2785 GI/2018

(4025)

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- 21]

ubZ fnYyh] ebZ 27—twu 2] 2018] 'kfuokj@T;s"B 6—T;s"B 12] 1940

No. 21]

NEW DELHI, MAY 27—JUNE 2, 2018, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 6—JYAISTHA 12, 1940

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)

fons'k ea=kky;

(lh-ih-oh- izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2018

dk-vk- 844-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds [akM

(d) ds vuqlj.k esa oS/kfud vkns'k A ,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds iz/ku dksalykokl] E;wfu[k esa Jh lkSjHk] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

dks fnukad 22 ebZ] 2018 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkÑr djrh gS A

¹la- Vh&4330@01@2014º

izdk'k pUn] funs'kd (dksalqyj)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(C.P.V. DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2018

S.O. 844.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers

(Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Sourabh, Assistant Section

Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India, Munich to perform the Consular services with effect

from 22 May, 2018.

[No. T-4330/01/2014]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

4026

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 2, 2018/JYAISTHA 12, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ikjek.kq mQtkZ foHkkx

eqacbZ] 16 ebZ] 2018

dk-vk- 845-—dsaæh; ljdkj] ijek.kq mQtkZ foHkkx ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k ds v/hu ukfHkdh; bZa/u lfEeJ] gSnjkckn] ftlds 80 izfr'kr

ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks jktHkk"kk fu;e (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) 1976 ds fu;e

10 ds mifu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k esa vf/lwfpr djrh gSA

¹la- 6@7@2018&¯gnhº

,- vkj- lqys] la;qDr lfpo (vuqla/ku ,oa fodkl)

DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY

Mumbai, the 16th May, 2018

S.O. 845.—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 Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad under the administrative

control of the Department of Atomic Energy, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. 6/7/2018- Hindi]

A. R. SULE, Jt. Secy. (R&D)

eqacbZ 16 ebZ] 2018

dk-vk- 846-— dsaæh; ljdkj] ijek.kq mQtkZ foHkkx ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k ds v/hu bafM;u jsvj vFlZ fyfeVsM] eqacbZ ds v/huLFk

dk;kZy; jsvj vFlZ izHkkx] m|ksxeaMy] dsjy ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks jktHkk"kk

fu;e (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k esa vf/lwfpr djrh gSA

¹la- 6@7@2018&¯gnhº

,- vkj- lqys] la;qDr lfpo (vuqla/ku ,oa fodkl)

Mumbai, the 16th May, 2018

S.O. 846.—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 Rare Earths Division, Udyogamandal, Kerala, a subordinate

Office of the Indian Rare Earths Limited (IREL), Mumbai under the administrative control of the Department of Atomic

Energy, where more than 80% staff has acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. 6/7/2018- Hindi]

A. R. SULE, Jt. Secy. (R&D)

म एवं रोजगार

म एवं रोजगार मंालय

मंालय

नई दली, 18 मई, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 847

847

847.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wdks cSad ds izca/r=k

ds lac¼ fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tks/iqj ds iapkV

(03@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-05-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[Lka- ,y&39025@01@2017&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 2] 2018@T;s"B 12] 1940

4027

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 18th May, 2018

S.O. 847.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 03/2010 of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jodhpur as shown in the

Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 18.05.2018.

[No. L-39025/01/2017-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

vuqca/k

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj ¼jkt-½

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

Jh vt; dqekj 'kekZ&1

vkj-,p-ts-,l-

vkS|ksfxd fookn la[;k

03@2010

tqxyfd'kksj vjksM+k iq= Jh fxjhjkt vjksM+k] fBdkuk lenfM;ksa

dk ckl] vLirky ds ikl ihikM 'kgj ftyk tks/kiqj A

lsoki`Fkd pijklh ;wdks cSad 'kk[kk ihikM 'kgj] ftyk tks/kiqj A

---izkFkhZ

cuke

{ks=h; izcU/kd] ;wdks cSad th&79 'kkL=h uxj] tks/kiqj A

'kk[kk izcU/kd] ;wdks cSad 'kk[kk ihikM 'kgj] ftyk tks/kiqj A

---vizkFkhZx.k

mifLFkfr %

izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k Jh fouksn iqjksfgr mi-A

vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k Jh txnh'k O;kl mi-A

&%vf/kfu.kZ;%&

fnukad% 01-11-2017

izkFkhZ tqxyfd'kksj dh vksj ls ;g izkFkZuk i= vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 33&, ds

rgr U;k;ky; esa vius izfrfuf/k Jh fouksn iqjksfgr ds ek/;e ls fnukad 17-12-2009 dks is'k fd;k A

la{ksi esa rF; bl izdkj gS A izkFkhZ dk dguk gS fd fnukad 31-12-2005 dks izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ

fu;kstd }kjk pijklh ds in ij fu;ksftr fd;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ dh lsok, yxkrkj ,oa lUrks"ktud jghA

mls lsok dk;Z ds cnys 70@&#i;s izfrfnu ds fglkc ls etnwjh nh tkrh FkhA izkFkhZ dks tc fu;kstd

}kjk fu;ekuqlkj ns; osrueku] HkRrksa dks fu;ekuqlkj ugah fn;k x;k rks izkFkhZ us lgk;d Je vk;qDr

¼dsUnzh;½ Je le>ksrk vf/kdkjh] Je foHkkx dsUnzh; ljdkj] vtesj ds le{k ,d izkFkZuk i= , ts&7

¼15½@2008 ,,ylh ekg fnlEcj]2008 esa izLrqr fd;kA vizkFkhZ dks mDr izkFkZuk i= ij uksfVl fn;k x;kA

uksfVl lgk;d Je vk;qDr ds }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA mudh rkehy vizkFkhZ ij gqbZ vkSj vizkFkhZ us bl

4028

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 2, 2018/JYAISTHA 12, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

nkSjku izkFkhZ ds fo:) neukRed dk;Zokgh djrs gq;s ekSf[kd vkns'k ds tfj;s fnukad 2-1-2009 ds

dk;ksZijkUr lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;kA izkFkhZ dh ekSf[kd lsok lekfIr fcuk fdlh dkj.k o vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 25 ,Q ¼3½ ds izko/kkuksa ds fo:) dh xbZ gS izkFkhZ }kjk Je vk;qDr ds le{k fn;s

x;s izkFkZuk i= dks ijkfkt djus ds fy;s o U;k; ls izkFkhZ dks oafpr djus ds fy;s fnukad 2-1-2009 dks lsok

lekIr dh xbZ vr% izkFkhZ }kjk /kkjk 33 , vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 ds rgr ;g izkFkZuk i= izLrqr

fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dk dguk gS fd izkFkhZ dks fnukad 16-12-2008 ls fnukad 2-2-2009 rd dk osru Hkh vnk

ugha fd;k x;k gSA vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkkhZ ds fo:) fnukad 7-1-2009 dh rkjh[k is'kh ds uksfVl rkehy gksus ds

i'pkr~ fo}s"k iw.kZ ,oa neukRed dk;Zokgh vey esa ykrs gq;s mls lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k gSA vr% mDr

lsok lekfIr voS/k] 'kwU; o fu"izHkkoh gSA izkFkhZ us fu;qfDr frfFk ls fnukad 2-2-2009 rd fujUrj ,oa

lUrks"ktud lsok dk;Z djrs gq;s dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnol ls vf/kd dh lsok iw.kZ dh gSA vizkFkhZ }kjk /kkjk

25 ,Q vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 ds cU/kudkjh izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk ugaha dh gS vkSj u gh vizkFkhZ us

vfUre vkod&izFke tkod ds fl)kUr dk vuqlj.k fd;kA izkFkhZ dk dguk gS fd lsok lekfIr fnukad ls

fujUrj csjkstxkj py jgk gS vkSj mlds }kjk ,slk dgk x;k gS fd vizkFkhZ }kjk tkjh ekSf[kd vkns'k fnukad

2-1-2009 ftlds rgr izkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k gS mls voS/k] vuqfpr ?kksf"kr djrs gq;s izkFkhZ dh

lsok, yxkrkj ekurs gq;s mls vuqxkeh ykHk iznku fd;s tkos A

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izkjfEHkd vkifRr ;g yh xbZ gS fd muds ;gka pijklh dk dksbZ in l`ftr

ughg gSA fu;qfDr ds fy;s v/khuLFk oxZ ds deZpkfj;ksa ds fy;s HkrhZ gsrq fu;e cus gq;s gS mlh vuqlkj

fu;qfDr nh tkrh gSA izkFkhZ dks dksbZ Hkh fu;qfDr i= tkjh ugha fd;k x;k gSA dk;Z vko';drk ds vuqlkj

nSfud etnwj ds :i esa cqyk;k tkrk gSA izkFkhZ dks ftrus fnol mlus dk;Z fd;k gS izfrfnol fu/kkZfjr nj

70@&#i;s ds fglkc ls etnwjh nh xbZA izkFkhZ o vizkFkhZ ds chp esa Jfed o fu;ksftr dk lEcU/k LFkkfir

ugha gSA vr% izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt djus dh izkFkZuk dh A vizkFkhZ dh ;g Hkh vkifRr gS fd izkFkhZ dks iw.kZr;k

va'kdkfyu :i ls 'kk[kk esa lkQ&lQkbZ dk dk;Z djus gsrq yxk;k x;k FkkA vr% ,sls ekeyks esa /kkjk 25

,Q vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ykxw ugha gksrs gSA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls inokj tckc esa izkFkhZ }kjk vius ekax i= esa

fd;s x;s leLr dFkuksa ls budkj fd;k gS o ;g dgk gS fd vizkFkhZ cSad }kjk ,slk dksbZ dFku ugha fd;k

x;k gS fd tks fu;e fo:)] vlaoS/kkfud gks vkSj vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ds izko/kkuksa ds foijhr

gks vkSj izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt djus dh izkFkZuk dh A vfrfjDr dFku esa vizkFkhZ dk ;g dguk gS fd ekuuh;

mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fgekpy izns'k cuke lqjs'kdqekj oekZ , vkbZ vkj 1996 ,llh ist 1565 esa ;g

fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd ljdkjh foHkkxksa esa ,slh fu;qfDr oS/k ugah ekuh tkrh gS tks nSfud osru ij

dh xbZ gksA vizkFkhZ }kjk vius tckc esa ;g mn~j.k ;wfu;u ifCyd lfoZl dfe'ku cuke fxjh'k t;fUryky

ok?ksyk oxsjk , vkbZ vkj 2006 ,llh ist 1165] ,oa lfpo dukZVd jkT; cuker meknsoh , vkbZ vkj

2006 ,llh ist 1806 o us'kuy QfVZykbZtj fy- cuke lkseohjflag , vkbZ vkj 2006 ,llh ist 2319 esa

;g fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd tks deZpkjh nSfud osruHkksxh gS tks fu;fer deZpkjh ugh gS mudks

dkbZ laj{k.k dkuwu dk izkIr ugha gSA vr% izkFkZuk i= /kkjk 33 , vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 dks lO;;

[kkfjt djus dh izkFkZuk dhA

nksuksa i{kks ds rdksZ ij euu fd;kA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;k bl izdj.k esa U;k;ky; dks

;g r; djuk gS fd **izkFkhZ dh ekSf[kd :i ls vizkFkhZ }kjk dh xbZ lsoklekfIr vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e]1947 ds v/khu voS/k gS \**

tgka rd izkFkhZ ds vizkFkhZ ds ;gka prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :i esa dk;z djus dk iz'u gSA vizkFkhZ dh

vksj ls vius tckc esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ ds ;gka lQkbZ vkfn dk dk;Z djrk Fkk

vkSj mls 70@&#i;s izfrfnu etnwjh nh tkrh FkhA izkFkhZ tqxyfd'kksj us vius 'kiFk i= esa viuh fu;qfDr

pijklh ds in ij fnukad 31-12-2005 dks crkbZ gS vkSj mlds }kjk fnukad 2-1-2009 rd yxkrkj vizkFkhZ ds

v/khu mlds funsZ'k ij 70@&#i;s jkst ij dk;Z djuk crk;k gS vc izkFkhZ tqxyfd'kksj ls fd;s x;s

izfrijh{k.k dks ns[ks rks tqxyfd'kksj izkFkhZ us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mls eSustj lkgc }kjk ekSf[kd vkns'k

ls yxk;k x;k FkkA ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd fnukad 31-12-205 dks fu;qfDr ugh nh Fkh vfirq

ekSf[kd vkns'k ls yxk;k FkkA ml le; eSustj lkgc Jh ,0ds0xqIrk FksA HkrhZ dk foKkiu lekpkj i= esa

ugha fudkyk FkkA bl lq>ko dks xyr crk;k fd eSustj lkgc us lkQ lQkbZ o ikuh Hkjus ds fy;s j[kk

gks vkSj mlds vkus o tkus dk le; fu;r u fd;k gks cfYd izkFkhZ dk izfrijh{k.k esa dguk gS fd og lqcg

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 2] 2018@T;s"B 12] 1940

4029

9 cts vkrk Fkk vkSj 'kke dks cSad dk ykWd yxkus ds ckn tkrk FkkA mls 70@&#i;s etnwjh ml dk;Z dh

feyrh FkhA bl lq>ko dks xyr crk;k fd og viuh bPNk ls etnwjh ij vkrk gks vkSj vkus ds fy;s

LorU= gks A ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k fd mls etnwjh dk Hkqxrku okmpj ij gLrk{kj djds fn;k tkrk FkkA

mlus leku osrueku o HkRrs izkIr djus gsrq lgk;d Je vk;qDr] vtesj ds le{k dkSulh rkjh[k dks

izkFkZuk i= is'k fd;k ;g ;kn ugha gSA uksfVl vizkFkhZ cSad dks fnukad 2-1-2009 dks feys FksA bl lq>ko dks

xyr crk;k fd fnukad 8-11-2008 ds i'pkr~ cSad us dksbZ Hkqxrku u fd;k gksA mlus dke fd;kA mls

jkts'k o egs'k ds uke ls Hkqxrku djokdj gLrk{kj fd;s x;sA jkts'k o egs'k dks og tkurk gS oks cSad esa

dke ugha djrs gSA jkts'k o egs'k us eSustj lkgc ds dgus ls gLrk{kj fd;s A izn'kZ&2 ls 4 ds , ls ch

Hkkx ij jkts'k ds gLrk{kj gS vkSj izn'kZ& 5 o 6 ij egs'k ds gLrk{kj , ls ch gSA jkts'k ds gLrk{kfjr

jlhn fnukad 8-12-2008 vkSj 18-12-2008 ftuds }kjk mldks 560@&#i;s vkSj 700@&#i;s dk Hkqxrku

fd;k x;k rFkk jlhn izn'kZ&4 ds ek/;e ls jkts'k dks 400@&#i;s dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA izn'kZ&5 o 6

tks jlhns gS muesa 420@&#i;s o 350@&#i;s dk Hkqxrku egs'k dks fd;k x;kA mDr Hkqxrku djus dh

f'kdk;r mlus dgha ugha dh A fQj Lor% xokg us dgk fd mlus f'kdk;r dk izkFkZuk i= fn;k ftldh

jlhn mls ugha nh xbZA ml f'kdk;r dh izfrfyfi i=koyh ij is'k ugha dh A mls irk ugha fd cSad esa

dke djus okys etnwjksa dk mifLFkfr jftLVj j[kk tkrk gksA mls irk ugh fd mlds gLrk{kj blfy;s

ugh djokrs gks fd cSad dk deZpkjh ugh gksA bl lq>ko dks xyr crk;k fd fnukad 8-11-2008 ds i'pkr~

mlus dk;Z u fd;k gksA

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls jktho lwn ofj"B izcU/kd ;wdks cSad izLrqr gq;s gSA ftUgksaus vius eq[; 'kiFk i=

esa izkFkhZ dks iw.kZr;k va'kdkfyu :i ls vko';drk dk;Z ysuk o 70@&#i;s izfrfnu ds fglkc ls etnwjh

nsuk Lohdkj fd;k gS vkSj ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fnukad 8-11-2008 ds i'pkr izkFkhZ us mDr 'kk[kk esa

dksbZ izkFkZuk i= ugh fn;kA mudk dguk gS fd fnukad 8-11-2008 ds ckn dHkh etnwjh djus ugh vk;k

vkSj mlus dksbZ dk;Z u fd;k gks A

izfrijh{k.k esa Jh jktho lwn dk dguk gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk leLr okmpj izn'kZ 1 muds cSad ds gSA

