3539 GI/2017

(3353)

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

REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 24]

ubZ fnYyh] twu 11—twu 17] 2017] 'kfuokj@ T;s"B 21—T;s"B 27] 1939

No. 24]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 11—JUNE 17, 2017, SATURDAY/ JYAISTHA 21—JYAISTHA 27, 1939

bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

िव मंालय

(िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग

िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग

िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग)

नई दली, 11 मई, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 1413

1413

1413.—राीयकृत बक (बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड (1) के साथ पठत

बककारी कंपनी (उपम का अजन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (3) के खंड (ख) "ारा द$ शि'य

का योग करते *ए, के+,ीय सरकार, एत-ारा, .ी अतीश /सह के थान पर, सु.ी वं2दता कौल, संयु' सिचव, िव$ीय सेवाएं िवभाग

को त7काल भाव से और अगले आदेश तक, बक ऑफ महारा के िनदेशक म:डल म< सरकारी नािमती िनदेशक नािमत करती है।

[फा.सं. 6/3/2012-बीओ-I]

=ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2017

S.O. 1413.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 9 of The

Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980, read with sub-clause (1) of

clause 3 of The Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the

3354

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Central Government, hereby nominates Ms. Vandita Kaul, Joint Secretary, Department of Financial

Services, as Government Nominee Director on the Board of Directors of Bank of Maharashtra with

immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri Ateesh Singh.

[F.No. 6/3/2012-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

शुि

शुि-प

प

नई 2द@ली, 31 मई, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 1414

1414

1414.—इस िवभाग क अिधसूचना संCया 4/4(7)/2017-बीओ-I, 2दनांक 5.5.2017, िजसम< बक ऑफ इंिडया के

बंध िनदेशक एवं मुCय कायकारी अिधकारी .ी मेलवीन ओसवा@ड रेगो को /सिडकेट बक म< बंध िनदेशक एवं मुCय कायकारी

अिधकारी िनयु' 2कया गया था, म< आंिशक संशोधन करते *ए

“के+,ीय सरकार, एत-ारा, बक ऑफ इंिडया के बंध िनदेशक एवं मुCय कायकारी अिधकारी .ी मेलवीन ओसवा@ड रेगो (ज+म

ितिथ 19.07.1959) को 2दनांक 01.07.2017 से 13.08.2018 तक क उनक शेष कायाविध तक /सिडकेट बक म< बंध

िनदेशक एवं मुCय कायकारी अिधकारी के पद पर िनयु' करती है। .ी रेगो 2दनांक 30.06.2017 तक अिनवाय तीUा म<

रह<गे।” शद के थान पर

शद के थान पर

िनिलिखत शद को ित थािपत कया जाएगा

िनिलिखत शद को ित थािपत कया जाएगा : : : :

ितिथ 19.07.1959) को त7काल भाव से अथात 2दनांक 05.05.2017 से और 2दनांक 13.08.2018 तक क उनक शेष

कायाविध तक /सिडकेट बक म< बंध िनदेशक एवं मुCय कायकारी अिधकारी के पद पर िनयु' करती है। .ी रेगो 2दनांक

30.06.2017 तक अिनवाय तीUा म< रह<गे।”

[फा. सं. 4/4/2017-बीओ-I]

=ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 31st May, 2017

S.O. 1414.—In partial modification of this Department’s Notification No.4/4(7)/2017-BO.I dated

05.05.2017 appointing Shri Melwyn Oswald Rego, MD&CEO, Bank of India as MD&CEO in Syndicate Bank, the

following words may be substituted:

“the Central Government, hereby appoints Shri Melwyn Oswald Rego (DOB:19.07.1959), MD&CEO, Bank of

India as MD&CEO in Syndicate Bank with immediate effect i.e. 05.05.2017 and till the remainder of his term

upto 13.08.2018, including the compulsory wait period. Shri Melwyn Oswald Rego will be on compulsory wait

till 30.06.2017.”

instead of the following words:

“the Central Government, hereby appoints Shri Melwyn Oswald Rego (DOB:19.07.1959), MD&CEO, Bank of

India as MD&CEO in Syndicate Bank with effect from 01.07.2017 and till the remainder of his term upto

13.08.2018. Shri Rego will continue to be on compulsory wait till 30.06.2017.”

[F.No. 4/4/2017-BO.I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

dk£ed] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=kky;

(dk£ed vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 5 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1415-—dsUnz ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh

/kjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, jktLFkku jkT; ljdkj] x`g (thvkj&V) foHkkx]

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3355

t;iqj dh vf/lwpuk la- ,iQ- 19(14)x`g&5@2017 fnukad 30-03-2017 ds ekè;e ls izkIr lgefr ls Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860

(1860 dk vf/fu;e la- 45) dh /kjk 304&ch] 120&ch ds v/hu iqfyl Fkkuk >ksVokM+k] ftyk t;iqj if'pe esa ntZ ,iQvkbZvkj la-

675@2014 fnukad 09-10-2014 dh tkap djus rFkk mDr ekeys ls lac¼ rFkk mlh laO;ogkj esa fd, x, ;k mUgha rF;ksa ls mRiUu

izklafxd vU; ekeys dh tkap djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj {ks=kkf/dkj dk leLr jktLFkku

jkT; esa lg"kZ foLrkj djrh gSA

[iQk- la- 228@16@2017&,ohMh&II]

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

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2017

S.O. 1415.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the

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

State Government of Rajasthan, Home (Gr.-V) Department, Jaipur vide Notification No. F. 19(14) Home-5/2017 dated

30.03.2017 is pleased to accord consent to the extersion of the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment in the whole of the State of Rajasthan for the investigation of FIR No. 675/2014 dated

09.10.2014 under sections 304-B, 120-B of the Indian Panel Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) registered at Police

Station Jhotwara, District Jaipur West or any other offences committed in the course of the same transaction arising out

of the said case.

[F. No. 228/16/2017-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

वा

वा य

य

य और प रवार क या

और प रवार क या

और प रवार क याण मंालय

ण मंालय

( वा

( वा य

य

य और प!रवार क" या

और प!रवार क" या

और प!रवार क" याण िवभाग)

ण िवभाग)

नई द ली, 12 जून, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 1416

1416

1416.—जबक भारतीय िचक सा परषद (संशोधन) अ यादेश, 2013 क धारा 3क क उप धारा (1)

"ारा #द$ शि&य' का #योग करते +ए, 05 नवंबर, 2013 को भारतीय िचक सा परषद का पुनग.ठन कया गया था;

और जबक भारतीय िचक सा परषद अिधिनयम, 1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 3 क उप धारा (1) के खंड

(ग) के अनुसरण म6 क67ीय सरकार "ारा पंजीकृत िचक सा 9 नातक िनवा.चन ;े< म6 चुनाव कराया गया है तथा िन@ निलिखत

को अिधसूचना जारी होने क ितिथ से पांच वष. क अविध के िलए भारतीय िचक सा परषद का सद9 य िनवा.िचत कया

गया है ।

अत: अब उB त अिधिनयम क धारा 3 क उप धारा (1) के #ावधान' के अनुसरण म6 क67ीय सरकार भारत सरकार

क अिधसूचना म6 9 वा9 D य मं<ालय के दनांक 09 जनवरी, 1960 के त कालीन का.आ. 138 म6 िन@ निलिखत संशोधन करती

है, अथा.त् :-

भारत सरकार क अिधसूचना म6 9वा9Dय और परवार कयाण मं<ालय के दनांक 06 नवंबर, 2013 के का.आ.

सं. 3324 (अ) म6 अिHतम #िविI तथा उससे संबंिधत #िविI के पJात् िनLिलिखत को जोड़ा जाएगा, नामतः

3356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

#. . . .

सं.

पंजीकृत िचक(सा *ातक

िनवा+चन ,े का नाम

िनवा+िचत सद य का िववरण

िनवा+चन

का

िनवा+चन

का

िनवा+चन

का

िनवा+चन

का

तरीका

िहमाचल देश

डॉ. जीवा न+द चौहान,

खंड िच2क7सा अिधकारी, मुCय िच2क7सा अिधकारी का कायालय,

िबलासपुर, िहमाचल देश

िनवािचत

[सं. वी-11013/04/2015-एमईपी]

डी. वी. के. राव, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 12th June, 2017

S.O. 1416.—Whereas on 05^th November, 2013, the Medical Council of India was re-constituted in exercise of

the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3A of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013;

And, whereas the Central Government, in pursuance of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Indian

Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) has conducted the election from the Registered Medical Graduate

Constituency and the following has been elected to be a member of the Medical Council of India for a period of five

years with effect from the date of issue of this notification.

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby makes the following amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then

Ministry of Health number S.O. 138 dated 9th January, 1960, namely:-

In the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare number

S.O. 3324(E) dated 06^th November, 2013, after the last entry and entry relating thereto, the following shall be inserted,

namely:

S. No.

Name of the Registered

Medical

Graduate

Constituency

Details of the Elected Member

Mode

Election

19.

Himachal Pradesh

Dr. Jiwa Nand Chauhan,

Block Medical Officer, O/o the Chief Medical

Officer, Bilaspur, HP.

Elected

[No. V-11013/04/2015-MEP]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 12 जून, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 1417

1417

1417.—जबक भारतीय िचक सा परषद (संशोधन) अ यादेश, 2013 क धारा 3क क उप धारा (1)

और जबक भारतीय िचक सा परषद अिधिनयम, 1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 3 क उप धारा (1) के खंड

(ख) के #ावधान' के अनुसरण म6 20.03.2015 से Oकग जाज. मेिडकल िवP विवQालय (केजीएमयू), लखनऊ का #ितिनिध व

कर रहे डॉ. रिवकाH त को भारतीय िचक सा परषद का सद9 य िनवा.िचत कया गया था ।

और जबक डॉ. रिवकाH त ने ए@ स, ऋिषकेश के िनदेशक के Tप म6 काय.भार Uहण कर िलया है तथा अब वह

केजीएमयू, लखनऊ म6 िचक सा संकाय नहV हW अत भारतीय िचक सा परषद अिधिनयम, 1956 क धारा 7 (3) म6 िनिहत

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3357

#ावधान' के अनुसरण म6 भारतीय िचक सा परषद अिधिनयम, 1956 क धारा 3 (1) (ख) के तहत केजीएमयू का

#ितिनिध व कर रहे डॉ. रिवकाH त क भारतीय िचक सा परषद क सद9 यता समाY त कर दी गई है ।

अत: अब 14.04.2017 से केजीएमयू का #ितिनिध व कर रहे डॉ. रिवकाH त क भारतीय िचक सा परषद क

सद9 यता को समाY त माना जाएगा ।

[सं. वी-11013/02/2016-एमईपी]

डी. वी. के. राव, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 12th June, 2017

S.O. 1417.—Whereas on 5^th November, 2013, the Medical Council of India was re-constituted in exercise of

the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3A of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013;

And whereas in pursuance of the provision of sub-section (1)(b) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Act, 1956

(102 of 1956), Dr. Ravi Kant was elected as a member of the Medical Council of India representing King

George’s Medical University (KGMU), Lucknow with effect from 20.03.2015;

And whereas Dr. Ravi Kant has joined as Director, AIIMS, Rishikesh and is no longer a medical faculty at

KGMU, Lucknow. Therefore, Dr. Ravi Kant has ceased to be a member of Medical Council of India representing

KGMU, Lucknow under section 3(1)(b) of IMC Act, 1956 in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 7(3)

of IMC Act, 1956.

Now, therefore, Dr. Ravi Kant shall be deemed to have ceased to be a member of the Medical Council of India

representing KGMU, Lucknow with effect from 14.04.2017.

[No. V-11013/02/2016-MEP]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 10 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1418-—LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky; ds varxZr LokLF; lsok egkfuns'kky; ds fuEufyf[kr v/huLFk

dk;kZy;] ftlesa 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d vf/dkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks dsUnzh; ljdkj]

jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstu ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;ekoyh] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds rgr vfèklwfpr fd;k tkrk

gS %&

1- ljdkjh fpfdRlk lkexzh Hk.Mkj] djuky

¹la- bZ&11012@08@2014&¯gnh&IIº

lq/hj dqekj] la;qDr lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th June, 2017

S.O. 1418.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following subordinate office of the Directorate General

of Health Services under Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, whose 80 per cent staff have acquired working

knowledge of Hindi.

Government Medical Stores Depot, Karnal.

[No. E-11012/08/2014- Hindi-II]

SUDHIR KUMAR, Jt. Secy.

3358

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

सं कृ

सं कृित मंालय

ित मंालय

नई द ली, 5 जून, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 1419

1419

1419.—क67 सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय #योजन' के िलए #योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10

के उप िनयम 4 के अनुसरण म6 सं9 कृित मं<ालय के अंतग.त आने वाले काया.लय, उप अधी;ण पुरात विवद का काया.लय,

भारतीय पुरात व सव\;ण, नई द ली लघु मंडल, पुरात व भवन, डी ] लॉक, जी. पी. ओ. का@ पलैB स, आई. एन. ए., नई

द ली -1100023 िजसम6 80 #ितशत से अिधक अिधकारय'/कम.चारय' ने `हदी का काय.साधक aान #ाY त कर िलया है,

को अिधसूिचत करती है।

यह अिधसूचना राजप< म6 #काशन क तारीख से #वृ त होगी।

[फा. सं. ई. 13016/1/2017- `हदी]

पंकज राग, संयुB त सिचव

MINISTRY OF CULTURE

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2017

S.O. 1419.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Govt. hereby notifies the office of Deputy Superintendent Archaeologist,

Archaeological Survey of India , New Delhi Mini-Circle, Puratatva Bhawan, D Block, G. P. O. Complex, I.N.A., New

Delhi-1100023 under Ministry of Culture wherein more than 80% officers/staff have acquired working knowledge of

Hindi.

This notification shall come into force from the date of publication in the Official Gazette.

[F. No. E.13016/1/2017-Hindi]

PANKAJ RAG, Jt. Secy.

वािण/य एवं उ1ोग मंालय

(वािण/य िवभाग)

नई 2द@ली, 9 जून, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 1420

1420

1420.—के+,ीय सरकार, िनयात (गुणव$ा िनयंXण एंव िनरीUण) िनयम, 1964 के िनयम 12, के उपिनयम (2) के

साथ पठत, िनयात (गुणव$ा िनयंXण एवं िनरीUण) अिधिनयम, 1963 (1963 का 22) क धारा 7 क उपधारा (1) "ारा द$

शि'य का योग करते *ए, मैसस एसजीएस इंिडया ाइवेट िलिमटेड, पीएचई बंगला, बसुदेवपुर, खजांचक, हि@दया, मे2दनीपुर पूव–

721602, पिYम बंगाल, को इस अिधसूचना के राजपX म< काशन क तारीख से तीन वष क अविध के िलए भारत सरकार के

शासकय राजपX भाग-II, खं: ड-3, उप खं: ड(ii) म< 2दनांक 20 2दसZबर, 1965 क अिधसूचना सं. का.आ. 3975, 2दनां2कत 20

2दसZबर, 1965 म< उपाब\ अनुसूिचय म< िविन]द^ खिनज और अयक समूह-।, म संC या 1, 2 तथा 3 पर िन]द^ मगनीज अय क,

लौह अय क तथा फैरोमगनीज, फैरोमगनीज लावा सिहत को मश: िनयात से पूव िन`िलिखत शतa के अधीन हि@दया प7 तन, पिYम

बंगाल म< उb त खिनज और अय क के िनरीUण करने के िलए एक अिभकरण के cप म< मा+यता देती है, अथात् :

(i)

यह अिभकरण, मश: खिनज और अयक समूह-। का िनयात (िनरीUण) िनयम, 1965 तथा खिनज और अयक समूह-।। का

िनयात (िनरीUण) िनयम, 1965 के िनयम 4 के अधीन िनरीUण क प\ित क जाँच करने के िलये िनयात िनरीUण परषद्

"ारा िनिम$ नामिन]द^ अिधकारय को पयाf सुिवधाएं देगी; और

(ii)

यह अिभकरण, इस अिधसूचना के अधीन अपने कायa के पालन म< िनदेशक (िनरीUण और गुणव$ा िनयंXण) िनयात िनरीUण

परषद "ारा समय-समय पर िलिखत gप म< 2दए गए ऐसे िनदhश से आब\ होगा।

[फा.सं. के-डी.ओ.सी.-16/14(9)/2017 - िनयात िनरीUण]

संतोष कुमार सारंगी, संयु' सिचव

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3359

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2017

S.O. 1420.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognizes M/s. SGS India Private Limited, PHE bungalow,

Basudevpur, Khanjanchak, Haldia, Purba Medinipur-721602, West Bengal, as an agency (hereinafter referred to as the

said agency), for a period of three years from the date of publication of this notification, for the inspection of

Manganese Ore, Iron Ore and Ferromaganese, including ferromanganese slag specified at serial number 1, 2 and 3

respectively under Minerals and Ores – Group I, in the Schedule to the notification number S.O. 3975, dated the

20^thDecember, 1965, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the

20^thDecember, 1965, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ore at Haldia Port, West Bengal subject to the following

conditions, namely: -

(i)

the said agency shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this

behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores - Group I

(Inspection) Rules, 1965;

(ii)

the said agency in performance of its function as specified in this notification, shall be bound by such directions

as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give, in writing from time to

time.

[F.No. K-DoC-16/14(9)/2017- Export Inspection]

SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI, Jt. Secy.

bysDVªkWfuDl vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1421-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds

mi&fu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k esa] bysDVªkWfuDl vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ea=kky; ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k ds varxZr vkus okys izxr lax.ku

fodkl dsaæ (lh&MSd) uked Lok;Ùk laLFkk ds xqyeksgj Økl jksM la- 9] tqgw] eqEcbZ fLFkr dk;kZy;] ftlds 80% ls vf/d

deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vfèklwfpr djrh gS A

¹la- 7(2)@2005&fg-v-º

jktho dqekj] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2017

S.O. 1421.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing

(C-DAC), an autonomous society under the administrative control of Ministry of Electronics and Information

Technology, located at Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9, Juhu, Mumbai, whose more than 80% staff have acquired working

knowledge of Hindi.

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

RAJIV KUMAR, Jt. Secy.

3360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

पे4ो

पे4ोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

िलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

नई 2द@ली, 6 जून, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 1422

1422

1422.—के+ ,ीय सरकार ने पेiोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म< उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन) अिधिनयम

1962, (1962 का 50) क धारा 2 के ख: ड (अ) के अनुसरण म< 2 फ़रवरी 2015 को भारत के राजपX म< कािशत, भारत सरकार के

पेiोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंXालय क अिधसूचना संC या का.आ. 309 (अ) तारीख 23 जनवरी, 2015 म< िनZ निलिखत gप म<

संशोधन करती है

संशोधन करती है,

‘’.ी िस\ाथ अवथी, उप ब+धक(िन)’’ श द

श द

श द के

के

के था

था

थान पर

पर

पर, ‘’.ी धीरज /सह, सहायक ब+धक (ओ एंड एम),’’ श द

श द

श द रखे

रखे

जाएंगे

जाएंगे।

यह अिधसूचना जारी होने क तारीख से लागू होगी ।

[सं. आर-25011/11/2014–ओआर – I (पाट– I)]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2017

S.O. 1422.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of

Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the

notification of Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. 309 (E) dated 23^rdJanuary 2015,

namely:

In the said notification, for the words “Shri Siddharth Awasthi, Deputy Manager (C)” the words “Shri Dhiraj

Singh, Assistant Manager (O & M)” shall be substituted.

The notification is applicable from the date of issue.

[No. R-25011/11/2014-OR-I (Pt. I)]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

उपभो6 ता

उपभो6 ता मामले

मामले

मामले, खा1 एवं साव+जिनक िवतरण मंालय

खा1 एवं साव+जिनक िवतरण मंालय

(उपभो ता

उपभो ता

उपभो ता मामले िव

मामले िव

मामले िवभाग

भाग

भाग)

(भारतीय मानक यू

भारतीय मानक यू

भारतीय मानक यूरो

रोरो

रो)

नई 2द@ली, 12 जून, 2017

का

का.आ. 1423

1423

1423.— भारतीय मानक j यूरो िनयम, 1987 के िनयम 9 के उपिनयम (1) के अनुसरण म< भारतीय मानक j यूरो

एत-ारा अिधसूिचत करता है 2क नीचे अनुसूची म< 2दए गए भारतीय मानक संबंधी मानक मुहर के िडजाइन िनधारत कर 2दए गए ह :-

अनुसूची

मांक

(1)

मानक मुहर का िडजाइन

(2)

उ7 पाद/ उ7 पाद का वग

(3)

भारतीय मानक

(4)

लागू ितिथ

(5)

IS 13340 (Part 1)/ से@फ-ही/लग शंट पावर कैपेिसटस IS 13340(Part 1)/ 08.05.2017

IEC 60831-1 IEC 60831-1

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3361

IS 13585 (Part 1)/ नॉन से@फ-ही/लग शंट पावर IS 13585(Part 1)/ 08.05.2017

IEC 60931-1 कैपेिसटस IEC 60931-1

[सं. के. . िव. - III /8:3]

सी. बी. /सह, अपर महािनदेशक

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 12th June, 2017

S.O. 1423.—In pursuance of sub-rule (1) of the Rule 9 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rule 1987, the

Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Standard Mark, for the Indian Standards given in the schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl No.

(1)

Design of the Standard Mark

(2)

Product/Class of Product

(3)

Indian Standard

(4)

Effective Date

(5)

IS 13340 (Part 1)/ Shunt Power Capacitors IS 13340(Part 1)/ 08.05.2017

IEC 60831-1 of the self-healing type IEC 60831-1

IS 13585 (Part 1)/ Shunt Power Capacitors IS 13585(Part 1)/ 08.05.2017

IEC 60931-1 of the non self-healing type IEC 60931-1

[F. No. CMD-III/8:3 ]

C. B. SINGH, Addl. Director General

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 5 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1424-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ts-,e-

cD'kh ,aM da- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

3362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-06-

2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&36011@04@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2017

S.O. 1424.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No.1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. J.M. Baxi

and Company and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.06.2017.

[No. L-36011/04/2014-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, MUMBAI

Present : Justice Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/1 OF 2015

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of

J.M. Baxi and Company

And

Their workmen

Appearances:

For the Management

None present

For the Union

Absent

State

Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 5^th day of May, 2017.

AWARD PART-II

An application has been filed on behalf of the management with the prayer that this reference be disposed of in

view of the settlement between the parties because after receiving payment of Rs.22,000/- the said workmen and the

second party/Union have not appeared before this Tribunal inspite of sufficient service.

It transpires from the perusal of the record that none has appeared on behalf of the Union for the last so many

dates and the management has entered into settlement with the workman Veressimo Fernandes and terms of settlement

was filed on 25.2.2016. On the basis of the same, Award Part-I was passed on 25.2.2016 by my predecessor whereby

Item No.2 and 3 of the Schedule of Reference were disposed of. It transpires from the perusal of the record that the

Union has not put in appearance for a long time. On the date of the settlement Mr.Francis Rodrigues, General

Secretary of the Union was present and thereafter vide order dated 21.4.2017 at Camp Goa, it was directed due to

absence of the Union that case shall proceed ex parte against the union. Even thereafter no steps have been taken by

the union to file any statement of claim with regard to first point of reference.

The first point of reference was as under:

1. “Whether the action of the management of M/s. JM Baxi and company, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa in

unilaterally implementing the insurance cover extending medical benefits efor its employees/workmen

through New India Insurance Company Ltd during the currency of the settlement (existing settlement not

terminated though expired on 31^st Dec 2011) in contravention of Section 19(2) of ID Act 1947 is justified,

legal and proper?

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3363

A perusal of the aforesaid point of reference makes it clear that there was some settlement between the

management and the union regarding the medical insurance cover of the workman and the said settlement expired on

31.12.2011. Thereafter the management extended the medical cover through New India Insurance Company Ltd. It

transpires that the grievance of the union was that the said settlement was not terminated so the same must be

continued.This claim, in absence of any other evidence to the contrary, does not appear to have force because when the

terms of settlement itself provides a period during which it shall remain in force then after the expiry of the said period,

unless the settlement is extended with the consent of both the parties the same cannot be extended unilaterally. It

appears that the said point was raised only with regard to press the dispute of medical reimbursement of Shri

Veresimmo Fernandes. Shri Veresimmo Fernandes has amicably settled his dispute with the management, therefore,

there remains nothing in this reference.

Since the Union has not filed any Statement of claim and has not contested the reference, therefore, there is no

material on record in support of their claim and demand. Thus this Tribunal is left with no option but to answer the

reference in negative.

The reference is answered accordingly.

JUSTICE S. V. S. RATHORE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1425-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 14@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-06-2017 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@5@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2017

S.O. 1425.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No.2, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

Indian Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.06.2017.

[No. L-12011/5/2008-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present :

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 14/2008

Date of Passing Award – 16^th February, 2017

Between :

The Chief Manager, Indian Bank,

Circle Office, Plot No. 117/118, Station Square,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa) – 751 001

…1^st Party-Management

(And)

The General Secretary,

Indian Bank Employees Union,

Plot No. 32, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar,

Orissa – 751 009

…2^nd Party-Union

3364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances:

Shri Kunar Kishore

…

For the 1^st Party-Management

Shri Jagdish Jena

…

For the 2^nd Party-Union

AWARD

This award arises out of a reference made by the Govt. of India in exercise of the powers conferred under

section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 out of a dispute between the Management of Indian Bank and their

workman under following schedule vide their letter No. L-12011/5/2008 – IR(B-II), dated 19.3.2008:-

“Whether the action of the Management of Indian Bank in terminating the service of Shri Narayan Panda,

Ex-Clerk-cum-Cashier by way of imposing punishment of compulsory retirement from service with effect

from 10.6.2006 is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Facts, in narrow compass, giving rise to the reference as follows:-

In course of his employment the disputant workman Shri Narayan Panda while being posted and working as a

Cash Clerk/Shroff in the Dhalapur Branch of the Management-Bank (Indian Bank) was alleged to have misbehaved

with his superior authority (Branch Manager) and to have been involved in the activity as well as certain omissions and

commissions on his part during discharge of his official duties amounting to official gross misconducts as defined

under Clause 19(5)(c) & 19(5)(e) & 19(5)(i), 19(5)(j) & 19(7)(b) of the Bi-partite settlement dated 19.10.1966 between

the Management and the Union. He was placed under suspension with effect from 30.5.1995 and a domestic enquiry

was initiated against him with issue of a charge-sheet dated 8.9.1995. In the said domestic enquiry he was charged on

twelve counts as mentioned below.

On 01.05.1995, he had prepared a debit voucher for payment of rent of Rs. 1400/- for generator and sent

to the Manager for passing. The Manager released the voucher and the amount was credited to the S.B.

A/c. of the generator supplier, Mr. Manoranjan Karna. When Mr. Panda prepared the SB w/s of Mr.

Manoranjan Karna filling there the rent amount of Rs. 1400/-, the Manager insisted for appropriating a

sum of Rs. 250/- to the IRDP loan a/c. of Mr. Manoranjan Karna. He became furious and shouted at the

Manager stating “You cannot recover the amount from rent proceeds.”

That, he had switched off the generator – when the Manager told him that he would pass the w/s only

after discussion with the generator supplier – stating that he (Mr. Panda) would not allow anybody to use

the generator. On account his above act, the customer service was very much hampered due to current

failure.

That, at about 1.30 P.M. he went outside the premises and while returning about 1.45 p.m. he rushed

towards the Manager in violent mood and in high pitch voice shouted at the Manager “Tu Manager Saala

hamara generator rent kyon nahin pass karta hai? Yaha tu jiada strict dekha raha hai, aisa Manager bahut

dekha hain”?

That, again at about 2.45 P.M. he went to the Manager in aggressive mood and asked him “Tu pass

karibu ki nahin? If you use your pen in writing to Higher ups, I will use my knife on you”. in threatening

gestures and he grabbed the Manager’s chair by his side and told “Shall I hit you with this?”

That, on 2.5.1995, when he had sent the SB w/s of the generator supplier again to the Manager altering

the date without the authentication of Mr. Manoranjan Karna, Manager told him that he would pass the

w/s only after discussion with Mr. Manoranjan Karna. On hearing this he told in front of the customers

that he would not make any payments henceforth. When the Manager called for reasons, he replied that

there was no cash. Again when the Manager told him that sufficient cash was available to make

immediate payments, he retorted that he would draw himself whatever cash was available there. When

the Manager asked him to draw cash after receipt of remittance from Boudh branch, he shouted in front

of the customers” I will not make any payment; I will draw the money myself”. When the Manager

requested the customers to wait till the arrival of cash remittance from Boudh, he closed the case at 2.00

P.M., while the customers were still waiting for payment.

That, when the cash remittance arrived at 3.30 p.m. Manager instructed him to make payment to the

waiting customers in late payment. He had refused the lawful orders of the Manager. Because of his acts

customer service was very much hampered on that date.

That, on 3.5.1995, when the Manager sent his w/s. for Rs. 6,000/- for payment, he had deducted a sum of

Rs. 1400/- and paid the balance amount. When the Manager asked him the reasons, he told Manager that

he had kept back the amount of Rs. 1400/- towards rent on generator. When the Manager insisted in

writing for deduction of Rs. 1400/- from his payment, he did not obey his orders. Despite Manager’s

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3365

repeated instructions he had neither made full payment of Rs. 6000/- to him nor did he give in writing for

deduction of Rs. 1400/- from Manager’s payment.

That, when the Manager was busy in preparing the L.A. statement from the IRDP ledger, he rushed to the

Manager in violent mood and snatched the IRDP ledger and threw it away, shouting, I will not allow you

to do any clerical work.

That, on 18.5.1995, he had arranged Mr. Rama Joshi, Sarpanch of Ramgarh G.P. and Mr. Lakshmi

Mahakud, Physical Education Teacher, Dhalpur High school, who are outsiders, to come and threaten the

Manager with dire consequences on the generator rent issue and prevented the Manager from leaving the

office premises. The situation became so tense that the Manager could not open the branch on 19.5.1995

fearing physical danger to him.

10.

That, he had supplied and hired generator to the branch in the name of Mr. Manoranjan Karna and he had

been receiving the rent.

11.

That, he was in habit of coming to office later and leaving the office early.

12.

That, he had availed BP facility at Dhalpur Branch by presenting the sB w/s of Smt. Padmini Padhi,

holder SB a/c. 4737 of Boudh Branch. The BPs were realized either by transfer from his SB a/c. of

Dhalpur branch or by remitting cash.

Domestic enquiry was commenced on 27.10.1995 after issue of charge sheet to the disputant workman. In the

domestic enquiry seven witnesses were examined and twenty two documents were relied upon by the department to

substantiate the charges raised against the disputant workman. The disputant workman is stated to have participated in

the domestic enquiry being allowed to defend through a co-worker and he had also examined witnesses to refute the

charges. Enquiry report was submitted on 27.7.2000 in which all charges except Charges number 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and

12 were found proved and being found guilty of serious misconduct he was given compulsory retirement with

superannuation benefits after being heard on the enquiry report. He is stated to have been found guilty of misconduct

having disrupted customer service by switching off the generator in the branch office during current failure, disturbing

customer service in the branch, disobeying the Manager’s lawful instructions and refusing to make payments to the

customers whose instruments were duly passed even though sufficient cash balance is available in the branch, and for

mis-utilizing the B.P. facility without having sufficient balance in the a/c. and paid back the B.Ps either from S.B. a/c.

Or by cash which were prejudicial to the interest of the Bank.

Punishment of compulsory retirement including the initiation of departmental proceeding has been challenged

by the 2^nd party-Union on a pleading and contention that the departmental enquiry being held after lapses of

considerable period is not fair and proper. The second show-cause notice having been issued on 15.4.2005 after lapse

of about ten years of the issue of charge-sheet and six years after the closure of the enquiry, the compulsory retirement

in shape of punishment in the departmental proceeding is highly illegal and not maintainable in the eye of law.

Testimony recorded by the witnesses examined on behalf of the Management and defence witnesses in the domestic

enquiry are contrary to the findings of the enquiry officer. None of the charges raised against the disputant workman

was established in any slightest manner from the materials led before the domestic enquiry and as such, the findings of

the enquiry officer was perverse and contrary to the materials placed before him. No reasonable person in the said

situations would arrive at a view taken by the enquiry officer. The disputant workman was removed from service on a

vindictive attitude of the Management. It has been further contended that though, the disputant workman worked for

about 20 years in different branches of the Management under different Managers, no adverse except the incident at

Dhalapur branch was ever heard against him. The allegations said to have been proved in the departmental enquiry do

not relate to any misconduct involving moral turpitude, financial irregularity, misappropriation of money or any act

prejudicial to the interest of the Management-Bank. No pecuniary loss is found to have been caused to the Bank by the

alleged misconduct of the disputant workman. The indiscipline behaviour reported by the Manager of the Dhalapur

Branch has not been established by any eye witnesses in their statements before the enquiring officer and findings of

the enquiry officer holding the workman guilty of misconduct is based on conjuncture and surmises derived from

certain transacted documents of the Branch-Bank. Even, such findings based on conjunctures and surmises do not

constitute any major or serious misconduct warranting punishment of dismissal in shape of compulsory retirement.

The enquiry against the alleged omissions and commissions on the part of the 2^nd party-workman having related to the

year 1995 should have not been prolonged for a considerable period of 11 years to inflict a major punishment, more

particularly when second show cause was issued in the year 2002 and infliction of compulsory retirement was made in

the year 2006. Such major punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by

the delinquent workman and the same is a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. Prayer has been made

for vitiating the departmental proceeding and to reinstate the disputant workman along with back wages and

consequential service benefits.

3366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The contention of the 2^nd party-Union is contested by the Management on a stand that complaint being received

from the Branch Manager, Dhalapur branch regarding riotous and indecent behaviour exhibited by the disputant

workman during his employment as a Cash Clerk/Shroff in the above branch, a preliminary investigation was

conducted. When it is emerged from the preliminary enquiry that the 2^nd party-workman misbehaved his Branch

Manager and disobeyed his instruction and order and acted in such a manner prejudicial to the interest of the

Management-Bank and failed in his duty to give proper service to the customers which amount to gross misconduct as

defined under clause no. 19.5 of the Bipartite Settlement between the Bank and its employees, the departmental

proceeding was initiated. Charge-sheet showing the allegations raised against him along with statements of imputation

and relevant documents were issued to the disputant workman inviting his explanation. Enquiry Officer was appointed

and enquiry was held as per the procedure laid in the Certified Standing Order of the Management and in conformity to

the principles of natural justice. The 2^nd party-workman was provided with all required documents and allowed to

defend him through a choice of his co-worker. He and his representative participated actively in the said domestic

enquiry. He was extended all opportunities to defend himself in the said proceeding. He was allowed to cross examine

the witnesses examined on behalf of the department and to adduce evidence in his defence. He was issued with the

copy of the findings of the enquiry officer with notice to submit his explanation before inflicting major punishment.

Having been found guilty of serious misconduct for exhibiting riotous and indecent behaviour in his working place,

disrupting customer service of the Bank, doing transaction with the branch by giving a generator on hire and acting

prejudicial to the interest of the Bank, punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefit was been

rightly and properly inflicted on the disputant workman. There being no lapse or flaw in the departmental proceeding

and findings of the enquiry officer, any interference by the Tribunal is unwarranted. The Management also contends

that considering the nature of allegations proved against the workman, the order of compulsory retirement from service

cannot be said to be disproportionate and as such, the contentions advanced by the 2^nd party-Union should be discarded

out-rightly.

In the light of above factual pleadings advanced by the parties, the following issues have been settled for

adjudication of the above reference.

I S S U E S

Whether the reference is maintainable?

Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management was fair and proper?

Whether the punishment by way of compulsory retirement imposed on the disputant was proportionate to

the charges?

If not, what relief the disputant is entitled to?

As none of the parties to the reference insists for taking the fairness of the departmental enquiry as a preliminary

one before considering other issues, the Tribunal felt it just and proper to hear all the issues simultaneously to

adjudicate the dispute. The 2^nd party-Union has examined the dismissed workman as W.W.-1 and filed documents like

copy of the charge-sheet dated 8.9.1995, copy of the enquiry report, copy of the relevant portion of the enquiry report,

copy of the document relating to generator. Copy of the application of the workman dated 29.4.2006 to review the

departmental proceeding. Copy of the 2^nd show cause notice, copy of the reply to the 2^nd party-show cause notice, copy

of the order dated 10.6.2006 of the disciplinary authority, copy of the appeal of the workman dated 14.7.2006 and copy

of the order dated 28.9.2006 of the Appellate Authority which are marked as Ext.- 1 to Ext.-10, to establish its case

whereas, the Management has exhibited the departmental proceedings file and the documents available thereon and

examined Shri Adikanda Sethi, enquiry officer to refute the contention of the 2^nd party-Union.

ISSUE NO. 2 & 3

These issues being very vital for the adjudication of the reference are taken up first for consideration. From

the pleadings, evidence and written argument advanced by the 2^nd party-Union it is seen that no serious allegation

seems to have been raised by the 2^nd party-Union in regard to the procedure allegedly adopted by the enquiry officer

while conducting the domestic enquiry except to his findings in his report with regard to the misconduct allegedly

committed by the disputant workman. No serious contention has been raised either in the claim statement of the 2^nd

party-Union, in his evidence or in the written argument that the departmental enquiry is to be vitiated on account of

non-supply of necessary documents to the disputant workman or denying any opportunity to him to defend himself in

proper manner in the domestic enquiry. A formal objection has been raised that the charges raised against the

delinquent workman are not specific which is a violation of the principles of natural justice and rules of the Certified

Standing Order. On going through the charge-sheet issued against the disputant workman it is seen that the allegation

has no basis since the incidents and allegations constituting the charges are elaborate and specific raising any

confusion. On the other hand it is emerging from the pleadings and evidence of the parties that charge-sheet was issued

along with necessary papers in sufficient advance to the commencement of the domestic enquiry. Evidence of the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3367

departmental witnesses were recorded and documents of the department were exhibited in presence of the workman

and his defence representative. It is found from the domestic enquiry file that witnesses were recalled and cross

examined further at the instance of the 2^nd party-Union, when it was pointed out to the enquiry officer that the witnesses

were not properly cross examined by the disputant workman in absence of defence representative on the date of

recording their evidence at the first instance. Having adduced evidence in his defence the disputant workman seems to

have participated in the departmental proceeding in all stages of the enquiry. He was provided with a copy of the

findings of the enquiry officer and invited to submit his explanations with reminders before inflicting the alleged major

punishment. All orders in the departmental proceeding seem to have been passed after being heard the Presenting

Officer as well as the delinquent-workman/his representative. Hence, the contention and argument advanced by the 2^nd

party-Union to the effect that the disputant workman was not given due opportunity to defend himself in the domestic

enquiry has no substantial force.

