6337 GI/2018

(6279)

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- 44]

ubZ fnYyh] uoEcj 4—uoEcj 10] 2018] 'kfuokj@dkfrZd 13—dkfrZd 19] 1940

No. 44] NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 4—NOVEMBER 10, 2018, SATURDAY/KARTIKA 13— KARTIKA 19, 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)

कामक, लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय

(कामक और िशण िवभाग)

नई द ली, 31 अ तूबर, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 1591

1591

1591.—क सरकार, एतद् ारा दली िवशेष पुिलस थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम

सं)या 25) क- धारा 6 के साथ प.ठत धारा 5 क- उपधारा (1) ारा 1द2 शि3य4 का 1योग करते 7ए मिणपुर रा9य

सरकार, गृह िवभाग, इ>फाल ारा जारी अिधसूचना सं)या 12/1(2)/2018-एच(सीबीआई)(एलडीए) दनांक

05.04.2018 के माFयम से 1ाG समहित से लोकटक िवकास 1ािधकरण, मिणपुर म िव2ीय अिनयिमतताI से संबंिधत

सतकJ ता मामले म भारतीय दंड संिहता, 1860 (1860 का अिधिनयम सं)या 45) क- धारा 420, 120-बी तथा MNाचार

उOमूलन अिधिनयम, 1988 (1988 का अिधिनयम सं)या 49) क- धारा 13(1)(डी) के साथ प.ठत धारा 13(2) के अधीन

वी एQड एसीपीएस (सतकJ ता एवं MNाचार िनरोधक पीएस) मिणपुर, इ>फाल म पंजीकृत एफआईआर सं)या 5(3)/2018

म जांच करने के िलए दली िवशेष पुिलस थापना के सदय4 क- शि3य4 और TेUािधकार का िवतार समत मिणपुर

रा9य म करती है।

[फा. सं. 228/20/2018-एवीडी-II]

एस. पी. आर. िU पाठी, अवर सिचव

6280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 10, 2018/KARTIKA 19, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 31st October, 2018

S.O. 1591.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi

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

Government of Manipur, Home Department, Imphal issued vide Notification No. 12/1(2)/2018-H(CBI)(LDA) dated

5^th April 2018, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the Members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in

the whole of the State of Manipur for carrying out investigation into Vigilance Case under FIR No. 5(3)2018 of V &

ACPS (Vigilance & Anti Corruption PS) Manipur, Imphal under sections 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act

No. 45 of 1860) and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988) in

connection with financial irregularities in Loktak Development Authority, Manipur.

[F. No. 228/20/2018-AVD-II]

S.P.R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1592-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]

egkfuns’kd] Ldksi ifjlj] ubZ fnYyh vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas 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;] fnYyh la- 1 ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 150@2018½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-10-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@142@2017&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

jktsanz tks’kh] mi funs’kd

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2018

S.O. 1592.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case No. 150/2018) 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

Director General, Scope Complex, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

12.10.2018.

[No. L-42011/142/2017– 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 – 110 075

ID No. 150/2018

The General Secretary,

Delhi Office & Establishment Employees Union,

BTR Bhawan, 13-A, Rouse Avenue,

New Delhi 110 002

…Workman

Versus

1. The Director General,

SCOPE complex,

Core -8, First Floor,

SCOPE-7, Lodhi Road,

New Delhi – 110 003

2. The Director,

M/s. Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd.

40/93, 40/92, Chittaranjan Park,

New Delhi – 110 019

…Managements

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 10] 2018@dkfrZd 19] 1940

6281

AWARD

A reference under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947(in short the Act) was received from the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment vide letter

No.L-42011/142/2017-IR(DU) dated 19/30.01.2018 for adjudication of an industrial dispute with the following terms:

‘Whether non-consideration of the general demand of union in respect of wage and other allowance arbitrarily

by the management of M/s Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd. is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workmen

concerned are entitled to’

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman union as well as the management. Neither

the postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained

affected during the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice

was served upon the workman union. Despite service of the notice, the workman union opted to abstain from the

proceedings and no claim statement was filed on their behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman union is not interested in

adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the workman union has neither put in appearance nor have they led any evidence so as to prove their

cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award.

However, it will not debar the workman union from seeking relief afresh as there is no adjudication of the reference on

merits. 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 : October 8, 2018

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1593-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]

vk;qDr] mÙkj fnYyh uxj fuxe] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas 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;] fnYyh la- 1 ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 156@2017½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-09-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@158@2016&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

jktsanz tks’kh] mi funs’kd

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2018

S.O. 1593.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case No. 156/2017) 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, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 11.09.2018.

[No. L-42011/158/2016–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 – 110 075

ID No.156/2017

Smt. Sushila Devi W/o Shri Ram Niwas,

C/o MCD General Mazdoor Union,

Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10, Jam Nagar House,

Shahjahan Road, Delhi

…Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

North Delhi Municipal Corporation,

4^th Floor, Civic Centre,

Minto Road,

New Delhi – 110 002

…Managements

6282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 10, 2018/KARTIKA 19, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

A reference under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947(in short the Act) was received from the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment for

adjudication vide letter No.L-42011/158/2016-IR(DU) dated 29.05.2017 for adjudication of an industrial dispute with the

following terms:

‘Whether Smt. Sushila Devi widow of late Ram Niwas entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds with

effect from 03.07.2013 as regular safai karamchari? If not, then what other relief the workman is entitled to?’

Claim statement was filed on behalf of Ms.Sushila Devi, the claimant with the averments that he is presently

working under North Delhi Municipal Corporation. Husband of the claimant, who was working as regular Safai

Karamchari, expired in harness on 16.07.2012. However, the claimant herein was appointed on compassionate grounds

as daily rated/muster roll Safai Karamchari instead of regular Safai Karamchari, which action of the management is

unfair as well as illegal. As such, management exploited the claimant. The management follows the policy of

Government of India/Government of NCT of Delhi. Finally, it has been prayed that that the claimant may be granted

compassionate appointment as regular safai Karamchari with effect from the date of her appointment on compassionate

grounds, i.e. 03.07.2013 with all consequential benefits.

Thereafter, the case was listed for filing of written statement by the management. However, the claimant, Smt.

Sushila Devi stated at the bar that she does not want to pursue the reference nor does she want to adduce any evidence in

support of her case. Statement of the claimant has been separately recorded. Since the claimant is no more interested in

pursuing her case on merits, this Tribunal is left with no alternative but to pass a ‘no claim’ award. However, it will not

debar the workman, Ms.Sushila Devi, from seeking relief afresh as there is no adjudication of the reference on merits.

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. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

Dated : September 10, 2018

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1594-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]

vk;qDr] nf{k.k fnYyh uxj fuxe] ubZ fnYyh vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas 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;] fnYyh la- 1 ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 165@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-09-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@76@2015&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

jktsanz tks’kh] mi funs’kd

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2018

S.O. 1594.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case No. 165/2015) 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, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi and others and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 24.09.2018.

[No. L-42011/76/2015–IR(DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No.1, DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.

ID No. 165/2015

The Workmen

Represented by MCD General Mazdoor Union (Regd.),

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

Jam Nagar House, Shahjahan Road,

New Delhi 110011

…Workmen/Claimants

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 10] 2018@dkfrZd 19] 1940

6283

Versus

(1) The Commissioner (South),

South Delhi Municipal Corporation,

9^th Floor Civic Centre, Shyam Prasad Mukherjee Marg,

Minto Road, New Delhi 110002.

(2) The Commissioner (North),

North Delhi Municipal Corporation,

4th Floor Civic Centre, Shyam Prasad Mukherjee Marg,

Minto Road, New Delhi 110002.

(3) The Commissioner (East),

East Delhi Municipal Corporation,

Udyog Sadan, Near Patpargan j,

Shahdara, Delhi 110032.

…Management

AWARD

In the present case, matter was referred to this Tribunal vide letter No. L-42011/76/2015-IR(DU) dated

20.07.2015 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 the sweepers/Safai Karamcharis are entitled to be enhanced under the 1^st ACP Scheme w.e.f.