;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ us mudh 'kk[kk ihikM 'kgj esa dstwvy yscj ds :i esa dke fd;kA izkFkhZ

dks 70@&#i;s jkst ds fglkc ls etnwjh nh tkrh FkhA ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k fd izkFkhZ us fnukad

31-12-2005 ls dstwvy yscj ds :i esa dke 'kq: fd;k FkkA izn'kZ&1 okmpj izkFkhZ ls lEcfU/kr gS ysfdu

fnukd 15-1-2008 esa izkFkhZ dk uke vafdr ugha gS okmpj cSad dk gh gSA izn'kZ&1 esa Hkqxrku izkIr djus

okyksa ds gLrk{kjksa dks og ugha igpkurk ysfdu bu okmpj esa izkFkhZ dk uke vafdr gSA ;g Hkh Lohdkj

fd;k fd izkFkhZ o"kZ 2005 ls 2008 rd ihikM 'kk[kk esa vf/kdkjh ugha FkkA cSad dh fdlh 'kk[kk esa eq[;ky;

ds funsZ'kkuqlkj dksbZ funsZ'k dstqvy yscy ds tkjh ugha fd;sA 'kiFk i= ds in la[;k 4 esa bl xokg us

;g mYysf[kr fd;k gS fd cSad fu;eksa ds vuqlkj 'kk[kk izcU/kd dks fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks cSad esa fu;qDr

djus dk vf/kdkj ugh gSA vr% o"kZ 2005 ls 2008 ds e/; rSukr 'kk[kk izcU/kd ds fo:) fu;eksa ds

foijhr vkdfLed Jfed ikVZVkbZe j[kus ckcr dksbZ uksfVl ;k tkap ugah dh xbZ ;g Lohdkj fd;k x;k

gSA fQj dgk fd fu;qfDr 'kCn esa dstwvy yscj dh fu;qfDr 'kkfey ugh gS A blls ;g tkfgj gksrk gs fd

izcU/kd dks vkdfLed Jfed j[kus dk vf/kdkj izkIr gSA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls pijklh dh HkrhZ ls lEcfU/kr

dksbZ fu;ekoyh] ifji= is'k ugha fd;s x;s gSA o"kZ 2005 ls ihikM 'kk[kk esa pijklh nQrjh ,p ih cksgjk

Fkk ftldk LFkkukUrj.k gks x;k A blds vykok ikVZVkbZe Lohij Fkk ftldk dke djhc 3 ?kaVs FkkA lu

2005 ds ckn cSad esa dksbZ pijklh ugha yxk FkkA fQj dgk cksgjk pijklh ugha Fkk nQrjh FkkA vizkFkhZ dh

vksj ls nwljk xokg ds0lh0 dkdk izLrqr gqvk gS ftlls izkFkhZ us ftjg djus dk volj dksLV ij izkIr

fd;k ,oa dksLV vnk djus gsrq volj pkgk ] dksLV vnk ugah djus ij vizkFkhZ dh ftjg ugah i<h tkosxhA

,slh fLFkfr esa esjh jk; esa Jh dslh dkdk dk c;ku vc iBuh; ugha gS D;ksafd l'krZ vkns'k ds rgr izkFkhZ

dks ftjg dk volj gtsZ ij fn;k x;k Fkk fdUrq izkFkhZ us gtkZ vnk ugah fd;kA

mijksDr nksuksa i{kksa dh lk{; ls ;g rks izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ o vizkFkhZ ds chp esa Jfed o

fu;kstd dk fj'rk gS A vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr xokg o tckc ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ cSad

dh 'kk[kk esa o"kZ 2005 ls uoEcj 2008 rd dk;Zjr FkkA izkFkhZ dks ekSf[kd :i ls va'kdkfyu deZpkjh ds

:i esa yxk;k x;k ;g Hkh Lohd`r rF; gS vkSj mls 70@&#i;s jkst etnwjh nh tkrh FkhA bl ckr ls Hkh

budkj ugah fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ us etnwjh c<+kus o mls fu;fer djus ds fy;s Je foHkkx esa izkFkZuk i=

4030

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 2, 2018/JYAISTHA 12, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

izLrqr fd;k ysfdu fookn vf/klwfpr gksus ls iwoZ izkFkhZ dks lsok ls fo}s"kiwoZd rjhds ls gVk;k x;kA u rks

izkFkhZ dks dksbZ uksfVl fn;k x;k] u gh mls NaVuh eqvkotk fn;k x;kA ,slh fLFkfr esa tkgs Hksys va'kdkfyu

deZpkjh gks ;k nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh gks mls vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ds rgr /kkjk 25&,Q]

25&th ,oa 25&,p dk laj{k.k izkIr gSA izkFkhZ dh lsok, ] lsok lekfIr ls iwoZ dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnol ls

vf/kd izekf.kr gqbZ gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 25,Q ds rgr

izko/kkuksa ds foijhr fcuk uksfVl&is o NaVuh eqvkotk fn;s fcuk lsok ls ugha gVk;k tk ldrkA tgka rd

vizkFkhZ dk ;g dguk fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr fu;eksa ds fo:) gSA vizkFkhZ ds xokg ih-MCY;w- 1 jktho lwn dh

Lohd`fr ds vuqlkj vkdfLed Jfed dks izcU/kd }kjk j[kk tk ldrk gSA ,slh dksbZ fu;ekoyh o funsZ'k

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr ugah fd;s x;s gS fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr veqd fu;e ds rgr fu;e fo:) gSA

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls U;k;ky; dk /;ku 2014 ¼7½ ,llhlh ist 177 Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fy- cuke

Hkw:ey ,oa 2014 ¼7½ ,llhlh ist 190 gfjuanu izlkn o vU; cuke ,Q lh vkbZ dh vksj fnyk;k ftlesa

izFke ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Jfed dks iquZfu;qfDr fn;s tkus ds LFkku ij rhu yk[k

:i;s dh {kfriwfrZ fnykbZ D;ksafd ekeys esa dkQh foyEc gks x;k Fkk vkSj izkFkhZ dh lsok vof/k de cph FkhA

nwljs ekeys esa fu.kZ; fn;k gS fd vkdfLed Jfed o nSfud osruHkksxh ,oa LFkkbZ deZpkjh dh lsok, ;fn

/kkjk 25 ,Q vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh ikyuk ds fcuk lekIr dh tkrh gS rks og vuQs;j yscj

izsfDVl dh rkjhQ esa vkrk gSA vr% Jfed dks ,sls ekeys esa vU; Jfed dh rjg lsok esa fy;k tkuk

pkfg;sA

,d U;kf;d n`"VkUr 2010 ¼9½ ,llhlh ist 126 izHkkjh vf/kdkjh cuke 'kadj 'ksV~Vh vizkFkhZ dh vksj

ls cgl ds nkSjku is'k fd;k x;k gS ftlesa Jfed dks ,d yk[k :i;s dh {kfriwfrZ iquZfu;qfDr dh ctk;

fnykbZ xbZ gSA esjh jk; esa ;g ,slk ekeyk ugah gSA vr% mijksDr U;kf;d n`"VkUr gLrxr izdj.k ds rF;ksa

,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k ykxw ugha gksrs gSA

esjh jk; esa vizkFkhZ }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 dh /kkjk 33&, esa fuEu izko/kku fd;k gqvk gS&

;g U;k;fu.khZr djus ds fy;s fo'ks"k micU/k dh dk;Zokfg;ksa ds yfEcr jgus ds nkSjku lsok dh 'krsZ

vkfn cnyh gS ;k ugha& tgka fd dksbZ fu;kstd dk;Zokfg;ksa ds lqyg vf/kdkjh] cksMZ] e/;LFk] Je U;k;ky;]

vf/kdj.k ;k jk"Vªh; vf/kdj.k ds le{k yfEcr jgus ds nkSjku /kkjk 33 ds micU/kksa dk mYya?ku djrk gS

ogka ,sls mYya?ku ls O;fFkr deZpkjh ,sls Je U;k;ky;] vf/kdj.k ;k jk"Vªh; vf/kdj.k esa fyf[kr ifjokn]

fofgr jhfr ls&

d- ,sls lqyg vf/kdkjh ;k cksMZ dks dj ldsxk vkSj lqyg vf/kdkjh ;k cksMZ ,sls ifjokj dk lqyg

djkus vkSj ,sls vkS|ksfxd fookn dk le>ksrk djkus ds fy;s /;ku nsxk] vkSj

[k- ,sls e/;LFk] Je U;k;ky;] vf/kdj.k ;k jk"Vªh; vf/kdj.k dks dj ldsxk vkSj ,sls ifjokn

dh izkfIr ij] ;FkkfLFkfr] e/;LFk] Je U;k;ky;] vf/kdj.k ;k jk"Vªh; vf/kdj.k] ifjokn dk

U;k;fu.kZ;u djsxk ekuks og ifjokn bl vf/kfu;e ds micU/kksa ds vuqlkj mls funsZf'kr ;k

mlds le{k yfEcr fookn gks vkSj viuk vf/kfu.kZ; leqfpr ljdkj dks izLrqr djsxk vkSj bl

vf/kfu;e ds micU/k rnuqlkj ykxw gksaxsA

mDr izko/kkuksa ds rgr ;g n`f"Vxkspj gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]

1947 dh /kkjk 33 o 33, dk Hkh mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA vr% iwoZ lsok va'kdkfyu deZpkjh@nSfud osru

Hkksxh deZpkjh ds :i esa tks fnukad 2-1-2009 dks Fkk mls prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh vkdfLed Jfed@va'kdkfyu

ds in ij iqu% fu;qDr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA izkFkhZ dh lsok, fujUrj ekuh tkos vkSj izkFkhZ dks fu;ekuqlkj nj

ls osru jkf'k o ifjykHk fn;s tkos A

&%vf/kfu.kZ;%&

vr% ;g vf/kfu.kZ; fd;k tkrk gS fd%&

1- vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 33 , ds rgr izkFkhZ dk fookn yfEcr jgrs lsok ls i`Fkd

djuk voS/k ,oa vuqfpr gSA izkFkhZ dks iqu% lsok esa cgky fd;k tkosA

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 2] 2018@T;s"B 12] 1940

4031

2- izkFkhZ tqxyfd'kksj vjksMk iq= Jh fxjhjkt vjksM+k] fuoklh lenfM;ksa dk ckl] vLirky ds ikl]ihikM

'kgj dks iwoZlsok va'kdkfyu deZpkjh@nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh ds :i esa tks fnukad 2-1-2009 dks

Fkk] prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh vkdfLed Jfed@va'kdkfyu ds in ij iqu% fu;qDr fd;k tkosA

3- izkFkhZ dh lsok, fujUrj ekuh tkos vkSj izkFkhZ dks fu;ekuqlkj nj ls osru jkf'k o ifjykHk fn;s tkos A

;g vkns'k esjs }kjk fyfic) djok;k tkdj vkt fnukad 01-11-2017 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa gLrk{kj dj

mn~?kksf"kr fd;k x;kA

vt; dqekj 'kekZ&1] U;k;k/kh'k

ubZ fnYyh] 18 ebZ] 2018

dk-vk- 848-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkQ

cM+kSnk ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 04@2012½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-05-2018

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[Lka- ,y&39025@01@2017&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th May, 2018

S.O. 848.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref .04/2012) of theIndustrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jodhpur as shown in

the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Barodaand their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 18.05.2018

[No. L-39025/01/2017 - IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

vuqca/k

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj ¼jkt-½

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

Jh vt; dqekj 'kekZ&1

vkj-,p-ts-,l-

Je fookn la[;k

04@2012

l:iflag iq= Jh dqEHkflag] mez 41 o"kZ] tkfr jktiwr] fuoklh

xzke csyok] iksLV csyok] jktx<+] rglhy 'ksjx<+] ftyk tks/kiqjA

---izkFkhZ

cuke

lgk;d egkizcU/kd] cSad vkQ cM+kSnk] {ks=h; dk;kZy;

¼tks/kiqj {ks=½] 63 iksyks izFke] ikoVk] tks/kiqj A

---vizkFkhZ

4032

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 2, 2018/JYAISTHA 12, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

mifLFkfr %

izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k Jh ds0ds0O;kl mi0A

vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k Jh /kus'k lkjLor mi0A

vf/kfu.kZ;

fnukad % 19-12-2017

bl vf/kfu.kZ; dks izdk'kukFkZ dsUnz ljdkj dks izsf"kr fd;k tkos dsUnz ljdkj dh vksj ls tfj;s

vf/klwpuk uEcj ,y&12012@41@2008&vkbZvkj¼ch&II½ fnukad 01-09-2008 tks fookn vf/klwfpr fd;k

x;k gS og bl izdkj gS&

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda in terminating of service of Sh.Saroop

Singh S/o Kumbsingh w.e.f. 5.1.2007 is legal and justified.To what relief the concerned workman is

entitled ?"

la{ksi esa rF; bl izdkj gS%&

izkFkhZ us vf/klwfpr fookn ds lEcU/k esa viuk ekax i= is'k fd;kA izkFkhZ us vius ekax i= esa dgk gS

fd izkFkhZ&Jfed dh izFke fu;qfDr vizkFkhZ cSad dh 'kk[kk e:/kj b.M- ,sfj;k] ckluh tks/kiqj esa fnukad

20-5-1996 dks Lohij ds in ij dh xbZ Fkh rFkk izkFkhZ&Jfed dh lsokvksa ls lUrq"V gksus ij vizkFkhZ cSad ds

vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsokvksa dks fujUr j[kk x;k A rRi'pkr~ izkFkhZ }kjk nl o"kZ rd vizkFkhZ cSad esa

dk;Z fd;k ,oa mldk LFkkukUrj.k fnukad 12-12-2005 dks pkUniksy] tks/kiqj 'kk[kk esa dj fn;k x;k vkSj

izkFkhZ&Jfed us fnukad 13-12-2005 dks pkUniksy 'kk[kk esa viuk dk;Z xzg.k fd;kA izkFkhZ&Jfed }kjk

vizkFkhZ cSad ds vf/kdkfj;ksa dks fu;fer djus dk fuosnu fd;k ysfdu ckotwn vk'oklu ds mls fu;fer

ugah fd;k x;k vkSj O;fFkr gksdj izkFkhZ dks fnukad 5-1-2007 dks dk;Z lekfIr ds ckn ekSf[kd :i ls

lsokeqDr dj fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk fyf[kr esa dkj.k ekaxk rks cSad vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk dksbZ dkj.k nsus ls

budkj dj fn;k A vizkFkhZ dk mijksDr d`R; vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 dh /kkjk 25&,Q]25&th ,oa

25&,p ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr vkrk gS vkSj bu /kkjkvksa dk vizkFkhZ cSad }kjk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ

dks lsokeqDr djus ls iwoZ u rks vkjksi i= fn;k x;k] u gh dksbZ tkap dk;Zokgh dh]u fdlh izdkj dk

uksfVl fn;k] u gh uksfVl&is] NaVuh eqvkotk fn;k vkSj mls lsokeqDr dj fn;kA cSad dk mDr d`R;

vuqfpr Je O;ogkj dh rkjhQ esa vkrk gSA vizkFkhZ cSad }kjk izkFkhZ&Jfed dks lsokeqDr djus ls iwoZ

fu;ekuqlkj ofj"Brk lwph Hkh tkjh ugha dh A

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fuosnu fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ ds lsokeqfDr vkns'k fnukad 5-1-2007 dks voS/k ,oa 'kwU;

