2813 GI/2019
(4091)
jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 25]
ubZ fnYyh] twu 16—twu 22] 2019] 'kfuokj@T;s"B 26—vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
No. 25]
NEW DELHI, JUNE 16—JUNE 22, 2019, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 26— ASADHA—1, 1941
bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
गृह
गृह
गृह
गृह मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
नई दली, 10 जून, 2019
का
का
का
का.आ.
.आ.
.आ.
.आ. 978
978
978
978.—के ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 (यथा-
संशोिधत, 1987) के िनयम 10 के उप-िनयम (4) के अनुसरण म%, गृह मं(ालय के िन) निलिखत काया,लय म% िह दी का
काय,साधक .ान रखने वाले कम,चा1रय क सं2 या 80% से अिधक हो जाने के फल4 व5प इन, काया,लय को एत9ारा
अिधसूिचत करती है:—
के ी
के ी
के ी
के ीय रजव पुिलस बल
य रजव पुिलस बल
य रजव पुिलस बल
य रजव पुिलस बल
1.
पुिलस उपमहािनरी;क
र%ज मु2 यालय, के1रपुब, घोड़ापैगा, जगदलपुर,
िजला-ब4 तर (छ> तीसगढ़) िपन-494001
2.
कमाड%ट,
241 ब4 त1रया बटािलयन, के1रपुबल, सेडवा,
ब4 तर (छ> तीसगढ़) िपन-497001
4092
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
पुिलस उपमहािनरी;क,
Aुप के , के1रपुबल, संबलपुर, पो4 ट-कालामाटी
संबलपुर, (ओिडशा) िपन-768025
4.
कमाड%ट, 211 बटािलयन, के1रपुबल, थनोड, पोबनपुर,
िजला-रायपुर (छ> तीसगढ़) िपन-493661
5.
कमाड%ट,
236 बटािलयन, के1रपुबल, बवाना,
उ> तरी पिBमी द ली-110039
6.
पुिलस उपमहािनरी;क (िचक> सा)
संयुC त अ4 पताल, के1रपुबल, Aुप के प1रसर,
नयाप ली, भुवनेD वर (ओिडशा)-751011
[सं. 11029/01/2017-िह दी]
सहेली घोष रॉय, संयुC त सिचव
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
New Delhi, the 10th June, 2019
S.O. 978.— In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Ministry
of Home Affairs, wherein the percentage of the staff, having working knowledge of Hindi has gone above 80%:-
Central Reserve Police Force
1.
Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police
Range HQrs CRPF, Ghodapaiga, Jagdalpur,
Distt- Baster (Chhattisgarh) Pin-494001
2.
Office of the Commandant,
241, Bastariya Battalion,
CRPF, Sedva, Distt-Baster (Chhattisgarh) Pin-497001
3.
Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police
Group Centre, CRPF, Sambalpur, P O-Kalamati,
Distt-Sambalpur (Odisha) Pin-768025
4.
Office of the Commandant,
211 Battalion, CRPF, Thanaud, Poabhanpur, Distt-Raipur
(Chhattisgarh) Pin-493661
5.
Office of the Commandant,
236 Battalion, CRPF, Bawana, North
West Delhi-110039
6.
Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Medical)
Composite Hospital, CRPF, Group Centre Complex, Nayapalli
Bhubneshwar, Odisha-751011
[No. 11029/01/2017-Hindi]
SAHELI GHOSH ROY, Jt. Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4093
िव मंालय
िव मंालय
िव मंालय
िव मंालय
(िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग
िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग
िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग
िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग)
नई दली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 97
97
97
979.—सरकार, एतदEारा, िवFीय सेवाएं िवभाग, िवF मं(ालय म% अपर सिचव Gी रिव िमFल को त>काल
भाव से छह महीने क अविध के िलए अथवा कसी िनयिमत अिधकारी क िनयुिI होने तक अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो
भी पहले हो, उनके वत,मान उFरदािय>व के अित1रI प%शन िनिध िविनयामक और िवकास ािधकरण (पीएफआरडीए) के
अLय; का अित1रI भार सMपती है।
[फा. सं. 19/4/2019–पीआर]
मदनेश कुमार िमG, संयुI सिचव
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O. 979.—Government hereby assigns the additional charge of Chairperson, Pension Fund Regulatory and
Development Authority to Shri Ravi Mital, Additional Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance,
in addition to his present responsibilities, with immediate effect, for a period of six months or till the appointment of a
regular incumbent or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.
[F. No.19/4/2019-PR]
MADNESH KUMAR MISHRA, Jt. Secy.
कामक
कामक
कामक
कामक, लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय
लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय
लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय
लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय
(कामक और िशण िवभाग)
(कामक और िशण िवभाग)
(कामक और िशण िवभाग)
(कामक और िशण िवभाग)
नई द ली, 13 जून, 2019
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 980
980
980
980.—के सरकार एतPवारा द ली िवशेष पुिलस 4 थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम
सं2 या 25) क धारा 6 के साथ प1ठत धारा 5 क उपधारा (1) Eारा, दF शिIय का योग करते Vए उFर देश राW य
सरकार, गृह (पुिलस) धारा -3, लखनऊ के आदेश सं. 326(2)पी/VI-पी-3-2018-4(36)पी/17 लखनऊ दनांक 29 जनवरी
2018, के माL यम से ा\ त सहमित से भारतीय दंड संिहता 1860 (1860 का 45) क धारा 302, 201 के अंतग,त पुिलस
थाना नोएडा, सेC टर -20, िजला गौतमबु`नगर, उFर देश म% दज, मामला अपराध सं. 1023/2017 म% आगे क जांच करने
के िलए द ली िवशेष पुिलस 4 थापना के सद4 य क शिIय और ;े(ािधकार का िव4 तार सम4 त उFर देश राW य म% करती
है।
[फा. सं. 228/05/2018-एवीडी-II]
एस. पी. आर. ि(पाठी, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 13th June, 2019
S.O. 980.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Home (Police) Section – 3, Lucknow issued vide Order No. 326(2)P/VI-P-3-2018-
4094
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4(36)P/17 Lucknow dated 29th January 2018, hereby extends the power and jurisdiction of the member of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment in the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh for further investigation of Case Crime No.
1023/2017 under section 302, 201 IPC 1860 (45 of 1860) registered at Police Station Noida, Sector-20, District
Gautambudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
[F. No. 228/05/2018-AVD-II]
S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 13 जून, 2019
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 981
981
981
981.—के सरकार एतदEारा द ली िवशेष पुिलस 4 थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम
सं2 या 25) क धारा 6 के साथ प1ठत धारा 5 क उपधारा (1) Eारा दF शिIय का योग करते Vए ि(पुरा राW य सरकार,
गृह िवभाग क अिधसूचना सं. एफ. 21(2)-पीडी/2012(पी-I)/2948 दनांक 04.12.2017 के माध् यम से ा\ त सहमित से
Gी पी. के. बोस, भूतपूव, िनदेशक, एनआईटी अगरतला एवं अ य के Eारा 2008 से 2014 क अविध के दौरान आिधका1रक
शिIय /पद का दुcपयोग कर शासिनक d लॉक नवीकरण, लड़के और लड़कय के छा(ावास िनमा,ण, वक, 4 टेशन, िबजली
उपके तथा अ य िसिवल िनमा,ण कायg और िनयुिI इ> याद म% बरती गई गंभीर अिनयिमतताh तथा धन के गबन से
संबंिधत अपराध, जो िजरािनया पुिलस थाना मामला सं2 या 2015 जेआरएन 046 दनांक 09.12.2015 म% शािमल नहj है
तथा िजसक सीआईडी ि(पुरा Eारा जांच क जा रही है, और जो भारतीय दंड संिहता क धारा 409, 420, 120, बी, के
अंतग,त तथा kl टाचार िनवारण अिधिनयम,1988 क धारा 13(1)(डी) के साथ प1ठत 13(2) के तहत दंडनीय अपराध हm, के
अ वेषण के िलए तथा उपयु,C त अपराध के संबंध म% कए गए दुl यास, दुl ेरणाh और षnं( तथा उसी संo यवहार म%
कए गए अथवा उ हj तp य से उ> प न ासंिगक कसी अ य अपराध/अपराध का अ वेषण करने के िलए और साथ ही दोषी
o यिI के िव5` आपरािधक अिभयोजन चलाने के िलए द ली िवशेष पुिलस 4 थापना के सद4 य क शिIय और
;े(ािधकार का िव4 तार सम4 त ि(पुरा राW य म% करती है।
[फा. सं. 228/59/2017-एवीडी-II]
एस. पी. आर. ि(पाठी, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 13th June, 2019
S.O. 981.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of State
Government of Tripura, Home Department issued vide Notification No. F. 21(2)-PD/2012 (P-I)/2948 dated 04.12.2017
hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in whole of the
State of Tripura for investigation of the offences relating to serious irregularities and embezzlement of funds in
renovation of Administrative Block, construction of boys and girls hostels, Workstations, Electrical Substations & other
Civil constructions and in appointment etc. committed by Shri P. K. Bose, Ex-Director, NIT Agartala & others by abuse
of official powers/positions during the period 2008 to 2014, which are not covered in the Jirania PS Case No.
2015JRN046 dated 09.12.2015 being investigated by CID Tripura, punishable U/s 409, 420, 120B IPC and Section 13(2)
read with 13(1)(d) of P. C. Act, 1988 and any other offence/offences, attempt, abetments and conspiracy in relation to or
in connection with the above mentioned offences and any other offence/offences committed in course of the same
transaction arising out of the same facts and simultaneously launching of criminal prosecution against the guilty persons.
[F. No. 228/59/2017-AVD-II]
S.P.R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4095
वा
वा
वा
वा य
य
य
य और प रवार क या
और प रवार क या
और प रवार क या
और प रवार क याण मंालय
ण मंालय
ण मंालय
ण मंालय
( वा
वा
वा
वा य
य
य
य और परवार क या
और परवार क या
और परवार क या
और परवार क याण िवभाग
ण िवभाग
ण िवभाग
ण िवभाग)
नई द ली, 7 माच, 2019
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 982
982
982
982.—भारतीय आयुqव.ान प1रषद् अिधिनयम, 1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप-धारा (2)
Eारा द> त शिC तय का योग करते Vए, के सरकार, भारतीय आयुqव.ान प1रषद् से परामश, करके उI अिधिनयम क
थम अनुसूची म%, िनsिलिखत और संशोधन करती है, अथा,त्:-
उI थम अनुसूची म%
I)
‘मायतााt आयुqव.ान अह,ता’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] शीष,क के अधीन, “केरल यूिनवqसटी ऑफ
हैथ साuसेज, ि(शूर” के सामने अंितम िविv के पBात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संि;िtकरण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3)
कहा गया है] से संबंिधत िविv के संबंध म% िनsिलिखत अंत:4थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा,त्:-
(2)
(3)
“डॉCटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (रेिडयो डायyोिसस)”
एम.डी (रेिडयो डायyोिसस)
(यह एक मायतााt आयुqव.ान अह,ता होगी जब यह
अकादमी ऑफ मेिडकल साuसेज, पे1रयरम, कzूर म%
िशि;त कए गए छा( के संबंध म% 2015 को या बाद म% ,
“केरल यूिनवqसटी ऑफ हैथ साuसेज, ि(शूर” Eारा दF
होगी।)
नोट:
नोट:
नोट:
नोट: 1. इस कार दी गई ऐसी मायता अिधसूचना क तारीख से अिधकतम 5 वष, के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका
नवीकरण करवाना होगा।
2. मायता के ‘नवीकरण’ क |या वही होगी जो मायता दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।
3. अपेि;त मायता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने म% िवफल रहने पर,प1रणाम 4व5प, िनरपवाद 5प से संबंिधत
}ातकोFर पा~|म म% वेश बंद हो जाएगा।
[सं. यू-12012/34/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस. नं. 3200038]
पी. के. बंदोपाLयाय, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and Family Welfare)
New Delhi, the 7th March, 2019
S.O. 982.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes
the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:—
In the said Schedule :-
I)
against “Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical
Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the
heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted,
namely:-
4096
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(2)
(3)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Doctor of Medicine (Radio-Diagnosis)”
MD (Radio-Diagnosis)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at Academy of
Medical Sciences, Pariyaram, Kannur on or after 2015).
Note:
1.
The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon which
it shall have to be renewed.
2.
The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.
3.
Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to the
concerned Postgraduate Courses.
[No. U-12012/34/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3200038]
P.K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.
िवुत
िवुत
िवुत
िवुत मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
नई दली, 14 जून, 2019
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 983
983
983
983.—क%ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10
के उप-िनयम (4) के अनुसरण म% िवुत मं(ालय के शासिनक िनयं(णाधीन पावर िस4टम ऑपरेशन कारपोरेशन िलिमटेड के
पूव ;े(ीय भार ेषण क%, 14, गोफ Cलब रोड, टॉलीगंज, कोलकाता-700033 िजसके 80 ितशत कम,चारीवृंद ने हदी
का काय,साधक .ान ाt कर िलया है, को एतदEारा अिधसूिचत करती है।
[सं. 11011/9/2017-हदी]
राज पाल, आqथक सलाहकार
MINISTRY OF POWER
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O. 983 .—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (use for official purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify the Eastern Regional Load Despatch Centre, 14, Golf Club
Road, Tollygunge, Kolkata-700033 of Power System Operation Corporation Ltd. under the administrative control of
Ministry of Power, where 80% of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.
[No.11011/9/2017-Hindi]
RAJ PAL, Economic Adviser
परमाणु ऊजा िवभाग
परमाणु ऊजा िवभाग
परमाणु ऊजा िवभाग
परमाणु ऊजा िवभाग
मुंबई, 23 मई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 984
984
984
984.—परमाणु ऊजा, अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 33) क धारा 14 क उप-धारा (4) और धारा 30 क
उप-धारा 2(1) के तहत दF शिIय का योग करते Vए क% सरकार दनांक 30.06.1984 के परमाणु ऊजा, (खान व
खिनज का काय, एवं िविहत पदाथg का ह4तन) िनयमावली 1984 म% िनिs लिखत िनयम म% एत9ारा संशोधन करती है :
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4097
2. (i) इन िनयम को परमाणु ऊजा, [(खान व खिनज का काय, एवं िविहत पदाथg का ह4तन) संशोधन] िनयमावली,
2019 कहा जाएगा।
(ii)
ये िनयम पूरे भारत समेत उसके राWय ;े(ीय समुी सीमा पर लागू हगे।
(iii)
ये िनयम सरकारी राजप( म% कािशत होने क ितिथ से भावी हगे।
3. उपरोI िनयम के खंड 4(2) म% िनsिलिखत िनयम को ित4थािपत कया जाएगा, नामत: —
4(2) “"#येक आवेदन के साथ (पये पां
"#येक आवेदन के साथ (पये पां
"#येक आवेदन के साथ (पये पां
"#येक आवेदन के साथ (पये पांच हजार का शुक देना होगा जो -क अ"ितदेय होगा।
च हजार का शुक देना होगा जो -क अ"ितदेय होगा।
च हजार का शुक देना होगा जो -क अ"ितदेय होगा।
च हजार का शुक देना होगा जो -क अ"ितदेय होगा।”
[फा. सं. 7/3(19)/2010-पीएसयू/6456]
एस. मqवन एलेCज%डर, संयुI सिचव
DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY
Mumbai, the 23rd May, 2019
S.O. 984.—In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (4) of section 14 and sub-section 2(1) of
Section 30 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962(33 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules to
amend the Atomic Energy (Working of Mines and Minerals and Handling of Prescribed Substances) Rules 1984 dated
30.06.1984 namely:
2. (i)
These rules may be called Atomic Energy [(Working of the Mines, Minerals and Handling of Prescribed
Substances) Amendment] Rules, 2019.
(ii)
These rules extend to the whole of India including her territorial waters.
(iii)
These rules shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
3. In the said rules Clause 4(2), the following rule shall be substituted, namely:-
4 (2) “Every application shall be accompanied with a fee of rupees Five Thousand which will be non-
refundable”.
[F. No.7/3(19)/2010-PSU/6456]
S. MERVIN ALEXANDER, Jt. Secy.
पे0ोिलयम और "ाकृितक गैस मंालय
पे0ोिलयम और "ाकृितक गैस मंालय
पे0ोिलयम और "ाकृितक गैस मंालय
पे0ोिलयम और "ाकृितक गैस मंालय
नई द ली, 14 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 985
985
985
985.—के ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10
के उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण म% पेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मं(ालय के शासिनक िनयं(णाधीन साव,जिनक ;े( के उप|म
के िन) निलिखत काया,लय को, िजसके 80 या अिधक ितशत कम,चारी वृ द ने हदी का काय,साधक .ान ा\ त कर िलया है,
अिधसूिचत करती है :—
एम बी ए बेिसन,
ऑयल एड नेचुरल गैस कॉप रेशन िलिमटेड,
टेोपोिलस िबडग, साट लेक िसटी,
कोलकाता – 700091
[सं. 11011/1/2017 (िह दी)]
ऊषा िबजोला, संयुC त िनदेशक (राजभाषा)
4098
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 14th June, 2019
S.O. 985.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following office of the Public Sector Undertaking under
the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, in which 80 or more percent of the staff have
acquired working knowledge of Hindi:-
M B A Basin,
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.,
Technopolis Building, Salt Lake City,
Kolkata – 700091
[No. 11011/1/2017 (Hindi)]
USHA BINJOLA, Jt. Director (OL)
नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019
का.आ
का.आ
का.आ
का.आ. 98
. 98
. 98
. 986.—केीय सरकार को, ऐसा तीत होता है क लोकिहत म% यह आवDयक है क मL य देश एवं उFर
देश राWय म% पेोिलयम पदाथ के प1रवहन के िलए बीना पंक (कानपुर) पाइपलाइन प1रयोजना के |यावयन हेतु भारत
पेोिलयम कॉप रेशन िलिमटेड Eारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाना आवDयक है।
केीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलये यह आवDयक तीत होता है, क ऐसी भूिम म% जो इस
से उपाब` अनुसूची मे वqणत है, और िजसम% उI पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का 4ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज,न
कया जाए।
अत: अब, केीय सरकार, पेोिलयम और खिजन पाइपलाइन (भूिम म% उपयोग के अिधकार का अज,न) अिधिनयम
1962 (1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) Eारा दF शिIय का योग करते Vए उस भूिम म% उपयोग के अिधकार
का अज,न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है।
कोई o यिI जो उI अनुसूची म% वqणत भूिम म% िहतब` है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना म% युI भारत के
राजप( क ितयां साधारण जनता को उपलdध करा दी जाती है, इस दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए
जाने के िलए उसम% उपयोग के अिधकार के संबध मे Gी करोडीलाल मीणा अनुिवभागीय अिधकारी (राज4 व) बीना िजला
सागर मL यदेश स;म ािधकारी, भारत पेोिलयम कॉप रेशन िलिमटेड बीना पंक (कानपुर) पेोिलयम पाइपलाइन
प1रयोजना काया,लय, थम तल, तािt कॉ) \ लेC स, अगासोद पुिलस 4 टेशन के पास, बी.ओ.आर.एल. आवासीय प1रसर, बीना,
िजला-सागर (म..) – 470124 को िलिखत 5प से आ;ेप भेज सकेगा।
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4099
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
तहसील
तहसील
तहसील
तहसील- टीकमगढ
टीकमगढ
टीकमगढ
टीकमगढ
िजला
िजला
िजला
िजला-टीकमगढ
टीकमगढ
टीकमगढ
टीकमगढ
रा3 य
रा3 य
रा3 य
रा3 य-म4 य
म4 य
म4 य
म4 य "देश
"देश
"देश
"देश
गांव का नाम
सव नं./गाटा नं.
ेफल
हैटेयर
एयर
वगमीटर
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
कांट खास
1
00
23
12
800
00
18
49
799
00
20
80
798
00
00
44
797
00
18
99
781
00
02
91
796
00
08
75
795
00
07
50
847
00
05
31
870
00
00
34
871
0
55
24
858
00
39
04
859@4
00
54
13
861@1
00
08
18
860@1
00
08
19
859@3@2
00
20
43
862
00
01
44
744@1
00
66
27
865
00
01
65
742
01
75
93
741@1
00
03
64
742@8
00
03
87
740@3
00
00
10
740@9
00
61
09
740@8
00
15
20
739
00
01
87
735@3
00
24
93
735@5@1
00
11
27
738@1
00
01
37
735@6@1
00
26
90
735@1
00
42
48
735@9
00
22
41
734@1
00
01
75
731@1@1
00
09
31
732@1@2
00
45
73
698
00
38
34
726
00
00
09
721
00
00
92
706
00
14
25
705
00
00
68
4100
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
707
00
08
07
708
00
08
01
711
00
12
14
713
00
18
26
728
00
00
94
Total
09
10
77
कांट भाटा
68
00
00
95
235
00
20
66
234
00
03
79
232
00
07
21
236
00
00
24
238
00
15
33
242
00
00
54
230
00
23
83
243
00
15
33
244/1
00
04
31
244
00
24
82
244/4
00
12
12
247
00
16
36
153/1/1
00
40
95
153
00
39
43
153/1/3
00
03
16
95
00
01
99
128
00
21
27
127/2/2
00
00
09
126
00
23
99
124
00
00
54
123
00
30
61
121
00
07
67
122
00
20
10
110
00
55
37
127
00
13
10
Total
04
03
76
बं धया
54
00
14
28
65
00
16
89
64
00
26
61
63
00
37
19
58
00
00
03
60
00
40
96
61
00
00
50
1
00
04
96
48
00
00
98
51
00
33
67
40@1@3
00
64
43
40@1@8
00
16
62
40@1@9
00
42
05
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4101
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
39
00
02
49
30
00
51
86
25
00
02
60
24
00
00
08
18
00
09
75
6
00
03
53
15
00
21
20
14
00
01
64
8
00
00
85
13
00
10
80
11
00
02
82
Total
04
06
79
[फा. सं. आर-11024(14)/1/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29468]
शा तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019
S.O. 986.— Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public Interest that for the
transportation of the Petroleum Product in the state of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh Pipeline Should be laid for
implementing of Bina-Panki (Kanpur) Pipeline Project by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited.
And Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, It is necessary to
acquire the right of user (ROU)in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in
the Schedule annexed to this notification.
Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub section (1) of Section 3 of the petroleum and Minerals
Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its
intention to acquire the right of user there in.
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri
Kirodi Lal Meena SDO (Revenue) Bina District Sagar Madhya Pradesh Competent Authority, Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Limited, Bina Panki (Kanpur) Pipeline Project Office 1st Floor Tapti Complex , Near Agasod Police Station ,
BORL Residential Complex, Bina District Sagar, (M.P.) - 470124 within twenty one days from the date on which the
copies of this notification Issued under Sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India,
are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : Tikamgarh
District : Tikamgarh State: Madhya Pradesh
Name of Village
Survey No. / Gata No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sqm.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Kanti Khas
1
00
23
12
800
00
18
49
799
00
20
80
798
00
00
44
797
00
18
99
781
00
02
91
796
00
08
75
795
00
07
50
847
00
05
31
870
00
00
34
871
0
55
24
858
00
39
04
859/4
00
54
13
861/1
00
08
18
4102
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
860/1
00
08
19
859/3/2
00
20
43
862
00
01
44
744/1
00
66
27
865
00
01
65
742
01
75
93
741/1
00
03
64
742/8
00
03
87
740/3
00
00
10
740/9
00
61
09
740/8
00
15
20
739
00
01
87
735/3
00
24
93
735/5/1
00
11
27
738/1
00
01
37
735/6/1
00
26
90
735/1
00
42
48
735/9
00
22
41
734/1
00
01
75
731/1/1
00
09
31
732/1/2
00
45
73
698
00
38
34
726
00
00
09
721
00
00
92
706
00
14
25
705
00
00
68
707
00
08
07
708
00
08
01
711
00
12
14
713
00
18
26
728
00
00
94
Total
09
10
77
Kanti Bhata
68
00
00
95
235
00
20
66
234
00
03
79
232
00
07
21
236
00
00
24
238
00
15
33
242
00
00
54
230
00
23
83
243
00
15
33
244/1
00
04
31
244
00
24
82
244/4
00
12
12
247
00
16
36
153/1/1
00
40
95
153
00
39
43
153/1/3
00
03
16
95
00
01
99
128
00
21
27
127/2/2
00
00
09
126
00
23
99
124
00
00
54
123
00
30
61
121
00
07
67
122
00
20
10
110
00
55
37
127
00
13
10
Total
04
03
76
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4103
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Bandhiya
54
00
14
28
65
00
16
89
64
00
26
61
63
00
37
19
58
00
00
03
60
00
40
96
61
00
00
50
1
00
04
96
48
00
00
98
51
00
33
67
40/1/3
00
64
43
40/1/8
00
16
62
40/1/9
00
42
05
39
00
02
49
30
00
51
86
25
00
02
60
24
00
00
08
18
00
09
75
6
00
03
53
15
00
21
20
14
00
01
64
8
00
00
85
13
00
10
80
11
00
02
82
Total
04
06
79
[F. No. R-11024(14)/1/2019-OR-I/E-29468]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 987
987
987
987.—केीय सरकार को, ऐसा तीत होता है क लोकिहत म% यह आवDयक है क मL य देश एवं उFर
देश राWय म% पेोिलयम पदाथg के प1रवहन के िलए बीना पंक (कानपुर) पाइपलाइन प1रयोजना के |यावयन हेतु भारत
पेोिलयम कॉप रेशन िलिमटेड Eारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाना आवDयक है।
केीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलये यह आवDयक तीत होता है, क ऐसी भूिम म% जो इस
से उपाब` अनुसूची म% वqणत है, और िजसम% उI पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का 4ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज,न
कया जाए।
अत: अब, केीय सरकार, पेोिलयम और खिजन पाईपलाइन (भूिम म% उपयोग के अिधकार का अज,न) अिधिनयम
1962 (1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) Eारा दF शिIय का योग करते Vए उस भूिम म% उपयोग के अिधकार
का अज,न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है।
कोई o यिI जो उI अनुसूची म% वqणत भूिम म% िहतब` है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना म% युI भारत के
राजप( क ितयां साधारण जनता को उपलdध करा दी जाती है, इस दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए
जाने के िलए उसम% उपयोग के अिधकार के संबध म% Gी करोडीलाल मीणा अनुिवभागीय अिधकारी (राज4 व) बीना िजला
सागर मL य देश स;म ािधकारी, भारत पेोिलयम कॉप रेशन िलिमटेड बीना पंक (कानपुर) पेोिलयम पाइपलाइन
प1रयोजना काया,लय, थम तल, तािt कॉ) \ लेC स , अगासोद पुिलस 4 टेशन के पास, बी.ओ.आर.एल. आवासीय प1रसर,
बीना, िजला-सागर (म..) – 470124 को िलिखत 5प से आ;ेप भेज सकेगा।
4104
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
तहसील
तहसील
तहसील
तहसील- िलघौरा
िलघौरा
िलघौरा
िलघौरा
िजला
िजला
िजला
िजला-टीकमगढ
टीकमगढ
टीकमगढ
टीकमगढ
रा3 य
रा3 य
रा3 य
रा3 य-म4 य
म4 य
म4 य
म4 य "देश
"देश
"देश
"देश
गॉव
गॉव
गॉव
गॉव का
का
का
का नाम
नाम
नाम
नाम
सव5
सव5
सव5
सव5 नंनंनंनं. /गाटा नं
/गाटा नं
/गाटा नं
/गाटा नं.
6ेफल
6ेफल
6ेफल
6ेफल
है8टेयर
है8टेयर
है8टेयर
है8टेयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
वगमीटर
वगमीटर
वगमीटर
वगमीटर
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
िवर
िवर
िवर
िवरऊ
1845
00
00
19
1618
00
09
76
1840/4
00
21
28
1840/2
00
51
96
1840/3
00
01
04
1833अ
00
02
20
1833
00
06
82
1832
00
01
59
1827/1
00
52
23
1828
00
00
04
1945
00
07
73
1944
00
12
52
1943
00
00
93
1942
00
00
02
Total
Total
Total
Total
01
01
01
01
68
68
68
68
31
31
31
31
मटोल
मटोल
मटोल
मटोल
816/2
00
28
45
815
00
18
08
814
00
02
52
812
00
17
41
816/1
00
33
71
819/1
00
03
32
807
00
04
53
795
00
07
23
801
00
15
19
799
00
09
84
796
00
13
30
792
00
00
02
793
00
40
49
778/3
00
17
26
778
00
65
68
778/4/1
00
02
37
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4105
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
514
00
72
86
777/2
00
55
17
774
00
12
29
773
00
00
04
767
00
34
06
952
00
02
42
956
00
26
76
766
00
17
20
764
00
15
46
763
00
15
40
761
00
00
15
743
00
83
35
744
00
04
20
745/1
00
05
01
746/1
00
61
82
746/4
00
13
97
746/5/1
00
23
67
746/3
00
78
80
747
00
00
35
752/3/1
00
00
84
750
00
16
72
749
00
04
79
748
00
13
67
Total
Total
Total
Total
08
08
08
08
38
38
38
38
40
40
40
40
सतगुवां
सतगुवां
सतगुवां
सतगुवां उगड
उगड
उगड
उगड
207
00
20
48
208
00
00
52
209
00
02
88
210
00
05
89
211
00
03
89
213
00
12
55
214
00
05
69
201/2
00
05
69
215
00
04
81
202
00
00
02
201/1
00
00
20
4106
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
200
00
21
91
197
00
00
09
199
00
05
59
198
00
23
10
185
00
02
78
186
00
10
93
172
00
12
13
183
00
34
66
171
00
00
08
173
00
06
25
175
00
11
35
182
00
00
10
177
00
01
62
174
00
06
29
181
00
02
67
495
00
14
21
180
00
08
26
494
00
01
00
493
00
04
33
492
00
00
06
491
00
00
09
259
00
17
11
490
00
14
61
489
00
03
68
474
00
10
48
477
00
12
94
478
00
01
44
479
00
08
32
475
00
05
92
473
00
03
82
102
00
18
31
101
00
07
25
447
00
06
62
100
00
04
39
98
00
03
10
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4107
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
95
00
04
52
96
00
09
75
91
00
02
56
90
00
01
06
89
00
05
00
83
00
05
15
86
00
00
02
85
00
03
82
84
00
05
12
73
00
05
00
72
00
01
46
71
00
01
69
70
00
01
36
69
00
01
06
67
00
10
38
66
00
03
88
56
00
00
17
25
00
00
12
55
00
00
01
57
00
01
58
26
00
04
91
27
00
00
19
54
00
18
68
50
00
00
36
49
00
03
82
39
00
14
76
471
00
04
15
470
00
02
73
441
00
14
33
442
00
10
19
41
00
06
76
Total
Total
Total
Total
04
04
04
04
92
92
92
92
70
70
70
70
सतगुवां
सतगुवां
सतगुवां
सतगुवां खास
खास
खास
खास
1388
00
02
86
1389
00
29
36
1390
00
17
18
4108
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
1407
00
02
19
1406
00
08
74
1391
00
08
29
1392
00
07
24
1404
00
01
00
1394
00
08
77
1397
00
03
64
1395
00
05
05
1438
00
00
10
1396
00
07
60
1398
00
00
11
1437
00
10
08
1436
00
01
80
1435
00
00
79
1440
00
07
49
1441
00
07
86
1443
00
04
34
1442
00
02
50
1444
00
04
71
1446
00
08
89
1447/2
00
02
62
1447/3
00
07
47
1448
00
05
08
1315
00
00
94
1314
00
12
24
1313
00
00
52
1312
00
08
28
1311
00
00
01
1310
00
10
56
1309
00
05
70
1300
00
00
41
1301
00
01
23
1302
00
02
14
1303
00
11
94
1304
00
03
56
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4109
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
1305
00
01
14
1289
00
07
57
1281
00
12
35
1283
00
07
23
1282
00
07
90
1518
00
10
68
1519
00
07
23
1520
00
04
05
1517
00
17
25
1516
00
30
76
1514
00
06
89
1507
00
00
01
1561
00
32
08
1560
00
00
01
1522
00
01
51
1555
00
01
63
1556
00
12
77
1557
00
00
38
1554
00
04
35
1553
00
18
30
1552
00
05
26
1572
00
06
59
1550
00
04
49
1574
00
01
43
1057
00
00
04
1055
00
04
68
1056
00
04
14
1054
00
02
01
1053
00
00
20
1052
00
01
27
1050
00
06
47
1051
00
02
51
1046
00
05
27
1049
00
01
65
1048
00
00
13
4110
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
1047
00
07
76
1027
00
00
66
1028
00
06
97
1034
00
01
42
1033
00
02
00
1029
00
00
18
1032
00
04
64
1031
00
06
38
1030
00
05
06
1013
00
09
10
1012
00
07
30
1008
00
06
36
1006
00
11
74
1007
00
18
08
1011
00
00
43
928
00
01
99
855
00
11
79
882
00
03
69
881
00
02
75
867
00
03
45
884
00
00
03
880
00
01
30
869
00
01
58
879
00
02
29
878
00
02
10
870
00
01
90
871
00
02
48
819
00
01
22
872
00
07
31
873
00
03
85
818
00
00
74
874
00
02
85
810
00
14
46
811
00
00
08
805
00
07
06
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4111
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
812
00
00
19
799
00
10
89
800
00
06
32
803
00
00
10
802
00
00
51
4219/4603
00
02
64
801
00
00
80
791
00
00
04
794
00
00
01
793
00
02
73
792
00
12
91
789
00
05
87
788
00
10
06
708
00
00
63
787
00
04
68
762
00
01
99
714
00
00
02
760
00
07
18
761
00
01
93
759
00
06
43
754
00
04
02
753
00
02
63
758
00
00
66
757
00
00
03
751
00
02
25
752
00
03
66
755
00
05
20
719
00
22
98
728
00
01
76
720
00
01
02
721
00
02
14
727
00
14
19
726
00
13
82
2315
00
01
65
2316
00
00
30
4112
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
725
00
00
29
2317
00
07
51
2318
00
10
30
2347
00
09
05
2346
00
05
38
2321
00
00
31
2349
00
03
18
2350
00
00
45
2345
00
05
90
2344
00
18
28
2428
00
11
76
2432
00
00
02
2431
00
01
91
2430
00
01
70
2429
00
01
59
2427
00
03
63
2426
00
04
47
2425
00
05
23
2416
00
01
19
2455
00
00
04
2456
00
01
14
2457
00
02
04
2458
00
06
57
2414
00
00
31
2413
00
08
61
2459
00
02
50
2462
00
00
31
2463
00
09
86
2478
00
07
12
2480
00
00
13
2479
00
03
88
2477
00
00
18
2488
00
00
18
2489
00
01
46
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4113
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
2487
00
00
83
2481
00
02
21
2486
00
00
68
2490
00
07
87
2491
00
07
59
2492
00
06
13
2494
00
04
94
2495
00
04
21
2496
00
02
58
2501
00
02
51
2502
00
07
37
2512
00
00
16
2511
00
02
69
2510
00
06
78
2509
00
01
15
2508
00
00
03
2541
00
01
64
2397
00
08
33
Total
Total
Total
Total
09
09
09
09
70
70
70
70
94
94
94
94
:पगंज
:पगंज
:पगंज
:पगंज
266
00
06
61
270
00
14
69
271
00
05
55
280
00
08
01
276
00
00
20
281
00
01
81
282
00
00
17
278
00
02
22
279
00
04
49
294
00
00
88
295
00
07
20
309
00
00
13
301
00
04
72
302
00
02
93
308
00
01
13
307
00
00
04
4114
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
305
00
01
41
303
00
02
39
304
00
01
28
306
00
04
07
331
00
03
84
321
00
00
10
322
00
04
02
323
00
01
97
330
00
00
03
329
00
00
05
983
00
01
88
324
00
00
65
326
00
01
87
327
00
02
41
328
00
03
25
217
00
01
94
216
00
01
48
215
00
00
67
214
00
00
04
368/1003
00
10
29
368
00
03
15
373
00
04
68
368/1004
00
00
16
371
00
08
51
369
00
03
57
372
00
00
18
370
00
10
03
406
00
17
35
416
00
02
01
415
00
01
81
407
00
01
43
408/2
00
00
31
408/1
00
00
02
410
00
01
79
414
00
30
78
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4115
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
432
00
10
15
508
00
01
68
504
00
05
45
490
00
05
77
499
00
06
35
497
00
08
06
491
00
06
01
496
00
01
71
492
00
09
12
493
00
01
65
482
00
06
21
480
00
04
22
479
00
16
19
477
00
07
32
478
00
11
31
476
00
04
36
726
00
01
80
725
00
00
29
727
00
02
83
728
00
05
14
729
00
02
63
730
00
03
50
731
00
00
26
733
00
02
75
735
00
02
25
734
00
01
17
736
00
03
20
737
00
02
02
740
00
01
41
741
00
02
00
742
00
03
77
743
00
05
24
762
00
16
29
768
00
16
71
763
00
00
28
4116
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
764
00
00
87
765
00
01
81
766
00
03
05
767
00
06
39
Total
Total
Total
Total
03
03
03
03
81
81
81
81
42
42
42
42
फतेह का िखरक
फतेह का िखरक
फतेह का िखरक
फतेह का िखरक
233
00
02
29
238
00
06
11
239
00
00
19
237
00
05
26
236
00
11
19
235
00
12
89
252
00
00
65
254
00
07
05
253
00
01
96
274
00
10
99
257
00
00
27
271
00
14
05
272
00
00
34
270
00
06
36
269
00
06
25
266
00
00
65
265
00
12
88
264
00
02
50
282
00
16
20
283
00
00
70
290
00
03
95
291
00
02
41
292
00
03
74
301
00
00
26
300
00
01
08
561
00
11
21
299
00
03
42
295
00
00
87
306
00
00
03
308
00
13
24
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4117
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
309
00
04
60
310
00
00
03
313
00
07
48
311
00
00
52
586
00
00
73
312
00
02
74
314
00
05
60
315
00
08
10
316
00
00
20
362
00
04
23
437
00
29
89
440
00
00
05
438
00
02
90
439
00
12
35
431
00
16
33
430
00
41
55
428
00
14
04
427
00
16
04
426
00
00
51
425
00
08
51
595
00
23
24
418
00
32
57
Total
Total
Total
Total
03
03
03
03
91
91
91
91
20
20
20
20
पैतपुरा
पैतपुरा
पैतपुरा
पैतपुरा
31
00
31
22
23
00
24
47
24
00
02
46
22
00
44
54
21
00
00
26
19
00
02
67
12
00
08
86
10
00
01
06
11
00
32
68
5/4
00
06
88
14
00
63
45
14/1/1
00
09
56
4118
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
Total
Total
Total
Total
02
02
02
02
28
28
28
28
11
11
11
11
च दे
च दे
च दे
च देरा उगड
रा उगड
रा उगड
रा उगड
134
00
28
56
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
00
00
00
00
28
28
28
28
56
56
56
56
च दे
च दे
च दे
च देरा खास
रा खास
रा खास
रा खास
2485/5
00
45
29
2485/1
00
05
38
2485/3
00
16
13
2485/4
00
00
76
2484
00
36
40
2184
00
62
63
2983
00
27
66
2189/1
00
21
87
2189/3
00
02
68
2188
00
06
36
2187
00
07
09
2136
00
05
77
2192
00
27
41
2193
00
26
17
2978
00
01
33
2194
00
15
19
2196
00
19
08
2197
00
01
34
2198/2983
00
07
80
2198/2977
00
02
46
2199
00
03
03
2200
00
21
95
2239
00
38
77
2240
00
00
46
2241
00
00
07
2244
00
18
47
2246
00
02
86
2249
00
02
20
2250
00
24
92
2259
00
05
88
2260
00
01
53
2106
00
00
07
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4119
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
2262
00
17
64
2261
00
02
32
2030
00
03
71
2031
00
27
47
2029
00
01
17
2028
00
03
04
2025
00
02
77
2027
00
01
38
2026
00
01
32
2023
00
02
41
2024
00
01
50
2022
00
02
07
2019
00
01
37
2020/2973
00
01
20
2021
00
07
07
2002
00
10
02
2001
00
11
28
2000
00
03
68
1999
00
05
05
1990
00
08
29
1989
00
00
49
1992
00
06
12
1991
00
04
28
1994
00
00
43
1993
00
01
77
1987
00
01
66
1995
00
09
99
1985
00
04
81
311
00
05
87
1984
00
00
68
312
00
06
21
320
00
04
32
319
00
09
63
328
00
03
09
318
00
04
13
4120
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
329
00
01
50
330
00
05
76
331
00
07
07
338
00
03
70
326
00
00
96
332
00
08
09
336
00
00
03
335
00
00
15
334
00
19
87
357
00
19
68
356
00
01
24
355
00
03
35
354
00
00
02
353
00
01
37
360
00
06
81
361
00
18
59
209
00
03
24
208
00
11
98
181
00
20
25
180
00
02
59
179
00
01
48
178
00
22
32
176
00
11
80
175
00
28
85
49
00
09
43
2847
00
04
18
45
00
01
58
48
00
01
63
47
00
00
81
46
00
05
45
44
00
01
51
43
00
03
72
39
00
06
45
42
00
05
04
41
00
08
17
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4121
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
40
00
08
65
2857
00
04
95
38
00
17
56
36
00
03
44
27
00
15
43
26
00
00
07
28
00
01
06
20
00
20
05
19
00
00
03
16
00
01
47
18
00
06
92
17
00
02
23
13
00
02
53
14
00
14
89
15
01
51
36
2841
00
33
14
434
00
03
12
Total
Total
Total
Total
11
11
11
11
72
72
72
72
82
82
82
82
च दे
च दे
च दे
च देरा भरवारा
रा भरवारा
रा भरवारा
रा भरवारा
144
00
05
88
131
00
10
68
133
00
27
36
134
00
40
05
122
00
02
90
123
00
06
01
121
00
03
16
92
00
05
00
120
00
07
62
119
00
00
01
93
00
23
84
118
00
01
97
94
00
14
99
117
00
05
49
100
00
17
44
99
00
15
30
101
00
03
63
4122
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
42
00
00
06
41
00
33
65
38
00
22
74
39
00
10
91
32
00
58
72
33
00
01
02
162
00
29
54
163/1
00
17
98
165
00
17
00
Total
Total
Total
Total
03
03
03
03
82
82
82
82
95
95
95
95
भगवंत ;सह का िखरक
भगवंत ;सह का िखरक
भगवंत ;सह का िखरक
भगवंत ;सह का िखरक
31/2/1
00
53
07
31/2/2क
00
26
77
31/2/2ग
00
06
19
31/2/1ख
00
06
41
33/2/1अ
00
33
94
33/2/2
00
41
02
31/2/3क
00
23
03
31/2/3ख
00
10
60
34/2
00
31
74
34/1/1
00
34
41
Total
Total
Total
Total
02
02
02
02
67
67
67
67
18
18
18
18
या
या
या
यावनी उगड
वनी उगड
वनी उगड
वनी उगड
32
00
85
64
9
00
66
30
5
00
14
05
4
00
04
74
3
01
50
65
Total
Total
Total
Total
03
03
03
03
21
21
21
21
38
38
38
38
या
या
या
यावनी खास
वनी खास
वनी खास
वनी खास
1382/3
00
19
34
1382/4
00
45
62
1397
00
05
07
1391
00
33
22
1392
00
12
94
1393
00
18
09
1394
00
43
30
Total
Total
Total
Total
01
01
01
01
77
77
77
77
58
58
58
58
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4123
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
मानपुरा
मानपुरा
मानपुरा
मानपुरा
48
00
12
57
47
00
13
74
44
00
35
03
204
00
24
73
50
00
62
54
43
00
21
60
205
00
23
09
206
00
15
21
65
00
03
88
66
00
00
15
56
00
00
02
64
00
15
69
63
00
01
56
67
00
09
53
68
00
06
94
207
00
13
56
69
00
05
62
75
00
39
40
221
00
01
90
220
00
14
59
219
00
14
46
128
00
08
09
127
01
44
83
91
01
00
89
Total
Total
Total
Total
05
05
05
05
89
89
89
89
62
62
62
62
म=दवारा
म=दवारा
म=दवारा
म=दवारा
2412
00
19
68
2411
00
42
92
2414
00
27
66
2415
00
25
84
2416
00
00
98
2417
00
01
96
2418
00
00
30
2421
00
16
72
2420
00
09
45
2422
00
14
33
4124
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
2429
00
32
02
2432
00
08
10
2431
00
20
83
2323
00
17
22
2434
00
04
44
2322
00
30
51
2321
00
02
79
2320
00
35
09
2315
00
13
33
2316
00
04
33
2317
00
01
20
2314
00
28
19
2313
00
00
57
2312
00
01
32
2311
00
13
21
2296
00
11
61
2298
00
00
10
2297
00
35
49
2299
00
01
12
2292
00
01
22
2286
00
01
56
2285
00
26
72
2284
00
18
84
2265
00
32
88
2266
00
00
01
2264
00
06
81
2256
00
03
47
2250
00
36
19
2249
00
00
33
2251
00
38
45
2253
00
06
09
2252
00
23
19
2230
00
21
68
2226
00
23
83
2227
00
24
02
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4125
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
2219
00
09
38
2220
00
11
27
2221
00
14
11
2222
00
01
67
2180
00
01
13
2098
00
00
15
2097
00
20
11
2105
00
83
97
2106
00
22
27
2125
00
16
73
2126
00
15
80
2127
00
00
99
2128
00
25
59
2129
00
13
13
247
00
13
86
248
00
22
35
250
00
01
29
249
00
16
66
251
00
02
84
257
00
08
27
252
00
05
49
253
00
16
84
256
00
12
20
254
00
12
07
255
00
01
83
238
00
14
27
204
00
04
47
203
00
40
52
202
00
40
96
174
00
18
37
175
00
11
06
177
00
13
25
178
00
10
03
170
00
03
54
184
00
22
21
4126
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
185
00
00
14
166
00
53
12
165
00
18
37
Total
Total
Total
Total
12
12
12
12
86
86
86
86
91
91
91
91
िवजरावन
िवजरावन
िवजरावन
िवजरावन
584
00
00
65
587
00
03
20
588
00
07
40
623
00
04
08
624
00
17
80
625
00
05
51
626
00
07
87
622
00
00
80
621
00
00
20
628
00
00
54
643
00
01
67
627
00
08
68
638
00
01
49
642
00
07
41
639
00
00
31
641
00
02
02
640
00
01
21
644
00
00
77
646
00
04
51
645
00
10
42
662
00
01
81
660
00
00
51
661
00
06
90
668
00
06
92
667
00
08
75
669
00
00
67
666
00
00
66
671
00
08
01
672
00
01
00
673
00
11
20
674
00
01
12
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4127
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
563
00
03
45
513
00
00
09
512
00
12
83
514
00
19
75
511
00
22
04
506
00
18
67
507
00
01
11
494
00
30
09
508
00
02
44
492
00
26
88
491
00
22
19
490
00
12
90
752
00
01
28
733
00
01
27
704
00
01
73
705
00
24
01
702
00
01
49
701
00
00
32
700
00
00
10
712
00
10
79
711
00
21
69
721
00
06
14
722
00
12
81
949
00
18
12
946
00
00
52
948
00
02
61
947
00
11
31
941
00
00
82
965
00
14
02
969
00
17
28
968
00
00
41
972
00
15
98
970
00
08
48
975
00
00
48
974
00
19
70
4128
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
928
00
07
54
929
00
06
72
791
00
06
96
792
00
02
05
793
00
24
02
794
00
01
40
795
00
13
34
912
00
01
18
796
00
17
38
797
00
11
24
858
00
06
21
898
00
02
04
896
00
01
61
859
00
05
73
860
00
05
36
861
00
06
66
862
00
01
25
863
00
19
55
864
00
15
69
846
00
01
80
865
00
07
59
866
00
07
48
868
00
14
16
844
00
00
05
843
00
17
40
869
00
00
19
874
00
01
77
875
00
04
02
876
00
49
48
Total
Total
Total
Total
07
07
07
07
57
57
57
57
76
76
76
76
हरकनपुरा
हरकनपुरा
हरकनपुरा
हरकनपुरा
1108
00
16
74
1109
00
38
39
1111
00
01
46
1112
00
01
26
1113
00
00
53
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4129
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
1125
00
14
32
1126
00
20
46
1128
00
11
31
1087
00
01
97
1147
00
37
08
1083
00
20
75
1082
00
11
91
1004
00
27
83
1006
00
03
24
1008
00
04
61
1007
00
33
61
1023
00
08
26
1054
00
01
01
1025
00
03
75
1024
00
06
54
1019
00
31
83
515
00
30
25
1030
00
09
72
514
00
02
00
476
00
08
32
485
00
10
78
484
00
02
68
477
00
01
10
483
00
02
77
478
00
00
92
482
00
19
52
481
00
04
92
Total
Total
Total
Total
03
03
03
03
89
89
89
89
84
84
84
84
उपरारा चक
उपरारा चक
उपरारा चक
उपरारा चक-1
283
00
14
95
284
00
24
87
334
00
02
43
333
00
02
22
332
00
22
73
330
00
23
19
323
00
08
75
4130
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
321
00
74
24
319
00
11
62
318
00
10
48
317
00
09
14
305
00
34
98
Total
Total
Total
Total
02
02
02
02
39
39
39
39
60
60
60
60
[फा. सं. आर-11024(14)/1/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29468]
शा तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019
S.O. 987.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public Interest that for the
transportation of the Petroleum Product in the state of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh Pipeline Should be laid for
implementing of Bina-Panki (Kanpur) Pipeline Project by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited.
And Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, It is necessary to
acquire the right of user (ROU)in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in
the Schedule annexed to this notification.
Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub section (1) of Section 3 of the petroleum and Minerals
Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its
intention to acquire the right of user there in.
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to
Shri Kirodi Lal Meena SDO (Revenue) Bina District Sagar Madhya Pradesh Competent Authority, Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Limited, Bina Panki (Kanpur) Pipeline Project Office 1st Floor Tapti Complex , Near Agasod Police Station ,
BORL Residential Complex, Bina District Sagar, (M.P.) - 470124 within twenty one days from the date on which the
copies of this notification Issued under Sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India,
are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : Lidhora
District : Tikamgarh State: Madhya Pradesh
Name of Village
Survey No. / Gata No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sqm.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Virau
1845
00
00
19
1618
00
09
76
1840/4
00
21
28
1840/2
00
51
96
1840/3
00
01
04
1833अ
00
02
20
1833
00
06
82
1832
00
01
59
1827/1
00
52
23
1828
00
00
04
1945
00
07
73
1944
00
12
52
1943
00
00
93
1942
00
00
02
Total
01
68
31
Matol
816/2
00
28
45
815
00
18
08
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4131
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
814
00
02
52
812
00
17
41
816/1
00
33
71
819/1
00
03
32
807
00
04
53
795
00
07
23
801
00
15
19
799
00
09
84
796
00
13
30
792
00
00
02
793
00
40
49
778/3
00
17
26
778
00
65
68
778/4/1
00
02
37
514
00
72
86
777/2
00
55
17
774
00
12
29
773
00
00
04
767
00
34
06
952
00
02
42
956
00
26
76
766
00
17
20
764
00
15
46
763
00
15
40
761
00
00
15
743
00
83
35
744
00
04
20
745/1
00
05
01
746/1
00
61
82
746/4
00
13
97
746/5/1
00
23
67
746/3
00
78
80
747
00
00
35
752/3/1
00
00
84
750
00
16
72
749
00
04
79
748
00
13
67
Total
08
38
40
Satgawan Ugad
207
00
20
48
208
00
00
52
209
00
02
88
210
00
05
89
211
00
03
89
213
00
12
55
214
00
05
69
201/2
00
05
69
215
00
04
81
202
00
00
02
201/1
00
00
20
200
00
21
91
197
00
00
09
199
00
05
59
198
00
23
10
185
00
02
78
186
00
10
93
172
00
12
13
183
00
34
66
171
00
00
08
4132
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
173
00
06
25
175
00
11
35
182
00
00
10
177
00
01
62
174
00
06
29
181
00
02
67
495
00
14
21
180
00
08
26
494
00
01
00
493
00
04
33
492
00
00
06
491
00
00
09
259
00
17
11
490
00
14
61
489
00
03
68
474
00
10
48
477
00
12
94
478
00
01
44
479
00
08
32
475
00
05
92
473
00
03
82
102
00
18
31
101
00
07
25
447
00
06
62
100
00
04
39
98
00
03
10
95
00
04
52
96
00
09
75
91
00
02
56
90
00
01
06
89
00
05
00
83
00
05
15
86
00
00
02
85
00
03
82
84
00
05
12
73
00
05
00
72
00
01
46
71
00
01
69
70
00
01
36
69
00
01
06
67
00
10
38
66
00
03
88
56
00
00
17
25
00
00
12
55
00
00
01
57
00
01
58
26
00
04
91
27
00
00
19
54
00
18
68
50
00
00
36
49
00
03
82
39
00
14
76
471
00
04
15
470
00
02
73
441
00
14
33
442
00
10
19
41
00
06
76
Total
04
92
70
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4133
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Satguwan Khas
1388
00
02
86
1389
00
29
36
1390
00
17
18
1407
00
02
19
1406
00
08
74
1391
00
08
29
1392
00
07
24
1404
00
01
00
1394
00
08
77
1397
00
03
64
1395
00
05
05
1438
00
00
10
1396
00
07
60
1398
00
00
11
1437
00
10
08
1436
00
01
80
1435
00
00
79
1440
00
07
49
1441
00
07
86
1443
00
04
34
1442
00
02
50
1444
00
04
71
1446
00
08
89
1447/2
00
02
62
1447/3
00
07
47
1448
00
05
08
1315
00
00
94
1314
00
12
24
1313
00
00
52
1312
00
08
28
1311
00
00
01
1310
00
10
56
1309
00
05
70
1300
00
00
41
1301
00
01
23
1302
00
02
14
1303
00
11
94
1304
00
03
56
1305
00
01
14
1289
00
07
57
1281
00
12
35
1283
00
07
23
1282
00
07
90
1518
00
10
68
1519
00
07
23
1520
00
04
05
1517
00
17
25
1516
00
30
76
1514
00
06
89
1507
00
00
01
1561
00
32
08
1560
00
00
01
1522
00
01
51
1555
00
01
63
1556
00
12
77
1557
00
00
38
1554
00
04
35
1553
00
18
30
4134
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1552
00
05
26
1572
00
06
59
1550
00
04
49
1574
00
01
43
1057
00
00
04
1055
00
04
68
1056
00
04
14
1054
00
02
01
1053
00
00
20
1052
00
01
27
1050
00
06
47
1051
00
02
51
1046
00
05
27
1049
00
01
65
1048
00
00
13
1047
00
07
76
1027
00
00
66
1028
00
06
97
1034
00
01
42
1033
00
02
00
1029
00
00
18
1032
00
04
64
1031
00
06
38
1030
00
05
06
1013
00
09
10
1012
00
07
30
1008
00
06
36
1006
00
11
74
1007
00
18
08
1011
00
00
43
928
00
01
99
855
00
11
79
882
00
03
69
881
00
02
75
867
00
03
45
884
00
00
03
880
00
01
30
869
00
01
58
879
00
02
29
878
00
02
10
870
00
01
90
871
00
02
48
819
00
01
22
872
00
07
31
873
00
03
85
818
00
00
74
874
00
02
85
810
00
14
46
811
00
00
08
805
00
07
06
812
00
00
19
799
00
10
89
800
00
06
32
803
00
00
10
802
00
00
51
4219/4603
00
02
64
801
00
00
80
791
00
00
04
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4135
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
794
00
00
01
793
00
02
73
792
00
12
91
789
00
05
87
788
00
10
06
708
00
00
63
787
00
04
68
762
00
01
99
714
00
00
02
760
00
07
18
761
00
01
93
759
00
06
43
754
00
04
02
753
00
02
63
758
00
00
66
757
00
00
03
751
00
02
25
752
00
03
66
755
00
05
20
719
00
22
98
728
00
01
76
720
00
01
02
721
00
02
14
727
00
14
19
726
00
13
82
2315
00
01
65
2316
00
00
30
725
00
00
29
2317
00
07
51
2318
00
10
30
2347
00
09
05
2346
00
05
38
2321
00
00
31
2349
00
03
18
2350
00
00
45
2345
00
05
90
2344
00
18
28
2428
00
11
76
2432
00
00
02
2431
00
01
91
2430
00
01
70
2429
00
01
59
2427
00
03
63
2426
00
04
47
2425
00
05
23
2416
00
01
19
2455
00
00
04
2456
00
01
14
2457
00
02
04
2458
00
06
57
2414
00
00
31
2413
00
08
61
2459
00
02
50
2462
00
00
31
2463
00
09
86
2478
00
07
12
2480
00
00
13
2479
00
03
88
4136
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
2477
00
00
18
2488
00
00
18
2489
00
01
46
2487
00
00
83
2481
00
02
21
2486
00
00
68
2490
00
07
87
2491
00
07
59
2492
00
06
13
2494
00
04
94
2495
00
04
21
2496
00
02
58
2501
00
02
51
2502
00
07
37
2512
00
00
16
2511
00
02
69
2510
00
06
78
2509
00
01
15
2508
00
00
03
2541
00
01
64
2397
00
08
33
Total
09
70
94
Roopganj
266
00
06
61
270
00
14
69
271
00
05
55
280
00
08
01
276
00
00
20
281
00
01
81
282
00
00
17
278
00
02
22
279
00
04
49
294
00
00
88
295
00
07
20
309
00
00
13
301
00
04
72
302
00
02
93
308
00
01
13
307
00
00
04
305
00
01
41
303
00
02
39
304
00
01
28
306
00
04
07
331
00
03
84
321
00
00
10
322
00
04
02
323
00
01
97
330
00
00
03
329
00
00
05
983
00
01
88
324
00
00
65
326
00
01
87
327
00
02
41
328
00
03
25
217
00
01
94
216
00
01
48
215
00
00
67
214
00
00
04
368/1003
00
10
29
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4137
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
368
00
03
15
373
00
04
68
368/1004
00
00
16
371
00
08
51
369
00
03
57
372
00
00
18
370
00
10
03
406
00
17
35
416
00
02
01
415
00
01
81
407
00
01
43
408/2
00
00
31
408/1
00
00
02
410
00
01
79
414
00
30
78
432
00
10
15
508
00
01
68
504
00
05
45
490
00
05
77
499
00
06
35
497
00
08
06
491
00
06
01
496
00
01
71
492
00
09
12
493
00
01
65
482
00
06
21
480
00
04
22
479
00
16
19
477
00
07
32
478
00
11
31
476
00
04
36
726
00
01
80
725
00
00
29
727
00
02
83
728
00
05
14
729
00
02
63
730
00
03
50
731
00
00
26
733
00
02
75
735
00
02
25
734
00
01
17
736
00
03
20
737
00
02
02
740
00
01
41
741
00
02
00
742
00
03
77
743
00
05
24
762
00
16
29
768
00
16
71
763
00
00
28
764
00
00
87
765
00
01
81
766
00
03
05
767
00
06
39
Total
03
81
42
Fateh Ka Khirak
233
00
02
29
238
00
06
11
239
00
00
19
4138
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
237
00
05
26
236
00
11
19
235
00
12
89
252
00
00
65
254
00
07
05
253
00
01
96
274
00
10
99
257
00
00
27
271
00
14
05
272
00
00
34
270
00
06
36
269
00
06
25
266
00
00
65
265
00
12
88
264
00
02
50
282
00
16
20
283
00
00
70
290
00
03
95
291
00
02
41
292
00
03
74
301
00
00
26
300
00
01
08
561
00
11
21
299
00
03
42
295
00
00
87
306
00
00
03
308
00
13
24
309
00
04
60
310
00
00
03
313
00
07
48
311
00
00
52
586
00
00
73
312
00
02
74
314
00
05
60
315
00
08
10
316
00
00
20
362
00
04
23
437
00
29
89
440
00
00
05
438
00
02
90
439
00
12
35
431
00
16
33
430
00
41
55
428
00
14
04
427
00
16
04
426
00
00
51
425
00
08
51
595
00
23
24
418
00
32
57
Total
03
91
20
Petpura
31
00
31
22
23
00
24
47
24
00
02
46
22
00
44
54
21
00
00
26
19
00
02
67
12
00
08
86
10
00
01
06
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4139
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
11
00
32
68
5/4
00
06
88
14
00
63
45
14/1/1
00
09
56
Total
02
28
11
Chandera Ugad
134
00
28
56
TOTAL
00
28
56
Chandera Khas
2485/5
00
45
29
2485/1
00
05
38
2485/3
00
16
13
2485/4
00
00
76
2484
00
36
40
2184
00
62
63
2983
00
27
66
2189/1
00
21
87
2189/3
00
02
68
2188
00
06
36
2187
00
07
09
2136
00
05
77
2192
00
27
41
2193
00
26
17
2978
00
01
33
2194
00
15
19
2196
00
19
08
2197
00
01
34
2198/2983
00
07
80
2198/2977
00
02
46
2199
00
03
03
2200
00
21
95
2239
00
38
77
2240
00
00
46
2241
00
00
07
2244
00
18
47
2246
00
02
86
2249
00
02
20
2250
00
24
92
2259
00
05
88
2260
00
01
53
2106
00
00
07
2262
00
17
64
2261
00
02
32
2030
00
03
71
2031
00
27
47
2029
00
01
17
2028
00
03
04
2025
00
02
77
2027
00
01
38
2026
00
01
32
2023
00
02
41
2024
00
01
50
2022
00
02
07
2019
00
01
37
2020/2973
00
01
20
2021
00
07
07
2002
00
10
02
2001
00
11
28
2000
00
03
68
1999
00
05
05
4140
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1990
00
08
29
1989
00
00
49
1992
00
06
12
1991
00
04
28
1994
00
00
43
1993
00
01
77
1987
00
01
66
1995
00
09
99
1985
00
04
81
311
00
05
87
1984
00
00
68
312
00
06
21
320
00
04
32
319
00
09
63
328
00
03
09
318
00
04
13
329
00
01
50
330
00
05
76
331
00
07
07
338
00
03
70
326
00
00
96
332
00
08
09
336
00
00
03
335
00
00
15
334
00
19
87
357
00
19
68
356
00
01
24
355
00
03
35
354
00
00
02
353
00
01
37
360
00
06
81
361
00
18
59
209
00
03
24
208
00
11
98
181
00
20
25
180
00
02
59
179
00
01
48
178
00
22
32
176
00
11
80
175
00
28
85
49
00
09
43
2847
00
04
18
45
00
01
58
48
00
01
63
47
00
00
81
46
00
05
45
44
00
01
51
43
00
03
72
39
00
06
45
42
00
05
04
41
00
08
17
40
00
08
65
2857
00
04
95
38
00
17
56
36
00
03
44
27
00
15
43
26
00
00
07
28
00
01
06
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4141
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
20
00
20
05
19
00
00
03
16
00
01
47
18
00
06
92
17
00
02
23
13
00
02
53
14
00
14
89
15
01
51
36
2841
00
33
14
434
00
03
12
Total
11
72
82
Chandera Bharwara
144
00
05
88
131
00
10
68
133
00
27
36
134
00
40
05
122
00
02
90
123
00
06
01
121
00
03
16
92
00
05
00
120
00
07
62
119
00
00
01
93
00
23
84
118
00
01
97
94
00
14
99
117
00
05
49
100
00
17
44
99
00
15
30
101
00
03
63
42
00
00
06
41
00
33
65
38
00
22
74
39
00
10
91
32
00
58
72
33
00
01
02
162
00
29
54
163/1
00
17
98
165
00
17
00
Total
03
82
95
Bhagwantsingh Ka Khirak
31/2/1
00
53
07
31/2/2क
00
26
77
31/2/2ग
00
06
19
31/2/1ख
00
06
41
33/2/1अ
00
33
94
33/2/2
00
41
02
31/2/3क
00
23
03
31/2/3ख
00
10
60
34/2
00
31
74
34/1/1
00
34
41
Total
02
67
18
Syawani Ugad
32
00
85
64
9
00
66
30
5
00
14
05
4
00
04
74
3
01
50
65
Total
03
21
38
4142
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Syawani Khas
1382/3
00
19
34
1382/4
00
45
62
1397
00
05
07
1391
00
33
22
1392
00
12
94
1393
00
18
09
1394
00
43
30
Total
01
77
58
Manpura
48
00
12
57
47
00
13
74
44
00
35
03
204
00
24
73
50
00
62
54
43
00
21
60
205
00
23
09
206
00
15
21
65
00
03
88
66
00
00
15
56
00
00
02
64
00
15
69
63
00
01
56
67
00
09
53
68
00
06
94
207
00
13
56
69
00
05
62
75
00
39
40
221
00
01
90
220
00
14
59
219
00
14
46
128
00
08
09
127
01
44
83
91
01
00
89
Total
05
89
62
Maindwara
2412
00
19
68
2411
00
42
92
2414
00
27
66
2415
00
25
84
2416
00
00
98
2417
00
01
96
2418
00
00
30
2421
00
16
72
2420
00
09
45
2422
00
14
33
2429
00
32
02
2432
00
08
10
2431
00
20
83
2323
00
17
22
2434
00
04
44
2322
00
30
51
2321
00
02
79
2320
00
35
09
2315
00
13
33
2316
00
04
33
2317
00
01
20
2314
00
28
19
2313
00
00
57
2312
00
01
32
2311
00
13
21
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4143
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
2296
00
11
61
2298
00
00
10
2297
00
35
49
2299
00
01
12
2292
00
01
22
2286
00
01
56
2285
00
26
72
2284
00
18
84
2265
00
32
88
2266
00
00
01
2264
00
06
81
2256
00
03
47
2250
00
36
19
2249
00
00
33
2251
00
38
45
2253
00
06
09
2252
00
23
19
2230
00
21
68
2226
00
23
83
2227
00
24
02
2219
00
09
38
2220
00
11
27
2221
00
14
11
2222
00
01
67
2180
00
01
13
2098
00
00
15
2097
00
20
11
2105
00
83
97
2106
00
22
27
2125
00
16
73
2126
00
15
80
2127
00
00
99
2128
00
25
59
2129
00
13
13
247
00
13
86
248
00
22
35
250
00
01
29
249
00
16
66
251
00
02
84
257
00
08
27
252
00
05
49
253
00
16
84
256
00
12
20
254
00
12
07
255
00
01
83
238
00
14
27
204
00
04
47
203
00
40
52
202
00
40
96
174
00
18
37
175
00
11
06
177
00
13
25
178
00
10
03
170
00
03
54
184
00
22
21
185
00
00
14
166
00
53
12
165
00
18
37
4144
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Total
12
86
91
Vijrawan
584
00
00
65
587
00
03
20
588
00
07
40
623
00
04
08
624
00
17
80
625
00
05
51
626
00
07
87
622
00
00
80
621
00
00
20
628
00
00
54
643
00
01
67
627
00
08
68
638
00
01
49
642
00
07
41
639
00
00
31
641
00
02
02
640
00
01
21
644
00
00
77
646
00
04
51
645
00
10
42
662
00
01
81
660
00
00
51
661
00
06
90
668
00
06
92
667
00
08
75
669
00
00
67
666
00
00
66
671
00
08
01
672
00
01
00
673
00
11
20
674
00
01
12
563
00
03
45
513
00
00
09
512
00
12
83
514
00
19
75
511
00
22
04
506
00
18
67
507
00
01
11
494
00
30
09
508
00
02
44
492
00
26
88
491
00
22
19
490
00
12
90
752
00
01
28
733
00
01
27
704
00
01
73
705
00
24
01
702
00
01
49
701
00
00
32
700
00
00
10
712
00
10
79
711
00
21
69
721
00
06
14
722
00
12
81
949
00
18
12
946
00
00
52
948
00
02
61
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4145
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
947
00
11
31
941
00
00
82
965
00
14
02
969
00
17
28
968
00
00
41
972
00
15
98
970
00
08
48
975
00
00
48
974
00
19
70
928
00
07
54
929
00
06
72
791
00
06
96
792
00
02
05
793
00
24
02
794
00
01
40
795
00
13
34
912
00
01
18
796
00
17
38
797
00
11
24
858
00
06
21
898
00
02
04
896
00
01
61
859
00
05
73
860
00
05
36
861
00
06
66
862
00
01
25
863
00
19
55
864
00
15
69
846
00
01
80
865
00
07
59
866
00
07
48
868
00
14
16
844
00
00
05
843
00
17
40
869
00
00
19
874
00
01
77
875
00
04
02
876
00
49
48
Total
07
57
76
Harkanpura
1108
00
16
74
1109
00
38
39
1111
00
01
46
1112
00
01
26
1113
00
00
53
1125
00
14
32
1126
00
20
46
1128
00
11
31
1087
00
01
97
1147
00
37
08
1083
00
20
75
1082
00
11
91
1004
00
27
83
1006
00
03
24
1008
00
04
61
1007
00
33
61
1023
00
08
26
1054
00
01
01
1025
00
03
75
4146
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1024
00
06
54
1019
00
31
83
515
00
30
25
1030
00
09
72
514
00
02
00
476
00
08
32
485
00
10
78
484
00
02
68
477
00
01
10
483
00
02
77
478
00
00
92
482
00
19
52
481
00
04
92
Total
03
89
84
Uparara Chak -1
283
00
14
95
284
00
24
87
334
00
02
43
333
00
02
22
332
00
22
73
330
00
23
19
323
00
08
75
321
00
74
24
319
00
11
62
318
00
10
48
317
00
09
14
305
00
34
98
Total
02
39
60
[F. No. R-11024(14)/1/2019-OR-I/E-29468]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 988
988
988
988.—केीय सरकार को, ऐसा तीत होता है क लोकिहत मे यह आवDयक है क मL य देश एवं उFर
देश राWय म% पेोिलयम पदाथ के प1रवहन के िलए बीना पंक (कानपुर) पाईपलाइन प1रयोजना के |यावयन हेतु भारत
पेोिलयम कॉप रेशन िलिमटेड Eारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाना आवDयक है।
केीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलये यह आवDयक तीत होता है, क ऐसी भूिम म% जो इस
से उपाब` अनुसूची म% वqणत है, और िजसम% उI पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का 4ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज,न
कया जाए।
अत: अब, केीय सरकार, पेोिलयम और खिजन पाइपलाइन (भूिम म% उपयोग के अिधकार का अज,न) अिधिनयम
1962 (1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) Eारा दF शिIय का योग करते Vए उस भूिम म% उपयोग के अिधकार
का अज,न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है।
कोई o यिI जो उI अनुसूची म% वqणत भूिम म% िहतब` है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना म% युI भारत के
राजप( क ितयां साधारण जनता को उपलdध करा दी जाती है, इस दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए
जाने के िलए उसम% उपयोग के अिधकार के संबध म% Gी करोडीलाल मीणा अनुिवभागीय अिधकारी (राज4 व) बीना िजला
सागर मL य देश स;म ािधकारी, भारत पेोिलयम कॉप रेशन िलिमटेड बीना पंक (कानपुर) पेोिलयम पाइपलाइन
प1रयोजना काया,लय, थम तल, तािt कॉ) \ लेC स, अगासोद पुिलस 4 टेशन के पास, बी.ओ.आर.एल. आवासीय प1रसर, बीना,
िजला-सागर (म..) – 470124 को िलिखत 5प से आ;ेप भेज सकेगा।
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4147
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
तहसील
तहसील
तहसील
तहसील-बीना
बीना
बीना
बीना
िजला
िजला
िजला
िजला-सागर
सागर
सागर
सागर
रा3 य
रा3 य
रा3 य
रा3 य–म> य
म> य
म> य
म> य "दे
"दे
"दे
"देश
गां
गां
गां
गांव का
का
का
का नाम
नाम
नाम
नाम
सव5
सव5
सव5
सव5 नंनंनंनं./गाटा नं
/गाटा नं
/गाटा नं
/गाटा नं.
6ेफल
6ेफल
6ेफल
6ेफल
है8टेयर
है8टेयर
है8टेयर
है8टेयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
वगमीटर
वगमीटर
वगमीटर
वगमीटर
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
आगासौद
आगासौद
आगासौद
आगासौद
519/1
01
31
86
509/2
00
18
90
507/2
00
43
37
507/1
00
48
75
506/1
00
00
47
500/1
00
00
36
508/1
00
02
24
Total
Total
Total
Total
02
02
02
02
45
45
45
45
95
95
95
95
देहरी
देहरी
देहरी
देहरी
19
00
03
93
203
00
02
63
18/1
00
52
13
18/4
00
00
08
17/3
00
13
79
17/2
00
11
54
17/1
00
06
27
16/1
00
55
09
12
00
13
60
11
00
88
57
8/3
00
21
12
9
00
54
63
23/1
00
03
47
35/1
00
28
95
35/2
00
56
57
34
00
12
33
33
00
04
69
51
00
42
51
49
00
25
84
46/2
00
71
79
46/1
00
26
85
61
00
03
00
4148
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
45
00
00
78
72/2
00
05
22
73
00
18
61
79
00
22
15
76
00
13
90
77
00
08
57
170
00
01
84
86
00
11
30
87
00
14
69
88
00
16
88
89
00
22
27
90
00
05
67
85
00
76
77
94
00
16
98
95
00
11
18
96
00
01
96
Total
Total
Total
Total
08
08
08
08
48
48
48
48
15
15
15
15
सेमरखेडी
सेमरखेडी
सेमरखेडी
सेमरखेडी
448/5
00
00
56
455
00
00
40
456
00
06
71
443/2
00
03
39
458
00
29
66
457
00
01
76
459
00
25
71
463
00
29
11
462
00
33
61
464
00
02
05
Total
Total
Total
Total
01
01
01
01
32
32
32
32
96
96
96
96
कचनोदा
कचनोदा
कचनोदा
कचनोदा
160
00
01
17
159/2
00
48
02
159/1
00
04
91
162/1
00
00
91
153
00
52
97
152
00
24
48
162/2
00
04
26
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4149
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
151
00
38
80
150
00
20
56
147
00
08
42
138/1
00
11
23
139
00
21
60
144
00
18
19
141
00
06
11
82
00
12
94
81
00
24
28
83/1
00
08
66
143
00
00
85
142
00
00
35
80
00
07
60
79
00
28
64
78
00
07
52
76/2
00
02
22
76/1
00
11
37
75
00
04
33
74
00
25
48
70
00
84
65
67
00
00
13
66/3
00
12
78
66/1
00
13
28
65
00
49
32
63
00
22
25
62
00
00
25
Total
Total
Total
Total
05
05
05
05
78
78
78
78
53
53
53
53
जगदीशपुर
जगदीशपुर
जगदीशपुर
जगदीशपुर
8
00
03
84
9
00
29
74
10
00
01
36
13
00
75
49
12
00
00
42
14
00
01
57
15/2
00
04
80
15/1
00
13
34
4150
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
18
00
02
34
19
00
37
74
20
00
01
95
21
00
25
48
22/2
00
01
91
23/2
00
11
43
23/1
00
28
53
67
00
04
87
Total
Total
Total
Total
02
02
02
02
44
44
44
44
81
िबहरना
िबहरना
िबहरना
िबहरना
354/1
00
01
67
354/2
00
15
47
352
00
16
58
353
00
04
26
351
00
02
85
46
00
04
75
350/2
00
09
30
47
00
52
73
45
00
35
05
44
00
00
69
43
00
21
31
40
00
49
94
42/2
00
05
39
42/1
00
45
61
41
00
03
25
37
00
60
82
35
00
31
91
34/1
00
20
63
34/2,3,4
00
06
77
56
00
02
14
54
00
62
17
101
00
01
82
138
00
15
73
140
00
22
57
139
00
07
46
143
00
03
68
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4151
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
136
00
35
91
137
00
02
71
135
00
33
79
129
00
37
20
131
00
00
03
134
00
37
71
150
00
00
56
132
00
28
85
151
00
84
64
110
00
35
62
109
00
18
06
107
00
68
95
517
00
04
24
Total
Total
Total
Total
08
08
08
08
92
92
92
92
82
82
82
82
बैथनी
बैथनी
बैथनी
बैथनी
1
00
03
16
11
00
02
03
13
00
09
44
12
00
07
43
10/3
00
21
43
10/4
00
06
85
9
00
47
60
14
00
00
59
16/1
00
04
32
21/2
00
34
60
20
00
07
93
21/1
00
29
25
24/1
00
32
24
24/2
00
26
78
26/1
00
43
01
27
00
41
93
30/1
00
51
84
50/1
00
50
45
56
00
35
93
57
00
04
11
61
00
35
00
4152
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
60
00
41
61
59
00
02
93
335
00
43
24
338
00
24
64
337
00
20
59
340
00
04
56
343
00
00
01
347
00
23
73
348/2
00
34
79
348/1
00
00
10
350/1
00
16
77
350/2,3
00
24
14
351/2
00
02
84
351/1
00
34
90
353
00
03
11
352
00
14
77
354/1
00
03
33
354/4,5,6
00
37
41
356/3
00
63
72
356/2
00
46
37
356/1
00
19
91
Total
Total
Total
Total
09
09
09
09
59
59
59
59
39
39
39
39
िमजापुर
िमजापुर
िमजापुर
िमजापुर
357
00
01
22
358
00
21
13
360
00
18
72
Total
Total
Total
Total
00
00
00
00
41
41
41
41
07
07
07
07
ढांड़
ढांड़
ढांड़
ढांड़
43/2
00
01
31
43/1
00
27
44
42
00
16
64
41
00
18
04
40
00
10
22
20
00
65
72
17
00
46
00
14
00
03
34
12
00
21
63
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4153
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
581
00
22
18
584
00
23
11
583/2
00
09
84
583/1
00
26
08
649
00
27
69
628
00
56
16
629/3
00
24
22
629/2
00
21
57
629/1
00
10
49
630
00
19
33
631
00
42
74
622
00
01
39
618
00
10
28
766/1
00
30
12
767
00
04
45
766/3
00
01
73
768
00
01
03
769/1
00
39
13
770
00
17
36
774
00
17
74
775
00
14
95
773
00
05
43
776/1
00
30
31
783/2
00
01
25
777
00
17
07
778
00
36
52
779
00
00
07
783/1
00
02
20
782/2,4
00
14
81
782/3,5
00
00
04
782/6,7
00
13
66
781/1
00
00
74
798
00
46
47
797
00
02
97
Total
Total
Total
Total
08
08
08
08
03
03
03
03
47
47
47
47
4154
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
ल? ग
ल? ग
ल? ग
ल? गरपुर
रपुर
रपुर
रपुर
30
00
13
05
35
00
01
39
102
00
54
20
104/2
00
09
56
100/2
00
00
47
101
00
24
53
100/1
00
20
56
109/2
00
01
83
109/1
00
00
62
99
00
04
18
98
00
00
97
97
00
04
83
90/1
00
21
35
90/2
00
15
28
114
00
09
97
115
00
23
37
116
00
42
33
121/2
00
00
25
117
00
03
76
121/1
00
04
05
118
00
01
46
119
00
23
13
79
00
02
72
78
00
06
36
Total
Total
Total
Total
02
02
02
02
90
90
90
90
22
22
22
22
चमारी
चमारी
चमारी
चमारी
180
00
00
86
183
00
28
93
181
00
22
36
179
00
15
21
197
00
11
43
198
00
20
98
199
00
11
04
200
00
25
56
201
00
72
08
488
00
00
12
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4155
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
484
00
08
99
485
00
23
46
483
00
00
01
486
00
08
86
487
00
00
42
479
00
55
28
473
00
02
70
453
00
39
33
452
00
48
34
451
00
38
59
447
00
00
37
430
00
25
67
431
00
14
63
432
00
13
10
433
00
28
12
434
00
31
36
435
00
38
36
436
00
08
86
437
00
09
10
Total
Total
Total
Total
06
06
06
06
04
04
04
04
12
12
12
12
[फा. सं. आर-11024(14)/1/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29468]
शा तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019
S.O. 988.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public Interest that for the
transportation of the Petroleum Product in the state of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh Pipeline Should be laid for
implementing of Bina-Panki (Kanpur) Pipeline Project by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited.
And Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, It is necessary to
acquire the right of user (ROU)in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in
the Schedule annexed to this notification.
Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub section (1) of Section 3 of the petroleum and Minerals
Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its
intention to acquire the right of user there in.
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to
Shri Kirodi Lal Meena SDO (Revenue) Bina District Sagar Madhya Pradesh Competent Authority, Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Limited, Bina Panki (Kanpur) Pipeline Project Office 1st Floor Tapti Complex , Near Agasod Police Station ,
BORL Residential Complex, Bina District Sagar, (M.P.) - 470124 within twenty one days from the date on which the
copies of this notification Issued under Sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India,
are made available to the general public.
4156
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : Bina
District : Sagar
State: Madhya Pradesh
Name of Village
Survey No. / Gata No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sqm.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Agasod
519/1
01
31
86
509/2
00
18
90
507/2
00
43
37
507/1
00
48
75
506/1
00
00
47
500/1
00
00
36
508/1
00
02
24
Total
02
45
95
Dehri
19
00
03
93
203
00
02
63
18/1
00
52
13
18/4
00
00
08
17/3
00
13
79
17/2
00
11
54
17/1
00
06
27
16/1
00
55
09
12
00
13
60
11
00
88
57
8/3
00
21
12
9
00
54
63
23/1
00
03
47
35/1
00
28
95
35/2
00
56
57
34
00
12
33
33
00
04
69
51
00
42
51
49
00
25
84
46/2
00
71
79
46/1
00
26
85
61
00
03
00
45
00
00
78
72/2
00
05
22
73
00
18
61
79
00
22
15
76
00
13
90
77
00
08
57
170
00
01
84
86
00
11
30
87
00
14
69
88
00
16
88
89
00
22
27
90
00
05
67
85
00
76
77
94
00
16
98
95
00
11
18
96
00
01
96
Total
08
48
15
Semarkhedi
448/5
00
00
56
455
00
00
40
456
00
06
71
443/2
00
03
39
458
00
29
66
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4157
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
457
00
01
76
459
00
25
71
463
00
29
11
462
00
33
61
464
00
02
05
Total
01
32
96
Kachnoda
160
00
01
17
159/2
00
48
02
159/1
00
04
91
162/1
00
00
91
153
00
52
97
152
00
24
48
162/2
00
04
26
151
00
38
80
150
00
20
56
147
00
08
42
138/1
00
11
23
139
00
21
60
144
00
18
19
141
00
06
11
82
00
12
94
81
00
24
28
83/1
00
08
66
143
00
00
85
142
00
00
35
80
00
07
60
79
00
28
64
78
00
07
52
76/2
00
02
22
76/1
00
11
37
75
00
04
33
74
00
25
48
70
00
84
65
67
00
00
13
66/3
00
12
78
66/1
00
13
28
65
00
49
32
63
00
22
25
62
00
00
25
Total
05
78
53
Jagdishpur
8
00
03
84
9
00
29
74
10
00
01
36
13
00
75
49
12
00
00
42
14
00
01
57
15/2
00
04
80
15/1
00
13
34
18
00
02
34
19
00
37
74
20
00
01
95
21
00
25
48
22/2
00
01
91
23/2
00
11
43
23/1
00
28
53
67
00
04
87
Total
02
44
81
Biharna
354/1
00
01
67
4158
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
354/2
00
15
47
352
00
16
58
353
00
04
26
351
00
02
85
46
00
04
75
350/2
00
09
30
47
00
52
73
45
00
35
05
44
00
00
69
43
00
21
31
40
00
49
94
42/2
00
05
39
42/1
00
45
61
41
00
03
25
37
00
60
82
35
00
31
91
34/1
00
20
63
34/2,3,4
00
06
77
56
00
02
14
54
00
62
17
101
00
01
82
138
00
15
73
140
00
22
57
139
00
07
46
143
00
03
68
136
00
35
91
137
00
02
71
135
00
33
79
129
00
37
20
131
00
00
03
134
00
37
71
150
00
00
56
132
00
28
85
151
00
84
64
110
00
35
62
109
00
18
06
107
00
68
95
517
00
04
24
Total
08
92
82
Bethni
1
00
03
16
11
00
02
03
13
00
09
44
12
00
07
43
10/3
00
21
43
10/4
00
06
85
9
00
47
60
14
00
00
59
16/1
00
04
32
21/2
00
34
60
20
00
07
93
21/1
00
29
25
24/1
00
32
24
24/2
00
26
78
26/1
00
43
01
27
00
41
93
30/1
00
51
84
50/1
00
50
45
56
00
35
93
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4159
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
57
00
04
11
61
00
35
00
60
00
41
61
59
00
02
93
335
00
43
24
338
00
24
64
337
00
20
59
340
00
04
56
343
00
00
01
347
00
23
73
348/2
00
34
79
348/1
00
00
10
350/1
00
16
77
350/2,3
00
24
14
351/2
00
02
84
351/1
00
34
90
353
00
03
11
352
00
14
77
354/1
00
03
33
354/4,5,6
00
37
41
356/3
00
63
72
356/2
00
46
37
356/1
00
19
91
Total
09
59
39
Mirjapur
357
00
01
22
358
00
21
13
360
00
18
72
Total
00
41
07
Dhand
43/2
00
01
31
43/1
00
27
44
42
00
16
64
41
00
18
04
40
00
10
22
20
00
65
72
17
00
46
00
14
00
03
34
12
00
21
63
581
00
22
18
584
00
23
11
583/2
00
09
84
583/1
00
26
08
649
00
27
69
628
00
56
16
629/3
00
24
22
629/2
00
21
57
629/1
00
10
49
630
00
19
33
631
00
42
74
622
00
01
39
618
00
10
28
766/1
00
30
12
767
00
04
45
766/3
00
01
73
768
00
01
03
769/1
00
39
13
770
00
17
36
774
00
17
74
775
00
14
95
4160
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
773
00
05
43
776/1
00
30
31
783/2
00
01
25
777
00
17
07
778
00
36
52
779
00
00
07
783/1
00
02
20
782/2,4
00
14
81
782/3,5
00
00
04
782/6,7
00
13
66
781/1
00
00
74
798
00
46
47
797
00
02
97
Total
08
03
47
Lasgarpur
30
00
13
05
35
00
01
39
102
00
54
20
104/2
00
09
56
100/2
00
00
47
101
00
24
53
100/1
00
20
56
109/2
00
01
83
109/1
00
00
62
99
00
04
18
98
00
00
97
97
00
04
83
90/1
00
21
35
90/2
00
15
28
114
00
09
97
115
00
23
37
116
00
42
33
121/2
00
00
25
117
00
03
76
121/1
00
04
05
118
00
01
46
119
00
23
13
79
00
02
72
78
00
06
36
Total
02
90
22
Chamari
180
00
00
86
183
00
28
93
181
00
22
36
179
00
15
21
197
00
11
43
198
00
20
98
199
00
11
04
200
00
25
56
201
00
72
08
488
00
00
12
484
00
08
99
485
00
23
46
483
00
00
01
486
00
08
86
487
00
00
42
479
00
55
28
473
00
02
70
453
00
39
33
452
00
48
34
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4161
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
451
00
38
59
447
00
00
37
430
00
25
67
431
00
14
63
432
00
13
10
433
00
28
12
434
00
31
36
435
00
38
36
436
00
08
86
437
00
09
10
Total
06
04
12
[F. No. R-11024(14)/1/2019-OR-I/E-29468]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 989
989
989
989.—केीय सरकार को, ऐसा तीत होता है क लोकिहत म% यह आवDयक है क मL य देश एवं उFर देश
राWय म% पेोिलयम पदाथ के प1रवहन के िलए बीना पंक (कानपुर) पाईपलाइन प1रयोजना के |यावयन हेतु भारत
पेोिलयम कॉप रेशन िलिमटेड Eारा पाईपलाइन िबछाई जाना आवDयक है।
केीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलये यह आवDयक तीत होता है, क ऐसी भूिम म% जो इस
से उपाब` अनुसूची म% वqणत है, और िजसमे उI पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का 4ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज,न
कया जाए।
अत: अब, केीय सरकार, पेोिलयम और खिजन पाइपलाइन (भूिम म% उपयोग के अिधकार का अज,न) अिधिनयम
1962 (1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) Eारा दF शिIय का योग करते Vए उस भूिम म% उपयोग के अिधकार
का अज,न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है।
कोई o यिI जो उI अनुसूची म% वqणत भूिम म% िहतब` है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना म% युI भारत के
राजप( क ितया साधारण जनता को उपलdध करा दी जाती है, इस दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए
जाने के िलए उसम% उपयोग के अिधकार के संबध म% Gी करोडीलाल मीणा अनुिवभागीय अिधकारी (राज4 व) बीना िजला
सागर मL य देश स;म ािधकारी, भारत पेोिलयम कॉप रेशन िलिमटेड बीना पंक (कानपुर) पेोिलयम पाइपलाइन
प1रयोजना काया,लय, थम तल, तािt कॉ) \ लेC स, अगासोद पुिलस 4 टेशन के पास, बी.ओ.आर.एल. आवासीय प1रसर, बीना,
िजला-सागर (म..) – 470124 को िलिखत 5प से आ;ेप भेज सकेगा।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
तहसील
तहसील
तहसील
तहसील- मोहनगढ
मोहनगढ
मोहनगढ
मोहनगढ
िजला
िजला
िजला
िजला-टीकमगढ
टीकमगढ
टीकमगढ
टीकमगढ
रा3 य
रा3 य
रा3 य
रा3 य-म4 य
म4 य
म4 य
म4 य "देश
"देश
"देश
"देश
गॉव
गॉव
गॉव
गॉव का
का
का
का नाम
नाम
नाम
नाम
सव5
सव5
सव5
सव5 नंनंनंनं./गाटा नं
/गाटा नं
/गाटा नं
/गाटा नं.
6ेफल
6ेफल
6ेफल
6ेफल
है8टेयर
है8टेयर
है8टेयर
है8टेयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
वगमीटर
वगमीटर
वगमीटर
वगमीटर
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
हतगोरा
145
00
08
16
144
00
01
03
146
00
15
02
150
00
09
58
4162
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
149
00
12
69
149/330
00
07
70
148
00
05
45
160
00
11
07
161
00
09
25
162
00
18
06
119
00
01
36
Total
Total
Total
Total
00
00
00
00
99
99
99
99
37
37
37
37
बाबा खेडा
158
00
01
33
134
00
11
07
131
00
06
16
139
00
20
36
135
00
02
29
137
00
02
73
136
00
12
64
130
00
06
82
126
00
30
37
127
00
40
36
121
00
38
20
123
00
02
91
2
00
02
44
24/2/3
00
00
91
24/2/4
00
22
98
24/2/2
00
05
20
24/2/1
00
19
56
24/1
00
28
46
22/2
00
14
17
22/1
00
09
92
4
00
32
97
20
00
00
60
21
00
00
77
7
00
03
86
6
00
00
59
1/2
00
58
81
8
00
01
83
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4163
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
Total
Total
Total
Total
03
03
03
03
78
78
78
78
31
31
31
31
वटवाहा
188
00
02
25
165/2/4
00
17
01
165/2/3
00
13
56
165/2/2
00
23
41
165/2/1
00
07
08
165/2
00
23
49
164/1/6
00
09
11
164/1/5
00
27
33
164/1/2
00
10
03
164/1/1
00
18
45
164/2/4
00
14
75
163
00
13
89
160
00
03
32
159
00
01
05
158
00
12
73
157
00
26
98
156
00
01
65
155
00
03
31
150
00
02
68
Total
Total
Total
Total
02
02
02
02
32
32
32
32
08
08
08
08
भगवंतपुरा भाटा
40
00
97
12
35
00
11
17
38
00
14
16
37
00
05
39
36
00
00
62
30
00
16
06
31
00
00
02
32
00
01
69
33
00
01
68
27
00
25
45
24
00
10
08
26
00
06
43
25
00
20
08
10
00
03
63
4164
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
45
00
01
82
5
01
03
56
6/1/1
00
05
09
6/1/2
00
26
49
6/3/9
00
66
36
Total
Total
Total
Total
04
04
04
04
16
16
16
16
90
90
90
90
भगवंतपुरा खास
284/3
00
00
01
284/4
00
27
21
284/5
00
23
85
284
00
45
23
284/1
00
01
99
289/5/1
00
11
47
289/2ख/4
00
21
52
292
00
01
94
293
00
08
41
289/4च/3/1
00
00
15
293/3/1
00
03
30
293/1/ख
00
18
00
293/1/क
00
26
92
294
00
01
19
295/3
00
11
65
295/2/4
00
10
60
295/2/5
00
14
15
295/2/9/1
00
04
06
295/2
00
55
90
325
00
02
36
349
00
04
59
350
00
00
10
348
00
03
94
346
00
08
51
345
00
01
88
336
00
01
84
337
00
00
88
335
00
03
78
338
00
11
15
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4165
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
334
00
01
84
341
00
00
40
340
00
00
56
339
00
07
67
333
00
00
40
Total
Total
Total
Total
03
03
03
03
37
37
37
37
45
45
45
45
[फा. सं. आर-11024(14)/1/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29468]
शा तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019
S.O. 989.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public Interest that for the
transportation of the Petroleum Product in the state of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh Pipeline Should be laid for
implementing of Bina-Panki (Kanpur) Pipeline Project by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited.
And Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, It is necessary to
acquire the right of user (ROU)in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in
the Schedule annexed to this notification.
Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub section (1) of Section 3 of the petroleum and Minerals
Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its
intention to acquire the right of user there in.
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to
Shri Kirodi Lal Meena SDO (Revenue) Bina District Sagar Madhya Pradesh Competent Authority, Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Limited, Bina Panki (Kanpur) Pipeline Project Office 1st Floor Tapti Complex , Near Agasod Police Station ,
BORL Residential Complex, Bina District Sagar, (M.P.) - 470124 within twenty one days from the date on which the
copies of this notification Issued under Sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India,
are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil: Mohangarh
District : Tikamgarh
State: Madhya Pradesh
Name of Village
Survey No. / Gata No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sqm.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Hatgora
145
00
08
16
144
00
01
03
146
00
15
02
150
00
09
58
149
00
12
69
149/330
00
07
70
148
00
05
45
160
00
11
07
161
00
09
25
162
00
18
06
119
00
01
36
Total
00
99
37
Baba Khera
158
00
01
33
134
00
11
07
131
00
06
16
139
00
20
36
135
00
02
29
137
00
02
73
136
00
12
64
4166
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
130
00
06
82
126
00
30
37
127
00
40
36
121
00
38
20
123
00
02
91
2
00
02
44
24/2/3
00
00
91
24/2/4
00
22
98
24/2/2
00
05
20
24/2/1
00
19
56
24/1
00
28
46
22/2
00
14
17
22/1
00
09
92
4
00
32
97
20
00
00
60
21
00
00
77
7
00
03
86
6
00
00
59
1/2
00
58
81
8
00
01
83
Total
03
78
31
Batwaha
188
00
02
25
165/2/4
00
17
01
165/2/3
00
13
56
165/2/2
00
23
41
165/2/1
00
07
08
165/2
00
23
49
164/1/6
00
09
11
164/1/5
00
27
33
164/1/2
00
10
03
164/1/1
00
18
45
164/2/4
00
14
75
163
00
13
89
160
00
03
32
159
00
01
05
158
00
12
73
157
00
26
98
156
00
01
65
155
00
03
31
150
00
02
68
Total
02
32
08
Bhagwantpura Bhata
40
00
97
12
35
00
11
17
38
00
14
16
37
00
05
39
36
00
00
62
30
00
16
06
31
00
00
02
32
00
01
69
33
00
01
68
27
00
25
45
24
00
10
08
26
00
06
43
25
00
20
08
10
00
03
63
45
00
01
82
5
01
03
56
6/1/1
00
05
09
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4167
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
6/1/2
00
26
49
6/3/9
00
66
36
Total
04
16
90
Bhagwantpura Khas
284/3
00
00
01
284/4
00
27
21
284/5
00
23
85
284
00
45
23
284/1
00
01
99
289/5/1
00
11
47
289/2ख/4
00
21
52
292
00
01
94
293
00
08
41
289/4च/3/1
00
00
15
293/3/1
00
03
30
293/1/ख
00
18
00
293/1/क
00
26
92
294
00
01
19
295/3
00
11
65
295/2/4
00
10
60
295/2/5
00
14
15
295/2/9/1
00
04
06
295/2
00
55
90
325
00
02
36
349
00
04
59
350
00
00
10
348
00
03
94
346
00
08
51
345
00
01
88
336
00
01
84
337
00
00
88
335
00
03
78
338
00
11
15
334
00
01
84
341
00
00
40
340
00
00
56
339
00
07
67
333
00
00
40
Total
03
37
45
[F. No. R-11024(14)/1/2019-OR-I/E-29468]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 990
990
990
990.—केीय सरकार को, ऐसा तीत होता है क लोकिहत म% यह आवDयक है क मL य देश एवं उFर
देश राWय म% पेोिलयम पदाथg के प1रवहन के िलए बीना पंक (कानपुर) पाइपलाइन प1रयोजना के |यावयन हेतु भारत
पेोिलयम कॉप रेशन िलिमटेड Eारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाना आवDयक है।
केीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलये यह आवDयक तीत होता है, क ऐसी भूिम म% जो इस
से उपाब` अनुसूची म% वqणत है, और िजसम% उI पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का 4ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज,न
कया जाए।
4168
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अत: अब, केीय सरकार, पेोिलयम और खिजन पाइपलाइन (भूिम म% उपयोग के अिधकार का अज,न) अिधिनयम
1962 (1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) Eारा दF शिIय का योग करते Vए उस भूिम म% उपयोग के अिधकार
का अज,न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है।
कोई o यिI जो उI अनुसूची मे वqणत भूिम म% िहतब` है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना म% युI भारत के
राजप( क ितया साधारण जनता को उपलdध करा दी जाती है, इस दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए
जाने के िलए उसम% उपयोग के अिधकार के संबध म% Gी करोडीलाल मीणा अनुिवभागीय अिधकारी (राज4 व) बीना िजला
सागर मL य देश स;म ािधकारी, भारत पेोिलयम कॉप रेशन िलिमटेड बीना पंक (कानपुर) पेोिलयम पाइपलाइन
प1रयोजना काया,लय, थम तल, तािt कॉ) \ लेC स, अगासोद पुिलस 4 टेशन के पास, बी.ओ.आर.एल. आवासीय प1रसर, बीना,
िजला-सागर (म..) – 470124 को िलिखत 5प से आ;ेप भेज सकेगा।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
तहसील
तहसील
तहसील
तहसील- जतारा
जतारा
जतारा
जतारा
िजला
िजला
िजला
िजला-टीकमगढ
टीकमगढ
टीकमगढ
टीकमगढ
रा3 य
रा3 य
रा3 य
रा3 य-म4 य
म4 य
म4 य
म4 य "देश
"देश
"देश
"देश
गां
गां
गां
गांव का
का
का
का नाम
नाम
नाम
नाम
सव5
सव5
सव5
सव5 नंनंनंनं./गाटा नं
/गाटा नं
/गाटा नं
/गाटा नं.
6े6े6े6ेफल
फल
फल
फल
है8टेयर
है8टेयर
है8टेयर
है8टेयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
वगमीटर
वगमीटर
वगमीटर
वगमीटर
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
वमाताल
वमाताल
वमाताल
वमाताल
760
00
26
88
766
00
39
66
767
00
19
57
758
00
03
78
757
00
58
73
768
00
01
55
560अ
00
10
86
560/3
00
32
82
560/2
00
00
38
560/1
00
25
48
571
00
51
85
573
00
00
78
572
00
15
96
577
00
04
31
606
00
12
87
605
00
09
32
602
00
03
73
601
00
11
69
607
01
06
46
192
00
34
74
191
00
26
22
195
00
01
12
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4169
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
196
00
21
15
197
00
01
75
200/3/2
00
10
27
201/1
00
36
72
201/3
00
01
67
201/2
00
31
64
201/5
00
06
71
201/9/1
00
00
33
201/9/2
00
10
97
201/9/6
00
00
12
201/9/5
00
26
36
201/9/4
00
05
64
104/1/5
00
13
95
104/1/4
00
25
96
104/1/3
00
24
83
104
00
34
59
103
00
23
35
102
00
00
61
100
00
10
58
99
00
02
14
101
00
03
11
98
00
24
51
97
00
09
86
Total
Total
Total
Total
08
08
08
08
25
25
25
25
58
58
58
58
कुरई
कुरई
कुरई
कुरई
203
00
28
55
202
00
19
30
234
00
04
02
1070
00
14
68
235
00
00
22
200
00
02
36
236
00
02
57
237
00
01
13
238
00
19
16
239
00
06
09
240
00
06
06
4170
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
258
00
00
66
241
00
00
11
257
00
29
41
254
00
03
27
262
00
00
69
251
00
08
36
252
00
11
18
250
00
21
81
717
00
01
79
337
00
05
41
338
00
06
62
336
00
09
79
340
00
02
31
335
00
04
68
334
00
01
09
333
00
05
43
332
00
13
00
330
00
03
79
331
00
01
64
341
00
02
66
349
00
05
97
388
00
18
56
386
00
18
33
351
00
00
06
384
00
04
40
385
00
01
45
382
00
01
99
406
00
29
81
644
00
01
26
643
00
14
11
638
00
02
75
642
00
27
76
639
00
16
43
631
00
08
99
640
00
00
19
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4171
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
630
00
03
22
612
00
02
65
609
00
01
39
599
00
00
51
572
00
00
65
573
00
15
74
577
00
01
19
583
00
00
04
578
00
02
27
576
00
02
41
579
00
08
38
586
00
04
96
597
00
15
74
596
00
01
53
595
00
01
73
594
00
21
79
749
00
01
77
750
00
01
15
751
00
02
50
837
00
03
27
836
00
21
77
833
00
07
16
838
00
00
04
870
00
02
33
869
00
01
29
868
00
26
13
866
00
11
05
867
00
01
72
865
00
12
05
864
00
03
79
861/6
00
29
97
861
00
00
06
858
00
04
23
1095
00
21
24
1094
00
00
73
4172
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
883
00
00
01
Tota
Tota
Tota
Total
06
06
06
06
26
26
26
26
36
36
36
36
देवखा
देवखा
देवखा
देवखा
629
00
36
79
630
00
00
73
631
00
27
70
632
00
26
70
637/1
00
00
43
640/1/6
00
61
97
640/3
00
20
47
572/2
00
44
51
573
00
00
51
574
00
26
98
575
00
08
82
576
00
12
64
577
00
16
18
584
00
14
94
583
00
11
71
582
00
06
12
581
00
01
54
580
00
07
05
579
00
07
64
588/19
00
03
59
546
00
00
01
545
00
17
96
541
00
01
69
540
00
12
25
537
00
01
39
539
00
03
78
538
00
14
44
528
00
08
39
529
00
21
96
121
00
21
14
112
00
00
86
113
00
04
36
120
00
12
44
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4173
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
119
00
26
62
118
00
19
65
94
00
21
87
95
00
03
57
96
00
19
46
97
00
12
32
71
00
08
24
70
00
03
61
69
00
11
50
21
00
20
50
22
00
16
84
24
00
01
28
23
00
13
35
9
00
00
01
25
00
19
90
8
00
01
75
Total
Total
Total
Total
06
06
06
06
58
58
58
58
16
16
16
16
धामना
धामना
धामना
धामना खास
खास
खास
खास
587
00
12
75
586
00
11
21
588
00
11
31
589
00
08
35
590
00
07
00
591
00
24
00
579
00
01
03
580
00
18
13
577
00
19
88
576
00
00
56
573
00
11
95
572
00
02
82
571
00
10
43
570
00
28
35
568
00
19
25
565
00
02
77
566
00
26
19
562
00
02
21
4174
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
561
00
20
41
560
00
01
92
1
00
04
51
414
00
58
47
408
00
20
43
407
00
18
17
380
00
01
34
406
00
00
01
2
00
15
76
3
00
01
54
4
00
01
76
4/2940
00
11
15
5
00
14
31
Total
Total
Total
Total
03
03
03
03
87
87
87
87
97
97
97
97
-दगौडा
-दगौडा
-दगौडा
-दगौडा
2822
00
00
80
2823
00
15
05
2824
00
21
77
2828
00
04
72
2827
00
03
51
2856
00
01
23
3328
00
01
81
3313
00
09
62
3310
00
07
60
3311
00
07
99
3309
00
00
27
3306
00
00
02
3404
00
04
29
2933
00
03
23
2934
00
17
43
2932
00
02
24
2928
00
00
67
2929
00
12
91
2931
00
07
51
2930
00
01
20
2927
00
12
08
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4175
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
2926
00
24
61
2943
00
12
10
2942
00
08
48
2944
00
15
76
2946
00
00
03
2945
00
25
84
2963
00
11
56
2959
00
04
15
2960
00
02
04
2962
00
09
59
2961
00
26
46
2973
00
20
14
2974
00
34
25
3222
00
00
42
3220
00
00
63
3217
00
11
63
3216
00
00
50
3215
00
03
07
3218
00
03
19
3214/2
00
14
39
3213/2
00
07
43
2983
00
01
49
3161
00
14
91
2988
00
10
10
3160
00
04
86
3000
00
36
41
3002
00
50
49
3120
00
33
94
3005
00
00
79
3118
00
19
45
3116
00
15
84
3115
00
17
39
3107
00
13
54
3109
00
01
56
3108
00
17
54
4176
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
3103
00
15
46
3104
00
03
10
3101
00
14
95
3094
00
03
09
3095
00
15
50
3092
00
00
02
3096
00
13
47
3091
00
03
29
3084
00
16
11
3085
00
01
69
3083
00
24
94
3069
00
19
93
3066
00
52
68
Total
Total
Total
Total
07
07
07
07
94
94
94
94
76
76
76
76
वेदऊ
वेदऊ
वेदऊ
वेदऊ
640
00
20
92
639
00
02
67
1021
00
01
54
497
00
15
07
507
00
06
69
521
00
01
49
506
00
12
13
522
00
00
03
505/1
00
00
06
504
00
05
09
503
00
04
68
502
00
05
70
501
00
00
09
537/2
00
03
71
484
00
04
23
485
00
06
05
483
00
03
93
482/2
00
03
99
482/1
00
05
57
479
00
00
60
481
00
10
47
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4177
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
466
00
02
04
465
00
02
62
461
00
12
41
460
00
03
74
462
00
05
88
450
00
04
50
463
00
08
71
132
00
06
47
133
00
06
51
134
00
10
57
135
00
04
24
137
00
02
52
53
00
17
75
56
00
02
42
57
00
09
05
52
00
28
68
60
00
00
52
51
00
01
56
61
00
12
06
62
00
11
81
40
00
15
01
1084
00
15
08
38
00
09
93
1083
00
09
35
33
00
28
16
32
00
21
29
31
00
28
59
23
00
05
04
22
00
07
00
25
00
09
24
26
00
03
26
16
00
02
86
19
00
12
81
18
00
00
64
17
00
17
74
4178
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
Total
Total
Total
Total
04
04
04
04
54
54
54
54
77
77
77
77
बैदौरा
बैदौरा
बैदौरा
बैदौरा खास
खास
खास
खास
166
00
04
97
165/459
00
19
59
165
00
16
38
156
00
18
29
155
00
12
52
141
00
08
12
142
00
09
30
143
00
11
27
145
00
00
01
144
00
17
10
147
00
16
41
137/1
00
15
76
232
00
01
66
135/3
00
10
91
135/2
00
88
23
4
00
71
19
11/1/14
00
07
88
11/1/2
00
13
53
11/1/1
00
10
75
11/4
00
06
58
11/1/13/2
00
74
50
11/1/11
00
00
20
11/1/10
00
35
66
11/1/12
00
00
63
11/1/7
00
13
37
13
00
22
95
12/2
00
02
48
Total
Total
Total
Total
05
05
05
05
10
10
10
10
24
24
24
24
[फा. सं. आर-11024(14)/1/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29468]
शा तनु धर, अवर सिचव
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4179
New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019
S.O. 990.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public Interest that for the
transportation of the Petroleum Product in the state of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh Pipeline Should be laid for
implementing of Bina-Panki (Kanpur) Pipeline Project by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited.
And Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, It is necessary to
acquire the right of user (ROU) in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in
the Schedule annexed to this notification.
Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals
Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its
intention to acquire the right of user there in.
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said Schedule, may submit objection in writing to
Shri Kirodi Lal Meena SDO (Revenue) Bina District Sagar Madhya Pradesh Competent Authority, Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Limited, Bina Panki (Kanpur) Pipeline Project Office 1st Floor Tapti Complex , Near Agasod Police Station,
BORL Residential Complex, Bina District Sagar, (M.P.) - 470124 within twenty one days from the date on which the
copies of this notification Issued under Sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India,
are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : Jatara
District : Tikamgarh State: Madhya Pradesh
Name of Village
Survey No. / Gata No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sqm.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Varmatal
760
00
26
88
766
00
39
66
767
00
19
57
758
00
03
78
757
00
58
73
768
00
01
55
560अ
00
10
86
560/3
00
32
82
560/2
00
00
38
560/1
00
25
48
571
00
51
85
573
00
00
78
572
00
15
96
577
00
04
31
606
00
12
87
605
00
09
32
602
00
03
73
601
00
11
69
607
01
06
46
192
00
34
74
191
00
26
22
195
00
01
12
196
00
21
15
197
00
01
75
200/3/2
00
10
27
201/1
00
36
72
201/3
00
01
67
201/2
00
31
64
201/5
00
06
71
201/9/1
00
00
33
201/9/2
00
10
97
201/9/6
00
00
12
201/9/5
00
26
36
201/9/4
00
05
64
4180
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
104/1/5
00
13
95
104/1/4
00
25
96
104/1/3
00
24
83
104
00
34
59
103
00
23
35
102
00
00
61
100
00
10
58
99
00
02
14
101
00
03
11
98
00
24
51
97
00
09
86
Total
08
25
58
Kurai
203
00
28
55
202
00
19
30
234
00
04
02
1070
00
14
68
235
00
00
22
200
00
02
36
236
00
02
57
237
00
01
13
238
00
19
16
239
00
06
09
240
00
06
06
258
00
00
66
241
00
00
11
257
00
29
41
254
00
03
27
262
00
00
69
251
00
08
36
252
00
11
18
250
00
21
81
717
00
01
79
337
00
05
41
338
00
06
62
336
00
09
79
340
00
02
31
335
00
04
68
334
00
01
09
333
00
05
43
332
00
13
00
330
00
03
79
331
00
01
64
341
00
02
66
349
00
05
97
388
00
18
56
386
00
18
33
351
00
00
06
384
00
04
40
385
00
01
45
382
00
01
99
406
00
29
81
644
00
01
26
643
00
14
11
638
00
02
75
642
00
27
76
639
00
16
43
631
00
08
99
640
00
00
19
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4181
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
630
00
03
22
612
00
02
65
609
00
01
39
599
00
00
51
572
00
00
65
573
00
15
74
577
00
01
19
583
00
00
04
578
00
02
27
576
00
02
41
579
00
08
38
586
00
04
96
597
00
15
74
596
00
01
53
595
00
01
73
594
00
21
79
749
00
01
77
750
00
01
15
751
00
02
50
837
00
03
27
836
00
21
77
833
00
07
16
838
00
00
04
870
00
02
33
869
00
01
29
868
00
26
13
866
00
11
05
867
00
01
72
865
00
12
05
864
00
03
79
861/6
00
29
97
861
00
00
06
858
00
04
23
1095
00
21
24
1094
00
00
73
883
00
00
01
Total
06
26
36
Deokha
629
00
36
79
630
00
00
73
631
00
27
70
632
00
26
70
637/1
00
00
43
640/1/6
00
61
97
640/3
00
20
47
572/2
00
44
51
573
00
00
51
574
00
26
98
575
00
08
82
576
00
12
64
577
00
16
18
584
00
14
94
583
00
11
71
582
00
06
12
581
00
01
54
580
00
07
05
579
00
07
64
588/19
00
03
59
546
00
00
01
4182
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
545
00
17
96
541
00
01
69
540
00
12
25
537
00
01
39
539
00
03
78
538
00
14
44
528
00
08
39
529
00
21
96
121
00
21
14
112
00
00
86
113
00
04
36
120
00
12
44
119
00
26
62
118
00
19
65
94
00
21
87
95
00
03
57
96
00
19
46
97
00
12
32
71
00
08
24
70
00
03
61
69
00
11
50
21
00
20
50
22
00
16
84
24
00
01
28
23
00
13
35
9
00
00
01
25
00
19
90
8
00
01
75
Total
06
58
16
Dhamna Khas
587
00
12
75
586
00
11
21
588
00
11
31
589
00
08
35
590
00
07
00
591
00
24
00
579
00
01
03
580
00
18
13
577
00
19
88
576
00
00
56
573
00
11
95
572
00
02
82
571
00
10
43
570
00
28
35
568
00
19
25
565
00
02
77
566
00
26
19
562
00
02
21
561
00
20
41
560
00
01
92
1
00
04
51
414
00
58
47
408
00
20
43
407
00
18
17
380
00
01
34
406
00
00
01
2
00
15
76
3
00
01
54
4
00
01
76
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4183
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
4/2940
00
11
15
5
00
14
31
Total
03
87
97
Digaura
2822
00
00
80
2823
00
15
05
2824
00
21
77
2828
00
04
72
2827
00
03
51
2856
00
01
23
3328
00
01
81
3313
00
09
62
3310
00
07
60
3311
00
07
99
3309
00
00
27
3306
00
00
02
3404
00
04
29
2933
00
03
23
2934
00
17
43
2932
00
02
24
2928
00
00
67
2929
00
12
91
2931
00
07
51
2930
00
01
20
2927
00
12
08
2926
00
24
61
2943
00
12
10
2942
00
08
48
2944
00
15
76
2946
00
00
03
2945
00
25
84
2963
00
11
56
2959
00
04
15
2960
00
02
04
2962
00
09
59
2961
00
26
46
2973
00
20
14
2974
00
34
25
3222
00
00
42
3220
00
00
63
3217
00
11
63
3216
00
00
50
3215
00
03
07
3218
00
03
19
3214/2
00
14
39
3213/2
00
07
43
2983
00
01
49
3161
00
14
91
2988
00
10
10
3160
00
04
86
3000
00
36
41
3002
00
50
49
3120
00
33
94
3005
00
00
79
3118
00
19
45
3116
00
15
84
3115
00
17
39
3107
00
13
54
3109
00
01
56
4184
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
3108
00
17
54
3103
00
15
46
3104
00
03
10
3101
00
14
95
3094
00
03
09
3095
00
15
50
3092
00
00
02
3096
00
13
47
3091
00
03
29
3084
00
16
11
3085
00
01
69
3083
00
24
94
3069
00
19
93
3066
00
52
68
Total
07
94
76
Vedau
640
00
20
92
639
00
02
67
1021
00
01
54
497
00
15
07
507
00
06
69
521
00
01
49
506
00
12
13
522
00
00
03
505/1
00
00
06
504
00
05
09
503
00
04
68
502
00
05
70
501
00
00
09
537/2
00
03
71
484
00
04
23
485
00
06
05
483
00
03
93
482/2
00
03
99
482/1
00
05
57
479
00
00
60
481
00
10
47
466
00
02
04
465
00
02
62
461
00
12
41
460
00
03
74
462
00
05
88
450
00
04
50
463
00
08
71
132
00
06
47
133
00
06
51
134
00
10
57
135
00
04
24
137
00
02
52
53
00
17
75
56
00
02
42
57
00
09
05
52
00
28
68
60
00
00
52
51
00
01
56
61
00
12
06
62
00
11
81
40
00
15
01
1084
00
15
08
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4185
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
38
00
09
93
1083
00
09
35
33
00
28
16
32
00
21
29
31
00
28
59
23
00
05
04
22
00
07
00
25
00
09
24
26
00
03
26
16
00
02
86
19
00
12
81
18
00
00
64
17
00
17
74
Total
04
54
77
Baidaura Khas
166
00
04
97
165/459
00
19
59
165
00
16
38
156
00
18
29
155
00
12
52
141
00
08
12
142
00
09
30
143
00
11
27
145
00
00
01
144
00
17
10
147
00
16
41
137/1
00
15
76
232
00
01
66
135/3
00
10
91
135/2
00
88
23
4
00
71
19
11/1/14
00
07
88
11/1/2
00
13
53
11/1/1
00
10
75
11/4
00
06
58
11/1/13/2
00
74
50
11/1/11
00
00
20
11/1/10
00
35
66
11/1/12
00
00
63
11/1/7
00
13
37
13
00
22
95
12/2
00
02
48
Total
05
10
24
[F. No. R-11024(14)/1/2019-OR-I/E-29468]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019
का
का
का
का. आ. 991
991
991
991.—केीय सरकार ने पेोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइंस (भूिम म% उपयोग के अिधकार का अज,न)
अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम% इसके पBात उI अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) के
अधीन जारी क गई भारत सरकार के पेोिलयम और कृितक गैस मं(ालय क अिधसूचना सं2या का. आ. 102, तारीख 10
जनवरी, 2019, भारत के राजप( सं2या 3 तारीख 13 जनवरी से 19 जनवरी, 2019 म% कािशत क गई थी। इस
अिधसूचना से संलy अनुसूची म% िवनीदv भूिम म% पिBम बंगाल राWय म% “हदीया- बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस4ट)स पा1रयोजना”
4186
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
हेतु िजला पूब, मेदनीपुर म% के तेल के प1रवहन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप रेशन िलिमटेड Eारा पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन
के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार के अज,न के अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी।
और उI राजप( अिधसूचना क सूचना संबिधत भू-4वािमय को तारीख 19 माच, 2019 तक उपलdध करा दी गई थी,
और स;म ािधकारी ने उI अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) के अधीन केीय सरकार को 1रपोट, दे दी है,
और केीय सरकार ने, उI 1रपोट, पर िवचार करने के पBात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उI भूिम पाइपलाइन
िबछाने के िलए अपेि;त है, उसम% उपयोग के अिधकार के अज,न करने का िविनBय कया है;
अतः अब, केीय सरकार, उI अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) Eारा दत शिIय का योग करते Vए यह घोषणा
करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलy अनुसूची म% िवनीदv भूिम म% पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अज,न
कया जाए,
और केीय सरकार उI अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) Eारा दत शिIय का योग करते Vए, यह िनदश देती है
क उI भूिम म% उपयोग के अिधकार इस घोषणा के काशन क तारीख से केीय सरकार म% िनिहत होने के बजाए, सभी
िवलंगमो से मुI होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप रेशन िलिमटेड म% िनिहत होगी,
पेोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइंन अिधिनयम, 1962 क धारा 10 के अधीन कसी भी ;ितपूqत के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉप रेशन िलिमटेड पूण,तया उFरदाई होगा और पाइपलाइन से संबिधत कसी भी मामले पर केीय सरकार के िवc` कोई
दावा या कानूनी काय,वाही नहj हो सकेगी।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
िजला :पूब मे-दनीपुर
िजला :पूब मे-दनीपुर
िजला :पूब मे-दनीपुर
िजला :पूब मे-दनीपुर
रा3य : पिDम बंगाल
रा3य : पिDम बंगाल
रा3य : पिDम बंगाल
रा3य : पिDम बंगाल
थाना
थाना
थाना
थाना
मौज़ा का नाम
मौज़ा का नाम
मौज़ा का नाम
मौज़ा का नाम
सव5नEबर
सव5नEबर
सव5नEबर
सव5नEबर
6े
6े
6े
6ेफल
फल
फल
फल
हे8टेयर
हे8टेयर
हे8टेयर
हे8टेयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
वग मीटर
वग मीटर
वग मीटर
वग मीटर
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
सुताहटा - II
कसमत िशबरामनगर - 94
1681
00
00
86
1682
00
02
25
1675
00
00
54
1674
00
00
79
1673
00
01
99
1672
00
01
1672
1671
00
01
38
1664
00
01
43
1648
00
00
25
1652
00
02
12
1649
00
03
25
1650
00
00
41
1631
00
00
84
1630
00
01
20
1130
00
01
94
1131
00
04
86
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4187
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
सुताहटा - II
कसमत िशबरामनगर - 94
1134
00
00
89
1137
00
00
20
1135
00
01
23
1136
00
01
90
1140
00
00
49
1309
00
10
01
1308
00
00
71
1318
00
11
33
1326
00
03
29
1330
00
00
20
1328
00
03
66
1329
00
06
46
1348
00
00
20
1331
00
10
42
1295
00
09
18
1297
00
09
93
1282
00
11
78
1283
00
00
73
1220
00
00
89
977
00
01
17
976
00
10
93
966
00
05
10
983
00
05
29
965
00
05
80
962
00
05
56
956
00
02
87
955
00
05
77
954
00
10
34
939
00
01
97
917
00
11
49
916
00
03
37
905
00
09
55
903
00
01
93
814
00
00
62
902
00
02
40
815
00
00
33
4188
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
सुताहटा - II
कसमत िशबरामनगर - 94
816
00
01
40
817
00
02
91
818
00
06
24
2800
00
01
00
821
00
00
20
2801
00
00
20
908
00
01
97
810
00
01
22
811
00
00
56
807
00
00
34
808
00
03
83
809
00
04
08
786
00
04
27
787
00
01
48
788
00
01
36
789
00
00
90
790
00
00
20
795
00
00
20
794
00
00
53
793
00
01
72
792
00
11
07
775
00
00
20
774
00
04
27
754
00
00
20
773
00
01
67
756
00
01
89
758
00
04
93
741
00
00
74
734
00
00
69
717
00
11
10
716
00
03
37
714
00
01
28
713
00
00
68
702
00
17
10
703
00
00
20
705
00
00
28
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4189
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
सुताहटा - II
कसमत िशबरामनगर - 94
698
00
03
55
697
00
01
79
707
00
02
65
696
00
05
18
695
00
06
03
685
00
02
09
686
00
02
58
687
00
01
89
688
00
01
36
690
00
02
19
654
00
06
08
655
00
07
33
657
00
02
63
656
00
05
88
658
00
07
75
1342
00
08
37
1341
00
00
20
1343
00
02
48
1346
00
06
28
1347
00
01
31
सुताहटा - II
चाऊलखोला - 93
2500
00
00
66
2501
00
28
29
2515
00
05
63
2516
00
04
57
2517
00
06
00
2518
00
00
20
2519
00
03
65
2520
00
03
29
2311
00
01
01
2350
00
01
31
2351
00
07
60
2356
00
00
55
2353
00
03
98
2352
00
02
50
2367
00
03
87
2358
00
00
49
4190
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
सुताहटा - II
चाऊलखोला - 93
2366
00
01
78
2365
00
01
45
2363
00
03
67
2361
00
00
57
2411
00
01
19
2362
00
04
04
2412
00
12
98
2414
00
00
20
2415
00
00
20
2418
00
06
01
2417
00
06
56
1543
00
14
88
1542
00
00
22
1522
00
05
56
1521
00
03
52
1520
00
03
35
1519
00
05
10
1517
00
03
61
1555
00
03
18
1516
00
00
77
1556
00
07
92
1510
00
10
08
1509
00
02
44
1594
00
00
20
1595
00
00
67
1508
00
00
93
1596
00
02
27
1597
00
05
29
1507
00
00
35
1506
00
09
11
1598
00
01
64
1412
00
01
22
2703
00
14
79
1445
00
01
37
1440
00
07
70
1443
00
00
20
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4191
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
सुताहटा - II
चाऊलखोला - 93
1442
00
03
54
1441
00
00
96
1401
00
01
92
सुताहटा - II
बड़बाड़ी – 60
1250
00
00
36
1249
00
03
27
1248
00
00
20
1251
00
03
46
1240
00
00
94
1254
00
03
14
1255
00
02
62
1256
00
08
26
1257
00
09
39
1267
00
07
28
1293
00
21
62
1292
00
00
98
1279
00
03
70
1288
00
06
35
1289
00
02
27
1282
00
07
58
1281
00
03
80
1184
00
00
20
1183
00
02
16
1283
00
04
22
1181
00
03
91
1179
00
01
59
1180
00
09
04
1178
00
14
21
1174
00
00
20
1173
00
04
55
1601
00
13
74
1602
00
00
20
1602/2853
00
00
48
1606
00
11
72
1607
00
06
87
1623
00
07
53
1622/2984
00
03
60
4192
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
सुताहटा - II
बड़बाड़ी – 60
1622
00
11
16
1621
00
08
41
1620
00
05
68
332
00
02
86
1780
00
03
24
331
00
19
74
1781
00
00
27
1784
00
02
01
1785
00
01
58
1786
00
02
59
1792
00
07
77
329
00
04
62
1793
00
06
42
325
00
05
63
324
00
07
17
323
00
04
50
318
00
00
92
317
00
11
04
312
00
16
69
सुताहटा - II
बाड़बाजीतपुर – 59
612
00
00
32
628
00
02
08
629
00
02
46
2585
00
16
24
626
00
11
09
624
00
09
96
326
00
00
20
313
00
07
99
325
00
01
12
314
00
06
78
315
00
03
61
317
00
10
90
2303
00
00
20
318
00
04
37
293
00
07
90
292
00
02
24
294
00
02
46
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4193
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
सुताहटा - II
बाड़बाजीतपुर – 59
295
00
00
20
2302
00
06
33
2301
00
02
24
289
00
03
91
288
00
08
06
2300
00
02
93
287
00
01
20
286
00
02
92
219
00
01
04
191
00
00
75
194
00
08
50
196
00
04
97
198
00
04
34
199
00
03
75
227
00
00
20
188
00
08
58
186
00
14
27
2261
00
08
63
177
00
00
34
2262
00
00
75
2285
00
00
20
179/2286
00
03
75
179
00
03
66
180
00
00
24
183
00
00
21
182
00
05
97
181
00
00
31
636
00
01
78
697
00
04
06
696
00
08
92
699
00
02
67
722
00
06
67
723
00
04
56
721
00
01
53
724
00
03
38
725
00
01
72
4194
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
सुताहटा - II
बाड़बाजीतपुर – 59
726
00
01
82
727
00
01
45
728
00
07
29
730
00
02
43
731
00
00
20
732
00
07
51
741/2356
00
04
46
736
00
01
15
741
00
11
07
2357
00
00
20
737
00
02
92
116
00
02
45
38
00
03
42
39
00
03
71
44
00
03
36
45
00
07
77
46
00
01
46
48
00
03
94
51
00
03
64
55
00
03
49
63
00
01
26
62
00
07
89
61
00
00
20
65
00
08
92
69
00
09
13
69/2272
00
01
91
21
00
03
32
10
00
02
73
13
00
12
27
11
00
00
36
10/2265
00
02
03
11/2268
00
04
38
2
00
01
00
सुताहटा - II
कुनारपुर – 58
2494
00
08
06
2493
00
04
68
2492
00
14
43
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4195
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
सुताहटा - II
कुनारपुर – 58
2489
00
08
89
2490
00
06
02
1955
00
14
49
1951/3619
00
03
24
1938
00
04
65
1950
00
01
50
1949
00
01
83
1948
00
04
01
1939
00
02
15
1942
00
14
12
1932
00
04
62
1931
00
04
40
1929
00
10
33
1928
00
07
65
1927
00
06
50
1926
00
04
47
1904
00
05
55
1907
00
00
20
1272
00
06
92
1271
00
03
62
1270
00
02
00
1269
00
02
00
1268
00
02
57
1267
00
03
14
1264
00
04
38
1262
00
03
41
1282
00
01
99
1283
00
06
17
1287
00
03
43
1285
00
01
67
1286
00
05
72
1292
00
02
14
1435
00
02
61
1434
00
01
63
1325
00
02
79
1324
00
01
36
4196
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
सुताहटा - II
कुनारपुर – 58
1323
00
01
80
1322
00
00
38
1326
00
00
27
1327
00
01
23
1328
00
01
38
1319
00
02
08
1318
00
01
88
1330
00
00
20
1331
00
02
50
1317
00
01
07
1315
00
00
20
1332
00
01
70
1334
00
01
71
1336
00
06
04
776
00
02
49
3419
00
00
20
710
00
05
85
711
00
01
73
712
00
03
73
3277
00
00
20
714
00
02
03
713
00
00
70
765
00
04
38
764
00
03
10
3470
00
00
20
3472
00
00
79
763
00
01
20
627
00
00
51
741
00
03
11
740
00
02
07
736
00
03
17
737
00
02
39
504
00
01
34
503
00
00
62
502
00
00
78
3368
00
01
08
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4197
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
सुताहटा - II
कुनारपुर – 58
501
00
02
51
500
00
01
83
499
00
06
20
498
00
00
36
490
00
06
99
491
00
00
53
488
00
00
20
487
00
10
05
486
00
02
67
493
00
00
44
422
00
00
36
3348
00
01
62
423
00
03
51
3349
00
01
69
428
00
03
89
427
00
02
28
426
00
02
65
363
00
01
75
430
00
00
44
345
00
05
69
344
00
03
77
343
00
03
42
342
00
01
97
348
00
00
20
340
00
05
50
339
00
01
32
298
00
03
01
295
00
02
14
296
00
00
20
294
00
01
97
293
00
00
64
292
00
02
95
299
00
01
10
290
00
01
52
257
00
00
82
258
00
01
62
4198
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
सुताहटा - II
कुनारपुर – 58
256
00
04
02
254
00
00
43
3782
00
02
30
250
00
01
47
251
00
00
20
253
00
00
20
249
00
01
42
242
00
04
84
244
00
00
34
243
00
03
40
240
00
07
71
238
00
09
13
237
00
00
20
234
00
07
34
232
00
05
59
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/22/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27779]
शा तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019
S. O. 991 .—Whereas by the notification of the Government of the India in the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas S. O. No. 102 Dated 10th January, 2019, published in the Gazette of India No. 3, dated 13th January, 2019 to
19th January, 2019 issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of
Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared
its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose
of laying “Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project” for the transportation of Crude Oil in Purba Medinipur District in
the state of West Bengal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 19th March 2019;
And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted report to the
Central Government;
And whereas the central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required
for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of user therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is
hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government
hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central
Government, vest on the date publication of the declaration, in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all
encumbrances.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of Section 10 of the P&MP Act,
1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter relating to the
pipeline.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4199
SCHEDULE
District : Purba Medinipur State : West Bengal
Police Station
Name of Mouza
Survey No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square
Metre
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Sutahata - II
Kismat Shibramnagar - 94
1681
00
00
86
1682
00
02
25
1675
00
00
54
1674
00
00
79
1673
00
01
99
1672
00
01
52
1671
00
01
38
1664
00
01
43
1648
00
00
25
1652
00
02
12
1649
00
03
25
1650
00
00
41
1631
00
00
84
1630
00
01
20
1130
00
01
94
1131
00
04
86
1134
00
00
89
1137
00
00
20
1135
00
01
23
1136
00
01
90
1140
00
00
49
1309
00
10
01
1308
00
00
71
1318
00
11
33
1326
00
03
29
1330
00
00
20
1328
00
03
66
1329
00
06
46
1348
00
00
20
1331
00
10
42
1295
00
09
18
1297
00
09
93
1282
00
11
78
1283
00
00
73
1220
00
00
89
977
00
01
17
976
00
10
93
966
00
05
10
983
00
05
29
965
00
05
80
962
00
05
56
956
00
02
87
955
00
05
77
954
00
10
34
939
00
01
97
917
00
11
49
916
00
03
37
905
00
09
55
903
00
01
93
814
00
00
62
902
00
02
40
815
00
00
33
816
00
01
40
817
00
02
91
4200
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Sutahata - II
Kismat Shibramnagar - 94
818
00
06
24
2800
00
01
00
821
00
00
20
2801
00
00
20
908
00
01
97
810
00
01
22
811
00
00
56
807
00
00
34
808
00
03
83
809
00
04
08
786
00
04
27
787
00
01
48
788
00
01
36
789
00
00
90
790
00
00
20
795
00
00
20
794
00
00
53
793
00
01
72
792
00
11
07
775
00
00
20
774
00
04
27
754
00
00
20
773
00
01
67
756
00
01
89
758
00
04
93
741
00
00
74
734
00
00
69
717
00
11
10
716
00
03
37
714
00
01
28
713
00
00
68
702
00
17
10
703
00
00
20
705
00
00
28
698
00
03
55
697
00
01
79
707
00
02
65
696
00
05
18
695
00
06
03
685
00
02
09
686
00
02
58
687
00
01
89
688
00
01
36
690
00
02
19
654
00
06
08
655
00
07
33
657
00
02
63
656
00
05
88
658
00
07
75
1342
00
08
37
1341
00
00
20
1343
00
02
48
1346
00
06
28
1347
00
01
31
Sutahata - II
Chaulkhola - 93
2500
00
00
66
2501
00
28
29
2515
00
05
63
2516
00
04
57
2517
00
06
00
2518
00
00
20
2519
00
03
65
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4201
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Sutahata - II
Chaulkhola - 93
2520
00
03
29
2311
00
01
01
2350
00
01
31
2351
00
07
60
2356
00
00
55
2353
00
03
98
2352
00
02
50
2367
00
03
87
2358
00
00
49
2366
00
01
78
2365
00
01
45
2363
00
03
67
2361
00
00
57
2411
00
01
19
2362
00
04
04
2412
00
12
98
2414
00
00
20
2415
00
00
20
2418
00
06
01
2417
00
06
56
1543
00
14
88
1542
00
00
22
1522
00
05
56
1521
00
03
52
1520
00
03
35
1519
00
05
10
1517
00
03
61
1555
00
03
18
1516
00
00
77
1556
00
07
92
1510
00
10
08
1509
00
02
44
1594
00
00
20
1595
00
00
67
1508
00
00
93
1596
00
02
27
1597
00
05
29
1507
00
00
35
1506
00
09
11
1598
00
01
64
1412
00
01
22
2703
00
14
79
1445
00
01
37
1440
00
07
70
1443
00
00
20
1442
00
03
54
1441
00
00
96
1401
00
01
92
Sutahata - II
Barabari - 60
1250
00
00
36
1249
00
03
27
1248
00
00
20
1251
00
03
46
1240
00
00
94
1254
00
03
14
1255
00
02
62
1256
00
08
26
1257
00
09
39
1267
00
07
28
1293
00
21
62
1292
00
00
98
1279
00
03
70
4202
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Sutahata - II
Barabari - 60
1288
00
06
35
1289
00
02
27
1282
00
07
58
1281
00
03
80
1184
00
00
20
1183
00
02
16
1283
00
04
22
1181
00
03
91
1179
00
01
59
1180
00
09
04
1178
00
14
21
1174
00
00
20
1173
00
04
55
1601
00
13
74
1602
00
00
20
1602/2853
00
00
48
1606
00
11
72
1607
00
06
87
1623
00
07
53
1622/2984
00
03
60
1622
00
11
16
1621
00
08
41
1620
00
05
68
332
00
02
86
1780
00
03
24
331
00
19
74
1781
00
00
27
1784
00
02
01
1785
00
01
58
1786
00
02
59
1792
00
07
77
329
00
04
62
1793
00
06
42
325
00
05
63
324
00
07
17
323
00
04
50
318
00
00
92
317
00
11
04
312
00
16
69
Sutahata - II
Bar Bajitpur - 59
612
00
00
32
628
00
02
08
629
00
02
46
2585
00
16
24
626
00
11
09
624
00
09
96
326
00
00
20
313
00
07
99
325
00
01
12
314
00
06
78
315
00
03
61
317
00
10
90
2303
00
00
20
318
00
04
37
293
00
07
90
292
00
02
24
294
00
02
46
295
00
00
20
2302
00
06
33
2301
00
02
24
289
00
03
91
288
00
08
06
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4203
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Sutahata - II
Bar Bajitpur - 59
2300
00
02
93
287
00
01
20
286
00
02
92
219
00
01
04
191
00
00
75
194
00
08
50
196
00
04
97
198
00
04
34
199
00
03
75
227
00
00
20
188
00
08
58
186
00
14
27
2261
00
08
63
177
00
00
34
2262
00
00
75
2285
00
00
20
179/2286
00
03
75
179
00
03
66
180
00
00
24
183
00
00
21
182
00
05
97
181
00
00
31
636
00
01
78
697
00
04
06
696
00
08
92
699
00
02
67
722
00
06
67
723
00
04
56
721
00
01
53
724
00
03
38
725
00
01
72
726
00
01
82
727
00
01
45
728
00
07
29
730
00
02
43
731
00
00
20
732
00
07
51
741/2356
00
04
46
736
00
01
15
741
00
11
07
2357
00
00
20
737
00
02
92
116
00
02
45
38
00
03
42
39
00
03
71
44
00
03
36
45
00
07
77
46
00
01
46
48
00
03
94
51
00
03
64
55
00
03
49
63
00
01
26
62
00
07
89
61
00
00
20
65
00
08
92
69
00
09
13
69/2272
00
01
91
21
00
03
32
10
00
02
73
13
00
12
27
11
00
00
36
4204
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Sutahata - II
Bar Bajitpur - 59
10/2265
00
02
03
11/2268
00
04
38
2
00
01
00
Sutahata - II
Kunarpur - 58
2494
00
08
06
2493
00
04
68
2492
00
14
43
2489
00
08
89
2490
00
06
02
1955
00
14
49
1951/3619
00
03
24
1938
00
04
65
1950
00
01
50
1949
00
01
83
1948
00
04
01
1942
00
14
12
1932
00
04
62
1931
00
04
40
1929
00
10
33
1928
00
07
65
1927
00
06
50
1926
00
04
47
1904
00
05
55
1907
00
00
20
1272
00
06
92
1271
00
03
62
1270
00
02
00
1269
00
02
00
1268
00
02
57
1267
00
03
14
1264
00
04
38
1262
00
03
41
1282
00
01
99
1283
00
06
17
1287
00
03
43
1285
00
01
67
1286
00
05
72
1292
00
02
14
1435
00
02
61
1434
00
01
63
1325
00
02
79
1324
00
01
36
1323
00
01
80
1322
00
00
38
1326
00
00
27
1327
00
01
23
1328
00
01
38
1319
00
02
08
1318
00
01
88
1330
00
00
20
1331
00
02
50
1317
00
01
07
1315
00
00
20
1332
00
01
70
1334
00
01
71
1336
00
06
04
776
00
02
49
3419
00
00
20
710
00
05
85
711
00
01
73
712
00
03
73
3277
00
00
20
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4205
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Sutahata - II
Kunarpur - 58
714
00
02
03
713
00
00
70
765
00
04
38
764
00
03
10
3470
00
00
20
3472
00
00
79
763
00
01
20
627
00
00
51
741
00
03
11
740
00
02
07
736
00
03
17
737
00
02
39
504
00
01
34
503
00
00
62
502
00
00
78
3368
00
01
08
501
00
02
51
500
00
01
83
499
00
06
20
498
00
00
36
490
00
06
99
491
00
00
53
488
00
00
20
487
00
10
05
486
00
02
67
493
00
00
44
422
00
00
36
3348
00
01
62
423
00
03
51
3349
00
01
69
428
00
03
89
427
00
02
28
426
00
02
65
363
00
01
75
430
00
00
44
345
00
05
69
344
00
03
77
343
00
03
42
342
00
01
97
348
00
00
20
340
00
05
50
339
00
01
32
298
00
03
01
295
00
02
14
296
00
00
20
294
00
01
97
293
00
00
64
292
00
02
95
299
00
01
10
290
00
01
52
257
00
00
82
258
00
01
62
256
00
04
02
254
00
00
43
3782
00
02
30
250
00
01
47
251
00
00
20
253
00
00
20
249
00
01
42
242
00
04
84
244
00
00
34
4206
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Sutahata - II
Kunarpur - 58
243
00
03
40
240
00
07
71
238
00
09
13
237
00
00
20
234
00
07
34
232
00
05
59
[F. No. R-11025(11)/22/2018-OR-I/E-27779]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019
का
का
का
का. आ. 992
992
992
992.—केीय सरकार ने पेोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइंस (भूिम म% उपयोग के अिधकार का अज,न)
अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम% इसके पBात उI अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) के
अधीन जारी क गई भारत सरकार के पेोिलयम और कृितक गैस मं(ालय क अिधसूचना सं2या का॰ आ॰ 185, तारीख 30
जनवरी 2018, भारत के राजप( सं2या 5 तारीख 28 जनवरी से 03 फरवरी 2018 म% कािशत क गई थी, , , , तथा अिधसूचना
सं2या का. आ. 1762, , , , तारीख 7 दस)बर 2018, , , , भारत के राजप( सं2या 49 तारीख 9 दस)बर 2018 से 15 दस)बर
2018, म% कािशत क गई थी| इस अिधसूचना से संलy अनुसूची म% िविनदv भूिम म% पिBम बंगाल राWय म% “हदीया-
बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस4ट)स प1रयोजना” हेतु िजला पूब, मेदनीपुर म% के तेल के प1रवहन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप रेशन
िलिमटेड Eारा पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार के अज,न के अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी।
और उI राजप( अिधसूचना क सूचना संबिधत भू-4वािमय को तारीख 18 अC तूबर 2018 तक उपलdध करा दी गई थी,
और स;म ािधकारी ने उI अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) के अधीन केीय सरकार को 1रपोट, दे दी है ,
और केीय सरकार ने, उI 1रपोट, पर िवचार करने के पBात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उI भूिम पाइपलाइन
िबछाने के िलए अपेि;त है, उसम% उपयोग के अिधकार के अज,न करने का िविनBय कया है;
अतः अब, केीय सरकार, , , , उI अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) Eारा दत शिIय का योग करते Vए यह घोषणा
करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलy अनुसूची म% िविनदv भूिम म% पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अज,न
कया जाए ,
और केीय सरकार उI अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) Eारा दत शिIय का योग करते Vए, यह िनदश देती है
क उI भूिम म% उपयोग के अिधकार इस घोषणा के काशन क तारीख से केीय सरकार म% िनिहत होने के बजाए, सभी
िवलंगमो से मुI होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप रेशन िलिमटेड म% िनिहत होगी,
पेोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइंन अिधिनयम,1962 क धारा 10 के अधीन कसी भी ;ितपूqत के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉप रेशन िलिमटेड पूण,तया उFरदाई होगा और पाइपलाइन से संबिधत कसी भी मामले पर केीय सरकार के िवc` कोई
दावा या कानूनी काय,वाही नहj हो सकेगी।
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4207
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
िजला :पूब मे-दनीपुर
िजला :पूब मे-दनीपुर
िजला :पूब मे-दनीपुर
िजला :पूब मे-दनीपुर
रा3य : पिDम बंगाल
रा3य : पिDम बंगाल
रा3य : पिDम बंगाल
रा3य : पिDम बंगाल
थाना
थाना
थाना
थाना
मौज़ा का नाम
मौज़ा का नाम
मौज़ा का नाम
मौज़ा का नाम
सव5नEबर
सव5नEबर
सव5नEबर
सव5नEबर
6े
6े
6े
6ेफल
फल
फल
फल
हे8टेयर
हे8टेयर
हे8टेयर
हे8टेयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
वग मीटर
वग मीटर
वग मीटर
वग मीटर
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
सुताहटा - I
िडह िशबरामनगर - 95
415
00
09
55
416
00
03
17
467
00
00
60
455
00
01
51
468
00
03
32
470
00
00
67
471
00
04
83
472
00
07
05
540
00
04
55
541
00
02
04
542
00
01
93
563
00
03
39
564
00
02
66
570
00
01
80
569
00
01
89
568
00
01
60
571
00
00
31
567
00
07
54
591
00
12
41
592
00
06
95
625
00
02
67
624
00
03
96
626
00
06
19
629
00
01
30
627
00
05
66
628
00
02
49
630
00
02
05
871
00
03
41
872
00
07
56
870
00
01
78
873
00
07
89
4208
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
सुताहटा - I
िडह िशबरामनगर - 95
878
00
00
30
877
00
10
43
876
00
00
37
836
00
07
94
837
00
08
16
789
00
00
82
801
00
12
62
802
00
00
95
सुताहटा - I
राजारामपुर - 102
2163
00
00
27
2162
00
00
20
2158
00
02
91
2159
00
04
18
2161
00
03
61
2151
00
00
20
2152
00
02
23
2153
00
01
04
2150
00
00
99
2149
00
02
59
2148
00
04
14
2146
00
00
77
2145
00
09
17
2144
00
00
83
2120
00
00
82
2121
00
06
55
2122
00
01
52
2114
00
03
39
2115
00
03
01
2113
00
04
40
2399
00
00
20
2396
00
08
94
2112
00
00
93
2089
00
02
14
2090
00
06
69
2397
00
01
68
2091
00
02
71
852
00
01
03
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4209
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
सुताहटा - I
राजारामपुर - 102
1932
00
02
98
1933
00
02
96
2376
00
00
20
1927
00
07
06
1936
00
15
45
1943
00
14
40
1912
00
06
60
1913
00
02
07
1914
00
03
00
1900
00
08
37
1899
00
03
43
1843
00
06
06
1836
00
09
40
1837
00
00
62
1835
00
02
90
914
00
01
03
1838
00
00
71
1053
00
03
57
1052
00
00
20
1051
00
00
26
1054
00
05
82
1055
00
10
27
1049
00
00
20
1060
00
01
40
1061
00
02
40
1048
00
00
79
1024
00
03
81
1025
00
04
09
1026
00
00
49
2325
00
04
32
1027
00
02
32
1028
00
00
20
1022
00
00
74
1021
00
02
67
1029
00
05
97
1019
00
02
11
4210
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
सुताहटा - I
राजारामपुर - 102
1018
00
02
88
1016
00
02
83
1017
00
01
85
1012
00
09
43
1013
00
00
81
2229
00
09
50
1010
00
07
26
979
00
06
47
418
00
02
30
417
00
02
85
978
00
00
77
2279
00
04
69
397
00
02
31
395
00
03
18
393/2281
00
04
99
396
00
00
35
393/2282
00
00
58
393
00
01
22
394
00
00
20
386/2280
00
00
21
386
00
03
70
392
00
00
20
387
00
02
96
388
00
01
78
371
00
01
16
383
00
04
64
382
00
02
51
384
00
01
18
सुताहटा - II
ई4वरदाहाजलपाई - 53
114
00
02
19
115
00
00
68
113
00
03
59
137
00
00
94
151
00
06
04
154
00
08
07
155
00
04
04
153
00
00
22
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4211
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
सुताहटा - II
ई4वरदाहाजलपाई - 53
156
00
01
32
157
00
03
68
159
00
05
46
163
00
00
20
160
00
04
59
161
00
02
40
195
00
04
71
194
00
00
20
196
00
01
67
199
00
01
76
200
00
03
15
62
00
05
54
203
00
01
82
204
00
00
35
102
00
00
45
101
00
09
76
100
00
01
91
99
00
06
95
98
00
01
13
97
00
02
28
96
00
02
29
95
00
03
30
94
00
03
09
93
00
02
99
89
00
06
67
88
00
03
36
83
00
09
55
82
00
00
20
70
00
06
89
66
00
01
68
69
00
07
17
71
00
06
79
3
00
00
80
1
00
00
78
16
00
01
47
15/1378
00
00
47
4212
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
सुताहटा - II
ई4वरदाहाजलपाई - 53
15
00
06
97
17
00
08
21
नदकुमार
कयानपुर - 125
2161
00
07
48
2164
00
01
36
2163
00
00
20
2162
00
00
67
2165
00
01
59
2166
00
00
35
2167
00
02
19
2168
00
03
01
2169
00
00
62
2105
00
07
14
2107
00
00
86
2108
00
02
36
2104
00
00
20
2101
00
02
49
2100
00
00
20
2102
00
00
28
2094
00
04
83
2607
00
04
07
2611
00
06
16
2613
00
00
94
2612
00
03
71
2635
00
03
67
2634
00
01
16
2633
00
01
74
2680
00
00
20
2682
00
00
20
2683
00
01
20
2684
00
02
87
2687
00
00
54
2675
00
01
32
2688
00
01
29
2674
00
03
14
2672
00
01
25
2694
00
00
82
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4213
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
नदकुमार
कयानपुर - 125
2695
00
02
29
2696
00
02
73
2670
00
00
41
2710
00
02
13
2711
00
01
81
2712
00
00
20
2674
00
00
97
2713
00
02
04
2709
00
01
57
2717
00
02
73
2716
00
00
27
2719
00
00
20
2718
00
02
93
2720
00
00
41
2721
00
00
44
1385
00
02
40
1384
00
04
44
1383
00
01
18
1444
00
01
28
1379
00
03
98
1445
00
00
20
1378
00
01
87
1377
00
03
33
1373
00
00
20
1452
00
02
37
1460
00
00
24
1454
00
03
26
1457
00
00
20
1456
00
02
12
1491
00
03
43
1490
00
00
91
1504
00
00
43
1492
00
00
20
1493
00
03
62
1497
00
00
32
1496
00
00
89
4214
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
नदकुमार
कयानपुर - 125
1494
00
00
58
1495
00
01
70
1509
00
06
61
1507
00
00
20
1508
00
03
56
1510
00
00
79
1511
00
04
26
1520
00
02
97
1329
00
01
48
651
00
01
08
649
00
05
07
657
00
06
49
637
00
04
28
636
00
02
55
510
00
01
34
490
00
00
39
491
00
04
45
489
00
00
66
492
00
03
82
496
00
00
33
497
00
00
53
506
00
00
20
498
00
01
92
499
00
01
73
500
00
05
51
503
00
00
87
502
00
00
32
391
00
04
17
392
00
02
69
390
00
02
42
369
00
01
45
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4215
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
नदकुमार
कयानपुर - 125
370
00
01
16
388
00
00
91
386
00
03
00
387
00
02
53
4
00
00
20
3
00
00
64
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/22/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27779]
शा तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019
S. O. 992 .—Whereas by the notification of the Government of the India in the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas S. O. No. 185 dated 30th January, 2018, published in the Gazette of the India No. 5 dated 28th January to
3rd February, 2018 and S.O. No. 1762 dated 7th December , 2018 published in the Gazette of India No. 49, dated
9th December to 15th December, 2019 issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines
(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central
Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that
notification for the purpose of laying “Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project” for the transportation of Crude Oil in
Purba Medinipur District in the state of West Bengal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 18th October 2018.
And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted report to the
Central Government;
And whereas the central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required
for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of user therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is
hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government
hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central
Government, vest on the date publication of the declaration, in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all
encumbrances.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of Section 10 of the P&MP Act,
1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter relating to the
pipeline.
SCHEDULE
District : Purba Medinipur State : West Bengal
Police Station
Name of Mouza
Survey No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square
Metre
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Sutahata - I
Dih Shibramnagar - 95
415
00
09
55
416
00
03
17
467
00
00
60
455
00
01
51
468
00
03
32
470
00
00
67
4216
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Sutahata - I
Dih Shibramnagar - 95
471
00
04
83
472
00
07
05
540
00
04
55
541
00
02
04
542
00
01
93
563
00
03
39
564
00
02
66
570
00
01
80
569
00
01
89
568
00
01
60
571
00
00
31
567
00
07
54
591
00
12
41
592
00
06
95
625
00
02
67
624
00
03
96
626
00
06
19
629
00
01
30
627
00
05
66
628
00
02
49
630
00
02
05
871
00
3
41
872
00
07
56
870
00
01
78
873
00
07
89
878
00
00
30
877
00
10
43
876
00
00
37
836
00
07
94
837
00
08
16
789
00
00
82
801
00
12
62
802
00
00
95
Sutahata - I
Rajarampur - 102
2163
00
00
27
2162
00
00
20
2158
00
02
91
2159
00
04
18
2161
00
03
61
2151
00
00
20
2152
00
02
23
2153
00
01
04
2150
00
00
99
2149
00
02
59
2148
00
04
14
2146
00
00
77
2145
00
09
17
2144
00
00
83
2120
00
00
82
2121
00
06
55
2122
00
01
52
2114
00
03
39
2115
00
03
01
2113
00
04
40
2399
00
00
20
2396
00
08
94
2112
00
00
93
2089
00
02
14
2090
00
06
69
2397
00
01
68
2091
00
02
71
852
00
01
03
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4217
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Sutahata - I
Rajarampur - 102
1932
00
02
98
1933
00
02
96
2376
00
00
20
1927
00
07
06
1936
00
15
45
1943
00
14
40
1912
00
06
60
1913
00
02
07
1914
00
03
00
1900
00
08
37
1899
00
03
43
1843
00
06
06
1836
00
09
40
1837
00
00
62
1835
00
02
90
914
00
01
03
1838
00
00
71
1053
00
03
57
1052
00
00
20
1051
00
00
26
1054
00
05
82
1055
00
10
27
1049
00
00
20
1060
00
01
40
1061
00
02
40
1048
00
00
79
1024
00
03
81
1025
00
04
09
1026
00
00
49
2325
00
04
32
1027
00
02
32
1028
00
00
20
1022
00
00
74
1021
00
02
67
1029
00
05
97
1019
00
02
11
1018
00
02
88
1016
00
02
83
1017
00
01
85
1012
00
09
43
1013
00
00
81
2229
00
09
50
1010
00
07
26
979
00
06
47
418
00
02
30
417
00
02
85
978
00
00
77
2279
00
04
69
397
00
02
31
395
00
03
18
393/2281
00
04
99
396
00
00
35
393/2282
00
00
58
393
00
01
22
394
00
00
20
386/2280
00
00
21
386
00
03
70
392
00
00
20
387
00
02
96
388
00
01
78
371
00
01
16
4218
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Sutahata - I
Rajarampur - 102
383
00
04
64
382
00
02
51
384
00
01
18
Sutahata - II
Iswardahajalpai - 53
114
00
02
19
115
00
00
68
113
00
03
59
137
00
00
94
151
00
06
04
154
00
08
07
155
00
04
04
153
00
00
22
156
00
01
32
157
00
03
68
159
00
05
46
163
00
00
20
160
00
04
59
161
00
02
40
195
00
04
71
194
00
00
20
196
00
01
67
199
00
01
76
200
00
03
15
62
00
05
54
203
00
01
82
204
00
00
35
102
00
00
45
101
00
09
76
100
00
01
91
99
00
06
95
98
00
01
13
97
00
02
28
96
00
02
29
95
00
03
30
94
00
03
09
93
00
02
99
89
00
06
67
88
00
03
36
83
00
09
55
82
00
00
20
70
00
06
89
66
00
01
68
69
00
07
17
71
00
06
79
3
00
00
80
1
00
00
78
16
00
01
47
15/1378
00
00
47
15
00
06
97
17
00
08
21
Nandakumar
Kalyanpur - 125
2161
00
07
48
2164
00
01
36
2163
00
00
20
2162
00
00
67
2165
00
01
59
2166
00
00
35
2167
00
02
19
2168
00
03
01
2169
00
00
62
2105
00
07
14
2107
00
00
86
2108
00
02
36
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4219
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Nandakumar
Kalyanpur - 125
2104
00
00
20
2101
00
02
49
2100
00
00
20
2102
00
00
28
2094
00
04
83
2607
00
04
07
2611
00
06
16
2613
00
00
94
2612
00
03
71
2635
00
03
67
2634
00
01
16
2633
00
01
74
2680
00
00
20
2682
00
00
20
2683
00
01
20
2684
00
02
87
2687
00
00
54
2675
00
01
32
2688
00
01
29
2674
00
03
14
2672
00
01
25
2694
00
00
82
2695
00
02
29
2696
00
02
73
2670
00
00
41
2710
00
02
13
2711
00
01
81
2712
00
00
20
2674
00
00
97
2713
00
02
04
2709
00
01
57
2717
00
02
73
2716
00
00
27
2719
00
00
20
2718
00
02
93
2720
00
00
41
2721
00
00
44
1385
00
02
40
1384
00
04
44
1383
00
01
18
1444
00
01
28
1379
00
03
98
1445
00
00
20
1378
00
01
87
1377
00
03
33
1373
00
00
20
1452
00
02
37
1460
00
00
24
1454
00
03
26
1457
00
00
20
1456
00
02
12
1491
00
03
43
1490
00
00
91
1504
00
00
43
1492
00
00
20
1493
00
03
62
1497
00
00
32
1496
00
00
89
1494
00
00
58
1495
00
01
70
1509
00
06
61
4220
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Nandakumar
Kalyanpur - 125
1507
00
00
20
1508
00
03
56
1510
00
00
79
1511
00
04
26
1520
00
02
97
1329
00
01
48
651
00
01
08
649
00
05
07
657
00
06
49
637
00
04
28
636
00
02
55
510
00
01
34
490
00
00
39
491
00
04
45
489
00
00
66
492
00
03
82
496
00
00
33
497
00
00
53
506
00
00
20
498
00
01
92
499
00
01
73
500
00
05
51
503
00
00
87
502
00
00
32
391
00
04
17
392
00
02
69
390
00
02
42
369
00
01
45
370
00
01
16
388
00
00
91
386
00
03
00
387
00
02
53
4
00
00
20
3
00
00
64
[F. No. R-11025(11)/22/2018-OR-I/E-27779]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4221
ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2019
dk- vk- 993-&dsUæh; ljdkj] iSVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj
dk vtZu ½ vf/kfu;e 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh Hkkjr ds
jkti= ds Hkkx II] [kaM 3, mi[kaM ¼ii½ ds varxZr jkti= la[;k 39 rkjh[k 30@09@ 2018 &
06@10@ 2018 esa çdkf'kr] Hkkjr ljdkj ds iSVªksfy;e ,oa çk—frd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk
la[;k dk- vk- 1445¼v½ rkjh[k 03@10@ 2018 es dsaæ ljdkj fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku djrh gS&
vf/klwpuk dk- vk- 1445¼v½ rkjh[k 03@10@ 2018 esa i`"B la- 5952 ds v¡xzsth ikB es xzke vkyqok
bZLV ¼[k.M la- 35½ ds vUrxZr çdkf'kr losZ uEcj 21@13 ds LFkku ij xzke vkyqok bZLV ¼[k.M la-
35½ losZ uEcj 213@13 i<+k o le>k tk,A
[la- vkj&12031@196@2017&vksvkj -I/bZ&19746]
शा तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019
S.O. 993.—In exercise of the powers conferred sub section (1) of section 3 of Petroleum and Mineral
Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act 1962 (Central Act 50 of 1962) , the Central Government
hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Petroleum
and Natural Gas SO. 1445 dated 03.10.2018 published in page No. 5952 in Gazette of India No.39 dated
30.09.2018 to 06.10.2018 namely.
In the notification S.O. No. 1445 dated 03.10.2018 published in the Gazette No. 39 dated 03.09.2018 to
06.10.2018 at page No. 5952 Survey No. 21/13 published under Aluva East Village, Block No. 35 shall be
considered and read Survey No. 213/13 under Aluva Village, Block No. 35 in English Version.
[No. R-12031/196/2017-OR-I/E-19746]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
4222
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASHADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
म
म
म
म एवं रोजगार मंालय
एवं रोजगार मंालय
एवं रोजगार मंालय
एवं रोजगार मंालय
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 994
994
994
994.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस महाबंधक, "हदु# तान सा %स िलिमटेड, खड़गोडा, सुरनगर (गुजरात) और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं- के
संब. िनयोजक/ और उनके कमकार/ के बीच अनुबंध म िन0द1 ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण
एवं 3म यायालय-1, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 70/2014) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को
22.05.2019 को ा: त ;ए थे।
[सं. एल-42011/41/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O.994.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 70/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The
General Manager, Hindustan Salts Ltd., Kharagoda, Surendranagar (Gujarat) and Others, and their workmen which were
received by the Central Government on 22.05.2019.
[No. L-42011/41/2014-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad,
Dated 02nd May, 2019
Reference: (CGITA) No. 70/2014
The General Manager,
Hindustan Salts Ltd.,
Kharagoda,
Surendranagar (Gujarat)
… First Party
V/s
The Secretary,
New Gujarat Mazdoor Manch,
28-B, Narayan Park, Behind Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 332424
…Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri Girish Parmar
For the Second Party
: Shri Hitesh D. Katharotiya
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4223
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42011/41/2014–IR(DU)
dated 15.07.2014 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the union for regularisation of services of Shri Chandu Karman and 98 others in the
establishment of Hindustan Salts Ltd., Kharagoda, Surendranagar is justified? If not, what relief these
employees are entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 15.07.2014 and received on 31.07.2014 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,
New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2.
After issuing notice to the parties, the second party union submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on 24.06.2016
alleging that the second party union The Secretary, New Gujarat Mazdoor Manch, 28-B, Narayan Park, Behind
Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad, hereinafter referred to as ‘union’ is registered under Trade Union
Act, 1926 and the first party Hindustan Salts Ltd. is registered as company under Company Act, 1956 fully owned and
managed by Government of India. The brief facts of the case are that 500 workers have been working in the first party as
a member of the second party union. These workers were engaged on temporary basis since long to perform the perennial
nature of work; therefore, the union raised a demand for regularisation of said workers on the request of the workmen.
The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) in the event of failure of conciliation referred the dispute to Government
of India which sent this reference to this Tribunal for adjudication. These 99 workers have been working with the first
party since last 25 to 30 years. The work was of perennial but the first party denied the regularisation. Some of the
workmen are of the age of superannuation. The first party also denied them the benefits of bonus and regularisation
against the spirit of Contract Labour Abolition and Regularisation Act. There are catena of decisions of apex and Gujarat
High Court that the workmen who have been working for a long period ought to be regularised if the work was of
perennial nature. The union has referred the cases of Indian Petro Chemical Corporation Ltd. V/s Shramik Sena, 1999 (6)
SC C 439 and ONGC V/s Engineering Mazdoor Sangh, 2005 (2) GLH 703 Gujarat High Court. Thus the union has
prayed for regularisation of all 99 workers as permanent employee with the cost of Rs.10000/- as cost of reference.
3.
The first party The General Manager, Hindustan Salts Ltd., Kharagoda, Surendranagar, hereinafter referred to as
‘first party’ submitted the written statement Ex. 6 submitting that the union is not registered under the Trade Union Act,
therefore, has no right to raise the dispute. The second party union has not produced the list of members, office bearers,
date of election of office bearers etc. Therefore, the union has no right to raise the dispute. The first party has been
paying the minimum wages to all the workmen as per the Minimum Wages Act. These workers cannot be regularised as
the first party is a central government instrumentality which have its own rules and procedure of recruitment. The
regularisation of these workmen will amount to back door entry. Therefore, the reference has no force and liable to be
dismissed.
4.
On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:
i.
Whether the demand of the union for regularisation of services of Shri Chandu Karman and 98 others in
the establishment of Hindustan Salts Ltd., Kharagoda, Surendranagar is justified?
ii.
To what relief, if any, the workmen are entitled?
5.
Issue Nos. i and ii: As all the issues are interrelated, therefore, are decided together. The burden of proof of
these issues lies on the second party union who submitted the affidavit Ex. 7 of one of the workmen named Lalji on
behalf of all 99 workmen reiterating the averments made in the statement of claim. On 20.04.2017, none appeared for the
first party to cross-examine the witness of the second party and also did not appear thereafter to lead the evidence on
behalf of the first party. Therefore, the case was proceeded ex-parte against the first party.
6.
I considered the averments made in the statement of claim, written statement and evidence of one of the
workman Lalji in his affidavit Ex. 7. Thus in the light of the judgements of Indian Petro Chemical Corporation Ltd. V/s
4224
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Shramik Sena, 1999 (6) SC C 439 and ONGC V/s Engineering Mazdoor Sangh, 2005 (2) GLH 703 Gujarat High Court,
considering the perennial nature of work and long service of all 99 workmen, the Issue Nos. i and ii are decided with a
observation that the demand of the union for regularisation of all 99 workmen is just and legal.
7.
The first party is directed to regularise the services of all the aforesaid 99 workmen involving this reference after
taking the approval from the Board of Directors of the first party within 60 days from the publication of the award.
8.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.995
995
995
995.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
िनदेशक, सरदार व लभभाई रा1 >ीय ौ ोिगक सं# थान, इचानाथ, सूरत (गुजरात) और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के
बंधतं- के संब. िनयोजक/ और उनके कमकार/ के बीच अनुबंध म िन0द1 ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक
अिधकरण एवं 3म यायालय-1, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 70/2013) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को
22.05.2019 को ा: त ;ए थे।
[सं. एल-42011/08/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 995.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 70/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The
Director, Sardar Vallabhabhai National Institute of Technology, Ichchanath, Surat (Gujarat) and Others, and their
workmen which were received by the Central Government on 22.05.2019.
[No. L-42011/08/2013-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad,
Dated 29th April, 2019
Reference: (CGITA) No. 70/2013
The Director,
M/s. Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology,
Ichchanath, Surat (Gujarat)
… First Party
V/s
1. The Secretary,
Surat Jilla Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh,
B/206, Capital Complex, Beside Pratik Row House,
Hany Park Road, Adajan, Surat (Gujarat)
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4225
2. The Secretary,
Gujarat Audhyogik Kamdar Mahamandal,
492/2950, Gujarat Housing Board, Bapunagar Cross Road,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…Second Parties
For the First Party
: Shri Jayesh M. Patel
For the Second Party No. 1
: None
For the Second Party No. 2
: Shri Hitesh D. Katharotiya
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42011/8/2013–IR(DU)
dated 01.04.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the establishment of Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat falls under the
definition of ‘Industry’ as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If yes, whether the demand of the
Surat Jilla Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, Surat for regularisation of the workmen Shri Kalu Bhanu & 107 others in
the establishment of Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat is legal and justified? What
relief the workmen are entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 01.04.2013 and received on 15.04.2013 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,
New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2.
After issuing notice to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 8 on 11.09.2017 and
the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 9 on 15.11.2017. On 16.01.2017, the second party moved an
application Ex. 7 for impleading Gujarat Audhyodik Kamdar Mahamandal as second party union in place of ‘Surat Jilla
Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh’.
3.
The second party union in his statement of claim has alleged that the workman detailed in the application Ex. 8
have rendered ranging from 2 years to 48 years and despite serving for such a long period have been denied the benefits
of making them permanent workmen of the first party also denying the benefit of equal pay for equal work. He has
further alleged that still they have been serving as casual labour. Thus the first party has been indulging in unfair labour
practice under Item No. 10 of the 5th Schedule of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further alleged that the workmen
detailed in the annexure A have been receiving daily wages of Rs.193/- to Rs.300/- per day whereas the permanent
workmen have been getting a salary of Rs.30000/- per month despite discharging same nature of duties as the permanent
workmen have been performing. The Supreme Court in Secretary State of Karnataka V/s Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 and
Umrala Gram Panchayat V/s Secretary, Municipal Employees Union has held that as under:
“13. Further, Section 25 (T) of the Industrial Disputes Act clearly states that unfair labour practice should not be
encouraged and the same should be discontinued. In the present case, the principle ‘equal work, equal pay’ has
been violated by the appellant Panchayat as they have been treating the concerned workmen unfairly and
therefore, the demand raised by the respondent Union needs to be accepted. The High Court has thus, rightly not
interfered with the award of the Labour Court as the same is legal and supported with cogent and valid reasons.”
“16. The reliance placed by the leaned senior counsel for the appellant upon the decision of this Court in
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others V/s Uma Devi and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1, does not apply to the fact
situation of the present case and the same cannot be accepted by us in the light of the cogent reasons arrived at
by the courts below.”
Thus on the basis of the aforesaid judgements, the second party union has alleged that the first party has indulged in
unfair labour practice under Section 2 (r a) of the 5th Schedule of Industrial Disputes Act.
4.
It is further alleged that these workmen have been working as helper, clerk, computer operator, lab assistant,
network security, office assistant, fitter, cashier, gym instructor, plumber, carpenter, electrician, mistries, wiremen,
drivers, cooks, sweepers, cleaners and mazdoors. It is noteworthy that large number of such posts are vacant and these
workmen having eligible qualifications have been denied the benefit of granting permanent status of employment as
employees of the first party. They have been working more than 240 days in all the calendar years and therefore, are
entitled for regularisation. Thus the second party union has prayed for declaring the first party indulged unfair labour
practice under Section 2 (r a) of the Industrial Disputes Act and issue directions to the first party to stop indulging in
unfair labour practice and order the first party to give all the workmen the benefits of a permanent employee.
4226
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
The first party in his written statement Ex. 9 has submitted that the averments made in the statement of claim are
false, fabricated, vexatious, unjust, improper, against the settled law and the reference is barred by non-joinder and mis-
joinder of the parties and has been suffering with delay and latches. The first party M/s. Sardar Vallabhbhai National
Institute of Technology, Surat is national education institution created under the National Institute of Technology Act,
2007 and the reference under the Industrial Disputes Act being the Act not applicable in the case. It does not fall under
the definition of Industry under Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the reference is not maintainable
and liable to be dismissed.
6.
The second party vide rejoinder Ex. 11 submitted that the Institute is an Industry and has not followed the
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act in granting permanent status to the workmen despite serving for number of years.
7.
On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:
i.
Whether the establishment of Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat falls under the
definition of ‘Industry’ as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
ii.
Whether the demand of the Surat Jilla Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, Surat for regularisation of the workmen
Shri Kalu Bhanu & 107 others in the establishment of Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of
Technology, Surat is legal and justified?
iii.
To what relief, if any, the workmen are entitled?
8.
Issue Nos. i, ii and iii: As all the issues are interrelated, therefore, are decided together. The burden of proof of
these issues lies on the second party union who submitted the affidavits Ex. 12 of workmen Kalubhai Bhanabhai, Ex. 13
of Lalubhai Amratbhai Rathod, Ex. 14 of Shivrambhai Mangubhai Patel, Ex. 15 of Nareshbhai Chimkabhai Rathod, Ex.
16 of Dhirubhai Ghhanabhai Rathod, Ex. 17 of Rajubhai/Dharmesh Budhiyabhai Rathod, Ex. 18 of Chimkabhai
Budhiyabhai Rathod, Ex. 19 of Kalubhai Bhanabhai Rathod and Ex. 20 of Bhavinbhai Chotubhai Rathod reiterating the
averments made in the statement of claim.
9.
The first party has not lead any evidence, therefore, the statement of the workmen is believable.
10.
It is noteworthy that all the affidavits of the aforesaid workmen bears the signature of workmen as well as the
Director, M/s. Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat but despite the same, the first party has not
contested the case by leading evidence.
11.
The second party union Gujarat Audhyogik Kamdar Mahamandal submitted an application Ex. 21 stating that
they have contested the case only on behalf of 20 workmen listed below:
Serial No.
Name of Workman
1
Kalubhai Bhanabhai Rathod
2
Lalubhai Amratbhai Rathod
3
Shivrambhai Mangubhai Patel
4
Nareshbhai Chimkabhai Rathod
5
Dhirubhai Ghhanabhai Rathod
6
Rajubhai/Dharmesh Budhiyabhai Rathod
7
Chimkabhai Budhiyabhai Rathod
8
Bhavinbhai Chotubhai Rathod
9
Vishakha Rant
10
Laxmikant Rant
11
Ravi K. Solanki
12
Ramesh M. Gamit
13
Manish R. Gamit
14
Yogesh Gamit
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4227
15
Vinod G. Gamit
16
Nitesh V. Gamit
17
Pragnesh V. Gamit
18
Suresh H. Gamit
19
Arvind A. Rana
20
Dinesh V. Gamit
12.
Thus the reference is fit to be allowed and this Tribunal disposed of the reference with the observation as under:
“the establishment of Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat falls under the definition of ‘Industry’
as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the demand of the Surat Jilla Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, Surat
for regularisation of the workmen Shri Kalu Bhanu & 107 others in the establishment of Sardar Vallabhbhai National
Institute of Technology, Surat is legal and justified.”
13.
The first party The Director, M/s. Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Ichchanath, Surat is
directed to give the benefit to the aforesaid 20 workmen equivalent to the benefits of permanent employees of the
Institute within 60 days from the publication of the award.
14.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.996
996
996
996.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस कायकारी अिभयंता (सी), बीएसएनएल िसिवल िडवीजन, मंडी (एचपी) और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं- के
संब. िनयोजक/ और उनके कमकार/ के बीच अनुबंध म िन0द1 ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण
एवं 3म यायालय, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 87/2010) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 23.05.2019
को ा: त ;ए थे।
[सं. एल-40012/52/2010-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 996.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 87/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The
Executive Engineer (C), BSNL Civil Division, Mandi (HP) and Others, and their workmen which were received by the
Central Government on 23.05.2019.
[No. L-40012/52/2010-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
4228
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer
ID No. 87/2010
Registered on: 15.11.2010
Sh. Nek Ram S/o Sh. Jagat Ram, R/o Village Dhandhal-III,
Tungal, Sub-Tehsil Kotli, Distt. Mandi (HP)
… Workman
Versus
BSNL through its Executive Engineer (C) Civil Division,
Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi (HP) etc.
… Management
AWARD
Passed on: 06.05.2019
Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/52/2010-IR(DU) Dated 27.10.2010, under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the workman Shri Nek Ram S/o Shri Jagat Ram was employed as Ferro Printer-cum-Peon in the Office
of Architect, BSNL, Mandi and sunder Nagar w.e.f. 1996 to 31.03.2005 through a sham and bogus contractor? If
so, whether the workman is entitled to regular employment and if so from what date and with what benefits?”
1.
Both the parties were served with notices. The workman/claimant filed his statement of claim with the averment
that he was appointed as Ferro Printer-cum-Peon on daily wages in the office of management at Ram Nagar, Mandi
Town, Distt. Mandi, in the year 1996 and continued to work till 2001. He was transferred in the office of Architect
BSNL, Sunder Nagar and he worked there upto 31.05.2005 when his services were terminated orally without giving him
any retrenchment compensation, notice or holding any enquiry in violation of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. Workman continued his services without any break except on Sundays/holidays, rest days and have been
completed 240 days in every calendar year till the date of his termination on 31.05.2005. Besides this, management has
appointed fresh persons amounting to unfair labour practice and in violation of Section 25-H of the ID Act, 1947. It is
pertinent to mention that respondents have also retained juniors to the applicant violating Section 25-G of the ID Act,
1947. The workman is still unemployed and made numerous requests to the management but no heed was given to his
request. In view of the above facts, it is prayed that the management be directed to reinstate the workman into service
from 31.05.2005 along with all consequential benefits, back wages and continuity of service.
2.
Management-BSNL has filed its written statement stating therein that workman was never appointed as Ferro
Printer-cum-Peon in the office of BSNL. The alleged work was carried out through contractors of approved list duly
enlisted with appropriate department having contract agreement with the Sub-Divisional Engineer(Civil), BSNL, Civil
Sub-Division, Mandi and Sunder Nagar. The workman was not transferred from Mandi to Sunder Nagar as he was never
appointed by the department of BSNL. Denying the averments of para 2 of the claim statement it is stated that as per
contract agreement with the contractors, the record of labours have been retained by the contractors and not by the
management, who is only responsible to regulate the grievances of labourers during the progress of the work. There is no
violation of Section 25-F, 25-G or 25-H as alleged in the claim statement by the workman. As the workman was not the
employee of the management therefore, point of ousting him from service by the management does not arise. It is
submitted that the workman is not an employee of the respondent-management hence, not entitled to any reinstatement in
the management. It is prayed that the reinstatement of the workman in the management is not at all justified and prayer
of the workman is liable to be rejected.
3.
In support of his case, workman Nek Ram has examined himself and filed his affidavit Ex.W/A, reiterating his
case as set out in the claim petition. The workman has proved Ex.W1 the copy of payment voucher-cum-bill dated
03.12.1997 supplied by the management. Workman Nek Ram has also proved Ex.W2 which is Peon Book from
01.07.1996 to 15.10.2001 regarding the working of witness as delivery of mail. During the cross-examination, this
witness has stated that no advertisement or letter of appointment was published and issued at the time of his posting in
the department. He has stated that his attendance was marked by the Architect department of Telecommunication,
Kadam Cottage, Ram Nagar, Mandi for the period from 1996 to 2001. He has also stated that he does not have the copy
of the transfer order as the same is in the office of the management of BSNL. Workman Nek Ram has specifically denied
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4229
that he was working under the supervision of any contractor mentioned in Annexure R1 filed by the management. Thus,
it is crystal clear from the statement of the workman that he was appointed initially as daily wager and in this connection,
neither any advertisement has been made by the management nor any appointment letter has been issued in favour of the
workman.
4.
Respondent-management has submitted affidavit of witness Sham Bharat Brice, Chief architect, BSNL, Shimla,
who has been cross-examined by the learned counsel of the workman. This witness has proved copies of agreements and
supply order of the skilled, semi-skilled labours as Annexure MW2, copies of the vouchers of payment made to various
contractors by supply of labours from the year 1996 to June 2004 as Annexure MW3. Copies of the payment vouchers
and contractors Annexure MW4. He has stated that workman was never appointed by the management as stated by the
workman as such, management has not violated the provision of ID Act, 1947. This witness has also accepted the
documents Ex.W1 relating to the payment of wages for 17 days issued by the management with the assertion that it was
inadvertently paid to the workman directly. During the cross-examination by the workman counsel, this witness has
stated that management took services of contractors from January 1996 to June 2004 and tender was accordingly floated
for hiring the services of the contractors by the competent authority. He has accepted that he does not know about the
registration of the management under the CLR Act. He has also accepted that management has no any attendance record
in respect of workman. The witness Sham Bharat Brice has also accepted that management has paid directly to the
workman his salary for the month of November 1997 for 17 days. This witness has made statement that he does not
know whether Ex.MW2 was issued by the department to the workman. Thus, regarding the Peon-book the answer of this
witness is very evasive and he has not specifically denied the genuineness of the Peon-book.
5.
Learned counsel of the workman has contended that he has joined the management-BSNL in the year 1996 as
Ferro Printer-cum-Peon on daily wages and continued to work till his termination on 31.05.2005 by the management. It
is also contended that the claimant/workman terminated/retrenched on 31.05.2005 without any notice and justification
which is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel has also argued that workman had worked for more than 240
days in each calendar year with the management and the management assertion that he worked under the contractor is to
avoid the liability of the management under the Industrial Disputes act, 1947. The management has adopted the policy of
hire and fire and the alleged contracts with the contractors are shame, camouflage just to avoid the responsibility arising
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned counsel further contended that the alleged contractors were not duly
licenced contractors as such, respondent-management had taken their service(if any)against the provisions of Contract
Labour(Regulation and Abolition)Act, 1970.
6.
Per contra, learned counsel of the management argued that claimant is neither workman nor appointed by the
management of BSNL for the work as alleged in the claim petition. Learned counsel also argued that there was no
relationship of employer and employee between the workman and management as such, respondent-management has no
liability towards the workman. It is also contended that being the employee of contractors, if any liability occurs, it is
between the workman/claimant and contractors under whom he served during the alleged employment period.
7.
The first contention regarding the claimant is that whether he comes within the definition of workman as is
defined in Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I may mention that claimant was appointed as majdoor/peon
as per his claim petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the claimant was performing his
duties as labourer/unskilled worker. He was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring him to perform only
administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(S) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532, has observed as follows:-
“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.”
Thus Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workmen also does not make any distinction
between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in plain
language of Section 2(S) from which it can be infer 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. In view of the ratio of
law enunciated in the above ruling, in my considered opinion the claimant herein admittedly falls within the
definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2(S) of the Act.
4230
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court after analysing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja Vs. Air
India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognised tests to find out whether the workman or
labours are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
1)
Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2)
Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management or contractor has not been specifically stated in the claim
petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the payment of wages, salary, letter of
appointment or anything likewise. Similarly, workman namely Nek Ram has not mentioned anything regarding the mode
of payment of wages, salaries etc. in his affidavit. Thus, this basic feature for holding the relationship of employer and
employee is totally lacking not in the pleading but also in the evidence submitted by the workman. In this connection,
learned counsel for the workman has contended that payment of salary was subject to the control and supervision of the
management and virtually it was paid by the management as is alleged by the witness Nek Ram during the course of
cross-examination by the counsel of management. I am not satisfied with the arguments of the learned counsel of the
workman as nothing is mentioned in pleading/claim petition as well as affidavit submitted by the witness in support of
the agreement. It is also pertinent to mention that nothing is on record in the form of documentary evidence that the
workman was directly paid by the management. It is surprising that claimant as witness has not stated in his affidavit
about the amount of salary or wages payable to him either by the management or by the contractor. Thus, on this issue,
safely, it can be inferred that nothing is brought on record that the workman was directly paid by the management except
Ex.W1 copy of the payment voucher-cum-bill dated 03.12.1997 which has been also admitted by the management in its
written statement and its witness Shyam Bharat Brice in his cross-examination.
9.
Secondly, so far as, the question of controls and supervision is concerned. Claimant has stated that his
attendance were marked by the Architect Department of Telecommunication Kadam Cottage Ram Nagar Mandi for 1996
to 2001. Nothing is stated in affidavit A1 his witness regarding the supervision and control of management. Except this,
nothing is brought on record to prove that it is management who was supervising and controlling the work of claimant.
The question remains to be seen whether mere marking of attendance by management amount effective control. The
apex court in the case of International Airport Authority of India vs. International Air Cargo Workers Union [209 (13)
SCC374] has held as follows:-
“If the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily, the labour supplied by the contractor will work under the
directions, supervision and control of the principal employer but that would not make the worker a direct
employee of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by contractor, if the right to regulate employment is
with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor.
The principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labour, when such labour
is assigned/allotted/sent to him. But it is the contractor as employer, who chooses whether the worker is to be
assigned/allotted to the principal employer or used otherwise. In short, worker being the employee of the
contractor, the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor as he decides whether the employee
will work and how long he will work and subject to what conditions. Only when the contractor assigns/sends
the worker to work under the principal employer, the worker works under the supervision and control of the
principal employer but that is secondary control. The primary control is with the contractor.”
10. Thus, the principal enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly establishes that mere supervision of work
is not sufficient to prove the relationship of employer and employee till it is proved that there was a complete control and
supervision. The management control includes the authority of dismissal, taking of disciplinary action and continuity of
service etc. Claim petition filed by the claimant is mum on this score and the claimant has not mentioned any specific
averments in their affidavits regarding the appointment, authority of dismissal or taking of disciplinary action by the
management. There is nothing on record to prove that it is the management who grants his leave or has authority to take
any disciplinary action. In my considered opinion, mere saying of supervision by Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma regarding the
work as alleged by the claimant witness may not be called as effective and absolute control. Such control is being
emphasised to control the work of the management for a specific work inefficient manner done by the management in
the establishment.
11.
Settled legal proposition is that cases has the decided on principle of preponderance of probability and not of
proof of beyond doubt. In this connection learned counsel of the workman placing reliance in the case of Umrala Gram
Panchayat vs. The Secretary, Municipal Employees’ Union & Ors., has contended that the alleged contractor have no
valid licence to supply the labours to the management and management has got no licence to that effect also. The
management has admitted that the workman was employed through contractors at different times but nothing is proved
that the contractors mentioned in Annexure R-1 were duly licenced contractors to supply the workman as well as other
labours to the respondent-management. No doubt, management witness Shyam Bharat Brice has proved supply orders of
various contractors from the month of January 1996 to August 2002. MW2 voucher of payment made to various
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4231
contractors for supply of orders from January 1996 to 2004 as Annexure M-3 along with supply orders to various
contractors for supply of labour Annexure R-2 and R-3 but during the course of arguments, learned counsel of the
management could not clarify about the placement, tenure, years of workman with the particular contractor as there is
nothing mentioned in above documents regarding the names of skilled or unskilled labour supplied by the contractors to
the management of BSNL and their payments etc. In fact, these documents relates to January 1996 to August 2002 for
supply orders to various contractors of labour and their payments but nothing could be inferred from these documents
about the dispute of workman with the management. Contrary to this Annexure R-1 filed by the respondent-management
reveals that name of the claimant Nek Ram has found placed at serial no.23 against the contractor name for the month of
November 1997 regarding which payment has been made through Ex.W-2 to the workman directly by management. The
name of workman Nek Ram at serial no.23 fortifies the arguments of the learned counsel of the workman that alleged
contractors and their names are shame and camaflouge just to avoid the responsibility arising out under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, the pleadings and evidences adduced by the respondent-management is very vague as well as
not supported by the cogent documents relating to agreement between the respondent-management and contractors. In
fact not a single agreement between the respondent-management and contractors has been put on record for perusal of
the Tribunal.
12.
Learned counsel of the workman Sh. Arun Batra has drawn my attention towards the application dated
17.04.2014 moved by the workman for direction to the management regarding the submission of attendance register,
salary record, list of contractors along with their complete address and under which the workman alleged to have been
worked, contractors agreement, licence obtained by the management to engage the contract labour. But no specific
documents regarding attendance record, salary record, contractors address along with their agreement, licence of the
management as well as different contractors have been submitted before the Tribunal for proper adjudication about the
facts alleged in defence by the management in its written statement. Thus, adverse inference is logical conclusion against
the management for non-submission of the relevant documents. Contrary to this, workman has filed and proved peon
book Ex.W2 running from the year 1996 to 2001 which reveals that he served with the management as Peon for such a
long time. The entry made in the peon book and signature of workman, payment and bill for the month of No. 1997
Ex.W-1 and mentioning the name of the workman in contractors list are substantive proof to conclude that workman was
employed with the respondent-management from the year 1996 till his termination i.e. 31.03.2005.
13.
There is no merit in the stand taken by the management that no regular procedure was followed at the time of
engagement of the workman nor application was invited for the post of Fero Printer-cum-Peon. To my mind, the
workman herein is not seeking regularisation or permanent absorption with the management-bank simply because due
procedure was not followed at the time of engagement of the workman herein that would not give licence to the
management to terminate the service of the workman in arbitrary and illegal manner. There are several judgments of the
Hon’ble Apex Court that service of a daily wager or casual workman cannot be terminated without following the due
procedure contained in Section 25-F of the Act. Admittedly, in the present case, no show cause notice was served upon
the workman before ordering his termination nor one month salary in lieu of notice was given in advance to the workman
at the time of his termination. All these facts are duly admitted by the management in the written statement. It has been
held in several decisions by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as various High Courts that termination of service of a
workman, who has served for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination, will become arbitrary and
illegal unless one month notice or one month salary in lieu of such notice is given to such workman at the time of his
termination. In this regard, reference can be made to the case of Ajay Pal Singh Vs. Haryana Warehouse Corporation
2056 Supreme Court cases and ONGC 2483 Supreme Court Mechanised Company Vs. Mechanised Union 2004
Supreme Court cases 544. Since in the present case, the management has throw all the norms of natural justice as well
as provisions of ID Act to the winds. As such, the action of the management is held to be totally arbitrary and illegal
under the law.
14.
Now the last question which is incidental to the main issue is whether claimant is entitled to be reinstated with
full back wages. Admittedly, claimant was not holding the regular post against a regular vacancy. There are number of
factors which are to be considered while considering the question of reinstatement with back wages. Since claimant was
a casual worker appointed as a daily wager as such it would be difficult to given the relief of reinstatement to the
claimant. It has been held in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad vs. Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 Supreme Court
cases 190 as under:-
“Relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given
fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure.
Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. An order of retrenchment
passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not,
however, automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the
workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly daily
4232
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
wages has not been found to be proper by the Supreme Court and instead compensation has been awarded.
The Supreme Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent
employee. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that
when the termination is found to be illegal, because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and
notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes act, even after
reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him
the retrenchment compensation.”
15.
In the recent decision reported as 2018 LLR 225 titled as District Development Officer & another vs. Satish
Katilal Amrelia, Hon’ble Apex Court while aptly applying the law laid down in earlier case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited Vs. Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177, had awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs.2.5 lakhs to the workman and in
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra), it was observed as under:-
“33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgements that the ordinary principle of grant of
reinstatement with full back wages when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in
all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated
illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour wages is not automatic and instead
the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for
shifting in this direction is obvious.
34. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the
termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as
mandatory required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always
open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment
compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he
has no right to seek regularisation (see State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (3) 17). Thus, when he cannot claim
for regularisation and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to
be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself
inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in
the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay, in such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement
that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose.
35. We would, however, like to add a caveat here. There may be cases where termination of a daily wage
worker is found to be illegal on the ground that it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of
principle of last come first go, vis. While retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors to him were retained.
There may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularised under some policy but the
workman concerned terminated, in such circumstances, the terminated worker should not be denied
reinstatement unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation
instead of reinstatement in such cases, reinstatement should be the rule and only in exceptional cases for the
reasons stated to be in writing, such relief can be denied.”
16.
Having regard to the recent judicial trends and duration of service rendered by the claimant. An amount of
Rs.3.50 lakh appears to be just and reasonable.
17.
As a sequel to my aforesaid discussion, it is held that the action of the management in terminating the services
of claimant Shri Nek Ram is illegal and unjustified under the law. The claimant is held entitled for compensation of
Rs.3.50 lakh payable by the management with 6% interest from the date of the publication of the Award. This award is
accordingly passed.
18.
The reference is answered accordingly. Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication
as required under Section 17 of the Act.
A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4233
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.997
997
997
997.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस बंधन कमांडर वA स इंजीिनयर, एम.ई.एस. नॉथ कDट, धमशाला (िह..) और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं-
के संब. िनयोजक/ और उनके कमकार/ के बीच अनुबंध म िन0द1 ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण
एवं 3म यायालय, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 97/2005) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 23.05.2019
को ा: त ;ए थे।
[सं. एल-13012/06/2005-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 997.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 97/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The
Management Commander Works Engineer, M.E.S. Norther Cantt, Dharamshala (H.P.), and their workmen which were
received by the Central Government on 23.05.2019.
[No. L-13012/06/2005-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer
ID No. 97/2005
Registered on:-
Sh. Anil Kumar, S/o Sh. Karam Chand, R/o Village Bathan,
P.O. Thural, Tehsil Palampur, Distt. Kangra (H.P.)
… Workman
Versus
The Management of Commander Works Engineer, M.E.S. Northern Command,
Yol. Cantt, Dharamshala(H.P.), through S.E.
…Management
AWARD
Passed on: 10.04.2019
Central Government vide Notification No. L-13012/6/2004-IR(DU) Dated 28.04.2005, under clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of Commander Works Engineer, MES, Yol Cantt., Dharamshala (HP) in
terminating the services of Sh. Anil Kumar without complying with the provisions of the ID Act, 1947, is just and
legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
1.
Both the parties were served with notices. The workman/claimant filed his statement of claim with the averment
that the workman was appointed as a Mazdoor by the Management vide letter dated 26.10.1994. Since January 1997 the
workman suffered from depression and other ailments and hence he proceeded on leave up to 25.03.2002. The workman
presented himself for duties on 26.03.2002 but he was allowed to join only w.e.f. 23.05.2002, pending enquiry, although
certificates submitted by him were got verified. The workman was served with a charge-sheet dated 18.01.2003 to which
he submitted his explanation. It has been inter-alia alleged that the Enquiry Officer did not hold the enquiry in a fair and
proper manner and no opportunity of defence/hearing was afforded to the workman and ultimately the services of the
workman were terminated vide order dated 21.10.2003 which was delivered to the workman on 29.10.2003. It is also
alleged that along with the charge-sheet, neither any list of witnesses nor list of documents were supplied to him as a
4234
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
result of which the workman remained handicapped to defend the enquiry properly. Before passing the order of removal
from service neither any show cause notice was issued to him nor copy of the enquiry report was supplied to him. The
punishment so inflicted upon the workman is highly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, more so the workman
continuously performed his duties from 26.03.2002 to 30.10.2003. It has been pleaded that the workman is not gainfully
employed from the date of removal from service and prayer has been made for his reinstatement into service with
continuity of service and back wages.
2.
Management resisted the claim of the workman by filing written statement wherein preliminary objection has
been taken to the effect that the claimant was appointed as a civil servant and appointment letter dated 26.10.1994 issued
by the management clearly stipulates that Anil Kumar will be subject to the condition of service as applicable to
Temporary Civilian Government and will be governed by CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964 and hence neither the claimant is a
“workman”, nor the management institution is an “industry” and as such the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the
claim petition. It has also been alleged that the enquiry has been conducted under CCS(Conduct) Rules and same can be
assailed only before Central Administrative Tribunal and as such reference made by the Ministry of Labour is beyond the
jurisdiction. On merits it has been stated that the claimant absented himself from duty w.e.f. 9.01.1997 and he was
telegraphically asked to report for duty in May 1997, 15.11.1997 and 03.01.1998 and again vide office letter dated
24.01.1998. Despite repeated reminders he failed to join his duties and then the matter was taken up with SP Kangra vide
letter dated 09.01.1998. Number of letter were issued to him through different modes, details of which have been given
in para 1 of the written statement (at page-2). Charge-sheet was issued against the claimant and proper enquiry was
conducted for the misconduct on the part of the claimant. The claimant participated in the enquiry proceedings and had
confessed his fault regarding not informing the office in time and without obtaining station leave w.e.f. 09.01.1997 to
25.03.2002 i.e. for more than five years. Based on the enquiry report, penalty of removal from service was imposed upon
the claimant. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.
3.
I have heard the oral arguments advanced by the parties and perused the file and written arguments carefully.
4.
Learned counsel of the workman/claimant has contended that with all legal purposes, this is a case of no
evidence as management has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence after the order of this Tribunal regarding the
fairness of enquiry. Learned counsel argued that as and when the enquiry held by the employer is found to be unfair and
improper, the employer has reserves its right on fairness of the action taken to punish the workman by leading fresh
evidence but management has failed to file any fresh evidence. Hence workman is entitled to the relief prayed then and
there. It is further submitted that in such case, workman is not under obligation to lead any evidence in support of his
claim. Learned counsel of the claimant/workman has contended that there is no allegation on the part of the employer
that claimant/workman wilfully or deliberately made himself absent during the alleged period and there is also no such
finding that absence was deliberate or wilful in enquiry proceedings. It is also argued that the enquiry officer has also not
held that claimant/workman was wilfully absent. It is neither the case of the disciplinary authority nor the enquiry officer
that the medical report submitted by the workman is forged or fabricated or obtained for any consideration. Hence, the
punishment awarded to the claimant/workman is harsh and disproportionate and liable to be quashed. Learned counsel
has contended that this Tribunal got power of judicial review under Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 to
alter, modify or reject the order passed by the management/employer. Learned counsel of the workman has placed
reliance to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeta Kaplish vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court
Civil Appeal No.6079/98 dated 04.12.1998 and Civil Appeal No.6018/2014 decided on 07.07.2014 and Krushankant B.
Parmar vs. Union of India and other Civil Appeal No.2106/12 decided on 15.02.2012, Mathura Prasad vs. Union of
India and Ots. C.W.P. No.4634/2006 decided on 01.11.2006.
5.
Per contra, learned counsel of the management argued that claimant is neither workman nor this Tribunal has
got jurisdiction to decide the reference made by the Central Government. Further advancing the arguments, learned
counsel contended that the evidence submitted on record through affidavit and domestic(court) enquiry conducted
against the workman is ample proof that he wilfully made himself absent for more than 5 years in such establishment
which is not only of national importance but also known for its strict rules and regulations. Learned counsel also argued
that the workman/claimant was appointed as civil servant and is governed by the CCS(Conduct) Rules e.g. the enquiry
had been conducted under CCS Rules for the misconduct on the part of the claimant/workman. The order passed by the
disciplinary authority is within its right and claimant/workman is not entitled to reinstated or any relief sought through
the claim petition.
6.
The perusal of file reveals that case is pending for almost 14 years and during the pendency of proceedings
before the Tribunal workman has submitted his affidavit dated 14.04.2006 whereas management has filed affidavit of Sh.
K.S. Chahar, CWE, M.K. Gupta, CWE, along with domestic enquiry on the basis of which workman was punished by
the competent authority. But record reveals that it is on 20.08.2018 the then Presiding Officer framed following three
issues:-
1)
Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman is fair and in accordance with the principle
of natural justice.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4235
2)
Whether the punishment awarded to the workman, in case the domestic enquiry is held to be valid,
commensurate with the gravity of misconduct.
3)
Whether the workman is not covered by the definition of workman under Section 2-S of the Act.
7.
Undoubtedly, earlier the case was pending at the stage of fairness of enquiry throughout the year. My learned
predecessor after giving opportunity and hearing of parties decided issue no.1 and 3 vide its order dated 24.10.2018,
holding that workman is covered by the definition of workman under Section 2(S) of the Act as well as this Court has a
jurisdiction to decide the case in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Davinder Singh vs.
Municipal Council Sanaur AIR 2011 (SC) 2532. Similarly, domestic enquiry conducted by the employer is held unfair
and not in accordance with the principle of natural justice. The aforesaid order was not challenged by the respondent-
management before Hon’ble High Court and thus, the order has attained finality. To my mind, the arguments advanced
by the learned counsel of management regarding maintainability of claim petition in the light of the jurisdiction has no
force.
8.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the series of cases has held that management has got right to defend its order by
independent evidence before the Tribunal but the management should avail itself of the said opportunity by making the
request to the Tribunal before the proceedings are closed. Reference may be made of Shankar Chakarvarti vs. Britannia
Biscuit Company(1979)3 SCC 371 and latest judgment of M.L. Sinha Vs. Punjab National Bank and Anr. 2019, LLR
page 3. Hon’ble apex court is of the view that if no such opportunity has been availed or asked for by the management
before the proceedings are closed, the employer can make no grievance that the Tribunal did not provide such an
opportunity. Thus, employer was under obligation after the order dated 24.10.2018 to lead additional evidence in support
of punishment awarded to workman but no evidence has been led by the employer to prove the alleged misconduct of the
claimant/workman.
9.
Thus, the question remains to be seen and decided whether the punishment awarded to the workman in case the
domestic enquiry is held to be invalid and unfair commensurate with the gravity of misconduct. As per the arguments of
the learned counsel of the workman, question arises whether the evidence on the enquiry file and evidence(affidavit) of
the management witness can be read as evidence after the order dated 24.10.2018 passed on preliminary enquiry. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeta Kaplish vs. Presiding Officer(supra), while dealing with this issue and
referring the case of Delhi Company Ltd. Vs. Ludh Budh Singh 1972(1) LLR, has held that if the employer on domestic
enquiry under not simultaneously lead evidence or ask for opportunity during the pendency of proceeding to adduce such
evidence the duty of Tribunal is only to consider the validity of the domestic enquiry as well as the finding recorded
therein and decided the matter. If the Tribunal decided the domestic enquiry has not been held properly, it is not relevant
to invite suo motu the employer to adduce evidence just to decide the action taken by it. Learned counsel of the
employer/management has contended that it is open to the management to rely upon the domestic enquiry already held
by the enquiry officer was under no obligation to lead further evidence particularly when management was of the view
that the charges on the basis of evidence already led before the enquiry officer is stood proved. In this connection,
learned counsel of the employer-management had drawn my attention towards provision of Section 11(A) in which
termology materials on record has been used and argued that since the enquiry proceedings constituted materials on
record, the same could not be ignored. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeta Kaplish(supra) while with this issue
has observed that arguments of such nature is fallacious. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is of the view that the record
pertaining to the domestic enquiry could not constitute fresh evidence as those proceedings have already been found by
the Labour Court to be defective. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is of the view that such record could also not constitute
material on record as contended by the counsel of the respondent-management within the meaning of Section 11(A) as
the enquiry proceedings are to be found bad or have to be ignored. In this connection, it is relevant to mention that
Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding the case has held that if management did not lead any fresh evidence on merits
after the finding of domestic enquiry, the workman is also well within his right to say that he could not lead any fresh
evidence. According the Hon’ble Supreme Court claimant/workman is entitled to be granted relief then and there. Thus,
going through the judgment of Neeta Kaplish, it can be safely observed that this is a case in which management has not
adduce any additional evidence after the passing the order on preliminary issue regarding the fairness of enquiry
resulting this case of no evidence.
10.
Next question remains to be seen whether the punishment awarded to the claimant/workman is disproportionate
to the gravity of the misconduct. Considering the scope of judicial review on the quantum of punishment and referring to
various cases in Jai Bhagwan Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors., 2013(4) S.C.T. 607: (2013) 11 SCC 187, the Apex
Court held as under:-
“What is the appropriate quantum of punishment to be awarded to a delinquent is a matter that primarily
rests in the discretion of the disciplinary authority. An authority sitting in appeal over any such order on
punishment is by all means entitled to examine the issue regarding the quantum of punishment as much as it is
entitled to examine whether the charges have been satisfactorily proved. But when any such order is challenged
4236
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
before a Service Tribunal or the High Court the exercise of discretion by the competent authority in
determining and awarding punishment is generally respected except where the same is found to be so
outrageously disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct that the Court considers it be arbitrary in that it
is wholly unreasonable. The superior courts and the Tribunal invoke the doctrine of proportionality which has
been gradually accepted as one of the facets of judicial review. A punishment that it so excessive or
disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience of the Court is seen as unacceptable even when
courts are slow and generally reluctant to interfere with the quantum of punishment. The law on the subject is
well settled by a series of decisions rendered by this Court…..”
11.
The vital and important question which arises for consideration is whether this tribunal ought to interfere with
the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority in the light of the observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Learned counsel of the claimant/workman has contended that there is nothing on record to prove that charge was framed
that workman wilfully remained absent from 09.01.1997 to 25.03.2002 while disciplinary authority awarding
punishment has held that workman had made himself absent wilfully. Learned counsel contended that absence from duty
without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absent but it does not mean always wilful. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar(supra), dealing with this issue has held that if
unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is wilful. In the
absence of such finding the absence is not amounts to misconduct because absence may be the result of compelling
circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty such absence cannot be held wilful. There may
be different eventuality due to which an employee may absent from duty including compelling circumstances beyond his
control like evidence, accident, hospitalisation etc. but in such cases, the employee cannot be held guilty of absent from
duty or failure of wilful misconduct. In the present case, the disciplinary authority has failed to prove that the absence
from duty was wilful and no such finding has been given by the enquiry officer or the appellate authority. Though, the
workman has taken specific defence that he was preventing from attending duty due to mental problem and has
submitted medical certificates regarding his absence which has got duly verified by the authority concerned. In fact there
is nothing on record to prove that the medical certificates submitted by the workman were obtained by fraud or were
forged or such in nature which cannot be relied on by the disciplinary authority.
12.
Coming to the case at hand, I am of the view that punishment of termination from the service for the
misconduct of absence for more than 5 years due to his mental illness is disproportionate to the charge. Ordinarily,
fairness of enquiry being against the principle of natural justice, reinstatement of workman is automatic choice for
Tribunal. But, I am deliberately avoiding the ordinary course because more than two decades have passed since his
termination and over these years workman must have gainfully employed elsewhere. Perhaps, that is why he has not
mentioned anything in his affidavit filed as evidence. There is nothing on record to prove the date of birth of workman
but if it is presumed that he was employed by the management at the age of 19-20 years then he will be at the age of 44-
45 years at present which is generally the age of superannuation in Military establishment of lower rank employees. In
such circumstances, there cannot be any order of reinstatement and awards of lump sum compensation will meet the ends
of justice. Considering the length of service of workman/claimant in the establishment and his deprivation of the job over
the years elsewhere in my considered view lump sum amount of Rs.2,50,000/- could meet the end of justice in lieu of
reinstatement, back wages, gratuity and any other amount payable to workman.
13.
In result, the order of termination by the respondent-management is set aside and claim is allowed. The
respondent-management is directed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- to workman as compensation within two months from the
notification of the award failing which the said amount is payable at the rate of 8% per annum thereon.
14.
The reference is answered accordingly. Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication
as required under Section 17 of the Act.
A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.998
998
998
998.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस भारत इलेA >ॉिनA स िलिमटेड पंचकुला और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं- के संब. िनयोजक/ और उनके
कमकार/ के बीच अनुबंध म िन0द1 ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म यायालय, चंडीगढ़
के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 54/2017) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 20.05.2019 को ा: त ;ए थे।
[सं. एल-14011/14/2017-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4237
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O.998.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 54/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The Bharat
Electronics Ltd. Panchkula, and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on
20.05.2019.
[No. L-14011/14/2017-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID. 54/2017
Registered on:-20/03/2018
Workmen / Union (through General Secretary Bharat Electronics Workers Union )
…Workman
Vs.
Bharat Electronics Ltd. Panchkula
…Management
AWARD
1.
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government Letter
No. L-14011/14/2017- IR(DU) dated 26/02/2018 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as
under:
“Whether action of the Bharat Electronics Limited, Panchkula in reducing the release hours for the
union activities from the month of June, 2016 just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief is the Union
entitled to” ?
2.
An application was moved by the workmen through General Secretary, wherein he has stated that an amicable
solution has been found to settle the matter with the Management and the union does not want to pursue the matter
further more against the management.
3. Since workmen/union himself is not interested in adjudication of the Reference on merits as such, this Tribunal is
left with no option to dispose of the reference without recording any evidence. Accordingly, no dispute/no claim award
is hereby passed in view of the final settlement already arrived between the parties. It is held that now workmen/union is
not entitled any relief. Let copy of this award be sent to the Central Government for publication as required under
Section 17(2) of the Act.
Dated: 06.05.2019
A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer
4238
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.999
999
999
999.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस िनदेशक, अिखल भारतीय आयुOवPान सं# थान (एQ स) ऋिषकेश देहरादून और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं- के
संब. िनयोजक/ और उनके कमकार/ के बीच अनुबंध म िन0द1 ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण
एवं 3म यायालय-2, नई द ली के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 133/2018) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को
09.05.2019 को ा: त ;ए थे।
[सं. एल-42012/48/2017-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O.999.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 133/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, 2 New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The
Director, All India Insititute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Rishkesh Dehradun and Others, and their workmen which
were received by the Central Government on 09.05.2019.
[No. L-42012/48/2017-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 133/2018
Date of Passing Award- 10th April, 2019
Between:
Shri Balbir Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Avtar Singh,
R/o Nirmal Part-B, Gali-9,
Pashulok, Rishikesh
Dehradun-249203.
… Workman
Versus
The Director,
All India Insititute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)
Rishkesh
Dehradun-249203.
… Management
Appearances:-
Claimant in person, (Advocate)
For the Workman
None for the management, (Advocate)
For the Management
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between
employer i.e. the management of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), and its workman/claimant herein,
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4239
under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No.
L- 42012/48/2017 (IR(DU) dated 02.08.2018 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the claim of Shri Balbir Singh working as Mess Supervisor between 2014 till May 2016 in AIIMS, Rishikesh
against his removal from Mess is legal and justified, if so, what relief he is entitled to?”
The claimant has filed a claim statement stating that he was engaged for catering food in the mess of the Doctors’ hostel
inside the premises of AIIMS Rishikesh. His engagement was by the Director AIIMS of Rishikesh. He was working as
the supervisor of the hostel mess and getting monthly salary of Rs. 15000/-. When the workman was discharging his duty
to the satisfaction of the employer i.e. Director AIIMS Rishikesh, Dehradun, suddenly his service was terminated. At the
time of termination, no termination notice, duty pay or termination compensation was paid. On the contrary the
management withheld 3 months salary of the workman to a tune of Rs. 45000/-. On 20.07.2016 the workman gave a
demand notice to the management which was received on 22.07.16. Since management took no action, workman raised a
dispute before the Labour Commissioner which was contested by the management. The conciliation since failed, the
Appropriate Government made a reference as aforesaid for adjudication. Though the notice was served on the
management none appeared on their behalf. After providing several opportunities to the management for filing of Written
Statement by order dated 14.12.2018 the management was proceeded ex-parte. Thereafter claimant/workman filed and
tendered his affidavit evidence which remained unchallenged. Hence, from the sole oral testimony of the workman,
which is not supported by any document it is to be seen if the alleged removal of the workman working as the mess
supervisor by the management is legal and justified.
In his sole testimony the claimant/workman has stated that he was engaged by the management for providing catering
service in the Doctors hostel Mess in the premises of AIIMS Rishikhesh at Dehradun. He alongwith 8 associates carried
out the work and continued to do so for 2 years. He was working in the capacity of supervisor and getting monthly salary
of Rs. 15000/-. During the course of his duty pursuant to the written order of the management he had purchased Utensils
worth Rs. 3619/- for use in the Mess. As per the direction of the management, he had also made deposit of Rs.30000/- as
security money for his engagement in the work. But suddenly the management terminated his service withholding 2
months salary. The demand notice raised by the workman was not answered by the management. He then raised a dispute
before the Labour Commissioner Dehradun where the management appeared, participated but no fruitful purpose could
be served. Hence, this reference was send by the Appropriate Government.
Except examining himself the workman has not examined any other witness nor produced any documents to support his
claim. His own admission in the claim statement and the affidavit clearly indicates that he was working in the Hostel
mess of AIIMS as a caterer for providing food to the hoteliers and in the process had invested some money and also
made deposit of some amount towards security. The AIIMS management discontinued the service of the claimant as a
caterer. Even though the management has not resisted the stand of the claimant, from his own statement it clearly appears
that there was a contract between the management and the claimant which was breached. At best the management may be
held liable for breach of contract and nothing more. The evidence on record neither suggests the employer and employee
relationship between the management and the claimant nor there exist any industrial dispute between them. The reference
made by the Appropriate Government appears to be a misconception of fact and law. The reference is accordingly held
devoid of merit and accordingly answered. Copy be supplied to the parties and the record be consigned in the record
room.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1000
1000
1000
1000.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस सिचव एन.डी.एम.सी. पािलका क, नई द ली और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं- के संब. िनयोजक/ और
उनके कमकार/ के बीच अनुबंध म िन0द1 ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म यायालय-2,
नई द ली के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 07/2011) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 09.05.2019 को ा: त ;ए थे।
[सं. एल-42012/108/2011-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
4240
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O.1000.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 07/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-2 New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The
Secretary, N.D.M.C. Palika Kendra, New Delhi and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central
Government on 09.05.2019.
[No. L-42012/108/2011-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 07/2011
Date of Passing Award- 15th April, 2019
Between:
Shri Balak Ram,
S/o Sh. Sohan,
Through the General Secretary,
New Delhi
Nagar Palika Karamchari Union (Regd.)
H-7 Palika Niwas, Lodhi Colony,
New Delhi-110003.
… Workman
Versus
The Secretary,
N.D.M.C. Palika Kendra,
New Delhi. 110001.
… Management
Appearances:-
Shri Hari Ram Tiwari, (Advocate)
For the Workman
Shri M.S. Rawat, (Advocate)
For the Management
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between
employer i.e. the management of N.D.M.C Palika Kendra and its workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub
section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L- 42012/108/2011
(IR(DU) dated 06.02.2012 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) in terminating the
services of Shri Balak Ram S/o Shri Sohan, Ex-Beldar w.e.f. 17.11.2009 is legal and justified? What relief the
workman is entitled to?’’
Being noticed the workman and the management appeared and filed their claim statement and written statement
respectively.
In the claim statement the workman has stated that he was inducted to the service of the management on 31.12.1996 on
temporary muster roll as Beldar. In due course of time he was taken to regular muster roll and his service was regularized
by order dated 21.10.1997 w.e.f. 01.04.1997. At the time of regularization, as per the rule of the management he had
submitted an attestation form, indemnity bond and affidavit on 27.08.199. In the said attestation form and affidavit he
had declared his date of birth as 01.08.1956. At that time, being illiterate he had no document to prove his date of birth.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4241
One Udaiveer son of Ved Ram a co-villager of the workman having enmity and property dispute with him gave a written
complaint to the authorities and the employer of the workman alleging that as per the primary school certificate of the
school, where the workman was reading, his date of birth is 29.12.1945. It was also alleged in the complaint that the
workman has already completed 61 years of age as on 28.12.2006. This prompted the management to make an inquiry
and a letter was written to the District Basic Education Officer Bulandsher U.P to verify the correctness of the allegation.
The District Basic Education Officer in his letter dated 22.09.2009, while enclosing the photocopy of the school leaving
certificate intimated that the date of birth of the workman as per the school record is 29.12.1945. Since, on that day the
workman had already attained the age of superannuation, the management terminated his service w.e.f. 31.12.2005
holding the said date as the date of his superannuation. At the time of termination of service, no notice was served on the
workman nor any chargesheet, or domestic inquiry was conducted against him. The workman served a demand notice on
the management on 04.02.2010. But the management paid deaf year to the same. Having no other remedy the workman
again approached the Labour Commissioner where a conciliation proceeding was taken up. Since the conciliation failed,
a reference was made by the appropriate government for adjudication of the dispute. The workman in his claim statement
has prayed that the arbitrary order of termination passed by the management is liable to be set aside. He has also prayed
for reinstatement to serice with all back wages and consequential benefit.
In the written statement the management has admitted that the workman was initially appointed as a Beldar in temporary
muster roll and his service was regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1997. At that time the workman has submitted an attestation
form, affidavit containing personal details. In the prescribed Performa it was clearly mentioned that any false disclosure
shall entail action. The workman having full knowledge of the same furnished false information relating to his date of
birth which could be established after a due and proper inquiry. Since by the time the enquiry was completed, the
workman had crossed the age of superannuation, his service was brought to an end forthwith. There was no violation of
Principles of Natural Justice, nor any requirement for serving the notice on him.
The workman in his rejoinder had stated that a false complaint was made at the behest of his enemy. The management
without giving him opportunity of being heard passed one sided order.
On the rival pleading following Points emerged for adjudication.
1. If the termination/cessation of the service of the workman w.e.f. 17.11.2009 is legal and proper.
2. To what relief the workman is entitled to.
Point No. 1
The workman examined himself as WW1 and tendered some documents marked in the series of WW1/1 to WW1/8.
These documents include the Pariwar Register of the workman marked as WW1/1 the letter of cessation of his service,
the demand notice, the statement of claim filed by him before the conciliation officer etc. similarly on behalf of the
management its Section Officer was examined as MW1 who proved the photocopies of the office order regularizing the
service of the workman, the copy of the attestation form, affidavit and indemnity bond, submitted by the workman the
photocopy of the complaint received from one Udaiveer Singh regarding false declaration of date of birth of the
workman, the letters written to the District Basic Education Officer Bulandsher, the reply given by him, photocopy of the
school leaving certificate both parties cross examined the witness of the opponent at length.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R of the workman submitted that the entire allegation and dispute are based upon
the facts which need to be proved or disproved during the proceeding. He submitted that in this case the management
took one sided decision without involving the workman in the inquiry made against him no showcause was even called
from him. It is the specific stand of the workman that the he is an illiterate person and had never gone to the school. A
false document like school leaving certificate has been prepared by his enemies and the management, relying upon the
same passed the order to his detriment. Thereby the workman argued that the reference be answered in his favour.
On the other hand the management through it’s A/R submitted that the enquiry was fair and based upon documents
created during an undisputed point of time. The tribunal has no reason for disbelieving the report of the District Basic
Education Officer bulandsher and the school leaving certificate submitted by him. Per contra, the Ld. A/R for the
workman submitted that in rural areas where the literacy rate was almost zero in 50s and 60s, the maintenance of the
Pariwar Register (family Register) by the head of the family or head of the village has been often taken as an authentic
document.
The admitted facts are that the workman had submitted an attestation form describing his date of birth to be 01.08.1956.
It also not disputed that on receipt of a complaint from an Udaiveer an inquiry was initiated by the management. The
school education officer during the inquiry submitted the school leaving certificate of the workman and a report stating
therein that as per the school record, the date of birth of the workman is 29.12.1945. The workman has filed certified
copies of the order passed by the Civil Judge Bulandsher in OS No. 78/2006 to prove the enmity and civil dispute
between him and the complainant Udaiveer singh. The workman has also filed the copy of the FIR dated 22.08.2008
wherein the workman had alleged assault criminal intimidation and threat etc against the Udaiveer Singh. These
documents have not been disputed by the management. On the other hand management has filed the photocopy of the
school leaving certificate of the workman and the report of the District Basic Education Officer which go to show that as
4242
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
per the school record the date of birth of the workman was 29.12.1945. While filing the self decelerated attestation form
of the workman the management has tried to prove that the workman is guilty of suppression of material facts and liable
for termination.
The management has not examined the Basic School Education Officer or any of his staff as a witness in this proceeding.
The school leaving certificated shows that the same was prepared on 06.12.2006 indicating that the student had left
school on 11.05.1957 and his date of birth was 29.12.1945. Though in the column the purpose for issue of School leaving
certificate has been described as promotion to class 5, the same was prepared on 06.12.2006. The workman has all along
pleaded that he had never been to the school for any formal education. On that background the management could have
taken a stand in calling for the original school admission register which is a continuous register and has a minimum
chance of manipulation. Had that register been produced, this tribunal would have the chance of verifying about the
person who had admitted the workman to school and what was the basis for recording his date of birth. In absence of
production of the school admission register, the school leaving certificate prepared at a belated date i.e. 06.12.2006
doesn’t inspire confidence in the mind to accept that the correct date of birth of the workman is 24.12.1945.
On behalf of the workman the copy of the Pariwar Register has been oduced. This is also the photocopy of the original
and doesn’t explain why original was not produced. However, the entry in the register shows that this register was
maintained by the Gram Panchayat Officer and in the said register the date of birth of the workman has been mentioned
as 01.08.1956. This is a register maintained chronologically and minimizes the chance of interpolation.
The Ld. A/R for the workman while placing reliance in the case of G.M., Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd., West Bengal vs.
Shib Kumar Dushad and Others reported in AIR 2001 SC 72 submitted that the entries made in the certificate issued by
the School Authority is not conclusive and dependent on evidence either oral or documentary. The management
disputing the same has failed to discharge the burden of proving the certificate. Relying on the case of Shib Kumar
referred supra, he also argued that when the employee is at the verge of retirement, correction in service record is not be
accepted generally.
In this case as stated earlier the management could have produced the school admission register to prove, by whom and
on the basis of what evidence the date of birth of the workman was recorded. In absence of such proof the school leaving
certificate prepared and submitted by the District education officer cannot be accepted as the conclusive prove of date of
Birth of the workman. This tribunal also find no reason of rejecting the entries regarding the date of birth of the workman
as mentioned in his Adhar Card, Voter-i-card, Pan Card and LIC Policy, which are based upon the entry in the Pariwar
Register created during an undisputed point of time.
It is worth mentioning here that when the management was conducting an inquiry on the complaint regarding the date of
birth of the workman, surprisingly the workman was not given opportunity to participate in the inquiry or offer his
explanation to disprove the allegation relating to his date of birth. It is also surprising that the management remained
satisfied with the school leaving certificate received from the Dist. Education Officer which was in conflict with the date
of birth declared by the workman. In such a situation the proper recourse would have been to subject the workman to a
medical examination like Ossification Test. That having not been done by the management, it is difficult to accept the
school leaving certificate as the proof for the date of birth of the workman. The decision of the management in
terminating the service of the workman on the basis of the disputed date of birth is held to be illegal and has no leg to
stand.
While accepting the date of birth of the workman to be 01.08.1956, it is observed that he has already crossed the age of
superannuation w.e.f. 31.08.2016. Hence, this tribunal doesn’t find it proper to pass an order of reinstatement in favour of
the workman though it is held that the workman is entitled to his full back wage w.e.f. 31.12.2005 when his service was
terminated/ceased by the order of the management till the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.08.2016 together with all
other service benefits. He will be deemed to have retired on 31.08.2016. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is answered in the favour of the workman. The decision of the management of NDMC in
terminating the service of Shri. Balak Ram w.e.f. 31.12.2005 by order dated 18.11.2009 is held to be illegal and the
workman is held entitled to continue in service till 31.08.2016. He is also held entitled to full back wage and all other
service benefits from the date of termination till 31.08.2016 without interest. All the financial benefits of the workman
shall be paid by the management within 3 months from the date when the order would become executable failing which
the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of termination till the amount is paid in full.
Copy be supplied to the parties and the record be consigned in the record room.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4243
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1001
1001
1001
1001.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस अU यV, कीय माU यिमक िशVा बोड, ीत िवहार, द ली और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं- के संब.
िनयोजक/ और उनके कमकार/ के बीच अनुबंध म िन0द1 ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म
यायालय-2, नई द ली के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 21/2016) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 16.05.2019 को
ा: त ;ए थे।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 1001.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 21/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-2 New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The
Chairman, Central Board of Secondary Education, Preet Vihar, Delhi and Others, and their workmen which were
received by the Central Government on 16.05.2019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 21/2016
Date of Passing Award- 26th April, 2019.
Between:
Shri Ramesh Chand & 44 Ors.
(As per Annexure Attached)
Through, General Secretary,
Delhi Offices And Establishment Employees Union,
13-A, Rouse Avenue, ITO,
New Delhi- 110002.
… Workmen
Versus
1.
The Chairman,
Central Board of Secondary Education,
Siksha Kendra, 2-Community Centre,
Preet Vihar, Delhi- 110092.
2.
The Managing Director,
New Grow Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
DLF Tower, 341, Moti Nagar, 3rd Floor,
New Delhi- 110008.
… Managements
Appearances:-
Shri B. K. Prasad, Advocate
For the Workman
None for the management, Advocate
For the Management
4244
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry Of Labour has referred the present dispute existing between employer i.e. the
management Central Board of Secondary Education, and its workmen/claimants herein, under clause (d) of sub-section
(1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter no. L-42011/20/2016 (IR (DU) dated
30.03.2016 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the arrangement between Central Board of Secondary Education and New Grow Software Solutions
(P) Ltd., is sham and camouflage? If yes whether the workmen Sh. Ramesh Chand and 44 others are entitled to
regularization form the date of their initial appointment. If not to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled
to?
In the claim statement it has been asserted that the workmen 45 in number (as per list enclosed) were engaged by the
management No. 1 i.e. CBSE as MTS/Computer Assistant/Electrician on the date mentioned against their names and
continued to work under the direct control and supervision of management No. 1. Though they were appointed as
temporary and casual workers their services were allowed to continue by the management No. 1 with artificial break of 2
or 3 days at an interval of 3 months. The work tenure of the workmen for the management No. 1 varies from 10 years to
1 year. All of them were appointed against permanent post and out of the 45 workmen one has completed 10 years, three
completed 9 years, two completed 8 years, two completed 6years, two completed 5 years, twelve completed 4 years, two
completed 3years, Eleven completed 2 years, and 9 completed one year of service with the management No.1.
The further contention of the workmen is that in the year 2010 management No. 1 had notified its vacancies in the
website and the workmen in response to the same submitted applications. They were asked to appear in a test and
interview conducted by the management. Being found suitable, they were recruited on contractual basis with specified
terms and conditions. At that time they were assured by the management to be regularized in due course. When the
workmen were discharging their duties with all sincerity with management No. 1 in the year 2012 the management No. 1
entered into a contract with management No. 2 for a period of 6 months. The contract was discontinued w.e.f.
30.06.2012.Again in august 2014 management No. 1 entered into a fresh contract with management No. 2 and since then
made an arrangement for payment of wages to the workmen through management No. 2. During this period the workmen
were not getting their wages regularly. The management No. 1 manipulated the situation to show the workmen as the
employees of management No.2 though the management No. 1 is barred u/s 10 of the contract Labour (regulation and
abolition Act 1970) to engage contract Labour against the jobs of perennial in nature. The contract between the
management No. 1 and 2 was sham and camouflage and designed to deprive the workmen of their legal rights. The
workmen then apprised their union and through the Union served a demand notice on the management. The management
though received the notice did not take action compelling the workmen to approach the appropriate government. The
conciliation proceeding held by the Labour Commissioner failed and during the pendency of the Industrial Dispute
before the Labour Commissioner, the management No. 1 terminated the service of some of the workmen on 27.06.15 and
some others on 01.07.15. A reference being made by the Appropriate Government they filed a claim statement praying
for a declaration that the arrangement between management No. 1 and 2 is sham and camouflage, the workmen are
entitled to regularization of their services from the date of their initial appointment and for a direction that workmen be
paid pay at par with the regular employees from the date of regularization, management No.1 be directed to pay the
arrear wages and differential wages after regularization.
Management No. 2 appeared and filed written statement stating therein that there was an agreement between
management No. 1 and management No. 2 for providing manpower for administrative and technical cadre. Accordingly
the management No. 2 has provided manpower to management No. 1 and paying them salary to be reimbursed by
management No. 1. This management has taken a stand that there is no relationship between it and the workmen as an
employer and employee and thus, the proceeding is not maintainable against management No.2. It has denied the
allegation that the contract between management No. 1 and 2 is sham and camouflage.
Management No. 1 has also filed written statement challenging the maintainability of the proceeding on the ground that
CBSE is an autonomous body governed by its own Rule. The workmen were initially engaged as contract workers
through one Agency named M/s Neha Aviation Management Pvt. Ltd. on contractual basis and were paid remuneration
through Cheque. They were never appointed on regular basis and their appointments having not been done following the
rule and procedure of CBSE for recruitment, their service cannot be regularized in view of the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India passed by the constitution bench in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and Others vs.
Uma Devi. While denying their claim of appointment against permanent vacant sanctioned post the answering
management took a stand that they being contractual casual workers not appointed through a proper selection procedure
recognized by the relevant rule and procedure, cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this tribunal for their regularization of
service. While denying the cause of action this management has stated that there is no employer employee relationship
between the management No. 1 and the workmen and their plea for regularization need to be dismissed.
On this rival pleadings following points emerged for consideration during adjudication.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4245
a.
If the proceeding is maintainable.
b.
If the claimants/workmen are entitled to the relief of regularization of their service from the date of their
initial appointment.
c.
If the workmen on the event of regularization of their service are entitled to full pay at par with the regular
employees of the same cadre and arrear of the differential salary.
Though both management No. 1 and 2 had initially participated in the proceeding by filing written statement, on a later
date management No. 2 did not choose to participate at all. Though management no. 1 i.e. CBSE was participating in the
proceeding through it’s A/R till the end, opted not to adduce any oral or documentary evidence. The workmen examined
one of the claimants as WW1 and proved certain documents marked in a series of WW1/1 to WW1/5. This witness was
not cross-examined by any of the management and thus, his evidence remained almost unchallenged.
Point No. 1
In the written statement filed, both the managements have stated that the workmen have no cause of action for initiating
this proceeding and thus, the same is not maintainable. During the proceeding no serious challenge was raised in this
regard by the managements. The pleading and the evidence adduced on the behalf of the management clearly indicate
that the workmen were demanding regularization of their services and after proper espouser they had served a demand
notice on the management. The copy of the demand notice and its postal receipt has been filed and exhibited during the
course of adjudication. The oral evidence adduced by the witness on behalf of the workmen further reveals that the
management No.1 did not take any action on the said demand notice as a result of which a claim was made before the
labour commissioner. The evidence further reveals that before the Labour commissioner a conciliation proceeding was
initiated but the same could not yield any result and the commissioner reported the same to the appropriate government
which, in turn made the reference. Hence, in view of the pleading and evidence it is held that the workmen have a cause
of action to raise this dispute. This point is accordingly answered.
POINT No. 2
In the claim statement the workmen have alleged that their appointment was made initially on a contractual basis for a
period of 6 months. But the management No. 1 allowed them to work continuously years after years on daily wage basis.
In order to deprive them of their legitimate right their appointment were renewed with artificial break. During the period
of engagement they were working under the control and supervision of the management No. 1 who was also paying them
salary directly. In the year 2012 suddenly management No. 1 made some arrangement with management No. 2 and tried
to place the service of the claimant/workmen under the disposal of the management No. 2. However that arrangement
remained in force for a period of 6 months and discontinued thereafter. In august 2014 management No.1 again entered
into an arrangement with management No. 2 and since then routed the salaries of the workmen through management No.
2 as if they are the employees of management No. 2. The management No. 1 was regularly deducting the EPF and ESI
dues from the earned salary of the workmen. Thus, the workmen have taken the stand that they were never the employees
of management No.2.
The further stand of the workmen is that in the year 2010 CBSE the management No. 1 had notified to fillup its
vacancies in the official website. In response to the same the workmen made application for different post. Eligibility test
and interview was conducted by management No.1 for selection and the workmen were issued appointment letter
containing terms and conditions of the employment. The appointment letter of some of the workmen have been filed and
exhibited on the behalf of the claimants.
The management No. 2 as stated earlier has not adduced any evidence. It has only admitted in the written statement that
as per the arrangement between management No. 1 and 2 he had provided manpower for administrative and technical
post. He was paying remuneration to those persons in advance and getting reimbursement from Management No. 1. In
the written statement the management No. 2 has not admitted or denied specifically about the claimants/workmen of this
proceeding. However it has clearly denied to have any kind of relationship with the claimant//workmen of this
proceeding.
Management No.1 i.e. CBSE has clearly denied about its relationship as employer with the claimants. Its specific stand is
that they were engaged through the contractor i.e. the management No. 2 which has been denied by the later. On the
contrary the workmen have pleaded that the arrangement between the management No. 1 and Management No. 2 was
sham and camouflage designed to deprive them of their legitimate right. It is the further stand of the workmen that they
were working under the supervision and control of management No. 1 having no direct or indirect relationship with the
management No.2. The pleadings of the parties have made it necessary to examine if there exist any employer employee
relationship between management No.1 and the claimants.
In the case of Steel Authority of India vs. National Union Waterfront Worker Union reported in (2001) 7SCC Page 1, the
Hon’ble Apex Court have prescribed for the effective control test to ascertain about the relationship of the workman with
4246
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the management or the contractor. Not only that in the case of Chintaman Rao (1958(II)LLJ252) the Apex court ruled
that the concept of employment involves 3 ingredients (i)Employer (ii) Employee (iii) Contract of Employment. The
employer is one who employees or engages the service of other person. The employee is one who works for another for
hire. The employment is the contract of service between the employer and employee, where under the employee agrees to
serve the employer subject to his control and supervision. In the case of Food Corporation of India reported in
(1985(ii) LLJ4) the Hon’ble Apex Court pronounced that the contract of employment always discloses a relationship of
command and obedience between them. Where a contractor emplyoes a workman to do the work which he contracted
with a third person to accomplish, the workman of the contractor would not become more than the workman of the third
person. Not only that the manner of work is to be distinguished from the type of work to be performned. In the case of of
Ram Singh and Others vs. Union Territory Chandigarh and Others (2004)1 SCC 126 the Hon’ble Apex Court have
elaborately discussed the factors to be considered for determining the employer employee relationship and the factors
include control, integration power of appointment, liability to pay, liability to organize work etc. Thus, from the above
analysis of the Principle of Law, it emerges that the effective control is a test to determine the employer employee
relationship between the parties.
In this proceeding the workmen have all along maintained that they were working under the supervision and control of
management No.1 having no relationship with management No.2. The later in the written statement has also clarified that
except paying salary and getting reimbursement of the same for the workmen from the management No.1 it had no more
relationship with the workmen. It is a decided principle of law that employer and employee relationship is a question of
fact and the burden lies on him who asserts existence of the same. In this case the workmen have taken a stand and
successfully established their relationship with management No.1 as its employee. Hence, now it is to be seen if the
demand for regularization of service by the workmen is justified.
In the written statement the management No.1 have referred to the judgment the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court passed in the case of Secretary State of Karnatak and Others vs. Uma devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC
Page1 and contended that the workmen of this proceeding since appointed for a fixed term on casual basis their claim for
regularization is not maintainable. It has further been pleaded by management No. 1 that CBSE is an autonomous body
having its own rules and procedure of recruitment. The workmen were never appointed following the said procedure and
rule and their appointment were never against regular vacancy. Be it stated here that the management No.1 has not
adduced any oral or documentary evidence to fortify the stand taken in this regard in the WS. In the case of Uma Devi
referred supra the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the appointment of contractual employee and regularization of
their services is not an automatic process and when a person was given appointment skipping the prescribed rule through
a back door, cannot claim absorption or regularization against a sanctioned vacant post. This issue came up for
consideration before Hon’ble Apex Court again in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad vs. Employer I/R to management of
Food Corporation of India and another reported in AIR 2014 SC 1848, wherein the issue, whether the Labour Court
Tribunal has the jurisdiction to order regularization of the workmen was considered in the context of the provision of the
Act and the decision of the constitution bench in the case of Uma Devi. The Hon’ble Apex Court came to hold that the
powers conferred upon the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court under the ID Act are quite wide. The Act deals with
industrial Disputes, provides for conciliation, adjudication, and settlements, and regulates the rights of the parties and the
enforcement of the award and settlement. Not only that way back in the year 1950 in the case of Bharat Bank Limited vs.
Employees of Bharat Bank reported in (1950) LLJ 921 The Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed:
“In settling the disputes between the employers and the workmen, the function of the Tribunal is not confined to
administration of justice in accordance with law. It can confer rights and privileges on either party which it considers
reasonable and proper, though they may not be within the terms of any existing agreement. It has not merely to interpret
or give effect to the contractual rights and obligations of the parties. It can create new rights and obligations between
them which it considers essential for keeping industrial peace.”
In the above said backdrop and considering the different pronouncements on the Hon’ble Apex Court while reverting to
the facts of the present case the grievance of the claimants is that they were appointed against the post the nature of work
performed is perennial and those are permanent vacancies. Though they were appointed on casual basis are discharging
their duties with utmost satisfaction of the employer i.e. Management No.1 but the management No.1 by entering into a
camouflage with management No.2 is trying to deprive them of their legitimate rights by causing artificial break in their
service. These aspects as pleaded by the workmen have been denied by the management No.1 in the WS only. On behalf
of the workmen the appointment letter of some of the claimants, their salary bills etc have been filed. These documents
have not been controverted by the management and go to show that the claimant/workmen were issued appointment
letter after their selection through one walk-in-interview process. Majority of the workmen are still in service except the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4247
few whose service has been terminated on two dates i.e. on 27.06.2015 and 01.07.2015 when a conciliation proceeding
between the parties was in progress before the Labour Commissioner. Moreover the document which are in the nature of
monthly sanctioned order of the salary by the designated authorities of the management No.1 clearly establishes that the
present workmen are working under the effective control and supervision of management No.1 and at no point of time
their service was discontinued nor placed under the disposal of management No.2.
During course of argument Ld. Counsel for the workmen drew the attention of this tribunal to the case of J and K Bank
Limited vs. CGIT reported in 2018 Lab. I.C. Page 2970 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in
which the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and Uma Devi refereed supra was elaborately discussed with regard to the effect
and implication of the constitution bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi. In the said judgment
reference has been made to the case of Maharshtra SRTC. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sangathan
(2009)8 SCC 556 in which the issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was with regard to the jurisdiction of the
Industrial court to give status wages and all other benefits of permanency to the workmen who had been serving for years
as cleaners in the corporation in temporary capacity. Relying upon Uma Devi, plea was raised on behalf of the
corporation that granting permanent status to the casual workers/daily wager was not sustainable in law. Repealing the
said argument the Hon’ble Supreme court in Para 32 and 33 of the judgment have observed:-
“32. The power given to the Industrial and Labour Courts under Section 30 is very wide and affirmative action
mentioned therein is inclusive and exhaustive. Employing badlis, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for
years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees is an unfair labour practice
on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV. Once such unfair labour practice on the part of the employer is
established in the complaint, the Industrial and Labour Courts are empowered to issue preventive as well as positive
direction to an erring employer.
“33. The provisions of MRTU and PULP Act and the powers of Industrial Labour Courts provided therein were
not at all under consideration in the case of Uma Devi1. As a matter of fact, the issue like the present one
pertaining to unfair labour practice was not at all referred, considered or decided in Umadevi1. Unfair labour
practice on the part of the employer in engaging employees as badlies, casuals or temporaries and to continue
them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees as
provided in Item 6 of Schedule IV and the power of Industrial and Labour Courts under section 30 of the Act
did not fall for adjudication or consideration before the constitution Bench”.
Thus, on a harmonious reading of the different pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court this tribunal in absence of
evidence to contrary comes to hold that the workmen were selected through a selection procedure may be through a
walk-in-interview as decided by the management and issued appointment letter which was renewed from time to time for
the perennial nature of work and during the course of their employment they are under the effective control and
supervision of management No.1. Except pleading in the written statement that the workmen were never appointed
against permanent vacancy no other evidence has been adduced by the mangementno.1. Since the workmen are working
continuously and their nature of work is such that at no point of time they were disengaged and in the process they have
completed work for 240 days or more in a calendar year, they are held entitled to regularization of their services from the
date of their initial appointment with current and back wages at par with the regular employee of similar cadre. This point
is accordingly answered in favour of the workmen.
Point No.3
In view of the finding of point no.2 this tribunal is of the opinion that the workmen/claimants are entitled to
regularization of their services in the post they were appointed from the date of their initial appointment as mentioned in
the list appended to this award back wages in the appropriate scale of the said post against which they were appointed.
This point is accordingly answered. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The workmen as per the list appended to this award are held entitled to regularization of their services in the post they
were appointed from the date of their initial appointment as mentioned in the list against their names and they are also
held entitled to the back wages in the appropriate scale of the said post against which they were appointed. The
management no.1 is directed to complete the exercise of the regularization within 3 months from the date when this
award would become enforceable and pay the financial dues of the workmen which has accrued in their favour without
interest within 4 months from the date of notification of the award failing which the amount so accrued shall carry
4248
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date when the award becomes enforceable and till the payment is finally
made. Copy be supplied to the parties and the record be consigned in the record room.
The reference is accordingly answered.
LIST OF WORKMEN
Sr.
No.
Name & Father/husband’s Name
Date of joining/year of joining
Designation
1.
Ramesh Chand
S/o Sh. Shyam singh
2006
MTS
2.
Sunder singh
S/o Sh. Tika Ram
2006
MTS
3.
Pradeep Kumar
S/o Shri Prakash
2006
MTS
4.
Vipin Kumar
S/o. Sh. Baljor singh
2007
MTS
5.
Atar Singh
S/o Shri Karam Singh
01.02.2007
MTS
6.
Arvind Kumar
S/o Sh. Kalu Ram
01.01.2009
MTS
7.
Birjesh Kumar
S/o sh. Kalu Ram
01.02.2011
MTS
8.
Ravinder Kumar
S/o Sh. Ranveer Singh
2011
MTS
9.
Diwan Giri
S/o Sh. Baag Giri
23.09.2011
MTS
10.
Mukesh Prasad
S/o Sh. Ayodhaya Prasad
01.10.2011
MTS
11.
Manoj
S/o Murari Lal
2011
MTS
12.
Amar
S/o. Sh. Vijender
2011
MTS
13.
Ajay Kumar
S/o Sh. Om Prakash Sharma
2011
MTS
14.
Ved veer
S/o Sh. Gopal Prashad
19.05.2013
MTS
15.
Manish Kumar-I
S/o Sh. Om singh
2013
MTS
16.
Rahul Kumar
S/o Shri Raj Kumar
2013
MTS
17.
Hitender Kumar
S/o sh. Veg Pal Singh
01.02.2013
MTS
18.
Rajbeer Sagar
S/o Shri. Ramphal
03.10.2013
MTS
19.
Sunil Kumar
S/o sh. Mohar Singh
21.10.2013
MTS
20.
Rahul Rawat
S/o Shri. Ratan Singh Rawat
11.12.2013
MTS
21.
Naveen Kumar
S/o Sultan Singh
15.02.2013
MTS
22.
Shezad
S/o sh. Farukh
April, 2012
MTS
23.
Manish Kumar-II
S/o Sh. Madan singh
01.04.2014
MTS
24
Amit Kataria
S/o Sh. Dharam Pal Singh
18.02.2014
MTS
25
Inder Pal
S/o Sh. Braham Singh
22.04.2014
MTS
26
Gaurav Kumar
S/o Shri. Bhim singh
2014
MTS
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4249
27
Sawaz
S/o Shri Farukh
01.08.2014
MTS
28
Sarvan Kumar
S/o Shri Ompal Singh
March, 2014
MTS
29
Suresh Kumar
S/o Shri Mam Chand
15.03.2005
MTS
30
Deepak Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Chaman Lal
10.03.2013
MTS
31
Deepak
S/o Sh Laxmi Narayan
12.11.2013
MTS
32
Prashant Sharma
S/o Sh. R.A. Sharma
December,2009
Comp.
Asstt.
33
Rahul Jain
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Jain
March, 2010
Comp.
Asstt.
34
Kashmiri
W/o Sh. Parveen Rawat
December, 2010
Comp.
Asstt.
35
Vipin Kumar
S/o Sh. Jagdish Chandra
2011
Comp.
Asstt.
36
Shalini Gupta
D/o Sh. D.K. Gupta
May, 2011
Comp.
Asstt
37
Poonam Bisht
W/o sh. Dinesh Singh
October,2011
Comp.
Asstt.
38
Puneet Sharma
S/o Sh. Rajesh Mohan Sharma
October,2011
Comp.
Asstt
39
Hema
D/o Late Sh. Udai Singh
November, 2011
Comp.
Asstt.
40
Raj Singh
S/o sh. Devi Singh
2012
Comp.
Asstt
41
Sandeep singh
S/o Sh. Vijay Pal Singh
19.02.2013
Comp.
Asstt.
42
Tarun Kumar
S/o sh. Ramvir Singh
01.02.2013
Comp.
Asstt
43
Sandeep Kumar
S/o Sh. Duni Chand
01.02.2014
Comp.
Asstt.
44
Manoj Kumar
S/o Sh. Rampal singh
03.03.2014
Comp.
Asstt
45
Ashwani
S/o Sh. Dayanand Gupta
10.09.2013
Electrician
PRANITA MOHANTY , Presiding Officer
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1002
1002
1002
1002.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस भारी, बी.एस.एफ. अ# पताल, ितगरी कDप, नई द ली और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं- के संब. िनयोजक/
और उनके कमकार/ के बीच अनुबंध म िन0द1 ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म यायालय-
2, नई द ली के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 36/2006) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 16.05.2019 को ा: त ;ए
थे।
[सं. एल-42012/89/2005-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
4250
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O.1002.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 36/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-2 New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The
Incharge, B.S.F. Hospital, Tigri Camp. New Delhi and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central
Government on 16.05.2019.
[No. L-42012/89/2005-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 36/2006
Date of Passing Award- 29th April, 2019
Between:
Shri Rajinder Kumar
… Workman
C/o The President,
Janvadi General Kamgar Mazdoor Union,
E-26 (Old Quarter) Raja Bazar,
Baba Kharak Singh Marg,
New Delhi- 110001.
Versus
The Incharge,
… Management
B.S.F. Hospital,
Tigri Camp.,
New Delhi.
Appearances:-
Shri. B.K. Prasad, (Advocate)
For the Workman.
Shri. S. Yadav, (Advocate)
For the Management.
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between
employer i.e. the management of B.S.F. Hospital, and its workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub section
(1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L- 42012/89/2005 (IR(CM-II)
dated 12.06.2006 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of B.S.F Hospital, Tigri Camp in terminating the services of Shri.
Rajinder Kumar w.e.f. 03.11.2003 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
The claimant filed the claim statement contending that he was appointed as a sweeper with the management on
22.11.1996 in the pay scale of 700-25-1000 and the said pay was revised from time to time and on the date of termination
of service his salary was 2415/- per month. The workman had raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner–Cum-Conciliation Officer on 08.09.2002 demanding grant of equal pay for equal work and other facilities
at par with other Group-D employees of BSF Hospital. Notice was served in this regard on the management on
09.09.2003. Soon after the receipt of the notice management stopped the salary of the workman for the month of
September, October and November 2003 in order to take revenge on him. The revenge full act of the management did not
stop there as the management on 03.11.2003 terminated his service. At the time of termination neither termination notice,
notice pay, nor the retrenchment compensation was paid to him. The termination was without prior permission of the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4251
Labour Commissioner before whom and Industrial Dispute was pending and thereby amounts to violation of Section 33
causing change of service condition. One complaint in this regard was made before the Labour Commissioner and the
conciliation proceeding taken up failed. Thus, the Appropriate Government referred the matter to this tribunal for
adjudication.
The management filed WS opposing the claim of the workman, but admitted the fact that the claimant was appointed as a
sweeper temporarily under the Special relief fund of the BSF which is private in nature and managed out of the
contribution made by serving BSF personal without any grant or aid from the Government. The claimant was appointed
as a sweeper (civilian) in the Hospital at Signal Training School Tigri Camp New Delhi purely on temporary basis. He
was guilty of habitual absence from duty and for that reason the work assigned to him had suffered substantially. During
the period between June 2003 to December 2003 he remained absent for 155 days without any valid and genuine reason.
He also remained continuously absent from duty w.e.f. 04.11.2003 without any intimation. Thus, with prior approval of
the authority his service was terminated on administrative ground by the competent authority with one month salary in
lieu of one month notice on 9.12.2003. The further contention of the management is that he was not a regular employee
and as per the condition of employment his service can be terminated any time without prior notice however the notice
was sent to him before his termination.
It is the further stand of the management that another Industrial Dispute was raised by this workman demanding equal
pay and benefits at par with a regular employees of BSF but the CGIT-II in an award passed refused the claim of the
workman. Maintaining the stand that the workman was a temporary employee, the respondent stated that there was no
need for serving any notice on him or taking prior approval of the Labour Commissioner. The management has pleaded
for dismissal of the Industrial Dispute.
On the basis of the pleading following points emerge for adjudication.
1.
Whether the service of the workman has been illegally or unjustifiably terminated by the management.
2.
To what relief the workman is entitled to.
The workman examined himself as WW1 and deposed along the lines of the statement of claim submitted by him. He
also exhibited certain documents which include his appointment letter and termination letter. He was cross-examined by
the management during which he denied the suggestion of unauthorized and long absence from duty. The management
also examined one of its officer as MW1 who proved series of documents marked as MW1/A to MW1/G.
FINDINGS
POINT No. 1
The workman as well as the management relied upon the appointment letter issued to the workman at the time of his
initial appointment. This has been filed by respondent as Annexure-R1. This admitted document shows that the claimant
Rajinder Kumar was appointed as a sweeper on consolidated salary of Rs. 700 to 1000/- w.e.f. 22.11.1996 and the
payment of salary was payable from the special relief fund of FHQ. Whereas the workman argued that the appointment
letter never recites the word temporary for his status, the management has explained that the Border Security Force is a
Government of India organization and the special relief fund is a fund raised out of the contribution made by serving BSF
personnel and under the control of ministry of Home Affairs. For appointment of sweeper and any other staff utilizing the
money from SRF prior permission from the authority is required. During appointment of the workman such prior
permission was obtained which has been also marked as Annexure-R1. The management has relied upon another
document marked as Annexure-R3 which is a circular issued by the Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs dated
20.11.2003. in this circular the government has clarified that any appointment to be made under the SRF shall be with
prior permission of the authority, shall not confer any right for regularization on the appointee and the same appointment
shall not be counted towards regular service pensionery and other financial benefits. On the strength of this document the
management pleaded that the engagement of the claimant was purely temporary and terminable with the prior permission
of the authority. In the case of present workman the prior permission was obtained for his termination on account of his
unauthorized absence. The witness examined on behalf of the management has stated that before such termination one
month salary in lieu of the notice was ordered to be paid and infact a cheque was sent in the address furnished by him but
the same returned undelivered. Thereby the management has pleaded that no illegality was committed while terminating
the service of the workman.
In order to decide the justifiability of the termination order it is necessary to examine if appointment was temporary and
conditional in nature. On a plain reading of the appointment letter filed by the management as Annexue-R1 shows that
the workman was appointed w.e.f. 22.11.1996 on a particular pay scale and there is no specification or stipulation
regarding the period of his appointment. The circular of the home department filed by the management as Annexure-R3
though prescribes for appointment for a period of1 year, in the case of the present workman there was no such time
stipulation in the appointment letter. The circular under reference, speaks that the service rendered by a person appointed
4252
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
under the SRF will not be counted for regular service & pensionery benefit etc. But there is no condition that the
appointment will be purely temporary in nature. The witness examined by the management also during cross-
examination failed to say if the workman was in a permanent or temporary nature of job. Thus, considering the oral and
documentary evidence adduced by the parties this tribunal finds no reason to reject the stand of the workman that he was
not appointed on a temporary basis.
Once it is held that the workman was not a temporary employee, it is necessary to examine if his termination was illegal
and contrary to the provisions of industrial dispute Act. The allegation of the workman is that without any valid reason,
his service was terminated in gross violation of the provisions of section 33 of the ID Act when an industrial dispute was
pending before the Labour Commissioner. The management has admitted all other things stated by the workman except
the fact that there was violation of section 33 since the claimant is not a workman and the Hospital is not an industry. It is
also admitted by the management through its witness examined as MW1 that no inquiry for the unauthorized absence of
the workman was conducted before the order of termination was passed. This itself amounts to violation of the principles
of Natural justice as the workman was never offered the opportunity of explaining the cause of his absence and the order
of termination was unilaterally passed which makes the order of termination illegal.
The admitted facts are that there was a dispute pending between the claimant and the management before the Labour
Commissioner in the year 2003 relating to demand of the workman for equal pay and remuneration. It is immaterial
whether the workman succeeded in his claim or not. It would be profitable to refer to section 33 of the ID Act which
provides that during the pendency of an Industrial dispute no employer shall change the conditions of the service of the
workman without prior approval of the authority before whom the dispute is pending. Admittedly no such approval was
obtained by the management when the order of termination was passed against the workman on 19.12.2003 on the face
of a pending Industrial Dispute before the Labour Commissioner. The stand of the management that the hospital is not an
industry to bring the claimant under the definition of the workman is not accepted for the definition given under section
2(i) of the Contract Labour (regulation and abolition Act) 1970. Moreover the hospital very well falls under the definition
of industry as mentioned under the ID Act. Reverting back to the allegation of the workman that his condition of the
service was changed during the pendency of the Industrial Dispute is apparent and admitted by the management on the
face of the record. Hence, it is held that the service condition of the workman was changed without prior permission of
the industrial adjudicator.
The workman has also alleged that no notice, of termination or notice pay, etc was served on him before the termination.
The explanation offered by the management is that a termination notice alongwith one month pay in lieu of notice was
sent in his address but could not be delivered for wrong address. Step was taken for publicity of the notice in the local
newspaper. Some documents in this regard has been filed by the management which include copy of the newspaper and
report of the officer assigned the duty of serving the notice. The photocopy of the postal cover has also been filed. During
cross-examination the workman admitted that the address in which the notice was sent was his temporary address during
the service and the permanent address is as has been mentioned in the affidavit. But the respondent/management has
stated that no such permanent address was ever furnished by the workman. Thus, from the totality of the evidence this
tribunal has reason to believe that the workman had not furnished any other address than the one in which the notice and
pay were sent. As a result thereof no blame can be thrust upon the management for not complying section 25-F of the ID
Act. But the fact remains that no notice or notice pay could be served on the workman before termination of his job. At
the same time it is held that the termination of the service of the workman at the instance of the management is illegal for
the admitted position that the termination was made during the pendency of dispute before the Labour Commissioner
without his permission. This point no. 1 is accordingly answered in favour of the workman.
POINT NO. 2
The workman has prayed for setting aside the order of termination with all arrears and other consequential benefit. The
Ld. A/R for the workman argued that in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited vs. Shri Ram Gopal
Sharma and others reported in Civil Appeal No. 87-88 of 1986 decided on 01.01.2002 it has been held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that during the pendency of an industrial dispute if an order of dismissal is passed without approval under
section 33(2)(b), the employee shall be deemed to have continued in service entitling him to all the benefits available.
Separate order for his reinstatement not required. He also argued that when the evidence shows non compliance of
section 25-F of the ID Act the effect would be reinstatement with full back wages. In this regard he has placed reliance in
the case of Jasmer Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in 2015(1) SCALE360. On the basis of these judgments argument
was advanced that the workman was illegally terminated and he is entitled to get all the service benefits w.e.f. 3.11.2003.
On careful perusal of the judgment of the Jaipure Zila and Jasmer Singh referred supra on the face of the evidence on
record this tribunal is of the opinion that the workman Rajinder Kumar’s service was terminated illegally during the
pendency of the Industrial Dispute and thereby he is deemed to be in service on 3.11.2003 and thereafter in the post and
scale as he was on the date of termination. He is also held entitled to the service benefits like salary, for the said period.
This point is accordingly answered in favor of the workman. Hence, ordered.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4253
ORDER
The reference be and the same is answered on the contest in favour of the workman. The order of termination dated
03.11.2003 passed by the management is held to be illegal. It is directed that the workman shall be deemed to be in
service on 03.11.2003 and thereafter. He is held entitled to salary payable to him during this period. It is also ordered that
the arrear salary shall carry simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the same is paid to the workman. The
management shall allow the workman to join his duty forthwith and pay the arrear of the salary within 3 months from the
date when the award would become enforceable. Failing which the accrued amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12%
per annum from the date of accrual till the final payment is made. Copy be supplied to the parties and the record be
consigned in the record room.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1003
1003
1003
1003.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मैसस एन सी सी िलिमटेड नागाजुन कं# >A शन कंपनी िल. नई द ली और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं- के संब.
िनयोजक/ और उनके कमकार/ के बीच अनुबंध म िन0द1 ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म
यायालय-2, नई द ली के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 07/2017) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 09.05.2019 को
ा: त ;ए थे।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 1003.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 07/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-2 New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The N.C.C
Ltd. Nagarjun Construction Company Ltd. Delhi and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central
Government on 09.05.2019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty,Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 07/17
Date of Passing Award- 26th March, 2019.
Between:
Shri Rajender Singh,
S/o Shri Har Singh,
R/o. B-6069-113/14, Sant Nagar, Buradi,
Kamal Pur Mazra Buradi,
Delhi- 110084.
….Workman
Through:- Samast Audhogik Shramik Vikas Union, (Reg.)
D-198/1, Gali No. 1, Radha Kishan Marg,
Swarup Nagar, Delhi- 110042.
4254
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
1.
M/s. N.C.C Ltd.
Nagarjun Construction Company Ltd.
2.
N.B.C.C Kidwai Nagar, East Project Construction,
Of Social Structure Type-6, and 7 quarter, Kidwai Nagar,
New Delhi- 110023.
…Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Yashpal Singh, (Advocate)
For the Workman
None for the management, (Advocate)
For the Management
AWARD
This is an application filed by the workman invoking the jurisdiction of this tribunal under section 2-A of the ID Act
1947 (herein after referred to at The Act) seeking the relief of reinstatement to service with full back wages and other
service benefits.
The averment of the claimant as per the claim statement is that he was working with Nagarjun Construction Company
Pvt. Ld. Since the year 2004 in the post of filed assistant on a monthly remuneration of Rs. 9701/- together with grade
pay of 6300/-. In the month of April 2016, being in need of one week leave he had submitted leave application observing
all the formalities. When his application was pending with the General Manager for Signature, he left for his village and
returned on 26.04.2016. Though on 26.04.2016 and 27.04.2016 he reported for his duty, was not allowed to do so. On
28.04.2016 he was denied to put his signature in the attendance register. On his demand for the reason of such unfair
labour practice no information was furnished. On the contrary when he was reported for work a notice was sent in his
village address and with some ulterior intention, allegation was leveled for his unauthorized absence from duty.
Ultimately his service was terminated and before termination no termination notice or retrenchment compensation was
paid. Not only that, for March and April 2016 his salary was also held up by the management.
It is the further stand of the workman that when he was serving for the management the later was not paying him work
linked incentive the facility of casual leave or salary in lieu of earned leave etc. The demand made by the workman in
this regard, perhaps irritated the management leading to termination of the service. He has also pleaded that since the
date of termination the workman has not been gainfully employed elsewhere.
Notices were sent to the management and on receipt of notice the management appeared through its administrative
officer and authorized representative. Though several opportunities were given and cost was imposed the management
failed to file written statement and hence proceeded ex-parte by order dated 15th May 2018.
Thus, in absence of the pleading of the management the points which emerged for consideration and adjudication are:
1.
If the service of the workman was illegally terminated by the management.
2.
If the workman is entitled to reinstatement with back wages.
POINT NO. 1
The workman examined himself as WW1 and also produced the documents which have been marked in a series of
WW1/1 to WW1/4. In this sworn testimony the workman has stated that since the year 2004 he was working for the
management as filed Assistant and appointment letter was given to him by the management on 23.09.2005. The copy of
the appointment letter has been marked as WW1/4. This letter appears to have been issued to the workman by the Chief
General Manager HRD of Nagarjun Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. dated 23.09.2005. The designation of the workman
has been described therein as filed Assistant Grade-II. The recital of the Appointment letter shows that he was appointed
for a probation period of 12 months from the date of joining and the management reserves the right of extending the
period of probation if no order of confirmation is passed. Here in this case by filing the appointment letter the workman
has stated that his service was confirmed after 12 months and no contrary evidence is available on record to discard the
said assertion of the workman. Thus, the conclusion is that the workman was appointed as a field Assistant Grade-II in
the office of the management and after successful completion of the Probation period he was confirmed to the post
carrying the Monthly Salary as mentioned by the workman in the claim statement.
The workman has further pleaded that under genuine requirement he had proceeded for one week leave after submitting
leave application. When he returned and reported for duty on 26.04.2016, the management did not allow him to sign the
attendance register and by sending a termination notice in his village address which was never served on him, managed
to terminate his service illegally. The workman has explained that he was often raising demand against the unfair Labour
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4255
practice which had irritated the management and prompted for termination of his service. He had served a demand notice
on the management which remained unheard. The copy of that notice has been marked as WW1/2 and the postal receipt
showing service of the same has been marked as WW1/3.On the basis of this documents the workman has pleaded that
he was subjected to unfair labour practice.
The management though had appeared through its official, never participated in the proceeding. Thus, the statement and
evidence of the workman remained uncontroverted. This undisputed and uncontroverted oral and documentary evidence
adduced by the workman lead to a conclusion that he was an employee of the management and the later had terminated
his service illegally without following the statutory provision of section 25-F of the ID Act. This point No. 1 is
accordingly answered in favour of the workman.
POINT NO. 2
In the claim petition the workman has prayed for reinstatement to service with back wages. Way Back in the year 1980
the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of surrender kumar Verma and Other vs. CGIT Delhi had observed that
“Plain common sense dictates that the removal order terminating the service of the workman must ordinarily
lead to the reinstatement in the service of the workman. It is as if the order was never been made and so it must
ordinarily lead to back wages. But there may be exceptional circumstance which makes it impossible for the
employer to direct reinstatement with full back wages.”
In such cases the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the appropriate order would be for payment of compensation in lieu of
reinstatement. But in the case of G.M ONGC Silchar vs. ONGC Contractual Worker Union reported in 2008 LLR
801 the Hon’ble Apex Court after giving due consideration to several observations in different pronouncement which
suggest that a workman who was put in 240 days of work or a contractual worker is not entitled automatically to
regularization and came to hold that, in appropriate cases regularization can be ordered.
In this case the workman has prayed for a relief of reinstatement to service on account of his illegal termination. The
relationship between the workman and the management has already been established as the employee and employer.
While adducing evidence the workman has successfully proved that his service was confirmed and he had an
unblemished track record of service. In such a situation this tribunal feels it proper to direct that the workman be
reinstated to service with back wages.
Though the workman has stated that he has not been gainfully employed since the date of termination, it is also evident
on record that he has not rendered any service for the management during this intervening period. It is the rule of law that
for no work done no remuneration is to be paid. Keeping that principle in view it is held that payment of 20% of the back
wage to the workman from the date when his service was dispensed with by the management till reinstatement without
interest will do justice in the circumstances. This point is accordingly answered. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The claim petition be and the same is allowed. It is held that the termination of the workman by the management is
illegal and he is entitled to reinstatement to service with management No.1 alongwith 20% of the back wages without
interest from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. The management No. 1 is further directed to reinstate
the workman to service within 3 months from the date when this award becomes executable. The management shall also
pay the back wages as directed within the said period of 3 months. On the event of nonpayment of the back wages
accrued, the amount so accrued shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification of this
award till the final payment is made. Copy be supplied to the parties and the record be consigned in the record room.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1004
1004
1004
1004.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मैसस सीईओ, कDटोनमट बोड, देहरादून और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं- के संब. िनयोजक/ और उनके कमकार/ के
बीच अनुबंध म िन0द1 ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म यायालय-2, नई द ली के पंचाट
(संदभ सं5 या 42/2016) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 15.05.2019 को ा: त ;ए थे।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
4256
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 1004.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 42/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-2 New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The CEO,
Cantonment Board, Dehradun and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on
16.05.1019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present : Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 42/2016
Date of Passing Award- 25th April, 2019.
Between:
Km. Anjali Thakur,
D/o Shri L.R. Thakur,
Telpur, Shimla Byepass Road,
Mehuwala Mafi,
Dehradun-248171.
… Workman
Versus
The CEO,
Cantonment Board,
Clement Town,
Dehradun-248002.
… Management
Appearances:-
Shri Rajesh Sherawat, (Advocate)
For the Workman
None for the management, (Advocate)
For the Management
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between
employer i.e. the management of Cantonment Board and its workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub section
(1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L- 13012/02/2015 (IR(DU) dated
05.05.2015 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the management of Cantonment Board, Clement Town, Dehradun is justified in discontinuation of
service of Kumara Anjali Thakur while persons junior to her were kept in service on similar footing? should she
not be kept engaged till regular appointment is made, therefore under the given circumstances?
The Claimant filed her claim statement stating that pursuant to an advertisement dated 10.08.2011 published in daily
newspaper Danik Jagran, she had submitted application for the post of Junior Clerk. Her application was considered and
she was called for interview on 10.09.2012. Basing on for her performance, one engagement letter was issued to her on
the next date i.e. on 11.09.2012 informing about her engagement as Computer Operator on contractual daily wage basis
for a period of 87 days with a break of 5 days, extendable on satisfactory performance. He was offered the remuneration
at the rate of Rs. 259/- per day. The claimant joined his duty on 11.09.12 and worked continuously till 30.03.2013.
Though in the appointment letter it was mentioned that her engagement would be for a period of 87 days with a break of
5 days and extendable, no such break occurred and she worked continuously till 30.03.2013 when her service was
terminated w.e.f. 01.04.13. A letter to that effect was served on him. After an artificial break of 4 days the claimant was
again appointed in the same job on a daily wage of Rs. 365/-. However, this time no appointment letter was issued to her.
She continued to work till 30.06.2014 when her job was finally terminated. During the period of employment though the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4257
workman was paid remuneration, the management at the time of her termination neither served the notice of termination
nor retrenchment compensation was paid to her in gross violation of the provisions of section 25-F of the ID Act. The
claimant has further stated that the work done by her was against a permanent post and the work was perennial in nature.
After her engagement the management had engaged other persons for the same nature of work. Though the engagement
of the workman was brought to an end, the persons engaged after her engagement having lesser qualification than her are
still working with the management which indicate that the management has the vacancy and requirement for the
workman and the management violated the principle of last come first go, while terminating her service. Describing the
same as unfair labour practice the workman made a complaint to the Labour Commissioner seeking redressal of her
grievance. The conciliation proceeding taken up by the Labour Commissioner yield no result and the appropriate
government referred the matter for adjudication by this Tribunal. The workman has prayed to set aside the order of
termination passed by the management with additional prayer for reinstatement to the service with full back wages and
other service benefits including the cost of the litigation.
The management filed written statement denying the claim of the workman. In the written statement the management has
leveled allegation against the workman for suppression of material facts. It has been stated that the news paper
advertisement referred to by the claimant was not meant for engagement of computer operators. There was a separate
advertisement dated 31.08.2012 published in daily newspaper Danik Jagran and Amar Ujala dated 04.09.2012.In the said
advertisement application were invited by the management for engagement of Two Computer Operators on casual basis
on minimum wage for a period of 11 months with break of 5 days after completion of 87 days. There was a walk in
interview conducted on 10.09.12 at Cantonment Board Office, Clement Town Dehradun. Pursuant there to the claimant
was engaged w.e.f. 11.09.12 and conditional appointment letter was issued to her. The service of the claimant was
terminated w.e.f. 01.04.13 and thereafter she was never appointed but allowed to work on daily wage basis till
30.05.2014. By an order dated 19.05.2014 this extension was made on the request of the claimant. The engagement of the
claimant was purely on contractual basis and the engagement has not conferred any right of employment on the
workman. The management has further stated that this claimant had filed WPC NO. 884/2014 before the Hon’ble High
Court of Uttrakhand. The Hon’ble High Court while disposing the writ directed that the engagement of the applicant
being purely on contractual basis she is not entitled to the relief sought for. However it was observed that the Cantonment
Board at its discretion may consider engaging the petitioner till the post is filled up by way of regular process. The
special appeal filed by the workman against that order also failed. While denying the allegation of the claimant that the
principle of last come first go was not followed, the management has stated that the persons whom the claimant is
referring to, were in fact initially appointed on contractual basis. But subsequently they were selected in the lawful
process of selection pursuant to advertisement by the management and being selected got appointed. The present
claimant did not participate in the process of regular appointment. Thereby the management has pleaded for dismissal of
the claim.
On this rival pleading the following issues are framed for adjudication.
1. Whether the claim is not legally tenable in view of the various preliminary objection?
2. In terms of reference.
The workman examined herself as WW1 and filed certain documents which were marked in a series of WW1/1 to
WW1/7. She was not cross examined by the management as the later by order dated 10.07.2018 was proceeded ex-parte.
The documents filed by the workman include the advertisement made in the local news paper marked as Exhibit WW1/1,
her appointment letter dated 11.09.2012 as WW1/2 the first termination letter dated 30.03.13 as WW1/3 the second
termination letter dated 19.05.2014 marked as WW1/4 her representation copy of the bank passbook and the affidavit
marked as WW1/5 WW1/6 WW1/7 respectively.
No oral evidence has been adduced by the management which was proceeded ex-parte. However alongwith the written
statement the management had filed the photocopies of the advertisement dated 04.09.12 inviting application for the post
of Computer Operator for a period of 11 months, the photocopy of the appointment letter termination letter and the orders
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Uttrakhand rejecting the plea taken by the workman with regard to his status on
employment.
FINDINGS
ISSUE NO. 1
From the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties the undisputed facts are that the claimant was appointed
for the management as a Computer Operator w.e.f. 11.09.2012 and had worked till 30.05.2014. Whereas the claimant has
stated that she was appointed pursuant to an advertisement made in the local newspaper on 11.08.2011 the management
disputed the same and stated that the advertisement referred to by the claimant was for Junior Clerk etc. There was a
separate advertisement for walk in interview in order till fill up 2 Post of Computer Operator on causal basis. That
advertisement was published on 04.09.12. The claimant has exhibited the photocopy of the advertisement as WW1/1 and
on behalf of the management the photocopy of the advertisement has been filed. Though no oral evidence has been
adduced by the management, the documents filed alongwith the written statement have not been disputed by the
4258
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
claimant. On perusal of both the advertisement it is found that the advertisement dated 10.08.11 marked as WW1/1 was
for the post of Junior Clerk, Safai Wala and Mali for filling up permanent vacancies on a definite scale of pay. There is
no reference about computer operator as claimed by the present claimant. On the contrary the advertisement dated
04.09.12 referred to by the management was for walk in interview to fill up two post of computer operator on casual
basis on minimum wage for a period of 11 months and initially for a period of 87 days with a break of 5days. The terms
and conditions mentioned in the advertisement dated 04.09.12 commensurate the terms and conditions mentioned in the
appointment letter issued to the workman and filed by him as WW1/2. The oral evidence adduced by the workman that
he was appointed against a regular vacancy doesn’t sound convincing as against the documents filed by both the parties.
Hence, it is held that the engagement of the workman as a computer operator with the management was purely on
contractual basis on payment of minimum wage for a period of 11 months with a 5 days break on completion of 87 days.
In addition to this it is pertinent to mention that the Hon’ble High Court of Uttrakhand while disposing WPC No.
884/2014 have clearly held that the engagement of the petitioner was purely on contractual basis and thereby never
conferred any right of absorption against a permanent post.
The Ld. A/R for the workman during course of hearing submitted that the persons engaged later than the workman are
still working for the management and thus, the management is guilty of violating the rule of last come first go. On the
contrary the management in the written statement has admitted that the persons named by the workman were infact
appointed as Computer Operators subsequent to the engagement of the claimant. It is also admitted that those persons are
still working for the management but their engagement is no more contractual in nature since they went through the
selection procedure of the management for their permanent absorption. The present claimant did not opt for the same and
hence, her service was discontinued when regular appointment was made. It is true that the management has not adduced
any evidence to prove that the said person have been appointed against regular vacancy. Following recruitment procedure
and the claimant opted not to participate in that procedure. But at this point it is necessary to mention that the burden lies
on the claimant to prove that when his service was terminated there were regular vacancies, and she was eligible for the
post. The workman in her oral statement has emphasized about the perennial nature of the work she was engaged for and
the continuing vacancies for the same with the management. This evidence of the workman has not been controverted by
the management. Rather while filing the written statement the management has admitted about the continuity of service
of 2 persons appointed later than the workman. The explanation offered is that they had gone through an eligibility test
leading to their selection whereas the claimant/workman had opted out of the procedure. The procedure of law laid down
in the Indian evidence Act requires the facts asserted to be proved and the pleading simpliciter cannot take the place of
evidence. Hence, in this proceeding the management has failed to prove through evidence that 2 persons were appointed
against permanent vacant posts though recruitment procedure, irrespective of the burden of proof. The pleading and
evidence of the nowhere shows that her service was terminated on account of appointment of those two persons against
permanent vacant post. Rather the evidence goes to show that the W.M and those two persons were working at the same
time till termination on the claimant/workman which lead to a conclusion that there was vacancy when service of W.M
was terminated.
In this case at the cost of repetition it is stated that the management though admitted about the vacancy in the post of
computer operator and explained that two persons appointed later than the workman are continuing for their selection,
there is no evidence on record to that effect. On the contrary the workman has challenged the stand of the management
by saying that the work was perennial in nature and there are vacancies. This tribunal finds no reason of rejecting the oral
testimony of the claimant in absence of any other evidence and comes to a conclusion that the management had
vacancies for the post of computer operators when the service of the workman was terminated.
The next question which needs to be determined is- can a direction be issued to the management for absorbing the
workman permanently against the vacant post as has been claimed by her. Alongwith the written statement the
management has filed the certified copy of the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Uttrakhand in WPC No.
884/2014 and Special Appeal No. 392/2014 wherein the Hon’ble High Court while rejecting the stand of the workman
came to hold that the appointment of the workman was casual in nature and as such no relief can be granted as the post of
computer operators being regular in nature should be filed up by way of a regular process of appointment.
In the case of Secretary State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC Page 1 it has been held
“merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his
appointment , he would not be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on strength of such
continuance, if original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection.”
In this case as admitted by the claimant there was only an interview and no due process of selection was followed. But
she was allowed to work for a time beyond the term of his appointment. The case of Uma Devi referred supra came to be
discussed in a later judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e. in the case of Maharashtra SRTC vs. Casteribe Rajya
Parivahan Karmchari Sangathana (2009) 8 SCC Page 556. In that judgment the issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
was with regard to the jurisdiction of the industrial court to give status wages and all other benefits of permanency to the
workman who had been serving for years as cleaners in the corporation in temporary capacity. Relying upon Uma Devi a
plea was raised that granting of permanent status to the casual workers/daily wager was not sustainable in law. Repealing
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4259
the aforesaid argument the supreme court in Para No. 32 and 33 of the judgment of Maharashtra SRTC observed as
under:-
“32. The power given to the Industrial and Labour Courts under Section 30 is very wide and affirmative action
mentioned therein is inclusive and exhaustive. Employing badlis, casuals or temporaries and to continue
them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees
is an unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV. Once such unfair labour
practice on the part of the employer is established in the complaint, the Industrial and Labour Courts are
empowered to issue preventive as well as positive direction to an erring employer.
“33. The provisions of MRTU and PULP Act and the powers of Industrial Labour Courts provided therein were
not at all under consideration in the case of Uma Devi1. As a matter of fact, the issue like the present one
pertaining to unfair labour practice was not at all referred, considered or decided in Umadevi1. Unfair labour
practice on the part of the employer in engaging employees as badlies, casuals or temporaries and to continue
them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees
as provided in Item 6 of Schedule IV and the power of Industrial and Labour Courts under section 30 of the
Act did not fall for adjudication or consideration before the constitution Bench”.
Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case Hari Nandan Prasad vs. employer I/R to management of Food
Corporation of India and another reported in AIR 2014 SC 1848, wherein the issue was as to whether the Labour Court
Tribunal has the jurisdiction to order regularization of the workman was considered in the context of the provision of the
Act and the decision of the constitution bench in the case of Uma Devi and the Hon’ble Court came to hold that the
powers conferred upon the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court under the ID Act are quite wide. The Act deals with
industrial Disputes, provides for conciliation, adjudication, and settlements, and regulates the rights of the parties and the
enforcement of the award and settlement. Not only that way back in the year 1950 in the case of Bharat Bank Limited vs.
Employees of Bharat Bank reported in (1950) LLJ 921 The Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed:
“In settling the disputes between the employers and the workmen, the function of the Tribunal is not confined to
administration of justice in accordance with law. It can confer rights and privileges on either party which it
considers reasonable and proper, though they may not be within the terms of any existing agreement. It has not
merely to interpret or give effect to the contractual rights and obligations of the parties. It can create new rights and
obligations between them which it considers essential for keeping industrial peace.”
In the above said backdrop and on considering the different pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court, while reverting
to the facts of the present case, the grievance of the claimant is that she was appointed against a permanent vacancy on
casual basis alongwith some others and during the course of her employment she had discharged her duties to the utmost
satisfaction of the employer. The employer in order to deprive her of the right of permanency had made some artificial
breaks. But she was allowed to work beyond the period of initial appointment and the other person engaged after her are
still continuing which lead to a conclusion that the job requirement of computer operators is permanent in nature. Though
the Hon’ble High Court of Uttrakhand have dismissed the plea of the claimant for absorption gave a liberty to her for
approaching the Industrial Tribunal. Now before this tribunal the claimant has successfully proved that her engagement
was purely on contractual basis but the engagement was against permanent vacancy and the persons appointed later than
her are still continuing. Even though in the written statement the management took a plea that the said person were given
regular appointment pursuant to a selection procedure there is no evidence to that effect. Hence, it is safely conclusion
that the claimant/workman is a victim of unfair labour practice in the hands of the management and the management has
failed to follow the principle of last come first go.
On harmonious reading of the two judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Uttrakhand annexed alongwith the written
statement of the management this tribunal is of the opinion that there are posts of computer operator vacant in the
establishment of the management when the service of the workman was terminated, and the management adopted unfair
labour practice by not following the Principle of last come, first go. Since the present workman had continued as a daily
wage worker for no. of years which cannot be held as a back door entry for the interview conducted by the management
before her engagement, it is concluded that the plea of the management that the workman was engaged on temporary
basis and no direction for her regularization cannot be issued is held devoid of merit and therefore rejected.
The next question is if the workman meets other eligibility condition for absorption came up for consideration during
adjudication. Admittedly the claimant petitioner has not attained the age of superannuation. Her qualification was
considered at the time of her initial engagement and during this proceeding no objection in this regard was ever raised by
the management. Hence it is concluded that claimant/workman possesses the requisite qualification and her retrenchment
amounts to violation of section 25-G of the ID Act. No valid reason has been assigned by the management to justify its
action in not following the principle of last come first go as mandated u/s 25-G of the Act. The plea that the persons
employed later than the claimant/workman were allowed to continue pursuant to their regular selection is not accepted
for want of evidence.
Reliance has been placed on behalf of the workman in the case of Mackinon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. vs. Mackinon
Employees Union reported in AIR 2015 SC 1373 and in the case of Workman of Sudder Workshop of Jorehut Tea Co.
4260
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ltd. vs. Jorehut Tea Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1980 SC 1454. In these two judgments the Hon’ble Supreme court have
held that last come first go is not an inflexible rule and extraordinary situation may justify variation. In such a case the
management has to assign the reason for departure from the rule. In this case no explanation has been offered by the
management as to why the juniors were allowed to continue whereas the present workman being the senior was
terminated.
Hence, for the foregoing reasons it is concluded that the claimant/workman was subjected to unfair labour practice by the
management. There was a gross violation of the provision of Section 25-G of the ID Act. She having possessed the
requisite qualification to work as a computer operator and there being the vacancy for the said post which is a post
perennial in nature, this tribunal while following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad
referred supra feels it proper to exercise its jurisdiction to order the regularization of the workman who was initially
appointed as a casual worker and continued to work for more than 240 days in the preceding calendar year of her
termination to the optimum satisfaction of the employer. The issue is accordingly answered in favour of the workman.
Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is answered affirmatively in favour of the workman. The decision of the management of
cantonment board in discontinuing the service of the claimant/workman while retaining the persons junior to her is held
to be illegal. It is directed that the claimant/workman shall be reinstated in the post where she was working at the time of
her termination with immediate effect on the date when this award would become enforceable. It is further directed that
the workman shall be paid the wage as per law from the date of her reinstatement. It is further directed that the
management shall pay 30% of the back wage to the claimant/workman for the period between the date of termination and
reinstatement without interest within 2 months from the date when the award would become enforceable. On the event of
failure by the management to pay the amount within the time stipulated, the accrued amount shall carry interest at the
rate of 12% from the date of accrual till the date of final payment. No order is passed as to cost. Copy be supplied to the
parties and the record be consigned in the record room.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1005
1005
1005
1005.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस कमांडट, सश# - बल मेिडकल कॉलेज, वनोवरी, पुणे एवं उनके कमचारी और अ य के बंधतं- के संब. िनयोजक/ और
उनके कमकार/ के बीच अनुबंध म िन0द1 ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म यायालय-2,
मुंबई के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या CGIT-2 /102 of 2014) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 14.05.2019 को ा: त
;ए थे।
[सं. एल-14011/20/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O.1005.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT-2/102 of 2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court-2 Mumbai, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
The Commandant, Armed Forced Medical College, Wanowari, Pune and Others, and their workmen which was received
by the Central Government on 26.04.1019.
[No. L-14011/20/2014-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4261
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/ 102 of 2014
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF ARMED FORCED MEDICAL COLLEGE
The Commandant,
Armed Forced Medical College,
Civil Estt., Wanowari,
PUNE – 411 040.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
Shri Anil Babanrao Jadhav,
C/o. Poona Industrial Workers Union,
Near 197/A/1, Ramnagar Chowk,
Chakrapani Vasahat Road, Bhosari.
PUNE – 411 039.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr. Umesh Nabar, Advocate
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
Ms. Madhuri Chavan, Representative
Mumbai, dated the 5th April, 2019.
AWARD PART – I
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-14011/20/2014 – IR (DU) dated 02.12.2014. The terms of reference given
in the schedule are as follows :
“Whether the action of the management of Armed Forces Medical College, Pune in removing the services of
Shri Anil Babanrao Jadhav w.e.f. 25.03.2006 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
to ?“
2.
After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices. They appeared through their
respective representatives.
3.
The concerned workman has filed statement of claim Ex.5 and rejoinder Ex.14 contending therein that he was in
the employment of first party in the capacity of watchman w.e.f. 9.11.94. He was permanent workman of first party. The
first party by the charge sheet dt. 7.4.06 alleged that he remained absent for the period of 84 days in 3 spells without any
intimation and thus he committed the misconduct in contravention of Rule 3 (1) (ii) of CCS Conduct rules, 1964. Dr.
D.M. Athanikar, Chief Medical Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer. During departmental proceedings he submitted
that he was sick and down with severe pain in his stomach and therefore he could not attend the duty. E.O., however,
submitted his report on 26.8.06 to the first party. The first party based on enquiry report by his order dt. 22.7.06 imposed
upon the second party the major punishment of removal from service which shall not be qualification for future
employment under the government. The second party made representations to the authorities for setting aside removal
order. The Asst. Administrative Officer of the first party closed the case advising the second party to approach the
concerned authority for redressal of grievance. Second party approached the office of Labour Commissioner [State
Govt.] and thereafter the office of RLC Pune. The conciliation proceedings conducted by RLC [C], Pune who forwarded
his report dt. 18.3.13 to the Central Govt. and in turn the Central Govt. by order dt. 2.12.14 has referred the industrial
dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.
4.
The first party management resisted claim by filing written statement Ex.8 contending therein that the Armed
Forces Medical College, Pune is a category – A estt. of Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence under Director General,
Armed Forces Medical services which carries out teaching, research and training to combatants and other staff and
performing sovereign function of union of India. Essence of government service is the sense of discipline to which all the
4262
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
government employees are subject & privilege to which they in general are entitled. These two aspects are fully covered
by service rules i.e. Central Civil Services Conduct Rules and Central Civil Rules [CCA] Rules, 1965. As such AFMC,
Pune is not an industry nor the concerned workman is a workman as defined under I.D. Act, 1947. AFC, Pune is
discharging sovereign function of government and there is no relationship between employee & employer. Employees of
AFMC are not workers and also AFMC does not fall under the definition of the industry. Activities of the government
which can be properly described are regal or sovereign activities which are outside the scope of section 2 (j) of I.D. Act.
Hence it does not come under the purview of I.D. Act, 1947.
5.
It is then contended by the first party that applicant / concerned workman had been showing utter disregard
towards the services and had been a habitual absentee from the beginning of his service as an employee of this college.
He has criminal record and has been in prison for 17 days under IPC section 498A and 306. He was placed under
suspension on 12.6.97 which was revoked on 11.9.03 due to his acquittal of the charge punishable u/s. 498A, 306 of IPC.
6.
It is then contended that after due process of departmental enquiry conducted against him he was found guilty of
charges framed against him and was awarded major penalty of removal from services which shall not be disqualification
for future employment under the government vide order dt. 27.7.06. But then after lapse of 6 years he raised the present
dispute and therefore it is necessary to frame and decide the preliminary issues on the point of jurisdiction to entertain the
reference.
7.
Following issues are framed at Ex.15. Issue No.1 & 2 are treated as preliminary issues. Hence I reproduce the
Issue No.1 & 2 along with my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:
Sr.
No.
Issue
Findings
1
Whether Armed Forces Medical College is an ‘industry’ as defined under section 2 (j) of the
Industrial Disputes Act ?
Yes
2.
Whether the second party (Mr. Anil Babanrao Jadhav) is ‘workman’ under I.D. Act ?
Yes
Reasons
Issue No.1 & 2.
8.
Learned Counsel for the first party submitted that all the services of AFMC are governed by the Central Civil
Services Conduct Rules. Submission is to the effect that as per article 311 of Constitution of India, no person who is
member of civil services of the union or All India services or a civil service of a State or holds civil post under the union
or state shall be dismissed or removed by the authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. In view of that
administrative tribunal has to entertain the dispute u/s. 14 of Administrative Tribunal Act and therefore law relating to
Central Administrative Tribunal is applicable since AFMC is not an industry. The question therefore comes for
consideration is, whether AFMC / first party is an industry or not ?
9.
The term ‘industry’ is defined u/s. 2 (j) of I.D. Act, 1947 as under:
“(j) “Industry” means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any
calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or a vocation of workmen.”
10.
The test and guidelines for inclusion & exclusion of the term ‘industry’ has been indicated in the decision in
case of Bangalore Water supply & Sewerage Board V/s. A. Rajappa & Ors. – 1978 (2) – SCC – 213. The Hon’ble Apex
Court has held
(a)
Where (i) systematic activity, (ii) organized by co-operation between employer and employee, (the
direct and substantial element is chimerical) (iii) for the production and / or distribution of goods and
services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but inclusive of
material things or services geared to, celestial bliss e.g. making, on a large scale, Prasad or food), prima
facie, there is an ‘industry’ in that enterprise.
(b)
Absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint private or
other sector.
(c)
The true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the activity with special emphasis on
the employer-employee relations.
(d)
If the Organisation is a trade or business, it does not cease to, be one because of philanthropy animating
the undertaking.”
11.
In view of this legal position, it is made clear that there is no mention of any profit motive and the term
‘employer’ necessarily postulates employees without whom there can be no employers. It has been observed that one of
the test evolved is an undertaking is industry if it is analogist to trade or business. The term ‘analogist to trade or
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4263
business’ could reasonably mean only activity which results in goods made or manufactured or services rendered which
are capable of being converted into salable ones.
12.
As regards the sovereign and legal functions, it has been observed that the term is misfit in a republic where a
citizen shares a political sovereignty in which he has a legal share, however, small in as much as he exercise the right to
vote. Therefore only those services which are governed by the separate rules and constitutional provisions such as article
310 & 311 should strictly speaking be excluded from the sphere of industry by necessary implication.
13.
As regards the educational institutions, it has been observed that if triple tests of systematic activity co-
ordination between employer & employee and production of goods and services were to be applied, a university, a
college, a research institute or teaching institute will be an industry.
14.
Learned Counsel for the concerned workman seeks to rely on the decision in case of Umayammal V/s. State of
Kerala – I – LLJ – 267 to submit that an estt. can be taken out of a pale of industry only if it exercises inalienable
government functions. Even though sovereign functions of the state cannot be included in the industry if there are
industrial units severable from essential functions and passes an entity of their own. It may be plausible to hold that the
employees of those units are workmen and those undertakings are industries.
15.
Here in the instant case, it is contention of the first party that AFMC, Pune carries out teaching, research &
training to combatants and other staff and therefore it is not an industry. It has not been shown that the first party estt. is
exercising inalienable government functions only. But then as a matter of fact, it can be said that the functions of the
institution is organized by the coordination between employer & employee. This being the education institution, the
nature of activity is functional and decisive test which was shown is that the nature of activity is education which is a
service to the community. Hence AFMC is an industry.
16.
As per the appointment order, the second party was appointed as a Watchman in the estt. of the first party.
Considering the nature of work of the concerned workman as per the appointment order, the second party workman is a
workman as defined u/s. 2 (s) of the Act as he is not subject to Air force Act, Army Act, Navy Act nor he is employed in
the police service or as a officer or other employee of the prison or he is not an employee in any managerial
administrative capacity. He is not employed in supervisory capacity too. He was appointed as a Watchman and
considering the nature of work as a Watchman, it can be said that the second party workman is a workman under the I.D.
Act.
17.
Considering the legal position, the nature and activities of the AFMC first party the nature of appointment of
second party workman, the nature of the work of the second party workman in his capacity as workman, I find that
AFMC Medical College is an industry as defined u/s. 2 (j) of I.D. Act. I also find that the second party workman is a
workman under I.D. Act. Hence above preliminary issues are answered accordingly as indicated against each of them in
terms of above observations. Hence order.
ORDER
1.
First party AFMC Medical College is an industry as defined u/s. 2 (j) of I.D. Act.
2.
Second party workman is a workman under I.D. Act.
Date: 05.04.2019
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1006
1006
1006
1006.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस बंधन, कनाटक एंटीबायोXटA स एंड फामा# यूXटक स िलिमटेड, कोलकाता और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं- के
संब. िनयोजक/ और उनके कमकार/ के बीच अनुबंध म िन0द1 ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण
एवं 3म यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 02/2016) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 22.04.2019
को ा: त ;ए थे।
[सं. एल-42011/219/2015-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
4264
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O.1006.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 02/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Kolkata, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The
Management of Karnataka Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Kolkata and Others, and their workmen which were
received by the Central Government on 22.05.1019.
[No. L-42011/219/2015-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 02 of 2016
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Karnataka Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
AND
Their workmen
Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the
: None
Management
On behalf of the
: None
Workmen
Dated: 12th April, 2019
Industry : Pharmaceuticals
AWARD
By Order No.L-42011/219/2015-IR(DU) dated 04.01.2016 the Government of India, Ministry of
Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s Karnataka Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (A Govt. of
India Enterprise) in rejecting the 6-Point Charter of Demands raised by West Bengal Medical & Sales
Representatives’ Union (Affiliated to CITU) as detailed in their letter No. GS/41/2015 dated 24.02.2015 in
violation of Govt. Circulars issued in this regard is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief the workmen are
entitled to?”
3.
When the case is taken up for hearing on 03.04.2019, none appeared for the parties concerned, though both the
parties earlier entered appearance by their respective learned counsel. It transpires from record that though this reference
is pending in this Tribunal since 13.01.2016 and inspite of all the opportunities, neither the union has not filed its
statement of claim, nor the management has filed its written statement to proceed further with the case.
4.
On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the union has no grievance at present
in respect of the 6-points charter of demands as mentioned in the order of reference. Therefore, there exists no dispute for
adjudication.
5.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of accordingly.
JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
Dated, Kolkata,
The 12th April, 2019
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4265
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1007
1007
1007
1007.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस बंधन ऑल इंिडया रेिडयो, पटना और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं- के संब. िनयोजक/ और उनके कमकार/ के
बीच अनुबंध म िन0द1 ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म यायालय, धनबाद के पंचाट
(संदभ सं5 या 100/1998) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 08.04.2019 को ा: त ;ए थे।
[सं. एल-42011/123/1998-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O.1007.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 100/1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The
Management of All India Radio, Patna and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government
on 08.04.1019.
[No. L-42011/123/1998-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 100/1998
Employer in relation to the management of All India Radio
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri D.K.Singh Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry-Coal
Dated- 28/03/2019
AWARD
By order No. L-42012/123/1998-IR (DU) dated 30/11/1998, the central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of commercial Broadcasting services, All India Radio,
Patna in terminating the service of Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, Casual announcer’s is legal & justified?
If not to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed. The workmen appeared for certain dates, but subsequently left
appearing before this Tribunal. More over one of the notices sent to workman is returned back. Case is pending since
long.. It appears that the workmen has lost his interest to resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
4266
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1008
1008
1008
1008.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस बंध िनदेशक, बॉमी िजयो इंजीिनय[रग, मायलापुर, चे नई और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं- के संब.
िनयोजक/ और उनके कमकार/ के बीच अनुबंध म िन0द1 ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म
यायालय, एनाकुलम के पंचाट (संदभ सं. 24/2015) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 09.04.2019 को ा: त
;ए थे।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O.1008.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 24/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Ernakulum, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The
Managing Director, Bumi Geo Engineering, Mylapor, Chennai and Others, and their workmen which were received by
the Central Government on 09.04.1019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present : Shri.V. Vijaya Kumar LLM, Presiding Officer
(Monday the 22nd day of March, 2019)
ID 24/2015
Workman
:
Shri Prakash. S,
S/o Sankaran, Prakashini Bhavan,
Iykkadu P.O., Kodumon,
Pathanamthitta District, Kerala.
By Adv. K. Shaj
Management
:
1) The Managing Director,
Bumi Geo Engineering,
Registered Office NO.85/1,
NAC Towers, 4th Floor,
Dr. Radhakrishna Salai,
Mylapor, Chennai.
2) The Project Manager,
Bumi Geo Engineering,
Kochi Metro Site, Edappally,
Kochi.
By Adv. Sojan James & Adv. Jolly John
3) The Managing Director,
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.,
Kochi, GCDA Complex,
Ernakulam South Railway Station,
Kochi – 682 016.
By M/s B.S. Krishna Associates.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4267
4) The Project Manager,
L&T, KC-03, Kochi,
Edappally Package,
Edappally, Kochi.
This case coming up for final hearing on 28.02.2019 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 22.03.2019 passed the
following:
AWARD
This is an application filed by the workman under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2.
The allegation in the petition in brief is that the petitioner joined the 1st opposite party as Welder on 06.01.2009.
The 1st opposite party is engaged as Sub-Contractor of the 4th opposite party. On 09.12.2013 the 1st opposite party wanted
the petitioner-workman to sign final settlement receipt for Rs.48257.46. The Petitioner refused to sign the same. The
petitioner was directed not to report for duty from 10.12.2013. Hence the petitioner seeks to declare his retrenchment
illegal and direct the 1st opposite party to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and all other benefits.
3.
The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Management entered appearance. The 4th Management remained exparte. According to the 1st
& 2nd Management the claim under S.2(A) of the Industrial Dispute Act is not maintainable as the petitioner has not
complied with the mandatory requirements. Further he will not come under the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act
as he did not have continuous service to entitle him to claim the benefits under the Act.
4.
The case was posted for evidence of the workman from 05.12.2016. There was no representation for the
workman on 12.11.2018 and 07.01.2019. A final chance was given to the workman to adduce evidence on 28.02.2019.
There was no representation for the workman on 28.02.2019 also and the workman is called absent and set exparte.
In view of the above the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, and an award is passed dismissing the claim of the
Workman.
The award will come into force one month after publication in the official Gazette.
Dictated to the Assistant, transcribed and typed by him and passed by me on this 22nd day of March, 2019.
V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX – Nil
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1009
1009
1009
1009.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस अU यV, कीय माU यिमक िशVा बोड, ीत िवहार, द ली और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं- के संब.
िनयोजक/ और उनके कमकार/ के बीच अनुबंध म िन0द1 ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म
यायालय-2, नई द ली के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 23/2016) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 16.05.2019 को
ा: त ;ए थे।
[सं. एल-42011/12/2016-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O.1009.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 23/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-2 New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The
Chairman, Central Board of Secondary Education, Preet Vihar, Delhi and Others, and their workmen which were
received by the Central Government on 16.05.1019.
[No. L-42011/12/2016-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
4268
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 23/2016
Date of Passing Award- 26th April, 2019.
Between:
Shri Darshan Singh & 17 Ors.
(As per Annexure Attached)
Through, General Secretary,
Delhi Offices And Establishment Employees Union,
13-A, Rouse Avenue, ITO,
New Delhi- 110002.
… Workmen
Versus
1.
The Chairman,
Central Board of Secondary Education,
Siksha Kendra, 2-Community Centre,
Preet Vihar, Delhi- 110092.
2.
The Managing Director,
New Grow Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
DLF Tower, 341, Moti Nagar, 3rd Floor,
New Delhi- 110008.
3.
The Managing Director,
M/s. Neha Aviation Management Pvt. Ltd.
RZA-83, Road No. 4, Gali No. 6,
Mahipalpur Extension,
New Delhi- 110037.
…Managements
Appearances:-
Shri B. K. Prasad, Advocate
: For the Workman
None for the management, Advocate
: For the Management
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry Of Labour has referred the present dispute existing between employer i.e. the
management Central Board of Secondary Education, and its workmen/claimants herein, under clause (d) of sub-section
(1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter no. L-42011/12/2016 (IR (DU) dated
30.03.2016 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the arrangement between Central Board of Secondary Education and New Grow Software Solutions
(P) Ltd., & Neha Aviation Management (P) Ltd. is sham and camouflage? If so, its effect. 2. Whether the
workmen are entitled to regularization from their date of initial appointment? 3. Whether the workmen entitled
to receive their wages at par with other regular employees of this category?”
In the claim statement it has been asserted that the workmen 45 in number (as per list enclosed) were engaged by the
management No. 1 i.e. CBSE as MTS/Computer Assistant/Electrician on the date mentioned against their names and
continued to work under the direct control and supervision of management No. 1. Though they were appointed as
temporary and casual workers their services were allowed to continue by the management No. 1 with artificial break of 2
or 3 days at an interval of 3 months. The work tenure of the workmen for the management No. 1 varies from 10 years to
1 year. All of them were appointed against permanent post and out of the 45 workmen one has completed 10 years, three
completed 9 years, two completed 8 years, two completed 6years, two completed 5 years, twelve completed 4 years, two
completed 3years, Eleven completed 2 years, and 9 completed one year of service with the management No.1.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4269
The further contention of the workmen is that in the year 2010 management No. 1 had notified its vacancies in the
website and the workmen in response to the same submitted applications. They were asked to appear in a test and
interview conducted by the management. Being found suitable, they were recruited on contractual basis with specified
terms and conditions. At that time they were assured by the management to be regularized in due course. When the
workmen were discharging their duties with all sincerity with management No. 1 in the year 2012 the management No. 1
entered into a contract with management No. 2 for a period of 6 months. The contract was discontinued w.e.f.
30.06.2012.Again in august 2014 management No. 1 entered into a fresh contract with management No. 2 and since then
made an arrangement for payment of wages to the workmen through management No. 2. During this period the workmen
were not getting their wages regularly. The management No. 1 manipulated the situation to show the workmen as the
employees of management No.2 though the management No. 1 is barred u/s 10 of the contract Labour (regulation and
abolition Act 1970) to engage contract Labour against the jobs of perennial in nature. The contract between the
management No. 1 and 2 was sham and camouflage and designed to deprive the workmen of their legal rights. The
workmen then apprised their union and through the Union served a demand notice on the management. The management
though received the notice did not take action compelling the workmen to approach the appropriate government. The
conciliation proceeding held by the Labour Commissioner failed and during the pendency of the Industrial Dispute
before the Labour Commissioner, the management No. 1 terminated the service of some of the workmen on 27.06.15 and
some others on 01.07.15. A reference being made by the Appropriate Government they filed a claim statement praying
for a declaration that the arrangement between management No. 1 and 2 is sham and camouflage, the workmen are
entitled to regularization of their services from the date of their initial appointment and for a direction that workmen be
paid pay at par with the regular employees from the date of regularization, management No.1 be directed to pay the
arrear wages and differential wages after regularization.
Management No. 2 appeared and filed written statement stating therein that there was an agreement between
management No. 1 and management No. 2 for providing manpower for administrative and technical cadre. Accordingly
the management No. 2 has provided manpower to management No. 1 and paying them salary to be reimbursed by
management No. 1. This management has taken a stand that there is no relationship between it and the workmen as an
employer and employee and thus, the proceeding is not maintainable against management No.2. It has denied the
allegation that the contract between management No. 1 and 2 is sham and camouflage.
Management No. 1 has also filed written statement challenging the maintainability of the proceeding on the ground that
CBSE is an autonomous body governed by its own Rule. The workmen were initially engaged as contract workers
through one Agency named M/s Neha Aviation Management Pvt. Ltd. on contractual basis and were paid remuneration
through Cheque. They were never appointed on regular basis and their appointments having not been done following the
rule and procedure of CBSE for recruitment, their service cannot be regularized in view of the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India passed by the constitution bench in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and Others vs.
Uma Devi. While denying their claim of appointment against permanent vacant sanctioned post the answering
management took a stand that they being contractual casual workers not appointed through a proper selection procedure
recognized by the relevant rule and procedure, cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this tribunal for their regularization of
service. While denying the cause of action this management has stated that there is no employer employee relationship
between the management No. 1 and the workmen and their plea for regularization need to be dismissed.
On this rival pleadings following points emerged for consideration during adjudication.
1.
If the proceeding is maintainable.
2.
If the claimants/workmen are entitled to the relief of regularization of their service from the date of their
initial appointment.
3.
If the workmen on the event of regularization of their service are entitled to full pay at par with the regular
employees of the same cadre and arrear of the differential salary.
Though both management No. 1 and 2 had initially participated in the proceeding by filing written statement, on a later
date management No. 2 did not choose to participate at all. Though management no. 1 i.e. CBSE was participating in the
proceeding through it’s A/R till the end, opted not to adduce any oral or documentary evidence. The workmen examined
one of the claimants as WW1 and proved certain documents marked in a series of WW1/1 to WW1/5. This witness was
not cross-examined by any of the management and thus, his evidence remained almost unchallenged.
Point No.1
In the written statement filed, both the managements have stated that the workmen have no cause of action for initiating
this proceeding and thus, the same is not maintainable. During the proceeding no serious challenge was raised in this
regard by the managements. The pleading and the evidence adduced on the behalf of the management clearly indicate
that the workmen were demanding regularization of their services and after proper espouser they had served a demand
notice on the management. The copy of the demand notice and its postal receipt has been filed and exhibited during the
4270
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
course of adjudication. The oral evidence adduced by the witness on behalf of the workmen further reveals that the
management No.1 did not take any action on the said demand notice as a result of which a claim was made before the
labour commissioner. The evidence further reveals that before the Labour commissioner a conciliation proceeding was
initiated but the same could not yield any result and the commissioner reported the same to the appropriate government
which, in turn made the reference. Hence, in view of the pleading and evidence it is held that the workmen have a cause
of action to raise this dispute. This point is accordingly answered.
POINT No. 2
In the claim statement the workmen have alleged that their appointment was made initially on a contractual basis for a
period of 6 months. But the management No. 1 allowed them to work continuously years after years on daily wage basis.
In order to deprive them of their legitimate right their appointment were renewed with artificial break. During the period
of engagement they were working under the control and supervision of the management No. 1 who was also paying them
salary directly. In the year 2012 suddenly management No. 1 made some arrangement with management No. 2 and tried
to place the service of the claimant/workmen under the disposal of the management No. 2. However that arrangement
remained in force for a period of 6 months and discontinued thereafter. In august 2014 management No.1 again entered
into an arrangement with management No. 2 and since then routed the salaries of the workmen through management No.
2 as if they are the employees of management No. 2. The management No. 1 was regularly deducting the EPF and ESI
dues from the earned salary of the workmen. Thus, the workmen have taken the stand that they were never the employees
of management No.2.
The further stand of the workmen is that in the year 2010 CBSE the management No. 1 had notified to fillup its
vacancies in the official website. In response to the same the workmen made application for different post. Eligibility test
and interview was conducted by management No.1 for selection and the workmen were issued appointment letter
containing terms and conditions of the employment. The appointment letter of some of the workmen have been filed and
exhibited on the behalf of the claimants.
The management No. 2 as stated earlier has not adduced any evidence. It has only admitted in the written statement that
as per the arrangement between management No. 1 and 2 he had provided manpower for administrative and technical
post. He was paying remuneration to those persons in advance and getting reimbursement from Management No. 1. In
the written statement the management No. 2 has not admitted or denied specifically about the claimants/workmen of this
proceeding. However it has clearly denied to have any kind of relationship with the claimant//workmen of this
proceeding.
Management No.1 i.e. CBSE has clearly denied about its relationship as employer with the claimants. Its specific stand is
that they were engaged through the contractor i.e. the management No. 2 which has been denied by the later. On the
contrary the workmen have pleaded that the arrangement between the management No. 1 and Management No. 2 was
sham and camouflage designed to deprive them of their legitimate right. It is the further stand of the workmen that they
were working under the supervision and control of management No. 1 having no direct or indirect relationship with the
management No.2. The pleadings of the parties have made it necessary to examine if there exist any employer employee
relationship between management No.1 and the claimants.
In the case of Steel Authority of India vs. National Union Waterfront Worker Union reported in (2001) 7SCC Page 1, the
Hon’ble Apex Court have prescribed for the effective control test to ascertain about the relationship of the workman with
the management or the contractor. Not only that in the case of Chintaman Rao (1958(II)LLJ252) the Apex court ruled
that the concept of employment involves 3 ingredients (i)Employer (ii) Employee (iii) Contract of Employment. The
employer is one who employees or engages the service of other person. The employee is one who works for another for
hire. The employment is the contract of service between the employer and employee, where under the employee agrees to
serve the employer subject to his control and supervision. In the case of Food Corporation of India reported in
(1985(ii) LLJ4) the Hon’ble Apex Court pronounced that the contract of employment always discloses a relationship of
command and obedience between them. Where a contractor emplyoes a workman to do the work which he contracted
with a third person to accomplish, the workman of the contractor would not become more than the workman of the third
person. Not only that the manner of work is to be distinguished from the type of work to be performned. In the case of of
Ram Singh and Others vs. Union Territory Chandigarh and Others (2004)1 SCC 126 the Hon’ble Apex Court have
elaborately discussed the factors to be considered for determining the employer employee relationship and the factors
include control, integration power of appointment, liability to pay, liability to organize work etc. Thus, from the above
analysis of the Principle of Law, it emerges that the effective control is a test to determine the employer employee
relationship between the parties.
In this proceeding the workmen have all along maintained that they were working under the supervision and control of
management No.1 having no relationship with management No.2. The later in the written statement has also clarified that
except paying salary and getting reimbursement of the same for the workmen from the management No.1 it had no more
relationship with the workmen. It is a decided principle of law that employer and employee relationship is a question of
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4271
fact and the burden lies on him who asserts existence of the same. In this case the workmen have taken a stand and
successfully established their relationship with management No.1 as its employee. Hence, now it is to be seen if the
demand for regularization of service by the workmen is justified.
In the written statement the management No.1 have referred to the judgment the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court passed in the case of Secretary State of Karnatak and Others vs. Uma devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC
Page1 and contended that the workmen of this proceeding since appointed for a fixed term on casual basis their claim for
regularization is not maintainable. It has further been pleaded by management No. 1 that CBSE is an autonomous body
having its own rules and procedure of recruitment. The workmen were never appointed following the said procedure and
rule and their appointment were never against regular vacancy. Be it stated here that the management No.1 has not
adduced any oral or documentary evidence to fortify the stand taken in this regard in the WS. In the case of Uma Devi
referred supra the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the appointment of contractual employee and regularization of
their services is not an automatic process and when a person was given appointment skipping the prescribed rule through
a back door, cannot claim absorption or regularization against a sanctioned vacant post. This issue came up for
consideration before Hon’ble Apex Court again in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad vs. Employer I/R to management of
Food Corporation of India and another reported in AIR 2014 SC 1848, wherein the issue, whether the Labour Court
Tribunal has the jurisdiction to order regularization of the workmen was considered in the context of the provision of the
Act and the decision of the constitution bench in the case of Uma Devi. The Hon’ble Apex Court came to hold that the
powers conferred upon the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court under the ID Act are quite wide. The Act deals with
industrial Disputes, provides for conciliation, adjudication, and settlements, and regulates the rights of the parties and the
enforcement of the award and settlement. Not only that way back in the year 1950 in the case of Bharat Bank Limited vs.
Employees of Bharat Bank reported in (1950) LLJ 921 The Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed:
“In settling the disputes between the employers and the workmen, the function of the Tribunal is not confined to
administration of justice in accordance with law. It can confer rights and privileges on either party which it
considers reasonable and proper, though they may not be within the terms of any existing agreement. It has not
merely to interpret or give effect to the contractual rights and obligations of the parties. It can create new rights
and obligations between them which it considers essential for keeping industrial peace.”
In the above said backdrop and considering the different pronouncements on the Hon’ble Apex Court while reverting to
the facts of the present case the grievance of the claimants is that they were appointed against the post the nature of work
performed is perennial and those are permanent vacancies. Though they were appointed on casual basis are discharging
their duties with utmost satisfaction of the employer i.e. Management No.1 but the management No.1 by entering into a
camouflage with management No.2 is trying to deprive them of their legitimate rights by causing artificial break in their
service. These aspects as pleaded by the workmen have been denied by the management No.1 in the WS only. On behalf
of the workmen the appointment letter of some of the claimants, their salary bills etc have been filed. These documents
have not been controverted by the management and go to show that the claimant/workmen were issued appointment
letter after their selection through one walk-in-interview process. Majority of the workmen are still in service except the
few whose service has been terminated on two dates i.e. on 27.06.2015 and 01.07.2015 when a conciliation proceeding
between the parties was in progress before the Labour Commissioner. Moreover the document which are in the nature of
monthly sanctioned order of the salary by the designated authorities of the management No.1 clearly establishes that the
present workmen are working under the effective control and supervision of management No.1 and at no point of time
their service was discontinued nor placed under the disposal of management No.2.
During course of argument Ld. Counsel for the workmen drew the attention of this tribunal to the case of J and K Bank
Limited vs. CGIT reported in 2018 Lab. I.C. Page 2970 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in
which the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and Uma Devi refereed supra was elaborately discussed with regard to the effect
and implication of the constitution bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi. In the said judgment
reference has been made to the case of Maharshtra SRTC. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sangathan
(2009)8 SCC 556 in which the issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was with regard to the jurisdiction of the
Industrial court to give status wages and all other benefits of permanency to the workmen who had been serving for years
as cleaners in the corporation in temporary capacity. Relying upon Uma Devi, plea was raised on behalf of the
corporation that granting permanent status to the casual workers/daily wager was not sustainable in law. Repealing the
said argument the Hon’ble Supreme court in Para 32 and 33 of the judgment have observed:-
“32. The power given to the Industrial and Labour Courts under Section 30 is very wide and affirmative action
mentioned therein is inclusive and exhaustive. Employing badlis, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as
such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees is an
unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV. Once such unfair labour practice
on the part of the employer is established in the complaint, the Industrial and Labour Courts are empowered to
issue preventive as well as positive direction to an erring employer.
4272
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“33. The provisions of MRTU and PULP Act and the powers of Industrial Labour Courts provided therein were
not at all under consideration in the case of Uma Devi1. As a matter of fact, the issue like the present one
pertaining to unfair labour practice was not at all referred, considered or decided in Umadevi1. Unfair labour
practice on the part of the employer in engaging employees as badlies, casuals or temporaries and to continue
them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees as
provided in Item 6 of Schedule IV and the power of Industrial and Labour Courts under section 30 of the Act
did not fall for adjudication or consideration before the constitution Bench”.
Thus, on a harmonious reading of the different pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court this tribunal in absence of
evidence to contrary comes to hold that the workmen were selected through a selection procedure may be through a
walk-in-interview as decided by the management and issued appointment letter which was renewed from time to time for
the perennial nature of work and during the course of their employment they are under the effective control and
supervision of management No.1. Except pleading in the written statement that the workmen were never appointed
against permanent vacancy no other evidence has been adduced by the mangementno.1. Since the workmen are working
continuously and their nature of work is such that at no point of time they were disengaged and in the process they have
completed work for 240 days or more in a calendar year, they are held entitled to regularization of their services from the
date of their initial appointment with current and back wages at par with the regular employee of similar cadre. This point
is accordingly answered in favour of the workmen.
POINT NO. 3
In view of the finding of point no.2 this tribunal is of the opinion that the workmen/claimants are entitled to
regularization of their services in the post they were appointed from the date of their initial appointment as mentioned in
the list appended to this award back wages in the appropriate scale of the said post against which they were appointed.
This point is accordingly answered. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The workmen as per the list appended to this award are held entitled to regularization of their services in the post they
were appointed from the date of their initial appointment as mentioned in the list against their names and they are also
held entitled to the back wages in the appropriate scale of the said post against which they were appointed. The
management no.1 is directed to complete the exercise of the regularization within 3 months from the date when this
award would become enforceable and pay the financial dues of the workmen which has accrued in their favour without
interest within 4 months from the date of notification of the award failing which the amount so accrued shall carry
interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date when the award becomes enforceable and till the payment is finally
made. Copy be supplied to the parties and the record be consigned in the record room.
The reference is accordingly answered.
LIST OF WORKMEN
Sr.
No.
Name & Father/husband’s Name
Date of joining/year
of joining
Designation
1.
Shri Darshan Singh Mehra
S/o Shri. Teeka Singh Mehra
25.03.2010
Comp. Asstt.
2.
Neeta Singh
S/O Shri. Basant Singh
01.11.2011
Comp.
Asstt.
3.
Chitra
W/o Shri Prakash Kanti
14.06.2012
Comp.
Asstt.
4.
Divya
W/o Shri Sandeep Sharma
06.08.2012
Comp.
Asstt.
5.
Deepa Patwal
S/o Shri. Dev Singh Patwal
01.10.2012
Comp.
Asstt.
6.
Aarti
S/o Shri Rajat Ram
27.11.2012
Telecaller
7.
Manisha
S/o Shri. Santosh Pal
18.12.2012
Comp.
Asstt.
8.
Indra Negi
S/o Shri. Partap Singh Negi
2012
Comp.
Asstt.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4273
9.
Nand Kishor
S/o Shri Sajiwan Maurya
2012
Comp.
Asstt.
10.
Umer alam
S/o Shri Badre alam
06.02.2013
Comp.
Asstt.
11.
Meenakshi Singh
S/o Gopal Singh
02.04.2013
Comp.
Asstt.
12.
Parmita
S/o Prabhu dyal
01.01.2013
Comp.
Asstt.
13.
Mahender Singh
S/o Shri. Munshi Singh
03.07.2005
Mali
14.
Jitender
S/o Shri. Tej Singh
23.04.2014
MTS
15.
Reena Khan
S/o Late. Rafiq ahemed
30.04.2014
Multi Task
Asstt.
16.
Manoj Kumar
S/o Shri. Digambar Singh
23.06.2012
Lift Operator
17.
Inderjeet Singh
S/o Shri. Digambar Singh
10.06.2013
Lift Operator
18.
Grace Singh
D/o Madan Pal Singh
01.04.2014
Steno
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
26th April, 2019
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1010
1010
1010
1010.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस किम\ नर, एमसीडी (दिVण), नई द ली और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं- के संब. िनयोजक/ और उनके
कमकार/ के बीच अनुबंध म िन0द1 ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म यायालय-2, नई
द ली के पंचाट (संदभ सं. 93/2013) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 17.05.2019 को ा: त ;ए थे।
[सं. एल-42011/27/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O.1010.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 93/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-2 New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The
Commissioner, MCD (South), New Delhi and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central
Government on 17.05.2019.
[No. L-42011/27/2013-ID (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
4274
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 93/2013
Date of Passing Award- 25th April, 2019.
Between:
Sh. Mohan Lal,
S/o Shri Kishori Lal,
Through MCD General Mazdoor Union,
Room No. 95, Barracks No. 1/10, Jam Nagar House,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
… Workman
Versus
The Commissioner,
MCD (South), 9th Floor,
Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi- 02.
… Management
Appearances:-
Shri B. K. Prasad, (Advocate)
: For the Workman
Shri Ankit Jain, (Advocate)
: For the Management
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between
employer i.e. the management of MCD (South) 9th Floor, and its workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub
section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L- 42011/27/2013
(IR(DU) dated 10.07.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of MCD Delhi in not granting pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 w.e.f.
12.02.1999 and revised from time to time alongwith all consequential benefits to workman Shril Mohan Lal S/o
Late Shri Kishori Lal officiating Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998 is fair and justified? What relief the workman is
entitled to?’’
The claimant filed the statement wherein he has alleged that initially he was appointed as a Gardner and was allotted to a
work as Choudhary w.e.f. 12.02.1999 by the competent authority of the Horticulture Department of the management. He
was posted at Green Park under South Zone of the management and was asked to report to the Deputy Director
Horticulture. Though he was asked to work as Choudhary but paid salary in the lower pay scale of Mali i.e. 2550-3200
revised from time to time. His entitlement of the higher scale of the Choudhary in the pay scale of 3050-4590 was denied
despite demand. The action of the management is alleged to be illegal and unjustified and amounts to unfair labour
practice.
The other contention of the workman is that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Jai Chand vs. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi in CW No. 6514 of 2001 and the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of MCD Vs.
Sultan Singh and Others WPC No. 7947 of 2010 have disapproved the non payment of wages to the Malis working in the
post of Choudhary. After the said judgments the Hon’ble High Court the Municipal Corporation Delhi (Horticulture
Department) issued an order on 04.03.2005 directing implementation of the judgment of the case of Sultan Singh.
Accordingly many persons in similarly placed position of the workman were granted the pay scale of Choudhary from
the date they were asked to perform the duty in the said higher post. But the management challenged the order of the
Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Sultan Singh before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by
filing special leave to appeal in the year 2011. But the said SLP was dismissed as withdrawn on 09.04.2012. After
dismissal of the special leave petition the management did not comply the order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court for
payment of higher post salary to the Malis discharging the duty of Garden Choudhary. The judgment of the Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in the case of Sultan Singh has been filed as Annexure -E. It is the further case of the workman that for
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4275
promotion to the post of Garden Choudhary there is no requirement for additional qualification. However, at the time of
his initial joining he had studied up to class 8th and after he was directed to work in the post of Garden Choudhary took
permission from the authority to appear in class 10th Examination. In the year 2008 he successfully completed class 10
examination and on his request appropriate entry in this regard was made in a service. His further contention is that
despite request when higher pay scale was denied he raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Commissioner who
took up conciliation and on failure of conciliation referred the matter to this tribunal for adjudication.
Management objected to the claim of the workman on the ground of maintainability being barred by the limitation. It is
the stand of the management that as per his own contention the workman was asked to work in the post of Garden
Choudhary in the year 1999 but came up with this dispute after 14 years in the year 2013. While placing reliance in the
case of Nedungadi Bank Limited Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors. (2002(2) SC 4), and State Co-op Land
Development Bank vs. Neelam (2005)5 SC 91) the management has pleaded for dismissal of the claim petition on the
ground of delay. It is the further contention of the management that the workman was engaged in the post of Mali on
daily wage basis and later on regularized on the same post in the pay scale of 750-940 (pre-revised + usual allowance)
the post of Garden Choudhary is being filled up by way of promotion from among the Malis who qualify in a trade test
conducted by the department. The workman of this case had not qualified in the mandatory trade test. Further the
management has denied the claim of the workman that he was performing the duties of Garden Chaudhary w.e.f.
12.02.1999. Taking a stand that no such order was ever passed by the management, it has stated that for the subsequent
qualification acquired by the workman in the year 2008 the management in due course considering such qualification,
gave promotion to the workman to the post of Garden Chaudhary by office order dated 04.03.14. The other stand of the
management is that the proceeding is not maintainable not being properly espoused by the Registered Union.
Accordingly the management prayed that the claim of the workman is liable to be dismissed.
On this rival pleading this tribunal framed following issues for adjudication.
1.
Whether the action of the management of MCD Delhi in not granting pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 w.e.f.
12.02.1999 and revised from time to time alongwith all consequential benefits to workman Sh.Mohan Lal
S/o Late Shri Kishori Lal Officiating Choudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998is fair & justified ? If so, its effect?
2.
Whether Present dispute has been properly espoused by a recognized union? If so, its effect?
3.
Whether claim of workman is maintainable? If so, its effect?
4.
To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?
The workman examined himself asWW1 and testified in the line of the claim statement. He also proved the documents
marked as WW1/1 which is the list of the working Choudhary w.e.f. 12.02.1999. During cross-examination he denied to
the suggestion of the management that he was never working in the capacity of Garden Choudhary. He was confronted
with 2 documents marked as WW1/M1 and WW1/M2, the applications submitted by him to the management and
WW1/M3 and WW1/M4 and WW/M5, WW1/M6, WW1/M7, which are the office order dated 04.03.14 in which the
workman was given regular promotion, the recruitment regulation for the post of Mali and Garden Choudhary his service
book etc. WW2 is another witness examined on the behalf of the workman who is the President of the MCD General
Mazdoor Union. This witness has been examined to prove the espousal of the Industrial Dispute before raising a claim.
On behalf of the management one of its Assistant Director has been examined as MW1. He has stated that the workman
was never asked by the management to perform the duty of the Garden Choudhary and in the year 1999 he was not
possessing the requisite qualification for the post of Garden Choudhary. In the year 2008 he acquired the qualification
and thereafter made representation to the management for getting the salary of Garden Choudhary w,e.f. 1999. The
copies of the application submitted by the workman have been exhibited as MW1/1 MW1/2 and MW1/3 respectively. In
due course he was given promotion and promotional scale w.e.f. 04.03.14.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No. 2 and 3
These two issues have been taken up for the purpose of discussion together being interrelated. The management has
challenged in the WS about the maintainability on two grounds. The first is there was demand notice served on the
management before the Industrial Dispute was raised amounting to want of espousal. The other point is the dispute raised
after 14 years is barred by limitation. While disputing the authority of MCD General Mazdoor Union to raise the dispute
not being recognized union of the management, it was argued that on the ground of non espousal the proceeding is liable
to be dismissed.
It is not required under law that only a recognized Union can raise the dispute. An individual or group of individual can
very well raise an Industrial Dispute to redress their grievance. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of state
of Bihar vs. Kripa Shankar Jaiswal reported in AIR 1961(2) SC Page 1 have held.
4276
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
For a dispute to constitute an Industrial Dispute, it is not a requisite condition that it should be sponsored by a
recognized Union or that all the workman of an industrial establishment should be parties to it. A settlement arrived at in
course of conciliation proceeding falls within section 18 of ID Act and as such binds all the workman though an
unregistered Union and only some of the workman may have raised the dispute.
Thus, the argument of the management that the dispute was not sponsored or espoused by substantial no. of workman is
not accepted since the law is well settled that non espousal of the case by the Union would not deprive the workman of
the relief to which he is otherwise entitled under Law. Not only that in the case of Associates Cement company limited
reported in AIR 1960 SC Page 777 the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held.
We have already noticed that an Industrial Dispute can be raised by a group of workman or by union even though neither
of them represent the majority of the workman concerned. In other words, the majority rule on which the appellants
construction of section 19(6) is based is inapplicable in the matter of reference under section 10 of the Act. Even a
minority group of the workmen can make a demand and thereby raise an Industrial Dispute which in a proper case would
be referred for adjudication.”
In view of the ratio of the judgments discussed above this tribunal is of the view that maintainability of the proceeding
cannot be questioned on account of non espousal. Moreover by examining WW2 the workman has adduced some
evidence regarding the espousal of the grievance through the Union.
The other challenge of the management on the maintainability is the delay in bringing the Industrial Dispute. On behalf
of the management reliance has been placed in the cases of Nedungadi Bank Limited Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and
Ors. (2002(2) SC 4), and State Co-op Land Development Bank vs. Neelam (2005)5 SC 91) to argue that the dispute
relates to the year 1999 and has been raised in the year of 2013. Describing the same to be a stale dispute, the
management argued for dismissal on the ground of inordinate delay in approaching the tribunal. In the case of Raghuvir
vs. General Manager (2014) LAB I.C 4266 it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Appropriate
Government can refer an industrial dispute at any time and the provision of limitation act doesn’t apply. There is a clear
observation in the above judgment that the industrial dispute is to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal or Labour court
on merit irrespective of pleading on limitation. Hence it is held that the law decided in the case of Nedungadi Bank
Limited and State Co-op Land development referred, supra do not hold good in the field being earlier decisions. The
workman cannot be faulted for the delay in approaching the tribunal. Accordingly both the issues are answered in favour
of the workman.
ISSUE No.1
This is the most important issue for adjudication in this proceeding. For adjudication of this issue the evidence adduced
by the workman, the documents filed by the management as well as the workman are relevant and material. It is clear
from the pleadings of the parties that initially the workman herein was appointed as Mali on daily wage basis and later on
he was regularized in the said post carrying the pay scale of 750-940 (pre revised) alongwith usual allowances. The
management has admitted this in the written statement. The workman in his oral statement and pleading has stated that he
is performing the duty of the Garden Choudhary w.e.f 12.02.1999. The management has denied the same. During cross-
examination the witness examined on behalf of the management has expressed his ignorance about the nature of the work
discharged by the workman in the year 1999. In such circumstance this tribunal finds no reason of rejecting the oral
evidence of the workman that he was working as Choudhary since 12.02.1999. The workman in the oral statement has
named some other employees who have been granted pay scale of Choudhary by the management of MCD following the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of sultan singh referered supra as they were doing the
work of Choudhary prior to their regular promotion for the said post. The document filed by the management as
Annexure-C and D are the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of MCD vs. Mahipal and. MCD vs.
Sultan Singh. The document dated 04.03.2005 Exhibited by the workman as Exhibited WW2/2 is the office order of the
management wherein the MCD implemented the order for granting officiating pay to one Jai Chand after the opinion of
the Chief Law Officer and Commissioner of MCD. There in another document dated 12.08.2004 marked as WW1/1 on
behalf of the workman which is a list prepared by MCD in respect of the Garden Choudhary and as per the said list the
present claimant Sh. Mohan Lal was at serial No. 7. There is also another document which is in the nature of office
order of the director of Horticulture South Delhi Municipal Corporation wherein by order dated 04.06.13 the director had
instruction to all the Deputy Director to verify and examine the claim of the applicants regarding discharge of duty as
Garden Choudhary and the claim if found to be genuine, wages equal to the pay to the post be given to them. Thus, on a
conjoint reading of the office order dated 04.06.2013 of the Director Horticulture, the list of the Garden Choudharies
marked as WW1/1 and the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court passed in the case of Sultan Singh referred supra the one
and only conclusion is that the present claimant was working as the Garden Choudahry since 12.02.1999 and the other
persons in similar footing with him have been granted the pay scale of Choudharies pursuant to the order passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4277
Though the management has taken a stand in its reply that the workman here is not entitled to promotion to the post of
Choudhary in asmuchas he has not qualified the requisite Test conducted by the department, no document to that effect
has been field. Hence, this stand of the management is held devoid of merit in asmuchas similarly situated other workers
performing the duty of Choudhary i.e. Acting Choudhary have been granted pay scale of Garden Choudhary after
judgment dated 27.07.2011 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of MCD vs. Sultan Singh as well as
MCD vs. Mahipal. Operating portion of the judgment in Sultan Singh (Supra) of the Hon’ble Division Bench is as under:
“28.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances it is apparent that the claim of the respondents have
always been that they should be paid the difference in pay of Mali/Chowkidar and the Garden Choudhary as
they were made to work on the post of Garden Choudhary whereas the petitioner had first denied that they
worked as Garden Choudharies, then took the plea that the Assistant Director (Horticulture) was not competent
to ask the respondents to work as Garden Choudharies and that the respondents cannot be appointed to the post
of Garden Choudharies in accordance with the recruitment rules. There is no doubt that respondents are not
claiming appointment to the post of Garden Choudharies on account of having worked on ad-hoc basis on the
post of Garden Choudhary contrary to rules or that some of them not having the requisite qualifications are
entitled to relaxation.
29.
In the entirety of facts and circumstances therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out
any such grounds which will impel this court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution to set aside
the orders of the Tribunal dated 29th January, 2010 and 7th October, 2010 as no illegality or un-sustainability or perversity
in the order of the Tribunal has been made out.
30.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.”
Hence, for the foregoing discussion, it is necessary to mention here that even if the workman herein, was not a party to
the case of Sultan Singh referred above, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble court in the said case is binding on the
management and the management is required to implement the same by letter and spirits and all similarly situated
workman are required to be accorded the benefit of the said judgment of the Hon’ble High court which has become final
on account of the special Leave petition dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The question of delay in bringing the
dispute has already been answered and at the cost of repetition it is stated again that the management has not laid any
evidence to prove the same.
The law is well settled that if a person is working in a higher post, on ad-hoc or temporary basis he is entitled to
salary/wage of the said higher post unless rules or regulations specifically provide otherwise. In the case of state of U.P.
Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastav reported in (2015)1 SCC 347 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while considering the
question akin to the present dispute have held:-
“The moot question which requires determination is as to whether in the given case, approach of the Tribunal
and the High Court was correct in extending the benefit of earlier judgment of the Tribunal, which had attained
finality as it was affirmed till Supreme Court. The legal principles that can be culled from the judgments cited
both by the appellants as well as the respondents can be summed up as under:
(1)
Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically
situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to
discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This Principle needs to be
applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this court from time
to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule
would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the court earlier, they are
not to be treated differently.
(2)
However, this principle is subject to well recognized exception in the form of laches and delays as well as
acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into
the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had
approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the
benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They
would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground
to dismiss their claim.
(3)
However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was
judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached
the court or not. With such a pronouncements the obligation is case upon the authorities to itself extend
the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of
the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularization and the like (see K.C. Sharma
& Ors. Vs. Union of India (Supra). ON the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in personam
4278
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention
is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the
judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy
that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.
Hence, considering the pronouncements of the Apex Court and the discussion made in the preceding paragraph, this
tribunal is of the view that the claimant being in the similar footing with that of the workman in the case of Sultan Singh
referred supra is also entitled to the salary of the Garden Chaudhary the post in which he was officiating since 12.02.1999
and entitled to the scale provided for that post from that date i.e. the scale 3050-4590 revised from time to time. The
management has adopted unfair labour practice by denying the said pay scale alongwith all consequential benefits to the
workman Mohan Lal. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of the workman. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is answered in favour of the workman and it is directed that the workman is entitled to the
pay scale of Garden Chaudhary i.e. Rs 3050-4590, revised from time to time w.e.f. 12.02.1999 along with all
consequential benefits. The management is thus directed to revise the current pay of the workman accordingly and pay
the arrear to him accruing between 12.02.1999 to 04.03.2014 when he was promoted as Garden Chaudhary within 3
months from the date when this award would become enforceable, failing which the amount accrued shall carry interest
at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accrual till the final payment is made.
Let this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required u/s 17 of the ID Act for publication. Consign the
record according to law.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1011
1011
1011
1011.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस मु5 य महाबंधक, भारत संचार िनगम िलिमटेड, देहरादून और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं- के संब. िनयोजक/
और उनके कमकार/ के बीच अनुबंध म िन0द1 ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म यायालय-
2, नई द ली के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 18/2013) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 17.05.2019 को ा: त ;ए
थे।
[सं. एल-40012/25/2012-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 1011.— 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-2 New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The Chief
General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Dehradun and Others, and their workmen which were received by the
Central Government on 17.05.1019.
[No. L-40012/25/2012-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4279
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 18/2013
Date of Passing Award- 25th April, 2019
Between:
Shri Narender Singh & Ors.,
S/o Shri Govind Singh,
R/o Village-Jeevangarh,
Ward No. 9, P.O. Dakpatthar,
Distt. Dehradun, Uttrakhand.
… Workmen
Versus
1.
Chief General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Windlass Shopping Complex,
Rajpur Road, Dehradun- 248001.
… Management
2.
The General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
E-10, Exchange, Patel Nagar,
Dehradun.
3.
Sub Divisional Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Vikas Nagar, Dehradun.
Appearances:-
Shri Rajesh Ranjan, (Advocate)
…For the Workman
None for the management, (Advocate)
…For the Management
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between
employer i.e. the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, and its workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of
sub-section (1)and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L- 40011/25/2012 -
IR(DU) dated 05.03.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of BSNL, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun by not regularizing 18 workmen (list
enclosed) is unjustified? If so, what relief the workmen are entitled to?’’
Though the reference received from the Government had enclosed a list of 18 workmen, only 6 of them, (list appended to
this award) filed the claim statement and contested the Industrial Dispute.
The claimants in the claim statement have stated that they had been working with the management as a daily wage/casual
worker since the year 2000 till their illegal termination on 23.03.2012. Initially the remuneration paid to them was Rs.
100/- per day and for the accumulated amount for a month they were being paid under payment voucher. Subsequently
they were getting approximately Rs 2500/- per month which was much less than the minimum wage prescribed by the
government from time to time. Their last drawn salary was approximately 2500/- per month. The workmen had worked
for the management for more than 12 years diligently leaving no scope for compliant. During this period despite their
demand no appointment letter was issued to them though they had completed work for more than for 240/- days in each
calendar year. Not only that during the course of their employment they were being asked to work for more than 7/8
hours a day. The provisions of PF leave salary etc where never made available to them. When the management did not
consider their request to regularize them in the post they were working, a complaint was made by them before the Central
4280
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Labour Commissioner in the year 2012 praying regularization of their job and payment of Appropriate salary. The
conciliation proceeding failed. With a view to take revenge the management without issuing any show-cause notice and
conducting domestic inquiry terminated the services of the present workmen w.e.f. 23.03.2012 for the failure of the
conciliation the Appropriate Government referred the matter to this tribunal for adjudication. The further stand of the
workmen is that since, the date of termination they are unemployed having no other source of income. Hence, they have
prayed for an award to be passed holding the termination of their service by the management to be illegal with a further
direction to the management for reinstating them in service with full back wage since the date of termination and till the
date of reinstatement. The further prayer is that their service with the management be regularized.
The management BSNL filed the written statement rebutting the stand of the workmen. While denying the employer
employee relationship between them, the management has pleaded that the proceeding is not maintainable as allegation
doesn’t amount to an industrial dispute. The specific stand of the management is that the workmen were working for a
BSNL through a contractor who has been awarded with a contract to do certain work for the management. The said
contractor is a necessary party and for his non-joinder the proceeding is liable to be dismissed. In the WS it has also been
mentioned that the workmen were never engaged by the management either as daily wager or casual workers. All the
claims advanced by the workmen are illegal and not tenable in the eye of law. While denying the alleged termination of
service, the stand of the management is that when the workmen were not employed by the management the question of
their termination doesn’t arise. On the same ground the management has denied the necessity for serving any termination
notice on the workmen. Thereby the management has prayed for dismissal of the proceeding.
On the rival pleadings the following issues were framed for adjudication.
1.
Whether the action of the management of BSNL, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun by not regularizing 18 workmen
(list enclosed) is unjustified? If so its effect?
2.
Whether relationship of employer an employee exits between respondent and workman? If so its effect?
3.
To what relief the workmen is entitled to?
During hearing though the management had filed written statement and participated to a particular extent after 3rd August
2017 the A/R for the management did not attend the court on all adjourned dates as a result of which the claimants were
allowed on the subsequent dates for examination of remaining witnesses of the claimants. On 15th Jan 2019 evidence on
the behalf of the claimants were closed. On that day the case was adjourned for argument since on the preceding dates the
management or it’s A/R were appearing. The argument was heard on 25.04.2019.
During the hearing, on behalf of the workmen some of the claimants testified as WW1 and WW2. Both the witnesses
were cross-examined at length the Ld. A/R for the management. The witnesses proved certain documents marked in a
series of WW1/1 to WW1/11 these documents include payment receipts issued on different dates to some of the
claimants and the letter correspondence between the workmen and management, the complaints made by the workmen
collectively on different dates to the management ventilating their grievance and the attendance register etc.
On behalf of the management no oral or documentary evidence were adduced.
FINDINGS
ISSUE NO. 2
This issue has been taken up for consideration at the first instance since it will have a considerable influence on the
decision of other issues. The workmen have claimed that since the year 2000 they had been working for the management
continuously till the date of their illegal termination made on 23.03.2012. The oral evidence adduced by WWW1 and
WW2 fully support the claim statement in this regard. To render documentary evidence in support of the same on the
behalf of the workmen the attendance register marked as WW1/10 and WW1/11 have been filed. These are the
photocopies of the register in which the names of 18 workmen who are the claimants of the present proceeding clearly
appears and marks their presence on different months and dates starting from 2004 to 2011. On behalf of the workmen
the Ld. A/R during course of argument submitted that during examination of the witnesses the photocopy of the
attendance register was filed and exhibited. The Ld. A/R for the management did not object to the admissibility of the
same. He also argued that the management is the custodian of all the registers and when the original was not filed by the
management to dispute the authenticity of the photocopies the one and only conclusion is that the said copies are
authentic documents.
The law of evidence provides that any document proposed to be proved should be produced in original as primary
evidence and the secondary evidence is permissible only when the original is proved to be lost or not within the reach of
the party relying on the same or the same cannot be produced without in ordinate delay and difficulty. In this case
admittedly the claimants are the poor workmen who have no link with the management on account of their alleged
retrenchment. In such a situation it cannot be insisted upon them to produce the original document from the custodian of
the management. The management in this case was participating in the proceeding when the document that is the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4281
photocopy of the attendance register was exhibited. Hence, this tribunal feels it proper to accept the photocopies of the
documents on secondary evidence.
The workmen have asserted that they were working directly under the management having no intermediary contractor.
Though in the written statement a reference has been made by the management about the contractor through whom these
workmen were engaged, there is absolutely no evidence adduced by the management to prove the identity of the
contractor or the nexus between the contractor and the workmen. Pleading however elaborate may be cannot take the
place evidence which is required to be proved by evidence. In this proceeding in absence of evidence it cannot be held
that the workmen were the employees of the contractor and working for the management. The stand of the workmen also
finds support from the documents which are the payment voucher, issued by the Junior Telecom officer of BSNL to the
different workmen as remuneration for the work done by them. Some of the vouchers marked in a series of exhibit
WW1/1 have been issued by the SDE phones Vikas Nagar Dehradun. They have also filed the photocopy of the
complaint register for the relevant period showing resolution of the complaints of the customers by the workmen from
time to time. Thus, all these documents filed on behalf of the workmen taken along with the attendance register when
taken into consideration clearly lead to a conclusion that during the relevant period between 2000 to 2012 the workmen
were the employees of the management and their exist a relationship of employer and employee between them.
In this regard reliance has been placed on behalf of the workmen in the case of BSNL Vs. Bhurumal decided by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil appeal No. 10957 of 2013 where in an award passed by the CGIT wherein a
diary containing the details of the job undertaken by the workmen on different dates were accepted as evidence for
determining the employer employee relationship. The tribunal on the basis of the said documents have come to hold that
the entries in the diary legally prove that the workmen were working under the direct and administrative control of the
management and thus, they were the employees of the management. The Hon’ble Apex Court while analyzing the
reasons assigned by the Presiding Officer of CGIT came to hold that there is no reason to disbelieve the diaries
maintained during ordinary course of business and thereby discarded by the argument of BSNL management that the
diary being a self serving document cannot be relied as evidence. In this case in the similar manner the workmen have
relied upon the entries made in a diary showing the work and job discharged by them. This tribunal finds no reason of
discarding the said diary. On the contrary it is held that the entries in the said diary were made during an undisputed point
of time and clearly proves how during the relevant time period i.e. between 2000 to 2012, these workmen were working
under the effective administrative control of the management which gives rise to a presumption of employer employee
relationship which has not been rebutted by the management in this case. The plea of the management that the claimants
were the employees of the contractor in absence of proof is rejected. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of the
workmen.
ISSUE Nos. 1 and 3
The grievance of the claimants is that they had worked for the management for 12 years without being paid the minimum
wage. When they raised a genuine and lawful demand before the Labour Commissioner the management got annoyed
and terminated their service w.e.f. 23.03.2012. The management had denied the alleged termination on the ground that
when there was no employer employee relationship the question of termination doesn’t arise. Both the witnesses
examined as WW1 and WW2 in their oral statement have stated that the management orally terminated their service and
at the time of termination neither any termination notice, notice pay, or termination compensation was paid. Not only that
no show-cause notice was served nor any Domestic Enquiry was conducted against them before termination. Both the
witnesses were cross- examined at length by the Ld. A/R for the management. But nothing substantial has been elicited
to discredit their testimony.
Now it is to be examined if the said act of termination and not regularizing them in service by the management is illegal.
Be it stated here that the evidence of the claimants have not been controverted by the management. While answering
issue No.2 it has already been held that the workmen were working for the management and discharging their duty for
the period between 2000 to 2012. In the case of ONGC vs. ONGC contractual workers union reported in 2008 LLR page
801 it has been held that in order to ascertain the status of the workmen the period of work rendered by him is also taken
into consideration. In this case the workmen have stated that they were employees of the management and later illegally
terminated their service.
The law is well settled that when the workman successfully establishes his relationship as a n employee of the
management it is to be seen if the termination was made illegally. Reference can be made to section 25-F of the Act 1947
which precisely speaks that no workmen employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than 1
year shall be retrenched unless and until the said workmen has been give one month notice in writing, or notice pay or
retrenchment compensation. In this case in the written statement the management has taken a plea that no notice was
required to be served since there was no employer employee relationship. This gives an impression that no notice was
served. Thereby the management has admitted non compliance of the mandatory provision of section 25-F of the ID act.
This act itself makes the order of termination illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. Thus, the moot question which
remains to be replied is what would be the relief that can be granted to the workmen once his termination is held to be
illegal.
4282
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Way back in the year 1980 the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of Surendra Kumar Verma and Others vs. CGIT
Delhi had observed that
“Plain commonsense dictates that the removal order terminating the service of the workman must ordinarily lead
to the reinstatement in the service of the workman. It is as if the order was never been made and so it must
ordinarily lead to back wages. But there may be exceptional circumstance which makes it impossible for the
employer to direct reinstatement with full back wages.”
In such cases the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the appropriate order would be for payment of compensation in lieu of
reinstatement. But in the case of G.M ONGC Silchar vs. ONGC Contractual Worker Union reported in 2008 LLR
801 the Hon’ble Apex Court after giving due consideration to several observations in different pronouncement which
suggest that a workman who was put in 240 days of work or a contractual worker is not entitled automatically to be
regularized, came to hold that in appropriate cases regularization can be ordered.
Here is a case were the workmen have prayed for a relief of reinstatement simplicitor by the management No.1. They
have further stated that the work done by them were perennial in nature. While adducing evidence the workmen have
successfully proved that for the relevant calendar year of their engagement they have completed 240 days of work and
there by duly discharged the burden put on them to prove that during a calendar year they had discharged work for 240
days more (2006 SCC page 967, municipal counsel Sujanpur vs. Surinder Kumar relied )
A question may come up regarding the regularization of casual or contractual employees against regular vacancies in
view of the restriction imposed in the case of Secretary of State Karnatak vs. Uma Devi reported in 2006) 4 SCC
Page1. In the said judgment the constitution bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the appointment of the
contractual employees and their regularization in service is not an automatic process but the case of Uma Devi referred
supra came to be discussed in a later judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra SRTC vs.
Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sangathana (2009) 8 SCC Page 556. In that judgment the issue before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court was with regard to the jurisdiction of the industrial court to give status wages and all other
benefits of permanency to the workman who had been serving for years as cleaners in the corporation in temporary
capacity. Relying upon Uma Devi a plea was raised that granting of permanent status to the casual workers/daily wager
was not sustainable in law. Repealing the aforesaid argument the supreme court in Para No. 32 and 33 of the judgment of
Maharashtra SRTC observed as under:-
“32. The power given to the Industrial and Labour Courts under Section 30 is very wide and affirmative action
mentioned therein is inclusive and exhaustive. Employing badlis, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as
such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees is an
unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV. Once such unfair labour practice
on the part of the employer is established in the complaint, the Industrial and Labour Courts are empowered to
issue preventive as well as positive direction to an erring employer.
“33. The provisions of MRTU and PULP Act and the powers of Industrial Labour Courts provided therein were
not at all under consideration in the case of Uma Devi1. As a matter of fact, the issue like the present one
pertaining to unfair labour practice was not at all referred, considered or decided in Umadevi1. Unfair labour
practice on the part of the employer in engaging employees as badlies, casuals or temporaries and to continue
them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees as
provided in Item 6 of Schedule IV and the power of Industrial and Labour Courts under section 30 of the Act
did not fall for adjudication or consideration before the constitution Bench”.
Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case Hari Nandan Prasad vs. Employer I/R to management of Food
Corporation of India and another reported in AIR 2014 SC 1848, wherein the issue was as to whether the Labour
Court Tribunal has the jurisdiction to order regularization of the workman was considered in the context of the provision
of the Act and the decision of the constitution bench in the case of Uma Devi and the Hon’ble Court came to hold that the
powers conferred upon the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court under the ID Act are quite wide. The Act deals with
industrial Disputes, provides for conciliation, adjudication, and settlements, and regulates the rights of the parties and the
enforcement of the award and settlement. Not only that way back in the year 1950 in the case of Bharat Bank Limited vs.
Employees of Bharat Bank reported in (1950) LLJ 921 The Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed:
“In settling the disputes between the employers and the workmen, the function of the Tribunal is not confined to
administration of justice in accordance with law. It can confer rights and privileges on either party which it
considers reasonable and proper, though they may not be within the terms of any existing agreement. It has not
merely to interpret or give effect to the contractual rights and obligations of the parties. It can create new rights
and obligations between them which it considers essential for keeping industrial peace.”
In the above said background and on considering the different pronouncements of Hon’ble Apex Court, while reverting
to the facts of the present case, the grievance of the claimants is that they were working as casual workers against the
permanent vacancy and the nature of the duty discharged by them was perennial in nature. But the management in order
to deprive them of their right of permanency and regularization illegally terminated their service. They have also pleaded
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4283
that the principle of last come first go was not followed by the management which amounts to violation of the provision
of 25-G of the ID Act. No valid reason has been assigned by the management in this regard.
Reliance has been placed on behalf of the workman in the case of Mackinon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. vs.
Mackinon Employees Union reported in AIR 2015 SC 1373 and in the case of Workman of Sudder Workshop of
Jorehut Tea Co. Ltd. vs. Jorehut Tea Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1980 SC 1454. In these two judgments the Hon’ble
Supreme Court have held that last come first go is not an inflexible rule and extraordinary situation may justify variation.
In such a case the management has to assign the reason for departure from the rule. In this case no explanation has been
offered by the management as to why the juniors were allowed to continue whereas the present workman being the senior
was terminated.
Hence, for the foregoing reasons it is concluded that the claimant/workmen were subjected to unfair labour practice by
the management. There was a gross violation of the provision of Section 25-G of the ID Act. They having discharged the
duty perennial in nature, for more than 240 days in a calendar year, this tribunal while following the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad referred supra feels it proper to exercise its jurisdiction to order the
regularization of the workmen who were initially appointed as a casual workers and continued to work for 12 years and
also worked for more than 240 days in the calendar years preceding to their termination. The issue is accordingly
answered in favour of the workmen. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference is accordingly answered. The management is directed to regularize the service of the workmen/claimant as
per the list annexed with this award against the post they were working w.e.f. the date of their termination i.e. 23.03.2012
with back wages at par with the regular employees of the BSNL in that cadre. The exercise of reinstatement of the
workmen shall be completed within 3 months from the period when this award would become enforceable. The
management is further directed to pay the arrear wage accrued in favour of the claimant/workmen within the above said 3
months period failing which the accrued amount shall carrying interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accrual till
final payment is made. Copy be supplied to the parties and the record be consigned in the record room.
The reference is accordingly answered.
LIST OF WORKMEN
Sr.
No.
Name & Father/husband’s Name
Date of joining/year
of joining
Designation
1.
Shri Narender Singh
S/o Shri Govind Singh
01.08.2000
Line man
2.
Shri Mukesh Kumar
S/o Shri Arjun Gupta
05.03.1998
Line man
3.
Aslam Shah
S/o Bhura Shah
2000
Line man
4.
Shri Deepak Kumar
S/o Shri. Arjun Gupta
01.10.2000
Line man
5.
Shri Virender Singh
S/o Shri. Govind Singh
10.10.2000
Line man
6.
Shri Subhash Chauchan
S/o Shri Guman Singh Chauchan
15.05.2002
Line man
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1012
1012
1012
1012.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस बंध िनदेशक, स>ल इलेA >ॉिनA स िलिमटेड, सािहबाबाद, गािजयाबाद (उ]र देश) और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के
बंधतं- के संब. िनयोजक/ और उनके कमकार/ के बीच अनुबंध म िन0द1 ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक
अिधकरण एवं 3म यायालय-2, नई द ली के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 26/2015) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को
17.05.2019 को ा: त ;ए थे।
[सं. एल-42012/205/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
4284
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 1012.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 26/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-2, New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The
Managing Director, Central Electronics Limited, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad (U.P.) and Others, and their workmen which
were received by the Central Government on 17.05.2019.
[No. L-42012/205/2014-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 26/2015
Date of Passing Award- 25th April, 2019.
Between:
Shri. Nawab Khan,
Rep of the Group of workmen,
At-11/29, Sec-3, Rajendra Nagar,
Sahibabad,
Ghaziabad (U.P.)-201005.
… Workman
Versus
The Managing Director,
Central Electronics Limited,
Sahibabad,
Ghaziabad (U.P.)- 201005.
… Management
Appearances:-
None for the claimant, (Advocate)
…For the Workman
Shri Raj Kumar Tyagi, (Advocate)
…For the Management
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between
employer i.e. the management of Central Electronics Limited, and its workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No.
L- 42012/205/2014-IR(DU) dated 04.02.2015 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the management of CEL is justified in holding the pay-fixation and payment of arrear of the retired
employees in the barb of financial constraints while the pay revision has already been implemented in case of
existing employees? If not, what should be time limit for implementation and payment of arrears in respect of
retired and eligible employee as per pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.2007?
The claimant filed a claim statement stating therein that he was working as an employee of the management and retired
from the service on 31.03.2001. The Government effected revision of pay w.e.f. 01.01.1997 and thus, the workman is
entitled to the benefits of such pay revision and the amount accrued as arrear. Despite repeated demands the management
is not paying the arrear salary as per the pay revision of the workman for 39 months preceding to his retirement. A
decision in this regard was taken by Board of Directors of the Management Company. But the management did not give
regard to the same. Though the pay of the serving employees was revised and arrear was paid, the arrear of the retired
employee withheld. Hence he has prayed for a direction to the management for calculation of the arrear pay and
disbursement of the same alongwith interest @10% per annum.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4285
On receipt of the notice the management appeared and filed written statement stating therein that the management is a
sick company facing financial hardship. While submitting about the loss suffered it took a plea that till date no official
memorandum has been issued indicating the date from which the revised pay would be applicable to the employees of
the company. Thereby the management denied the allegations leveled by the workman and insisted for dismissal of the
claim since the same is not computable at this stage.
Considering the pleadings the issues were framed for adjudication.
ISSUES
1.
Whether the management of CEL is justified in holding the pay-fixation and payment of arrear of the
retired employees in the barb of financial constraints while pay revision has already been implemented in
case of existing employees? If so, its effect?
2.
If not, what should be the time limit for implementation and payment of arrears in respect of retired and
eligible employees as per pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.2007? If so, its effect?
3.
To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?
During the proceeding the workman abandoned and after providing several opportunities for adducing evidence the
management was called upon to adduce evidence. One Rajkumar Tyagi an Assistant Officer of the management being
present submitted that there is no oral evince to be laid on behalf of the management. However he produced a computer
generated statement indicating payment of arrears to the retired employees on different spell. The name of the workman
Nawab Khan appears at serial No. 11 of the list showing payment of arrear on different dates. This statement of the
management has not been disputed by the workman. Hence, in absence of evince to the contrary the documents filed by
the management are accepted to conclude that the claim advanced by the workman was satisfied by the management
during the pendency of the proceeding and noting more is left to be adjudicated. Accordingly the reference is answered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is dismissed on contest and no claim award is passed. Copy be supplied to the parties and
the record be consigned in the record room.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1013
1013
1013
1013.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस िनदेशक, गे^ं अनुसंधान िनदेशालय (आईसीएआर), करनाल (हXरयाणा) और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं- के
संब. िनयोजक/ और उनके कमकार/ के बीच अनुबंध म िन0द1 ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण
एवं 3म यायालय, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 35/2015) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 03.06.2019
को ा: त ;आ था।
[सं. एल-42011/96/2015-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O.1013.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 35/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The
Director, Wheat Research Directorate (ICAR), Karnal (Haryana) and Others, and their workmen which were received by
the Central Government on 03.06.2019.
[No. L-42011/96/2015-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
4286
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer
ID No. 35/2015
Registered on:-10.09.2015
Sh. Naseeb Singh S/o Sh. Mange Ram, Laboratory Assistant,
Office of the Director, Wheat Research Directorate (ICAR),
Post Box No.158, Kunjpura Road, Karnal.
…Workman
Versus
The Director, Wheat Research Directorate(ICAR),
Post Box No.158, Kunjpura Road, Karnal-132001.
…Management
AWARD
Passed on:-22.05.2019
Central Government vide Notification No. L-42011/96/2015-IR(DU) Dated 26.08.2015, under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management in not regularising the services of the workman is legal and justified? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
1.
After receiving the reference, parties were informed through notice. In pursuance of the notice, claimant has filed
his claim statement, alleging therein that he was appointed by the respondent-management on daily wage basis through
the employment-exchange in November 1993 for attending the works of perennial nature. The claimant/workman
worked in different offices of the management as Messenger, Clerk upto July 2004 without any break and had competed
240 days in every calendar year. The services of the workman were abruptly terminated by the management w.e.f.
01.08.2004 without following the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On failure of industrial
dispute against termination of his service, the Central Government had referred the dispute for adjudication before
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, which is registered as ID Case No.66 of 2006 titled
Naseeb Singh Vs. The Director Wheat Research Directorate(ICAR), Kunjpura Road, Karnal, and award was passed on
26.10.2010 in favour of the workman for reinstatement with full back wages. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Punjab &
Haryana High Court, Chandigarh on the basis of Civil Writ Petition No.17848 of 2011 preferred by the management
modified the award to the extent of awarding full back wages has been set aside. In pursuance of the award, an
application dated 02.12.2011 of the claimant/workman the respondent directed him for duty on DWR. The workman has
thus completed more than 20 years of services with the management. Workman approached respondent-management
again and again for regularization of his services against one vacant post but management did not regularize his services
and referred case of regularization to the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi. There are sanctioned post
available against which the services of the workman could have been regularized as is evident from the advertisement
issued by the management on 27.12.2013 and staff position depicted therein which is appended as Annexure C-7. It is
also alleged that services of the juniors to the claimant/workman have been regularized and the claim of the workman
has been ignored in spite of the instructions issued on 07.06.1998 and 11.12.1996 in utter violation of Article 14 and 16
of the Constitution of India till today. The claimant/workman approached the ALC, Karnal for conciliation under Section
12(1) of the Act. But conciliation proceeding terminated in failure resulting the present reference by the Government of
India Ministry of Labour vide order dated 26.08.2015. The action of the respondent-management in not regularizing the
services of the claimant/workman squarely falls within the definition of unfair practice in order to deprive the benefits
and financial loss for no fault on his part. It is also mentioned that management has failed to regularize the
claimant/workman even then the principle of equal pay for equal work is not followed by the management against the
settled position of law. Consequently, it is prayed that management be directed to regularize the service of the workman
along with all consequential relief in nature of pay, arrears of salary, seniority, promotion etc.
2.
Respondent-management has filed its written statement, alleging therein that the dispute raised by the workman
against the management is liable to be rejected as no cause of action arose to file the claim petition. The workman has
not approached the Hon’ble Court with the clear hands and has concealed material facts as such, he is not entitled for any
relief. It is also alleged that the workman was initially appointed in the month of November, 1993 on daily wage basis
and in the month of March 1995 management had introduced the contract system in the institute and services of the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4287
workman were hired through contractor on DC rate basis fixed by the Deputy Commissioner from 1997. The workman
was again engaged through NATP on consolidated salary of Rs.3,000/- per month and the services of the workman were
dispensed with on the expiry of the said project. Thereafter, the workman was again engaged on DC rate basis from
01.05.2004 to 31.07.2004. As per the averments made in the written statement, workman was reinstated by the
respondent-management as per the award dated 26.10.2010 in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal modified by the
Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. It is also submitted that DoPT has not issued any order for the regularization of
the contract labour/daily wages workers and the scheme framed by DoPT Casual Labours(Grant of Temporary Status
and Regularization) Scheme of Govt. of India, 1993 was not applicable to the case of the workman as he does not fall
within the ambit of said scheme hence, he cannot be regularized. The sanctioned post can only be filled by the
advertising the same by calling the same from the eligible candidates and thereafter by following the procedure of
selection by way of interview etc. It is also submitted that the case of the workman does not fall in laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is therefore prayed that reference may kindly be decided against the workman and in favour
of the respondent-management.
3.
Workman Naseeb Singh has filed his rejoinder/replication reiterating the facts already mentioned in the claim
petition. It is mentioned in the rejoinder that the present claim petition is only for the regularization of the
claimant/workman consequent upon his reinstatement in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Constitutional Bench of
the apex court in Uma Devi’s case. It is also alleged that the continuity of the service of workman/claimant were from
November 1993 till2004 is proved beyond an ioto of doubt by the award passed by the Hon’ble Labour Court and
management cannot raise any ifs and buts in view of the operation of the doctrine of res judicata. The workman has all
requisite qualification and experience in spite of that he is not considered for regularization while the services of the
juniors to the workman/claimant are regularized in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4.
Both the parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence. Workman Naseeb Singh has submitted his
affidavit as Ex.WW1/A along with documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/23. This witness has reiterated all the facts
mentioned in the claim petition along with the fact that the unequal treatment is meted out to him as juniors who are
appointed subsequently are getting more wages in comparison to the workman who are paid only salary of Rs.9,735/- per
month without DA and other allowances. He has denied the suggestion that he did not work continuously with the
respondent-management upto 31.07.2004 from his appointment in the year November 1993.
5.
Contrary to this, management has examined Sachin Agnihotri, Administrative Officer, Indian Institute of Wheat
and Barley Research, who has proved his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/2 related
with the scheme Casual Labours(Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Govt. of India, 1993 and
subsequent clarification dated 06.06.2002. This witness has admitted that management has given wages to the workman
as per the revision of DC rates. He has also accepted that the advertisement given by the department dated 27.12.2013
could not be implemented by the management because of the restriction of the Agriculture Ministry. He has denied that
he has any document regarding the restriction given by the concerned Ministry. This witness has also accepted that there
are vacancies of skill supporting staff. According to this witness, the instruction of Ministry of Personnel Public
Grievance and Pension are binding upon the management. Thus, this is clear from the statement of the witness of the
management that there exist vacancies of skill supporting staff in the management.
6.
I have heard the oral arguments of Sh. S.D. Sharma, Ld. Counsel of the workman and oral arguments of the Ld.
Counsel of the management Sh. S.K. Gupta, and perused the written arguments filed by the workman and file carefully.
7.
Learned counsel of the workman has contended that workman/claimant was initially appointed through
employment exchange by the respondent-management in the month of November 1993 and worked till his termination
by the management dated 31.07.2004. Subsequently, he was terminated on 01.08.2004 illegally against which reference
was made by the competent ministry which was registered as ID Case No.66 of 2006 titled Naseeb Singh Vs. The
Director Wheat Research Directorate(ICAR), Post Box No.158, Kunjpura Road, Karnal, and decided by the CGIT-I,
Chandigarh on 26.10.2010 in favour of the workman directing the reinstatement with full back wages, which was
modified by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.17848 of 2011 to the extent that back
wages shall not be payable to the workman against which management has not preferred an appeal and an order of the
Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has become final and have the effect of res judicata. Thus, according to the
learned counsel of the workman, management could not argue that workman has not completed more than 10 years from
the date of his appointment to the date of illegal termination. Learned counsel has also contended that workman is not
claiming his regularization in the light of the scheme of Govt. of India Casual Labours(Grant of Temporary Status and
Regularization) initiated in the year 1993. As per the arguments of the learned counsel of the management, workman is
claiming his regularization by virtue of the scheme propounded by the Government in the year 1988 and the judgment
pronounced by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi Vs. State of Karnataka,
Surender Singh case and Union of India Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and Oths. decided on 08.01.2019 and
subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narender Kumar and Oths. Vs. State of Jharkhand
and Oths. Decided on 01.08.2018. Learned counsel has also contended that management has not disputed that claimant
4288
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
is not matriculate or he is not competent for the post regarding which advertisement has been made vide order dated
27.12.2013. Learned counsel of the workman has further contended that workman/claimant is getting only basic pay and
other allowances are not given against basic principle of equal pay for equal work.
8.
Learned counsel of the management would submit that workman was appointed through employment-exchange
without any advertisement and examination as such, his appointment is not legal hence, his services could not be
regularized by virtue of the judgment of Uma Devi(supra) case and Surender Singh case as is observed by the Hon’ble
apex court itself. Learned counsel has also contended that the workman cannot be regularized under the scheme Casual
Labours(Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Govt. of India, 1993, because he does not fall within
the provision of the scheme as he was appointed after the pronouncement of the scheme. Learned counsel also contended
that by virtue of illegal appointment, services of the workman could not be regularized on the pretext of the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court as sanctioned post can only be filled by advertising the same and by calling the application
from the eligible candidates and thereafter by following the procedure of selection through interview etc. it is also argued
that there is no such instruction issued by the DoPT regarding the regularization of the workman and others who are not
appointed on sanctioned post. Thus, according to the learned counsel of the management, workman does not fall within
the ambit of scheme for the regularization of the workers as such, he has no legal right to claim the benefit of
regularization on the sanctioned post. Learned counsel further contended that workman/claimant is appointed as daily
wager and now paid consolidated salary as such he is not entitled to get salary of regular employee in garb of equal pay
for equal work.
9.
At very outset it is necessary to mention all the facts which are admitted to both the parties which is necessary to
appreciate the controversy between the parties. The engagement of claimant as daily wager in the month of November
1993 by management through employment exchange and condition of service till his termination on 31.07.2004 on
different posts i.e. daily wager messenger and clerk is not disputed. Similarly, termination of claimant on 01.04.2008, his
reinstatement on 24.01.2012 in pursuance of the award of Tribunal and subsequent confirmation by the Hon’ble Punjab
& Haryana High Court is also not disputed between the parties. It is also not disputed that there was not an issue in the
earlier dispute about the engagement of the claimant on sanctioned post and its regularization by virtue of serving
management for more than ten years.
10.
The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel of the workman is about regularization of the workman
on the strength of policy instruction of Government dated 07.06.1988 which is attached as Ex.WW1/13 with the file and
judgment of Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Secretary State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi(supra) and
subsequent judgment of State of Karnataka Vs. M.K. Kesari & Oths (2010) 9 SCC 247. In fact to avoid the
controversies about the regularization of employee in different organization the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of Uma Devi has laid down the criteria of such an employees(daily wager, temporary or casual worker etc.)
as one time measure for regularization of their services. The relevant para 44 of the Judgment runs as follows:-
“44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments(not illegal
appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa(supra), R.N. Nanjundappa(supra) and B.N.
Nagarajan(supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned
vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but
without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of
such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the
cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State
Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services
of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under
cover or orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken
to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily
wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also
clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this
judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularization or
making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”
11.
Undisputedly, claimant/workman had rendered more than ten years service in the establishment of respondent till
the date of judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi case(supra). Learned counsel of claimant
has contended on the strength of 10 years continuous service of workman for his regularization as he was employed
through Employment Exchange a competent agency for supply of the workmen at relevant time. Thus, the relevant
question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant has rendered his services for ten years or more against
sanctioned post which is precondition for regularization. Furthermore whether his appointment is illegal or irregular in
the eye of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Karnataka and others Vs. M.L. Kesari & Others
2010(9) SCC 247 has clarified the term illegal and irregular in para 7 of the judgment which runs as follows:-
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4289
“7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against
“regularization” enunciated in Umadevi(3), if the following conditions are fulfilled:
(i)
The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without
the benefit of protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State
Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in
service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.
(ii)
The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments
are not made continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the
prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the
person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts,
but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such
appointments are considered to be irregular.”
12.
So far as case of workman is concerned. It is not disputed that he was appointed through Employment Exchange
in the month of November 1993 and continued in the service of the management till 31.07.2004 rendering his services
more than 10 years in the establishment of the respondent-management. Management has also not denied anywhere that
he has not done matriculation as such, the employment of the workman can be considered to be irregular and not illegal
because he possessed the prescribed qualification in the light of the advertisement of management but had not been
selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection as is required in the above advertisement. In this
connection, Para 53 of the Uma Devi case could not be over cited as it is an exception made to the general principle
against regularization as one time measure which is as under:-
“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal
appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in
para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the
employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts
or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered
on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of
this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should
take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked
for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and
should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that
require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The
process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any
already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no
further by passing of the constitutional requirement and regularization or making permanent, those not
appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”
Undoubtedly, in the case of M.L. Kesari(supra) while explaining the one time measure, it is made clear that even if any
employer as the one time exercise in terms of Para 53 of the Uma Devi case but had not considered the case of some
employees who were entitled for employment in line of Para 53 they are required to be considered regularization until
last workman case is considered by the management. There is nothing on record to show that establishment has ever
initiated any exercise in the light of the judgment of Uma Devi followed by the subsequent office memorandum dated
11.12.2006 of Government of India, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pension(DoPT). Question still remains
to be seen whether the workman was engaged against sanctions post of the establishment or continued as such till his
termination by the management.
13.
The facts relating to initial appointment against the sanctioned post has nowhere mentioned in the claim petition
as well as the statement of the witness of the workman stated on oath that he had been appointed against sanctioned post
or continued till in service against sanctioned post. In this respect, learned counsel of the workman contended that as per
advertisement made by the Directorate of Wheat Research advertisement no.DWR/1/13 there are 11 vacancies of
supporting staff and workman should be regularized on the above vacant post as per judgment of Uma Devi and
subsequent memorandum of Govt. of India, Ministry of Public Grievances and Pension. Learned counsel of the
management while contradicting the arguments of the workman-counsel submitted that the aforesaid advertisement does
not disclose that the vacancies of the supporting staff was fallen in between joining of the workman in the year 1993 and
subsequent termination on 31.07.2004. Thus, according to the learned counsel of the management, the arguments of the
workman-counsel is beyond the scope of legal proposition in spite of the fact that workman possessed require
qualification of matriculation. It is true that there is nothing on record to substantiate the argument advanced by the
workman-counsel regarding the vacancy of supporting staff between the relevant period. Similarly, to my mind, in the
absence of any substantive evidence oral or documentary regarding the services rendered by the workman against
4290
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
sanctioned post it cannot be observed that he is legally entitled to be regularized in the light of the judgment of Supreme
Court in cases of Uma Devi, Kesary and followed by subsequent judgments of Narender Kumar Tiwari and others Vs.
State of Jharkhand and others decided on 01.08.2018 or the State of Bihar and others vs. Kirti decided on
03.03.2018 etc. as is referred and cited by the learned counsel of the workman.
14.
Now the residual question remains to be seen whether the workman is entitled for any relief regarding the wages,
perks and salaries as is argued by the learned counsel of the workman. There is no dispute that workman is appointed as
lab assistant in Barley vide order dated 27.01.2012 Ex.WW1/5 clarifying that he will be paid the wages as fixed by the
DC Karnal. It is unfortunate that after the long litigation and consequent reinstatement after almost 8 years workman was
again appointed with the paid wages as fixed by the DC, Karnal for the lab attendant. Learned counsel of the workman
has drawn my attention towards Para 10 of the rejoinder filed by the workman against written statement filed by the
management and contended that persons junior to the workman are working with respondent-management and
management is giving basic pay, DA and other allowances whereas the claimant/workman is being discriminated only
because of his litigation against respondent-management for his duly deserve right which is a violative of Article 14 and
16 of the Constitution of India. The workman has mentioned the names of 9 workmen Ashok Kumar, Balbir Singh, Budh
Singh etc. at serial no.1 to 9 who are working under the ICR along with their basic pay and DA amounting
Rs.5740+6486 who are appointed after the appointment of workman. This fact is supported by the affidavit of the
workman along with photocopies of the documents supplied by Public Information of the respondent vide letter dated
17.10.2015 Ex.WW1/20. Thus, the facts alleged in the replication as well as affidavit of the workman has not been
contradicted by the management in his written statement or evidence given by the witness Sachin Agnihotri on oath. It is
also pertinent to mention that management has not cross-examined the witness on the facts which is relevant and
violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India regarding the discrimination meted out to the workman for the
perks and allowances payable to him.
15.
In this connection, learned counsel has drawn my attention towards the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Sube Shankar Dubey Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others decided on 14.11.2018 arising out of
SLP(Civil) 1045/2016 the Hon’ble Supreme Court referring the earlier judgment of State of UP and Others Vs. State of
(6)9 SSC 345 and State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others(2017) 1 CCA 139 has quoted with approval
of Para 58 of the Jagjit Singh(supra) which runs as follows:-
“58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An
employee engaged for the same work cannot 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. Anyone, 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 dependants 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.”
16.
In the case of Jagjit Singh(supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the eligibility of issue relating to
temporary employees(daily wagers appointees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual
employees and likewise). As to whether they are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scale on account of they are
performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the sanctioned post. After
considering several judgments including the judgments of Tilak Ram the Hon’ble Court has held that temporary
employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scales which are applicable to the regular employees
holding the same post. On the basis of the above settled position of law certainly workman/ claimant is entitled to draw
wages at the minimum of the pay scales which are applicable to the regular employees holding the post of supporting
staff/lab attendant.
17.
Having regard to factual and legal proposition discussed above, this Tribunal is of the firm opinion that the
claimant/workman is not entitled for regularization in view of the cases of Uma Devi(supra), M.L. Kesari(supra) and
other subsequent judgments of the Hon’ble Court. To my mind, claimant/workman is fully entitled minimum of the pay
scales which is applicable to the regular employees holding the post of supporting staff/lab assistant from the date of his
joining in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal dated 26.10.2010 with arrear and other allowances payable at par with
the employees working in management. Hence, management is directed to comply the award within two months from
the notification of the award by the Central Government.
18.
The reference is answered accordingly.
A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4291
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1014
1014
1014
1014.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस मेनन और पाई मुख आरईडी, भारतीय दुलभ पृ` वी िलिमटेड, उ ोगमंडल, केरल और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के
बंधतं- के संब. िनयोजक/ और उनके कमकार/ के बीच अनुबंध म िन0द1 ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक
अिधकरण एवं 3म यायालय, एनाकुलम के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 19/2017) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को
09.04.2019 को ा: त ;आ था।
[सं. एल-42011/72/2017-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O.1014.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 19/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Ernakulum, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The M/s.
Menon and Pai Head RED, Indian Rare Earth Ltd., Udyogamandal, Kerala and Others, and their workmen which were
received by the Central Government on 09.04.1019.
[No. L-42011/72/2017-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri.V. Vijaya Kumar, B.Sc., LLM, Presiding Officer
(Friday the 22nd day of March, 2019)
ID No. 19/2017
Union
:
The General Secretary,
Indian Rare Earth Employees Union,
Udyogamandal,
Kerala-683 501.
By V.N.Sathisan
Management
:
The Head RED,
Indian Rare Earths Ltd.,
Udyogamandal,
Kerala-683 501
By M/s. Menon & Pai
This case coming up for final hearing on 22.03.2019 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court passed the following on the
same day,
AWARD
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Government of India/Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-42011/72/2017-IR(DU)
dated 03.07.2017 referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
2.
The dispute is:
4292
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Having agreed to the terms and conditions of the settlement and while receiving the benefits extended by
the Management from time to time, including the promotions as per company transfer policy, the act of
the Union in raising this type of dispute is frivolous, vexations and uncalled for”
3.
Both the Union and the Management entered appearance.
4.
Shri. V.N.Sathisan, General Secretary of the Union filed a Memo dated 11.03.2019 informing that the issues
raised in this dispute are settled between the Union and Management through a Memorandum of settlement dated 27th
September 2017 and hence the Union may be permitted to withdraw the dispute.
5.
Since the dispute is settled out of Court between parties the same is dismissed as withdrawn.
6.
Hence an award is passed dismissing the dispute as withdrawn. Memo dated 11.03.2019 filed by the Union will
form part of this award.
The award will came into force one month after it publication in the official Gazette.
Dictated to the Assistant, transcribed and typed by him and passed by me on this 22nd day of March 2019.
V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Union
:
Memo dated 11.03.2019
Management
:
Nil
BEFORE THE HON’BLE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
ID No.19 of 2017
Union :
General Secretary, Indian Rare Earths Employees Union (CITU) Udyogamandal, Kerala – 683 501.
Vs.
Management
The Head RED, Indian Rare Earths Limited, Udyogamandal, Kerala – 683 501.
MEMO FILED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE UNION
I am the General Secretary of Indian Rare Earths Employees Union (CITU) representing the Union in the above dispute.
It is respectfully submitted that the above dispute was settled between the Management and the Union. The
Memorandum of Settlement was entered between the parties on 27th September, 2017. Hence, in the light of the
settlement arrived between parties in the present dispute, the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to permit the Union to
withdraw the above dispute.
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2019.
Sd./-illegible
Representative of the Union General Secretary,
IRE Employees Union (CITU)
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1015
1015
1015
1015.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस िनदेशक, रा1 >ीय अनुसंधान क सोलापुर (महारा1 >) एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं- के संब. िनयोजक/ और उनके
कमकार/ के बीच अनुबंध म िन0द1 ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म यायालय-2, मुंबई
के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या CGIT-2/81 of 2014) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 29.04.2019 को ा: त ;ए
थे।
[सं. एल-42012/80/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4293
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O.1015.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT-2/81 of 2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court-2 Mumbai, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
The Director, National Research Center for Pomegranate, Solapur (Maharashtra) and their workmen and others, which
were received by the Central Government on 29.04.1019.
[No. L-42012/80/2014-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT :M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/81 of 2014
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
(1)
NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE FOR POMEGRANATE
(2)
M/S. SWADESHI SECURITIES
The Director,
National Research Centre for Pomegranate,
Near Solapur University,
Solapur (Maharashtra).
M/s. Swadeshi Security,
96, Salgar Vasti,
Dongaon Road,
Solapur (Maharashtra).
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
Shri Tayappa J. Maske,
Somnath Nagar, Akole Kati,
Tal North Solapur,
Solapur (Maharashtra) – 413222.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Shri R. B. Rai, Representative
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
Absent
Mumbai, dated the 12th March, 2019
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-42012/80/2014 – IR (DU) dated 25.07.2014. The terms of reference given
in the schedule are as follows :
“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Tayappa J. Maske, for asking regulation as an employee of National
Research Centre for Pomegranate, Solapur is legal and justified ? If yes to what relief the workman is entitled
to ?’’
2.
After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.
4294
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
On going through Roznama it appears that the concerned workman is absent since long. He has not filed
affidavit in support of his statement of claim. Today also he is absent hence there is no evidence to substantiate the
statement of claim. Therefore the reference is disposed of for want of evidence to substantiate the statement of claim.
4.
Hence the reference is rejected with no order as to costs. Hence order.
ORDER
Reference is rejected with no order as to costs.
Date: 12.03.2019
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1016
1016
1016
1016.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस उपाU यV, तारा कQ युिनकेशंस िलिमटेड, मुंबई और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं- के संब. िनयोजक/ और उनके
कमकार/ के बीच अनुबंध म िन0द1 ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म यायालय-2, मुंबई
के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या CGIT-2/29 of 2014) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 04.06.2019 को ा: त ;ए थे।
[सं. एल-40011/09/2016-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O.1016.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT-2/29 of 2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court-2 Mumbai, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
The Vice President, Tara Communications Ltd., Mumbai, and their workmen which were received by the Central
Government on 04.06.1019.
[No. L-40011/09/2016-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT: M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/29 of 2017
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF TARA COMMUNICATIONS LTD.
The Vice President,
M/s. Tara Communications Ltd.,
Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, M.G. Road,
MUMBAI – 400 001.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
The President,
Tata Communications Employees’ Union,
Videsh Sanchar Bhavan,
16th Floor, M.G. Road,
MUMBAI – 400 001.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr. Vinay Mishra, Representative
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
Mr. J. H. Sawant, Advocate
Mumbai, dated the 28th May, 2019
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4295
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-40011/09/2016 – IR (DU) dated 17.04.2017. The terms of reference given
in the schedule are as follows :
“It is reported that the PLI is to be computed on the basis of the basic pay and as the settlement dated
16.05.2013 provided only for a notional effect of the extension of one time promotion without monetary value or
arrears of salary w.e.f. 01.04.2012 to 31.12.2012, during the said period, there was no real / actual monetary
enhancement of wages and hence the question of arrears of PLI on the notionally hiked wages does not arise.”
2.
After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.
3.
On going through Roznama, it appears that the union is absent since 16.8.17. Statement of claim has not been
filed by the union. As such there is no statement of claim to substantiate the contentions.
4.
For want of evidence therefore the reference is liable to be rejected.
5.
Hence the reference is rejected with no order as to costs for want of evidence. Hence Order.
ORDER
Reference is rejected with no order as to costs for want of evidence.
Date: 28.05.2019
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1017
1017
1017
1017.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस िनदेशक, रा1 >ीय अनार अनुसंधान क सोलापुर (महारा1 >) एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं- के संब. िनयोजक/ और
उनके कमकार/ के बीच अनुबंध म िन0द1 ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म यायालय
सं.-2, मुंबई के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या CGIT-58 of 2014) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 06.06.2019 को
ा: त ;ए थे।
[सं. एल-42012/57/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 1017.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT-2/58 of 2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court-2 Mumbai, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
The Director, National Research Centre for Pomegranate, Solapur (Maharashtra), and their workmen which were
received by the Central Government on 06.06.1019.
[No. L-42012/57/2014-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
4296
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/58 of 2014
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
(1)
NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE FOR POMEGRANATE
(2)
M/S. SWADESHI SECURITIES
The Director,
National Research Centre for Pomegranate,
Near Solapur University,
Solapur (Maharashtra).
M/s. Swadeshi Security,
96, Salgar Vasti,
Dongaon Road,
Solapur (Maharashtra).
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
Smt. Neelavati Gorakh Raut,
R/o Kondi,
Tal North Solapur,
Solapur (Maharashtra) – 413001.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Shri S. P. Chinchwadkar, Advocate
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
Shri V. R. Deshpande, Advocate
Mumbai, dated the 16th May, 2019
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-42012/57/2014 – IR (DU) dated 23.07.2014. The terms of reference given
in the schedule are as follows :
“Whether the demand of the workman Smt. Neelavati Gorakh Raut, for asking regulation as an employee of
National Research Centre for Pomegranate, Solapur is legal and justified ? If yes to what relief the workman is
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 concerned workman is absent since long. She has not filed
affidavit in support of her statement of claim. Today also she is absent hence there is no evidence to substantiate the
statement of claim. Therefore the reference is disposed of for want of evidence to substantiate the statement of claim.
4.
Hence the reference is rejected with no order as to costs. Hence order.
ORDER
Reference is rejected with no order as to costs.
Date: 16.05.2019
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4297
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1018
1018
1018
1018.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस िनदेशक, रा ीय अनार अनुसंधान क सोलापुर (महारा ) एवं उनके कमचारी और अ य के *बंधतं- के संब.
िनयोजक0 और उनके कमकार0 के बीच अनुबंध म िन1द ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म
यायालय नं.-2, मुंबई के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या CGIT-2/59 of 2014) को *कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को
04.06.2019 को *ा7 त 8ए थे।
[सं. एल-42012/58/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 1018.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT-2/59 of 2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No.-2 Mumbai, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to The Director, National Research Centre for Pomegranate, Solapur (Maharashtra), and their workmen and others which
was received by the Central Government on 04.06.2019.
[No. L-42012/58/2014-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/59 of 2014
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
(1) NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE FOR POMEGRANATE
(2) M/S. SWADESHI SECURITIES
The Director,
National Research Centre for Pomegranate,
Near Solapur University,
Solapur (Maharashtra).
M/s. Swadeshi Security,
96, Salgar Vasti,
Dongaon Road,
Solapur (Maharashtra).
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
Shri Bhimashankar Peerappa Koli,
R/o Dahitane, Post Shelagi,
Tal North Solapur,
Solapur (Maharashtra) – 413001.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Shri S.P. Chinchwadkar, Advocate
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
Shri V.R. Deshpande, Advocate
Mumbai, dated the 16th May, 2019
4298
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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-42012/58/2014 – IR (DU) dated 23.07.2014. The terms of reference given
in the schedule are as follows :
“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Bhimashankar Peerappa Koli, for asking regulation as an employee
of National Research Centre for Pomegranate, Solapur is legal and justified ? If yes to what relief the workman
is 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 concerned workman is absent since long. He has not filed
affidavit in support of his statement of claim. Today also he is absent hence there is no evidence to substantiate the
statement of claim. Therefore the reference is disposed of for want of evidence to substantiate the statement of claim.
4.
Hence the reference is rejected with no order as to costs. Hence order.
ORDER
Reference is rejected with no order as to costs.
Date: 16.05.2019
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1019
1019
1019
1019.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस िनदेशक, रा ीय अनार अनुसंधान क सोलापुर (महारा ) एवं उनके कमचारी और अ य के *बंधतं- के संब.
िनयोजक0 और उनके कमकार0 के बीच अनुबंध म िन1द ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म
यायालय नं.-2, मुंबई के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या CGIT-60 of 2014) को *कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को
06.06.2019 को *ा7 त 8ए थे।
[सं. एल-42012/59/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 1019.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.CGIT-2/60 of 2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No.-2 Mumbai, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to The Director, National Research Centre for Pomegranate, Solapur (Maharashtra), and their workmen and others which
was received by the Central Government on 06.06.2019.
[No. L-42012/59/2014-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4299
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/60 of 2014
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
(1) NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE FOR POMEGRANATE
(2) M/S. SWADESHI SECURITIES
The Director,
National Research Centre for Pomegranate,
Near Solapur University,
Solapur (Maharashtra).
M/s. Swadeshi Security,
96, Salgar Vasti,
Dongaon Road,
Solapur (Maharashtra).
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
Shri Tanaji Shamrao Chavan,
R/o Chandrakala Nagar, Plot No. 164-165,
Behind Airport, Majarewadi,
Solapur (Maharashtra) – 413003.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Shri S.P. Chinchwadkar, Advocate
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
Shri V.R. Deshpande, Advocate
Mumbai, dated the 16th May, 2019
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-42012/59/2014 – IR (DU) dated 23.07.2014. The terms of reference given
in the schedule are as follows :
“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Tanaji Shamrao Chavan, for asking regulation as an employee of
National Research Centre for Pomegranate, Solapur is legal and justified ? If yes to what relief the workman is
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 concerned workman is absent since long. He has not filed
affidavit in support of his statement of claim. Today also he is absent hence there is no evidence to substantiate the
statement of claim. Therefore the reference is disposed of for want of evidence to substantiate the statement of claim.
4.
Hence the reference is rejected with no order as to costs. Hence order.
ORDER
Reference is rejected with no order as to costs.
Date: 16.05.2019
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
4300
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1020
1020
1020
1020.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस महा*बंधक, भारत संचार िनगम िलिमटेड, करनाल, ह;रयाणा और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के *बंधतं- के संब.
िनयोजक0 और उनके कमकार0 के बीच अनुबंध म िन1द ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म
यायालय, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 316/2013) को *कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 23.05.2019 को
*ा7 त 8ए थे।
[सं. एल-40012/82/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 1020.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 316/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The General
Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Karnal, Haryana and Others, and their workmen which were received by the
Central Government on 23.05.1019.
[No. L-40012/82/2013-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer
ID No.316/2013
Registered on:-07.02.2014
Sh. Dharambir Singh S/o Sh. Pane Ram Jogi, VPO: Ballah,
Near Telephone Exchange, Tehsil & Distt. Karnal, Haryana.
…Workman
Versus
The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Sector 8, Karnal, Haryana.
… Management
AWARD
Passed on: 13.05.2019
Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/82/2013-IR(DU) Dated 22.01.2014, under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Karnal(Haryana)
in terminating the services of Shri Dharambir Singh, S/o Shri Pane Ram Jogi, Ex Lineman-cum-Relief the
workman is entitled to and from which date?”
1.
Both the parties were served with notices. The workman/claimant filed his statement of claim with the averment
that he was engaged as Lineman Helper/Generator Operator at Ballah Gaon Exchange by management of Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited, Karnal from 01.10.2009 and he performed his duty upto 31.07.2010. He rendered his services even on
holiday and was paid Rs.3,000/- meanwhile and he was terminated on 30.07.2010 by the management without giving
any notice and salary of 10 months for the services rendered by him. The workman had completed more than 240 days of
service in relevant calendar year. Claimant/workman has alleged that he has filed the receipt of complaint made by the
consumer along with the telephone bill which is tendered to the consumer in respective period along with claim petition.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4301
It is prayed that the management be directed to reinstate the workman into service along with all consequential benefits,
back wages and continuity of service.
2.
The claim petition has been resisted by the management who filed its reply, alleging therein that claimant has
never worked with BSNL on the post of Generator Operator or Lineman as such, there is no relationship of master and
servant with the claimant as he had never been engaged on any post nor any wages have been paid directly or indirectly
by the BSNL. The claim has been filed on fake ground. There is no iota of truth in the averments made in the claim
statement. In fact, claimant wants to take the benefit of certain entries made by him clandestinely with malafide intention
to project his case for illegal entries in the service of BSNL. The claimant has illegally assessed the engine register of
Ballah Exchange and signed the entries in order to make out a case of his alleged employment with the Nigam during the
period October 2009 to 31.07.2010. There is no question of making of any payment of the salary when he was neither
engaged nor worked as well as termination of his services without notice on the alleged date on 31.07.2010. The
documents attached by the claimant are manufactured by the claimant himself by secretly, forcibly signing the generator
register just to make out his employment in the management. In this connection, one Sh. Rajinder Kumar made a
complaint on 15.11.2010 that Sh. Dharambir has never worked as Generator Operator and he has made his signature by
making wrong entries. Copy of the complaint is attached as Annexure M-1 and subsequent complaint is attached as
Annexure M-2 with the written statement. Remaining documents allegedly signed by the subscriber is also false as there
is no procedure existing in the BSNL that whenever any fault complaint is received it is to be entered and handed over to
the concerned Lineman to rectify the fault. The claimant has committed the criminal offence for tempering with the
official record and also manufactured the false documents as such, Hon’ble Court is requested to suo moto lodged a
complaint against the claimant for the above offence. It is prayed that claim statement be rejected with heavy cost.
3.
In support of his case, the workman appeared in the witness-box and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit
Ex.A-1 along with documents marked as W-2 to W-11.
4.
In support of the facts alleged in the written statement, respondent-management has submitted the affidavit of
witness Sh. Mahabir Singh Tyagi, SDO, BSNL, Asandh, as Ex.MW1/A along with documents Ex.MW1/1 to MW1/2.
5.
I have heard Sh. R.P. Rana, Ld. Counsel for the workman and Sh. Anish Babbar, Ld. Counsel for the
management and perused the record carefully.
6.
Learned counsel of the workman has contended that he has joined the management-BSNL as Lineman
Helper/Generator Operator on daily wages on DC rates by the management and had worked from 01.10.2009 to
31.07.2010 and his services were orally terminated on 31.07.2010 without issuing any notice, order without any reason.
Learned counsel of the workman has also submitted that conduct of the management regarding the termination of
workman from the service is in violation of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also submitted that
documents filed by the workman shows that workman had worked in the aforesaid period with the management as
Lineman Helper-cum-Generator Operator. It is also contended that the documents filed by the workman are indicative of
the fact that he served the management throughout his service directly under the supervision and control of the
respondent-management as such, he is liable to be reinstated with full back wages.
7.
Contrary to this, learned counsel of the management argued that claimant is neither workman nor appointed as
Lineman Helper-cum-Generator Operator by the respondent-management for the period from 01.10.2009 to 31.07.2010.
It is also contended that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the workman and management as
such, respondent-management has no liability towards the workman. Learned counsel has also submitted that documents
filed by the claimant as W1 to W11 are false, fabricated and forged as is proved by the complaint made by one Rajinder
Kumar an employee of the Telephone Exchange and filed by the witness Mahabir Singh Tyagi as MW1/1 and MW1/2.
8.
The first contention regarding the claimant is that whether he comes within the definition of workman as is
defined in Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I may mention that claimant was appointed as Lineman
Helper/Generator Operator as per his claim petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the
claimant was performing his duties as labourer/unskilled worker. He was not in supervisory or administrative post
requiring him to perform only administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(S) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532, has observed as follows:-
“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.”
4302
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Thus Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workmen also does not make any distinction between
full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in plain language of Section
2(S) from which it can be infer 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. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the above ruling, in my
considered opinion the claimant herein admittedly falls within the definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2(S) of the Act.
9.
There is no dispute about preposition of law that onus to prove that claimant was in the employment of
management is always on the workman/claimant and it is for the workman to adduce evidence to prove factum of his
employment with the management. Such evidence may be in form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or record of
his/her appointment or engagement for that year to show that he worked with the employer for 240 days or more in a
calendar year. In this regard reference may be made to Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Sowaran Singh, (2005) 8
Supreme Court Cases 481 as well as Director Fisheries Terminated Division Vs. Bhikubhai Mehgajibhai Gavda
(2012) 1 SCC 47.
10.
There is hardly any dispute with the preposition of law as propounded in the aforesaid case. However, the
factual scenario in the present case is that management has totally denied the relationship of claimant with the
management as master and servant alleging therein that he is neither appointed by the management nor terminated by the
management as is alleged in the claim petition. Initially burden regarding the proof of relationship between employer and
employee certainly lies with the claimant/workman for which he has submitted his affidavit Ex.A1 and placed him for
cross-examination. This witness has been cross-examined by the learned counsel of the management in which he has
accepted that appointment letter was not issued to him by the management and he has no proof for receiving salary from
the management. This witness has alleged that he was appointed by Jaswal Singh, SDO and denied the suggestion of the
management-counsel that documents produced by him are frivolous. Thus, learned counsel of the management has very
cryptically cross-examined the witness and nothing has been asked regarding the documents filed by the witness as W2
to W11. Perusal of these documents reveals that documents Ex.W2 to Ex.W10 are the Photostat copies of certificate
issued in the form of letter by the concerned consumer subscribers including Principal Arya Kanya Mahavidyalaya
Gurukul, Mor Majra, Karnal with their respective signatures and telephone numbers etc. for the services rendered by the
workman. Management witness Sh. Mahavir Singh Tyagi, SDO, has accepted that there was previously telephone
number 10749275810 in the name of Vidya Nand Shastri. He has also accepted that there was telephone connection in
the name of Arya Kanya Mahavidyalaya Gurukul, Mor Majra, Karnal, and Rajinder Kumar might has sent to the
workman for repair of telephone connection whenever necessary. He has also accepted that he cannot say whether
workman Dharambir Singh was attending the complaints in respect of the above telephone numbers. He has also
accepted that answer is same with regard to documents Marked W-1 to W-10 filed by the workman. Thus, during the
cross-examination, the facts alleged by this witness is a proof that he cannot dare to negate the services rendered by the
workman expressly. Admittedly, Rajinder Kumar is the employee of the management posted at Ballah Gaon Exchange.
It is pertinent to mention that management could not dare to summon the Principal of Arya Kanya Mahavidyalaya
Gurukul, Mor Majra, Karnal, who has given certificate regarding the services of the workman rendered at the behest of
Rajinder Kumar as is evident from the certificate issued by the Principal with clear signature and telephone number.
11.
Learned counsel of the workman has drawn my attention towards the documents Ex.W-11 running 22 pages
from 01.10.2009 to 30.07.2010 photocopies of engine register maintained by Lineman Helper-cum-Generator Operator
deputed at Ballah Gaon Exchange. There are signatures of the workman Dharamvir Singh in each pages counter signed
by the SDO regarding the operation of Generator and use of diesel for the relevant period. The signatures of the SDO and
Rajinder Kumar an employee of Exchange has not denied by the management-counsel as well as the witness Mahavir
Singh Tyagi, examined by the management. Learned counsel of the management has contended that these entries and
signatures are forged and fabricated subsequently by the workman in order to prove that he was employed by the
management for the relevant period. In this connection, learned counsel of the management has drawn my attention
towards the complaints made by Rajinder Kumar Ex.MW1/1 and Ex.MW1/2 dated 15.11.2010 and 04.10.2010. These
documents have been proved by the witness of the management Sh. Mahabir Singh Tyagi. Ex.MW1/2 dated 04.10.2010
reveals that workman Dharamvir Singh was residing near telephone exchange at Ballah Gaon came to him and abused
with the allegation that he was not giving any work to the workman. It is pertinent to mention that if the fact alleged in
the complaint is true then the alleged accident is one week earlier from the date of the complaint made by Rajinder
Kumar. The question arises that why Rajinder Kumar has not made any complaint on the date when he was abused by
the workman. In the same way Ex.MW1/1 is a complaint report written by Rajinder Kumar with the averment that on
examining Generator Register from January 2008 to July 2010 he found that Dharamvir workman has made his
signatures on engine register for rendering his services. He has also written that he has full faith that Dharamvir has
made signatures and entries in engine register in his absence illegally as is evident from the pen used by him and
Dharambir are different. Naturally question arises before Tribunal that if complaints made by the Rajinder Kumar an
employee of the Telephone Exchange of the management is true then what action is taken by the management against the
workman? If no action is taken for such a gross misconduct or criminal offence committed by the workman what was
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4303
reason behind such inaction by the management? There is nothing on record in the form of explanation of the question
framed above. To my mind, plausible reason may be that management had employed the workman as alleged in the
claim petition and he made entries and signatures accordingly. Hence, management could not dare to prosecute the
workman by lodging F.I.R against him.
12.
Furthermore, management has failed to examine Rajinder Kumar, the alleged employee of the Telephone
Exchange or SDO Jaswal Singh, who has counter-signed on these papers relating to Engine Register reason best known
to the management. It is pertinent to mention that if the Engine Register was in custody of the Rajinder Kumar then how
workman managed to make entries and signatures in it. These facts are also not explained by the management which
could be explained by examining the Rajinder Kumar along with the concerned original register or SDO Jaswal Singh by
the management. Undoubtedly, Rajinder Kumar has written in his complaint that he has faith that the entries are made by
the workman Dharambir Singh but it is a settled law that faith howsoever strong it cannot take place of evidence. To my
mind, management has knowingly withdrawn Rajinder Kumar or SDO Jaswal Singh for cross-examination in spite of the
fact that they may be best witness for the conclusive finding on the issue. The affidavit filed by the workman/claimant is
in line with the averments made in the claim petition. He has also filed on record copies of extract of the engine register
Ex.W11 from 01.10.2009 to 31.07.2010. In cross-examination, no specific question is asked regarding the completion of
240 days. I may mention that management has not adduced any cogent evidence whatsoever to rebut the case of the
management or to substantiate its stand that the workman/claimant was not engaged by the management. It is relevant to
mention that witness examined by the management Sh. Mahabir Singh Tyagi has admitted that he does not have any
personal knowledge of the case. According to this witness, documents marked Ex.MW2 has been verified by the JTO but
entire page has not been verified by the JTO relating to the entries made by the workman. This witness has express his
inability to say whether workman Dharamvir Singh was attending the complaint in respect of the above telephone
numbers. He has also answered in same way regarding the documentd marked W2 to W10. Thus, the statement given by
this witness in his cross-examination has not served any purpose for the facts alleged by the management in its written
statement. This witness also has not produced the original entry register Photostat copies which has been submitted by
the workman Ex.W11. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is constrained to draw adverse inference against the
management under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act for non-production of the requisite records or examining relevant
witness and believe the version of the claimant that he worked with the management for over 240 days before his
termination. Equally settled is the position of law that cases regarding the Industrial Disputes Act are to be decided on
the basis of the preponderance of probability and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, on the basis of the
critical analysis of evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that evidence produced by the workman stand on
better footing than management and there certainly existed relationship of employer and employee between the
management and workman.
13.
Now the vital question arises for consideration is whether termination of the claimant from his services by the
management w.e.f. 31.07.2010 is in accordance with the law or in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
According to the testimony of the workman/claimant the work of Lineman Helper/Generator Operator on which he was
working was of permanent nature and that his services were terminated by the management in violation of Section 25-F
of the Act. It is neither the case of the management that any notice or compensation in lieu of notice period was given to
the claimant prior to termination of his services w.e.f. 31.07.2010, nor any such evidence has been adduced on record by
the management. It is reiterated that the management did not examine any reliable witness to rebut the case of the
claimant. In these circumstances, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the services of the claimant were terminated
by the management w.ef. 31.07.2009 in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
14.
There is long line of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of
Section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the
provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will render action of the management to be illegal and void under the law.
15.
Since there is no evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by the management to the workman at the
time of termination or in lieu of such notice, any compensation was paid to him, as such action of the management in
terminating the services of the workman is held to be illegal and void.
16.
Now the residual question is whether the claimant/workman is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of
back wages and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. It is proved on record that claimant was continuously in
the employment of the management from 01.10.2009 to 31.07.2010 under its control and supervision.
17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case “Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya”
reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under:
“i) In case of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is
the normal rule.
ii)
Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back
wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the
4304
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Court of first instance that he was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the
employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence
to prove that the workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he wads
drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof
of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its
existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the
employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove
that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar
emoluments.”
18. The Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of termination of a
workman’s service/employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section
25-F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometime as nullity and
sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an
employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month’s notice or pay in lieu
thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25-F (s) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer and
nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs.
Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
19. A Bench of three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited vs.
Employees of Hindustan tin Works Private Limited (1979) 2 SCC 80 held that relief of reinstatement with continuity of
service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken
away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously
deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the act of employer is found to be totally illegal and arbitrary, in that
eventuality the workman is required to be reinstated, with full back wages. Plain common sense also dictates that the
removal of an order terminating the services of workman must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the
workman along with payment of back wages.
20. However, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan Singh, reported
as 2005 SCC (L & S) 716 observed as under:-
“8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the
termination of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host
of factors like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of
the vacancy or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad
hoc, short term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job
and the like should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the
important factors which has to be taken into consideration is the length of service, which the workman had
rendered with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services
are wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this
age and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However,
where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the
complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is
often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot be
compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calendar year.”
21. Yet, in another latest judgment i.e. District Development Officer Vs. Kanti Lal 2018 LLR 225 while
considering the question of reinstatement along with back wages of a daily wager, who have put two and a half years of
service, the Hon’ble Apex Court granted a lump sum compensation of Rs.2.50 lac in lieu of reinstatement. The workman
herein was not holding a regular post of Lineman Helper/Generator Operator and he was simply engaged as daily wager.
Having regard to duration of service, it would be in the interest of justice and fair play if compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
be awarded as lump sum compensation to the workman. Accordingly, the reference is answered by holding that action of
the management-BSNL in terminating the service of workman Dharamvir Singh is illegal and an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as lump sum compensation to the said workman by the management and in case, this
amount is not paid within one month from the date of publication of the award, the workman shall be entitled to the said
amount with 6% interest from the date of making of the reference till realisation.
22.
Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication of the same as required under Section
17(2) of the Act.
A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4305
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1021
1021
1021
1021.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस िनदेशक, सरदार व लभभाई रा ीय *ौ ोिगक सं= थान, इचानाथ, सूरत (गुजरात) और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के
*बंधतं- के संब. िनयोजक0 और उनके कमकार0 के बीच अनुबंध म िन1द ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक
अिधकरण एवं 3म यायालय-1, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 57/2011) को *कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को
22.05.2019 को *ा7 त 8ए थे।
[सं. एल-40012/16/2009-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 1021.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 57/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-1 Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The Chief
Post Master General, D/o Post, Gujarat Circle, Khanpur, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) and Others, and their workmen which
were received by the Central Government on 22.05.1019.
[No. L-40012/16/2009-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 29th April, 2019
Reference: (CGITA) No. 57/2011
1.
The Chief Post Master General,
D/o Post, Gujarat Circle, Khanpur,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001
2.
The Sub-Record Officer,
RMS, AM Division,
Mehsana (Gujarat)
…First Parties
V/s
The General Secretary,
Association of Railway and Post Employees,
4, Duplex Apartment, Nehrupark, Vastrapur,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380007
…Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri P.M. Rami
For the Second Party
: Shri R.C. Pathak & Shri Chintan Gohel
4306
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/16/2009–IR(DU)
dated 11.07.2011 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Chief Post Master General, Ahmedabad in terminating the services
of Shri Nareshkumar Manilal Parmar w.e.f. 20.07.1998 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is
entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 11.07.2011 and received on 25.07.2011 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,
New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2.
In response to the notice issued to the parties, the second party workman submitted the statement of claim
alleging that he was appointed by the first party The Chief Post Master General, D/o Post, Gujarat Circle, Khanpur,
Ahmedabad and The Sub-Record Officer, RMS, AM Division, Mehsana, hereinafter referred to as ‘first party’ on
27.05.1996 after inviting the names from employment exchange Mehsana and conducting his interview on 13.05.1996.
Since then he has been working diligently and satisfactorily till 20.07.1998 the date on which his services were
terminated without following the due procedure of law i.e. without giving notice and notice pay. He has also alleged that
after his termination, some other persons were appointed. The first party has also adopted exploitative tactics to engage
temporary staff continuously. The first party is in the habit of engaging the workmen temporarily to deprive them the
benefits of uniform, provident fund, gratuity, bonus etc. He moved number of representations for re-employment but to
no result. Therefore, he has prayed for reinstatement of service with back wages along with all consequential benefits.
3.
The first party submitted written statement Ex. 6 stating that the workman’s submission that his services were
terminated on 20.07.1998 is false. He was not appointed after following the departmental proceedings of recruitment. It
is true that his name was sponsored by the employment exchange at serial no. 27/40 vide letter no. CGM/104/96/907
dated 04.05.1996. In response to filling up the post of part time water carrier cum sweeper, he was simply called on
21.05.1996 by the SRO, Mehsana vide letter dated 13.05.1996. After completing the recruitment process, the names of
the selected candidates were intimated to employment exchange by SRO Mehsana vide letter dated 08.04.1997 against
the post for which his name was sponsored by the employment exchange. Thus the services of the workman were
terminated w.e.f. 22.07.1998 after completing the process of regular recruitment. The workman was never selected by
due procedure. His services were casual in nature and were terminated as soon as the regular appointment was made.
Therefore, the reference has no force and liable to be dismissed with no cost.
4.
The workman moved an application for production of documents which appears to have not been pressed as the
workman himself filed documents vide list Ex. 10 detailed therein.
5.
On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:
i.
Whether the action of the management of Chief Post Master General, Ahmedabad in terminating the
services of Shri Nareshkumar Manilal Parmar w.e.f. 20.07.1998 is legal and justified?
ii.
To what relief, if any, the workman is entitled?
6.
Issue No. i and ii: As both the issues are interrelated, therefore, are decided together. The burden of proof of
these issues lies on the second party workman who submitted his affidavit Ex. 21 reiterating the averments made in the
statement of claim but in his cross-examination, he has admitted that he was a temporary part time casual worker
engaged on 03.05.1996. He used to work as extra department assistant and was retrenched on 31.08.1998. He was
receiving the wage at the rate of Rs.700/- to Rs. 750/- per month. He also admitted that he was retrenched when
permanent workman joined on his place. He was not receiving the service benefits of regular employee.
7.
The first party submitted the affidavit Ex. 22 of one Hardik B. Gadhavi reiterating the averments made in the
written statement and in his cross-examination, he has stated that this workman was temporarily engaged through
employment exchange but was terminated as soon as the regular employee joined on the post.
8.
I considered the arguments of both the parties and perused the evidence available on the record. It is an admitted
fact that this workman was engaged as a temporary casual worker and was terminated after filling up the vacancy by a
due procedure of recruitment. Thus he deserves no relief. Both the issues are decided accordingly.
9.
The award is decided accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4307
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1022
1022
1022
1022.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस िनदेशक, सरदार व लभभाई रा ीय *ौ ोिगक सं= थान, इचानाथ, सूरत (गुजरात) और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के
*बंधतं- के संब. िनयोजक0 और उनके कमकार0 के बीच अनुबंध म िन1द ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक
अिधकरण एवं 3म यायालय-1, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 04/2013) को *कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को
22.05.2019 को *ा7 त 8ए थे।
[सं. एल-42011/162/2012-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 1022.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 04 of 2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court-1 Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
The Director, Sardar Vallabhabhai National Institute of Technology, Ichhanath, Surat (Gujarat) and Others, and their
workmen which were received by the Central Government on 22.05.1019.
[No. L-42011/162/2012-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 29th April, 2019
Reference: (CGITA) No. 04/2013
The Director,
M/s. Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology,
Ichchanath,
Surat (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
1.
The Secretary,
Surat Jilla Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh,
B/206, Capital Complex, Beside Pratik Row House,
Hany Park Road, Adajan,
Surat (Gujarat)
2.
The Secretary,
Gujarat Audhyogik Kamdar Mahamandal,
492/2950, Gujarat Housing Board,
Bapunagar Cross Road,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…Second Parties
For the First Party
: Shri Jayesh M. Patel
For the Second Party No. 1
: None
For the Second Party No. 2
: Shri Hitesh D. Katharotiya
4308
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42011/162/2012–
IR(DU) dated 21.01.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the establishment of Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat falls under the
definition of ‘Industry’ as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If yes, whether the demand of the
Surat Jilla Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, Surat for regularisation of the workmen Shri N.B. Rathod & 185 others in
the establishment of Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat is legal, proper and just? If so,
what relief these concerned workmen are entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 21.01.2013 and received on 31.01.2013 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,
New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2.
After issuing notice to the parties, the second party no. 2 submitted the statement of claim Ex. 9 on 18.07.2017
but the first party The Director, M/s. Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Ichchanath, Surat, hereinafter
referred to as ‘first party’ has not preferred to submit the written statement. On 16.01.2017, the second party moved an
application Ex. 8 for impleading Gujarat Audhyodik Kamdar Mahamandal as second party union in place of ‘Surat Jilla
Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh’.
3.
The second party union in his statement of claim has alleged that the workman detailed in the application Ex. 8
have rendered ranging from 2 years to 48 years and despite serving for such a long period have been denied the benefits
of making them permanent workmen of the first party also denying the benefit of equal pay for equal work. He has
further alleged that still they have been serving as casual labour. Thus the first party has been indulging in unfair labour
practice under Item No. 10 of the 5th Schedule of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further alleged that the workmen
detailed in the annexure A have been receiving daily wages of Rs.193/- to Rs.300/- per day whereas the permanent
workmen have been getting a salary of Rs.30000/- per month despite discharging same nature of duties as the permanent
workmen have been performing. The Supreme Court in Secretary State of Karnataka V/s Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 and
Umrala Gram Panchayat V/s Secretary, Municipal Employees Union has held that as under:
“13. Further, Section 25 (T) of the Industrial Disputes Act clearly states that unfair labour practice should not be
encouraged and the same should be discontinued. In the present case, the principle ‘equal work, equal pay’ has
been violated by the appellant Panchayat as they have been treating the concerned workmen unfairly and
therefore, the demand raised by the respondent Union needs to be accepted. The High Court has thus, rightly not
interfered with the award of the Labour Court as the same is legal and supported with cogent and valid reasons.”
“16. The reliance placed by the leaned senior counsel for the appellant upon the decision of this Court in
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others V/s Umadevi and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1, does not apply to the fact
situation of the present case and the same cannot be accepted by us in the light of the cogent reasons arrived at
by the courts below.”
Thus on the basis of the aforesaid judgements, the second party union has alleged that the first party has indulged in
unfair labour practice under Section 2 (r a) A of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Item No. 10 of 5th Schedule of the
Industrial Disputes Act.
4.
It is further alleged that these workmen have been working as helper, clerk, computer operator, lab assistant,
network security, office assistant, fitter, cashier, gym instructor, plumber, carpenter, electrician, mistries, wiremen,
drivers, cooks, sweepers, cleaners and mazdoors. It is noteworthy that large number of such posts are vacant and these
workmen having eligible qualifications have been denied the benefit of granting permanent status of employment as
employees of the first party. They have been working more than 240 days in all the calendar years and therefore, are
entitled for regularisation. Thus the second party union has prayed for declaring the first party indulged in unfair labour
practice under Section 2 (r a) of the Industrial Disputes Act and issue directions to the first party to stop indulging in
unfair labour practice and order the first party to give all the workmen the benefits of a permanent employee.
5.
As the first party despite service and submitting the vakalatpatra Ex. 4 of his advocate Jayesh M. Patel and
Shashikant B. Goswami, did not prefer to submit the written statement. Therefore, the Tribunal on 03.04.2018 passed
order to proceed the case ex-parte against the first party.
6.
The second party union submitted the affidavits Ex. 11 of workmen Pravinbhai Amratbhai Rana, Ex. 12 of
Gulabbhai Samjibhai Gamit, Ex. 13 of Vipulkumar Dhansukhbhai Patel, Ex. 14 of Pravinkumar Amratlal Rana, Ex. 15 of
Dilip Amrutbhai Patel, Ex. 16 of Ashwinbhai Rameshbhai Solanki, Ex. 17 of Ketankumar Natwarbhai Sailor, Ex. 18 of
Jiteshbhai Dhanjibhai Arthania, Ex. 19 of Harishbhai Jayantibhai Gamit, Ex. 20 of Surti Manojkumar Gopalbhai, Ex. 21
of Jigisha Bharatbhai Bhuraiya, Ex. 22 of Sushila Natwarlal Jariwala, Ex. 23 of Jignesh Gangajibhai Gamit, Ex. 24 of
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4309
Anilbhai Ramanlal Patel, Ex. 25 of Parmar Rajendrabhai Nasinbhai, Ex. 26 of Minaben Jayeshbhai Rathod, Ex. 27 of
Balvantbhai Dhanjibhai Umarvansi and Ex. 28 of Prashant Navinchandra Umariya reiterating the averments made in the
statement of claim.
7.
It is noteworthy that all the affidavits of the aforesaid workmen bears the signature of workmen as well as the
Director, M/s. Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat but despite the same, the first party has not
contested the case.
8.
The second party union Gujarat Audhyogik Kamdar Mahamandal submitted an application Ex. 29 stating that
they have contested the case only on behalf of the 23 workmen listed below:
Serial No.
Name of Workman
1
Pravinbhai Amratbhai Rana
2
Gulabbhai Samjibhai Gamit
3
Vipulkumar Dhansukhbhai Patel
4
Dilip Amrutbhai Patel
5
Ashwinbhai Rameshbhai Solanki
6
Ketankumar Natwarbhai Sailor
7
Jiteshbhai Dhanjibhai Arthania
8
Harishbhai Jayantibhai Gamit
9
Jigisha Bharatbhai Bhuraiya
10
Sushila Natwarlal Jariwala
11
Jignesh Gangajibhai Gamit
12
Anilbhai Ramanlal Patel
13
Prashant Navinchandra Umariya
14
Parmar Rajendrabhai Nasinbhai
15
Balvantbhai Dhanjibhai Umarvansi
16
Minaben Jayeshbhai Rathod
17
Avadhesh Prasad Tiwari
18
Mukesh Limjibhai Gamit
19
Hitendra Gamit
20
Ajay Godara
21
Neelam Godara
22
Rishiraj Singh
23
Hariprasad Mishra
9.
Thus the reference is fit to be allowed and this Tribunal disposed of the reference with the observation as under:
“the establishment of Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat falls under the definition of ‘Industry’
as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the demand of the Surat Jilla Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, Surat/
Gujarat Audhyodik Kamdar Mahamandal for regularisation of the workmen Shri N.B. Rathod & 185 others in the
establishment of Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat is legal, proper and just.”
4310
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10.
Therefore, the first party The Director, M/s. Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Ichchanath,
Surat, is directed to give the benefit to the aforesaid 23 workmen equivalent to the benefits of permanent employees of
the Institute within 60 days from the publication of the award.
11.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1023
1023
1023
1023.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस अधी?क, डाक घर, हमीरपुर िडवीजन, हमीरपुर, (एच.पी.) और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के *बंधतं- के संब.
िनयोजक0 और उनके कमकार0 के बीच अनुबंध म िन1द ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म
यायालय, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 322/2013) को *कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 17.03.2019 को
*ा7 त 8आ था।
[सं. एल-40012/85/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 1023.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 322/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to Tlhe
Superintendent of Post Offices, Hamirpur Division, Hamirpur (HP) and Others, and their workmen which were received
by the Central Government on 17.03.2019.
[No. L-40012/85/2013-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer
ID No. 322/2013
Registered on 07.02.2014
Sh. Pawan Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Vam Dev, Village Dulehera,
Tehsil & Distt. Hamirpur (HP).
…Workman
Versus
1.
Superintendent of Post Offices, Hamirpur Division, Hamirpur (HP)
2.
Postmaster, Head Post Office, Hamirpur (HP)
… Management
AWARD
Passed on:-15.02.2019
Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/85/2013-IR(DU) Dated 22.01.2014, under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4311
“Whether action of terminating the service of Sh. Pawan Kumar, GDSMP w.e.f. 29.10.2011 by Senior
Superintendent of Post Offices, Hamirpur Division, Hamirpur (H.P.) is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
1.
The facts, in brief, are that Sh. Pawan Kumar, workman has alleged in his claim petition that his father was
working as Postman and he expired during his service but his request was rejected vide order dated 13.09.2004 for
compassionate appointment on Group-C and Group-D post as there is no vacancy under 5% of direct recruitment in
Group-C and D categories. Ultimately, the workman was engaged as Mail Peon on daily wage basis w.e.f. 21.08.2006
and worked with the management for more than 5 years and have been completed more than 240 days in each calendar
year before the termination of services. The management on 29.10.2011 orally terminated his services without assigning
any reason and violating the settled provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 without giving one
month notice and retrenchment compensation. Thus, the order is not legal and is not sustained by law. Legally under
industrial law, workman is completed 240 day in the management is deemed to be permanent. The workman is
unemployed from the date of impugned termination and has not gainfully employed from the date of termination and he
is liable to be reinstated in service with full back wages.
2.
Management filed written statement, pleaded that workman was only engaged to work as outsider paid
substitute in place of Sh. Balak Ram, Gramin Dak Sewak(GDSMP) at his own risk and responsibility for different
intervals during the period from 21.08.2006 to 28.10.2011. It is also alleged that substitute has no legal right as far as
regularization in the department is concerned. It is further submitted that substitutes have no legal claim on the basis of
having worked continuously. Management has denied the facts alleged in the claim petition with the additional
averments that he was never given any appointment by the department as alleged by the workman. Substitute has no
legal rights as far as regularization in the department is concerned in view of Annexure R-1 and R-2. It is admitted that
father of workman Sh. Vam Dev was serving as regular Postman in Hamirpur Head Post Office, who expired on
20.10.2003. Management has also alleged that workman was engaged by Sh. Balak Ram at his own risk and
responsibility from time to time being 5 hours duty and not for full day. On joining the regular incumbent, the services of
the workman/complainant was terminated on 29.10.2011 and there was no need of giving him notice prior to his
termination as he was engaged on the understanding that he will be discharged from service on the joining of regular
incumbent. The contention of the workman regarding 240 days is not applicable as per observation of Hon’ble High
Court in Para 15 of the judgment, Annexure R-2 with the reply. As per Director General’s Instructions published in
Swamy’s Compilation of Service Rules for Postal Gramin Sewaks below Rule 7 of GDS(Conduct and
Engagement)Rules that in the case of Devika Guha v/s Union of India, Supreme Court has also not recognized for the
regularization to the substitutes and he has no legal claim and he did not come within the definition of workman. He
could not regularize without following prescribed procedure or recruitment. It is prayed that workman is not entitled to
any relief as prayed by him and the claim petition is being devoid of meritand liable to be dismissed.
3.
The workman Sh. Pawan Kumar has submitted his affidavit Ex.A-1 as evidence and prove the copies of
attendance register Ex.A-2. He has also accepted that he was kept as a substitute in place of regular employee and denied
the suggestion that he did not completed 240 days of service.
4.
Management has examined Sh. Bali Ram, Sr. Superintendent of post offices, Hamirpur Division Hamirpur
(H.P.), who has filed his affidavit Ex.R-1 and Annexure R-1 to R-5 attached with the affidavit.
5.
I have heard Sh. R.P. Rana, Ld. Counsel for the workman and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the
management and perused the file carefully.
6.
Before averting to the argument advanced by the party’s counsels, it will be desirable to mention the admitted
facts between the parties. It is not disputed between the parties that workman rendered his services to management as
substitute and this fact is admitted by the workman Pawan Kumar in his cross-examination. It is also not disputed that he
worked from 21.08.2006 to 28.10.2011 with management with some brakes. This is also admitted fact that neither any
notice is issued to workman before his retrenchment or termination nor any compensation is given in the notice. Thus,
question remains to be seen whether workman has any legal right as substitute employee which is enforceable in Law.
7.
The appointment of Extra Departmental personal is peculiar to the Post and Telegraph Department. They are
governed by the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Department Agents(Conduct and Service)Rules along with notifications or
circulars issued by Competent Authority therein. Learned counsel of workman has drawn my attention to Clause(d) of
notification No.17-115/2001-GDS Government of India Ministry of Communications & IT Department of Posts which
runs as follows:-
d) No substitute arrangement shall continue beyond one year. Hence regular/alternative arrangements must
be made during the period beyond 180 days to ensure this. If for any unavoidable reason a substitute
arrangement is required to be continued beyond one year, specific approval of the Head of Circle will be
necessary for reasons to be recorded by the concerned authority.
4312
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8.
On the strength of above provision learned counsel of workman contended that management had not taken
specific approval of the Head of Circle while workman has served uninterruptedly even beyond one year. The workman
has specifically stated in his affidavit filed as evidence that he worked more than five years regularly. This fact does not
found support with the copies of attendance sheets attached herewith. Perusal of the attendance sheets reveals that he had
not assigned work in several intervening months. But it reveals that he had work since August 2010 to July 2011 and
onwards months with interruption. It is also relevant to mention that workman had work along with Balak Ram in
several months as substitute G.D.S. Thus, position which emerges from copies of attendance register A-2 is very clear
and it denotes that workman had rendered his services as substitute in place of Balak Ram as well as others for more than
a year continuously without any approval of Head of Circle as require in clause(d) of notification dated 18.08.2001
Annexure R-1.
9.
Thus, the position which emerges from the above discussion is very much clear that workman has rendered his
services for more than 240 days in preceding year of his alleged retrenchment/termination as a substitute of Balak Ram
or other G.D.S.
10.
In fact, as per procedure when an Extra Departmental Agent appointed by the department proceed of leave such
agent is permitted to make temporary arrangements by appointing any one of his choice as a substitute until he returns
from the leave. The substitute appointment is sporadic depending on the period during which the regular employee is on
leave for whatsoever reason. Having regard to the nature of the Extra Departmental Agents when they apply for leave,
they have to give the name and particulars of the substitutes who will discharge their duties during the leave period.
Substitutes are not made by the department but by the Extra Departmental Agents themselves subject to approval made
by the department. Learned counsel for the management has drawn my attention towards the applications Annexure R-3
an applications dated 21.08.2006, 24.11.2006, 18.12.2009, 31.03.2010, 17.06.2010, 14.09.2010, 13.12.2010, 14.03.2011,
11.06.2011, 18.08.2011 and 20.10.2011 of Balak Ram for permission to substitute Pawan Kumar workman in his place
during his absenting period. Thus, it is clear and proved that workman Pawan Kumar was rendered his services not an
employee of management but as nominee of Balak Ram and some others. It is also pertinent to mention that the original
incumbent and the applicant/workman as such, is not entitled for any termination notice as per the EDDA Rules. The
learned counsel for the workman could not place any rule before me that any notice of termination under the rules is
required before retrenchment by management.
11.
Learned counsel for the workman has drawn my attention towards the provision of Section 25 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 which mandate that if a workman has rendered his services for more than 240 days in a preceding
year of his termination then notice is mandatory and compensation in lieu of the notice is also required to be given to the
workman as is specifically mentioned in the aforesaid section. The management-counsel argued that the provision of
Section 25 of the I.D. Act is not applicable in case in hand as there is no such specific provision regarding the
retrenchment/termination by the management. It is submitted by the learned counsel that there is no such provision of
issuing a notice to a person who is substitute of any other employee of the management as such, before his termination or
retrenchment. In this connection, learned counsel has drawn my attention to the judgment of Apex Court in B.N. Sinha
vs. Union of India, AIR 1998, SC 2600, where it is observed that the Courts and Tribunals should not attempt to
legislate on a subject which was not of its business and neither the rule of statutory interpretation nor rules relating to
interpretation of subordinate legislation empower any judicial or quasi judicial body to apply the law to a situation or
object which was not completed by the legislature while making a Law or by the government while making the Rule.
The Courts or Tribunals have no power to override the provisions of the Rules on sympathetic consideration regarding
the employment. In view of the above discussion and legal proposition, provision regarding issuance of notice likewise
in Section 25 of the ID Act is not mandatory in dispute in case and in dispute in hand. Hence, to my mind, the workman
being not anemployee of the management is neither required such type of notice nor compensation as required under
Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
12.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the appeal against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal
Calcutta Bench, regarding the entitlement of substitute Extra Departmental Agent has observed in the case of Union of
India and Another Vs. Devika Guha and others J.T. 2000(7) Supreme Court, page 473 that claim on behalf of the
substitute ordinarily is not maintainable as there cannot be legal claim on the basis that they have worked for 180 days or
more continuously. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if they have worked for a long time
continuously, their cases could be appropriately considered by the Department for absorption. Thus, it is up to the
management to absorb the claimant looking his services rendered to the department. This Tribunal is of the view that
management will honour the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in letter andspirit if possible in given circumstances.
13.
This Tribunal is of the firm view that the claimant/workman is not entitled for any relief. In result, there is no
merit in the case and the same is liable to be dismissed.
A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4313
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1024
1024
1024
1024.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस िनदेशक, रा ीय सं= थान समुशा= -, डोना पाउला, गोवा एवं उनके कमचारी के *बंधतं- के संब. िनयोजक0 और
उनके कमकार0 के बीच अनुबंध म िन1द ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म यायालय-2,
मुंबई के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या CGIT-2/83 of 2009) को *कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 26.04.2019 को *ा7 त
8आ था।
[सं. एल-42012/21/2007-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 1024.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT-2/83 of 2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court-2 Mumbai, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
The Director, National Institute of Oceanography, Dona Paula, Goa, and their workmen and others, which was received
by the Central Government on 26.04.2019.
[No. L-42012/21/2007-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/ 83 of 2009
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
OCEANOGRAPHY
The Director,
M/s. National Institute of Oceanography,
Dona paula, Goa.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
Shri Rohidas Harichand Naik & 4 others,
C/o. All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC),
2nd floor, Velho’s Building,
Opp. Municipal Gardan,
Panaji – 403 001.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mrs. Anil Kumar,Advocate
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
Mr. Suhas Naik, Advocate
Mumbai, dated the 12th March, 2019.
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-42012/21/2007 – IR (DU) dated 23.07.2007. The terms of reference given
in the schedule are as follows :
4314
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. National Institute of Oceanography, in terminating the services
of their workman Shri Rohidas Harichandra Naik, Milafrina Nunes, Sarita Tengali, Shaban Azam and Sameer
Kambli w.e.f. 1.10.2006 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to ?“
2.
After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices. They appeared through their
respective representatives.
3.
The concerned workmen have filed statement of claim Ex.5. According to the concerned workmen they were
working in the A/cs. Dept. of National Institute of Oceanography [NIO] at Dona paula Goa. They were performing the
following duties.
a)
Cheque writing
b)
Making entries in Cash Book
c)
Making entries on Ledger Book.
d)
Passing of Bills like contingencies, suppliers, salary, contractors etc.
e)
Preparation of Outstanding Balance Statement.
f)
Sending Junior and Senior Research Fellows’ Statement.
g)
Reconciliation of Bank Returns.
h)
Tallying the General Provident Fund Broad Sheet.
i)
Preparing of UC ( of Project)
4.
It is the case of the concerned workmen that they were recruited directly by NIO by following due process and
also by conducting their written statement, oral test and interview after following due process of selection. They were
recruited as A/cs. Clerks since the year Jan. ’94 onwards. Their recruitment was done under Central Govt. Service Rules.
They have worked for more than 8 years of continuous service. Their work was supervised & controlled by Senior
Finance A/cs. Officers of NIO. They were reporting to Head of A/cs. Dept. of NIO. However, suddenly on 1.10.06, the
first party without serving written notice of termination and without conducting any departmental enquiry terminated
their services. Therefore being aggrieved with the decision of NIO the concerned workmen raised industrial dispute on
13.11.06 demanding immediate reinstatement, full back wages, continuity in service. The dispute was not resolved across
the table amicably. The failure of the proceedings was reported on 14.3.07. After failure report the Central Govt. has
referred the dispute to this tribunal. The concerned workmen are therefore asking to declare that the oral termination of
their services is illegal, unjust & bad in law. They are therefore asking for reinstatement, back in service of NIO with full
back wages, continuity in service and all other consequential benefits.
5.
The first party management resisted claim by filing written statement Ex.12 contending therein that first party is
not an industry as defined under the provisions of I.D. Act. The reference is therefore not maintainable. The first party is
not covered under the provisions of I.D. Act, tribunal as no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present reference.
6.
It is then contended by the first party that it is one of the constituent laboratory of the Council of Science and
Industrial Research under the Govt. of India referred to as CSIR. CSIR management is an autonomous body and a society
registered under the Societies Registration Act. The management comes under the administrative control of Ministry of
Science, Technology and Earth Sciences. CISR is headed by Director General Council, has its governing body with
Prime Minister of India as its President. As such CISR / NIO are not indulged in activity of business, trade &
manufacturing. It is merely a research institute discharging his functions with domestic enterprises than a commercial
enterprises. Research conducted by it is not for the benefit and use of it. As such CISR / NIO do not come within the
definition of industry as per section 2 (j) of I.D. Act.
7.
It is then contended by the first party that second party workmen are neither employees of NIO nor they were
designated as A/cs. Clerk of NIO. They were awarded work on quantum basis under sponsored project. In the said
sponsored project they were engaged for specified period and for specified amount to be paid on pro-rata basis after due
certification of their claim by respective project leaders. This award of work on need cum quantum basis was liable to be
terminated at any time without assigning any reason. The concerned workmen were not engaged on behalf of CISR.
There is no master servant relationship between first party and the concerned workmen. The work in A/cs. section and
other allied works were out-sourced to outside agency i.e. M/s. S. P. Bhandari & Associates, C.A. During that period
second party workmen were working under the administration of the said agencies to whom the services were out-
sourced. Payment to them were made by the out-sourcing agencies. They were well aware that the proposal of out-
sourcing of their services to the agency would come to an end on 30.09.06. They were on the role of the agency during
the period from April ’04 to Sept. ’06 to whom the services were out-sourced by NIO and were not under the
administrative control of first party.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4315
8.
It is thus denied by the first party that the second party workmen were continuously working with NIO under the
supervision of officers of NIO. As such the claim of the concerned workmen that they are employed by the first party is
not admitted. The first party has thus sought rejection of the reference.
9.
Second party workmen by filing rejoinder Ex.13 reiterated that they were performing all nature of duties which
are spelt out in the statement of claim besides assisting the staff of NIO.
10.
Following issues are framed at Ex.18. I reproduce the issues along with my findings thereon for the reasons to
follow:
Sr. No.
Issues
Findings
1
Whether the NIO is ‘industry’ as defined under Industrial Disputes Act ?
No
2.
Whether the party no.2 is workman under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act and whether there exist relation of employee-employer
between party no.2 and party no.1 ?
No
3.
Whether the party no.2 is entitled to reinstatement with back wages as
prayed for ?
No
4.
What relief the party no.2 is entitled to ?
No
3.
What Order ?
As per final order
Reasons
Issue No.1.
11.
So far this issue is concerned, the reference is made by the first party management to various judgments in order
to show that the first party is merely a research organization under the Ministry of Science and Technology and the
service conditions of the employees are governed by the Central Civil Service Rules. Reference is made to case No. EAK
No. 768/87 UP No. 4432 / 1983 M. Parshwarao Pillia V/s. CSIR, New Delhi & Ors. wherein it has been observed that
CSIR is not an industry. In para 5 of the said judgment reliance was placed on the ruling of Allahabad HC in Ramesh
Chandra V/s. Union of India – 1981 – LAB – IC – 781. It has been observed by the Hon’ble HC while applying criteria
laid down by the Hon’ble S.C. in Bangalore Water Supply that the National Sugar Institute being predominantly a
research institute and its object being device of ways and means of sconomising, sugar production and means of working
of the sugar mills efficiency, could not be held to be an industry.
12.
The reference is also made to the decision in case of industrial dispute No. 112 / 1995 wherein it has been
observed that the management of M/s. National Environment of Engg. Research Institute is not covered within the
definition of industry. The reference is made in this decision to the decision in case of Physical Research Laboratory V/s.
K.G. Sharma – AIR 1997 – SC – 1855 wherein it has been observed that Physical Research Laboratory is engaged in
pure research work. Neither from the nature of its organization nor from the nature & character of activity carried out by
it, it can be said to be an understanding analogist to business or trade. It has been held that institution discharging
government functions and as such a Physical Research Laboratory was not held to be an industry even though it is
carrying on the activity of research in systematic manner with the help of employees.
13.
Reliance is also placed on the decision in case of Suresh Kumar Mishra V/s. Council of Scientific & Industrial
Research, New Delhi wherein the question was whether the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research in short CSIR or
its unit Central Drug Research Institute is an industry within the meaning of section 2 (j) of I.D. Act and it was held that
CSIR and its units CDRI is not an industry within the meaning of section 2 (j) of I.D. Act.
14.
Here in the instant case also, it is the contention of first party that it is one of the constituent laboratory of CSIR
which is a autonomous body and a society registered under Societies Registration Act. The functions of the council
among other things were to implement the resolution passed by the Legislative Assembly and as such CSIR / NIO are not
indulged in any activity of business, trade or manufacturing. It is merely an institute discharging its function with a
domestic enterprises than a commercial enterprises.
15.
Considering the facts and above cited decision, it has to be said that first party i.e. management of National
Institute of Oceanography is not an industry and hence tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the present reference.
Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.2.
16.
From the testimony of Rohidas [Ex.22] / Ms. Shabana Azam [Ex.33], it reveals that they were recruited directly
by NIO by following due process and also conducting their written test, oral test and interview and after following the
due process of law. But their cross examination clearly blows up their versions especially when they have admitted that
they do not have any document in that respect or in respect of recruitment. There is no document on record to show that
they were recruited after advertisement and interview. There is no document on record to show that they have made
4316
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
application for their recruitment. On the contrary they have admitted in their cross-examination that they were getting
payment through C.A. and for that they never made any complaint during the period from 2004 to 2006. Admittedly,
there was no PF deductions and no any termination letter was given to them by NIO or otherwise they have not received
any termination letter from NIO.
17.
On the contrary, it has come on record that the concerned workmen were engaged by one M/s. S. P. Bhandari &
Associates, C.A. who were given the contract for the work relating to computerization of a/cs. / impact and data entry
operation of a/c. section. The said contract was awarded by the work order. When it is admitted position that salaries of
the concerned workmen where PF & other benefits were paid by the contractor M/s. S. P. Bhandari & Associates, C.A.
and on the contrary there is no document to show that they were recruited by due process of law and that their services
were mere terminated by NIO then the fact remains that there exists no relationship of employer and employee between
the first party and the concerned workmen.
18.
So far documents are concerned, the first party relied upon the documents to show that NIO is part of council
of CSIR and the objectives of NIO is released by CSIR. Booklet showing that CSIR provisional 2005 relating to
laboratory is a governing body means and agenda and as such there was a contract between first party and M/s. S. P.
Bhandari & Associates, C.A. These documents clearly shows that the concerned workmen are not recruited by the NIO
by due process of law and admittedly they did not receive any letter from NIO in respect of work or wages.
19.
Considering all these facts, documents and evidence on record, I find that the concerned workmen have not
established employer – employee relationship between them and first party No.1. Issue No.2 is therefore answered
accordingly in the negative.
Issue No. 3.
20.
Learned Counsel for the second party workmen submitted that the work of the concerned workmen was
supervised and controlled by officers of NIO and all these workmen were reporting to head of A/cs. Dept. of NIO.
Submission is to the effect that the concerned workmen have worked for more than 8 years of continuous service and
therefore their oral termination w.e.f. 1.10.06 is in blatant violation of section 25 (f) of I.D. Act. Submission is also to the
effect that the termination amounts to retrenchment as defined u/s. 2 (oo) of the act and therefore all the workers are
entitled to reinstatement with back wages.
21.
As seen earlier the evidence on record clearly establishes that the concerned workmen were never in the
employment of NIO i.e. first party. They were engaged through M/s. S. P. Bhandari & Associates, C.A., an outside
contract agency which were supplying their employees for assisting in miscellaneous work related to accounts. There is
no document to show that any of the concerned workmen has been employed by NIO. In the circumstances since there is
no employer – employee relationship between the first party and second party, there cannot be any termination of
services of the second party by the first party.
22.
In the context, the Learned Counsel for the first party seeks to rely on the decision in case of Shrirampur
Municipal Council, Shrirampur V/S. V.K. Barde, member Industrial Tribunal, Ahmednagar & Ors. – 2011 – CLR – 336
wherein the claim of regularization of casual employee was rejected on the ground that unless & until there is a
sanctioned post and the recruitment is done in the settled manner, there cannot be any claim for absorption or
continuation of the casual employee. Here in the instant case also the second party workmen are the employees of
contractor M/s. S. P. Bhandari & Associates, C.A. and there is no employer – employee relationship between the first
party and second party. The second party workmen in the circumstances cannot claim reinstatement with full back wages
as prayed for. Issue No.3 is answered accordingly as indicated against it.
Issue No. 4 & 5.
In view of my findings to the above issues, I find that the the concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief and the
reference is liable to be rejected. Hence order.
ORDER
The reference is rejected with no order as to costs.
Date: 12.03.2019
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4317
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1025
1025
1025
1025.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस *बंध कायकारी अिभयंता, सी पी डC यू डी, देहरादून और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के *बंधतं- के संब. िनयोजक0
और उनके कमकार0 के बीच अनुबंध म िन1द ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म यायालय-
2, नई द ली के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 38/2011) को *कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 09.05.2019 को *ा7 त 8ए
थे।
[सं. एल-42011/75/2010-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 1025.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 38/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-2 New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The
Executive Engineer, CPWD, Dehradun and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government
on 09.05.2019.
[No. L-42011/75/2010-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 38/2011
Date of Passing Award- 27th March, 2019
Between:
The President,
All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan (Regd.)
House No. 4823, Gali No. 13,
Balbir Nagar Extension,
Shahdra, New Delhi- 110032.
… Workman
Versus
The Executive Engineer,
CPWD,
DCD-I, 20, Subhash Road,
Dehradun.
… Management
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, (Advocate)
For the Workman
Shri Atul Bhardwaj, (Advocate)
For the Management.
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between
employer i.e. the management of CPWD, and its workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub
section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L- 42011/75/2010 (IR(DU) dated 20.04.2011
to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
4318
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the action of the management of CPWD, Dehradun in not granting consequential benefits accruing on
account of in-situ promotion from 01.04.1991 to 08.08.1999 is illegal and unjustified? If so, what relief the
workman is entitled to?
Being noticed the workman appeared and filed the claim statement stating therein that he was initially appointed as
Mason in the year 1967 and confirmed as Beldar on 01.04.1977. During his tenure of his service he reached the
maximum of the pay scale i.e. Rs. 750/- to 950/- in the year 1988. As per the order of the DGW and CPWD the
management granted him in-situ promotion w.e.f. 01.04.1991 in the pay scale of 850/- to 1150/- by order dated
14.03.1996 but suddenly on 26.09.2005 by an arbitrary order in-situ promotion granted to him was withdrawn and his
pay was revised unilaterally to his prejudice. The Government of India introduced the ACP scheme w.e.f. 09.08.1999 and
the workman was granted first ACP on completion of 12 years of services raising his pay to 2650/- to 4000/-. Again on
completion of 24 years second ACP was allowed w.e.f. 9.8.1999. Though the workman as per the Government
notification was entitled to in-situ promotion to a higher pay scale before announcement of ACP the same was not
considered. Before announcement of ACP by the order of DGW and CPWD dated 07.05.1997 the Assistant categories of
work charged employees of CPWD merged with the main category and classified as skilled workers allowing higher pay
scale notionally w.e.f. 01.01.73 but the arrears were paid w.e.f. 01.04.81. Since the Assistant category of Work Charged
employee was abolished w.e.f. 01.01.73, the promotional scale of unskilled category automatically converted to skilled
category instead of semi skilled category. Accordingly the department issued orders dated 29.06.2009 and 27.01.2010
asking the departments about the additional fund requirement. This workman was neither granted highers pay scale in the
semi skilled category or in the skilled category after withdrawal of the in-situ promotion order on 26.09.2005. The action
of the management being prejudicial the workman has prayed for an award to be passed directing the management to
provide him in-situ promotion pay scale w.e.f. 01.04.1991 with all consequential benefits or to set aside the order dated
26.09.2005 withdrawing the in-situ promotion alongwith to consequential benefits.
The management appeared and filed written statement denying the stand taken by the workman. The contention raised by
the management is that this proceeding is not maintainable since there exist no Industrial Dispute between the parties.
The further contention of the management is that the claimant was initially appointed as Mason in the pay scale of Rs.
180-290/-. At the time of initial appointment he was an unskilled worker. He was confirmed in the post of Beldar on
01.04.77 and was allowed revision of pay scale as and when applicable as decided by the government. He also attained
the maximum of the pay scale of 750 to 940/- in the year 1991. After stagnation he was also given increment as
maximum permissible. On 14.03.1996 he was given in-situ promotion w.e.f. 01.04.1991 in the pay scale of Rs. 800/- to
1150/- . Later on the department issued a clarification that the in-situ promotion would be admissible upto 08.09.1999 i.e.
till the date of introduction of ACP. To get the ACP the candidate has to qualify in the trade test. Since the workman
could not qualify the trade test he was not given the ACP. Though 1st and 2nd ACP after completion of 12 and 24 years
was allowed to him, raising his pay to Rs. 3050-4590/- and 4000-6000/- respectively. When 6th pay commission report
was implemented his pay was fixed in the scale of 5200-20200/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 on the option exercised by him.
Subsequently it came to notice that the 2nd ACP was allowed to the workman by mistake though he had not qualified for
the second Trade Test. Thus, by order dated 19.09.2006 the ACP was withdrawn and his pay scale was revised. Thereby
management has stated that the relief claimed by the workman is not tenable in the eye of law.
On this rival pleading following issues are framed for adjudication.
1.
Whether the action of the management of CPWD, Dehradun is not granting consequential benefits accruing on
on account of in-situ promotion from 01.04.1991 to 08.08.1999 is illegal and unjustified?
2.
To what relief the workman is entitled to?
During course of hearing the workman examined himself as WW1 and exhibited the documents marked in a series of
WW1/1 to WW1/5 he also exhibited the documents like the memorandum of settlement between the management and
CPWD Mazdoor Union as WW1/1. WW1/2 is Gazette Notification of the arbitration award WW1/3 is the judgment of
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in which the Hon’ble High Court direct payment of arrears for 01.04.81 to the persons
getting in-situ promotion. In addition to that the workman has also produced photocopies of the office order recalling his
pay scale withdrawing in-situ promotion the clarification given by the department regarding the Trade Test to qualify for
the ACP and the office memorandum notifying merger of assistance in the category of skilled workman etc.
The management examined its Executive Engineer as MW1 and proved the series of documents including the gazette
notification. It also proved the memorandum of the Ministry of Finance for grant of ACP to Group C and Group D and
the order granting ACP to the workman.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4319
FINDINGS
ISSUE No.1
Admitted facts are that the workman was initially appointed as Mason and he was made permanent in the post of Beldar
on 01.04.1977. It is also not disputed that he was granted in-situ promotion w.e.f. 01.04.1991 in the pay scale of 800-
1150/- and the actual order was passed on 14.03.1996. It is also not disputed that the in-situ promotion was allowed upto
the time just before introduction of ACP. The other admitted fact is that the workman had reached the maximum scale of
unskilled category i.e. 750 to 950/-. By filing the order of the CPWD dated 07.05.1997 marked as Exhibit WW1/5 the
workman has stated that the government took a decision for merging Assistant categories of work charged employees
with the corresponding main category and reclassifying them as skilled workman. Thus, after such merger all the
promotions applicable to the skilled workman automatically became applicable to the semi skilled persons reclassified as
skilled workman. The said order since directed that after the merger the pay scale of each worker in pre-revised scale will
be fixed on 01.01.73 or on the date of merger whichever is later and again on o1.01.86 in the new scale as per the 4th pay
commission, accordingly the pay scale of claimant was revised. There was no anomaly in the said pay fixation but the
management acted arbitrarily in withdrawing the pay scale and in-situ promotion allowed to him.
It is the further contention of the workman that on account of that in-situ promotion he was never promoted to the next
higher category and the 1st and 2nd ACP was correctly allowed to him. To support his contention he has relied upon the
judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Raj Pal and
Others decided in CWP No. 19387 of 2011. It is also the contention of the workman that the said judgment of the
Hon’ble High Court was followed by the Hon’ble CAT Principal Bench Delhi and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in SLP (CC NO. 7467 of 2013).
The witness examined on behalf of the management while admitting about the circular of DOPT regarding grant of ACP
stated that the department had issued an order for grant of the pay scale of 850 to 1150/- to unskilled workers w.e.f.
01.04.1991. There is no dispute that the cadre of semi skilled worker merged with the skilled workers w.e.f. 01.01.73 as
per the arbitration award of 1988. This was the award passed prior to the order issued by the DOPT on 13.09.1991
directing grant of in-situ promotion w.e.f. 01.01.73. Thus, it is found that the order of the management for grant of in-situ
promotion to the workman and the others in the scale of 850 to 1150/- was not proper.
The contention of the management that for not qualifying the trade test the workman is not entitled to ACP is found, not
based on record though the witness examined on behalf of the management during cross-examination though stated that
for grant of 1sst and 2nd ACP the workman had to qualify in 2 skill test and since it is fail to do so the ACP granted
earlier by mistake was correctly withdrawn. This statement of witness not based upon facts since the documents filed by
the management and marked as MW1/2 clearly shows that the in-situ promotion in the scale of 950 to 1500 which was a
promotional scale was allowed to all semi skilled category renamed as skilled workers after the merger. There was no
requirement like skill test for such benefits. Thus, it is held that the present workman on account of merger was entitled
to in-situ promotion w.e.f. 01.04.1991 and his ACP should have been accordingly determined. The decision of the
management for withdrawing the in-situ promotional scale and revising the ACP granted to him is held to be illegal. This
issue is accordingly answered in favour of the workman.
ISSUE NO. 2
The workman is held entitled to promotional scale of 950 to 1500/- w.e.f. 01.04.91 under in-situ promotion and the same
shall be taken into consideration for re-fixation of his pay in 1st ACP as a consequence thereof. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The claim be and the same is answered in favour of the workman. It is directed that the management shall refix the salary
of the workman in the pay scale of 950 to 1500/- w.e.f. 01.04.1991 in, in-situ promotion. In view of this direction the
ACP to be allowed to the workman shall be accordingly revised. The pay on such fixation and differential arrear shall be
paid to the workman by the management within 3 months from the date when this award would become enforceable
failing which the workman would be at liberty of getting the order executed and on such event the management will be
liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per Annum from the date when the amount becomes payable. Copy be
supplied to the parties and the record be consigned in the record room.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
4320
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1026
1026
1026
1026.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस महा*बंधक, आयुध िनमाणी, गािजयाबाद (यू.पी.) और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के *बंधतं- के संब. िनयोजक0 और
उनके कमकार0 के बीच अनुबंध म िन1द ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म यायालय-2,
नई द ली के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 37/2013) को *कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 17.05.2019 को *ा7 त 8ए थे।
[सं. एल-14012/01/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 1026.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 37/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-2 New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The
General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Ghaziabad (U.P.) and Others, and their workmen which were received by the
Central Government on 17.05.2019.
[No. L-14012/01/2013-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 37/2013
Date of Passing Award- 29th April, 2019
Between:
Shri Sagir Ahmed,
S/o Late Shri Bundu Ahmed,
Servant Qrs, of Kothi No. 4, Type V/4, North Estate
Bangla Side, Ordnance Factory,
Murad Nagar, Ghaziabad (U.P.)
… Workman
Versus
The General Manager,
Ordnance Factory,
Murad Nagar,
Ghaziabad (U.P.)
… Management
Appearances:-
Shri Jitender Kumar, (Advocate)
For the Workman
Shri Atul Bhardwaj, (Advocate)
For the Management
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between
employer i.e. the management of Ordnance Factory, and its workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub section
(1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L- 14012/01/2013 (IR(DU) dated
18.04.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4321
“Whether the action of the management of Ordnance Factory, Muradnagar terminating the services of Shri Sagir
Ahmed w.e.f. April 2008, without complying the provisions of Section 25 F,G,H of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
is unjustified? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?’’
The workman filed the claim statement stating therein that in June 1994 he was employed as a washer man on a
temporary basis against the permanent post of washerman with the management on a monthly wage of Rs. 1000/-. He
continued to work as such till April 2008 i.e for 14 years and till the date of his illegal termination. During this period his
monthly salary was revised from time to time and his last drawn salary was 6000/-. As an employee, he had discharged
his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the employer. In the year 2005 one of the permanent posts of washerman fail
vacant and the workman requested orally to the management for regularization of his service against that vacant post and
allow the regular pay scale as per the entitlement and recommendation of 6th central pay commission. This irritated the
management who in April 2008 illegally an unjustifiably remove the workman from the service without assigning any
reason for the same. Not only that the workman was neither served with retrenchment notice nor the notice pay and
retrenchment compensation was paid to him in gross violation of the provisions of section 25-F of the ID act. While
terminating his service the management also did not follow the principle of last come first go in violation of the
provisions laid u/s 25-G of the ID Act. Thus, the workman made representation for enforcement of his rights which was
not heeded to by the management. One case was filed by him before the Hon’ble CAT New Delhi and on a later date the
same was withdrawn. On 2.07.2012 the workman sent a demand notice to the management and forwarded a copy of the
same to the Assistant Labour Commissioner requesting intervention and resolution of the dispute. No relief could be
availed by the workman in that forum and the present dispute was referred by the appropriate government for
adjudication. In the claim statement the workman has prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back
wages alongwith other consequential benefits to be granted by the management.
The respondent management appeared and filed written statement rebutting the claim advanced by the workman. The
maintainability of the proceeding has been challenge alongwith the challenge relating to employer employee relationship
between the parties. The specific stand taken by the management is that the respondent is a govt. department discharging
sovereign function of the state and not involved in carrying out activities which can be considered as trade or business,
production distribution or supply of goods or services meant for satisfying human wants. It has also been pleaded that the
Government of India in Ministry of Labour in the year 1989 has issued a clarification in this regard. While denying its
relationship with the workman as employer and employee it has been stated that the workman was never employed as a
temporary washerman in June 1994 on monthly wage of Rs. 1000/-. Management has also denied about the revision of
his salary on intervals. As per the WS the claimant was working as a washerman on need basis and his remuneration was
being paid as per the number of clothes washed by him. Sometimes the remuneration was increased as per the demand of
the workman on account of escalated market price. While denying the plea of the workman that he had ever prayed for
regularization of his service with regular pay scale the management has pleaded that he not being in service of the
management at any point of time, the question of his termination doesn’t arise. It has also been pleaded that the workman
not being an employee the provision of section 25-F of the ID act was not required to be complied. The management has
also pleaded that there is no vacancy of washerman in the management and the workman was never employed on
temporary basis against that vacancy. By citing the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court pronounced in the case of
Secretary State of Karnatak vs. Uma Devi and others the respondent has pleaded that the claimant being a casual worker
working on daily wage basis cannot be absorbed against a permanent vacancy. Thereby the management pleaded for
dismissal of the dispute.
On the rival pleading following issues were framed for adjudication.
1.
Whether the action of the management of ordnance Factory, Murad Nagar terminating the services of
Shri Sagir Ahmad w.e.f. 6th April, 2008, without complying of provisions of section 25-F,G,H, of
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is unjustified?
2.
To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?
The workman examined himself as WW1 and proved the documents which were marked in a series of exhibit WW1 /1 to
WW1/16. Besides he also filed photocopies of the certain documents which were marked as ‘X’ and ‘Y’ subject to its
relevancy and proof. Similarly the management examined one of its officers as MW1 who also proved documents in a
series of MW1/1 to MW1/4.
During the pendency of the proceeding the workman had filed a petition for a direction to the management to
produce documents regarding the service record of employee Pyarelal who had retired as a washerman in the year 2005,
service record of washerman Vinod kumar having employee No. who had expire on 14.01.15 and the details of the
vacancy in the management for the post of washerman. The management accordingly produced the service record of
Pyarelal Vinod Kumar and replied that at present there is no vacancy for the post of washerman. To support the same the
management also filed a copy of the Gazette of India dated 11.09.12 in which the procedure for employment of Group-D
employees including washerman has been prescribed.
4322
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
FINDINGS
ISSUE No. 1
Throughout the proceeding the claimant/workman has pleaded that his service was illegally terminated by the
management without following the statutory provision of section 25-F of the ID act. The management has denied the
same on the ground that his engagement was need based and thus, there was no necessity for complying with the
provision of section 25-F of the ID act. The workman has further stated that he was a casual employee engaged against
the permanent post and when his termination was effected there were permanent vacancies. Hence, the termination was
illegal. In order to examine this aspect of the claim it is necessary to examine the status of the workman during the period
of his engagement. The witness examined on behalf of the management has stated that the general manager Ordnance
Factory Muradnagar had never appointed the applicant against any permanent post of washerman. No salary as a
government servant was ever paid to the workman. Rather he was being paid wage at the rate of 1000/- per month
initially and said amount was enhanced from time to time as per the order of the government. The documents marked as
MW1/2 (Colly.) has been proved in this regard. This witness has further stated that the workman as per his own
statement was thrown out of the job in April 2008 but he is still working under the contractor M.s Shewta Traders and a
document MW1/3 has been filed. This witness was cross-examined at length by the workman. The document marked as
MW1/2 is the contingent bill forwarded to the DCFA ordnance factory for sanction of washing and pressing charges.
This document cannot be connected with the workman towards his wage though another document has been filed
showing receipt of Rs 2500/- by the workman on May 2002. Similarly several contingent bills have been filed by the
management but these documents have no correlation with the claim of the workman as a casual employee of the
management. MW1 during cross-examination when asked about the existing vacancy of the washerman with the
management she failed to reply the same unless the records were verified. However, she admitted during cross-
examination that there was a person named Shri Vinond Kumar working as a permanent washerman and died on
14.01.2015. She has also admitted that no other persons has been appointed against that vacancy which leads to a
conclusion that there is a vacancy for the post of regular washerman with the management.
The workman while adducing evidence has stated that from June 1994 till April 2007 he was working
continuously as causal worker and was being paid monthly remuneration for the work done. To support his stand he has
filed certain documents. Exhibit WW1/1 and WW1/2 are the gate pass issued to the workman. WW1/4 to WW1/8 are the
certificates issued by the different officer of the management stating therein that the workman/claimant was working as
an employee in the position of the washerman in the management. The workman has also filed several photocopies of the
documents which have been marked in ‘X’ and ‘Y’ series. These documents include the note sheets of the different dates
wherein the OIC, OFM, has requested the General Manager for sanction of money for payment of monthly washing
charges to the washerman. There is another note sheet dated 08th May 2001 submitted by the OIC, DSC, DETT, OFM to
the General Manager seeking approval of the monthly wage of Sagir Ahmed @ 2500/- per month. In the note sheet the
officers of the management have clearly stated that Sagir Ahmed was employed as Washerman in DSC, DETT, to OFM
in June 1994 on a monthly salary of Rs. 1000/-. For the escalation of price a proposal was submitted for increasing the
monthly wage to 2500/- which was also approved and sanctioned by the General Manager. These two documents were
prepared during an undisputed point of time by responsible officials of the management describing the workman as an
employee whose remuneration was enhanced from time to time. No convincing grounds are found for discarding these
documents to conclude that the claimant Sagir Ahmed was not a casual employee of the management since 1994.
In the case of Steel Authority of India vs. National Union waterfront workers Union reported in (2001) 7
SCC Page 1 the Hon’ble Apex Court have prescribed for effective control test to ascertain about the relationship of the
workman with the management. Not only that in the case of Chintaman Rao (1958)(II) LLJ 252 the Apex Court Ruled
that the concept of employment involves 3 ingredients.
(i) Employer (ii) Employee (iii) contract of employment. The employer is one who employees or engages the
service of other person. The employer is one who works for another for hire. The employment is the contract of the
service between the employer and employee where under the employees agrees to serve the employer subject to his
control and supervision. Further more in the case of Ram Singh and others vs. Union Territory Chandigarh and others
(2004) 1 SCC Page 126 the Hon’ble Apex Court have elaborately discussed the factors to be considered for determining
the employer employee relationship and the said factor include control, integration power of appointment, liability to
pay, liability to organize etc. Thus, from the above analysis of the principle of law it emerges that the effective control is
a test to determines the employer employee relationship between the parties.
Here is a case, where in his oral testimony the workman has categorically stated that he was discharging the duty as per
the direction of the officers of the management and getting monthly remuneration from the management. This has not
been denied by the management specifically. Rather the contention of the workman finds support from several
recommendation letters issued by the officers of the management from time to time recommending the satisfactory nature
of work rendered by the workman.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4323
In the written statement the management No.1 has referred to the judgment the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court passed in the case of Secretary State of Karnatak and Others vs. Uma devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC
Page1 and contended that the workmen of this proceeding since appointed for a fixed term on casual basis his claim for
regularization is not maintainable. It has further been pleaded by management No. 1 that management is a government
organization having its own rules and procedure of recruitment. The workman was never appointed following the said
procedure and rule and his appointment was never against regular vacancy. Be it stated here that the management No.1
has adduced oral and documentary evidence to fortify the stand taken in this regard in the WS. In the case of Uma Devi
referred supra the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the appointment of contractual employee and regularization of
their services is not an automatic process and when a person was given appointment skipping the prescribed rule through
a back door, cannot claim absorption or regularization against a sanctioned vacant post. This issue came up for
consideration before Hon’ble Apex Court again in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad vs. Employer I/R to management of
Food Corporation of India and another reported in AIR 2014 SC 1848, wherein the issue, whether the Labour Court
Tribunal has the jurisdiction to order regularization of the workmen was considered in the context of the provision of the
Act and the decision of the constitution bench in the case of Uma Devi. The Hon’ble Apex Court came to hold that the
powers conferred upon the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court under the ID Act are quite wide. The Act deals with
industrial Disputes, provides for conciliation, adjudication, and settlements, and regulates the rights of the parties and the
enforcement of the award and settlement. Not only that, way back in the year 1950 in the case of Bharat Bank Limited
vs. Employees of Bharat Bank reported in (1950) LLJ 921 The Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed:
“In settling the disputes between the employers and the workmen, the function of the Tribunal is not confined to
administration of justice in accordance with law. It can confer rights and privileges on either party which it
considers reasonable and proper, though they may not be within the terms of any existing agreement. It has not
merely to interpret or give effect to the contractual rights and obligations of the parties. It can create new rights
and obligations between them which it considers essential for keeping industrial peace.”
In the above said backdrop and considering the different pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court while reverting to
the facts of the present case the grievance of the claimants is that he was appointed against the post the nature of work
performed was perennial and the post was permanent in nature. Though he was appointed on casual basis and
discharging his duties with utmost satisfaction of the employer i.e. Management was subjected to unfair labour practice.
This aspect as pleaded by the workman has been denied by the management in the WS only. On behalf of the workman
photocopies of the note sheet showing sanction of his remuneration have been filed. These documents have not been
controverted by the management and go to show that the claimant/workman was working for the relevant period on
monthly remuneration paid by the management and different officers to whom the workman was reporting then had
issued recommendations on his satisfactory service. On the contrary these unrebutted documents clearly establish that the
present workman was working under the effective control and supervision of management till his removal from service.
During course of argument Ld. Counsel for the workmen drew the attention of this tribunal to the case of J and K Bank
Limited vs. CGIT reported in 2018 Lab. I.C. Page 2970 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in
which the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and Uma Devi referred supra was elaborately discussed with regard to the effect
and implication of the constitution bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi. In the said judgment
reference has been made to the case of Maharshtra SRTC. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sangathan
(2009)8 SCC 556 in which the issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was with regard to the jurisdiction of the
Industrial court to give status wages and all other benefits of permanency to the workmen who had been serving for years
as cleaners in the corporation in temporary capacity. Relying upon Uma Devi, plea was raised on behalf of the
corporation that granting permanent status to the casual workers/daily wager was not sustainable in law. Repealing the
said argument the Hon’ble Supreme court in Para 32 and 33 of the judgment have observed:-
“32. The power given to the Industrial and Labour Courts under Section 30 is very wide and affirmative action
mentioned therein is inclusive and exhaustive. Employing badlis, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as
such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees is an
unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV. Once such unfair labour practice
on the part of the employer is established in the complaint, the Industrial and Labour Courts are empowered to
issue preventive as well as positive direction to an erring employer.
“33. The provisions of MRTU and PULP Act and the powers of Industrial Labour Courts provided therein were
not at all under consideration in the case of Uma Devi1. As a matter of fact, the issue like the present one
pertaining to unfair labour practice was not at all referred, considered or decided in Umadevi1. Unfair labour
practice on the part of the employer in engaging employees as badlies, casuals or temporaries and to continue
them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees as
provided in Item 6 of Schedule IV and the power of Industrial and Labour Courts under section 30 of the Act
did not fall for adjudication or consideration before the constitution Bench”.
4324
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Thus, on a harmonious reading of the different pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court this tribunal comes
to hold that the workman was subjected to unfair labour practice on account of his termination of service without
complying the provisions of section 25-F of the ID Act. And thus, the act of termination is held to be wholly unjustified.
ISSUE NO.2
Now the most important question left to be answered is if the tribunal can direct the management to regularize the service
of the workman in the post of permanent washerman. On behalf of the management a copy of the Gazette has been filed
to show that the post of washerman is no more available to be filled up by direct recruitment. Thereby the management
has denied the claim of the workman to be absorbed against permanent vacancy. But the notification published in the
Gazette dated 29th July 2012 deals with the procedure of the recruitment to different post including the post of Dhobi i.e.
washerman and there being no specific clause for its retrospective application it is held that the said rule has a
prospective application and cannot be pressed into service to justify the action taken against the present workman. The
oral and documentary evidence adduced by the workman as well as the management clearly proves that the post of
washerman is a permanent post with the management and the date on which the employment of the workman was
brought to an end there was a vacancy in the said post. On that day the recruitment rule referred supra was also not in
force.
In the case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and others
reported in (2015) 6 SCC Page 494 the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the jurisdiction of the industrial Tribunal
to direct regularization of the service of the workman came to hold that in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad vs. Food
Corporation and U.P Power Corporation vs. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh reported in (2007) 5 SCC 755 the court came to
hold that the underline massage contained in Uma Devi case would not deter the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court from
issuing such direction, which the Industrial Adjudicator otherwise possesses, having regard to the provision of the ID Act
specially conferring such powers. Hence, it is concluded that for the employment of the workman with the management
for a continuous period from June 1994 till April 2008 and for his completion of 240 days work in a calendar year
proceeding to his termination he is entitled to the relief of the reinstatement as has been prayed.
The Ld. A/R for the management argued that this Tribunal has to adjudicate the dispute in the terms of reference
only. In the said reference there is no mentioned about the relief of the reinstatement. This argument of the Ld. A/R for
the management is not accepted since the reference is about any other relief which can be allowed to the workman in the
circumstances.
In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Smt. Shashikanta Rishi decided by the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in WPC no. 225/2005, it has been held that when an employee is terminated without complying the provision of
section 25-F of the ID Act the same amounts to violation of the principle of nature justice. In this case there is absolutely
no evidence laid by the management to prove that the workman has been gainfully employed after such termination.
Hence, it is concluded that the workman who was working as a casual labour was removed from service illegally even
though he had rendered service for more than 240 days in the calendar year preceding to his termination. When the
evidence proves that he was discharging the work of permanent nature continuously for more than 10 years, the act of his
removal amounts to unfair labour practice which has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudarshan
Rajput vs. U.P State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2015) 2 SCC 317.
Considering the facts of the present case with reference to the judicial pronouncements discussed in the preceding
paragraph it is concluded that for the unfair labour practice adopted by the management the workman is entitled to relief
of the reinstatement since from the statement of claim and affidavit filed by him it appears that the workman has not
attained the age of superannuation yet. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of workman. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is allowed in the following terms. The management is directed to reinstate the workman to
service in the post of washerman within 1 month when this award would become executable. Since the workman has not
been gainfully employed during the intervening period the management is directed to pay him 50% of the accrued
remuneration as per his last remuneration for the said intervening period within 3 months from the date when the award
become executable. The amount shall not carry any interest. On the event the management fails to carry out the direction
within the time stipulated above, the amount accrued shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of accrual till the final
payment is made. Copy be supplied to the parties and the record be consigned in the record room.
The complaint is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4325
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1027
1027
1027
1027.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस िनदेशक, रा ीय अनार अनुसंधान क सोलापुर (महारा ) एवं उनके कमचारी और अ य के *बंधतं- के संब.
िनयोजक0 और उनके कमकार0 के बीच अनुबंध म िन1द ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म
यायालय नं. 2, मुंबई के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या CGIT-2/49 of 2014) को *कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को
06.06.2019 को *ा7 त 8ए थे।
[सं. एल-42012/48/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 1027.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT-2/49 of 2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No. 2 Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to The Director, National Research Centre for Pomegranate, Solapur (Maharashtra) and their workmen and
others, which received by the Central Government on 06.06.2019.
[No. L-42012/48/2014-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/49 of 2014
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
( 1) NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE FOR POMEGRANATE
(2) M/S. SWADESHI SECURITIES
The Director,
National Research Centre for Pomegranate,
Near Solapur University,
Solapur (Maharashtra).
M/s. Swadeshi Security,
96, Salgar Vasti,
Dongaon Road,
Solapur (Maharashtra).
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
Shri Balaji Baburao Gaikwad,
Dr. Ambedkar Nagar,
Anand Chowk, Budhwar Peth,
Solapur (Maharashtra) – 413002
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Shri S.P. Chinchwadkar, Advocate
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
Shri V.R. Deshpande, Advocate
4326
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Mumbai, dated the 16th May, 2019
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-42012/48/2014 – IR (DU) dated 23.07.2014. The terms of reference given
in the schedule are as follows :
“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Balaji Baburao Gaikwad, for asking regulation as an employee of
National Research Centre for Pomegranate, Solapur is legal and justified ? If yes to what relief the workman is
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 concerned workman is absent since long. He has not filed
affidavit in support of his statement of claim. Today also he is absent hence there is no evidence to substantiate the
statement of claim. Therefore the reference is disposed of for want of evidence to substantiate the statement of claim.
4.
Hence the reference is rejected with no order as to costs. Hence order.
ORDER
Reference is rejected with no order as to costs.
Date: 16.05.2019
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 4 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1028
1028
1028
1028.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस महा*बंधक, भारत संचार िनगम िलिमटेड, बेलगाम बDगलोर और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के *बंधतं- के संब.
िनयोजक0 और उनके कमकार0 के बीच अनुबंध म िन1द ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म
यायालय, बDगलोर के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 20/2005) को *कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 25.05.2019 को *ा7 त
8ए थे।
[सं. एल-40012/169/2004-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2019
S.O. 1028.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 20/2005) 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 General
Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Belgaum, Bangalore, and Others, and their workmen which were received by the
Central Government on 25.05.2019.
[No. L-40012/169/2004-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE – 560 022
DATED : 20TH MAY 2019
PRESENT : Justice Smt. Rathnakala, Presiding Officer
C.R No. 20/2005
I Party
II Party
Sri Siddoba Shivaji Kambar,
At & PO: Malabad, Athani Taluk,
Belgaum District – 591 212.
1. The General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Old H.P.O. Compound, Fort Road,
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4327
Belgaum – 590 001.
2. The Managing Director,
Zebra Security Services,
KTJ Nagar, 16th Cross,
Davangere – 577 003.
Advocate for I Party : Advocate for II Party:
Mr. B.D. Kuttappa : Mr. Y. Hari Prasad
AWARD
The Central Government vide Order No. L-40012/169/2004/IR(DU) dated 20.04.2005 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
(for brevity ‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.
“Whether the management of BSNL is justified in denying regularisation and termination of
Sh. Siddova Shivaji Kambar? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?’’
1.
The claim of the 1st Party workman is, he was employed by the 2nd Party from December 2000 to 06.06.2004;
he was terminated on 07.06.2004 without assigning any reason and without an order in writing; he has an uninterrupted
service for 1528 days. However, he was reinstated on 10.07.2004; again he was terminated on 24.09.2004. 2nd time he
worked for 109 days from 10.07.2004 to 23.09.2004. He was employed for laying of OFsC (Optical Fibre Cables)
between Athani and Kottalagi. The OFC laying work was completed from December 2000 to 30.05.2001. He was
shifted to Anantpur Rural Exchange in Athani Taluk, after giving him fitment training of maintenance. There was acute
shortage of man power in the Telephone Exchange of Athani Taluk, because of the total ban on recruitment/engagement
of workmen w.e.f 30.03.1985. In the year 1996 they engaged Security persons through (Labour) Contractor. Thereafter
they engaged workmen for regular maintenance. Thus he was directly engaged by the employer management from
December 2000 to July 2003. Surreptitiously the respondent changed the nature of its employment from direct contract
labour to overcome the ban imposed by the circular dated 30.04.1985. His termination after putting continuous service
of over 4 years without any valid reasons and without observing the prescribed procedure is blatant violation of section
25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act. He was entitled to be regularized after completion of one year of service as per the
Law, Rules, Regulations and Orders issued by the Employer Management. In the year 2003 the education credentials
were taken by SDOT, Athani, Sub-Division for regularization; from August 2003 his salary was raised to Rs. 1,800/- per
month from Rs. 1,200/- per month but subsequently he was informed that his job was not regularized, he was not
employed by any Security Agency.
2.
The claim is contested by the 2nd Party on the following lines:-
That he was not engaged under the 2nd Party No. 1 at any point of time specifically from December 2000 to 06.06.2004;
all other allegations are false and baseless. He was working as Security Guard through a Agency called Zebra Security
Services. He remained absent voluntarily for 15 days from security services on account of his marriage. Still he is in
security service at Anantpur Telephone Exchange as Security Guard; he was not terminated as alleged by the 1st Party.
3.
The 1st Party workman in proof of his contention during his evidence produced (Ex W-1 to Ex W-3) photo
copies of the letters given to him for purchase of articles, register maintained by him regarding new connection, letter
given by various persons in his favour. There is no much cross examination to his evidence.
4.
The 2nd Party during their evidence produced list of security guards working in Athani Taluk under Zebra
Security Services. Accordingly out of 38 security persons name of Sh. Siddhoba Shivaji Kambar working at Anantpur
from 13.08.2003 is reflected. They have produced attested copy from the Zebra Security Services that 1st Party workman
is their employee. MW-1 is the Divisional Engineer of the 2nd Party who reiterated that 1st Party is the Security Personnel
of the Zebra Security Services. During his cross examination he stated that he worked as Divisional Engineer at Athani
from August 2010 and he has no personal acquaintance with the 1st Party. He is also unaware whether BSNL is
registered as Principal Employer under the Contract Act or Zebra Security Services has license to provide contract
labour.
5.
It is the case of denial of the identity of the 1st Party workman. The burden of proving the employer employee
relationship was on the 1st Party workman; he has produced several documents (Ex W-1 to Ex W-3). The 2nd Party has
not challenged veracity of these documents. That prompts this Tribunal to consider Ex W-1 to Ex W-3, though they are
not attested true copy of the original or not certified copies. Though, it is stated that he was an employee of the Zebra
Security Services said fact is not proved before this Tribunal with convincing evidence. It is also possible that, they were
using security personnel’s as their own casual workers. The 2nd Party relies on the Judgement of the Apex Court in
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others vs Umadevi & Others, 2006 AIR SCW 1991 and also Indian Drugs &
Pharmaceuticals Ltd., vs Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2007)1 SCC 408. Now it is legal position
that regularization cannot be sought as of right on the basis of continuous service rendered. The Court cannot endorse
the appointment which is not made following the due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules.
4328
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
The 2nd Party having shown the 1st Party workman as an employee of the contractor who was supplying the
security personnel’s, since did not produce any documentary proof to demonstrate that the employer had registered under
section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) 1970 to engage the service of contract labour, by
preponderance of probability it shall be held that 1st Party worked with the 2nd Party from December 2000 to 06.06.2004
and after a break he worked for another 74 days. The very fact that the 2nd Party refused to accept him as the workman
proves the claim allegation the he was orally terminated from service w.e.f 24.09.2004. Since, he had put in continuous
service of 1528 days as contemplated by section 25-B of the Act, his termination amounts to illegal retrenchment for not
following condition precedent contemplated by section 25-F of the Act. Had if the 2nd Party followed the due process of
law to remove him from service he would have been eligible for one month notice in writing or the wages for the notice
period and also a compensation equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed period of continuous service.
The 1st Party has alleged that after his initial termination on 07.06.2004 at the intervention of the then TAC Member he
was reinstated and again terminated for having refused to withdraw the complaint given to the Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Hubli; However, such allegation is not supported by documentary proof. It appears that something is
amiss between his initial termination on 07.06.2004 and his reappointment on 07.10.2004 which is not at all explained
by the 2nd Party. Having worked continuously with the 2nd Party from December 2000 to June 2004 definitely he falls
under the category of workman contemplated under section 2(S) of the Act. The 2nd Party being his employer having
removed him from service without following the procedure contemplated by section 25-F of the Act (since, the law does
not subscribe for his regularization or absorption) shall pay retrenchment compensation. It is already more than 15 years
from the date of his termination. Arithmetical calculation of retrenchment compensation (i.e. amount equivalent to 15
days average pay for every completed years of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of 6 months) will be
meagre, by looking to the depreciation of money value from the year 2004 till date.
In my considered opinion compensation in lump sum of Rs. 25,000/- would suffice the ends of justice being met. Hence,
the following
AWARD
The reference is accepted. The denial by the 2nd Party BSNL to regularise the 1st Party workman Sh. Siddoba
Shivaji Kambar though justified, his oral termination w.e.f 07.06.2004 and 24.09.2004 is in violation of the section
25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Hence the 2nd Party is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/-
(Twenty Five Thousand)in lump sum to the 1st Party workman Sh. Siddoba Shivaji Kambar within 60 days of
publication of this Award, otherwise the amount shall carry future interest of 8% per annum till payment.
(Dictated, corrected and signed by me on 20th May, 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 4 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1029
1029
1029
1029.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस अधी?ण पुरातE विवद, भारतीय पुरातE व सवF?ण, कोरमंगला, बDगलोर और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के *बंधतं- के
संब. िनयोजक0 और उनके कमकार0 के बीच अनुबंध म िन1द ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण
एवं 3म यायालय, बDगलोर के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 36/2011) को *कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 25.05.2019
को *ा7 त 8ए थे।
[सं. एल-42012/75/2011-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2019
S.O. 1029.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 36/2011) 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
Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Koramangala, Bangalore and Others, and their workmen
which were received by the Central Government on 25.05.2019.
[No. L-42012/75/2011-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4329
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE – 560 022
DATED
:
28thMARCH 2019
PRESENT
:
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
C R No.36/2011
I Party
II Party
Sh. Lakshmamma, W/o Dorai Swamy and 4 others, 6th
Ward, HPC Road, Behind Kaka Angadi (Near Bridge),
Kamalapur, Hospet Taluk, BELLARY – 583 221.
1.
The Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological
Survey of India, 5th Floor, KendriyaSadan, F Wing,
Koramangala, Bangalore – 34.
2.
The Senior Conversation Assistant, Archaeological
Survey of India, Ambedkar Circle, KAMLAPUR –
583 321.
Appearances:
I Party :
Shri P Suresh, Advocate
II Party :
Shri Satish B, Advocate
1.
The Central Government vide order No. L-42012/75/2011-IR(DU)dated 20.09.2011in exercise of the power
conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of
1947) made this reference for adjudication with the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether, the action of the management of archeological Survery of India in terminating the services of
(i) Smt. Lakshmamma W/o Shri DoraiSwamy, (ii) Smt. Ambika, W/o Shri Maruthi, (iii) Smt. Laxmamma
W/o Shri Ramaswamy, (iv) Smt. Rukmini W/o Shri Cheluvaraj and (v) Smt. Kesugi W/o
Shri Ponnuswamy is legal and justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to?”
2.
The 1st Party though represented through her learned advocate has not filed claim statement. 2nd Party having
filed their statement, placed evidence by way of affidavit of its Deputy Superintending Archaeologist, ASI, he was
discharged without cross-examination. Thus his affidavit evidence remained unchallenged. Written arguments is also
submitted.
3.
The case set forthby the 2nd Party is that the 1st Party workman were engaged as Casual Labourers at ASI,
Kamalapuram, for intermittent period for works of temporary nature from 2000 – 2006; their services was utilized
whenever required for casual nature and as per availability of funds; they used to be engaged on daily wages for works of
casual nature and disengage as soon as work was over; they are not governed by any rule or regulation; they are not
issued any notice whenever disengaged. The casual laborers engaged after 07.06.1988 had to be sponsored through
Employment Exchange along with condition of completion of 240 days of service in each of the preceding two years and
full filling required educational qualification etc., for inclusion of their name in seniority list for future regularisation.
The claim made by ex-casual labourers does not constitute an industrial dispute. The II Party is not an industry, it is
purely an academic institution engaged in research and allied works comprising of mainly preserving the rich cultural
heritage and conducting excavations, study of our history, it is not a profit oriented organisation nor engaged in
production. The department is exercising the sovereign powers of the government and do research work. The I party
workmen were not engaged in any business or production. There is no contractual obligation between the parties.
4.
In the absence of anything contrary to the case of the 2nd Party, it is inevitable to conclude that 2nd Party as an
instrument of the government is engaged in academic programmes, research and study. The I Party workers who worked
on need basis are casual labourers are not the workmen of the II Party. If the II Party has not provide work for them,
there is no illegality on their part.
4330
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Reference is Rejected
(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 28th March 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 4 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1030
1030
1030
1030.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस अधी?ण पुरातE विवद, भारतीय पुरातE व सवF?ण, कोरमंगला, बDगलोर, और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के *बंधतं- के
संब. िनयोजक0 और उनके कमकार0 के बीच अनुबंध म िन1द ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण
एवं 3म यायालय, बDगलोर के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 35/2011) को *कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 03.04.2019
को *ा7 त 8ए थे।
[सं. एल-42012/74/2011-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2019
S.O. 1030.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 35/2011) 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
Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Koramangala, Bangalore and Others, and their workmen
which were received by the Central Government on 25.05.2019.
[No. L-42012/74/2011-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE – 560 022
DATED
:
28thMARCH 2019
PRESENT
:
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
C R No. 35/2011
I Party
II Party
Sh. Rehmat Ali,
S/o Shri Syed Alisa,
6th Ward, HPC Road, Opp. Church,
Kamalapur, Hospet Taluk,
BELLARY – 583 221.
1.
The Superintending Archaeologist,
Archaeological Survey of India, 5th Floor,
KendriyaSadan, F Wing, Koramangala,
Bangalore – 34.
2.
The Senior Conversation Assistant,
Archaeological Survey of India, Ambedkar
Circle, KAMLAPUR – 583 321.
Appearances :
I Party :
Shri P Suresh, Advocate
II Party :
Shri Satish B, Advocate
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4331
1.
The Central Government vide order No. L42012/74/2011-IR(DU)dated 19.09.2011 in exercise of the power
conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of
1947) made this reference for adjudication with the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Archeological Survey of India in terminating the services of
Shri Rehmat Ali, Casual Labourer, is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
The I party though represented through his learned advocate has not filed claim statement. II Party having filed
their statement, placed evidence by way of affidavit of its Deputy Superintending Archaeologist, ASI, he was discharged
without cross-examination. Thus his affidavit evidence remained unchallenged. Written arguments is also submitted.
3.
The case set forth by the 2nd Party is that the 1stParty workman was engaged as casual labourers at ASI,
Kamalapuram, for intermittent period to do works of temporary nature from 2000 – 2006; his services were utilized
whenever required for casual nature and as per availability of funds; he used to be engaged on daily wages for works of
casual nature and disengage as soon as work was over; he was not governed by any rule or regulation; he was not issued
any notice whenever disengaged. The casual laborer engaged after 07.06.1988 had to be sponsored through Employment
Exchange along with condition of completion of 240 days of service in each of the preceding two years and full filling
required educational qualification etc., for inclusion of their name in seniority list for future regularisation. The claim
made by ex-casual labourer does not constitute an industrial dispute. The 2ndParty is not an industry, it is purely an
academic institution engaged in research and allied works comprising of mainly preserving the rich cultural heritage and
conducting excavations, study of our history, it is not a profit oriented organisation nor engaged in production. The
department is exercising the sovereign powers of the government and do research work. The I party workman was not
engaged in any business or production. There is no contractual obligation between the parties.
4.
In the absence of anything contrary to the case of 2nd Party, it is inevitable to conclude that II Party as an
instrument of the government is engaged in academic programmes, research and study. The I Party workman who
worked on need basis is casual labourers and not a workmen of the II Party. If the II Party has not provide work for him,
there is no illegality on their part.
AWARD
Reference is Rejected
(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 28th March 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 4 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1031
1031
1031
1031.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस ;रलायंस इंटीHेटेड सIवसेज *ा. िलिमटेड कोलकाता और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के *बंधतं- के संब. िनयोजक0 और
उनके कमकार0 के बीच अनुबंध म िन1द ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म यायालय,
कोलकाता के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 27/2014) को *कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 29.05.2019 को *ा7 त 8ए थे।
[सं. एल-40012/93/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2019
S.O. 1031.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Kolkata, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The Reliance
Integrated Services Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government
on 29.05.2019.
[No. L-40012/93/2013-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
4332
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 27 of 2014
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Reliance Integrated Services Pvt. Ltd.
AND
Their workmen
Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the Management
: None
On behalf of the Workmen
: Ms. Papiya Chatterjee, learned counsel
Dated: 22nd May, 2019
Industry : Telecommunication
AWARD
Brief facts in the background of which this reference has been made to this Tribunal are that Mrs. Mitun
Chakraborty was appointed as ‘Assistant Manager, Customer Care’ and was posted at Kolkata where she was doing
mainly clerical jobs, viz. maintenance of general ledger, preparation of draft and letters as directed by the superiors in
connection with the customer application form verification on behalf of the employer, Reliance Integrated Services Pvt.
Ltd. She has been performing all the jobs under the direction of the management without any independent initiative and
during working season she had to perform multifarious duties. On successful completion of probation period of six
months, she was confirmed to the post of Assistant Manager, Customer Care. She has been performing her job with the
satisfaction of her superiors, but all of a sudden on 01.07.2011 a letter of termination was issued to her by the company
without any enquiry. She was not afforded any opportunity to submit her explanation. Thus it is alleged that her
retrenchment was illegal and termination order is void ab initio. Therefore, she approached Labour Commissioner with a
request for setting aside the order of termination, where the company submitted its report that she was working as an
Assistant Manager, Customer Care with the company enjoying and exercising all the powers of Assistant Manager
independently and as such she is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called as the Act of 1947 for convenience). After several rounds, the conciliation ended in failure. Therefore,
the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the Act of 1947 vide Order No.
L-40012/93/2013-IR(DU) dated 17.02.2014 referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudicate in following terms:
“Whether the termination of service of Mrs. Mitun Chakraborty by the management of Reliance Integrated
Serviceds Ltd., Kolkata without assigning any reason therein is justified? If not, what relief Mrs. Mitun
Chakraborty is entitled to?”
2.
After receipt of above reference, notices were issued to the parties whereupon the employee concerned, Mrs.
Mitun Chakraborty filed her statement of claims. However, despite sufficient service, the company did not appear.
Therefore, the Tribunal proceeded ex parte against the company and recorded ex parte evidence. Affidavit of Mrs. Mitun
Chakraborty was taken on record. As the case was proceeding ex parte in absence of the company, she could not be
cross-examined. As documentary evidence original appointment letter of the employee concerned dated 10th August,
2007, Ext. W-01, copy of e-mail sent by the employee concerned regarding her Key Responsibility Area, letter of
confirmation, Ext. W-02, performance report dated 11.09.2008, Ext. W-03, letter of annual increment, Ext. W-04 and
letter of her termination, Ext. W-05 have been filed.
3.
I have heard the employee concerned and perused the record.
4.
The only argument advanced by the employee concerned is that her services were terminated without enquiry
and affording any opportunity to explain, her termination is illegal. Though the company did not appear in the case, but
from the statement of claims and also the documents submitted by the employee concerned it is evident that the company
had taken the plea before the conciliation officer that she is not workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act of
1947. Apart from this, before applying any of the provisions of the Act of 1947 in order to determine the legality or
illegality of the termination of the employee concerned, it is necessary to decide whether the employee concerned comes
within the definition of ‘workman’ under the Act of 1947.
5.
Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 defines ‘workman’ which may be quoted as below –
“2(s)
“workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in
any industry to do any manual,
unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of
employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding
under this Act in relation to an industrial
dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4333
consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include
any such person –
(i)
who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950(45of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy
Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii)
who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of prison; or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding
then
thousand
rupees
per
mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers
vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.”
6.
From above provision of Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 it is vividly clear that any person who is employed
mainly in managerial and administrative capacity does not come within the definition of workman. However, case of the
employee concerned is that designation does not decide whether she is a workman or not. During her employment she
was doing mainly clerical job, I.e., maintenance of ledger, preparation of draft and letters on direction of superiors. Thus
relying on Arkal Gobind Rao v. Ciba Geigy of India Ltd., AIR 1985 SC 985 it has been submitted that where an
employee has multifarious duties it is the primary and basic duties of the employee which decide whether she is a
workman or not. In above cited case the employee was appointed as an Assistant and continued to render service in that
post till his termination. On the basis of documentary evidence the Labour Court was of the opinion that though he was
doing some clerical work, he was also doing supervisory and administrative work and other work of checking bank
reconciliation, therefore, he was not a workman within the meaning of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held –
“6.
Where an employee has multifarious duties and a question is raised whether he is a workman or
someone other than a workman the Court must find out what are the primary and basic duties of the person
concerned and if he is incidentally asked to do some other work, may not necessarily be in tune with the basic
duties, these additional duties cannot change the character and status of the person concerned. In other words,
the dominant purpose of employment must be first taken into consideration and the gloss of some additional
duties must be rejected while determining the status and character of the person. Appreciation of evidence by
Labour Court cannot be faulted but it landed itself into an erroneous conclusion by drawing impermissible
inference from the evidence and overlooking the primary requirement of the principal and subsidiary duties of
the appellant.”
7.
Now it is the duty of the employee concerned to prove that though she was appointed as Assistant Manager, her
primary and basic duties were of clerical nature and she was incidentally doing managerial work. In Manager, Reserve
Bank of India v. S. Many, 2005 LLR 737 it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that it is only if the initial burden of
proof which was on the workman was discharged to some extent, that a finding can be returned in respect of the defence
of the management. Furthermore, a plea having been set up by the workman, the initial burden of proof was on the
workman that he had been employed by the petitioner in the claimed capacity on the stated terms.
8.
It is true that the case is proceeding ex parte and no evidence has been adduced by the company, but that does
not mean that the allegation put forth by the employee concerned should be taken to be true without any support of
evidence. The employee concerned has to prove her own case. Thus burden lies on the employee concerned to prove that
despite her appointment to the post of Assistant Manager-Customer Care, she was doing the job of clerical nature. But
copy of e-mail sent by the employee herself on 20th March, 2011 in respect of her Key Responsibility Area speaks
otherwise. From this document it appears that the employee concerned was responsible for IRMS, viz. Integrated Risk
Management Strategy in the matter of finance, for CAF, viz. Common Assessment Framework – a standard approach to
assess needs of customers to identify the same and to meet with effectively. It was the responsibility given to her with
regard to customers. Similarly, she was also responsible for audiovisual presentation Transportational Satellite
Communication System and virtual transportation to enable the customers to act on the information provided at any time
and at any place. Her action plan shows that she was also responsible to ensure commitment between the service provider
and a client in the area of service level agreement. Thus in view of the KRA as submitted by the employee herself it
cannot be said that her primary and basic duties were of clerical nature, instead she was appointed as Assistant Manager
and she was also doing managerial work. Hence, in view of definition of workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the
Act of 1947, she does not come within the definition.
9.
Consequently, when she is not a workman, she cannot claim benefit of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. As per
appointment letter containing terms of her appointment, her service can be terminated at any time after giving three
months’ notice or payment of basic salary.
10.
In view of above, the termination of service of the employees, Mrs. Mitun Chakraborty by the management of
Reliance Integrated Services Ltd. without assigning any reason cannot be said to be illegal and unjustified. Therefore, she
is not entitled for any relief.
11.
Award is passed accordingly.
JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
Kolkata, the 22nd May, 2019
4334
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दली, 7 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1032
1032
1032
1032.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस *धानाचाय, कीय िव ालय नंबर 2, िवशाखापPनम (ए.पी.) और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के *बंधतं- के संब.
िनयोजक0 और उनके कमकार0 के बीच अनुबंध म िन1द ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म
यायालय-1, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 42/2014) को *कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 06.06.2019 को
*ा7 त 8आ था।
[सं. एल-42012/10/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 7th June, 2019
S.O. 1032.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 42/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-1, Hyderabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The
Principal, Kendriya Vidyalalya No. 2, Visakhapatnam (A.P.) and Others, and their workmen which were received by the
Central Government on 06.06.1019.
[No. L-42012/10/2014-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan , Presiding Officer
Dated the 25th day of March, 2019
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 42/2014
Between:
Smt. Chintala Ramullamma,
D.No. 39-6-59,
Murali Nagar,
Visakhapatnam.
…Petitioner
AND
The Principal,
Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1,
104 Area, Sri Vijyanagar Colony,
Visakhapatnam.(A.P.).- 530 007.
…Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri D. Jagannadha Murthy, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Sri D. Ramesh, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42012/10/2014-IR(DU) dated 12.3.2014 referred the
following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4335
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1, Visakhapatnam in terminating the
services of Smt. Chintala Ramulamma Ex. Casual Labour is legal and justified? If not, to what relief she is
entitled to ?”
On receipt of the reference this Tribunal has registered and numbered the reference as I.D. No. 42/2014 and issued
notices to both the workman and the management. They both 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 Petitioner was appointed as an Attendar on casual basis from 1.8.1993 to 3.5.1997 in the Respondent’s organization.
At the initial stage she was getting Rs.25/- per day and the same was paid to the workman once in every two weeks
through State Bank of India, Visakhapatnam and the Respondent used to obtain signature of the workman in voucher.
The attendance of the workman was also being marked every day by the officials of the Respondent’s school. It is
stated that the Petitioner used to work as attendar on casual basis. Subsequently the Respondent’s school increased the
wages of the workman from Rs.25/- to 36/- per day. The workman used to perform the duties of cleaning the office,
cleaning the tables office rooms and class rooms, cleaning of toilets etc., she also used to take attendance
registers/Circulars to every classroom. The school working hours are from 9 AM to 3 PM but the workman was
working from 8.30 AM to 5 PM. She was disengaged from her service without any reasons. The workman was
discharging her duties without having any remarks and she was most obedient towards her higher authorities. It is
further submitted that the Respondent’s school orally stated that her services were no more required. The workman was
not served with any termination orders. Only she was informed orally by the officials of the Respondent’s school. But
when the Petitioner requested to take her in service, the officials of Respondent’s school refused. The Respondent
clearly attributes the malafide intention to curtail the entire service of the Petitioner in the Respondent’s organization to
avoid the regularization of her services as Attender. The Petitioner further submits that after rendering her services for
4 years 9 months at Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1, she shifted to Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2 and continued the same work upto
2.5.1998. The workman submitted that she had approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing a writ under Article 226
of the Constitution of India with a prayer to direct the Respondent to continue her in service as attender in WP
No.14023/98. In the mean while the Petitioner filed a WPMP No. 16892/98 in the above said WP No.14023/98. The
Hon’ble High Court on 15.5.1998, passed an order in the above case , “There shall be interim direction to the
Respondent to continue the Petitioner provided she is in service as on today.” The Petitioner also submitted that as per
the orders of Hon’ble High Court, she approached the Respondent and gave one representation letter dated 8.7.1998 to
the Respondent. While the matter is pending before the Hon’ble High Court, the Respondent did not obey the orders of
the Hon’ble High Court wantonly and refused the service of the Petitioner. Even though the workman/Petitioner
submitted the representation letter. The Petitioner workman further submitted that she is a poor SC woman. She could
not pursue her case before the Hon’ble High Court against the Respondent due to her financial capacity. Subsequently,
the Petitioner did not attend the Hon’ble High Court case because of her poverty and there was no representation on her
behalf to prosecute her case, ultimately, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petition on 7.6.2007 for non-
prosecution. The workman submitted that subsequently she filed an application under Sec.12 of the Legal Services
Authority Act, 1987 for conciliation and amicable settlement of her matter with the Respondent but it was in vain. The
Petitioner also approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Visakhapatnam and one conciliation proceeding was
initiated between the Petitioner and the Respondent on various dates and finally on 15.12.2012, and lastly it ended in
failure. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Visakhapatnam sent the failure report to the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi which culminated the present reference. The Petitioner submitted that
she discharged her duties to the satisfaction of her superiors and also worked continuously from 1.8.1993 on wards up to
the date of disengagement i.e., 2.5.1998 continuously. The Petitioner was not allowed to duty and therefore, it amounts
to illegal termination, and no retrenchment compensation was paid to her as per law and as such the action of the
Respondent organization is in violation of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner submits that she
is a poor lady, her husband and three children are dependants on her and this sudden disengagement of service landed her
in severe financial loss. The Petitioner submitted to hold the action of the Respondent management in terminating the
services of the Petitioner workman is illegal and unjustified and consequently declare that the said termination is null
and void and to reinstate her in service with back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits and to grant
such other reliefs as this court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3.
Respondent filed counter with the averments in brief as follows:
The Respondent filed counter denying the facts averred in the claim statement. The Respondent in their counter
specifically stated that the Respondent organization is an educational institution and the provisions of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 do not applicable to the services of the employees in the Respondent’s organization. It is stated that the
Petitioner had filed a writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., seeking a direction against Kendriya Vidyalaya-II,
Visakhapatnam to continue her in service as an attender. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., was
4336
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
pleased to pass an interim order, dated 15.5.1998 in WPMP No.16892/1998 directing the Respondent to continue the
Petitioner in service provided she is in service as on the date of the order. But, even as on the date of the interim order of
the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., the Petitioner was not in service and hence she was not continued in service. As against
the same, the Petitioner filed a contempt case bearing No.2007/1998. Their Lordships was pleased to dispose of the said
application on 24.3.1999 closing the contempt case. Thereafter, the writ petition in WP.14023/1998 was dismissed by an
order, dated 7.6.2007, by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., and as such the Petitioner has exhausted all her remedy in
the competent court of law. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. It is also stated that the Petitioner was
engaged as casual labour on daily wage basis by the then Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya-I from 6.12.1994. She was
engaged only on the working days without continuity of service on holidays, breaks and vacations. She was engaged
likewise till 3.5.1997. She was never appointed in any regular vacancy nor was her service continuous. The wages were
paid to her for the days she worked on daily wage basis. The Petitioner voluntarily stopped attending to the daily wage
work in Kendriya Vidyalaya-I, w.e.f. 4.5.1997 and thereafter she was never engaged in Kendriya Vidyalaya-I at any
point of time. The allegation of the Petitioner that the Petitioner was appointed as an attender on daily wage basis in
the Respondent’s organization since 1.8.1993 at Visakhapatnam and that she was paid wages @ Rs.25/- per day once in
every 2 weeks and that the attendance was marked every day by the Respondent organizations are not correct. Further
the allegation of the Petitioner that her wages was increased @ Rs.36/- per day and that she used to work from 8.30 AM
to 5 PM are also not correct. Further the allegation of the workman that she worked with the Respondent organization
without any remarks and that she was disengaged suddenly without any reason by the Respondent and that she was
informed that her services were no more required and that she was not served with any termination orders and that
inspite of her request the officials of the Respondent refused to take her into service in order to avoid her regularization
of services are all false. The Petitioner was neither served with any appointment order nor with termination order, as her
services were on daily wage basis. The Respondent also submitted that the Petitioner stopped attending to work on her
volition w.e.f. 4.5.1997. Since the Petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis and all her wages upto 3.54.1997 were
paid. No further action was taken. It is further submitted that in absence of any appointment, the question of
termination does not arise, much less an illegal termination. The Petitioner is not entitled for any notice or pay in lieu
thereof or retrenchment compensation. Since Kendriya Vidyalaya is an educational institution the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act will not apply for her service and she is not entitled for any benefits under the said Act. With the
above averments, the Respondent submitted for dismissal of the claim of the Petitioner with exemplary costs.