The other contentions raised by the 2^nd party-Union is that the findings of the enquiry officer are not based on

the materials/evidence laid before him and his report holding the disputant workman guilty of misconduct appears to be

on conjunctures and surmises inferred from certain Bank transaction records. It is argued that the same being perverse,

the disputant workman should have not been held guilty of misconduct and the departmental proceeding is to be

vitiated. In this regard law is well settled that the Tribunal cannot re-appreciate the evidence and materials led before

the domestic enquiry as an appellate authority as to draw its own conclusion to vitiate the departmental proceeding

unless it is apparent on the face of the enquiry record that the findings of the enquiry officer is perverse in the context

of evidence and materials led before him. The Tribunal is only required to consider whether the view taken by the

enquiry officer on the basis of materials placed before him is a possible view that can be arrived at by a person having

reasonable understanding. There is no serious dispute that principle of natural justice is required to be complied with in

a domestic enquiry but, the said principle cannot be stretched too far nor it can be applied in a vacuum. It is trite that

the standard of proof required in a domestic enquiry is absolutely different than the standard of proof applied in a

criminal trial. Keeping in view the above principles set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time if the copy of

the enquiry proceeding file is examined, it cannot be said that the findings of the enquiry officer relating to certain

charges said to have been established against the delinquent/disputant workman are correct. His findings on those

charges are not free from perverseness as the findings are not based on any legal evidence led in the domestic enquiry.

On a close scrutiny of the materials presented before the enquiry officer and his findings it is found that

materials/evidence are lacking to establish the charge number 5 i.e. inspite of availability of sufficient cash in the

branch for making payment to the customers on the relevant day the delinquent-workman failed to make payment to the

customers. Moreover, inference can be drawn that cash was available in the branch after its receipt from Boudh after

cash transaction hour. This view is only possible from the statement of customers-cum-departmental witness number 4

Mr. Sambhu Behera and the finding given by the enquiry officer on Charge Number 6. In his finding on Charge No. 6

the enquiry officer has categorically stated that the time of arrival of cash remittance at 3.30 P.M. could not be

established by the Presenting Officer as the defence has produced the relevant T.A. bills produced by the employees for

bringing cash remittance, which stated the arrival of cash at 5.30 P.M. It appears that the finding of the enquiry officer

holding the disputant workman guilty of disobeying the instruction and order of the Branch Manager to make payment

to the customers is out of conjunctures and surmises inferred from certain Bank transaction documents and the

statement of Mr. Sambhu Behera made at the time of preliminary enquiry. Similarly charges on the count 9 and 10 that

on 18.5.1995 the disputant workman arranged Shri Rama Doshi (Sarpanch of Ramagarh Gram Panchayat and Shri

Laxmi Mahakud P.E.T. Dhalapur High School) to criminally intimade the Branch Manager with dire consequences on

the issue of payment of rent for the hired generator and involvement of the disputant workman in supplying the

generator to the branch on hire in the name of Manoranjan Karna or else-one are not based on any legal evidence.

There are no direct or circumstantial materials/evidence to connect the disputant workman with the incident of

18.5.1995 in which Shri Doshi and Shri Mahakud were alleged to have misbehaved and threatened the Branch

Manager. Similarly no material whatever in nature is available to hold that the disputant workman lent his generator on

hire to the Bank through Manoranjan Karna or in the name of some-one else including Shri Rama Doshi. It is seen

from the pleadings and contentions advanced by the parties and materials placed by the parties in the domestic enquiry

that the entire episode which led issue of charge-sheet and departmental enquiry against the disputant workman, was

centered around the conduct exhibited by the disputant workman on 1.5.1995 in disobeying the instruction and order of

the Branch Manager to deduct an amount of Rs. 250/- from the disbursement of Rs. 1400/- in favour of Shri Karna

towards payment of higher charges for the generator. At best, it can be inferred from the materials that the disputant

workman was highly interested or found to be more concerned towards payment of full higher rent to the owner of the

generator. Similarly, putting a lock on the generator or switching off the same cannot lead to a conclusion that he was

the owner of the generator. Except above facts nothing substantial is found in the materials led before the enquiry

officer to hold that the delinquent workman had given his generator on hire to the Bank and he arranged Shri Doshi and

Shri Mahakud to intimade or to abuse the Branch Manager on 18.5.1995. On the other hand, it is emerging from the

materials placed before the domestic enquiry that Shri Doshi was claiming rent for supplying the generator to the Bank

on hire basis and it cannot be ruled out that the incident of 18.5.1995 might be his sole creation for not receiving the

3368

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

higher charges of the generator which he claimed to have been given to the Bank on hire basis. Thus, the conclusion

drawn by the enquiry officer in regard to the charges number. 9 and 10 seems to be on conjunctures and surmises.

Charge No. 12 is said to have been established partly and it is admitted that no financial loss was incurred by the

Management-Bank for the alleged act of the disputant workman. It is settled that there is a two-fold tests of perversity

of a finding. The first test is that the finding is not supported by any legal evidence at all and the second is that on the

basis of the materials on record, no reasonable person could have arrived at the finding complained of. Keeping in view

the materials pressed before the enquiry officer and my elaborate discussion made earlier it can be said that the findings

of the enquiring officer on charges relating to number 6, 9 and 10 can be treated as perverse since those findings are not

supported by any legal evidence as well as no reasonable person could have given such findings on the basis of

materials placed in the domestic enquiry.

10.

For the discussions and analysis made above, it is found that the domestic enquiry had exonerated the

disputant workman from the charges number 3, 4 and 11 in which the disputant workman was alleged to have

misbehaved his Branch Manager and threatened him with assault and he was in habit of coming late to the office and

leaving the office earlier. In regard to the findings of the enquiry officer on the charges of disobeying the instruction of

the Manager to disburse and make payment to the customers of the Bank, arranging Shri Joshi and Shri Mahakud to

manhandle and criminally intimaded the Branch Manager on 18.5.1995 and his giving generator on hire to the branch

are found to be perverse on account of the same being based on conjunctures and surmises and not based on any legal

evidence as well as no reasonable person can arrive at such conclusions on the evidence/materials led before the

enquiry officer. Now the question arises whether the entire departmental proceeding is to be vitiated on account of

findings on certain charges raised against the disputant workman are perverse whereas, other charges are found to have

been established in the departmental proceeding. In this regard law is settled that the departmental proceeding cannot

be held fair and proper if the findings of the enquiry officer that of the disciplinary authority is perverse even though it

is recorded that proper procedure was adopted and due opportunity was extended to a delinquent in a departmental

proceeding. But, in the case at hand other charges relating to causing disturbance in the branch by switching off the

generator disobeying the instruction of the Manager to keep Rs. 250/- from the disbursement of Rs. 1400/- in favour of

Shri Manoranjan Karna for its deposit against an outstanding loan, making less payment to his Branch Manager against

his withdrawal and availing B.P. facility without having sufficient fund in his S.B. Account are found to have been

established in the domestic enquiry. It is already held that the domestic enquiry was conducted as per the procedure laid

down in the Certified Standing Order as well as in conformity to the principles of natural justice and the disputant

workman was given just and proper opportunities to defend himself in the enquiry. Be that as it may, the entire

proceeding cannot be vitiated except giving benefit to the disputant workman and exonerating him from the charges in

the head number 5, 6, 9 and 10.

11.

In the above back-drops, now it is to be seen whether the punishment of compulsory retirement with

superannuation benefit would remain intact or the same is to be found just and proper and the same was not shockingly

disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct established against the disputant workman. If, the said punishment is

found excessive and highly disproportionate to the misconduct of the disputant workman then what punishment is to be

inflicted in the given situation. Further, in view of rival submissions advanced by the parties it is to be seen whether

the Tribunal has any jurisdiction to interfere in the matter of punishment inflicted to the workman on account of some

charges not serious in nature being established against him. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no serious

dispute to the claim of the 2^nd party-Union that the disputant workman had no adverse reporting in past. Further-more,

disputant-workman’s commissions and omissions, for which he was found to have been guilty in the departmental

enquiry, were only confined to his conduct exhibited in the branch on 1.5.1995 to 2.5.1995 and they are mostly related

to his dis-obeying instructions of the Manager for deducting certain amount from the disbursement to a customer,

making less payment to the Branch Manager against his entitlement, exhibiting indecent behaviour to his Branch

Manager by throwing the ledger/register on the table of the Branch Manager, causing disturbances in the branch by

switching off the generator and availing B.P. facility beyond its limit. As a settle principle imposing punishment for a

proved act of misconduct is a matter for the disciplinary authority to decide and normally it should not be interfered

with by the Tribunals. The Tribunal is not required to consider the propriety or adequacy of the punishment. At the

same time it has been settled that where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, regard being had to be

particular conduct and the past record, or is such as no reasonable employer would ever impose in like circumstances,

the Tribunal may treat the imposition of such punishment as itself showing victimization or unfair labour practice. In

case of Kailashnath Gupta –versus- E.O., Allahabad Bank, AIR 2003 SC 1377 the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that

the power of interference by the Tribunal/Court with the quantum of punishment is extremely limited, but when the

relevant factors are not taken note of, which have some bearing on the quantum of punishment, certainly the Court can

direct reconsideration or in an appropriate case to shorten litigation, indicate the punishment to be awarded. Applying

the same principles to the instant case it may be stated here that punishment of compulsory retirement would be highly

disproportionate to the charges which this Tribunal finds to have been established against the disputant workman.

When the domestic enquiry had exonerated the workman from the charges of misbehaving with his Branch Manager

and this Tribunal finds that there is no legal evidence to hold him guilty for arranging outsiders to manhandle and

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3369

threaten the Branch Manager, the punishment of compulsory retirement was unwarranted and the same seems to be

highly excessive and appears to be inflicted on vindictiveness. It cannot be over-sighted in the instant case that, though

show cause notice was issued to the disputant workman in 2002 after closure of the departmental enquiry, the

Management took a long time in as much as three/four years to inflict the major punishment like compulsory

retirement. In the above facts and circumstances the order of compulsory retirement as a punishment for the established

charges, which are not so serious in nature, is not maintainable in the eye of law. Further, to shorten the litigation I find

that stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect would have been just and appropriate punishment to be inflicted

on the disputant workman for the charges found to have been established against him. Ten years since have been

elapsed after the compulsory retirement of the disputant workman and he might have attained the age of superannuation

in the meanwhile. Because of his untimely compulsory retirement he could not render any service to the Bank. Taking

all above factors into consideration I hold that the punishment of compulsory retirement of the disputant workman in

the given situations is illegal and unjust. Hence, the disputant workman be reinstated along with fifty percent of his

back wages and other service benefits being deemed to be in service, if he has not attained the age of superannuation.

But there would be a stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect as a measure of punishment for the

misconduct established against him. In case of he being found to have attained the age of superannuation he would

receive only the financial benefits on the basis of the award mentioned earlier.

ISSUE NO. 1 & 4

12.

In view of my above findings and the issues having not been pressed by either side, there is no need to give any

answer on these issues.

13.

For the reasons discussed above I am inclined to hold that the compulsory retirement with effect from

10.06.2006 is unjust and illegal as mentioned earlier the disputant workman is entitled for his reinstatement with fifty

percent back wages and other service benefits along with stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect

as a measure of punishment for the charges found to have been established by this Tribunal. The award is to be

implemented within two months of its official gazette notification.

14.

Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1426-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSUVªy cSad

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 51@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-06-2017

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@12@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2017

S.O. 1426.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Kanpur (U.P.) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central

Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.06.2017.

[No. L-12012/12/2013-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 51 of 2013

Between :

Sri Nand Kumar Upadhyay,

6 Shreejipuram NH-2,

Sikandara,

Agra-1

3370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

And

The Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Regional Office,

Sanjay Place,

Agra

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide notification no.L-12012/12/2013-IR (B-II) dated 03.05.13 has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Agra in imposing penalty of

voluntary vacation of service on Sri Nand Kumar Upadhyay with effect from 09.02.08 without following the procedure

is just and proper and if not what relief the concerned workman is entitled?

The case of the worker in short is that while working as clerk at Cant branch of the bank, he was called to

explain as to why he remained absent from his duties by letter dated 08.08.07. Worker replied the said letter of the bank

stating that allegation leveled in the letter is absolutely false and he did not remain absent during the period 12.12.06 to

08.08.07. In fact the worker submitted an leave application on 09.02.08 on the ground of illness which was rejected by

the bank in cursory manner and thereafter worker never received any memo from the bank.

On 11.02.08 the worker reported for duty in the bank but he was not allowed to resume his duties on the saying

that his services were removed by the bank. In this regard it is pertinent to mention here that the letter dated 08.02.08 of

the bank was received by the worker in the afternoon of 09.02.08 and as there was half day working till 1.00 p.m. in the

bank being Saturday where after bank stands closed still the worker went to the bank to join his services but the branch

manager told him that today no joining will take place and 10.02.08 being Sunday, bank was closed as such on Monday

i.e. 11.02.08 worker again visited the branch to resume his duties. It is further alleged by the worker that by order dated

09.02.08 it was informed to him that he was treated to have voluntary vacated his services his name was struck off from

the records of the bank with effect from 09.02.08. In this way the bank has removed his services with ulterior motive

without trying to know whether the worker came for joining his duties or not.

It is also alleged by the worker that before removing his services he was neither issued any charge sheet nor any

domestic inquiry was conducted and even no opportunity was ever afforded to put up his defense. In this way it is very

much clear that the action of the management is illegal and against the rules of natural justice.

The worker therefore has prayed that the action of the management as referred to in the reference order be set

aside and he be allowed reinstatement in service with back wages and consequential benefits.

Management filed its reply in which it is stated that there exist no relationship of employer and employee

between the bank and the worker; worker has suppressed the material facts and by filing the present claim petition the

worker is trying to keep on pressure on the bank; the worker has no locus standi to raise the present dispute because he

remained failed to comply with the orders dated 28.11.07 as well as 08.01.08; the worker has completely failed to

report for duty within stipulated time and by order dated 09.02.08 it has been treated that he has voluntarily vacated his

employ6ment due to his unauthorized absence from 12.12.06; the instant matter is out of purview of section 2-A of the

Act; proper and legal action has been taken by the bank according to para 33 of 8^th Bipartite Settlement; worker was

relieved from Kamla Nagar Branch Agra to report at Cantt. Branch of the bank by letter dated 11.12.06 but he

remained unauthorisedly absent since 12.12.06 till 09.02.08 and deliberately remained failed to comply with the order

dated 08.01.08; worker has never furnished any medical certificate of the doctor approved by the bank and his referred

application was disposed properly by the bank authorities; the letters of the bank dated 28.11.07 and 08.01.08 were

duly received by the worker on 06.12.07 and 10.01.08 but he never reported for his duties within the stipulated period

therefore appropriate action in accordance with the rules was taken by the bank and there is no illegality of malafide

therein, therefore, the worker is not entitled for any relief as prayed by him and his claim is liable to be rejected.

Worker has filed rejoinder but nothing new has been added therein except reiterating the facts already pleaded

by him in his claim petition.

Worker by list of documents have filed 9 documents. Management by application dated 02.02.16 has filed

certain documents from paper no.14/4 to 11. Management has also filed original documents which are four in numbers

by application dated 02.02.16.

10.

Worker has examined himself as w.w.1 in support of his claim and the management has also examined Sri Ram

Ji Lal Nayak as M.W.1 in support of banks case.

11.

Tribunal has heard the arguments of both sides at length and have gone through the records of the case.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3371

12.

It appears from perusal of records that the worker Sri Nand Kumar Upadhyay was treated to have voluntarily

vacated his services in terms of par 33 of 8^th Bipartite Settlement by order dated 03.02.08 which is paper no.15/8. The

relevant provision of para 33 of 8^th Bipartite Settlement reads as under-

Voluntary Cessation of Employment:

(i)

When an employee absents himself from work for a period of 90 or more consecutive days without prior

sanction from the Competent Authority or beyond the period of leave sanctioned originally including any

extension thereof or when there is satisfactory evidence that he has taken up employment in India or

outside, the management at any time thereafter may give a notice to the employee at his last known

address as recorded with the bank calling upon him to report for work within 30 days of the date of

notice.

Unless the employee reports for work within 30 days of the notice or gives an explanation for his absence

within the period of 30 days satisfying the management interalia that he has not taken up another

employment or avocation, the employee shall be given a further notice to report for work within 30 days

of the notice failing which the employee will be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment on

the expiry of the said notice and advised accordingly by registered post.

In the event of the employee submitting a satisfactory reply, he shall be permitted to report for work

thereafter within 30 day from the date of expiry of the aforesaid notice without prejudice to the bank’s

right to take any action under the law or rules/conditions of service.

If the employee fails to report for work within this 30 days period, then he shall be given a final notice to

report for work within 30 days of this notice failing which the employee will be deemed to have

voluntarily vacated his employment on the expiry of the said notice and advised accordingly by

registered post.

(ii)

If an employee again absents himself for the second time within a period of 30 days without submitting

any application and obtaining sanction thereof after reporting for duty in response to the first notice given

after 90 days of absence or within 30 days period granted to him for reporting to work on his submitting a

satisfactory reply to the first notice, a further notice shall be given after 30 days of such absence giving

him 30 days time to report. If he fails to report for work or reports for work in response to the notice but

absents himself a third time from work within a period of 30- days without prior sanction, his name shall

be struck off from the rolls of the establishment after 30 days of such absence under intimation to him by

registered post deeming that he has voluntarily vacated his appointment.

(iii)

Any notice under this clause shall be in a language understood by the employee concerned. The notice

shall be sent to him by registered post wit acknowledgement due. Where the notice under this clause is

sent to the employee by registered acknowledgement due at the last recorded address communicated in

writing by the employee and acknowledged by the bank, the same shall be deemed as good and proper

service.

13.

It has to be considered in this case whether worker abstained from duties for the period of 90 days or more

without prior sanction or whether he has taken another employment and whether the worker has not responded to the

notice issued by bank. It is also to be seen whether department inquiry before terminating the service of worker was

necessary.

14.

Worker Nand Kumar Upadhyay examined himself as WW1. He stated on affidavit that he had submitted

application for leave along with medical certificate on 27-11-06 vide application dated 21-12-2006 under registered

post to chief manager and had also submitted application for joining duties on 11-02-2008 and also submitted

application on the same day under registered post. He also filed his medical certificate of illness since 01-07-2007 to

09-02-2008. He received letter of Bank dated 09-1-2008 on 10-01-2008 and his joining on 11-02-2008 was refused by

bank. His service was terminated without any enquiry or charge sheet which is illegal?

15.

In his cross examination WW1 N.K.Upadhyay, has deposed that his case was taken up by Union and Union

obtained his signature on papers. He has also admitted that he was transferred to CANTT branch Agra vide letter no.

10/6 and was relieved on 11-12-06 during that period he was on leave. He could not join at CANTT branch within 30

days as he was sick. He received letter dated 08-01-2008 on 10-01-2008. In the compliance of direction he went to join

the duties on 11-02-2008 but chief manager has refused to take him on duties. He demanded leave upto 09-02-2008

through letter no. 15/3 but he did not filed any medical certificate in support. Bank has informed him through letter no.

15/5 that his leave was rejected. He received letter no. 15/5 on 09-02-2008 at about 11 am.

16.

Management examined Shri Ram Ji Lal Nayak as MW1 who has stated on affidavit that the worker was

transferred to CANTT branch Agra and relieved from Kamla Nagar branch by letter dated 11-12-2006 but worker did

3372

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

not comply the order and remained unauthorized absent. He has filed any medical certificate and thereafter final notice

dated 08-02-2008 was send to the worker to report for duties within 30 days. Worker send a letter dated 06-02-2008 for

grant of leave till 09-02-2008 which was received on the bank on 07-02-2009 which was rejected as no medical

certificate was filed as he did not joined the service within 30 days of final notice. His service was treated as voluntarily

vacated with effect from 09-02-2008.

17.

In his cross examination MW1 Ram Ji Nayak has deposed that he has no personal knowledge in the matter and

he is giving his evidence on the basis of record. Worker was transferred to CANTT branch Agra but he did not join.

Paper no. 15/3 is leave application of worker dated 06-02-2008 which was rejected and worker was informed on

12-02-2008. He does not know whether 09-02-2008 was Saturday or not and 10-02-2008 was Sunday or not. There is

no record to show that worker came to join on 11-02-2008.

18.

Now it is to be seen whether worker has absented himself from work without any sufficient reason or

information to the bank authorities.

19.

Worker Shri Upadhyay has filed copy of application given to chief manger dated 21-12-2006 which is paper no

14/4 where in worker has informed chief manager that he was on leave since 23-11-06 due to illness of his son and

during his leave period he was transferred to branch Agra Cantt. He further requested that he may be granted leave upto

23-12-06. This paper is admitted to be received in bank by MW1 Shri Ram Ji LaL Nayak who has stated in his cross

examination that this paper has been sent by worker but his record is not available in the bank. It clearly shows that

worker has been transferred to Agra Cantt branch during his leave period and further no order of bank is set to have

been passed on this application of worker dated 21-12-2006 and worker was relieved from his charge in absence on

11-12-2006.

20.

Bank authorities have issued notice to worker under clause 33 of Bipartite settlement on 28-11-07 where in

absence of worker has shown to be off about 351 days. It is necessary to mention that no departmental enquiry was

conducted for the alleged absence of worker. Worker is said to have not replied to this notice and thereafter on

08-1-2008 final notice under clause 33 of bipartite was issued with the direction to worker to report within 30 days of

this notice which was replied by worker on 06-02-08 requesting that he is not well and unable to attend the duties and

he may be granted leave upto 09-02-08 which is paper no 15/3. This prayer of worker for granting leave upto 9-02-08

was refused for want of medical certificate by the order dated 08-02-08 (paper no 15/5) and order was communicated to

worker on 09-02-2008 on the same day final order has been passed on the ground that worker failed to join duties

within stipulated time and had voluntarily vacated.

21.

Worker Shri Upadhyay in his evidence has stated that he receive the order of rejection of his application on

09-02-2008 which was Saturday and thus 10-02-2008 was Sunday and 11-02-2008 he send letter paper no. 15/10 for

granting him one opportunity to remain in service. He also alleges that he did not go personally to regional office but

went to branch office. This fact was not denied by MW1 Shri Ram Ji Lal Nayak that 09-02-08 was Saturday and

10-02-08 was Sunday.

22.

From above discussion it is apparently clear that worker has given application on ground of illness of his son on

21-12-06 and thereafter when he received notice from bank he has given application for grant of leave upto 9-02-08 on

ground of his illness which was rejected when final order was passed. It was not inquired by bank authorities whether

ground of illness of worker in his first application and thereafter ground of illness of worker himself in reply to the

notice was genuine or not and it was rejected simply on ground that no medical certificate was attached. It appears that

bank authorities were adamant to voluntarily vacate these services of workman without considering ground of leave

mention in application of worker.

23.

Beside this for long absence of worker bank authorities should start disciplinary proceeding against the worker

and if the grounds given by worker are not sufficient department could serve charge sheet on worker and after

completing domestic enquiry worker could have been punished by bank authority in accordance with the rules. This

view is supported by apex court in unreported judgement given in appeal(civil) 3676 of 2006 General manager Vijya

Bank and others VS Pramod Kumar Gupta vide judgement dated 24-08-06.

24.

It is admitted to worker that he has attended the age of superannuation in 2009.

25.

For the reasons and discussion given above the action of management in imposing penalty of voluntarily

vacation of service of Shri Nand Upadhyay with effect from 09-02-2008 is not legal nor just and proper and worker is

entitled to be reinstated symbolically as he has already attended the age of superannuation and further worker is entitled

to receive back wages upto his date of his retirement and thereafter pensionary benefits in accordance with rules.

26.

Award is passed accordingly in favour of worker and against management.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3373

ubZ fnYyh] 5 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1427-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;w-Vh-vkbZ-

,lsV eSusteSaV da- izk- fy- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 25@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

05-06-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@227@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2017

S.O. 1427.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No.1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. UTI

Asset Management Co. Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.06.2017.

[No. L-12012/227/2003-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, MUMBAI

Present : Justice Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/25 OF 2004

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of

UTI Asset Management Co. Pvt. Ltd.

And

Their workman (Sudhir Keer)

Appearances :

For the Management

Ms. Nandini Menon, Adv.

For the workman

Mrs. Seema Chopda, Adv.

State

Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 5^th day of May, 2017

AWARD

1..

As per the Schedule of this Reference, the following dispute was referred to this Tribunal.

“Whether the action of the management of Unit Trust of India Mutual Fund, Mumbai by not reinstating the

services of Shri Sudhir Keer on the basis of Additional Session Judge is justified? If not, what relief Shri

Sudhir Keer is entitled to?”

It appears that in the reference, words “his acquittal by” could not be typed due to mistake, after words “basis

of”.

As per the Statement of Claim, Sudhir Keer (hereinafter referred to as the workman) was in permanent

employment of the erstwhile Unit Trust of India which was converted into two companies namely; 1. UTI Asset

Management Company Pvt. Ltd and 2. UTI Mutual Fund Private Ltd. The workman became the employee of UTI

Asset Management Company Pvt. Ltd. He joined services in the UTI in July 1980 and had a clean and unblemished

service record. He was issued a show-cause notice dated 14.6.1984 followed by another show-cause notice dated

16.6.1984 alleging act of misconduct of collection of cash as repurchase proceeds of 200 units on 28.2.1984 and

repurchase of 3000 units during 3.3.1984 to 27.4.1984. The workman had submitted a detailed reply to the said notices

on 25.6.1984 denying all the charges and explaining the allegations made against him as baseless and actuated by

malafides. Thereafter the workman received two chargesheets dated 30.6.1984 and 8.8.1984 on the same subject since

3374

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Management was not satisfied with his reply.Therefore departmental enquiry into the alleged charges were

conducted. After completing the enquiry the Enquiry Officer recorded the finding of his guilt. The workman had

received two reports of the Enquiry Officer alongwith a show-cause notice and finally received a letter dated

24.10.1985 from General Manager calling upon the workman to show-cause why he should not be dismissed from

service of the Trust without notice. Reply to this notice was again submitted by the workman on 6.11.1985 and

subsequently the workman was dismissed from employment vide order dated 13.2.1986 in terms of Section 55(1)(c ) of

the Unit Trust of India (Staff) Rules, 1978. It was also pleaded that before he was issued a chargesheet for the

departmental enquiry the employer had already lodged a criminal complaint at Azad Maidan Police Station under

Section 467, 468, 471, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code on 9.8.1984. As a result of the aforesaid F.I.R. the

workman was criminally prosecuted before Metropolitan Magistrate and vide judgement dated 24.11.2000, Magistrate

convicted the workman of the charges leveled against him in that case and sentenced him to undergo six months

imprisonment and also with fine of Rs.2000/- The said judgment of the Magistrate was challenged by the workman by

preferring Appeal before the Court of Sessions. His Appeal bearing No. 301 of 2002 was heard and decided by the

Session Judge. Vide judgment dated 2.4.2002 the Appellate Court allowed the Appeal and acquitted the workman of

the offences for which he was charged with. After his acquittal, the workman approached the Management for his

reinstatement which was turned down. Thereafter the workman requested the Labour Commissioner vide letter dated

11.4.2003 to intervene in the matter of unlawful dismissal and for his reinstatement with full back wages. Labour

Commissioner commenced the conciliation proceedings which ended in a failure. Therefore, this Reference was made

by the Department.

The case of the workman is that the basis for departmental enquiry and for criminal proceedings was one and the

same and thereis no difference in the facts and circumstances constituting the alleged act of misconduct, therefore, the

acquittal of the workman by Court of competent jurisdiction must prevail over the decision of the departmental

proceedings. It was stated in the Statement of claim that law is very crystallized that if there is acquittal in the case

giving benefit of doubt in that case, the decision of the employer shall prevail over the decision of the criminal court

but if there is clean and honourable acquittal on the same facts and circumstances, then the verdict of the court must

prevail.

In the Written Statement it has been stated by the Management that the second party workman was dismissed

without notice from the service of the erstwhile UTI by an order dated 13.2.1986. The workman raised the issue before

the management by a letter dated 20.9.2002 requesting the management to reinstate him with full back wages and

continuity of service as he has been acquitted in appeal by the Session Court. The said demand of reinstatement was

made for the first time after 16 years and 7 months of his dismissal from erstwhile UTI. Management has submitted

that the dismissal of the second party workman and the criminal case pending against him were two virtually different

causes of action therefore, there was no question of raising this industrial dispute. It has also been argued that the only

ground taken by the workman is his acquittal in the criminal case and has nowhere been pleaded that there was any

fault or irregularity or illegality in the departmental enquiry. It has also been pleaded that the departmental enquiry was

held as per rules in which the workman had participated and punishment imposed on the workman was justified

keeping in view the gravity of misconduct proved against him.

Both the parties have filed their documents which are not disputed. Written Arguments on behalf of both the

parties have been filed.

The main ground of the workman is his acquittal in the criminal case and on this strength it is pleaded that the

criminal proceeding and departmental enquiry were based on the same set of charges, documents and witnesses,

therefore, the finding of the court of law must prevail over the departmental proceedings. In support of this submission

reliance has been placed on the pronouncement of Calcutta High Court in the case of State of West Bengal and others

vs.Vidya and another 2011 (3) LLN 157 (DB) Calcutta.

On the contrary in the written arguments, it has been argued on behalf of the management that in the

departmental enquiry all the prescribed procedure was followed. The workman had participated in the departmental

proceedings and has not challenged any illegality or irregularity in the said departmental proceedings. It has also been

mentioned in the written arguments that the second party was handling dispatch of certificate, unit sales and re-

purchases, redemption certificate as a part of his work profile. The same required a veryhigh level of integrity and

honesty from him. His misconduct has led the first party justifiably losing their confidence in him. Therefore, the

relief of reinstatement or back wages cannot be granted in his favour because once confidence of the employer in the

honesty and integrity of the workman is lost due to acts of two misconducts, it will be against all settled legal

principles to direct his reinstatement.

In the facts of the instant case, the workman has nowhere pleaded that the enquiry conducted against him was

against the principles of natural justice or he was not given proper opportunity to defend him. Admittedly, he had taken

part in the enquiry and on the basis of the said enquiry report he was dismissed from service. It is also admitted fact

that the allegations on which the departmental proceedings were instituted against the workman were the same on

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3375

which the FIR was lodged against him and he was prosecuted. The Trial Court in its judgement had acquitted the

workman in the matter concerning Latore, Remodos and Dhandekar and he was convicted only with regard to charge

relating to one Moge. The only ground raised on behalf of the workman is that since the departmental proceedings and

the criminal proceedings were based on the same facts and same set of evidence, therefore, acquittal in the criminal

case would prevail over the conclusion of the departmental enquiry and accordingly he must be reinstated with all back

wages.

On behalf of the management it has been argued that the workman was dismissed from service w.e.f.13.2.1986

and he moved an application for reinstatement on 29.9.2002. Such a huge delay by itself is a ground not go grant the

relief prayed for. In the statement of claim, the workman has explained his delay and has stated that it was only because

he was advised to request for reinstatement only after final decision in the criminal case. This has been considered as

sufficient ground by Honourable Apex Court in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Nemi Chand Nalvaya

(2011) 4 SCC 584 wherein Honourable Apex Court has upheld the views taken by the Division Bench and has

observed as under:

“The respondent challenged the order of the appellate authority in WP No.450/1998. A leaned Single Judge

of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellate authority had not

committed any error in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay. The respondent filed a special appeal

and the division bench of the High Court allowed the appeal by the impugned judgment dated 4.4.2006. The

pendency of the criminal case was accepted as sufficient explanation regarding delay. The division bench

held that the non-filing of the appeal by the respondent in time was due to a bona fide impression that he

could do so after the disposal of the criminal proceedings.

10.

On behalf of the workman reliance has been placed on Honourable Calcutta High Court in the case of State of

West Bengal & Ors vs. Vidyasagar Pandey and another in 2011 (3) LLN 157 (DB) (Cal.) wherein the honourable

Calcutta High Court has observed in paragraph 13 and 14 as under:

“The contradictory evidence adduced by the P.Ws. before the criminal court should have been appreciated

by the disciplinary authority while passing the final order. Most unfortunately, the disciplinary authority did

not discuss the findings of the learned Magistrate and held the Constable concerned guilty ignoring the

specific findings of the criminal court. The employee concerned namely, the respondent No. 1 was acquitted

in the criminal trial before issuance of the final order by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the

disciplinary authority while passing the final order and holding the employee concerned guilty of the charge

should have considered the specific observations and findings of the learned Magistrate especially when the

criminal case was also initiated against the said employee on identical charge arising out of the same set of

facts. The disciplinary authority also did not refer to and rely on any document and/or evidence which were

not taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate while deciding the criminal case although the said

disciplinary authority held the Constable concerned guilty ignoring the specific findings and order of

acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate.

Since both the criminal and departmental proceedings initiated against the respondent No. 1 are based on the

identical charge arising out of the same set of facts, the findings of the learned Magistrate in respect of the

said charge must prevail upon the disciplinary authority as the findings of the judicial authority should

prevail upon the findings of the disciplinary authority on a particular issue.”

11.

There is a distinguishing factor in the facts of the instant case. In this case the workman was not dismissed from

service only on the basis of his conviction in a criminal case but he was dismissed from service after holding a

departmental enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed there for and no illegality or irregularity in

conducting the said departmental proceedings has been alleged by the workman and criminal trial concluded after 16

years from the date of his dismissal.

12.

In such circumstances what would be the effect of acquittal in the criminal case has been considered by the

Honourable Apex Court in several judgements which shall be considered in subsequent part of the judgement. Law is

settled on the point that strict principles of evidence do not apply in departmental proceedings. In a criminal case, the

prosecution is obliged to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt while in a departmental proceedings the finding of

guilt can be arrived at on the basis of pre-ponderence of probabilities.

13.

The UTI is an institution dealing with the investment and management of the public money. Such an institution

requires highest degree of honesty, integrity and trust of the public, therefore, very highest degree of honesty, integrity

and confidence is required in its employees. It is never the amount of theft or misappropriation i.e. material but it is

only the loss of confidence which is important in such cases. On this point, I would like to quote para 12 of the

judgement of Honourable Bombay High Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs.

Baburao Raoji Shinde 2017 II LLJ 145 (Bom)wherein Hon’ble Bombay High Court has observed as under:

3376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“It is settled law in the light of the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the matter of Janatha

Bazar (South Kanara Central Co- operative Whole Sale Stores Limited) Etc. Vs. The Secretary, Sahakari

Noukarana Sangha Etc. AIR 2000 SC 3129 : [(2000) 7 SCC 517] : LNIND 2000 SC 1272 , and the

learned Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of P.R.Shele Vs. Union of India and others

[2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 33], that the quantum of amount misappropriated is not significant. Once the act of

misappropriation WP/4176/1997 is proved, the only punishment available is of dismissal from service.”

Now we proceed to deal with the legal point involved in this reference. In the case of State of West Bengal

vs. Sankar Ghosh (2014) 3 SCC 610 Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with this legal position and has held in

paragraph 16, 17 and 18 as under:

16.

In Deputy Inspector General Vs. S. Samuthiram [(2013) 1 SCC 598], this Court in paragraph 24, 25

and 26 of the judgment has elaborately examined the meaning and scope of the “honourable acquittal” and

held as follows :-

“26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the service rules for reinstatement, if

an employee is honourably acquitted by a criminal court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any

benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a

criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a

criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish

the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law that the strict

burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings

and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical

reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile, etc. In

the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on the ground

that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the

benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say that in the instant case, the respondent was honourably acquitted

by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu

Service Rules do not provide so.” (underlined by me)

17.

The judgment of S. Samuthiram (supra) was later followed by another Bench of this Court in

Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & Anr. V. Mehar Singh [(2013) 7 SCC 685].

18.

We indicate that the respondent could not lay his hand to any rule or regulation applicable to the

Police Force stating that once an employee has been acquitted by a Criminal Court, as a matter of right, he

should be reinstated in service, despite all the disciplinary proceedings. In otherwise there is no rule of

automatic reinstatement on acquittal by a Criminal Court even though the charges levelled against the

delinquent before the Enquiry Officer as well as the Criminal Court are the same. On this aspect, reference

may be made to para 27 of the judgment in S. Samuthiram (supra), which reads as under:-

“27. We have also come across cases where the service rules provide that on registration of a criminal case,

an employee can be kept under suspension and on acquittal by the criminal court, he be reinstated. In such

cases, the reinstatement is automatic. There may be cases where the service rules provide that in spite of

domestic enquiry, if the criminal court acquits an employee honourably, he could be reinstated. In other

words, the issue whether an employee has to be reinstated in service or not depends upon the question

whether the service rules contain any such provision for reinstatement and not as a matter of right. Such

provisions are absent in the Tamil Nadu Service Rules.”

(underlined by me)

14.