?kksf"kr fd;k tkos] iqu% lsok esa LFkkfir fd;k tkos rFkk mldh lsok izFke fu;qfDr fnukad ls fujUrj ekuh

tkos vkSj lsok esas iqu% LFkkfir djus dh vof/k dk iwjk cdk;k osru dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkosA

vizkFkhZ us vius tokc esa dgk gS fd izkFkhZ ds ekax i= esa vafdr rF;ksa ls badkj fd;k gS vkSj dgk

gS fd izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ ds fdlh Hkh l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk fdlh Hkh izdkj dh LFkkbZ fu;qfDr ugah nh xbZA

Hkkjr ljdkj ds fns'kk funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj 'kk[kk izca/kd dks fdlh Hkh ckg~; O;fDr dks cSad esa fu;qfDr nsus

;k LFkkukUrj.k djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gSA nSfud vk/kkj ij dk;Z djus okys Jfed dh lsok, fujUrj

tkjh j[kuk ;k u j[kuk cSad dh vko';drk ij vk/kkfjr gSA izkFkhZ }kjk nksuksa 'kk[kkksa esa le; ij vfu;fer

:i ls vLFkkbZ vk/kkj ij 'kk[kk ifjlj esa lQkbZ dk dk;Z fd;k ftldk le; le; ij fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ

jkf'k ds vuqlkj Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dHkh Hkh cSad dk deZpkjh ugha jgk vkSj u gh izkFkhZ ,oa vizkFkhZ esa

fu;kstd fu;ksDrk dk lEcU/k jgkA tc izkFkhZ cSad dk LFkkbZ@vLFkkbZ deZpkjh ugah jgk rks izkFkhZ cSad ls lsok

lekfIr dk iz'u gh ugha mBrk vkSj u gh vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 dh /kkjk 25&,Q] 25&th ,oa

25&,p ds izko/kku ykxw gksrs gSA izkFkhZ dks cSad ds fu;ekuqlkj ;k vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj vkjksi

i=@uksfVl vkfn nsus dk dksbZ vFkZ ugha gSA fo'ks"k dFku esa vizkFkhZ cSad dh vksj ls fuosnu fd;k x;k gS

fd Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk fof'k"B ,oa Li"V fn'kk funsZ'k tkjh fd;s x;s gS vkSj mu fn'kk funsZ'kksa dh ikyuk

fd;s fcuk fdlh Hkh fLFkfr esa fdlh Hkh O;fDr dh fdlh Hkh in ij fu;qfDr ugha dh tk ldrh vkSj u gh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 2] 2018@T;s"B 12] 1940

4033

'kk[kk izeq[k ds ikl fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks fdlh Hkh in ij fu;qDr djus dk vf/kdkj gksrk gSA izkFkhZ dks

dHkh Hkh cSad esa vfu;fer o vLFkkbZ :i ls 'kk[kk ifjlj esa lQkbZ dk dk;Z tSlh vkdfLed lsok, iznku

djuk ml O;fDr dks cSad lsok esa fu;qfDr dk dksbZ gd iznku ugh djrk gSA izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ cSad dk deZpkjh

ugha jgk uk gh izkFkhZ o vizkFkhZ ds chp fu;kstd fu;ksDrk dk lEcU/k ugha gSA

vizkFkhZ us vius tokc esa fuonsu fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr ekax i= [kkfjt Qjek;k tkos A

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls lk{; esa Lo;a dk 'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;kA ftl ij vizkFkhZx.k us izfrijh{k.k

fd;kA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls lk{; esa xtsUnzflag ifjgkj lhfu;j 'kk[kk izcU/kd] cSad vkQ cMkSnk dk

'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;kA ftl ij izkFkhZ us izfrijh{k.k fd;kA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izn'kZ&1 ls izn'kZ&5 nLrkost

dh izfr;ka izLrqr dh xbZA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls tckc uksfVl fnukafdr 7-2-2007 dh izfr izLrqr dh xbZA

nksuksa i{kksa dh cgl lquh xbZ i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA

vf/klwfpr fookn ds lEcU/k esa ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd izkFkhZ us vius ekax i= esa bl ckr dk dksbZ

mYys[k ugah fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ fdrus :i;s nSfud etnwjh ij j[kk x;k Fkk vkSj fdrus le; fnu esa dk;Z

djus ds fy;s j[kk x;k Fkk mldks etnwjh ekfld feyrh Fkh] lkIrkfgd feyrh FkhA izkFkhZ us vius ekax i=

esa ;g dgh Hkh vafdr ugah fd;k gS fd mlus fnukad 5-1-2007 dks dk;Z lekfIr ls iwoZ dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240

fnol dk;Z fd;kA mijksDr ckrksa dk mYys[k izkFkhZ l:iflag us vius 'kiFk i= esa Hkh ugah fd;k gSA izkFkhZ

ds fo)ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd vizkFkhZ ls mlds fnukad fnukad 3-2-2015 dks ,d izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj

vizkFkhZ fu;ksDrk ls fuEufyf[kr nLrkost ryc djus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZ%&

1- cSad }kjk ekaxh xbZ lwpuk ¼izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esa½

2- cSad vkQ cMkSnk 'kk[kk e:/kj b.M- ,sfj;k tks/kiqj }kjk tkjh

i= dzekad tks/k@dkfeZd@110-2@fnukad 13-2-2000

3- izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= fnukad 13-12-2005

4- mifLFkfr jftLVj fnukad 20-5-1996 ls 12-12-2005 rd 'kk[kk

e:/kj b.M- ,sfj;k] tks/kiqj vLFkkbZ deZpkfj;ksa dk

5- mifLFkfr jftLVj fnukd 13-12-2005 ls 5-1-2007 rd 'kk[kk

pkUniksy 'kk[kk tks/kiqj vLFkkbZ deZpkfj;ksa dk

6- ofj"Brk lwph o"kZ 1996 ls 2007 rd dh A

mDr nLrkostkr U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 15-11-2016 ds rgr is'k djus ds fy;s vkB volj iznku fd;s

x;s ftlesa vizkFkhZ cSad us flQZ uksfVl dk gh tckc is'k fd;kA vU; dksbZ nLrkostkr is'k ugha fd;s A

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izn'kZ&1 Lohij ds ckjs esa lwpuk dh QksVks izfr izLrqr dh xbZ gS ftlesa Lohij dh

txg fnukad 12-3-1996 ls fjDr gksuk crk;k x;k gSA mDr izkFkhZ l:iflag }kjk fnukad 20-5-1996 dk

Lohij dk dk;Z djus dh frfFk crkbZ xbZ gSA blesa izkFkhZ dks Ldsy oStst pijklh ds osru dk vk/kk osru

nsuk vafdr gSA Lohij dk;Z gsrq nh tk jgh ,d eq'r jkf'k dk mYys[k ugha gSA ;g lwpuk e:/kj b.M-

,sfj;k tks/kiqj 'kgjh 'kk[kk }kjk cSad dks Hksth xbZ gSA izkFkhZ }kjk bls fu;qfDr i= crk;k tk jgk gS tcfd

izn'kZ&1 dks fu;qfDr i= ugah ekuk tk ldrkA nwljk izkFkhZ dk 'kiFk i= tks fnukad 28-5-1996 dks rLnhd

djk;k x;k gSA tcfd izkFkhZ ;g dgrk gS fd fnukad 20-5-1996 dks mldh fu;qfDr gqbZ bldks Hkh fu;qfDr

dk vk/kkj ugah ekuk tk ldrkA izn'kZ&3 cSad vkQ cMkSnk }kjk tkjh tks/kiqj {ks= dh lHkh 'kk[kkvksa dks

ifji= gS ftlesa Lohij dh LFkkiuk 'kk[kkvksa esa djus ckcr fnukad 13-9-2000 dks tkjh djuk crk;k gS

ftlesa ;g vafadr fd;k x;k gS fd l:iflag pkj o"kZ ls dk;Zjr gS vkSj pijklh ds izFke osru dk vk/kk

mldks fn;k tk jgk gSA bl ij gkaykfd okLrs cSad vkQ cMkSnk ds ofj"B 'kk[kk izcU/kd dh eksgj rks

vafdr gS ysfdu gLrk{kj ugha gS] {ks=h; izcU/kd ds gLrk{kj vafdr gsA blls ;g tkfgj gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ

fnukad 13-9-2000 dks vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds ;gka pkj o"kZ ls dk;Zjr FkkA izn'kZ&4 TokbZfuax fjiksVZ gS tks cSad

vkQ cMkSnk pkUniksy ds 'kk[kk izcU/kd dks izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fn;k x;k gS mles amldk dguk gS fd

4034

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 2, 2018/JYAISTHA 12, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ekSf[kd funsZ'k ls pkUniksy 'kk[kk ds fy;s mldks lQkbZ dk;Z ds fy;s Hkstk x;k ftldks izkFkhZ LFkkukUrj.k

vkns'k crk jgk gSA esjh jk; esa fdlh Hkh 'kk[kk izcU/kd dks ,d 'kk[kk ls nwljh 'kk[kk esa LFkkukUrfjr djus

dh 'kfDr;kW izkIr ugah gsA vr% buls ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd izkFkhZ dk dksbZ LFkkukUrj.k ,d 'kk[kk ls

nwljh 'kk[kk esa fd;k x;k gksA izn'kZ&5 fof/kd uksfVl gSA

izkFkhZ dh ekSf[kd lk{; dks ns[ks rks izkFkhZ l:iflag us vius 'kiFk i= ds dFkuksa dks nksgjk;k gS vkSj

;g dgk gS fd mldh fu;qfDr vizkFkhZ cSad esa fnukad 20-5-1996 dks Lohij ds in ij dh xbZ Fkh vkSj

fnukad 20-5-1996 ls cSad dh 'kk[kk e:/kj b.M-,sfj;k] ckluh] tks/kiqj esa izFke fu;qfDr gqbZA fu;qfDr fnukad

ls gh cSad dh ckluh 'kk[kk esa dk;Z fd;k vkSj mlds ckn fnukad 12-12-2005 dks vizkFkhZ cSad dh 'kk[kk

pkUn iksy tks/kiqj esa LFkkukUrj.k ekSf[kd funsZ'k ij dj fn;k x;kA fnukad 13-12-2006 dks cSad esa mlus

viuk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;kA blls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd fnukad 12-12-2005 ls fnukad 13-12-2006 rd ,d

o"kZ dk dksbZ dk;Z ugha fd;kA izkFkhZ dk dguk gS fd fnukad 5-1-2007 dks mls lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k x;kA

vr% izkFkhZ ds 'kiFk i= o ekax i= ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ us fnukad 5-1-2007 ls iwoZ dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnol

dk;Z ugha fd;kA izkFkhZ dk dguk gS fd mldh ofj"Brk lwph ugha cukbZ xbZA tc izkFkhZ us lsok lekfIr ls

iwoZ dys.Mj o"kZ esa ,d o"kZ dk;Z gh ugah fd;k rks og ofj"Brk lwph esa viuk LFkku ikus dk gdnkj ugha

jgrk gS u gh ,sls ekeys esa vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 dh /kkjk 25&,Q dh ikyuk fd;k tkuk

vko';d gSA tks O;fDr rFkkdfFkr lsok eqfDr ls ,d o"kZ igys ls gh dk;Z ij ugha vkjgk gS rks ,sls Jfed

U;k;ky; ls dksbZ jkgr izkIr djus ds gdnkj ugha gSA

izkFkhZ l:iflag ls fd;s x;s izfrijh{k.k esa mlus fu;qfDr i= nsuk crk;k gS ysfdu i=koyh esa dksbZ

fu;qfDr i= ugah gSA izn'kZ&1 'kk[kk izcU/kd }kjk Hkj dj nsuk dgrk gS A ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k fd Nis gq;s

izk:i esa cSad vkQ cMkSnk vafdr ugha gSA izn'kZ&3 esa ofjB 'kk[kk izcU/kd ds gLrk{kj ugah gSA ;g Hkh

Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlus ekax i= esa osru ;k etnwjh fdruh feyrh gS ;g vafdr ugaha gSA 'kiFk i= esa

osru ,oa etnwjh dk vadu ugah gSA ckluh 'kk[kk ls pkUn iksy 'kk[kk esa Hkstk x;k bldk dksbZ fyf[kr

vkns'k ugah gSA ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd og nSfud :i ls dk;z djrk Fkk] orZeku esa mldh mez 45 o"kZ

gSA cSad vkQ cMkSnk ljdkjh cSad gSA cSad esa HkrhZ ds fy;s fu;e cuk;s gq;s gks rks irk ugahA cSad esa 'kk[kk

ds eSustj dks fdlh ckgjh O;fDr dks fu;qfDr nsus vFkok LFkkukUrj.k djus dk vf/kdkj gkfly gSA ;g Hkh

Lohdkj fd;k gS fd 'kk[kk eSustj dh ikoj mldh cSad rd gh gksrh gSA ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k fd ,d

'kk[kk izcU/kd nwljh 'kk[kk esa gLr{ksi ugah dj ldrk gSA tc ,d 'kk[kk izcU/kd nwljh 'kk[kk ds ekeys esa

gLr{ksi ugah dj ldrk rks ,d 'kk[kk izcU/kd vius deZpkjh dks nwljh 'kk[kk esa LFkkukUrfjr ugha dj

ldrkA ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k fd mlus ,sls dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugh fd;s gS ftlls ;g ekyqe gksrk fd

mlds }kjk o"kZ 1996 ls 2007 rd dk;Z fd;k gksA uksfVl izn'kZ&5 mlds vf/koDrk }kjk cSad dks fn;k x;k

Fkk ftldk tckc cSad }kjk fn;k x;k ftlesa Msyh ostst ikVZ VkbZe Lohij dk dk;Z djuk crk;k gSA blls

;g tkfgj gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ cSad dk fu;fer deZpkjh ugah FkkA izkFkhZ us vius ikl 08 ch?kk dk [ksr crk;k

ftl le; mldh ukSdjh yxh ml le; 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk 8oh ikl Fkh orZeku esa nloh gks rks mls irk

ugaha A mldk dguk gS fd ,d ekg pkUniksy 'kk[kk esa dke fd;k Fkk mlesa ls mls 5 fnu ds iSls ugah

feysA bl lq>ko dks xyr crk;k fd mlus Lo;a us gh dke ij vkuk cUn dj fn;k gks A ;g Lohdkj

fd;k fd mlus vius ekax i= o 'kiFk i= esa ;g vafdr ugha fd;k fd fnukad 5-1-2007 ds i'pkr! dc

'kk[kk esa x;k vkSj dc dk;Z djus gsrq mifLFkr gqvkA bl izdkj izkFkhZ us vius ekax i=] 'kiFk i= vkSj

mlds }kjk fn;s x;s uksfVl esa egRoiw.kZ rF;ksa dks Nqik;k gSA izkFkhZ us ;g ugha crk;k fd mldks fdruh

etnwjh feyrh FkhA izkFkhZ us ;g Hkh ugha crk;k fd og fdrus ?kUVs rd lQkbZ dk dke djrk FkkA izkFkhZ us

;g Hkh ugah crk;k fd lsok lekfIr ls iwoZ 240 fnol dys.Mj o"kZ esa mlus yxkrkj dke fd;kA izkFkhZ us

ftl 'kk[kk esa dke fd;k ml 'kk[kk ds izcU/kd dks Hkh i{kdkj ugha cuk;k A izkFkhZ us u rks dksbz fu;qfDr

i= is'k fd;k vkSj u gh ukSdjh ls fudkyus dk Vjfeus'ku vkns'k gh is'k fd;kA cSad ,d dsUnz ljdkj dh

laLFkk gS ftlesa dksbZ Hkh O;fDr fu;eksa ds fo:) fdlh deZpkjh dks ugha j[k ldrkA ;g vo'; gS fd izkFkhZ

us vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds ;gka lQkbZ dehZ dk VsEijsjh csfll ij dke fd;k bl ckr dh iqf"V vizkFkhZ dh vksj

ls izLrqr xokg xtsUnzflag ifjgkj lhfu;j 'kk[kk izcU/kd ds c;kuks ls gksrh gSA ftuds 'kiFk i= esa ;g

dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk cSad dh nksuksa 'kk[kkvksa ij le; le; ij vfu;fer :i ls vLFkkbZ vk/kkj ij