09.8.1999 after completion of 12 years or service in the pay scale of Rs.2750-4400 in place of Rs.2610-4000

and 2^nd ACP after completion of 24 years of services are entitled for the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/- in place of

Rs.2750=-4400 in sanitary wing of the management alongwith all consequential benefits? If so, what directions

are necessary in this respect ?’

Both parties were put to notice and the workmen/claimants filed statement of claim through President of MCD

General Mazdoor Union. As per the averments made in the claim petition, the Sweepers/safai Karamcharis working

under the sanitary wing of the Management who have completed 12 years of service are entitled to Ist ACP in the pay-

scale of Rs.2750-4400/- in place of Rs.2610-4400/- and are entitled to 2^nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/- in

place of Rs.2750-4400/-, on completion of 24 years of service, in terms of Office Memorandum dated 9./8/1999 issued

by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions, Govt. of India, New Delhi under the Assured Career

Progression Scheme. The benefit of Assured Progression Scheme is to be granted as per hierarchy of promotional posts.

But the Management has not yet complied with the said O.M. of the Govt. of India, though duly adopted by it and have

not granted the benefits of the Assured Progression Scheme to the workmen/sweepers despite service of demand notice

dated 4/10/2014. Prayer has been made for passing of the Award, thereby enhancement of 1^st Scheme w.e.f. 9.8.1999

after completion of 12 years of service in the pay scale of Rs.2750-4400 in place of Rs.2610-4000 and 2^nd ACP after

completion of 24 years of service be granted in the pay-scale of Rs.3050-4590/- in place of Rs.2750-4400/- to the

Sweepers/Safai Karamcharis posted in the sanitary wing of the Management, alongwith all consequential benefits.

(2)

The claim petition has been resisted by the Management No.1 by filing written statement and took preliminary

objections that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present matter of controversy because appropriate

government qua management of MCD is the Govt. of NCT of Delhi in view of Section 485 of Chapter XXIV of DMC

Act and that the claim petition is barred for want of prior mandatory notice as required under Section 478 of DMC Act.

It is stated that this is purely an administrative matter and in fact existing pay scale of Safai Karamchari is Rs.2550/- and

next ACP falls under the pay scale of Rs.2610-3540/- and that the Management is ready to give the First ACP in the pay

scale of Rs.2610-3549/- to those employees who fulfills the criteria of next promotion as per the Recruitment Rules, and

so far as the second ACP is concerned, the same can be given to the workmen only if they fulfill the criteria of the next

promotion as per the recruitment rules. It is denied that the workmen are entitled for first ACP after 12 years in the pay

scale of R”s.2750-4400 and second ACP after completion of 24 years in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4500/-. Prayer has

been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

(3)

Management No.2/North Delhi Municipal Corporation also filed its written statement and took preliminary

objection to the effect that instant dispute is not an industrial dispute as defined under Section 2(k) of ID Act and that the

MCD General Mazdoor Union has no locus standi to raise the present dispute since the said Union is not a recognized

Union of the Management NO.2. While denying the allegations made in the claim petition regarding entitlement of the

workmen/sweepers for grant of financial upgradation in the pay-scale of Rs.2750-4400 in the First ACP after completion

of 12 years of service or grant of financial upgrdation in the pay scale of Rs.3050=-4590/- in place of 2750-4400/-, it has

been stated that post of Sanitary Guide is the promotion post of the post of Safai Karamchari. While mentioning the

pay-scales of Safai Karamchari at different periods, it has been stated that as per provisions of ACP Scheme, Safari

Karamcharis are entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.2610-3540/- after completion of 12 years regular service or on 9/8/99

whichever is later and after completion of 24 years of their regular service, they are entitled to the pay scale of Rs.2750-

4400/- provided that the candidate/official is fulfilling the eligibility criteria as per notified RRs. The chart of the pay-

scale of Safai Karamchari at different period is given hereunder :—

6284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 10, 2018/KARTIKA 19, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sl. No.

Stage

Pay-scale of Safai

Karamcharis (in Rs.)

Pay scale of

Sanitary Guide (in Rs.)

3^rdCPC

196-3-200-4-232

200-3-206-4-232-EB-4-240

4^thCPC

750-12-870-EB-14-940

885-12-955-14-1025

5^thCPC

2550-55-2660-65-3200

2610-60-3150-65-3540

6^thCPC

5200-20200/-(+GP1800)

5200-20200 (+GP Rs.1800)

It is stated that claim made by the workmen is wrong and hence claim petition is devoid of any merits.

(4)

The claimants/workmen filed rejoinder, denying all the allegations made by the Management and reiterated their

own case as set up in the claim petition.

(5)

On the pleadings of the parties, this Tribunal vide order dated 7/01/2016 framed following issues :-

(i) Whether claim filed by the claimant is not legally maintainable in view of the various preliminary

objections?

(ii) In terms of reference.

(iii) Relief.

(6) The Workmen in support of their case examined Shri B.K Prasad, President of MCD General Mazdoor Union as

W.W.1 who tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A alongwith documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/7.

(7)

On the other hand, the Management in order to rebut the case of the claimant examined Shri Neeraj Kumar,

Assistant Commissioner/DEMS (HQ), SDMC as MW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A.

(8)

I have carefully gone through the evidence adduced on record by both the parties and have given my thoughtful

consideration to the rival contentions made on behalf of the parties.

Issue No. 1 and 2 :

(9)

Both these issues are being taken up together for the purpose of discussion and they can be conveniently

disposed of.

(10)

So far the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to adjudicate the present reference is concerned, learned A/R for the

management during the course of arguments did not press this issue since the dispute has been referred to it by the

Appropriate Government under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the ID Act and the

workmen/sweepers working in the sanitary wing of the Management are the workmen as provided under Section 2(S) of

the Act.

(11)

It is not in dispute that Office Memorandum bearing No.35034/I?07-Estt.(D) dated 9./8/1999 issued by the

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions, Govt. of India which provides for grant of Assured Career

Progression to the Central Govt. employees (civilian) so as to meet out the problem of genuine stagnation and hardship

being faced by the employees due to lack of adequate promotional avenues, is being adopted by the Management herein

as a matter of policy. Certain conditions for grant of benefits under the ACP Scheme dated 9./8/1999 have been

stipulated in Annexure-I of the said O.M. which inter-alia provides that Fist financial upgradations under the ACP

scheme in the entire Govt. service career of a employee shall be allowed after 12 years of regular service and the second

upgradation after 12 years of regular service from the date of first financial upgradation, subject to fulfillment of

prescribed conditions. Condition No.6 of the same recites that fulfillment of normal promotion norms (bench-mark,

departmental examination, seniority-cum-fitness in the case of Group “D” employees etc.) for grant of financial

upgradations, performance of such duties as are entrusted to the employees together with retention of old designations,

financial upgradations as personal to the incumbent for the stated purpose and restriction of ACP scheme for financial

and certain other benefits (House Building Advance, allotment of govt. accommodation, advances etc.) only without

conferring any privileges related to higher status (e.g. invitation to ceremonial functions, deputation to higher posts, etc.)

shall be excused for grant of benefits under the ACP Scheme. Standard/common pay scales relating to the posts of S-1 to

S-24 have been mentioned in Annexure-II of the said O.M.

(12)

It would not be out of place to mention here that under the ACP Scheme dated 9/8/1999, two financial

upgradation benefits after completion of 12 years of service and 24 years of service respectively were granted, whereas

Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) was introduced w.e.f. 1/9/2008 with the provision of grant of

three promotional/financial upgradation benefits after completion of regular service of 10, 20 and 30 years of service

respectively.