In the case of Cholan Roadways Ltd vs. Thirugnanasambandam (2005) 3 Supreme Court cases 241 the

Hon’ble Apex Court has held in para 15 and 16 as under:

15.

It is now a well-settled principle of law that the principle of Evidence Act have no application in a

domestic enquiry.

16.

In Maharastra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. K.S. Gandhi and

Others [(1991) 2 SCC 716], it was held:

"It is thus well settled law that strict rules of the Evidence Act, and the standard of proof envisaged therein

do not apply to departmental proceedings or domestic tribunal. It is open to the authorities to receive and

place on record all the necessary, relevant, cogent and acceptable material facts though not proved strictly

in conformity with the Evidence Act. The material must be germane and relevant to the facts in issue. In

grave cases like forgery, fraud, conspiracy, misappropriation, etc. seldom direct evidence would be

available. Only the circumstantial evidence would furnish the proof. In our considered view inference from

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3377

the evidence and circumstances must be carefully distinguished from conjectures or speculation. The mind is

prone to take pleasure to adapt circumstances to one another and even in straining them a little to force

them to form parts of one connected whole. There must be evidence direct or circumstantial to deduce

necessary inferences in proof of the facts in issue. There can be no inferences unless there are objective

facts, direct or circumstantial from which to infer the other fact which it is sought to establish.The standard

of proof is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but the preponderance of probabilities tending to draw an

inference that the fact must be more probable. Standard of proof, however, cannot be put in a strait-jacket

formula. No mathematical formula could be laid on degree of proof. The probative value could be gauged

from facts and circumstances in a given case. The standard of proof is the same both in civil cases and

domestic enquires."

15.

In the case of Divisional Controller of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. M.G.Vittal Rao (1964)

7 SCR 596 which is a landmark judgement on the point of loss of confidence Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with this

Issue. The relevant part is hereby reproduced as under.

24. Thus, there can be no doubt regarding the settled legal proposition that as the standard of proof in both

the proceedings is quite different, and the termination is not based on mere conviction of an employee in a

criminal case, the acquittal of the employee in criminal case cannot be the basis of taking away the effect of

departmental proceedings. Nor can such an action of the department be termed as double jeopardy. The

judgment of this Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) does not lay down the law of universal application.

Facts, charges and nature of evidence etc. involved in an individual case would determine as to whether

decision of acquittal would have any bearing on the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry.

LOSS OF CONFIDENCE

25. Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence is

affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason that

discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity, and in a case of loss of confidence,

reinstatement cannot be directed. (Vide: Air India Corporation Bombay v. V.A. Ravellow, AIR 1972 SC

1343; Francis Kalein & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1971 SC 2414; and Bharat Heavy Electricals

Ltd. v. M. Chandrashekhar Reddy & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 2769).

26.

In Kanhaiyalal Agrawal & Ors. v. Factory Manager, Gwaliar Sugar Co. Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 3645,

this Court laid down the test for loss of confidence to find out as to whether there was bona fide loss of

confidence in the employee, observing that, (i) the workman is holding the position of trust and confidence;

(ii) by abusing such position, he commits act which results in forfeiting the same; and (iii) to continue him in

service/establishment would be embarrassing and inconvenient to the employer, or would be detrimental to

the discipline or security of the establishment. Loss of confidence cannot be subjective, based upon the mind

of the management. Objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of

the management, regarding trustworthiness or reliability of the employee, must be alleged and proved.

(See also: Sudhir Vishnu Panvalkar v. Bank of India, AIR 1997 SC 2249).

27. In State Bank of India & Anr. v. Bela Bagchi & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 3272, this Court repelled the

contention that even if by the misconduct of the employee the employer does not suffer any financial loss, he

can be removed from service in a case of loss of confidence.

While deciding the said case, reliance has been placed upon its earlier judgment in Disciplinary Authority-

cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, (1996) 9 SCC 69.

28. An employer is not bound to keep an employee in service with whom relations have reached the point of

complete loss of confidence/faith between the two. (Vide: Binny Ltd. v. Their Workmen & Anr., AIR 1972 SC

1975; The Binny Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1973 SC 1403; Anil Kumar Chakraborty & Anr. v. M/s.

Saraswatipur Tea Company Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 1062; Chandu Lal v. The Management of M/s. Pan

American World Airways Inc., AIR 1985 SC 1128; Kamal Kishore Lakshman v. Management of M/s. Pan

American World Airways Inc. & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 229; and M/s. Pearlite Liners Pvt. Ltd. v. Manorama

Sirsi, AIR 2004 SC 1373).

29.

In Indian Airlines Ltd. v. Prabha D. Kanan, AIR 2007 SC 548, while dealing with the similar issue

this Court held that "loss of confidence cannot be subjective but there must be objective facts which would

lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the employer regarding trustworthiness of the

employee and which must be alleged and proved."

30.

In case of theft, the quantum of theft is not important and what is important is the loss of confidence

of employer in employee.

3378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

16.

In the case of Kanhayalal Agrawal and others vs. Factory Manager, Gwalior Sugar Company Ltd. (2001) 9

SCC 609 Hon’bleApex Court has held in para 9 as under:

Substantial contention on the merits of the case by the employer in these appeals is that the finding of

loss of confidence in the employee by the labour court has been reversed in appeal by the Industrial Court

on unreasonable grounds. What must be pleaded and proved to invoke the aforesaid principle is that (i) the

workman is holding a position of trust and confidence; (ii) by abusing such position, he commits acts which

results in forfeiting the same; and (iii) to continue him in service would be embarrassing and inconvenient to

the employer or would be detrimental to the discipline or security of the establishment. All these three

aspects must be present to refuse reinstatement on ground of loss of confidence. Loss of confidence cannot

be subjective based upon the mind of the Management. Objective facts which would lead to a definite

inference of apprehension in the mind of the Management regarding trustworthiness or reliability of the

employee must be alleged and proved. Else, the right of reinstatement ordinarily available to the employee

will be lost.

17.

A perusal of the judgement of Court of Sessions shows that the appellate court has observed that learned Trial

Court had placed reliance on the statement of the accused themselves and has also placed reliance on extra judicial

confession made by the workman before PW-4. It is true that the said evidence may be a weak evidence in a criminal

prosecution but so far as the departmental enquiry is concerned such evidence can form basis of conclusion of the guilt

of the workman. As discussed earlier, the charge leveled against the workman in a institution which deals with the

management of public money requires highest degree of confidence and definitely by such conduct, the workman has

lost the confidence of the employer. I have also gone through the enquiry report. It is clear that the enquiry was

conducted in fair manner and findings recorded during the enquiry were based on the material available on record and

the evidence was rightly considered as per the standard prescribed for departmental enquiries. Workman had

participated in the said enquiry and has not challenged the enquiry.

18.

At this stage, I would like to consider the cae law relied upon by the workman. The facts of this cases are

entirely different. In that case, it appears by the perusal of the judgement that departmental enquiry was pending when

acquittal of the criminal case took place. The witness had given contradictory statement in criminal trial on the basis of

which he was acquitted. The opinion of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court was that the Enquiry Officer was supposed to

consider the contradictory statement made by the same witness in the criminal case and without considering the same

the finding of guilt was held to be wrong in the departmental proceedings. But in the facts of this case, the departmental

enquiry concluded in the year 1986 while the judgement of the Appellate High Court in criminal case was delivered in

2002. It transpires from the perusal of the enquiry report and also from the judgement in the criminal case that in both

the proceedings the witnesses had supported the case against the workman but the evidence of the witness was not

found to be totally reliable to prove the case against the workman beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, he was

acquitted. Therefore, since the facts are entirely different, therefore, the workman is not entitled to the benefit of the

case law relied upon by him. It is nowhere the case of the workman that in the service rules any provision exist which

entitles him to be reinstated on his acquittal in a criminal case wiping out the conclusions of the departmental enquiry.

It is not a case where because of the conviction the services of the workman was terminated but his services were

terminated only after conducting a departmental enquiry. At this stage, I would like to quote some of the observation

made by the Enquiry Officer in the Enquiry Reports.

“It has not been disputed by Shri Keer that the cheque in question has been encashed at the Shivaji Park

Branch of the Corporation bank as at Ex.M-7. It has been conclusively proved as at Ex.M-8 to M-14 that the

cheque was in fact encashed through a Savings Bank Account No. 9305 opened at the branch on the

11^th June 1984 by means of a forgery in the name of Shri Latore.”

The account was opened through an introduction obtained on a false representation by Shri Keer from Miss

Meena J. Borkar who is the niece of Shri Keer and who then had an account with the said branch as per

Ex.M-10, Ex.M-12 to Ex.M-14. This has also not been disuted and has also been conclusively established.

Miss Meena J. Borkar who is an introducer for opening of the said account is the niece of the charge sheeted

employee and it has been established and it has been admitted by the charge sheeted employee that he had in

fact obtained a blank introduction form signed by her which she had done upon a false representation to her

that it was for opening his own personal account as at Ex.M-11. It would thus appear that the said cheque

was fraudulently removed by Shri Keer from the envelope before dispatch, has been equally fraudulently

encashed through the said account opened in the name of Shri Latore by means of the said letter of

introduction obtained by Shri Keer from Miss Borkar who is his niece.”

It has been proved by the PO on the basis of the documents and witnesses produced by him that as

summarized by him on page 6 para 7 and page 9 para 14 of his written submission, the charge-sheeted

employee duped and deceived superior officers in accepting spurious documents as genuine by holding out

that the parties presenting them were personally known to him and that in the process he was also vouching

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3379

for the genuineness of the documents. It is also established that the charge-sheeted employee has

transgressed office discipline and has abused and made a mockery of office procedure in resorting to actions

which have resulted in wrongful financial gains to himself and wrongful loss to the Trust. The fact that he

has done so knowingly has been admitted by the charge-sheeted employee in clear and unambiguous terms

on page 5 para 5 of his written submission although in the same breath he falsely claims to have acted

innocently without any malafide intentions.

A weak and lame defence has been attempted in trying to show that the forged document on the basis of

which duplicate certificates was issued was prepared by him but that the actual signature is not in his

handwriting. It is significant to note that despite ample time being made available to him, he has not been

able to produce either a witness or a written opinion of another hand writing expert refuting the cogent well

reasoned and unambiguous opini presented by the Management’s said witness, Shri Wagh, recently retired

from the Maharashtra Govt. Service and a leading authority on this subject to the effect that the forged

signature of the unit holder has been forged by none other than the charge-sheeted himself.”

A perusal of the enquiry report discloses that a very grave misconduct was committed by the workman and

during enquiry the witnesses of the management had supported the case of the management. The conduct of the

workman that comes out from the above findings of the Enquiry Officer was a very grave misconduct and mere

acquittal in the criminal case cannot be a ground to order for reinstatement wiping out the conclusions of the

departmental proceedings particularly when no malafide illegality or irregularity in holding the departmental

proceedings has been alleged.

19.

Thus, in this case, keeping in view the conduct of the accused particularly where the conclusions of the

departmental enquiry have not been challenged and only on the acquittal in the criminal case, cannot be a ground for

reinstatement. If the services of the workman would have been terminated only because of the conviction in the

criminal case, then the matter might have been different. But in this case the services were terminated after holding

regular and proper departmental enquiry. So in my considered view, the acquittal in criminal case cannot by itself be a

ground to vitiate or to wash out the conclusion of the departmental enquiry where no illegality or irregularity in the

departmental enquiry has been alleged. Thus the workman is not entitled to the relief claimed for and his termination

was legal and valid.

20.

Reference is answered accordingly.

JUSTICE S. V. S. RATHORE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1428-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 37@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-06-2017 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@63@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2017

S.O. 1428.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No.2, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

Indian Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.06.2017.

[No. L-12011/63/2009-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present :

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

3380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 37/2009

Date of Passing Award – 20^th February, 2017

Between :

The Deputy General Manager, Indian Bank,

Circle Office, Plot No. 117/118, Station Square,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa) – 751 001

…1^st Party-Management

(And)

The General Secretary,

Indian Bank Employees Union,

Plot No. 32, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar,

Orissa – 751 009

…2^nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

Shri Kunal Kishore

…

For the 1^st Party-Management

Shri Jagdish Jena

…

For the 2^nd Party-Union

AWARD

This award arises out of a reference made by the Govt. of India in exercise of the powers conferred under

section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 out of a dispute between the Management of Indian Bank and their

workman under following schedule vide their letter No. L-12011/63/2008 – IR(B-II), dated 12.10.2009:-

“Whether the action of the Management of Indian Bank in terminating the service of Shri Hari Sethi, Sub-

Staff w.e.f. 14.8.2006 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

Facts giving rise to the reference, in short, may be stated as follows:-

The disputant workman Shri Hari Sethi being employed under the 1^st Party-Management in sub-staff category

was posted as such in the Branch-Bank of the Management at Choudwar during the relevant period. On receipt of

information regarding fraudulent withdrawal from savings account of one Paramananda Behera when a preliminary

investigation was taken up by the Vigilance Officer of the Management-Bank, it was ascertained that Shri Sethi had

withdrawn Rs. 20,000/-, 2,000/-, 600/- and 500/- on four occasions on 8.3.2000, 30.10.2000, 7.11.2000 and 11.11.2000

respectively from the S.B. a/c. No. 2172/8 of Shri Paramananda Behera in a fraudulent manner by presenting

withdrawal slips having forged signatures of the account holder. Such withdrawal slips were sent for examination and

opinion of the hand-writing expert along with the admitted signatures of Shri Behera to ascertain whether signatures

available on the slips belonged to the account holder Shri Behera. A statement confessing the alleged withdrawal is

stated to have been made by the disputant workman in that stage of preliminary enquiry. Basing upon the preliminary

report dated 8.7.2001 submitted by the Vigilance Officer of the Management and a reply given by Shri Paramananda

Behera to the Management on a query to him, a chare-sheet was issued to the delinquent workman on his alleged act of

misconduct and a domestic enquiry was held. Shri R.N. Kolley, Senior Manager, Indian Bank C.E.D.P.-II-BBS was

appointed as Enquiry Officer and he was entrusted to conduct the enquiry as per the settled Rules and Procedures. The

delinquent workman is stated to have been invited to submit his explanation on the charges issued to him and to attend

the departmental enquiry. Departmental enquiry is said to have been conducted in presence of the disputant workman

with his active participation and he was given all sorts of opportunities to defend himself in the domestic enquiry. On

closure of the enquiry, report was submitted holding workman guilty of misconduct for the alleged withdrawals from

the account of Shri Behera. He was inflicted with punishment of dismissal from service after being provided with an

opportunity of being heard on the findings of enquiry report.

The case of the 2^nd party-Union is that the departmental enquiry was not conducted in proper and fair manner

with conformity to the principles of natural justice in as much as the findings of the enquiry officer was not based on

any legal evidence and the same was perverse. It is the pleading and contention of the 2^nd party-Union that no complain

was ever received by the Management in writing from any source including from the a/c. holder to carry out any

preliminary investigation or enquiry for such alleged drawals. Despite Shri Behera making a statement before the

Enquiring Officer that the withdrawal slips were given by him authorizing Shri Sethi to receive the amount and his

admission before the enquiry officer that the signatures on the withdrawal slips belonged to him, the findings of the

enquiry officer holding the disputant workman guilty of misconduct for such withdrawals are perverse. It is the claim

of the 2^nd party-Union that though charges were framed on four counts charges on two counts on serious allegations

were not established as per the findings of the enquiry officer. The findings being perverse and not based on any legal

evidence the enquiry proceeding is to be vitiated and the disputant workman should be reinstated with back wages and

other all service benefits being deemed to be in service.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3381

The Management has contested the claim of the 2^nd party-Union taking a stand that the allegations raised by the

disputant workman are not correct. As preliminary investigation revealed that he withdrew an amount of Rs. 23,100/-

on different occasions from the savings account of Shri Paramananda Behera, who was his neighbour at Choudwar,

without his knowledge and the drawal was made forging his signatures on the withdrawal slips. Departmental enquiry

was held. The workman was given opportunity to submit his show cause on the charge-sheet and he was issued with all

necessary documents along with the charge-sheet in much advance to the commencement of the domestic enquiry. He

was duly intimated about the date and place of holding enquiry, the Presenting Officer and the Enquiry Officer. He was

extended opportunities to cross examine the departmental witnesses and to adduce evidence in his defence. He was

also provided a copy of the enquiry report and invited to submit his explanation on the findings of the report. Having

due regard to the findings and explanation submitted thereon the disciplinary authority has inflicted the punishment of

dismissal from service which was most appropriate and just to the misconduct committed by the disputant workman. It

has been alleged in the written statement that on earlier occasion the disputant workman was dismissed from service for

his similar act of fraudulent drawal made in the year 1984 and he was reinstated in the year 1993 after being acquitted

in the criminal case. As such, contention has been advanced by the Management that there is no scope of interference in

the findings of the domestic enquiry and punishment inflicted on the disputant workman.

On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties following issues have been settled for just and proper adjudication of

the reference.

I S S U E S

Whether the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and charges stand proved?

Whether the action of the Management of Indian Bank, Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Shri

Hari sethi, Sub-Staff w.e.f. 14.8.2006 is legal and justified?

What relief the workman concerned is entitled to?

As no prayer was moved by either of the parties for hearing on the fairness of the departmental enquiry as a

preliminary one, hearing on all issues were taken up simultaneously and parties were invited to lead evidence

accordingly. In order to establish its case the 2^nd party-Union has examined the disputant workman as W.W.-1 and

relied upon certain documents like copy of the charge sheet, copy of suspension order, copy of enquiry report, copy of

evidence of the workman before the enquiry officer, copy of the letter of Defence Representative, copy of enquiry

proceedings, copy of written submission of the workman, copy of the appeal of the workman to appellate authority,

copy of withdrawal slip, copy of termination order of the workman marked as Ext.-1 to Ext.-10. Whereas, the

Management has filed the entire document of the enquiry file marked as Ext.-A to Ext.-AK in its evidence besides,

examining the Presenting Officer as M.W.-1 to refute the stand of the 2^nd party-Union.

The findings of the domestic enquiry and the punishment of dismissal inflicted on the disputant workman have

been challenged mainly on the ground of no materials before the enquiry authority to hold the disputant workman

guilty of withdrawing the amount fraudulently from the account of Shri Paramananda Behera without his knowledge.

It has also been argued formally that such findings have been arrived at in violation of the principles of natural justice,

which is essence of a domestic enquiry. The law requires that domestic enquiry should observe rules of natural justice

in the conduct of the enquiry and if they do so, their decision is not liable to be impeached on the ground of violation of

natural justice. It is also well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated of evidence under the

Evidence Act is not applicable. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There

is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided; it has reasonable nexus and credibility. Merely because the rules of

evidence and procedure do not apply to the domestic enquiry, it does not mean that rule of natural justice and fair play

and the rules laid down in the Standing Orders are to be ignored. The principles of natural justice requires that (i) the

employer shall be informed of the exact charges which he is called upon to meet; (ii) the delinquent employee shall

either be furnished with copies of the documents relied upon by the Management or be permitted to have adequate

inspection of the same (iii) he should be given an opportunity to explain any material relied on by the Management to

prove the charges; (iv) the evidence of the Management witnesses should be recorded in his presence or his

representative and he should be given an opportunity to cross examine such witnesses; (iv) the delinquent employee

should be given the opportunity to produce his evidence both documentary and oral and lastly he should be furnished

with a copy of the enquiry report and permitted to make a presentation to the disciplinary authority against the findings

recorded in the enquiry report.

Keeping the above principles in view if the pleading and evidence of the parties are examined it is seen, no

specific contention has either been raised in the evidence of the disputant workman or in his pleading and argument to

the effect as to how principle of natural justice was violated by the enquiry officer while holding the domestic enquiry.

It has not been alleged specifically that he was not provided with copy of any document or material likely to be

produced before the enquiry officer for which he was prejudiced. Similarly no allegation has been raised contending

3382

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that the witnesses of the department were not examined in his presence or he was not given opportunity to cross

examine them. On the other hand the oral evidence of the Management as well as the enquiry proceeding file clearly

lead to an inference that charge-sheet containing specific allegations was issued to the disputant workman in advance of

the commencement of the enquiry. He was also provided either with the copies of the documents or its inspection

likely to be produced before the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer had heard him on the charges and allowed him to

defend through a co-worker. The witnesses for the department were examined in his presence and he was extended

opportunity to cross examine them. Documents of the department were exhibited in his presence. He was also given

opportunity to adduce his evidence and to present his submission. He seems to have participated actively in the

domestic enquiry. In the above back-drops, it cannot be said that any principle of natural justice was violated in

conducting domestic enquiry.

The other serious contention of the disputant workman is that the findings of the enquiry officer was perverse in

the context of materials laid before him. Admittedly, the Presenting Officer failed to examine the account holder Shri

Paramananda Behera in support of the charges of fraudulent withdrawal from his account and Shri Behera being

examined on behalf of the workman had stated before the enquiring officer that he issued withdrawal slips and

authorized the disputant workman to withdraw and receive the amount from his a/c. He admitted that signatures found

in those withdrawal slips belonged to him. In view of such statement of the a/c. holder of Shri Behera it is to be seen

whether the findings of the enquiry officer imputing the disputant workman is justified or perverse. Before giving any

answer to this issue it is pertinent to mention here that as per the settled principles of law, enunciated by the Hon’ble

Apex Court from time to time, the findings of the enquiry officer shall not be based on strict and sophisticated rules of

evidence. There is a two folds test of perversity of a finding. The first test is that finding is not supported by any legal

evidence at all and the second is that on the basis of materials on record, no reasonable person could have arrived at the

finding complained off. The charges in the domestic enquiry is to be proved on pre-ponderence of probability. Coming

to the case at hand it is apparent from the pleading and evidence of the parties more particularly, from the domestic

enquiry file that departmental witness stated before the enquiry officer that signatures available on withdrawal slips

allegedly to have been issued by Shri Behera and admitted signatures of Shri Behera collected in separate sheet were

sent for examination and opinion of hand-writing expert. The opinion of hand-writing expert was received during

preliminary investigation in which it was opined that signatures available on the withdrawal slips were not tallied with

the admitted signature of Shri Behera. Such report was taken into consideration by the enquiry officer and the report is

exhibited in the Tribunal being marked as Ext.-L. There is also no serious dispute to the fact that the disputant

workman made a confession in writing vide Ext.-G during preliminary investigation and in the said confession he had

admitted to have withdrawn the amount from the account of Shri Behera and undertook to make payment of the amount

to Shri Behera. There is nothing in the materials adduced before the enquiry officer to suggest that such confession was

obtained forcibly from the disputant workman or he was forced in any manner to give such statement in writing The

Vigilance Officer of the Bank had also given statement before the enquiry officer that he made a query to Shri Behera

about such withdrawal and at that time Shri Behera disclosed him that the disputant workman approached him to save

him from departmental action with a promise to refund the amount along with interest. There was no dispute in the

enquiry that the amount was received by the disputant workman from the customer Shri Behera. Such

materials/evidence being available before the enquiry officer it cannot be said that his finding is perverse on account of

the same being based on no legal evidence. In the domestic enquiry, hearsay evidence is not impermissible provided it

has reasonable nexus and credibility. Enquiry Officer is not required to go by strict rule of evidence i.e. beyond

reasonable doubt as required in criminal case to give its findings. The power given to the Tribunal to reassess the

evidence before the enquiry officer has to be judicially and judiciously exercised. It should be exercised in cases where

the findings of the enquiry officer are based on no evidence or are so unreasonable that no reasonable man could ever

come to it or the decision is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standard that no sensible person

could have arrived it or that it is so absurd that one is satisfied that the decision maker must have taken leave of his

senses. In the above back-drops I am not inclined to accept the contentions of the 2^nd party-Union that the finding of the

enquiry officer was perverse. The statement of the account holder is undoubtedly in favour of the disputant workman.

At the same time the materials laid before the enquiry officer cannot be said insufficient or no legal evidence to draw

an inference against the disputant workman holding him guilty for a fraudulent drawal. It has been consistently held by

the Hon’ble Apex Court that the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the findings of

a domestic enquiry and the Tribunal/Court is required to examine whether a prima facie case is made-out against the

disputant workman in the domestic enquiry. The Tribunal/Court cannot act as an appellate forum of such domestic

enquiry Tribunal to re-assess or reappraise the materials laid before the domestic Tribunal to substitute its own

decision/finding against that of the finding of the domestic enquiry. Be that as it may, the findings of the enquiring

officer that the amount was withdrawn in a fraudulent manner by the disputant workman cannot be said perverse.

10.

Coming to the question of quantum of punishment inflicted on the disputant workman it is worthy to say that he

jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters and punishment cannot be equated with appellate

jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in the case of Kailashnath Gupta –versus- E.O. Allahabad Bank

AIR 2003 SC 1377 that the power of interference with the quantum of punishment is extremely limited, but when the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3383

relevant factors are not taken note of, which have some bearing on the quantum of punishment, certainly the

Tribunal/Court can direct reconsideration or in an appropriate case to shorten litigation, indicate the punishment to be

awarded. It is also well settled that unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the quantum of misconduct

allegedly committed by the delinquent, the Tribunal/Court should not interfere in the punishment given in a domestic

enquiry. The act committed by the disputant workman is undoubtedly a serious misconduct in view of the position held

by the disputant workman and in the business of banking transaction. Any lenient view in punishment of such

misconduct will give a wrong signal to other wrong doers in such situations. Further, it cannot be over-sighted that the

disputant workman faced a criminal trial earlier on similar allegation though, the same has not been brought on the

record in spite of being pleaded in the written statement/written argument. Neither the 2^nd party-Union nor the disputant

workman has refuted such pleading by making a denial to the allegation. In the above facts and circumstances it can be

said that the punishment of dismissal as inflicted by the Management for the misconduct of the disputant workman is

no manner unjustified, harass or excessive.

11.

For the reasons and discussions made above, the 2^nd party–Union is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the

statement of claim.

12.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B.C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1429-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ¯dxiQh'kj

,vjykbZUl fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] csaxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 19@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-05-

2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@10@2010&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2017

S.O. 1429.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s.

Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22.05.2017.

[No. L-11012/10/2010-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 30^th MARCH, 2017

PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

C R No. 19/2010

I Party

II Party

Sh. T.S. Prithiviraj,

The Vice President - HR,

No. 23, 1^st B Main Road,

Kingfisher Airlines Limited,

Behind Binny Mills, Ganganagar,

Kingfisher House, Western Express

Bangalore – 560032

Highway, Vile Parle (E),

Mumbai - 400099

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No.L-11012/10/2010-IR(CM-I) dated 13.05.2010 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made

this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :

3384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of management of the Kingfisher Airlines Ltd, in terminating the services of

Shri. T.S. Prithiviraj, Ex-Technician Engineering Wheels And Brakes Shop, Kingfisher Airlines Ltd,

Bangalore, Karnataka with effect from 04.09.2009 is legal and justified? To what relief the Claimant

workman is entitled to?”

Brief details mentioned in the Claim Statement are as follows:-

The I Party herein is a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering and he has been selected and appointed for the

post of short term Planner (Planning Engineer) by the Air Deccan of 05.06.2007 under an appointment issued by the

management of Air Deccan. It is submitted that the I Party has satisfactorily completed his probationary period, as a

result of which the management of Air Deccan, confirmed the services of the I Party workman with effect from

21.11.2007 under letter of confirmation dated 21.11.2007. The I Party also states that the Air Deccan has been merged

with Kingfisher Airlines Limited in the year 2008 as a result of which all the employees who worked in Air Deccan has

been absorbed in Kingfisher Airlines Limited, who is the II Party herein. It is submitted that the II Party vide order

dated 01.12.2008 has designated the I Party as Technician in the Engineering Line Maintenance Department based at

Bangalore. The I Party also states that, when the I Party has been working, the II Party without there being any

justifiable reason, has illegally terminated the services of I Party by an order dated 04.09.2009. The I Party also states

that the order of termination passed by the II Party under the facts and circumstances of the case is unjust, illegal, and

arbitrary and it is opposed to the rules of natural justice. Thus, the order of termination passed by the II Party is liable

to set aside. It is also submitted that the I Party has served the II Party over a period of 3 years and worked in various

capacities and he has discharged his duties sincerely, diligently and effectively to the entire satisfaction of his superiors

and he has also maintained an unblemished record of service. The I Party states that, absolutely there is no truth in the

allegations referred to in the order of termination, for which the I Party has not been issued with any articles of charge

and no explanation has been called for and no departmental enquiry has been held before passing an order of

termination. The I Party states that, the order of termination passed by the II Party is in utter violation of principles of

natural justice. Further, when the I Party has approached the Department head after the receipt of termination letter, the

said officer has written a letter of Apology to the II Party on 01.11.2009, by stating that the I Party has not participated

in the incident that has taken place on 31.08.2009 and wrong message has been sent. It is submitted that Learned

Magistrate after considering the evidence on record, has acquitted the I Party from the criminal charge under a

judgment dated 14.05.2010. It is submitted that the I Party is now aged about 51 years and as such he is ineligible to

get an alternative employment. That, on account of illegal order of termination effected by the II Party, the I Party and

as well as dependents consisting of 4 members have been put to great financial hardship, besides mental agony. The I

Party states that the termination of the I Party has hampered his future scope of getting job in other Airlines as well as

rendering it impossible to get job in other Airlines, since the I Party in this reference is Aircraft Technician, it would be

very difficult for him to render service in other department. Therefore, the I Party workman respectfully prays that this

Tribunal may be pleased to

Allow the points of reference and consequently set aside the order of termination bearing No .Nil dated

04.09.2009 passed by the II Party, under the facts and circumstances of the case.

Direct the II Party Company to reinstate the I Party workmen back into service with continuity of service

and all other consequential benefits, including full back wages from the date of termination till the date of

reinstatement.

Pass any appropriate order/s or directions as this Tribunal may deems fit to grant by considering the facts

and circumstances of the case and an order as to costs to meet the ends of justice.

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

The II Party submits that, the I Party Shri. Prithiviraj has been appointed for the post of Shot term Planner

(Planning Engineer) on 05.06.2007. Subsequently on 01.12.2008 the I Party has been designated as Technician in the

Engineering Line Maintenance Department which is equivalent to the post of Planning Engineer. The II Party submits

that, the I Party is not covered under the definition of “Workman” as defined in the I.D. Act 1947. Since, the I Party is

not a workman and the dispute raised by the I Party is not an Industrial Dispute, the Court has no jurisdiction to

entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute. It is further submitted that the I Party quarrelled with Aircraft Maintenance

Engineer (AME) Mr. Tojo Cherian using vulgar language and also tried, physical handling with him. The II Party also

states that, I Party has not worked with the discipline of the II Party and also, in accordance with company rules and

regulations, and the I Party has indulged in the acts of indiscipline in disorderly and riotous behaviour that obstructed

work in the department. Thereby the I Party has been terminated from service by invoking clause K of the appointment

letter dated 16.05.2007 by an order dated 04.09.2009. The II Party also states that, it is true that the I Party has been

appointed for the post of short term Planner (Planning Engineer) on 05.06.2007. Subsequently on 01.12.2008 the I

Party has been designated as Technician in the Engineering Line Maintenance Department which is equivalent to the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3385

post of Planning Engineer. It is also true that the scheduled airlines business of Deccan has absorbed in Kingfisher

Airlines Limited. The II Party states that, the contention that the order of termination passed by the II Party is unjust,

illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the rules of natural justice is denied as false and baseless. Thereby I Party has been

terminated from service by invoking clause K of the appointment letter dated 16.05.2007. Therefore, the management

could not conduct inquiry in the conducive and in peaceful atmosphere. The contention of the I Party in regard to

police complaint and he has been acquitted from the criminal charges is misleading, false and put to strict proof of the

same. The contention of the I Party that he is ineligible to get an alternative employment and it is impossible for him to

get a job, in other Airlines since he is Aircraft Technician is baseless and denied as false, as it is reliably learnt that the I

Party is gainfully employed.

Brief details mentioned in the Rejoinder filed on behalf of I Party are as follows:-

It is submitted that I Party has been working as Aircraft Mechanical Engineer II on the promotional post, with

effect from April 2007. But the I Party draw special tools from store or carry tool bag weighing around 15 kg to the

aircraft, and when the aircraft lands in the Airport, the I Party shall ask Pilots remark for serviceability of aircraft or any

trouble is faced by pilot, then the I Party has to rectify it and if it is covered under the I Party’s limit, because the I Party

can only rectify minor snag, without using any external test equipment. It is further submitted that in the morning the I

Party use to close the door of aircraft, disconnecting the ground power unit and remove auto engine start. It is also

submitted that, the nature of duties performed by the I Party is purely technical in nature and at no point of time, the I

Party has discharged the duties of Supervisory or any Administrative duties. It is also submitted that after completion

of job on Aircraft, the said work has to be entered in ARMS by the certifying staff, and then the print out has to be

taken and also submitted to the shift in charge. Therefore, the work done by the I Party is not only technical in nature

and it is also clerical in nature. It is submitted that the I Party is neither the appointing authority nor has any

disciplinary powers. Thereby, the nature of duties performed by the I Party clearly goes to show that the I Party is a

workman under Sec. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the dispute referred by the Government of India is

maintainable. Therefore, the I Party respectfully prays that this Tribunal may be pleased to allow the claim petition and

answer the points of reference in his favour, in the interest of justice and equity.

The pertinent point that arises for consideration in the present matter is:-

“Whether the action of management of the Kingfisher Airlines Ltd, in terminating the services of

Shri. T.S. Prithiviraj, Ex-Technician Engineering Wheels And Brakes Shop, Kingfisher Airlines Ltd,

Bangalore, Karnataka with effect from 04.09.2009 is legal and justified?

To what relief the Claimant workman is entitled to?”

Analysis, Discussion Findings with regard to the above mentioned point:-

On behalf of II Party, MW-1 namely, Tojo Cherian, Assistant Manager of II Party, has been examined and Ex M-1 to

Ex M-6 marked. MW-1, has stated in his evidence that the I Party has been designated as Technician in the

Engineering Line Maintenance Department which is equivalent to the post of Planning Engineer. MW-1, has also

stated that the conduct of the I Party has been not good, of his status as technician and incorrigible and since he has

involved with the sensitive operations of the II Party company wherein no misconduct could be tolerated, the II Party

lost confidence in the I Party and the continuation of the service of the I Party has not at all desirable and hence the

management has been constrained to terminate the services of the I Party. MW-1 also states that, inspite of termination

of I Party services, he has tried to forcefully trespass into company premises at wheels and brake shop at Jakkur, by

intimidating and threatening staff with dire consequences, and accordingly police complaint has been lodged against

the I Party.

Further, WW-1, namely the I Party has stated in his evidence and also in the claim statement that he has been

appointed for the post of short term Planner (Planning Engineer) by the Air Deccan on 05.06.2007 under an

appointment issued by the management of Air Deccan. The WW-1 Party also states that the Air Deccan has been

merged with Kingfisher Airlines Limited in the year 2008 as a result of which all the employees who worked in Air

Deccan have been absorbed in Kingfisher Airlines Limited, who is the II Party herein. It is submitted by the I Party,

that the II Party vide order dated 01.12.2008 has designated the I Party as Technician in the Engineering Line

Maintenance Department based at Bangalore. Further, WW-1 also states that, when WW-1 has been working, the II

Party without there being any justifiable reason, has illegally terminated the services of I Party by an order dated

04.09.2009. The II Party has also admitted that I Party has been designated as Technician in the Engineering Line

Maintenance Department. It has been already ordered that the I Party workman being the Technician, working under

the II Party will come under the workman as defined in the I.D. Act 1947 and there is the “Industrial Dispute” as

defined under sec. 2(k) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Further, the I Party categorically stated in his claim statement and

evidence that the duties of the I Party as per the Termination order is technician and not of managerial or supervisory in

nature. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 9685/2009 has dismissed by Order

3386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dated 17.08.2009, by upholding the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench of Kerala High Court, in the case of Philip C

Abraham Vs Sahara Airlines Ltd., by holding that the Aircraft Engineers as not the ‘Workmen’. However the I Party

workman has worked only as a Technician and also the I Party as also not discharged the supervisor duties under the II

Party and he has attended the Maintenance work as per the directions of the Management and hence, he is a workman

under sec 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act. Accordingly, it is already held as per the order dated 29.02.2012, that the I

Party is a workman.

Further, in the Statement of Objection, II Party has stated that the I Party has not worked in accordance with the

II Party rules and regulations and I Party indulged in disorderly and riotous behaviour that obstructed work in the

department of II Party and hence, I Party has been terminated from service by invoking clause K of the appointment

letter dated 16.05.2007 by an Order dated 04.09.2009. However, to establish the indiscipline or the disorderly and

riotous behaviour of the I Party, the II Party has not produced any relevant evidence and appropriate records. Hence, it

is seen that the submission of the II Party and the Order of termination passed by the II Party is illegal, arbitrary and

opposed the rules of natural justice. Further, the II Party has stated that management could not conduct inquiry in the

conducive and peaceful atmosphere. The said statement also is not proved by the II Party in an acceptable manner.

Further, in the Counter II Party has stated, that the I Party in regard to police complaint has been acquitted from

Criminal Charges is misleading. However, the I Party has produced the Judgment passed in CC. No. 32460/2009, and

also clearly stated that the Learned Magistrate after considering the evidence on record, has acquitted the I Party from

the criminal charges under a judgment dated 14.05.2010, marked as Ex W-16. Further, the I Party has categorically

stated that the action of the II Party in terminating the I Party from service amounts to unfair labour practice besides

victimization. Furthermore, I Party has clearly stated in the evidence that the termination order passed by the II Party

on I Party has hampered the future of the I Party in getting jog in other Airlines and I Party is not gainfully employed

elsewhere and the efforts of I Party to get alternative employment is also not materialized.