'kk[kk ifjlj dh lQkbZ dk dk;Z fd;k ftldk cSad }kjk le; le; ij fu/kkZfjr jkf'k ds vuqlkj Hkqxrku

fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dHkh cSad dk deZpkjh ugha jgkA ek= ,d&Ms< ?kUVs lQkbZ dk;Z djds izkFkhZ pyk tkrk

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 2] 2018@T;s"B 12] 1940

4035

FkkA izkFkhZ dks fdlh efgus 5 fnu rks fdlh efgus esa 10 fnu ds fy;s dk;Z ij cqyk;k tkrk FkkA bl izdkj

izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZ dh Lohd`fr ds vuqlkj fu;fer deZpkjh ugha gksdj vko';drkuqlkj lQkbZ ds dk;Z djus ds

fy;s ,d iSM O;fDr FkkA ftls nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh dh Js.kh esa ugha j[kk tk ldrkA ftldk dksbZ

fjdkWMZ Hkh ugha gksrk gSA ;fn vizkFkhZ }kjk okafNr fjdkWMZ ,sls O;fDr ds ckjs esa is'k ugha fd;k x;k gS tks

cSad dk fu;fer deZpkjh ugah gS vkSj u gh LFkkbZ deZpkjh gS u gh og nSfud osru Hkksxh gS rks bl vk/kkj

ij ,sls fjdkWMZ dks is'k ugha djus ds fy;s foHkkx ds fo:) dksbZ izfrdwy /kkj.kk ugah yh tk ldrhA izkFkhZ

us dgha Hkh vius ekax i= o 'kiFk i= esa ;g ugha dgk gS fd mlus dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnol yxkrkj

dke fd;kA izkFkhZ Lo;a gh ;g dgrk gS fd mldk LFkkukUrj.k fnukad 12-12-2005 dks fd;k x;k vkSj ,d

o"kZ ckn fnukad 13-12-2006 dks pkUniksy 'kk[kk esa dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djuk crkrk gSA izkFkhZ ,d o"kZ dgk jgk

;g Li"V ugha fd;k x;k gSA

vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds xokg xtsUnzflag ls fd;s x;s yEcs izfrijh{k.k esa Hkh mldk dguk gS fd os cSad

vkQ cMkSnk dh pkUniksy 'kk[kk esa dHkh dk;Zjr ugaha jgsA bl dsl ls lEcfU/kr fjdkWMZ ns[kdj vk;k gSA

cSad dk fjdkWMZ 'kiFk i= fn;s tkrs le; ns[kkA izkFkhZ ls lEcfU/kr fjdkWMZ U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k ;k ugah

;kn ugahaA izkFkhZ us cSad esa dc ls dc rd dk;Z fd;k bldh mls tkudkjh ugaha A pwafd izkFkhZ mldh cSad

dk deZpkjh ugah Fkk blfy;s mldk pkUn iksy 'kk[kk esa LFkkukUrj.k djus dk iz'u gh ugha mBrkA izkFkhZ us

vfUre ckj tuojh] 2007 esa dke fd;kA izkFkhZ mudk deZpkjh ugha Fkk blfy;s mldk dke ysuk ;k ugah

ysus dk iz'u gh ugha mBrkA ;g Lohdkj fd;k fd o"kZ 2007 ds ckn fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k viukrs gq;s

deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;qfDr dh A izkFkhZ dks lwpuk nsus ckcr dksbZ izko/kku ugha gSA pkUn iksy 'kk[kk esa dqy

fdruk LVkQ gS ugha crk ldrkA izkFkhZ dks vfUre ckj fdruk osru fn;k mls irk ugah A izn'kZ&3 mudh

cSad }kjk tkjh fd;k gks rks mls irk ugha D;ksafd bl ij gLrk{kj ugha gSA izn'kZ&4 ij mudh cSad dh lhy

ij gLrk{kj gSA ckluh o pkUniksy esa fdrus&fdrus Lohij gS mls irk ugahA cSad izkFkhZ dks blfy;s ugah

j[k ldrk D;ksafd cSad esa fu;kstu fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k ls gksrk gSA cSad esa fdrus in fjDr gS ugah crk ldrkA

bl izdkj vizkFkhZ ds bl xokg ls izkFkhZ }kjk fd;s x;s izfrijh{k.k esa ;g ckr ugha vkbZ gS fd xokg us ;g

Lohdkj fd;k gks fd izkFkhZ l:iflag us rFkkdfFkr lsok lekfIr fnukad 5-1-2007 ls iwoZ dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240

fnol dk;Z fd;k gksA izkFkhZ us u rks vius osru dk fooj.k fn;k gS vkSj u gh viuh mifLFkfr dk dksbZ

fooj.k fn;k gS vkSj vU; fdlh O;fDr xokg dks is'k fd;k ftlus izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ cSad esa Lohij dk

yxkrkj dk;Z djrs gq;s ns[kk gksA vr% izkFkhZ us mlds vkSj vizkFkhZ ds chp fu;ksftr&fu;kstd dk lEcU/k

gksuk izdV ugha gqvkA D;ksafd izkFkhZ dk fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh vizkFkhZ lgk;d egkizcU/kd cSad vkQ cMkSnk ugah

gS ftuds }kjk fu;qDr fd;k tkuk crk;k gS mUgsa i{kdkj ugha cuk;k gSA

vr% esjh jk; esa izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa lsoklekfIr ls iwoZ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk

25&,Q dk dksbZ mYya?ku gksuk izdV ugha gksrkA izkFkhZ dks fnukad 5-1-2007 dks lsokeqDr ugaha fd;k x;k gS

cfYd og Lo;a gh dk;Z ij mifLFkr ugha gqvkA vr% izkFkhZ dksbZ jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA

&%vf/kfu.kZ;%&

vr% ;g vf/kfu.kZ; fd;k tkrk gS fd%&

izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa lsoklekfIr ls iwoZ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 dh /kkjk 25&,Q dk dksbZ

mYya?ku ugha gqvkA izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ ds chp fu;ksftr&fu;kstd dk lEcU/k ugaha gSA

izkFkhZ dksbZ jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA

;g vkns'k esjs }kjk fyfic} djok;k tkdj vkt fnukad 19-12-2017 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa gLrk{kj dj

mn~?kksf"kr fd;k x;kA

vt; dqekj 'kekZ&1] U;k;k/kh'k

4036

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 2, 2018/JYAISTHA 12, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2018

dk-vk- 849-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

funs’kd] dsanzh; ty laLFkku ,DokdYpj] Hkqous’oj ¼mM+hlk½ ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 16@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-04-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[Lka- ,y&42011@36@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

jktsanz tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2018

S.O. 849.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 16/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Director, Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture, Bhubaneswar (Orissa) and their workmen, which was received by

the Central Government on 02.04.2018.

[No. L-42011/36/2015-IR(DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present: Shri B.C. Rath,

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

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 16/2015

Date of Passing Award – 8^th March, 2018

Between:

The Director,

Central Institute of Freshwater

Aquaculture, Po. Kausalyagang,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa) – 751 002.

…1^st Party-Management

(And)

The General Secretary,

CIFA Shramik Sangh,

At. & Po. Kausalyaganga,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa) – 751 002.

…2^nd Party-Union

Appearances:

Shri I. Muduli,

…

For the 1^st Party-

Asst. Admn. Officer

Management

Shri D.N. Mallik,

…

For the 2^nd Party-

General Secretary

Union

AWARD

The Award is directed against a reference with the schedule “Whether the concerned workmen in the instant

case are to be paid bonus (adhoc bonus) or not? If not, then the reason for the same.” made by the Government of India,

in the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-42011/36/2015-IR (DU), dated 07.05.2015 in exercising its authority by

clause (d) sub-clause 2 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (herein-after referred to as “The Act”) since an

alleged industrial dispute arose between the management of Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture and their

workman.

The case of the 2^nd party-Union in narrow compass giving rise to the reference is that the Management namely

CIFA, Kausalayaganga, Bhubaneswar under the control of ICAR, Govt. of India, New Delhi has started its function at

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 2] 2018@T;s"B 12] 1940

4037

Kausalayaganga, Bhubaneswar from the year 1997 and it has developed freshwater aqua fishiculture and horticulture for

the purpose of research and for fulfilment of human wants. It has been supplying fish and fish product to the local market

for its consumption and it is an “Industry” as defined under section 2(j) of the Act. Near about 400 permanent, temporary

workers and contract labourers are working under the Management. Pursuant to the ICAR Order/File No. 9(8)/90CDM(A

& A), dated 29.10.1996 of the Ministry of Finance and Expenditure O.M. No. F. 14(1)/Estt. (Cood.) 96, dated 17.10.1996

it was decided by the Government of India to provide adhoc linked Bonus to all categories of labourers/employees. As

the claims of the workmen were not taken into consideration by the 1^st Party-Management, a dispute was raised giving

rise to I.D. Misc. Case bearing No. 218/1997 in the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, Odisha. The said Misc. Case was

disposed of with an order that the workmen who have worked for at-least 240 days for each year for three years or more

will be eligible for adhoc Bonus in the form of non-productivity linked Bonus scheme as per the Government of India

Notification dated 16.9.1996. 34 numbers of workmen out of 78 were paid Bonus in the years 1997-98 and payment of

such Bonus continued till the accounting year 2000. It is the allegation of the 2^nd party-Union that after the year 2000 no

other workmen who have completed 240 days of continuous work in a calendar year for three years has been provided

with such Bonus inspite of the specific order of the Hon’ble Court as well as the order of ICAR, Government of India,

New Delhi. In the meanwhile 110 numbers of casual workmen working under the 1^st Party-Management for the last

several years are eligible for the said Bonus. But, the Management is avoiding to make payment of such Bonus to them

on certain frivolous reasons. In its rejoinder the 2^nd party-Union has refuted the stand of the Management that the

disputant workmen are contract labour. According to it, the disputant are working directly under the Management and as

such, they are eligible for the Bonus as per the order of the Hon’ble Labour Court. Hence the dispute.

In its written statement the Management has challenged the maintainability of the reference contending that the

institution does not come with the purview of “Industry” as defined under section 2(j) of the Act on account of the same

being a research Unit. That apart, it is the stand of the Management that three categories of labourers are working in the

institution. Category-I are casual labour confirmed with temporary status and Category-II casual labours not confirmed

with temporary status but drawing 1/30^th basic pay are getting benefits of adhoc Bonus. Category-III are contractual

labours working under the labour contractor, though drawing the pay and allowances, are not eligible for the Bonus.

Hence, the workmen enlisted in the reference being contractual and contract labourers are not entitled to Bonus as per the

DoPT guidelines and as such the claim of the 2^nd party-Union has no merit.

On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the following issues have been settled for just and proper adjudication

of the dispute.

I S S U E S

Whether the concerned workmen in the instant case to be paid Bonus (adhoc bonus) or not?

If not, then the reasons for the same?

To substantiate its claim the 2^nd party-Union has examined its General Secretary as W.W.-1 and filed copy of

the conciliation failure report dated 16.3.2015, copy of the letter of the Union to the R.L.C.(C) dated 7.7.2014, copy of

the ICAR letter dated 29.10.1996 and dated 7.10.2014, copy of the letter addressed to the Director, CIFA dated

22.1.2015, copy of the award passed in I.D. Case No. 22/2000 and copy of the award passed in I.D. Case No. 218/1997,

which are marked as Ext.-1 to Ext.-6, whereas the Management did not like to adduce any evidence except advancing its

argument against the claim.

F I N D I N G S

The first issue raised by the Management is that the I.D. Act is not applicable to it as it is not coming under the

purview of “Industry” as defined under section 2(j) of the Act. To counter the same the 2^nd party-Union has relied upon

the judgement of our own High Court reported in 2012-III-LLJ-331 (Oris). Undisputedly in the case of Indian Council of

Agricultural Research between P.O., CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar & Others as reported above it has been

held by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa that a research Institute engaged in systematic activity with organized co-

operation of employer and employee for production/distribution of goods and service will be an industry under section

2(j) of the Act. That being the settled principle and position of law the objection raised by the Management towards

maintainability of the reference has no force and accordingly the issue is answered in favour of the 2^nd party-Union.

The other contention for not releasing the Bonus in favour of the disputant is that they being contract labourer

are not entitled to the Bonus as the office Memorandum dated 16^th Sept. 2014 of Ministry of Finance, Department of

Expenditure does not mandate so. It is the pleading and evidence of the Union that the disputants are working directly

under the supervision and control of the 1^st Party-Management and the Management having failed to bring forth any

document to establish that the services of the disputant have been hired through contractor, they are to be treated as

casual labour working under the Management. In this regard the assertion of the witness has not been demolished. Not a

single scrap of paper is filed to prove that the disputants are contract labour and they are receiving their wages from the

contractor. It cannot be over-sighted that engagement of the disputants in the establishment of the Management to do

4038

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 2, 2018/JYAISTHA 12, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

labour work has not been seriously challenged. Hence, it can safely be presumed that the disputants are casual labours.

The Management has not refuted the assertions of the disputants that they have worked for more than 240 days

continuously in a calendar year for three consecutive years. The office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Finance

(Ext.3) mandate that the casual labours who have worked in offices following a 6 days week for at least 240 days for

each year for 3 years or more (206 days in each year for 3 years or more in the case of offices observing 5 days week),

will be eligible for this Non-PLB (Adhoc Bonus) Payment. In that view of the matter and the reasons discussed above,

the disputants are clearly eligible for the adhoc Bonus as per the Government of India circular. Refusal of adhoc Bonus

to them is undoubtedly unjustified. Therefore, the 1^st Party-Management is directed to release adhoc bonus in favour of

the disputants as per the circulars of the Government of India within three months of the publication of the award failing

which the disputants are entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2018

dk-vk- 850-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] vk;qDr] mÙkj

fnYyh uxj fuxe ,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;] fnYyh la- 1 ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 234@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-04-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@136@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsanz tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2018

S.O. 850.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 234/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 25.04.2018.

[No. L-42011/136/2015-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT No.1, ROOM No.511 , DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI

ID No. 234/2015

Shri Jaipal Singh S/o Tilak Ram, represented by

MCD General Mazdoor Union,

Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10,

Jam Nagar House, Shah Jehan Road,

New Delhi

…Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

North Delhi Municipal Corporation,

4^th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road,

New Delhi 110 002

…Management

AWARD

Reference under Section 10 sub-section (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) was

received from the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment vide it orders No.L-42011/136/2015-

IR(DU) dated 02.11.2015 for adjudication of an industrial dispute with the following terms:

‘Whether the action of the management of East Delhi Municipal Corporation, in not promoting Shri Jaipal

Singh S/o Shri Tilak Ram as Chaudhary in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 revised from time to time with effect

from 01.04.1989 is fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?’

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 2] 2018@T;s"B 12] 1940

4039

Both the parties were put to notice and the workman Shri Jaipal Singh filed his statement of claim, wherein it is

alleged that he has been allotted work of Chaudhary with effect from 01.04.1989 by the competent officers of

Horticulture Department and was posted under Karol Bagh Horticulture Zone and was later on transferred to Civil Lines

Zone with effect from 19.06.2009 where he is performing his duties as acting Chaudhary. However, he has been denied

pay scale of Chaudhary, revised from time to time. The workman has got payment of salary in the lower pay scale of

mali, i.e. Rs.750-940 instead of Rs.950-15000 revised from time to time and has been denied the scale of Chaudhary,

effect from 01.04.1989. Action of the management is alleged to be illegal & unjustified and amounts to unfair labour

practice. Duties of mali is presently of an unskilled workman whereas duties of Chaudhary is skilled in nature belonging

to Group C category of employees.

