mandatory condition required to be fulfilled by the employers before the order of retrenchment of the workman is

passed. Order was held liable to be set-aside. Their Lordship further considered that no evidence produced to show that

retrenchment of appellant was necessary as he had become surplus. The matter in above cited case pertain to the

educational department.

The facts of present case are not comparable. Therefore ratio held in the case cannot be applied to case at hand.

(ii)

1877

11.

Ist party workman was engaged on daily wage basis. Appointment letter is not produced by workman.

Considering nature of employment and period of working from 1-4-93 to 1-3-98 for about 5 years, compensation Rs.

One Lakh would be appropriate and shall meet the ends of justice. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

12.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom District Engineer Telegraph in

terminating Shri Saabir Khan S/o Shri Mohd,. Murteja Khan w.e.f. 1-3-98 is not proper and legal.

(2)

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

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

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

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

—

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2017

S.O. 897.—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. 130/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. II, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the Commissioner Sports, Delhi Development Authority and others, New Delhi and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 23.01.2017.

[No. L-42012/138/2015-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID. No. 130/2015

Sh. Mahesh Kumar S/o Sh. Kanhaiya Lal,

C/o 1800/9, Govindpuri Extension,

Main Road, Kalkaji,

New Delhi-110019.

Versus

1. The Commissioner Sports,

Delhi Development Authority,

Siri Fort Sports Complex, August Kranti Marg,

Khel Gaon,

New Delhi-110049.

2. M/s Niti Enterprises,

M/s Niti Enterprises,

L-88, Kisan Vihar,

New Delhi-110041.

No DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide notification No L-42012/138/2015 -(IR(DU)) dated

21.08.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for the adjudication :-

1878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 15, 2017/CHAITRA 25, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the workman, Sh. Mahesh Kumar S/o Sh. Kanhaiya Lal, is entitled to re-instatement in the

employment of the employer? If so, with effect from which date; If not to what relief is the workman entitled to?”

On 26.10.2015 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 130/2015 and claimant

was called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

After service of notice workman/claimant Sh. Mahesh Kumar, not filed claim statement inspite of several

opportunities.

Opportunity to management was provided to file response against reference. Which has not been filed by

management on the ground that claim statement has not been filed by workman.

In these circumstances reference cannot be decided on the basis of pleadings of evidence of parties.

So it is a fit case to pass no dispute Award.

Which is accordingly passed.

Dated:-4.1.2017

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

—

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2017

S.O. 898.—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. 131/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. II, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the Commissioner Sports, Delhi Development Authority and others, New Delhi and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 23.01.2017.

[No. L-42012/139/2015-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID. No. 131/2015

Sh. Rahul Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Padarth Singh,

C/o 1800/9, Govindpuri Extension,

Main Road, Kalkaji,

New Delhi-110019.

Versus

1. The Commissioner Sports,

Delhi Development Authority,

Siri Fort Sports Complex, August Kranti Marg,

Khel Gaon,

New Delhi-110049.

2. M/s Deepali (India) Enterprises,

M/s Deepali (India) Enterprises,

178, Block -14 , Ground Floor,

(ii)

1879

L.B.S. Hospital Khichripur,

New Delhi-110019

No DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide notification No L-42012/139/2015 -(IR(DU)) dated

21.08.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for the adjudication :-

“Whether the workman, Sh. Rahul Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Padarath Singh, is entitled to re-instatement in the

employment of the employer? If so, with effect from which date; If not to what relief is the workman entitled to?

On 26.10.2015 reference was received in this tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 131/2015 and claimant was

called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

After service of notice workman/claimant Sh. Rahul Kumar, not filed claim statement inspite of several

opportunities.

Opportunity to management was provided to file response against reference. Which has not been filed by

management on the ground that claim statement has not been filed by workman.

In these circumstances reference cannot be decided on the basis of pleadings of evidence of parties.

So it is a fit case to pass no dispute Award.

Which is accordingly passed.

Dated:-4.1.2017

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

—

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2017

S.O. 899.—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. 100/2006) 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, BSNL and other, Bhavnagar, Gujarat and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 30.03.2017.

[No. L-40012/245/2003-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA 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 14^thMarch, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 100/2006

1880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 15, 2017/CHAITRA 25, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1. The General Manager,

Telecom District, BSNL,

Panwadi, Bhavnagar (Gujarat)

2. The Sub-Divisional Officer,

BSNL, Ghogha Road,

Bhavnagar (Gujarat) – 346001

…First Party

V/s

The President,

Shramik Sangh,

Kaveri Corporation, Navapara,

Bhavnagar (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party :

Shri H.R. Raval

For the Second Party :

AWARD

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

40012/245/2003-IR(DU) dated 03.02.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the industrial disputes raised by the President, Shramik Sangh, Bhavnagar against the management of

General Manager, Telecom District, Bhavnagar and others over alleged illegal termination of services of 69

workmen is justified? If so, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 03.02.2006. The first party submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 2 of his advocate Shri N.K.

Trivedi on 04.10.2007. The second party union The President, Shramik Sangh, Kaveri Corporation, Navapara,

Bhavnagar submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 on 28.08.2008. The first party submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 10 of

his advocate Shir H.R. Raval on 15.03.2011. The second party has been absent since 05.03.2012 but the first party

suddenly submitted the preliminary objections Ex. 11 on 25.10.2016 regarding the maintainability of the reference. The

second party or his workman have been absent since 05.03.2012. Therefore, the second party failed to submit

objections against the application Ex. 11. Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the reference.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of as not maintainable in the light of the preliminary objections filed by the

employer.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

—

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2017

S.O. 900.—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. 99/2006) 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, BSNL and other, Bhavnagar, Gujarat and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 30.03.2017.