(13)

It is not in dispute that post of Sanitary Guide in the Sanitary Wing of the Management/MCD is the promotional

post to the post of Sweeper/Safai Karamcharis. In cross examination, MW1 Neeraj Kumar admitted that sweepers/safai

karamcharis are entitled to be promoted to the post of Sanitary Guide as per Ex.WW1/3 but volunteered that they should

fulfill the eligibility criteria. MW 1 also admitted that regular safai karamchari is entitled to be promoted as sanitary

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 10] 2018@dkfrZd 19] 1940

6285

guide as per Ex.WW1/3. On the basis of testimony of MW1, Ld.A/R for the Workmen strenuously argued that the

workmen are entitled to get pay scale of Rs.2750-4400/- in place of Rs.2610-4000 on completion of 12 years of service

i.e. at the time of grant of Ist ACP and they are entitled to get pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/- in place of Rs.2750-4400/-

after completion of 24 years of service, as per ACP Scheme dated 9/8/1999 itself. Neither in the statement of claim nor in

the affidavit Ex.WW1/A, the representative of the workmen has mentioned as to what was/is the pay-scale of the

Sweeper/Safair Karamchari and what is the pay-scale of Sanitary Guide posted in the Sanitary wing of the Management.

Document Ex.WW1/2 (relied upon by the workmen) is a copy of the Recruitment Regulation for the post of Safai

Karamchari (class IV), in the pay-scale of Rs.196-232 (as per 3^rd Central Pay Commission Report) which provides that

the candidates applying for the said post under direct recruitment, should have passed primary school examination from a

recognized school/board. To the same effect is the document Ex.WW1/M-1 viz. schedule/recruitment rules dated

28-11-1984 issued by Delhi Admn (now Govt. of NCT of Delhi) for the post of Safai Karamchari wherein also the pay-

scale of Safai Karamchari has been mentioned as Rs.196-3-220-EB-232. Further, the document Ex.WW1/3 which too

has been relied upon by the Workmen, is the copy of Recruitment Regulation for the post of Sanitary Guide (category-C

post) in the pay scale of Rsw.200-3-206-4-234-EB-4-250 is a promotional post of Safai Karamcharis with 3 years regular

service in the grade and have passed Middle class from a recognized School/Board.

14)

Thus, it is evident from the documents Ex.WW1/2 and Ex.WW1/3, prior to 4^th Central Pay Commission report

i.e. prior to 1/1/1986, the pay scale of Safai karamchari (which is an initial post & to be filled in by direct recruitment) in

the Sanitary Wing of Management was Rs,196-3-200-4-232, whereas post of Sanitary Guide (next promotional post) in

the sanitary wing of Management/MCD was in the pay-scale of Rs. 200-3-206-4-232-EB-4-240. As mentioned in para

2 above, pay scale of Safai Karamcharis were revised to Rs. 750-12-870-EB-14-940, while pay scale of Sanitary Guide

were revised to Rs. 885-12-955-14-1025 as per the recommendations of 4^th CPC w.e.f. 1/1/1986. Subsequently, pay

scale of Rs. Safai Karamcharis were revised to Rs. 2550-55-2660-65-3200 while pay scale of Sanitary Guide were

revised to Rs. 2610-60-3150-65-3540 as per the recommendations of 5^th CPC w.e.f. 1/1/1996. The Assured Career

Progression Scheme was introduced by the Govt. w,.e.f. 9/8/1999 which provided that on completion of 12 years of

regular service, civil officials were/are entitled to be granted financial upgradation in the next higher post in the

hierarchy. The workmen/claimants have not adduced any evidence to show that pay-scale of Sanitary Guide/s working

in the Sanitary Wing of the Management was revised to Rs.2750-4400/- after 1/1/1996 and in such scenario, the safai

Karamcharis were/are entitled to the said pay scale by virtue of 1^st financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme of the

Government, on completion of 12 years of regular service. Similarly, the workmen have not adduced any evidence to

show that pay scale of Assistant Sanitary Inspector (next higher post to the post of Sanitary Guide) in the Sanitary Wing

of the Management at the relevant time were revised to Rs.3050-4590/- in place of Rs.2750-4400/-, as claimed by them.

15)

In view of the above, it is clear crystal that 1^st financial upgradation under ACP Scheme dated 9/8/1999, for the

Safai Karamcharis working in the Sanitary Wing of Management in the pay-scale of Rs. 2550-55-2660-65-3200 at the

time of introduction of ACP Scheme, as per their hierarchy, was/is similar to the post of Sanitary Guide, in the pay scale

of Rs. 2610-60-3150-65-3540 and not in the pay-scale of Rs.2750-4400/- as allegedly claimed by the workmen and that

2^nd financial upgradiation for the Safair Karamcharis of the Management was in respect of the post in the pay scale of

Rs..2750-4400/- subject to fulfilling the conditions as required under the Scheme.

16)

Before parting with, I may mention that the Management in its written statement as well as evidence adduced

before this Tribunal has stated that the Management is ready to give benefit of First ACP to the Safai Karamcharis

(working in the pay scale of Rs.2550- 3200/-) after completion of 12 years of regular service or on 9/8/1999, whichever

is later, in the pay-scale of Rs.2610-3540/- viz. pay scale of Sanitary Guide. Thus, it seems that the Management has not

suo-motto granted benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme dated 9/8/1999 and of Modified Assured Career

Progression Scheme effective from 1/9/2008, to the workmen working in its Sanitary Wing for the reasons best known to

them.

17)

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in the claim of the workmen and it is held

that the workmen viz. Sweepers/Safai Karamcharis are entitled to get first financial upgradation on completion of 12

years of regular service, in the pay-scale of Rs.2610-4000 viz. pay scale of Sanitary Guide and to get second financial

upgradation on completion of 24 years of regular service, in the pay-scale of Rs.2750-4400/-, as per their hierarchy,

subject to fulfillment of conditions as specified in RRs and under the ACP SCHEME DATED 9/8/1999. The

Management is directed to grant financial benefits to all the eligible workmen Safai Karamcharis under the ACP Scheme

dated 9/8/1999 as well as under the Modified ACP Scheme effective from 1/9/2008 and arrears of the same be paid to all

such eligible workmen, within three months from the date of publication of this Award. Award is passed accordingly.

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

Date. 19.9.2018

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1595-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]

dk;Zdkjh funs’kd] ikoj fxzM fuxe bafM;k fyfeVsM ¼,uvkj&1½] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas

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;]

fnYyh la- 1 ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 190@2018½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-09-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@21@2018&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

jktsanz tks’kh] mi funs’kd

6286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 10, 2018/KARTIKA 19, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2018

S.O. 1595.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case No. 190/2018) 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

Executive Director, Power Grid Corporation India Limited (NR-I) New Delhi and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 24.09.2018.

[No. L-42011/21/2018– 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 – 110 075

ID No. 190/2018

Shri V.K. Gaur,

House No.15, Gali No.8,

Kanti Nagar Extension,

Delhi – 110 051

…Workman

Versus

The Executive Director,

Power Grid Corporation India Limited (NR-I),

B-9, Qutub Industrial Area,

Katwaria Sarai,

New Delhi – 110 065

…Managements

AWARD

A reference under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947(in short the Act) was received from the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment for

adjudication vide letter No.L-42011/21/2018-IR(DU) dated 01.05.2018 for adjudication of an industrial dispute with the

following terms:

‘Whether the action of Management of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited in transferring the workman

Shri Vinod Kumar Gaur, working as Assistant Grade-I from Maharani Ganj, New Delhi to Kota in Rajasthan

vide office order dated 15.05.2017 is fair, just & legal? If not, to what other relief the workman is entitled to &

what directions are necessary in this respect?’

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the management. Neither the

postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained

affected during the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice

was served upon the workman. Despite service of the notice, the workman opted to abstain from the proceedings and no

claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the

reference on merits.

Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against

the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. However, it

will not debar the workman, Shri Vinod Kumar Gaur from seeking relief afresh as there is no adjudication of the

reference on merits. 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 : September 19, 2018

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1596-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] eq[;

dY;k.k vf/kdkjh] xSj&oS/kkfud dSaVhu ¼Mhlh½] dkfeZd vkSj izf’k{k.k foHkkx] ubZ fnYyh vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas 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;] fnYyh la- 1 ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 219@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

12-10-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@116@2015&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

jktsanz tks’kh] mi funs’kd

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 10] 2018@dkfrZd 19] 1940

6287

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2018

S.O. 1596.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case No. 219/2015) 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

Chief Welfare Officer, Non-Statutory Canteen (DC), Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12.10.2018.

[No. L-42011/116/2015–IR(DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT No.1, DWARKA

COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.

ID No. 219/2015

Smt. Jhupli Devi

W/o. Late Shri 9 Gyan Singh,

Through All India Central Govt. Canteen Employees

Association and Canteen Mazdoor Sabha,

F-48, Lado Sarai,

New Delhi 110030.

… Workman/Claimant

Versus

1. Chief Welfare Officer,

Non-Statutory Canteen (DC),

Department of Personnel & Training,

Ministry of P&PG, North Block,

New Delhi 110001.

2. The Joint Secretary (Training( & CAO,

Ministry of Defence, E-Block Hutments,

New Delhi 110011.

…Management/ Respondents

AWARD

This Award shall decide a matter which was referred to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide letter No.

L-42011/116/2015/IR(DU) dated 29.09.2015 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 action of the management in not granting family pension as per the CCS (CCA) Pension Rules, 1972

to Smt. Jhupli Devi w/o. Late Gyan Singh is illegal and/or unjustifed and if so, to what relief is she entitled to

and what directions are necessary in this regard ?

Both parties were put to notice and the claimant Smt. Jhupli Devi filed statement of claim. Relevant facts of the

case as emerged out from the claim petition are that Shri Gian Singh s/o. late Shri Khushal Singh Rawat who was the

husband of the claimant Smt.Jhupli Devi, was employed in the year 1970 and was working as Bearer/cook in the non-

statutory canteen of Air Headquarter, Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi under the control of the Management. He expired on

3-10-1985. According to the case of the claimant, Central Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated 3/12/1999 in OA

No. 572/1996 (Federation of All India Central Govt. Canteen Employees Workers Association vs. UOI ) held

“That employees of the canteens of Central Govt Departments need to be given same benefit as has been given

to the employees of Railway Canteens and directed UOI to grant the benefits of entire past service prior to the

applicants having been declared as Govt. Servants for counting towards pensionery benefits.. (Ex,.WW`1/1)

The said order was confirmed by Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.5695/2000 vide order dated 30/4/2012 and

thereafter, Govt. of India issued O.MJ. dated 26/11/2012 (Ex.WW1/2). A demand notice is stated to have been submitted

by the claimant before the Management, seeking pensionery benefits w.e.f.26/11/2012 but to no avail. Then, she

approached the Conciliation Officer and no settlement could be arrived at . It has been stated that claimant is ready to

return the pensionery benefits received from Employees Provident Fund Authority as per order by the Department of

Personnel to convert the EPF amount in GPF in the name of her husband late Gian Singh. Prayer has been made that she

be granted pensionery benefits w.e.f. 3/12/1999 and payments made under the EPF Act may kindly be adjusted/recovered

from her.

6288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 10, 2018/KARTIKA 19, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Management resisted the claim of the claimant by filing written statement wherein various preliminary

objections have been taken inter-alia that claim is not maintainable inasmuch Management is not “an Industry” under the

Act and that there is no industrial dispute, inasmuch as the employees working in the departmental non-statutory

canteens in the Central Govt. offices are deemed/declared to be govt. servants and are governed by respective

Recruitment/Service Rules and not by the Industrial Disputes Act. It has been denied that the claimant is entitled for

pensionery benefits. It has been alleged that the application dated 10/8/2013 received from the claimant for grant of

family pension was duly replied vide letter dated 25/’9/2013, conveying that her case was not covered under eligible

category. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

Claimant filed rejoinder, reiterating her own case and denied the allegations as made in the written statement.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 1/6/2016 :—

Whether petition is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objections ?

ii)

Whether the claimant is entitled for pensionery benefits, w.e.f. 3/12/1999 as alleged ?

iii)

As in terms of reference “Whether action of the management in not granting family pension as per the

CCS (CCA) Pension Rules, 1972 to Smt. Jhupli Devi w/o. Late Gyan Singh is illegal and/or unjustifed

and if so, to what relief is she entitled to and what directions are necessary in this regard ?

The Claimant in support of her case examined himself as W.W.1 and tendered her affidavit Ex.WW1/A and

relied on the documents filed EX.WW1/1

to Ex.WW1/12.

On the other hand, the Management in order to rebut the case of the claimant examined one Shri Mohd.

Nadeem, Under Secretary (Canteens) in the DOPT, as MW1. He filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on

documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/15.

Issue No. 1 to 3 “ =

All these issues are being taken up together for the purpose of discussion as they can be conveniently disposed

of.

During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the Management did not press the issue regarding

maintainability of the petition before this Tribunal, since the reference which has been received from the Appropriate

Government, is required to be answered after adjudicating the controversy between the parties relating to the terms of

reference.

10.

From the pleadings and evidence adduced on record, it is evident that Shri Gian Singh – husband of the claimant

Jhupli Devi was working as Cook in Departmental Canteen at Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi and expired on 2/10/1985. A/R

for the claimant strenuously argued that the claimant is entitled for family pension as per order of the Central

Administrative Tribunal in OA No.572/1999, copy of which has been filed on record as Ex.WW1/1. He also submitted

that the Govt. Of India has already issued O.M. dated 26/11/2012 (Ex.WW1/2) regarding grant of pensionery benefits to

the employees of Non statutory Departmental canteen. As such, the claimant may be held entitled for family pension.

11.

Per contra, A./R for the Management contended that the claimant is not at all entitled for grant of family pension

as her case is not covered by the criteria laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgement dated 11.10.91 in the

case of CK Jha and others Vs. UOI (Ex.MW1/8) and O.M. dated 24-1-92 (Ex.MW1/9) which was issued pursuant to the

aforesaid judgement of the Apex Court(Ex.MW1/8). Lastest O.M. issued in regard to pensionery benefits is dated

26/11/2012 (Ex.MW1/12)

12.

Perusal of the judgement of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal ( Ex.WW1/1) shows that in that the

petitioners viz. The Federation of All India Central Govt Canteen Employes workers’ Association and one Smt. Diwan

Singh of Income Tax Canteen had sought benefits of past service rendered by them in the departmental canteens of the

Govt., prior to their being declared as Govt employees on the same lines as has been granted to the employees of Railway

Canteens vide order dated 5/1/1993 and 9-11-1993. Observing that the petitioners were similarly placed as the employees

of Railway Canteens, Hon’ble CAT vide its order dated 3/12/1999 had directed the respondents viz. Union of India and

others to grant the benefits of entire past service prior to the applicants/petitioners having been granted as Govt servants

for counting towards pensionery benefits. It is crystal clear that the decision of the Hon’ble CAT related to grant of the

benefits of entire past service prior to the applicants/petitioners having been granted as Govt servants for counting

towards pensionery benefits and it was not ipso facto grant of pension to all such employees.

13.

It is not in dispute that against aforesaid decision of CAT, Union of India had moved Hon’ble High Court in

WP No.5695/2000 which was dismissed vide order dated 30/4/2012 and thereafter, the Govt of India issued office

memorandum dated 26/11/2012 (Ex.WW1/2) which has also been relied upon by the claimant herein and its copy is

Ex.MW1/12 as relied upon by the Management. Heading of the said O.M. is regarding Implementation of the order

dated 30.4.2012 passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (Civil) No.5695/2000 – pensionery benefits to the

employees of Non-statutory Departmental Canteens. Through that O.M., while modifying the earlier provisions as

contained in its earlier O.M. bearing No.12/3/92-Dir.(C) dated 16/12/1993 and 8/11/2000 regarding recknoning of

qualifying service, it was clarified that entire past service rendered on regular basis by the non statutory canteen

employees will be reckoned as “Qualifying Service” for the purpose of pension in accordance with relevant provisions

contained in CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and related orders and that admissibility will be subject to the refund of entire

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 10] 2018@dkfrZd 19] 1940

6289

amount received as employers’ contributions to the EPF, if any including interest thereon. Accordingly, all the

Ministries/Departments were asked to issue instructions to their attached./subordinate offices to take immediate

necessary action to settle the cases of the employees afresh who retired/died in harness on or after 1/10/1991.