It is also averred in para 9 of the statement of claim that Hon’ble High Court, Delhi, in the matter of Jai Chand

vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi (CW 6514/2001) has disapproved the non-payment of wages for those malis who are

working on the post of Chaudhary vide its judgement dated 02.05.2003. After the above judgement of the Hon’ble

Court, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Horticulture Department) has also issued order No.ADC(Hor.)/AO(Hort)/DA-

VII/05/457 dated 04.03.2005 (Annexure B). There is also reference to the judgment of Division Bench of High Court of

Delhi in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Sultan Singh wherein also plea of the MCD regarding non-

payment of wages of Chaudhary to malis who are doing working of Chaudhary, was turned down by the Hon’ble High

Court in judgement dated 27.07.2011.

It is also averred that similar situated workmen who were performing duty of Chaudhary were granted pay scale

of Chaudhary from the date when they were asked to perform duty on the higher post and management has challenged

the order dated 27.07.2011 of the Labour Court in the matter of MCD vs Sultan Singh as well as before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India by Special Leave to Appeal No.S20069/2011 and the plea by MCD has been dismissed by both,

before the High Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Workman, herein, is also similarly situated and doing

work of Chaudhary and as such, entitled to same benefits. Finally, it is prayed that an award may be passed in his favour.

Management has demurred claim of the workman by taking preliminary objections, inter alia, present dispute

not being an industrial dispute as there is no espousal & no demand notice has been served upon the management, claim

being misconceived, claim being stale etc. In para 5 of the preliminary objection, it is admitted that the workman herein

was engaged on the post of mali on muster roll basis and was later on regularized on the same post of mali. There is

prescribed procedure for promotion to the post of Garden Chaudhary and there must be sanctioned/vacant post of Garden

Chaudhary to which the workman can lay claim when he has passed trade test conducted by the department. Claimant

has not passed the said trade test nor is he performing duties of Garden Chaudhary. Management, on merits, have

denied material averments. It is also denied that the workman herein was performing duties of Chaudhary with effect

from 01.04.1989. Accordingly, it is prayed that claim of the workman herein is liable to be dismissed, being devoid of

merits.

Against this factual background, based on pleadings of the parties, this Tribunal vide order dated 07.08.2016

framed the following issues:

(i)

Whether reference is not maintainable, in view of the various preliminary objections?

(ii)

As in terms of reference

Claimant, in support of his case, examined himself as WW1 and Shri B.K. Prasad as WW2 and tendered in

evidence their affidavit Ex.WW1/A & Ex.WW2/A and also tendered in evidence documents Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW2/1

to Ex.WW2/4 respectively. Management, in order to rebut the case of the claimant, examined Shri Harbir Singh,

Assistant Director (Horticulture) as MW1, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A and also relied on documents Ex.MW1/1 to

Ex.MW1/4.

I have heard Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant and Shri Nitin Soam, A/R for the management.

Findings on Issue No.(i)

It is clear from the preliminary objections taken in the written statement by the management that the

management has raised objection that no demand notice has been served upon the management nor the MCD General

Mazdoor Union has any locus standi to raise the present dispute as the union is not a recognized union of the

management. To my mind, there is no requirement of law that a dispute can be raised only by a recognized union. In

this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Kripa

Shankar Jaiswal (AIR 1961 (2) SC Report 1) wherein also objection was taken on behalf of the management that the

union was not a registered under the Trade Union Act on the date of the settlement and said plea was rejected by

observing as under:

‘Held, that for a dispute to constitute an industrial dispute it is not a requisite condition that it should be

sponsored by a recognized union or that all the workmen of an industrial establishment should be

4040

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 2, 2018/JYAISTHA 12, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

parties to it. A settlement arrived at in course of conciliation proceedings falls within Section 18(3)(a) and (d) of

the Industrial Disputes Act and as such binds all the workmen though an unregistered union or only some of

workmen may have raised the dispute. The absence of notice under Section 11(2) by the Conciliation Officer

does not affect the jurisdiction of the conciliation officer and its only purpose is to apprise the establishment that

the person who is coming is the conciliation officer and not a stranger. Any contravention of Section 12(6) in

not submitting the report within 14 days may be a breach of duty on the part of the conciliation officer ; it does

not affect the legality of the proceedings which terminated as provided in Section 20(2) of the Act.

10.

Equally merit-less is the plea taken by the management that the present dispute is not sponsored or espoused by

substantial number of workmen. It is fairly settled position in law that even non-espousal of a case by the union would

not deprive the workman of the relief to which the workman is otherwise entitled under the law. Such view appears to

have been taken in the case of Nazrul Hassan Siddiqui vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial cum Labour Court Bombay

(1997) Lab.I.C. 1807. In the above cited case also contention was raised by the management that the dispute dies not

fall within the definition of ‘industrial dispute’ and the same has not been referred or supported by substantial section of

workmen. High Court rejected the plea of the management by placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (AIR 1960 SC 777), which it was observed as under:

‘We have already noticed that an industrial dispute can be raised by a group of workmen or by a union

even though neither of them represent the majority of the workmen concerned; in other words, the majority rule

on which the appellant’s construction of Section 19(6) is based is inapplicable in the matter of the reference

under Section 10 of the Act. Even a minority group of workmen can make a demand and thereby raise an

industrial dispute which in a proper case would be referred or adjudication under Section 20.’

11.

In view of the ratio of the judgement discussed above, it is clear that espousal of a dispute by the union is not

sine qua non for adjudication of such dispute in terms of Section 10 of the Act. Consequently, this issue is decided in

favour of the workman and against the management.

Findings on Issue No.(ii)

12.

Now, the main issue which requires determination in the case in hand is whether the workman herein is entitled

for grant of pay scale of 3050-4590 as revised from time to time alongwith consequential benefits. It is clear from

pleadings of the parties that initially the workman herein was appointed as mali on daily wage basis and later on he was

regularized on the same post of mali. This fact has been admitted even by the management in para 5 of the preliminary

objections.

13.

There is also ample evidence on record that the workman herein was performing duty as officiating Chaudhary.

It is clear from perusal of office order dated 27.11.2008 Ex.WW1/1 that that name of the claimant finds mention at serial

No.1 in the list of acting chaudharies attached with the letter and in the column ‘Karyavahak Chaudhary ke roop me kab

se karya kar raha hai’, it is mentioned ‘April 1989. Claimant, in order to prove his case, has tendered in evidence his

affidavit Ex.WW1/A, wherein material averments contained in statement of claim has been reiterated. It is specifically

alleged in the affidavit that he was doing work of acting Chaudhary with effect from 01.04.1989. Claimant, in order to

prove his case, has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.WW1/A, wherein material averments contained in statement of

claim has been reiterated. It is specifically alleged in the affidavit that he was doing work of acting Chaudhary with

effect from 01.04.1989. There are also averments in his affidavit that one Shri Jai Chand has also been granted pay scale

of Chaudhary by the management of MCD and Sultan Singh and others vs. MCD, who were doing work of acting

Chaudhary , vide judgement of the Hon’ble High Court, i.e. in the case of MCD vs. Sultan Singh & others and necessary

orders for implementation of the said judgement were issued by MCD.

14.

There is no merit in the stand taken by the management in its reply, that the workman here is not entitled for

promotion to the post of Chaudhary inasmuch as he has not appeared in the trade test conducted by the department. To

my mind, this plea is devoid of any merit inasmuch as similarly situated other workers who were performing duties of

Chaudhary, i.e. acting Chaudhary have been granted pay scale of Garden Chaudhary after judgement dated 27.07.2011

rendered by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of MCD vs. Sultan Singh as well as MCD vs. Mahipal(WP 5550 of

2010). Operating portion of the judgement in Sultan Singh (supra) of the Hon’ble Division Bench is as under:

“28.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances it is apparent that the claim of the respondents have

always been that they should be paid the difference in pay of Mali/Chowkidar and the Garden Chaudhary as

they were made to work on the post of Garden Chaudhary whereas the petitioner had first denied that they

worked as Garden Chaudharies, then took the plea that the Assistant Director (Horticulture) was not competent

to ask the respondents to work as Garden Chaudharies and that the respondents cannot be appointed to the post

of Garden Chaudharies in accordance with the recruitment rules. There is no doubt that respondents are not

claiming appointment to the post of Garden Chaudharies on account of having worked on ad-hoc basis on the

post of Garden Chaudhary contrary to rules or that some of them not having the requisite qualifications are

entitled for relaxation.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 2] 2018@T;s"B 12] 1940

4041

29. In the entirety of facts and circumstances therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make

out any such grounds which will impel this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution to set aside the orders of the Tribunal dated 29th January, 2010 and 7th October, 2010 as no

illegality or un- sustainability or perversity in the orders of the Tribunal has been made out.

30. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.”

15.

It is further clear that SLP was also filed by MCD before the Hon’ble Apex Court by special leave application

No. S20069/2011 MCD vs. Sultan Singh and others which was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated

09.04.2012. It is further clear that the Hon’ble High Court in Sultan Singh case strongly deprecated the stand taken by

the management that the workmen were not possessing requisite qualification or have not qualified the test etc. It was

clarified that since the workmen were discharging duties to the post of Garden Chaudhary, as such, workmen were

entitled for the salary of Garden Chaudhary and competent authority need not look into anything else except the fact that

the workman had worked as Garden Chaudhary. Therefore, stand taken by the management that the workman herein

could not qualify the test conducted by the department is without any merit and has no relevance so far as question of

grant of salary against the post of Garden Chaudhary is concerned.

16.

It is not out of place to mention here that even if the claimant herein was not a party in Sultan Singh case

referred above, judgement of the Hon’ble High Court is binding on the management and management is required to

implement the same in letter and spirit and the same is judgement in rem, and all similarly situated workmen are required

to be accorded the benefit of the said judgement of the Hon’ble High Court, which have become final. There is no

question of even plea of delay and laches when management had not led any evidence to prove the same. The Hon’ble

High Court has decided an abstract proposition of law, i.e. a mali who is performing duty as officiating/acting

Chaudhary is entitled to the salary/wages of Chaudhary. Law is fairly settled that if a person is working on a higher post,

on adhoc or temporary basis, even such workman is entitled to salary/wages of higher post, unless rules or regulations

specifically provides otherwise. I find support to this view from Secretary vs. Lieutenant Governor Port Blair (1998

Lab.I.C. 598), yet in another case, Hon’ble Apex Court while considering that question of grant of benefits to similarly

situated employees who were not party to the writ petition or lis in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar

Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347 observed as under:

“The moot question which requires determination is as to whether in the given case, approach of the Tribunal

and the High Court was correct in extending the benefit of earlier judgment of the Tribunal, which had attained

finality as it was affirmed till the Supreme Court. The legal principles that can be culled from the judgments,

cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under:

(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically

situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination

and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service

matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that

all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely

because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.

(2) However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as

acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the

same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the

Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the

judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as

fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.

(3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was

judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the

Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit

thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision

touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularization and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of

India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said

judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or

it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of

the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and

delays or acquiescence.”

4042

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 2, 2018/JYAISTHA 12, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

17.

In view of the discussions made herein above, it is held that the workman herein, Shri Jaipal Singh is entitled to

the pay scale of Garden Chaudhary with effect from 01.04.1989 and as a corollary, management is liable pay the

difference of wages of mali vis-a-vis Garden Chaudhary from the date when the workman herein was performing duties

and functions of Garden Chaudhary. 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.

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

Dated: March 16, 2018

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2018

dk-vk- 851-—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] 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;] fnYyh la- 2 ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 26@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-03-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@109@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsanz tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2018

S.O. 851.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General

Manager, BSNL, Ghaziabad and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 06.03.2018.

[No. L-40012/109/2012-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT No.2, ROOM No.512, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI

ID No.26/2013

Shri Bijender Singh S/o Shri Ganga Prasad,

House No.12, Gali No.1, Sewa Nagar,

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh

…Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Raj Nagar,

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh

…Management

AWARD

In the present case a reference was received from Ministry of Labour and Employment vide letter No. L-40012/

109/2012-IR(DU) dated 07.03.2013 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and Section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:

‘Whether the action of the management of BSNL, Ghaziabad in terminating the services of workman Shri

Bijender Singh, Driver, with effect from 30.04.2011 without complying the provisions of the ID Act is

unjustified. If so, to what relief the workman is entitled to?’

Both parties were put to notice and Shri Bijender Singh (in short the claimant) filed statement of claim with the

averments that he was engaged as driver on 01.09.2002 in BSNL (in short the management ) under Shri Dehel Singh

Tomar, SDO(Phones) Patel Marg, Ghaziabad on a monthly salary of Rs.3000.00. Work of the claimant was satisfactory

and his services were illegally terminated on 30.06.2003 by the management without serving any notice.

It is the case of the claimant that he approached the Conciliation Officer under Section 2-A of the Act and

management agreed to take back the claimant in service on the assurance that the claimant would withdraw his case.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 2] 2018@T;s"B 12] 1940

4043

Thereafter, the claimant joined back on 20.10.2003 with the management after withdrawing his case . Claimant was

assigned work Peon continuously upto 30.04.2005. On 01.05.2005, the claimant was assigned work of driver under Shri

U.B. Shakya, SDO, Govindpuram where he worked upto 15.07.2006. He regularly drove the care of SDO(Phones) of the

management. Thereafter, he was shifted to drive the vehicle of Shri A.N. Singh, SDO(phones) where he continuously

worked upto 08.03.2007. Claimant was transferred to Shri V.P. Singh, SDO (Phones), Govindpuram, where he worked

upto 31.12.2008. Thereafter claimant was directed to report and drive for Shri Jitender Singh Bagela, JTO, Govindpuram

where worked continuously upto 24.01.2009. Lastly he was directed to work under Shri Subhash Chand Tyagi,

SDO(Phones), Govindpuram where he worked upto 30.04.2011. While working under different SDOs, payments have

been made by the SDO(Phones) every day. One of the payments of the SDO(Phones), for ready reference , is Annexure

P-2. Thus, the claimant has been continuously working from 2002 to 30.04.2011 and in each year, he has completed 240

days, there was no complaint against the claimant from any quarter and his services have been suddenly terminated on

30.04.2011 and management has appointed on Shri Bhudatt Sharma to drive the car driven by the claimant vide letter

dated 05.05.2011. Since termination of the claimant is in violation of provisions of the Act, as the claimant has worked

for more than 240 days in each calendar year preceding his termination, as such his termination is both illegal and void

under the law. The claimant has also taken up the matter with the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dehradun. His claim

was opposed by the management by filing reply. Thereafter, matter was placed before the Conciliation Officer, but it

failed. Finally, reference in the above matter was made by the appropriate Government to this Tribunal for adjudication

of the industrial dispute.

Claim was resisted by the management taking various preliminary objections that there was no relationship of

employer and employee between the claimant and the management and claimant has no cause of action against the

management. It was also alleged that the claimant also does not fall within the definition of ‘workman’ as defined under

section 2(s) of the Ac. On merits, all the averments made by the claimant in the statement of claim have been denied by

the management. It was also denied that the claimant was engaged by the management at any point of time. It is also

denied that he was engaged as deiver on 01.09.2002 under SDO(Phones) Shri Dehel Singh Tomar. It is alleged that

management has been hiring private vehicles from different contractors who provide taxi service. Claimant may be one

such driver. Claimant might have worked with Shri Dehel Singh Tomar as his personal driver and management has

nothing to do with that.

Rejoinder was filed by the claimant herein, wherein he has reasserted the averments made in the statement of

claim and denied the material averments made in the statement of defence.

Based on the pleadings of the parties, this court vide order dated 27.01.2014, framed the following issues:

(i)

Whether the action of the management of BSNL, Ghaziabad in terminating the services of the

workman Shri Bijender Singh, Driver, with effect from 30.04.2011 without complying the provisions

of the ID Act is unjustified. If so, its effects.

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?

(iii)

Whether employer and employee relation exists. If so, its effects.