Further, the II Party has filed Diploma certificate and service certificate and course certificates obtained by I

Party, as per Ex M-2 to Ex M-6. However, the II Party has not filed any relevant documents to establish the rude

behaviour of I Party or appropriate records to establish that II Party could not conduct inquiry in the conducive and in

peaceful atmosphere. Further, in the Judgment of Supreme Court of India, AIR 2005 SC 1050, dated 14.02.2005, in the

case of Management of Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs Ajit Singh, it is specifically observed that, “A bare

perusal of provisions of section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 clearly indicates that a person would come

within the purview of the said definition if he: (i) is employed in any industry, and (ii) performs any manual, unskilled,

skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work. Thus, a person who performs one or the other jobs

mentioned in the aforementioned provisions only would come within the purview of definition of the workman. The

job of a clerk ordinarily implies stereotype work without power of control or dignity or initiative or creativeness. The

question as to whether the employee has been performing a clerical work or not is required to be determined upon

arriving at a finding as regard the dominant nature thereof. In the present case also on a careful examination of

Exhibits, document and pleadings of both parties, it is found that I Party is a workman and the dispute in the present

case is an Industrial Dispute as per Sec 2(k). Further, in the Judgment of Supreme Court of India, Before Mr. Justice

D.A. Desai, Mr. Justice. O. Chinnappa Reddy and Mr. Justice. A. Varadarajan JJ, Civil Appeal No. 2659 (NL) of 1980,

dated 02.09.1983, in the case of S.K. Verma. Vs Mahesh Chandra And Another, it is categorically held that, “When the

Central Government in all solemnity, refers an industrial dispute for adjudication, a public sector corporation which is

an instrumentality of the Slate should welcome a decision by the Tribunal on merits so as to absolve itself of any

charge of being a bad employer or of victimisation etc. and should not attempt to evade decision on merits by raising

preliminary objections on rigid technical grounds and drag the workmen from court to court wasting public time and

money. Industrial Dispute Act is a legislation intended to bring about peace and harmony between labour and

management in an industry and for that purpose, it makes provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial

disputes. It is, therefore, necessary to interpret the definitions of 'industry’ 'workman', 'industrial dispute'. etc. so as not

to whittle down, but to advance the object of the Act.” In the present case also, it is found that the Central Government

has referred the present dispute in CR 19/2010 in No.L-11012/10/2010-IR(CM-I) dated 13.05.2010, for adjudication.

On that ground also, it is found that this Court has to adjudicate the present case to advance the object of the I.D. Act,

1947.

10.

Further, in the Judgment of A. I. R. (3S) 1951 Calautta.-28.6..(C. N, 59,) in the case of Rupendra Deb Raikut Vs

Ashrumati Debi and others, it is particularly observed that, “Interest of Justice” means promotion or advancement of

the cause of justice. Applicant's temperament, failings, interests and circumstances must be considered- Justice should

not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly seem to be done. After all, the procedure of the Court is to aid

the administration of justice and not hamper it. But where in the peculiar circumstances of a case, there is a conflict

between the law of procedure and the substantial rights of the parties, the Court or the Judge is justified in ignoring it

and it is the duty of the Judge or the Court to ignore the procedure.” In this case also it is found that the II Party has not

established that the I Party has acted in the rude and violent manner and hence, the II Party could not conduct inquiry in

conducive and peaceful atmosphere by producing acceptable and sufficient records and evidences. Further, in the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3387

Judgment of AIR ·1973 SUPREME COURT 1227 (V 60 C 212) Before Mr. Justice I. D. DUA AND C. A and Mr.

Justice VAIDIALINGAM. J.J. in Civil Appeal No. 1461 of 1972: in the case of The Workmen of MIs. Firestone Tyre

& Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. Vs. The Management and others, In Civil Appeal No. 1995 of 1972, The Dy. General

Manager, Larson & Toubro Ltd., Vs. Sheikh Ismail Mohamed, In Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 1972, The Manager, Larsen

& Toubro Ltd. Bombay, Vs. K. P. Ganghare, In Civil Appeal No. 2386 of 1972, MIs. Godfrey Phifltps India Ltd., Vs

Manik Vasudeo and others, Civil Appeals Nos. 1461, 1995.1996. 2386 of 1972, D/- 6-3-1973, it is particularly

observed that, in construing the provision, of a welfare legislation, Courts should adopt beneficent rule of construction.

As far as reasonably possible construction furthering the policy and object of the Act and more beneficial to the

employees has to be preferred. Further, it is reported in Lloyds Bank Ltd Vs. Bundy, (1974) 3 All ER 757 that Lord

Denning first clearly enunciated his theory of "inequality of bargaining power". He began his discussion on this part of

the case by stating (at page 763): "There are cases in our books in which the courts will set aside a contract, or a

transfer of property, when the parties have not met on equal terms, when the one is so strong in bargaining power and

the other so weak that, as a matter of common fairness, it is not right that the strong should be allowed to push the weak

to the wall.”

Further, in the Judgment of (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 259 BEFORE Mr. Justice KULDIP SINGH, V. Mr.

Justice RAMASWAMI AND Mr. Justice K. RAMASWAMY, JJ, in the case of D.K. YADAV Vs J.M.A.

INDUSTRIES LTD., in Civil Appeal No. 166(NL) of 1983, dated 07.05.1993, it is particularly observed that, “Hence

termination under the Standing order without holding, any domestic enquiry or affording any opportunity to the

workman, held, violative of principles of natural Justice, Arts, 14 and 21 of the constitution and S. 25-F of I.D Act.

Action/decision, even administrative in nature, which involves civil consequences, must be just, fair, reasonable, non-

arbitrary and in consonance with principles of natural justice. Include right to means of livelihood – Rules of

procedure for-deprivation of the right must be just, fair and reasonable. Just, fair and reasonable action is an essential

inbuilt of natural justice.” Further, in the Judgment of ILR 1998 KAR 18 BEFORE Mr. Justice R.P. SETHI, Mr.

Justice CJ AND Mr. Justice S.R. BANNURMATH, J in the case of The Management of the Mysore Coffee Processing

co- operative Society Ltd Vs Presiding Officer, it is particularly held that, “Where the Management discharges a

workman by an Order which is void for want of an Enquiry, the "Doctrine of Relation” back cannot be invoked and in

that event the workman would be entitled to the grant of Full back wages from the date of termination of his services

till the date of award of the Labour Court.” For the above mentioned various reasons and grounds, it is held that the I

Party is entitled to get relief, and the point is answered in favour of the I Party. Accordingly, the following award is

passed:-

AWARD

The action of the Management of the Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. is not justified in terminating the services of

Shri. T.S. Prithiviraj, Ex-Technician W.e.f 04.09.2009 and II Party is directed to reinstate/Give all

monetary legal benefits and also payment of full back wages from the date of termination, namely,

04.09.2009 and all other consequential benefits to I Party, and the present reference is answered in favour

of I party, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances.

Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 30^th March, 2017)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

List of Witness on the side of I Party:

WW1 Sh. T.S. Prithiviraj, I Party/ Workman

List of Witness on the side of II Party:

MW1 Sh. Amit Arun Gursale, II Party/ Senior Manager

Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:

Exhibits

Date

Description of Document

Ex W-1

16.05.2007

Appointment Letter

Ex W-2

18.05.2007

Annexure-1

Ex W-3

21.05.2007

Letter issued by Director Deccan Aviation Ltd.

3388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex W-4

Confirmation Appraisal Form

Ex W-5

01.12.2008

Letter issued by II Party Management

Ex W-6

Annexure - A

Ex W-7

21.11.2007

Letter of Confirmation

Ex W-8

04.09.2009

Letter issued by II Party Management

Ex W-9

Certified Copy of Endorsement issued by

Amruthahalli

Ex W-10

23.09.2009

Certified Copy of Endorsement issued by

Amruthahalli Police Station

Ex W-11

01.11.2009

Letter of Apology of G. Lingoji Rao

Ex W-12

July 2008

Salary details of I Party

Ex W-13

12.10.2009

Complaint Letter to Labour Commissioner

Ex W-14

09.12.2009

Objection submitted by II Party

Ex W-15

27.01.2010

Report by Labour Commissioner

Ex W-16

14.05.2010

Certified copy of Judgment passed by the Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore

Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:

Exhibits

Date

Description of Document

Ex M-1

Resume of I Party

Ex M-2

1979

Certificate of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering

Ex M-3

02.05.1996

EAD 777 General Familiarization Course

Certificate

Ex M-4

1991

General Familiarization Course Certificate

Ex M-5

1996

Ramp, Transit & Line Unit Replacement course

certificate

Ex M-6

1991

Certificate of Competence

ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1430-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

egkizca/d] ch,l,u,y] iQjhnkckn ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 13@2012) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@66@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2017

S.O. 1430.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 13/2012) 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

General Manager, BSNL, Faridabad and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

18.05.2017.

[No. L-40012/66/2011-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3389

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO-II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI-110032

I.D. No. 13/2012

Sh. Ghan Shyam,

S/o Sh. Barkhu,

R/o:- H.No.-227, Gali No-2,

Rahul Colony, NIT, Faridabad

Versus

The General Manager,

BSNL, Sector-15,

Faridabad

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No. L-40012/66/2011-IR(DU) Dated 05.12.2011

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

“Whether action of the management of BSNL in terminating the service of Sh. Ghan Shyan S/o Sh. Barkhu, Ex-

cable jointer, w.e.f. 23.08.2010 is legal & justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

On 09.01.2012 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D. No. 13/2012 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.

On 13.07.2012 workman filed his claim statement. Fixed 29.08.2012 for filing of written statement.

On 13.03.2013 management filed written statement. Hence fixed 22.05.2013 for framing of issues.

On 22.05.2013 on perusal of pleadings, following issues were framed:-

(1) Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties?

(2) As in terms of reference.

No other issues were made out.

Fixed 30.07.2013 for workman evidence.

Several opportunities given to workman to adduce his evidence but he failed to adduce his evidence. In want

evidence of workman there is no need to management to adduce its evidence.

So on 03.05.2017 I reserved the Award.

I perused the record which shows that workman in support of his case adduced no evidence.

In want of which only “No dispute Award” award can be passed.

Which is accordingly passed.

Dated : 04.05.2017

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1431-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

egkizca/d] ch,l,u,y] iQjhnkckn ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 29@2012) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@72@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

3390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2017

S.O. 1431.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 29/2012) 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

General Manager, BSNL, Faridabad and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

18.05.2017.

[No. L-40012/72/2011-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO-II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI-110032

I.D. No. 29/2012

Sh. Ram Anchal,

S/o Sh. Ram Dass,

R/o:- H.No.-244, Gali No-2,

Rahul Colony, NIT, Faridabad

Versus

The General Manager,

BSNL, Sector-15,

Faridabad

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No. L-40012/72/2011-IR(DU) Dated 02.12.2011

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

“Whether action of the management of BSNL in terminating the service of Sh. Ram Anchal S/o Sh. Ram Dass,

Ex-cable jointer, w.e.f. 23.08.2010 is legal & justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

On 20.01.2012 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D. No. 29/2012 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.

On 29.08.2012 workman filed his claim statement. Fixed 01.10.2012 for filing of written statement.

On 13.03.2013 management filed written statement. Hence fixed 22.05.2013 for framing of issues.

On 22.05.2013 on perusal of pleadings, following issues were framed:-

(1)

Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties?

(2)

As in terms of reference.

No other issues were made out.

Fixed 30.07.2013 for workman evidence.

Several opportunities given to workman to adduce his evidence but he failed to adduce his evidence. In want

evidence of workman there is no need to management to adduce its evidence.

So on 03.05.2017 I reserved the Award.

I perused the record which shows that workman in support of his case adduced no evidence.

In want of which only “No dispute Award” award can be passed.

Which is accordingly passed.

Dated : 04.05.2017

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3391

ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1432-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

egkizca/d] ch,l,u,y] iQjhnkckn ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 36@2012) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@79@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2017

S.O. 1432.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 36/2012) 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

General Manager, BSNL, Faridabad and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

18.05.2017.

[No. L-40012/79/2011-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO-II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI-110032

I.D. No. 36/2012

Sh. Praveen Kumar,

S/o Sh. Kishan Lal,

H.No. 130/2, Raghbir Colony,

Rahul Colony, Near Zakir Hussain Arra machine,

Gali No. 2, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad

Versus

The General Manager,

BSNL, Sector-15,

Faridabad

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No. L-40012/79/2011-IR(DU) Dated 05.12.2011

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

“Whether action of the management of BSNL in terminating the service of Sh. Praveen Kumar S/o Sh. Kishan

Lal, Ex-cable jointer, w.e.f. 23.08.2010 is legal & justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

On 20.01.2012 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D. No. 36/2012 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.

On 18.12.2012 workman filed his claim statement. Fixed 13.03.2013 for filing of written statement.

On 13.03.2013 management filed written statement. Hence fixed 22.05.2013 for framing of issues.

On 22.05.2013 on perusal of pleadings, following issues were framed:-

(1)

Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties?

(2)

As in terms of reference.

No other issues were made out.

Fixed 30.07.2013 for workman evidence.

3392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Several opportunities given to workman to adduce his evidence but he failed to adduce his evidence. In want

evidence of workman there is no need to management to adduce its evidence.

So on 03.05.2017 I reserved the Award.

I perused the record which shows that workman in support of his case adduced no evidence.

In want of which only “No dispute Award” award can be passed.

Which is accordingly passed.

Dated : 04.05.2017

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1433-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

egkizca/d] ch,l,u,y] iQjhnkckn ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 59@2012) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@46@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2017

S.O. 1433.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 59/2012) 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

General Manager, BSNL, Faridabad and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

18.05.2017.

[No. L-40012/46/2011-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO-II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI-110032

I.D. No. 59/2012

Sh. Vishwanath,

S/o Sh. Durai,

Rahul Colony, NIT, Faridabad

Versus

The General Manager,

BSNL, Sector-15,

Faridabad

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No. L-40012/46/2011-IR(DU) Dated 30.01.2012

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

“Whether action of the management of BSNL, Faridabad in terminating the service of Sh. Vishwanath S/o Sh.

Durai, Ex-cable jointer, w.e.f. 23.08.2010 is legal & justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

On 14.02.2012 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D. No. 59/2012 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.

On 20.07.2012 workman filed his claim statement. Fixed 07.09.2012 for filing of written statement.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3393

On 01.05.2013 management filed written statement. No need to formulate issue other than reference. Hence

fixed 17.07.2013 for evidence of claimant.

On 20.11.2013 workman tendered his affidavit in its evidence and his cross examination is deferred to

22.01.2014.

In spite of several opportunities workman was not turning up in his cross examination. Hence evidence of

workman was closed on 03.05.2017. In want evidence of workman there is no need to management to adduce its

evidence.

So on 03.05.2017 I reserved the Award.

I perused the record which shows that workman in support of his case adduced no evidence.

In want of which only “No dispute Award” award can be passed.

Which is accordingly passed.

Dated : 04.05.2017

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1434-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

egkizca/d] ch,l,u,y] iQjhnkckn ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 64@2012) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@40@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2017

S.O. 1434.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 64/2012) 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

General Manager, BSNL, Faridabad and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

18.05.2017.

[No. L-40012/40/2011-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO-II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI-110032

I.D. No. 64/2012

Sh. Inder Pal,

S/o Sh. Babu Lal,

R/o:- Gali No. 1, Rahul Colony,

NIT, Faridabad

Versus

The General Manager,

BSNL, Sector-15,

Faridabad

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No. L-40012/40/2011-IR(DU) Dated 25.01.2012

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

3394

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether action of the management of BSNL, Faridabad in terminating the service of Sh. Inder Pal S/o Sh.

Babu Lal, Ex-cable jointer, w.e.f. 23.08.2010 is legal & justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

On 14.02.2012 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D. No. 64/2012 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.

On 20.07.2012 workman filed his claim statement. Fixed 07.09.2012 for filing of written statement.

On 01.05.2013 management filed written statement. No need to formulate issue other than reference. Hence

fixed 17.07.2013 for evidence of claimant.

Several opportunities given to workman to adduce his evidence but he failed to adduce his evidence. In want

evidence of workman there is no need to management to adduce its evidence.

So on 03.05.2017 I reserved the Award.

I perused the record which shows that workman in support of his case adduced no evidence.

In want of which only “No dispute Award” award can be passed.

Which is accordingly passed.

Dated : 04.05.2017

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1435-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

egkizca/d] ch,l,u,y] iQjhnkckn ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 65@2012) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@41@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2017

S.O. 1435.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 65/2012) 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

General Manager, BSNL, Faridabad and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

18.05.2017.

[No. L-40012/41/2011-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO-II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI-110032

I.D. No. 65/2012

Sh. Ved Pal,

S/o Sh. Jagsaran,

R/o:- Village-Dayalpur,

Distt. Ballabhgarh

Faridabad

Versus

The General Manager,

BSNL, Sector-15,

Faridabad

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3395

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No. L-40012/41/2011-IR(DU) Dated 25.01.2012

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

“Whether action of the management of BSNL, Faridabad in terminating the service of Sh. Ved Pal S/o Sh.

Jagsaran, Ex-cable jointer, w.e.f. 23.08.2010 is legal & justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

On 14.02.2012 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D. No. 65/2012 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.

On 27.07.2012 workman filed his claim statement. Fixed 07.09.2012 for filing of written statement.

On 01.05.2013 management filed written statement. No need to formulate issue other than reference. Hence

fixed 26.06.2013 for evidence of claimant.

Several opportunities given to workman to adduce his evidence but he failed to adduce his evidence. In want

evidence of workman there is no need to management to adduce its evidence.

So on 03.05.2017 I reserved the Award.

I perused the record which shows that workman in support of his case adduced no evidence.

In want of which only “No dispute Award” award can be passed.

Which is accordingly passed.

Dated : 04.05.2017

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1436-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

egkizca/d] ch,l,u,y] iQjhnkckn ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 71@2012) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@48@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2017

S.O. 1436.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 71/2012) 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

General Manager, BSNL, Faridabad and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

18.05.2017.

[No. L-40012/48/2011-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO-II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI-110032

I.D. No. 71/2012

Sh. Manoj Kumar,

S/o Sh. Mithai Lal,

R/o:- H.No.-241, Gali No. 2,

Rahul Colony, NIT, Faridabad

Versus

3396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The General Manager,

BSNL, Sector-15,

Faridabad

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No. L-40012/48/2011-IR(DU) Dated 30.01.2012

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

“Whether action of the management of BSNL, Faridabad in terminating the service of Sh. Manoj Kumar S/o Sh.

Mithai Lal, Ex-cable jointer, w.e.f. 23.08.2010 is legal & justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

On 14.02.2012 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D. No. 71/2012 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.

On 20.07.2012 workman filed his claim statement. Fixed 07.09.2012 for filing of written statement.

On 01.05.2013 management filed written statement. No need to formulate issue other than reference. Hence

fixed 17.07.2013 for evidence of claimant.

Several opportunities given to workman to adduce his evidence but he failed to adduce his evidence. In want

evidence of workman there is no need to management to adduce its evidence.

So on 03.05.2017 I reserved the Award.

I perused the record which shows that workman in support of his case adduced no evidence.

In want of which only “No dispute Award” award can be passed.

Which is accordingly passed.

Dated : 04.05.2017

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1437-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fu;a=kd

tujy] isVsaV vkSj fMtkbu O;kikj fpg~u] ckSf¼d laink Hkou] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- I] fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 144@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@74@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2017

S.O. 1437.—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. 144/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the Controller General, Patent and Design Trade Marks, Baudhik Sampada Bhawan, New Delhi and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on 05.05.2017.

[No. L-42012/74/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 144/2013

Shri Om Prakash Sah,

S/o Shri Chhappan Sah,

R/o H.No. A-141, Gali No. 4,

Mahavir Enclave, Part II,

New Delhi

…Workman

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3397

Versus

The Controller General

Patent & Design Trade Marks,

Through Assistant Controller of Patent

& Design, Patent Office,

Baudhik Sampada Bhawan,

Dwarka, New Delhi-110078

…Management

AWARD

A reference was received from Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide letter No.L-42012/74/2013-

IR(DU) dated 28.10.2013 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) by this Tribunal for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as

under:

‘Whether the action of the management of Controller General Patent & Design Trade Marks in terminating the

services of Shri Om Prakash Sah, S/o Shri Chhappam Sah, ex-labour with effect from 31.03.2009 is justified

or not? IF not, what relief will be given to the workman and from which date?’

Claim statement was filed by Shri Om Prakash Sah (in short the claimant) pleading that he was engaged as a

casual labour/daily wager by the Controller General, Patents & Design Trade Marks (in short the management) on

10.08.2007 through Employment Exchange, North East District, Directorate of Employment, Government of India,

New Delhi. He initially worked up to 11.12.2007. He was again engaged on 17.12.2007. With an ulterior motive, the

management gave break on 11.12.2007 and again engaged him on 17.12.2007. He worked till 31.03.2009. He was

regular, sincere, obedient and hardworking in his duties. He has completed 240 days continuous service with the

management. He was denied salary for the months of December 2008, January 2009, February 2009 and March 2009.

Instead of paying his legal dues, he was prevented from performing his duties after 31.03.2009.

On 01/02.04.2009, a representation was made to the management to allow him to rejoin duties since the person

deployed in his place was doing similar duties. However, the management failed to consider his case. Thereafter, under

wrong legal advice, an OA No.849/2010 was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short the CAT) which

was withdrawn on 23.05.2012. No notice for termination of his service was given. Action of termination of his services

is illegal and uncalled for. He is unemployed since the date of termination of his service. He seeks reinstatement in

service with continuity and full back wages.

Claim was demurred by the management pleading that it is a statutory body under the provisions of the Indian

Patents Act, 1970 created for implementing provisions of the aforesaid Act, for granting patents on new non-obvious

inventions. The management is a subordinate office of the Ministry of Commerce & Industries, Government of India,

New Delhi. The management employed certain persons through employment exchange to carry out job of casual/

intermittent nature. The management performs sovereign function and as such does not carry out activities which can

be considered as trade or business. No activity, related to production, distribution or supply of goods or services meant

for satisfying for human wants, is carried out and hence it is not an industry. It is also pleaded that the claimant is not a

workman under the provisions of the Act. No appointment letter or identity card was issued to the claimant. He was

engaged for casual work, which was to be performed intermittently. Such casual workers/labourers are neither holders

of civil post nor appointed to any sanctioned regular post through proper procedure. They are neither entitled for any

pay or perks at par with holder of a civil post nor can claim continuation of such engagement. Further as per policy of

the Government of India, manpower for casual job is now outsourced on contract basis through a private outsourcing

agency. Certificate issued by the management clearly indicates that the claimant worked as a daily wager. He was

called for receiving his outstanding payment, which he refused to accept. Hence it was deposited to Government

accounts vide challan no.POD/405/RC dated 29.09.2009 after completion of 90 days as per Receipt and Payment

Rules. Subsequently cheques for Rs.9,185.00 for the period December 2008 to February 2009 and Cheque for

Rs.3,841.00 for the period March 2009 has been issued to him in November 2012.

The management pleads that the claimant moved an application before the CAT seeking relief of reinstatement

in service, which application was dismissed vide order 21.4.2010. He again filed an application, which was dismissed

as withdrawn on 23.5.2012. The order passed by the CAT operates as resjudicata. In view of these facts, claimant is not

entitled to any relief. His claim is liable to be dismissed, pleads the management.

On pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 06.02.2014, my learned predecessor was of the view that no other

issue, than those referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government is made out.

To discharge onus resting on him, the claimant examined himself as WW1 and tendered in evidence his affidavit

Ex.WW1/A. He also tendered in evidence document Ex.WW1/1. The management filed affidavit of Ms.Suresh

3398

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Singhal to substantiate its case. However, in spite of affording opportunities, none appeared on behalf of the claimant,

hence ex-parte evidence of Ms. Singhal was recorded.

Arguments were advanced at the bar by Shri Atul Bhardwaj, authorized representative of the management.

It is pertinent to note that the claimant has not appeared before this Tribunal after 01.08.2016 and no cross-

examination of the management witness was done on behalf of the claimant.

10.

It has been held in the case of Batala Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Sowaran Singh (2005) 8 SCC 481 that

the onus to prove that the claimant has worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year lies on the claimant and it

is for the workman to adduce evidence, apart from examining himself or filing affidavit to prove the said factum of

working for 240 days continuously. Such evidence may be in the form of receipt of salary, attendance register which

can indicate the number of days during which the claimant has worked, record of his appointment etc. Since in the case

on hand, the claimant has not cared to summon any record from the management so as to prove the number of working

days in a calendar year, as such this Tribunal is of the view that the claimant has failed to discharge onus of proving

that he has worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year prior to his termination. The very fact that the claimant

has not turned up to cross-examine the witness of the management is also suggestive of the fact that the claimant is not

interested in adjudication of the controversy on merits nor has he any interest in the outcome of the proceedings.

Management has specifically alleged in para 6 of the affidavit that he was engaged on daily wages and work performed

by the claimant is of intermittent nature. In para 6 of the affidavit, they have also mentioned the period during which

the claimant has performed duties. Counting of days, as mentioned in para 6 of the affidavit, nowhere shows that the

claimant has even worked anywhere near 24- days in a calendar year. In such a situation, there is no question of

violation of section 25-F and 25G of the Act as the number of working days put in by the claimant has not been proved

by him.

11.

As a sequel to my above discussion, this Tribunal is of the opinion that action of the management in terminating

the services of Shri Om Prakash, claimant herein, is justified and the claimant is not entitled for any relief. An award

is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : April 28, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1438-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj funs'kd]

jk"Vªh; mRikndrk ifj"kn] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- I] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 57@2013) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@43@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2017

S.O. 1438.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 57/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

Director, National Productivity Council, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 05.05.2017.

[No. L-42012/43/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 57/2013

Shri Pradeep Kumar, S/o Shri Genda Lal,

R/o House No.843, Gali No.19, Part IV,

Circular Road, Sonia Vihar,

Delhi – 110 094

…Workman

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3399

Versus

The Director,

National Productivity Council,

Utpadakta Bhawan, 5-6 Institutional Area,

Lodhi Road,

New Delhi 110 - 003

…Management

AWARD

This case was initially filed under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) by Shri

Pradeep Kumar, the claimant, with the averments that he joined the management on 12.08.1997 at its Head Office,

New Delhi as mali on daily basis, though his work was primarily of mali-cum-peon. Later on, services of the claimant

was terminated/retrenched on 31.10.2010 without any lawful reason. This was challenged by the claimant, wherein he

has prayed that his termination be declared to be illegal and he be reinstated with back wages.

After filling of the claim under Section 2-A of the Act, reference was received from the appropriate Government

vide letter No.L-42012/43/2013-IR(DU) dated 18.07.2013 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of the dispute, terms of which are as under:

‘Whether the action of the management of National Productivity Council in terminating the services of Shri

Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Genda Lal with effect from 01.11.2010 is fair and legal? To what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to?

It was ordered by my learned predecessor vide order dated 26.08.2013 that reference case be tagged with the

case filed under Section 2-A of the Act, i.e. ID No.57/2013.

Management has contested the case of the claimant by filing written statement wherein management has taken

preliminary objections of maintainability, jurisdiction etc. On merits, management has denied most of the averments

contained in the statement of claim. It has been denied that the claimant was engaged as mali-cum-peon but was doing

the work of mali.

Against this factual background, this Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties, vide order dated

26.08.2017 framed the following issues:

(1)

Whether management is an industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947?

(2)

Whether claimant rendered continuous service of more than 240 days in preceding 12 months from the

date of his termination?

(3)

Whether claimant is entitled to relief of reinstatement in the service of the management?

Claimant, in support of his case, examined himself as WW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A. He also

tendered in evidence documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/38.

During the course of cross-examination of the claimant by the management, an attempt was made by this

Tribunal for conciliation between the parties and management made an offer that the management is ready and willing

to consider the claim of the claimant and matter was discussed by the official of the management with their higher

authorities, who took a favourable view of the matter. Finally, amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties.

Claimant accepted the offer that he is ready and willing to join the management as a daily/casual labour and his

statement was recorded in the Lok Adalat on 18.04.2017. He was also given letter dated 24.03.2017 by the

management, which is Exhibit C-1. It is clear from the above letter that the claimant Shri Pradeep Kukar was ordered

to be engaged as a daily wager/casual worker. Statement of Shri D.D. Lahari, Legal Officer on behalf of the

management was also recorded.

In view of the statements made by the claimant as well as Shri D.D. Lahiri, Legal Officer of the management,

case was finally settled between the parties in the Lok Adalat on 18.04.2017. Since the claimant has joined services

with the management, no controversy survives between the parties. Letter Exhibit C-1 and the statements made by the

claimant and Shri D.D. Lahari, Legal Officer on behalf of the management shall form integral part of the award. An

award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : April 28, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

3400

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1439-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vk;qDr]

,elhMh (mÙkj)] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- I] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 29@2015) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@114@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2017

S.O. 1439.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 29/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

Commissioner, MCD (North), New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

05.05.2017.

[No. L-42011/114/2014-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 29/2015

Smt. Bimla Devi,

C/o MCD General Mazdoor Union,

Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10,

Jam Nagar House,

New Delhi-110 011

…Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

MCD (North), Civic Centre, Minto Road,

New Delhi-110 002

…Management

AWARD

A reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No.L-42011/114/2014-IR(DU) dated

05.01.2015 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a

dispute, terms of which are as under:

‘Whether Smt. Bimla W/o late Shri Om Prakash, a Malaria Beldar on contractual basis (expired on 4^th

October, 2008 while on duty) entitled to any kind of compassionate appointment?’

Both parties were put to notice and claimant Ms. Bimla Devi filed statement of claim with the averments that

she is the widow of Shri Om Prakash who was engaged as malaria beldar, now filed worker, and was working under

anti malaria operations and was posted at Civil Lines Zone. Her husband expired on 04.10.2008 during office hours,

leaving behind the claimant herein alongwith five children, whose particulars are as under:

S.No.

Name

Relation

with

deceased

Year of Birth

Matital Status

Smt. Bimla

Wife

1970

Widow

Meenu

Daughter

1992

Now Married

Heera Lal

Son

1994

Unmarried

Panna Lal

Son

1996

Unmarried

Manju

Daughter

1998

Unmarried

Anju

Daughter

1999

Unmarried

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3401

Family of late Shri Om Prakash is striving hard and is not in a position to make both ends meet in a metropolitan

city like Delhi.

It is the case of the claimant that as per joint seniority list prepared by the management as per the order dated

17.12.1987 passed by Hon’ble Justice P.K. Behari of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, her husband, Shri Om Prakash

was arbitrarily and unlawfully appointed as malaria beldar on contractual basis instead of appointing him as a regular

malaria beldar. Name of Shri Om Prakash appears at serial No.216 of the list prepared by the management vide

circular No. AMO/HQ/2009/06 dated 01.04.2009 for regularization. The management of MCD has been providing

compassionate appointment to the wards of the deceased employees even on regular post as well as daily wagers who

expired in harness. However, management refused to grant compassionate appointment to the claimant herein by

overlooking the numerous decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, particular the one in 2004 (4) SLT 674 and 2003 (t)

SCC 511:

‘The family of the deceased was left in penury and without any means of livelihood. Applicant herein

alongwith her five minor children and aged mother-in-law was living from hand to mouth. The applicant

within one month from the date of death of her husband, submitted her application on 03.09.2001 vide Diary

No.22 which was followed by numerous reminders. The respondents after considering all the facts and poor

financial conditions of the family, recommended the case of applicant for appointment on compassionate

grounds.’

In the present case, management refused to provide compassionate appointment to the widow of late Shri Om

Prakash on the ground that his services were not regularized and he was a daily rated worker. It is also alleged that

juniors to late Shri Om Prakash were regularized after his death as malaria field worker. The claimant has also made

reference to the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case to Devender Singh AIR 2011 SC 2532 wherein part

time contractual daily water, temporary employees etc. are said to be duly covered by the definition of ‘workman’

under the Act. Finally, prayer has been made for appointment of the claimant as malaria beldar or any equivalent post

of Group D category.

Claim was resisted by the management who filed reply thereto taking preliminary objections inter alia of

demand notice not being served upon the management, present dispute not being covered by industrial dispute, non-

espousal by majority number of workmen in the establishment of the management under the law, claimant not being

covered under the definition of ‘workman’ and reference being made in a mechanical manner. Further MCD Mazdoor

Union has no locus standi to raise the dispute. Moreover, deceased Shri Om Prakash was a malaria beldar on

contractual basis and there is no relationship between the parties of master and servant. On merits management denied

most of the averments. However the factum of engagement of the claimant was duly admitted as the same is also a

matter of record. He was engaged as malaria beldar on contractual basis. It has been alleged that the claimant is not

entitled to relief of compassionate appointment as she is not covered by the existing norms.

Claimant filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the management and reasserted the stand taking in the statement of

claim.

Against this factual background, this Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of the parties vide order dated

30.10.2015 framed the following issues:

(i)

Whether claimant is entitled for compassionate appointment, as alleged?

(ii)

Whether demand notice was not sent, as alleged?

(iii) Whether the case has not been espoused by the union or considerable number of workmen in the

establishment of the management?

(iv)

Whether claimant is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

(v)

Whether the claim filed is barred by time?

(vi)

Whether claim filed is not legally maintainable, as alleged?

Both parties adduced evidence in support of the stand taken in their respective pleadings. Claimant in order to

prove her case examined herself as WW1 and Shri B.K. Prasad as WW2 and tendered in evidence their affidavits

Ex.WW1/A and Ex.WW2/A respectively. Shri B.K. Prasad also tendered in evidence documents Ex.WW2/1 to

Ex.WW2/4. Management, in order to rebut the case of the claimant, examined Shri S.C. Arun, Additional MHO as

MW1, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and documents Ex.MW1/1 and Ex.MW1/2.

10.

I have heard Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant and Shri Harbans Kaushal, A/R for the management.

3402

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Issue No.iv & (vi)

11.

Both these issues are legal in nature and can be conveniently disposed of. The first contention of the

management is to the effect that the case of the claimant herein is not covered within the definition of ‘workman’ as

defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. It is clear from the pleadings of the parties that Shri Om Prakash, husband of the

claimant herein was engaged as malaria beldar by the management. Contention of the management primarily is to the

effect that compassionate appointment as per norms is given only to the legal heirs of regular employees and not to

casual or daily wager employees who are engaged temporarily on contractual basis. Learned A/R appearing on behalf

of the management invited the attention of the Court to Ex.MW1/2 which deals with the compassionate appointment to

the widows/sons/daughters of the deceased Government servants etc. It is clearly provided in the scheme of

compassionate appointment that for the purpose of these instructions, Government servant means Government servants

appointed on regular basis and not the ones working on daily basis or casual or apprentice or ad hoc basis or contract or

re-employment basis.

12.

Admittedly, the present case is for compassionate appointment filed by the claimant Ms. Bimla Devi, whose

husband Shri Om Prakash was a workman Even if it is held that husband of the claimant was a daily water or a

contractual workman or casual employee engaged by the management, same would also fall within the definition of

workman as held in Devender Singh Vs. Municipal Council Sanaur (AIR (2011), wherein it was observed as under:

‘The source of employment, the method of recruitment, the terms and conditions of employment/contract of

service, the quantum of wages/pay and the mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not

a person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s)of the Act.

The definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a

person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be

inferred that only a person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a

workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual

employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman.

13.

In Municipal Employees Union case (supra), it was held as under:

"6. The expression 'Industrial dispute' is defined in Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act which is

extracted below:

(k) 'Industrial dispute' means any dispute or difference between employers and employees or between

employers and workman or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the

employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any

person:

From the above definition of 'industrial dispute,' it is clear that even a dispute between an employer and his

workmen which is connected with the non-employment of any person can be an industrial dispute. The

beneficiary of the claim need not be a workman of the employer at the time of raising the dispute. A dispute

can be raised by the workmen of the employer even in respect of the non-employment of any person who is

not his workman at the material time. In the judgment in Kaya Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Its

Workman reported in AIR 1959 SC 208, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out that it is well settled that

a dispute which validly gives rise to a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act need not necessarily be a

dispute directly between an employer and his workmen and that the definition of the expression ' industrial

dispute' is wide enough to cover a dispute raised by the employer's workmen in regard to the non-employment

of others who may not be his workmen at the material time.

14.

Hon’ble High Court in the case of Municipal Employees Union vs. Secretary (Labour) (1999) LLJ 192) almost

under similar situation dealt with the question of compassionate appointment under Government scheme to the

dependents of even daily wagers who have died in harness. In the above case, deceased workman was working with

MCD when he died on 15.02.1993. His family comprised of his old parents and a younger brother Shri Badley Ram.

After the death of the workman Shri Sansar Pal his brother Shri Badley Ram requested MCD to give him

compassionate appointment. Conciliation proceedings also ended in failure as management took the sand that his case

is not covered by the scheme for compassionate appointment. It was also the stand of the management that the present

matter is not covered by Industrial dispute as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act. Hon’ble High Court relied upon

the case of Delhi Mazdoor Workers Union vs management of MCD decided on 26.11.1998 wherein Hon’ble High

Court has taken a view that definition of industrial dispute is wide enough to cover a dispute of the present nature. It

was observed that definition of industrial dispute as contained in section 2(k) of the Act is wide enough to cover the

dispute of the workman relating to the non-employment of other person. Beneficiary of the claimant need not be a

workmen of the employer at the time of raising the dispute. Dispute can be raised by the workman of the employer

even in respect of non-employment of any person who is not a workman at the material time. While making the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3403

aforesaid observations, reliance was also placed by the Hon’ble High court upon the case of Kays Construction

Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Workmen (1958 II LLJ 60). Thus a dispute of the present nature where benefit of employment

on compassionate grounds is being claimed in respect of employment of deceased husband by his widow, such a

dispute is duly covered by the definition of workman as contained under the Act.

15.

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of DDA vs, Sudesh Kumar (2009) III SC 96 again dealt with the same question.