14.

This Tribunal has got all the sympathy with the claimant herein whose husband Shri Gian Singh who was

working as Cook under the control of Management herein, expired on 2/10/1985 but her case is not covered under

eligible category for entitlement of family pension in view of the provisions contained in O.M. dated 26-11-2012

(Ex.WW1/2) which clearly provided for grant of pension/family pension where the employees concerned retired/died

in harness on or after 1/10/1991, though their qualifying service is to be counted/ calculated for entire regular past

service. The claimant has not led any other evidence to show that similarly placed employee as that of her husband who

died prior to 1/10/1991 has been granted pension/family pension under any order of the Hon’ble High Court/Supreme

Court or office memorandum of the Govt. In these circumstances, action of the management in not granting family

pension as per the CCS (CCA) Pension Rules, 1972 to Smt. Jhupli Devi w/o. Late Gyan Singh can not be held to be

illegal or unjustified.

Relief :—

15.

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal has no option but to hold that the

claimant is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. The claim petition is hereby dismissed, however, with no orders as to

costs. The award is passed accordingly.

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

Date : 03.10.2018

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1597-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] vk;qDr]

mÙkj fnYyh uxj fuxe] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas 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;] fnYyh la- 1 ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

226@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-10-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@127@2015&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

jktsanz tks’kh] mi funs’kd

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2018

S.O. 1597.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case No. 226/2015) 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, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 22.10.2018.

[No. L-42011/127/2015– 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 – 110 075

ID No. 226/2015

Shri Jasbir Singh & Others, represented by

The President,

MCD General Mazdoor Union,

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

Jamnagar 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

6290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 10, 2018/KARTIKA 19, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

This award shall dispose of a reference received from Ministry of Labour and Employment vide Order No.

L-42011/127/2015-IR(DU) dated 27.10.2015 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 the action of the management of North Delhi Municipal Corporation by not granting promotion and

pay scale of 3050-4590 revised from time to time alongwith all consequential benefits to Shri Jasbir Singh S/o

Shri Bhawar Singh with effect from 01.01.1994, Shri Dharam Pal S/o Shri Karan Singh with effect from

01.01.1994, Shri Balak Ram S/o late Shri Puran Singh with effect from 01.01.2006, Shri Mahender Singh S/o

Shri Badam with effect from 01.01.2000, Shri Anand S/o Shri Mithan Singh with effect from 01.01.1999 and

Shri Majoj Kumar S/o Shri Khem Chand with effect from 01.04.1994 is fair and legal ? If not, what relief the

workmen is entitled to and from which date?’

Claim statement was filed by the claimant herein averring that the following malis who were performing the

duty of acting Chaudhary are denied promotion on grounds that they are not 10^th Agriculture:

No.

Name (S/Shri)

Father’s Name

Date

regularization

Mali

Date since when

working

Acting

Chaudhary

Zone

Jasbir Singh

Kanwar Singh

01.04.1988

01.01.1994

Civil Lines

Dharm Pal

Karan Singh

01.04.1988

01.01.1994

Civil Lines

Anand

Mithan Singh

01.04.1989

01.01.1999

Civil Lines

Mahender Singh

Badam

01.04.1987

01.01.2000

Civil Lines

Manoj Kumar

Khem Chand

01.04.1994

18.01.2000

Civil Lines

The above workmen have been performing their duties as Garden Chaudhary but were 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. Some acting chaudharies similarly situated were allowed grant 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 claimants may be granted promotion as Garden Chaudhary with effect from

04.03.2014 and also award pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 with all consequential benefits with effect from 01.01.1999 to

Shri Anand and from 18.01.2000 to Shri Manoj Kumar.

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, union having no locus standi

to raise the dispute, claim being misconceived, claim being stale etc. On merits, management has admitted the factum of

regularization of the claimant as mali as mentioned in para 2 above. 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.

Rejoinder was filed by the claimants wherein the averments made in the statement of claim were reiterated and

the averments contained in the statement of defence were denied.

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 21.10.2016:

(i) Whether the reference is not legally maintainable in view of the preliminary objections?

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 10] 2018@dkfrZd 19] 1940

6291

(ii) In terms of reference

(iii) Relief

Claimants in order to prove their case against the management examined Shri Jasbir Singh, Shri Balak Ram,

Shri Mahender Singh, Shri Manoj Kumar, and Shri B.K.Prasad as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5, whose

affidavits are Ex.WW1/A to Ex.WW5/A. Shri Manoj Kumar tendered in evidence documents Ex.WW4/1 and

Ex.WW4/2 and Shri Prasad tendered in evidence documents Ex.WW5/1 to Ex.WW5/3. Management, in order to rebut

the case of the claimant examined Shri Brijbir Singh, Assistant Director(Horticulture) as MW1, who tendered in evidence

his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and also relied on documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/3.

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)

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.

10.

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

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.

11.

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

It is clear from perusal Ex.WW4/1 that that names of Shri Dharam Pal, Manoj Kumar and Shri Anand finds mention at

serial No.14, 17 and 19 respectively in the list . There are also averments in the claim statement 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.

12.

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.’

13.

In view of the ratio of the judgement discussed above, it is clear that espousal of a dispute by majority members

of the union is not sine qua non for adjudication of such dispute in terms of Section 10 of the Act.

14.

It was strongly contended on behalf of the claimant that juniors to the claimant were allowed to participate in the

promotional quota on regular basis but he was denied on the grounds that he was not possessing the requisite

qualification of 10^th Agriculture.

15.

The main attack of the management is that the claimant herein was not having requisite qualification, as such,

there is no question of grant of pay scale of Garden Chaudhary to the claimants. There is no merit in the stand taken by

the management in its reply, that the claimants herein are not entitled for promotion to the post of Chaudhary inasmuch

6292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 10, 2018/KARTIKA 19, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

as he does not possess the requisite qualification. 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.

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.”

16.

It is further clear that SLP was also filed by MCD before the Hon’ble Apex Court vide IA No.2 WP for special

leave 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, a 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 claimants herein do not

possess requisite qualification is without any merit and has no relevance so far as question of grant of promotion to the

post of Garden Chaudhary is concerned.

17.

It is not out of place to mention here that even if the claimants herein were 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 dealing with a similar situation regarding of grant of

similar benefits to an employee who was not a 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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 10] 2018@dkfrZd 19] 1940

6293

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.”

18.

As a sequel to my above discussion, it is held that Shri Dharam Pal, Shri Anand, Shri Mahender Singh and Shri

Manoj Kumar, the claimants herein, are entitled to the pay scale of Garden Chaudhary with effect from 01.01.1994,

01.01.1999, 01.01.2000 and 18.01.2000 respectively 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. The claimants are also entitled to be promoted to the post of Garden Chaudhary from 04.03.2014, i.e

the date when his juniors were promoted as regular Garden Chaudhary. Further, case of the claimants Shri Balak Ram

and Shri Jasbir Singh have already been granted relief vide separate awards, filed by them separately. 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 : 16.10.2018

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1598-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]

egkizca/kd] nwjlapkj foHkkx] vgenkckn ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

44@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-10-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@41@2006&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

jktsanz tks’kh] mi funs’kd

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2018

S.O. 1598.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case No. 44/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

General Manager, Department of Telecom, Ahmedabad and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 08.10.2018.