Claimant, in order to prove the case against the management, examined himself as WW1 and his affidavit is

Ex.WW1/A. He relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/4. It is pertinent to note here that there is no cross

examination of the claimant. Management, in fact, was given several opportunities by this Tribunal to examine the

claimant. However, the management failed to cross examine the claimant and as such, right of the management to cross

examine the claimant was closed vide order dated 05.07.2016. Management has also not adduced any evidence in the

present case so as to rebut the case of the claimant.

Findings on issue no.(i), (ii) and (iii)

At the outset, it was stated by the claimant that his name is Vijendra Singh and it has been wrongly mentioned in

the reference as Bijender Singh. He has filed copy of his aadhar card to support his contention.

Issue No.(i), (ii) and (iii) are being taken up together for the purpose of discussion as the same are inter-linked

and can be conveniently disposed of. It is clear from the averments made in the statement of claim as well as the

affidavit that the claimant herein was taken in service by the management on 20.10.2003 and thereafter the claimant

continued to serve under different SDOs. It was on 01.05.2005 that the claimant was assigned work as driver under SDO

Shri UB Shakya, Govindpuram Ghaziabad. Thereafter he was shifted to drive the vehicle of Shri A.N. Singh, SDO,

Govindpluram Ghaziabad upto 08.03.2007, thereafter he was shifted to drive Shri V.P. Singh, SDO. Govindpuram whre

worked upto 31.12.2008. He has also served Shri Jitender Singh Bagela, JTO, Govindpuram, Ghaziabad upto 24.01.2009

and finally he was directed to work with Shri Subhash Chand Tyagi, SDO(Phones) Govindpuram, Ghaziabad, where he

worked upto 30.04.2011 when his services were terminated. It is clear from Annexure P-3 that Shri Bhudatt Sharma was

4044

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 2, 2018/JYAISTHA 12, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

transferred and posted under SDO(Phones) Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad. Learned A/R for the claimant stated that in fact

Shri Bhudatt Sharma has been appointed in place of the claimant herein who was previously engaged as driver under

various SDOs mentioned above.

10.

It is also clear from Ex.WW1/1 (colly) comprising of various memos dated 02.09.2002, 04.09.2002, 06.09.2002,

03.09.2002, 09.09.2002, 11.09.2002, 13.09.2002 16.09.2002 etc. that the claimant has got filled diesel in the vehicle

which he was driving and the same bears signatures of the SDO(Phones), Ghaziabad.

11.

There is another document Ex.WW1/2 which is cash memo bearing names of various parts of the vehicles

which is also suggestive of the fact that for repair of vehicles, said parts have been used and during that period he has

served the management as driver. Cash memo also bears signatures of the SDO(Phones), who has sanctioned the

amount.

12.

Ex.WW1/3 which is in the name of SDO(Phones) Govindpuram which shows that vehicle of SDO was being

taken for filing on various dates and there is mention of petrol. All these bills have been approved by SDO concerned,

which is clearly suggestive of the fact that the claimant was not engaged as driver in personal capacity by SDO(Phones)

but he was driving the vehicle for the management. Similarly Ex.WW1/4( colly) shows that the vehicle No.UP14-D-5800

being driven by the claimant was getting filled petrol and mobil oil. These documents bear signatures of the claimant as

well as the DEP(O/D) as well as SDO(Phones)

13.

It is the case of the management that the claimant was never in the employment of the management and that he

was engaged in personal capacity. There is no merit in the contention of the management that since the claimant was

engaged in personal capacity or that he was a casual daily wager, as such, he does not fall within the definition of

‘workman’. In this regard, it is appropriate to to the case of Devender Singh Vs. MC Sanaur, AIR 2011 SCC 2532,

wherein Hon’ble Apex Court had the occasion to deal with the meaning of the expression ‘workman’ as used in Section

2(s) of the Act. In para 13 and 14 of the judgement, while refuting the contention of the management that casual or

temporary or part time worker do not fall within the definition of ‘workman’ 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.

14.

Thus, it is clear from resume of evidence on record that the claimant was admittedly engaged as driver and was

driving vehicle of the management. Admittedly, no show cause notice or one months’ notice in lieu thereof was given to

the claimant.

15.

It is now well settled position in law that before ordering termination of services of a workman, management is

required to serve one month notice or one month salary in view of such notice failing which action of the management

would be termed as totally arbitrary and illegal. In the case on hand also, admittedly neither one months’ notice was

served upon the claimant nor any salary in lieu of such notice was paid to the claimant. In such a situation, action of the

management in terminating services of the claimant herein orally cannot stand the scrutiny of law, as such, the same is

held to be totally illegal and void.

16.

Now, the residual question before this Tribunal is whether the claimant herein is entitled for reinstatement with

back wages. It has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in number of cases that if the termination of workman is illegal,

rule of reinstatement with back wages would follow. However, in the recent past, there is a change in this term and now

in most of the cases, view has been taken that reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even though the

termination of the workman is in contravention of the prescribed proceedings. It would depend upon the facts and

circumstances of each case whether reasonable compensation instead of reinstatement is to be paid.

17.

While dealing with reinstatement, the court has to keep in mind the nature of the post, duration of the

engagement, nature of appointment, availability of the post, delay in raising industrial dispute and whether the

appointment was in accordance with rules or not. The workman herein was admittedly holding temporary posts of daily

wager. They have worked with the management for around five years. Though it has been averred by the workman in his

affidavit as well as statement of claim that he is not gainfully employed with any other management yet this court has to

keep in mind that they were not regular employees of the management nor they have vested right to continue in said

employment. The ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be

illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 2] 2018@T;s"B 12] 1940

4045

workman are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However,

when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wager worker and where the termination is found illegal because of

procedural defect namely in violation of Section 25-F reinstatement with back wages is not to be automatic. Instead the

workman would be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Reasons for denying the relief of

reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-

payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F even after

reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the

retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he

has no right to seek regularization. Since in the case on hand, claimant was admitted engaged as casual labour and

claimant being able-bodied person cannot be said to be sitting idle at home. It is legitimate to presume that he was doing

something to make both ends meet.

18.

No doubt, earlier a view was articulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in several authorities and legal position

was that if termination of a workman is found to be illegal or against the principles of natural justice, in that eventuality,

relief of reinstatement with back was would follow. This view was taken by Hon’ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu

Survase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (2013 AIR SCW 5330). However, in the recent past, there is

change in this trend and now in several cases a view has been taken that relief by way of reinstatement alongwith back

wages is not automatic even though the action of the management has been found to be totally illegal or void under the

law. Question of grant of back wages as well as reinstatement, in fact, would depend upon a number of factors, e.g.

nature of post, mode of recruitment, duration of engagement, delay in raising the industrial dispute, nature of the work

being performed by the workman etc. However, there cannot be any straight jacket formula to be applied in a

mechanical manner by the courts.

19.

At this stage, it is necessary to mention that in Oshiar Prasad Vs. Sudamdih Coal Washery (2015) 4 SCC 71,

Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with almost similar case held that when services of a workman have been terminated

long back prior to making of the reference and such workmen were either not in the services of either Contractor or/and

the previous employer, in that eventuality, question of their absorption or regularization did not arise nor this issue

could have been gone into on its merits for the reason that they were not in service. Question of regularization thus can

only be considered when contract of employment subsists. In the case on hand, as is clear from the pleadings as well as

evidence on record, services of the claimant herein was terminated on 30.04.2011 and thereafter he is virtually out of

employment and from the pleadings it is quite clear that he has been in service of the management for the last more than

9 years prior to their termination. In view of this, it is held that the action of the management of BSNL Ghaziabad in

terminating services of Shri Vijendra Singh, claimant herein with effect from 30.04.2011 without complying with

provisions of the Act is totally unjustified. Having regard to the length of his service and the latest trend of the Hon’ble

Apex Court reflected in the various judgements, I am of the view that an amount of Rs.3 lakh appears to be just and

reasonable. It is also made clear that in case compensation of Rs.3 lakh is not paid within a period of one month from the

date of publication of the award, the claimants would also be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum upon the

said amount from the date of the reference till its payment. 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.

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

Dated: February 13, 2018

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2018

dk-vk- 852-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] mi

egkfuns'kd] lSU; iQkeZ (,e,iQ&1)] j{kk ea=kky; (lsuk)] ubZ fnYyh vkSj 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;] fnYyh la- 2 ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 61@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-03-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@17@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsanz tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2018

S.O. 852.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 61/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Deputy

Director General, Military Farm (MF-1), Ministry of Defence (Army), New Delhi & other and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 06.03.2018.

[No. L-14012/17/2014-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

4046

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 2, 2018/JYAISTHA 12, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR

COURT No.2, ROOM No.512, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI

ID No. 61/2014

Shri Siya Ram S/o late Shri Jagdeo Chauhan,

Village Lala Mohammadpur,

Post Kankerkhera,

Meerut, Uttar Pradesh

…Workman

Versus

(i) The Deputy Director General,

Military Farms (MF-1), QMG’s Branch, HQ,

Ministry of Defence (Army), West Block,

3, R.K.Puram, New Delhi

(ii) The Commandant,

Military Farm School & Centre,

Grass Farm Road, Meerut Cnatt.,

Meerut, Uttar Pradesh

…Managements

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from appropriate Government vide letter No.L-14012/17/2014-

IR(DU) dated 05.08.2014 under clause (d) of the sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) from the Central Government for adjudication, terms of which are detailed as under:

‘Whether the workman has earned right of absorption having been engaged of a considerable period of time

regularly even though on daily wages? And whether the management of Military Farm School and Center,

Meerut should give him a permanent regular employee status with immediate effect?

Parties were put to notice and claim statement was filed on behalf of the claimant stating that the management

is a unit of Ministry of Defence and is an establishment under the control and supervision of Central Government and is

engaged in imparting technologies, guidelines and education cum training in respect of dairy farming including

production and procurement of cow milk and supply thereof to the troops and other establishments with the help and co-

operation of its employees. The claimant was engaged as a gardener, which is a substantive post. The claimant was

inducted into the service of Military Farm School and Center, Meerut in 1984 for performing perennial/regular nature of

work/integral part of employer’s establishment as a casual labour/gardener. The claimant rendered service against a

substantive post without interruption and he never gave a chance of complaint to the management. Later on, under

provisions and norms of DOP & T Scheme 1993 the claimant has been categorized/awarded temporary status by the

management. As per direction contained in letter No.E-2/FS dated 06.11.197, per se he became entitled to get

absorption with other benefits on the basis of length of his service. Though his position appears at serial No.2 of the

seniority list, the employer failed to absorb him. In 2003, services of the claimant and two other employees were

dispensed with. The aggrieved employees approached Administrative Tribunal by filing a joint petition and the same

was decided in favour of the applicants. All the three workers were taken in service with continuity in compliance of the

judgement passed by the Administrative Tribunal. Thereafter, the management vide order No.OA/2601/2003 dated

17.09.2005 started to take work of conservancy, i.e. cleaning of toilets and sweeping in addition to the duties of gardener.

Thereafter, the claimant requested for regularization and in retaliation, the officiating commandant of the management

did not allow him to join duties with effect from 02.06.2012 under false and baseless allegations. It was also alleged by

the management that the claimant quit on his own. The claimant has also tried to resolve the matter amicably resolve the

matter and approached the management on various occasions. Left with no other alternative, the claimant sent a legal

notice to the claimant, to which the management refused to re-engage the claimant on account of doubtful integrity.

However, the claimant was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself prior to his termination. Finally, it has been

prayed that the claimant may be awarded permanent status.

Claim was demurred by the management taking various preliminary objections, inter alia of the reference being

bad in law, claimant having no locus standing to file the claim, concoction of facts, claim being barred by principle of

res-judicata, management not being an industry, there being no cause of action etc. On merits, the management has

denied the material averments contained in the statement of claim. There is no permanent post of gardener with the

management. The claimant was engaged as an when required to carry out work on seasonal and intermittent nature. The

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 2] 2018@T;s"B 12] 1940

4047

services of the claimant and two other employees were terminated in accordance with law and retrenchment

compensation was paid to him. His retrenchment was challenged before Hon’ble CAT vide OA No.1203/01 and

Hon’ble CAT disposed the same vide order dated 04.01.2002 with directions to the respondents to act generously and

proceed to offer employment even if on the job basis to the applicant in keeping with the seniority. The claimant failed

to diligently perform his duties assigned to him and hence the officiating Commandant asked the claimant to perform his

duties efficiently. The claimant instead of improving his conduct, started using un-parliamentary language and opted to

quit the job on his own. The management has denied the other material averments contained in the statement of claim.

Rejoinder was filed on behalf of the claimants wherein the material averments contained in the written statement

denied and the facts contained in the statement of claim was reiterated.

Based on the pleadings of the parties, this Tribunal vide order dated 09.12.2015, framed the following issues:

(i)

Whether the workman Shri Siya Ram has earned right of absorption having been engaged of a

considerable period of time regular even though on daily wages? If so its effects?

(ii)

Whether the management of Military Farm School and Center, Meerut should give him a permanent

regular employee status with immediate effect? If so, its effects.

Thereafter, the case was listed for evidence of the claimant, who filed his affidavit in evidence. However,

despite affording several opportunities, claimant did not put in his appearance for his examination. Merely filing of an

affidavit by a party is not sufficient and contents of the same are to be purified by an ordeal of cross examination. Since

none was there on behalf of the claimant, opportunity could not be accorded to the management to purify facts unfolded

by the claimant in his pleadings through an ordeal of cross examination. Absence of the claimant clearly depicts that he

is no more interested in progress of the case on merits. In such a situation, this Tribunal is left with no alternative but to

pass a ‘No dispute/claim’ award. 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.

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

Dated: January 30, 2018

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2018

dk-vk- 853-—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] ckyklksj (mM+hlk) vkSj 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;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 24@2015) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-04-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40011@08@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsanz tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2018

S.O. 853.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

General Manager, BSNL, Balasore (Orissa) & others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 04.04.2018.

[No. L-40011/08/2015-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 24/2015

No. L-40011/08/2015 – IR(DU), dated 01.06.2015

Date of Passing Order – 20^th March, 2018

4048

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 2, 2018/JYAISTHA 12, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Between:

1. The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Deptt. of Telecom, Telecom Dist.

Balasore, Orissa – 756 001.

2. M/s. Orissa Computer &Communication

Pvt. Ltd., Shed No. D-2/10, Sec-A, Zone-D,

Industrial Estate, Mancheswar,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa) 756 010.

3. Shri Bibhudhendra Prasad Das,

FR-108/1, Sailashree Vihar,

Bhubaneswar, Orissa – 756 001.

4. Shri Manoj Kumar Patra,

Plot No. 706/2553, Jail Road, Jharpada,

Bhubaneswar, Orissa – 756 001.

…1^st Party-Managements.

(And)

The District Secretary,

BSNL, Casual Karmachari Sangha,

Balasore Telecom, Dist. Branch, Balasore- 756 001

…2^nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

None.

…

For the 1^st Party-Managements.

None.

…

For the 2^nd Party-Union.

O R D E R

Parties are found absent on repeated calls. After filing of statements/pleadings and settlement of issues by the

parties the case was fixed for evidence of the 2^nd party-Union. The record further reveals that despite several

adjournments from time to time the 2^nd party-Union failed to make its appearance or to take any step to adduce evidence

on its behalf to substantiate its case for just and proper adjudication of the case. In the above back-drops and in absence

of the 2^nd Party-Union there is no alternative than to presume that either the workers of the 2^nd Party-Union has lost its

interest to pursue the dispute for its judicial adjudication or there exists no further dispute between the parties. In the

given situation I am constrained to return the reference to the Ministry for taking necessary action at their end.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B.C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2018

dk-vk- 854-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fun'skd]

HkkSfrdh laLFkku] Hkqous'oj (mM+hlk) ,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;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 82@2016) dks çdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-04-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@111@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsanz tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2018

S.O. 854.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 82/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Director, Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar (Orissa) and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 04.04.2018.

[No. L-42011/111/2016-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 2] 2018@T;s"B 12] 1940

4049

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. 82/2016

No. L-42011/111/2016 – IR(DU), dated 17.11.2016/30.11.2016

Date of Passing Order – 28^th February, 2018

Between:

The Director, Institute of Physics,

Government of India,

Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar (Orissa) – 751 013

…1^st Party-Management.

(And)

The Vice President,

Contract & Construction Labour Union,

Plot No. 32, Ashok Nagar,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa) – 751 009

…2^nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

None

…

For the 1^st Party-Management.

None

…

For the 2^nd Party-Union.

O R D E R

Representative of the Management is present whereas none appears on behalf of the 2^nd party-Union on repeated

calls. It is seen from the record that the 2^nd party-Union is not taking any steps for the last four adjournments after filing

of written statement by the Management. It appears that either the 2^nd party-Union is not interested to pursue the matter.

In the above premises I have no alternative than to return the reference without any answer and as such the reference is

returned herewith to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour for necessary action at their end.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B.C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2018

dk-vk- 855-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] eq[;

egkizca/d] ch,l,u,y] uEikyh LVs'ku jksM (gSnjkckn) vkSj 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 08@2009) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-04-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40011@32@2008&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsanz tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2018

S.O. 855.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 08/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief

General Manager, BSNL, Nampally Station Road (Hyderabad) & other and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 24.04.2018.

[No. L-40011/32/2008-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 16^th day of March, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 8/2009

4050

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 2, 2018/JYAISTHA 12, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Between:

The General Secretary,

BSNL Contract Casual Employees &

Labour Union, 1-7-139/44, N.V.B. Smaraka Kondram,

S.R.K. Nagar, Risalagadda, Jamistanpur,

Musheerabad, Hyderabad – 500 020.

…Petitioner

AND

The Chief General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,,

Telecom, A.P. Circle, Doorsanchar Bhawan,

Nampally Station Road,

Hyderabad – 500 001.

The General Manager,

M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Southern Telecom Region, 6-1-85/10,

2^nd Floor, Sainilayam, Saifabad,

Hyderabad – 500 00

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

M/s. Dr. A. Raghu Kumar & B. Pavan Kumar, Advocates

For the Respondent

Sri R.S. Murthy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-40011/32/ 2008-IR(DU) dated 2.3.2009

referred the following dispute between the management of Central Excise & Customs Department, Hyderabad and their

workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the BSNL Contract, casual Employees & Labour Union for regularization of services

of Shri Jamal Sharief by the management of BSNL is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 8/2009 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

The Petitioner appeared before this Tribunal and filed claim statement. The Respondent management also

appeared and filed their counter.

When the case stands posted for workman’s evidence, the Petitioner workman found absent. This Tribunal

adjourned the case for several dates to secure the presence of the Workman. But, inspite of several reminders the

Petitioner union failed to attend the case. Therefore, the case of the Petitioner union is dismissed for default. Hence, a

‘No dispute’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 16^th day of

March, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 2] 2018@T;s"B 12] 1940

4051

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2018

dk-vk- 856-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] dk;Zdkjh

funs'kd] ,uVhihlh fyfeVsM] vaxqy (mM+hlk) vkSj 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;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

42@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-04-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@156@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2018

S.O. 856.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Executive Director, NTPC Ltd., Angul (Orissa) & other and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 02.04.2018.

[No. L-42012/156/2011-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 42/2012

Date of Passing Award – 5^th March, 2018

Between:

1. The Executive Director,

M/s. NTPC Ltd., Talcher,

Super Thermal Power Station,

Po. Deepshikha, Angul.

2. The Proprietor,

M/s. Synergy Project,

Maintenance Contractor,

C/o. M/s. NTPC Ltd., Talcher Super Power

Station, Po. Deepshikha, Angul.

3. United Beveries Engineering Ltd.,

Registered Office, Sayadri Sadan, Tilak Road,

Pune – 411 030.

…1^st Party-Managements.

(And)

Shri Munshi Prasad & 4 others,

S/o. D.N. Prasad, C/o. Kendrapara Behra,

At./Po. Jagannathpur, Angul.

…

2^nd Party-Workmen.

Appearances:

Shri Samarendra Mallik,

…

For the 1^st Party-

Auth. Representative.

Management No. 1

None.

...

For the 1^st Party-

Management No. 2 & 3

Shri Munshi Prasad

…

For himself and other

Workmen.

4052

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 2, 2018/JYAISTHA 12, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

A W A R D

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour in exercising its authority by clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short “The Act”) have

referred an industrial dispute between the management of M/s. NTPC Ltd., and Munshi Prasad & four others

alleged to be the workmen of the above Managements vide its letter No. L-42012/156/2011 – IR(DU), dated

15.03.2012 for its adjudication and the schedule of reference is as follows:-

“Whether the action of the management of Proprietor, Synergy Project, Maintenance

contractor working under the control of GM, NTPC/TTPS in not re-engaging Shri Munshi Prasad &

4 others in newly awarded maintenance job is appropriate and justified? 2. Whether the action of the

contractor, M/s. U.B. Engineering in not paying terminal benefits at the time of terminating Shri

Munshi Prasad & 4 others in the dispute is legal and justified? What relief the workmen are entitled

to?”

The gist of the claim raised by the disputants workmen as emerges from their statement of claim is

that they were working as contract labours under the 1^st Party-Management of NTPC/TTPS being hired

through different contractors i.e. Management No. 2 the Proprietor, M/s. Synergy Project Maintenance, and

the Management No. 3, M/s. United Beveries Engineering Ltd. They were paid wages of Rs. 90/- per day to

work as Rigour and wages of Rs. 60/- per day to work as a Helper. They were employed initially for such

work for maintenance of the boiling section of the Thermal Plant pursuant to an agreement between the

contractor Ramji Company and NTPC/TTPS. They continued in their jobs under different contractors from

time to time due to expiry of agreements and execution of fresh agreements between the Management of

NTPC/TTPS and other contractors including Management No. 2 and 3. It is their claim that they continued to

work for the Management of NTPC though contractors were changed from to time. Their entry to the

premises of the management of NTPC/TTPS was on the basis of recommendation of the said Management

and as such, gate passes were issued to them by CISF on the recommendation of the management of

NTPC/TTPS. Though their engagement was shown hire labourers through different contractors from time to

time, they were working with the regular staff of the 1^st Party-Management of NTPC/TTPS and discharged

same nature of duties as entrusted to the counter-part employee of the 1^st Party-Management. Hence, they

preferred a writ before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa claiming minimum wages and in an interim order

dated 15.4.2004 the Hon’ble High Court directed continuance of service of the disputant workmen through the

new contractor i.e. Universal Construction Company and the 1^st Party-Management No. 1 was asked to ensure

their engagement by the said contractor. When they were continuing in their jobs as on March, 2005 they

were disengaged all of a sudden without any notice or notice pay and retrenchment compensation. When the

said matter was raised before the Hon’ble Court by preferring a contempt petition, the writ application was

disposed of giving a liberty to the disputant workmen to move the labour machinery. It is their further claim

that the above disengagement amounts to retrenchment without compliance of due procedure under the Act

and as such they should be reinstated to their jobs with back wages and other service benefits.

The Management No. 1 NTPC/TTPS and the Management No. 3 M/s. United Beveries Engineering

Ltd. have made their appearance after being noticed and submitted their written statements separately refuting

the claim of the disputant workmen. As the Management No. 2, M/s. Synergy failed to contest the claim of

the disputant workmen it has been set exparte. It is the stand of the Management No. 3 that the disputants

were working for the management of NTPC/TTPS through different contractors and they were also engaged

by him to work in the Management No. 1 NTPC/TTPS. The contract between him and the Management No. 1

was expired on 31.8.2003 and there-after the disputants were working through another contractor M/s.

Universal Construction Company. As the disputants have not claimed any relief against him, the reference is

not maintainable against them. On the other hand, the Management of NTPC has taken a stand that there is no

existence of “employer and employee” relationship between the parties as the disputants were labourers

engaged through different contractors. They preferred a writ before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa praying

for equal pay for equal work as their work was like the work of regular employees of NTPC. As there was an

interim direction of the Hon’ble High Court for continuance of their service, and the present Management is to

ensure the same, the disputants were engaged under the subsequent contractor M/s. Universal Construction

Company after expiry of the agreement with the contactor Management M/s. United Beveries Engineering

Ltd. on 31.8.2003. Since the period of contract of M/s. Universal Construction Company was over and there

was no need of its service, the contractor was disengaged. The job entrusted to the contractors from time to

time was not continuous and perennial in nature. That the writ preferred under the Hon’ble High Court was

disposed of without fixation of any liability on the present Management. In the above back-drops the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 2] 2018@T;s"B 12] 1940

4053

engagement of the disputants was dispensed with by their contractor as their engagement was purely

temporary and contractual and the same came to an end ipso facto with the completion of the work entrusted

to the contractor and expiry of the agreement with the said contractor. The disputant having been hired by the

contractor cannot be employee of the present Management. Their job being contractual in nature comes under

sub-section (oo) (bb) of Section 2 of the Act. As such, no notice or notice pay and retrenchment compensation

is required to be paid in compliance of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. There being no master and servant

relationship between the present Management and the disputants, the reference is not maintainable and the

Management of NTPC/TTPS is no way liable for their disengagement.

On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the following issues have been settled for just and proper

adjudication of the dispute.

I S S U E S

1. Whether the action of the management of Proprietor, Synergy Project, Maintenance Contractor

working under the control of D.G., NTPC/TTPS in not re-engaging Shri Munshi Prasad & 4 others in

newly awarded maintenance job is appropriate and justified?

2. Whether the action of the contractor, M/s. U.B. Engineering in not paying terminal benefits at the

time of terminating Shri Munshi Prasad & 4 others in the dispute is legal and justified?

3. What relief the workmen are entitled to?

The disputant workmen have examined one of them as W.W.-1 and filed copies of the gate passes,

copy of the order dated 19.12.2002 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5353 of 2002, copy of the order dated 15.4.2004

passed in Misc. Case No. 273 of 204, copy of the final order dated 29.3.2010 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5353 of

2002, copy of the complaint of the workmen an copy of the conciliation failure report dated 14.12.2011 which

are marked as Ext.-1 to Ext.-6 to establish their claim, whereas the Management of NTPC/TTPS has

examined its Manager (HR) namely Shri Rakesh Sinku as M.W.-1 to refute the claim of the disputant

workmen.

F I N D I N G S

All the issues are taken into consideration simultaneously for the sake of convenience.

As it emerges from the pleadings of the parties that there is no serious dispute to the fact that the

disputants were labourers engaged by different contractors and they were working in the plant of the

Management of NTPC/TTPS being engaged through different contractors from time to time. The above fact is

pleaded in their statement of claim as well as in the evidence of W.W.-1. No pleading or evidence has been

advanced to claim that relationship of master and servant or employer and employee existed between the

management of NTPC/TTPS and the disputants. Similarly, not a single word has been whispered or uttered

either in the pleadings or in the evidence of the disputants to establish that they were in direct pay roll of the

Management of NTPC or they were working under the direct control and supervision of the said Management.

It is emerging from their own admission that they were initially engaged in the year 2001 for the maintenance

of the boiling section of the Thermal Plant in consonance to the agreement made between one Ramji and the

management of NTPC and the agreement was executed for providing labour. They are stated to have been

engaged as contractor’s labours from time to time. The above fact is also coming forth from the order dated

19.12.2002 of the Hon’ble High Court arising out of W.P.(C) No. 5353 of 2002. The disputants were allowed

to continue to work in the 1^st Party-Management of NTPC through new contractor after expiry of the

agreement with the contractor under whom they were working in view of direction of the Hon’ble High Court

in an interim arrangement in the above writ. The said writ having been disposed of without any favour to the

disputant except giving an opportunity to raise a dispute before the labour machinery, the Management of

NTPC has no liability to ensure their continuance in any work under any contractor. In the above back-drops

no liability can be fixed on the management of NTPC for their disengagement even if it is accepted for

argument sake that they were disengaged amounting to retrenchment as defined under the Act. When they are

not employed or engaged by the said Management of NTPC, question does not arise on its part to comply the

provisions of Section 25-F for such alleged retrenchment of the disputants.

Coming to the liabilities of the Management contractors it is emerging from the evidence and

pleadings of the parties that the contracts executed between those contractors and the Management of NTPC

are already over or expired and that being the position the employment of the disputant appears to be purely

4054

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 2, 2018/JYAISTHA 12, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

contractual i.e. for a specific period or for specific purpose. In the event of completion of the said project or

period, the scope of engagement or employment of the disputant is automatically come to an end and there is

no need on the part of the contractor to give any notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation as the

disputants are presumed to be aware that their engagement was conditional to certain event or it was for a

specific period. As such, the alleged disengagement cannot be termed as retrenchment in view of the

provisions in Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. That apart, it cannot be over-sighted that the contractor M/s.

United Beveries Engineering Ltd. has advanced a pleading in its written statement that he paid an amount of

Rs. 23,500/- to each of the disputant workmen towards their terminal benefits in a conciliation proceeding

before the labour machinery and the said pleadings has not been specifically denied by the disputants. Thus,

the disputant workmen have also no relief against their immediate employers i.e. contractors/Management No.

2 and 3.

For the discussions made above, the disputants workmen are not entitled to any relief prayed for.

Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2018

dk-vk- 857-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] eq[;

dk;Zdkjh vf/dkjh] baMl VkWoj fyfeVsM] iq.ks vkSj 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;] ukxiqj ds iapkV

(lhthvkbZVh@,uthih@17@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-04-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40011@11@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsanz tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2018

S.O. 857.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/17/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Executive Officer, Indus Tower Ltd., Pune & Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 11.04.2018.

[No. L-40011/11/2014-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHYAM SUNDER GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/17/2014-15

Date: 02.02.2018.

Party No.1(a)

The Chief Executive Officer,

Indus Towers Ltd., Pantagaon 1,

501 & 504, Magarpatta City,

Pune – 411028.

Party No.1(b)

The Regional Director,

Indus Towers Ltd., Skyline Icon,

3^rd Floor, Near Mittal Industrial Estate,

Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400059.

Party No.1(c)

M/s Indus Towers Ltd.,

Bharati Crescent, 1 Nelson Mandela Road,

Vasant Kunj, Phase II,

New Delhi – 110070.

Party No.1(d)

M/s R.K. Associates, Contractor,

NH 5, H-36, CIDCO, Aurangabad (MS),

Aurangabad.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 2] 2018@T;s"B 12] 1940

4055

Party No.1(e)

M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.,

(Mahindra Powerol), Gate No. 02,

Akurli Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra,

Mumbai – 400101.

Versus

Party No.2

The President,

Maharashtra Telecom Kamgar Sena,

Plot No. 27, GTC, SIDCO,

AURANGABAD.

AWARD

(Dated: 02^nd February, 2018)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Indus Towers Ltd. and their union, Maharashtra

Telecom Kamgar Sena, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-40011/11/2014- (IR(DU) dated 11.08.2014, with the

following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Indus Towers Ltd., New Delhi, Regional Director, Indus Towers

Limited, Andheri (East), Mumbai & Chief Executive Officer, Indus Towers Ltd., Pantagon Pune through its

contractor M/s R.K. Associates, Aurangabad in removing the services of 15 contract workers namely

(1) Sh. Jaywant Wadhve (2) Sh. Govind Deshmukh (3) Sh. Jitendra Ingle (4) Sh. Nandu Wankhede (5) Sh. Gopal

Wankhede (6) Sh. Sunil Jadhav (7) Sh. Amol Dhodge (8) Sh. Satish Nandankar (9) Sh. Panduran Sarnaik

(10) Sh. Akash Deshmukh (11) Sh. Ankush Sonwar (12) Sh. Ramesh Yadavrao Kamble (13) Sh. Keshav Bapurao

Dahake (14) Sh. Gopal Suryawanshi (15) Sh. Balaji Manik Godalwar and not reinstating these 15 contract

workers by new Vendor M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (Mahindra Powerol) and not utilizing he services of all

contract workers for 8 hours (legally permissible working hours) is legal, proper and justified and if not, to

what relief to these contract workers (inclusive of 15 terminated contract workers) are entitled to and from

which date and what other directions are necessary n the matter ?”

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, by registered post with acknowledge due.

On 27.01.2015, management was present through their advocates and filed vakalatnama.

In spite of sufficient service of notices on the petitioner, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. No statement

of claim has also been filed on today i.e. on 18.01.2018 even after notice was served for the date of 12.12.2017. Today,

advocate for the management was present and mentioned that he had already filed a pursis for closure of the reference.

It is well settled that whenever a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the

illegality of the order and it is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds

on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the party fails to appear or file

written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the Government cannot be answered in favour of the said

party and the party would not be entitled to any relief.

Judging the present case with the touch stone of the settled principles as mentioned above, it is found that the

petitioner has neither appeared nor filed any statement of claim and as such, he is not entitled to any relief. Hence, it is

ordered:-

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

SHYAM SUNDER GARG, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2018

dk-vk- 858-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] vk;qDr]

fnYyh uxj fuxe ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

4056

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 2, 2018/JYAISTHA 12, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] fnYyh la- 1 ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 12@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 25-04-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@03@2018&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsanz tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2018

S.O. 858.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 12/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi and their Workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 25.04.2018.

[No. L-42025/03/2018-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR

COURT No. 1, ROOM No. 511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI

ID No. 12/2013

Shri Darshan Singh S/o Shri Maha Singh,

R/o 247, Balmiki wali Gali,

Village Singhu, Delhi

…Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi,

Civic Centre,

Minto Road, Ajmeri Gate,

New Delhi

…Management

AWARD

This claim has been directly filed by the claimant, ShriDarshan Singh, under Section 2-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) with the averments that he was working with the management as safai karamchari

since 2005. He was lastly posted at Circular No.90/75, Kishan Ganj, Delhi Zone, Sadar Paharganj, New Delhi and his

last drawn salary was Rs.3400.00 per month.

It is the case of the claimant that he was appointed on compassionate grounds as his mother, who was working

with the management as safai karamchari, died while in service. Claimant went to Gomukh for kavad on 10.07.2008 and

he did not return home. Thereafter, the wife of the claimant tried her level best to trace/search for the claimant, but she

could not succeed.

In the first week of May 2011, the claimant returned home and he was under depression. Later on, he was

medically treated by a doctor and was found to be suffering from Anxiety Neurosis. Immediately on recovery, the

claimant submitted an application to the management for reinstatement but the management neither replied nor reinstated

him. The management has terminated service of the claimant on 05.01.2012 without giving any chance to the claimant

without show cause notice etc. As such, his termination has been alleged to be illegal under the law. Claimant sent a

demand notice on 06.02.2012 by registered post but no reply was given. Thereafter, the claimant approached the

Conciliation Officer but the management failed to appear in the conciliation proceedings as a result of which conciliation

proceedings ended into failure. Thereafter, the claimant has filed this claim petition for reinstatement with full back

wages.

Claim was resisted by the management, who has field reply taking preliminary objections, inter alia of non

service of demand notice and as such claim is liable to be rejected. It is further alleged that the claimant was engaged on

daily basis on compassionate grounds and his engagement was for a limited period as per requirement of work. Claimant

has

himself abandoned

his service

on 08.07.2008, as such he was disengaged vide

office

order

No.1384/SS/DEMS/SPZ/2011-12 dated 05.01.2012 and the order was duly communicated to the claimant.

On merits, it is alleged by the management that the appointment of the claimant was purely on daily wage basis

as safai karamchari on compassionate grounds. It is denied that the claimant was engaged on monthly basis. It has

further been alleged that the claimant was absent from 01.07.2008 without any intimation to the management.

Averments regarding his illness has been denied by the management. Finally, a prayer has been made for dismissal of

the claim petition.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 2] 2018@T;s"B 12] 1940

4057

Against this factual background, my learned predecessor, vide order dated 22.04.2013, framed the following

issues:

(i)

Whether the claimant worked continuously with the management for a period of more than 240 days in

preceding 12 months from the date of termination of his service?

(ii)

Whether action of the management in terminating services of the claimant amounts to retrenchment within

the meaning of section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

(iii)

Whether the claimant is entitled for relief of reinstatement?

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.WW1/9. Management, in order to

rebut the case of the claimant, examined ShriKaptan Singh, Sanitation Superintendent as MW1, whose affidavit is

Ex.MW1/A. He also relied on documents Ex.MW1/1 and Ex.WW/M1.

I have heard Shri Abhinav Kumar, A/R for the claimant and Shri Nitin Soam, A/R for the management.

Findings on Issue No. (i), (ii) and (iii)

All these issues are being taken up together for the purpose of discussion as they are inter-related and can be

conveniently disposed of. It is clear from perusal of pleadings as well as evidence on record that the claimant has come

with the specific plea that he was initially engaged as daily wager safai karamchari on compassionate grounds by the

management and the management has terminated his service in violation of provisions of the Act. No notice was served

upon the claimant before ordering his termination nor any enquiry was conducted. It is further clear from the pleadings

as well evidence on record that factum of engagement of the claimant as safaikaramchari has not been denied even by the

management in its reply. Even Shri Kaptan Singh MW1, in his statement has admitted in his cross examination that the

claimant was engaged as daily wager safai karamcharion compassionate grounds. During the course of his cross

examination, Shri Kaptan Singh was directed to file policy relating to regularization of compassionate appointees. He

has filed the same. His cross examination further shows that the claimant worked regularly with the management from

April 2005 to 2008. He has admitted that Ex.WW1/3 was issued by the management. Ex.MW1/1 also shows that the

claimant was engaged as daily wager as is clear from his attendance record.

10.

Claimant, Shri Darshan Singh, while appearing as WW1 has supported the averments made in the claim

petition. He has admitted that in the year 2008, he had gone to Gomukh to fetch kavad and he had informed Shri Ramesh,

Assistant Sanitary Inspector regarding this. There is nothing on record to show that the claimant has filed application so

as to visit Haridwar. Since he returned only in 2011 after about 3 years, as such management had terminated his service.

11.

No doubt, under the law, if a workman remains unauthorizedlyabsent or has abandoned job, in that eventuality,

management is required to issue show cause notice or hold enquiry, which has not been done in the present case. Since

management has admitted that the claimant was engaged as daily wager, as such, relationship of employer and employee

between the parties stands admitted. Initial onus is always upon the workman to prove his status as a workman.

However, when factum of engagement of a workman has been duly admitted by the management, in that background,

since the management has not issued any show cause notice in terms of provisions of 25-F of the Act, as such action of

the management on the very face of it is unjust, illegal and against provisions of the Act.

12.

Section 25 F lays down the conditions precedent to the retrenchment of the workman and require the employer

to give one month notice to the workman in writing or one month wages in lieu of such notice as well as retrenchment of

compensation to such workman. This provision is mandatory and violation of the same would render action against the

management under the law. The Hon’ble Apex court in Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s HindalcoIndusties Ltd.( 2014

LAB.I.C. 2643 Supreme Court) interpreted the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act and observed as under:

“13. ….. no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year

under an employer can be retrenched by that employer until the conditions enumerated in Clauses (a) and (b) of

Section 25 F of the Act are satisfied. In terms of Clause (a), the employer is required to give to the workman one

month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or pay him wages in lieu of the notice. Clause

(b) casts a duty upon the employer to pay to the workman at the time of retrenchment, compensation equivalent

to fifteen days’ average pay for every completed year of continuous service of any part thereof in excess of six

months. This Court has repeatedly held that Section 25F(a) and (b) of the Act is mandatory and non-compliance

thereof renders the retrenchment of an employee nullity.”

13.

It is thus clear from the ratio of the above authorities that compliance of provisions of Section 25 F is

mandatory under the law and violation of the same would render action against the management to be illegal or void

under the law.

14.

The claimant has, in his affidavit, clearly stated that he was not gainfully employed after his termination nor

there is any evidence on record to show that claimant was doing any kind of job after his termination. Under such

4058

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 2, 2018/JYAISTHA 12, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

circumstances, it is reasonable to presume that claimant was out of job after his termination. The Hon’ble Apex Court in

case “Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya” has held as under :

The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:

In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back

wages is the normal rule.

ii)

Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of

getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statementbefore the

adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed

orwas employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages,

then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads

gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to

the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the

existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its

existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore,

once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically

plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or

substantially similar emoluments.”

15.

The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of

termination of a workman’s service/employment/ engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the

mandate of Section 25-F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se,

sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that

termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one

month’s notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25-F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering

the action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not

terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).

16.

In view of this it is held that the workman has continuously worked for a period of 240 days in a calendar year

preceding his termination and as such, action of the management in terminating service of the claimant on the fact of it is

illegal ad it does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of section 2(oo) of the Act. In the present case, there

was no specific contract or engagement of workmen for a specific period or against a specific project. As such, so-called

termination of the claimant without issuance of show cause notice or enquiry cannot legally sustain.

17.

Now, the only residual question which survives for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to

reinstatement in service. It is apposite to mention here that earlier Hon’ble Apex Court has articulated a view which is

reflected in several judgments that if termination of a workman is found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with

back wages would follow. However, in recent past, there is change in this trend and now in several cases a view has been

taken that relief by way of reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic.

18.

Though it has been averred by the workman in his affidavit as well as statement of claim that he is not gainfully

employed with any other management yet this court has to keep in mind that he was not a regular employee of the

management nor he has vested right to continue in said employment. The ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement

with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may

be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of

victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wager worker and

where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect namely in violation of Section 25-F reinstatement

with back wages is not to be automatic. Instead the workman would be given monetary compensation which will meet

the ends of justice. Reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the

termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily

required under Section 25-F even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of

that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis

and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization.

19.

While dealing with reinstatement, the court has to take in mind the nature of the post, duration of the

engagement, nature of appointment, availability of the post, delay in raising industrial dispute and whether the

appointment was in accordance with rules or not.

20.

In the present case, claimant was admittedly a daily wager and even if he is ordered to be reinstated,

management can still do away with his service by issuing due notice. Moreover, having regard to the latest trend being

followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the fact that he was not holding a regular job, there is no question of his

reinstatement with back wages. However, having regard to the fact that no show cause notice or retrenchment

compensation was paid to the claimant in terms of provisions of Section 25-F of the act, an amount of Rs.1 lakh is

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 2] 2018@T;s"B 12] 1940

4059

awarded to the claimant as retrenchment compensation. 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 5, 2018

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2018

dk-vk- 859-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] vk;qDr] mÙkj

fnYyh uxj fuxe ,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;] fnYyh la- 1 ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 256@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-04-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@147@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsanz tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2018

S.O. 859.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 256/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Commissioner, North

Delhi Municipal Corporation and their Workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 25.04.2018.

[No. L-42011/147/2015-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR

COURT No. 1, ROOM No.511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI

ID No. 256/2015

The General Secretary,

MCD General Mazdoor Union,

Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10,

Jam Nagar House, Shah Jahan Road,

New Delhi – 110 011

…Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

North Delhi Municipal Corporation,

4^th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road,

New Delhi – 110 002

…Management

AWARD

This award shall dispose of a reference received from Ministry of Labour and Employment vide Order

No. L-42011/147/2015-IR(DU) dated 03.12.2015 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as

under:

‘Whether S/Shri Chuni Lal S/o late Nathu Singh is entitled to be promoted as Garden Chaudhary under

promotional quota as their juniors are promoted in the said category with effect from 04..03.2014? If so, what

directions are necessary in this respect?’ Whether the action of the management of North Delhi Municipal

Corporation in not granting the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 revised from time to time with all consequential

benefits to Shri Chunni Lal with effect from 02.02.1999 is fair and justified? If not, what relief the workmen

entitled to?’

Claim statement was filed by the claimant herein averring that Shri Satish Kumar was regularized on the post of

mali on 01.04.1989 and has been working as acting Chaudhary with effect from 02.02.1999 under Karol Bagh Zone of

Horticulture and his services were transferred to Civil Lines Zone, Horticulture in July 2009 whre he worked upto

October 2013 and was transferred back to Karol Bagh Zone in November 2013. The claimant has not been allowed to

participate in the promotion to the post of Garden Chaudhary on the grounds that the claimant is not 10^th pass with

Agriculture as one of the subjects. As per un-notified recruitment rules, claimant is entitled to promotional post of

Chaudhary and no minimum qualification is prescribed. Some acting chaudharies similarly situated were allowed grant

4060

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 2, 2018/JYAISTHA 12, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of pay of Chaudhary from the date when they were performing their duty as Garden Chaudhary as per the direction of

Hon’ble Tribunal in TA No.1317/2009 in the matter of Sultan Singh Vs. MCD and further direction of Hon’ble High

Court of Delhi titled Sultan Singh & others in WP(C) No.7947/2010 and dismissed as withdrawn by Hon’ble Supreme

Court of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.20069/2011 on 09.04.2012. In another writ petition No.5453/2012 titled

Sultan Singh Vs MCD Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court directed the management to comply with the writ petition.

Management vide order 04.06.2013 directed for payment of duties of higher post (Garden Chaudhary). The claimant was

not allowed to participate in the promotion process due to wrong interpretation of the unnotified recruitment rules, that

the claimants are not 10^th pass with Agriculture. Juniors to the claimant were promoted to the post of Garden Chaudhary

with effect from 04.03.2014. Hence the management has not only violated the un-notified recruitment rules but also

violated Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence the management has indulged in unfair labour practice and

non-grant of promotion to the claimant is totally illegal, unfair, unjust and discriminatory. Even Hon’ble High Court in a

bunch of writ petitions No.7669/2002 has held on 26.02.2004 that 50% promotional posts in which the educational

qualification are not required. Juniors to the claimants were promoted as Chaudhary with effect from 04.03.2014 under

promotion quota. Finally, it has been prayed that the claimant may be granted promotion as Garden Chaudhary with

effect from 04.03.2014 and also award pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 with effect from 02.02.1999.

Claim was demurred by the management taking various preliminary objections, inter alia Management has

demurred claim of the claimants by taking preliminary objections, inter alia, present dispute not being an industrial

dispute as there is no espousal & no demand notice has been served upon the management, claim being misconceived,

claim being stale etc. On merits, management has admitted the factum of regularization of the claimant as mali on

01.04.1989. As per the existing rules for the post of Garden Chaudhary, malis having eight years of regular service in the

grade and possessing qualification of 10^th pass with Agriculture are eligible for promotion to the next post. There is

prescribed procedure for promotion to the post of Garden Chaudhary and there must be sanctioned/vacant post of Garden

Chaudhary to which the workman can lay claim when he has passed trade test conducted by the department. The

management has denied the remaining material facts contained in the statement of claim.

It is pertinent to mention here that the claimant expired on 02.05.2016 and he is survived by his widow

Ms.Savitri, two sons S/Shri Sunil & Sandeep and a daughter Ms.Madhubala who is married and it was stated by Shri

Sunil that he has no objection in case benefits which has accrued on account of death of his father late Shri Chunni Lal is

made to his mother, Ms.Savitri. Hence, the legal heirs of the claimant examined Ms.Savitri as WW1 and Shri B.K.

Prasad as WW2 and tendered in evidence their affidavit Ex.WW1/A& Ex.WW2/A and also tendered in evidence

documents Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW2/1 to Ex.WW2/3 respectively. Management, in order to rebut the case of the

claimant, examined Shri Keshav lal, Assistant Director as MW1, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A and he also relied on

documents Ex.MW1/1 and Ex.MW1/2.

I have heard Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant and Shri Madan Sagar, A/R for the management.

Admittedly, in the present case, reference has been made under Section 10 sub Section (2A) of the Act for

adjudication. It is now well settled position in law that when a reference has been made for adjudication to the Tribunal

or Labour Court, as the case may be, it is paramount duty of the court to decide the same on merits, irrespective of the

pleas taken by the management. The dispute in the case in hand cannot be said to be stale for the simple reason that there

is no previous adjudication of the matter between the parties from a competent court nor that there is inordinate delay in

approaching this Tribunal by the claimants.