In the said case, employee was working in DDA and expired on 03.04.1990. His widow applied for appointment of

her son on compassionate grounds with DDA. The application was rejected on the ground that at the time of the death

of late Shri Rajender Kumar, he was working on work charge post and he had no right of employment with DDA.

However, Hon’ble High Court did not find any merit in the submission of the management and contention of the

management that matter is also not even covered by industrial dispute was rejected with equal vehemence by the court,

by holding as under:

We find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The term

'industrial Dispute' is defined under section 2 (k) of the Act, which reads as follows:

'2 (k) Industrial Dispute means any dispute between employers and employers or between employers

and workman or between workman and workman which is connected with the employment or non

employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of any person.

Section 2(k) came for consideration before the Supreme Court in Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate

vs. Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate (AIR 1958 SC 353 wherein it was held that having regard to the

scheme and objects of the Act, and its other provisions, the expression 'any person ' in section 2 (k) of the Act

must be read-subject to such limitations and qualifications as arise from the context; the two crucial limitations

are (1) the dispute must be a real dispute between the parties to the dispute (as indicated in the first two parts

of the definition clause) so as to be capable of settlement or adjudication by one party to the dispute giving

necessary relief to the other, and (2) the person regarding whom the dispute is raised must be One in whose

employment, non-employment, terms of employment, or conditions of labour (as the case may be) the parties

to the dispute have a direct or substantial interest. In the absence of such interest the dispute cannot be said to

be a real dispute between the parties. Where the workmen raise a dispute as against their employer, the person

regarding whose employment, non-employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour the dispute is

raised need not be, strictly speaking, a 'workman' within the meaning of the Act but must be one in whose

employment, non-employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour the workmen as a class have a

direct or substantial interest. Where the person was not a workman as he belonged to the medical or technical

staff-a different category altogether from workmen of the establishment had no direct, nor substantial interest

in his employment or non-employment, and it cannot be said, even assuming that he was a member of the

same Trade Union, that the dispute regarding his termination of service was an industrial dispute within the

meaning of s. 2(k) of the Act.

16.

In the above case, reference was also made to the judgement of Apex Court in Mukand Limited Vs. Mukand

Staff Officers Association (AIR 2004 SC 3905). In the said case, it was held that the Tribunal can deal with a dispute

which is not directly related to workmen but any person including non-workmen.

17.

There is also issue pertaining to maintainability of the petition filed by the claimant. As is clear from the

various judgements, discussed above, claim for compassionate appointment can always be filed by dependent family

members or kith and kin of the deceased in accordance with law. As such, it cannot be said that the claim filed by the

claimant herein, who happens to be widow of the deceased is not legally maintainable. It is a matter of common

knowledge that in majority of the cases, applications are normally filed by widows of the deceased for suitable

employment as they do not have sufficient income to make both ends meet. In Delhi MCD Workers Union vs

Management of MCD (1999) 4 Del 608), please was taken by the management that reference is not maintainable as

such the dispute does not fall within the definition of ‘industrial dispute’ as defined under the Act. It was held by

Hon’ble High Court that dispute relating to compassionate appointment raised by the son of deceased employee was an

industrial dispute within the meaning of the said section. Therefore, contention of the management that such dispute is

not cognizable by the Industrial Adjudicator is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be rejected at the

threshold.

18.

In view of the ratio of law enunciated above, and the fact that present case is for compassionate appointment,

both the issues are decided in favour of the claimant and against the management.

Issue No.(ii) and (iii)

19.

Both these issues are being taken up together for the purpose of discussion as they are inter-related and can be

conveniently disposed of. It was strongly urged on behalf of the management by Shri Harbans Kaushal that the

claimant had not sent demand notice to the management regarding her compassionate appointment of the claimant

3404

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

herein, who has claimed appointment after the demise of her husband. Secondly, it was also urged that there was no

proper espousal by the union nor there is acceptable evidence on record to prove the same.

20.

In the present case, admittedly espousal of the case took place on 01.03.2012 vide Ex.WW2/4. In the present

case, Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant, appearing as WW2, filed his affidavit Ex.WW2/A. It is clear from

perusal of his affidavit that he is the President of the MCD General Mazdoor Union and the case of the claimant Ms.

Bimla Devi who is the widow of late Shri Om Prakash was discussed in the general meeting of the union and late Shri

Om Prakash who expired on 04.10.2008 was also member of the said union. There is force in the submission of the

management that demand notice has to precede the espousal of the case. However, having regard to the provisions of

the Act as well as various rulings rendered from time to time by the Hon’ble High Court as well as Hon’ble Apex

Court, it is clear that these are procedure prescription to be followed by the claimant before the case is finally taken up

by the Industrial Adjudicator for decision in accordance with law. In the case of Shri Pratap Singh Vs Municipal

Corporation of Delhi WP(C) 676 of 2013, Hon’ble High Court vide judgement dated 04.02.2013 dealt with the

question of espousal under the law. In the said case also, the case was decided by the Labour Court against the

workman on the grounds that there was no proper espousal of the dispute. Reason given by the learned Labour Court

for upholding objection of the management was that espousal is dated 28.10.2005 Ex.WW3/4 which precedes in point

of time of demand notice. In the said case also Shri B.K. Prasad has alleged himself to be President of the union and

demand notice was dated 16.09.2005, which was issued even prior to the meeting of the managing committee of the

union held on 22.10.2005. Logically, it was only after decision has been taken by the union on 22.10.2005 that demand

notice should have been issued. Hon’ble High Court held that this is not fatal to the case of the workman and Labour

Court has taken a hyper technical view of the matter. Fact of the matter was that meeting, in fact, was held on the

given date wherein issue was discussed. Same is the position in the case on hand. There is no evidence on record to

suggest that meeting of the union has not taken place on the date mentioned in the pleadings.

21.

Courts have gone to the extent of observing that issuance of demand notice is not essential for raising an

industrial dispute and said notice can even be given orally to the management. This view has been taken in Workmen

of MCD vs. MCD in WP(C) 13023/2005 decided on 06.08.2007 wherein above view was taken after putting reliance

upon the case of Shambunath Goyal vs Bank of Baroda (1978 (2) SCR 793), wherein it was observed as under:

“A bare perusal of the definition would show that where there is a dispute or difference between the parties

contemplated by the definition and the disputes or difference is connected with the employment or non-

employment or the terms of employment or, with the conditions of labour of any person there comes into

existence an industrial dispute. The Act nowhere contemplates that the dispute Would come into existence in

any particular, specific or prescribed manner. For coming into existence of an industrial dispute a written

demand is not a sine ,qua non, unless of course in the case of public utility service, because s. 22 forbids going

on strike without giving a strike notice. The key words in the definition of industrial dispute are 'dispute' or

'difference'. What is the connotation of these two words. In Beetham v. Trinidad Cement Ltd.(1). Lord

Denning while examining the definition of expression 'Trade dispute' in s. 2(1) of Trade Disputes (Arbitration

and Inquiry) Ordinance of Trinidad observed:

"by definition a 'trade dispute' exists whenever a 'difference" exists and a difference can exist long

before the parties become locked in a combat. It is not necessary that they should have come to

blows. It is sufficient that they should be sparring for an opening".

Thus the term 'industrial dispute' connotes a real and Substantial difference having some element of

persistency and continuity till resolved and likely if not adjusted to endanger the industrial peace of the

Undertaking or the community. When parties are at variance and the dispute or difference is connected with

the employment, or non- employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour there

comes into existence an industrial dispute. To read into definition the requirement of written demand for

bringing into existence an industrial dispute would tantamount to re-writing the section.”

22.

In the wake of legal position discussed above, even if there is discrepancy in the dates of demand notice or

espousal, which took place in the meeting of the union held by Shri B.K. Prasad, the same is not fatal. In fact, there is

no precise definition of espousal under the law and it simply means that the dispute of an individual workman is

adopted by the union as its own dispute or majority of workmen present has given support to the cause of the individual

workman. It was held in the case of Workmen Union vs Industrial Tribunal (1994 (68) FLR 710 Calcutta) that once a

dispute is referred to the Tribunal by the appropriate Government, presumption of it being an industrial dispute is there

and court can draw inference and legitimately hold that there has been proper espousal of the case through the union.

Hence, these two issues are decided in favour of the management and against the claimant.

Issue No.(v)

23.

There is no specific limitation prescribed in the statute for making reference under Section 10 of the Act. There

is a long line of decision of various High Courts as well as Hon’ble Apex Court that normally a reference made by the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3405

appropriate Government is to be answered on merits and the same cannot be rejected on the ground that it is time-

barred. I also find support to this in the case of Sapan Kumar Pandit vs. UP State Electricity Board (AIR (2000) SC

2560) wherein High Court has dealt with the question of limitation in respect of termination of service of an employee

and observed that the was a delay of 17 years in making a reference. However, the reference cannot be solely rejected

on this ground. In the present case, death of the husband of the claimant has occurred on 04.10.2008 whereas the

application has been moved by the claimant vide Ex.WW1/1 There is endorsement of application 3082/03.08.2009.

Thus, there is no inordinate delay in filing the application by widow of Shri Om Prakash.

24.

Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajaib Singh vs the Sirbind Co-operative Marketing cum Processing Service Society Ltd.

(AIR (1999) SC 1351, while dealing with question of limitation held as under:

It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are

not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the

workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be

proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and hot as a merely hypothetical defence. No

reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone.

25.

Yet again, in Prabhakar vs Joint Director Sericulture Department (2016) LLR 89), Hon’ble apex Court rejected

the plea of limitation raised by the management by observing that under Section 10 of the Act, no limitation period is

fixed for making or raising an industrial dispute. It was observed that courts cannot import limitation period when the

statute does not prescribe the same. However, it does not mean that irrespective of the facts and circumstances of the

case, stale claim must be entertained and relief be also granted by the authority under the ID Act. Court is required to

examine the facts and circumstances of the case warranting delay in filing the petition. The reference made by learned

A/R for management to the Government Manual dealing with compassionate appointment cannot otherwise override

specific provisions of the ID Act which prescribes no such limitation. Since in the case on hand, delay is even

otherwise not there in making application by the claimant, as such, this issue is decided against the management.

Issue No.(i)

26.

The foremost issue before this Tribunal is whether the claimant is entitled for relief of compassionate

appointment. Admittedly, the claimant herein is the widow of late Shri Om Prakash, who died on 04.10.2008. It is

apparent from perusal of record that she has filed application before the management for suitable appointment on

03.08.2009. In such circumstances, now the only question which requires to be considered by this Tribunal is whether

she is to be granted employment as per the existing norms/policies. Learned A/R for the management strongly urged

that since claimant herein was not a permanent employee or a regular employee. As such, there is no policy or scheme

of the management, which entitles the widow of the deceased employee to be considered for compassionate

appointment. In this regard, learned A/R for the management invited attention of the court to the Establishment

manual which clearly provides that dependents for regular Government servants are to be considered for compassionate

appointment. Learned A/R for the management also invited attention of the court to Ex.MW1/2 which his circular of

the management which deals with welfare measures for the dependents of deceased regular municipal employees. It is

clear from the overall examination of that in clause IV age limit of the person seeking employment is restricted to 32

years on the date of application. All these cases are required to be placed before the Committee constituted for this

purpose, who is required to take a decision in this regard within a period of one month .

27.

Per contra, Shri B.K. Prasad urged that circular dated 16.12.2000 does not have force of law and these are

merely guidelines to be followed in the case of compassionate appointment. It was also urged that the case of the

claimant herein is otherwise covered by the policy as family of the deceased had no income at the time of filing

application and circular Exm.MW1/2 is not applicable to the applicant herein as the same pertains to those cases which

were pending at the time when the question of compassionate appointment arose. Shri Prasad further proceeded to

argue that in the present case claimant would have been made regular as many of his juniors were already regularized .

In this regard, attention of the Tribunal was invited to the statement of Dr. SC. Arun, MW1. This witness has admitted

that the name of Shri Om Prakash, husband of the claimant herein, appears at serial No.4 of the list Ex.WW2/5 issued

by the management and 9 workmen were regularized vide office order Ex.WW2/5. If it is so, then late Shri Om

Prakash, husband of the claimant herein would have also been regularized in due course of time. In such a situation, it

cannot even be said that he was a contractual employee, to which the above policy of compassionate appointment is not

applicable. This witness has also admitted that long back, services of contractual workers were regularized after the

decision of the Hon’ble High Court in Devender Singh case, but the services of husband of the claimant was not

regularized. This witness further deposed that he was not aware whether the condition of age and qualification and

existence of post in the case of compassionate appointment was waived by the Central Government. Learned A/R for

the management could not cite even a single authority of Hon’ble High Court or any other High Court whether

compassionate appointment was denied to the dependents of the deceased workmen purely on the ground of age.

Moreover, in view of the ratio of law in DDA Vs.Sudesh case (supra), it is clear from the observations made by the

3406

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Hon’ble High Court that relief of compassionate appointment normally is not to be denied to the widow of deceased

employees who was serving the organization for considerable period.

28.

In the Establishment and Administration manual also, there is no upper age limit prescribed under the Scheme.

Rather, power has been given to the Government to relax the upper age limit, if any. Not only this, as per para 9 of the

scheme, even if a widow gets married later on and gets appointment on compassionate grounds, she will be allowed to

continue in service even after remarriage. Clause 16(e) of the above manual also lays down that requests for

compassionate appointment consequent on death or retirement on medical grounds of Group ‘D’ staff may be

considered with greater sympathy by applying relaxed standards depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.

29.

As a sequel to my detailed discussion made hereinabove, it is held that the claimant herein, Smt. Bimla, W/o late

Shri Om Prakash is entitled to compassionate appointment. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let this award be sent to

the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : May 4, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1440-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

egkfuns'kd] dsaæh; yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- I] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

187@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@03@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2017

S.O. 1440.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 187/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

Director General, Central Public Works Department, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 05.05.2017.

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

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 187/2012

Shri Raghubir, Labour (work order)

C/o All India CPWD (MRM)

Karamchari Sangathan (Regd.),

4823, Balbir Nagar Extension,

Gali No.13, Shahdara,

Delhi – 110 032

…Workman

Versus

The Director General,

Central Public Works Department,

I.P. Bhawan,

New Delhi

…Management

AWARD

This is a complaint under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) with the averments

that Shri Raghbir, the claimant, was engaged on work order basis by the Executive Engineer N Division CPWD, New

Delhi on 12.0.01.1989. He has also filed claim for regularization with the management in the Department of CPWD on

18.11.2003 before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi vide Annexure I. Claimant was

continuously working under the management The last work order was issued in 2002-03 and 2003-04. During

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3407

pendency of the above case before the RLC, management terminated services of the claimant on 28.01.2004 without

giving any notice or retrenchment compensation etc.

It is the case of the claimant that as per provisions of 30-A of the Act, management has not obtained permission

from the RLC, in writing, for retrenching services of the claimant. This amounts to clear violation of provisions of the

Act. Prayer has been made finally by the workman for reinstatement with back wages.

Management was put to notice and management filed reply to the statement of claim filed by the claimant.

Management took preliminary objections that the present complaint is biased and misuse of the process of lay and has

been filed with malafide intention and the same is hopelessly time barred. Claimant has not approached the Tribunal

with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. It is further alleged that the management is an agency of the Central

Government operating throughout the country. Work of planning, construction as well as maintenance and repair

generally being executed by engaging private contractors. This is done as per Volume II of the CPWD manual.

Management is also given charge of maintaining office and residential building of Central Government. Management

has denied the other averments contained in the statement of claim. However, it is admitted that certain designated

work was given to the claimant herein for a particular amount and for a particular period whenever his quotation was

the lowest. Same was subject to the conditions mentioned in the work order. Work order is for a particular period as per

terms and conditions and this may be cancelled by the Engineer In-charge at any time. Lastly, it is prayed that the

present application be dismissed.

Against this factual background, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

(i)

Whether for want of relationship of employer and employee between the parties, there was no occasion

for the management to terminate services of the claimant?

(ii)

Whether provisions of section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 came into operation when

services of the claimant were dispensed with on 28.01.2004?

(iii) Relief

Claimant in support of his case examined himself as WW1 and Shri SAtish Kumar Sharma, as WW2, who

tendered in evidence their affidavits Ex.WW1/A and Ex.WW2/A respectively. Documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/8

were tendered in evidence by the claimant. Management, in order to rebut the case of the claimant, examined Shri

Surya Kant Rai as MW1 who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A.

I have heard Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, A/R for the claimant and Shri Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal, A/R for the

management.

Issue No.1

First and foremost question in the present case is whether the claimant herein was in the employment of

management. It is the case of the claimant that he was initially engaged with effect from 12.01.1989. Management has

come with the plea that the claimant was never engaged directly by the management and designated work was given to

the claimant for a particular amount and for a particular period whenever his quotation was the lowest. It is clear from

para 5 of the preliminary objections of the management as well as other paras that though it has been denied that the

claimant was ever in the employment but admission made by the management in para 5 is clearly suggestive of the fact

that some work was given to the claimant for a particular amount for a particular period. In this regard, it is appropriate

to refer to the statement of MW1 Shri Surya Kant Rai, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A. Affidavit filed by the

management is on similar lines as the stand taken in the written statement. This witness has admitted in his cross

examination what matter was admittedly listed before the ALC for consideration on 18.11.2003 as is clear from

Ex.WW1/6. Statement of claim filed by the claimant before ALC is also almost similar to the one filed before this

Tribunal. He has also admitted that no notice was issued to the claimant before his termination as he was not in the

employment of the management. He has further made a vital admission that work order was issued to the contractor,

Shri Raghubir, i.e. the claimant herein. He further made a vital admission that no permission was obtained from the

Conciliation Officer as the claimant was not an employee of the management.

Now, the vital question before this Tribunal is whether services of the claimant herein were availed by the

management only for a specific work for a specific period. As discussed above, there is no cogent or reliable evidence

so as to prove for what time period and for which purpose such work was allowed to the claimant herein from the year

1989 onwards. Admittedly as per the stand taken by the management in the written statement, the said work is of

regular nature and maintenance of cleanliness of rooftop and premises is regularly required. At this juncture, it is also

appropriate to refer to the notification issued by the Government of India under Section 10 Annexure A. During the

course of arguments, issuance of this notification was not disputed by the learned authorized representatives for the

respective parties. It is clear from perusal of Annexure 2 that vide notification 31.07.2002 issued under section 10(2) of

the CLRA Act, 1970, specific prohibition of employment of contract labour in the following categories were made:

3408

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(i)

Air Conditioner Mechanic

(ii)

Air Conditioner Operator

(iii)

Air Conditioner Khalasi/Helper

(iv)

Electrician

(v)

Wiremen

(vi)

Khalasi(Electrical)

(vii)

Carpenter

(viii)

Mason

(ix)

Fitter

(x)

Plumber

(xi)

Helper/Beldar

(xii)

Mechanic

(xiii)

Sewerman

(xiv)

Sweeper

(xv)

Foreman

9. After issuance of the said notification, the workmen were covered under the employment as referred in the

above notification and are to be treated as direct employees of the management of CPWD and their status is that of the

daily rated workers directly in the management of CPWD. Workers are performing duties, which is of permanent

nature, as such, they cannot be treated as contract labour.

10.

It is further clear that item No.(xi) and (xiv) pertain to the work of helper/beldar and sweeper respectively.

Thus, after issuance of the above notification, management was even otherwise prohibited from engaging any contract

labour or allot any work by inviting tender/quotation for the purpose of the job of helper/beldar/sweeper. Thus, the

stand of the management that such designated work can still be allotted for specific purpose for a specific period is

contrary to the issuance of notification dated 31.07.2002.

11.

It is clear from the affidavit Ex.WW1/A of the claimant that he has stated that he was engaged on 12.01.1989

and thereafter he was doing work of repair etc. He was also doing other manual work as assigned to him by the

Assistant Engineer concerned. Though he has admitted that no appointment letter was issued to him nor any medical

examination was done at the time of initial engagement, yet stand of the management is clear that work was assigned to

him from time to time. He has further deposed that he used to mark his attendance in the register maintained by the

management. There is no cross examination of this witness on any other point. Stand of the management that work was

assigned to the claimant as contractor is not supported by any contract document on record. Rather, statement of the

claimant WW1 and that of WW2 is crystal clear to the effect that the claimant was engaged by the management and he

was not awarded any kind of contract , Shri Sharma has stated that he has even visited the site when the claimant was

found working there. He, further, deposed that work order was issued to him without inviting any quotation by the

management and claimant used to carry out work of c\removal of grass and dirt from roof tops of the building of the

management and thus work was being assigned to him by the management and this work was being assigned to him by

Junior Engineer on daily basis. There is no cross examination of this witness on this aspect of the matter, which is

clearly suggestive of the fact that claimant was doing work under supervision of the Junior Engineer concerned, of

cutting of grass as well as other manual work assigned to the claimant from time to time. Claimant has also written to

the Union Government, Ministry of Labour vide Ex.WW1/1 through Satish Kumar Sharma, WW2, regarding

termination of the job of the claimant on 28.01.2004.

12.

Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that management has not specifically filed any document so as to show that

work was allotted to the claimant herein in the capacity of contractor as was the specific stand taken by the

management in the pleadings. Perusal Annexure II, i.e. extract of Supply and Work Order Register, reveals that the

name of the claimant Shri Raghubir is mentioned in the said documents and description of the work done is ‘cleaning

of roof and open area and disposal of malba’ for which payment of Rs.14,940.00 and Rs.14,914.00 have been made.

This document also shows that in April 2002-03 as well as 2003-04, claimant has done work of cleaning of roof,

disposal of malba etc. and the same has been signed by the Assistant Engineer. Thus, the stand of the management

that he was not at all in the employment of the management at any point of time is totally falsified by evidence on

record. Moreover, this Tribunal is bound to draw adverse inference against the management who has not produced any

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3409

document vide which the work was assigned to the claimant as contractor. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant was

in the employment of the management.

Issue No.2

13.

Now, the residual question before this Tribunal is as to whether provisions of Section 33-A are attracted to the

controversy in hand. It is the case of the claimant that his services were terminated on 28.01.2004 with the matter was

still pending before the Labour Commissioner. It is clear from perusal of order 30.04.2010 passed by the ALC that

matter regarding services of the claimant was pending before the said authority when services of the claimant was

terminated on 28.01.2004, though stand of the management before the ALC(Jodhpur), claimant Shri Raghubir was

never in the employment of management and management has nothing to do with his service. As discussed above,

there is ample evidence on record to suggest that the claimant was doing service of the management and he was

assigned work from time to time by the Assistant Engineer of the management, as is clear from the documents placed

on record by the management. Since payment of a sum of Rs.14,940.00 and Rs.14,914.00 in the year 2002 and 2003

respectively were made by the Assistant Engineer of the management , as such, it does not lie in the mouth of the

management to say that it had nothing to do with the service of the claimant. It is also clear from perusal of letter

Ex.WW1/8 dated 28.04.2006 that Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, General Secretary of the workman union informed

Ministry of Labour regarding wrongful termination of the claimant on 28.01.2004. In fact, claimant through the union

has written to the Ministry for amendment to be also made in the reference regarding termination of the job of the

claimant by the management.

14.

It is clear from bare perusal of the Act that provisions of Section 33-A that when proceedings are pending before

Conciliation Officer, Labour Court, Tribunal etc. and the employer contravenes provisions of Section 33 of the Act

during pendency of such proceedings, in that eventuality, Arbitrator/Labour Court/Tribunal, as the case may be, shall

adjudicate upon the complaint as if it was a dispute referred to or pending before such court in accordance with the

provisions of the Act. This jurisdiction of the Tribunal is primarily dependent upon the fact that there must be

proceedings pending before Arbitrator/Conciliation Officer/Labour Court/Tribunal, as the case may be and there must

be violation of section 33 of the Act. It is not out of place to mention that section 33 provides projection to an employee

whose conditions of service cannot be changed during pendency of such proceedings and any order of termination,

suspension etc. can be passed, except with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the

proceeding is pending.

15.

It has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Satya

Prakash (2013) Lab.I.C. 2875 that Section 33 A of the Act has definite purpose to serve, viz. to provide a direct access

to the Tribunal and thereby a speedy relief to the aggrieved workman who need not resort to time consuming procedure

by seeking a relief under Section 10 of the Act. However, the workman will succeed only if he establishes that the

misconduct is not proved or they are clearly in violation of Section 33 of the Act by the management. If the action of

the management is proved to be in violation of the above section, it will relate back to the date on which dismissal

order was passed by the management.

16.

In case an employer or management violates the above provision, then this Tribunal is competent to pass

appropriate order to do complete justice between the parties. Since in the case on hand, it is clear that services of the

claimant have been dispensed with on 28.01.2004 by the management, when his case was pending before the Regional

Labour Commissioner, as such, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the claimant is liable to be reinstated

with back wages. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required

under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : April 25, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1441-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

egkfuns'kd (oDlZ)] lhihMCY;wMh] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- I] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 76@2015)

dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@153@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

3410

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2017

S.O. 1441.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 76/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

Director General (Works), C.P.W.D, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

19.05.2017.

[No. L-42011/153/2014-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 76/2015

Shri Ram Shyam S/o late Shri Desh Raj, through

CPWD Mazdoor Union,

Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10,

Jam Nagar House,Shah Jahan Road,

New Delhi – 110 011

…Claimant

Versus

The Director General (Works)

C.P.W.D.,

Nirman Bhawan,

New Delhi – 110 001

…Management

AWARD

A reference was received from Central Government under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section(2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) vide letter No.L-42011/153/2014-IR(DU) dated

04.02.2015 for adjudication of a dispute, the terms of which are as under:

‘Whether Shri Ram Shyam , S/o late Shri Des Raj has any right to be regularized as Motor Lorry Driver with

effect from 04.04.2003 in the light of the fact that similarly placed juniors were regularized? If he deserves to

be regularized, necessary directions be issued.

It is averred in the statement of claim filed on behalf of Shri Ram Shyam, hereinafter referred to as the

claimant, that he was initially appointed as Motor Lorry Drivers (in short MLD) on daily wage basis/work order on

12.09.1989. Later on, his services were terminated on 15.07.1993. However, he was reinstated by Labour Court vide

its award dated 04.01.2012. It is further averred that award passed by the Industrial Tribunal was further upheld by

Single Judge as well as Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court , upholding stand of the

workmen that they are not employees of the contractor in the matter of Satpal Singh case. Further, the Courts have

given findings that they were work order employees and are also daily rated workers.

Claimant herein is presently posted under Horticulture Division. M-314 and junior person, Shri Narayan Singh,

who was initially appointed on muster roll with effect from 24.09.1991 was regularized with effect from 04.04.2003.

Daily rated workers with the management have been getting wages in the minimum of pay scale plus all allowances but

the workmen herein were denied the said payment, as a result of which the workman has filed the application under

Section 33-C(1) of the Act and the said order has been challenged by the management, which is pending before the

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

It is the case of the workman that in the establishment of CPWD, daily rated employees are being paid equal pay

for equal work and accordingly the claimant is also entitled for such wages from the management as per office

memorandum dated 21.10.1990 as well as 28.01.1991 as skilled workman. Office memorandum dated 21.10.1990

reads as under:

‘References have been received from some of the Superintending Engineers/Executive Engineers etc. seeking

clarification regarding method of computing daily rates payable to daily rated workers of CPWD on the

concept of equal pay for equal work. It has been decided that the following formula may be adopted for the

purpose of working out daily rates of wages of daily rated workers of CPWD.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3411

The total monthly emoluments admissible to regular counter parts of daily rated workers at the minimum of

the respective scale of pay may be multiplied by number of days in a particular month after deducting there-

from the days of absence plus the days of rest falling in the week/weeks in which the worker remained absent

and the result may be divided by the number of days in the month. The figure so arrived will be the daily

rate of wages of the worker.

Illustration : Suppose number of days in a month is A, amount of emoluments in a particular month of a

regular counterpart is B, number of days of absence of worker in a month is C and the number of rest days

falling in the week/weeks on which the worker remained absent is D, then the formal for working out daily

rats of wages of a daily rated worker would be as under:

Daily rate of Wages = A – (C + D) x B

Note : If a worker works for all the working days in a month availing the admissible rest days, he is entitled to

full wages admissible at the minimum stage of the respective scale of pay, including DA/HRA/CCA

admissible to his regular counterparts.’

It is further averred that as per settlement arrived at between the management and CPWD Mazdoor Union

signed before the Chief Labour Commissioner on 02.12.2002 is binding on both the parties under Section 18 of the Act

and as per this notification also, claimant is entitled for equal wages. Finally, prayer has been made for regularization

of services of both the workmen as MLD with effect from 04.04.2003 alongwith all consequential benefits.

Claim was demurred by the management taking various preliminary objections, inter alia of the claimant being

awarded work order on contract basis, work order being awarded to contractor and not for engaging workers, claimant

not approaching the court with clean hands and concealing of facts. On merits, it is averred that the claimant is not

entitled to regularization as he was neither appointed through employment exchange nor through recruitment rules. He

was merely issued work order on certain and terms and conditions to work for a certain period on specific rates with

terms and conditions that the work order shall be terminated/suspended after issuing two days notice, which has been

signed by the claimant herein. Workers engaged on muster roll/hand receipt were regularized as a policy matter and

there is no specific policy/rule for regularization of contractor to whom work orders are issued. Claimant was never

appointed as motor lorry driver but work order was issued in his name for driving water tanker till 14.07.1993.

However, in compliance of award dated 04.01.2012 by Shri M.K. Gupta, learned Presiding Officer, Court No.9

Karkardooma Court complex, he was reinstated in the same capacity by issuing work order. Muster roll workers are

issued first entry certificate by the officers engaging them by mentioning their Employment Exchange case number and

muster rolls are issued from Division Office to mark attendance of muster roll staff. The wages are paid accordingly as

per Section 25(d) of the Act wherein case of work orders, payments are made to contractor on contract bill forms with

deduction in TDS etc. Hence, there is clear distinction between work order and muster roll. In Dharbanga Chemical

Works Ltd. vs State of Saurashtra and others, AIR (1956) SC 264, it is clearly stated that for any person to be a

workman it is necessary he should be in the employment of the employer and merely a contract to do some work is not

enough. Finally, prayer had been made for dismissing claim of the claimant.

Claimant, in order to prove his case against the management, examined himself as WW1 and tendered in

evidence his affidavit, Ex.WW1/A and also relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/6. To rebut the case of the

claimant, management examined Shri Nigam Prakash Semwal, Deputy Director, Horticulture as MW1, whose affidavit

is Ex.MW1/A. He also tendered in evidence documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/4.

I have heard Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant and Shri S.S. Parihar, A/R for the management.

It is clear from pleadings on record that Shri Ram Shyam was initially appointed as MLD on daily wage basis

with effect from 12.09.1989 and his services were later on terminated on 15.07.1993. Later on, he was reinstated on

the basis of award dated 22.02.2006.

10.

During the course of arguments, attention of this Tribunal was invited to office order Ex.WW1/2, which clearly

shows that on the basis of the said office order, services of Shri Vijay Chand was ordered to be regularized ante-date

as he joined management prior to joining of some of his juniors whose services were regularized. This also shows that

date of entry of Shri Vijay Chand on the muster roll is 13.01.1989.

11.

There is also office order Ex.WW1/3, which in fact deals with grant of equal pay for equal work to the daily

rated workers and compilation thereof. It has been clarified in the above office order that total monthly emoluments

admissible to regular counter parts of daily rated workers at the minimum of the respective scale of pay may be

multiplied by number of days in a particular month after deducting therefrom the days of absence plus the days of rest

falling in the week/weeks in which the worker remained absent and the result may be divided by the number of days in

the month. The figure so arrived will be the daily rate of wages of the worker and in case daily rated workers worked

for all the working days in a month including admissible rest days, he is entitled to full wages admissible at the

3412

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

minimum stage of the respective scale of pay, including DA/HRA/CCA admissible to his regular counterparts. There

is also a memorandum of understanding Ex.WW1/4, which deals with the settlement vide which demands of the

workmen were considered and allowed. In clause 5 of the above memorandum, it is clearly mentioned that resultant

vacancies of workers working in the establishment of the management be filled up as per rules. Since matter was raised

by the claimant through the union, as is clear from Ex.WW1/5 whereby General Secretary of the Union raised an

industrial dispute regarding grievances of the claimant herein, as such, same was later on referred under section 10 for

adjudication by this Tribunal. Affidavit filed by the claimant, Ex.WW1/A is clearly on similar lines as the averments

made in the statement of claim.

12.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Singh vs. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD (ATR 1986 SC 1976)

decided on 17.01.1986, dealt with the question of equal pay for equal work in respect of daily rated workmen

performing same duties which was being performed by their regular counterparts in the department. After discussing

the ambit and scope of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it was held that there should be equal pay for equal work

of equal value. It makes no difference whether such workmen are employed against sanctioned post or not so long as

they are performing the same duties. They must receive same salary and conditions of service must also be the same.

Hon’ble Supreme Court also expressed anguish that most of the workers are kept in service on temporary basis as daily

wage workers without their service being regularized, which is completely against the spirit of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India.

13.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director General Works, CPWD vs Devender Singh considered the

question of regularization as well as payment of equal wages for such daily rated workmen. Writ appeal filed against

judgement dated 18.04.2004 of the Single Judge, whereby writ petition was filed by the management was dismissed

and award passed by Industrial Tribunal No.2 was upheld. It was also the case of daily rated workers working on

muster roll who were posted in various Divisions of the CPWD. In the said case, there is clear cut mention in para 9 of

the judgment that when services of a junior has been regularized, there is no justification to deny such relief to

workman who was senior to such worker, otherwise it would amount to discrimination, which is not permissible under

the law, as has been held in Secretary State of Karnataka vs.Uma Devi (2006 4 SCC 1).

14.

In the case on hand also it is clear from office order Ex.WW1/2 that Shri Vijay Chand, who was working on

muster roll was regularized ante date 04.04.2003 and he was on muster roll on 13.01.1989. In the present case,

claimant Shri Ram Shyam was engaged on daily wage basis on 12.09.1989. Since junior to him have already been

regularized, as such, there is no reason or basis to deny regularization to such a workman. Hon’ble High Court in

Devender Singh case(supra) referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bal Kishan Vs. Delhi

Administration and observed as under:

10. In service, there could be only one norm for confirmation or promotion of persons belonging to the same

cadre. No junior shall be confirmed or promoted without considering the case of his senior. Any deviation

from this principle will have demoralizing effect in service apart from being contrary to Article 16(1) of the

Constitution.

15.

There is also judgement dated 04.04.2006 of the Hon’ble High Court which also deals with the same matter,

pertaining to the case of Vijay Chand. In the said judgement also, Tribunal has passed an award in respect of workman

Shri Vijay Chand on the premise that regularization was granted to equally placed other three workmen, and there was

no reason to deny the relief of regularization to Shri Vijay Chand who was similarly placed like the other three

workmen. As such, direction was made for considering the case of the workman for regularization. Thereafter, matter

was again taken by way of SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled Union of India vs. Vijay Chand

decided on 07.01.2011. Contention of the management was rejected and order of regularization by the High Court and

that of the Industrial Tribunal was reaffirmed as under:

‘In our view, the direction given by the Tribunal for consideration of the respondent’s case for regularization

of service, as was done in the case of other three similarly situated persons, was legally correct and justified

and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. In the

facts and circumstances of the case, we do not consider it to be a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction by the

court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.’

16.

Lastly, reliance was placed on behalf of the claimant in the case of Director General: Works, CPWD vs Karam

Singh and others. It was a case where the claimants were also party to the said case. Contention of the management

regarding denial of relief of regularization and equal wages to such workmen who were performing similar kind of

duties like their regular counter parts, was rejected by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and the calculation of the wages

in terms of office order dated 21.10.1990 applicable for daily rated workers was upheld. It was further held when a

particular award has attained finality, such daily rated workers were direct employee and are entitled for equal wages,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3413

there is no question of entertaining such plea time and again. Workman was held entitled to the recovery of amounts

due under the impugned recovery certificate as ordered by the Tribunal.

17.

Perusal of the statement of Shri Nigam Prakash Semwal MW1 reveals that though he admitted that the payment

of wages of the claimant was made direct to bank account but he was not aware whether it was paid through receipt or

not. This witness has admitted in having complied with the orders of the Hon’ble Courts as mentioned in his affidavit.

The witness also admitted in having made payment, except increments, as per orders dated 02.07.2015 of the Presiding

Officer Labour Court No.22 Ex.WW1/1.

18.

It is, thus, clear from detailed discussions made herein above, that the claimant herein was a daily rated workers

and was working regularly since his initial appointment. When services of juniors to the claimant are regularized,

there is no legal basis or justification in the wake of clear cut pronouncement made by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

as well as Hon’ble Apex Court to deny regularization to the said claimant from the date mentioned in the petition.

19. Accordingly, it is held that Shri Ram Shyam, the claimant herein, is entitled to be regularized as Motor Lorry

Drivers with effect from 04.04.2003, the date when junior to him were regularized, with all consequential benefits. An

award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : May 17, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1442-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhMhvkj

nsoIik] eSllZ VSc lqj{kk lsok,a (Bsdsnkj) o vU;] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- I] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

169@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@03@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2017

S.O. 1442.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 169/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

CDR Devappa, M/s. Tab Security Services (Contractor) and Others New Delhi and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 19.05.2017.

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

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 169/2016

Shri B.S Dahiya, S/o Shri Ravi Dutt Dahiya,

R/o Villate and PO Nahara,

Distt. Sonipat, Haryana

…Workman

Versus

Shri CDR Devappa,

M/s Tab Security Services (Contractor)

Plot No.6, 3^rd Floor,

Sector10, Dwarka,

New Delhi

D.R.D.O,

Chief Security Office

Metcalfe House,

New Delhi

…Managements

3414

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Shri B.S. Dahiya, the claimant, was appointed by M/s Tab Security Services (in short the contractor) as Security

Guard in the premises of DRDO (in short the management ), the principal employer. The contractor had not been

providing benefits of labour laws, i.e. minimum wages, gratuity, appointment letter, earned wages, leave wages etc.

Claimant was also deprived of the minimum wages as issued by the Ministry of Defence in its notification dated

01.04.2013. The same was demanded by the claimant, which annoyed the contractor and finally, he was terminated

on 05.01.2013 without any prior notice or notice pay in lieu of one month notice. His earned wages for the months of

August and September 2013 were also not paid, which is in violation of labour laws. The termination is alleged to be

arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and against labour laws. An industrial dispute is raised by the claimant before this Tribunal

on 03.11.2016, using right available to him under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act), without being referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government under

sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act.

Thereafter, matter was listed for arguments on maintainability of the application. Part arguments were advanced

by the Ms.Jolly Sharma, A/R for the claimant. However, it was stated by the A/R for the claimant that reference is

likely to be made in the instant case by the appropriate Government. However, thereafter neither reference was

received nor any authorized representative on behalf of the claimant appeared before this Tribunal. Non-appearance of

the claimant clearly depicts that he is no more interested in adjudication of the case on merits.

Further, the claimant herein has raised an industrial dispute before this Tribunal on 03.11.2016, using provisions

of sub section (2) of section 2-A of the Act. For approaching this Tribunal, under provisions of sub-section (2) of

section 2-A of the Act, limitation of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise

termination of service of an employee has been imposed by the legislature. Thus, it is apparent that the claimant could

have approached this Tribunal under sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act till 02.11.2016 only. As is evident, claim

preferred is beyond the period of limitation. Under these circumstances, this Tribunal cannot invoke its jurisdiction for

adjudication of the dispute. Accordingly, his claim is dismissed, being barred by time. An award is, accordingly,

passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : May 16, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1443-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj deka¯Mx

vkfiQlj] vkbZ,u,l bafM;k] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- I] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 12@2017) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@27@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2017

S.O. 1443.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 12/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

Commanding Officer, INS India, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

19.05.2017.

[No. L-14012/27/2016-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 12/2017

Smt. Sakuna Devi,

W/o late Shri Ram Kishore,

R/o L-1, 69 near Church Colony,

Sangam Vihar

New Delhi – 110 065

…Workman

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3415

Versus

The Commanding Officer,

INS India, Dalhousie Road,

New Delhi 110 011

…Management

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No.L-14012/27/2016-IR(DU) dated 22.12.2016, referred the following

industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the claim of the workwoman Smt. Sakuna Devi, Rice Cleaner for reinstatement after termination

with effect from 17.04.2013 from INS India, in view of management’s categorical denial that the workwoman

was ever their employee, is correct, justified and legal? If yes, to what relief is she entitled to?

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement

of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt

of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

Despite directions so given, claimants Gupta opted not to file their claim statement with the Tribunal.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the claimant as well as the management. However, the

postal article sent to the claimant was received back from the postal department with the remarks ‘No Such Person’.

It is pertinent to mention here that the notice was sent to the claimant at the address given in the reference order

received from the appropriate Government. This Tribunal has no alternate address of the claimant. In view of the

above reasons, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be sent

to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : May 16, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1444-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj funs'kd]

,El] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 54@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-04-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@46@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2017

S.O. 1444.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 54/2014) 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

Director, AIIMS, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 26.04.2017.

[No. L-42011/46/2014-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI-110032

I.D. No. 54/2014

The President ,

AIIMS Employee Union,

Ansari Nagar,

New Delhi-110029

Versus

3416

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Director,

AIIMS, Ansari Nagar,

New Delhi.

EXPARTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Notification No. L-42011/46/2014-IR(DU)) dated

16.07.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

”Whether the action of the management of AIIMS is degrading the workman Sh. Bachan Singh Rana

from the post of AC mechanic to the post of Khallasi without giving any reason is just, fair and legal?

If not what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?

“Whether the regularization of the workmen junior to Sh. Bachan Singh Rana without regularization of

workman Sh. Bachan Singh Rana is just, fair and legal? If not what relief the workman is entitled to ?

On 1.08.2014 reference was received is this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D. No. 54/2014 and claimant

union was called upon to file claim statement within fifteen days from the date of service of notice. Which was required

to be accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

After service of notice claimant Sh. Bachan Singh Rana filed claim statement on 29.08.2014. Where-in he

prayed as follows:

Stay order to change the nature of work which is intentionally change from mechanic AC (refrigerator )

to Khalashi.

ii.

An order to release the forcibly taken I Card bearing S.no. E-84 whose validity is till February 2015.

iii.

Pass order to correct the designation on the pay sleep which is intentionally change from mechanic

AC(Refrigerator ) to Khalashi.

iv.

Pass an order to issue notice for clarification regarding the period of temporary status i.e.1993 to 1995 as

per order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

An Award for regularization for the designation of mechanic (AC & Refrigerator ) from 10.05.1889 on

the basis of seniority.

vi.

An Award for all the benefit such as PF, Gratuity etc. Payable to the Claimant/workman as per group ‘C’

employee for the post of (AC & Refrigerator).

vii.

Pass an order to pay the wages for the psot of AC mechanic from 1989 along with arrears deference

between mechanic (AC & R) & Khalashi.

viii.

An award for taking action against AIIMS administration for exploitation to claimant and violation of its

fundamental right,

Against claim statement management has not filed written statement inspite of service hence case proceeded ex-

parte against management on 26.09.2016.

Workman in his ex-parte evidence tendered his affidavit WW1/A on 26.09.2016.

Workman re-examined himself on 21.11.2016and tendered eighteen original & 19 photo copies of documents as

he was permitted to lead secondary evidence.

On 26.12.2016 I have heard the oral ex-parte arguments of workman /claimant Bachan Singh Rana. He also

filed written arguments on 22.12.2016.

In the light of contentions of workman I perused the pleadings of claim statement and his oral and documentary

evidence including the contents of written argument.

On the basis of which my question of determination-wise findings are as follows:-

Finding on question of determination No. 1 :

Burden to prove it lies on workman/ claimant. There is only oral evidence of workman. Which is not

corroborated by any other witness. Which was required in the instant case as work of workman was technical and his

allegation against management of AIIMS, New Delhi, that he was degraded from the post of AC mechanic to the post

of Khalasi. So he was required to adduce reliable, credible and required evidence of such person who may testify the

merit of claimant in this respect. Which is wanting in the instant case. Moreover there is no employer and employee

relationship between management of AIIMS and employee as he was contractual employee and he has not made

contractor party. He is suppressing this fact. Reason obvious is that he want to show that he is employee of

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3417

management of AIIMS. It is also relevant to mention here that claimant in his claim statement no where mentioned that

contract was camouflage. After pleading he has not adduced his evidence to prove this fact. Which is also wanting

hence this Tribunal has no option except to decide it that there is no relationship of employer and employee between

claimant and management of AIIMS. Question of Determination No. 1 is also liable to be decided in favour of

management and against workman. Which is accordingly decided.

Finding on question of determination No.2 :

It is relevant to mention here that workman Sh. Bachan Singh Rana in his claim statement pleaded that almost of

all juniors to him have been regularized by management of AIIMS without regularizing Sh. Bachan Singh Rana and

alleged that it is not just, fair and legal. It is also relevant to mention here that claimant Sh. Bachan Singh Rana in para -

8 of his claim statement pleaded that workman Sh. Raj Kumar who was junior to him was given promotion ignoring

seniority of claimant Sh. Bachan Singh Rana. He could not mentioned the names of other juniors workers who have

been promoted except Sh. Bachan Singh Rana. He also suppressed the fact of his being contractual employee. He

could not claim such relief without pleadings and proving the fact of contract between management no. 1 with

contractor was camouflage etc. which is wanting in the instant case.

Inwant of such pleadings and evidence of workman this Tribunal is complelled to decide question of

determination no. 2 in favour of management of AIIMS and against claimant Sh. Bachan Singh Rana.

Which is accordingly decided against workman Sh. Bachan Singh Rana and in favour of management.

Reference is accordingly decided against workman and in favour of management.

Claim statement is dismissed. Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 15.03.2017

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1445-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

fjyk;al lsaVj dE;qfuds'ku ,aM fy- j.kthr gksVy] ubZ fnYyh o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- I] fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 11@2017) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@86@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2017

S.O. 1445.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 11/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the M/s.

Reliance Centre Commnication & Ltd., Ranjeet Hotel, New Delhi & others and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 05.05.2017.

[No. L-42012/86/2016-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 11/2017

Shri Sonu, S/o Shri Naval Kishore,

House No.75, DDA Flats,

Mata Sundari Road,

New Delhi – 1110 002

…Workman

Versus

3418

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

M/s Reliance Centre Communication & Ltd.,

Maharaja Ranjeet Singh Marg,

Ranjeet Hotel,

New Delhi – 110 002

M/s A.C.E. Facility Management Pvt. Ltd.

H.R. 36/2, 60 Foota Pul Pahiladpur,

New Delhi – 110 044

…Management

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No.L-42012/86/2016-IR(DU) dated 26.12.2016, referred an industrial dispute

under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the

Act) to this Tribunal for adjudication, with the following terms of reference:

“Whether the following workmen (1) Shri Narendra Kumar, (2) Shri Manoj Kumar, (3) Shri Vikash, (4) Shri

Vijay Kumar, (5) Shri Ravi, (6) Shri Gautam, (7) Shri Monu, (8) Shri Sonu I.P.B., (9) Shri Ashwani, (10) Shri

Kishan Pal, (11) Shri Niranjan, (12) Shri Satish, (13) Shri Harish, (14) Shri Manoj H.B., (15) Shri Naresh,

(16) Shri Vikaram, (17) Shri Amarjeet, (18) Laljee, (19) Rahul, (20) Sheela, (21) Preeti, (22) Pawen, (23) Shri

Yogesh engaged through M/s Reliance Communication Ltd., Maharaja Ranjeet Singh Marg, New Delhi and

M/s A.C.E. Facility Management Pvt. Ltd are entitled to reinstatement and all consequential benefits? If not,

then what relief the workmen are entitled to and from which date?”

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies raising the dispute to file statement

of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt

of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

Despite directions so given, the claimants opted not to file their claim statement with the Tribunal.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was also sent to the claimant as well as the managements. Neither the

postal article, referred above, sent to the claimant was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal

services remained affected during the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact

that the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, the claimant opted to abstain away

from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the claimant is not interested in

adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the claimant neither put in his appearance nor has he lead any evidence so as to prove his cause against the

management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award

be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for

publication.

Dated : May 3, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1446-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jftLVªkj]

fnYyh fo'ofo|ky;] fnYyh fo'ofo|ky; dSail] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- I] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 74@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-06-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@220@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2017

S.O. 1446.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 74/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

Registrar, Delhi University, Delhi University Campus, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 01.06.2017.

[No. L-42011/220/2011-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3419

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 74/2013

The General Secretary, Delhi Labour Union,

Agarwal Bhawan, GT Road, Tis Hazari,

New Delhi-110 054

…Workman

Versus

The Registrar,

Delhi University,

Delhi University campus,

New Delhi-110 007

…Management

AWARD

Consequent upon receipt of order No.L-42011/220/2011-IR(DU) dated 01.04.2013 from Ministry of Labour,

Government of India under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947(in short the Act), this Tribunal is enjoined upon to adjudicate an industrial dispute, the terms of which are as

under:

‘Whether the action of the management of University of Delhi in not regularizing the services of Shri Shitla

Prashad, is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?’

It is clear from the statement of claim that the claimant, Shri Shitla Prasad joined the management on

03.10.1997 as mali and was treated as a daily rated/casual/muster roll worker and was being paid wages at fixed and

revised rates from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act. Case of the claimant is that his counterparts who were

doing identical work were being treated as regular employees and were being paid proper pay-scale and allowances,

such as uniform, earned leave, casual leave, gazetted and restricted holidays etc. Claimant has an unblemished and

uninterrupted record of service to his credit. Service of the claimant was terminated on 01.10.1998 without assigning

any valid reason by the management. The above termination was challenged by the claimant before the Industrial

Tribunal and an award was passed in favour of the claimant by the Tribunal by the then Presiding Officer, Court No.III

in ID No.674 of 2000. Termination of the claimant was held to illegal and unjustified and claimant was ordered to be

reinstated in service with 50% back wages. The award was duly published vide Labour Commissioner Certificate

dated 19.05.2003 and thus became enforceable on 18.06.2013 as the same became final. It is the case of the claimant

that he was entitled to be treated as a permanent employee from the initial date of joining with the management and that

the management has not taken any steps to regularize his services in proper pay scale and allowances with

retrospective effect on 03.10.1997. It is pertinent to mention here that the claimant made several representations vide

letters dated 10.06.2004, 17.08.2004, 02.11.2004, 17.02.2005, 03.05.2005, 11.08.2005, 18.11.2005, 24.01.2006,

14.02.2006, 07.11.2007 and 06.02.2008 etc. but to no avail. Non-regularization of services of the claimant against post

of mali in proper pay scale and allowances amounts to unfair labour practice. Job on which the claimant is working is

permanent and regular in nature and the claimant is being paid less salary than his regular counterparts, which amounts

to sheer exploitation.

Management was put to notice who filed written statement to the statement of claim filed by the claimant. It has

been admitted that the claimant herein was engaged from time to time depending upon the exigencies of work on daily

basis on 03.10.1997 for varied unskilled work such as digging pits, clearing campus roads by removing waste material

etc., picking up garbage, carrying tools and equipments, pushing cards, assisting regular malis, shifting furniture etc.

Claimant cannot compare himself with regular employees who have been appointed against sanctioned post by

following due process and their selection was also through the selection committee. It is denied that the services of the

claimant was terminated on 01.10.1998. Management has denied the other material averments contained in the

statement of claim. Claimant herein was reinstated in view of earlier award dated 18.11.2000 as modified vide

judgement dated 18.02.2003 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Management has denied the other averments made in

the statement of claim.

It is clear from order dated 30.09.2013 my learned predecessor clarified that no issue other than the one referred

for adjudication by the appropriate Government is made out . Claimant in support of his case examined himself as

WW1 and tendered in evidence Ex.WW1/A as well as documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/18. The claimant also

examined Shri Surender Bhardwaj, General Secretary of Delhi Labour Union as WW2, whose affidavit is Ex.WW2/A.

3420

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Management, in order to rebut the case of the claimant examined Shri G.K. Singh, Deputy Registrar as MW1, whose

affidavit is ExMW1/A. However, he has tried to prove certain documents.

I have heard Shri Abhinav Kumar, A/R for the claimant and Shri Shiv Ram Singh, A/R for the management.

It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that the claimant herein joined employment with the management on

03.10.1997. Though the case of the claimant is that he has been working right from inception as mali and was engaged

by the management as daily raged/casual/muster roll worker whereas the stand of the management s that he was never

recruited after following due procedure nor any letter of appointment was offered to him. He was simply engaged on

daily basis from 03.10.1993 for varied unskilled labour work, details of which are mentioned in Para 1 of the written

statement.

During the course of arguments, it was also not denied that earlier claimant had raised a dispute regarding his

alleged germination vide award Ex.WW1/3 dated 18.11.2002 and reinstatement of the claimant herein was ordered by

the Industrial Tribunal with payment of 50% back wages. It was also not disputed that the management had gone in

writ appeal in CWP No.5188 of 2003 and learned single judge of Hon’ble High Court vide judgement dated 18.08.2003

by setting aside the award partly relating to payment of wages to the extent of 50% and ordering payment of

compensation of Rs.15000.00.

Record of the present case also shows that in view of the aforesaid judgement passed in favour of the claimant

by the Adjudicator as well as Hon’ble High Court, claimant rejoined services of the management on 07.10.2003 vide

Ex.WW1/4 addressed to the Registrar, University of Delhi. He has also filed with this letter co of judgement of August

2003 of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi whereby findings of the learned Industrial adjudicator qua the illegal termination

was upheld. Claimant had also approached the management for regularization of his services against the post of mali

vide letter Ex.WW1/6. In the said letter, claimant has alleged that his services be regularized against the vacant post in

the department as he has been working since 1997 as Mali. There are letters Ex.WW1/7 to Ex.WW1/14 to the similar

effect making prayer for regularization of his services addressed by the claimant to the Registrar of the University

which shows that from time to time claimant had approached the Registrar of the University with the request for

regularization of his services against the vacant post of mali. It is further clear that no specific reply was ever given by

the management to the aforesaid letters addressed by the claimant to the University.

Claimant while appearing as WW1 has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.WW1/A which is on the same lines

as the averments made in the statement of claim. He has admitted in his cross examination that no application form was

filled by him at the time of his recruitment as mali, He has made reference to the various letters written to the

management for regularization of his services. He has denied all material suggestions put to him by the management

and there is hardly anything in the cross examination of this witness to impeach his credit.

10.

Claimant also examined Shri Surender Bhardwaj, General Secretary of Delhi Labour Union as WW2 and his

affidavit is Ex.WW2/A. This witness has clarified vide Ex.WW1/15 that the case of the claimant herein was discussed

and adopted by the union.

11.

Statement of Shri G.K. Singh, Deputy Registrar of University of Delhi MW1 does not help the cause of the

management in any manner. Rather, his cross examination clearly shows that service of other malis who joined after

1991 were regularized and the list in this regard is Ex.MW1/W1. It is clear from the list that the name of Shri Pradeep

Kumar is at serial No.20 and his services were regularized on 30.07.2008. This workman is admittedly junior to the

claimant Shri Shitla Prasad, whose services have not been regularized. Reference was also made to such like similar

cases by the claimant and learned A/R for the management tried to counter the submissions by the claimant by

contending that the post of mali is semi skilled and claimant was not initially engaged as mali and he was simply

assisting regular malis and was performing such petty jobs as assigned to him from time to time. He was never

recruited, in the contention of the management, in accordance with norms, therefore the claimant cannot claim parity on

grounds pay scale and allowances with other regular employees.

12.

During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the management strongly relied upon the case of Nihal Singh

vs State of Punjab (MANU/SC/0780/2013) wherein Government of Punjab made recruitment of ex-servicemen as

special police officers to counter terrorisms. They were paid daily wages and no regular pay scale was initially paid to

them. They were also issued appointment order. Since claim for their regularization was refused by the Government,

same became subject matter of litigation up to the Hon’ble Apex Court. Management in the said case strongly relied

on Uma Devi case wherein view has been taken by Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court that when

recruitment of an employees is in derogation of the rules and regulations, or the same is in violation of statutory

principles, no relief can be granted to such employees.

13.

In the above case, Hon’ble Apex Court finally rejected plea of the management that there were no sanctioned

posts available with the Government so as to make such employees regular. Hon’ble Apex Court also went to the

extent of observing that it does not behold the State Government to deny relief of regularization when such employees

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3421

have put in number of years in service and were performing similar nature of job like their regular counter parts.

Resultantly, such employees were held to be entitled to be absorbed in services of the State.

14.

Similar view appears to have been taken in Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. Secretary MCD (2015) LLK 449. In

the said case also, it was found that so called temporary or daily wager employees who were performing similar work

and duties which were being performed by their regular counterparts and they have been working for similar number of

hours. There was a lot of disparity in the salary of permanent employees vis-à-vis such daily/casual employees.

Hon’ble Apex Court held the same to be unfair labour practice which belittles the doctrine of equality before law.

15.

Hon’ble Apex Court also distinguished the ratio of judgment in Uma Devi case by holding that provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act and the powers conferred upon the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act were

not at all under consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uma Devi case.

16.

There is another judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ONGC Ltd. vs Petroleum Coal Labour Union

(2015) Lab.IC 2483 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court rejected plea of the management regarding non following of due

procedure while recruiting such casual or temporary employees. Plea of the management for refusing regularization

was turned down by observing as under:

‘Even though due procedure was not followed by the Corporation for the appointment of the concerned

workmen in the post of ‘watch and ward security, this does not disentitle them of their right to seek

regularization of their services by the Corporation under the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders, after

they have rendered more than 240 days of service in a calendar year from the date of the memorandum of

appointment issued to each one of the concerned workmen in the year 1988. The alleged "policy decision" to

appoint CISF personnel to the security post is on deputation basis and cannot be called appointment per se.

Whereas, the concerned workmen have acquired their right to be regularized under the provision of Clause

2(ii) of the 'Certified Standing Orders.

Further the concerned workmen have clearly completed more than 3/240 days of services subsequent to the

memorandum of appointment issued by the Corporation in the year 1988 in a period of twelve calendar

months, therefore, they are entitled for regularization of their services into permanent posts of the Corporation

as per the Act as well as the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation.’

17.

In the above case also, reliance was placed by the management in Uma Devi case and in para 36, it was held as

under:

‘Uma Devi does not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section 30 read

with Section 32 of the MRTU and PULP Act to order permanency of the workers who have been victims of

unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts on which they

have been working exist. Umadevi cannot be held to have overridden the powers of the Industrial and Labour

Courts in passing appropriate order under Section 30 of the MRTU and the PULP Act, once unfair labour

practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV is established.”

18.

I have also carefully gone through the ratio of the case in Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University Vs. Akhilesh

Kumar Khare [(2015) LLR 1121] relied by the management . It was a case where Hon’ble High Court upheld the

award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and directed the University to consider the case of the workman for

regularization of their services as and when vacancies arise and till that time they be paid emoluments which were

being paid by the University authorities so similar situated workers. Narration of the fact in para 2 of the judgement

further shows that the workmen were engaged by the university as daily wagers and they were being paid from the

contingencies fund. Vice Chancellor has also issued order dated 03.08.1990 notifying that daily wagers would not be

allowed to continue in any case after 03.12.1990 unless proper permission is obtained from the Vice Chancellor. It was

further directed that if there is any need of extra hand, section Heads must send a demand for creation of posts to the

Deputy Registrar (Admn.) with details justifying the need. After termination of the job of the workman, Hon’ble Apex

Court held that admittedly workmen were engaged by following due procedure and their engagement was not against

any sanctioned post. In order to curb the illegal practice of engaging daily wagers, Vice Chancellor issued order dated

03.08.1990 mentioned above, prohibiting engagement of such labour and also clarified that such daily wagers would

not be allowed continue after 31.12.1990. It was against this background that Hon’ble Apex Court was approached to

take a view that such daily wager, temporary or casual workers were aware of the consequences of their such

appointment, they cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for regularization of their services for their

selection was not made by following due procedure as laid down by provisions of law.

19.

The facts and situation in the case on hand is different. The work performed by the claimant has been found to

be regular and permanent in nature. Perusal of list Ex.MW1/W1 shows that even workmen junior to the claimant

herein were regularized on 30.07.2008. Management has not adduced any evidence on record to show that selection

process in case of Shri Pradeep Kumar or such other employees whose services have been regularized by the

3422

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management was different than the claimant herein. Rather, neither any office order nor any relevant record was

produced as to how the services of Shri Pradeep Kumar and other co-workers have been regularized while denying the

benefit to the claimant herein, who was admittedly senior to them.

20.

As a sequel to the discussions made hereinabove, it is held that the action of the management in not regularizing

the services of Shri Shitla Prasad is totally illegal and unjustified. It is held that Shri Shitla Prasad, the claimant is

entitled to be regularized with effect from 30.07.2008, i.e. the date from the date his juniors were regularized. He is

also entitled to be paid the difference of salary amount. An award is accordingly passed. It be sent to the appropriate

Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : May 30, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1447-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jftLVªkj]

vkbZvkbZVh] #M+dh] gfj}kj ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 166@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@95@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2017

S.O. 1447.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 166/2012) 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

Registrar, IIT, Roorkee, Haridwar and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18.05.2017.

[No. L-42011/95/2012-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI-110032

I.D. No. 166/2012

Sh. Suresh, S/o Sh. Budh Prakash,

General Secretary,

IIT Roorkee Karamchari Union.

IIT Roorkee, Haridwar - 247667

Versus

The Registrar,

IIT, Roorkee, Haridwar - 247667

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No. L-42011/95/2012-IR(DU) Dated 21.11.2012

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

“Whether action of management of IIT Roorkee in not regularizing the workman, Sh. Suresh S/o Sh. Budh

Prakash, Mali despite rendering service for more than 24 years continuously is justified? If yes, to what relief

workman is entitled to?”

On 02.12.2012 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D. No. 166/2012 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.

On 06.05.2013 workman filed his claim statement. Fixed 04.07.2013 for filing of written statement.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3423

On 05.09.2013 management filed written statement. No need to formulate issue other than reference. Hence

fixed 10.12.2013 for evidence of claimant.

Several opportunities given to workman to adduce his evidence but he failed to adduce his evidence. In want

evidence of workman there is no need to management to adduce its evidence.

So on 26.04.2017 I reserved the Award.

I perused the record which shows that workman in support of his case adduced no evidence.

In want of which only “No dispute Award” award can be passed.

Which is accordingly passed.

Dated : 26.04.2017

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1448-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dk;Zdkjh

vfHk;ark] lhihMCY;wMh] fo|qr Hkou] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

66@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-04-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@26@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2017

S.O. 1448.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 66/2013) 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

Executive Engineer, CPWD, Vidyut Bhawan, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 26.04.2017.

[No. L-42012/26/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI-110032

I.D. No. 66/2013

Sh. Harrison Thomas,

S/o Late Kallan John, R/o D-1/A/B-121,

Gali No. 5, Mahabir Enclave,

Near Bankey Bihari Mandir, New Delhi -110042

Versus

The Executive Engineer,

ACD-III, CPWD,

Vidyut Bhawan,

New Delhi.

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No.L-42012/26/2013-IR(DU) dated 20.06.2013

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of CPWD in terminating the services of Sh. Harrison Thomas S/o

Kallan John w.e.f. 30.08.1992 is just, fair and legal? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?

3424

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On 8.7.2013 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 66/2013 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.

On 12.08.2013 workman filed claim statement before this Tribunal. Where-in he prayed as follows:-

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the workman most humbly and respectfully prays for

the following among other relief:

To pass an award for reinstatement of the workman w.e.f. 30.08.1992 with full back wages.

ii.

To pass an award for regularization of his services w.e.f. the date of regularization of junior

workmen.

iii.

Any other relief which may kindly be deemed fit and proper to meet the end of justice.

After service of notice management filed written statement on 24.03.2014. Where-in management prayed as

follows:-

“Management denied the allegations of workman and prayed for dismissal of claim statement.”

Against written statement workman filed rejoinder. Wherein he re-affirmed the contents of claim statement.

On 18.6.2014 following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the action of the management of CPWD in terminating the services of Sh. Harrison Thomas S/o

Late Kallan John w.e.f. 30.08.92 is just, fair and legal ? If so its effect?

2. To what relief the workman is entitled to?

Thereafter Ld. A/R for the workman filed his affidavit in his evidence.

Which was tendered by workman as WW1 on 13.10.2014 and he was cross-examined & his cross-examination

was concluded on 28.01.2015.

Management in support of its case filed affidavit of MW1 Sh. A.K. Nagpal, S/o Sh. D.R. Nagpal on

15.10.2015. Who tendered his affidavit and was partly cross-examined on 8.3.2016.

On 4.5.2016 management witness was further cross-examined and his cross-examination concluded.

On 14.06.2016 written arguments filed by workman.

In reply of written arguments of workman, management on 13.02.2017 filed written arguments.

In the light of contentions and counter contentions I perused the pleadings any evidence of parties including

contents of written arguments filed on behalf of workman and management.

My Issue-wise findings are as follows:-

Findings on issue no. 1

Burden to prove issue no.1 lies on management. Management in its evidence prove it by way of adducing its

evidence. Through which management proved that workman Sh. Harrison Thomas, was challaned u/s 392 IPC ( for

offence of robbery). He was prosecuted for the said offence.

Workman claimed reinstatement since 30.08.1992 but workman has not filed judgment of acquittal of aforesaid

robbery case. Has it been filed by workman. I would have perused the contents of judgment of acquittal. Through

which I could come to conclusion whether accused was acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt or due to hostility

of witnesses or it was clear cut case of acquittal of accused from the offence of robbery but accused has not filed

certified copy of judgement so workman with-hold material evidence. Therefore adverse inference u/s 114 (g) Indian

Evidence Act is drawn against accused and it is presumed that accused was not clear cut acquitted. Non filing of

certified copy of judgment cannot be brushed aside as trivial matter and it is codified law that robbery is an offence of

moral turpitude due to which major misconduct of accused was not excusable and on this count accused is not entitled

for re-instatement in service or for other reliefs.

In the instant case where-in workman was only daily wager. Had he been regular employee his case may be

considered up-to some extent but not for his re-instatement.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion I am of considered view that issue No. 1 is liable to be decided against

workman and in favour of management. Which is accordingly decided.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3425

Findings on Issue No. 2.

This issue is relating to relief to workman so burden to prove it lies on workman.

It is relevant to mention here that material issue in the instant case was issue no. 1. Which has already been

decided in favour of management and against workman.

So this issue is also liable to be decided in favour of management and against workman. Which is accordingly

decided.

Reference is liable to be decided in favour of management and against workman. Which is accordingly decided.

Claim statement is dismissed.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 28.03.2017

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1449-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy

eSustj] ch,l,u,y] djuky ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 120@2005) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-04-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@70@2005&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2017

S.O. 1449.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 120/2005) 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

General Manager, BSNL, Karnal and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 26.04.2017.

[No. L-40012/70/2005-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI-110032

I.D. No. 120/2005

Sh. Ram Prasad, S/o Sh. Jeet Singh,

Vill. Purangarh, Teh. Radour,

Kurukshetra

Versus

The General Manager, BSNL,

Distt. Karnal,

Karnal.

AWARD

Reference Order No.L-40012/70/2005 IR (DU) dated 10.11.2005 from the Ministry of Labour, Government of

India, New Delhi received in the Tribunal.

Then it was register as ID. No. 120/2005 and fixed 30.03.2006 and notice to claimant /workman was issued to

file his claim statement.

3426

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Workman /claimant filed claim statement on 7.06.2006. Where-in he prayed as follows:-

Present claim petition may kindly be accepted and the termination of the applicant namely Ram

Prasad Son of Sh. Jeet Singh. Causal Labourer in the Telecommunication Department under the

B.S.N.L., Kurukshetra may be declared as illegal:

ii.

respondents may be directed to consider the case of the applicant for the regularization of his services

in view of the policy framed by the department dated 1.10.1989 as also the policies dated 10.02.1995

and 27.01.2000.

iii.

any other relief, to which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the

case, may also be granted to the applicant.

On 14.02.2006 management filed reply. Copy of which supplied to workman prayer of reply is as follows:-

“It is humbly prayed that the claim application of the applicant may kindly be dismissed with heavy cost.

On 9.01.2007 workman filed rejoinder. Where-in he re-affirmed the contents of claim statement.

On 14.03.2007 workman filed his affidavit in his evidence. Copy supplied to management.

Fixed 9.5.2007 for cross-examination of workman.

On 8.8.2007 workman was cross-examined and his cross-examination concluded.

Fixed 27.02.2008 for Management evidence.

On 11.4.2008 affidavit of management witness filed.

On 7.05.2008 MW1 was cross-examined & his cross-examination concluded.

On 27.08.2015 in compliance of my previous order workman filed copy of order of C.A.T which is introduced

on record.

Copy of which supplied to Sh. Bhagat Ram.

On 7.12.2015 WW1 tendered his affidavit and he was cross-examined and his cross-was concluded.

Workman evidence closed.

Fixed 25.1.2016 for management evidence.

On 11.07.2016 affidavit of management witness filed.

Fixed 11.08.2016 for tendering of affidavit and cross-examination of management witness.

On 11.08.2016 MW1 tendered his affidavit and his cross-examination was deferred to 20.10.2016.

On 28.12.2016 MW1 was cross-examined and his cross-examination was concluded. Management closed its

evidence.

Fixed 10.01.2017 for arguments.

On 10.01.2017 written argument by workman filed.

Copy of which supplied to clerk of Ld. A/R for the management.

On 2.2.2017 I reserved award.

In the light of contentions and counter contentions mentioned in the written arguments filed by workman on

10.01.2017 and written argument of management filed much prior to 10.01.2017 by management.

I perused the pleadings of parties including evidence, judgment of Hon’ble CAT Chandigarh, representationof

workman in the light of that judgment and information of disposal of representation to workman in-compliance of order

of Hon’ble CAT.

As case is being proceeded on the basis of questions of determination mentioned in the schedule of reference.

So my question of determination wise findings are as follows:-

Findings on question of determination No. 1

Question of determination no. 1 is as follows:-

“Whether the action of the management of BSNL , Karnal in terminating the services of Sh. Ram Prasad S/o

Sh. Jeet Singh, Casual Labourer w.e.f April 1987, is just and legal?”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3427

Burden to prove it lies on management of B.S.N.L.

To prove it management examined its witness as MW1 who filed copy of letter Exht. MW1/A sent to workman

Sh. Ram Prasad . Through which management informed to workman that his representation is being considered in view

of orders of Hon’ble C.A.T Chandigarh.

Other information of aforesaid letter are as follows:-

“You have desired the benefit of regularization under the scheme framed by the Department dated 27.01.2000.

In this regard it is made clear that there are no such instruction /circular /scheme framed by the Department of the said

date. In fact the scheme for the regularization has been introduced vide DTS letter No. 269-94/98-STN –II dated

29.09.2000 & C.G..M.T HR Ambala letter No. E&R/ EM-1702/TSMs /2000/16 dated 27.11.2000 which says as under:-

In pursuance of DTS New Delhi letter No. 269-94/98 –STM-II dated 29.9.2000, the C.G.M.T HR Ambala has

been pleased to regularize all the Casual Labourers working in the Department, including those who have been granted

temporary status w.e.f 01.10.2000 in the following order:-

All casual labourers who have been granted temporary status upon the issuance of DOT/DTS ND

orders No. 269-4/93 –STM-II dated 12.02.1999 and 269-13 /99 –STM –II dated 09.06.2000 & C.G.M.

T. HR Ambala office letter No. E& R / Ex-70/Rig/ Court /I /Pt / 56 dated 18.06.1999.

ii)

All full time casual labourers which is nil for Karnal SSA.

As per the above instructions the benefit of regularization to be given only to those casual labourers who are

working in the Department and to those who have been granted temporary status . In your case you are neither working

in the department nor have been granted temporary status. Thus being not eligible you are not entitled to the benefit of

these orders.

Further more it is pertinent to highlight the entire scheme of granting of temporary status in view of instruction

issued from time to time. Grant of temporary status and regularization scheme was introduced vide DOT Circular

No. 269-10/89-STM dated 07.11.1989 which came into force w.e.f 01.10.1989. According to that, a temporary status

would be conferred on the all the Casual Laborers who are currently employed and who have rendered a continuous

service of at least one year, out of which they must have been engaged on work for a period of 240 days (206 days in

the case of offices observing 5 days week ) such casual laborers will be designated Temporary Mazdoor, You left the

Department in June, 1988, as such being not working in the Department from the date of enforcement of this scheme

i.e. 1.10.1989, you are not eligible to be considered in the scheme.

Vide DOT letter No. 269-4/93-STN –II dated 17.12.1993 further relaxation was issued for the persons who

were engaged as Casual Labourers after 30.03.1985 and up to 22.06.1988 to be considered for grant of temporary status

subject to that they are still continuing for such works where they were initially engaged and who are not absent for the

last more than 365 days counting from the date of issue of this letter. Here-in-too you are not eligible to be benefited

for the scheme /relaxation, being you left the department in June, 1988.

Moreover your representation is hopelessly time barred. In view of the above facts and due consideration no

relief can be granted to you as desired by you in your representation.

On the basis of details mentioned in the letter sent to you. You were not found eligible to be benefited for the

scheme /relaxation, as you left the job in June 1988 and as such being not working in the Department from the date of

enforcement of scheme i.e. 1.10.1989. Hence you were not found eligible to be considered in the scheme. Due to which

no relief was granted by management to you as desired by you in your representative.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion I am of considered view that question of determination no. 1 is liable to be

decided in favour of management and against workman. Which is accordingly decided.

Finding on question of determination no. 2.

Which is relating to relief to workman. But question of determination no. 1 has already been decided in favour

of management and against workman so there is no option to this Tribunal except to decided issue no. 2 in favour of

management and against workman which is accordingly decided.

Reference is liable to be decide against workman and in favour of management.

Which is accordingly decided. Claim statement is dismissed.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 07.03.2017

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

3428

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 7 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1450-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vk;qDr]

iwoZ fnYyh uxj fuxe] 'kkgnjk] fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 05@2014) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-04-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@110@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2017

S.O. 1450.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 05/2014) 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, East Delhi Municipal Corporation, Shahdara, Delhi and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 26.04.2017.

[No. L-42011/110/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI-110032

I.D. No. 05/2014

Sh. Naresh Chand S/o Late Beni Prasad

As represented by MCD General Mazdoor Union

C/o Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10,

Jam Nagar House, New Delhi-11

…Workman

Versus

The Commissioner

East Delhi Municipal Corporation,

Udyog Sadan, Plot No.419,

Near Patparganj, Shahadra, Delhi

…Management

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi- 110001 has referred the following dispute for

industrial adjudication to this tribunal vide its notification No. L-42011/110/2013-IR(DU) Dated 20.01.2014.

“Whether the Action of the management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi is not granting the pay scale of

Rs.3050-4590/- w.e.f. 01.08.2003 to Sh. Naresh Chand S/o. Sh. Beni Prasad with all consequential benefits is

justified or not? If not, what directions are necessary in this respect?”

On 07.02.2014 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was received ID.No. 05/2014 and

claimant/workman was called upon to file claim statement within 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 filed claim statement on 28.05.2014. Wherein he prayed that the

salary of Garden Choudhary as the workman has been performing his duty in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 w.e.f.

01.08.2003 as per the reference order of the Ministry of Labour and also revised from time to time alongwith all

consequential benefits.

Against claim/statement management filed its written statement on 09.01.2015

On the basis of its contents it was prayed that dispute is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

Against written statement workman filed rejoinder. Wherein he reaffirmed contents of claim/statement.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3429

On 29.05.2015 I framed following seven issues:-

Whether the action of management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi as not granting the pay scale of

Rs. 3050-4590 w.e.f. 01.08.2003 to Sh. Naresh Chand, S/o Sh. Beni Prasad with all consequential

benefits is justified or not? If so its effect?

Whether the workman union has no Locus standi to raise the present dispute? If so its effect?

Whether prior to raising the dispute. No demand notice has been served upon the management? If so its

effect?

Whether the workman is not working with the management as garden chaudhary? If so its effect?

Whether the dispute is not maintainable being bad in law? If so its effect?

If not granting the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 w.e.f. 01.08.2003 to workman Sh. Naresh Chand then

what directions are necessary to be issued to management?

To what relief workman is entitled and from which date?

Fixed 17.05.2015 for workman evidence.

Workman filed his affidavit in his evidence. Which was tendered by workman alongwith certain documents.

He was cross-examined.

Thereafter management filed affidavit of MW1 sh. Vijay Pal Sharma.

Which was tendered by management witness no.1 aongwith certain documents.

I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. A/Rs on 02.02.2017. Workman also filed written arguments. Copy of

which supplied to Ld. A/R for managements for reply before passing of Award.

Contents of written arguments of workman are as follows:-

That the appropriate Government i.e. GOI, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi – 110001 has referred the

following dispute for industrial adjudication before this Hon’ble Tribunal vide its Order No. L-

42011/110/2013-IR(DU) Dated 21.01.2014:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi is not granting the pay

scale of Rs.3050-4590/- w.e.f. 01.08.2003 to Sh. Naresh Chand S/o Sh. Beni Prasad with all

consequential benefits is justified or not? If not, what direction are necessary in this respect?”

That Sh. Chand workman was allotted the work of Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.08.2003 by the competent

authority. As per the order of Civil Line Zone of Horticulture the work has been allotted to the workman

of work of Garden Chaudhary which is exhibit WW1/1. The services of the workman was transferred to

the Sahahadra North Zone for the work of Acting Chaudhary and he was superannuated w.e.f.

31.01.2017 and he is entitled to the wages of Acting Chaudhary from the date i.e. 01.08.2003 as per

WW1/1 and as per the judgement of Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in W.P.

No.7947/2010 in the matter of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh & ors. And the same was dismissed and the

Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme court of India being Special Leave to Appeal ( C)

No. 20069/2011 and the said Special Leave Petition has dismissed and withdrawn on 09.04.2012. This

workman is also similarly situated doing the work of Chaudhary is entitled the similar benefits.

That as per the workman’s evidence he has proved that he was allotted the work of Acting Chaudhary

w.e.f. 01.08.2003 and his name is appearing at Srl. 29 in Exhibit WW1/1. The workman proved his case

in his evidence also.

That Sh. Vijay Pal Sharma MW1 also admitted in the cross-examination that it is correct that the

workman WW1/1 has been allotted the work by Civil Line Zone and further in cross examination dated

04.01.2017 stated that it is correct that the workman performed the duty of Garden Chaudhary in

shahadra North also. The cross-examination of MW1 is reproduced as under:

“I do not know the list of WW1/2 the same is issued by the Civil Line Zone. It is correct that the

workman occasionally transfer to one zone to another zone in MCD. It is correct that WW1/1 is

also issued by the Civil Line Zone. It is correct that the workman performed the duty of Garden

Chaudhary. It is incorrect to suggest that I filed false and frivolous affidavit to support the

3430

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management. It is correct that the Acting Chaudhary has got the benefits in my departments.

Number of these person about 5,6.”

In view of the above admitted facts the workman is entitled to the wages of Acting Chaudhary in the pay

scale of Rs.3050-4590/- w.e.f. 01.08.2003 revised from time to time up to 31.01.2017 i.e. the date of his

superannuation along with all consequential benefits.

Perusal of evidence makes it crystal clear that evidence of workman is reliable, credible and required evidence

in this case. While evidence of management not at all sufficient to rebut the evidence of workman. So this Tribunal has

no option except to decide the reference in favour of workman and against management.

Which is accordingly decided. And claim statement is allowed.

Management is directed to grant salary of Garden Chaudhary to workman Sh. Naresh Chand since 01.08.2003

alongwith all consequential benefits.

Compliance has to be done by management within 2 months after expiry of period of available remedy against

the instant Award.

Dated : 19.04.2017

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1451-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iz'kk-

dekaMsaV vkWfiQlj] vkehZ dSai LVs'ku] xqM+xkao ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 24@2010) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-04-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@16@2009&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2017

S.O. 1451.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 24/2010) 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

Admn. Commandant Officer, Army Camp Station, Gurgaon and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 26.04.2017.

[No. L-14012/16/2009-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI-110032

I.D. No. 24/2010

Sh. Mahesh, S/o Sh. Prem Mashih,

Vill- Navada, P.O. – Saidpur,

C/o Sh. Dhaneshwar Tyagi,

Lok Mazdoor Sanathan (LMS),

H.No. 647/21, Shanti Nagar, Gurugoan

Versus

The Admn. Commandant Officer,

Army Camp Station,

H. Q Dundahera, Gurgoan

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No. L-14012/16/2009-IR(DU) Dated 17.06.2010

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3431

“Whether the contract between the management of Admn Commandant, Camp Station, HO- Dundahera, and

their contractor with regard to employment of Sh. Mahesh is sham and bogus? If yes, whether the action of the

management in terminating the services of the said workman is legal and justified? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

On 29.06.2010 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D. No. 24/2010 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.

On 12.07.2011 workman filed his claim statement. Fixed 29.08.2011 for filing of written statement.

On 22.04.2014 management filed written statement. Fixed 07.07.2014 for filing of rejoinder.

On 07.07.2014 workman filed rejoinder. Fixed 19.08.2014 for framing of issues.

I framed following issues on 02.09.2014:-

(1)

Whether the contract between the management of Admn. Commandant, Camp Station, HQ – Dundahera,

and their contractor with regard to employment of Sh. Mahesh is Sham and bogus? If yes, whether the

action of the management in terminating the services of the said workman is legal and justified? If So its

effects?

(2)

To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?

Thereafter I fixed 14.10.2014 workman evidence.

Several opportunities given to workman to adduce his evidence but he failed to adduce his evidence. Hence his

evidence has been closed on 15.11.2016.

I fixed 06.12.2016 for management evidence/ arguments. But inspite of several opportunities management also

failed to adduce its evidence.

Hence I reserved the Award on 21.03.2017 with liberty to Ld. A/R for the management to raised his argument

before passing the Award. Sh. Sanjeev Yadav Ld. A/R for management argued on behalf of management.

In want of evidence of both parties is a fit case to pass “No Dispute Award”.

Which is accordingly passed.

Dated : 13.04.2017

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1452-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,-Mh-lh-

LokLF;] ,elhMh] flfoy dsaæ o vU;] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

51@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-04-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@34@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2017

S.O. 1452.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 51/2015) 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

A.D.C. Health, mcd, Civil Centre and others, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 26.04.2017.

[No. L-42011/34/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

3432

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI-110032

I.D. No. 51/2015

Sh. Ravi Kumar, S/o Sh. Raju,

C/o The General Secretary,

Delhi Nagar Nigam Shramik Sangh,

5239-Ajmeri Gate.

Versus

A.D.C Health,

MCD, Civil Centre, Minto Road,

New Delhi-110002.

M.H.O.

MCD, Civil Centre, Minto Road,

New Delhi-110002.

Dy. M.H.O.,

MCD, Civil Centre, Minto Road,

New Delhi-110002.

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide notification No L-42011/34 /2013-IR(DU) dated

20.06.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi in terminating the employment of

Sh. Ravi Kumar S/o Sh. Raju w.e.f. 19.10.2009 is legal and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is

entitled to?”

On 13.04.2015 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 51/2015 and claimants

were 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 workmen/claimants, not filed claim statement inspite of several opportunities.

Several opportunities given to workman as well as management but neither workman nor management filed

claim statement / Response to the reference.

In this background there is no option to this Tribunal except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not

interested to file their respective pleadings.

On the basis of which none of the party can be directed to adduce its evidence.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 29.03.2017

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1453-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj funs'kd]

mÙkjh Hkkjr oL=k vuqla/ku la?k (fuVªk)] xkft;kckn ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

46@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-04-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@7@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3433

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2017

S.O. 1453.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 46/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. II, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

Director, Northern India Textile Research Association (NITRA), Ghaziabad and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 26.04.2017.

[No. L-42011/7/2011-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI-110032

I.D. No. 46/2011

Sh. Virendra Rawat(President),

NITRA Employees Association,

Sector-23, Sanjay Nagar,

Ghaziabad

Versus

The Director,

Northern India Textile Research Association (NITRA),

Ghaziabad.

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No.L-42011/7/2011-IR(DU) dated 24.05.2011

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the demands of the (Northern India Textile Research Association (NITRA) Union for regularization

of Service Condition and formation of standing orders under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)Act, 1946

is legal and justified? What relief the workman of NITRA are entitled to?”

On 30.6.2011 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No.46/2011 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.

On 3.9.2012 workman filed claim statement before this Tribunal. Where-in she prayed as follows:-

“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Learned Tribunal may graciously be pleased to initiate

appropriate legal proceedings in terms of the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.”

Management filed written statement on 17.01.2013. Where-in management prayed as follows:-

“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may pleased to dismiss the claim with heave

cost or pass such and further order as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances for

the case.”

Against written statement workman filed rejoinder. Wherein he re-affirmed the contents of claim statement.

On 17.04.2013 following issues were framed:-

Whether the dispute has not acquired status of an industrial dispute for want of espousal by a union?

As in terms of reference.

No other is made out. Fixed 11.6.2013 for workman evidence.

Workman in support of his case filed his affidavit. But several opportunities given to workman for tendering of

his affidavit and cross-examination but he failed. So I closed the right of workman evidence and I fixed 5.12.2016 for

management evidence.

On 5.12.2016 Ld. A/R for the management expressed his desire not to adduce any evidence on behalf of

management and then I heard the arguments.

Ld. A/R for the management.

3434

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Thereafter reserved the award.

Inwant of evidence no dispute award is liable to be passed.

Which is accordingly passed.

Dated : 29.03.2017

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1454-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eq[;

lqi¯jVsaMsaV] eækl ,VkWfed ikoj LVs'ku o vU;] psUubZ ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 17@2016)

dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@11@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2017

S.O. 1454.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 17/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Superintendent, Madras Atomic Power Station and others, Chennai and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 05.05.2017.

[No. L-42012/11/2016-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

Monday, the 24^th April, 2017

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 17/2016

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Madras Atomic Power Station and their

workman)

BETWEEN :

Sri N. Santhanam

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Chief Superintendent

2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

Madras Atomic Power Station, Kalpakkam

Kanchipuram District

Chennai-603102

The Management

2^nd Party/2^nd Respondent

Madras Atomic Power Station Coop Canteen

Kalpakkam, Kanchipuram District

Chennai-603102

Appearance :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

Sri S.T. Varadarajulu, P. Ganesh Murthi, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/1^st Management

M/s. N. Vijay Shankar, Advocates.

For the 2^nd Party/2^nd Management

Set Ex-parte

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3435

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, vide its Order No. L-42012/11/2016-IR (DU)

dated 26.02.2016 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the non-absorption / termination of the services of N. Santhanam by the Management of MAPS

Employees Cooperative Society and Madras Atomic Power Station, Kalpakkam without any compensation

was proper, legal and justified? lIf not, to what relief Sri Santhanam is entitled to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 17/2016 and issued notices to both

sides. The petitioner and the First Respondent have entered appearance and filed Claim and Counter Statement

respectively. The petitioner had filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter Statement. The Second Respondent has

remained ex-parte.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner joined the services of the Second Respondent on 10.10.1986 as hand receipt cleaner. He was

unjustly terminated from service on 01.09.1999. He had put 13 years of continuous service. In 1993, the Respondent

regularized the services of all the employees of the Second Respondent and brought them in the scale of pay, but the

petitioner was denied such regularization. He continued to work as daily rated hand receipt cleaner. Though

representation was given by the petitioner to regularize his service this was not heeded to. He was terminated all of a

sudden without reason The First Respondent is a factory under the Factories Act. The Second Respondent Canteen was

established under Section-48 of the Factories Act. The Government of India had issued notification in 1979 to treat all

posts in Canteen and Tiffin Room run by department w.e.f. 01.10.1979 as holder of civil posts. The Second Respondent

is registered under the Director of Canteens. So the Government of India is the appropriate government for the Second

Respondent. It is incorrect to state that the petitioner was employed through Contractor. Termination of the petitioner

from employment is in violation of Section-25(F) of the ID Act. An Award may be passed directing the Respondent to

reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages, continuity of service and attendant benefits.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The First Respondent is a Public Sector Undertaking. The petitioner is a worker who was engaged by the

Second Respondent registered under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. The Cooperative Canteen was started

by the employees of the First Respondent to cater to their requirements. The Managing Committee of the Canteen

comprised of personnel elected from among the members of the Society. It was run on a no loss, no profit basis. It does

not invoke the provisions of Industrial or Factories Act. Casual labours were employed by the Committee on temporary

requirements. Wages will be given by the Management. The First Respondent never intervened in the affairs of the

Society except as the Principal Employer. The petitioner has no locus-standi to demand appointment on regular basis

on the pay-rolls of the First Respondent. The Second Respondent had engaged the petitioner to meet the requirements

of extra jobs during the shut-down jobs. The work carried out by him is of temporary nature. While taking as casual

labour no recruitment procedure was followed. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the allegations in the Counter Statement and reiterating his case in the

Claim Statement.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to

Ext.W9

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the termination of the petitioner is justified?

(ii)

What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?

The Points

The claim of the petitioner is that he was working as Hand-Receipt Cleaner in the service of the Second

Respondent during the period from 10.10.1986 to 01.09.1999. According to him he was suddenly and unjustly

terminated from service on 01.09.1999. He has claimed reinstatement in service, but without specifying in the service

of which Respondent.

The Second Respondent has remained ex-parte. The First Respondent has contended in the Counter Statement

that it has nothing to do with the engagement of the petitioner and it was done by the Second Respondent only. The

3436

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Second Respondent is said to have been constituted under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act to cater to the

needs of the employees of the First Respondent. According to the First Respondent its position was that of a principal

employer only.

10.

The petitioner has stated in the Claim Statement that the First Respondent is a factory under Section-2 of the

Factories Act and the Second Respondent Canteen was established under the Factories Act. It is further stated by the

petitioner that there is a notification by the Government by which it was decided to treat all posts in Canteen and Tiffin

Rook run by departments as civil posts w.e.f. 01.10.1979. However, the petitioner has not produced the so-called

notification or has produced any document to show that the Second Respondent is a Canteen established under the

Factories Act.

11.

The petitioner has been examined as WW1. Even in the Claim Statement he has stated that he was in the service

of the Second Respondent. During the cross-examination he has admitted that he was paid salary by the Second

Respondent. He was not issued with any appointment order, neither by the Second Respondent nor by the First

Respondent. The documents produced by the petitioner also would show only his employment by the Second

Respondent. These documents do not reveal any relationship between the petitioner and the First Respondent as

employee and employer. The petitioner having failed to establish employer-employee relationship with the First

Respondent, the First Respondent could not be cast with any liability on account of the alleged termination of the

petitioner from service.

12.

As stated earlier, what all documents produced by the petitioner reveal only his employment by the Second

Respondent. Is the petitioner entitled to any relief with the second Respondent based on these documents? Ext.W1

(Page-1) is the hand-receipt pay bill of the Second Respondent for the period from 27.05.1987 to 26.06.1987. In this the

petitioner is also named as one of the workmen. As seen from this the petitioner has worked for 28 days during this

period. The next page which does not show any period shows him to have worked for 24 days. Page-3 reveals that he

has worked for 18 days during the period from 01.05.1987 to 26.05.1987. Pages-4, 5 and 6 are also HR Pay Bills for

different period. But the name of the petitioner is not there in any of these pages. Ext.W2 is a certificate said to be

issued by the Manager of the Canteen on 13.11.1990. This states that the petitioner was working as Cleaner in the

Canteen from 10.10.1986 to 30.12.1987. Ext.W3 issued on 03.12.1992 also is by the same Manager. This certificate

states that the petitioner had been working during the period from 1987 to till date. One does not know why the

Manager has not stated anything about the employment of the petitioner after 1987 in Ext.W2 even though it was

issued in November 1990. Ext.W4 contains a series of Gate Passes issued by the First Respondent. These are described

as Photo Pass for Non-Departmental Personnel. In many of the these Gate Passes the validity period of the pass is also

shown. The fact that he is working in the Canteen also is seen in this. On going through the pass it is seen that the

petitioner was at the Canteen during 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995. There are two Gate Pases during the period of 1999 also.

The Gate Passes for the intervening period i.e. from 1995 to the middle of 1999 are not seen produced. Ext.W7 is

payment voucher for the month of August 1999 showing payment of Rs. 2096/- and also voucher for July 1999

showing payment of 1100/-. These documents though of intermittent period would probabalize the case of the

petitioner that he was working in the Canteen on Hand-Receipt Payment from 1987 and was there even during 1999 at

which time he was terminated from service. The Second Respondent has not come forward to deny the case of the

petitioner. So it is very much established that the petitioner was in continuous service of the Second Respondent from

1987 at least and was there throughout.

13.

The Second Respondent has not come forward to state that the termination of the petitioner was for valid reason.

The case of the petitioner that the termination was in violation of Section-25F is not rebutted also.

14.

What is the relief to be granted to the petitioner? It is apparent even from the admission made by the petitioner

and also the evidence given by MW1, the HR Manager of the First Respondent that the Second Respondent Canteen

run by the Society is not running the Canteen now. The work of the Canteen has been outsourced since then. The

petitioner cannot be directed to be in the service of an establishment which has already been outsourced. So the

available remedy for the petitioner is compensation only. The petitioner had been working for the Second Respondent

for long 12 years. Taking this into account, compensation payable to him is fixed as Rs. 2,00,000/-

On the basis of the above discussion the Second Respondent is directed to pay the petitioner Rs. 2.00 lakhs as

compensation within two months of the publication of the Award. In default the amount will carry interest at the rate of

7.5% per annum from the date of the Award.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 24^th April, 2017)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3437

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri N. Santhanam

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

MW1, Sri T. Nirmala Devi

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

1987-88

HR Pay Bill

Ext.W2

13.11.1990

Service Certificate issued to the petitioner

Ext.W3

03.12.1992

Service Certificate issued to the petitioner

Ext.W4

Gate Pass given to the petitioner

Ext.W5

10.04.1995

Representation given by the petitioner

Ext.W6

07.02.1996

List of Co-Workers who were given regular employment

Ext.W7

1999

Payment Vouchers

Ext.W8

10.09.1999

Representation given by the petitioner

Ext.W9

15.09.2014

Order passed in WP No. 14063 of 2008

On the Management’s side

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 7 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1455-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jftLVªkj]

bykgkckn fo'ofo|ky;] bykgkckn ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 42@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 07-03-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@72@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2017

S.O. 1455.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 42/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Registrar, Allahabad University, Allahabad and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

07.03.2017.

[No. L-42012/72/2015-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 42/2015

Ref.No. L-42012/72/2015-IR(DU) dated 21.04.2015

BETWEEN :

The Director

M/s. Fighting Four Security Services Pvt. Ltd.

FF, 59, 88, Khajana Shopping Complex

Aashiana

Lucknow-226012 (U.P.)

3438

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

The Registrar

Allahabad University

Allahabad-211002

AWARD

By order No. L-42012/72/2015-IR(DU) dated 21.-4.2015 Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the Director, M/s Fighting Four

Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Aashina, Lucknow and the Registrar, Allahabad University, Allahabad for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE WORKMEN AS PER ANNEXURE_I, CAB NE SAID TO BE THE WORKMEN OF

ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY AND IF SO WHETHER THE TERMINATION OF SERVICES OF THE

WORKMEN AS PER ANNEXURE-I, IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT TO WHAT RELIEF THE

CONCERNED WORKMEN ARE ENTITLED TO AND FROM WHICH DATE?”

Several dates were fixed for giving the opportunity to all the workman to file their claim statement. It was

gathered that efforts are being made to get this case transferred to Kanpur Court. Thereafter more than 11 dates were

further fixed. Notices through registered post were issued to workmen but none appeared on their behalf. The

management moved an application M-36 dated 9.1.2017 on behalf of Allahabad University, requesting therein that

alleged claimants are not interested to file their claim statement before this Tribunal, therefore I.D. case should be

rejected.

The schedule referred by Central Government pertains to the legality of alleged termination of services of

workmen whose name have been mentioned in Annexure-I. Learned AR for the opposite party/Allahabad University

submits that so called workmen have no locus standi, the University is unnecessarily being harassed in this case.

Moreover the issue referred is not covered under the definition of dispute as per Industrial Dispute Act.. Learned AR for

the opposite party Sri V.K. Gupta has stressed that the alleged workmen are not entitled to get any relief from this

Tribunal.

Since none of the workmen has come forward to file the claim statement before this Tribunal, although sufficient

opportunity has been provided and notices through registered post have also been issued, it appears that perhaps the

alleged workmen are not interested in pursuing with this case further.

Heared Learned AR for the opposite party. Perused the record available before this court.

Under the circumstances mentioned hereinabove, the so called termination of services of the alleged workman, if

any can not be adjudicated as illegal or unjustified. The alleged workmen are not entitled to any relief.

Award accordingly.

LUCKNOW

23.02. 2017

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1456-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dekaMsaV]

508] vkehZ csl odZ'kkWi] bykgkckn ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 89@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 03-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14011@08@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2017

S.O. 1456.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 89/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3439

Commandant, 508, Army Base Workshop, Allahabad and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 03.05.2017.

[No. L-14011/08/2012-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 89/2012

Ref.No. L-14011/08/2012-IR(DU) dated 05.12.2012

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary

Mazdoor Union 508

Army Base Workshop

Allahabad, ED-51, ADA Colony, Naini

Allahabad (U.P.)

AND

The Commandant

508, Army Base Workshop,

Allahabad Fort,

Allahabad-211005

AWARD

By order No. L-14011/08/2012-IR(DU) dated 05.12.2012 Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the General Secretary, Mazdoor

Union, 508, Army Base Workshop, Allahabad and the Commandant, 508 Army Base Workshop, Allahabad Fort,

Allahabad for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT IS MALAFIDE IN INITIATING

DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY AGAINST SH. C.D. PAL, WORKMAN? IF SO, WHAT RELIEF THE

CONCERNED WORKMAN IS ENTITLED FOR?”

The workman has stated in brief in the claim statement W-3 that he is General Secretary of the Mazdoor Union,

he was suspended vide order dated 18.11.2011 wherein reference was made to another letter dated 10.10.2011 issued by

LAO Sri Karunendra Singh. Later on his suspension was removed on 28.5.2012, his enquiry was kept pending for long

duration, report was submitted on 13.12.2012 thereafter the petitioner moved an application/reply dated 15.12.2012, the

then Commandant was transferred but his successor also did not take any action on the enquiry report but his service

was not regularized and salary pertaining to the period was also not paid; petitioner has suffered mental agony and

financial hardship as well.

The petitioner has further asserted that 7 I.D. cases are pending between the management and Union, and in

violation of Rule 33 of the I.D. Act., the workman who is also General Secretary of the Mazdoor Union was suspended

unauthorizedly. With the aforesaid pleadings request has been made for disbursement of the salary w.e.f. 18.11.2011 to

30.05.2012, to summon as witness the S.E, LAO Sri Karunendra Singh and Brig. Tumul Verma. Further prayer has also

been made to punish the Commandant, 508 Army Base Workshop, Allahabad. Several annexures have been enclosed

alongwith claim statement.

The management sent a reply dated 13.3.2013 informing thereby that the disciplinary case has finally been

disposed off/closed. The reply was rebutted by the workman through his detailed version dated 21.3.2013 alongwith

annexures.

The petitioner has filed certain documents as per list W-7.

The management while denying the allegations leveled in claim statement, filed written Statement M-10,

admitting therein that the workman Sri CD Pal is an employee of the defence installation and is covered under CCS

Rule 1964; a complaint dated 10.10.2011 was received regarding mis-behaviour of the workman, preliminary

investigation was ordered and thereafter he was put under suspension on 18.11.2011, mere suspension is no

3440

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

punishment. The management has submitted that the matter pertains solely to the indisciplined act of Sri CD Pal as

individual workman, while dispute has been raised as General Secretary, of the Mazdoor Union, the workman has

abstained himself without prior permission unauthorizedly and went out side the office premises, and violated the

provisions of conduct Rules. Memo/charge sheet was issued on 16.12.2013 by the then Commandor/Disciplinary

Authority, memo was issued and opportunity was also provided to the workman and he has expressed his desire for

personal hearing. Enquiry proceeding was completed as per Rules. Opportunity to submit representation was duly

provided, final penalty of withholding the increment for 2 years with cumulative effect was imposed. The workman

mis-behaved and misconducted himself; therefore the workman was finally penalized after due notice and sufficient

opportunity having been provided. The workman has raised other ID cases as well. During the process of suspension

Review Committee was also constituted, enquiry proceedings were submitted on 30.7.2012, statements were recorded

from the complaint.

Opposite Party has emphasized that the matter is not covered under the I.D. Act, it is service matter between

Union and management. Statutory provisions have been quoted by the opposite party. The management has requested to

frame appropriate additional issues to adjudicate the award against the workman.

With strong denial of the allegations leveled by the opposite party the workman has filed rejoinder W-12 while

reiterating pleas taken earlier. Additional written statement has also been filed by the management as per M-15

alongwith annexures.

10.

The workman has submitted his affidavit W-17 in support of his pleadings. He has been thoroughly cross

examined on behalf of the opposite party. The management did not file any affidavit or oral evidence of its officers.

11.

The then Hon’ble Judge of this CGIT framed two preliminary issues on 17.10.2013. After giving opportunity to

both the parties the issue no.1 was decided against the management vide order dated 29.12.2014 and management was

directed to file list of witness and reliance on the next date. Thereafter no further evidence was adduced by the

management. Rather it preferred to file written statement M-33. The workman controverted pleas taken by the

management and filed an affidavit W-34 dated 28.2.2017. The opposite party has stated before the court that it does

want to adduce oral evidence and has submitted that the evidence already adduced may be read.

12.

Vide order dated 28.12.2014 passed by this Tribunal, it has been observed by me that no specific counter

affidavit was filed by the management to controvert the facts mentioned by the workman in his affidavit, the workman

was not provided sufficient opportunity to defend himself, by not supplying the copy of the complaint to the workman

and also not producing complainant during the enquiry. Copy of day to day proceeding was not given to the workman.

The Learned AR for the management has submitted that copies of the relevant documents and proceedings was

provided to the workman. However, his submission was not supported by any document. Photo copies of the enquiry

proceedings reveal that on certain dates, the initiates of the workman have been obtained but it no where reflects that

copies of the material documents and the complaint were provided to him at the appropriate time.

13.

The workman has relied upon on the following Rulings;

(1977) 2, SCC, Pradip Port Trust Vs Workmen, Page 339.

(2006) 3, SCC, State of UP vs Shiv Shankar Lal Srivastava Page 276.

14.

Prouncements made by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in 2009(123) FLR 201 Gynandra Pal Singh V/s Cane

Commissioner and by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in 2007 (114) FLR, page 455 Manab Kumar Guha v/s Govt. of

India, are very relevant to the present context.

15.

The order passed by this Tribunal on 29.12.2014 was not challenged by the management before any Hon’ble

competent Court. Therefore, it has attained finality. Moreover no further documentary cogent evidence was adduced by

the management although sufficient opportunity was provided by this Tribunal.

16.

After having heard both the parties at length in the light of the documents and evidence available before this

Tribunal, it is inferred that findings of the enquiry officer were perverse and the action of the management pertaining to

the initiation of the departmental enquiry against Sri CD Pal, has not been bonafide. Rather it has been malafide and

against the established principle of natural justice. The workman is accordingly entitled to get the pecuniary benefit

relating to his salary etc, as per Rules. All the dues have to be paid to the workman within 10 weeks from the date of the

notification of the Award, failing which the management shall also be liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum to the

workman.

17.

Award accordingly.

LUCKNOW

24.04. 2017

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3441

ubZ fnYyh] 8 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1457-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 137@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 02-06-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- tsM&16025@3@2017&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 8th June, 2017

S.O. 1457.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 137/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 02.06.2017.

[No. Z-16025/3/2017-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT NO. 1: ROOM NO. 38-A(GF), KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, SHAHDRA, DELHI- 32

ID NO. 137/2013

Sh. Rakesh Garg

S/o Late Sh. Suresh Garg

C/o A. Ganguly (A.R.W.)

Ch. No. D-721,

Karkardooma Court Complex,

Delhi 110032

…Workman

Versus

Senior Divisonal Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Divisional Office-I, Jeevan Prakash

25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi 110001

Zonal Manager

…Management

Life Insurance Corporation of India

Northern Zonal Office,

Jeevan Bharti,

Post Box No. 630,

Cannaught Place,

New Delhi 110001

AWARD

The present claim has been filed by the workman under Section 2 A Sub Section 2 of ID Act 1947 (In Short the

Act) with the averments that workman was working with LIC of India since 16.02.1987 as record clerk. He has

performed his duty honestly and to the satisfaction of the management and unblemished record of service.

It is the case of workman that some officers of the management intentionally created atmosphere against the

workman and a false and fabricated charge sheet dated 18.01.2011 was served on the workman. One of the officers of

the management threatened the workman that “I will put his retirement in danger”. The workman had filed to the reply

on 02.02.2011. The enquiry was conducted in unfair and perverse manner and no opportunity was given to workman to

self defence. The documents were also not supplied to the workman. Finally, he was held guilty and punished with

heavy penalty of minimum basic pay in time scale.

3442

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Even thereafter, the workman was implicated in another false matter and served with another charge sheet dated

04.05.2011 on false and fabricated allegation. Workman also filed reply to the said charge sheet. He was held guilty

and penalty of removal from service was imposed upon him. The workman had also filed an appeal against the order

dated 27.09.2011 in aspect of charge sheet dated 04.05.2011. But the said appeal was not heard and rejected vide order

dated 03.08.2012 without considering the facts and gravity of the penalty imposed on him by the management. The

workman served upon the legal notice and it is clear that workman has been victimized under a pre planned strategy

and conspiracy hatched against him and the so called enquiry against the workman is perverse unfair and Malafide and

the same is in violation of article 14, 16 and article 39(d) of the constitution of India as well as provision of section 25-

F, G and H of the Act. Finally, the workman has prayed for his reinstatement of full back wages.

The management filed written statement and took preliminary actions that claim of the workman is false

frivolous and not maintainable the workman has suppressed various material facts. It is further alleged that workman

joined as a Peon on 18.02.1987 and was promoted as record clerk on 01.11.1990. He was issued a charge sheet in the

year 1996 for en-cashing personal cheques and penalty of Censure vide order dated 20.12.1996 was imposed upon him.

Another charge sheet was issued to workman on 01.11.2012 for mis-appropriation of LTC advance and penalty of one

decrement was imposed upon him vide order dated 27.03.2003. A warning letter dated 31.12.2007 was issued against

the workman for remaining absent unauthorizedly the workman had remained absent for a period of 307 days. Finally,

the warning letter dated 24.11.2009 was issued to him regarding his said unauthorized absence. The management, on

merits, admitted the factum of his employment and the workman was being promoted as a record clerk on 01.11.1990.

Charge sheet dated 18.01.2011 was issued to the workman regarding various acts of insubordination, non-performing

of duties and issuing threatening statements against senior officers. The workman had admitted the main charges

against him in his reply. The enquiry was conducted against charge No. 1(c) which was subsequently workman vide

letter dated 31.05.2011 admitted all the charges leveled against him. The management denied the allegation of

conspiracy etc. The penalty was imposed upon the workman vide letter dated 27.09.2011 minimum of scale and

treating the period from 17.07.2010 to 23.07.2010 and from 22.09.2010 to 28.09.2010 as Dies-Non. The workman had

not challenged the said penalty at any point of time by filing any appeal. Even in the present proceedings the workman

challenged the penalty of Removal/Dismissal only which was imposed upon him vide order dated 13.03.2012. The

management denied the averments contained in the remaining paras and further alleged that the enquiry in the present

case was concluded on 10.06.2011 in view of the admission of the charges. Even after, the conclusion of the said

enquiry workman submitted another letter dated 15.07.2011 to the management mentioning there in admission of

charges. The plea taken by the workman regarding use of force by enquiry officers for admission of charges is totally

false.

Against this factual background this tribunal on basis of pleading of parties vide order dated 11.12.2013 framed

the following issues.

(i)

Whether enquiry conducted against the claimant was just, fair and proper?

(ii)

Whether punishment of removal from service commensurate to the misconduct of the claimant?

(iii)

Whether claimant is entitled to relief of reinstatement in service?

Since issues No. 1 was treated as preliminary issues as such the workman in order to discharge the onus of this

issue examined himself as ExWW1 and tendered in evidence documents WW1/1 to WW1/16. The management in

order to rebut the case of workman examined Pawan kumar, Administrative Officer as Ex.MW1 who tendered his

evidence MW1/1 to MW1/3.

Findings of issue No. 1:-

The initial burden to prove that enquiry is unfair or against the principal of natural justice is always upon the

workman who has been found guilty by enquiry officer on account of misconduct. During the course of arguments Ld.

A/R for the workman strongly urged that management has exercised lot of pressure upon him as a result of which

workman was forced to admit the allegations contained in the charge sheet on Ex.MW1/A. The enquiry Officer Sh.

P.L.Kochar initially gave an impression to the workman that lenient view would be taken of the entire matter. As such,

workman was induced to admit the allegation contained in charge sheet Ex.MW1/1 dated 04.05.2011.

Per contra, Sh. Sunil Mittal Advocate appearing on behalf of the management countered the contention of the

workman by urging that workman has voluntarily admitted the allegation contained in charge sheet Ex.MW1/1. As

such, there was no legal requirement to conduct the regular enquiry against the workman even on the previous occasion

workman has committed various acts of mis-conducts. Wherein, also punishment was awarded to the workman. The

workman is in the habit of committing various acts of insubordinations, issue and facts and misbehaving with his

superior officers, which has vitiated the work atmosphere in the management.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3443

Before I proceed to consider the comparative the merit of the submission, it is necessary to notice the allegation

of mis-conduct leveled against the workman. And the same is as under:-

vkjksi i=

vki] Jh jkds’k xxZ] vfHkys[k fyfid] os- dz- 111760 ‘kk[kk la- 11 ,l- Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe] eaMy dk;kZy;&1] ubZ

fnYyh in fuEufyf[kr vkjksi yxk;k tkrk gS%&

fnukad 09-03-2011 dks yxHkx 11 cts iwokZg~u (,- ,e-) tc izca/kd (iz’kklu) Jh ch- ,e- vxzoky us vkidks fjdkWMZ :e ds

lkeus rhljs ry ij ‘kjkc dh cksry] ftlesa dqN ‘kjkc cph gqbZ Fkh] ds lkFk idM+k vki tksj ls fpYykrs gq, f}rh; ry ij pys

x, A f}rh; ry ij igqapus ds i’pkr~ vkius Jh vkj- ds- tSu] eq[; izca/kd ,oa Jh ch- ,e- vxzoky izca/kd (iz’kklu) dks mud uke

ysdj ek¡ o cgu dh xkfy;ka nh vkSj mUgsa ns[k ysus dh /kedh nhA

bl izdkj vki vius mijksDr d`R;ksa }kjk ,oa lEiw.kZ lR; fu”Bk dks cuk;s j[kus esa v{ke jgs gS rFkk fuxe dh lsok dks

bZekunkjh ,oa fo’okliw.kZ <ax ls djus esa Hkh vlQy jgs gSA vkius bl izdkj ls dk;Z fd;k tks fd fuxe ds fgr ds fy, gkfudkjd

gS rFkk lnkpkj ds izfrdwy gSA bl izdkj vkius Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe (deZpkjh) fofu;e] 1960 ds fofu;e 21 ,oa 24 tks

fofu;e 39 (1)] ds lkFk i<s tk,a] ds izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku fd;k gS ftlds fy, vki dks ,d ;k ,d ls vf/kd naMksa ls Hkkjrh;

thou chek fuxe (deZpkjh) fofu;e] 1960 39 (1) (,) ls (th) ds vUrxZr gS] ls nafMr fd;k tk ldrk gSA

vr% vkxs dh dk;Zokgh djus ls igys vkidks ;g funsZ’k fn;k tkrk gS fd vki fyf[kr :i esa gesa lwfpr djs fd D;k vki

mijksDr vkjksiks ds varxZr viuk vijk/k Lohdkj djrs gS ;k ughaA ;fn vki vkjksiks dks Lohdkj djrs gS vki vius vkjksiks dks Lohdkj

djus dk fyf[kr c;ku@LVsVesaV vkWQ ,Mfe’ku vkSj ;fn ugh arks vki viuk bUdkjh c;ku fyf[kr :i esa mu izke.kksa o lk{;ksa ftu

ds vk/kkj ij vki viuk cpko djuk pkgrs gS ds lkFk bl vkjksi i= dh izkfIr ds 10 fnuksa ds Hkhrj izLrqr djsA

d`I;k /;ku ns fd vkidk fyf[kr c;ku mijksDr izek.kksa ,oa lk{;ksa dh lwph ds lkFk fuf’pr vof/k ds Hkhrj izkIr u gqvk ;k

vkidk bUdkjh c;ku v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ }kjk larks”ktud ugha ik;k x;k rks bl fo”k; esa vkxs dh dk;Zokgh Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe

(deZpkjh) fofu;e] 1960 ds vUrxZr vkidks vkSj dksbZ lwpuk fn, fcuk dh tk,xhA

lk{;ksa dh izksfoftuy lwph layXu gSA

ubZ fnYyh esa fnukad 04@05@2011 dks tkjhA

10.

The workman has filed reply to the charge sheet Ex.MW1/1 wherein he has denied the allegation made against

him. It is also necessary to mention here that earlier also charge sheet dated 18.01.2011 was issued against the

workman herein, there are allegations in subordination and indiscipline. The workman has also filed reply there to by

denying the same.

11.

It is clear from the perusal of the reply Ex MW1/M1 that workman has clearly admitted the allegation regarding

the misconduct etc. leveled in later dated 04.05.2011. He was also asked by enquiry officer Sh. P.L.Kochar whether he

wants to say anything after admitting the allegations of misconduct vide reply Ex.WW1/M1 and workman herein has

clearly stated that he has carefully and without any pressure from any authority has admitted the allegation contained in

the charge sheet.

12.

There is another letter in the hand of the workman which is Ex.MW1/M2. In which also he has clearly stated

that in future he would not commit such mistake and he should be given pardoned for the acts of misconduct mentioned

in letter dated 04.05.2011.

13.

The workman while appearing in Ex. WW1 has admitted that in his cross examination that Sh. P.L.Kochar was

the enquiry officer. He further admitted that letter dated 10.06.2011 Ex. WW1/M2 is correct. Similarly he has

admitted letter dated 24.12.2011 Ex.WW1/M3 written by him. Both these letters as per the admission of the workman

bear his signature. It is not out of place to mention here that workman herein is matriculate and situation would have

been little bit different, had he been purely illiterate. There is no evidence worth the name on the record to suggest that

any threat or force was used against the workman so as to compel him to admit the allegation contained in Ex. MW1/1.

The workman has also not examined any independent person or official as witness so as to remotely suggest that

enquiry officer has exercised any kind of influence or used force in obtaining the signature of the workman on the

above documents. The above documents i.e, both the reply as well as letter dated Ex.MW1/M2 is in the hand of the

workman. Therefore, in such circumstances the only conclusion which can be drawn is that workman has voluntarily

signed the documents Ex.MW1/2 and WW1/2 as well as WW1/3.

14.

Equally meritless is the contention of the workman that regular enquiry was required to be conducted even if the

allegation made in charge sheet are admitted. It is fairly settled position in law that when a delinquent employee has

admitted the allegation contained in charge sheet made against him, in that eventuality there is no need to conduct a

3444

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

regular enquiry as it would be empty formality to hold any enquiry against such a delinquent workman who has

admitted the allegation of misconduct made against him. I am fortified in my opinion by the ratio of the case in

Vivekanand Sethi Vs. Chairman J.K. Bank Ltd. 2005 (106) FLR (207) SC where in it was absorbed as under:

“It may be true that in a case of this nature, the principles of natural justice were required to be complied with

but the same would not mean that a full-fledged departmental proceeding was required to be initiated. A

limited enquiry as to whether the employee concerned had sufficient explanation for not reporting to duties

after the period of leave had expired or failure on his part on being asked so to do, in our considered view,

amounts to sufficient compliance of the requirements of the principles of natural justice.

The principle of natural justice, it is trite, is no unruly horse. When facts are admitted, an enquiry would be an

empty formality. Even the principle of estoppels will apply. See Dr. Gurjeewan Garewal (Mrs.) Vs. Dr.

Dumitra Dash (Mrs.) and others. The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with having

regard to the fact situation obtaining therein. It cannot be put in a strait jacket formula. It cannot be applied in

a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. See State Bank of Punjab Vs.

Jagir Singh and Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. S.G. Katurappa and another.”

15.

It is thus clear from the above legal position that when allegations have been admitted by the workman

voluntarily, such an admission can be taken as proof of the guilt if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the admission is

voluntary and inspires confidence. As discussed above, the workman is in the habit of committing various acts of

insubordination as is clear from the evidence on record. As such, the Tribunal is of the opinion that there was no need

to conduct regular enquiry and the enquiry proceedings conducted against the workman is fair and in accordance with

principal of natural justice. Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.

16.

Now, the other vital question is whether the punishment of removal to the workman is in proportion to the

misconduct committed by him. As discussed above, the workman is in the habit of committing misconduct. It is clear

from the evidence on record that earlier also charge sheet in year 1996 was issued to the workman and penalty of

‘censure’ was imposed upon him which is clear from Annexure-A filed by the management. The workman was issued

another charge sheet for misappropriation of LTC advance and penalty of one decrement was imposed vide order dated

27.03.2003, which is Annexure-B. The workman is also in the habit of remaining absent unauthorizedly and warning

letters were also issued to him on 31.12.2007 and also, thereafter, on 24.11.2009 as is clear from the Annexure-C & D

filed by management. Thus, in view of the overwhelming evidence of previous misconduct, this Tribunal is of the

opinion that penalty of ‘dismissal’ is in consonance with the gravity of the offence committed by the claimant and no

leniency or sympathy can be shown for the alleged grave misconduct of the workman. Both the issues, No.1 & 2, are

accordingly decided against the workman and in favour of the management.

17.

Since, punishment ‘removal from the service’ has been held to be fair and justified, as such, there is no question

of reinstatement of the workman in service. Accordingly issues No. 3 is also decided against the workman and favor of

the management.

18.

As a sequel to my above discussion the reference is answered accordingly and it is held that punishment of

removal of the workman from the service is just and fair. An award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the

appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : May 31, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1458-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vkj

,.M MhlhvkbZ,l] lsy ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] /uckn ds iapkV (f'kdk;r la- 10@2013] lanHkZ la[;k 33@2012) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-06-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&43011@15@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3445

New Delhi, the 8th June, 2017

S.O. 1458.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Comp. No. 10/2013, Ref. No. 33/2012) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of M/s. R & DCIS, SAIL and other and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 01.06.2017.

[No. L-43011/15/2011-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT U/S 33(A) OF I.D. ACT, 1947

COMPLAINT NO. 10/2013

(Arising out of Ref. No. 33/12)

Ministry Order No. L-43011/15/2011-IR(M)

Afroz Ahmed & Sahdeo Mahli

…Complainants

Vrs

Executive Director

RDCIS/ SAIL Shyamali Ranchi

General Manager (P)

RDCIS/ SAIL Shyamali Ranchi

Chairman-cum-Managing Director

MECON Ltd , Ranchi

…Opposite party

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For complainant

None

For opposite party

Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Steel

Dated : 22/05/2017

AWARD

That this complaint is filed by the complainant and others. After receipt of the complaint, both parties are

noticed. But after appearing for certain dates does not appears though management appears. Subsequently, Case remain

pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award

is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1459-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vkj

,.M MhlhvkbZ,l] lsy ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 33@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 01-06-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&43011@15@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

3446

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 8th June, 2017

S.O. 1459.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. R & DCIS, SAIL and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 01.06.2017.

[No. L-43011/15/2011-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947.

Reference: No. 33/2012

Employer in relation to the management of RDCIS, M/s. SAIL

AND

Their workmen

Present: Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer.

Appearances :

For the Employers

Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman

None

For the Contractor

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Steel

Dated : 22/05/2017

AWARD

By order No. L-43011/15/2011-IR(M) dated 18/04/2012, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the termination of services of Shri Afroz Ahmed, Mahabir Gope, James Bhengra, Sahdeo

Mahli and M. Prakash Jojo all contract labour w.e.f. 31/03/2010 by the management of SAIL, RDCIS

Through the contractor is legal and justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to?

After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. Both appears for certain dates and thereafter workman as

well as contractor do not appear subsequently, though management appears regularly. Case remains pending. It is felt

that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1460-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

,;jiksVZ vFkkWfjVh vkWiQ bafM;k ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 23@2006) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 07-06-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@11@2005&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3447

New Delhi, the 8th June, 2017

S.O. 1460.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Airport Authority of India and other and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 07.06.2017.

[No. L-11012/11/2005-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/23 of 2006

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

The Dy. General Manager (Personnel)

Airports Authority of India

Terminal 1-A/1-B, Chhatrapati Shivaji

International Airport,

Mumbai-400099

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Smt. Gangubai Puranik,

Pragati Chawl, Pawai Filter Pada,

Aarey Road, Near Nitie,

Mumbai 400 087.

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER :

Ms. Geeta Raju, Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN

Mr. M. B. Anchan, Advocate

Mumbai, the 17^th April, 2017

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-11012/11/2005-IR (M) dated

20.04.2006 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of Airports Authority of India, Mumbai is proper and justified in

terminating the services of Smt. Gangubai Puranik from the services of Airports Authority of India w.e.f.

28/2/2001? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?”

After receipt of the reference, notices were issued to both the parties. In response to the notice, the second party

workman filed her statement of claim at Ex-9. According to her, she joined the services of the Airports Authority of

India, Mumbai as Safaiwala since 1985 through the contractor M/s. Abhishek Enterprises. Since then she had

continuously worked without any break in service. She was regularized in service along with other casual labours in

the year 1989. She was permanent worker of the Airports Authority of India, Mumbai.

According to her, she fell sick from 28.2.2001. She was suffering from depression. She was under the medical

treatment of Dr. Arvind Patel. She had informed the office about her sickness to the Manager. She had also sent her

daughter to the office for informing about her sickness. However, she was not allowed to enter the office and was sent

back. However, her daughter told the security guard at the gate to inform the Manager about her sickness. Since she

3448

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

did not get any reply inspite of her informing about the sickness, she visited the office and informed the Manager Mr.

Sanjay about her sickness. The Manager told her that when she will be medically declared fit, then she may come to

the office along with medical certificate. When she became fit, she went to the office to resume duty with medical

fitness certificate dated 30.7.2001 issued by Dr. Arvind Patel. However, she was not allowed to resume the duties by

the Manager and the Manager told her that her services have already been terminated on 28.2.2001 vide order dated

24.7.2001 and she was told to go back.

According to the concerned workman, her termination is illegal and not justified. She was requesting the

Manager for reinstatement in service since there is no reply from the Manager, she made representation dated

17.9.2001 to the Manager [Personnel], Airports Authority of India, New Delhi and the Airport Director, Mumbai. She

did not get any reply to her representation. Since her gate pass was taken back, she was approaching through union for

the reinstatement. But since the management did not reinstate her in services, she raised the dispute with the Assistant

Labour Commissioner [Central] Mumbai. Since the conciliation failed the dispute was referred for adjudication. She

is therefore asking for instatement in service with full back wages and continuity of service.

First party management resisted statement of claim by filing the written statement (Ex.12). According to the

first party management, the concerned workman had been in the habit of remaining absent without permission by of

and on. She was habitual absentee. She was issued a memo dated 22.6.1999 for frequently absentee from duty

unauthorisedly without prior permission wherein it was further stated that she was a chronic absentee and habitual

leave taker. Further, she did not submit any reply to the said memo but reported on work on and from 23.6.1999.

Subsequently, she remained absence from duty without intimation or prior permission w.e.f. 11.2.2000 and hence a

telegram dated 22.2.2000 was issued directing her to report for duty immediately, failing which action as deemed fit

would be taken against her. Responding to the said telegram she reported for work and resumed her duty w.e.f.

2.3.2000. However, again she unauthorisedly remained absent on and from 14.5.2000 for which the office note dated

20.7.2000 was issued by Mr. Pramod Kumar, Executive, House-keeping, her reporting officer to the Personnel

Manager regarding her remaining absent without permission w.e.f. 14.5.2000. She tendered the apology admitting

misconduct committed by her vide letter dated 31.7.2000 addressed to the Personnel Manager of the authority stating

that she was suffering from fever & cold and as per doctor’s advise for taking rest, she could not attend her duty. She

further assured that in future she would not make mistake of remaining absent on duty and would try to be careful to

attend the duty properly. She, however, did not submit any medical certificate in support of her contention that she was

sick. She resumed on work on 11.8.2000. Though her explanation was not found satisfactory, management of the

authority took the lenient view and did not initiate any disciplinary action against her.

According to the first party management, the concerned workman remained absent without permission. She was

issued memo dated 29.9.2000. She did not give any reply but resumed her duty on and from 30.9.2000. Inspite of

giving several opportunities from time to time to mend her way, she, however, did not show any improvement in her

attendance and was in habit of remaining absent unauthorisedly. She remained continuously absent unauthorisedly on

and from 28.2.2001 without any intimation and prior sanction of the leave as stated in the office note dated 28.6.2001

signed by the said Executive House-keeping. The Airport Director therefore issued an order dated 24.7.2001 observing

that she has been remaining absent unauthorisedly w.e.f. 28.2.2001 for the period of 60 days without any intimation or

prior sanction of leave and hence it was deemed that she was no longer interested in employment of the authority and

voluntarily abandoned the job on her own volition. Accordingly, her name was struck off from the rolls of authority on

account of abandonment of job on her own volition in terms of Clause 31(2)(vi) of the I.A.A.I. Employees (General

Conditions of Services) Regulations, 1980. The period of her absence on duty was treated as unauthorized absence for

all intends and purposes. Therefore, her services under circumstances were terminated w.e.f. 24.7.2001.

According to the first party management, at present there is no any workman on the roll of authority at CSI

Airport, Mumbai as it has no operation, management etc. over there since in terms of provisions of agreement dated

4.4.2006 entered into between the Airport authority and MIAL, management of CSI Airport, Mumbai was transferred

to authority of MIAL for its operation, maintenance and development w.e.f. 3.5.2006. Therefore, the concerned

workman is not entitled for reinstatement with the authority at CSI Airport, Mumbai on this ground alone.

It is thus contention of the management that the services of concerned workman were terminated on valid, legal,

proper and bonafide grounds and as such there is no question of her reinstatement in service. Management has thus

sought the rejection of reference.

Second party workman filed rejoinder Ex.13 and reiterated that no show cause notice or charge-sheet was issued

to her before terminating her service and hence her termination is illegal. She contents that her services have been

terminated from 28.2.2001 by order dated 24.7.2001. Such retrospective termination of her service is illegal. It is

contended that the termination is against the principles of natural justice.

10.

Both the parties have adduced the evidence and filed written notes of arguments.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3449

11.

Following issues are framed at Ex.14. I reproduce the issues along with my findings thereon for the reasons to

follow:

Sr.

No.

Issues

Findings

Does first party prove that second party abandoned the

job ?

Not proved

Does first party prove that since she was not

considered by MIAL she is not entitled for any relief ?

Not proved

Is second party entitled for any relief ?

Yes

What order ?

As per final order

REASONS

Issue No.1&2:-

12.

So far contentions go, it seems to be the admitted position that the concerned workman was working at the

airport with the contractor as contract people and her name appeared in one of the list of annexed by International

Airport Authority Employees Union at page No.3, Sr. No.46. Admittedly in terms of the order dated 3.5.1991 passed

by Division Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1494 of 1989, the concerned workman along

with few other contract people was paid the wages directly by the authority w.e.f. 3.5.1991 as a casual Safaiwala till

absorption of her services in the authority. It seems to be the admitted position that service of the concerned workman

along with contract labour was absorbed in terms of the order dated 11.4.1997 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

and the concerned workman was absorbed in service of the authority as a Sweeper w.e.f. 6.12.1996 by the appointment

order dated 16.12.1997 pursuant to the said orders dated 6.12.1996 and 11.4.1997 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court. Admittedly therefore the concerned workman was a permanent workman of the Airport Authority as on the

date, when her services were terminated by the management.

13.

In view of that it is to be seen whether it was necessary for the management to conduct the enquiry against the

workman, since admittedly no enquiry was conducted in respect of her absence on duty un-authorisedly without

permission.

14.

For, it is explicit from the evidence of concerned workman that she fell ill from 28.2.2001 and was under the

medical treatment of Dr. Arvind Patel. She claims that she had informed to the office about her sickness and to the

Manager. For that purpose she has sent her daughter to the office for informing about her sickness. However, her

daughter was not allowed to enter the office and was sent back. She want on to say that she visited the office and

informed the Manager Mr. Sanjay about her sickness and the Manager told her that when she would be declared

medically fit then she could come to the office with medical certificate and therefore she went to office to resume the

duty with medical certificate dated 30.7.2001 issued by Dr. Arvind Patel but she was not allowed to resume her duties.

15.

In this respect management witness Shri Leonard Turke, Manager [HR] (Ex.23) has admitted in his cross-

examination that Smt. Gangubai Puranik, concerned workman submitted application informing that she was sick. The

fact remains therefore that the management was informed about the sickness of the concerned workman. The fact is

explicit from the apology letter dated 31.7.2000 addressed to the Personnel Manager by the workman mentioning

therein that she was suffering from fever & cold and as per doctor’s advise, she was taking rest and therefore she could

not attend the duty. In this letter, the concerned workman put her thumb impression and stated that she may be excused

for her absentee from the duty since on the ground of illness she could not attend the duty.

16.

Learned Counsel for the management submitted that in terms of Clause 31(2)(vi) of the I.A.A.I. Employees

(General Conditions of Services) Regulations, 1980, if the workman remains absent unauthorisedly then it is deemed

abandonment of the job by the concerned workman on her own volition. Submission is to the effect that the application

of concerned workman was not accompanied with medical certificate and therefore when she was absent from

28.2.2001 for the period of more than 60 days without prior sanction of leave, her services were terminated for habitual

absenteeism since she was absent for 347 days for the period from 1.1.1998 to 24.7.2001. The question is whether her

absence for the said period can be treated as abandonment of her job on her own volition.

17.

In my considered view the concerned employee was the permanent worker of the Airports Authority of India.

Even it has come on record that she has informed to the management about her sickness and the reasons of her absence

on duty. Not only that but she sent letter of apology on 31.7.2000. Even her evidence shows that she went to office

3450

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and inform to the Manager concerned about her sickness and the Manager told her that when she would be medically fit

to join the duty then she could come to the office along with medical certificate and even thereafter she went to the

office along with medical certificate but was not allowed to resume the duties. This sort of evidence of the concerned

workman remained unshaken.

18.

I say so because no enquiry was conducted by the management in this respect and even it appears that she was

not given opportunity to adduce the evidence of Dr. Arvind Patel who according to the concerned workman gave

treatment to her and advise the bed rest. Obviously, therefore it appears that her services have been terminated by order

dated 24.7.2001 when she was sick. She was declared medically fit by the medical certificate dated 30.7.2001. Order

of termination came to be passed on 24.7.2001. If concerned workman would have been given opportunity by holding

enquiry to prove and to adduce evidence in respect of her sickness and to produce the medical certificate issued by Dr.

Arvind Patel then it would have come on record that her services have been terminated by order dated 24.7.2001 when

she was sick.

19.

From the record it can be seen that the concerned workman has not abandoned her services on her own and at

times she informed to the management about her sickness and even tendered apology in her application mentioning

therein that she could not attend the duty on account of her sickness. It can not be said therefore that she had no

intention of joining duties. Her conduct itself is eloquent to show that she intended to join the duties and therefore she

had sent her daughter to inform the Manager concerned about her sickness and then she personally went to inform the

Manager about her sickness who told her to come back to the office after getting medically fit along with medical

certificate. In view of that it cannot be said that the concerned workman absented herself from work on her own for no

good reason and even without informing about her sickness to the management. The evidence in that respect has come

on record that she had informed the management about her sickness and even tendered the apology for absence on duty

on account of sickness.

20.

In the decision in case of Syndicate Bank, Bombay V/S. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank, Bombay AIR 2000

(SC 2198) the ratio decidendi is that employer should follow the principles of natural justice before termination. In that

case the appellant was terminated from services of the bank. It was not disputed that the appellant absented himself

from work for a period of 90 or more consecutive days. Appellant has no intention of joining duties. Under the

circumstances, it was observed that the conduct of the employees of the bank had been astounding and therefore

termination was justified.

21.

In the instant case, the conduct of the concerned workman is eloquent to show that she all the way informed the

management about her sickness. She had intention of joining the duties. She tendered apology and requested for

allowing her to join the duties. Under the circumstances, her conduct shows that she has not voluntarily abandoned her

duties. In view of that the employer ought to have followed the principles of natural justice and enquiry. Since no

enquiry was held before terminating her services on the ground of her abandonment of services voluntarily, it can be

said that the termination is illegal.

22.

Learned Counsel for the management seeks to rely on the decision in case of Managing Director, Panchganga

Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. V/S. Babasaheb Devgonda Patil and Anr. 1994 III LLJ 679 Bombay wherein it was

finding of the fact that the respondent abandoned or voluntarily relinquished service and his removal from the rolls was

mere formality. In the circumstances it was held that the respondent was not entitled for reinstatement and back wages.

23.

In the instant case, the facts are quite distinct and distinguishable since from the evidence it has come on record

that the concerned workman informed to the management about her sickness and she had intention of joining the

duties.

24.

From the evidence it has come on record that the concerned workman received the memo dated 26.2.1999 and

she replied the said memo. Thereafter on 23.6.1999 she resumed the duties and thereafter she was absent from duty

from 11.2.2000 because she fell sick. Even it was suggested to her in her cross-examination that she resumed duty

from 2.3.2000 and admittedly she resumed duty on 11.8.2000. From the evidence therefore it appears that she was

willing to join the duties and even wanted to produce medical certificate but then the termination order came to be

issued thereby terminating her services from 28.2.2001 vide order dated 24.7.2001. When she was declared medically

fit by medical certificate dated 30.7.2001 then her services cannot be terminated by the order dated 24.7.2001 when she

was sick. As such the termination is with retrospective effect and therefore it is illegal.

25.

Considering all these facts, I find that the first party management has not proved that the second party workman

abandoned her services voluntarily on her own volition and therefore removal of her name from the rolls is unjustified

as such there was no question that she was not considered by MIAL. It cannot be said therefore that she is not entitled

for any relief. First party management has not proved both these issues. The issues are therefore answered accordingly

in the negative.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3451

Issue No. 3 & 4

26.

In view of my findings to Issue Nos. 1 & 2, it will have to be held that the termination of services of the

concerned workman is illegal and against the principles of natural justice since no any enquiry was held nor the notice

was issued to her before terminating her service. It can be said that the employer has not followed the principles of

natural justice before termination. As such the termination of the concerned workman is illegal and invalid. She is

therefore entitled for reinstatement in service will full back wages and continuity of service. The above issues are

therefore answered accordingly. Thus the order:

ORDER

(I)

The action of the management of Airports Authority of India, Mumbai in terminating the services of

concerned workman is held illegal and invalid.

(II)

Concerned workman be reinstated in service along with full back wages and continuity of service.

Date: 17/04/2017

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 twu] 2017

dk-vk- 1461-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjr

isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 51@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 07-06-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@41@2009&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 8th June, 2017

S.O. 1461.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

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

Government on 07.06.2017.

[No. L-30011/41/2009-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/51 of 2010

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.

The General Manager (HR)

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

[Refinery],

Mahul,

Chembur, Mumbai.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

3452

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The General Secretary,

Petroleum Workmen’s Union,

C/o. C-3, Rashmi Complex,

Near Mental Hospital

Thane 400 604

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Shri R.S. Pai, Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN

Ms. Kunda Samant, Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 19^th April, 2017

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-30011/41/2009-IR (M) dated

05.05.2010 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management depriving the benefit of lease rent and maintenance charges or

HRA to Smt. Kranti K. Waradkar, Female Nurse is legal and justified ? What relief she is entitled to ?”

After receipt of the reference, notices were issued to both the parties. In response to the notice, the second party

workman filed her statement of claim at Ex-8.

It is admitted that the first party is a government company under section 617 of Companies Act. The first party

management is engaged in the business of refining crude oil and manufacture and distribution of Petroleum Products.

It is uncontroverted that the second party union is a registered union for Mumbai Refinery and it represents clerical

category of employees. The concerned workman Smt. Kranti K. Waradkar was employed as Female Nurse at Medical

Centre, Mahul. She was confirmed by letter dated 29.7.1998 w.e.f. 1.8.1998. She has been working as Assistant-I

Medical Services.

According to second party union, the concerned workman was getting House Rent Allowances in accordance

with First Party’s Rules and also in terms of settlement entered into between the first party and second party

representing her. She is entitled to HRA during her service tenure with the first party management, right, vested in her

under the letter of appointment. The concerned workman got married on 31.12.1991 at Mumbai. She was staying with

her husband and his family at A-1/16, Dyaneshwar Nagar, D.G. Mahajan Road, Seweri-Wadala, Mumbai – 400 031.

However, due to accommodation problem in the joint family, her husband and she thought of buying a separate flat

which was booked on 11.7.1992 and was occupied on 10.5.1995 in her name at Bright Star Co.op. Society, Balkum,

Thane. She was granted housing loan for the same by the first party management.

According to the union, the concerned workman’s elder daughter by name Kumari Darpana Kiran Waradkar is

born on 3.12.1992. There was no school bus facility in the school by name Bedekar School, Thane and therefore she

applied for her admission for nursery in King George School, Dadar Hindu Colony and obtained admission for her on

2.5.1995. It was therefore decided by her and husband that she would stay in the said flat for all working days and they

would join her on Sundays, holidays and vice-versa. Her mother-in-law was aged and hence she needed somebody

with her. Hence her husband preferred to be with his mother.

It seems to be admitted position that the Corporation introduced a scheme known as Self Lease Scheme in 1995.

As per the said scheme employees owning their own flat were eligible to apply under the Self Lease Scheme subject to

satisfying all the conditions therein. The workman concerned was required to forgo her right to receive HRA during

the continuance of the receipt of self lease rent and maintenance charges under the Self Lease Scheme. The

Corporation and the workman entered into Self Lease Agreement on 10.5.1996. As per the said Self Lease agreement

the workman leased under Self Lease Scheme her flat situated in Bright Star Co.op. Society, Balkum, Thane. In terms

of the said agreement, the workman is entitled only for self lease rent and maintenance charges subject to condition that

she occupy the flat leased under the Self Lease agreement.

According to the union, the concerned workman stayed in the said flat and at no point of time she had violated

any terms. She had paid regularly electricity charges in respect of said flat. She obtained permission from the

Secretary of the housing society for alteration of her flat. She stayed in the flat for 5 days in a week and used to stay in

mother-in-law’s house at Seweri on holidays and vice-versa. However, all of sudden she received a letter dated

1.8.2001 whereby it was alleged that she was not occupying the said flat leased out to the first party management

pursuant to the agreement entered between them and thereafter the first party management without giving any

opportunity to her has passed an order informing her that documents filed by her were not acceptable to it and the first

party management came to the conclusion that she was not occupying the said flat. The first party management ordered

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3453

the recovery of amount paid to her from 1.10.1995 to 31.7.2001 amounting to Rs.2,13,549/- towards lease rent and

maintenance charges. It is thus contention of the union that the order of the first party management that recovery of

lease rent and maintenance charges from the concerned workman was totally illegal and unjustified. The concerned

workman therefore gave notice to the first party management on 12.9.2002 asking it to remit the amount of

Rs.2,13,549/- recovered from her along with interest. The first party management replied the said notice mentioning

therein that the flat given on lease was not occupied by the concerned workman and when the team of the officers of

first party management visited the flat, the same was found locked. So according to the second party union, the

concerned workman is deprived of HRA or benefits of the lease rent and maintenance charges under the lease

agreement from 1.10.1995 to July 2001 and therefore she is asking for the amount of Rs.2,13,549/- as lease rent

recovery plus maintenance charges alternatively Rs.2,28,695/- as amount towards HRA from 1.10.1995 to 31.7.2001

along with interest @ 18% per annum.

First party management resisted statement of claim by filing the written statement (Ex.9). It is the contention of

the first party management that the concerned workman had already filed an application under section 33 (c) (2) of the

I.D. Act, 1947 being application (IDA) No. LC 02/90 of 2003 before this tribunal and the application came to be

rejected as the said claim made by the workman came to be rejected by the court by its order dated 8.5.2008 and

therefore reference for the same claim and relief at the instance of union is not maintainable. Reference is barred by

principle of resjudicata.

It is then contention of the first party management that in terms of the said self lease agreement, the concerned

workman was entitled for self lease rent on condition that she occupies the flat leased out to the management.

Corporation found that the workman was not occupying the flat leased out in terms of self lease agreement and

therefore vide letter dated 7.8.2001 concerned workman was informed by the Corporation that she was not entitled for

the benefits of self lease rent in terms of the said agreement. Her claim for self lease rent was rejected and the amount

paid to her towards self lease rent was to be recovered from her.

10.

It is denied by the first party management that electricity charges in respect of said flat and other expenses were

paid by the concerned workman on account of her occupation of the said flat. First party management has thus denied

the contentions of the concerned workman that she was staying in the flat for 5 days a week. It is thus denied that the

concerned workman was not given opportunity of hearing before passing an order dated 14.12.2001. It is thus denied

that the concerned workman is entitled to receive the amount of Rs.2,13,549/- being self lease rent and maintenance

charges or an amount of Rs. Rs.2,28,695/- by way of HRA. It has thus sought rejection of the reference.

11.

Second party union has filed rejoinder Ex.12 and reiterated that no enquiry was conducted before recovery of

the self lease rent and maintenance charges. It is also reiterated that the concerned workman was occupying the said

flat. It is contention of the second party union that the tribunal did not give judgment on merits in respect of the said

issue and therefore the reference is not barred by principles of resjudicata and as such reference is maintainable.

12.

Second party union has adduced the evidence of concerned workman Shri Kiran Waradkar, husband of the

concerned workman, Shri Pandurang Tikam and Shri Sudhir Tari. Corporation has adduced the evidence of Shri Abhay

Nadkarni and closed the evidence.

13.

I have heard the arguments of both the parties. Second party union has filed written notes of arguments Ex.83.

First party management has filed written notes of arguments Ex.84.

14.

Following issues are framed at Ex.13. I reproduce the issues along with my findings thereon for the reasons to

follow:

Sr. No.

Issues

Findings

Whether the action of management depriving the second

party the benefit of lease rent and maintenance charges or

HRA to Smt. Kranti K. Waradkar, Female Nurse is legal

and justified ?

Yes

If not, whether she is entitled to get the said charges from

the management ?

What relief the second party worker is entitled to ?

As per final

order

What order ?

As per final

order

3454

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2017/JYAISTHA 27, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REASONS

Issues Nos. 1 & 2

15.

So far contentions go, it is admitted position that the concerned workman entered into agreement with the

Corporation being Self Lease Agreement dated 10.5.1996 and in terms of the said agreement the concerned workman

was entitled for self lease rent on condition that she occupies the flat leased out to the management. It is undisputed

that the first party management has issued letter dated 1.8.2001 to the concerned workman informing that she has not

been occupying the self lease flat and the concerned workman was asked to explain why the self lease rent and

maintenance charges should not be recovered from her. Ultimately, the first party management has passed an order and

recovered the self lease rent and maintenance charges from the concerned workman amounting to Rs.2,39,549/-. The

question is whether the concerned workman has been occupying the self lease flat or whether there is breach of

agreement ?

16.

In this respect if we see the evidence of concerned workman she states that she was occupying the said flat in

view of self lease agreement for 5 days in a week and her husband used to stay with his mother at their residence at

Seweri. But then it is clear from her evidence that her daughter was admitted in King George School and therefore the

fact remains that her daughter was also staying at the flat at Sewri. Therefore it seems improbable that the concerned

workman was alone occupying the flat which was leased out to the Corporation keeping her other family members

away from her especially when her daughter was required to reside at Seweri since she got admission in the school

namely King George School.

17.

That apart the evidence has come on record that the enquiry was made with the occupants residing in the

neighboring flat being flat No. B-2/G-1 to verify whether the concerned workman resides in the said flat or not. The

said enquiry was made by J D’souza and the witness of the management Shri Abhay Nadkarni. It is clear from the

evidence that when they made enquiry with the occupants residing in the neighboring flat. It was informed to them that

the concerned workman is not residing in the said flat leased out to the Corporation and on rare occasions her family

members used to come to the said flat. Accordingly, they confirmed that the concerned workman does not reside in the

said flat and then they submitted a joint report dated 6.8.2001 to the then Senior Staff Manager vide Ex.79 mentioning

therein that on enquiry it was found that the concerned workman was not occupying the flat leased out to the

Corporation but was getting the self lease rent by violating the terms of agreement. This is precisely the evidence of

Shri Abhay Nadkarni which has gone un-challenged, even though the attempt is made to suggest that he even did not

make enquiry with the neighbours and that did not obtain anything in writing from those neighbours to show that the

concerned workman was not occupying the said flat leased out to the Corporation.

18.

It is nodoubt true that the concerned workman relies on the documents i.e. allotment letter Ex.30, occupancy

certificate Ex.31, NOC of the builder Ex.34, bills of payment receipt in respect of work of fabrication Ex.37

[collectively], pass book of her bank account Ex.38, electricity bill Ex.39, receipts of the maintenance charges Ex.40

[collectively], transfer receipts of the gas connection Ex.41 [collectively] to show that she was occupying the said flat

leased out to the Corporation. All these documents pertain to the ownership of the said flat of the concerned workman.

That would show that she being the owner of the said flat. She made some repairs of the said flat and at times she had

complained to the Secretary of the society in respect of neighbours and others. That does not show that she along with

her family members were occupying the said flat. In terms of the self lease agreement infact she admits that her

husband, mother-in-law, daughter were residing at Seweri flat and she occasionally used to come to the said flat which

was leased out to the Corporation. The fact remains that the enquiry was made by the offices of the Corporation and

that time it was found that the concerned workman was not occupying the flat leased out to the Corporation but on rare

occasion she used to come to see the flat.

19.

This is precisely the evidence of her husband who admits in his cross examination that after marriage, concerned

workman was residing at Seweri. He even admits in his cross examination that her daughter was admitted in the school

at Dadar. He even admits that when the officers of the Corporation had gone for inspection to the flat at Thane, the flat

was locked. Even the witness of the concerned workman namely Shri Sudhir Tari has admitted in his cross

examination that the family of the concerned workman was staying at Seweri and her both the daughters were studying

in King George School at Dadar. He admits that he has never seen her daughters in the flat at Thane for the period

from Monday to Friday. Meaning thereby that the daughters and the husband of the concerned workman were not

residing in the flat leased out to the Corporation. That shows that she was not occupying the flat and when officers of

the Corporation went to make an enquiry, they also found that the said flat leased out to the Corporation was locked.

20.

Even it is made clear from the evidence of Shri Sudhir Tari that the officers of the company had come to the

society and enquired with the occupants. He admits in his cross examination that the officers of the company namely

J D’souza and Shri Abhay Nadkarni had come to the society and enquired with the occupants of the society. From the

evidence it can be gathered that the concerned workman was not occupying the flat leased out to the Corporation and it

amounted to breach of self lease agreement. In view of that after giving notice to the concerned workman the order

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 17] 2017@T;s"B 27] 1939

3455

came to be passed in respect of the recovery of the self lease rent paid to her. It cannot be said therefore that the action

of the management of recovering self lease rent amount from the concerned workman is illegal.

21.

As a matter of fact, it is clear that the concerned workman had filed application under section 33 (c) (2) of the

I.D. Act, 1947 being application (IDA) No. LC 02/90 of 2003 before this tribunal. On going through the copy of

judgment at Ex.29, it is clear that the application came to be rejected with no order as to costs with the specific findings

that the applicant is not entitled to recover Rs.2,39,549/- from the opponent i.e. Corporation. By this application, the

concerned workman prays for recovery of Rs.2,39,549/- recovered from her and which was given to her under the self

lease rent scheme. Her claim was rejected on the ground that she does not have existing right since the existing right is

disputed by the order of management and the said order dated 14.12.2001 subsist and has not been challenged by the

applicant before any forum. It is thus finding of the fact that the applicant is not entitled to recover Rs. 2,39,549/- from

the opponent i.e. Corporation. That finding holds good to held that the action of the management depriving the second

party workman the benefit of lease rent and maintenance charges is legal and justified.

22.

Herein in the instant case alternatively the union is asking for HRA. In her application the concerned

workman’s claim was in respect of amount which was paid to her under the said lease agreement during the period

from 1.10.1995 to 31.7.2001 in lieu of HRA. That claim was rejected and the union has raised the same relief in this

reference which was earlier claimed by the concerned workman and was rejected by this tribunal. In view of that also

the second party union is not entitled to the reliefs claimed.

23.

In this respect the Learned Counsel for the first party management submitted that the union is not entitled to

raise the industrial disputes on the subject matter of the lease agreement or for recovery of lease rent and maintenance

charges since the findings of the tribunal in its award dated 12.10.2006 in reference CGIT No.2 of 55/2002 is binding

on all workmen and union of the first party management under section 18 of the I.D. Act, 1947. In that reference in

para 17 of the judgment it was held that

“If we consider all this, from all angles coupled with specific case made out by the 1^st party that since it was

a welfare scheme and which was a discretionary withdrawal of it by the 1^st party, does not attract Section

9(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It does not attract Section 9(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. When it does not attract Section 9(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the 1^st party has right to

make such change which cannot be the subject matter of the Industrial dispute and fall under Section 2 (k)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As a result of that, members of all the 2^nd Party’s Unions are not

entitled to get 40% rent and 45% maintenance for even which they were getting at the desire of the 1^st

Party, prior to 14^th December, 2001. Accordingly I answer this issue to that erect”.

24.

In the present case also the order of the management has not been challenged. The said order is in consonance

with the self lease scheme. It is within the managerial directions of the employer to organize and arrange his business

in the manner he considers best and therefore also the concerned workman is not entitled to any reliefs as prayed.

25.

In view of findings to Issue No.1 & 2, I find that the concerned workman is not entitled to get lease rent and

maintenance charges or HRA from the management. The above issues are therefore answered accordingly as indicated

against each of them.

Issues Nos. 3 & 4

26.

In view of my findings to the above issues, the second party workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference

is liable to be rejected. Thus the order:

ORDER

The reference is rejected with no order as to costs.

Date: 19/04/2017

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.

ALOK KUMAR

Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR

Date: 2017.07.19 15:20:51 +05'30'