[No. L-40012/41/2006– IR(DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 27^th August, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 44/2007

1. The General Manager,

Department of Telecom,

Microwave Maintenance – II, Navrangpura,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

2. The Director,

Department of Telecom,

BSNL (MW), Navrangpura,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

Kamdar Hit Rakshak Union,

10, Jiviba Complex, Near Cadila Rly. Crossing,Ghodasar,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

6294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 10, 2018/KARTIKA 19, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the First Party

: Shri N.K. Trivedi

For the Second Party

: Shri D.K. Rathod (Union’s representative)

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/41/2006–IR(DU)

dated 06.06.2007 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Kamdar Hit Rakshak Union for regularisation of the services of Shri Kantibhai

Kalabhai Parmar in the post of TRM/RM is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled and

from which date?”

The reference dates back to 06.06.2007 and received on 26.06.2007 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

After receiving the notice by the parties, the second party workman Kantibhai Kalabhai Parmar submitted the

statement of claim Ex. 6 alleging that he was working as regular mazdoor since 1983 in the first party The General

Manager, Department of Telecom, Microwave Maintenance–II, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad and The Director, Department

of Telecom, BSNL (MW), Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. The first party never provided them the attendance cards, pay slips

and other documents regarding his employment. He used to serve the first party from 08 AM to 08 PM but suddenly his

services were terminated on 23.06.2004 without assigning any reasons and serving any notice, thus his termination of

service was violation of provisions of Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus he has prayed for

reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

The first party vide its written statement Ex. 8 denied the averments made in the statement of claim and

submitted that the dispute has been raised after a expiry of 3 years, hence not tenable in the eye of law as per the decision

of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra V/s Dattatraya Digamber Birajdar, 2007 LLR 1132 SC. The second party

workman was not a regular employee. He was a casual labour on daily wages basis; hence his salary cannot be computed

to the amount of Rs.2500/- per month. He was engaged as and when need arise. He never completed 240 days in any

calendar year. He was never forced to work for more than permitted hours. Therefore, there was no harassment or

vindictment while engaged as casual labour. As he was engaged on need basis, therefore, requirement of notice or notice

pay was not applicable. There was no violation of provisions of Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act.

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

Whether the demand of the Kamdar Hit Rakshak Union for regularisation of the services of Shri Kantibhai

Kalabhai Parmar in the post of TRM/RM is legal and justified?

II.

To what relief, if any, the concerned workman is entitled to?

Both these issues are interrelated, therefore, are decided together.

Issue No. I and II: The burden of proof of these issues was lying on the workman who submitted his affidavit

Ex. 13 wherein he has reiterated the averments made in the statement of claim and has not said anything contrary in his

cross-examination. But the workman in his affidavit Ex. 13 has not specifically stated that on what date and also on what

post, he was appointed as a permanent employee. He has not submitted any documentary proof that he was appointed as

a regular employee. In the absence of the said documents, the workman shall be treated as a casual labour on daily wage

basis and appointed as and when need arise as admitted by the first party. He has also not submitted any proof that any

other junior casual labour on the muster roll of the first party has been appointed by the first party. Thus the second party

workman has miserably failed to proof his case.

Hence the reference is liable to be decided against the workman in the manner observed as under: the demand of

the Kamdar Hit Rakshak Union for regularisation of the services of Shri Kantibhai Kalabhai Parmar in the post of

TRM/RM is not legal and justified. The workman is not entitled for any relief.

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1599-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]

mi&eaMy vf/kdkjh ¼VsyhQksu½] ch,l,u,y] Mhlk vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas 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;] vgenkckn ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 552@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-10-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@256@2002&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

jktsanz tks’kh] mi funs’kd

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 10] 2018@dkfrZd 19] 1940

6295

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2018

S.O. 1599.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case No. 552/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Sub-Divisional Officer (Telephone), BSNL, Deesa and others and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 08.10.2018.

[No. L-40012/256/2002– IR(DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 04^th September, 2018

Reference : (CGITA) No. 552/2004

1. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Tele.),

BSNL, Deesa Telephone Exchange,

Deesa (B.K.) – 385536

2. The Chief General Manager,

Telecom Department, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Khanpur,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

3. The General Manager Telecom,

Telecom Department, Joravar Palace,

Palanpur (B.K.) – 385001

…First Parties

V/s

The Org. Secretary,

The Association of Railway and Post Employees,

15, Shashi Apartment, Nr. Anjalee Cinema, Vasna Road,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380007

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri H.R. Raval

For the Second Party : Shri Chintan Gohel

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/256/2002–

IR(DU) dated 17.04.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect

of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Telecom District Manager, Palanpur/SDOT, Deesa, BSNL (Telecom

Department) in terminating the services of Shri Jetmalji Talaji Thakor is legal, proper and justified? If not, to

what relief the concern workman is entitled to and since when?”

The reference dates back to 17.04.2003 and received on 12.05.2003 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

In response to the notice issued to the parties, the second party union submitted the statement of claim Ex. 8 on

20.09.2005 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 9 on 26.06.2007. The case was fixed for evidence of

the second party union but despite giving numbers of opportunities, the second party union refrained to lead evidence.

Today on 04.09.2018, Shri Chintan Gohel, advocate on behalf of the second party stated in Tribunal that the

second party workman Jetmalji Talaji Thakor is not in his contact since long.

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

Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman with the

observation as under: “the action of the management of Telecom District Manager, Palanpur/SDOT, Deesa, BSNL

(Telecom Department) in terminating the services of Shri Jetmalji Talaji Thakor can be said to be legal, proper and

justified.”

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

6296

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 10, 2018/KARTIKA 19, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1600-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]

egkizca/kd] nwjlapkj ftyk] ch,l,u,y] vgenkckn ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 1219@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-10-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@211@2002&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

jktsanz tks’kh] mi funs’kd

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2018

S.O. 1600.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case No. 1219/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

General Manager, Telecom District, BSNL, Ahmedabad and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 08.10.2018.

[No. L-40012/211/2002– IR(DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 05^th September, 2018

Reference : (CGITA) No. 1219/2004

The General Manager,

Telecom District,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Amreli (Gujarat) – 365601

…First Party

V/s

Shri Ramesh Ratilal Chauhan,

C/oSaurashtra Mazdoor Sangh,

Majoor Madhi, Bhaktinagar Circle,

Rajkot (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri N.K. Trivedi

For the Second Party : Shri N.H. Rathod

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/211/2002–

IR(DU) dated 21.02.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect

of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the General Manager, Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Amreli in

terminating the service of Shri Ramesh Ratilal Chauhan w.e.f. 01.08.1995 without following the provisions of

the I.D. Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, then to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and

from which date?”

The reference dates back to 21.02.2003 and received on 10.03.2003 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

After submitting the statement of claim and written statement by the respective parties and also partly leading

evidence by the workman, the workman Ramesh Ratilal Chauhan has expired since long as informed by the advocates of

the parties. No legal heirs have moved any application for substitution in place of the workman. It is also noteworthy that

none has been responding on behalf of the workman since long.

Thus the reference is finally disposed of as abate.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 10] 2018@dkfrZd 19] 1940

6297

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1601-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]

funs’kd] dsUnzh; Ik’kq iztuu QkeZ] lwjr ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

1395@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-10-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@174@1996&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

jktsanz tks’kh] mi funs’kd

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2018

S.O. 1601.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case No. 1395/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Director, Central Cattle Breeding Farm, Surat and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

08.10.2018.

[No. L-42012/174/1996– IR(DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 05^th September, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1395/2004

The Director,

Central Cattle Breeding Farm,

Dhamrod, Tahsil Magrol,

Surat (Gujarat)

… First Party

V/s

Smt. Rupali Ratna,

C/o G.I.D.C. Employees Union,

Parsiwad,

Ankleshwar (Gujarat)

… Second Party

For the First Party : None

For the Second Party : Shri R.C. Pathak

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42012/174/96–IR(DU)

dated 14.10.1997 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the

matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management through the Director, Central Cattle Breeding Farm, P.O. Dhamrod,

Surat in terminating the services of Smt. Rupali Ratna is justified and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 14.10.1997 and received on 24.10.1997 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

After issuing notice to the parties, both the parties submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 and written statement

Ex. 5 on 16.07.1998 and 21.09.1998.