[No. L-40012/142/2002-IR (DU)]

RAJENDAR JOSHI, Dy. Director

(ii)

1881

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 14^thMarch, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 99/2006

1. The General Manager,

Telecom District, BSNL,

Panwadi, Bhavnagar (Gujarat)

2. The Sub-Divisional Officer,

BSNL, Ghogha Road,

Bhavnagar (Gujarat) – 346001

…First Party

V/s

The President,

Shramik Sangh,

Kaveri Corporation, Navapara,

Bhavnagar (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party :

Shri H.R. Raval

For the Second Party :

AWARD

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

40012/142/2002-IR(DU) dated 03.02.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the industrial disputes raised by the President, Shramik Sangh, Bhavnagar against the management of

General Manager, Telecom District, Bhavnagar and others over alleged illegal termination of services of 69

workmen is justified? If so, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 03.02.2006. The first party submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 2 of his advocate Shri N.K.

Trivedi on 04.10.2007. The second party union The President, Shramik Sangh, Kaveri Corporation, Navapara,

Bhavnagar submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 on 28.08.2008. The first party submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 10 of

his advocate Shir H.R. Raval on 15.03.2011. The second party has been absent since 05.03.2012 but the first party

suddenly submitted the preliminary objections Ex. 13 on 25.10.2016 regarding the maintainability of the reference. The

second party or his workman have been absent since 05.03.2012. Therefore, the second party failed to submit

objections against the application Ex. 13. Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the reference.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of as not maintainable in the light of the preliminary objections filed by the

employer.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

—

1882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 15, 2017/CHAITRA 25, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2017

S.O. 901.—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. 98/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

General Manager, Telecom District, BSNL and others, Bhavnagar, Gujarat and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 30.03.2017.

[No. L-40012/139/2002-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA 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 14^thMarch, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 98/2006

1. The General Manager,

Telecom District, BSNL,

Panwadi, Bhavnagar (Gujarat)

2. The Sub-Divisional Officer,

BSNL, Ghogha Road,

Bhavnagar (Gujarat) – 346001

…First Party

V/s

The President,

Shramik Sangh,

Kaveri Corporation, Navapara,

Bhavnagar (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party :

Shri H.R. Raval

For the Second Party :

AWARD

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

40012/139/2002-IR(DU) dated 03.02.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the industrial disputes raised by the President, Shramik Sangh, Bhavnagar against the management of

General Manager, Telecom District, Bhavnagar and others over alleged illegal termination of services of 69

workmen is justified? If so, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 03.02.2006. The second party union The President, Shramik Sangh, Kaveri

Corporation, Navapara, Bhavnagar submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 on 16.07.2008. The first party submitted the

vakalatpatra Ex. 10 of his advocate Shir H.R. Raval on 11.02.2016. The second party has been absent since 05.03.2012

but the first party suddenly submitted the preliminary objections Ex. 11 on 25.10.2016 regarding the maintainability of

the reference. The second party or his workman have been absent since 05.03.2012. Therefore, the second party failed

to submit objections against the application Ex. 11. Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the

reference.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of as not maintainable in the light of the preliminary objections filed by the

employer.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

(ii)

1883

—

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2017

S.O. 902.—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. 90/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

General Manager, Telecom District, BSNL and other, Bhavnagar, Gujarat and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 30.03.2017.

[No. L-40012/419/2001-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA 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 14^thMarch, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 90/2006

1. The General Manager,

Telecom District, BSNL,

Panwadi, Bhavnagar (Gujarat)

2. The Sub-Divisional Officer,

BSNL, Ghogha Road,

Bhavnagar (Gujarat) – 346001

…First Party

V/s

The President,

Shramik Sangh,

Kaveri Corporation, Navapara,

Bhavnagar (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party :

Shri H.R. Raval

For the Second Party :

AWARD

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

40012/419/2001-IR(DU) dated 03.02.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the industrial disputes raised by the President, Shramik Sangh, Bhavnagar against the management of

General Manager, Telecom District, Bhavnagar and others over alleged illegal termination of services of 69

workmen is justified? If so, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

1884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 15, 2017/CHAITRA 25, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The reference dates back to 03.02.2006. The second party union The President, Shramik Sangh, Kaveri

Corporation, Navapara, Bhavnagar submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 on 16.07.2008. The first party submitted the

vakalatpatra Ex. 9 of his advocate Shir H.R. Raval on 11.02.2016. The second party has been absent since 05.03.2012

but the first party suddenly submitted the preliminary objections Ex. 10 on 25.10.2016 regarding the maintainability of

the reference. The second party or his workman have been absent since 05.03.2012. Therefore, the second party failed

to submit objections against the application Ex. 10. Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the

reference.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of as not maintainable in the light of the preliminary objections filed by the

employer.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

—

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2017

S.O. 903.—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. 68/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

General Manager, Telecom District, BSNL and others, Bhavnagar, Gujarat and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 30.03.2017.

[No. L-40012/397/2001-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA 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 14^thMarch, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 68/2006

1. The General Manager,

Telecom District, BSNL,

Panwadi, Bhavnagar (Gujarat)

2. The Sub-Divisional Officer,

BSNL, Ghogha Road,

Bhavnagar (Gujarat) – 346001

…First Party

V/s

The President,

Shramik Sangh,

Kaveri Corporation, Navapara,

Bhavnagar (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party :

Shri H.R. Raval

For the Second Party :

(ii)

1885

AWARD

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

40012/397/2001-IR(DU) dated 03.02.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad