Gazette contains multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ;एनद्ध 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 5] नई दिल्ली, जनवरी 27—पफरवरी 2, 2019, शनिवार/माघ 7—माघ 13, 1940

No. 5]

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 27—FEBRUARY 2, 2019, SATURDAY/ MAGHA 7— MAGHA 13, 1940

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके

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

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्राालयों ;रक्षा मंत्राालय को छोड़करद्ध द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविध्कि आदेश और अध्सिूचनाएं

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

वित्तवित्तवित्तवित्त मंत्रालयमंत्रालयमंत्रालयमंत्रालय

((((वित्तीय सेवाएंवित्तीय सेवाएंवित्तीय सेवाएंवित्तीय सेवाएं िवभाग)िवभाग)िवभाग)िवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 164164164164....————भारतीय निर्यात-आयात बैंक अधिनियम, 1981 (1981 का 28) की धारा 4 की उप-धारा (1) के परंतुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते %ए, के न्(ीय सरकार, एत*ारा, भारतीय निर्यात-आयात बैंक की प्राधिकृ त पू ंजी को दस हजार करोड़ 0पए से बढ़ाकर बीस हजार करोड़ 0पए करती है।

[फा. सं. 15/24/2018-आईएफ-I]

सौम्यजित घोष, अवर सिचव

391 GI/2019

(637)638 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 24th January, 2019

S.O. 164.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Export- Import Bank of India Act, 1981 (28 of 1981), the Central Government hereby increases the authorized capital of the Export-Import Bank of India from the existing ten thousand crores of rupees to twenty thousand crores of rupees.

[F. No. 15/24/2018-IF-I]

SOUMYAJIT GHOSH, Under Secy.

िवदेशिवदेशिवदेशिवदेश मंत्रालयमंत्रालयमंत्रालयमंत्रालय

((((सीसीसीसी....पीपीपीपी....वीवीवीवी. . . . प्रभागप्रभागप्रभागप्रभाग))))

नई दिल्ली, 4 दिसम्बर, 2018

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 165165165165....———— राजनियक और कोंसुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फीस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैधािनक आदेश ।

एतद् द्वारा, कें ( सरकार भारत के राजदूतावास, बेल:ेड में <ी संजीव कु मार इंसान, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को दिनांक 4 दिसम्बर 2018 से सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारियों के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के निर्वहन के िलए प्राधिकृ त करती है।

[सं. टी. 4330/01/2015]

प्रकाश चन्द, िनदेशक (कोंसुलर)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2018

S. O. 165.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby authorises Shri Sanjeev Kumar Insan, Assistant Section Officer, in Embassy of India, Belgrade to perform Consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 4 December, 2018.

[No. T. 4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर, 2018

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 166166166166....————राजनियक और कोंसुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फीस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैधानिक आदेश।

एतद् द्वारा, कें ( सरकार भारत के उCायोग, नैरोबी में <ीमति अंजना भाटिया, िनजी सहायक को दिनांक 5 दिसम्बर 2018 से सहायक कोंसुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के निर्वहन के िलए प्राधिकृ त करती है।

[सं. टी. 4330/01/2016]

प्रकाश चन्द, िनदेशक (कोंसुलर)[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 639

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2018

S.O. 166.— Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Smt Anjana Bhatia, Personal Assistant as Assistant Consular Officer in the High Commission of India, Nairobi to perform Consular services with effect from 5 December, 2018.

[No. T. 4330/01/2016]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Cons.)

नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम्बर, 2018

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 167167167167....————राजनियक और कोंसुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फीस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैधािनक आदेश ।

एतद् द्वारा, कें ( सरकार भारत के दूतावास, वार्सा में <ी योगेश पांडे, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को दिनांक 11 दिसम्बर 2018 से सहायक कोंसुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के निर्वहन के िलए प्राधिकृ त करती है।

[सं. टी.4330/01/2016]

प्रकाश चन्द, िनदेशक (कोंसुलर)

New Delhi, the 11th December, 2018

S.O. 167.— Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Yogesh Pandey, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India, Warsaw to perform the Consular services with effect from 11 December, 2018.

[No. T. 4330/01/2016]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

नई दिल्ली, 13 दिसम्बर, 2018

का. आ.का. आ.का. आ.का. आ. 168168168168....————कानूनी आदेश राजनियक और कोंसुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ और फीस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण मे कें ( सरकार <ी सEयद मोहसीन अहमद, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को 13 दिसम्बर, 2018 से भारत के राजदूताबास, हवाना में सहायक कोंसुलर अिधकारी के कर्तFों का पालन करने के िलए प्राधिकृ त करती है।

[सं. टी. 4330/01/2015]

प्रकाश चन्द, िनदेशक (कोंसुलर)

New Delhi, the 13th December, 2018

S.O. 168.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby authorizes Shri Syed Mohseen Ahmed, Assistant Section Officer in Embassy of India, Havana to perform the Consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 13 December, 2018.

[No.T.4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)640 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 169169169169....————राजनियक और कोंसुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फीस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैधानिक आदेश ।

एतद् द्वारा, कें ( सरकार भारत के राजदूतावास, िसयोल में <ी संजीब कु मार सिन्हा, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को दिनांक 15 जनवरी 2019 से सहायक कोंसुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के निर्वहन के िलए प्राधिकृ त करती है।

[सं. टी. 4330/01/2015]

प्रकाश चन्द, िनदेशक (कोंसुलर)

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2019

S.O. 169.— Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Sanjib Kumar Sinha, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India, Seoul to perform the Consular services with effect from 15 January, 2019.

[No. T. 4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

का(cid:8)र्मकका(cid:8)र्मकका(cid:8)र्मकका(cid:8)र्मक, , , , लोक शिकायत एवं पेंशन मंत्रालयलोक शिकायत एवं पेंशन मंत्रालयलोक शिकायत एवं पेंशन मंत्रालयलोक शिकायत एवं पेंशन मंत्रालय

((((का(cid:6)र्मक एवं प्रशिक्षण विभाग)का(cid:6)र्मक एवं प्रशिक्षण विभाग)का(cid:6)र्मक एवं प्रशिक्षण विभाग)का(cid:6)र्मक एवं प्रशिक्षण विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 23 जनवरी, 2019

ंकि पंजाब राज्य सरकार के गृह एवं न्याय विभाग, पंजाब सरकार की अधिसूचना सं.

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 170170170170....————चू

7/76/2016-4एच4/1533, दिनांक 24 अगस्त, 2016 एवं भारत सरकार की काJर्मक एवं प्रशिक्षण विभाग, नई दिल्ली की अनुवर्ती अधिसूचना संख्या 228/41/2016.एवीडी-II, दिनांक 7 सितम्बर, 2016 द्वारा पुलिस थाना डिविजन सं. 4, पुिलस आयुक्तालय, जालंधर, पंजाब में भा. दं. संहिता की धारा 307, 34, आयुध अधिनियम की धारा 25, 27, 54, 59 में दर्ज प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट सं. 113 दिनांक 06.08.2016 के अन्वेषण का जिम्मा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 (1946 का कें (ीय अधिनियम सं. XXV) के तहत कें (ीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो को सRपा गया था;

चू ंकि, उक्त मामले जटिलता जो राज्य की शांति एवं सांप्रदायिक सौहार्द को प्रभािवत कर सकती है, को ध्यान में रखते %ए पंजाब सरकार द्वारा अब उक्त मामले (दिनांक, 6 अगस्त, 2016 को दर्ज प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट) का अन्वेषण राष्ट्रीय जांच एजेंसी को सRपने का निर्णय िलया गया है;

चू ंकि, उक्त उद्येश्य की पूJर्त के Zम में पंजाब राज्य सरकार ने अपनी अिधसूचना सं. 7/100/2016-4H4/3446, दिनांक 17.07.2018 के द्वारा उपरोक्त अधिसूचना सं. 7/76/2016-4H4/1533, दिनांक 24 अगस्त, 2016 को वापस ले िलया है, ताकि भारत सरकार अपनी अनुवर्ती अधिसूचना सं. 228/41/2016-एवीडी-II, दिनांक 7 सितम्बर, 2016 को वापस ले सके और मामला राष्ट्रीय जांच एजेंसी को सRपा जा सके ;

अतः अब कें ( सरकार, दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम सं. 25) की धारा 5 की उप-धारा (1) के साथ पठित धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते %ए पंजाब सरकार, गृह एवं जेल िवभाग (गृह-IV शाखा) के पृष्ठांकन सं. 7/76/2016-4H4/1535, दिनांक 24.08.2016 द्वारा जारी अिधसूचना सं. 7/76/2016- 4H4/1533, को वापस लेने की दृष्टि से]सहर्ष अपनी अधिसूचना सं. 228/41/2016-एवीडी-II, दिनांक 7 सितम्बर, 2016 को अनिधसूिचत कर वापस लेती है एवं पुिलस थाना िडवीजन सं. 4, पुलिस आयुक्तालय, जालंधर, पंजाब में भा. दं. संहिता[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 641 की धारा 307, 34 एवं आयुध अधिनियम की धारा 25, 27, 54, 59 के तहत दर्ज प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट सं. 113, दिनांक

06.08.2016 का अन्वेषण राष्ट्रीय जांच एजेंसी को अंतरित करते %ए निद'श देती है कि राष्ट्रीय जांच एजेंसी उपरोक्त मामले

से जुड़े अथवा उक्त मामले से संबa हत्या के प्रयास, षडयंत्र का खुलासा तथा उसी संFवहार में किए गए या उन्हd तथ्यों से

उत्पन्न प्रासंगिक अन्य अपराधों का अन्वेषण करे तथा अन्वेषण को तर्क पूर्ण निष्कर्ष तक प%ंचाए।

[फा. सं. 228/41/2016-एवीडी-II]

एस.पी.आर. त्रिपाठी, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 23rd January, 2019

S.O. 170.—Whereas investigation of FIR No.113 dated 06.08.2016 under section 307,34 IPC section 25,27,54,59 Arms Act, Police Station Division No.4, Police Commissionerate Jalandhar, Punjab was entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act No.XXV of 1946), by the State Government of Punjab, vide Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Notification No.7/76/2016-4H4/1533, dated the 24th August 2016 and subsequent Notification No.228/41/2016-AVD-II dated 7th of September 2016 issued by the Govt. of India, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi;

Whereas, now the decision has been taken by the State Government of Punjab to entrust the investigation of the said case (registered vide aforesaid FIR dated the 6th August 2016) to the National Investigation Agency keeping in view the ramifications involved in the said case, which are detrimental to the peace and communal harmony in the State;

Whereas in order to achieve the said object, the State Government of Punjab has withdrawn the aforesaid Notification No. 7/76/2016-4H4/1533, dated the 24th August 2016, vide its notification No. 7/100/2016-4H4/3446 dated 17/07/2018 to enable the Government of India to withdraw its subsequent Notification No.228/41/2016-AVD-II dated 7th September 2016, so that the case can be entrusted to National Investigation Agency;

Now, therefore, 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, in view of the withdrawal of the State Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Jails (Home-IV Branch) Notification No.7/76/2016-4H4/1533 issued vide Endst. No. 7/76/2016-4H4/1535 dated 24.08.2016, is pleased to de-notify and withdraw its Notification No. 228/41/2016-AVD-II dated 7th of September 2016, for transfer of the investigation of Case FIR No.113 dated 06.08.2016 under section 307,34 IPC section 25,27,54,59 Arms Act, Police Station Division No.4, Police Commissionerate Jalandhar, Punjab to let the National Investigation Agency investigate the aforesaid case of attempt to murder, to unearth the conspiracy in relation thereto or in connection therewith, and any other offence committed in the course of same offence or arising out of the same incident, to reach a logical conclusion in the investigation.

[F. No. 228/41/2016-AVD-II]

S.P.R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

संचारसंचारसंचारसंचार मंत्रालयमंत्रालयमंत्रालयमंत्रालय

(डाक िवभाग) (डाक िवभाग) (डाक िवभाग) (डाक िवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 25 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 171171171171....————राजभाषा नियम (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग), 1976 के िनयम 10 के उप िनयम (4)

के अनुसरण में के न्( सरकार, डाक विभाग के अधीनस्थ कार्यालय मुख्य पोस्टमास्टर जनरल, के रल सhर्क ल, ित0वनन्तपुरम-

695033 के निम्नलिखित 04 कार्यालयों जिनके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक अधिकारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक pान

प्राप्त कर िलया है, को अिधसूिचत करती है:-

1. वरिष्ठ पोस्टमास्टर का कार्यालय, एरनाकु लम प्रधान डाकघर- 682011

2. वरिष्ठ पोस्टमास्टर का कार्यालय, कोrयम प्रधान डाकघर- 686001

3. डाक अधीक्षक का कार्यालय, ति0वनन्तपुरम (दक्षिण) मंडल- 695036

4. डाक अधीक्षक का कार्यालय, लक्षद्वीप मंडल-682555

[सं. 11017-1/2015-रा.भा.]

राजेश सिंह, उप महा िनदेशक (ईएमएम/राजभाषा)642 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION

(Department of Posts)

New Delhi, the 25th January, 2019

S.O. 171.—In Pursuance of Rule 10(4) of the Official Language (use for official Purposes of the Union) Rule 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies following 04 offices of the O/o Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram -695033 of the Department of Posts where more than 80% Officers/Officials has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

1. O/o The Senior Postmaster, Ernakulam Head Post Office - 682011

2. O/o The Senior Postmaster, Kottayam Head Post Office – 6686001

3. O/o The Superintendent of Post Offices, Thiruvananthapuram (South) Division- 695036

4. O/o The Superintendent of Post Offices, Lakshadweep Division- 682555

[No. 11017-1/2015-OL]

RAJESH SINGH, Dy. Director General (E.M.M./O.L.)

पेट्रोलियम एवं प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालयपेट्रोलियम एवं प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालयपेट्रोलियम एवं प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालयपेट्रोलियम एवं प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी, 2019

का. आ.का. आ.का. आ.का. आ. 172172172172....————के न्(ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम एवं खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में अधिकार के उपयोग का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 2 के खxड (क) के अनुसरण में, नीचे दी गई अनुसूची के स्तंभ 1 में उल्लिखित Fक्ति को, उक्त अनुसूची के स्तंभ 2 में की तत्स्थानी प्रविष्टि में उल्लिखित क्षेत्र के संबंध में उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृ त्यों का निर्वहन करने के लिए प्राधिकृ त करती है, अर्थात:—

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

प्राधिकारी का नाम और पता अधिकारिता का क्षेत्र

(2)

(1)

<ी सनातन मल्लिक,

ओिडशा राज्य

सक्षम प्राधिकारी,

पारादीप-सोमनाथपुर-हल्दीआ पाइपलाइन परियोजना

इंडियन ऑयल कॉप|रेशन लिमिटेड,

पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग

}ार्टर नंबर- एमसी-103

पीपीटी कॉलोनी, मधुबन पारादीप

पोस्ट बॉक्स संख्या-83, पारादीप मुख्या डाक घर, पारादीप

िजला-जगतसिंहपुर, ओिडशा-754142

यह अधिसूचना जारी होने की तारीख से लागू होगी।

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/239/2017-ओआर-I/ई-13892]

नोवस किन्डो, अवर सिचव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 643

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2019

S.O. 172.—In pursuance of Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby authorizes the person mentioned in column (1) of the Schedule given below to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under the said Act, in respect of the area mentioned in column (2) of the Schedule:—

SCHEDULE

Area of jurisdiction

State of Odisha

Name and address of the Authority (1) (2) Shri Sanatan Mallik, Competent Authority, Paradip-Somnathpur-Haldia Pipeline Project Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Pipelines Division Quarter No. MC-103 PPT Colony, Madhuban Paradip Post Box No. 83, Paradip Mukhya Dak Ghar, Paradip District- Jagatsinghpur, Odisha – 754142

This notification is applicable from the date of issue.

[F. No. R-11025(11)/239/2017-OR-I/E-13892]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 173173173173....————के न्(ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम एवं खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में अधिकार के उपयोग का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 2 के खxड (क) के अनुसरण में, नीचे दी गई अनुसूची के स्तंभ 1 में उल्लिखित Fक्ति को, उक्त अनुसूची के स्तंभ 2 में की तत्स्थानी प्रविष्टि में उल्लिखित क्षेत्र के संबंध में उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृ त्यों का निर्वहन करने के लिए प्राधिकृ त करती है, अर्थात:—

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

प्राधिकारी का नाम और पता अधिकारिता का क्षेत्र

(2)

<ी िबमल प्रसाद मोहंती,

ओिडशा राज्य

सक्षम प्राधिकारी,

पारादीप-सोमनाथपुर-हल्दीआ पाइपलाइन परियोजना

इंडियन ऑयल कॉप|रेशन लिमिटेड,

पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग

}ार्टर संख्या बी/2, इंिडयन आयल आवासीय कॉलोनी,

मेघडम्बरू, पोस्ट बॉक्स:कु 0दा, बालासोर- 756056 (ओिडशा)

यह अधिसूचना जारी होने की तारीख से लागू होगी।

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/239/2017-ओआर-I/ई-13892]

नोवस किन्डो, अवर सिचव644 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2019

S.O. 173.—In pursuance of Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby authorizes the person mentioned in column (1) of the Schedule given below to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under the said Act, in respect of the area mentioned in column (2) of the Schedule:-

SCHEDULE

Area of jurisdiction

State of Odisha

Name and address of the Authority (1) (2) Shri Bimal Prasad Mohanty, Competent Authority, Paradip-Somnathpur-Haldia Pipeline Project Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Pipelines Division Quarter No.B/2, Indian Oil Residential Colony, Meghadambaru, PO : Kuruda, Balasore-756056 (Odisha)

This notification is applicable from the date of issue.

[F. No. R-11025(11)/239/2017-OR-I/E-13892]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

कोयला मंत्रालयकोयला मंत्रालयकोयला मंत्रालयकोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 174174174174....————कोलियरी नियंत्रण नियमावली, 2004 के नियम 3 के साथ पठित खान एवं खनिज (विकास और िविनयमन) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 67) के खxड 18 के उप-खxड (1) और (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते %ए, कें (ीय सरकार एत*ारा दिनांक 30 दिसंबर, 2011 के का.आ. 2920 (अ) के तहत भारत के राजपत्र, असाधारण,

भाग-II, खंड-3, उप-खंड (ii) में प्रकाशित कोयला मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है अर्थात्:—

उक्त अधिसूचना में तालिका के लिए निम्नलिखित तालिका प्रतिस्थापित की जाएगी अर्थात्

""""तािलकातािलकातािलकातािलका

[फा. सं. 43016/9/2015-सीआरसी-I]

आर.के . सिन्हा, संयुक्त सचिव

टिप्पणी:टिप्पणी:टिप्पणी:टिप्पणी: प्रमुख अधिसूचना दिनांक 30 दिसम्बर, 2011 के का.आ. 2920(अ) के तहत भारत के राजपत्र, असाधारण, भाग-II, खंड-3, उप-खंड (ii) में प्रकाशित की गई थी।

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 24th January, 2019

S.O. 174.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 18 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,1957 (67 of 1957) read with rule 3 of the Colliery Control Rules, 2004, the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) vide S.O.2920(E), dated the 30th December, 2011 namely:—

In the said notification, for the TABLE, the following TABLE shall be substituted namely:—

"TABLE

[F. No. 43016/9/2015-CRC-I]

R.K. SINHA, Jt. Secy.

Note: The Principal Notification was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) vide S.O. 2920(E) dated the 30th December, 2011.

नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 175175175175....————के न्(ीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास) अधिनियम 1957 (1957 का 20) (जिसे इसमें इसके प(cid:133)ात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 9 की उपधारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का. आ. 1278, तारीख 30 अगस्त, 2018, भारत के राजपत्र, भाग II, खxड 3, उप-खxड (ii), तारीख 26 अगस्त, 2018 – 01 सितम्बर, 2018 में प्रकाशित होने पर, उक्त अधिसूचना से संल(cid:134) अनुसूची में व(cid:135)ण(cid:136)त भूमि और भूमि में, या उस पर के अधिकार (जिसे इसमें इसके प(cid:133)ात उक्त भूमि कहा गया है) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उपधारा (1) के अधीन, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर आत्यांतिक रूप में के न्(ीय सरकार में निहित हो गए थे;

और के न्(ीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया कि ईस्टर्न कोलफील्(cid:137)स लिमिटेड, संक्टोरिया, डाकघर दिशरगढ़, िजला प(िcid:133)म बदर्मान – 713333 (पश्चिम बंगाल) (जिसे इसमें इसके प(cid:133)ात सरकारी कं पनी कहा गया है), ऐसे निबंधनों और शत(cid:139) का, जो के न्(ीय सरकार इस निमित्त अधिरोपित करना उचित समझे, अनुपालन करने के लिए तैयार है;

अत: अब, के न्(ीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उप-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते %ए, यह निदेश देती है कि इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि और उस पर के सभी अधिकार, तारीख 30 अगस्त, 2018 से के न्(ीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने के बजाय, निम्नलिखित निबंधनों और शत(cid:139) के अधीन रहते %ए, सरकारी कं पनी में निहित हो जाएंगे, अर्थात् :-

(1) सरकारी कं पनी,उक्त अधिनियम के उपबंधों और अन्य सुसंगत विधि के अधीन यथा अवधारित प्रतिकर, ब्याज, नुकसानी इत्यादि से संबंधित और वैसी ही मदों की बाबत् सभी संदाय करेगी ;

(2) सरकारी कं पनी द्वारा शर्त (1) के अधीन, संदेय रकम का अवधारण करने के प्रयोजनों के लिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 के अधीन एक अधिकरण का गठन किया जाएगा और ऐसे किसी अधिकरण और उक्त अधिकरण की सहायता करने के लिए नियुक्त Fक्तियों के संबंध में, उपगत सभी Fय, उक्त सरकारी कं पनी द्वारा वहन किए जाएंगे और इसी प्रकार, निहित उक्त भूिम में या उस पर के अधिकारों के लिए या उनके संबंध में अपील आदि विधिक कार्यवाहियों की बाबत उपगत सभी Fय भी सरकारी कं पनी द्वारा वहन किए जाएंगे ;

(3) सरकारी कं पनी, के न्(ीय सरकार, उसके पदधारियों की, ऐसे किसी अन्य Fय के संबंध में क्षतिपूJर्त करेगी जो इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के पूव|क्त अधिकारों के बारे में के न्(ीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों द्वारा या उनके वि0a किन्हd कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में आवश्यक हो ;

(4) सरकारी कं पनी के पास के न्(ीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के िबना, उक्त भूमि में इस प्रकार निहित किसी भी अधिकारों को किसी अन्य Fक्तियों को अंतरित करने की शक्ति नहd होगी; और

(5) सरकारी कं पनी, ऐसे निदेशों और शत(cid:139) का पालन करेगी, जो के न्(ीय सरकार द्वारा, जब कभी आवश्यक हो, उक्त भूमि के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रों के लिए दिये जाएं या अधिरोपित किए जाएं।

[ फा. सं. 43015/15/2017- एलए एxड आईआर]

राम िशरोमिण सरोज, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 28th January, 2019

S.O. 175.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 1278, dated the 30th August, 2018, published in the Gazette of India, Part II Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the August 26 –September 1,2018, issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the land and all rights in or over the land described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act;

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria, Post Office Dishergarh, District Paschim Bardhaman- 713333 (West Bengal) (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the said land and all rights in or over the said land so vested shall with effect from the 30th August, 2018 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government Company, subject to the following terms and conditions, namely :-

(1) the Government Company shall make all payments in respect of compensation, interest, damages, etc. and the like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act and other relevant law;

(2) a Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act, for the purpose of determining the amounts payable by the Government Company under condition (1) and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal shall be borne by the said Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings including appeals, etc. for or in connection with the rights, in or over the said land, so vesting, shall also be borne by the Government Company;

(3) the Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials regarding the rights in or over the said land so vested;

(4) the Government Company shall have no power to transfer the said land and rights to any other persons without the prior approval of the Central Government ; and

(5) the Government Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central Government for particular areas of the said land, as and when necessary.

[F.No. 43015/15/2017-LA&IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.

उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग) (उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग) (उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग)(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग)

((((भारतीय मानक ब्यूरोभारतीय मानक ब्यूरोभारतीय मानक ब्यूरोभारतीय मानक ब्यूरो))))

नई दिल्ली, 21 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ.आ.आ.आ. 176176176176....————भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत*ारा अिधसूिचत करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:—

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

मीनाक्षी गणेशन, वैpानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 21st January, 2019

S.O. 176.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

MEENAKSHI GANESAN, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 21 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 177177177177....————भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत*ारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूअनुसूअनुसूअनुसूचीचीचीची

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 11]

मीनाक्षी गणेशन, वैpानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 21st January, 2019

S.O. 177.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

MEENAKSHI GANESAN, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 21 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 178178178178....————भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

मीनाक्षी गणेशन, वैpानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख654 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 21st January, 2019

S.O. 178.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11] MEENAKSHI GANESAN, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 21 जनवरी, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 179179179179....————भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियमन 5 के उपविनियमन (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शाई गई तारीख से रद्द/ स्थगित कर दिया गया है:-

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

मीनाक्षी गणेशन, वैpानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 21st January, 2019

S.O. 179.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13: 13]

MEENAKSHI GANESAN, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 21 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 180180180180....————भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियमन 5 के उपविनियमन (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शाई गई तारीख से रद्द/ स्थगित कर दिया गया है:-

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

मीनाक्षी गणेशन, वैpानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख656 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 21st January, 2019

S.O. 180.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13: 13]

MEENAKSHI GANESAN, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 21 जनवरी, 2019

का. आ.का. आ.का. आ.का. आ. 181181181181....————भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियमन 5 के उपविनियमन (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शाई गई तारीख से रद्द/ स्थगित कर दिया गया है:-

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 13]

मीनाक्षी गणेशन, वैpानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 21st January, 2019

S. O. 181.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13: 13]

MEENAKSHI GANESAN, Scientist 'F' & Head[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 657 Bम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालयBम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालयBम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालयBम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 10 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 182182182182....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार

मेसर्स महाप्रबंधक, एल्गिन मिल्स कं पनी लिमिटेड कानपुर, और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa िनयोजकों

और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय,

कानपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 39/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 26.12.2018 को प्राप्त %ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42012/12/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]

राजें( जोशी, उप िनदेशक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2019

S.O. 182.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 39/2013) 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, Elgin Mills Company Ltd. Kanpur, and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 26.12.18.

[No. L-42012/12/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT/LOK ADALAT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 39 of 2013

Between:

Shri Ram Kripal, S/O Late Ayodhya Prasad, C/O Shri Asit kumar Singh, General Secretary, Hind Mazdoor Sabha, C-338, Barra-6, Kanpur (U.P.)-208027

Vs

1. The General Manager, The Elgin Mills Co. Ltd., Mill No. 2, Cooperganj, Kanpur (U.P.)

2. The General Manager, British India Corporation Ltd., Parwati Bagla Road, Civil Lines, Kanpur(U.P.)-208001

AWARD

1. Central Government, Mol, vide notification no.L-42012/12/2013-IR (DU) dated 24-05-2013, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

2. "Whether the action of the management of the Elgin Mills Company Ltd., Kanpur, A Unit of British India Corporation Ltd., Kanpur in terminating the services of Shri Ram Kripal, S/o Late Ayodhya Prasad workman w.e.f. 01.03.2001 by way of his premature retirement is just & legal? What relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"

3. In the instant case a reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labor Court, Kanpur, whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Kanpur for filing his claim in the case.

4. Worker Ram Kripal has filed his claim statement stating that he was appointed as sepoy in 1978 in M/s. the Elgin Mill company Ltd., Kanpur in watch & ward department and had deposited his educational and caste certificate658 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 4-04-1949. During his service period he got injured on 23-03-1998 in an accident. A report was sent to state Employees Insurance Corporation on form 16 wherein his age was mentioned as 50 years and he was superannuated on 01-03-2001 illegally and it was requested that order passed by management for superannuating him on 1-03-2001 be declared illegal and he be reinstated and be paid back wages.

5. Management has filed his reply refuting the claim of worker and it is alleged that this claim is filed after 13 years of his superannuation. It is further alleged that it is pertinent to mention that Elgin Mills Company Limited, Kanpur has been winded up by the orders of Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad and ordered to appoint Official Liquidator vide order dated 25-10-2010 and entire assets and properties are in the custody and control of the Official Liquidator. Under 446 of the Company's Act when a winding up order has been made or the Official Liquidator has been appointed as Provisional Liquidator, no suit or other legal proceedings shall be commenced or if pending on the date of winding up order, shall be proceeded with against the company, except by leave of the Hon'ble High Court. In view of the above, this Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass any order against the company in the above case, without leave of the Company Judge of Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad. Thereafter worker has filed rejoinder in which nothing new has been added.

6. Management during pendency of this dispute has moved application 13/1 wherein it is alleged that as the company has been winded up and liquidator has been appointed by orders of Hon'ble High Court this jurisdiction of the tribunal is ceased and this case cannot proceed after appointment of official liquidator Management has also filed 5 documents through list 12/1. Worker has filed his objection 14/1 denying the fact alleged by management in application.

7. I have heard parties' representative and perused the record.

8. Management has filed copy of order dated 25-10-10 passed Hon'ble High Court in company petition no. 24/2009 M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v/s M/s. Elgin Company Ltd. which is paper no 12/7. A perusal of order reveals that Hon'ble High Court has passed order for winding up the Elgin Ltd. Company and appointment of official Liquidator.

9. In this connection it is also important to point out that this industrial dispute has been registered on reference issued by Central Government on 24.05.13 that is much after the order passed by Hon'ble High Court for winding up the company and appointment of official liquidator. This fact is not denied by worker therefore it appears to be admitted to the worker.

10. Section 446(1) states that when a winding up order has been made or the or the Official Liquidator has been appointed as provisional liquidator, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be commenced, or if pending at the date of the winding up order, shall be proceeded with, against the company, except by leave of the Court and subject to such terms as the Court may impose.

11. As discussed above this dispute is referred much after the order of Hon'ble High Court for winding up of company and appointment of official liquidator. Therefore this dispute/case cannot be proceeded in view of provisions mentioned above under section 446(1) of company act.

12. As such this tribunal is not competent to decide this dispute and pass any award.

13. Reference is answered accordingly.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 183183183183....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:28)ीय

सरकार मैसर्स प्रबंधन नीपको रंगनाडी हाइ&ो इलेक्ट्रिक प्लांट, लोअर सुबनसिरी अ+णाचल प्रदेश और अन्य एवं

उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब1 नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि4र्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में

के न्(cid:28)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 7म न्यायालय, गुवाहाटी के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 05/2017) को प्रकाशित

करती है जो के न्(cid:28)ीय सरकार को 15.01.2019 को प्राप्त ;ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/15/2017- आईआर (डीयू)]

राजें( जोशी, उप िनदेशक[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 659

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2019

S.O. 183.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 05/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Guwahati as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of NEEPCO Ranganadi Hydro Electric Plant, Lower Subansiri Arunachal Pradesh, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.01.2019.

[No. L-42011/15/2017-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Present: Shri Mrinmoy Kumar Bhattacharjee, M.A., LL.B. Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

Ref. Case No. 05 of 2017

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :-

The Management of NEEPCO Ranganadi Hydro Electric Plant, Lower Subansiri, Arunachal Pradesh. … O.P/Management

Vrs.

The President, All Local & Non-Tribal 89 days Basis Employees of RHEP Group, RHEP NEEPCO Arunachal Pradesh. …Claimant/Workmen

APPEARANCES :

For the Management : Mr.J.Nandy, Sr. Manager (HR).

Mr. N.K.Meitei, Sr. Manager (HR).

For the Workman. : Mr.Likha Ashok, Union President.

Date of Award : 10.08.2018

AWARD

1. This Industrial Dispute between workmen represented by the President of Local & Non-Tribal "89 days basis employees" of RHEP, NEEPCO Ltd., Yazali (A.P.) and the Management NEEPCO (RHEP),Yazali, (A.P.) was referred to this Tribunal by the Central Government vide Notification dated 09/05/2017 with the following schedule :

"Whether the action of management of NEEPCO Ranganadi Hydro Electric plant, Yazali, Lower Subansiri,

Arunachal Pradesh-791119 and its corporate office Brookland Compound Lower New Colony, Shillong-793003 is

justified in not regularizing the services of employees of all local & Non-Tribal 89 days basis of RHEP group who

are providing their services since 01.09.1999 as casual employees even when there is a backlog vacancy available.

IF not, what relief the employees of 89 days basis of RHEP Group are entitled to from the management of

NEEPCO, Ranganandi Hydro Electric Plant, Yazali Lower subansiri, Arunachal Pradesh and its corporate

office at shillong."

2. On receipt of the reference, notices were sent to the parties. The parties appeared and submitted their written statements.

3. The case of the claimant/workmen was that in the year 1990, the concerned workmen were appointed in Muster Roll category and subsequently they were continued to be engaged as contract labours in NEEPCO(RHEP), Yazali. The list of the workers have been enclosed as Annexure-I & II which revealed that 98 numbers of workmen were in the said category. After having served for a very long time starting from the year 1990, the concerned workmen placed their grievances to the management and prayed for regularization of their jobs and on the basis of their representation some discussions were held with the management. A copy of the memorandum of discussion with the management has been annexed as Annexure-III. It was stated that after repeated representations the management finally settled their grievances and all 98 numbers of contract labours involved in this reference were placed under "89 days basis employees" along with certain facilities. It had also been stated that on the basis of the aforesaid engagement they have been discharging their duties sincerely to the satisfaction of all concerned. The workmen have been demanding for regularization of their jobs and in this respect discussion were held between the management and the Employees Union. Thereafter the660 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] management of NEEPCO conducted interview and exclusively issued call letters to some contract workers on the promise to regularize their jobs. That on 01.09.1999 the workmen have been appointed as "89 days basis employees" with pay and other allowance but they had been deprived of other service benefits. In spite of repeated demands, the management did not regularize their jobs. The grievance was referred to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati. Conciliation proceeding was held but the effort of conciliation failed. After aforesaid conciliation failed the failure report was forwarded to the Ministry whereupon the present reference was sent to this Tribunal for adjudication.

4. On receipt of the copy of the claim statement the management submitted its written statement wherein it was stated that for the purpose of installation of Pare Hydro Electric Project under NEEPCO and considering the exigency of the construction work at different places some persons were engaged on ad-hoc/casual/muster roll etc. basis during the period from 1988 to 2005 for carrying out various works. The engagement of those workers were continuing by giving extension from time to time and ultimately considering their long service in NEEPCO as casual workers they were engaged on "89 days basis" with effect from 1999 after working out the specific requirement of the works in project. Based on the requirement of work of the project such workers were engaged for a period of 89 days and after the expiry of 89 days they were further engaged for another period of 89 days. This was going on since many years. It was also stated that based on the discussion held between the management and the representative of those 89 days workers the Board of Directors of NEEPCO in its meeting held on 02.09.2016 approved categorization of their engagement status as work-charge employees subject to the individual undertaking to be submitted by each worker. It was also stated that the pay, allowance and other benefits were extended to them as were eligible to work-charge workers. It was also stated that the management extended benefit of basic pay, DA and other allowance to the concerned workers and during the year 2016 all of them were given the status of work-charge employees. According to the management the benefits including pay and other allowances received by the concerned workmen are almost as that of the regular employees of the similar rank. The management further stated that the NEEPCO was unable to make any regularization of service except through recruitment process as per Company's Recruitment Rules and Regulation. It was further stated that such automatic regularization of work-charge employees would be in contravention of Hon'ble Supreme Court's verdict. Since NEEPCO is a Government undertaking equal opportunity of employment has to be given to all eligible candidates on the basis principles of public employment.

5. The management also submitted Addl. Written statement wherein they claimed that at present there is no 89 days personnel in the Company and they have been categorized as work-charge employees. It has also been stated that pay, allowances and other benefits of work-charge employees are almost at par with the regular employees and hence their grievances are otherwise met. In view of the development of the aforesaid facts the management prayed for rejection of the demand raised by the workmen.

6. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the workmen side. Management side examined one witness named Sri N.K.Meitei.

7. Workmen witness No.1 Shri Likha Ashok, President on behalf of Employees Union stated that along with 97 workers he was also working in NEEPCO as "89 days" employees. He further deposed that initially in the year 1989 the workmen were appointed as Muster Roll/Casual/Contract Labour and they were paid wages on daily rated basis. It was also stated that during the period of Muster Roll the management issued call letter to all Muster Roll Employees on 21.5.1989 to face interview for the purpose of regularization of their jobs. But the interview was ultimately not conducted and in lieu of it the management appointed the concerned workers as 89 days employees on 01.09.1999. It was also stated that some of the Casual labours/Muster Roll employees were in the mean time regularized by the management in their jobs. He also stated that the movement for the regularization of 89 days based employees started in the year 2008 under the banner of Employees Union, Worker Union, Labour Union and NEEPCO Tribal Employees Welfare Association, RHEP, Yazali. He further stated that after long time the management ultimately engaged the workmen as work-charge employees. He further stated that their demand for regularization of service was genuine which was ignored by the management. In his further examination-in-chief the workmen witness No.1 exhibited documents namely Exhibit-1 to 13 which were admitted as exhibits on admission. Exhibit-15 and 16 are copies of Police Verification and Blood Report and Exhibit-17 is the copy of death certificate in respect of Tassar Taye which was also exhibited without any objection by the management. Exhibit-18 is a letter written by the Ministry of Power to the Chairman & Managing Director, NEEPCO. During cross-examination he admitted that he started to work in RHEP, NEEPCO originally as Khalasi from the year 1993 and at present, i.e. at the time of his cross-examination, he was working as Operator and was a work-charge employee. He further admitted that as a work-charge employee he also received annual increment and that he has been getting other benefits. During his cross-examination he agreed to the suggestion made by the management that some 89 days employees were also regularly appointed by the management through Company's Recruitment Process according to the Company's Rules. The witness also admitted that the work- charged employees are now getting gratuity, pension and other benefits and the the concerned workmen were made work charged employees from October, 2016.

8. The workmen Witness No.2 Sri Taba Teshi submitted his examination-in-chief on Affidavit simply stating that the claim made by the "89 days basis employees" are true and they have been giving service for last 22-27 years. During cross-examination he admitted that he is a regular employee in RHEP, NEEPCO since the year 1996 and that he has come to depose in this matter on the request of the Union because he along with others are members of the same Trade Union. He also admitted that he has no personal demand on the matter. The evidence of Workmen witness No.3 is more or less similar to that of Workmen witness No.2. During cross-examination he admitted that he is an employee of NEEPCO. He stated that he knew that there were a provision of engaging 89 days employees who were later made work- charge employees.

9. The only witness examined for the management side stated that the concerned workmen who were earlier engaged on each occasion for 89 days and who have since been converted to work-charge employees, have been demanding for regularization in their services. He further stated that according to his understanding there cannot be any automatic regularization in any public establishment. He also stated that if any eligible workman, who is not a regular employee of the Company, participates in a regular recruitment process and qualifies in the process, the management always provides regular employment to such employee. He further stated that since NEEPCO is a Public Corporation owned by Government of India, basic public policy of employment is applicable to the Company and there cannot be any automatic regularization without public advertisement. During cross-examination he denied the suggestion that management unilaterally and with a bias regularized certain section of other employees ignoring others. He further denied the suggestion that in the year 1997 all the concerned employees were deprived and only those work-charged employees like LDC and above were regularized. The witness however admitted that in the year 1998 the concerned workers were called to shillong to take a test including written and type test. The witness here clarified that after this test they were engaged as 89 days employees. He also admitted that in the calling letter of examination which was held in the year 1998 it was mentioned that the examination was for regularization of service. The witness also agreed that if there is existing vacancy the management will allow all the concerned workmen to appear in the regular test subject to their eligibility and suitability. The witness however denied that the workmen ought to have been made work-charge employees from much earlier.

10. The following facts in this matter are not in dispute. Admittedly, the concerned workmen were originally engaged as casual/contract labour/muster roll employees and later they were made "89 days basis" employees. Ultimately they were made work-charge employees. On the question of regularization the workmen claimed that they ought to have been regularized whereas the management took the stand that there could not be any automatic regularization in any public employment. In this connection W.W No. 1 stated the following during his cross- examination:- "Earlier we were initially engaged for 89 days and then with a gap of 1/ 2 days we were again engaged for 89 days. This process continued till we were made work-charge employees. It is a fact that some of the employees who started working as 89 days employees with one or two days gap have been regularly appointed by the company through proper recruitment process according to the company's rules. It is a fact that now work-charge employees are also getting gratuity, pension and other retirel benefits. We have been made work-charge employees from October, 2016." From the aforesaid it was evident that the management had already made the concerned workmen work-charge employees with all related benefits. In regard to regularization it was admitted by the workmen that some of the "89 days" employees who were regularized got regular appointment through proper recruitment process as per Company' Rules. It is an admitted position in law that in public employment there cannot be any automatic regularization without following the usual recruitment process. The Company involved in this reference is a Government undertaking. In this connection the following statement of the M.W No.1 may be quoted:- "I agree if there is vacancy the management will allow all the concerned workmen to appear in the regular test subject to their eligibility and suitability."

11. In view of the above it appeared to me that the action of the management in not regularizing the services of the concerned employees automatically was not unjustified. The reference therefore, stands disposed with a no relief award.

Given under the hand and seal of this Tribunal on this day of 10th August, 2018.

MRINMOY KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 184184184184....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:28)ीय

सरकार मैसर्स मुख्य महाप्रबंधक, वि=ान उद्योग लिमिटेड और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब1

नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि4र्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:28)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण एवं 7म न्यायालय, बैंगलोर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 25/2017 & 38/2017) को प्रकाशित करती है जो

के न्(cid:28)ीय सरकार को 15.01.2019 को प्राप्त ;ए थे ।

[सं. एल-14011/10/2017- आईआर (डीयू)]

राजें( जोशी, उप िनदेशक662 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2019

S.O. 184.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 25/2017 & 38/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief General Manager, Vignyan Industries Limited and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.01.2019.

[No. L-14011/10/2017-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

DATED        :     03rd DEC, 2018
PRESENT      :     ( MURALIDHAR PRADHAN)

I/C PRESIDING OFFICER

I Party

II Party

1. The Chief General Manager, Vignyan Industries Limited, Tarikere – 577 228. Karnataka

The President, Karnataka Coffee Curing & General Workers Union, Tamil Colony, Chikmagalur – 577 101 Karnataka.

2. The General Manager (IR), Bharat Earth Movers Limited, BEML Soudha, Bangalore – 560 027.

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No.L-14011/10/2017–IR (DU) dated 21.08.2017 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

'Whether the demand of Karnatak Coffee Curing & General Workers Union ( R ) Chikmaglur for regularization

of the services of Sh. Mohd. Fayaz and 27 Others (As per Annexure "E") with the management of M/s. Vignyan

Industries Ltd. TarikereChikmaglur (a subsidiary of Bharath Earth Movers Ltd.) is legal and justified? If not,

to what relief the said workmen are entitled to?'

2. Pursuant to the above reference this Tribunal registered the case as CR No. 25/2017 and CR 38/2017 and issued notices to the parties. In obedience to the notice the I Party appeared through Advocate Mr.Muralidhara but the II Party did not appear. On 29.11.2018 the I Party filed a memo along with some documents stating therein to dispose of both the dispute referred above, as the I Party is not interested to pursue the dispute. The I Party wants to not press the above schedule of reference.

3. Perused the documents along with the memo and heard the advocate for the I Party along with the president of the Union of the I Party. The hearing was taken up in absence of the II Party as the I Party does not want to Press the dispute.

4. As per the memo filed by the I Party the matter has already been settled by the parties outside the Court and the II Party has already given appointments to 28 members of the Union annexed in the reference. The I Party is not willing to pursue the dispute and not pressing the dispute to raise further. In view of the memo filed by the I Party there is no need to linger the dispute further. As the dispute has already been settled. Hence, the case is closed and as such this NIL Award is passed. Hence, the following Award is passed:-

AWARD

Reference is dismissed as not pressed. No costs.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 03rd December, 2018)

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, I/C Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 663

नई दिल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 185185185185....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:28)ीय

सरकार मैसर्स रजिस्ट्रार, आईआईटी +डकी और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब1 नियोजकों और

उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि4र्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:28)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 7म

न्यायालय 1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 119/2018) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:28)ीय सरकार को

15.01.2019 को प्राप्त ;ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42012/67/2017- आईआर (डीयू)]

राजें( जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2019

S.O. 185.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 119/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Registrar, IIT Roorkee, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.01.2019.

[No. L-42012/67/2017-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. 119/2018

Shri Sachin Upadhyay & others, C/o B-132, Brij Vihar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201 001

…Workmen

Versus

(i) The Managing Director, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001

(ii) M/s. NCES, SCO No.16, 17, 18 Shiv Narain Complex, Sikanderpur Ghosi, (Adjacent of City Court), Tehsil & Distt, Gurgaon, Haryana

…Management

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received vide letter No.L-42012/67/2017-IR(DU) dated 30.01.2018 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial disputes, terms of which are as under:

Whether the demands of the workmen (mentioned in Annexure A & B) for wages and other benefits of service conditions at par with the regular employees of DMRC, is legal and/or justified, regularization of service and from which date are justified legally and what directions are necessary in the case, whether the action of the management of M/s NCES, the contractor working for DMRC in charging security money from the workmen (mentioned in Annexure A and B) and charges for renewal of identity card is legal and/or justified and what directions are required in the case?'

2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies raising the dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

Despite directions so given, Shri Sachin Upadhyay & others, the workmen, opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

3. Further, on receipt of the above reference, notice was also sent to the workmen as well as the management. Neither the postal article, referred above, was received back undelivered 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 workmen. Despite service of the notice, the workmen opted to abstain from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on their behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workmen are not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

4. Since the workmen have neither put in their 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 Shri Sachin Upadhyay & others, the workmen 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.

Dated : January 8, 2019

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 186186186186....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:28)ीय

सरकार मैसर्स रजिस्ट्रार, आईआईटी +ड़की और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब1 नियोजकों और उनके

कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि4र्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:28)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 7म न्यायालय 1,

नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 127/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:28)ीय सरकार को 15.01.2019 को

प्राप्त ;ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/37/2012- आईआर (डीयू)]

राजें( जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2019

S.O. 186.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 127/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court -1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Registrar, IIT Roorkee, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.01.2019.

[No. L-42011/37/2012-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No.1. : NEW DELHI

ID No. 127/2012

Shri Sanjeev Kumar, (The General Secretary), IIT Roorkee Karamchari Union, IIT Roorkee

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

The Registrar, IIT Roorkee IIT Roorkee

…Management/Respondent[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 665 AWARD

This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government vide its letter No.L-42011/37/2012-IR(DU) dated 5th October, 2012 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 management of IIT Roorkee in not regularizing the workman Shri Sanjeev Kumar S/o. Badlu Ram, Helper despite rendering service for more than 18 years continuously is justified ? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled to ? '

2. Both parties were put to notice and workman Sanjeev Kumar filed his statement of claim, with the averments that he was inducted into the service of erstwhile University of Roorkee (later on converted into IIT Roorkee) as Helper (Maali) on muster roll basis w.e.f. March, 1993 and continues to work in the same capacity since then. He requested the Management for his regularization many a times but to no avail. It is pleaded that the Management IIT Roorkee chalked out a plan under the Scheme of Y-Pool workers for the consistent absorption/regularization of such workmen/employees whose names were included in the Y-Pool for which the applicant was not taken into confidence. Though some of the workmen who were not included in the Y-Pool list have been absorbed but the claimant has been deprived of his legitimate right of being placed on regular pay scale. The claimant approached the Management several times for grant of such benefits but to no avail. He has prayed that order be passed (a) for upgradation of the claimant as per career development policy for the category to which he belongs with effect from the date he becomes entitled to his promotion; (b) for payment of arrears arising out of his regularization in the different regular pay scales and (c) for extension of all amenities & facilities such as residential accommodation allowance, medical, transport etc. for which the claimant becomes entitled, consequent to his regularization and up-gradation in the regular pay scales.

3. The claim of the Workman has been resisted by the Management who filed its written statement wherein it has been alleged that the claimant was one of those casual daily wage workers whose services were engaged by the erstwhile University of the Management as unskilled daily wager on 2/3/1993. Consequent upon agitation of such casual daily wage workers in the year 1993, a broad Memorandum of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20/2/1996 was reduced into writing in the presence of Civil Administration inter-alia on the terms that the such daily wage workers would be considered for appointment against vacant posts according to their qualifications and on the basis of their seniority & performance/merit as per recruitment rules, regulations and guidelines. Advertisement from time to time including those dated 24/10/94, 21/11/94, 26/7/95, 13/6/95, 27/8/96 and 27/3/97 for regular vacancies were issued and applications were called from Y-Pool workers and accordingly 211 persons out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool were recruited/selected against the regular posts on the basis of their merit/qualifications and experience. There was no automatic right for absorption or fresh appointment with respect to all the daily wage or contract workers. Though efforts on the part of Government to reduce the workers' strength was going on but the Management with the sole intention to accommodation Y-Pool workers placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the rest of these Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. It is alleged that the Management is providing all the facilities viz. EPF, Pension, Gratuity, accommodation, revision of fixed wages, hospital facilities to the Y pool workers including the claimant. It is also alleged that the claimant, being 6th standard pass, does not possess the minimum essential qualifications of 10th standard pass for selection even against an entry level Group D post in the regular employment of the Management. The engagement of the claimant was purely on casual, intermittent and temporary basis and in exigencies of work which was extended from time to time, the claim of the claimant for regularization of his services is ill founded and unjustified. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Vide order dated 23/04/2013 my learned Predecessor observed that no specific issue except those referred by the Government for adjudication arises from the pleadings of the parties and as such parties were called upon to adduce their evidence.

5. The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as WW1 who tendered his affidavits Ex.WW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.WW1/1. In cross examination he stated that he is educated upto 7th standard and was engaged as Helper without any advertisement. He also admitted about formulation of Y pool list by the Management; conducting of test/interviews for the posts exclusively for the 361 Nos. of workers in the Y pool list and that the Management had recruited/regularized 211 such workers in the Y pool List. He also admitted that for different posts, minimum qualification has been prescribed and that against the advertised post, he had also applied for the post of Maali and he was interviewed. He showed his ignorance that the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh imposed a ban on recruitment of non teaching staff vide orders dated 3/11/97 and 9/12/97. He also admitted that all eligible claimants/workmen whose names were there in the Y Pool list were given an opportunity to participate in the selection process for their absorption.

6. On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri Surendra Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) as MW1 who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/20. In cross examination he stated that category D posts have been abolished since 2006 and workmen/officials working in category-D are now termed as Multi Tasking Staff who are getting initial scale. While producing the regulations regarding the creation and pay-scale of different posts as Ex.MW1/W-5, he admitted that the posts created by Syndicate (Executive Body of Roorkee University) are in the pay scale approved by the State Government applicable at that time. He admitted that Management had created a single Y pool List but could not say whether at that time illiterate persons were regularized as Helper from the list of Y pool. He also admitted that Shri Bal Chand (mentioned at Sl.N.21) of list Ex.MW1/4 also being an illiterate was appointed as Safai Karamchari. Similarly incumbent at Sl.No.57, No.31 (Mahipal) and at666 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Sl.No.80 (Tara Chand) in the said List all illiterate have been appointed as Safai Karamchari/Helper. He also admitted that the claimant/workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and is doing job regularly.

7. I have heard Shri Amit Sharma, A/R for the workman and Shri Sanjay Rawat, A/R for the Management and have also gone through the records carefully and my findings are as follows.

8. From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is manifest that the claimant/workman having been engaged as Helper on daily wage/ casual basis by the erstwhile University of Roorkee, has been under the employment of the Management since the year 1993 and he has been discharging duties as assigned to him. As such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer-employee between the Management and claimant. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Courtt 2532, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of "workman" has observed as under :-

"The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of service, the

quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a workman

within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full

time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section

2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole

time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual

employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman."

It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a person would be covered by the definition of "workman" as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act.

9. As discussed above, in the case in hand engagement of the claimant on contract/casual basis for doing work of Maali, is duly admitted by the Management as per its pleadings and evidence adduced on record. It is not in dispute that the workman/claimant is still working on contractual engagement under Y-1 category and is paid fixed monthly emoluments in respect of his services, that is to say that he is being paid minimum in the scale without any increment or promotion etc. for want of regularization.

10. During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the Management relied on a number of judgements to contend that there is no fundamental right of those workers who have been employed as daily wager or temporarily or on contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. Even such workers even serving for a long number of years will not become entitle to claim regularization if he is not working against a sanctioned post.

11. There is no dispute about preposition of law on the point. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Food Corporation of India 2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 held as under :-

"… We are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice, the Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of year. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would be impressible. In the abovesaid circumstances, giving of direction to regularise a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager et., may amount to backdoor entry into the service which is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution. Further such a direction would not be given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court are at part with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise non regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality of upholding Article 14 rather than violating this constitutional provision."

12. It is not in dispute that after agitation of casual daily wage workers engaged in the erstwhile University of Roorkee in the year 1993, Memorandums of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20/2/1996 were reduced into writing and subsequently, the Management had prepared a Y list of such workers for the purposes of their regularization against the vacant posts. As per written statement of the Management, 211 workers out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool list have already been appointed/ regularized and are being given regular pay scale. Management had intended to accommodate and give benefit of regularization to remaining Y-Pool workers had placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the remaining/left over Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. This impliedly shows that a scheme/policy was formulated by the Management for regularizing the services of the workmen engaged on daily wage/casual basis. Document/notification dated 27/3/1997 & 13/6/1995 (Ex.MW1/5 colly) issued by University of Roorki shows that for the post of Survey Tindal & Maali in the pay-scale of Rs.750-940/- eligibility criteria of education/experience was that the incumbent should be literate (having knowledge of reading & writing) with knowledge of keeping the equipments/furniture etc.. It shows that the workman/claimant who was engaged in the year 1993 was eligible to be considered for the said post of Helper and at that time it was not required that the incumbent should be 10th class pass, as has been pleaded by the Management. It is also evident from the testimony of MW1 Surender Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) that the Management has appointed/regularized the services of various other workers who were/are[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 667 similarly placed with the claimant on the issue of literacy, were named in the Y Pool list (Ex.MW1/4). Shri Bal Chand (mentioned at Sl.N.21), Mahipal (at Sl.No.31 and Tara Chand (at Sl.No.80) being all illiterate are few of them and they have been placed in the regular pay-scale. Perusal of the said list also shows that there are other workmen who are illiterate but have been regularized as group-D for the post of Helper, Sweeper, Mali etc and reference may be made to the workmen shown at Sl.No.44,48, 67, 82, 85 to 89, 108, 114, 117, 139, 190, 201 of the said list. They have been regularized & are being paid wages in the regular pay-scale. On the contrary, the claimant/workman who is 7th standard pass is being paid wages at a fixed consolidated rate at the minimum of the scale and that is to say that the workman/claimant is being paid lesser pay than those who are similarly placed and are doing the same/equal work.

13. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, 2017Lab.L.C. 427 while upholding the principle of "equal pay for equal work" even for temporary employees observed as under :-

"The principle of "equal pay for equal work" can be extended to temporary employees (differently described as work- charged, daily wage, casual, adhoc, contractual and the like). It is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, can not be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation ''

14. Having regard to the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that action of the Management in not regularizing the workman Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Helper despite rendering service for more than 25 years continuously is unjustified and unwarranted. The workman /claimant is entitled to be regularized to the post of Helper.

15) Now the question arises for consideration is as to from which date the workman/claimant is entitled to be given benefit of regularization. Neither in the statement of claim, the workman/claimant has pleaded that he had made any written representation or demand/legal letter to the Management for consideration of his demand of regularization, nor he has filed any such document on record. It is pertinent to mention here that on the controversy between the parties, the reference to this Tribunal was made by the Appropriate Government vide letter dated 05/10/2012. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the workman/claimant is entitled to get benefit of regularization to the post of Mali in the regular pay-scale existing to the said post from 05/10/2012.with all consequential benefits viz. annual increment and other prevalent benefits/facilities like HRA, transport, medical facility etc.

Relief :-

In view of my aforesaid findings, the Management is directed to regularize the workman/claimant to the post of Helper w.e.f. 05/10/2012 in the regular pay-scale of Helper, with all consequential benefits and arrears of the same be also paid to him. The Award is passed accordingly.

Date : 07.01.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 187187187187....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार

मैसर्स रजिस्ट्रार, आईआईटी 0ड़की और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के

बीच अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय 1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 171/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 15.01.2019 को प्राप्त %ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42012/62/2012- आईआर (डीयू)]

राजें( जोशी, उप िनदेशक668 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2019

S.O. 187.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 171/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court -1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Registrar, IIT Roorkee, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.01.2019.

[No. L-42012/62/2012-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No.1. : NEW DELHI

ID No. 171/2012

Smt. Raj Kumari, (The General Secretary), IIT Roorkee Karamchari Union, IIT Roorkee

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

The Registrar, IIT Roorkee IIT Roorkee

…Management/ Respondent

AWARD

This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government vide its letter No.L-42012/62/2012/IR(DU) dated 08.11.2012 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 management of IIT Roorkee in not regularizing the workman Shri Raj Kumar (sic Raj Kumari) w/o. Shri Halu Ram, despite rendering service for more than 20 years continuously is justified ? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled to ? '

2. Both parties were put to notice and workman Raj Kumari filed her statement of claim, with the averments that she was inducted into the service of erstwhile University of Roorkee (later on converted into IIT Roorkee) as Helper (Sweeper) on muster roll basis we.f. July, 1992 and continues to work in the same capacity since then. The workman requested the Management for his regularization many a times but to no avail. It is pleaded that the Management IIT Roorkee chalked out a plan under the Scheme of Y-Pool workers for the consistent absorption/regularization of such workmen/employees whose names were included in the Y-Pool for which the applicant was not taken into confidence. Though some of the workmen who were not included in the Y-Pool list have been absorbed but the claimant has been deprived of his legitimate right of being placed on regular pay scale. The claimant approached the Management several times for grant of such benefits but to no avail. He has prayed that order be passed (a) for upgradation of the claimant as per career development policy for the category to which he belongs with effect from the date he becomes entitled to his promotion; (b) for payment of arrears arising out of his regularization in the different regular pay scales and (c) for extension of all amenities & facilities such as residential accommodation allowance, medical, transport etc. for which the claimant becomes entitled consequent to his regularization and up-gradation in the regular pay scales.

3. The claim of the Workman has been resisted by the Management who filed its written statement wherein it has been alleged that the claimant was one of those casual daily wage workers whose services were engaged by the erstwhile University of the Management as unskilled daily wager on 4/2/1992. Consequent upon agitation of such casual daily wage workers in the year 1993, a broad Memorandum of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20./2/1996 was reduced into writing in the presence of Civil Administration inter-alia on the terms that the such daily wage workers would be considered for appointment against vacant posts according to their qualifications and on the basis of their seniority & performance/merit as per recruitment rules, regulations and guidelines. Advertisement from time to time including those dated 24/10/94, 21/11/94, 26/7/95, 13/6/95, 27/8/96 and 27/3/97 for regular vacancies were issued and applications were called from Y-Pool workers and accordingly 211 persons out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool were recruited/selected against the regular posts on the basis of their merit/qualifications and experience. There was no automatic right for absorption or fresh appointment with respect to all the daily wage or contract workers. Though efforts on the part of Government to reduce the workers' strength was going on but the Management with the sole intention to accommodation Y-Pool workers placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the rest of these Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. It is alleged that the Management is providing all the facilities viz. EPF, Pension, Gratuity, accommdation, revision of fixed wages, hospital facilities to the Y pool workers including the claimant. It is also alleged[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 669 that the claimant (who is only 7th class pass) does not possess the minimum essential qualifications of 10th standard pass for selection even against an entry level Group D/MTS post in the regular employment of the Management and as such the workman is not eligible to become a permanent & regular employee of the Management. The engagement of the claimant was purely on casual, intermittent and temporary basis and in exigencies of work which was extended from time to time, the claim of the claimant for regularization of his services is ill founded and unjustified . Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Vide order dated 11/7/2013 my learned Predecessor observed that no specific issue except those referred by the Government for adjudication arises from the pleadings of the parties and as such parties were called upon to adduce their evidence.

5. The Claimant in support of her case examined herself as WW1 who tendered her affidavits Ex.WW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/2. In cross examination she admitted that she is 7th standard pass and was engaged as Safai Karamchari without any advertisement. She also admitted about formulation of Y pool list by the Management; conducting of test/interviews for the posts exclusively for the 261 Nos. of workers in the Y pool list and that the Management had recruited/regularized 211 such workers in the Y pool List. She also admitted that for different posts, minimum qualifications have been prescribed and that against the advertised post, she had also applied for the post of Safai Karamchari, interview letter was issued and she was called for an interview but her name was not in the merit list prepared by the University.. She also admitted that all eligible claimants/workmen whose names were there in the Y Pool list were given an opportunity to participate in the selection process for their absorption. She denied the suggestion that she is not entitled to get wages in a regular pay scale as a matter of right.

6. On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri Surendra Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) as MW1 who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/20. In cross examination he stated that category D posts have been abolished since 2006 and workmen/officials working in category-D are now termed as Multi Tasking Staff who are getting initial scale. While producing the regulations regarding the creation and pay-scale of different posts as Ex.MW1/W-5, he admitted that the posts created by Syndicate (Executive Body of Roorkee University) are in the pay scale approved by the State Government applicable at that time. He admitted that Management had created a single Y pool List but could not say whether at that time illiterate persons were regularized as Maali from the list of Y pol. He also admitted that Shri Bal Chand (mentioned at Sl.N.21) of list Ex.MW1/4 also being an illiterate was appointed as Safai Karamchari. Similarly incumbent at Sl.No.57, No.31 (Mahipal) and at Sl.No.80 (Tara Chand) in the said List all illiterate have been appointed as Safai Karamchari/Helper. He also admitted that the claimant/workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and is doing job regularly.

7. I have heard Shri Amit Sharma, A/R for the workman and Shri Sanjay Rawat, A/R for the Management and have also gone through the records carefully and my findings are as follows.

8. From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is manifest that the claimant/workman having been engaged as Helper on daily wage/ casual basis by the erstwhile University of Roorkee, has been under the employment of the Management since the year 1992 and she has been discharging duties as assigned to her. As such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer-employee between the Management and claimant. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Courtt 2532, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of "workman" has observed as under :-

"The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of service, the

quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a workman

within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full

time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section

2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole

time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual

employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman."

It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a person would be covered by the definition of "workman" as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act.

9. As discussed above, in the case in hand engagement of the claimants as part time for doing intermittent nature of work and/or for cleaning the bank premises is duly admitted by the Management as per its pleadings and evidence adduced on record. It is undisputed fact that the workman/claimant still working on contractual engagement under Y-1 category and is being paid fixed monthly emoluments in respect of her services, that is to say that she is being paid minimum in the scale without any increment or promotion etc. for want of regularization.

10. During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the Management relied on a number of judgements to contend that there is no fundamental right of those workers who have been employed as daily wager or temporarily or on contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. Even such workers even serving for a long number of years will not become entitled to claim regularization if he/she is not working against a sanctioned post.

11. There is no dispute about preposition of law on the point. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Food Corporation of India 2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 held as under :-

"… We are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice, the Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of year. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would be impressible. In the abovesaid circumstances, giving of direction to regularise a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager et., may amount to backdoor entry into the service which is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution. Further such a direction would not be given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court are at part with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise non regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality of upholding Article 14 rather than violating this constitutional provision."

From the above ruling, it is clear that ordinarily the Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator should not issue direction for regularization of the workman engaged/working on casual/daily wage basis irrespective of his length of service unless there is a Scheme/policy of the Management & similarly situated workmen have been regularized by the employer/Management under the said policy/Scheme and benefit of such scheme/policy has been declined to the other.

12. It is not in dispute that after agitation of casual daily wage workers engaged in the erstwhile University of Roorkee in the year 1993, Memorandums of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20./2/1996 were reduced into writing and subsequently, the Management had prepared a Y list of such workers for the purposes of their regularization against the vacant posts. As per written statement of the Management, 211 workers out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool list have already been appointed/regularized and are being given regular pay scale. Management had intended to accommodate and give benefit of regularization to remaining Y-Pool workers had placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the remaining/left over Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. This impliedly shows that a scheme/policy was formulated by the Management for regularizing the services of the workmen engaged on daily wage/casual basis. Document/notification dated 27/3/1997 (Ex.MW1/5) issued by University of Roorki shows that for the post of Helper/Peon in the pay-scale of Rs.750-940/- eligibility criteria of education/experience was that the incumbent should be 8th class pass. The said notification was issued after engagement/employment of the who was engaged in the year 1992 and there is nothing on record to suggest that at the time when the claimant was engaged/employed, the requirement of education of 8th class pass was desirable. The claimant/workman is still under the employment of the Management. It is also evident from the testimony of MW1 Surender Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) that the Management has appointed/regularized the services of various other workers who were similarly placed with the claimant on the issue of literacy, were named in the Y Pool list (Ex.MW1/4). Shri Bal Chand (mentioned at Sl.N.21), Mahipal (at Sl.No.31 and Tara Chand (at Sl.No.80) are few of them and they have been placed in the regular pay-scale. On the contrary, the claimant/workman is being paid wages at a fixed consolidated rate at the minimum of the scale and that is to say that the workman/claimant is being paid lesser pay than those who are similarly placed and are doing the same/equal work. To my mind, the claimant is entitled to get same pay/wages on the cardinal principle of "equal pay for equal work"

13. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, 2017Lab.L.C. 427 while upholding the principle of "equal pay for equal work" even for temporary employees observed as under :-

"The principle of "equal pay for equal work" can be extended to temporary employees (differently described as work- charged, daily wage, casual, adhoc, contractual and the like). It is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, can not be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation. ''

14. Having regard to the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that action of the Management in not regularizing the workman Ms. Raj Kumari w/o. Shri Hallu Ram, despite rendering continuous service of about 25 years is unjustified and unwarranted. The workman /claimant is entitled to be regularized to the post of Helper.

15. Now the question arises for consideration is as to from which date the workman/claimant is entitled to be given benefit of regularization. Neither in the statement of claim, the workman/claimant has pleaded that she had made any written representation or demand/legal letter to the Management for regularization of her services, nor she has filed any such document on record. It is pertinent to mention here that on the controversy between the parties, the reference to this Tribunal was made by the Appropriate Government vide letter dated 8/11/2012. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the workman/claimant is entitled to get benefit of regularization to the post of[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 671 Helper in the regular pay-scale existing to the said post w.e.f.8/11/2012, with all consequential benefits viz. annual increment and other prevalent benefits/facilities like HRA, transport, medical facility etc.

Relief :-

In view of my aforesaid findings, the Management is directed to regularize the workman/claimant to the post of Mali w.e.f. 8/11/2012 in the regular pay-scale of Helper/Group-D employee, with all consequential benefits and arrears of the same be also paid to her. The Award is passed accordingly.

Date : 07.01.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 188188188188....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार मैसर्स रजिस्ट्रार, आईआईटी 0ड़की और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच

अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय 1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ

संख्या 170/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 15.01.2019 को प्राप्त %ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42012/60/2012-आईआर (डीयू)]

राजें( जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2019

S.O. 188.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 170/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court -1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Registrar, IIT Roorkee, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.01.2019.

[No. L-42012/60/2012-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 1. : NEW DELHI

ID No. 170/2012

Shri Suresh, (The General Secretary), IIT Roorkee Karamchari Union, IIT Roorkee

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

The Registrar, IIT Roorkee IIT Roorkee

…Management/ Respondent

AWARD

This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government vide its letter No.L-42012/60/2012-IR(DU) dated 8th November, 2012 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 management of IIT Roorkee in not regularizing the workman Shri Suresh s/o. Shri Kewal Ram, despite rendering service for more than 19 years continuously is justified ? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled to ? '672 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. Both parties were put to notice and workman Suresh filed his statement of claim, with the averments that he was inducted into the service of erstwhile University of Roorkee (later on converted into IIT Roorkee) as Helper (Maali) on muster roll basis we.f. July, 1993 and continues to work in the same capacity since then. He requested the Management for his regularization many a times but to no avail. It is pleaded that the Management IIT Roorkee chalked out a plan under the Scheme of Y-Pool workers for the consistent absorption/regularization of such workmen/employees whose names were included in the Y-Pool for which the applicant was not taken into confidence. Though some of the workmen who were not included in the Y-Pool list have been absorbed but the claimant has been deprived of his legitimate right of being placed on regular pay scale. The claimant approached the Management several times for grant of such benefits but to no avail. He has prayed that order be passed (a) for upgradation of the claimant as per career development policy for the category to which he belongs with effect from the date he becomes entitled to his promotion; (b) for payment of arrears arising out of his regularization in the different regular pay scales and (c) for extension of all amenities & facilities such as residential accommodation allowance, medical, transport etc. for which the claimant becomes entitled consequent to his regularization and up-gradation in the regular pay scales.

3. The claim of the Workman has been resisted by the Management who filed its written statement wherein it has been alleged that the claimant was one of those casual daily wage workers whose services were engaged by the erstwhile University of the Management as unskilled daily wager on 5/7/1993. Consequent upon agitation of such casual daily wage workers in the year 1993, a broad Memorandum of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20/2/1996 was reduced into writing in the presence of Civil Administration inter-alia on the terms that the such daily wage workers would be considered for appointment against vacant posts according to their qualifications and on the basis of their seniority & performance/merit as per recruitment rules, regulations and guidelines. Advertisement from time to time including those dated 24/10/94, 21/11/94, 26/7/95, 13/6/95, 27/8/96 and 27/3/97 for regular vacancies were issued and applications were called from Y-Pool workers and accordingly 211 persons out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool were recruited/selected against the regular posts on the basis of their merit/qualifications and experience. There was no automatic right for absorption or fresh appointment with respect to all the daily wage or contract workers. Though efforts on the part of Government to reduce the workers' strength was going on but the Management with the sole intention to accommodation Y-Pool workers placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the rest of these Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. It is alleged that the Management is providing all the facilities viz. EPF, Pension, Gratuity, accommodation, revision of fixed wages, hospital facilities to the Y pool workers including the claimant. It is also alleged that the claimant, who had shown his qualification as 5th class at the time of registration in Y Pool in October, 1993 but had claimed himself to be 8th standard passed before the Conciliation Officer, does not possess the minimum essential qualifications of 10th standard pass for selection even against an entry level Group D post in the regular employment of the Management. The engagement of the claimant was purely on casual, intermittent and temporary basis and in exigencies of work which was extended from time to time, the claim of the claimant for regularization of his services is ill founded and unjustified. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Vide order dated 8/10/2013 my learned Predecessor observed that no specific issue except those referred by the Government for adjudication arises from the pleadings of the parties and as such parties were called upon to adduce their evidence.

5. The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as WW1 who tendered his affidavits Ex.WW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/2. In cross examination he stated that he is 5th standard pass and was engaged as Maali without any advertisement. He also admitted about formulation of Y pool list by the Management; conducting of test/interviews for the posts exclusively for the 361 Nos. of workers in the Y pool list and that the Management had recruited/regularized 211 such workers in the Y pool List. He also admitted that for different posts, minimum qualifications have been prescribed and that against the advertised post, he had also applied for the post of Maali and he was interviewed. He showed his ignorance that the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh imposed a ban on recruitment of non teaching staff vide orders dated 3/11/97 and 9/12/97. He also admitted that all eligible claimants/workmen whose names were there in the Y Pool list were given an opportunity to participate in the selection process for their absorption.

6. On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri Surendra Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) as MW1 who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/20. In cross examination he stated that category D posts have been abolished since 2006 and workmen/officials working in category-D are now termed as Multi Tasking Staff who are getting initial scale. While producing the regulations regarding the creation and pay-scale of different posts as Ex.MW1/W-5, he admitted that the posts created by Syndicate (Executive Body of Roorkee University) are in the pay scale approved by the State Government applicable at that time. He admitted that Management had created a single Y pool List but could not say whether at that time illiterate persons were regularized as Maali from the list of Y pool. He also admitted that Shri Bal Chand (mentioned at Sl.N.21) of list Ex.MW1/4 also being an illiterate was appointed as Safai Karamchari. Similarly incumbent at Sl.No.57, No.31 (Mahipal) and at Sl.No.80 (Tara Chand) in the said List all illiterate have been appointed as Safai Karamchari/Helper. He also admitted that the claimant/workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and is doing job regularly.

7. I have heard Shri Amit Sharma, A/R for the workman and Shri Sanjay Rawat, A/R for the Management and have also gone through the records carefully and my findings are as follows.

8. From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is manifest that the claimant/workman having been engaged as Helper (Maali on daily wage/ casual basis by the erstwhile University of Roorkee, has been[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 673 under the employment of the Management since the year 1993 and he has been discharging duties as assigned to him. As such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer-employee between the Management and claimant. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Courtt 2532, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of "workman" has observed as under :-

"The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of service, the

quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a workman

within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full

time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section

2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole

time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual

employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman."

It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a person would be covered by the definition of "workman" as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act.

9. As discussed above, in the case in hand engagement of the claimant on contract/casual basis for doing the work of Maali, is duly admitted by the Management as per its pleadings and evidence adduced on record. It is not in dispute that the workman/claimant is still working on contractual engagement under Y-1 category and is paid fixed monthly emoluments in respect of his services, that is to say that he is being paid minimum in the scale without any increment or promotion etc. for want of regularization.

10. During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the Management relied on a number of judgements to contend that there is no fundamental right of those workers who have been employed as daily wager or temporarily or on contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. Even such workers even serving for a long number of years will not become entitle to claim regularization if he is not working against a sanctioned post.

11. There is no dispute about preposition of law on the point. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 held as under :-

"… We are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice, the Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of year. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would be impressible. In the abovesaid circumstances, giving of direction to regularise a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager et., may amount to backdoor entry into the service which is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution. Further such a direction would not be given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court are at part with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise non regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality of upholding Article 14 rather than violating this constitutional provision."

From the above ruling, it is clear that ordinarily the Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator should not issue direction for regularization of the workman engaged/working on casual/daily wage basis irrespective of his length of service unless there is a Scheme/policy of the Management & similarly situated workmen have been regularized by the employer/Management under the said policy/Scheme and benefit of such scheme/policy has been declined to the other.

12. It is not in dispute that after agitation of casual daily wage workers engaged in the erstwhile University of Roorkee in the year 1993, Memorandums of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20/2/1996 were reduced into writing and subsequently, the Management had prepared a Y list of such workers for the purposes of their regularization against the vacant posts. As per written statement of the Management, 211 workers out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool list have already been appointed/ regularized and are being given regular pay scale. Management had intended to accommodate and give benefit of regularization to remaining Y-Pool workers had placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the remaining/left over Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. This impliedly shows that a scheme/policy was formulated by the Management for regularizing the services of the workmen engaged on daily wage/casual basis. Document/notification dated 27/3/1997 (Ex.MW1/5 colly) issued by University of Roorki shows that for the post of Maali in the pay-scale of Rs.750-940/- eligibility criteria of education/experience was that the incumbent should be literate (having knowledge of reading & writing) with two years experience of the work of Mali. It shows that the workman/claimant who was engaged in the year 1993 was eligible to be considered for the said post of Mali and at that time it was not required that the incumbent should be 10th class pass, as has been pleaded by the Management. It is also evident from the testimony of MW1 Surender Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) that the Management has appointed/regularized the services of various other workers who were/are similarly placed with the claimant on the issue674 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] of literacy, were named in the Y Pool list (Ex.MW1/4). Shri Bal Chand (mentioned at Sl.N.21), Mahipal (at Sl.No.31 and Tara Chand (at Sl.No.80) being all illiterate are few of them and they have been placed in the regular pay-scale.

Perusal of the said list also shows that there are other workmen who are illiterate but have been regularized as group-D for the post of Helper, Sweeper, Mali etc and reference may be made to the workmen shown at Sl.No.44,48, 67, 82, 85 to 89, 108, 114, 117, 139, 190, 201 of the said list. They have been regularized & are being paid wages in the regular pay- scale. On the contrary, the claimant/workman who is 5th standard pass is being paid wages at a fixed consolidated rate at the minimum of the scale and that is to say that the workman/claimant is being paid lesser pay than those who are similarly placed and are doing the same/equal work.

13. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, 2017Lab.L.C. 427 while upholding the principle of "equal pay for equal work" even for temporary employees observed as under :-

"The principle of "equal pay for equal work" can be extended to temporary employees (differently described as work- charged, daily wage, casual, adhoc, contractual and the like). It is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, can not be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation. ''

14. Having regard to the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that action of the Management in not regularizing the workman Shri Suresh, Helper (Mali) despite rendering service for more than 25 years continuously is unjustified and unwarranted. The workman /claimant is entitled to be regularized to the post of Mali.

14) Now the question arises for consideration is as to from which date the workman/claimant is entitled to be given benefit of regularization. Neither in the statement of claim, the workman/claimant has pleaded that he had made any written representation or demand/legal letter to the Management for consideration of his demand of regularization, nor he has filed any such document on record. It is pertinent to mention here that on the controversy between the parties, the reference to this Tribunal was made by the Appropriate Government vide letter dated 8/11/2012. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the workman/claimant is entitled to get benefit of regularization to the post of Mali in the regular pay-scale existing to the said post from 8/11/2012 with all consequential benefits viz. annual increment and other prevalent benefits/facilities like HRA, transport, medical facility etc.

Relief :-

In view of my aforesaid findings, the Management is directed to regularize the workman/claimant to the post of Mali w.e.f. 8/11/2012 in the regular pay-scale of Helper (Maali), with all consequential benefits and arrears of the same be also paid to him. The Award is passed accordingly.

Date : 07.01.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 189189189189....————औद्योगिक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार

मैसर्स रजिस्ट्रार, आईआईटी 0ड़की और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच

अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय 1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 126/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 15.01.2019 को प्राप्त %ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/118/2012- आईआर (डीयू)]

राजें( जोशी, उप िनदेशक[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 675

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2019

S.O. 189.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 126/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Registrar, IIT Roorkee and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.01.2019.

[No. L-42011/118/2012-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No.1. : NEW DELHI

ID No. 126/2012

Shri Ramesh, (The General Secretary), IIT Roorkee Karamchari Union, IIT Roorkee

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

The Registrar, IIT Roorkee Roorkee

…Management/ Respondent

AWARD

This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government vide its letter No.L-42011/118/2012/IR(DU) dated 5th/9th October, 2012 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 management of Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee for not regularizing the workman Shri Ramesh, Beldar is justified ? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled to ?'

2. Both parties were put to notice and workman Ramesh filed his statement of claim, with the averments that he was inducted into the service of erstwhile University of Roorkee (later on converted into IIT Roorkee) as Beldar on muster roll basis we.f. November, 1988 and continues to work in the same capacity since then. He requested the Management for his regularization many a times but to no avail. It is pleaded that the Management IIT Roorkee chalked out a plan under the Scheme of Y-Pool workers for the consistent absorption/regularization of such workmen/employees whose names were included in the Y-Pool for which the applicant was not taken into confidence. Though some of the workmen who were not included in the Y-Pool list have been absorbed but the claimant has been deprived of his legitimate right of being placed on regular pay scale. The claimant approached the Management several times for grant of such benefits but to no avail. He has prayed that order be passed (a) for upgradation of the claimant as per career development policy for the category to which he belongs with effect from the date he becomes entitled to his promotion; (b) for payment of arrears arising out of his regularization in the different regular pay scales and (c) for extension of all amenities & facilities such as residential accommodation allowance, medical, transport etc. for which the claimant becomes entitled consequent to his regularization and up-gradation in the regular pay scales.

3. The claim of the Workman has been resisted by the Management who filed its written statement wherein it has been alleged that the claimant was one of those casual daily wage workers whose services were engaged by the erstwhile University of the Management as unskilled daily wager and the claimant was assigned the work of Beldar. Consequent upon agitation of such casual daily wage workers in September 1988, a broad Memorandum of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20./2/1996 was reduced into writing in the presence of Civil Administration inter-alia on the terms that the such daily wage workers would be considered for appointment against vacant posts according to their qualifications and on the basis of their seniority & performance/merit as per recruitment rules, regulations and guidelines. Advertisement from time to time including those dated 24/10/94, 21/11/94, 26/7/95, 13/6/95, 27/8/96 and 27/3/97 for regular vacancies were issued and applications were called from Y-Pool workers and accordingly 211 persons out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool were recruited/selected against the regular posts on the basis of their merit/qualifications and experience. There was no automatic right for absorption or fresh appointment with respect to all the daily wage or contract workers. Though efforts on the part of Government to reduce the workers' strength was going on but the Management with the sole intention to accommodation Y-Pool workers placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the rest of these Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. It is alleged that the Management is providing all the facilities viz. EPF, Pension, Gratuity, accommodation, revision of fixed wages, hospital facilities to the Y pool workers including676 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the claimant. It is also alleged that the claimant (who is an illiterate) was/is otherwise illegible for selection as a regular employee of the Management (IIT Roorkee).. The engagement of the claimant was purely on casual, intermittent and temporary basis and in exigencies of work which was extended from time to time, the claim of the claimant for regularization of his services is ill founded and unjustified . Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Vide order dated 5/6/2013 my learned Predecessor observed that no specific issue except those referred by the Government for adjudication arises from the pleadings of the parties and as such parties were called upon to adduce their evidence.

5. The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as WW1 who tendered his affidavits Ex.WW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/2. In cross examination he deposed that he is 5th pass and was engaged as daily wager without any advertisement. He clarified that an incumbent for the post of Beldar should have been 5th standard pass. He also admitted about formulation of Y pool list by the Management; conducting of test/interviews for the posts exclusively for the 361 Nos. of workers in the Y pool list and that the Management had recruited/regularized 211 such workers in the Y pool List. He also admitted that for different posts, minimum qualifications have been prescribed and that against the advertised post, he had also applied for the post of Maali and he was interviewed. He showed his ignorance that the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh imposed a ban on recruitment of non teaching staff vide orders dated 3/11/97 and 9/12/97. He also admitted that all eligible claimants/workmen whose names were there in the Y Pool list were given an opportunity to participate in the selection process for their absorption.

6. On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri Surendra Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) as MW1 who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/20. In cross examination he stated that category D posts have been abolished since 2006 and workmen/officials working in category-D are now termed as Multi Tasking Staff who are getting initial scale. While producing the regulations regarding the creation and pay-scale of different posts as Ex.MW1/W-5, he admitted that the posts created by Syndicate (Executive Body of Roorkee University) are in the pay scale approved by the State Government applicable at that time. He admitted that Management had created a single Y pool List but could not say whether at that time illiterate persons were regularized from the list of Y pool. He also admitted that Shri Bal Chand (mentioned at Sl.N.21) of list Ex.MW1/4 also being an illiterate was appointed as Safai Karamchari. Similarly incumbent at Sl.No.57, No.31 (Mahipal) and at Sl.No.80 (Tara Chand) in the said List all illiterate have been appointed as Safai Karamchari/Helper. He also admitted that the claimant/workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and is doing job regularly.

7. I have heard Shri Amit Sharma, A/R for the workman and Shri Sanjay Rawat, A/R for the Management and have also gone through the records carefully and my findings are as follows.

8. From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is manifest that the claimant/workman having been engaged as daily wager/ casual worker by the erstwhile University of Roorkee, has been under the employment of the Management since the year 1988 and he has been discharging duties as assigned to him. As such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer-employee between the Management and claimant. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Courtt 2532, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of "workman" has observed as under :-

"The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of service, the

quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a workman

within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full

time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section

2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole

time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual

employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman."

It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a person would be covered by the definition of "workman" as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act.

9. As discussed above, in the case in hand engagement of the claimant as daily wager for doing intermittent nature of work is duly admitted by the Management as per its pleadings and evidence adduced on record. The workman/claimant Ramesh, having been working continuously since the year 1988 on contractual engagement/daily wage basis under Y-1 category is paid fixed monthly emoluments in respect of his services, that is to say that he is being paid minimum in the scale without any increment or promotion etc. for want of regularization.

10. During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the Management relied on a number of judgements to contend that there is no fundamental right of those workers who have been employed as daily wager or temporarily or on contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. Even such workers even serving for a long number of years will not become entitle to claim regularization if he is not working against a sanctioned post.

11. There is no dispute about preposition of law on the point. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 held as under :-

"… We are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice, the Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of year. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 677 regularization would be impressible. In the abovesaid circumstances, giving of direction to regularise a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager et., may amount to backdoor entry into the service which is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution. Further such a direction would not be given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court are at part with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise non regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality of upholding Article 14 rather than violating this constitutional provision."

From the above ruling, it is clear that ordinarily the Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator should not issue direction for regularization of the workman engaged/working on casual/daily wage basis irrespective of his length of service unless there is a Scheme/policy of the Management & similarly situated workmen have been regularized by the employer/Management under the said policy/Scheme and benefit of such scheme/policy has been declined to the other.

12. It is not in dispute that after agitation of casual daily wage workers engaged in the erstwhile University of Roorkee in the year 1993, Memorandums of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20./2/1996 were reduced into writing and subsequently, the Management had prepared a Y list of such workers for the purposes of their regularization against the vacant posts. As per written statement of the Management, 211 workers out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool list have already been appointed/regularized and are being given regular pay scale. Management had intended to accommodate and give benefit of regularization to remaining Y-Pool workers & had placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the remaining/left over Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. This impliedly shows that a scheme/policy was formulated by the Management for regularizing the services of the workmen engaged on daily wage/casual basis. Documents/notifications dated 24/8/1994 & 27/3/1997 (Ex.MW1/5 colly.) issued by University of Roorki shows that for the post of Safai Karmchari/ Maali in the pay-scale of Rs.750-940/- eligibility criteria of education/experience was that the incumbent should be literate (having knowledge of reading & writing) with two years experience of the said work. The job of the Beldar which work the claimant has been performing, can be equated with the work of Safai Karamchari/Maali. The claimant is 5the class pass, It shows that the workman/claimant who was engaged in the year 1988 was eligible to be considered for the said post of Safai Karamchari/Beldar and at that time it was not required that the incumbent should be 10th class pass for selection as MTS worker, as has been pleaded by the Management. It is also evident from the testimony of MW1 Surender Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) that the Management has appointed/regularized the services of various other workers who were similarly placed with the claimant as regards literacy, were named in the Y Pool list (Ex.MW1/4). Shri Bal Chand, Maali (mentioned at Sl.N.21), Mahipal. Survey Tindal (at Sl.No.31), Shri Brijesh, Safai Karamchari (at Sl.No.56) and Tara Chand, Helper (at Sl.No.80) who are illiterate but have been placed in the regular pay-scale. Perusal of the said list also shows that there are other workmen who are illiterate but have been regularized as group-D for the post of Helper, Sweeper, Mali etc and reference may be made to the workmen shown at Sl.No.44,48, 67, 82, 85 to 89, 108, 114, 117, 139, 190, 201 of the said list. They have been regularized & are being paid wages in the regular pay-scale. On the contrary, the claimant/workman is being paid wages at a fixed consolidated rate at the minimum of the scale and that is to say that the workman/claimant is being paid lesser pay than those who are similarly placed and are doing the same/equal work.

13. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, 2017Lab.L.C. 427 while upholding the principle of "equal pay for equal work" even for temporary employees observed as under :-

"The principle of "equal pay for equal work" can be extended to temporary employees (differently described as work- charged, daily wage, casual, adhoc, contractual and the like). It is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, can not be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation. ''

14. Having regard to the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that action of the Management in not regularizing the workman Shri Ram Prakat s/o. Shri Punnoo, Mali despite rendering service for more than 35 years continuously is unjustified and unwarranted. The workman /claimant is entitled to be regularized to the post of Mali.

14) Now the question arises for consideration is as to from which date the workman/claimant is entitled to be given benefit of regularization. Neither in the statement of claim, the workman/claimant has pleaded that he had made any written representation or demand/legal letter to the Management for consideration of his demand of regularization, nor he has filed any such document on record. It is pertinent to mention here that on the controversy between the parties, the reference to this Tribunal was made by the Appropriate Government vide letter dated 5th October, 2012. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the workman/claimant is entitled to get benefit of678 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] regularization to the post of Helper/Beldar in the regular pay-scale existing to the said post from 5th October, 2012 with all consequential benefits viz.annual increment and other prevalent benefits/facilities like HRA, transport, medical facility etc.

Relief :-

In view of my aforesaid findings, the Management is directed to regularize the workman/claimant to the post of Mali w.e.f. 5/10/2012 in the regular pay-scale of Helper, with all consequential benefits and arrears of the same be also paid to him. The Award is passed accordingly.

Date : 07.01.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 190190190190....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार

मैसर्स रजिस्ट्रार, आईआईटी 0ड़की और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के

बीच अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय 1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 173/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 15.01.2019 को प्राप्त %ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42012/263/2012- आईआर (डीयू)]

राजें( जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2019

S.O. 190.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 173/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Registrar, IIT Roorkee and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.01.2019.

[No. L-42012/263/2012-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No.1. : NEW DELHI

ID No. 173/2012

Smt. Rachna Devi, (The General Secretary), IIT Roorkee Karamchari Union, IIT Roorkee

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

The Registrar, IIT Roorkee IIT Roorkee

…Management/ Respondent

AWARD

This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government vide its letter No.L-42012/263/2012/IR(DU) dated 08.11.2012 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 management of IIT Roorkee in not regularizing the workman Smt. Rachna w/o. Shri Kunwar Singh, despite rendering service for more than 20 years continuously is justified ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled to ?'[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 679 2. Both parties were put to notice and workman Rachna filed her statement of claim, with the averments that she was inducted into the service of erstwhile University of Roorkee (later on converted into IIT Roorkee) as Helper (Sweeper) on muster roll basis we.f. July, 1992 and continues to work in the same capacity since then. The workman requested the Management for his regularization many a times but to no avail. It is pleaded that the Management IIT Roorkee chalked out a plan under the Scheme of Y-Pool workers for the consistent absorption/regularization of such workmen/employees whose names were included in the Y-Pool for which the applicant was not taken into confidence. Though some of the workmen who were not included in the Y-Pool list have been absorbed but the claimant has been deprived of his legitimate right of being placed on regular pay scale. The claimant approached the Management several times for grant of such benefits but to no avail. He has prayed that order be passed (a) for upgradation of the claimant as per career development policy for the category to which he belongs with effect from the date he becomes entitled to his promotion; (b) for payment of arrears arising out of his regularization in the different regular pay scales and (c) for extension of all amenities & facilities such as residential accommodation allowance, medical, transport etc. for which the claimant becomes entitled consequent to his regularization and up-gradation in the regular pay scales.

3. The claim of the Workman has been resisted by the Management who filed its written statement wherein it has been alleged that the claimant was one of those casual daily wage workers whose services were engaged by the erstwhile University of the Management as unskilled daily wager on 4/2/1992. Consequent upon agitation of such casual daily wage workers in the year 1993, a broad Memorandum of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20./2/1996 was reduced into writing in the presence of Civil Administration inter-alia on the terms that the such daily wage workers would be considered for appointment against vacant posts according to their qualifications and on the basis of their seniority & performance/merit as per recruitment rules, regulations and guidelines. Advertisement from time to time including those dated 24/10/94, 21/11/94, 26/7/95, 13/6/95, 27/8/96 and 27/3/97 for regular vacancies were issued and applications were called from Y-Pool workers and accordingly 211 persons out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool were recruited/selected against the regular posts on the basis of their merit/qualifications and experience. There was no automatic right for absorption or fresh appointment with respect to all the daily wage or contract workers. Though efforts on the part of Government to reduce the workers' strength was going on but the Management with the sole intention to accommodation Y-Pool workers placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the rest of these Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. It is alleged that the Management is providing all the facilities viz. EPF, Pension, Gratuity, accommdation, revision of fixed wages, hospital facilities to the Y pool workers including the claimant. It is also alleged that the claimant (who is only 7th class pass) does not possess the minimum essential qualifications of 10th standard pass for selection even against an entry level Group D/MTS post in the regular employment of the Management and as such the workman is not eligible to become a permanent & regular employee of the Management. The engagement of the claimant was purely on casual, intermittent and temporary basis and in exigencies of work which was extended from time to time, the claim of the claimant for regularization of his services is ill founded and unjustified . Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Vide order dated 11/7/2013 my learned Predecessor observed that no specific issue except those referred by the Government for adjudication arises from the pleadings of the parties and as such parties were called upon to adduce their evidence.

5. The Claimant in support of her case examined herself as WW1 who tendered her affidavits Ex.WW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/2. In cross examination she admitted that she is 4th standard pass and was engaged as Safai Karamchari without any advertisement. She also admitted about formulation of Y pool list by the Management; conducting of test/interviews for the posts exclusively for the 361 Nos. of workers in the Y pool list and that the Management had recruited/regularized 211 such workers in the Y pool List. She also admitted that for different posts, minimum qualifications have been prescribed and that against the advertised post, she had also applied for the post of Safai Karamchari, interview letter was issued and she was called for an interview but her name was not in the merit list prepared by the University.. She also admitted that all eligible claimants/workmen whose names were there in the Y Pool list were given an opportunity to participate in the selection process for their absorption. She denied the suggestion that she is not entitled to get wages in a regular pay scale as a matter of right.

6. On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri Surendra Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) as MW1 who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/20. In cross examination he stated that category D posts have been abolished since 2006 and workmen/officials working in category-D are now termed as Multi Tasking Staff who are getting initial scale. While producing the regulations regarding the creation and pay-scale of different posts as Ex.MW1/W-5, he admitted that the posts created by Syndicate (Executive Body of Roorkee University) are in the pay scale approved by the State Government applicable at that time. He admitted that Management had created a single Y pool List but could not say whether at that time illiterate persons were regularized as Maali from the list of Y pol. He also admitted that Shri Bal Chand (mentioned at Sl.N.21) of list Ex.MW1/4 also being an illiterate was appointed as Safai Karamchari. Similarly incumbent at Sl.No.57, No.31 (Mahipal) and at Sl.No.80 (Tara Chand) in the said List all illiterate have been appointed as Safai Karamchari/Helper. He also admitted that the claimant/workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and is doing job regularly.

7. I have heard Shri Amit Sharma, A/R for the workman and Shri Sanjay Rawat, A/R for the Management and have also gone through the records carefully and my findings are as follows.

8. From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is manifest that the claimant/workman having been engaged as Helper on daily wage/ casual basis by the erstwhile University of Roorkee, has been under the680 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] employment of the Management since the year 1992 and she has been discharging duties as assigned to her. As such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer-employee between the Management and claimant. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Courtt 2532, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of "workman" has observed as under :-

"The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of service, the

quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a workman

within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full

time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section

2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole

time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual

employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman."

It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a person would be covered by the definition of "workman" as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act.

9. As discussed above, in the case in hand engagement of the claimants as part time for doing intermittent nature of work and/or for cleaning the bank premises is duly admitted by the Management as per its pleadings and evidence adduced on record. It is undisputed fact that the workman/claimant still working on contractual engagement under Y-1 category and is being paid fixed monthly emoluments in respect of her services, that is to say that she is being paid minimum in the scale without any increment or promotion etc. for want of regularization.

10. During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the Management relied on a number of judgements to contend that there is no fundamental right of those workers who have been employed as daily wager or temporarily or on contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. Even such workers even serving for a long number of years will not become entitled to claim regularization if he/she is not working against a sanctioned post.

11. There is no dispute about preposition of law on the point. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 held as under :-

"… We are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice, the Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of year. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would be impressible. In the abovesaid circumstances, giving of direction to regularise a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager et., may amount to backdoor entry into the service which is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution. Further such a direction would not be given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court are at part with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise non regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality of upholding Article 14 rather than violating this constitutional provision."

From the above ruling, it is clear that ordinarily the Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator should not issue direction for regularization of the workman engaged/working on casual/daily wage basis irrespective of his length of service unless there is a Scheme/policy of the Management & similarly situated workmen have been regularized by the employer/Management under the said policy/Scheme and benefit of such scheme/policy has been declined to the other.

12. It is not in dispute that after agitation of casual daily wage workers engaged in the erstwhile University of Roorkee in the year 1993, Memorandums of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20./2/1996 were reduced into writing and subsequently, the Management had prepared a Y list of such workers for the purposes of their regularization against the vacant posts. As per written statement of the Management, 211 workers out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool list have already been appointed/regularized and are being given regular pay scale. Management had intended to accommodate and give benefit of regularization to remaining Y-Pool workers had placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the remaining/left over Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. This impliedly shows that a scheme/policy was formulated by the Management for regularizing the services of the workmen engaged on daily wage/casual basis. Document/notification dated 27/3/1997 (Ex.MW1/5) issued by University of Roorki shows that for the post of Helper/Peon in the pay-scale of Rs.750-940/- eligibility criteria of education/experience was that the incumbent should be 8th class pass. The said notification was issued after engagement/employment of the who was engaged in the year 1992 and there is nothing on record to suggest that at the time when the claimant was engaged/employed, the requirement of education of 8th class pass was desirable. The claimant/workman is still under the employment of the Management. It is also evident from the testimony of MW1 Surender Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) that the Management has appointed/regularized the services of various other workers who were similarly placed with the claimant on the issue of literacy, were named in the Y Pool list (Ex.MW1/4). Shri Bal Chand (mentioned at Sl.N.21), Mahipal (at Sl.No.31 and Tara Chand (at Sl.No.80) are few of them and they have been placed in the regular pay-scale.

Perusal of the said list also shows that there are other workmen who are illiterate but have been regularized as group-D for the post of Helper, Sweeper, Mali etc and reference may be made to the workmen shown at Sl.No.44,48, 67, 82, 85 to 89, 108, 114, 117, 139, 190, 201 of the said list. They have been regularized & are being paid wages in the regular pay- scale. On the contrary, the claimant/workman is being paid wages at a fixed consolidated rate at the minimum of the scale and that is to say that the workman/claimant is being paid lesser pay than those who are similarly placed and are doing the same/equal work. To my mind, the claimant is entitled to get same pay/wages on the cardinal principle of "equal pay for equal work"

13. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, 2017Lab.L.C. 427 while upholding the principle of "equal pay for equal work" even for temporary employees observed as under :-

"The principle of "equal pay for equal work" can be extended to temporary employees (differently described as work- charged, daily wage, casual, adhoc, contractual and the like). It is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, can not be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.''

14. Having regard to the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that action of the Management in not regularizing the workman Ms. Raj Kumari w/o. Shri Hallu Ram, despite rendering continuous service of about 25 years is unjustified and unwarranted. The workman /claimant is entitled to be regularized to the post of Helper (Sweeper).

15. Now the question arises for consideration is as to from which date the workman/claimant is entitled to be given benefit of regularization. Neither in the statement of claim, the workman/claimant has pleaded that she had made any written representation or demand/legal letter to the Management for regularization of her services, nor she has filed any such document on record. It is pertinent to mention here that on the controversy between the parties, the reference to this Tribunal was made by the Appropriate Government vide letter dated 8/11/2012. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the workman/claimant is entitled to get benefit of regularization to the post of Helper in the regular pay-scale existing to the said post w.e.f.8/11/2012, with all consequential benefits viz. annual increment and other prevalent benefits/facilities like HRA, transport, medical facility etc.

Relief :-

In view of my aforesaid findings, the Management is directed to regularize the workman/claimant to the post of Mali w.e.f. 8/11/2012 in the regular pay-scale of Helper/Group-D employee, with all consequential benefits and arrears of the same be also paid to her. The Award is passed accordingly.

Date : 07.01.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 191191191191....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार

मैसर्स रजिस्ट्रार, आईआईटी 0ड़की और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच

अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय 1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 172/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 15.01.2019 को प्राप्त %ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42012/59/2012- आईआर (डीयू)]

राजें( जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2019

S.O. 191.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 172/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Registrar, IIT Roorkee, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.01.2019.

[No. L-42012/59/2012-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director682 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No.1. : NEW DELHI

ID No. 172/2012

Ms. Sangeeta Khati, (The General Secretary), IIT Roorkee Karamchari Union, IIT Roorkee

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

The Registrar, IIT Roorkee Roorkee

…Management/ Respondent

AWARD

This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government vide its letter No.L-42012/59/2012-IR(DU) dated 8/11/2012 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 management of IIT Roorkee in not regularizing the workman despite rendering for more than 22 years continuously is justified ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled to ? '

2. Both parties were put to notice and workman Sangeeta Khati filed her statement of claim, with the averments that she was inducted into the service of erstwhile University of Roorkee (later on converted into IIT Roorkee) as Technical Assistant on muster roll basis w.e.f August, 1990 and continues to work in the same capacity since then. He requested the Management for his regularization many a times but to no avail. It is pleaded that the Management IIT Roorkee chalked out a plan under the Scheme of Y-Pool workers for the consistent absorption/regularization of such workmen/employees whose names were included in the Y-Pool for which the applicant was not taken into confidence. Though some of the workmen who were not included in the Y-Pool list have been absorbed but the claimant has been deprived of his legitimate right of being placed on regular pay scale. The claimant approached the Management several times for grant of such benefits but to no avail. He has prayed that order be passed (a) for upgradation of the claimant as per career development policy for the category to which he belongs with effect from the date he becomes entitled to his promotion; (b) for payment of arrears arising out of his regularization in the different regular pay scales and (c) for extension of all amenities & facilities such as residential accommodation allowance, medical, transport etc. for which the claimant becomes entitled consequent to his regularization and up-gradation in the regular pay scales.

3. The claim of the Workman has been resisted by the Management who filed its written statement wherein it has been alleged that the claimant was one of those casual daily wage workers whose services were engaged by the erstwhile University of the Management on 9/9/1991 on contract basis for a fixed term of one year as Technical Assistant "B" in the Electronics & Communication Engg. Department. Consequent upon agitation of such casual daily wage workers in 1993, a broad Memorandum of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20./2/1996 was reduced into writing in the presence of Civil Administration inter-alia on the terms that the such daily wage workers would be considered for appointment against vacant posts according to their qualifications and on the basis of their seniority & performance/merit as per recruitment rules, regulations and guidelines. Advertisement from time to time including those dated 24/10/94, 21/11/94, 26/7/95, 13/6/95, 27/8/96 and 27/3/97 for regular vacancies were issued and applications were called from Y- Pool workers and accordingly 211 persons out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool were recruited/selected against the regular posts on the basis of their merit/qualifications and experience. There was no automatic right for absorption or fresh appointment with respect to all the daily wage or contract workers. The claimant had applied for the post of Routine clerk against advertisement dated 21/11/1994 and for the post of Laboratory Assistant. She was called for interview but was not finally selected/short listed due to inadequate experience in the relevant field. Though efforts on the part of Government to reduce the workers' strength was going on but the Management with the sole intention to accommodation Y-Pool workers placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the rest of these Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. It is alleged that the Management is providing all the facilities viz. EPF, Pension, Gratuity, accommodation, revision of fixed wages, hospital facilities to the Y pool workers including the claimant. It is also alleged that the claimant was/is otherwise illegible for selection as a regular employee of the Management (IIT Roorkee).. The engagement of the claimant was purely on casual, intermittent and temporary basis and in exigencies of work which was extended from time to time, the claim of the claimant for regularization of his services is ill founded and unjustified . Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Vide order dated 11/7/2013 my learned Predecessor observed that no specific issue except those referred by the Government for adjudication arises from the pleadings of the parties and as such parties were called upon to adduce their evidence.

5. The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as WW1 who tendered his affidavits Ex.WW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/2. In cross examination she deposed that she is Science Graduate besides a post graduate diploma in computers. She admitted that she was engaged as technical assistant without any advertisement. She clarified that an incumbent for the post of Technical Assistant should be science graduate. She also admitted about formulation of Y pool list by the Management; conducting of test/interviews for the posts exclusively for the 361 Nos. of workers in the Y pool list and that the Management had recruited/regularized 211 such workers in the Y pool List. She also admitted that for different posts, minimum qualifications have been prescribed and that against the advertised post, she had also applied for the post of clerk and Lab.Assistant and that she was interviewed. She showed her ignorance that the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh imposed a ban on recruitment of non teaching staff vide orders dated 3/11/97 and 9/12/97. She admitted having applied for the post of clerk as well as Lab Assistant against the advertisement issued by the Management but was not short listed/selected. She also admitted that all eligible claimants/workmen whose names were there in the Y Pool list were given an opportunity to participate in the selection process for their absorption.

6. On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri Surendra Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) as MW1 who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/20. In cross examination he stated that category D posts have been abolished since 2006 and workmen/officials working in category-D are now termed as Multi Tasking Staff who are getting initial scale. While producing the regulations regarding the creation and pay-scale of different posts as Ex.MW1/W-5, he admitted that the posts created by Syndicate (Executive Body of Roorkee University) are in the pay scale approved by the State Government applicable at that time. He admitted that Management had created a single Y pool List but could not say whether at that time illiterate persons were regularized from the list of Y pool. He also admitted that Shri Bal Chand (mentioned at Sl.N.21) of list Ex.MW1/4 also being an illiterate was appointed as Safai Karamchari. Similarly incumbent at Sl.No.57, No.31 (Mahipal) and at Sl.No.80 (Tara Chand) in the said List all illiterate have been appointed as Safai Karamchari/Helper. He also admitted that the claimant/workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and is doing job regularly.

7. I have heard Shri Amit Sharma, A/R for the workman and Shri Sanjay Rawat, A/R for the Management and have also gone through the records carefully and my findings are as follows.

8. From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is manifest that the claimant/workman having been engaged as daily wager/ casual worker by the erstwhile University of Roorkee, has been under the employment of the Management since the year 1987 and he has been discharging duties of Pump Operator. As such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer-employee between the Management and claimant. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of "workman" has observed as under :-

"The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of service, the

quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a workman

within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full

time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section

2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole

time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual

employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman."

It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a person would be covered by the definition of "workman" as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act.

9. As discussed above, in the case in hand engagement of the claimant as daily wager for doing intermittent nature of work is duly admitted by the Management as per its pleadings and evidence adduced on record. The workman/claimant having been working continuously since the year 1987 on contractual engagement/daily wage basis under Y-1 category is paid fixed monthly emoluments in respect of his services, that is to say that he is being paid minimum in the scale without any increment or promotion etc. for want of regularization.

10. During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the Management relied on a number of judgements to contend that there is no fundamental right of those workers who have been employed as daily wager or temporarily or on contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. Even such workers even serving for a long number of years will not become entitled to claim regularization if he is not working against a sanctioned post.

11. There is no dispute about preposition of law on the point. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 held as under :-

"… We are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice, the Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of year. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would be impressible. In the abovesaid circumstances, giving of direction to regularise a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager et., may amount to backdoor entry into the service which is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution. Further such a direction would not be given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself under some scheme or684 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court are at par with them,

direction of regularization in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise non regularization of the left over

workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article

14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality of upholding Article 14

rather than violating this constitutional provision."

From the above ruling, it is clear that ordinarily the Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator should not issue direction for regularization of the workman engaged/working on casual/daily wage basis irrespective of his length of service unless there is a Scheme/policy of the Management & similarly situated workmen have been regularized by the employer/Management under the said policy/Scheme and benefit of such scheme/policy has been declined to the other.

12. It is not in dispute that pursuant to agitation of casual daily wage workers engaged in the erstwhile University of Roorkee in the year 1993, Memorandums of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20./2/1996 were reduced into writing and subsequently, the Management had prepared a Y list of such workers for the purposes of their regularization against the vacant posts. As per written statement of the Management, 211 workers out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool list have already been appointed/regularized and are being given regular pay scale. Management had intended to accommodate and give benefit of regularization to remaining Y-Pool workers & had placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the remaining/left over Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. This impliedly shows that a scheme/policy was formulated by the Management for regularizing the services of the workmen engaged on daily wage/casual basis. Documents/notifications dated 2111/1994 (Ex.MW1/5 colly.) issued by University of Roorki shows that for the post of Junior Technical Assistant in the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600/-, eligibility criteria of education/experience was that the incumbent should be B.Sc. or Diploma (3 Years Course) with three years experience in the said field/line. The claimant is Science Graduate. It shows that the workman/claimant who was engaged in the year 1990 and is working as Technical Assistant since then, has got requisite experience by now. It is also evident from the testimony of MW1 Surender Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) that the Management has appointed/regularized the services of various other workers who were similarly placed with the claimant as regards literacy, were named in the Y Pool list (Ex.MW1/4). Shri Bal Chand, Maali (mentioned at Sl.N.21), Mahipal. Survey Tindal (at Sl.No.31), Shri Brijesh, Safai Karamchari (at Sl.No.56) and Tara Chand, Helper (at Sl.No.80) who are illiterate but have been placed in the regular pay-scale. Perusal of the said list also shows that Vinod Kumar s/o. Madho Ram (at Sl.No.176), having educational qualification of 12th standard & Praveen Kumar s/o. SS Ahuja having Diploma (Mech.) having been regularized/appointed for the post of Lab Assistants and they are being paid wages in the regular pay-scale. On the contrary, the claimant/workman is being paid wages at a fixed consolidated rate at the minimum of the scale and that is to say that the workman/claimant is being paid lesser pay than those who is similarly placed and is doing the same/equal work. This action of the Management is discriminatory and not justified.

13. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, 2017Lab.L.C. 427 while upholding the principle of "equal pay for equal work" even for temporary employees observed as under :-

"The principle of "equal pay for equal work" can be extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charged, daily wage, casual, adhoc, contractual and the like). It is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, can not be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation. ''

14. Having regard to the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that action of the Management in not regularizing the workman Sangeeta Khati despite rendering service for more than 28 years continuously is unjustified and unwarranted. The workman /claimant is entitled to be regularized to the post of Pump Operator.

15. Now the question arises for consideration is as to from which date the workman/claimant is entitled to be given benefit of regularization. Neither in the statement of claim, the workman/claimant has pleaded that he had made any written representation or demand/legal letter to the Management for consideration of his demand of regularization, nor he has filed any such document on record. It is pertinent to mention here that on the controversy between the parties, the reference to this Tribunal was made by the Appropriate Government vide letter dated 8/11/2012. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the workman/claimant is entitled to get benefit of regularization to the post of Technical Assistant in the regular pay-scale existing to the said post, w.e.f. 8/11/2012 with all consequential benefits viz.annual increment and other prevalent benefits/facilities like HRA, transport, medical facility etc.

Relief :-

In view of my aforesaid findings, the Management is directed to regularize the workman/claimant to the post of Mali w.e.f. 8/11/2012 in the regular pay-scale of Telephone Operator, with all consequential benefits and arrears of the same be also paid to him. The Award is passed accordingly.

Date : 07.01.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 192192192192....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार मैसर्स रजिस्ट्रार, आईआईटी 0ड़की और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय 1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 21/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 15.01.2019 को प्राप्त %ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/122/2012- आईआर (डीयू)]

राजें( जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2019

S.O. 192.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 21/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court -1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Registrar, IIT Roorkee, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.01.2019.

[No. L-42011/122/2012-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No.1. : NEW DELHI

ID No. 21/2013

Shri Sita Ram Semwal, (The General Secretary), IIT Roorkee Karamchari Union, IIT Roorkee

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

The Registrar, IIT Roorkee Roorkee

…Management/ Respondent

AWARD

This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government vide its letter No.L-42011/122/2012/IR(DU) dated 7/1/2013 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:-

'Whether action of management of IIT Roorkee in not regularizing the workman Shri Sita Ram Semwal S/o. Shri Seesh Ram, Chowkidar despite rendering for more than 24 years is justified ? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled to ? '

2. Both parties were put to notice and workman Sita Ram Semwal filed his statement of claim, with the averments that he was inducted into the service of erstwhile University of Roorkee (later on converted into IIT Roorkee) as Helper (Watch & Ward) on muster roll basis we.f. April, 1988 and continues to work in the same capacity since then. He686 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] requested the Management for his regularization many a times but to no avail. It is pleaded that the Management IIT Roorkee chalked out a plan under the Scheme of Y-Pool workers for the consistent absorption/regularization of such workmen/employees whose names were included in the Y-Pool for which the applicant was not taken into confidence. Though some of the workmen who were not included in the Y-Pool list have been absorbed but the claimant has been deprived of his legitimate right of being placed on regular pay scale. The claimant approached the Management several times for grant of such benefits but to no avail. He has prayed that order be passed (a) for upgradation of the claimant as per career development policy for the category to which he belongs with effect from the date he becomes entitled to his promotion; (b) for payment of arrears arising out of his regularization in the different regular pay scales and (c) for extension of all amenities & facilities such as residential accommodation allowance, medical, transport etc. for which the claimant becomes entitled consequent to his regularization and up-gradation in the regular pay scales.

3. The claim of the Workman has been resisted by the Management who filed its written statement wherein it has been alleged that the claimant was one of those casual daily wage workers whose services were engaged by the erstwhile University of the Management in April, 1988 as unskilled casual daily wage worker. Consequent upon agitation of such casual daily wage workers in 1993, a broad Memorandum of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20./2/1996 was reduced into writing in the presence of Civil Administration inter-alia on the terms that the such daily wage workers would be considered for appointment against vacant posts according to their qualifications and on the basis of their seniority & performance/merit as per recruitment rules, regulations and guidelines. Advertisement from time to time including those dated 24/10/94, 21/11/94, 26/7/95, 13/6/95, 27/8/96 and 27/3/97 for regular vacancies were issued and applications were called from Y-Pool workers and accordingly 211 persons out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool were recruited/selected against the regular posts on the basis of their merit/qualifications and experience. There was no automatic right for absorption or fresh appointment with respect to all the daily wage or contract workers. The claimant had applied for the post of Library Assistant against advertisement dated 20/9/1999; for the post of Peon against posts advertised on 22/3/97 and against the post of Worker Grade-C in Mechanical & Indl.Engg. Department against advertisement dated 27/8/1996.. He was called for interview but was not selected/short listed due to inadequate experience in the relevant field. Though efforts on the part of Government to reduce the workers' strength was going on but the Management with the sole intention to accommodation Y-Pool workers placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the rest of these Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. It is alleged that the Management is providing all the facilities viz. EPF, Pension, Gratuity, accommodation, revision of fixed wages, hospital facilities to the Y pool workers including the claimant. It is also alleged that the claimant was/is otherwise illegible for selection as a regular employee of the Management (IIT Roorkee).. The engagement of the claimant was purely on casual, intermittent and temporary basis and in exigencies of work which was extended from time to time, the claim of the claimant for regularization of his services is ill founded and unjustified . Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Vide order dated 10/9/2013 my learned Predecessor observed that no specific issue except those referred by the Government for adjudication arises from the pleadings of the parties and as such parties were called upon to adduce their evidence.

5. The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as WW1 who tendered his affidavits Ex.WW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/3. In cross examination he deposed that he is 8th standard pass. He admitted that he was engaged as Helper on daily wage basis without any advertisement. He clarified that an incumbent for the post of helper should be 8th class pass. He also admitted about formulation of Y pool list by the Management; conducting of test/interviews for the posts exclusively for the 361 Nos. of workers in the Y pool list and that the Management had recruited/regularized 211 such workers in the Y pool List. He also admitted that for different posts, minimum qualifications have been prescribed. He showed his ignorance that the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh imposed a ban on recruitment of non teaching staff vide orders dated 3/11/97 and 9/12/97. He also admitted that all eligible claimants/workmen whose names were there in the Y Pool list were given an opportunity to participate in the selection process for their absorption.

6. On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri Surendra Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) as MW1 who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/20. In cross examination he stated that category D posts have been abolished since 2006 and workmen/officials working in category-D are now termed as Multi Tasking Staff who are getting initial scale. While producing the regulations regarding the creation and pay-scale of different posts as Ex.MW1/W-5, he admitted that the posts created by Syndicate (Executive Body of Roorkee University) are in the pay scale approved by the State Government applicable at that time. He admitted that Management had created a single Y pool List but could not say whether at that time illiterate persons were regularized from the list of Y pool. He also admitted that Shri Bal Chand (mentioned at Sl.N.21) of list Ex.MW1/4 also being an illiterate was appointed as Safai Karamchari. Similarly incumbent at Sl.No.57, No.31 (Mahipal) and at Sl.No.80 (Tara Chand) in the said List all illiterate have been appointed as Safai Karamchari/Helper. He also admitted that the claimant/workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and is doing job regularly.

7. I have heard Shri Amit Sharma, A/R for the workman and Shri Sanjay Rawat, A/R for the Management and have also gone through the records carefully and my findings are as follows.

8. From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is manifest that the claimant/workman having been engaged as daily wager/ casual worker by the erstwhile University of Roorkee, has been under the employment of the Management since the year 1987 and he has been discharging duties of Pump Operator. As such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer-employee between the Management and claimant. In this regard, reference[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 687 can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Courtt 2532, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of "workman" has observed as under :-

"The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of

service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a

person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not

make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There

is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on

regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary,

part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a

workman."

It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a person would be covered by the definition of "workman" as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act.

9. As discussed above, in the case in hand engagement of the claimant as daily wager for doing intermittent nature of work is duly admitted by the Management as per its pleadings and evidence adduced on record. The workman/claimant having been working continuously since the year 1987 on contractual engagement/daily wage basis under Y-1 category is paid fixed monthly emoluments in respect of his services, that is to say that he is being paid minimum in the scale without any increment or promotion etc. for want of regularization.

10. During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the Management relied on a number of judgements to contend that there is no fundamental right of those workers who have been employed as daily wager or temporarily or on contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. Even such workers even serving for a long number of years will not become entitled to claim regularization if he is not working against a sanctioned post.

11. There is no dispute about preposition of law on the point. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 held as under :-

"… We are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice, the Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of year. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would be impressible. In the abovesaid circumstances, giving of direction to regularise a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager et., may amount to backdoor entry into the service which is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution. Further such a direction would not be given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court are at part with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise non regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality of upholding Article 14 rather than violating this constitutional provision."

From the above ruling, it is clear that ordinarily the Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator should not issue direction for regularization of the workman engaged/working on casual/daily wage basis irrespective of his length of service unless there is a Scheme/policy of the Management & similarly situated workmen have been regularized by the employer/Management under the said policy/Scheme and benefit of such scheme/policy has been declined to the other.

12. It is not in dispute that pursuant to agitation of casual daily wage workers engaged in the erstwhile University of Roorkee in the year 1993, Memorandums of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20./2/1996 were reduced into writing and subsequently, the Management had prepared a Y list of such workers for the purposes of their regularization against the vacant posts. As per written statement of the Management, 211 workers out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool list have already been appointed/regularized and are being given regular pay scale. Management had intended to accommodate and give benefit of regularization to remaining Y-Pool workers & had placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the remaining/left over Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. This impliedly shows that a scheme/policy was formulated by the Management for regularizing the services of the workmen engaged on daily wage/casual basis. Documents/notifications dated 27/8/1996 (Ex.MW1/5 colly.) issued by University of Roorki shows that for the post of Peon /Workshop attendant in the pay-scale of Rs.750-940/-, eligibility criteria of education/experience was that the incumbent should be 8th class pass, The claimant is 8th class pass, It shows that the workman/claimant who was engaged in the year 1988 is working as Helper/Chowkidar since then. It is also evident from the testimony of MW1 Surender Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) that the Management has appointed/regularized the services of various other workers who were similarly placed with the claimant as regards literacy, were named in the Y Pool list (Ex.MW1/4). Shri Bal Chand, Maali (mentioned at Sl.N.21), Mahipal. Survey Tindal (at Sl.No.31), Shri Brijesh, Safai Karamchari (at Sl.No.56) and Tara Chand, Helper (at Sl.No.80) who are illiterate but have been placed in the regular pay-scale. Perusal of the said list also shows that there are other workmen who are illiterate but have been regularized as group-D for the post of Helper, Sweeper, Mali etc and reference may be made to the workmen shown at Sl.No.44,48, 67, 82, 85688 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] to 89, 108, 114, 117, 139, 190, 201 of the said list. They have been regularized & are being paid wages in the regular pay-scale. On the contrary, the claimant/workman is being paid wages at a fixed consolidated rate at the minimum of the scale and that is to say that the workman/claimant is being paid lesser pay than those who are similarly placed and are doing the same/equal work.

13. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, 2017Lab.L.C. 427 while upholding the principle of "equal pay for equal work" even for temporary employees observed as under :-

"The principle of "equal pay for equal work" can be extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charged, daily wage, casual, adhoc, contractual and the like). It is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, can not be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.''

14. Having regard to the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that action of the Management in not regularizing the workman/claimant despite rendering service for more than 30 years continuously is unjustified and unwarranted. The workman /claimant is entitled to be regularized to the post of Helper (chowkidar).

15. Now the question arises for consideration is as to from which date the workman/claimant is entitled to be given benefit of regularization. Neither in the statement of claim, the workman/claimant has pleaded that he had made any written representation or demand/legal letter to the Management for consideration of his demand of regularization, nor he has filed any such document on record. It is pertinent to mention here that on the controversy between the parties, the reference to this Tribunal was made by the Appropriate Government vide letter dated 7/1/2013. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the workman/claimant is entitled to get benefit of regularization to the post of Helper/Chowkidar in the regular pay-scale existing to the said post, w.e.f. 7/1/2013 with all consequential benefits viz. annual increment and other prevalent benefits/facilities like HRA, transport, medical facility etc.

Relief :-

In view of my aforesaid findings, the Management is directed to regularize the workman/claimant to the post of Helper/Chowkidar w.e.f. 7/1/2013 in the regular pay-scale, with all consequential benefits and arrears of the same be also paid to him. The Award is passed accordingly.

Date : 7.1.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 193193193193....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार

मैसर्स रजिस्ट्रार, आईआईटी 0ड़की और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के

बीच अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय 1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 19/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 15.1.2019 को प्राप्त %ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/120/2012- आईआर (डीयू)]

राजें( जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2019

S.O. 193.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 19/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Registrar, IIT Roorkee and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.1.2019.

[No. L-42011/120/2012-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 689

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No.1. : NEW DELHI

ID No. 19/2013

Shri Puran Chand, (The General Secretary), IIT Roorkee Karamchari Union, IIT Roorkee

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

The Registrar, IIT Roorkee Roorkee

…Management/ Respondent

AWARD

This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government vide its letter No. L-42011/120/2012/IR(DU) dated 7/1/2013 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:-

'Whether action of management of IIT Roorkee in not regularizing the workman Shri Puran Chand s/o. Shri Mal Chand, Mate despite rendering for more than 24 years is justified ? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled to ? '

2. Both parties were put to notice and workman Sita Ram Semwal filed his statement of claim, with the averments that he was inducted into the service of erstwhile University of Roorkee (later on converted into IIT Roorkee) as Helper (Mate) on muster roll basis we.f. February, 1988 and continues to work in the same capacity since then. He requested the Management for his regularization many a times but to no avail. It is pleaded that the Management IIT Roorkee chalked out a plan under the Scheme of Y-Pool workers for the consistent absorption/regularization of such workmen/employees whose names were included in the Y-Pool for which the applicant was not taken into confidence. Though some of the workmen who were not included in the Y-Pool list have been absorbed but the claimant has been deprived of his legitimate right of being placed on regular pay scale. The claimant approached the Management several times for grant of such benefits but to no avail. He has prayed that order be passed (a) for upgradation of the claimant as per career development policy for the category to which he belongs with effect from the date he becomes entitled to his promotion; (b) for payment of arrears arising out of his regularization in the different regular pay scales and (c) for extension of all amenities & facilities such as residential accommodation allowance, medical, transport etc. for which the claimant becomes entitled consequent to his regularization and up-gradation in the regular pay scales.

3. The claim of the Workman has been resisted by the Management who filed its written statement wherein it has been alleged that the claimant was one of those casual daily wage workers whose services were engaged by the erstwhile University of the Management in March, 1988 as unskilled casual daily wage worker. Consequent upon agitation of such casual daily wage workers in 1993, a broad Memorandum of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20./2/1996 was reduced into writing in the presence of Civil Administration inter-alia on the terms that the such daily wage workers would be considered for appointment against vacant posts according to their qualifications and on the basis of their seniority & performance/merit as per recruitment rules, regulations and guidelines. Advertisement from time to time including those dated 24/10/94, 21/11/94, 26/7/95, 13/6/95, 27/8/96 and 27/3/97 for regular vacancies were issued and applications were called from Y-Pool workers and accordingly 211 persons out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool were recruited/selected against the regular posts on the basis of their merit/qualifications and experience. There was no automatic right for absorption or fresh appointment with respect to all the daily wage or contract workers. Though efforts on the part of Government to reduce the workers' strength was going on but the Management with the sole intention to accommodation Y-Pool workers placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the rest of these Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. It is alleged that the Management is providing all the facilities viz. EPF, Pension, Gratuity, accommodation, revision of fixed wages, hospital facilities to the Y pool workers including the claimant. It is also alleged that the claimant was/is otherwise illegible for selection as a regular employee of the Management (IIT Roorkee).. The engagement of the claimant was purely on casual, intermittent and temporary basis and in exigencies of work which was extended from time to time, the claim of the claimant for regularization of his services is ill founded and unjustified . Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Vide order dated 12/8/2013 my learned Predecessor observed that no specific issue except those referred by the Government for adjudication arises from the pleadings of the parties and as such parties were called upon to adduce their evidence.

5. The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as WW1 who tendered his affidavits Ex.WW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/3. In cross examination he deposed that he is 8th standard pass. He admitted that he was engaged as Mate on daily wage basis without any advertisement. He clarified that an incumbent for the post of Mate should be 8th class pass. He also admitted about formulation of Y pool list by the Management; conducting of test/interviews for the posts exclusively for the 361 Nos. of workers in the Y pool list and that the690 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Management had recruited/regularized 211 such workers in the Y pool List. He also admitted that for different posts, minimum qualifications have been prescribed and that against the advertised post, he had also applied for the post of Maali and he was interviewed. He showed his ignorance that the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh imposed a ban on recruitment of non teaching staff vide orders dated 3/11/97 and 9/12/97. He admitted having applied for the post of clerk as well as Library Attendant against the advertisement issued by the Management but was not short listed/selected. He also admitted that all eligible claimants/workmen whose names were there in the Y Pool list were given an opportunity to participate in the selection process for their absorption.

6. On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri Surendra Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) as MW1 who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/20. In cross examination he stated that category D posts have been abolished since 2006 and workmen/officials working in category-D are now termed as Multi Tasking Staff who are getting initial scale. While producing the regulations regarding the creation and pay-scale of different posts as Ex.MW1/W-5, he admitted that the posts created by Syndicate (Executive Body of Roorkee University) are in the pay scale approved by the State Government applicable at that time. He admitted that Management had created a single Y pool List but could not say whether at that time illiterate persons were regularized from the list of Y pool. He also admitted that Shri Bal Chand (mentioned at Sl.N.21) of list Ex.MW1/4 also being an illiterate was appointed as Safai Karamchari. Similarly incumbent at Sl.No.57, No.31 (Mahipal) and at Sl.No.80 (Tara Chand) in the said List all illiterate have been appointed as Safai Karamchari/Helper. He also admitted that the claimant/workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and is doing job regularly.

7. I have heard Shri Amit Sharma, A/R for the workman and Shri Sanjay Rawat, A/R for the Management and have also gone through the records carefully and my findings are as follows.

8. From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is manifest that the claimant/workman having been engaged as daily wager/ casual worker by the erstwhile University of Roorkee, has been under the employment of the Management since the year 1987 and he has been discharging duties of Pump Operator. As such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer-employee between the Management and claimant. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Courtt 2532, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of "workman" has observed as under :-

"The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of

service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a

person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not

make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There

is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on

regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary,

part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a

workman."

It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a person would be covered by the definition of "workman" as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act.

9. As discussed above, in the case in hand engagement of the claimant as daily wager for doing intermittent nature of work is duly admitted by the Management as per its pleadings and evidence adduced on record. The workman/claimant having been working continuously since the year 1987 on contractual engagement/daily wage basis under Y-1 category is paid fixed monthly emoluments in respect of his services, that is to say that he is being paid minimum in the scale without any increment or promotion etc. for want of regularization.

10. During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the Management relied on a number of judgements to contend that there is no fundamental right of those workers who have been employed as daily wager or temporarily or on contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. Even such workers even serving for a long number of years will not become entitled to claim regularization if he is not working against a sanctioned post.

11. There is no dispute about preposition of law on the point. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Food Corporation of India 2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 held as under :-

"… We are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice, the Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of year. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would be impressible. In the abovesaid circumstances, giving of direction to regularise a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager et., may amount to backdoor entry into the service which is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution. Further such a direction would not be given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court are at part with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise non regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality of upholding Article 14 rather than violating this constitutional provision."[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 691 From the above ruling, it is clear that ordinarily the Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator should not issue direction for regularization of the workman engaged/working on casual/daily wage basis irrespective of his length of service unless there is a Scheme/policy of the Management & similarly situated workmen have been regularized by the employer/Management under the said policy/Scheme and benefit of such scheme/policy has been declined to the other.

12. It is not in dispute that pursuant to agitation of casual daily wage workers engaged in the erstwhile University of Roorkee in the year 1993, Memorandums of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20./2/1996 were reduced into writing and subsequently, the Management had prepared a Y list of such workers for the purposes of their regularization against the vacant posts. As per written statement of the Management, 211 workers out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool list have already been appointed/regularized and are being given regular pay scale. Management had intended to accommodate and give benefit of regularization to remaining Y-Pool workers & had placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the remaining/left over Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. This impliedly shows that a scheme/policy was formulated by the Management for regularizing the services of the workmen engaged on daily wage/casual basis. Documents/notifications dated 27/8/1996 (Ex.MW1/5 colly.) issued by University of Roorki shows that for the post of Peon /Helper in the pay-scale of Rs.750-940/-, eligibility criteria of education/experience was that the incumbent should be 8th class pass, The claimant is 8th class pass, It shows that the workman/claimant who was engaged in the year 1988 is working as Helper/Mate since then. It is also evident from the testimony of MW1 Surender Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) that the Management has appointed/regularized the services of various other workers who were similarly placed with the claimant as regards literacy, were named in the Y Pool list (Ex.MW1/4). Shri Bal Chand, Maali (mentioned at Sl.N.21), Mahipal. Survey Tindal (at Sl.No.31), Shri Brijesh, Safai Karamchari (at Sl.No.56) and Tara Chand, Helper (at Sl.No.80) who are illiterate but have been placed in the regular pay-scale. Perusal of the said list also shows that there are other workmen who are illiterate but have been regularized as group-D for the post of Helper, Sweeper, Mali etc and reference may be made to the workmen shown at Sl.No.44,48, 67, 82, 85 to 89, 108, 114, 117, 139, 190, 201 of the said list. They have been regularized & are being paid wages in the regular pay-scale. On the contrary, the claimant/workman is being paid wages at a fixed consolidated rate at the minimum of the scale and that is to say that the workman/claimant is being paid lesser pay than those who are similarly placed and are doing the same/equal work.

13. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, 2017Lab.L.C. 427 while upholding the principle of "equal pay for equal work" even for temporary employees observed as under :-

"The principle of "equal pay for equal work" can be extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charged, daily wage, casual, adhoc, contractual and the like). It is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, can not be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation. ''

14. Having regard to the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that action of the Management in not regularizing the workman Shri Ravinder Kumar Yadav despite rendering service for more than 30 years continuously is unjustified and unwarranted. The workman /claimant is entitled to be regularized to the post of Pump Operator.

14) Now the question arises for consideration is as to from which date the workman/claimant is entitled to be given benefit of regularization. Neither in the statement of claim, the workman/claimant has pleaded that he had made any written representation or demand/legal letter to the Management for consideration of his demand of regularization, nor he has filed any such document on record. It is pertinent to mention here that on the controversy between the parties, the reference to this Tribunal was made by the Appropriate Government vide letter dated 7/1/2013. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the workman/claimant is entitled to get benefit of regularization to the post of Helper/Mate in the regular pay-scale existing to the said post, w.e.f. 7/1/2013 with all consequential benefits viz.annual increment and other prevalent benefits/facilities like HRA, transport, medical facility etc.

Relief :-

In view of my aforesaid findings, the Management is directed to regularize the workman/claimant to the post of Helper/Mate w.e.f. 7/1/2013 in the regular pay-scale of Telephone Operator, with all consequential benefits and arrears of the same be also paid to him. The Award is passed accordingly.

Date : 7. 1.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer692 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 194194194194....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार

मैसर्स रजिस्ट्रार, आईआईटी 0ड़की और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के

बीच अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय 1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 17/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 15.1.2019 को प्राप्त %ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/118/2012-आईआर (डीयू)]

राजें( जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2019

S.O. 194.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 17/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Registrar, IIT Roorkee, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.1.2019.

[No. L-42011/118/2012-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 1. : NEW DELHI

ID No. 17/2013

Shri Ram Prakat, (The General Secretary), IIT Roorkee Karamchari Union, IIT Roorkee

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

The Registrar, IIT Roorkee IIT Roorkee

…Management/ Respondent

AWARD

This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government vide its letter No.L-42011/118/2012/IR(DU) dated 7.1.2013 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:-

'Whether action of management of IIT Roorkee in not regularizing the workman Shri Ram Prakat S/o. Shri Punnoo, Mali despite rendering service for more than 29 years continuously is justified ? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled to ? '

2. Both parties were put to notice and workman Ram Prakat filed his statement of claim, with the averments that he was inducted into the service of erstwhile University of Roorkee (later on converted into IIT Roorkee) as Helper (Maali) on muster roll basis w.e.f. June, 1983 and continues to work in the same capacity since then. He requested the Management for his regularization many a times but to no avail. It is pleaded that the Management IIT Roorkee chalked out a plan under the Scheme of Y-Pool workers for the consistent absorption/regularization of such workmen/employees whose names were included in the Y-Pool for which the applicant was not taken into confidence. Though some of the workmen who were not included in the Y-Pool list have been absorbed but the claimant has been deprived of his legitimate right of being placed on regular pay scale. The claimant approached the Management several times for grant of such benefits but to no avail. He has prayed that order be passed (a) for upgradation of the claimant as per career development policy for the category to which he belongs with effect from the date he becomes entitled to his promotion; (b) for payment of arrears arising out of his regularization in the different regular pay scales and (c) for extension of all amenities & facilities such as residential accommodation allowance, medical, transport etc. for which the claimant becomes entitled consequent to his regularization and up-gradation in the regular pay scales.

3. The claim of the Workman has been resisted by the Management who filed its written statement wherein it has been alleged that the claimant was one of those casual daily wage workers whose services were engaged by the erstwhile University of the Management as unskilled daily wager I June, 1983. Consequent upon agitation of such casual daily wage workers in the year 1993, a broad Memorandum of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20./2/1996 was reduced into writing in the presence of Civil Administration inter-alia on the terms that the such daily wage workers would be considered for appointment against vacant posts according to their qualifications and on the basis of their seniority & performance/merit as per recruitment rules, regulations and guidelines. Advertisement from time to time including those dated 24/10/94, 21/11/94, 26/7/95, 13/6/95, 27/8/96 and 27/3/97 for regular vacancies were issued and applications were called from Y-Pool workers and accordingly 211 persons out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool were recruited/selected against the regular posts on the basis of their merit/qualifications and experience. There was no automatic right for absorption or fresh appointment with respect to all the daily wage or contract workers. Though efforts on the part of Government to reduce the workers' strength was going on but the Management with the sole intention to accommodation Y-Pool workers placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the rest of these Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. It is alleged that the Management is providing all the facilities viz. EPF, Pension, Gratuity, accommdation, revision of fixed wages, hospital facilities to the Y pool workers including the claimant. It is also alleged that the claimant (who is an illiterate) does not possess the minimum essential qualifications of 10th standard pass for selection even against an entry level Group D post (post of Maali) in the regular employment of the Management. The claimant had applied for internal advertised post of Maali and was called for interview held on 5/9/97 but he could not get a place in the merit list. The engagement of the claimant was purely on casual, intermittent and temporary basis and in exigencies of work which was extended from time to time, the claim of the claimant for regularization of his services is ill founded and unjustified . Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Vide order dated 12/8/2013 my learned Predecessor observed that no specific issue except those referred by the Government for adjudication arises from the pleadings of the parties and as such parties were called upon to adduce their evidence.

5. The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as WW1 who tendered his affidavits Ex.WW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/2. In cross examination he admitted that he is illiterate and was engaged as Maali without any advertisement. He also admitted about formulation of Y pool list by the Management; conducting of test/interviews for the posts exclusively for the 261 Nos. of workers in the Y pool list and that the Management had recruited/regularized 211 such workers in the Y pool List. He also admitted that for different posts, minimum qualifications have been prescribed and that against the advertised post, he had also applied for the post of Maali and he was interviewed. He showed his ignorance that the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh imposed a ban on recruitment of non teaching staff vide orders dated 3/11/97 and 9/12/97. He also admitted that all eligible claimants/workmen whose names were there in the Y Pool list were given an opportunity to participate in the selection process for their absorption.

6. On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri Surendra Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) as MW1 who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/20. In cross examination he stated that category D posts have been abolished since 2006 and workmen/officials working in category-D are now termed as Multi Tasking Staff who are getting initial scale. While producing the regulations regarding the creation and pay-scale of different posts as Ex.MW1/W-5, he admitted that the posts created by Syndicate (Executive Body of Roorkee University) are in the pay scale approved by the State Government applicable at that time. He admitted that Management had created a single Y pool List but could not say whether at that time illiterate persons were regularized as Maali from the list of Y pol. He also admitted that Shri Bal Chand (mentioned at Sl.N.21) of list Ex.MW1/4 also being an illiterate was appointed as Safai Karamchari. Similarly incumbent at Sl.No.57, No.31 (Mahipal) and at Sl.No.80 (Tara Chand) in the said List all illiterate have been appointed as Safai Karamchari/Helper. He also admitted that the claimant/workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and is doing job regularly.

7. I have heard Shri Amit Sharma, A/R for the workman and Shri Sanjay Rawat, A/R for the Management and have also gone through the records carefully and my findings are as follows.

8. From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is manifest that the claimant/workman having been engaged as Maali on daily wage/ casual basis by the erstwhile University of Roorkee, has been under the employment of the Management since the year 1983 and he has been discharging duties as assigned to him. As such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer-employee between the Management and claimant. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Courtt 2532, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of "workman" has observed as under :-

"The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of

service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a

person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not

make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There

is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on

regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary,

part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a

workman."

It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a person would be covered by the definition of "workman" as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act.

9. As discussed above, in the case in hand engagement of the claimants as part time for doing intermittent nature of work and/or for cleaning the bank premises is duly admitted by the Management as per its pleadings and evidence adduced on record. Office Memo Ex.MW1/W-2 shows that the workman/claimant Ram Prakat still working on contractual engagement under Y-1 category is paid fixed monthly emoluments in respect of his services, that is to say that he is being paid minimum in the scale without any increment or promotion etc. for want of regularization.

10. During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the Management relied on a number of judgements to contend that there is no fundamental right of those workers who have been employed as daily wager or temporarily or on contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. Even such workers even serving for a long number of years will not become entitle to claim regularization if he is not working against a sanctioned post.

11. There is no dispute about preposition of law on the point. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 held as under :-

"… We are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice, the Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of year. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would be impressible. In the abovesaid circumstances, giving of direction to regularise a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager et., may amount to backdoor entry into the service which is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution. Further such a direction would not be given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court are at part with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise non regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality of upholding Article 14 rather than violating this constitutional provision."

12. It is not in dispute that after agitation of casual daily wage workers engaged in the erstwhile University of Roorkee in the year 1993, Memorandums of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20./2/1996 were reduced into writing and subsequently, the Management had prepared a Y list of such workers for the purposes of their regularization against the vacant posts. As per written statement of the Management, 211 workers out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool list have already been appointed/regularized and are being given regular pay scale. Management had intended to accommodate and give benefit of regularization to remaining Y-Pool workers had placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the remaining/left over Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. This impliedly shows that a scheme/policy was formulated by the Management for regularizing the services of the workmen engaged on daily wage/casual basis.

Document/notification dated 27/3/1997 (Ex.MW1/5) issued by University of Roorki shows that for the post of Maali in the pay-scale of Rs.750-940/- eligibility criteria of education/experience was that the incumbent should be literate (having knowledge of reading & writing) with two years experience of the work of Mali. It shows that the workman/claimant who was engaged in the year 1983 was eligible to be considered for the said post of Mali and at that time it was not required that the incumbent should be 10th class pass, as has been pleaded by the Management. It is also evident from the testimony of MW1 Surender Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) that the Management has appointed/regularized the services of various other workers who were similarly placed with the claimant on the issue of literacy, were named in the Y Pool list (Ex.MW1/4). Shri Bal Chand (mentioned at Sl.N.21), Mahipal (at Sl.No.31 and Tara Chand (at Sl.No.80) are few of them and they have been placed in the regular pay-scale. Perusal of the said list also shows that there are other workmen who are illiterate but have been regularized as group-D for the post of Helper, Sweeper, Mali etc and reference may be made to the workmen shown at Sl.No.44,48, 67, 82, 85 to 89, 108, 114, 117, 139, 190, 201 of the said list. They have been regularized & are being paid wages in the regular pay-scale. On the contrary, the claimant/workman who is 5th standard pass is being paid wages at a fixed consolidated rate at the minimum of the scale and that is to say that the workman/claimant is being paid lesser pay than those who are similarly placed and are doing the same/equal work.

13. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, 2017Lab.L.C. 427 while upholding the principle of "equal pay for equal work" even for temporary employees observed as under :-

"The principle of "equal pay for equal work" can be extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charged, daily wage, casual, adhoc, contractual and the like). It is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, can not be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation. ''

14. Having regard to the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that action of the Management in not regularizing the workman Shri Ram Prakat s/o. Shri Punnoo, Mali despite rendering service for more than 35 years continuously is unjustified and unwarranted. The workman /claimant is entitled to be regularized to the post of Mali.

15. Now the question arises for consideration is as to from which date the workman/claimant is entitled to be given benefit of regularization. Neither in the statement of claim, the workman/claimant has pleaded that he had made any written representation or demand/legal letter to the Management for consideration of his demand of regularization, nor he has filed any such document on record. It is pertinent to mention here that on the controversy between the parties, the reference to this Tribunal was made by the Appropriate Government vide letter dated 7/1/2013. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the workman/claimant is entitled to get benefit of regularization to the post of Mali in the regular pay-scale existing to the said post from 7th January, 2013 with all consequential benefits viz.annual increment and other prevalent benefits/facilities like HRA, transport, medical facility etc.

Relief :-

In view of my aforesaid findings, the Management is directed to regularize the workman/claimant to the post of Mali w.e.f. 7/1/2013 in the regular pay-scale of MTS/Group-D Employee, with all consequential benefits and arrears of the same be also paid to him. The Award is passed accordingly.

Date : 07.01.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 195195195195....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार

मैसर्स रजिस्ट्रार, आईआईटी 0ड़की और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के

बीच अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय 1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 20/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 15/01/2019 को प्राप्त %ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/121/2012- आईआर (डीयू)]

राजें( जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2019

S.O. 195.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 20/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Registrar, IIT Roorkee, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.01.2019.

[No. L-42011/121/2012-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director696 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No.1. : NEW DELHI

ID No. 20/2013

Shri Ravindra Kumar Yadav, (The General Secretary), IIT Roorkee Karamchari Union, IIT Roorkee

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

The Registrar, IIT Roorkee Roorkee

…Management/ Respondent

AWARD

This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government vide its letter No.L-42011/121/2012/IR(DU) dated 7/1/2013 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:-

'Whether action of management of IIT Roorkee in not regularizing the workman Shri Ravindra Kumar Yadav s/o. Shri Sheetal Prasad Yadav, Pump Operator despite rendering for more than 29 years is justified ? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled to ?'

2. Both parties were put to notice and workman Ravinder Kumar Yadav filed his statement of claim, with the averments that he was inducted into the service of erstwhile University of Roorkee (later on converted into IIT Roorkee) as Pump Operator on muster roll basis we.f. August, 1987 and continues to work in the same capacity since then. He requested the Management for his regularization many a times but to no avail. It is pleaded that the Management IIT Roorkee chalked out a plan under the Scheme of Y-Pool workers for the consistent absorption/regularization of such workmen/employees whose names were included in the Y-Pool for which the applicant was not taken into confidence. Though some of the workmen who were not included in the Y-Pool list have been absorbed but the claimant has been deprived of his legitimate right of being placed on regular pay scale. The claimant approached the Management several times for grant of such benefits but to no avail. He has prayed that order be passed (a) for upgradation of the claimant as per career development policy for the category to which he belongs with effect from the date he becomes entitled to his promotion; (b) for payment of arrears arising out of his regularization in the different regular pay scales and (c) for extension of all amenities & facilities such as residential accommodation allowance, medical, transport etc. for which the claimant becomes entitled consequent to his regularization and up-gradation in the regular pay scales.

3. The claim of the Workman has been resisted by the Management who filed its written statement wherein it has been alleged that the claimant was one of those casual daily wage workers whose services were engaged by the erstwhile University of the Management in August, 1987 as unskilled casual daily wage worker. Consequent upon agitation of such casual daily wage workers in 1993, a broad Memorandum of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20./2/1996 was reduced into writing in the presence of Civil Administration inter-alia on the terms that the such daily wage workers would be considered for appointment against vacant posts according to their qualifications and on the basis of their seniority & performance/merit as per recruitment rules, regulations and guidelines. Advertisement from time to time including those dated 24/10/94, 21/11/94, 26/7/95, 13/6/95, 27/8/96 and 27/3/97 for regular vacancies were issued and applications were called from Y-Pool workers and accordingly 211 persons out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool were recruited/selected against the regular posts on the basis of their merit/qualifications and experience. There was no automatic right for absorption or fresh appointment with respect to all the daily wage or contract workers. The claimant had applied for the post of Library Assistant against advertisement dated 20/9/1999; for the post of Peon against posts advertised on 22/3/97 and against the post of Worker Grade-C in Mechanical & Indl.Engg. Department against advertisement dated 27/8/1996.. He was called for interview but was not selected/short listed due to inadequate experience in the relevant field. Though efforts on the part of Government to reduce the workers' strength was going on but the Management with the sole intention to accommodation Y-Pool workers placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the rest of these Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. It is alleged that the Management is providing all the facilities viz. EPF, Pension, Gratuity, accommodation, revision of fixed wages, hospital facilities to the Y pool workers including the claimant. It is also alleged that the claimant was/is otherwise illegible for selection as a regular employee of the Management (IIT Roorkee).. The engagement of the claimant was purely on casual, intermittent and temporary basis and in exigencies of work which was extended from time to time, the claim of the claimant for regularization of his services is ill founded and unjustified . Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Vide order dated 12/8/2013 my learned Predecessor observed that no specific issue except those referred by the Government for adjudication arises from the pleadings of the parties and as such parties were called upon to adduce their evidence.

5. The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as WW1 who tendered his affidavits Ex.WW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/2. In cross examination he deposed that he is 8th standard pass and had annexed a certificate to this effect alongwith his application submitted for engagement with the Management. He admitted that he was engaged as telephone operator without any advertisement. He clarified that an incumbent for the post of telephone Operator should be literate. He also admitted about formulation of Y pool list by the Management; conducting of test/interviews for the posts exclusively for the 361 Nos. of workers in the Y pool list and that the Management had recruited/regularized 211 such workers in the Y pool List. He also admitted that for different posts, minimum qualifications have been prescribed and that against the advertised post, he had also applied for the post of Library Assistant and he was interviewed. He showed his ignorance that the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh imposed a ban on recruitment of non teaching staff vide orders dated 3/11/97 and 9/12/97. He admitted having applied for the post of clerk as well as Library Attendant against the advertisement issued by the Management but was not short listed/selected. He also admitted that all eligible claimants/workmen whose names were there in the Y Pool list were given an opportunity to participate in the selection process for their absorption.

6. On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri Surendra Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) as MW1 who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/20. In cross examination he stated that category D posts have been abolished since 2006 and workmen/officials working in category-D are now termed as Multi Tasking Staff who are getting initial scale. While producing the regulations regarding the creation and pay-scale of different posts as Ex.MW1/W-5, he admitted that the posts created by Syndicate (Executive Body of Roorkee University) are in the pay scale approved by the State Government applicable at that time. He admitted that Management had created a single Y pool List but could not say whether at that time illiterate persons were regularized from the list of Y pool. He also admitted that Shri Bal Chand (mentioned at Sl.N.21) of list Ex.MW1/4 also being an illiterate was appointed as Safai Karamchari. Similarly incumbent at Sl.No.57, No.31 (Mahipal) and at Sl.No.80 (Tara Chand) in the said List all illiterate have been appointed as Safai Karamchari/Helper. He also admitted that the claimant/workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and is doing job regularly.

7. I have heard Shri Amit Sharma, A/R for the workman and Shri Sanjay Rawat, A/R for the Management and have also gone through the records carefully and my findings are as follows.

8. From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is manifest that the claimant/workman having been engaged as daily wager/ casual worker by the erstwhile University of Roorkee, has been under the employment of the Management since the year 1987 and he has been discharging duties of Pump Operator. As such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer-employee between the Management and claimant. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Courtt 2532, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of "workman" has observed as under :-

"The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of

service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a

person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not

make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There

is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on

regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary,

part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a

workman."

It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a person would be covered by the definition of "workman" as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act.

9. As discussed above, in the case in hand engagement of the claimant as daily wager for doing intermittent nature of work is duly admitted by the Management as per its pleadings and evidence adduced on record. The workman/claimant having been working continuously since the year 1987 on contractual engagement/daily wage basis under Y-1 category is paid fixed monthly emoluments in respect of his services, that is to say that he is being paid minimum in the scale without any increment or promotion etc. for want of regularization.

10. During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the Management relied on a number of judgements to contend that there is no fundamental right of those workers who have been employed as daily wager or temporarily or on contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. Even such workers even serving for a long number of years will not become entitled to claim regularization if he is not working against a sanctioned post.

11. There is no dispute about preposition of law on the point. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 held as under :-

"… We are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice, the Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of year. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would be impressible. In the abovesaid circumstances, giving of direction to regularise a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager et., may amount to backdoor entry into the service which is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution. Further such a direction would not be given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the698 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the

employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached

Industrial/Labour Court are at part with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally

justified, otherwise non regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious

discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the

Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality of upholding Article 14 rather than violating this

constitutional provision."

From the above ruling, it is clear that ordinarily the Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator should not issue direction for regularization of the workman engaged/working on casual/daily wage basis irrespective of his length of service unless there is a Scheme/policy of the Management & similarly situated workmen have been regularized by the employer/Management under the said policy/Scheme and benefit of such scheme/policy has been declined to the other.

12. It is not in dispute that pursuant to agitation of casual daily wage workers engaged in the erstwhile University of Roorkee in the year 1993, Memorandums of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20./2/1996 were reduced into writing and subsequently, the Management had prepared a Y list of such workers for the purposes of their regularization against the vacant posts. As per written statement of the Management, 211 workers out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool list have already been appointed/regularized and are being given regular pay scale. Management had intended to accommodate and give benefit of regularization to remaining Y-Pool workers & had placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the remaining/left over Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. This impliedly shows that a scheme/policy was formulated by the Management for regularizing the services of the workmen engaged on daily wage/casual basis. Documents/notifications dated 27/8/1996 (Ex.MW1/5 colly.) issued by University of Roorki shows that for the post of Worker Grade-C in the pay-scale of Rs.775-1025/- as well as Workshop attendant in the pay-scale of Rs.750-940/-, eligibility criteria of education/experience was that the incumbent should be 8th class pass & having 1 years experience in the said field/line. The claimant is 8th class pass, It shows that the workman/claimant who was engaged in the year 1987 and is working as Pump operator since then, has got requisite experience by now. It is also evident from the testimony of MW1 Surender Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) that the Management has appointed/regularized the services of various other workers who were similarly placed with the claimant as regards literacy, were named in the Y Pool list (Ex.MW1/4). Shri Bal Chand, Maali (mentioned at Sl.N.21), Mahipal. Survey Tindal (at Sl.No.31), Shri Brijesh, Safai Karamchari (at Sl.No.56) and Tara Chand, Helper (at Sl.No.80) who are illiterate but have been placed in the regular pay-scale. Perusal of the said list also shows that one Shri Kalyan Singh (at Sl.No.25) having educational qualification of 8th class pass having been regularized/appointed is being paid wages in the regular pay-scale. On the contrary, the claimant/workman is being paid wages at a fixed consolidated rate at the minimum of the scale and that is to say that the workman/claimant is being paid lesser pay than those who is similarly placed and is doing the same/equal work. This action of the Management is discriminatory and not justified.

13. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, 2017Lab.L.C. 427 while upholding the principle of "equal pay for equal work" even for temporary employees observed as under :-

"The principle of "equal pay for equal work" can be extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charged, daily wage, casual, adhoc, contractual and the like). It is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, can not be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation. ''

14. Having regard to the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that action of the Management in not regularizing the workman Shri Ravinder Kumar Yadav despite rendering service for more than 30 years continuously is unjustified and unwarranted. The workman /claimant is entitled to be regularized to the post of Pump Operator.

15. Now the question arises for consideration is as to from which date the workman/claimant is entitled to be given benefit of regularization. Neither in the statement of claim, the workman/claimant has pleaded that he had made any written representation or demand/legal letter to the Management for consideration of his demand of regularization, nor he has filed any such document on record. It is pertinent to mention here that on the controversy between the parties, the reference to this Tribunal was made by the Appropriate Government vide letter dated 7/1/2013. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the workman/claimant is entitled to get benefit of regularization to the post of Telephone Operator in the regular pay-scale existing to the said post, w.e.f. 7/1/2013 with all consequential benefits viz.annual increment and other prevalent benefits/facilities like HRA, transport, medical facility etc.

Relief :-

In view of my aforesaid findings, the Management is directed to regularize the workman/claimant to the post of Mali w.e.f. 7/1/2013 in the regular pay-scale of Telephone Operator, with all consequential benefits and arrears of the same be also paid to him. The Award is passed accordingly.

Date : 07.01.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 196196196196....————औद्योगिक विवाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार

मैसर्स रजिस्ट्रार, आईआईटी 0ड़की और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के

बीच अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय 1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 181/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 15.01.2019 को प्राप्त %ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/90/2012-आईआर (डीयू)]

राजें( जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2019

S.O. 196.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 181/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Registrar, IIT Roorkee, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.01.2019.

[No. L-42011/90/2012-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 1. : NEW DELHI

ID No. 181/2012

Shri Chander Bhan, (The General Secretary), IIT Roorkee Karamchari Union, IIT Roorkee

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

The Registrar, IIT Roorkee IIT Roorkee

…Management/ Respondent

AWARD

This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government vide its letter No.L-42011/90/2012-IR(DU) dated 12th November, 2012 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 management of IIT Roorkee in not regularizing the services of Shri Chandrabhan s/o. Deewan, Attendant, despite rendering service for more than 30 years continuously is justified ? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled to ? '

2. Both parties were put to notice and workman Chander Bhan filed his statement of claim, with the averments that he was inducted into the service of erstwhile University of Roorkee (later on converted into IIT Roorkee) as Helper (Electrician) on muster roll basis w.e.f. April, 1982 and continues to work in the same capacity since then. He requested the Management for his regularization many a times but to no avail. It is pleaded that the Management IIT Roorkee700 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] chalked out a plan under the Scheme of Y-Pool workers for the consistent absorption/regularization of such workmen/employees whose names were included in the Y-Pool for which the applicant was not taken into confidence. Though some of the workmen who were not included in the Y-Pool list have been absorbed but the claimant has been deprived of his legitimate right of being placed on regular pay scale. The claimant approached the Management several times for grant of such benefits but to no avail. He has prayed that order be passed (a) for upgradation of the claimant as per career development policy for the category to which he belongs with effect from the date he becomes entitled to his promotion; (b) for payment of arrears arising out of his regularization in the different regular pay scales and (c) for extension of all amenities & facilities such as residential accommodation allowance, medical, transport etc. for which the claimant becomes entitled consequent to his regularization and up-gradation in the regular pay scales.

3. The claim of the Workman has been resisted by the Management who filed its written statement wherein it has been alleged that the claimant was one of those casual daily wage workers whose services were engaged by the erstwhile University of the Management as unskilled daily wager on 1/5/1982. Consequent upon agitation of such casual daily wage workers in the year 1993, a broad Memorandum of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20/2/1996 was reduced into writing in the presence of Civil Administration inter-alia on the terms that the such daily wage workers would be considered for appointment against vacant posts according to their qualifications and on the basis of their seniority & performance/merit as per recruitment rules, regulations and guidelines. Advertisement from time to time including those dated 24/10/94, 21/11/94, 26/7/95, 13/6/95, 27/8/96 and 27/3/97 for regular vacancies were issued and applications were called from Y-Pool workers and accordingly 211 persons out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool were recruited/selected against the regular posts on the basis of their merit/qualifications and experience. There was no automatic right for absorption or fresh appointment with respect to all the daily wage or contract workers. Though efforts on the part of Government to reduce the workers' strength was going on but the Management with the sole intention to accommodation Y-Pool workers placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the rest of these Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. It is alleged that the Management is providing all the facilities viz. EPF, Pension, Gratuity, accommodation, revision of fixed wages, hospital facilities to the Y pool workers including the claimant. The engagement of the claimant was purely on casual, intermittent and temporary basis and in exigencies of work which was extended from time to time, the claim of the claimant for regularization of his services is ill founded and unjustified. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Vide order dated 05/06/2013 my learned Predecessor observed that no specific issue except those referred by the Government for adjudication arises from the pleadings of the parties and as such parties were called upon to adduce their evidence.

5. The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as WW1 who tendered his affidavits Ex.WW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/2. In cross examination he stated that he is 5th standard pass and was engaged as Helper without any advertisement. He also admitted about formulation of Y pool list by the Management; conducting of test/interviews for the posts exclusively for the 361 Nos. of workers in the Y pool list and that the Management had recruited/regularized 211 such workers in the Y pool List. He also admitted that for different posts, minimum qualifications have been prescribed and that against the advertised post, he had also applied for the post of Library Attendant and he was interviewed. He showed his ignorance that the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh imposed a ban on recruitment of non teaching staff vide orders dated 3/11/97 and 9/12/97. He also admitted that all eligible claimants/workmen whose names were there in the Y Pool list were given an opportunity to participate in the selection process for their absorption.

6. On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri Surendra Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) as MW1 who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/20. In cross examination he stated that category D posts have been abolished since 2006 and workmen/officials working in category-D are now termed as Multi Tasking Staff who are getting initial scale. While producing the regulations regarding the creation and pay-scale of different posts as Ex.MW1/W-5, he admitted that the posts created by Syndicate (Executive Body of Roorkee University) are in the pay scale approved by the State Government applicable at that time. He admitted that Management had created a single Y pool List but could not say whether at that time illiterate persons were regularized as Maali from the list of Y pool. He also admitted that Shri Bal Chand (mentioned at Sl.N.21) of list Ex.MW1/4 also being an illiterate was appointed as Safai Karamchari. Similarly incumbent at Sl.No.57, No.31 (Mahipal) and at Sl.No.80 (Tara Chand) in the said List all illiterate have been appointed as Safai Karamchari/Helper. He also admitted that the claimant/workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and is doing job regularly.

7. I have heard Shri Amit Sharma, A/R for the workman and Shri Sanjay Rawat, A/R for the Management and have also gone through the records carefully and my findings are as follows.

8. From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is manifest that the claimant/workman having been engaged as Helper (Maali) on daily wage/ casual basis by the erstwhile University of Roorkee, has been under the employment of the Management since the year 1987 and he has been discharging duties as assigned to him. As such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer-employee between the Management and claimant. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Courtt 2532, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of "workman" has observed as under :-

"The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of

service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a

person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not

make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There

is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on

regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary,

part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a

workman."

It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a person would be covered by the definition of "workman" as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act.

9. As discussed above, in the case in hand engagement of the claimant on contract/casual basis for doing the work of Maali, is duly admitted by the Management as per its pleadings and evidence adduced on record. It is not in dispute that the workman/claimant is still working on contractual engagement under Y-1 category and is paid fixed monthly emoluments in respect of his services, that is to say that he is being paid minimum in the scale without any increment or promotion etc. for want of regularization.

10. During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the Management relied on a number of judgements to contend that there is no fundamental right of those workers who have been employed as daily wager or temporarily or on contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. Even such workers even serving for a long number of years will not become entitle to claim regularization if he is not working against a sanctioned post.

11. There is no dispute about preposition of law on the point. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 held as under :-

"… We are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice, the Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of year. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would be impressible. In the abovesaid circumstances, giving of direction to regularise a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager et., may amount to backdoor entry into the service which is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution. Further such a direction would not be given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court are at part with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise non regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality of upholding Article 14 rather than violating this constitutional provision."

From the above ruling, it is clear that ordinarily the Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator should not issue direction for regularization of the workman engaged/working on casual/daily wage basis irrespective of his length of service unless there is a Scheme/policy of the Management & similarly situated workmen have been regularized by the employer/Management under the said policy/Scheme and benefit of such scheme/policy has been declined to the other.

12. It is not in dispute that after agitation of casual daily wage workers engaged in the erstwhile University of Roorkee in the year 1993, Memorandums of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20/2/1996 were reduced into writing and subsequently, the Management had prepared a Y list of such workers for the purposes of their regularization against the vacant posts. As per written statement of the Management, 211 workers out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool list have already been appointed/ regularized and are being given regular pay scale. Management had intended to accommodate and give benefit of regularization to remaining Y-Pool workers and had placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the remaining/left over Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. This impliedly shows that a scheme/policy was formulated by the Management for regularizing the services of the workmen engaged on daily wage/casual basis. Document/notification dated 13/6/1995 (Ex.MW1/5 colly) issued by University of Roorki shows that for the post of Helper/Survey Tindal in the pay-scale of Rs.750-940/- eligibility criteria of education/experience was that the incumbent should be literate having knowledge to upkeep the equipments/furniture etc.. It shows that the workman/claimant who was engaged in the year 1982 was eligible to be considered for the said post of Helper and at the later stage in the year 1995-96 when vacancies arose, he had got requisite experience in the line. It is also evident from the testimony of MW1 Surender Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) that the Management has appointed/regularized the services of various other workers who were/are similarly placed with the claimant on the issue of literacy and were named in the Y Pool list (Ex.MW1/4). Shri Bal Chand (mentioned at Sl.N.21), Mahipal (at Sl.No.31 and Tara Chand (at Sl.No.80) being all illiterate are few of them and they have been placed in the regular pay-scale. Perusal of the said list also shows that there are other workmen who are illiterate but have been regularized as group-D for the post of Helper, Sweeper, Mali etc and reference may be made to the workmen shown at Sl.No.44,48, 67, 82, 85 to 89, 108, 114, 117, 139, 190, 201 of the said list. They have been regularized & are being paid wages in the regular pay-scale. On the contrary, the702 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] claimant/workman who is 5th standard pass is being paid wages at a fixed consolidated rate at the minimum of the scale and that is to say that the workman/claimant is being paid lesser pay than those who are similarly placed and are doing the same/equal work.

13. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, 2017Lab.L.C. 427 while upholding the principle of "equal pay for equal work" even for temporary employees observed as under :-

"The principle of "equal pay for equal work" can be extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charged, daily wage, casual, adhoc, contractual and the like). It is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, can not be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.''

14. Having regard to the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that action of the Management in not regularizing the workman Shri Keshwar Prasad, Helper (Mali) despite rendering service for more than 35 years continuously is unjustified and unwarranted. The workman /claimant is entitled to be regularized to the post of Mali.

15. Now the question arises for consideration is as to from which date the workman/claimant is entitled to be given benefit of regularization. Neither in the statement of claim, the workman/claimant has pleaded that he had made any written representation or demand/legal letter to the Management for consideration of his demand of regularization, nor he has filed any such document on record. It is pertinent to mention here that on the controversy between the parties, the reference to this Tribunal was made by the Appropriate Government vide letter dated 12/11/2012. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the workman/claimant is entitled to get benefit of regularization to the post of Helper in the regular pay-scale existing to the said post from 12/11/2012 with all consequential benefits viz. annual increment and other prevalent benefits/facilities like HRA, transport, medical facility etc.

Relief :-

In view of my aforesaid findings, the Management is directed to regularize the workman/claimant to the post of Helper (Mali) w.e.f. 12/11/2012 in the regular pay-scale of Helper, with all consequential benefits and arrears of the same be also paid to him. The Award is passed accordingly.

Date : 07.01.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 197197197197....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार

मैसर्स रजिस्ट्रार, आईआईटी 0ड़की और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के

बीच अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय 1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 179/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 15.01.2019 को प्राप्त %ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/92/2012-आईआर (डीयू)]

राजें( जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2019

S.O. 197.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 179/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Registrar, IIT Roorkee and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.01.2019.

[No. L-42011/92/2012-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 703

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No.1. : NEW DELHI

ID No. 179/2012

Shri Chote Lal, (The General Secretary), IIT Roorkee Karamchari Union, IIT Roorkee

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

The Registrar, IIT Roorkee IIT Roorkee

…Management/ Respondent

AWARD

This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government vide its letter No.L-42011/92/2012/IR(DU) dated 12th/21st November, 2012 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 management of IIT Roorkee in not regularizing the workman Shri Chotey Lal Mali despite rendering service for more than 23 years continuously is justified ? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled to ? '

2. Both parties were put to notice and workman Chotey Lal filed his statement of claim, with the averments that he was inducted into the service of erstwhile University of Roorkee (later on converted into IIT Roorkee) as Helper (Maali) on muster roll basis we.f. February, 1989 and continues to work in the same capacity since then. He requested the Management for his regularization many a times but to no avail. It is pleaded that the Management IIT Roorkee chalked out a plan under the Scheme of Y-Pool workers for the consistent absorption/regularization of such workmen/employees whose names were included in the Y-Pool for which the applicant was not taken into confidence. Though some of the workmen who were not included in the Y-Pool list have been absorbed but the claimant has been deprived of his legitimate right of being placed on regular pay scale. The claimant approached the Management several times for grant of such benefits but to no avail. He has prayed that order be passed (a) for upgradation of the claimant as per career development policy for the category to which he belongs with effect from the date he becomes entitled to his promotion; (b) for payment of arrears arising out of his regularization in the different regular pay scales and (c) for extension of all amenities & facilities such as residential accommodation allowance, medical, transport etc. for which the claimant becomes entitled consequent to his regularization and up-gradation in the regular pay scales.

3. The claim of the Workman has been resisted by the Management who filed its written statement wherein it has been alleged that the claimant was one of those casual daily wage workers whose services were engaged by the erstwhile University of the Management as unskilled daily wager in February, 1989. Consequent upon agitation of such casual daily wage workers in the year 1993, a broad Memorandum of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20/2/1996 was reduced into writing in the presence of Civil Administration inter-alia on the terms that the such daily wage workers would be considered for appointment against vacant posts according to their qualifications and on the basis of their seniority & performance/merit as per recruitment rules, regulations and guidelines. Advertisement from time to time including those dated 24/10/94, 21/11/94, 26/7/95, 13/6/95, 27/8/96 and 27/3/97 for regular vacancies were issued and applications were called from Y-Pool workers and accordingly 211 persons out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool were recruited/selected against the regular posts on the basis of their merit/qualifications and experience. There was no automatic right for absorption or fresh appointment with respect to all the daily wage or contract workers. Though efforts on the part of Government to reduce the workers' strength was going on but the Management with the sole intention to accommodation Y-Pool workers placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the rest of these Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. It is alleged that the Management is providing all the facilities viz. EPF, Pension, Gratuity, accommodation, revision of fixed wages, hospital facilities to the Y pool workers including the claimant. It is also alleged that the claimant (who is an illiterate) does not possess the minimum essential qualifications of 10th standard pass for selection even against an entry level Group D post (post of Maali) in the regular employment of the Management. The engagement of the claimant was purely on casual, intermittent and temporary basis and in exigencies of work which was extended from time to time, the claim of the claimant for regularization of his services is ill founded and unjustified. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Vide order dated 18/7/2013 my learned Predecessor observed that no specific issue except those referred by the Government for adjudication arises from the pleadings of the parties and as such parties were called upon to adduce their evidence.

5. The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as WW1 who tendered his affidavits Ex.WW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/2. In cross examination he admitted that he is illiterate and was engaged as Maali without any advertisement. He also admitted about formulation of Y pool list by the Management;

conducting of test/interviews for the posts exclusively for the 361 Nos. of workers in the Y pool list and that the Management had recruited/regularized 211 such workers in the Y pool List. He also admitted that for different posts, minimum qualifications have been prescribed and that against the advertised post, he had also applied for the post of Maali and he was interviewed. He showed his ignorance that the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh imposed a ban on recruitment of non teaching staff vide orders dated 3/11/97 and 9/12/97. He also admitted that all eligible claimants/workmen whose names were there in the Y Pool list were given an opportunity to participate in the selection process for their absorption.

6. On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri Surendra Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) as MW1 who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/20. In cross examination he stated that category D posts have been abolished since 2006 and workmen/officials working in category-D are now termed as Multi Tasking Staff who are getting initial scale. While producing the regulations regarding the creation and pay-scale of different posts as Ex.MW1/W-5, he admitted that the posts created by Syndicate (Executive Body of Roorkee University) are in the pay scale approved by the State Government applicable at that time. He admitted that Management had created a single Y pool List but could not say whether at that time illiterate persons were regularized as Maali from the list of Y pool. He also admitted that Shri Bal Chand (mentioned at Sl.N.21) of list Ex.MW1/4 also being an illiterate was appointed as Safai Karamchari. Similarly incumbent at Sl.No.57, No.31 (Mahipal) and at Sl.No.80 (Tara Chand) in the said List all illiterate have been appointed as Safai Karamchari/Helper. He also admitted that the claimant/workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and is doing job regularly.

7. I have heard Shri Amit Sharma, A/R for the workman and Shri Sanjay Rawat, A/R for the Management and have also gone through the records carefully and my findings are as follows.

8. From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is manifest that the claimant/workman having been engaged as Maali on daily wage/ casual basis by the erstwhile University of Roorkee, has been under the employment of the Management since the year 1983 and he has been discharging duties as assigned to him. As such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer-employee between the Management and claimant. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Courtt 2532, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of "workman" has observed as under :-

"The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of

service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a

person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not

make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There

is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on

regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary,

part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a

workman."

It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a person would be covered by the definition of "workman" as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act.

9. As discussed above, in the case in hand engagement of the claimant on contractual/casual basis for doing the work of Mali, is duly admitted by the Management as per its pleadings and evidence adduced on record. Office Memo Ex.MW1/W-2 shows that the workman/claimant Chottey LaL who is still working on contractual engagement under Y-1 category is paid fixed monthly emoluments in respect of his services, that is to say that he is being paid minimum in the scale without any increment or promotion etc. for want of regularization.

10. During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the Management relied on a number of judgements to contend that there is no fundamental right of those workers who have been employed as daily wager or temporarily or on contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. Even such workers even serving for a long number of years will not become entitle to claim regularization if he is not working against a sanctioned post.

11. There is no dispute about preposition of law on the point. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 held as under :-

"… We are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice, the Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of year. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would be impressible. In the abovesaid circumstances, giving of direction to regularise a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager et., may amount to backdoor entry into the service which is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution. Further such a direction would not be given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court are at part with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise non regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality of upholding Article 14 rather than violating this constitutional provision."[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 705 From the above ruling, it is clear that ordinarily the Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator should not issue direction for regularization of the workman engaged/working on casual/daily wage basis irrespective of his length of service unless there is a Scheme/policy of the Management & similarly situated workmen have been regularized by the employer/Management under the said policy/Scheme and benefit of such scheme/policy has been declined to the other.

12. It is not in dispute that after agitation of casual daily wage workers engaged in the erstwhile University of Roorkee in the year 1993, Memorandums of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20./2/1996 were reduced into writing and subsequently, the Management had prepared a Y list of such workers for the purposes of their regularization against the vacant posts. As per written statement of the Management, 211 workers out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool list have already been appointed/regularized and are being given regular pay scale. Management had intended to accommodate and give benefit of regularization to remaining Y-Pool workers had placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the remaining/left over Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. This impliedly shows that a scheme/policy was formulated by the Management for regularizing the services of the workmen engaged on daily wage/casual basis. Document/notification dated 27/3/1997 (Ex.MW1/5) issued by University of Roorki shows that for the post of Maali in the pay-scale of Rs.750-940/- eligibility criteria of education/experience was that the incumbent should be literate (having knowledge of reading & writing) with two years experience of the work of Mali. It shows that the workman/claimant who was engaged in the year 1983 was eligible to be considered for the said post of Mali and at that time it was not required that the incumbent should be 10th class pass, as has been pleaded by the Management. It is also evident from the testimony of MW1 Surender Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) that the Management has appointed/regularized the services of various other workers who were/are similarly placed with the claimant on the issue of literacy, were named in the Y Pool list (Ex.MW1/4). Shri Bal Chand (mentioned at Sl.N.21), Mahipal (at Sl.No.31 and Tara Chand (at Sl.No.80) being all illiterate are few of them and they have been placed in the regular pay-scale. Perusal of the said list also shows that there are other workmen who are illiterate but have been regularized as group-D for the post of Helper, Sweeper, Mali etc and reference may be made to the workmen shown at Sl.No.44,48, 67, 82, 85 to 89, 108, 114, 117, 139, 190, 201 of the said list. They have been regularized & are being paid wages in the regular pay- scale. On the contrary, the claimant/workman is being paid wages at a fixed consolidated rate at the minimum of the scale and that is to say that the workman/claimant is being paid lesser pay than those who are similarly placed and are doing the same/equal work.

13. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, 2017Lab.L.C. 427 while upholding the principle of "equal pay for equal work" even for temporary employees observed as under :-

"The principle of "equal pay for equal work" can be extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charged, daily wage, casual, adhoc, contractual and the like). It is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, can not be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation. ''

14. Having regard to the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that action of the Management in not regularizing the workman Shri Chottey Lal, Helper (Mali) despite rendering service for more than 29 years continuously is unjustified and unwarranted. The workman /claimant is entitled to be regularized to the post of Mali.

15. Now the question arises for consideration is as to from which date the workman/claimant is entitled to be given benefit of regularization. Neither in the statement of claim, the workman/claimant has pleaded that he had made any written representation or demand/legal notice to the Management for consideration of his demand of regularization, nor he has filed any such document on record. It is pertinent to mention here that on the controversy between the parties, the reference to this Tribunal was made by the Appropriate Government vide letter dated 12/11/2012. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the workman/claimant is entitled to get benefit of regularization to the post of Mali in the regular pay-scale existing to the said post from 12/11/2012 with all consequential benefits viz. annual increment and other prevalent benefits/facilities like HRA, transport, medical facility etc.

Relief :-

In view of my aforesaid findings, the Management is directed to regularize the workman/claimant to the post of Mali w.e.f. 12/11/2012 in the regular pay-scale of Helper (Mali), with all consequential benefits and arrears of the same be also paid to him. The Award is passed accordingly.

Date : 07.01.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer706 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 198198198198....———— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार

मैसर्स रजिस्ट्रार, आईआईटी 0ड़की और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa िनयोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच

अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय 1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 178/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 15.01.2019 को प्राप्त %ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/91/2012-आईआर (डीयू)]

राजें( जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2019

S.O. 198.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 178/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Registrar, IIT Roorkee, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.01.2019.

[No. L-42011/91/2012-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 1. : NEW DELHI

ID No. 178/2012

Shri Keshwer Prasad, (The General Secretary), IIT Roorkee Karamchari Union, IIT Roorkee

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

The Registrar, IIT Roorkee IIT Roorkee

…Management/ Respondent

AWARD

This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government vide its letter No.L-42011/91/2012-IR(DU) dated 12th November, 2012 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 management of IIT Roorkee in not regularizing the workman Shri Keshwar Prasad Beldar, despite rendering service for more than 25 years continuously is justified ? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled to ?'

2. Both parties were put to notice and workman Keshwar Prasad filed his statement of claim, with the averments that he was inducted into the service of erstwhile University of Roorkee (later on converted into IIT Roorkee) as Helper (Maali) on muster roll basis w.e.f. April, 1987 and continues to work in the same capacity since then. He requested the Management for his regularization many a times but to no avail. It is pleaded that the Management IIT Roorkee chalked out a plan under the Scheme of Y-Pool workers for the consistent absorption/regularization of such workmen/employees whose names were included in the Y-Pool for which the applicant was not taken into confidence. Though some of the workmen who were not included in the Y-Pool list have been absorbed but the claimant has been deprived of his legitimate right of being placed on regular pay scale. The claimant approached the Management several times for grant of such benefits but to no avail. He has prayed that order be passed (a) for upgradation of the claimant as per career development policy for the category to which he belongs with effect from the date he becomes entitled to his promotion; (b) for payment of arrears arising out of his regularization in the different regular pay scales and (c) for extension of all amenities & facilities such as residential accommodation allowance, medical, transport etc. for which the claimant becomes entitled consequent to his regularization and up-gradation in the regular pay scales.

3. The claim of the Workman has been resisted by the Management who filed its written statement wherein it has been alleged that the claimant was one of those casual daily wage workers whose services were engaged by the erstwhile University of the Management as unskilled daily wager in April, 1987. Consequent upon agitation of such casual daily wage workers in the year 1993, a broad Memorandum of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20/2/1996 was reduced into writing in the presence of Civil Administration inter-alia on the terms that the such daily wage workers would be considered for appointment against vacant posts according to their qualifications and on the basis of their seniority & performance/merit as per recruitment rules, regulations and guidelines. Advertisement from time to time including those dated 24/10/94, 21/11/94, 26/7/95, 13/6/95, 27/8/96 and 27/3/97 for regular vacancies were issued and applications were called from Y-Pool workers and accordingly 211 persons out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool were recruited/selected against the regular posts on the basis of their merit/qualifications and experience. There was no automatic right for absorption or fresh appointment with respect to all the daily wage or contract workers. Though efforts on the part of Government to reduce the workers' strength was going on but the Management with the sole intention to accommodation Y-Pool workers placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the rest of these Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. It is alleged that the Management is providing all the facilities viz. EPF, Pension, Gratuity, accommdation, revision of fixed wages, hospital facilities to the Y pool workers including the claimant. It is also alleged that the claimant, being 7th class pass, does not possess the minimum essential qualifications of 10th standard pass for selection even against an entry level Group D post in the regular employment of the Management. The engagement of the claimant was purely on casual, intermittent and temporary basis and in exigencies of work which was extended from time to time, the claim of the claimant for regularization of his services is ill founded and unjustified. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Vide order dated 18/07/2013 my learned Predecessor observed that no specific issue except those referred by the Government for adjudication arises from the pleadings of the parties and as such parties were called upon to adduce their evidence.

5. The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as WW1 who tendered his affidavits Ex.WW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/2. In cross examination he stated that he is educated upto 7th standard and was engaged as Maali without any advertisement. He also admitted about formulation of Y pool list by the Management; conducting of test/interviews for the posts exclusively for the 361 Nos. of workers in the Y pool list and that the Management had recruited/regularized 211 such workers in the Y pool List. He also admitted that for different posts, minimum qualifications have been prescribed and that against the advertised post, he had also applied for the post of Maali and he was interviewed. He showed his ignorance that the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh imposed a ban on recruitment of non teaching staff vide orders dated 3/11/97 and 9/12/97. He also admitted that all eligible claimants/workmen whose names were there in the Y Pool list were given an opportunity to participate in the selection process for their absorption.

6. On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri Surendra Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) as MW1 who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/20. In cross examination he stated that category D posts have been abolished since 2006 and workmen/officials working in category-D are now termed as Multi Tasking Staff who are getting initial scale. While producing the regulations regarding the creation and pay-scale of different posts as Ex.MW1/W-5, he admitted that the posts created by Syndicate (Executive Body of Roorkee University) are in the pay scale approved by the State Government applicable at that time. He admitted that Management had created a single Y pool List but could not say whether at that time illiterate persons were regularized as Maali from the list of Y pool. He also admitted that Shri Bal Chand (mentioned at Sl.N.21) of list Ex.MW1/4 also being an illiterate was appointed as Safai Karamchari. Similarly incumbent at Sl.No.57, No.31 (Mahipal) and at Sl.No.80 (Tara Chand) in the said List all illiterate have been appointed as Safai Karamchari/Helper. He also admitted that the claimant/workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and is doing job regularly.

7. I have heard Shri Amit Sharma, A/R for the workman and Shri Sanjay Rawat, A/R for the Management and have also gone through the records carefully and my findings are as follows.

8. From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is manifest that the claimant/workman having been engaged as Helper (Maali) on daily wage/ casual basis by the erstwhile University of Roorkee, has been under the employment of the Management since the year 1987 and he has been discharging duties as assigned to him. As such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer-employee between the Management and claimant. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Courtt 2532, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of "workman" has observed as under :-

"The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of

service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a

person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not

make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There

is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on

regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary,

part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a

workman."

It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a person would be covered by the definition of "workman" as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act.

9. As discussed above, in the case in hand engagement of the claimant on contract/casual basis for doing the work of Maali, is duly admitted by the Management as per its pleadings and evidence adduced on record. It is not in dispute that the workman/claimant is still working on contractual engagement under Y-1 category and is paid fixed monthly emoluments in respect of his services, that is to say that he is being paid minimum in the scale without any increment or promotion etc. for want of regularization.

10. During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the Management relied on a number of judgements to contend that there is no fundamental right of those workers who have been employed as daily wager or temporarily or on contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. Even such workers even serving for a long number of years will not become entitle to claim regularization if he is not working against a sanctioned post.

11. There is no dispute about preposition of law on the point. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Food Corporation of India 2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 held as under :-

"… We are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice, the Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of year. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would be impressible. In the abovesaid circumstances, giving of direction to regularise a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager et., may amount to backdoor entry into the service which is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution. Further such a direction would not be given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court are at part with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise non regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality of upholding Article 14 rather than violating this constitutional provision."

From the above ruling, it is clear that ordinarily the Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator should not issue direction for regularization of the workman engaged/working on casual/daily wage basis irrespective of his length of service unless there is a Scheme/policy of the Management & similarly situated workmen have been regularized by the employer/Management under the said policy/Scheme and benefit of such scheme/policy has been declined to the other.

12. It is not in dispute that after agitation of casual daily wage workers engaged in the erstwhile University of Roorkee in the year 1993, Memorandums of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20/2/1996 were reduced into writing and subsequently, the Management had prepared a Y list of such workers for the purposes of their regularization against the vacant posts. As per written statement of the Management, 211 workers out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool list have already been appointed/ regularized and are being given regular pay scale. Management had intended to accommodate and give benefit of regularization to remaining Y-Pool workers had placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the remaining/left over Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. This impliedly shows that a scheme/policy was formulated by the Management for regularizing the services of the workmen engaged on daily wage/casual basis. Document/notification dated 27/3/1997 (Ex.MW1/5 colly) issued by University of Roorki shows that for the post of Maali in the pay-scale of Rs.750-940/- eligibility criteria of education/experience was that the incumbent should be literate (having knowledge of reading & writing) with two years experience of the work of Mali. It shows that the workman/claimant who was engaged in the year 1987 was eligible to be considered for the said post of Mali and at that time it was not required that the incumbent should be 10th class pass, as has been pleaded by the Management. It is also evident from the testimony of MW1 Surender Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) that the Management has appointed/regularized the services of various other workers who were/are similarly placed with the claimant on the issue of literacy, were named in the Y Pool list (Ex.MW1/4). Shri Bal Chand (mentioned at Sl.N.21), Mahipal (at Sl.No.31 and Tara Chand (at Sl.No.80) being all illiterate are few of them and they have been placed in the regular pay-scale. Perusal of the said list also shows that there are other workmen who are illiterate but have been regularized as group-D for the post of Helper, Sweeper, Mali etc and reference may be made to the workmen shown at Sl.No.44,48, 67, 82, 85 to 89, 108, 114, 117, 139, 190, 201 of the said list. They have been regularized & are being paid wages in the regular pay- scale. On the contrary, the claimant/workman who is 7th standard pass is being paid wages at a fixed consolidated rate at the minimum of the scale and that is to say that the workman/claimant is being paid lesser pay than those who are similarly placed and are doing the same/equal work.

13. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, 2017Lab.L.C. 427 while upholding the principle of "equal pay for equal work" even for temporary employees observed as under :-

"The principle of "equal pay for equal work" can be extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charged, daily wage, casual, adhoc, contractual and the like). It is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, can not be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation. ''

14. Having regard to the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that action of the Management in not regularizing the workman Shri Keshwar Prasad, Helper (Mali) despite rendering service for more than 35 years continuously is unjustified and unwarranted. The workman /claimant is entitled to be regularized to the post of Mali.

15. Now the question arises for consideration is as to from which date the workman/claimant is entitled to be given benefit of regularization. Neither in the statement of claim, the workman/claimant has pleaded that he had made any written representation or demand/legal letter to the Management for consideration of his demand of regularization, nor he has filed any such document on record. It is pertinent to mention here that on the controversy between the parties, the reference to this Tribunal was made by the Appropriate Government vide letter dated 12/11/2012. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the workman/claimant is entitled to get benefit of regularization to the post of Mali in the regular pay-scale existing to the said post from 12/11/2012 with all consequential benefits viz. annual increment and other prevalent benefits/facilities like HRA, transport, medical facility etc.

Relief :-

In view of my aforesaid findings, the Management is directed to regularize the workman/claimant to the post of Helper (Mali) w.e.f. 12/11/2012 in the regular pay-scale of Helper (Maali), with all consequential benefits and arrears of the same be also paid to him. The Award is passed accordingly.

Date : 07.01.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 199199199199....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार

मैसर्स रजिस्ट्रार, आईआईटी 0ड़की और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच

अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय 1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 18/2013) को प्रकािशत करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 15.01.2019 को प्राप्त %ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/119/2012-आईआर (डीयू)]

राजें( जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2019

S.O. 199.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 18/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Registrar, IIT Roorkee, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.01.2019.

[No. L-42011/119/2012-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director710 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 1. : NEW DELHI

ID No. 18/2013

Shri Om Prakash (The General Secretary), IIT Roorkee Karamchari Union, IIT Roorkee

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

The Registrar, IIT Roorkee Roorkee

…Management/ Respondent

AWARD

This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government vide its letter No.L-42011/119/2012/IR(DU) dated 7/1/2013 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:-

'Whether action of management of IIT Roorkee in not regularizing the workman Shri Om Prakash s/o. Shri Bhaskranand, Telephone Operator is justified ? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled to ? '

2. Both parties were put to notice and workman Om Prakash filed his statement of claim, with the averments that he was inducted into the service of erstwhile University of Roorkee (later on converted into IIT Roorkee) as Telephone Operator on muster roll basis we.f. August, 1992 and continues to work in the same capacity since then. He requested the Management for his regularization many a times but to no avail. It is pleaded that the Management IIT Roorkee chalked out a plan under the Scheme of Y-Pool workers for the consistent absorption/regularization of such workmen/employees whose names were included in the Y-Pool for which the applicant was not taken into confidence. Though some of the workmen who were not included in the Y-Pool list have been absorbed but the claimant has been deprived of his legitimate right of being placed on regular pay scale. The claimant approached the Management several times for grant of such benefits but to no avail. He has prayed that order be passed (a) for upgradation of the claimant as per career development policy for the category to which he belongs with effect from the date he becomes entitled to his promotion; (b) for payment of arrears arising out of his regularization in the different regular pay scales and (c) for extension of all amenities & facilities such as residential accommodation allowance, medical, transport etc. for which the claimant becomes entitled consequent to his regularization and up-gradation in the regular pay scales.

3. The claim of the Workman has been resisted by the Management who filed its written statement wherein it has been alleged that the claimant was one of those casual daily wage workers whose services were engaged by the erstwhile University of the Management in August, 1992 as unskilled casual daily wage worker. Consequent upon agitation of such casual daily wage workers in 1993, a broad Memorandum of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20./2/1996 was reduced into writing in the presence of Civil Administration inter-alia on the terms that the such daily wage workers would be considered for appointment against vacant posts according to their qualifications and on the basis of their seniority & performance/merit as per recruitment rules, regulations and guidelines. Advertisement from time to time including those dated 24/10/94, 21/11/94, 26/7/95, 13/6/95, 27/8/96 and 27/3/97 for regular vacancies were issued and applications were called from Y-Pool workers and accordingly 211 persons out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool were recruited/selected against the regular posts on the basis of their merit/qualifications and experience. There was no automatic right for absorption or fresh appointment with respect to all the daily wage or contract workers. The claimant had applied for the post of Library Attendant & also for the post of for the post of worker Grade-C in Mechanical & Industrial Engg. Department, against advertisement dated 27/8/1996, he was called for interview but was not selected/short listed due to inadequate experience in the relevant field. Though efforts on the part of Government to reduce the workers' strength was going on but the Management with the sole intention to accommodation Y-Pool workers placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the rest of these Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. It is alleged that the Management is providing all the facilities viz. EPF, Pension, Gratuity, accommodation, revision of fixed wages, hospital facilities to the Y pool workers including the claimant. It is also alleged that the claimant was/is otherwise illegible for selection as a regular employee of the Management (IIT Roorkee).. The engagement of the claimant was purely on casual, intermittent and temporary basis and in exigencies of work which was extended from time to time, the claim of the claimant for regularization of his services is ill founded and unjustified . Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Vide order dated 12/8/2013 my learned Predecessor observed that no specific issue except those referred by the Government for adjudication arises from the pleadings of the parties and as such parties were called upon to adduce their evidence.

5. The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as WW1 who tendered his affidavits Ex.WW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/3. In cross examination he deposed that he is inter pass and had annexed a certificate to this effect alongwith his application submitted for engagement with the Management. He admitted that he was engaged as telephone operator without any advertisement. He clarified that an incumbent for the post of telephone Operator should have passed inter class. He also admitted about formulation of Y pool list by the Management; conducting of test/interviews for the posts exclusively for the 361 Nos. of workers in the Y pool list and that the Management had recruited/regularized 211 such workers in the Y pool List. He also admitted that for different posts, minimum qualifications have been prescribed and that against the advertised post, he had also applied for the post of Maali and he was interviewed. He showed his ignorance that the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh imposed a ban on recruitment of non teaching staff vide orders dated 3/11/97 and 9/12/97. He admitted having applied for the post of clerk as well as Library Attendant against the advertisement issued by the Management but was not short listed/selected. He also admitted that all eligible claimants/workmen whose names were there in the Y Pool list were given an opportunity to participate in the selection process for their absorption.

6. On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri Surendra Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) as MW1 who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/20. In cross examination he stated that category D posts have been abolished since 2006 and workmen/officials working in category-D are now termed as Multi Tasking Staff who are getting initial scale. While producing the regulations regarding the creation and pay-scale of different posts as Ex.MW1/W-5, he admitted that the posts created by Syndicate (Executive Body of Roorkee University) are in the pay scale approved by the State Government applicable at that time. He admitted that Management had created a single Y pool List but could not say whether at that time illiterate persons were regularized from the list of Y pool. He also admitted that Shri Bal Chand (mentioned at Sl.N.21) of list Ex.MW1/4 also being an illiterate was appointed as Safai Karamchari. Similarly incumbent at Sl.No.57, No.31 (Mahipal) and at Sl.No.80 (Tara Chand) in the said List all illiterate have been appointed as Safai Karamchari/Helper. He also admitted that the claimant/workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and is doing job regularly.

7. I have heard Shri Amit Sharma, A/R for the workman and Shri Sanjay Rawat, A/R for the Management and have also gone through the records carefully and my findings are as follows.

8. From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is manifest that the claimant/workman having been engaged as daily wager/ casual worker by the erstwhile University of Roorkee, has been under the employment of the Management since the year 1992 and he has been discharging duties of Telephone Operator. As such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer-employee between the Management and claimant. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Courtt 2532, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of "workman" has observed as under :-

"The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of

service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a

person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not

make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There

is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on

regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary,

part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a

workman."

It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a person would be covered by the definition of "workman" as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act.

9. As discussed above, in the case in hand engagement of the claimant as daily wager for doing intermittent nature of work is duly admitted by the Management as per its pleadings and evidence adduced on record. The workman/claimant Om Prakash, having been working continuously since the year 1988 on contractual engagement/daily wage basis under Y-1 category is paid fixed monthly emoluments in respect of his services, that is to say that he is being paid minimum in the scale without any increment or promotion etc. for want of regularization.

10. During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the Management relied on a number of judgements to contend that there is no fundamental right of those workers who have been employed as daily wager or temporarily or on contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. Even such workers even serving for a long number of years will not become entitle to claim regularization if he is not working against a sanctioned post.

11. There is no dispute about preposition of law on the point. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Food Corporation of India 2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 held as under :-

"… We are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice, the Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of year. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would be impressible. In the abovesaid circumstances, giving of direction to regularise a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager et., may amount to backdoor entry into the service which is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution. Further such a direction would not be given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the712 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the

employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached

Industrial/Labour Court are at part with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally

justified, otherwise non regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious

discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the

Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality of upholding Article 14 rather than violating this

constitutional provision."

From the above ruling, it is clear that ordinarily the Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator should not issue direction for regularization of the workman engaged/working on casual/daily wage basis irrespective of his length of service unless there is a Scheme/policy of the Management & similarly situated workmen have been regularized by the employer/Management under the said policy/Scheme and benefit of such scheme/policy has been declined to the other.

12. It is not in dispute that after agitation of casual daily wage workers engaged in the erstwhile University of Roorkee in the year 1993, Memorandums of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20./2/1996 were reduced into writing and subsequently, the Management had prepared a Y list of such workers for the purposes of their regularization against the vacant posts. As per written statement of the Management, 211 workers out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool list have already been appointed/regularized and are being given regular pay scale. Management had intended to accommodate and give benefit of regularization to remaining Y-Pool workers & had placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the remaining/left over Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. This impliedly shows that a scheme/policy was formulated by the Management for regularizing the services of the workmen engaged on daily wage/casual basis. Documents/notifications dated 21/11/1994 (Ex.MW1/5 colly.) issued by University of Roorki shows that for the post of Telephone Operator in the pay-scale of Rs.775-1026/- eligibility criteria of education/experience was that the incumbent should be high school pass & having 5 years experience for operation of PBX Exchange of 600 lines. The claimant is inter pass, It shows that the workman/claimant who was engaged in the year 1992 and is working as Telephone operator since then, has got requisite experience by now. It is also evident from the testimony of MW1 Surender Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) that the Management has appointed/regularized the services of various other workers who were similarly placed with the claimant as regards literacy, were named in the Y Pool list (Ex.MW1/4). Shri Bal Chand, Maali (mentioned at Sl.N.21), Mahipal. Survey Tindal (at Sl.No.31), Shri Brijesh, Safai Karamchari (at Sl.No.56) and Tara Chand, Helper (at Sl.No.80) who are illiterate but have been placed in the regular pay-scale. Perusal of the said list also shows that one Shri K.D. Pathak (at Sl.No.10) having educational qualification of 12th pass has been regularized/appointed is being paid wages in the regular pay-scale. On the contrary, the claimant/workman is being paid wages at a fixed consolidated rate at the minimum of the scale and that is to say that the workman/claimant is being paid lesser pay than those who is similarly placed and is doing the same/equal work.

13. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, 2017Lab.L.C. 427 while upholding the principle of "equal pay for equal work" even for temporary employees observed as under :-

"The principle of "equal pay for equal work" can be extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charged, daily wage, casual, adhoc, contractual and the like). It is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, can not be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation. ''

14. Having regard to the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that action of the Management in not regularizing the workman Shri Ram Prakat s/o. Shri Punnoo, Mali despite rendering service for more than 35 years continuously is unjustified and unwarranted. The workman /claimant is entitled to be regularized to the post of Mali.

15. Now the question arises for consideration is as to from which date the workman/claimant is entitled to be given benefit of regularization. Neither in the statement of claim, the workman/claimant has pleaded that he had made any written representation or demand/legal letter to the Management for consideration of his demand of regularization, nor he has filed any such document on record. It is pertinent to mention here that on the controversy between the parties, the reference to this Tribunal was made by the Appropriate Government vide letter dated 7/1/2013. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the workman/claimant is entitled to get benefit of regularization to the post of Telephone Operator in the regular pay-scale existing to the said post, w.e.f. 7/1/2013 with all consequential benefits viz.annual increment and other prevalent benefits/facilities like HRA, transport, medical facility etc.

Relief :-

In view of my aforesaid findings, the Management is directed to regularize the workman/claimant to the post of Mali w.e.f. 7/1/2013 in the regular pay-scale of Telephone Operator, with all consequential benefits and arrears of the same be also paid to him. The Award is passed accordingly.

Date : 07.01.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 200200200200....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार

मैसर्स रजिस्ट्रार, आईआईटी 0ड़की और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच

अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय, 1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 248/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 15.01.2019 को प्राप्त %ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42012/174/2015-आईआर (डीयू)]

राजें( जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2019

S.O. 200.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 248/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Registrar, IIT Roorkee, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.01.2019.

[No. L-42012/174/2015-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. 248/2015

Shri B.L. Sharma, Chamber No. 637, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi – 110054

…Workman

Versus

National Textiles Corporation, 6th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003

…Management

AWARD

A reference was received from Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide Letter No.L-42012/174/2015- IR(DU) dated 17.11.2015 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 National Textiles Corporation as not allowing Shri B.L. Sharma to resume duty on the basis of a fake resignation letter dated 01.02.1985 submitted by him can be construed as termination from service without complying the provisions of the ID Act? If yes, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?'

2. Claim statement was filed on behalf of Shri B.L. Sharma, the claimant herein, averring that he joined the management as Labour Officer on 23.01.1981 and was confirmed in 1982. He was awarded increments from 1982 to 1985 abd his ACRs were very good. Thereafter he fell ill and was advised rest from 31.01.1985 to 07.02.1985 which was intimated to the management on 04.02.1985. When the claimant reported for duties alongwith fitness certificate, he714 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] was not allowed to join on the grounds that fake resignation letter dated 01.02.1985 has been accepted by the management. On 24.12.1991 Ld. MM in Criminal Case No.119/I opined that the resignation letter is not written by the claimant. Labour Court order dated 16.02.1995 also recorded evidence of CFSL expert and declared that letter of resignation is not written by the claimant. Same opinion was given Shri Jaichandra, PO Labour Court and Shri AS Datter, PO Labour Court.

3. It is further averred by the claimant that since he was recruited on regular basis on permanent post and has been confirmed on the said post by the management and was advised rest by Government Doctor, resignation would become effective only after three months thereafter. The claimant has referred to various judgements . Finally, it has been prayed that he be granted salary fringe benefits from 01.02.1985 till date of his retirement on 14.04.2006 alongwith CPF, Gratuity, Pensionary benefits etc.

4. Claim was demurred by the management by taking various preliminary objections inter alia that the reference being barred by principles of resjudicata as the ID was disposed by Shri Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Officer Labour Court VIII, Delhi vide order dated 17.0192 stating that the claimant has actually resigned from service and his termination cannot be termed as illegal. There being no industrial dispute, suppression of material facts that earlier a reference was made by the appropriate Government and the same has been answered against him, non existence of employer-employee relationship, the claimant not being a workman. LCA filed by him was dismissed by the Ld. Presiding Officer Labour Court III. Writ petitions have been filed from time to time in Hon'ble High Courts which have been dismissed. The management has claimed that the claimant is a law graduate and after resignation is practicing advocate in Delhi District Court and High Court and is working as Public Notary also, hence not entitled to any benefit. Management has denied the other material averments contained in the statement of claim and prayed that the reference may be answered in favour of the management .

5. Rejoinder was filed by the claimant wherein averment contained in the claim statement have been asserted and the facts mentioned by the management have been denied.

6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

(i) Whether the reference is barred by the principles of res-judicata?

(ii) Whether there no relationship of employer and employee between the parties, as alleged?

(iii) In terms of reference

7. Claimant filed his affidavit in evidence. Thereafter, the claimant filed an application under Section 10-B of the ID (Central) Rules, 1957, reply to which was filed by the management and the case was listed for consideration on the application. However, the claimant thereafter never appeared before this Tribunal despite affording as many as six opportunities. Thus, it is amply clear that the claimant is no more interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

8. Since the claimant 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 is made clear that there is no adjudication of the case on merits, as such, Shri B.L. Sharma, the claimant herein, is still at liberty to agitate his cause in accordance with law. An award is accordingly passed.

Dated : January 7, 2019

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ.आ.आ.आ. 201201201201....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार

मैसर्स रजिस्ट्रार, आईआईटी 0ड़की और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के

बीच अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय, 1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 174/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 15.01.2019 को प्राप्त %ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42012/61/2012-आईआर (डीयू)]

राजें( जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2019

S.O. 201.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 174/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Registrar, IIT Roorkee, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.01.2019.

[No. L-42012/61/2012-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 715

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT No.1. : NEW DELHI

ID No. 174/2012

Shri Som Dutt , (The General Secretary), IIT Roorkee Karamchari Union, IIT Roorkee

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

The Registrar, IIT Roorkee Roorkee

…Management/ Respondent

AWARD

This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government vide its letter No.L-42012/61/2012/IR(DU) dated 8/11/2012 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 management of IIT Roorkee in not regularizing the workman Shri Som Dutt s/o. Shri Ram Das, despite rendering for more than 21 years is justified ? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled to ?'

2. Both parties were put to notice and workman Som Dutt filed his statement of claim, with the averments that he was inducted into the service of erstwhile University of Roorkee (later on converted into IIT Roorkee) as Helper (Gatekeeper) on muster roll basis we.f. July, 1991 and continues to work in the same capacity since then. He requested the Management for his regularization many a times but to no avail. It is pleaded that the Management IIT Roorkee chalked out a plan under the Scheme of Y-Pool workers for the consistent absorption/regularization of such workmen/employees whose names were included in the Y-Pool for which the applicant was not taken into confidence. Though some of the workmen who were not included in the Y-Pool list have been absorbed but the claimant has been deprived of his legitimate right of being placed on regular pay scale. The claimant approached the Management several times for grant of such benefits but to no avail. He has prayed that order be passed (a) for upgradation of the claimant as per career development policy for the category to which he belongs with effect from the date he becomes entitled to his promotion; (b) for payment of arrears arising out of his regularization in the different regular pay scales and (c) for extension of all amenities & facilities such as residential accommodation allowance, medical, transport etc. for which the claimant becomes entitled consequent to his regularization and up-gradation in the regular pay scales.

3. The claim of the Workman has been resisted by the Management who filed its written statement wherein it has been alleged that the claimant was one of those casual daily wage workers whose services were engaged by the erstwhile University of the Management in July, 1991 as unskilled casual daily wage worker. Consequent upon agitation of such casual daily wage workers in 1993, a broad Memorandum of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20./2/1996 was reduced into writing in the presence of Civil Administration inter-alia on the terms that the such daily wage workers would be considered for appointment against vacant posts according to their qualifications and on the basis of their seniority & performance/merit as per recruitment rules, regulations and guidelines. Advertisement from time to time including those dated 24/10/94, 21/11/94, 26/7/95, 13/6/95, 27/8/96 and 27/3/97 for regular vacancies were issued and applications were called from Y-Pool workers and accordingly 211 persons out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool were recruited/selected against the regular posts on the basis of their merit/qualifications and experience. There was no automatic right for absorption or fresh appointment with respect to all the daily wage or contract workers. The claimant had applied for the post of Library Assistant against advertisement dated 20/9/1999; for the post of Peon against posts advertised on 22/3/97 and against the post of Worker Grade-C in Mechanical & Indl.Engg. Department against advertisement dated 27/8/1996. He was called for interview but was not selected/short listed due to inadequate experience in the relevant field. Though efforts on the part of Government to reduce the workers' strength was going on but the Management with the sole intention to accommodation Y-Pool workers placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the rest of these Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. It is alleged that the Management is providing all the facilities viz. EPF, Pension, Gratuity, accommodation, revision of fixed wages, hospital facilities to the Y pool workers including the claimant. It is also alleged that the claimant was/is otherwise illegible for selection as a regular employee of the Management (IIT Roorkee).. The engagement of the claimant was purely on casual, intermittent and temporary basis and in exigencies of work which was extended from time to time, the claim of the claimant for regularization of his services is ill founded and unjustified . Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Vide order dated 29/5/2013 my learned Predecessor observed that no specific issue except those referred by the Government for adjudication arises from the pleadings of the parties and as such parties were called upon to adduce their evidence.

5. The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as WW1 who tendered his affidavits Ex.WW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/2. In cross examination he deposed that he is 8th standard pass and had annexed a certificate to that effect alongwith his application submitted for engagement with the Management at the time of joining. He admitted that he was engaged as Helper on daily wage basis without any advertisement. He clarified that an incumbent for the post should be literate. He also admitted about formulation of Y pool list by the Management; conducting of test/interviews for the posts exclusively for the 361 Nos. of workers in the Y pool list and that the Management had recruited/regularized 211 such workers in the Y pool List. He also admitted that for different posts, minimum qualifications have been prescribed. He showed his ignorance that the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh imposed a ban on recruitment of non teaching staff vide orders dated 3/11/97 and 9/12/97. He also admitted that all eligible claimants/workmen whose names were there in the Y Pool list were given an opportunity to participate in the selection process for their absorption.

6. On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri Surendra Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) as MW1 who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/20. In cross examination he stated that category D posts have been abolished since 2006 and workmen/officials working in category-D are now termed as Multi Tasking Staff who are getting initial scale. While producing the regulations regarding the creation and pay-scale of different posts as Ex.MW1/W-5, he admitted that the posts created by Syndicate (Executive Body of Roorkee University) are in the pay scale approved by the State Government applicable at that time. He admitted that Management had created a single Y pool List but could not say whether at that time illiterate persons were regularized from the list of Y pool. He also admitted that Shri Bal Chand (mentioned at Sl.N.21) of list Ex.MW1/4 also being an illiterate was appointed as Safai Karamchari. Similarly incumbent at Sl.No.57, No.31 (Mahipal) and at Sl.No.80 (Tara Chand) in the said List all illiterate have been appointed as Safai Karamchari/Helper. He also admitted that the claimant/workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and is doing job regularly.

7. I have heard Shri Amit Sharma, A/R for the workman and Shri Sanjay Rawat, A/R for the Management and have also gone through the records carefully and my findings are as follows.

8. From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is manifest that the claimant/workman having been engaged as daily wager/ casual worker by the erstwhile University of Roorkee, has been under the employment of the Management since the year 1987 and he has been discharging duties of Pump Operator. As such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer-employee between the Management and claimant. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Courtt 2532, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of "workman" has observed as under :-

"The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of

service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a

person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not

make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There

is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on

regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary,

part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a

workman."

It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a person would be covered by the definition of "workman" as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act.

9. As discussed above, in the case in hand engagement of the claimant as daily wager for doing intermittent nature of work is duly admitted by the Management as per its pleadings and evidence adduced on record. The workman/claimant having been working continuously since the year 1987 on contractual engagement/daily wage basis under Y-1 category is paid fixed monthly emoluments in respect of his services, that is to say that he is being paid minimum in the scale without any increment or promotion etc. for want of regularization.

10. During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the Management relied on a number of judgements to contend that there is no fundamental right of those workers who have been employed as daily wager or temporarily or on contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. Even such workers even serving for a long number of years will not become entitled to claim regularization if he is not working against a sanctioned post.

11. There is no dispute about preposition of law on the point. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Food Corporation of India 2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 held as under :-

"… We are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice, the Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of year. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would be impressible. In the abovesaid circumstances, giving of direction to regularise a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager et., may amount to backdoor entry into the service which is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution. Further such a direction would not be given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 717

Industrial/Labour Court are at part with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally

justified, otherwise non regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious

discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the

Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality of upholding Article 14 rather than violating this

constitutional provision."

From the above ruling, it is clear that ordinarily the Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator should not issue direction for regularization of the workman engaged/working on casual/daily wage basis irrespective of his length of service unless there is a Scheme/policy of the Management & similarly situated workmen have been regularized by the employer/Management under the said policy/Scheme and benefit of such scheme/policy has been declined to the other.

12. It is not in dispute that pursuant to agitation of casual daily wage workers engaged in the erstwhile University of Roorkee in the year 1993, Memorandums of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20./2/1996 were reduced into writing and subsequently, the Management had prepared a Y list of such workers for the purposes of their regularization against the vacant posts. As per written statement of the Management, 211 workers out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool list have already been appointed/regularized and are being given regular pay scale. Management had intended to accommodate and give benefit of regularization to remaining Y-Pool workers & had placed an agenda in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the remaining/left over Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. This impliedly shows that a scheme/policy was formulated by the Management for regularizing the services of the workmen engaged on daily wage/casual basis. Documents/notifications dated 27/8/1996 (Ex.MW1/5 colly.) issued by University of Roorki shows that for the post of Peon /Workshop attendant in the pay-scale of Rs.750-940/-, eligibility criteria of education/experience was that the incumbent should be 8th class pass, The claimant is 8th class pass, It shows that the workman/claimant who was engaged in the year 1988 is working as Helper/Chowkidar since then. It is also evident from the testimony of MW1 Surender Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) that the Management has appointed/regularized the services of various other workers who were similarly placed with the claimant as regards literacy, were named in the Y Pool list (Ex.MW1/4). Shri Bal Chand, Maali (mentioned at Sl.N.21), Mahipal. Survey Tindal (at Sl.No.31), Shri Brijesh, Safai Karamchari (at Sl.No.56) and Tara Chand, Helper (at Sl.No.80) who are illiterate but have been placed in the regular pay-scale. Perusal of the said list also shows that there are other workmen who are illiterate but have been regularized as group-D for the post of Helper, Sweeper, Mali etc and reference may be made to the workmen shown at Sl.No.44,48, 67, 82, 85 to 89, 108, 114, 117, 139, 190, 201 of the said list. They have been regularized & are being paid wages in the regular pay-scale. On the contrary, the claimant/workman is being paid wages at a fixed consolidated rate at the minimum of the scale and that is to say that the workman/claimant is being paid lesser pay than those who are similarly placed and are doing the same/equal work.

13. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, 2017Lab.L.C. 427 while upholding the principle of "equal pay for equal work" even for temporary employees observed as under :-

"The principle of "equal pay for equal work" can be extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charged, daily wage, casual, adhoc, contractual and the like). It is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, can not be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation. ''

14. Having regard to the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that action of the Management in not regularizing the workman despite rendering service for more than 27 years continuously is unjustified and unwarranted. The workman /claimant is entitled to be regularized to the post of Helper (Gatekeeper).

15. Now the question arises for consideration is as to from which date the workman/claimant is entitled to be given benefit of regularization. Neither in the statement of claim, the workman/claimant has pleaded that he had made any written representation or demand/legal letter to the Management for consideration of his demand of regularization, nor he has filed any such document on record. It is pertinent to mention here that on the controversy between the parties, the reference to this Tribunal was made by the Appropriate Government vide letter dated 8/11/2012. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the workman/claimant is entitled to get benefit of regularization to the post of Helper/Gatekeeper in the regular pay-scale existing to the said post, w.e.f. 8/11/2012 with all consequential benefits viz.annual increment and other prevalent benefits/facilities like HRA, transport, medical facility etc.

Relief :-

In view of my aforesaid findings, the Management is directed to regularize the workman/claimant to the post of Helper/Gatekeeper w.e.f. 8/11/2012 in the regular pay-scale, with all consequential benefits and arrears of the same be also paid to him. The Award is passed accordingly.

Date : 07.01.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 tuojh] 2019

dk-vk- 202-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZMhchvkbZ cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k uoEcj&2 eqacbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 54@2017½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@22@2016&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

Ckh- ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th January, 2019

S.O. 202.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of IDBI Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.01.2019.

[No. L-12011/22/2016– IR(B-1)]

B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/54 of 2017

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF I.D.B.I BANK LTD. AND M/S. ALL SERVICES

GLOBAL P. LTD.

1. The Chairman, IDBI Bank Ltd., IDBI Tower, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 005.

2. M/s. All Services Global P. Ltd. Plot No. AG-3, Cama Industrial Estate, Village Pahadi, Near Hub Opp. Kusum Masala, Goregaon [E], Mumbai – 400 063.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The General Secretary, IDBI Bank Contract Employee's Association Maharashtra,Chandrakant Dhuru Wadi, V.S. Marg, Aagar Bazar, R. No. 7, Dadar [West], Mumbai – 400 028. APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Absent

FOR THE WORKMEN : Absent

Mumbai, dated the 21th December, 2018[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 719

AWARD

1. This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-12011/22/2016 – IR (B-I) dated 06.12.2017. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

"Whether the demand of the IDBI Bank Contract Employee's Association, Mumbai for paid holidays in addition to the regular weekly off and 4 National holidays at par with the regular employees of IDBI Bank is just and proper ? If not, then in case of working on such holidays, their demand for payment of overtime wages from the Management of M/s. All Services Global P. Ltd. on whose contract they are working in the Corporate Office of IDBI at Tower Building, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai is just and proper ? If so, what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to ? "

2. After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.

3. On going through Roznama it appears that the notices were served to both parties. However, the union has not filed statement of claim since long. Union remained absent. Therefore there is no statement of claim to substantiate the claim under reference.

4. For want of evidence the reference is liable to be rejected with no order as to costs.

ORDER

Reference is rejected for want of evidence.

Date: 21.12.2018

M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 tuojh] 2019

dk-vk- 203-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ckWEcs edsZaVkby dksvkWijsfVo cSad fyfeVsM izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k dksydkrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 49@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@168@2005&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

Ckh- ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th January, 2019

S.O. 203.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 49/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.01.2019.

[No. L-12012/168/2005– IR(B-1)]

B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 49 of 2005

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd.

AND

Their workmen

Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management : Mr. A. Hossain, learned counsel On behalf of the Workmen : Mr. S. Mukherjee, learned counsel

Dated: 4th January, 2019 Industry: Banking720 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Bereft of unnecessary details, factual matrix of the case is that the workman Shri Mumtaz Ahmed Ashiq Ali was appointed as Peon-cum-Watchman in the subordinate cadre of Bank on 01.01.1998 and was later promoted as Cashier-cum-Clerk on 1st August, 2001. While working as Cashier-cum-Clerk the workman was served with a chargesheet for conducting misconduct for his riotous, disorderly and indecent behavior on the premises of the Bank in presence of members of the staff during working hours. The enquiry was setup and after enquiry he was found guilty. Concurring with the Enquiry Officer's report, the management of the Bank finally passed an order on 12th January, 2005 inflicting punishment of dismissal from service of the Bank. Dispute regarding his dismissal arose and referred by the Government of India to this Tribunal vide Order No. L-12012/168/2005-IR(B-I) dated 28.11.2005 in following terms:

"Whether the action of the management of Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd., 89 Mohamedali Road,

and Mumbai – 400003 in imposing the punishment of "Dismissal from the services of the Bank without notice"

on Shri Mumtaz Ahmed Ashiq Ali vide its order No.67/STF/IR/15083 dated 12.01.2005 with immediate effect is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

2. The workman challenged the validity of enquiry on the ground that the person who conducted the enquiry was not competent to do so. The workman was victimized for not carrying out illegal and unreasonable orders actuated by mala fide motive to put the workman in trouble for no fault of his own. The workman also challenged the action of the Bank in imposing punishment of dismissal being bad in law and not in proportion to the charges leveled against him.

3. The management of the Bank file its written statement to the effect that on 3rd August, 2004 a customer, Mr. S. Roy approached the Bank for issuance of pay order which was not issued to him even after lapse of 40 minutes. At the end of the day when the Branch Manager called the workman and wanted to know the facts, the workman started shouting and abusing the officials working in the Branch and also threatened them inside the Manager's chamber to beat them outside. The Branch Manager objected to the workman's behavior and his using foul language. He also shouted at the Branch Manager. On 4th August, 2004 at about 9.40 A.M. the workman alongwith Shri Fida Mehdi Masdool Hassan Syed, a driver assaulted the Branch Manager, Shri Amir Azam Khan on his head, face and hand with their hands and fists causing injury to the Branch Manager in presence of staff members and customers of the branch within the premises of the Bank. The workman also used abusive language against the Branch Manager and threatened to beat him creating ugly scene and disrupting the working of the branch. The Branch Manger had to take medical treatment and lodged complaint with Beniapukur Police Station, Kolkata. An enquiry was held for the misconduct committed by the workman wherein the workman was found guilty of the charges. Therefore, the Bank dismissed him from services of the Bank.

4. As the workman had challenged the legality and validity of the enquiry, it was taken up as preliminary issue and decided by this Tribunal on 11th May, 2011. Enquiry was held to be in furtherance of principles of natural justice and therefore a valid enquiry.

5. After the domestic enquiry is held to be valid and proper, next question arises as to the scope of interference by the Tribunal. Initially the Industrial Tribunal had very little scope to interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. However, later on Section 11A was inserted in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1947 for convenience) wherein it has been provided that the Industrial Tribunal has power to reappraise the findings of domestic enquiry. According to Section 11A of the Act of 1947 the Industrial Tribunal can set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman, if it is satisfied that the order of dismissal or discharge was not justified.

6. The scope of judicial review by Industrial Tribunal has been analyzed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat & Another, CDJ 2013 SC 216 in following terms -

"It is settled legal proposition that judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re- appreciating the

evidence as an Appellate Authority. The only consideration the Court/Tribunal has in its judicial review, is

to consider whether the conclusion is based on evidence on record and supports the findings or whether the

conclusion is based on no evidence. The adequacy or reliability of the evidence is not a matter which can be

permitted to becanvassed before the Court in proceedings."

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that

"The decision referred to hereinabove highlights clearly, the parameter of the Court's power of judicial review

of administrative action or decision. An order can be set-aside if it is based on extraneous grounds, or when

there is no grounds at all for passing it or when the grounds are such that, no one can reasonably arrive at the

opinion. The Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal but, it merely reviews the manner in which the decision

was made. The Court will not normally exercise its power of judicial review unless it is found that formation of

belief by the statutory authority suffers from malafides, dishonest/corrupt practice. In other words, the authority

must act in good faith. Neither the question as to whether there was sufficient evidence before the authority can

be raised/examined, nor the question of re-appreciating the evidence to examine the correctness of the order

under challenge. If there are sufficient grounds for passing an order, then even if one of them is found to be

correct, and on its basis the order impugned can be passed, there is no occasion for the Court to interfere."

8. Learned counsel for the workman has argued that though the sufficiency of evidence adduced during domestic enquiry cannot be looked into by this Tribunal, but where the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is perverse, there is enough scope of interference. A perverse finding is one which is passed on no evidence or one that no reasonable[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 721 person would arrive at. Reiterating the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tribeny Rubber & Plastic v. CEE, AIR 1994 SC 1341 the Hon'ble Apex Court in General Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank v. Daya Singh, (2011) 2 SCC 233 has held that where some relevant evidence has not been considered or that certain inadmissible material has been taken into consideration, the findings can be said to be perverse.

9. Explaining the test of perversity the Hon'ble Apex Court in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwya, 2011 (4) Scale 56 has held as follows:

"6. It is now well settled that the Court will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence lead in

the domestic enquiry, nor interference on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If

the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based onevidence, the question of adequacy

of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the finding in

departmental enquiries. Therefore, Courts will not interfere with the findings of fact recorded in departmental

enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to

find out perversity is to see whether a Tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or

finding, on the material on record. Courts will,however,interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if

principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary,

capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous consideration."

10. Now scrutinizing the facts of the instant case with above angle, we have to see whether there is no evidence on record to prove the charges leveled against the workman or some extraneous material has been taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer. On perusal of record of domestic enquiry it is revealed that the workman concerned had been charged with misconduct. It was alleged that on 3rd August, 2004 one of the customers of the Bank had applied for issuance of pay order which was not issued to him even after 10 minutes. Then the matter was reported to the Branch Manager, Mr. Amir Azam Khan who called the workman to explain the whole matter, but he shouted at the Branch Manager and also used foul languages. Next day, on 4th August, 2004 at about 9.40 A.M. the workman concerned alongwith the Driver of the Bank, Shri Fida Mehdi Masdool Hassan Syed assaulted the Branch Manager on his face and hands and thus caused injuries in the presence of staff members an customers of the branch within the premises of the branch. In order to prove the above charge of misconduct, Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Mr. Amir Azam Khan the Branch Manager were examined and deposed against the workman concerned during enquiry proceeding. Both the witnesses had narrated the incident on oath and were also cross-examined by the defence. Learned counsel for the workman has failed to point out in what respect the charges of misconduct leveled against the workman concerned are based on no evidence or what extraneous material considered by the Enquiry Officer. As has already been seen above, the sufficiency of evidence cannot be seen at this stage. Thus the finding of Enquiry Officer can in no way be said to be perverse.

11. Even if a finding of Enquiry Officer does not suffer with any illegality or perversity, Tribunal has jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Act of 1947 to interfere, if it is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified. In catena of cases, it has been held that the action of the management must conform with proportionality of gravity of offence.

12. In Muriadih Colliery v. Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, 2005 (3) SCC 331 the law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows –

"It is well established principle in law that in a given circumstance it is open to the Industrial Tribunal acting

under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has the jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment

awarded in the domestic enquiry for good and valid reasons. If the Tribunal decides to interfere with such

punishment, it should bear in mind the principle of proportionality between the gravity of the offence and the

stringency of the punishment."

13. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. R. Dandapani, 2006(108) FLR 953 it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Tribunal has power to reduce the quantum of punishment, but power under Section 11-A has to be exercised judiciously and the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court Is expected to interfere with the decision of the management only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is wholly and shockingly disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned.

14. In Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals v. M. Mani & Others, 2018 LLR 2(SC) Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that where a departmental enquiry is held to be legal and proper then the only question remains for consideration is whether the punishment of dismissal is required any interference. Relevant portion of the judgment may be quoted as below:

"18. In other words, the Labour Court should have then confined its enquiry to examine only one limited

question as to whether the punishment given to the respondents was, in any way, disproportionate to the gravity

of the charge leveled against them and this, the Labour Court should have examined by taking recourse to the

provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. ………"

15. Thus the jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment can be exercised only when it is found to be grossly disproportionate. In the present case it has been seen that the workman concerned has not only used abusive language, but also assaulted the Manager of the Branch at bank premises in the presence of not only bank staff but also customers of the Branch. Thus the workman concerned committed indiscipline at work place which has been regarded as a matter of prime concern. Therefore, punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate so as to shock one's conscience. In Muriadih Colliery case (supra) two workmen alongwith others armed with deadly went to the722 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] General Manager and assaulted him causing injuries to him and his colleagues. The Court considered it as an act of gross indiscipline.

16. Similarly, in M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagadish Chandra Sharma, (2005) 3 SCC 401 the employee was found guilty hitting and injuring his superior at workplace in presence of other employees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that this clearly amounted to breach of discipline of the organization. Relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:

"Discipline at the workplace in an organization like the employer herein, is the sin qua non for the efficient

working of the organization. When an employee breaches such discipline and the employer terminates his

services, it is not open to a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal to take the view that the punishment awarded is

shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved."

Hon'ble Court has further quoted Jack Chan to highlight the importance of discipline at work place.

"discipline is a form of civily responsible behavior to help to maintain social order and contribute,

preservation, if not advancement of collective interest of the society at large."

17. Learned counsel for the management has cited Biecco Lawrie Ltd. & Another v. State of West Bengal, 2009- IV-LLJ 644, K. Yadiah v. Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, 2007 (112) FLR 130 and H.R.B.H. Siddique v. Brihan Mumbai Electricity Supply, 2007 (1) CLR 997 wherein it has been held that an act of assault cannot be regarded as a minor breach of discipline and use of abusive language by an employee would not be tolerated in a civilized society. In above case laws Courts also approved rule of shockingly disproportionality.

18. On the factual score it has been found that on 3rd August, 2004 when the Branch Manager wanted to have explanation for delay in issuance of pay order to one of the customers of the Bank, the workman concerned started shouting and abusing the officials working in the branch and threatened them inside the chamber of the Branch Manager. He also shouted at the Branch Manager using foul languages. Again on 4th August, 2004 at about 9.40 A.M. the workman concerned alongwith Driver of the Bank assaulted the Branch Manager within the premises of the Bank in the presence of staff members and customers of the Branch. Thus the workman created an atmosphere of indiscipline and disturbed the smooth and peaceful functioning of the Bank. In an organization where head of the organization himself is subjected to abusive languages and physical assault by subordinate staff of the organization, the workman cannot be said to deserve to remain in employment. His presence in the organization is detrimental to the interest of the Bank. In these circumstances, the punishment imposed by the management cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges of misconduct leveled against the workman, in absence of which no interference by the Tribunal is warranted under Section 11A of the Act of 1947.

18. In view of above, the action of the management of Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd. in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service of the Bank on Shri Mumtaz Ahmed Ashiq Ali is legal and justified and workman concerned is not entitled to any relief.

Award is passed accordingly.

Dated, Kolkata,

The 4th January, 2019.

JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 204204204204....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार

फू ड कारपोरेशन ऑफ़ इंडिया एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में

निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय, कोटा के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 15/1993) को प्रकाशित

करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 21.01.2019 को प्राप्त %आ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/65/एफ/1993–आईआर (सीएम-II)]

राजें( सिंह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 24th January, 2019

S.O. 204.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 15/1993) of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, KOTA as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Food Corporation of India and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 21.01.2019.

[No. L-22012/65/F/1993-IR (CM-II)

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 723 vuqca/k

U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.kdj.kdj.kdj.k ¼dsUnzh;½¼dsUnzh;½¼dsUnzh;½¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk]¼jktdksVk]¼jktdksVk]¼jktdksVk]¼jkt----½½½½ U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/k U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/k U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/k

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& Jh fodzkUr xqIrk] vkj-,p-ts-,l- funsZ'k izdj.k dzekad%vkS-U;k- ¼dsUnzh;½&15@1993 fnukad LFkkfir% 26@06@1993

izlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k Øa-,y&22012@65@,Q@93&vkbZ vkj ¼lh- II½ fnukad 24@06@1993

funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947

e/;e/;e/;e/; jkeQwy cSjok iq= X;kjlhyky cSjok] eq-iksLV [kVqiqjk rglhy o ftyk lokbZek/kksiqjA

---izkFkhZ Jfed

,oa,oa,oa,oa izcU/kd] Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe] lokbZek/kksiqj ¼jktLFkku½A

---vizkFkhZ

mifLFkrmifLFkrmifLFkrmifLFkr

izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k % Jh iq:"kksRre nk/khp vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k % Jh lh-ch-lksjy

fnukad % 20@11@2018

vf/kfu.kZ;vf/kfu.kZ;vf/kfu.kZ;vf/kfu.kZ;

Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds izklkafxd vkns'k fnukadvkns'k fnukadvkns'k fnukadvkns'k fnukad 24@06@1924@06@1924@06@1924@06@1993939393 ds tfj;s fuEu funsZ'k fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼ftls rnqijkUr **vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½dss vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ lEizsf"kr fd;k x;k gS%&

^^D;k izca/ku] Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe] lokbZek/kksiqj dh ;g dk;Zokgh fd Bsdsnkj }kjk j[ks x;s gktjh fjdkMZ dks vk/kkj u eku dj }kj izfo"V iaftdk (Gate Entry Register) dks vk/kkj eku dj Bsdk etnwjksa dks foHkkxh;dj.k djuk mfpr ,oa U;k; laxr gSA ;fn ugha rks deZdkj Jh jkeQwy cSjok iq= Jh X;kjlhyky cSjok fdl vuqrks"k dk gdnkj gS vkSj fdl rkjh[k lsA^^

2- funsZ'k@fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa izkIr gksus ij iathc) mijkUr i{kdkjksa dks lwpuk@uksfVl tkjh dj fof/kor voxr djok;k x;kA

3- izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr dj laf{kIr% ;g vfHkO;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ] Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe] lokbZek/kksiqj esa Bsdsnkj gjdpan caly@caly ,.Vj izkbZtst] ds ;gkW o"kZ 1988 ls mDr fuxe dk eky p<+kus o mrkjus dk dke fujUrj djrk pyk vk jgk gSA mDr fuxe dk eky vanj ykus vkSj ckgj ys tkus dh O;oLFkk jsYos oSxuksa }kjk gksrh gS ftlds fy, lokbZek/kksiqj jsYos ;kMZ ls fuxe ifjlj ds xksnkeksa rd jsYos ykbZu Myh gqbZ gS ftlls jsYos oSxuksa dks fuxe ifjlj esa ykus vkSj ogkW ls okil ys tkus dk dke djrs gSaA jsYos baftu vkSj oSxuksa ds vkus tkus ds fy, fuxe ifjlj ds ihNs jsYos ykbu ds Åij ,d QkVd cuk gqvk gS tks fuxe dk jsYos QkVd ds uke ls tkuk tkrk gSA fuxe ds jsYos QkVd ds ihNs cls gq, xkao HkMsjMk ,oa [kVqiqjk utnhd gksus ds dkj.k bu xkoksa esa jgus okys Jfed tks fuxe esa dke djrs gSa] og cgq/kk bl jsYos QkVd ls gh izos'k dj vUnj fuxe esa dke djus tkrs gSaA dkexkjksa dks fuxe esa dke djus ds fy, ifjp;&i= fn;s x;s gSaA Bsdsnkj vius etnwjksa dh gkftjh vius }kjk j[ks x;s jftLVj esa vyx ls djrk gS] etnwjksa dks izR;sd ekg gkftjh vuqlkj osru forj.k djrk gS tks fuxe ds izfrfuf/k ds le{k forj.k djus dk izko/kku gSA Hkkjr ljdkj ds uksfVfQds'ku fnukad 07@09@90 ds }kjk [kk| fuxe esa Bsdsnkjh izFkk lekIr dh x;h vkSj mlds vuqlkj fuxe esa dk;Zjr Bsdsnkj ds Jfedksa dk foHkkxh;dj.k djuk visf{kr gks x;kA [kk| fuxe] lokbZek/kksiqj us foHkkxh;dj.k dh izfdz;k izkjEHk dh vkSj mlds vUrxZr dkexkjksa dh 1 vizsy]88 ls 31 ekpZ] 91 rd rhu foRrh; o"kksZ dh mifLFkfr;ksa ds xsV ij j[ks izfo"B jftLVj dk voyksdu dj x.kuk dh x;h vkSj mlesa miyC/k mifLFkfr;ksa dks gh vk/kkj ekudj ftl dkexkj dh mifLFkfr 254 fnu Fkh] mldk foHkkxh;dj.k esa p;u dj fy;k x;kA p;u ds fy, mifLFkfr;ksa dh x.kuk xyr izdkj ls fuxe ds }kj izfo"B iaftdk¼xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj½ ds vk/kkj ij dh x;h gS ftlesa izkFkhZ dh gktjh 214 fnu n'kkZ;h gS] tcfd okLrfod vkSj U;k;laxr vk/kkj] Bsdsnkj }kjk j[ks x;s gktjh fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj gksuk pkfg, ftlds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dh gktjh p;fur Jfedksa ls cgqr T;knk gksrh gSA pwWfd izkFkhZ dh rjg vkSj Jfed tks fuxe ds jsYos QkVd ds ihNs utnhdh xkao HkMjsMk vkSj [kVqiqj ls dke ij vkrs gSa] os dHkh&dHkh ihNs ls jsYos QkVd esa gksdj fuxe esa dke ij vkrs gSa] mudh mifLFkfr }kj izfo"B iaftdk esa ugha gksrh] ijUrq Bsdsnkj vius gktjh jftLVj esa vo'; djrk gS vkSj blh vk/kkj ij osru forj.k djrk gSA vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k gS fd fuxe ds izcU/kd us p;u ds fy, xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj esa n'kkZ;h x;h mifLFkfr dks gh vk/kkj ekudj LVsVesUV rS;kj djok;k vkSj mlh vk/kkj ij Jfedksa dks p;u dj fy;k tks lR;rk okLrfodrk ls ijs gksus ds dkj.k U;k;laxr ugha FkkA vkxs vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k gS fd izcU/kd }kjk tks xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj ds vk/kkj ij gktjh dk LVsVesUV rS;kj fd;k x;k] mlesa izkFkhZ Jfed dh viszy]1988 dh gktjh tks Bsdsnskj ds fjdkMZ esa ntZ Fkh] og izcU/kd ds LVsVesUV esa ntZ ugha dh x;h Fkh ftlls ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izcU/kd }kjk xyr LVsVesUV rS;kj djokdj xyr p;u fd;k x;kA iwjs rhu o"kksZ dk fjdkMZ le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds ikl miyC/k ugha gks ldk vU;Fkk ,slh folaxfr;ka vkSj Hkh lkeus vk tkrhA ;g rF; le>kSrk vf/kdkjh us vius izfrosnu fn-26@02@93 esa mYysf[kr fd;k gSA ;g Hkh724 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k fd izkFkhZ dh mifLFkfr dk fjdkMZ tks Bsdsnkj }kjk j[kk tkrk gS rFkk izkFkhZ dh Bsdsnkj ds ;gkW dke dh mifLFkfr dk iw.kZ voyksdu dj mifLFkfr tksM+h tkos rks izkFkhZ dh mifLFkfr tks p;fur Jfed gS] muls vf/kd fudysxh vkSj mlls izkFkhZ dk p;u vo';EHkkoh gSA vUr esa izkFkZuk dh x;h gS fd vizkFkhZ izcU/kd] Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe] lokbZ ek/kksiqj dks ikcUn fd;k tkos fd og izkFkhZ dk p;u dj LFkk;h foHkkxh; Jfed fu;qDr djs o vU; Jfedksa dh p;u frfFk ls p;u dj mlh vuqlkj fiNys osru] xzsM bR;kfn dk ykHk izkFkhZ dks iznku fd;k tkosA

4- vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls mDr Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj izkjfEHkd vkifRr;ksa esa ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k gS fd vizkFkhZ] izkFkhZ dk fu;kstd ugha gksus o izkFkhZ o vizkFkhZ ds e/; fu;ksDrk ,oa fu;kstd ds dksbZ Hkh lEcU/k ugha gksus ds dkj.k Dyse lquokbZ ;ksX; ugha gksdj fujLruh; gSA izkFkhZ }kjk Dyse esa of.kZr Bsdsnkj gjdpan caly@caly ,UVjizkbZtst ftlds ;gkW eky p<+kus o mrkjus dk dk;Z djuk n'kkZ;k x;k gS] ogh mldk fu;kstd gks ldrk Fkk ftls vko';d i{kdkj gksus ij Hkh i{kdkj ugha cuk;k x;k gS] vr% vizkFkhZ ds fo:) Dyse fujLruh; gSA izkFkhZ }kjk ;g Hkh ugha cryk;k x;k gS fd mDr nksuksa Bsdsnkj us vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa fdl&fdl vof/k esa o fdrus&fdrus le; rd dk;Z fd;k gS] vr% Dyse fMQsfDVo gksus ds dkj.k fujLruh; gSA izkFkhZ }kjk ;g ugha crk;k x;k gS fd og vizkFkhZ fuxe esa foHkkxh;d`r fd;s x;s fdl Jfed ls ,oa fdl izdkj ls ofj"B gS rFkk ,sls Jfed dk iw.kZ fooj.k fuokl LFkku] mifLFkfr vkfn dks Hkh ugha n'kkZ;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ Jfed fuxe esa fy;s x;s vU; Jfedksa ds fo:) Lo;a dks ofj"B crkrs gq, viuk dsl yk jgk gS] fdUgsa ,sls Jfedksa dks Dyse esa i{kdkj ugha cuk;k x;k gSA ;g Hkh vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k gS fd bl lEcU/k esa usrjke o vU; O;fDr;ksa }kjk [kk| fuxe ds e/;izns'k fLFkr lkxj fMiks ds fo:) fookn mBk;k x;k Fkk tks Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky; }kjk vius vkns'k fn-29@01@93 ds }kjk fookn dks vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k U;k;fu.kZ;kFkZ ugha fHktok;k x;k D;ksafd mlesa ;g ekuk x;k fd usrjke vkfn O;fDr;ksa ds o Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe ds e/; fu;ksDrk o fu;kstd ds lEcU/k ugha gSA ;g Hkh vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZ dk Jfed ugha Fkk blfy, vizkFkhZ ds fdlh Hkh izcU/kdh; vkUrfjd dk;Z dh izfdz;k xr viuk;h tkus okyh dk;Z iz.kkyh ij mls vk{ksi mBkus dk dksbZ dkuwuh vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gSA Dyse dk vkxs tokc esa ;g izfrokn fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk lgk;d Je vk;qDr¼ds½ dksVk ds ;gkW tks izkFkZuk&i= fn- 01@07@92 dks izLrqr fd;k x;k] mlds en ua-1 esa izkFkhZ us Lo;a dks o"kZ 1987 esa Bsdsnkj gjdpan caly ds ;gkW eky p<+kus&mrkjus dk dk;Z djuk crk;k gS] tcfd izLrqr Dyse esa o"kZ 1988 esa Bsdsnkj gjdpUn caly@caly ,UVjizkbZtst ds ds ;gkW dk;Z djuk cryk;k gS tksfd nksuksa vyx&vyx laLFkku gS] vr% Dyse fojks/kkHkk"kh gksus ls Lor% gh fujLruh; gSA izkFkhZ us U;k;kf/kdj.k esa tks Dyse is'k fd;k gS] mlesa mDr izkFkZuk&i= fnukad 01@7@92 esa of.kZr rF;ksa dk dksbZ fooj.k ugha fn;k gS rFkk mlessa of.kZr ;g dFku xyr gS fd jsYos ykbZu ds Åij tks QkVd cuk gqvk gS] og vizkFkhZ fuxe ds jsYos QkVd ds uke ls tkuk tkrk gSA Dyse dk pj.k dze 3 vizkFkhZ ls lEcfU/kr ugha gksuss ls ,oa izkFkhZ ds ekax&i= fn-01@07@92 tksfd lgk;d Je vk;qDr¼ds½ dksVk ds ;gkW izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ ekax ugha gksus ds dkj.k iw.kZr;k vLohdk;Z gSA blh izdkj Dyse dk pj.k dze 4] 5] 6] 7 Hkh vlaxr gksus ls vLohdkj fd;k x;k gSA Dyse ds pj.k dze 8 ds vUrxZr iqu% izkFkhZ o vizkFkhZ ds e/; fu;ksDrk ,oa fu;kstd ds lEcU/k ugha gksus dh ckr nksgjkrs gq, lEiw.kZ Dyse fujk/kkj gksus ls vLohdkj dj fujLr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h gSA

5- izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls tokcqytokc Hkh izLrqr dj ;gh vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ us tks eky p<+kus o mrkjus dk dk;Z fd;k gS og vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dk gh eky Fkk] uk fd rFkkdfFkr Bsdsnkj dkA izkFkhZ ds dk;Z ij fu;a=.k Hkh fu;kstd ds vf/kdkfj;ksa dk gh jgk gSA izkFkhZ dks ;g fooj.k jsQzsUl ds fooknxzLr fcUnq ds vuqlkj nsus dh vko';drk ugha gS D;ksafd jsQzsUl esa izkFkhZ us fu;kstd dh ml izfdz;k dks pqukSrh nh gS ftlds vuqlkj Jfedksa dk foHkkxh;dj.k fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ dh gktjh fjdkMZ dks vk/kkj eku fy;k tkos rks izkFkhZ dk foHkkxh;dj.k fuf'pr rkSj ij gS vkSj vizkFkhZ dks izkFkhZ dk mifLFkfr fjdkMZ ds vk/kkj ij gh foHkkxh;dj.k djuk pkfg,A ;g Hkh vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k gS fd Bsdsnkjksa ds ek/;e ls dk;Z djrs gq, fu;kstd ds ;gkW ftu Jfedksa dks 240 fnu ;k mlls vf/kd le; gks x;k Fkk] mUgsa fu;kstd ds ;gkW foHkkxh;dj.k djuk Fkk] ;kfu fu;kstd dh jksy ij ukSdjh ij ysuk FkkA 240 fnu gktjh dh x.kuk fu;kstd us xsV ds ,UV~zh jftLVj ds vuqlkj dh Fkh] tcfd fu;kstd ds ;gkW ij Jfedksa dks M~;wVh ij vkus&tkus ds fy, xsV dh ,UV~zh vko';d ugha FkhA fu;kstd ds ;gkW 3 xsV Fks rFkk fdlh Hkh xsV ls Jfed M~;wVh ij vk&tk ldrk FkkA 240 fnu dh x.kuk djus ds fy, mifLFkfr dk fjdkMZ o osru izkIr djus dk fjdkMZ ns[kk tkuk vfuok;Z Fkk vkSj blh ds tfj;s foHkkxh;dj.k gksuk pkfg, Fkk tks ugha fd;k x;kA vr% izkFkhZ fiNys lEiw.kZ osru o ykHkksa lfgr foHkkxh;dj.k djok;s tkus dk vf/kdkjh gS tks mls iznku fd;k tkosA

6- lk{; esa izkFkhZ Jfed jkeQwy cSjok rFkk vizkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls jkes'oj izlkn dNokgk] lgk;d izcU/kd rFkk lhrkjke 'kekZ] lgk;d izcU/kd ds 'kiFk&i= izLrqr gq, ftuls mHk;i{k ds izfrfuf/kx.k }kjk ijLij ftjg dh x;hA mHk;i{k dh vksj ls izys[kh; lk{; Hkh izLrqr dh x;h ftldk ;Fkkle; mYys[k fd;k tkosxkA

7- mHk;i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/kx.k dh cgl lquh x;h tks cgl eq[;r% muds }kjk izLrqr vius&vius vH;kosnuksa ij gh vk/kkfjr jgh gS] vizkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls fyf[kr cgl Hkh izLrqr dh x;h] ftldk rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh dk /;kuiwoZd ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA vizkFkhZ i{k us viuh cgl@rdZ leFkZu esa fuEu U;k;n`"Vkar is'k fd;k gS%&

^^,vkbZvkj 1954 enzkl 1045&eSustesUV vkWQ eSllZ vkWfM;u flusek cuke odZlZ vkWQ lkxj VkWfdt^^%& ^^,vkbZvkj 1954 enzkl 1045&eSustesUV vkWQ eSllZ vkWfM;u flusek cuke odZlZ vkWQ lkxj VkWfdt^^%& ^^,vkbZvkj 1954 enzkl 1045&eSustesUV vkWQ eSllZ vkWfM;u flusek cuke odZlZ vkWQ lkxj VkWfdt^^%& ^^,vkbZvkj 1954 enzkl 1045&eSustesUV vkWQ eSllZ vkWfM;u flusek cuke odZlZ vkWQ lkxj VkWfdt^^%&

mDr U;k;n`"Vkar esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fof/k dk fuEu fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS%&

"In a case where the employment has not started at all but is merely in the stage of a contract these can not be an industrial dispute between employer on a person whom he has agreed to take into the employ, but whom he has never employed, any difference between the parties to the contract must be resolved in the ordinary courts by a suit for damages."

8- eSaus mHk;i{k ds rdksZ ij /;kuiwoZd euu fd;k o i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;kA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ i{k us vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse] izkFkhZ ds 'kiFk&i=] ftjg rFkk izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr nLrkost izn'kZ McY;w-1 yxk;r McY;w-5 dk voyEc fy;k gS sizn'kZ McY;w-1 uD'kk gS ftlesa Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe ds lokbZek/kksiqj fLFkr xksnke rFkk jsYos V~zsd dks n'kkZ;k x;k gSA izn'kZ McY;w-2 izkFkhZ jkeQwy cSjok }kjk lgk;d Je vk;qDr dsUnzh; dks fn;k x;k izkFkZuk&i= gS ftlesa mlus fuosnu fd;k gS fd Bsdsnkj ds fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj mldh lsok mu O;fDr;ksa ls T;knk gS ftudh lsokvksa dk foHkkxh;dj.k fd;k x;k gS] tcfd izkFkhZ dh lsok dk oxhZdj.k ugha fd;k x;k gSA izn'kZ McY;w- 3 vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr tokc gSA izn'kZ McY;w-4 izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk&i= gS ftlesa mlus fuosnu fd;k gS fd mls jsxwyjkbZt ugha fd;k tkuk xyr gS rFkk vizkFkhZ }kjk dkaV~zsDVj yscj dk p;u xsV ,UV~zh ds }kjk fd;k x;k gS] og xyr gSA blesa mlus ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k gS fd deZpkjh ds LFkk;hdj.k@jsxwyjkbZts'ku gsrq Bsdsnkj }kjk la/kkfjr gkftjh jftLVj ds vk/kkj ij deZpkjh dh gkftjh ekuh tkuk[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 725 pkfg,] uk fd xsV ikl ds tfj;sA izn'kZ McY;w-5 vlQy okrkZ izfrosnu gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr lHkh nLrkostkr izn'kZ McY;w-1 yxk;r McY;w-5 ds voyksdu ls ;gh izdV gksrk gS fd blesa ls dksbZ Hkh nLrkost ,slk ugha gS ftlls ;g izdV gksrk gks fd izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ ds lokbZek/kksiqj fLFkr xksnke esa dk;Z fd;k gks ;k fdrus fnu fd;k gksA izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ ds le{k vius dk;Zjr jgus dks fl) djus gsrq igpku&i= la[;k 29779 dk Hkh voyEc fy;k gS ftlesa tkjh djus dh frfFk fnukad 15@04@90 n'kkZ;h x;h gS] ijUrq blls Hkh ;g izdV ugha gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW fdl&fdl o"kZ esa fdrus&fdrus fnu dk;Z fd;k gSA lEiw.kZ i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us ,slk dksbZ nLrkost U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr ugha fd;k gS ftlls ;g lkfcr gksrk gks fd izkFkhZ us fdu frfFk] ekg o o"kZ esa vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW dqy fdruh vof/k rd dk;Z fd;k gSA izkFkhZ us vius LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse rFkk 'kiFk&i= ds vk/kkj ij rdZ fn;k gS fd izkFkhZ dk p;u LFkk;h foHkkxh; Jfed gsrq ugha fd;k tkuk xyr gS rFkk p;u ds fy, mifLFkfr dh x.kuk xyr izdkj ls vizkFkhZ fuxe ds }kjk }kj izfo"V iaftdk (Gate Entry Register) ds vk/kkj ij dh x;h gS ftlesa mldh gkftjh dsoy 69 fnu n'kkZ;h x;h gS] tcfd okLrfod ,oa U;k;laxr vk/kkj Bsdsnkj }kjk j[kk x;k gkftjh jftLVj gS ftlesa izkFkhZ dh gkftjh p;fur Jfedksa ls cgqr T;knk gksrh gSA izkFkhZ us vius 'kiFk&i= esa ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd vizkFkhZ fuxe ds izcU/kd us p;u ds fy, xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj esa n'kkZ;h x;h mifLFkfr dks gh vk/kkj ekudj LVsVesUV rS;kj djok;k rFkk mlh vk/kkj ij Jfedksa dk p;u dj fy;kA 'kiFk&i= esa ;g Hkh dFku fd;k x;k gS fd le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds ikl okrkZ esa tc nksuksa i{k mifLFkr gq, rks lsEiy ds rkSj ij Bsdsnkj dk gkftjh jftLVj ebZ&twu] 90 dk fjdkMZ mifLFkfr gsrq izcU/kd }kjk xyr LVsVesUV rS;kj djokdj xyr p;u fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ us viuh ftjg esa ;g rF; Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mldk Bsdsnkj gjdpUn 22 xksnke dk FkkA ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd 22 xksnke esa tks Hkh Bsdsnkj ds Jfed Fks muds xsV ls izos'k djrs FksA mlus ftjg esa ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd mls ugha ekywe dh foHkkxh;dj.k ds lEcU/k esa foHkkx o ;wfu;u ds e/; le>kSrk gqvk FkkA mlus dFku fd;k gS fd og vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW xsgwa lksjus¼bdB~Bk djus½ dk dk;Z djrk Fkk tks dstqvy yscj dk Fkk rFkk og eky mrkjus o p<+kus dk dke ugha djrk FkkA mlus ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd mls irk ugha fd fyLV cuk;h x;h ;k ugha rFkk fyLV esa mldk uEcj fdruk FkkA bl izdkj izkFkhZ }kjk LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse] izLrqr fd;s x;s 'kiFk&i= rFkk mldh ftjg ls Hkh ;g izdV ugha gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us fdruh vof/k esa fdl&fdl fnu ekg o o"kZ esa vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW dk;Z fd;kA izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse] 'kiFk&i= rFkk mldh ftjg ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ] Bsdsnkj gjdpan caly ds ;gkW dk;Z djrk Fkk ftldk fd mlds }kjk izLrqr LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse dh en la[;k 1 esa Hkh vadu gSA LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse esa izkFkhZ us ;g dFku fd;k gS fd og o"kZ 1988 ls Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe ds lokbZek/kksiqj ds Bsdsnkj gjdpan caly@caly ,UVjizkbZtst ds ;gkW eky p<+kus o mrkus dk dke djrk Fkk] tcfd mlus viuh ftjg esa ;g Li"V dFku fd;k gS fd og eky p<+kus o mrkus dk dke ugha djrk Fkk] og dsoy xsgwa lkssjus ¼bdB~Bk½ djus dk dke djrk FkkA bl izdkj izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW D;k dk;Z djrk Fkk] bl lEcU/k esa mldh lk{; esa xEHkhj fojks/kkHkkl gSA

9- izkFkhZ ds LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse rFkk 'kiFk&i= ls ;g Hkh izdV gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZ dk eky muds xksnke esa ys tkus dh O;oLFkk jsYos osxu }kjk gksrh Fkh ftlds fy, lokbZek/kksiqj jsYos ;kMZ ls fuxe xksnke rd jsYos ykbZu Myh gqbZ gSA jsYos osxu dks fuxe ifjlj esa ykus o ys tkus ds fy, ifjlj ds ihNs jsYos ykbZu ds Åij ,d QkVd cuk gqvk gS ftls jsYos QkVd ds uke ls tkuk tkrk gSA mlus LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse esa ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd fuxe esa dke djus ds fy, dkexkjksa dks ifjp;&i= fn;s tkrs Fks] ijUrq izkFkhZ us U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k tks ifjp;&i= izLrqr fd;k gS og fn-15@04@90 dk tkjh fd;k x;k gS] iwoZ dk dksbZ ifjp;&i= mlds }kjk izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS ftlls ;g izdV ugha gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us o"kZ 1990 ds iwoZ ds o"kksZ esa vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW fdrus fnu dk;Z fd;k gSA izkFkhZ us vius LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse rFkk mlds 'kiFk&i= ds vk/kkj ij Lo;a ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd vizkFkhZ ds xksnkeksa esa tkus ds fy, jsYos dk ,d QkVd cuk gqvk gS ftl ij izos'k djus ij xsV ikl cuk;k tkrk gSA izkFkhZ us vius LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse esa ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj ds vk/kkj ij xsV ,UV~zh 214 fnu n'kkZ;h x;h gSA blls ;gh izdV gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj esa vko';drkuqlkj ,UV~zh dh tkrh Fkh rFkk izkFkhZ dh Hkh ,UV~zh dh x;h gS] ijUrq izkFkhZ us viuh lEiw.kZ lk{; essa ;g rF; dgha ugha cryk;k gS fd ml O;fDr dk uke D;k gS ftldh izfof"V jftLVj esa 254 fnu dh mifLFkfr ds vk/kkj ij mldk p;u foHkkxh;dj.k gsrq dj fy;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ us egRoiw.kZ rF; U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr ugha fd;k gS ftlls izdV gksrk gS fd ,sls fdl O;fDr dk foHkkxh;dj.k gsrq p;u dj fy;k x;k ftldh mifLFkfr izkFkhZ ls de FkhA izkFkhZ us ml Bsdsnkj dks Hkh i{kdkj ugha cuk;k gS ftlds ;gkW og o"kZ 1988 ls mlds dFkukuqlkj dk;Z djrk FkkA izkFkhZ ds dFkukuqlkj og gjdpan caly@caly ,UVjizkbZtst ds ;gkW dk;Z djrk Fkk rFkk mldh mifLFkfr mlds vuqlkj Bsdsnkj }kjk la/kkfjr jftLVj esa dh tkrh Fkh] ijUrq izkFkhZ us ml Bsdsnkj dks i{kdkj ugha cuk;k gS] tcfd bl lEcU/k esa 'kq: ls gh vizkFkhZ i{k us xEHkhj vkifRr dh gSA ;fn izkFkhZ fdlh Bsdsnkj ds ;gkW dk;Z djrk Fkk rks mls i{kdkj cuk;k tkuk vko';d gS rFkk izdj.k ds fuLrkj.k gsrq mlds }kjk fdlh la/kkfjr jftLVj dks Hkh U;k;kf/kdj.k esa izLrqr djuk vko';d gks tkrk gSA izkFkhZ us Bsdsnkj }kjk la/kkfjr ,sls fdlh jftLVj dks uk rks U;k;kf/kdj.k esa izLrqr fd;k gS o uk gh mldh ewy ;k lR;kfir izfr dks izLrqr fd;k gS o uk gh ,sls jftLVj dks ryc djokus ds fy, fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ izkFkZuk&i= gh U;k;kf/kdj.k esa izLrqr fd;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ ;g rF; U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd fdlh Bsdsnkj }kjk mldh mifLFkfr dk la/kkj.k jftLVj esa fd;k tkrk Fkk ftlesa mldh mifLFkfr vf/kd gksrh ctk; xsV ,UVz~h jftLVj dsA vius }kjk izLrqr rF;ksa dks fl) djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZ ij Fkk ftls ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; ls lkfcr djus dk izFke nkf;Ro mlh dk Fkk] ijUrq izkFkhZ ,slk djus esa vlQy jgk gSA izkFkhZ uk rks ml O;fDr dk uke U;k;kf/kdj.k esa crk ldk gS ftldh 254 mifLFkfr ds vk/kkj ij mldk p;u foHkkxh;dj.k ds fy, dj fy;k x;k o uk gh ,sls Bsdsnkj dks i{kdkj cuk;k x;k gS ftlds }kjk mifLFkfr jftLVj la/kkfjr fd;k tkrk Fkk] ,slh fLFkfr esa vius }kjk izLrqr rF;ksa dks fl) djus esa izkFkhZ iw.kZr;k vlQy jgk gSA

10- vizkFkhZ us vius tokc LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse ds leFkZu esa jkes'oj izlkn dNokgk iwoZ lgk;d izcU/ kd rFkk lhrkjke 'kekZ iwoZ lgk;d izcU/kd vizkFkhZ us vius tokc LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse ds leFkZu esa jkes'oj izlkn dNokgk iwoZ lgk;d izcU/kd rFkk lhrkjke 'kekZ iwoZ lgk;d izcU/kd kd rFkk lhrkjke 'kekZ iwoZ lgk;d izcU/kd kd rFkk lhrkjke 'kekZ iwoZ lgk;d izcU/kd vizkFkhZ us vius tokc LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse ds leFkZu esa jkes'oj izlkn dNokgk iwoZ lgk;d izcU/ vizkFkhZ us vius tokc LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse ds leFkZu esa jkes'oj izlkn dNokgk iwoZ lgk;d izcU/ dh lk{; dk voyEc fy;k gSA bu nksuksa lkf{k;ksa us vius 'kiFk&i= esa Li"V :i ls dFku fd;k gS fd lokbZek/kksiqj esa fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds jfLFkfr;ksa ds jfLFkfr;ksa ds jfLFkfr;ksa ds dh lk{; dk voyEc fy;k gSA bu nksuksa lkf{k;ksa us vius 'kiFk&i= esa Li"V :i ls dFku fd;k gS fd lokbZek/kksiqj esa fo'ks"k if dh lk{; dk voyEc fy;k gSA bu nksuksa lkf{k;ksa us vius 'kiFk&i= esa Li"V :i ls dFku fd;k gS fd lokbZek/kksiqj esa fo'ks"k if dh lk{; dk voyEc fy;k gSA bu nksuksa lkf{k;ksa us vius 'kiFk&i= esa Li"V :i ls dFku fd;k gS fd lokbZek/kksiqj esa fo'ks"k if dkj.k Jfedksa dh ojh;rk fuf'pr djus ds fy, o`gr xksnke] lokbZek/kksiqj bdkb Z tgkW Bsdsnkj Je i)fr dk fu"ks/k fd;k x;k] ds xsV ,UV~zh dkj.k Jfedksa dh ojh;rk fuf'pr djus ds fy, o`gr xksnke] lokbZek/kksiqj bdkbZ tgkW Bsdsnkj Je i)fr dk fu"ks/k fd;k x;k] ds xsV ,UV~zh Z tgkW Bsdsnkj Je i)fr dk fu"ks/k fd;k x;k] ds xsV ,UV~zh Z tgkW Bsdsnkj Je i)fr dk fu"ks/k fd;k x;k] ds xsV ,UV~zh dkj.k Jfedksa dh ojh;rk fuf'pr djus ds fy, o`gr xksnke] lokbZek/kksiqj bdkb dkj.k Jfedksa dh ojh;rk fuf'pr djus ds fy, o`gr xksnke] lokbZek/kksiqj bdkb jftLVj dks vk/kkj ekudj ;wfu;u ds izfrfuf/k;ksa dh lgHkkfxrk ls ,oa xksnke ij yEcs le; ls dk;Zjr deZpkjh tks Jfedksa dh iwjh igpku j[krs igpku j[krs igpku j[krs igpku j[krs jftLVj dks vk/kkj ekudj ;wfu;u ds izfrfuf/k;ksa dh lgHkkfxrk ls ,oa xksnke ij yEcs le; ls dk;Zjr deZpkjh tks Jfedksa dh iwjh jftLVj dks vk/kkj ekudj ;wfu;u ds izfrfuf/k;ksa dh lgHkkfxrk ls ,oa xksnke ij yEcs le; ls dk;Zjr deZpkjh tks Jfedksa dh iwjh jftLVj dks vk/kkj ekudj ;wfu;u ds izfrfuf/k;ksa dh lgHkkfxrk ls ,oa xksnke ij yEcs le; ls dk;Zjr deZpkjh tks Jfedksa dh iwjh Fks] dh lkewfgd lsok;sa ysrs gq, Jfedksa dh ojh;rk iqu% izekf .kr djus dk dk;Z fd;k x;k rFkk iwjd vfHkys[kksa ds :i esa tgkW vko';d le>k Fks] dh lkewfgd lsok;sa ysrs gq, Jfedksa dh ojh;rk iqu% izekf.kr djus dk dk;Z fd;k x;k rFkk iwjd vfHkys[kksa ds :i esa tgkW vko';d le>k .kr djus dk dk;Z fd;k x;k rFkk iwjd vfHkys[kksa ds :i esa tgkW vko';d le>k .kr djus dk dk;Z fd;k x;k rFkk iwjd vfHkys[kksa ds :i esa tgkW vko';d le>k Fks] dh lkewfgd lsok;sa ysrs gq, Jfedksa dh ojh;rk iqu% izekf Fks] dh lkewfgd lsok;sa ysrs gq, Jfedksa dh ojh;rk iqu% izekf x;k] Bsdsnkj }kjk miyC/k djok;s x;s vfHkys[kksa dk Hkh ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA bu lkf{k;ksa us vius 'kiFk&i= esa ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd fuxe x;k] Bsdsnkj }kjk miyC/k djok;s x;s vfHkys[kksa dk Hkh ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA x;k] Bsdsnkj }kjk miyC/k djok;s x;s vfHkys[kksa dk Hkh ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA x;k] Bsdsnkj }kjk miyC/k djok;s x;s vfHkys[kksa dk Hkh ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA izcU/kd ,oa ;wfu;u izfrfuf/k;ksa dh la;qDr ns[k&js[k esa izos'k iaftdk ds vk/kkj ij o"kZ 88&89] 89&90 o 90&91 ds foRrh; o"kksZ dh mifLFkfr dh x.kuk dj ekfld] okf"kZd] f=okf"kZd mifLFkfr izi= rS;kj fd;s x;s] muds vk/kkj ij ojh;rk lwph rS;kj dh x;h tks fuxe izcU/ku ds726 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] vf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa Jfed ;wfu;u ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds la;qDr gLrk{kjksa ls fnukad 07@02@92 dks tkjh dh x;h] rnuqlkj fu;qfDr&i= nsus dh izfdz;k 'kq: dh x;h ftlds fefuV dh izfr fnukad 07@02@92 izn'kZ ,e-8 gSA bu lkf{k;ksa us ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd Jfedksa ds foHkkxh;dj.k dh ik=rk lqfuf'pr djus ds fy, lokbZek/kksiqj dh nksuksa Hk.Mkj.k bdkbZ;ksa ij ,d gh Bsdsnkj }kjk dk;Z lapkfyr dh laosnu'khyrk ds rF; dks /;ku esa j[kdj gh eq[;ky; ubZ fnYyh }kjk tkjh ifji= fnukad 11@06@91 izn'kZ ,e-9 esa fufgr fn'kk&funsZ'kksa dk mi;ksx djrs gq, fuxe ds vfHkys[k ds :i esa xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj dks egRoiw.kZ nLrkost ekurs gq, mldh izfdz;k dk vuqlj.k fd;k x;k] ftlds QyLo:i iwoZorhZ rFkk i'pkrorhZ 144 Jfedksa esa ls dsoy 13 gh Jfed dk ifjorZu vk;k ftudh mifLFkfr;ka de ik;h x;hA bu lkf{k;ksa ds 'kiFk&i= esa ;g Hkh vadu gS fd pwWfd mDr ifjfLFkfr;kssa esa xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj gh U;k;laxr fodYi Fkk blfy, blh dks viuk;k x;k rFkk ;gh Bsdsnkjksa }kjk o`gr xksnke ij yxk;s x;s deZpkfj;ksa dh gkftjh izekf.kr djus dk ;qfDr;qDr vk/kkj gSA

11- eSaus i=koyh ij miyC/k mu leLr nLrkost dk Hkh voyksdu fd;k tks vizkFkhZ }kjk izn'kZ ,e-6 yxk;r ,e-12 ds :i esa izLrqr fd;s x;s gSaA i=koyh ij ftyk izcU/kd] Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe }kjk izkFkhZ jkeQwy cSjok }kjk nLrkost rych ds izkFkZuk&i= fnukad 02@04@96 ds vuqlj.k esa izLrqr nLrkostksa dh lwph gS tks dqy 190 Jfedksa ls lEcfU/kr gSA izn'kZ ,e-2 vizkFkhZ fuxe rFkk mlds Jfedksa ds e/; fnukad 12@04@91 dks gq, le>kSrk gS rFkk blds lkFk og lwph gS ftl ij vizkFkhZ ds xksnke esa foHkkxh;dj.k fd;k x;kA izn'kZ ,e-7 foHkkxh;dj.k gsrq cQj dkWEiysDl] lokbZek/kksiqj ds lEcU/k esa tkjh vkns'k gSA izn'kZ ,e-8 o ,e-9 dk gokyk iwoZ esa fn;k tk pqdk gSA izn'kZ ,e-10 lgk;d Je vk;qDr¼ds½ dksVk dk vlQy okrkZ izfrosnu gSA izn'kZ ,e-11 Je ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk fy[kk x;k i= gS ftlds }kjk ;g ekuk x;k fd gfj;k.kk] e/;izns'k] xqtjkr] egkjk"V~z] jktLFkku o mRrjizns'k ds fuxe rFkk mldh Jfedksa ds e/; fookn vfLrRo esa ugh gS D;ksafd Jfedksa dh fu;qfDr tfj, Bsdsnkj dh x;h FkhA izn'kZ ,e-12 ifji= fnukafdr 13@04@94 gS ftlds vuqlkj ;g ekuk x;k fd Jfedksa dh fu;qfDr vizkFkhZ fuxe }kjk ugha djus ds dkj.k muds e/; ,EiyksbZ&,Eiyks;j fjys'kuf'ki ugha curh gSA vizkFkhZ i{k ds lk{kh jkes'oj izlkn us viuh ftjg esa ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlus lokbZek/kksiqj cQj dkWEiysDl xksnke ns[kk gS rFkk cQj dkWEiysDl ds jsYos lkbZM ,d xsV FkkA izn'kZ McY;w-1 esa nks }kjk fn[kk;s x;s gSa ftuesa eq[; }kj izn'kZ McY;w-1 esa ^^,^^ n'kkZ;k x;k gSA mlus ;g lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd Jfed nksuksa xsV ls vkrs&tkrs gksa cfYd eq[; }kj ls gh M~;wVh ij vkrs FksA og ^^ch^^ xsV ij vusd ckj x;k gSA mlus ;g Hkh dFku fd;k x;k gS fd ^^,^^ xsV ls vkrs&tkrs Jfedksa dks mlus dbZ ckj ns[kk gSA mls irk ugha fd jkeQwy vkSj guqeku] cksjMk xkao ds jgus okys gSa vFkok ughaA mlus Bsdsnkj dk gkftjh rFkk Hkqxrku jftLVj ns[kk Fkk rFkk tc Jfedksa dh lwph cuk;h Fkh rc ;wfu;u ds izfrfuf/k mifLFkr Fks ftUgksaus mUgsa igpkuk FkkA lk{kh us ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd o"kZ 87&88] lk{kh us ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd o"kZ 87&88] lk{kh us ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd o"kZ 87&88] lk{kh us ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd o"kZ 87&88] 88&89] 89&90 o 90&91 dh mifLFkfr ds vk/kkj ij mudh ojh;rk lwph cuk;h Fkh tks Bsdsnkj dk jftLVj] bZ----ihihihih----,Q,Q,Q,Q---- dUV~zhC;wVjh dh lwph vkSj dUV~zhC;wVjh dh lwph vkSj dUV~zhC;wVjh dh lwph vkSj dUV~zhC;wVjh dh lwph vkSj 88&89] 89&90 o 90&91 dh mifLFkfr ds vk/kkj ij mudh ojh;rk lwph cuk;h Fkh tks Bsdsnkj dk jftLVj] bZ 88&89] 89&90 o 90&91 dh mifLFkfr ds vk/kkj ij mudh ojh;rk lwph cuk;h Fkh tks Bsdsnkj dk jftLVj] bZ 88&89] 89&90 o 90&91 dh mifLFkfr ds vk/kkj ij mudh ojh;rk lwph cuk;h Fkh tks Bsdsnkj dk jftLVj] bZ xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj dks ns[kdj rSxsV ,UV~zh jftLVj dks ns[kdj rSxsV ,UV~zh jftLVj dks ns[kdj rSxsV ,UV~zh jftLVj dks ns[kdj rS;kj dh FkhA xokg us ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd Bsdsnkj dk mifLFkfr jftLVj] isesUV vkWQ ostst ;kj dh FkhA xokg us ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd Bsdsnkj dk mifLFkfr jftLVj] isesUV vkWQ ostst ;kj dh FkhA xokg us ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd Bsdsnkj dk mifLFkfr jftLVj] isesUV vkWQ ostst ;kj dh FkhA xokg us ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd Bsdsnkj dk mifLFkfr jftLVj] isesUV vkWQ ostst jftLVj] ,EiyksbZ ihjftLVj] ,EiyksbZ ihjftLVj] ,EiyksbZ ihjftLVj] ,EiyksbZ ih----,e,e,e,e---- daV~zhO;w'ku jftLVj Bsdsnkj ds ikl gh jgrs gSaA mlus ;g lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd isesUV 'khV ls mUgksaus osjhfQds'ku daV~zhO;w'ku jftLVj Bsdsnkj ds ikl gh jgrs gSaA mlus ;g lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd isesUV 'khV ls mUgksaus osjhfQds'ku daV~zhO;w'ku jftLVj Bsdsnkj ds ikl gh jgrs gSaA mlus ;g lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd isesUV 'khV ls mUgksaus osjhfQds'ku daV~zhO;w'ku jftLVj Bsdsnkj ds ikl gh jgrs gSaA mlus ;g lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd isesUV 'khV ls mUgksaus osjhfQds'ku vizkFkhZ ds nwljs lk{kh lhrkjke 'kekZ us viuh ftjg esa mDr izdkj ds ugha fd;k gksA ugha fd;k gksA ugha fd;k gksA ugha fd;k gksA izn'kZ ,e-13 vkdfLed Jfedksa dk o"kZokbZt ,ClV~zsDV gSA vizkFkhZ ds nwljs lk{kh lhrkjke 'kekZ us viuh ftjg esa mDr izdkj ds vizkFkhZ ds nwljs lk{kh lhrkjke 'kekZ us viuh ftjg esa mDr izdkj ds vizkFkhZ ds nwljs lk{kh lhrkjke 'kekZ us viuh ftjg esa mDr izdkj ds gh dFku fd;s gSa rFkk ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd gjdpan caly Bsdsnkj dks ge mldk fcy] bZ----ihihihih----,Q,Q,Q,Q---- o isesUV 'khV dks pSd djds Hkqxrku djrs gh dFku fd;s gSa rFkk ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd gjdpan caly Bsdsnkj dks ge mldk fcy] bZ o isesUV 'khV dks pSd djds Hkqxrku djrs o isesUV 'khV dks pSd djds Hkqxrku djrs o isesUV 'khV dks pSd djds Hkqxrku djrs gh dFku fd;s gSa rFkk ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd gjdpan caly Bsdsnkj dks ge mldk fcy] bZ gh dFku fd;s gSa rFkk ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd gjdpan caly Bsdsnkj dks ge mldk fcy] bZ FksA blFksA blFksA blFksA blus ;g lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj Jfedksa dh gkftjh ds fy, dke ugha vkrk gks cfYd Jfedksa dh gkftjh blh jftLVj us ;g lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj Jfedksa dh gkftjh ds fy, dke ugha vkrk gks cfYd Jfedksa dh gkftjh blh jftLVj us ;g lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj Jfedksa dh gkftjh ds fy, dke ugha vkrk gks cfYd Jfedksa dh gkftjh blh jftLVj us ;g lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj Jfedksa dh gkftjh ds fy, dke ugha vkrk gks cfYd Jfedksa dh gkftjh blh jftLVj ds vk/kkj ij izekf.kr gksrh FkhA foHkkxhdj.k ds lEcU/k esa fookn iSnk uk gks bl dkj.k ;wfu;u ds lnL;ksa dks 'kkfey fd;k FkkA lk{kh lk{kh lk{kh lk{kh us ;g us ;g us ;g us ;g ds vk/kkj ij izekf.kr gksrh FkhA foHkkxhdj.k ds lEcU/k esa fookn iSnk uk gks bl dkj.k ;wfu;u ds lnL;ksa dks 'kkfey fd;k FkkA ds vk/kkj ij izekf.kr gksrh FkhA foHkkxhdj.k ds lEcU/k esa fookn iSnk uk gks bl dkj.k ;wfu;u ds lnL;ksa dks 'kkfey fd;k FkkA ds vk/kkj ij izekf.kr gksrh FkhA foHkkxhdj.k ds lEcU/k esa fookn iSnk uk gks bl dkj.k ;wfu;u ds lnL;ksa dks 'kkfey fd;k FkkA lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd muds ;gkW nks&rhu xsV gksaA ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd Jfedksa dh xsV ,UV~zh ls gkftjh gksrh Fkh ysfdu foH lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd muds ;gkW nks&rhu xsV gksaA ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd Jfedksa dh xsV ,UV~zh ls gkftjh gksrh Fkh ysfdu foHkkxh;dj.k kkxh;dj.k kkxh;dj.k kkxh;dj.k lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd muds ;gkW nks&rhu xsV gksaA ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd Jfedksa dh xsV ,UV~zh ls gkftjh gksrh Fkh ysfdu foH lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd muds ;gkW nks&rhu xsV gksaA ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd Jfedksa dh xsV ,UV~zh ls gkftjh gksrh Fkh ysfdu foH gksus ds ckn dk;kZy; esa gkftjh gksrh gSA gksus ds ckn dk;kZy; esa gkftjh gksrh gSA ;g lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd vklikl ds xkao ds yksx viuh lqfo/kkuqlkj vUnj vkrs gksaA ;g Hkh gksus ds ckn dk;kZy; esa gkftjh gksrh gSA gksus ds ckn dk;kZy; esa gkftjh gksrh gSA dFku fd;k gS fd Bsdsnkj] foHkkxh;dj.k iwoZ ls fooknxzLr Jfedksa rFkk vU; Jfedksa dh gkftjh vius fglkc ls yxkrk FkkA foHkkxh;dj.k ls iwoZ mDr Jfed Bsdsnkj ds Jfed FksA mUgkssaus xsV jftLVj] Bsdsnkj dk isesUV jftLVj ns[kdj foHkkxh;dj.k gsrq lwph cuk;h Fkh tks Mcy ,L;ksj djrs gq, xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj dks lcls vge nLrkost ekuk Fkk] nwljs fjdkMZ dks nwljk ntkZ fn;k FkkA bl izdkj vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr lk{; ls lkfcr gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZ fuxe ds xksneksa esa izos'k djus ds fy, xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj dks gh izkFkfedrk nh x;h Fkh D;ksafd ;gh ,d nLrkost Fkk tks vizkFkhZ fuxe }kjk lgh ekuk x;kA vizkFkhZ i{k ds lkf{k;ksa dh lk{; ls ;g Hkh lkfcr gksrk gS fd Bsdsnkj dk mifLFkfr jftLVj foHkkxh;dj.k gsrq xsV jftLVj o Bsdsnkj dk isesUV jftLVj Hkh ns[kk Fkk] ijUrq xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj dks lcls vge nLrkost ekuk x;kA xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj dks egRoiw.kZ nLrkost ekuus esa vizkFkhZ }kjk dksbZ oS/kkfud =qfV ugha dh x;h gSA

12- vizkFkhZ i{k ds vuqlkj fuxe ds xksnke esa izos'k gsrq dsoy ,d gh eq[; }kj Fkk ftlesa xsV ,UV~zh dh tkrh Fkh tks Jfed dh mifLFkfr dk lcls egRoiw.kZ nLrkost izek.khdj.k gsrq ekuk x;kA izkFkhZ ;g rF; lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd vizkFkhZ ds cQj xksnke esa mifLFkfr nsus ds fy, nwljs xsV ls Hkh izos'k dj mifLFkfr nh tk ldrh gks og ;g rF; Hkh lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd og vizkFkhZ ds xksnke ds nwljs xsV ds ikl ds xkao esa jgrk Fkk rFkk ogha ls xksnke esa vkrk&tkrk FkkA tc fuxe ds xksnke esa mifLFkr gksus ds fy, ,d xsV fo'ks"k cuk;k x;k gS tgkW ij Jfedksa dh mifLFkfr dk bUnzkt djus dk izko/kku gS rks fdlh Hkh Jfed dks cQj xksnke esa izos'k djus gsrq mlh ls mifLFkr gksuk pkfg, rFkk mlesa ntZ izfof"V gh okLrfod izfof"V@mifLFkfr ekuh tk;sxhA izkFkhZ vius }kjk izLrqr rdksZ dks lk{; }kjk lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS o og fdlh Hkh izdkj dk vuqrks"k U;k;kf/kdj.k ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS] D;ksafd mlus ml Bsdsnkj dks U;k;kf/kdj.k esa i{kdkj ugha cuk;k gS ftlds }kjk mls vizkFkhZ i{k ds xksnke esa dk;Z djus gsrq fu;ksftr fd;k x;k FkkA mlus vizkFkhZ i{k ds ;gkW mifLFkfr n'kkZus gsrq fdlh Hkh izdkj dk mifLFkfr jftLVj ;k nLrkost is'k ugha fd;k gS ftlls ;g lkfcr gks fd og fdl&fdl vof/k] fdl&fdl ekg esa fdrus&fdrus fnu vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW dk;Z ij mifLFkr gqvkA og ;g rF; Hkh lkfcr ugha dj ldk gS fd og vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW eky p<+kus o mrkjus dk dk;Z djrk Fkk ;k xsgwa lksjus¼bdB~Bk djus½ dk dk;Z djrk FkkA izkFkhZ }kjk bl lEcU/k esa LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse] 'kiFk&i= rFkk mldh ftjg esa xEHkhj fojks/kkHkkl gSA 'kiFk&i= esa mlus eky p<+kus&mrkjus dk dk;Z gh vafdr fd;k gS] tcfd ftjg esa xsgwa lksjus@bdB~Bk djus dk dk;Z crk;k gSA izkFkhZ egRoiw.kZ rF;ksa dks Hkh U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr ,oa lkfcr ugha dj ldk gS] mlus ,sls fdlh Jfed dk uke ugha crk;k gS ftlus mlls de vof/k esa dk;Z fd;k gks rFkk foHkkxh;dj.k dk mls ykHk izkIr gqvk gksA ,sls fdlh Jfed dk Hkh uke ugha crk;k gS ftlus 254 fnu dk;Z fd;k gks rFkk mldk foHkkxh;dj.k esa p;u dj fy;k x;k gksA mlds }kjk Vague dFku U;k;kf/kdj.k esa mYys[k fd;s x;s gSa ftudh lR;rk ,oa fo'oluh;rk dks izekf.kr djus esa og vlQy jgk gSA vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr mDr U;k;n`"Vkar ^^^^^^^^,,,,vvvvkkkkbbbbZZZZvvvvkkkkjjjj 1111999955554444 eeeennnnzzzzkkkkllll 1111000044445555&&&&eeeeSSSSuuuusssstttteeeessssUUUUVVVV[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 727 vkWQ eSllZ vkWfM;u flusek cuke odZlZ vkWQ lkxj VkWfdt^^ vkWQ eSllZ vkWfM;u flusek cuke odZlZ vkWQ lkxj VkWfdt^^ gLrxr izdj.k ij ykxw gksrk gSA gLrxr izdj.k esa Hkh izkFkhZ Bsdsnkj }kjk fu;qDr vkWQ eSllZ vkWfM;u flusek cuke odZlZ vkWQ lkxj VkWfdt^^ vkWQ eSllZ vkWfM;u flusek cuke odZlZ vkWQ lkxj VkWfdt^^ Jfed Fkk rFkk og dHkh Hkh vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k Fkk blfy, vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼k½ ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ rFkk vizkFkhZ ds e/; fdlh Hkh izdkj ls fu;kstd o fu;ksDrk ds lEcU/k ugha Fks rFkk izkFkhZ dks /kkjk 10 ds vuqlkj fookn mBkus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA

13- vr% izdj.k ds leLr rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa] izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse] ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; rFkk vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr tokc LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse] lk{; rFkk nLrkost ls izkFkhZ ;g lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd mlls de vof/k esa dk;Z djus okys O;fDr dks foHkkxh;dj.k ds ifj.kkeLo:i p;u dj fy;k x;k gks rFkk izkFkhZ dk p;u ugha fd;k x;k gksA Qyr% izkFkhZ Jfed] vizkFkhZ ls fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ?kksf"kr gksus ;ksX; ugha gSA

ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 24@06@93 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl fook ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 24@06@93 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl fookn n n n ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 24@06@93 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl fook ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 24@06@93 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl fook dks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fddks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fddks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fddks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed jkeQwy cSjok izdj.k ds leLr rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa] izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse] ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; rFkk vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr tokc LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse] lk{; rFkk nLrkost ls ;g lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd mlls de vof/k esa dk;Z djus okys O;fDr dks foHkkxh;dj.k ds ifj.kkeLo:i p;u dj fy;k x;k gks rFkk izkFkhZ dk p;u ugha fd;k x;k gksA Qyr% izkFkhZ Jfed] vizkFkhZ ls fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ?kksf"kr gksus ;ksX; ugha gSA

vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 20@11@2018 dks [kqys U;k;kf/kdj.k esa lquk;k tkdj gLrk{kfjr fd;k x;k ftls fu;ekuqlkj leqfpr ljdkj dks izdk'kukFkZ fHktok;k tkosA

foØkUr xqIrk] U;k;k/kh'k

ubZ fnYyh] 24 tuojh] 2019

dk- vk- 205-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ flaxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k – सह - Je U;k;ky;] हैदराबाद ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 58/2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-01-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012@200@2007–आईआर (सीएम-II)]

राजें( सिंह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 24th January, 2019

S.O. 205.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 58/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.01.2019.

[No. L-22012/200/2007 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 14th day of November, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 58/2007

Between:

The General Secretary (Sri Riyaz Ahmed), Singareni Miners & Engg. Workers Union (HMS) Qtr. No.C-34, Sector-I, Godavarikhani. Karimangar – 505209.

… Petitioner

AND

The Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam-II Divn., GDK-8 Inc., Colony(P.O.) Godavarikhani, Karimnagar - 505211. … Respondent728 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/200/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 24.9.2007 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. SCCL in imposing the punishment of reduction of four increments in his scale of pay with cumulative effect from 1.11.2004 vide office order No. RG3/PER/R/008/1294 dated 15.10.2004 in respect of Sri A. Narsinga Rao is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

On receipt of the reference this Tribunal has registered and numbered the reference as I.D. No. 58/2007 and issued notices to both the workman and the management. Thereafter, both the parties appeared before the court and engaged their respective counsels with the leave of the court and consent of either party.

2. The averments made in the claim statement in brief are as follows:

The workman was initially appointed as EP Operator at OC-III project, on 24.10.1983. While working as such he was issued with a charge sheet dated 23.7.2002, alleging that on account of negligence and mal-operation, Dumper No.H- 375, sustained damages. As such, he was alleged to have committed misconduct under company's Standing Orders No.25.5 and 25.4. The workman submitted his explanation dated 28.7.2002 explaining the circumstances under which it was taken place. But without considering the same in proper prospective enquiry was initiated. The workman was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature. Neither the procedure of the enquiry was explained nor the co-worker was permitted to assist him. The co-workman permitted to sit in the Enquiry, only as an observer, but he was not permitted to assist the workman. During the course of enquiry, the Presenting Officer examined MW1 to MW5 and on behalf of workman, DW1 was examined, apart from himself. On completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges as proved. The workman was asked to submit his explanation on the enquiry report vide notice dated 2/9.8.2004. The workman has submitted his report on 31.8.2004 stating that without considering his representation in a pre-determined manner order dated 5.10.2004 was issued by the authority imposing the penalty of reversion to a lower stage by reducing four increments with cumulative effect. It is stated that On 6.7.2002 in 3rd shift, the workman was driving dumper No.H-375, and had made 16 trips continuously. At about 6.15 AM he observed that smoke was coming out from the wheel brake drum and was pulling towards the left side. He informed the same to the Shift Head Overman immediately and on his instruction, water tanker was brought for spraying the water. As the brake drum was already got heated, more smoke came out and the colour of the brake drum was also changed. Though the brake drum was left as it was struck, it could have automatically cooled down. As a result of spraying of water the damage was caused to the brake wheel, but not otherwise. There was neither negligence nor mal-operation on the part of the workman. The Enquiry Officer relied upon the alleged report made by MW3 behind the back of the workman. Neither the said report furnished to the workman nor the same was produced during the course of the enquiry but exclusively relying upon the said report the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the workman were proved and basing on such report penalty was imposed on this workman. It is stated that such an action on the part of the Respondent is unjustified and untenable. MW3 who stated to have conducted inspection behind the back of the workman submitted his report, and stated to have opined that, "in my opinion the operator might have engaged retarded brake partially and operated the dumper." It is stated that such an opinion is only assumptive and basing on such assumptive statement, the workman was imposed with such a heavy penalty. Whereas, MW4 deposed that, "in my opinion, the damages of the machine was due to over heat of oil during the operation of the dumper." These two opinions run contrary to each other. As a matter of fact during the course of cross examination, MW4 accepted that, if the retarded brake is applied either continuously or partially, the same would be indicated in the cabin room and admittedly no such indication was given in the cabin room. Thus, the finding of the Enquiry Officer that, "the workman partially operated retarded brakes, which caused burning machine parts due to over heat", is nothing but a perverse finding. Basing on the presumptive and incorrect statement of MW3, the workman ought not have to be imposed the penalty and the approximate cost of damages are Rs.5.00 lakhs. Whereas, MW4 who stated to have conducted inspection deposed that, during his inspection only the clutch plates, dumper plates and seals were damaged. Therefore, it is not known on what basis MW3 could contend that the dumper suffered various damages mentioned in the chargesheet. The said inspection was done by MW3 behind the back of the workman. It is also not known how MW3 could assess the cost of the damage as 5 lakhs. Unfortunately, the Enquiry Officer blindly followed the version of MW3. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse in nature. The penalty imposed on such finding which is liable to be set aside. It is seen from the evidence of MW5 that, spraying of water on a heated dumper is not a correct procedure. The workman is in no way responsible for the alleged damage caused to the dumper. But, ignoring the valid evidence and without considering the submission of the workman the impugned order was issued. It is stated that due to the penalty imposed against the workman he himself and also his family members are put to lot of hardships. There is no justification on the part of the Respondent to impose such a penalty when the workman is not at fault. Hence, the office[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 729 order bearing number RG3/PER/R/008/1294 dated 15.10.2004 issued by the General Manager, RG-III Area, in respect of Sri A. Narsinga Rao be declared as illegal and is liable to be set aside.

3. Respondent filed counter with the averments in brief as follows:

While admitting some of the facts to be true, and denying some of the facts, the Respondent in its counter has stated that the dumper attached to the workman was working got damaged owing to his mal operations and gross negligence. The cost incurred for its repairs is estimated at Rs.5 lakhs. Besides, it took some period for repair and to put in operation. Considering that the workman is to be held responsible for the damages, chargesheet dated 23.7.2002 was issued under Company's Standing Orders Nos.25.5 and 25.24 which reads as follows:

"25.5 : Neglect of work;

25.24: Sabotage or causing wilful damage to work in progress or to property of the Company."

The workman acknowledged the said chargesheet and submitted his written explanation denying the charges, but as it was not found satisfactory an order was passed to conduct a domestic enquiry, in which the workman participated fully and fair opportunity was given to him to defend his case. The principles of natural justice were complied with during the enquiry. On conclusion of the enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted his report according to which charges levelled against the workman were found proved. Show cause notice dated 2/9.8.2004 including copy of the enquiry proceeding and findings was issued to the workman calling upon him to give his representation. In response to the above notice the workman submitted his representation dated 31.8.2004, as he has not represented anything against the proceedings of the enquiry or findings of the Enquiry Officer in his representation, thereafter, considering the proved charges which are grave and serious, punishment ought to have been awarded is dismissal from service. But taking of the material facts into consideration and also considering the representation submitted by the workman, Disciplinary Authority has awarded lesser punishment of reduction of four increments in his pay with cumulative effect from 1.11.2004 vide order dated 15.10.2004. The workman has not preferred any appeal invoking Clause-29 of the Company's Standing Orders questioning the correctness of the penalty imposed. On the other hand, after one year and 9 months, the Petitioner raised the industrial dispute. The contention of the workman is in a routine and predetermined manner. The office order dated 15.10.2004 was issued is not correct. The contention of the Petitioner wherein it has been stated that the office order dated 15.10.2004 was issued is not correct and his further contention was that there was negligence nor mal operation on the spot and that the Enquiry Officer relied upon the alleged report prepared by MW3 behind the back of the workman and that the punishment was awarded on presumptive and incorrect statement. The contention of the Petitioner that he is not responsible for the damage, is also totally incorrect. With the above averments, the Respondent submitted for dismissal of the claim statement with costs.

4. The points for determination in this case are:

I. Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited in imposing the punishment of reduction of 4 (four) increments in scale of pay of the Petitioner with cumulative effect from 1.11.2004 vide office order No.RG3/PER/R/008/1294 dated 15.10.2004 is legal and justified?

II. If not, what relief the Petitioner workman is entitled to?

5. I have already heard the Learned Counsels of both the parties in this matter.

6. The domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondent Management is held legal and valid vide order dated 22.4.2014.

7. Point No. I: The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that without any fault of the Petitioner workman punishment of deduction of four increments with cumulative effect was imposed from 1.11.2004 which is illegal. The Enquiry Officer has not conducted the enquiry properly. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse in nature and basing on the evidence of MW3, the Enquiry Officer submitted that the charge levelled against the workman is proved, even though sufficient evidence is not available against the workman the charge is proved. It is also contended that even though sufficient evidence is available in favour of the Petitioner/workman to exonerate him from the charges, the Enquiry Officer with a predetermined mind submitted the enquiry report holding the charges proved. The workman is no way responsible for the alleged damage caused to the dumper. The Enquiry Officer exonerating the valid evidence available in favour of the workman without considering the submission of the workman Petitioner has imposed such a punishment. Due to the penalty imposed against the workman, he himself and his family members are put to lot of hardship. There is no justification on the part of the Respondent to impose penalty of deduction of four increments with cumulative effect vide order No. RG3/PER/ R/ 008/ 1294 dated 15.10.2004 and the same is liable to be set aside.

8. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that due to the mal operation and gross negligence of the workman, the dumper was damaged. Costs incurred for its repair is remitted of Rs.5 Lakhs. Besides this, it took some years for repairing and to put in operation. The workman is held responsible for the damage caused to the dumper. In the enquiry it has already been proved that due to the careless and negligence of the workman the Respondent Management suffer a lot. The workman fully participated in the enquiry and put forth730 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] his defence. But after considering all the materials available on record along with the evidence adduced by the parties, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report and the charges levelled against the workman was proved. The charges proved against the workman are grave and serious in nature and the punishment ought to have been awarded as dismissal from service, but taking all the material facts into consideration and considering the representation submitted by the workman the Disciplinary Authority has awarded the lesser punishment of deduction of four increments with cumulative effect from 1.11.2004 vide order dated 15.10.2004. The workman has not preferred any appeal invoking Clause 29 of Company's Standing Orders questioning the correctness of the penalty imposed on him and on the other hand, after one year and nine months of the order he raised the industrial dispute and submitted the claim applications with a routine manner which should not be accepted. The claim of the workman as well as the Petitioner union is totally false and is devoid of merit. If any exemplary punishment will not be given, the workmen would not be serious in their duties.

Since the lesser penalty has been imposed on the workman, it needs no interference.

9. On consideration of the rival contention of both sides, it is seen that the Department has conducted a domestic enquiry, in the enquiry the workman has fully participated and the enquiry has been conducted following the principles of natural justice. Both the parties have also challenged the validity of the domestic enquiry. But after hearing, this court vide order dated 22.4.2014, held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Department is held legal and valid. In fact, even though there was provisions to prefer appeal under Clause 29 of the Company's Standing Orders questioning the correctness of the penalty imposed, the workman has not invoked the above clause by preferring an appeal. The workman waited after passing of the impugned order for a period of one year and nine months and thereafter raised this industrial dispute. First of all the workman should have preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. It is not known what prevented the workman to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority claiming his innocence. When the domestic enquiry conducted by the Department is found legal and justified, only four increments have been deducted with cumulative effect with effect from 1.11.2004 vide order dated 15.10.2004 and when no appeal has been preferred challenging the impugned order, in such a circumstances no justifiable ground is available for this Tribunal to interfere in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, and as such the order passed by the Respondent is found to be legal and justified which needs no interference.

Thus, Point No.I is answered negatively against the Petitioner.

10. Point No.II: In view of the findings made in Point No.I, the Petitioner union is not entitled to get any relief.

Thus, Point No.II is answered accordingly.

Result:

The action of the management of M/s. SCCL in imposing the punishment of reduction of four increments in the scale of pay with cumulative effect from 1.11.2004 vide office order No. RG3/PER/R/008/1294 dated 15.10.2004 in respect of Sri A. Narsinga Rao is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

Under the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 14th day of November, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 731

नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 206206206206....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार फू ड कारपोरेशन ऑफ़ इंडिया एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय, कोटा के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 16/1993) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 21.01.2019 को प्राप्त %आ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/64////एफ/1993–आईआर (सीएम-II)]

राजें( सिंह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 24th January, 2019

S.O. 206.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 16/1993) of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, KOTA as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Food Corporation of India and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 21.01.2019.

[No. L-22012/64/F/1993-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

vuqca/k

U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk]dksVk]dksVk]dksVk] ¼jkt¼jkt¼jkt¼jkt----½½½½ U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k¼dsUnzh;½ U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k¼dsUnzh;½ U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k¼dsUnzh;½

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& Jh fodzkUr xqIrk] vkj-,p-ts-,l- funsZ'k izdj.k dzekad%vkS-U;k-¼dsUnzh;½&16@1993 fnukad LFkkfir%26@06@1993

izlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k Øa- ,y&22012@64@,Q@93&vkbZ vkj ¼lh- II½ fnukad 24@06@1993

funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

e/;e/;e/;e/; guqeku izlkn cSjok iq= X;kjlhyky cSjok] eq-iksLV [kVqiqjk rglhy o ftyk lokbZek/kksiqjA ---izkFkhZ Jfed

,oa,oa,oa,oa izcU/kd] Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe] lokbZek/kksiqjA

---vizkFkhZ fu;kstd

mifLFkrmifLFkrmifLFkrmifLFkr

izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k % Jh iq:"kksRre nk/khp vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k % Jh lh-ch-lksjy

fnukad % 22-11-2018

vf/kfu.kZ;vf/kfu.kZ;vf/kfu.kZ;vf/kfu.kZ;

Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds izklkafxd vkns'k fnukadvkns'k fnukadvkns'k fnukadvkns'k fnukad 24@06@199324@06@199324@06@199324@06@1993 ds tfj;s fuEu funsZ'k fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼ftls rnqijkUr **vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½dss vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ lEizsf"kr fd;k x;k gS%&

^^D;k izca/ku] Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe] lokbZek/kksiqj dh ;g dk;Zokgh fd Bsdsnkj }kjk j[ks x;s gktjh fjdkMZ dks vk/kkj u eku dj }kj izfo"V iaftdk (Gate Entry Register) dks vk/kkj eku dj Bsdk etnwjksa dks foHkkxh;dj.k djkuk mfpr ,oa U;k; laxr gSA ;fn ugha rks deZdkj Jh guqeku izlkn cSjok iq= Jh X;kjlhyky cSjok fdl vuqrks"k dk gdnkj gS vkSj fdl rkjh[k lsA^^

2- funsZ'k@fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa izkIr gksus ij iathc) mijkUr i{kdkjksa dks lwpuk@uksfVl tkjh dj fof/kor voxr djok;k x;kA 3- izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr dj laf{kIr% ;g vfHkO;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ] Hkkjrh; [kk|732 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] fuxe] lokbZek/kksiqj esa Bsdsnkj gjdpan caly@caly ,.Vj izkbZtst] ds ;gkW o"kZ 1988 ls mDr fuxe dk eky p<+kus o mrkjus dk dke fujUrj djrk pyk vk jgk gSA mDr fuxe dk eky vanj ykus vkSj ckgj ys tkus dh O;oLFkk jsYos oSxuksa }kjk gksrh gS ftlds fy, lokbZek/kksiqj jsYos ;kMZ ls fuxe ifjlj ds xksnkeksa rd jsYos ykbZu Myh gqbZ gS ftlls jsYos oSxuksa dks fuxe ifjlj esa ykus vkSj ogkW ls okil ys tkus dk dke djrs gSaA jsYos baftu vkSj oSxuksa ds vkus tkus ds fy, fuxe ifjlj ds ihNs jsYos ykbu ds Åij ,d QkVd cuk gqvk gS tks fuxe dk jsYos QkVd ds uke ls tkuk tkrk gSA fuxe ds jsYos QkVd ds ihNs cls gq, xkao HkMsjMk ,oa [kVqiqjk utnhd gksus ds dkj.k bu xokgksa esa jgus okys Jfed tks fuxe esa dke djrs gSa] og cgq/kk bl jsYos QkVd ls gh izos'k dj vUnj fuxe esa dke djus tkrs gSaA dkexkjksa dks fuxe esa dke djus ds fy, ifjp;&i= fn;s x;s gSaA Bsdsnkj vius etnwjksa dh gkftjh vius }kjk j[ks x;s jftLVj esa vyx ls djrk gS] etnwjksa dks izR;sd ekg gkftjh vuqlkj osru forj.k djrk gS tks fuxe ds izfrfuf/k ds le{k forj.k djus dk izko/kku gSA Hkkjr ljdkj ds uksfVfQds'ku fnukad 07@09@90 ds }kjk [kk| fuxe esa Bsdsnkjh izFkk lekIr dh x;h vkSj mlds vuqlkj fuxe esa dk;Zjr Bsdsnkj ds Jfedksa dk foHkkxh;dj.k djuk visf{kr gks x;kA [kk| fuxe] lokbZek/kksiqj us foHkkxh;dj.k dh izfdz;k izkjEHk dh vkSj mlds vUrxZr dkexkjksa dh 1 vizsy]88 ls 31 ekpZ] 91 rd rhu foRrh; o"kksZ dh mifLFkfr;ksa ds xsV ij j[ks izfo"B jftLVj dk voyksdu dj x.kuk dh x;h vkSj mlesa miyC/k mifLFkfr;ksa dks gh vk/kkj ekudj ftl dkexkj dh mifLFkfr 254 fnu Fkh] mldk foHkkxh;dj.k esa p;u dj fy;k x;kA p;u ds fy, mifLFkfr;ksa dh x.kuk xyr izdkj ls fuxe ds }kjk izfo"B iaftdk¼xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj½ ds vk/kkj ij dh x;h gS ftlesa izkFkhZ dh gktjh 69 fnu n'kkZ;h gS] tcfd okLrfod vkSj U;k;laxr vk/kkj] Bsdsnkj }kjk j[ks x;s gktjh fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj gksuk pkfg, ftlds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dh gktjh p;fur Jfedksa ls cgqr T;knk gksrh gSA pwWfd izkFkhZ dh rjg vkSj Jfed tks fuxe ds jsYos QkVd ds ihNs utnhdh xkao HkMjsMk vkSj [kVqiqj ls dke ij vkrs gSa] os dHkh&dHkh ihNs ls jsYos QkVd esa gksdj fuxe esa dke ij vkrs gSa] mudh mifLFkfr }kj izfo"B iaftdk esa ugha gksrh] ijUrq Bsdsnkj vius gktjh jftLVj esa vo'; djrk gS vkSj blh vk/kkj ij osru forj.k djrk gSA vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k gS fd fuxe ds izcU/kd us p;u ds fy, xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj esa n'kkZ;h x;h mifLFkfr dks gh vk/kkj ekudj LVsVesUV rS;kj djok;k vkSj mlh vk/kkj ij Jfedksa dks p;u dj fy;k tks lR;rk okLrfodrk ls ijs gksus ds dkj.k U;k;laxr ugha FkkA vkxs vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k gS fd izcU/kd }kjk tks xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj ds vk/kkj ij gktjh dk LVsVesUV rS;kj fd;k x;k] mlesa izkFkhZ Jfed dh ebZ&twu] 90 dh gktjh tks Bsdsnskj ds fjdkMZ esa ntZ Fkh] og izcU/kd ds LVsVesUV esa ntZ ugha dh x;h Fkh ftlls ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izcU/kd }kjk xyr LVsVesUV rS;kj djokdj xyr p;u fd;k x;kA iwjs rhu o"kksZ dk fjdkMZ le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds ikl miyC/k ugha gks ldk vU;Fkk ,slh folaxfr;ka vkSj Hkh lkeus vk tkrhA ;g rF; le>kSrk vf/kdkjh us vius izfrosnu fn-28@02@93 esa mYysf[kr fd;k gSA ;g Hkh vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k fd izkFkhZ dh mifLFkfr dk fjdkMZ tks Bsdsnkj }kjk j[kk tkrk gS rFkk izkFkhZ dh Bsdsnkj ds ;gkW dke dh mifLFkfr tgkW izkFkhZ ds miuke yhykjke ls mifLFkfr vafdr gS] dk iw.kZ voyksdu dj mifLFkfr tksM+h tkos rks izkFkhZ dh mifLFkfr tks p;fur Jfed gS] muls vf/kd fudysxh vkSj mlls izkFkhZ dk p;u vo';EHkkoh gSA vUr esa izkFkZuk dh x;h gS fd vizkFkhZ izcU/kd] Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe] lokbZ ek/kksiqj dks ikcUn fd;k tkos fd og izkFkhZ dk p;u dj LFkk;h foHkkxh; Jfed fu;qDr djs o vU; Jfedksa dh p;u frfFk ls p;u dj mlh vuqlkj fiNys osru] xzsM bR;kfn dk ykHk izkFkhZ dks iznku fd;k tkosA

4- vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls mDr Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj izkjfEHkd vkifRr;ksa esa ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k gS fd vizkFkhZ] izkFkhZ dk fu;kstd ugha gksus o izkFkhZ o vizkFkhZ ds e/; fu;ksDrk ,oa fu;kstd ds dksbZ Hkh lEcU/k ugha gksus ds dkj.k Dyse lquokbZ ;ksX; ugha gksdj fujLruh; gSA izkFkhZ }kjk Dyse esa of.kZr Bsdsnkj gjdpan caly@caly ,UVjizkbZtst ftlds ;gkW eky p<+kus o mrkjus dk dk;Z djuk n'kkZ;k x;k gS] ogh mldk fu;kstd gks ldrk Fkk ftls vko';d i{kdkj gksus ij Hkh i{kdkj ugha cuk;k x;k gS] vr% vizkFkhZ ds fo:) Dyse fujLruh; gSA izkFkhZ }kjk ;g Hkh ugha cryk;k x;k gS fd mDr nksuksa Bsdsnkj us vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa fdl&fdl vof/k esa o fdrus&fdrus le; rd dk;Z fd;k gS] vr% Dyse fMQsfDVo gksus ds dkj.k fujLruh; gSA izkFkhZ }kjk ;g ugha crk;k x;k gS fd og vizkFkhZ fuxe esa foHkkxh;d`r fd;s x;s fdl Jfed ls ,oa fdl izdkj ls ofj"B gS rFkk ,sls Jfed dk iw.kZ fooj.k fuokl LFkku] mifLFkfr vkfn dks Hkh ugha n'kkZ;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ Jfed fuxe esa fy;s x;s vU; Jfedksa ds fo:) Lo;a dks ofj"B crkrs gq, viuk dsl yk jgk gS] fdUgsa ,sls Jfedksa dks Dyse esa i{kdkj ugha cuk;k x;k gSA ;g Hkh vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k gS fd bl lEcU/k esa usrjke o vU; O;fDr;ksa }kjk [kk| fuxe ds e/;izns'k fLFkr lkxj fMiks ds fo:) fookn mBk;k x;k Fkk tks Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky; }kjk vius vkns'k fn- 29@01@93 ds }kjk fookn dks vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k U;k;fu.kZ;kFkZ ugha fHktok;k x;k D;ksafd mlesa ;g ekuk x;k fd usrjke vkfn O;fDr;ksa ds o Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe ds e/; fu;ksDrk o fu;kstd ds lEcU/k ugha gSA ;g Hkh vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZ dk Jfed ugha Fkk blfy, vizkFkhZ ds fdlh Hkh izcU/kdh; vkUrfjd dk;Z dh izfdz;k xr viuk;h tkus okyh dk;Z iz.kkyh ij mls vk{ksi mBkus dk dksbZ dkuwuh vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gSA Dyse dk vkxs tokc esa ;g izfrokn fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk lgk;d Je vk;qDr ¼ds½ dksVk ds ;gkW tks izkFkZuk&i= fn-01@07@92 dks izLrqr fd;k x;k] mlds en ua-1 esa izkFkhZ us Lo;a dks o"kZ 1988 esa Bsdsnkj gjdpan caly ds ;gkW eky p<+kus&mrkjus dk dk;Z djuk crk;k gS] tcfd izLrqr Dyse esa o"kZ 1988 esa Bsdsnkj gjdpUn caly@caly ,UVjizkbZtst ds ds ;gkW dk;Z djuk cryk;k gS tksfd nksuksa vyx&vyx laLFkku gS] vr% Dyse fojks/kkHkk"kh gksus ls Lor% gh fujLruh; gSA izkFkhZ us U;k;kf/kdj.k esa tks Dyse is'k fd;k gS] mlesa mDr izkFkZuk&i= fnukad 01@7@92 esa of.kZr rF;ksa dk dksbZ fooj.k ugha fn;k gS rFkk mlessa of.kZr ;g dFku xyr gS fd jsYos ykbZu ds Åij tks QkVd cuk gqvk gS] og vizkFkhZ fuxe ds jsYos QkVd ds uke ls tkuk tkrk gSA Dyse dk pj.k dze 3 vizkFkhZ ls lEcfU/kr ugha gksuss ls ,oa izkFkhZ ds ekax&i= fn-01@07@92 tksfd lgk;d Je vk;qDr¼ds½ dksVk ds ;gkW izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ ekax ugha gksus ds dkj.k iw.kZr;k vLohdk;Z gSA blh izdkj Dyse dk pj.k dze 4] 5] 6] 7 Hkh vlaxr gksus ls vLohdkj fd;k x;k gSA Dyse ds pj.k dze 8 o 9 ds vUrxZr iqu% izkFkhZ o vizkFkhZ ds e/; fu;ksDrk ,oa fu;kstd ds lEcU/k ugha gksus rFkk mls izcU/kdh; vkUrfjd dk;Z dh izfdz;k esa viuk;h tkus okyh dk;Z iz.kkyh ij vk{ksi mBkus dk dksbZ Hkh dkuwuh vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gksus dh ckr nksgjkrs gq, lEiw.kZ Dyse fujk/kkj gksus ls vLohdkj dj fujLr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h gSA

5- izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls tokcqytokc Hkh izLrqr dj ;gh vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ us tks eky p<+kus o mrkjus dk dk;Z fd;k gS og vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dk gh eky Fkk] uk fd rFkkdfFkr Bsdsnkj dkA izkFkhZ ds dk;Z ij fu;a=.k Hkh fu;kstd ds vf/kdkfj;ksa dk gh jgk gSA izkFkhZ dks ;g fooj.k jsQzsUl ds fooknxzLr fcUnq ds vuqlkj nsus dh vko';drk ugha gS D;ksafd jsQzsUl esa izkFkhZ us fu;kstd dh ml izfdz;k dks pqukSrh nh gS ftlds vuqlkj Jfedksa dk foHkkxh;dj.k fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ dh gktjh fjdkMZ dks vk/kkj eku fy;k tkos rks izkFkhZ dk foHkkxh;dj.k fuf'pr rkSj ij gS vkSj vizkFkhZ dks izkFkhZ dk mifLFkfr fjdkMZ ds vk/kkj ij gh foHkkxh;dj.k djuk pkfg,A ;g Hkh vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k gS fd Bsdsnkjksa ds ek/;e ls dk;Z djrs gq, fu;kstd ds ;gkW ftu Jfedksa dks 240 fnu ;k mlls vf/kd le; gks x;k Fkk] mUgsa fu;kstd ds ;gkW foHkkxh;dj.k djuk Fkk] ;kfu fu;kstd dh jksy ij ukSdjh ij ysuk FkkA 240 fnu gktjh dh x.kuk fu;kstd us xsV ds ,UV~zh jftLVj ds vuqlkj dh Fkh] tcfd fu;kstd ds ;gkW ij Jfedksa dks M~;wVh ij vkus&tkus ds fy, xsV dh ,UV~zh vko';d ugha FkhA fu;kstd ds ;gkW 3 xsV Fks rFkk fdlh Hkh xsV ls Jfed M~;wVh ij vk&tk ldrk FkkA 240 fnu dh x.kuk djus ds fy, mifLFkfr dk fjdkMZ o osru izkIr djus dk fjdkMZ ns[kk tkuk vfuok;Z Fkk vkSj blh ds tfj;s foHkkxh;dj.k gksuk pkfg, Fkk tks ugha fd;k x;kA vr% izkFkhZ fiNys lEiw.kZ osru o ykHkksa lfgr foHkkxh;dj.k djok;s tkus dk[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 733 vf/kdkjh gS tks mls iznku fd;k tkosA

6- lk{; esa izkFkhZ Jfed guqeku izlkn cSjok rFkk vizkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls jkes'oj izlkn dNokg] lgk;d izcU/kd rFkk lhrkjke 'kekZ] lgk;d izcU/kd ds 'kiFk&i= izLrqr gq, ftuls mHk;i{k ds izfrfuf/kx.k }kjk ijLij ftjg dh x;hA mHk;i{k dh vksj ls izys[kh; lk{; Hkh izLrqr dh x;h ftldk ;Fkkle; mYys[k fd;k tkosxkA

7- mHk;i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/kx.k dh cgl lquh x;h tks cgl eq[;r% muds }kjk izLrqr vius&vius vH;kosnuksa ij gh vk/kkfjr jgh gS] vizkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls fyf[kr cgl Hkh izLrqr dh x;h] ftldk rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh dk /;kuiwoZd ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA vizkFkhZ i{k us viuh cgl@rdZ leFkZu esa fuEu U;k;n`"Vkar is'k fd;k gS%&

V vkWQ eSllZ vkWfM;u flusek cuke odZlZ vkWQ lkxj VkWfdt^^%& ^^,vkbZvkj 1954 enzkl 1045&eSustesUV vkWQ eSllZ vkWfM;u flusek cuke odZlZ vkWQ lkxj VkWfdt^^%& ^^,vkbZvkj 1954 enzkl 1045&eSustesU V vkWQ eSllZ vkWfM;u flusek cuke odZlZ vkWQ lkxj VkWfdt^^%& V vkWQ eSllZ vkWfM;u flusek cuke odZlZ vkWQ lkxj VkWfdt^^%& ^^,vkbZvkj 1954 enzkl 1045&eSustesU ^^,vkbZvkj 1954 enzkl 1045&eSustesU

mDr U;k;n`"Vkar esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fof/k dk fuEu fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS%&

''In a case where the employment has not started at all but is merely in the stage of a contract these can not be an industrial dispute between employer on a person whom he has agreed to take into the employ, but whom he has never employed, any difference between the parties to the contract must be resolved in the ordinary courts by a suit for damages.''

8- eSaus mHk;i{k ds rdksZ ij /;kuiwoZd euu fd;k o i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;kA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ i{k us vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse] izkFkhZ ds 'kiFk&i=] ftjg rFkk izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr nLrkost izn'kZ McY;w- 1 yxk;r McY;w- 6 dk voyEc fy;k gS izn'kZ McY;w- 1 uD'kk gS ftlesa Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe ds lokbZek/kksiqj fLFkr xksnke rFkk jsYos V~zsd dks n'kkZ;k x;k gSA izn'kZ McY;w- 2 izkFkhZ jkeQwy cSjok }kjk lgk;d Je vk;qDr dsUnzh; dks fn;k x;k izkFkZuk&i= gS ftlesa mlus fuosnu fd;k gS fd Bsdsnkj ds fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj mldh lsok mu O;fDr;ksa ls T;knk gS ftudh lsokvksa dk foHkkxh;dj.k fd;k x;k gS] tcfd izkFkhZ dh lsok dk oxhZdj.k ugha fd;k x;k gSA izn'kZ McY;w-3 vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr tokc gSA izn'kZ McY;w-4 izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk&i= gS ftlesa mlus fuosnu fd;k gS fd mls jsxwyjkbZt ugha fd;k tkuk xyr gS rFkk vizkFkhZ }kjk dkaV~zsDVj yscj dk p;u xsV ,UV~zh ds }kjk fd;k x;k gS] og xyr gSA blesa mlus ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k gS fd deZpkjh ds LFkk;hdj.k@jsxwyjkbZts'ku gsrq Bsdsnkj }kjk la/kkfjr gkftjh jftLVj ds vk/kkj ij deZpkjh dh gkftjh ekuh tkuk pkfg,] uk fd xsV ikl ds tfj;sA izn'kZ McY;w-5 vlQy okrkZ izfrosnu gSA izn'kZ McY;w-6 vizkFkhZ ds le{k vius dk;Zjr jgus dks fl) djus gsrq ifjp;&i= la[;k 35 dk Hkh voyEc fy;k gS ftlesa tkjh djus dh fnukad ds LFkku ij ek= 90&91 n'kkZ;k x;k gS] ijUrq blls ;g izdV ugha gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW fdl&fdl o"kZ esa fdrus&fdrus fnu dk;Z fd;k gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr lHkh nLrkostkr izn'kZ McY;w-1 yxk;r McY;w-6 ds voyksdu ls ;gh izdV gksrk gS fd blesa ls dksbZ Hkh nLrkost ,slk ugha gS ftlls ;g izdV gksrk gks fd izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ ds lokbZek/kksiqj fLFkr xksnke esa dk;Z fd;k gks ;k fdrus fnu fd;k gksA lEiw.kZ i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us ,slk dksbZ nLrkost U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr ugha fd;k gS ftlls ;g lkfcr gksrk gks fd izkFkhZ us fdu frfFk] ekg o o"kZ esa vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW dqy fdruh vof/k rd dk;Z fd;k gSA izkFkhZ us vius LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse rFkk 'kiFk&i= ds vk/kkj ij rdZ fn;k gS fd izkFkhZ dk p;u LFkk;h foHkkxh; Jfed gsrq ugha fd;k tkuk xyr gS rFkk p;u ds fy, mifLFkfr dh x.kuk xyr izdkj ls vizkFkhZ fuxe ds }kjk }kj izfo"V iaftdk (Gate Entry Register) ds vk/kkj ij dh x;h gS ftlesa mldh gkftjh dsoy 69 fnu n'kkZ;h x;h gS] tcfd okLrfod ,oa U;k;laxr vk/kkj Bsdsnkj }kjk j[kk x;k gkftjh jftLVj gS ftlesa izkFkhZ dh gkftjh p;fur Jfedksa ls cgqr T;knk gksrh gSA izkFkhZ us vius 'kiFk&i= esa ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd vizkFkhZ fuxe ds izcU/kd us p;u ds fy, xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj esa n'kkZ;h x;h mifLFkfr dks gh vk/kkj ekudj LVsVesUV rS;kj djok;k rFkk mlh vk/kkj ij Jfedksa dk p;u dj fy;kA 'kiFk&i= esa ;g Hkh dFku fd;k x;k gS fd le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds ikl okrkZ esa tc nksuksa i{k mifLFkr gq, rks lsEiy ds rkSj ij Bsdsnkj dk gkftjh jftLVj ebZ&twu] 90 dk fjdkMZ mifLFkfr gsrq izcU/kd }kjk xyr LVsVesUV rS;kj djokdj xyr p;u fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ us viuh ftjg esa ;g rF; Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlus ckbZl xksnke lokbZek/kksiqj esa Bsdsnkj vkSj ,Q-lh-vkbZ- nksuksa ds v/khu dke fd;k Fkk] Bsdsnkj dk uke gjdpan caly FkkA mldh ftjg esa ;g Hkh LohdkjksfDr jgh gS fd caly baVjizkbZtst vkSj gjdpan caly ,d gh FksA mlus ftjg esa ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd mls ugha ekywe dh foHkkxh;dj.k ds lEcU/k esa foHkkx o ;wfu;u ds e/; dksbZ le>kSrk gqvk Fkk rFkk foHkkxh;dj.k esa uEcj dkSulk Fkk] mls irk ughaA mlus dFku fd;k gS fd og vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW QVh&VwVh cksfj;ka Hkjus] vukt esa nokbZ j[kus vkfn dk dke djrk Fkk tks dstqvy yscj dk dke FkkA bldk ;g Hkh dFku jgk gS fd ogkW ij xsV ,UV~zh gksrh Fkh] fQj dgk fd dHkh gekjh ,UV~zh gksrh Fkh vkSj dHkh ,UV~zh ugha gksrh FkhA bldk ;g Hkh dFku jgk gS fd mls tckuh ;kn ugha fd mlus bl nkSjku chp&chp esa dc&dke ugha fd;kA bl izdkj izkFkhZ }kjk LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse] izLrqr fd;s x;s 'kiFk&i= rFkk mldh ftjg ls Hkh ;g izdV ugha gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us fdruh vof/k esa fdl&fdl fnu ekg o o"kZ esa vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW dk;Z fd;kA izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse] 'kiFk&i= rFkk mldh ftjg ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ] Bsdsnkj gjdpan caly ds ;gkW dk;Z djrk Fkk ftldk fd mlds }kjk izLrqr LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse dh en la[;k 1 esa Hkh vadu gSA LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse esa izkFkhZ us ;g dFku fd;k gS fd og o"kZ 1988 ls Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe ds lokbZek/kksiqj ds Bsdsnkj gjdpan caly@caly ,UVjizkbZtst ds ;gkW eky p<+kus o mrkus dk dke djrk Fkk] tcfd mlus viuh ftjg esa ;g Li"V dFku fd;k gS fd og QVh&VwVh cksfj;ka Hkjus] vukt esa nokbZ j[kus dk dk;Z djrk FkkA bl izdkj izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW D;k dk;Z djrk Fkk] bl lEcU/k esa mldh lk{; esa xEHkhj fojks/kkHkkl gSA

9- izkFkhZ ds LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse rFkk 'kiFk&i= ls ;g Hkh izdV gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZ dk eky muds xksnke esa ys tkus dh O;oLFkk jsYos osxu }kjk gksrh Fkh ftlds fy, lokbZek/kksiqj jsYos ;kMZ ls fuxe xksnke rd jsYos ykbZu Myh gqbZ gSA jsYos osxu dks fuxe ifjlj esa ykus o ys tkus ds fy, ifjlj ds ihNs jsYos ykbZu ds Åij ,d QkVd cuk gqvk gS ftls jsYos QkVd ds uke ls tkuk tkrk gSA mlus LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse esa ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd fuxe esa dke djus ds fy, dkexkjksa dks ifjp;&i= fn;s tkrs Fks] ijUrq izkFkhZ us U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k tks ifjp;&i= izLrqr fd;k gS] mlesa tkjh gksus dh fnukad dh txg ek= 90&91 vafdr gS] iwoZ dk dksbZ ifjp;&i= mlds }kjk izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS ftlls ;g izdV ugha gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us o"kZ 1990 ds iwoZ ds o"kksZ esa vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW fdrus fnu dk;Z fd;k gSA izkFkhZ us vius LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse rFkk mlds 'kiFk&i= ds vk/kkj ij Lo;a ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd vizkFkhZ ds xksnkeksa esa tkus ds fy, jsYos dk ,d QkVd cuk gqvk gS ftl ij izos'k djus ij xsV ikl cuk;k tkrk gSA izkFkhZ us vius LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse esa ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj ds vk/kkj ij xsV ,UV~zh 69 fnu n'kkZ;h x;h gSA blls ;gh izdV gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj esa vko';drkuqlkj ,UV~zh dh tkrh Fkh rFkk izkFkhZ dh Hkh ,UV~zh dh x;h gS] ijUrq izkFkhZ us viuh lEiw.kZ lk{; essa ;g rF; dgha ugha cryk;k gS fd ml O;fDr dk uke D;k gS ftldh izfof"V jftLVj esa 254 fnu dh mifLFkfr ds vk/kkj ij mldk p;u foHkkxh;dj.k gsrq dj fy;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ us egRoiw.kZ rF; U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr ugha fd;k gS734 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ftlls izdV gksrk gS fd ,sls fdl O;fDr dk foHkkxh;dj.k gsrq p;u dj fy;k x;k ftldh mifLFkfr izkFkhZ ls de FkhA izkFkhZ us ml Bsdsnkj dks Hkh i{kdkj ugha cuk;k gS ftlds ;gkW og o"kZ 1988 ls mlds dFkukuqlkj dk;Z djrk FkkA izkFkhZ ds dFkukuqlkj og gjdpan caly@caly ,UVjizkbZtst ds ;gkW dk;Z djrk Fkk rFkk mldh mifLFkfr mlds vuqlkj Bsdsnkj }kjk la/kkfjr jftLVj esa dh tkrh Fkh] ijUrq izkFkhZ us ml Bsdsnkj dks i{kdkj ugha cuk;k gS] tcfd bl lEcU/k esa 'kq: ls gh vizkFkhZ i{k us xEHkhj vkifRr dh gSA ;fn izkFkhZ fdlh Bsdsnkj ds ;gkW dk;Z djrk Fkk rks mls i{kdkj cuk;k tkuk vko';d gS rFkk izdj.k ds fuLrkj.k gsrq mlds }kjk fdlh la/kkfjr jftLVj dks Hkh U;k;kf/kdj.k esa izLrqr djuk vko';d gks tkrk gSA izkFkhZ us Bsdsnkj }kjk la/kkfjr ,sls fdlh jftLVj dks uk rks U;k;kf/kdj.k esa izLrqr fd;k gS o uk gh mldh ewy ;k lR;kfir izfr dks izLrqr fd;k gS o uk gh ,sls jftLVj dks ryc djokus ds fy, fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ izkFkZuk&i= gh U;k;kf/kdj.k esa izLrqr fd;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ ;g rF; U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd fdlh Bsdsnkj }kjk mldh mifLFkfr dk la/kkj.k jftLVj esa fd;k tkrk Fkk ftlesa mldh mifLFkfr vf/kd gksrh ctk; xsV ,UVz~h jftLVj dsA vius }kjk izLrqr rF;ksa dks fl) djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZ ij Fkk ftls ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; ls lkfcr djus dk izFke nkf;Ro mlh dk Fkk] ijUrq izkFkhZ ,slk djus esa vlQy jgk gSA izkFkhZ uk rks ml O;fDr dk uke U;k;kf/kdj.k esa crk ldk gS ftldh 254 mifLFkfr ds vk/kkj ij mldk p;u foHkkxh;dj.k ds fy, dj fy;k x;k o uk gh ,sls Bsdsnkj dks i{kdkj cuk;k x;k gS ftlds }kjk mifLFkfr jftLVj la/kkfjr fd;k tkrk Fkk] ,slh fLFkfr esa vius }kjk izLrqr rF;ksa dks fl) djus esa izkFkhZ iw.kZr;k vlQy jgk gSA

vizkFkhZ us vius tokc LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse ds leFkZu esa jkes'oj izlkn dNokgk iwoZ lgk;d izcU/kd rFkk lhrkjke 'kekZ iwoZ lgk;d izcU/kd zcU/kd zcU/kd zcU/kd 10- vizkFkhZ us vius tokc LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse ds leFkZu esa jkes'oj izlkn dNokgk iwoZ lgk;d izcU/kd rFkk lhrkjke 'kekZ iwoZ lgk;d i vizkFkhZ us vius tokc LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse ds leFkZu esa jkes'oj izlkn dNokgk iwoZ lgk;d izcU/kd rFkk lhrkjke 'kekZ iwoZ lgk;d i vizkFkhZ us vius tokc LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse ds leFkZu esa jkes'oj izlkn dNokgk iwoZ lgk;d izcU/kd rFkk lhrkjke 'kekZ iwoZ lgk;d i dh lk{; dk voyEc fy;k gSA bu nksuksa lkf{k;ksa us vius 'kiFk&i= esa Li"V :i ls dFku fd;k gS fd lokbZek /kksiqj esa fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds dh lk{; dk voyEc fy;k gSA bu nksuksa lkf{k;ksa us vius 'kiFk&i= esa Li"V :i ls dFku fd;k gS fd lokbZek/kksiqj esa fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds /kksiqj esa fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds /kksiqj esa fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds dh lk{; dk voyEc fy;k gSA bu nksuksa lkf{k;ksa us vius 'kiFk&i= esa Li"V :i ls dFku fd;k gS fd lokbZek dh lk{; dk voyEc fy;k gSA bu nksuksa lkf{k;ksa us vius 'kiFk&i= esa Li"V :i ls dFku fd;k gS fd lokbZek dkj.k Jfedksa dh ojh;rk fuf'pr djus ds fy, o`gr xksnke] lokbZek/kksiqj bdkbZ tgkW Bsdsnkj Je i)fr dk fu"ks/k fd;k x;k] ds xsV ,UV~zh ,UV~zh ,UV~zh ,UV~zh dkj.k Jfedksa dh ojh;rk fuf'pr djus ds fy, o`gr xksnke] lokbZek/kksiqj bdkbZ tgkW Bsdsnkj Je i)fr dk fu"ks/k fd;k x;k] ds xsV dkj.k Jfedksa dh ojh;rk fuf'pr djus ds fy, o`gr xksnke] lokbZek/kksiqj bdkbZ tgkW Bsdsnkj Je i)fr dk fu"ks/k fd;k x;k] ds xsV dkj.k Jfedksa dh ojh;rk fuf'pr djus ds fy, o`gr xksnke] lokbZek/kksiqj bdkbZ tgkW Bsdsnkj Je i)fr dk fu"ks/k fd;k x;k] ds xsV jftLVj dks vk/kkj ekudj ;wfu;u ds izfrfuf/k;ksa dh lgHkkfxrk ls ,oa xksnke ij yEcs le; ls dk;Zjr deZpkjh tks Jfedksa dh iwjh igpku j[krs jftLVj dks vk/kkj ekudj ;wfu;u ds izfrfuf/k;ksa dh lgHkkfxrk ls ,oa xksnke ij yEcs le; ls dk;Zjr deZpkjh tks Jfedksa dh iwjh igpku j[krs ls dk;Zjr deZpkjh tks Jfedksa dh iwjh igpku j[krs ls dk;Zjr deZpkjh tks Jfedksa dh iwjh igpku j[krs jftLVj dks vk/kkj ekudj ;wfu;u ds izfrfuf/k;ksa dh lgHkkfxrk ls ,oa xksnke ij yEcs le; jftLVj dks vk/kkj ekudj ;wfu;u ds izfrfuf/k;ksa dh lgHkkfxrk ls ,oa xksnke ij yEcs le; Fks] dh lkewfgd lsok;sa ysrs gq, Jfedksa dh ojh;rk iqu% izekf.kr djus dk dk;Z fd;k x;k rFkk iwjd vfHkys[kksa ds :i esa tgkW v Fks] dh lkewfgd lsok;sa ysrs gq, Jfedksa dh ojh;rk iqu% izekf.kr djus dk dk;Z fd;k x;k rFkk iwjd vfHkys[kksa ds :i esa tgkW vko';d le>k ko';d le>k ko';d le>k ko';d le>k Fks] dh lkewfgd lsok;sa ysrs gq, Jfedksa dh ojh;rk iqu% izekf.kr djus dk dk;Z fd;k x;k rFkk iwjd vfHkys[kksa ds :i esa tgkW v Fks] dh lkewfgd lsok;sa ysrs gq, Jfedksa dh ojh;rk iqu% izekf.kr djus dk dk;Z fd;k x;k rFkk iwjd vfHkys[kksa ds :i esa tgkW v x;k] Bsdsnkj }kjk miyC/k djok;s x;s vfHkys[kksa dk Hkh ijh{k.k fd;k x x;k] Bsdsnkj }kjk miyC/k djok;s x;s vfHkys[kksa dk Hkh ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA ;kA ;kA ;kA bu lkf{k;ksa us vius 'kiFk&i= esa ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd fuxe x;k] Bsdsnkj }kjk miyC/k djok;s x;s vfHkys[kksa dk Hkh ijh{k.k fd;k x x;k] Bsdsnkj }kjk miyC/k djok;s x;s vfHkys[kksa dk Hkh ijh{k.k fd;k x izcU/kd ,oa ;wfu;u izfrfuf/k;ksa dh la;qDr ns[k&js[k esa izos'k iaftdk ds vk/kkj ij o"kZ 88&89] 89&90 o 90&91 ds foRrh; o"kksZ dh mifLFkfr dh x.kuk dj ekfld] okf"kZd] f=okf"kZd mifLFkfr izi= rS;kj fd;s x;s] muds vk/kkj ij ojh;rk lwph rS;kj dh x;h tks fuxe izcU/ku ds vf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa Jfed ;wfu;u ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds la;qDr gLrk{kjksa ls fnukad 07@02@92 dks tkjh dh x;h] rnuqlkj fu;qfDr&i= nsus dh izfdz;k 'kq: dh x;h ftlds fefuV dh izfr fnukad 07@02@92 izn'kZ ,e-8 gSA bu lkf{k;ksa us ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd Jfedksa ds foHkkxh;dj.k dh ik=rk lqfuf'pr djus ds fy, lokbZek/kksiqj dh nksuksa Hk.Mkj.k bdkbZ;ksa ij ,d gh Bsdsnkj }kjk dk;Z lapkfyr dh laosnu'khyrk ds rF; dks /;ku esa j[kdj gh eq[;ky; ubZ fnYyh }kjk tkjh ifji= fnukad 11@06@91 izn'kZ ,e-9 esa fufgr fn'kk&funsZ'kksa dk mi;ksx djrs gq, fuxe ds vfHkys[k ds :i esa xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj dks egRoiw.kZ nLrkost ekurs gq, mldh izfdz;k dk vuqlj.k fd;k x;k] ftlds QyLo:i iwoZorhZ rFkk i'pkrorhZ 144 Jfedksa esa ls dsoy 13 gh Jfed dk ifjorZu vk;k ftudh mifLFkfr;ka de ik;h x;hA bu lkf{k;ksa ds 'kiFk&i= esa ;g Hkh vadu gS fd pwWfd mDr ifjfLFkfr;kssa esa xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj gh U;k;laxr fodYi Fkk blfy, blh dks viuk;k x;k rFkk ;gh Bsdsnkjksa }kjk o`gr xksnke ij yxk;s x;s deZpkfj;ksa dh gkftjh izekf.kr djus dk ;qfDr;qDr vk/kkj gSA

11- eSaus i=koyh ij miyC/k mu leLr nLrkost dk Hkh voyksdu fd;k tks vizkFkhZ }kjk izn'kZ ,e-6 yxk;r ,e-12 ds :i esa izLrqr fd;s x;s gSaA i=koyh ij ftyk izcU/kd] Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe }kjk izkFkhZ jkeQwy cSjok }kjk nLrkost rych ds izkFkZuk&i= fnukad 02@04@96 ds vuqlj.k esa izLrqr nLrkostksa dh lwph gS tks dqy 190 Jfedksa ls lEcfU/kr gSA izn'kZ ,e-6 vizkFkhZ fuxe rFkk mlds Jfedksa ds e/; fnukad 12@04@91 dks gq, le>kSrk gS rFkk blds lkFk og lwph gS ftl ij vizkFkhZ ds xksnke esa foHkkxh;dj.k fd;k x;kA izn'kZ ,e-7 foHkkxh;dj.k gsrq cQj dkWEiysDl] lokbZek/kksiqj ds lEcU/k esa tkjh vkns'k gSA izn'kZ ,e-8 o ,e-9 dk gokyk iwoZ esa fn;k tk pqdk gSA izn'kZ ,e-10 lgk;d Je vk;qDr¼ds½ dksVk dk vlQy okrkZ izfrosnu gSA izn'kZ ,e-11 Je ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk fy[kk x;k i= gS ftlds }kjk ;g ekuk x;k fd gfj;k.kk] e/;izns'k] xqtjkr] egkjk"V~z] jktLFkku o mRrjizns'k ds fuxe rFkk mldh Jfedksa ds e/; fookn vfLrRo esa ugh gS D;ksafd Jfedksa dh fu;qfDr tfj, Bsdsnkj dh x;h FkhA izn'kZ ,e-12 ifji= fnukafdr 13@04@94 gS ftlds vuqlkj ;g ekuk x;k fd Jfedksa dh fu;qfDr vizkFkhZ fuxe }kjk ugha djus ds dkj.k muds e/; ,EiyksbZ&,Eiyks;j fjys'kuf'ki ugha curh gSA vizkFkhZ i{k ds lk{kh jkes'oj izlkn us ;g dFku fd;k gS fd lokbZek/kksiqj dk cQj dkWEiysDl mlds vUrxZr vkrk FkkA mldk ;g Hkh dFku jgk gS fd gekjs }kjk euksuhr vf/kdkjh Bsdsnkj dk fcy Hkstrs le; ;g lR;kfir djrs Fks fd mijksDr le; esa yxk;s x;s Jfedksa dk Hkqxrku esjs lkeus gqvk gS vkSj fiNys ekg esa yxk;s x;s Jfedksa dk tek dok;s x;s bZ-ih-,Q- pkyku Hkh Hkstrk FkkA ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd eSaus izkFkhZ ds isesUV dh ost 'khV ns[kh gSA mldk ;g Hkh dFku jgk gS fd cQj dkWEiysDl lokbZek/kksiqj esa 2 xsV gSa] ,d xsV Jfedksa ds fy, gS vkSj ,d osxu vkrh gS] mlds fy, gSA mlus ;g lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd xsV rhu gksa] nks V~zsd jsYos lkbZfMax ds gSa blfy, mudks rhu ekuus dh Hkwy dh tk jgh gSA ,d xsV ls nwljk xsV ikSus nks feyksehVj nwj gS] jsYos xsV ls dksbZ ,UV~zh ,ykm ugha FkhA mlus ;g lq>ko lgh crk;k gS fd Bsdsnkj vyx ls Jfedksa dh gkftjh yxkrk Fkk] ml gkftjh dk geus esu xsVksa dh lk{kh us ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd o"kZ 88&89] 89&90 o 90&91 dh mifLFkfr cukrs le; ;s fjdkMZ ns[kk FkkA esjs gkftjh ls feyku fd;k FkkA lk{kh us ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd o"kZ 88&89] 89&90 o 90&91 dh mifLFkfr cukrs le; ;s fjdkMZ ns[kk FkkA esjs lk{kh us ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd o"kZ 88&89] 89&90 o 90&91 dh mifLFkfr cukrs le; ;s fjdkMZ ns[kk FkkA esjs lk{kh us ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd o"kZ 88&89] 89&90 o 90&91 dh mifLFkfr cukrs le; ;s fjdkMZ ns[kk FkkA esjs v/khuLFk deZpkfj;ksa ls xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj vkSj Bsdsnkj dk jftLVj feyku djok;k FkkA gekjs lgk;d izcU/kd izR;sd eghus ;g xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj v/khuLFk deZpkfj;ksa ls xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj vkSj Bsdsnkj dk jftLVj feyku djok;k FkkA gekjs lgk;d izcU/kd izR;sd eghus ;g xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj djok;k FkkA gekjs lgk;d izcU/kd izR;sd eghus ;g xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj djok;k FkkA gekjs lgk;d izcU/kd izR;sd eghus ;g xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj v/khuLFk deZpkfj;ksa ls xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj vkSj Bsdsnkj dk jftLVj feyku v/khuLFk deZpkfj;ksa ls xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj vkSj Bsdsnkj dk jftLVj feyku vkSj Bsdsnkj dk mifLFkfr jftLVj dk feyku djrs gSaA ;g lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd nksuksa esa mifLFkfr;ka fHkUu&fHkUu jgh gksaA i zn'kZ McY;w----6 6 6 6 vkSj Bsdsnkj dk mifLFkfr jftLVj dk feyku djrs gSaA ;g lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd nksuksa esa mifLFkfr;ka fHkUu&fHkUu jgh gksaA izn'kZ McY;w zn'kZ McY;w zn'kZ McY;w vkSj Bsdsnkj dk mifLFkfr jftLVj dk feyku djrs gSaA ;g lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd nksuksa esa mifLFkfr;ka fHkUu&fHkUu jgh gksaA i vkSj Bsdsnkj dk mifLFkfr jftLVj dk feyku djrs gSaA ;g lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd nksuksa esa mifLFkfr;ka fHkUu&fHkUu jgh gksaA i tSlk izos'k&i= izR;sd o"kZ tkjh ugha gksrk Fkk] ttSlk izos'k&i= izR;sd o"kZ tkjh ugha gksrk Fkk] ttSlk izos'k&i= izR;sd o"kZ tkjh ugha gksrk Fkk] ttSlk izos'k&i= izR;sd o"kZ tkjh ugha gksrk Fkk] tc Hkh u;k Bsdsnkj vkrk Fkk og vius Jfedksa dks nsrk FkkA ;g gekjk ifjp;&i= ugha gSA c Hkh u;k Bsdsnkj vkrk Fkk og vius Jfedksa dks nsrk FkkA ;g gekjk ifjp;&i= ugha gSA c Hkh u;k Bsdsnkj vkrk Fkk og vius Jfedksa dks nsrk FkkA ;g gekjk ifjp;&i= ugha gSA c Hkh u;k Bsdsnkj vkrk Fkk og vius Jfedksa dks nsrk FkkA ;g gekjk ifjp;&i= ugha gSA vizkFkhZ ds nwljs lk{kh lhrkjke 'kekZ us viuh ftjg esa mDr izdkj ds gh dFku fd;s gSa rFkk ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd gjdpan caly Bsdsnkj dks y Bsdsnkj dks y Bsdsnkj dks y Bsdsnkj dks vizkFkhZ ds nwljs lk{kh lhrkjke 'kekZ us viuh ftjg esa mDr izdkj ds gh dFku fd;s gSa rFkk ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd gjdpan cal vizkFkhZ ds nwljs lk{kh lhrkjke 'kekZ us viuh ftjg esa mDr izdkj ds gh dFku fd;s gSa rFkk ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd gjdpan cal vizkFkhZ ds nwljs lk{kh lhrkjke 'kekZ us viuh ftjg esa mDr izdkj ds gh dFku fd;s gSa rFkk ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd gjdpan cal ge mldk fcy] bZge mldk fcy] bZge mldk fcy] bZge mldk fcy] bZ----ihihihih----,Q,Q,Q,Q---- o isesUVo isesUVo isesUVo isesUV 'khV dks pSd djds Hkqxrku djrs FksA blus ;g lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj Jfedksa dh 'khV dks pSd djds Hkqxrku djrs FksA blus ;g lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj Jfedksa dh 'khV dks pSd djds Hkqxrku djrs FksA blus ;g lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj Jfedksa dh 'khV dks pSd djds Hkqxrku djrs FksA blus ;g lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj Jfedksa dh gkftjh ds fy, dke ugha vkrk gks cfYd Jfedksa dh gkftjh blh jftLVj ds vk/kkj ij izekf.kr gksrh FkhA foHkkxhdj.k ds lEcU/k esa fookn iSnk fookn iSnk fookn iSnk fookn iSnk gkftjh ds fy, dke ugha vkrk gks cfYd Jfedksa dh gkftjh blh jftLVj ds vk/kkj ij izekf.kr gksrh FkhA foHkkxhdj.k ds lEcU/k esa gkftjh ds fy, dke ugha vkrk gks cfYd Jfedksa dh gkftjh blh jftLVj ds vk/kkj ij izekf.kr gksrh FkhA foHkkxhdj.k ds lEcU/k esa gkftjh ds fy, dke ugha vkrk gks cfYd Jfedksa dh gkftjh blh jftLVj ds vk/kkj ij izekf.kr gksrh FkhA foHkkxhdj.k ds lEcU/k esa uk gks bl dkj.k ;wfu;uuk gks bl dkj.k ;wfu;uuk gks bl dkj.k ;wfu;uuk gks bl dkj.k ;wfu;u ds lnL;ksa dks 'kkfey fd;k FkkA lk{kh us ;g lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd muds ;gkW nks&rhu xsV gksaA ;g Hkh dFku ds lnL;ksa dks 'kkfey fd;k FkkA lk{kh us ;g lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd muds ;gkW nks&rhu xsV gksaA ;g Hkh dFku ds lnL;ksa dks 'kkfey fd;k FkkA lk{kh us ;g lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd muds ;gkW nks&rhu xsV gksaA ;g Hkh dFku ds lnL;ksa dks 'kkfey fd;k FkkA lk{kh us ;g lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd muds ;gkW nks&rhu xsV gksaA ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd Jfedksa dh xsV ,UV~zh ls gkftjh gksrh Fkh ysfdu foHkkxh;dj.k gksus ds ckn dk;kZy; esa gkftjh gksrh gSA ;g lq>ko xyr crk;k gS fd;k gS fd Jfedksa dh xsV ,UV~zh ls gkftjh gksrh Fkh ysfdu foHkkxh;dj.k gksus ds ckn dk;kZy; esa gkftjh gksrh gSA fd;k gS fd Jfedksa dh xsV ,UV~zh ls gkftjh gksrh Fkh ysfdu foHkkxh;dj.k gksus ds ckn dk;kZy; esa gkftjh gksrh gSA fd;k gS fd Jfedksa dh xsV ,UV~zh ls gkftjh gksrh Fkh ysfdu foHkkxh;dj.k gksus ds ckn dk;kZy; esa gkftjh gksrh gSA fd vklikl ds xkao ds yksx viuh lqfo/kkuqlkj vUnj vkrs gksaA ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd Bsdsnkj] foHkkxh;dj.k ls fooknxzLr Jfedksa rFkk vU; Jfedksa dh gkftjh vius fglkc ls yxkrk FkkA foHkkxh;dj.k ls iwoZ mDr Jfed Bsdsnkj ds Jfed FksA mUgkssaus xsV jftLVj] Bsdsnkj dk isesUV jftLVj ns[kdj foHkkxh;dj.k gsrq lwph cuk;h Fkh tks Mcy ,L;ksj djrs gq, xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj dks lcls vge nLrkost ekuk Fkk] nwljs fjdkMZ dks nwljk ntkZ fn;k FkkA bl izdkj vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr lk{; ls lkfcr gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZ fuxe ds xksnkeksa esa izos'k djus ds fy, xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj dks gh izkFkfedrk nh x;h Fkh D;ksafd ;gh ,d nLrkost Fkk tks vizkFkhZ fuxe }kjk lgh ekuk x;kA vizkFkhZ i{k ds lkf{k;ksa dh lk{; ls ;g Hkh lkfcr gksrk gS fd Bsdsnkj dk mifLFkfr jftLVj foHkkxh;dj.k gsrq xsV jftLVj o Bsdsnkj dk isesUV jftLVj Hkh ns[kk Fkk] ijUrq xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj dks lcls vge nLrkost ekuk x;kA xsV ,UV~zh jftLVj dks egRoiw.kZ nLrkost ekuus esa vizkFkhZ }kjk dksbZ oS/kkfud =qfV ugha dh x;h gSA[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 735 12- vizkFkhZ i{k ds vuqlkj fuxe ds xksnke esa izos'k gsrq dsoy ,d gh eq[; }kj Fkk ftlesa xsV ,UV~zh dh tkrh Fkh tks Jfed dh mifLFkfr dk lcls egRoiw.kZ nLrkost izek.khdj.k gsrq ekuk x;kA izkFkhZ ;g rF; lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd vizkFkhZ ds cQj xksnke esa mifLFkfr nsus ds fy, nwljs xsV ls Hkh izos'k dj mifLFkfr nh tk ldrh gks o ;g rF; Hkh lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd og vizkFkhZ ds xksnke ds nwljs xsV ds ikl ds xkao esa jgrk Fkk rFkk ogha ls xksnke esa vkrk&tkrk FkkA tc fuxe ds xksnke esa mifLFkr gksus ds fy, ,d xsV fo'ks"k cuk;k x;k gS tgkW ij Jfedksa dh mifLFkfr dk bUnzkt djus dk izko/kku gS rks fdlh Hkh Jfed dks cQj xksnke esa izos'k djus gsrq mlh ls mifLFkr gksuk pkfg, rFkk mlesa ntZ izfof"V gh okLrfod izfof"V@mifLFkfr ekuh tk;sxhA izkFkhZ vius }kjk izLrqr rdksZ dks lk{; }kjk lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS o og fdlh Hkh izdkj dk vuqrks"k U;k;kf/kdj.k ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS] D;ksafd mlus ml Bsdsnkj dks U;k;kf/kdj.k esa i{kdkj ugha cuk;k gS ftlds fd }kjk mls vizkFkhZ i{k ds xksnke esa dk;Z djus gsrq fu;ksftr fd;k x;k FkkA mlus vizkFkhZ i{k ds ;gkW mifLFkfr n'kkZus gsrq fdlh Hkh izdkj dk mifLFkfr jftLVj ;k nLrkost is'k ugha fd;k gS ftlls ;g lkfcr gks fd og fdl&fdl vof/k] fdl&fdl ekg esa fdrus&fdrus fnu vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW dk;Z ij mifLFkr gqvkA og ;g rF; Hkh lkfcr ugha dj ldk gS fd og vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW eky p<+kus o mrkjus dk dk;Z djrk Fkk ;k QVh&VwVh cksfj;ka Hkjus o vukt esa nokbZ;ka j[kus dk dk;Z djrk FkkA izkFkhZ }kjk bl lEcU/k esa LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse] 'kiFk&i= rFkk mldh ftjg esa xEHkhj fojks/kkHkk"k gSA 'kiFk&i= esa mlus eky p<+kus&mrkjus dk dk;Z gh vafdr fd;k gS] tcfd ftjg esa QVh&VwVh cksfj;ka Hkjus o vukt esa nokbZ j[kus dk dk;Z djuk crk;k gSA izkFkhZ egRoiw.kZ rF;ksa dks Hkh U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr ,oa lkfcr ugha dj ldk gS] mlus ,sls fdlh Jfed dk uke ugha crk;k gS ftlus mlls de vof/k esa dk;Z fd;k gks rFkk foHkkxh;dj.k dk mls ykHk izkIr gqvk gksA ,sls fdlh Jfed dk Hkh uke ugha crk;k gS ftlus 254 fnu dk;Z fd;k gks rFkk mldk foHkkxh;dj.k esa p;u dj fy;k x;k gksA mlds }kjk osx dFku U;k;kf/kdj.k esa mYys[k fd;s x;s gSa ftudh lR;rk ,oa fo'oluh;rk dks izekf.kr djus esa og vlQy jgk gSA vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr mDr U;k;n`"Vkar ^^,vkbZvkj 1954 enzkl 1045&eSustesUV vkWQ eSllZ vkWfM;u flusek cuke odZlZ vkWQ lkxj VkWfdt^^ ^^,vkbZvkj 1954 enzkl 1045&eSustesUV vkWQ eSllZ vkWfM;u flusek cuke odZlZ vkWQ lkxj VkWfdt^^ gLrxr izdj.k ij ykxw gksrk gSA ^^,vkbZvkj 1954 enzkl 1045&eSustesUV vkWQ eSllZ vkWfM;u flusek cuke odZlZ vkWQ lkxj VkWfdt^^ ^^,vkbZvkj 1954 enzkl 1045&eSustesUV vkWQ eSllZ vkWfM;u flusek cuke odZlZ vkWQ lkxj VkWfdt^^ gLrxr izdj.k esa Hkh izkFkhZ Bsdsnkj }kjk fu;qDr Jfed Fkk rFkk og dHkh Hkh vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k Fkk blfy, vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼k½ ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ rFkk vizkFkhZ ds e/; fdlh Hkh izdkj ls fu;kstd o fu;ksDrk ds lEcU/k ugha Fks rFkk izkFkhZ dks /kkjk 10 ds vuqlkj fookn mBkus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA

13- vr% izdj.k ds leLr rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa] izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse] ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; rFkk vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr tokc LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse] lk{; rFkk nLrkost ls izkFkhZ ;g lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd mlls de vof/k esa dk;Z djus okys O;fDr dks foHkkxh;dj.k ds ifj.kkeLo:i p;u dj fy;k x;k gks rFkk izkFkhZ dk p;u ugha fd;k x;k gksA Qyr% izkFkhZ Jfed] vizkFkhZ ls fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ?kksf"kr gksus ;ksX; ugha gSA

ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 24@06@93 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl fookn ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 24@06@93 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl fookn fnYyh }kjk izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 24@06@93 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl fookn fnYyh }kjk izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 24@06@93 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl fookn ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ dks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fddks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fddks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fddks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed guqeku izlkn cSjok izdj.k ds leLr rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa] izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse] ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; rFkk vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr tokc LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse] lk{; rFkk nLrkost ls ;g lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd mlls de vof/k esa dk;Z djus okys O;fDr dks foHkkxh;dj.k ds ifj.kkeLo:i p;u dj fy;k x;k gks rFkk izkFkhZ dk p;u ugha fd;k x;k gksA Qyr% izkFkhZ Jfed] vizkFkhZ ls fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ?kksf"kr gksus ;ksX; ugha gSA

vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 22@11@2018 dks [kqys U;k;kf/kdj.k esa lquk;k tkdj gLrk{kfjr fd;k x;k ftls fu;ekuqlkj leqfpr ljdkj dks izdk'kukFkZ fHktok;k tkosA

foØkUr xqIrk] U;k;k/kh'k

नई दिल्ली, 29 जनवरी, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 207207207207....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार

मेसर्स भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक

विवाद में के न्(ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 2/2014) को प्रकाशित

करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 21.01.2019 को प्राप्त %आ था।

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2019

S.O. 207.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21.01.2019.

[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]

D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 29th day of November, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No.2/2014

Between:

Smt. Pittala Suvarna, W/o Pittala Rama Murthy, R/o H.No. 10-3-63/1, Sri Ramanajaneya Colony, Kothagudem Post, Khammam District -507101 … Petitioner

AND

1. The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Hanamkonda – 506001

2. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Kothagudem Branch, Ganesh Puram, Writer Busty, Kothagudem Post-507101 …Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri T. Koteswara Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent : Sri K.R.L. Sarma, Advocate

AWARD

Smt. Pittala Suvarna who worked as Peon/Casual Labourer (who will be referred to as workman) has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents Life Insurance Corporation of India with a prayer to pass an order setting aside the termination order issued orally by the Respondents as it is illegal, bad in law and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Section 25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court decided in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and another etc., Vs. D.V. Anil Kumar etc., in Civil Appeal Nos. 953-968 of 2005 and consequently directing the Respondent corporation to reengage the Petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including back wages in the interest of justice.

2. The case of the Petitioner as averred in claim petition in brief as follows:

The Petitioner was initially engaged as a Casual Labourer (Sweeper) in the office of the 2nd Respondent with effect from 17.4.2006 and continued in the same capacity upto 23.1.2013. It is stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and etc., Vs. D.V. Anil Kumar etc., in Civil Appeal Nos. 953-968 of 2005 has directed the Respondent corporation to absorb casual labourers employed under them as per the scheme submitted before the Hon'ble Court. According to which "One time limited examination for those temporary persons who are working in Life Insurance Corporation of India for more than five years and who had possessed minimum eligible qualification and age as prescribed at the time of entry into LIC of India would be considered. For this purpose, LIC of India will hold a limited written examination which will be in the vernacular language with a limited syllabus which will be announced in advance. The successful short listed candidates shall be called for the interview. Such of those persons who are successful in the interview shall be initially appointed and posted anywhere in the respective Zone." It is also submitted that the Petitioner was working as a casual labourer for a long time without any blemish. The Respondent Corporation is an Industry covered under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since more than 100 workers/employees were working under the Respondent corporation, the provisions of retrenchment under Sec.25N of the Chapter V-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are applicable in the instant case of termination. The Respondent corporation has not followed the same mandatory procedure contained under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 while terminating the service of the Petitioner. It is also submitted that being aggrieved by the oral termination order of the Respondent corporation the Petitioner approached the conciliation officer i.e., Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) for redressal of her grievance. The said conciliation officer has initiated one conciliation proceedings on 12.6.2013 and completed on 26.7.2013 as no settlement was arrived in the proceedings and lastly submitted his report. Therefore, i) the Petitioner was constrained to file this petition challenging the termination of the Petitioner by the Respondents which is in violation of Sec.25N of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as Articles 14 and 21 of the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 737 Constitution of India. ii) the termination of the services of the Petitioner by the Respondent is in violation of the judegment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred above. iii) the job which the Petitioner was performing in the Respondent corporation is of perennial in nature and the post is still lying vacant. The termination of services of the Petitioner without following mandatory procedure is a colourable Act coupled with the malafide intention. iv) the Petitioner is not able to procure any employment/work in other organizations till date, thus, he is entitled of immediate regularization and with the above averments the Petitioner has filed this case claiming the relief mentioned above.

3. The Respondents filed counter challenging the claim of the Petitioner on the ground of its maintainability

which runs as follows:

It is stated that pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 18.1.2011 passed in C.A. No.953-968 of 2005, the LIC of India issued an employment notice dated 20.5.2011 calling for applications for recruitment of peons from the eligible persons, which are quoted below:

a) All temporary persons working in LIC of India for more than 5 years as on 18.1.2011.

b) Possessing minimum eligible qualification and age as prescribed by the LIC of India at the time of their entering into LIC of India

c) Candidates have to submit the copies of proof of working with the Corporation for more than 5 years as on 18.1.2011 duly signed by the Chief/Sr/Branch Manager of the Branch Office, Manager (P & IR)/Manager (OS) of the respective Divisional Office.

d) The onus of furnishing the authentic documentary proof for the above at the time of submission of the application shall be on the candidate.

It is submitted that in compliance to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Respondent corporation released one notification calling for the applications from the eligible candidates at various Divisional offices on or before 3.6.2011 which was the cut-off date. All the applications received under Hyderabad Division were forwarded to the Zonal Office, Hyderabad and after verification, written test was conducted on 26.6.2011 by the Zonal Office for all such eligible candidates who were eligible to the post as per the norms/eligibility criteria fixe by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is further submitted that the Respondent corporation had taken persons as daily wagers whenever need arose and situation demanded. The Petitioner was purely taken as a part time Sweeper, under the category of sweeper intermittently. The Petitioner has not completed one year of service continuously. As per the records maintained by the corporation she never worked continuously from 17.4.2006 to 23.1.2013 as contended by the Petitioner. The burden of proof lies on the Petitioner only with regard to compliance of the eligibility criteria as decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court and her continuous service as contended by her in her petition. In fact the Petitioner had been taken as daily wager on his request by the Respondent corporation i.e., in the office of Respondent No.2 as and when work arose. The Petitioner has not fulfilled the guidelines of the Apex Court as per the notification dated 20.5.2011 given by the LIC for submitting the application as a daily wager before the date fixed by the LIC. Therefore, the Petitioner is not eligible as per the LIC notification. The Petitioner is not even eligible for retrenchment compensation as provided under Sec. 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as she had not completed one year of service continuously. She had been taken as a daily wager under the category of daily wager intermittently. Therefore, compliance of Sec.25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not arise. The Respondent corporation has never issued any appointment letter to the Petitioner as she was neither appointed under the LIC (Employment and Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993 dated 28.6.1993 nor under any other instructions issued by the corporation from time to time. Therefore, the termination of service of the Petitioner does not arise at all. Her services were not taken further in strict compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.953-968 of 2005. The claim of the Petitioner that he was engaged as a daily wager in the office of the 2nd Respondent with effect from 17.4.2006is not correct. As per the records of the Respondents the Petitioner never worked continuously from 17.4.2006 to 21.3.2011. The vouchers submitted by the Petitioner clearly shows that those are the payment vouchers relating to daily wagers for the service taken by the corporation. Therefore, the plea of the Petitioner that he worked continuously as daily wager/casual labour is not correct. It is further submitted that as the Petitioner was not engaged by the corporation, the question of her termination does not arise. So also the question of violation of any provisions either under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under the Constitution of India does not arise. It is further submitted that the contention of the Petitioner that still the posts are lying vacant is not correct. It is also submitted that the corporation has not employed any workman on temporary basis for the past seven years. But the corporation is engaging the persons purely on daily wage basis only depending upon the requirement of the office. The daily wagers were paid according to the applicable Laws in force. Therefore, the office has never exploited the workman at any point of time. The Respondents have also submitted that the LIC of India was not indulging unfair labour practice. As it is need based category they have engaged the Petitioner as daily wager as and when the situation demanded and the corporation paid the due wages as applicable. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 18.1.2011 has stated that such of those temporary employees who do not apply and are or not successful shall cease to be in the employment. Those temporary persons, who were not governed by the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court shall cease to be in the employment. Therefore, as the Petitioner was not taken further and the question of reengaging her by the Respondent corporation does not arise and it will be contrary to the guidelines fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is stated that not engaging the services of a daily wager is in obedience of the above order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. As per the employment notification dated 20.5.2011 the candidates who do not satisfy the eligibility conditions are liable to be disqualified at any stage of the selection which has been strictly followed by the Respondent management. As the recruitment process was over and the Petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility criteria, the Petitioner was not entitled to be738 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] taken in service. With the above averments, the Respondents submitted for dismissal of the claim petition filed by the Petitioner as devoid of merit and is to be rejected.

4. As per the averments of both the sides, the following points are to be determined:

I. Whether the termination order orally issued by the Respondents is illegal and bad in Law and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and provisions of Sec.25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

II. Whether the Petitioner is eligible to get employment under the Respondents' management in obedience of the direction of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed n the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and another etc., Vs. D.V. Anil Kumar etc., in Civil Appeal Nos. 953-968 of 2005?

III. Whether the Respondents have violated the provisions under Sec.25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

IV. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to get employment under the Respondents and also eligible to get all the consequential benefits including back wages and

V) To what relief the Petitioner is entitled to get?

5. During the course of hearing of this case, the Petitioner has been examined herself as WW1 and has also relied on six documents relied by her in support of her claim which have been marked as Ex.W1 to W6. On the other hand, the Respondents have examined Sri K. Somasekhar Rao, the Sr. Manager, E & OS Department of the Respondent management as MW1 and relied on two documents which have been marked as Ex.M1 and M2.

6. I have already heard the Learned Counsel for both the sides in the matter.

7. During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner was working in the office of the 2nd Respondent i.e., Life Insurance Corporation of India, Kothagudem with effect from 17.4.2006 and continued in the same capacity upto 23.1.2013 as a daily wager. She has filed the work particulars like the attendance register details, and the wage vouchers. The contention of the Respondents that the Petitioner was purely taken as a daily wager under daily wage basis on 17.4.2006 and as and when need arose and situation demanded the Respondents corporation paid daily wages as applicable which clearly indicates that the Petitioner worked intermittently as claimed by them. The Petitioner in her chief evidence affidavit has stated that she was engaged in the Respondents' corporation from 17.4.2006 to 23.1.2013. The management witness MW1 in his cross examination has admitted that they have engaged the Petitioner from 2010 to 31.1.2013 and the Petitioner worked continuously till the date of her termination with effect from 1.2.2013. MW1 also admitted that the document relied on by the Petitioner indicates that the Petitioner has worked 240 days from 1.4.2012 to 31.1.2013. He contended that the Petitioner has worked continuously for more than 240 days in a period of 12 months prior to the date of termination of her service i.e., 31.1.2013. He contended that the termination of the workman by oral instructions which amounts to illegal retrenchment as mandate procedure has not been followed as per Sec.25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He also contended that as the Petitioner was working in the Respondents' corporation from the year 2010 to 31.1.2013 continuously and has passed the test of continuous service of 240 days in the precedent 12 months. She is entitled to get the benefit. The Petitioner in her evidence affidavit as well as in her claim statement has clearly stated that she was not employed elsewhere till date and has prayed for full back wages. The Respondents have not made any attempt to disprove her claim inspite of the fact, that the onus to that effect lies on them as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court form time to time. He also contended that the Petitioner was under the employment of the Respondents' management from the year 2010 to 31.1.2013. Hence, the termination of service of the Petitioner orally with effect from 1.2.2013 is illegal and violative of Sec.25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, the Respondents may be directed to reinstate the Petitioner in service with consequential benefits like full back wages from the date of her termination with effect from 1.2.2013 to the date of reinstatement, with 18% of interest. He also contended to pass award by setting aside the termination order issued orally to the Petitioner with effect from 1.2.2013 and direct the Respondents management to reinstate the Petitioner into service together with consequential benefits with full back wages.

8. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents contended that the claim petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable. He contended that in obedience to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 953-968 of 2005, the Respondents issued employment notice on 20.5.2011 mentioning the eligibility criteria inviting applications from the eligible candidates to absorb the daily wagers. He also contended that broadly the eligibility criteria are as under which is quoted below for ready reference:

a) All temporary persons working in LIC of India for more than 5 years as on 18.1.2011.

b) Possessing minimum eligible qualification and age as prescribed by the LIC of India at the time of their entering in to LIC of India.

c) Candidates have to submit the copies of proof of working with the Corporation for more than 5 years as on 18.1.2011 duly signed by the Chief/Sr/Branch Manager of the Branch Office, Manager (P & IR) /Manager (OS) of the respective Divisional Office.

d) The onus of furnishing the authentic documentary proof for the above at the time of submission of the application shall be on the candidate.

He contended that those who have not fulfilled the above eligibility criteria, their applications have not been considered. The Petitioner has not fulfilled the above criteria for which her application was rejected. The Petitioner has admittedly worked in the Life Insurance Corporation of India but she was continued upto 31.1.2013. The Petitioner has not complied with the above criteria for which, her case was not considered. He further contended that the Respondents corporation had taken persons on daily wages whenever need arose and situation demanded. The Petitioner herein was purely taken as a daily wager under the category of daily wage basis from 2010 onwards that too intermittently. When ever the need arose and situation demanded, the Respondent corporation paid daily wages to the workers as applicable. Therefore, the question of joining date as claimed by the Petitioner as 17.4.2006 is not correct. The Petitioner has not been engaged by the Respondents' management on 17.4.2006, and her services were purely on daily wage basis. As the Petitioner has not fulfilled the minimum criteria i.e., completion of five years of service as on the cutoff date, her case was not considered. The Petitioner was not eligible for the written test as per the guidelines of the Apex Court. The burden of proof lies on the Petitioner only with regard to compliance of the eligibility criteria as decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and her continuous service as contended by her in her petition. The Petitioner was taken into service as a daily wager at her request the Respondents' corporation as and when work arose. Since the Petitioner has not fulfilled the required criteria in obedience to the employment notice, her application was not considered. Since the Petitioner has not worked 240 days continuously in a year, she is not entitled for retrenchment compensation as provided under Sec.25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. She was only taken as a daily wager under the category of "daily wager" intermittently. Hence, compliance of Sec.25N of the Disciplinary Authority does not arise. The Petitioner was never appointed under the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employment Of Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993 dated 28.6.1993 nor under any other instructions issued by the Corporation from time to time. Therefore, the termination of the services of the Petitioner does not arise. The service of the Petitioner was not taken further by the Respondents' at any point of time. The Petitioner has never worked in the office of the 2nd Respondent with effect from 17.4.2006 to 31.1.2013 continuously. The Petitioner has made up a false story in order to get employment. The contention of the Petitioner that there is vacancy in the office of the Respondents' corporation is totally false. Since the Petitioner has worked on temporary basis, the question of her regularization does not arise. Since the Petitioner had been engaged on daily wage basis and has not worked 240 days continuously in a year, he is not entitled to get retrenchment compensation and he is not also entitled for regularization. He further contended that pursuant to the employment notice, the Petitioner has not fulfilled the eligibility criteria that is why her case was not considered. She has not worked continuously for a period of five years before issuance of the employment notice in compliance to the order of the Apex Court. Therefore, the Petitioner is not eligible to get any employment. Lastly, he contended that though the Petitioner has relied on her working particulars like, copies of wage register, wage slips, statement of account of Andhra Bank. Those documents clearly go to show that she has worked from December, 2010 to January, 2013 and the payment of wages also shows that she has not been paid for the entire month. Those work particulars of the Petitioner is sufficient to show that the Petitioner has not completed 240 days in a year. Therefore, basing on the documents relied on by the Petitioner it is sufficient to hold that the Petitioner is not entitled to get compensation benefit and the Respondents have not violated any of the provision as required under Sec.25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner has not relied on any document to show that she has complied the requirement of the employment notice issued by the Respondent corporation, pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 953-968 of 2005. Mere admission of MW1 that the Petitioner has worked 240 days in a year is not sufficient to prove her case in absence of any cogent evidence. When the Petitioner was working as a sweeper on daily wages basis she has to prove how she worked more than 240 days in a year and what was her working hour per day in the office of the Respondents' management.

9. Point No.I: On consideration of the rival contentions of both the sides, it is seen that the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has already contended that the Petitioner was working in the Respondents' organization from the year 2006 to 2013 and she has completed five years of service. He has also contended that again the Petitioner worked under the Respondents from 1.4.2011 to 31.1.2013 and for the above periods she has got difference of minimum wages, as per the order of the Regional Labour Commissioner(C). But WW1 in her cross examination has clearly admitted that the Petitioner has not filed any document to show that she has worked under the Respondents from a year from 2006 to 2013 and she has received the difference of wages from 1.4.2011 to 31.1.2013. Admittedly, except, the work particulars of the Petitioner i.e., the vouchers from the month of April, 2006 to 31.3.2007 and copy of the wage register for the month of December, 2010 to January, 2013, no other documents have been relied on by the workman towards receipt of salary from the Respondents' management. Those work particulars of the Petitioner clearly shows that the Petitioner has only worked from the month of May, 2010 to January, 2013, except the month of July, 2011, maximum for a period of two years and seven months intermittently as a casual labourer. No other documents have been filed from the side of the workman to show that she was working continuously under the Respondents. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further admitted that the Petitioner has not received either any appointment letter or any termination letter as because her appointment is oral and termination is also oral. When no documents are relied on from the side of the workman and no averment is made in her claim statement regarding her working period from 2006-2013 under the Respondents management, it can not be stated that the workman has completed five years of service under the Respondents' management. The Workman has relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court decided in Civil Appeal No.953-968 of 2005 along with the certificate of conciliation issued by the conciliation officer. The Respondents have also not disputed the judgement of the Hon'ble apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.953-968 of 2005. But the Respondents stated that pursuant to the judgement of the Apex Court, the Respondents issued employment740 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] notice to the casual workers who were coming under the eligibility criteria to be engaged permanently in the Respondents' organization. The workman has nowhere stated that she has fulfilled the eligibility criteria to be appointed under the Respondents' management. The workman has also not filed any document to show that how she has complied the eligibility criteria to be regularized as a labourer under the Respondents' organization. Nor she has filed any document to show under which manner her application was not considered and accepted. The Learned Counsel for the workman has further contended that when MW1 in his cross examination has admitted that the Petitioner was working at Kothagudem as a daily wager intermittently, there is no need of having any such document to that effect. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents' submitted that at Kothagudem office whenever there was need, they used to engage daily labourers in their office, but not continuously. The Respondents in their counter has admitted that the workman was working as a daily wager intermittently as because she was working as a daily labourer as and when required, that does not mean that she was working continuously under the Respondents. He also admitted that the documents relied on by the workman/Petitioner clearly shows that from December, 2010 till January, 2013 she worked there and she has submitted the documents to that effect. If the workman has worked from the year 2010 to 31.1.2013 continuously, what prevented her to file any other documents for that period i.e., from 2010 onwards. As because MW1 admitted that the workman was working from the year 2010 to 31.1.2013 continuously till the date of her termination, without any documentary evidence it cannot be stated that the workman has completed 240 days of work continuously in a year, and her work was perennial in nature. Unless and until, the Petitioner workman would prove that she has worked continuously for a period of 240 days in a year, and her work was perennial in nature it cannot be stated that the workman is illegally terminated from service. It is the case of the Petitioner workman that she joined in the Respondent organization orally and her termination was oral, but it is not known the actual date of her joining and actual date of her termination. In absence of any such cogent evidence it cannot be stated that the workman has worked continuously under the Respondents' organization for a period of 240 days in a year and her work was perennial in nature and her termination is illegal, when the Respondents have categorically stated that they have engaged the services of the workman intermittently as and when required. In fact no satisfactory evidence is available before this Tribunal to consider that the termination order issued by the Respondents orally is illegal, and bad in Law and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of Sec.25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Thus, Point No. I is answered accordingly.

11. Point No. II: The Petitioner has contended that she has completed five years of service under the Respondents' management and she is eligible to get the employment under the Respondents' management pursuant to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and another etc., Vs. D.V. Anil Kumar etc., in Civil Appeal Nos. 953-968 of 2005. Admittedly, the Petitioner has nowhere stated that when she applied for the post and when her application was rejected. The Respondents have fairly stated that pursuant to the above stated judgement, they had issued employment notice with the required criteria, but as the Petitioner failed to comply the required criteria, her case was not considered. The Petitioner has not stated in which way she had complied the employment notice issued by the Respondents' organization, and in which manner her application was rejected. When no document was produced from the side of the Petitioner/workman to show that whether she has complied the eligibility criteria mentioned in the employment notice pursuant to the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 953-968 of 2005, it cannot be stated that the Petitioner is eligible to get an employment under the Respondents' organization, in view of the above said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Thus, Point No.II is answered accordingly.

12. Point Nos. III to V:. All these three points are taken up together for convenient discussion as their answer give rise to the same facts and logic involved for final discussion. In view of the observations made in Point No.I, it has already been held that the Petitioner/workman has not worked continuously for a period of 240 days in a year under the Respondents' management and her work was perennial in nature. Therefore, the Respondents have not issued any notice as provided under Sec.25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In fact, as the Petitioner has worked intermittently as a daily wage labourer under the Respondents' organization she is not entitled to get any compensation under Sec.25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Respondents have not violated any such provisions and in the circumstances stated above, the Petitioner workman is not entitled to get any other relief.

Thus, Point Nos.III to V are answered accordingly.

ORDER

In view of the fore gone discussion, the petition is dismissed. Under the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant corrected by me on this the 29th day of November, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 741

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Smt. Pittala Suvarna MW1: Sri K. Somasekhar Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Photostat copy of work particulars of the Petitioner

Ex.W2: Photostat copy of judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.953-968 of 2005

Ex.W3: Photostat copy of affidavit filed in WP No.9883/2016

Ex.W4: Photostat copy of interim orders in WP No.9883/2016

Ex.W5: Photostat copy of orders in WA No.692 of 2016

Ex.W6: Photostat copy of orders by RLC(C) under MW Act in application No.46/61/2013-EEL

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1: Photostat copy of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dt.18.1.2011 in CA Nos.953-968/2005 Ex.M2: Photostat copy of the employment notice issued by the Respondents organization dt.20.5.2011 calling for application for recruitment of Peons from the eligible persons.

नई दिल्ली, 29 जनवरी, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 208208208208....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार मेसर्स स्टील अथॉरिटी ऑफ इxिडया लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 38/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 21.01.2019 को प्राप्त %आ था।

[सं. एल-29012/1/2013-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2019

S.O. 208.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 38/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the of management M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21.01.2019.

[No. L-29012/1/2013-IR(M)]

D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 27th day of December, 2013

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 38/2013

Between:

Sri D. Deva Sahayam, S/o D. Ramaswamy, D.No.40-2-396, Shantinagar, Kailasapuram Road, Visakhapatnam (AP). …Petitioner Union742 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

The Manager (P&A), Steel Authority of India Ltd., Central marketing Organization, Transport & Shipping Office, Southern Region, Harbour Approach Road, Visakhapatnam. … Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri A.Santosh Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent : M/s. C.R. Sridharan, G. Narender Reddy, S. Ramesh, M. Srinivas Reddy, P.V. Durga Prasad, G.V.S. Ganesh & M. Sreehari, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/1/2013-IR(M) dated 6.3.2013 referred the following dispute between the management of SAIL, Central marketing Organization, Transport & Shipping Office, Visakhapatnam and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India, Central marketing Organization, Transport & Shipping Office, Southern Regional, Visakhapatnam in terminating the services of Shri D. Deva Sahayam, Ex-Water Boy (Daily Wage Worker), is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 38/2013 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The Petitioner workman has filed his claim statement and Respondent also filed their respective counter statement.

3. The case stands posted for recording of Petitioner's evidence.

4. The Respondent management filed IA No.35/2016 to reject the present ID regarding maintainability of the dispute, as the same is being barred by the principles of res judicata. Petitioner has filed counter to the IA No.35/2016.

After hearing both the sides, the IA was allowed.

5. In view of the order passed in IA 35/2016, the present ID No.38/2013 becomes frivolous and is liable to be dismissed. In the circumstances stated above, 'No dispute' award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 27th day of December, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN , Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 743

नई दिल्ली, 29 जनवरी, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 209209209209....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार

मेसर्स भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक

विवाद में के न्(ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 6/2014) को प्रकाशित

करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 21.01.2019 को प्राप्त %आ था।

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2019

S.O. 209.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 6/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21.01.2019.

[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]

D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 29th day of November, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 6/2014

Between:

Sri K. Satyaprakash, S/o K. Butchirajam, H.No.23-244, Indira Nagar, Yellandu Post, Khammam District – 507213.

… Petitioner

AND

1. The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Hanamkonda – 506001.

2. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, S.O., Yellandu, Yellandu Post, Khammam District.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri T. Koteswara Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent : Sri K.R.L. Sarma, Advocate

AWARD

Sri K. Satyaprakash who worked as Peon/Casual Labourer (who will be referred to as workman) has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents Life Insurance Corporation of India with a prayer to pass an order setting aside the termination order issued orally by the Respondents as it is illegal, bad in law and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Section 25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court decided in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and another etc., Vs. D.V. Anil Kumar etc., in Civil Appeal Nos. 953-968 of 2005 and consequently directing the744 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Respondents' corporation to reengage the Petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including back wages in the interest of justice.

2. The case of the Petitioner as averred in claim petition in brief as follows:

The Petitioner was initially engaged as a Peon/Casual Labourer in the office of the 2nd Respondents with effect from 12.1.2008 and continued in the same capacity upto 23.1.2013. It is stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and etc., Vs. D.V. Anil Kumar etc., in Civil Appeal Nos. 953-968 of 2005 has directed the Respondents' corporation to absorb casual labourers employed under them as per the scheme submitted before the Hon'ble Court. According to which "One time limited examination for those temporary persons who are working in Life Insurance Corporation of India for more than five years and who had possessed minimum eligible qualification and age as prescribed at the time of entry into LIC of India would be considered. For this purpose, LIC of India will hold a limited written examination which will be in the vernacular language with a limited syllabus which will be announced in advance. The successful short listed candidates shall be called for the interview. Such of those persons who are successful in the interview shall be initially appointed and posted anywhere in the respective Zone." It is also submitted that the Petitioner was working as a casual labourer for a long time without any blemish. The Respondents' Corporation is an Industry covered under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since more than 100 workers/employees were working under the Respondents' corporation, the provisions of retrenchment under Sec.25N of the Chapter V-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are applicable in the instant case of termination. The Respondents' corporation has not followed the same mandatory procedure contained under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 while terminating the service of the Petitioner. It is also submitted that being aggrieved by the oral termination order of the Respondents' corporation the Petitioner approached the conciliation officer i.e., Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) for redressal of his grievance. The said conciliation officer has initiated one conciliation proceedings on 12.6.2013 and completed on 26.7.2013 as no settlement was arrived in the proceedings and lastly submitted his report. Therefore, i) the Petitioner was constrained to file this petition challenging the termination of the Petitioner by the Respondents which is in violation of Sec.25N of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. ii) the termination of the services of the Petitioner by the Respondents is in violation of the judegment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred above. (ii) the job which the Petitioner was performing in the Respondents' corporation is of perennial in nature and the post is still lying vacant. The termination of services of the Petitioner without following mandatory procedure is a colourable Act coupled with the malafide intention. iv) the Petitioner is not able to procure any employment/work in other organizations till date, thus, he is entitled of immediate regularization and with the above averments the Petitioner has filed this case claiming the relief mentioned above.

3. The Respondents filed counter challenging the claim of the Petitioner on the ground of its maintainability

which runs as follows:

It is stated that pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 18.1.2011 passed in C.A. No.953-968 of 2005, the LIC of India issued an employment notice dated 20.5.2011 calling for applications for recruitment of peons from the eligible persons, which are quoted below:

a) All temporary persons working in LIC of India for more than 5 years as on 18.1.2011.

b) Possessing minimum eligible qualification and age as prescribed by the LIC of India at the time of their entering into LIC of India

c) Candidates have to submit the copies of proof of working with the Corporation for more than 5 years as on 18.1.2011 duly signed by the Chief/Sr/Branch Manager of the Branch Office, Manager (P & IR)/Manager (OS) of the respective Divisional Office.

d) The onus of furnishing the authentic documentary proof for the above at the time of submission of the application shall be on the candidate.

It is submitted that in compliance to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Respondents' corporation released one notification calling for applications from the eligible candidates at various Divisional offices on or before 3.6.2011 which was the cut-off date. All the applications received under Hyderabad Division were forwarded to the Zonal Office, Hyderabad and after verification, written test was conducted on 26.6.2011 by the Zonal Office for all such eligible candidates who were eligible to the post as per the norms/eligibility criteria fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is further submitted that the Respondents' corporation had taken persons as daily wagers whenever need arose and situation demanded. The Petitioner was purely taken as a daily wager, under the category of daily wage basis from July, 2010 onwards, that too intermittently. In fact, the Yellandu SO was inaugurated on 17.1.2008 and thereafter whenever need arose and situation demanded the Respondents' corporation paid daily wages as applicable. Hence, the question of joining date as 12.2.2008 is not correct. The Petitioner has not worked for five years and has not fulfilled his minimum service of five years as on the cut off date. The Petitioner was not even eligible for the written test as per the guidelines of the Apex Court. The burden of proof lies on the Petitioner only with regard to compliance of the eligibility criteria as decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court and his continuous service as contended by him in his petition. In fact the Petitioner had been taken as daily wager on his request by the Respondents' corporation i.e., in the office of RespondentsNo.2 as and when work arose. The Petitioner has not fulfilled the guidelines of the Apex Court as per the notification dated 20.5.2011 given by the LIC for submitting the application as a daily wager before the date fixed by the LIC. Therefore, the Petitioner is not eligible as per the LIC notification. The Petitioner is not even eligible for retrenchment compensation as provided under Sec. 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as he had not completed one year of service continuously. He had been taken as a daily wager under the category of daily wager intermittently.

Therefore, compliance of Sec.25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not arise. The Respondents' corporation has never issued any appointment letter to the Petitioner as he was neither appointed under the LIC (Employment and Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993 dated 28.6.1993 nor under any other instructions issued by the corporation from time to time. Therefore, the termination of service of the Petitioner does not arise at all. His services were not taken further in strict compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.953-968 of 2005. The claim of the Petitioner that he was engaged as a daily wager in the office of the 2nd Respondent with effect from 12.1.2008 is not correct. As per the records of the Respondents the Petitioner never worked continuously from 12.1.2008 to 21.3.2011. The vouchers submitted by the Petitioner clearly shows that those are the payment vouchers relating to daily wagers for the service taken by the corporation. Therefore, the plea of the Petitioner that he worked continuously as daily wager/casual labour is not correct. It is further submitted that as the Petitioner was not engaged by the corporation, the question of his termination does not arise. So also the question of violation of any provisions either under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under the Constitution of India does not arise. It is further submitted that the contention of the Petitioner that still the posts are lying vacant is not correct. It is also submitted that the corporation has not employed any workman on temporary basis for the past seven years. But the corporation is engaging the persons purely on daily wage basis only depending upon the requirement of the office. The daily wagers were paid according to the applicable Laws in force. Therefore, the office has never exploited the workman at any point of time. The Respondents have also submitted that the LIC of India was not indulging unfair labour practice. As it is need based category we have engaged the Petitioner as daily wager as and when the situation demands and the corporation paid the due wages as applicable. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 18.1.2011 has stated that such of those temporary employees who do not apply and are or not successful shall cease to be in the employment. Those temporary persons, who were not governed by the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court shall cease to be in the employment. Therefore, as the Petitioner was not taken further, the question of reengaging him by the Respondents' corporation does not arise and it will be contrary to the guidelines fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is stated that not engaging the services of a daily wager is in obedience of the above order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. As per the employment notification dated 20.5.2011 the candidates who do not satisfy the eligibility conditions are liable to be disqualified at any stage of the selection which has been strictly followed by the Respondents' management. as the recruitment process was over and the Petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility criteria, the Petitioner was not entitled to be taken in service. With the above averments, the Respondents submitted for dismissal of any the claim petition filed by the Petitioner as devoid of merit and is to be rejected.

4. As per the averments of both the sides, the following points are to be determined:

I. Whether the termination order orally issued by the Respondents is illegal and bad in Law and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and provisions of Sec.25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

II. Whether the Petitioner is eligible to get employment under the Respondents' management in obedience of the direction of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed n the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and another etc., Vs. D.V. Anil Kumar etc., in Civil Appeal Nos. 953-968 of 2005?

III. Whether the Respondents have violated the provisions under Sec.25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

IV. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to get employment under the Respondents and also eligible to get all the consequential benefits including back wages and

V. To what other relief the Petitioner is entitled to get?

5. During the course of hearing of this case, the Petitioner has been examined himself as WW1 and has relied on the work particulars of the workman i.e., the vouchers for the month of June, 2012 to January, 2013. The copy of the wage registers for the month of June, 2012 to January, 2013 and statement of Account from Andhra Bank and has not marked any documents relied by him in support of his claim. The same are marked as Ex. X1 to X3 by the Court for convenience. On the other hand, the Respondents has examined Sri K. Somasekhar Rao, Sr. Manager, E & OS Department of the Respondents' management as MW1 and relied on two documents which have been marked as Ex.M1 and M2.

6. I have already heard the Learned Counsel for both the sides in the matter.

7. During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner was working in the office of the 2nd Respondent i.e., Life Insurance Corporation of India, SO, Yellandu with effect from 12.1.2008 and continued in the same capacity upto 23.1.2013 as a daily temporary Class IV employee. He has filed the work particulars like the details of temporary class IV employees engaged in the office as on 21.2.2012. The contention of the Respondents that the Petitioner was purely taken as a daily wager under the category of Peon on 12.1.2008 and as and when need arose and situation demanded the Respondents corporation paid daily wages as applicable, which clearly indicates that the Petitioner worked intermittently as claimed by them. The Petitioner in his chief evidence affidavit has stated that he was engaged in the Respondents' corporation from 12.1.2008 to 23.1.2013. The management witness MW1 in his cross examination has admitted that they have engaged the Petitioner intermittently upto 31.1.2011 and from 1.4.2011 to 31.1.2013 and the Petitioner worked continuously till the date of his termination with effect from 1.2.2013. MW1 also admitted that the calculation sheet relied on by the Petitioner indicates that the Petitioner has worked 240 days from 1.4.2012 to 31.1.2013. He contended that the Petitioner has worked continuously for more than 240 days in a period of 12 months prior to the date of termination of his service i.e.,746 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 31.1.2013. He contended that the termination of the workman by oral instructions which amounts to illegal retrenchment as mandate procedure has not been followed as per Sec.25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He also contended that as the Petitioner was working in the Respondents' corporation from 1.4.2011 to 31.1.2013 continuously and has passed the test of continuous service of 240 days in the precedent 12 months. He is entitled to get the benefit. The Petitioner in his evidence affidavit as well as in his claim statement has clearly stated that he was not employed elsewhere till date and has prayed for full back wages. The Respondents have not made any attempt to disprove his claim inspite of the fact, that the onus to that effect lies on them as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court form time to time. He also contended that the Petitioner was under the employment of the Respondents' management from 1.4.2011 to 31.1.2013. Hence, the termination of service of the Petitioner orally with effect from 1.2.2013 is illegal and violative of Sec.25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, the Respondents may be directed to reinstate the Petitioner in service with consequential benefits like full back wages from the date of his termination with effect from 1.2.2013 to the date of reinstatement, with 18% of interest. He also contended to pass award by setting aside the termination order issued orally to the Petitioner with effect from 1.2.2013 and direct the Respondents management to reinstate the Petitioner into service together with consequential benefits with full back wages.

8. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents contended that the claim petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable. He contended that in obedience to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 953-968 of 2005, the Respondents issued employment notice on 20.5.2011 mentioning the eligibility criteria inviting applications from the eligible candidates to absorb the daily wagers. He also contended that broadly the eligibility criteria are as under which is quoted below for ready reference:

a) All temporary persons working in LIC of India for more than 5 years as on 18.1.2011.

b) Possessing minimum eligible qualification and age as prescribed by the LIC of India at the time of their entering in to LIC of India.

c) Candidates have to submit the copies of proof of working with the Corporation for more than 5 years as on 18.1.2011 duly signed by the Chief/Sr/Branch Manager of the Branch Office, Manager (P & IR) /Manager (OS) of the respective Divisional Office.

d) The onus of furnishing the authentic documentary proof for the above at the time of submission of the application shall be on the candidate.

He contended that those who have not fulfilled the above eligibility criteria, their applications have not been considered. The Petitioner has not fulfilled the above criteria for which his application was rejected. The Petitioner has admittedly worked in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, but he was continued upto 31.1.2013. The Petitioner has not complied with the above criteria, for which his case was not considered. He further contended that the Respondents corporation had taken persons on daily wages, whenever need arose and situation demanded. The Petitioner herein was purely taken as a daily wager under the category of daily wage basis from July, 2010 onwards that too intermittently. The Yellandu, SO was inaugurated on 17.1.2008 and thereafter whenever the need arose and situation demanded, the Respondents' corporation paid daily wages to the workers as applicable. Therefore, the question of joining date as claimed by the Petitioner as 12.1.2008 is not correct. The Petitioner has not been engaged by the Respondents' management on 12.1.2008, and his services were purely on daily wage basis. As the Petitioner has not fulfilled the minimum criteria i.e., completion of five year of service as on the cutoff date, his case was not considered. The Petitioner was not eligible for the written test as per the guidelines of the Apex Court. The burden of proof lies on the Petitioner only with regard to compliance of the eligibility criteria as decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and his continuous service as contended by him in his petition. The Petitioner was taken into service as a daily wager at his request in the Respondents' corporation as and when work arose. Since the Petitioner has not fulfilled the required criteria in obedience to the employment notice, his application was not considered. Since the Petitioner has not worked 240 days continuously in a year, he is not entitled for retrenchment compensation as provided under Sec.25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He was only taken as a daily wager under the category of "daily wager" intermittently. Hence, compliance of Sec.25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not arise. The Petitioner was never appointed under the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employment Of Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993 dated 28.6.1993 nor under any other instructions issued by the Corporation from time to time. Therefore, the termination of the services of the Petitioner does not arise. The service of the Petitioner was not taken further by the Respondents at any point of time. The Petitioner has never worked in the office of the 2nd Respondents with effect from 12.1.2008 to 31.1.2013 continuously. The Petitioner has made up a false story in order to get employment. The contention of the Petitioner that there is vacancy in the office of the Respondents' corporation is totally false. Since the Petitioner has worked on temporary basis, the question of his regularization does not arise. Since the Petitioner had been engaged on daily wage basis and has not worked 240 days continuously in a year, he is not entitled to get retrenchment compensation and he is not also entitled for regularization. He further contended that pursuant to the employment notice, the Petitioner has not fulfilled the eligibility criteria that is why his case was not considered. He has not worked continuously for a period of five years before issuance of the employment notice in compliance to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the Petitioner is not eligible to get any employment. Lastly, he contended that though the Petitioner has relied on his working particulars like, copies of wage register, wage slips, statement of account of Andhra Bank. Those documents clearly go to show that he has worked from June, 2012 to January, 2013 and the payment of wages also shows that he has not been paid for the entire month. Those work particulars of the Petitioner is sufficient to show that the Petitioner has not completed 240 days in a year. Therefore, basing on the documents relied on by the Petitioner it is sufficient to hold that the Petitioner is not entitled to get compensation benefit and the Respondents[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 747 have not violated any of the provision as under Sec.25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner has not relied on any document to show that he has complied the requirement of the employment notice issued by the Respondents' corporation, pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 953-968 of 2005. Mere admission of MW1 that the Petitioner has worked 240 days in a year is not sufficient to prove his case. When the Petitioner was working as a casual labourer on daily wages basis he has to prove how he worked for more than 240 days in a year.

9. Point No. I: On consideration of the rival contentions of both the sides, it is seen that the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has already contended that the Petitioner was working in the Respondents' organization from the year 2008 to 2011 and he has completed five years of service. He has also contended that again the Petitioner worked under the Respondents from 1.4.2011 to 31.1.2013 and for the above period he has got a difference of minimum wages, as per the order of Regional Labour Commissioner(C). But WW1 in his cross examination has clearly admitted that he has not filed any document to show that he has worked under the Respondents from the year 2008 to 2011 and he has received the difference of wages from 1.4.2011 to 31.1.2013. Admittedly, except, the work particulars of the Petitioner i.e., the vouchers from the month of June, 2012 to January, 2013 and copy of the wage register for the month of June, 2012 to January, 2013 and statement of Andhra Bank, no other documents have been relied on by the workman towards receipt of salary from the Respondents' management. Those work particulars of the Petitioner clearly shows that the Petitioner has only worked from the month of June, 2012 to January, 2013, maximum for a period of 8 months as a casual labourer intermittently. No other documents were filed from the side of the workman to show that he was working continuously under the Respondent. The workman further admitted that he has not received either any appointment letter or any termination letter as because his appointment is oral and termination is also oral. When no documents are relied on from the side of the workman and no averment is made in his claim statement regarding his working period from 2008-2011 under the Respondents it can not be stated that the workman has completed five years of service under the Respondents management. The workman has relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court decided in Civil Appeal No.953-968 of 2005 along with the certificate of conciliation issued by the conciliation officer. The Respondents have also not disputed the judgement of the Hon'ble apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.953-968 of 2005. But the Respondents stated that pursuant to the judgement of the Apex Court, the Respondents issued employment notice to the casual workers who are coming under the eligibility criteria to be engaged permanently in the Respondents organization. The workman has nowhere sated that he has fulfilled the eligibility criteria to be appointed under the Respondents management. The workman has also not filed any document to show that how he has complied the eligibility criteria to be regularized as a labourer under the Respondents organization. Nor he has filed any document to show under which manner his application was rejected / and not accepted. The Learned Counsel for the workman contended that when MW1 in his cross examination has admitted that the Petitioner was working at SO, Yellandu as a daily wager intermittently, there is no need of having any such document to that effect. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that when SO, Yellandu was established in the year 2008, whenever there is need, they used to engage daily labourers in their office, but not continuously and the Respondents in their counter has admitted that the workman was working as a daily wager intermittently as because he was working as a daily labourer as and when required, that does not mean that he was working continuously under the Respondent. It is also noticed that the document relied on by the workman Petitioner clearly shows that from the month of June, 2012 till January, 2013 he has worked there and he has submitted documents to that effect. If the workman has worked from the year 1.4.2011 to 31.1.2013, what prevented him to file any document for that period i.e., from 1.4.2011 onwards. As because MW1 admitted that the workman was working from the 1.4.2011 to 31.1.2013 continuously till the date of his termination, it can not be stated that the workman has completed 240 days of work continuously in a year and his work was perennial in nature. Unless and until, the Petitioner workman would prove that he has worked continuously for a period of 240 days in a year and his work was perennial in nature it cannot be stated that the workman has been illegally terminated from service. It is the case of the Petitioner workman that he joined in the Respondentsorganization orally and his termination was oral but it is not known the actual date of his joining and actual date of his termination. In absence of any such cogent evidence it cannot be stated that the workman has worked continuously under the Respondents organization for a period of 240 days in a year and his work was perennial in nature and his termination is illegal when the Respondents has categorically stated that they have engaged the services of the workman intermittently as and when required. In fact no satisfactory evidence is available before this Tribunal to consider that the termination order orally issued by the Respondents is illegal and bad in Law and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and provisions of Sec.25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Thus, Point No. I is answered accordingly.

11. Point No.II: The Petitioner has contended that he has completed five years of service under the Respondents management and he is eligible to get the employment under the Respondents management pursuant to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and another etc., Vs. D.V. Anil Kumar etc., in Civil Appeal Nos. 953-968 of 2005. Admittedly, the Petitioner has nowhere stated when he applied for the post and when his application was rejected. The Respondents has fairly stated that pursuant to the above stated judgement, they have issued employment notice with the required criteria, but as the Petitioner failed to comply the required criteria his case was not considered. The Petitioner has not stated in which way he has complied the employment notice issued by the Respondents organization and in which manner his application was rejected. When no document was produced from the side of the Petitioner workman to show whether he has complied the eligibility criteria mentioned in the employment notice pursuant to the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Civil Appeal Nos. 953-968 of 2005, it cannot be stated that the Petitioner is eligible to get an employment under the Respondents organization.

Thus, Point No.II is answered accordingly.

12. Point Nos. III to V:. All these three points are taken up together for convenient discussion, as their answer give rise to the same facts and laws involved for final discussion, In view of the observations made in Point No.I, it has already been held that the Petitioner workman has not worked continuously for a period of 240 days in a year under the Respondents and his work was perennial in nature. Therefore, the Respondents have not issued any notice as provided under Sec.25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In fact, as the Petitioner worked intermittently as a daily wage labourer under the Respondents organization he is not entitled to get any compensation under Sec.25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Respondents have not violated any such provision, and in the circumstances stated above, the Petitioner workman is not entitled to get any other relief.

Thus, Point Nos.III to V are answered accordingly.

ORDER

In view of the fore gone discussion, the petition is dismissed. Under the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 29th day of November, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent

WW1: Sri K. Satya Prakash MW1: Sri K. Somasekhar Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1: Photostat copy of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dt.18.1.2011 in CA Nos.953-968/2005 Ex.M2: Photostat copy of the employment notice issued by the Respondents organization dt.20.5.2011 calling for application for recruitment of Peons from the eligible persons.

Documents marked by the Court

Ex. X1 : Photostat copies of bunch of vouchers from the month of June, 2012 to January, 2013.

Ex. X2 : Photostat copy of extract from wage register from the moth of June, 2012 to January, 2013.

Ex. X3 : Photostat copy of statement of account from Andhra Bank.

नई दिल्ली, 29 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 210210210210....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार मेसर्स भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 1/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 21.01.2019 को प्राप्त %आ था।

[सं. एल-17012/130/2014-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2019

S.O. 210.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21.01.2019.

[No. L-17012/130/2014-IR(M)]

D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 20th day of December, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 1/2015

Between :

Sri Noolla Pydiraju, S/o Appalaswamy, Door No.27-134, Appannapalem, Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530 047.

…Petitioner

AND

The Manager (E & OS) Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, PB No.411, Jeevan Bima Road, Jeevan Prakash, Visakhapatnam – 530004. …Respondent Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent : Sri K.R.L. Sarma, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 17012/130/ 2014-IR(M) dated 5.12.2014 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of LIC of India, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Visakhapatnam in terminating the services of Shri Noolla Pydiraju, Ex-temporary sub staff on 24.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 1/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.

3. Inspite of repeated calls, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several opportunities have been given to the Petitioner to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner failed to attend this Tribunal which clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner has already been settled and the Petitioner has got nothing to raise any claim against the Respondents. Hence, the case of the Petitioner is closed and a 'No dispute' award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 20th day of December, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL750 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 29 जनवरी, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 211211211211....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार

मेसर्स भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक

विवाद में के न्(ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 7/2015) को प्रकाशित

करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 21.01.2019 को प्राप्त %आ था।

[सं. एल-17012/143/2014-आईआर(एम)] डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2019

S.O. 211.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 7/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21.01.2019.

[No. L-17012/143/2014-IR(M)]

D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 24th day of December, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 7/2015

Between :

Sri Banoth Chandulal, R/o (V) OTAI Thanda, P.O.: OTAI, (M) Kothagudem (Pakhal) Warangal Dist. Warangal – 506135.

… Petitioner

AND

1. The Zonal Manager,

LIC of India, Zonal Office, Opp. Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad – 500 004.

2. The Sr. Divl. Manager,

LIC of India, Divl. Office, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda, Warangal Dist., Warangal.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent : Sri K. Rama Lingeswara Sarma, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 17012/143/ 2014-IR(M) dated 22.1.2015 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Zonal Office, Hyderabad / Divisional Office, Hanamkonda, Warangal Dist., in terminating the services after crossing 240 days continuous service of Sri Banoth Chandulal, Ex.Temp. Substaff LIC of India, Divisional Office, Warangal, w.e.f. 1.2.2013 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled to?"[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 751 The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 7/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.

3. Inspite of repeated calls, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several opportunities have been given to the Petitioner Workman to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner workman failed to attend this Tribunal which clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner workman has already been settled and the Petitioner has nothing to raise any claim against the Respondents. Hence, the case of the Petitioner workman is closed and a 'No dispute' award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 24th day of December, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 29 जनवरी, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 212212212212....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार मेसर्स सीमेंट काप|रेशन ऑफ इxिडया एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 93/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 21.01.2019 को प्राप्त %आ था।

[सं. एल-29011/12/2015-आईआर(एम)] डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2019

S.O. 212.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 93/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of M/s. Cement Corporation of India and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21.01.2019.

[No. L-29011/12/2015-IR(M)]

D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan , Presiding Officer

Dated the 24th day of December, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 93 /2015

Between:

The General Secretary & Dy. General Secretary, C.C.I.Contractor Workers Union (AITUC), C/o CCI Tandur Cement Factory, Karankote (Telengana).

…Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager,

M/s. Cement Corporation of India, Tandur Cement Factory, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Shri Selvarajan, Contractor, C/o M/s. Cement Corporation of India, Tandur Cement Factory, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent : M/s. Valluri Mohan Srinivas, V. Rajyalakshmi & S.C. Aravind, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29011/12/2015-IR(M) dated 1.10.2015 referred the following dispute between the management of Cement Corporation of India and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Cement Corporation of India, Tandur in reducing the retirement age of contract labour from 60 years to 58 years is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 93/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.

3. Inspite of availing several opportunities to file claim statement, the Petitioner union failed to file Claim statement and remained absent. There is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner union on the date fixed inspite of repeated calls, which clearly indicates that the dispute of the Petitioner union has already been settled. In the circumstances stated above, it is felt that the Petitioner union has got no claim to raise. Thus, 'No dispute' award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 24th day of December, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN , Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 753

नई दिल्ली, 29 जनवरी, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 213213213213....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार मेसर्स इxिडयन ऑयल काप|रेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय, गुवाहाटी के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 06/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 21.01.2019 को प्राप्त %आ था।

[सं. एल-30011/33/2015-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2019

S.O. 213.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 06/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the of management M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21.01.2019.

[No. L-30011/33/2015-IR(M)]

D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Present : Shri Mrinmoy Kumar Bhattacharjee, M.A., LL.B., Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

Ref. Case No. 06 of 2015

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :—

The General Secretary, North Guwahati Bottling Plant Labour Union, Guwahati, Assam

…Claimant/ Workmen

Vrs

The Management of I.O.C.L., Guwahati, Assam and 01 other, …Management/O.P.

APPEARANCES :

For the Union : Mr. K.M.Haloi, Learned Advocate.

For the Management : Mr. S.N.Sarma, learned Senior Advocate.

Mr. M.Hussain, learned Advocate.

Date of Award: 11.01.2019

AWARD 1. This industrial dispute between The General Secretary, North Guwahati Bottling Plant Labour Union, Guwahati, Assam and the Management of I.O.C.L, Bottling Plant, Guwahati, Assam was referred to this Tribunal by the Central Government with the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Bottling Plant North Guwahati,

Abhoypur, Guwahati 781031 is justified in rejecting the demand of the union of upgrading the skill category

of the contract workers based on qualification and year of experience and not allowing payment of wages

and other benefits as per IOCL General Notification dated 22.10.2014 with effect from 01.04.2014 ? If not,

what relief the contract workers are entitled to from the management of the IOCL Bottling Plant North

Guwahati ?"

2. After receipt of the order of reference, notices were issued to the parties and they appeared and submitted their respective written statements.

3. The claim statement on behalf of the North Guwahati Bottling Plant Labour Union was submitted by the General Secretary of the Union stating inter-alia that the benefit of up-gradation of contract workers from unskilled to semi-skilled and semi-skilled to skilled or highly skilled category in the concerned industry ought to have been made effective with effect from 01.04.2014 in view of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 15.07.2013. The facts alleged by the Union may briefly be stated as under. A large number of contract labours were working in the North Guwahati Bottling Plant under IOCL for last more than 15 years and they were discharging the duties of semi-skilled, skilled and754 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] highly skilled workers though they were being paid the wages and other benefits as were entitled to the unskilled workers. The Union have been raising demand of up-gradation of benefit and ultimately an MOS was signed by the North Guwahati Bottling Plant Labour Union and Contractors of North Guwahati Bottling Plant in presence of the management before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati on 15.07.2013 regarding revision of wages and other benefits of contract labours under IOCL. It was further stated that as per the aforesaid settlement, wages and other benefits were revised for 4 categories of contract labours namely unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled and highly skilled. At that point of time semi skilled and highly skilled contract labours were not there in IOCL and it was agreed that a Committee shall be formed by the management to explore the feasibility of introduction of semi-skilled and highly skilled contract workers. After signing of the MOS dated 15.07.2013 management of IOCL formed a Committee to explore feasibility for introduction of semi-skilled and highly skilled contract workers and the committee submitted its recommendation before the management regarding categorization of jobs under semi skilled and highly skilled as well as wage revision of all the 4 categories of contract labours. Thereafter the management issued a general Notification dated 22.10.2014 whereby it was notified that the recommendation of the aforesaid Committee was approved and all respective HODs of IOCL (AOD) were requested to consider all 4 categories i.e. unskilled, skilled, semi-skilled and highly skilled contract workers wherever applicable while initiating new contracts. It was further stated that although by Notification dated 22.10.2014 it was stated that such up-gradation and categorization would be effective for all new Notice Inviting Tender to be issued subsequently , according to the Union, as per MOS dated 15.07.2013, the same up-gradation etc. should have been made effective from 01.04.2014. On the basis of the aforesaid facts the Union prayed for an Award directing the management to provide the benefits of up-gradation as per general Notification dated 22.10.2014 to the contract workers at North Guwahati Bottling Plant with effect from 01.04.2014.

4. Written statement of the management side was submitted by Sr. Plant Manager, North Guwahati Bottling Plant of IOCL wherein the claim raised by the Union was sought to be resisted. It was stated that at the time of signing the MOS dated 15.07.2013 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati, there was no semi skilled and highly skilled contract workers in the Bottling Plant of IOCL in regard to the ongoing contracts. However, after the formation of the Committee to consider the feasibility of such up-gradation the Committee submitted its report suggesting introduction of semi skilled and highly skilled workers and the management accepted the report and vide general Notification dated 22.10.2014 it was clearly stated that henceforth the said new category of workers, i.e. semi skilled and highly skilled, wherever applicable, would be considered against all new Notice Inviting Tenders of the IOCL. According to the management, said up-gradation was to be made effective for all future tenders and was clearly prospective in nature. The management prayed for dismissing the claim of the Union for granting revised pay as per upgraded categorization of the workers retrospectively from 01.04.2014.

5. Both sides examined one witness each. The workmen witness Sri Nabajit Sharma, General Secretary of the North Guwahati Bottling Plant Labour Union stated that the MOS dated 15.07.2013 was regarding revision of wages and other benefits of contract labours under IOCL with effect from 01.10.2012 for a period of 4 years. He further stated that the Committee which was formed by the management to explore the feasibility for introduction of semi skilled and highly skilled categories of workers in the IOCL submitted its report in the affirmative which was subsequently accepted by the management. He admitted in his evidence on Affidavit that in the general Notification dated 22.10.2014 it was mentioned that the "notification shall be effective for all new Notice Inviting Tenders to be issued subsequently". However, according to the Union, the benefits ought to have been extended to the respective categories of workers with effect from 01.04.2014 which the management illegally denied. During cross-examination he denied the suggestion of the management that settlements were to be implemented as per Notification dated 22.10.2014.

6. The management witness Sri Kalyan Nath, the authorized Officer of the IOCL (AOD) deposed that through Memorandum of Settlement signed between the Contractor Association and AOC Contractual Labour Union and Mineral Oil Workers' Union in presence of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dibrugarh on 01.07 2013, was for revision of wages and benefits of contract workers, it was agreed by the parties that semi- skilled and highly skilled categories would be introduced in IOCL (AOD). He further stated that in spite of MOS dated 01.07.2013 North Guwahati Bottling Plant Labour Union demanded a separate MOS which was signed on 15.07.2013 wherein the parties agreed that at the relevant point of time semi-skilled and highly skilled contract workers were not present in IOCL (AOD) and that such categories of workers would be introduced in future. A Committee was accordingly formed and after acceptance of the report of the Committee said two categories i.e. semi skilled and highly skilled categories were to be introduced. The witness denied that the Notification dated 22.10.2014 is to be made effective from 01.04.2014. He further stated that skill categorization of workers is to be applied on the basis of circumstances and job requirement and the benefits of new categories of semi skilled and highly skilled workers have already been extended to all such contract workers from subsequent contracts. During cross-examination he admitted that wages and other benefits of the workers are usually revised every 4 years. He further admitted that Exhibit-1 is the MOS dated 15.07.2013 which is effective from 01.10.2012 to 30.09.2016. He denied the suggestion of the workmen side that Exhibit-2 dated 22.10.2014 was completely unjustified and arbitrary.

7. During argument, the learned Counsel appearing for the workmen side submitted that once introduction of new categories of semi skilled and highly skilled workers were accepted by the management IOCL (AOD) it was obvious that the benefit of such up-gradation plus wage revision ought to have been extended retrospectively to the categorized workers from 01.04.2014. He further stated that the management hiding behind the Notification 22.10.2014 (Exhibit-2) denied such benefits to the concerned category of workmen with effect from 01.04.2014 though such benefits were extended to them subsequently from the year 2016. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the management side submitted that MOS dated 15.07.2013 (Exhibit-1) categorically mentioned the following:

"Both the parties agreed that a committee be formed by the management of IOC Ltd. (AOD) to explore

feasibility for introduction of semi-skilled and highly-skilled category in line with industry practice and in

consultation with Contractor Worker Union i.e. NGBPLU & North Guwahati Contractor's including modalities

of implementation of semi-skilled and highly-skilled category in IOCL(AOD) covering Marketing locations of

entire North East, NGBPLU and the North Guwahati Contractor's agreed in principle that the committee so

formed by Management of IOCL(AOD) requested to submit their report/recommendations within four(4)

months from the date of constitution of the committee and thereafter endeavour should be made by IOCL(AOD)

management to implement the same latest by beginning of the calendar year 2014." He further referred to the

general Notification dated 22.10.2014 (Exhibit-2) wherein the following has been categorically mentioned:

"The committee submitted the report with recommendations regarding categorization of jobs under Semi- skilled and Highly-Skilled categories. The four categories of Contract Workers identified by the Committee are attached as Annexure-I. The wage rate of Semi skilled and Highly skilled workers as per MOS dated 01.07.2013 is enclosed as Annexure-II for ready reference. Management has approved the recommendations of the committee and it has been decided that, henceforth the above mentioned new categories i.e. Semi skilled category and Highly skilled category of contract workers wherever applicable as per job requirements, shall be also considered against all new tenders of IOCL(AOD)." He also submitted that the demand of the workmen side that the upgraded categorization of the contract labours ought to have been made as per Exhibit-1 was completely misconstrued and misplaced since at that point of time there was no semi skilled and highly skilled contract labours in the IOCL (AOD). He further stated that in terms of the general Notification (Exhibit-2) categories of semi skilled and highly skilled workers were to be introduced from the subsequent contracts. It was admitted by both the parties that all the categories of contract labours in the IOCL (AOD) i.e. unskilled, semi skilled, skilled and highly skilled have been extended wages and benefits as applicable to them from the year 2016.

8. Admittedly, upgraded wages and corresponding benefits have already been extended to the respective categories of contract workers from the year 2016. The short dispute is whether such benefits ought to have been extended from 1.4.2014. From Ext-1 dated 15.7.2013 it appeared that the committee was requested to submit the report regarding new categorization within four months. Subsequently, vide Ext-2 dated 22.10.14 the management approved the recommendations of the committee and it was specifically mentioned that henceforth new categories namely, semi- skilled and highly skilled workers, wherever applicable as per job requirement would be considered in all new tenders of the IOCL (AOD). The workmen witness also admitted that the notification (Ext-2) would be effective for all new NITs to be issued subsequently. On cumulative consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties including the documents (Ext-1 & 2) it appeared that the new categories of contract workers, namely, semi-skilled and highly skilled were to be introduced from subsequent contracts. Hence, the demand for retrospective effect of wages on the basis of new categories from 1.4.2014 did not appear to be justified. Such categories were to be introduced from subsequent contracts and admittedly, such categories were introduced as mentioned in Ext-2 and the up-graded wages etc were being paid to the workers of respective categories from the year 2016. The action of the management, therefore, did not appear to be unjust. Accordingly, the reference is disposed of with a no relief award.

Given under the hand and seal of this Tribunal on this 11th day of January, 2019.

MRINMOY KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 29 जनवरी, 2019

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 214214214214....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(ीय सरकार

मेसर्स भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबa नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निhर्दष्ट औद्योगिक

विवाद में के न्(ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं <म न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 16/2010) को प्रकाशित

करती है जो के न्(ीय सरकार को 21.01.2019 को प्राप्त %आ था।

[सं. एल-17012/8/2010-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 29th January. 2019

S.O. 214.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21.01.2019.

[No. L-17012/8/2010-IR(M)]

D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 16/2010

Ref.No. L-17012/8/2010-IR(M) dated 02.08.2010

BETWEEN :

Sri Ved Mitra Shukla, S/o Sri Ambika Prasad Shukla, Village Shyampur, Post Hussainpur (Jaffarganj) Distt. Ambedkar Nagar, U.P.

AND

1. The Divisional Manager LIC, Divisional Office, Baldev Niwas Parisar, Reedganj, Faizabad

2. The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Branch Office, Ambedkar Nagar, U.P.

AWARD

1. By order No. L-17012/8/2010-IR(M) dated 02.08.2010 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Sri V.M. Shukla, S/o Sri Ambika Prasad Shukla, Ambedkar Nagar and the Sr.Divisional Manager/Branch Manager, LIC, Faizabad/Ambedkar Nagar for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF LIC OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE,

AKBARPUR IN APPOINTING SRI VED MITRA SHUKLA SECURITY GUARD W.E.F. 01.06.2003

TO 28.02.2005 AND NOT PAYING THE WAGES FOR 20 MONTHS AND IN TERMINATING HIS

SERVICES WITHOUT SERVING ANY NOTICE IS JUST AND LEGAL? TO WHAT RELIEF THE

WORKMAN IS ENTITLED?"

3. As per the claim statement W-3 dated 18.09.2010, the workman has stated in brief that he was appointed on 01.06.2003 on the post of Security Guard, under the subordination of the opposite party, and was required to work at LIC branch office Ambedkar Nagar. The applicant has stated that he is an ex-army men, and LIC was in need of Security Guard, therefore the application has been moved by the petitioner, the interview was conducted and since he was ex- soldier of Indian Army, he was immediately appointed on the said post. Since the applicant possessed a licensed gun, he was asked to ensure Security of the office= premises and pre=condition before the appointment was to possess a gun which was fulfilled. The petitioner has further asserted that he satisfactorily performed his duties, there was no complaint against him regarding his work and conduct, and he had continuously worked since 01.06.2003 to 28.02.2005 but was not paid salary due. The workman has alleged that opposite party did not ensure the payment of salary, rather it avoided to concede the request of the petitioner, although the Branch Manager has written several times to the Divisional Office of the LIC, Lucknow and Faizabad but salary was not disbursed. He has stressed that his services were orally terminated on 28.02.2005 without any prior notice and without payment of any sum in lieu of the notice.

4. While quoting the provisions of Section 25 B,F and G of the I.D. Act. the petitioner has asserted that he had worked for 22 months, since 01.06.2003 to 28.02.2005, and it was incumbent upon the opposite party to serve legal notice before his termination. Violation of provisions of the I.D. Act has been further alleged. Illegal, improper and irregular attitude on behalf of the management has been pleaded in the claim statement.

5. With the aforesaid averments, request has been made by the petitioner for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period as well as for the period of unemployment alongwith damages etc.

6. Several documents have been annexed with the claim statement, viz W-5 to W5/18.

7. The management while denying the allegations of the claim statement, has filed written statement M-8, stating therein that LIC is a statutory body formed under the LIC Act.1956, and its recruitment process is governed by the LIC (Staff) Regulations 1960 and there is no cadre under the head of Security Guard. The petitioner has not annexed any[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 2, 2019/माघ 13, 1940 757 appointment letter etc. with the claim statement and a contract for providing Security Guard for the branch was given vide letter dated 29.06.2001 to M/s Raman Security Guard Services and it had provided the petitioner as Security Guard at Ambedkar Nagar branch, relevant papers have been annexed by the opposite party in this regard.

8. The opposite party has further asserted that for the period claimed by the petitioner he was deputed as Security Guard, and from March 2005 another Security Guard in his place was provided by the Security Agency. The details submitted by the contractor as per the contract were paid by the opposite party through vouchers. The petitioner had also filed the applications at various places, including District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ambedkar Nagar against the LIC, where the reply was also filed. The Security Guard Services in its reply before the Forum has clearly mentioned that salary was regularly paid to the applicant month to month upto Feb.2005 and in his place another Security Guard was posted w.e.f. March 2005. Allegations leveled in the claim statement have been false and concocted as pleaded by the opposite party.

9. The management has also stated that the services of the workman was not satisfactory therefore the contractor called back him from the branch office, some other Security Guard/Gunman was sent to the branch office. The payment of labour charges was duty of the contractor, and LIC is not concerned with it, neither the petitioner was appointed by the LIC nor any master servant relationship ever existed between the petitioner and the Security guard. The opposite party has denied that any so called letter was written by the branch office to the Divisional Office, Lucknow for payment of the salary to the petitioner. No amount is due towards the applicant from the LIC and all the allegations made in the claim statement are false and fribulous. The alleged fact that the petitioner has worked for 240 days in the LIC and he is an employee of the LIC, has been denied by the opposite party. Several documents have been annexed by the opposite party alongwith the written statement.

10. With strong denial of the counter allegations leveled in the written statement, rejoinder W-9 has been filed by the petitioner, reiterating the pleas taken in the claim statement.

11. During the proceeding of the case certain documents have been filed by the workman as per list W-12.

12. The petitioner has adduced himself before this Court in evidence. He has been cross examined on behalf of the management. In rebuttal the management has filed the affidavit of Sri S.K. Gupta as M-19, as well as Sri Mazhar Abbas, Sr.B.M. they have been cross examined on behalf of the workman. Further affidavit of Sri Pankaj Misra, Director, M/s Raman Security Guard Services has been filed as M-33, he has also been cross examined on behalf of the workman.

13. Arguments in detail, advanced on behalf of both the parties, have been heard heard at length. Record has been scanned thoroughly.

14. The petitioner claiming himself an employee of the opposite party LIC has submitted that although he has worked for about 22 months w.e.f. 01.06.2003 to 28.02.2005, yet his services were terminated on oral order in contravention of the provision of the I.D. Act, no prior notice was issued, salary due has also not been paid to him for the work done by him.

While refuting the allegations, the management has submitted that the petitioner has never been an employee of the LIC, rather in pursuance of the contract made by the LIC with private Security Guard Services, the Security Guard services has deputed the petitioner to perform the duty of Guard and all the salary or wages were to be paid by the contractor to the petitioner. The opposite party has asserted that the management is not concerned with the payment of any dues etc. Reference of the case filed by the petitioner before the District Consumer Forum, Ambedkar Nagar has also been made in the written statement.

15. The workman in his cross examination dt. 30.01.2012 has submitted that he did not have any acknowledgment for the so called application given to the branch office of his appointment. In further cross examination dt. 17.12.2012 the petitioner has submitted that he did not have any appointment letter, since he was appointed immediately on his request.

No appointment letter was given to him he has submitted, neither any Identity Card was issued by the LIC. The petitioner has also asserted that during the Elections he was deputed to perform duties by the Branch Manager, in furtherance of the directions given by the District Magistrate. The petitioner has also accepted the facts of the case filed before the District Consumer Forum, Ambedkar Nagar wherein the contractor of M/s Raman Security Guard Services was arrayed by him as opposite party no.3. He has stated before the Court that the Security Guard Services was impleaded as party before the Consumer Forum on the advice of the LIC, Branch Manager. Regarding paper no. W5/6 to W5/12 and W5/14 to W5/18, he has also been cross examined.

16. The management witness Sri S.K. Gupta filed his affidavit in support of the written statement and in the cross- examination he has stated that the petitioner was appointed by the M/s Raman Security Guard Services Agency. He has specifically asserted that the paper No. W-5 was not sent by the LIC to Divisional Office. Regarding signature on several758 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 2, 2019/MAGHA 13, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] papers viz. W5/3 to W5/18 none has been identified or verified. The other witness Sri M.Abbas by whom the petitioner was allegedly appointed as Security Guard,in his affidavit M-28 has specifically asserted that the petitioner has never been an employee of the LIC, his salary was paid by M/s. Raman Security Guard Services and in the earlier case filed by the petitioner before the District Consumer Forum, the Security Guard Agency has also filed its written submission.

Facts regarding contract services have also been elaborated by Mr. M.Abbas in his affidavit. During the cross examination he has specifically denied his signatures on several relevant letters filed before the RLC ( C ) Lucknow, while admitting simultaneously certain other letters. However, these letters do not indicates that the petitioner was ever appointed by the LIC to perform the duty of Security Guard at the Branch Office.

17. The contractor of the Security Agency, has also filed affidavit M-33 before this Court. In his cross examination he has clearly admitted that the petitioner was deputed by the Agency to work as Security Guard at the LIC branch office. In para 9 of the affidavit he has specifically asserted that upto Feb.2005, monthly wages due have been paid by the Security Agency to the petitioner and no dues are pending, petitioner was never employee of the LIC rather as per contract he was deputed as the Security Guard by the Agency to work as Armed Guard at the LIC office.

18. Learned Authorized Representative for the workman has referred the judgment dated 18.03.2015 delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6950/2009 (with C.A. No. 6951 to 6954/2009 and 6956/2009)TamilNadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association vs LIC of India & Others. The opposite party submits that this Ruling does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

19. The aforesaid judgment dt. 18.03.2015 relates to an award adjudicated by CGIT, New Delhi and National Industrial Tribunal, taking into account the fact and circumstances of the rererred matter, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the award passed by CGIT in I.D. no. 27/1991 is legal and valid and the LIC was directed to ensure compliance accordingly.

The guidelines issued by the LIC have also been discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. While discussing the legal proposition, Hon'ble Supre Court in para 27 of the above judgment has observed that the order passed by single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court as well as Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court, are contrary to the law and legal directions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and accordingly the orders of the Hon'ble High Court were set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court, restoring the award of the CGIT.

20. Learned Authorized Representative for the management has relied upon the following citations;

1. (2011), 1,SCC, GM(OSD) Bengal, Nagpur Cotton Mills vs Bharat Lal & Another page 635.

2. (2010),11,SCC, MD, Hassan Cooperative Milk Producer's Society Union Ltd. vs Asstt. Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corpn. page 537.

21. Learned AR for the petitioner asserts that the above Rulings are not applicable in this case.

22. After having heard the intellect arguments of both the parties, on perusal of the record available before the Court, it is inferred that the petitioner has failed to prove that he was ever employed or appointed by the management of LIC, and their existed any master servant relationship between therein. It is in record that the management has given a contract to the Security Agency for deputing appropriate person to work as Security Guard and for duties performed during the period in question, all the payment has been made by the Security Agency to the petitioner. Therefore, the allegations regarding illegal termination of the service of the petitioner and withholding his payment for about 20 months, by the management, can not be accepted. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

23. Award as above.

LUCKNOW

01.01.2019

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.