The second party Smt. Rupali Ratna, C/o G.I.D.C. Employees Union, Parsiwad, Ankleshwar, hereinafter

referred to as “second party workman” in his statement of claim has alleged that she has been working as a labour since

April 1984. He has been working honestly and faithfully. No notice or charge-sheet was served on her during course of

employment but her services were terminating w.e.f. July, 1993 without showing any reason or following due process of

6298

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 10, 2018/KARTIKA 19, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

law. She moved an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner against the said termination but the settlement

could not become possible, therefore, the dispute was referred to this tribunal for adjudication. She has further alleged

that she worked for more than 240 days in every calendar year and her termination without giving notice and paying

retrenchment compensation is violative of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act as well as principle of natural justice.

Therefore, she has prayed for declaring termination of her service as illegal and for reinstatement with back wages.

The first party in his written statement Ex. 5 submitted that the averments made in the statement of claim by the

workman are false and against facts. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the present reference. The true facts are

that the second party workman was engaged as a Seasonal Agricultural Worker, therefore, not a casual labour. She never

completed 240 days in any calendar year except 1986 and 1987. The workman was never retrenched. She himself stop

coming for duty at her own will. Therefore, the prayer sought by the second party workman may be rejected.

The second party workman submitted documents vide list Ex. 7 showing the working days during the whole

period, attendance and voucher slips.

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

Whether the action of the management through the Director, Central Cattle Breeding Farm, P.O. Dhamrod,

Surat in terminating the services of Smt. Rupali Ratna is justified and legal?

II.

To what relief, if any, the concerned workman is entitled to?

Both these issues are interrelated, therefore, are decided together.

Issue No. I and II: The burden of proof of these issues was lying on the second party workman. The second

party submitted the affidavit of Smt.Rupali Ratna wherein she has reiterated the averments made in the statement of

claim. She has not stated anything contrary to her examination-in-chief.

The first party has not led any evidence.

10.

The second party has submitted written arguments stating that in O.A. No. 456/2012, Smt. Badaliben Parmar

and others V/s. Union of India, the Central Administrative Tribunal in similar matter passed the order as under: “In view

of the above, we may further observe the applicants while claiming the benefit of temporary status under the Scheme are

bound by all the clauses in the said scheme. Sub clause (iv) of Clause 4 does not specifically exclude the right for

bringing them into the permanent establishment unless they are selected through regular selection process for Group D

posts. Therefore, we declare that the applicants are not entitled to be brought into the permanent establishment unless

they are selected through selection process for Group D posts. So far as the claim for payment of wages etc., we hold that

the same shall be regulated in terms of Clause 5 of said same Scheme 1993. For the foregoing, we declare that the

applicants are entitled for grant of temporary status in terms of the Scheme called Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary

Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993, which came into force with effect from 01.09.1993.

We hold that the mere fact that the applicants were granted temporary status will not confer any right for them being

brought to the permanent establishment unless they are selected through regular selection process for Group D posts.

They are entitled for the wages in terms of Clause 5 of the said scheme.”

11.

The second party has further referred Central Animal Breeding Farm V/s Badli Ramsingh, Special Civil

Application No. 15582/2003 decided on 15.04.2010 by Gujarat High Court wherein the High Court held that the

workmen were appointed de-hors of the recruitments rules as casual employee. They were working on daily wage basis

and were not in continuous service of the whole calendar year. Considering the fact that the petitioner being a public

establishment i.e. Central Animal Breeding Farm, a public establishment, therefore, back wages of 50% are reduced to

25% from the date of the order of reference but confirmed the order of reinstatement.

12.

The second party has further referred Deepali Gundu Surwase V/s Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahamandal and

others, 2013 (10) SC C 324, Bhuveshwar Kumar Dwidedi V/s M/s Hindalco Industries, 2014 (11) SC C 85, wherein the

apex court held that in the case of illegal termination, the normal is reinstatement with full back wages.

13.

The second party has further referred Raghubir Singh V/s Haryana Roadways Transport Corporation, 2014 AIR

SC W 5515, wherein the apex court ordered the reinstatement with 60% back wages in the case of termination on the

ground of criminal misconduct and the workman was acquitted by the criminal court.

14.

The second party has further referred Mackinon Mackenzie and co. Ltd., V/s Machinon Employees Union, AIR

2015 (SC) 1373, Durgapur Casual Workers Union V/s Food Corporation of India and others, 2015 (1) LLJ 160, State

Trading Corporation of India Ltd. V/s Sushila Premjibhai Majithia and anr. Reported in GLR XLI (4) 3412 and Medical

Officer, Primary Health Centre Surendranagar V/s Dashrathsinh Gajubha Zala, 2012 (5) GLR 4085, wherein the apex

court has held that the workman who has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year has a right of protection

under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

15.

I considered the aforesaid laws but I would like to refer the provisions of Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes

Act wherein the Industry has been defined. The provisions of Section 2 (j) say that the following shall not be the

Industry:

(1)

Any agricultural operation except where such agricultural operation is carried on in an integrated manner

with any other activity (being any such activity as is referred to in the foregoing provisions of this clause)

and such other activity is the predominant one.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 10] 2018@dkfrZd 19] 1940

6299

Explanation – For the purposes of this sub-clause, “agricultural operation” does not include any activity

carried on in a plantation as defined in clause (f) of Section 2 of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 (69 of

1951); or

(2)

Hospitals or dispensaries; or

(3)

Educational, scientific, research or training institutions; or

(4)

Institutions owned or managed by organisations wholly or substantially engaged in any charitable, social

or philanthropic service; or

(5)

Khadi or village industries; or

(6)

Any activity of the Government relatable to the sovereign functions of the Government including all the

activities carried on by the departments of the Central Government dealing with defence research, atomic

energy and space; or

(7)

Any domestic service; or

(8)

Any activity being a profession practised by an individual or body of individuals, if the number of

persons employed, by the individual or body of individuals in relation to such profession is less than ten;

(9)

Any activity, being an activity carried on by a co-operative society or a club or any other like body of

individuals, if the number of persons employed by the co-operative society, club or other like body of

individuals in relation to such activity is less than ten.

16.

Thus the reference is barred by the provisions of Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act but the workman

has submitted a copy of reinstatement order of the workmen namely Smt. Badli Ramsingh, Nanu Mansingh Vasava,

Somi Nanu Vasava, P.L. Parmar, Savitaben Sevabhai and Madhuben Lulla who have been reinstated by the Director,

Central Cattle Breeding Farm, vide order dated 19.03.2011. These workmen were as appears from the order dated

19.03.2011 have been reinstated as casual worker in pursuance of the order of High Court passed in SCA

No. 15582/2003 with Special Applications Numbers 15593 to 15597 of 2003.

17.

Though the present reference is not maintainable under Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act but as a

parity to the reinstatement letter dated 19.03.2011 discussed in Para 16, the workman is entitled to be re-engaged as

causal worker without any back wages on the basis of the principle of “no work no pay”. Both the issues are decided

accordingly.

18.

The first party is directed to re-engage the second party workman Smt. Rupali Ratna as Casual Worker within

30 days from the publishing of the award in the light of the order dated 19.03.2011 of the Director, Central Cattle

Breeding Farm as parity. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1602-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]

egkizca/kd] fganqLrku ,;jksukWfVDl fyfeVsM] dkuiqj vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas 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;] dkuiqj ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 17@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-10-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@21@2015&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

jktsanz tks’kh] mi funs’kd

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2018

S.O. 1602.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case No. 17/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

General Manager, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Kanpur and others and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 24.10.2018.

[No. L-42012/21/2015– IR(DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

6300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 10, 2018/KARTIKA 19, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAKESH KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No.17 of 2015

Between :

Sri Chandra Shekhar Prasad son of Sri Munni Lal,

Sri Vishnu Shukla, L-21 Barra-6 Kanpur.

And

1. The Managing Director,

M/s. M.5 Security Pvt. Ltd.,

126 Green View Apartments, Mandi Road,

New Manglapuri, Mehrauli,

New Delhi.

2. The General Manager,

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited,

Aircraft Division, Transport Aircraft Division, Chakeri, Kanpur.

3. The Assistant General Manager,

M/s. UP Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd.,

144-A 1^st Floor, Vikas Nagar, Kanpur.

AWARD

Central Government, Mol & Employment, vide notification no. L-42012/21/2015-IR(DU) dated 11.03.15 has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal: ”Whether the action of the management of Hindustan

Aeronautics Ltd.,/U.P. Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., /M/s M5 Security Pvt Ltd., in terminating the services of

Sri Chandra Shekhar Prasad son of Sri Munni Lal workman with effect from 31.08.2013 is just fair and legal? If not to

what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”

The case in short as set up by the workman is that he was working in the capacity of Security Guard with effect

from 5^th June, 2010 and his work and conduct was quite excellent without any complaint from any corner. It is further

alleged that several malpractice were prevalent in the office of the opposite parties being so workman was not getting the

benefits as enshrined in the book of Statute. The workman through the union approached the Labor Department for the

compliance of various labor laws including the provisions of Equal Remuneration Act, Contract Labor Act. The opposite

parties deliberately were not complying the provision of Contract Labor Act 1970, as such though the workman was

performing his duties as permanent worker throughout the year altogether but he was treated as Contract Laborers and

was not paid the wages and other benefits by the opposite parties as per Rule and as provided in 25 (V) (b) of Contract

Labor (Regulation and Abolition) Rules. Therefore, the workman through his union approached the Labor Authorities for

making compliance of the provisions of relevant Labor Acts. The opposite parties instead of making compliance of the

provisions of the Act started to victimize the workman and the services of the workman were dispensed with by the

opposite parties w.e.f. 31.08.2013. It is surprising to submit that the management failed to appreciate that on the basis of

services rendered by the workman for the last several years and for more than 300 days in every year, he ought to have

been regularized and be declared as permanent and be paid wages at par to the counterpart / regular workmen concerned,

but the management terminated his services without compliance of the principles of the natural justice and the provisions

of the I.D. Act have been violated.

On the basis of above pleadings the workman has prayed for his reinstatement with effect from 01.09.2013

along with wages and all the consequential benefits.

Opposite party no.1 and 3 have filed its written statements.

Opposite party no.1 has denied the maintainability of the present reference on the ground that different firms

have been shown as employer of a single employee viz. Sri Sunder Lal; that the question of termination of the service of

single employee on one date by different firms on the face of it is absurd and not maintainable, hence the order of

reference suffers from serious ambiguity and infirmity and has become bad in law; M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited

is registered under the provisions of Contract Labor (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and the job allotted on

contract basis to the contractors are executed by the contractors as such there is no relationship of master and servant

between the opposite party no.1 and the workman; that the workman has not disclosed the correct and material

information about his status of employment with the opposite party no.1 and factually the workman was never remained

in the employment nor he was ever engaged by the opposite party no.1 and he was never appointed by the opposite party

no.1 in any capacity hence question of termination of his service by opposite party no.1 does not arise; that the

answering opposite party abides all the laws applicable in their letter and spirit and there can be no allegation of flouting

any law applicable on the opposite party no.1; the allegations as submitted by the workman in his claim petition are not

in conformity with his version and as such are not admitted and it is once again reiterated that there was a job contract

with the contractor and he was free to execute the contract with his own labour force and he engaged persons

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 10] 2018@dkfrZd 19] 1940

6301

whomsoever he found suitable for execution of his work order and the opposite party has no hand in the employment or

non employment or deployment or no deployment by the contractor of the persons engaged by the contractor, as the

contractor is a specialized agency for the jobs undertaken by him; that the allegations of the whole claim petition filed by

the workman are denied as petitioner has deliberately suppressed and concealed the material facts, therefore, the

petitioner is not entitled for any relief as claimed by him in his claim petition and his petition is liable to be dismissed.

Opposite party no.3 in their reply has denied the claim petition of the workman in its entirety on the ground that

the claim petition is patently false, frivolous and consisting of contradictory facts with a view to embarrass the answering

opposite party to extort money. It is also alleged that although all of the workmen employed were independently

recruited by Respondent no.3, except only one workman namely Vinod Kumar working with the previous sub contractor

i.e. Respondent no.2 who expressed his desire to work with the answering respondent No.3 and the claimant has never

approached the answering respondent for his recruitment and there is no contractual relation or master servant relations

with the claimant workman in any manner whatsoever and there is no cause of action against the answering respondent

No.3.

On Merit of the case it is alleged by the answering opposite party no.3 that the petitioner had deliberately and

intentionally made vague statements as if the answering respondent was also concerned for the “nitty-gritty” during his

alleged service period and the claimant had never approached the answering opposite party for his recruitment and as

such there is no contractual or master-servant relation between the claimant workman and the answering respondent No.3

in any manner whatsoever. Therefore, from the pleadings itself it is clear that the petitioner has not claimed any relief

agaist the answering opposite party No.3. It is pertinent to mention that the answering opposite party has repeatedly

averred the same version as has been discussed above, therefore, there is no need to reiterate the same. In any view of the

matter the claim petition of the workman is liable to be rejected out rightly being devoid of merit.

Opposite party no.3 has filed photocopies of certain documents per list dated 29.01.16.

Workman has filed rejoinder but therein nothing new has been alleged except reiterating the facts as already

alleged by him in his claim petition.

10.

The date of hearing of the instant case was 09.10.18 but on the request of both the parties case was preponed and

was taken up for hearing on 08.10.18 before the Lok Adalat when the authorized representative for the workman moved

an application before the tribunal stating therein that the concerned workman is not contacting with him for the last

several months as such it appears that the workman is not inclined to contest the case, therefore, under these

circumstances, no option is left to him but to make a request before this tribunal to close the case. Accordingly it was

prayed that the present case may kindly be closed as not pressed.

11.

The application moved by the representative of the workman was not opposed by opposite party.

12.

Therefore, after having heard the learned authorized representatives for both the parties considering the facts

and circumstances of the case, it is held that the workman is not entitled to any relief.

13.

Reference is therefore, answered accordingly in the aforesaid terms.

14.

Award as above.

Date : 0910.18

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1603-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]

egkizca/kd] fganqLrku ,;jksukWfVDl fyfeVsM] dkuiqj vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas 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;] dkuiqj ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 16@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-10-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@20@2015&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

jktsanz tks’kh] mi funs’kd

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2018

S.O. 1603.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

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

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

General Manager, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Kanpur and others and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 24.10.2018.

[No. L-42012/20/2015– IR(DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

6302

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 10, 2018/KARTIKA 19, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAKESH KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 16 of 2015

Between :

Sri Prem Shanker Gupta son of Sri Ram Sewak Gupta,

c/o Sri Vishnu Shukla, L-21 Barra-6 Kanpur.

And

1. The Managing Director,

M/s. M.5 Security Pvt. Ltd.,

126 Green View Apartments, Mandi Road,

New Manglapuri, Mehrauli,

New Delhi.

2. The General Manager,

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited,

Aircraft Division, Transport Aircraft Division, Chakeri, Kanpur.

3. The Assistant General Manager,

M/s. UP Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd.,

144-A 1^st Floor, Vikas Nagar, Kanpur

AWARD

Central Government, Mol & Employment, vide notification no. L-42012/20/2015-IR(DU) dated 11.03.15 has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal: ‘‘Whether the action of the management of Hindustan

Aeronautics Ltd.,/U.P. Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., /M/s M5 Security Pvt Ltd., in terminating the services of

Sri Prem Shanker Gupta son of Late Ram Sewak workman with effect from 31.08.2013 is just fair and legal? If not to

what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”

The case in short as set up by the workman is that he was working in the capacity of Security Guard with effect

from 5^th March, 2003 and his work and conduct was quite excellent without any complaint from any corner. It is further