4.
During the course of hearing of the case the Petitioner workman has been examined herself as WW1 and also
relied on some documents which are marked as Ex.W1 to W5. The Respondent management has not examined any
witness nor relied on any documents on its behalf.
5.
I have already heard both the parties in this matter.
6.
As per the averments made in the claim statement and the counter the following points are to be determined:-
I.
Whether the action of the Management of Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1, Visakhapatnam in terminating the
services of Smt. Chintala Ramulamma, Ex. Casual labour is legal and justified?
II.
If not, to what relief she is entitled to?
7.
Point No.I:
The Learned Counsel for the workman submitted that the Petitioner workman was engaged
under the Respondent as an Attendar on casual basis from 1.8.1993 to 3.5.1997. At the initial stage she was getting
Rs.25/- per day and it was paid to the workman once in every two weeks through State Bank of India, Visakhapatnam
and the Respondent used to obtain signature of the workman in the voucher. The attendance of the workman was also
being marked every day by the officials of the Respondent’s school. Subsequently the Respondent’s school increased
the wages of the workman from Rs.25/- to 36/- per day. The workman used to perform the duties of cleaning the office,
cleaning the tables, office rooms, class rooms, and cleaning the toilets etc., she also used to take attendance
registers/Circulars to every classroom. The school working hours are from 9 AM to 3 PM but the workman was
working from 8.30 AM to 5 PM. The workman was discharging her duties without having any remarks and she was
most obedient towards her higher authorities. Suddenly, the Respondent’s school orally stated that her services were no
more required. The workman was not served with any termination orders. Only she was informed orally by the officials
of the Respondent’s school. It is further contended that she had approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to direct the Respondent to continue her in service as
an attender in WP No.14023/98. In the mean while the Petitioner filed a WPMP bearing No. 16892/98 in the above said
WP No.14023/98. The Hon’ble High Court on 15.5.1998, passed an order in that WPMP, “There shall be interim
direction to the Respondent to continue the Petitioner provided she is in service as on today.” The Respondent did not
obey the orders of the Hon’ble High Court and wantonly refused the service of the Petitioner. Thereafter the Petitioner
moved the Hon’ble High Court by filing a contempt proceeding. Subsequently, the Respondent appeared before the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4337
Hon’ble High Court. Due to paucity of funds, the Petitioner could not be able to move the Hon’ble High Court.
Ultimately, the said WP No.14023/198 was dismissed. The workman moved an application under Sec.12 of the Legal
Services Authority Act, 1987 for amicable settlement of her matter with the Respondent, but it was in vain. The
Petitioner also approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Visakhapatnam for redressal and one conciliation
proceeding was initiated which was ended in failure. The Respondent did not consider the plight of the workman. The
Respondent has disengaged the Petitioner without following the mandatory provisions of Sec.25F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for payment of compensation as per the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court reported in AIR 2015 SC page 3473. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that since the
Petitioner is a lady, belongs to SC community, atleast she should be engaged as an attender in the school. It is further
contended that the action of the Respondent in terminating the services of the Petitioner is illegal and unjustified.
Therefore, the court may declare the said termination order as null and void, and to reinstate the Petitioner in service
with back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this court
may deem fit and proper.
8.
On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that the present ID is not
maintainable as the Respondent organization is an educational institution. The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 is not applicable to the present institution. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent also contended that the
Petitioner was engaged as a casual labour on daily wages basis by the then Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1 from
6.12.1994 and she was engaged only on the working days without continuity of service on holidays, breaks and
vacations. She was engaged like wise till 3.5.1997. She was never appointed against any regular vacancy nor her
service was continuous. The wages were paid to her for the days she worked on daily wage basis. She was not regular
to her duty and she voluntarily left her job, w.e.f.4.5.1997. There after she was not engaged in Kendriya Vidyalaya-I at
any point of time. It is further contended that the Petitioner filed one writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court bearing
No.14023/98 and also filed one WPMP No.16892/98 with a prayer to direct the Respondent to continue her in service.
The Hon’ble Court after hearing the Petitioner passed an order in WPMP16892/98 directing the Respondent to
continue the Petitioner in service provided she is in service as on the date of the order. But as on the date of the order
the Petitioner was not in service. She was not allowed to continue in service. The Petitioner filed one contempt
proceeding against the Respondent before the Hon’ble High Court. But pursuant to the contempt proceeding the
Respondent appeared before the Hon’ble Court. Thereafter the Hon’ble Court dropped the contempt proceeding and
also dismissed WP No.14023/98. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent further contended that the Petitioner herself
stopped attending the work even though she has been engaged to work on daily wages basis, and since the Petitioner
workman had been engaged on her daily wage basis, she was paid upto 3.5.1997 and no further dues are pending against
the Respondent. Since the Petitioner has not been appointed against any regular vacancy and not discharging her duties
continuously, there is no question of violation of the provisions of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The
Respondent is not required to serve any termination notice on the Petitioner nor she has to pay in lieu of notice or any
retrenchment compensation to the workman and with the above submissions, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent
submitted for dismissal of the claim of the Petitioner with exemplary costs.
9.
On consideration of the rival contentions of both the sides and on perusal of the evidence adduced so far it is
seen that admittedly the workman was a lady and she has been engaged as an attender on daily wages basis under the
Respondent school. She has worked upto 3.5.1997. The workman while examined as WW1 though fully supported the
averments made in her chief evidence affidavit but in her cross examination, she admitted that no appointment order was
issued to her to work under Kendriya Vidyalaya-I. She further admitted that, Saturday and Sunday are holidays, and she
was not doing any work on those days. Initially for two hours work she was paid Rs.25/- per day, and subsequently, it
was enhanced to Rs.36/- per day, and she was not paid for Sundays and Saturdays. She clearly admitted that presently
she is aged about 66 years. She also admitted about filing of WP No.14023/98. She proved the copy of the order of the
Hon’ble High Court passed in WP No.14023/98 which is marked as Ex.W3 and also admitted that she was not in service
on the date of receipt of Ex.W3. She further admitted that she has filed contempt proceeding before the Hon'ble High
Court, but due to non-appearance of her advocate, the writ petition was dismissed. She proved the copy of the dismissal
order passed in WP No.14023/98 as Ex.W5. She declined to the suggestion of the Respondent’s school that she has not
worked for 240 days in a year. She was not paid for 240 days in any calendar year during her service period in Kendriya
Vidyalaya-I. She also admitted that she has not filed any document to show that she has worked for 240 days in any
calendar year in Kendriya Vidyalaya-I. The above evidence of WW1 clearly indicates that she has got no appointment
order to work under the Respondent school, and she has worked 10(ten) hours in five days in a week and was paid
Rs.25/- per day of two hours work only and subsequently the said amount was enhanced to Rs.36/- per day. As per the
4338
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
admission of the workman she was getting Rs.25/- per day and she was getting the said Rs.25/- for two hours work. She
has worked only 5 days in a week. As because she was not working on Saturday and Sunday, the claim of the Petitioner
that she has worked 240 days in a calendar year is not correct. Normally, in the schools there is no working hours for
240 days. Further, the workman has admitted that she was getting Rs.25/- per day and that too it is for two hours only.
As per her own admission the Petitioner was only working for two hours in a day and maximum ten hours in a week.
The claim of the Petitioner that she has worked for 240 days in a calendar year is not accepted and further even though
the Hon'ble High Court in WPMP No.16892/98 had directed the Respondent to continue her in service provided, if she
is in service as on the date of the order. But when the order of the Hon'ble High Court was received by the Respondent,
the workman was not in service, as a result of which the order of the Hon’ble court was not complied and the Petitioner
was not able to enjoy the fruits of the order, which clearly indicates that the Petitioner was not in service when the order
was passed by the Hon'ble High Court. Since the workman was a daily wage worker, and she has been engaged orally
and has not been working against any sanctioned post for a period of more than 240 days in a calendar year and has not
worked for more than two hours in a day, she is not entitled for regularization. In Umadevi’s case, the Hon’ble Apex
Court settled the principle that no casual worker should be regularised by the courts or the State Government and as per
concessional provisions of the citizens of the country have a right to contest for the employment and temporary or casual
workers have no right to seek for regularization. In the instant case when the Petitioner worked as a casual labour only
two hours in a day, and not more than for a period of 240 days in a calendar year and has worked from the year 1993 to
1997 and that too not against a sanctioned post, she is not entitled to get the regularization of her service. The Petitioner
is only engaged on daily wage basis in a school. In Umadevi’s case 2006(4SCC) 1, the court held that the courts should
not accept to issue any direction or absorption/ regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual casual
daily wage or adhoc employees. The court has also held that such directions issued could not be said to be inconsistent
with the concessional scheme or public employment. The court also held that merely because a temporary employee or
a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed
in a regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not
made by following the process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. In view of the Law laid down by the
Apex Court, the directions sought for by the Petitioner cannot be granted. The Petitioner was merely a casual worker and
she does not have any vested right to be regularised against any post. Further more, the Petitioner has voluntarily left the
job from the school. As because when the order of the Hon'ble High Court reached in the hands of the Respondent, the
Petitioner was not working in the office for which she was not given the engagement. This shows that the Petitioner was
not regular to her duty and has voluntarily left the office. Thus, the action of the Respondent school in terminating the
Petitioner Smt. Chintala Ramulamma, from services is justified.
Thus, Point No.I is answered negatively against the Petitioner.
10.
Point No.II: In Point No.I, it has already been held that the action of the Respondent in terminating the
Petitioner from service is legal and justified. But it is to be seen what more relief the Petitioner is entitled to get. In the
instant case it is noticed that the Petitioner has worked about 4 years in the Respondent’s school. She is now aged about
66 years and there is no chance of her future employment. She has come to the court for the relief of reinstatement in
service but even though the Hon’ble Court directed the Respondent to engage the Petitioner in service as an interim
arrangement, she could not be able to avail it. The Hon'ble High Court had given direction to the Respondent to
continue the Petitioner in service if she was in service as on the date of the order. But by the time when the order was
received by the Respondent, the Petitioner was not in service, for which the order of the Hon'ble High Court was not
complied by the Respondent. But as it is seen the Petitioner is a lady belonging to SC community, due to want of job and
pending of litigation, she was facing lot of hardship. In the opinion of this Tribunal even though the Petitioner is not
entitled to get a job. The interest of justice could be best served, if the Petitioner will be given to get Rs.50000/- (fifty
thousand) towards compensation. Thus, the Respondent Management is directed to pay compensation of Rs.50000/-
(fifty thousand) to the appellant within four months from the date of receipt of the order failing which the Petitioner is at
liberty to move the appropriate forum to get the compensation in time.
Thus, Point. II is answered accordingly.
Result:
In the result the reference is answered as follows:
The action of the Management of Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Visakhapatnam in terminating the services of Smt.Chintala
Ramulamma Ex.Casual Labour is legal and justified. In the opinion of this Tribunal even though the Petitioner is not
entitled to get a job. The Respondent Management is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50000/- (fifty thousand) to the
appellant within four months, from the date of receipt of the order failing which the Petitioner is at liberty to move the
appropriate forum to get the compensation in time.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 25th day
of March, 2019.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN , Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4339
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Smt. Chintala Ramulamma
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1: Photostat copy of minutes of conciliation proceeding dt.10.7.2013
Ex.W2: Photostat copy of Lr. No.F.Courtcase/KVIJUN/2011-12/386 dt.24.9.2011
Ex.W3: Photostat copy of the order in WPMP No.16892/98 dt.15.5.1998
Ex.W4: Photostat copy ofLr. No.F.14-107/98 KVS(HR)/5592 dt.18.6.1998
Ex.W5: Photostat copy of order in WPNo.14023/98 dt. 17.6.2007
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दली, 7 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1033
1033
1033
1033.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस *धानाचाय, कीय िव ालय नंबर 2, िवशाखापPनम (ए.पी.) और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के *बंधतं- के संब.
िनयोजक0 और उनके कमकार0 के बीच अनुबंध म िन1द ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म
यायालय-1, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 43/2014) को *कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 06.06.2019 को
*ा7 त 8ए थे।
[सं. एल-42012/11/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 7th June, 2019
S.O. 1033.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 43/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-1 Hyderabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The
Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 2, Visakhapatnam (A.P.) and Others, and their workmen which were received by the
Central Government on 06.06.2019.
[No. L-42012/11/2014-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan , Presiding Officer
Dated the 25th day of March, 2019
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 43/2014
Between:
Smt. Chintala Ramullamma,
D.No.39-6-59,
Murali Nagar,
Visakhapatnam
…Petitioner
4340
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AND
The Principal,
Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2,
104 Area, Sri Vijyanagar Colony,
Visakhapatnam. (A.P.).- 530 007.
…Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri D. Jagannadha Murthy, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Sri D. Ramesh, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42012/11/2014-IR(DU) dated 12.3.2014 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 Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2, Visakhapatnam in terminating the
services of Smt. Chintala Ramulamma Ex. Casual Labour is legal and justified? If not, to what relief she is
entitled to ?”
On receipt of the reference this Tribunal has registered and numbered the reference as I.D. No. 43/2014 and issued
notices to both the workman and the management. They both appeared before the court and engaged their respective
counsels with the leave of the court and consent of either party. The Petitioner adopted the claim statement filed by her
in ID No.42/2014 as her claim in this case is similar to that case i.e., ID No.42/2014.
2.
The averments made in the claim statement in brief are as follows:
The Petitioner was appointed as an Attendar on casual basis from 1.8.1993 to 3.5.1997 in the Respondent’s organization.
At the initial stage she was getting Rs.25/- per day and the same was paid to the workman once in every two weeks
through State Bank of India, Visakhapatnam and the Respondent used to obtain signature of the workman in the
voucher. The attendance of the workman was also being marked every day by the officials of the Respondent’s school.
It is stated that the Petitioner was engaged as an attendar on casual basis. Subsequently the Respondent’s school
increased the wages of the workman from Rs.25/- to 36/- per day. The workman used to perform the duties of cleaning
the office, cleaning the tables, office rooms, class rooms, and cleaning of toilets etc., she also used to take attendance
registers/Circulars to every classroom. The school working hours are from 9 AM to 3 PM but the workman was
working from 8.30 AM to 5 PM. She was disengaged from her service without any reasons. The workman was
discharging her duties without having any remarks and she was most obedient towards her higher authorities. It is
further submitted that the Respondent’s school orally stated that her services were no more required. The workman was
not served with any termination orders. Only she was informed orally by the officials of the Respondent’s school. But
when the Petitioner requested to take her in service, the officials of Respondent’s school refused. The Respondent
clearly attributes the malafide intention to curtail the entire service of the Petitioner in the Respondent’s organization to
avoid the regularization of her services as Attender. The Petitioner further submits that after rendering her services for 4
years 9 months at Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1, she shifted to Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2 and continued the same work upto
2.5.1998. The workman submitted that she had approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to direct the Respondent to continue her in service as attender in
WP No.14023/98. In the mean while the Petitioner filed WPMP No. 16892/98 in the above said WP No.14023/98. The
Hon’ble High Court on 15.5.1998, passed an order in the above said M.P., “There shall be interim direction to the
Respondent to continue the Petitioner provided she is in service as on today.” The Petitioner also submitted that as per
the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, she approached the Respondent and gave a representation dated 8.7.1998 to the
Respondent. While the matter is pending before the Hon’ble High Court, the Respondent did not obey the orders of the
Hon’ble High Court wantonly and refused the service of the Petitioner. Even though the workman/Petitioner submitted
the representation letter. The Petitioner workman further submitted that she is a poor SC woman. She could not pursue
her case before the Hon’ble High Court against the Respondent due to her financial capacity. Subsequently, the
Petitioner did not attend the Hon’ble High Court case because of her poverty and there was no representation on her
behalf to prosecute her case, ultimately, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petition on 7.6.2007 for non-
prosecution. The workman submitted that subsequently she filed an application under Sec.12 of the Legal Services
Authority Act, 1987 for conciliation and amicable settlement of her matter with the Respondent but it was in vain. The
Petitioner also approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Visakhapatnam and a conciliation proceeding was
initiated between the Petitioner and the Respondent on various dates and finally on 15.12.2012, and lastly it ended in
failure. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Visakhapatnam sent the failure report to the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi which culminated to the present reference. The Petitioner submitted
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4341
that she discharged her duties to the satisfaction of her superiors and also worked continuously from 1.8.1993 on wards
up to the date of her disengagement i.e., 2.5.1998 continuously. The Petitioner was not allowed to duty and therefore, it
amounts to illegal termination, and no retrenchment compensation was paid to her as per law, and as such the action of
the Respondent organization is in violation of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner submits that
she is a poor lady, her husband and three children are dependent on her and this sudden disengagement of service landed
her in severe financial loss. The Petitioner submitted to declare the action of the Respondent management in terminating
the services of the Petitioner workman is illegal and unjustified and consequently declare that the said termination is null
and void and to reinstate her in service with back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits and to grant
such other reliefs as this court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3.
Respondent filed counter with the averments in brief as follows:
The Respondent filed counter denying the facts averred in the claim statement. Respondent in their counter specifically
stated that the Respondent organization is an educational institution and the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
do not applicable to the services of the employees in the Respondent organization. It is stated that the Petitioner had
filed a writ petition in Hon’ble High Court of A.P., seeking a direction against Kendriya Vidyalaya-II, Visakhapatnam to
continue her in the service as attender. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., was pleased to pass an
interim order, dated 15.5.1998 in WPMP No.16892/1998 directing the Respondent to continue the Petitioner in service
provided she is in service as on the date of the order. But, even as on the date of the interim order of the Hon’ble High
Court of A.P., the Petitioner was not in service and hence she was not continued in service. As against the same, the
Petitioner filed a contempt case no.2007/1998. Their Lordships was pleased to dispose of the said application on
24.3.1999 closing the contempt case. Thereafter, the writ petition in WP.14023/1998 was dismissed by an order, dated
7.6.2007, by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. the Petitioner has exhausted her remedy in the competent court of law.
Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. It is also stated that the Petitioner was engaged as casual labour on
daily wage basis by the then Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya-II from 23.8.1997 to 2.5.1998 excluding all holidays, breaks
and vacations as stop gap arrangement. Prior to that the Petitioner voluntarily stopped attending the daily wage work in
Kendriya Vidyalaya-I, w.e.f. 4.5.1997. Thereafter she was never engaged in Kendriya Vidyalaya-I at any point of time.
Further the Petitioner was not on rolls of the Respondent on 15.5.1998 by the time of issue of interim order by the
Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, as such the order was not affected to the individual. The allegation of the
Petitioner that after rendering service for 4 years 9 months at Kendriya Vidyalaya-1 she was shifted to Kendriya
Vidyalaya-2 and continued upto 2.5.1998, that she performed her duties without any remarks, and that she was
disengaged suddenly without any reason by the Respondent are also not correct. It is submitted that, the allegation that
she was not served with any termination orders and that inspite of her request the officials of the Respondent refused to
take her into service in order to avoid the regularization of the services as attender and that Kendriya Vidyalaya-1 and
this Respondent function as one unit are all false. The Petitioner was engaged as causal labour on daily wages at
Rs.36/- per day from 23.8.1997 to 2.5.1998 and with the above averments, the Respondent submitted for dismissal of the
claim of the Petitioner with exemplary costs.
4.
During the course of hearing the Petitioner workman has been examined herself as WW1 and also relied on
some documents which are marked as Ex.W1 to W3. The Respondent management has not examined any witness nor
relied on any documents on its behalf.
5.
I have already heard both the parties in this matter.
6.
In view of the averments made in the claim statement and the counter the following points are to be
determined:-
I.
Whether the action of the Management of Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2, Visakhapatnam in terminating the
services of Smt. Chintala Ramulamma, Ex. Casual labour is legal and justified?
II.
If not, to what relief she is entitled to?
7.
Point No.I: The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the workman submitted that the Petitioner workman
was engaged as an Attendar on casual basis from 23.8.1997 to 2.5.1998 in the Respondent’s organization. She was
getting Rs.36/- per day and it was paid to the workman once in every two weeks. The workman used to perform the
duties of cleaning the office, cleaning the tables, office rooms, class rooms, and cleaning of toilets etc., she also used to
take attendance registers/Circulars to every classroom. The school working hours are from 9 AM to 3 PM but the
workman was working from 8.30 AM to 5 PM. The workman was discharging her duties without having any remarks,
and she was most obedient towards her higher authorities. Suddenly, the Respondent’s school orally stated that her
services were no more required. The workman was not served with any termination orders. Only she was informed
orally by the officials of the Respondent’s school. It is further contended that she had approached the Hon’ble High
Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to direct the Respondent to
4342
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
continue her in service as an attender in WP No.14023/98. In the mean while the Petitioner filed one WPMP No.
16892/98 in the above said WP No.14023/98. The Hon’ble High Court on 15.5.1998, passed an order in the above said
WP, “There shall be interim direction to the Respondent to continue the Petitioner provided she is in service as on
today.” The Respondent did not obey the orders of the Hon’ble High Court and wantonly refused the service of the
Petitioner. Thereafter the Petitioner moved the Hon’ble High Court by filing a contempt proceeding. Subsequently,
the Respondent appeared before the Hon’ble High Court. But due to paucity of funds, she could not be able to move the
Hon’ble High Court. Ultimately, the WP No.14023/198 was dismissed. The workman moved an application under
Sec.12 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 for amicable settlement of her matter with the Respondent but it was
in vain. The Petitioner also approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Visakhapatnam for redressal, and for
conciliation which ended in failure. The Respondent did not consider the plight of the workman. The Respondent has
disengaged the Petitioner without following the mandatory provisions of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for payment of compensation as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported
in AIR 2015 SC page 3473. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that since the Petitioner is a lady,
belongs to SC community, atleast she should be engaged as an attender in the school. It is further contended that the
action of the Respondent in terminating the services of the Petitioner is illegal and unjustified. Therefore, the court may
declare the said termination as null and void and to reinstate the Petitioner in service with back wages, continuity of
service and other attendant benefits and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this court may deem fit and proper.
8.
On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that the present ID is not
maintainable as the Respondent organization is an educational institution. The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 is not applicable to the present institution. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent also contended that the
Petitioner was engaged as a casual labour on daily wages basis by the then Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2 from
23.8.1997 to 2.5.1998 and she was engaged only on the working days without continuity of service on holidays, breaks
and vacations. She was engaged like wise till 2.5.1998. She was never appointed in any regular vacancy nor her service
was continuous. The wages were paid to her for the days she worked on daily wage basis. She was not regular to her
duty and she voluntarily left her job, w.e.f.2.5.1998. There after she was not engaged in Kendriya Vidyalaya-2 at any
point of time. It is further contended that the Petitioner filed one writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court bearing
No.14023/98 and also filed one WPMP No.16892/98 with a prayer to direct the Respondent to continue her in service.
The Hon’ble Court after hearing the Petitioner passed an order in WPMP16892/98 directing the Respondent to
continue the Petitioner in service provided she is in service as on the date of the order. But as on the date of the order
the Petitioner was not in service. She was not allowed to continue in service. The Petitioner filed one contempt
proceeding against the Respondent before the Hon’ble High Court. But pursuant to the contempt proceeding the
Respondent appeared before the Hon’ble Court. Thereafter the Hon’ble Court dropped the contempt proceeding and
also dismissed WP No.14023/98. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent further contended that the Petitioner herself
stopped attending the work even though she has been engaged to work on daily wages basis and since the Petitioner
workman had been engaged on her daily wage basis, she was paid upto 2.5.1998 and no further dues are pending against
the Respondent. Since the Petitioner has not been appointed against any regular vacancy and not discharging her duties
continuously, no question of violation of the provisions of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 arises. The
Respondent is not required to serve any termination notice on the Petitioner nor has to pay in lieu of notice or any
retrenchment compensation to the Petitioner and with these submissions, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent
submitted for dismissal of the claim of the Petitioner with exemplary costs.
9.
On consideration of the rival contentions of both the sides and on perusal of the evidence adduced so far it is
seen that admittedly the workman was a lady and she has been engaged as an attender on daily wages basis under the
Respondent school. She has worked upto 2.5.1998 in the Respondent’s school. The workman while examined as WW1
though fully supported her chief evidence affidavit but in her cross examination, she admitted that no appointment order
was issued to her to work under Kendriya Vidyalaya-2. She further admitted that, Saturday and Sunday are holidays, and
she was not doing any work on those days. She was paid Rs.36/- per day and she was not paid for the Sundays and
Saturdays. She clearly admitted that presently she is aged about 66 years. She also admitted about filing of WP
No.14023/98. She proved the copy of the order of the Hon’ble High Court passed in WP No.14023/98 marked as Ex.W3
and also admitted that she was not in service on the date of receipt of Ex.W3. She further admitted that she has filed one
contempt proceeding before the Hon'ble High Court but due to non-appearance of her advocate, the writ petition was
dismissed. She proved the copy of the order of the dismissal passed in WP No.14023/98 as Ex.W3. She declined to the
suggestion of the Respondent bank that she has not worked for 240 days. She was not paid for 240 days in any calendar
year during her service in Kendriya Vidyalaya-2. She has also admitted that she has not filed any document to show
that she has worked for 240 days in any calendar year in Kendriya Vidyalaya-2. The evidence of WW1 clearly
indicates that she has no appointment order to work under the Respondent school and she has worked five days in a week
and she was paid Rs.36 /- per day for two hours work only. She has worked only 5 days in a week. As because she was
not working on Saturday and Sunday, the claim of the Petitioner that she has worked 240 days in a calendar year is not
correct. Normally, in the schools there is no working hours for 240 days. The workman has admitted that she was
getting Rs.36 /- per day and that too it is for two hours in a day only. As per her own admission the Petitioner was only
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4343
working for two hours in a day and maximum ten hours in a week. The claim of the Petitioner that she has worked for
240 days in a calendar year is not correct and further even though the Hon'ble High Court in WPMP No.16892/98
directed the Respondent to continue her in service provided, she is in service as on the date of the order. But when the
order of the Hon'ble High Court was received by the Respondent, the workman was not in service, that is why she was
not able to enjoy the fruits of the order, which clearly indicates that the Petitioner was not in service when the order was
passed by the Hon'ble High Court. Since the workman was a daily wage worker and has been engaged orally and has
not been working against any sanctioned post for a period of more than 240 days in a calendar year and has not worked
for more than two hours in a day, she is not entitled for regularization. In Umadevi’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court
settled the principle that no casual worker should be regularised by the courts or the State Government, and as per
concessional provisions of the citizens of the country have a right to contest for the employment and temporary or casual
workers have no right to seek for regularization. In the instant case when the Petitioner worked as a casual labour and
has worked only two hours in a day, and not worked more than 240 days in a calendar year and has worked from the
year 1997 to 1998 and not against a sanctioned post, she is not entitled to get the regularization of her service. The
Petitioner has only been engaged on daily wage basis in a school. In Umadevi’s case 2006(4SCC) 1, the court held that
the courts should not accept to issue any direction or absorption/ regularization or permanent continuance of temporary,
contractual casual daily wage or adhoc employees. The court has also held that such directions issued could not be said
to be inconsistent with the concessional scheme or public employment. The court also held that merely because a
temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not
be entitled to be absorbed in a regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the
original appointment was not made by following the process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. In view of
the Law laid down by the Apex Court, the directions sought for by the Petitioner cannot be granted. The Petitioner was
merely a casual worker and she does not have any vested right to be regularised against any post. Further more, the
Petitioner has voluntarily left the job from the school. As because when the order of the Hon'ble High Court reached in
the hands of the Respondent, the Petitioner was not working in the office for which she was not given engagement. This
shows that the Petitioner was not regular to her duty and has intentionally left the office. Thus, the action of the
Respondent school in terminating the Petitioner Smt. Chintala Ramulamma, from services is justified.
Thus, Point No.I is answered negatively against the Petitioner.
10.
Point No.II:
In Point No.I, it has already been held that the action of the Respondent in terminating the
Petitioner from service is legal and justified. But it is to be seen what more relief the Petitioner is entitled to get. In the
instant case it is noticed that the Petitioner has worked about one year in the Respondent’s school. She is now aged
about 66 years and there is no chance of her future employment. She has come to the court for relief of reinstatement in
service but even though the Hon’ble Court directed the Respondent to engage the Petitioner in service as an interim
arrangement, she could not be able to avail it. The Hon'ble High Court had given direction to the Respondent to
continue the Petitioner in service if she was in service as on the date of the order. But by the time when the order was
received by the Respondent, the Petitioner was not in service, for which the order of the Hon'ble High Court was not
complied by the Respondent. But as it is seen the Petitioner is a lady belonging to SC community, due to want of job and
pending of litigation, she was facing lot of hardship. In the opinion of this Tribunal even though the Petitioner is not
entitled to get a job. The interest of justice could be best served, if the Petitioner will be given to get Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen
thousand) towards compensation. Thus, the Respondent Management is directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/-
(Fifteen thousand) to the appellant within four months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the Petitioner
is at liberty to move the appropriate forum to get the compensation in time.
Thus, Point. II is answered accordingly.
Result:
In the result the reference is answered as follows:
The action of the Management of Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2, Visakhapatnam in terminating the services of Smt.Chintala
Ramulamma, Ex.Casual Labour is legal and justified. In the opinion of this Tribunal even though the Petitioner is not
entitled to get job. The Respondent Management is directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) to
the appellant within four months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the Petitioner is at liberty to move
the appropriate forum to get the compensation in time.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 25th day of
March, 2019.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN , Presiding Officer
4344
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Smt. Chintala Ramulamma
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1: Photostat copy of minutes of conciliation proceeding dt.10.7.2013
Ex.W2: Photostat copy of the order in WPMP No.16892/98 dt.15.5.1998
Ex.W3: Photostat copy of order in WPNo.14023/98 dt. 17.6.2007
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दली, 7 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1034
1034
1034
1034.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस महा*बंधक, आई.जी. Qमट, रंगा रेRी हैदराबाद और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के *बंधतं- के संब. िनयोजक0 और उनके
कमकार0 के बीच अनुबंध म िन1द ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 3म यायालय-1,
हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 02/2010) को *कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 06.06.2019 को *ा7 त 8ए थे।
[सं. एल-16011/04/2009-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 7th June, 2019
S.O. 1034.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 02/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-1 Hyderabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to The
General Manager, I.G. Mint, Ranga Reddy Hyderabad, and Others, and their workmen which were received by the
Central Government on 06.06.2019.
[No. L-16011/04/2009-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 25th day of April, 2019
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 2/2010
Between:
The General Secretary,
Hyderabad Mint Employees Union (AITUC),
C/o I.G. Mint,Cherlapally,
Hyderabad – 500 004.
… Petitioner
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4345
AND
The General Manager,
I.G. Mint,
IDA Phase, Cherlapally,
Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District.
…Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri William Burra, Advocate
For the Respondent :
M/s. Raveinder Viswanath & P. Damodar Reddy, Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-16011/ 4/2009-IR(DU) dated 8.2.2010 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 demand of the Hyderabad Mint Employees Union for grant of promotion by the management of
General Manager, I.G. Mint, Hyderabad to Shri Md. Ali to the post of Asstt. Class-I w.e.f. 2005 is legal and
justified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
On receipt of the reference this Tribunal has registered and numbered the reference as I.D. No.2/2010 and issued notices
to both the workman and the management. They both 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:
In the claim statement, it is submitted that the workman Sri Md. Ali being a member of the Petitioner union was
appointed as mazdoor on 3.6.1974 in the Respondent’s management. He was promoted to Gr.V, Gr. IV and thereafter to
Gr.III and then as Gr. II. In the year 2008 he was promoted as Assistant Class I. and in the present dispute the Petitioner
union is challenging the promotion of the workman to Assistant Class I which he got in the year 2008, as he is entitled
to get that promotion in the year 2005 itself. It is submitted that the Petitioner union raised this dispute before the
Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Hyderabad, who convened a conciliation to the dispute and after prolonged
discussions, the conciliation was ended in failure and the matter was referred to the Government of India, New Delhi.
Thereafter the Government of India referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication. It is further submitted that Sri
Md. Ali, T.No.661 joined in the Respondent management on 3.6.1974 and was promoted to the post of AC-II in the
year 1992 and thereafter the workman was in the impression that he would get promotion to the next higher grade i.e.,
Assistant Class I in due course according to his turn. But to his utter surprise, he was not considered for promotion by
the Respondent management without any reason. It is further submitted that some of the employees who joined in the
Respondent’s unit about six months later were promoted to AC-I in the year 2005 ignoring the seniority of the workman
i.e., Md. Ali. It is also submitted that when the promotion for AC-I was given to seven employees who were juniors to
Sri Md. Ali, the Respondent management deliberately not displayed the seniority list on the notice board, depriving the
workman to know the outcome of promotion matter. Therefore, Sri Md. Ali could not represent the management about
his eligibility and entitlement for promotion. It is further submitted that the matter was taken up with the management
for redressal of the grievance of the workman. But the Respondent management paid deaf ear to it. Thereafter the
workman filed an application before the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad bearing No.1269/2003 for
restoration of his seniority as well as seeking promotion. But the said OA was dismissed on the ground that the claim of
the workman was barred by time. hence, the management is not inclined to reopen the case of the workman for
promotion. It is stated that the workman is therefore entitled to get promotion to AC-I from the year 2005 and
consequential further promotion and financial benefits accrued thereof. The action of the management in not giving
promotion to the workman in time is arbitrary, illegal, against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
also against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Petitioner union has filed this petition with a prayer to direct
the Respondent management to give promotion to the workman Sri Md. Ali with retrospective effect and pay
consequential higher pay benefit and promotions in the interest of justice.
3.
The Respondent filed counter with the averments in brief as follows:
The Respondent in its counter while challenging the maintainability of the claim of the Petitioner, denied the facts
averred in the claim statement. The Respondent in its counter submitted that pursuant to the decision of the Union
Cabinet on 2.9.2005 the Government of India had decided to corporatize the existing functions of the following 9 units
of the Department of Economic Affairs:-
4346
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“1. Currency Note Press, Nasik; 2. Bank Note Press, Dewas; 3. India Security Press, Nasik; 4. Security Printing
Press, Hyderabad; 5. Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad; 6. India Government Mint, Kolkata; 7. India
Government Mint, Mumbai; 8. India Government Mint, Noida; 9. India Government Mint, Hyderabad”.
Accordingly the function of the above nine units were transferred to Security Printing & Minting Corporation
of India Limited. Thereafter a dispute was raised before the Chief Labour Commissioner (C) by various
unions/ Associations of all the Mints/ Presses hesitating to the corporatization f mints/presses. This
conciliation proceeding ended with a Memorandum of Settlement under Section 12(30 of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 before the Chief Labour Commissioner (C) on 15.9.2008. In terms of the settlement, option forms
shall be submitted by the employees latest by 31.10.2008 and the effective date of absorption shall be 1.11.2008,
the employees were given options as under:
Option-I:
I hereby opt for permanent absorption in SPMCIL w.e.f. 1.11.2008 and exercise the following option, for settlement of
pensionary benefits:-
i)
To receive pro rata pensionary benefits for service rendered in the Government or
ii)
To receive pensionary benefits for the combined service rendered in the Government and future service in
the corporation as per the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as applicable to Central Government Employees at
the time of superannuation from the Corporation.
Option-II:
I want to continue in Government Service and;
(iii) May be referred to the Retraining and Redeployment Division of the Department of Personal and Training
for redeployment, if I do not opt for VRS under DOP&T’s Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme for
surplus employees within 3 months from the specified date*
*(For employees borne on the Cadre of Mints/Presses and Paper Mill)
OR
(iv) I want to continue in the Government service and may be repatriated to my parent cadre**
**(For employees borne on the Cadres, such Civil Accounts, Ministry of Labour, Ministry of Health etc.).
It is stated that the Petitioner exercised option to continue in Government service and preferred to be referred to the
Retraining and Redeployment Division of the Department of Personal and Training for Redeployment, if the Petitioner
doesn’t opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme under DOP&T’s Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme for surplus
employees within 3 months from the specified date. By exercising the option to continue in Government Service the
Petitioner has ceased to be the corporate employee and hence his claim for promotion from 2005 is not in the purview of
the corporation. The Respondent while challenging the claim of the Petitioner has specifically stated that there is
basically no ground for claiming promotion of the workman from the year 2005. In fact promotion from 2005, was not
only an after thought by the claimant while the conciliation proceeding were on ; but also based on false notion that he
was superseded by his juniors, the claimant had raised an industrial dispute before the conciliation officer regarding his
seniority and the said representation was forwarded to the Respondent by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) vide
his letter No.8/111/2007-E3, dated 3.8.2007. The Respondent in reply to the said letter of the conciliation officer,
informed that the claimant herein has filed an OA bearing No.1269/2003 before the Hon’ble Central Administrative
Tribunal which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 8.10.2006. The Tribunal is of the opinion that the cause
of action for the grievance of the applicant in the above OA had arisen as long back as in 1980 and hence, the OA is
hopelessly barred by time. It is the settled provision of Law, that the seniority positions notified long back cannot be
unsettled after a considerable lapse of time only for the reason that the affected party was ignorant of his position and
rights at the relevant point of time. The Respondent further submitted that as directed by the conciliation officer, to file
comments on the dispute, the Respondent submitted fresh comments stating that the records were verified and found that
the contention of the claimant that he was shown junior to 8 workmen is unfounded and he was junior to the workmen
who alleged to have superseded him and as such there exists no dispute regarding seniority. It is further stated that the
Respondent has informed before the conciliation officer stating that since the matter has already been adjudicated by the
Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, the claimant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the conciliatory forum on the
same pretext or other and the dispute is vexatious and frivolous in nature as the matter has been settled once for all
which cannot be reopened again and again. It is also stated that the conciliation officer in presence of the claimant in the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4347
conciliation meeting held on 29.2.2008 has suggested the Respondent to examine the contention of the claimant that
some ore juniors to the claimant were promoted in the year 2005, the Respondent informed to the conciliation officer
vide their office letter No.1-29/Per/2006-07/3701 dated 12.3.2008 stating that the said suggestion of the conciliation
officer was examined afresh and no junior to Sri Md. Ali, T. No.661, to the claimant herein was promoted in the year
2005 as alleged by the claimant and further requested the conciliation officer to close the dispute as a failure without
prejudice to the judgement of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal passed in OA No.1269/2003 dated
8.10.2006. The Respondent also submitted that in continuation to the office letter dated 12.3.2008 in response to the
suggestion of the conciliation officer for consideration of promotion of the claimant from 2007, which was informed to
him vide this mint lr. No.1-29/Per/2007-08/3814, dated 24.3.2008 stating that the promotion of Sri Md.Ali, the claimant
herein would be considered as per rules, subject to his eligibility, by the Departmental Promotion Committee as and
when it was convened. The Respondent also submitted that in the above letter dated 24.3.2008, this Mint vide its letter
No.1-29/Per/2008, dated 30.7.2008 addressed to the conciliation officer stated that the case of Sri Md. Ali, T.No.661 was
examined afresh by convening D.P.C., and accordingly he is being promoted to the post of AC-I with immediate effect.
The Respondent also submitted that again in response to letter No. 8/16/2009-E3, dated 16.9.2009 of the Assistant
Labour Commissioner (C), Hyderabad it was informed that in view of this Mint letter dated 11.9.2007 for its comments
those were furnished and also in the light of the order dated 8.10.2006 of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal,
Hyderabad it had been informed that the dispute may be closed as the same is not to consider as per rules and ultimately,
the dispute ended in failure. The Respondent further submitted that in view of the orders of the Hon’ble Central
Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 8.10.2006 and as no one junior to Sri Md. Ali, claimant was promoted in
2005, the claim of the Petitioner is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed in limini with costs.
4.
Subsequent to the counter, the Petitioner union submitted one rejoinder, stating therein that the workman is
senior to S/Sri G. Krishna, Mohd Siddique, Mohd. Sayeeruddin, T. Ravinder, N. Ramulu, Surendar Reddy and Abdul
Khalem as could be seen from the confirmation order published in daily order No.30 dated 27.8.1984. Wherein the
Petitioner’s name was at serial No.124 , whereas the names of Sri G. Krishna and others were at 125 and 131. It is also
pertinent to submit that the Petitioner, Sri Mohd. Ali was promoted on 1.1.1982 to AC-III grade whereas the seven
persons named above were promoted to the said grade on 1.5.1982. viewed from any angle the Petitioner is senior to
seven employees whose names are given above. The daily order 14.4.1982; 22.7.1982 and 27.8.1984 are filed
separately in support of the above contention. The contention of the Respondent that the workman had filed OA
No.1269/2003 and the said OA was dismissed by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal is also false and the OA
was dismissed on the ground that the application is time barred. Hence, the contention of the Respondent is liable to be
rejected. It is further submitted that the workman is senior to 7 persons whose name are mentioned above. The
Petitioner has mentioned that there is illegality or irregularity in the reference made by the central Government to this
Tribunal and with the above averments the Petitioner submitted to consider the promotion of the workman with
retrospective effect from the year 2005.
5.
As per the averments made in the claim statement as well as in the counter and rejoinder filed by the parties, the
following points are to be determined:
I.
Whether the demand of Hyderabad Mint Employees Union for grant of promotion to the workman by the
management of General Manager, I.G. Mint, Hyderabad to Shri Md. Ali to the post of Asstt. Class-I w.e.f.
2005 is legal and justified?
II.
If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?
6.
During the course of hearing of this case, the Petitioner union has examined the workman as WW1 and also
relied on 7 documents which are marked as Ex.W1 to W7. But the workman was not cross examined by the Respondent
Management and the Respondent has also not adduced any evidence.
7.
I have already heard the Petitioner in this matter.
8.
Point No.I: The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the workman Sri Md. Ali was appointed as
a mazdoor on 3.6.1974 in the Respondent’s management. Later he was promoted to Gr.V, Gr. IV and thereafter to
Gr.III and then as Gr. II as the promotion due to him and there was no doubt about his promotion. The present dispute is
with regard to the promotion of the workman as Assistant Class I, which he got in the year 2008, whereas the workman
4348
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
is entitled to get that promotion in the year 2005 itself. He also contended that the next promotion of the workman was
to the post of A.C.I, and that he would have been promoted to the said post in the year 2005, but the promotion was
virtually given to him in the year 2008 which he has challenged before this Tribunal by filing the present claim petition.
It is contended that the workman is senior to S/Sri G. Krishna, Mohd Siddique, Mohd. Sayeeruddin, T. Ravinder, N.
Ramulu, Surendar Reddy and Abdul Khalem as could be seen from the confirmation order published in daily order No.30
dated 27.8.1984. Wherein the Petitioner’s name was at serial No.124 , whereas the names of Sri G. Krishna and others
were at 125 and 131. It is also argued that the Petitioner, Sri Mohd. Ali was promoted on 1.1.1982 to AC-III grade
whereas the seven persons named above were promoted to the said grade on 1.5.1982. viewed from any angle the
Petitioner is senior to seven employees whose names are given above. The daily order dated 14.4.1982 which was
marked as Ex.W6; order dated 22.7.1982 and 27.8.1984, which was marked as Ex.W7, had been filed from the side of
the Petitioner union for reference of this Tribunal. It is also contended that the seven employees mentioned above
joined in the Respondent’s unit about six months later of the joining of the workman, but they are promoted to A.C. I in
the year 2005, ignoring the seniority of the workman Sri Md. Ali. It is further contended that the workman came to
know that his juniors have been given promotion earlier in the year 2005, then he represented before the management but
the management ignored the representation of the workman. Thereafter, the workman had filed OA No.1269/2003
before the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal for restoration of his seniority and consequential monetary benefits.
But the said OA was dismissed by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the claim is time
barred. Hence, the workman raised this dispute through the Petitioner’s Union before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (C). But even though conciliation was made it was ended in failure and ultimately, the dispute was
referred to this Tribunal. He also contended that even though the Respondent management has filed counter on
6.4.2016, but the averments made therein have not been supported by any oral or documentary evidence. Hence, the
claim of the Respondent cannot be accepted. Since the Respondent has not come forward to challenge the claim of the
workman, the claim of the workman is to be considered favourably and lastly he submitted that the workman Sri Md. Ali
may be given promotion with retrospective effect from the year 2005 along with all other consequential benefits in the
interest of justice.
9.
On a careful scrutiny of the evidence adduced from the side of the workman it is seen that the workman has
fully corroborated the facts averred in the claim statement. The workman has relied on 7 documents which have been
marked as Ex.W1 to W7. The Respondent has not come forward to challenge the claim of the workman as well as the
documents relied on by the workman in his chief evidence affidavit. In his examination in chief the workman has fully
supported the averments made in his claim statement. Admittedly, the workman has filed one OA bearing
No.1261/2003, claiming his promotion before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal who has rejected the claim of
the workman on ground that the claim is time barred. Though several opportunities have been given to the Respondent,
to challenge the claim of the workman the Respondent has failed to avail the same. The unchallenged testimony of the
workman well proves that the workman has got a good case to raise before this forum. In this dispute the workman has
also raised that his juniors have been given promotion to the post of A.C. I in the year 2005, but he was given promotion
to the said rank in the year 2008. In fact the workman should have challenged the promotion given to his juniors soon
after issuance of the office order. But in this case the workman has not done so. The claim of the workman that he was
not given information about the publication of the office order and after getting the information he moved the Hon’ble
Central Administrative Tribunal by filing one OA. But that OA was rejected on the ground of limitation. In fact seeking
promotion is not a matter of right. Even though the juniors of the workman have been given promotion immediately
after the promotion order is passed, the workman should have moved the authority. But the workman has not done so in
time. The claim of the workman that he was not given the information of promotion in time is not a good ground to
accept. The similar claim has been disallowed by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal. Again the workman has
agitated the same claim before this Tribunal through his union which is not at all maintainable and as such, the
reference is not maintainable as the same is barred by time. Therefore, it can safely be held that the demand of the
Hyderabad Mint Employees Union for grant of promotion by the management of General Manager, I.G. Mint,
Hyderabad to Shri Md. Ali to the post of Asstt. Class-I w.e.f. 2005 is not legal and justified.
Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.
10.
Point No.II:
in view of the findings given in Point No.I, it is held that the workman is not entitled to get
any relief.
Thus, Point No.II is answered accordingly.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4349
Result:
In the result, the reference is answered as under:
The demand of the Hyderabad Mint Employees Union for grant of promotion by the management of General Manager,
I.G. Mint, Hyderabad to Shri Md. Ali to the post of Asstt. Class-I w.e.f. 2005 is not legal and justified. Hence, the
workman Shri Md. Ali is not entitled to get any relief.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 25th day
of April, 2019.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri Md. Ali
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photostat copy of lr. dt.26.2.2008 of the Petitioner Union to the ALC(C), Hyderabad
Ex.W2:
Photostat copy of representation dt. 27.11.2007 of the Petitioner Union to the ALC(C), Hyderabad
Ex.W3:
Photostat copy of lr. dt.26.8.2009 from ALC(C), Hyderabad to the Petitioner union and the Respondent
management
Ex.W4:
Photostat copy of lr. dt. 12.3.2008 from Respondent to ALC(C), Hyderabad
Ex.W5:
Photostat copy of seniority, of diary order, dt. 22.7.1982 from General Manager to workman
Ex.W6:
Photostat copy of seniority, of diary order No.4 dt. 14.4.1982 from General Manager to workman
Ex.W7:
Photostat copy of confirmation diary order No.30 dt.27.8.1984 From General Manager to workman
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दली, 11 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1035
1035
1035
1035.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
भारतीय = टेट बDक *बंधतं- के संबंध िनयोजक0 और उनके कमकार0 के बीच अनुबंध म िन1द ट औ ोिगक िववाद म
औ ोिगक अिधकरण पटना के पंचाट (संदभ सं5 या 03 (C) of 2017) को *कािशत करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को
11.06.2019 को *ा7 त 8आ था।
[सं. एल-12025/01/2019-आईआर (बी-1)]
बी. एस. िब ट, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 11th June, 2019
S.O. 1035.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. Case No. 03 (C) of 2017) of the Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Patna as
shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the Management of State Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 11.06.2019.
[No. L-12025/01/2019-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
4350
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA
Reference Case No. 03 (C) of 2017
Between the management of The Chief General Manager, SBI, Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna-1 and
their workman Sri Ram Vinay Singh, Ex-messenger, S/o- Sri Nalish Singh, Vill.- Makhdumpur, P.O-Arwal, Dist.-
Arwal.
For the management:
Sri Manish Kumar, Law Officer
Sri Vivek Krishna Ranjan, Law Officer
For the Workman:
Sri B. Prasad, General Secretary
Present:
Vishweshwar Nath Mishra Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna
AWARD
Patna, dated: 20th May, 2019
By the adjudication order No.-L-12012/79/2016-IR(B-I) dated- 24.05.2017 the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New
Delhi has referred under clause (d) of sub-section-(1) and sub-section-(2A) of section-10 of the Industrial Dispute Act,
1947, (hereinafter to be referred to as “ the Act”), the following dispute between The Chief General Manager, SBI,Local
Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna-1 and their workman Sri Ram Vinay Singh, Ex-messenger, S/O- Sri Nalish
Singh, Vill.- Makhdumpur, P.O- Arwal, Dist.- Arwal. for adjudication to this tribunal:-
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of SBI, Local Head Office, Patna in terminating the service of Ram
Vinay Singh, Ex-messenger w.e.f. 01.10.1998 is justified?If not, to what relief the workman concern is entitled
to?”
2.
The case of the workman Sri Ram Vinay Singh is that he w as orally appointed by the management of State
Bank of India to discharge the duties of a messenger at Arwal Branch w.e.f. 30.08.1996. He worked from 30.08.1996 to
31.08.1997 at Arwal branch intermittently and discharged the duties of a messenger. The further case of the workman is
that from 01.09.1997 to 30.09.1998 he worked continuously as messenger at Arwal branch and discharged the following
duties:-
i.
Opening of Bank’s Gate;
ii.
Taking out ledgers / registers from the almirah, placing the same on tables, counters and vice-versa;
iii.
Taking out cash from strong room, placing the same on counter and vice versa;
iv.
Stiching of vouchers and currency notes;
v.
Posting of mails to Post- Office;
vi.
Distribution of Letters through Peon Book;
vii.
Cleaning, sweeping the branch premises;
viii. Cleaning tables, Chairs and counters;
ix.
Serving water, tea to the members of staff etc;
The workman used to discharge his duties from 9.00A.M to 6.00P.M regularly and some times even beyond that as per
the instruction of the branch manager. The workman used to be paid wages @ Rs. 30/- per day. The branch was not
having any sweeper, messenger, watch and ward staff during the period of working of Ram Vinay Singh. The duties of
the workman were perennial in nature. On 01.10.1998 when the workman went to perform his duties as usual, he was
stopped from working and was informed of termination of his services. The workman worked for more than 240 days in
12 calendar months preceding his termination. The management violated the mandatory provisions as contained in
section 25F of the I.D.Act, as neither any notice nor any notice pay, nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to the
workman. The management formulated schemes from time to time in 1997, 1999, 2002 for permanent absorption of the
services of the workmen who had worked for 240 days in 12 calendar months, but the case of the workman was not
considered. The name of the workman forwarded on 27.07.2002, but no positive action was taken by the management.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4351
On the wrong advice of the lawyer, the workman approached the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna and filed a
Writ Petition in the year 2004. The Hon’ble Single Bench passed some order which was challenged by the management
through LPA before the Division Bench who disposed off the Appeal ( LPA No.- 1585 of 2010 in C.W.J.C No.- 11805 of
2010 ) on 21.04.2016. In view of the observation of the Hon’ble Court, the workman approached the Regional Labour
Commissioner ( Central ) Patna and raised an Industrial Dispute on 18.05.2016 which culminated in reference before this
Tribunal.
The workman has prayed for reinstatement in the services of the State Bank of India as a temporary messenger
with back wages as well as regularization of his services as a messenger.
3.
In this case the management has also filed his written statement stating therein that in fact the workman Sri Ram
Vinay Singh, is not an employee of the State Bank of India. As the workman Ram Vinay Singh was not an employee of
the bank, therefore, no question arises that he was a messenger in the bank and at no point of time the management
terminated his service. The further case of the management is that the bank at Arwal Branch had a Canteen Committee
which used to regulate the canteen arrangement in the bank for the staff. Such committee used to regulate, run and
provide service independently without any control of the bank. The bank utmost, casually used to provide subsidy to the
committee, such committee used to engage person purely on casual basis to run the canteen and also used to regulate the
service condition of such person. Payment of any remuneration to such person was the responsibility and concern of the
Canteen Committee and not of the Bank. It was the discretion of the committee to engage and disengage such person.
The bank is not concerned with the engagement or dis-engagement of any canteen boy. The concerned person might be
working under the aforesaid conditions in the branch but however the real responsibility lies upon the committee. The
branch manager of State Bank of India has no power to appoint any person in subordinate cadre. The recruitment is
regulated by the Bank’s Recruitment Rules which has got statutory force. The bank denied the statement relating to
discharge of duty by the concerned person except that he may be serving as a Canteen Boy under the control and
supervision of the Canteen Committee (LIC). The Bank is not concerned with his duty hours nor the branch manager was
authorized to give any instruction relating to the duties to be performed by the concerned person. The concerned person
has no right to demand reinstatement and regularization of his service in Bank as he was not an employee of the Bank nor
he was entitled for payment of any minimum wages since Bank was not employer. It is wholly wrong to say that the
Bank stopped him from working with effect from 01.10.1998. As such compliance of any provision of Industrial Dispute
Act, neither was required nor warranted. The Bank has its own recruitment rules for appointment of subordinate cadre
staff. Shri Ram Binay Singh was never issued any appointment letter by the Bank nor he was ever engaged by the Bank
to perform duties of a messenger. Any recruitment on a perennial post and / or absorption / regularization are regulated
by the Bank’s recruitment Rules which has got statutory force.
FINDINGS
4.
In this case only workman Sri Ram Vinay Singh got himself examine as a witness and no other person has been
examined on his behalf in support of his case.
This witness in his deposition has stated that he used to work as a messenger in the Arwal Branch of State Bank
of India. This witness in para-2 of his deposition has stated about the various nature of work he used to perform in the
branch of the bank during the working hours as has been stated in his statement of claim. He has further stated that he
used to work in the branch of the bank from 9.00A.M to 6.00P.M. He worked in the bank from 30.08.1996 to
30.09.1998. He used get a sum of Rs. 30/- per day as wages, although he used to perform the same work which is being
performed by a permanent messenger. He has further stated that while he was working in the branch of the bank, no other
person was there as a bank guard, messenger or sweeper. The then bank manager Sri Om Prakesh Sahu gave a letter on
27.07.2002 to the Zonal Office for absorbtion of the workman Sri Ram Vinay Singh in bank’s, permanent service. This
witness has identified the letter of the then Branch Manager which has been marked as Ext.- W in this case. This witness
has further identified the letter dated-08.01.2003 written by the then Branch Manager Sri Om Prakash Sahu to Assistant
General Manager, Zonal Office, Patna which has been marked as Ext.-W/1. This witness has further proved the payment
vouchers which are Ext.-W/2 to W/2-10, which denote that he was paid for the work he had performed in the branch
from 01.07.1997 to 31.07.1998. These vouchers are in the handwriting of the workman and they also bear the signature
of branch manager and there is also the signature of one Daroga Singh who was the bank guard. This witness has further
stated that before removing him from service he was neither given any notice, nor notice pay or compensation.
This witness in his cross-examination has admitted that no appointment letter was given to him for his
engagement in the bank. He was removed from the service of the bank w.e.f 01.10.1998. He has stated that the then
Branch Manager of the State Bank of India engaged him in the branch on verbal order and no appointment letter was
issued in his favour. This witness has denied the suggestion during cross-examination that he was engaged by the local
implementation committee as a Canteen Boy. He has further stated that he approached the Hon’ble Patna High Court for
his reinstatement. This witness has stated that he was engaged in the bank as a daily wager and he was paid for the same
by the branch manager and he was neither engaged as a Canteen Boy in the branch nor was paid for the same.
4352
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
Two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the management namely M.W-1 ( Santosh Kumar ) and M.W-2
( Perwez Akhtar ).
M.W-1 ( Santosh Kumar ) in his deposition has stated that he is posted in the Arwal Branch since 2017. He has
stated that he does not recognized the workman and he never saw him in the branch. This witness has further stated that
there is one local implementation committee in the branch of the bank and he being the branch manager is ex-officio
chairman of that committee and accountant Sri Praveen Kumar Verma and one Perwez Akhtar are members of the
committee but at present no Canteen Boy is engaged in the branch. In absence of the Canteen Boy the work of cleaning
of the branch has been outsourced. He has further stated that he cannot say that any Canteen boy or daily wages
employee has been absorbed in the bank or not. This witness has further said that after getting notice from the tribunal
he came to know that one Ram Vinay Singh was engaged in the branch as a Canteen Boy. After getting notice from this
tribunal he searched the paper relating to Ram Vinay Singh but he did not find any paper regarding him in the branch. He
has further stated that he was never posted in the Arwal Branch of the State Bank of India between 1997 to 1998.
M.W-2 ( Perwez Akhtar ) in his deposition has stated that he was engaged as field officer in the Arwal
Branch of the State Bank of India between July 2015 to May 2018. At relevant time one Santosh Kumar was the
President of the local implementation committee but during that period no Canteen Boy was engaged in the branch. He
met only once the workman Sri Ram Vinay Singh in the branch.
This witness in his cross-examination has stated that he does not know about this case because the same was not
during his period. He has come here as a witness on the notice of the bank management.
6.
The learned representative of the workman submitted that the workman was orally appointed by the
management of State Bank of India to discharge the duties of a messenger at Arwal Branch. He worked intermittently
from 30.08.1996 to 31.08.1997 and from 01.09.1997 to 30.09.1998 he worked continuously but when he went to perform
his duties on 01.10.1998, he was stopped from working and he was informed that his services has been terminated.
According to the workman the provisions of 25-F of the I.D.Act were violated in the present case because neither any
notice, nor notice pay nor any retrenchment compensation was given to the workman. It was further submitted that the
management bank time to time formulated different schemes in the year 1997, 1999 and 2002 for permanent absorption
of the services of temporary workman who worked for 240 days in 12 calendar months and accordingly the then Branch
Manager Sri O. P. Sahu forwarded the name of this workman for considering his case for permanent absorption in the
services of the bank as a messenger. In this regard he pointed out the Ext.-W which is letter dated-27.02.2002 sent by the
then Branch Manager Sri O.P. Sahu to Zonal Office, Patna. The Ext.-W/1 is another documents dated-08.01.2003 sent
by the same the then Branch Manager Sri O.P.Sahu to the Assistant General Manager, Zonal Office, Patna regarding the
work done by the workman and the wages paid to him by the branch.
7.
The learned representative of the workman further submitted that the workman used to discharge all the duties
on the instruction of the Branch Manager and his duties were identical to that of a permanent messenger and perennial in
nature. Ram Vinay Singh working with the management for about two years and performing the duties of a messenger
attained the status of a workman. The services of Ram Vinay Singh wa not utilized as a canteen boy but he discharged all
the duties of a messenger. The workman was not connected with any canteen committee. The case of the present
workman Ram Vinay Singh was fully covered under the scheme formulated by the management but the management
failed to consider his services favourily. The learned representative of the workman further submitted that the workman
in his deposition has fully supported his case. But on the other hand two witnesses examined on behalf of the
management are not witnesses which are any help to the management because none of them was fully aware of the facts
of the case of the workman Ram Vinay Singh and none was posted in the branch at the relevant time when the workman
is said to be employed in the branch.
8.
The learned representative of the workman relied upon four decisions three of them of the Hon’ble Apex Court
and one is of Hon’ble Patna High Court.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4353
The learned representative of the workman relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.
Nadu Termd. Full Time Tem.Lic…. Vs Life Insurance Corp. of India & Ors on 18 March, 2015. But in my view this case
is not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case because in the aforesaid case before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court the matter of the workman working in the LIC was concerned who were working as a temporary, Badli
and part-time workman appointed by the management of the corporation on daily wage basis against the leave vacancies
and other vacancies of its employees in class III and IV posts. In the case before this tribunal it has been specifically
denied by the management regarding the appointment / engagement of the alleged workman Sri Ram Vinay Singh in the
bank.
The learned representative of the workman further relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Harjinder Singh Versus Punjab State Warehousing Corp. on 5th January, 2010. The matter before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court was regarding violation of the rule of last-come-first go inasmuch as persons junior to the workman were
retained in service. In that very case the workman was retrenchment because the project on which he was employed had
been completed. That is not the matter in the present case and as such the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
relied upon by the workman is also not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Third decision the learned representative of the workman has relied upon is a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court delivered on 25.01.2019 Civil in Appeal No.- 1135 of 2019 in the case of Mintu Kumar Versus the management of
Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, Muzaffarpur, Bihar. That was the case of one Mintu Kumar who was engaged by
the management bank as sub-staff on regular basis. It is apparent that this ruling is also not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the case in this tribunal because the engagement of the workman has been denied by the management.
The learned representative of the workman has further relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Patna High Court
delivered on 8th April, 1994 in the case of Mithilesh Kumar Singh Versus State of Bihar And Ors. In that very case the
workman was initially appointed on muster-roll as a daily wager. He continuously worked for over three months and
thereafter he was appointed in a regular time-scale of pay as a Treasure Guard on a temporary and adhoc basis.
I am sorry to say that this ruling relied upon by the workman also do not support his case and as such not
applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case before this tribunal because the management has denied the fact that
the workman was ever appointed by him.
9.
The learned representative of the management submitted that the alleged workman Sri Ram Vinay Singh was
neither appointed as a messenger by the management nor he was ever terminated from the service. The branch manager
of Arwal Branch had no authority to appoint / engage any person even temporarily. Management also denied the fact that
bank ever took any work from him as a temporary messenger. The workman worked as a canteen boy as per instruction
of the local implementation committee of the Arwal Branch. He further submitted that Arwal Branch used to run a
canteen under a committee, called the local implementation committee which consists of the employees posted in the
concern branch and is headed by the concern branch head as President. Such local implementation committee used to
engage canteen boy and takes his services to run such canteen. The management bank has no concern to such canteen
boy nor his services are utilized by the bank in any manner. Such committee used to regulate run and provide service
independently without any control of the bank. Such committee used to engage person on casual basis to run the canteen
and also used to regulate the service condition of such person. Payment of any remuneration to such person was the
responsibility and concern of the canteen committee and not of the bank. It was the discretion of the committee to engage
or disengage such person. Bank is not at of all concerned with the engagement or dis-engagement of any canteen boy.
10.
The learned representative of the management submitted that the alleged workman Sri Ram Vinay Singh was
admittedly a canteen boy engaged by local implementation committee of the branch of the bank. This facts is apparent
from Ext.-W which the letter dt-27.02.2002 sent by the Branch Manager to the Zonal Office in which he has mentioned
that the workman Sri Ram Vinay Singh was working as a canteen boy in the branch. He further submitted that from
perusal of the order of the Hon’ble Patna High Court passed in C.W.J.C No.- 13102 of 2004 filed by this workman Sri
Ram Vinay Singh as well as from the order passed in LPA No.- 1530 of 2011 it is apparent that it was submitted on
4354
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
behalf of the workman Ram Vinay Singh that he was a canteen boy on payment of daily wages and was engaged by the
local implementation committee of the employees of the Arwal branch of State Bank of India.
11.
In this regard the learned representative of the bank relied upon a decision of a Hon’ble Apex Court delivered on
17.04.2000 in the case of State Bank of India and Ors Versus State Bank of India Canteen Employees Union ( Bengal
Circle ) (2000)5 SCC 531, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “ Employees of the canteens which are run at
various branches by the local implementation committee as per the walfare scheme framed by the SBI would not become
employees of the bank as the bank is not having any statutory or contractual obligation or obligation arising under the
Award to run such canteens.”
12.
The learned representative of the management further submitted that there is no any such paper / documents
available in the Arwal Banch of the State Bank of India, which may show that the Ram Vinay Singh was ever engage as
a messenger in the said branch. This facts has been admitted by the M.W-1 Santosh Kumar in para-8 of his deposition
also. It was further submitted that the alleged workman failed to produce any appointment letter or termination letter
issued by the management. He also failed to produce the Branch Manager who orally appointed him. Both the letter
Ext.- W & W/1 which have been brought on record do not bear the letter number which creates doubt regarding
genuineness of the documents brought before this tribunal. No other witness has been produced on behalf of the
workman in support of his case. The workman has completely failed to prove his case that he comes under the category
of workman of the management.
13.
He further submitted that appointment is to be made through recruitment process by following the due
processes of law in accordance with the existing service rules of the management. Thus even if it is presumed that he
was orally appointed by the then Branch Manager his appointment is ab-inito void and illegal. In this regard the learned
representative of the management relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the Secretary, State
of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi & Others { (2006)4 SCC 1 }. The learned representative of the management further
relied upon two decision of the Hon’ble Court namely (1) Writ Petition No.- 29378 of 2009 decided on 05.02.2015
Surendra Kumar Lal Versus State of U.P and Ors. (2) Writ Petition No.- 16370 of 1993 decided on 17.02.2004 Zonal
Manager, Central Bank of India Versus D. Anjaiah and Ors. In support of his case. The representative of the
management submitted that as Ram Vinay Singh was never appointed by the management as such there was no question
of his alleged termination by the management.
14.
After hearing the learned representative of the parties concerned, and their pleadings, evidence, and documents
available on the record I am of the view that the alleged action of the management terminating the service of Sri Ram
Vinay Singh cannot to said to be unjustified. He completely failed to prove that he was ever appointed by the
management at any point of time. He failed to bring any appointment letter on the record. His consistent case appears to
be of a canteen boy which is apparent from the order of the Hon’ble Patna High Court passed in the C.W.J.C and L.P.A
as aforesaid as well as the Ext.-W. In my view the alleged workman Ram Vinay Singh is not entitled to any relief in this
case. This award is effected after date of publication and gazette.
And accordingly this is my award.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
20.05.2019
VISHWESHWAR NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4355
नई दली, 11 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1036
1036
1036
1036.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
भारतीय टेट ब#क $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय
सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं1 या 93/2005) को $कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को
11.06.2019 को $ा5 त 6ए थे।
[सं. एल-12025/01/2019-आईआर (बी-1)]
बी. एस. िब. ट, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 11th June, 2019
S.O. 1036.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 93/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Hyderabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.06.2019.
[No. L-12025/01/2019-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 3rd day of May, 2019
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 93/2005
Between:
Sri R. Venkateswara Rao,
S/o RadhaKrishna Murthy,
R/o Flat No.226, E-Block,
Jamuna Arcade, Jambagh,
Hyderabad – 500 095.
…Petitioner
AND
The Assistant General Manager (Region-II),
State Bank of India,
Hyderabad Zonal Office,
Patny centre,
Secunerabad 500 003.
…Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. G. Vidya Sagar, K. Udaya Sree, P. Sudheer Rao & B. Shiva Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
M/s. B.G. Ravindra Reddy & B.V. Chandra Sekhar, Advocates
AWARD
The Petitioner, Sri R. Venkateswara Rao, who was an employee of the Respondent Bank has filed this Petition
invoking Sec.2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947, seeking for declaring the dismissal order dated 13.4.2004 issued by the
Respondent as illegal and to set aside the same and to grant consequential relief of reinstatement into service to the
Petitioner duly granting of other consequential benefits such as, continuity of service, back wages, other attendant
benefits. The Respondent has contested the claim of the Petitioner by filing counter. Both the parties have engaged
their advocates at the consent of either party.
2.
As can be seen from the contentions of the Petitioner the claim of the Petitioner in brief which runs as
follows:
The Petitioner has joined as a clerk cum cashier in the State Bank of India, the Respondent’s bank in the year 1984 and
got confirmed in the said post. While he was working at Hyderabad University campus branch, by proceedings dated
12.12.2000 he was placed under suspension pending detailed enquiry alleging that certain serious irregularities were
4356
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
committed by him while working in Chandulal Baradari branch. The Petitioner was issued with Memorandum of
Charges dated 20.11.2001 alleging 11 Charges. Thereafter one domestic enquiry was ordered to be conducted by
nominating Sri T.L. Hari Haran as the Enquiry Officer and enquiry was held on 11.2.2002. After completion of enquiry
the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 23.12.2003 holding Charges Nos.1,2,4,6,8,9,10 and 11 are proved, Charge
No.3 as partly proved and Charges No. 5 and 7 are not proved. Basing on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the
Petitioner workman was issued with the proceedings dated 11.2.2004 proposing to impose a punishment of dismissal
from service without notice for which the Petitioner workman submitted his representation on 12.3.2004. But, vide
proceedings dated 13.4.2004, the Petitioner workman was imposed with punishment of dismissal from service. It is
also stated that the Petitioner/workman was falsely implicated in the Charges leading to dismissal from service. Being
aggrieved by the above order of dismissal from service the Petitioner workman preferred an appeal before the Dy.
General Manager of the Respondent’s bank by filing one representation dated 29.3.2004 which has not been disposed of
till date. Thereafter the Petitioner was constrained to invoke the provision of Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 by filing the present industrial dispute. The Petitioner further submitted that the Enquiry Officer has not properly
conducted the enquiry. The Respondent bank has framed the Charges without any application of mind, and only basing
on assumptions and presumptions the enquiry report has been submitted. The Charges framed against the Petitioner is
false and untrue. The Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry without application of mind. It is submitted that the
punishment of dismissal from service of the Petitioner is disproportionate and unjust. It is further submitted that since
the date of dismissal from service, the Petitioner could not secure any alternative employment and leading a miserable
life. Lastly the Petitioner submitted to set aside the order of dismissal and prayed to direct the Respondents to reinstate
the Petitioner into service with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits.
3.
The Respondent bank filed its counter /reply with the averments in brief which runs as follows:
The industrial dispute filed by the Petitioner is neither maintainable in law nor on the facts of the case. The
allegations made in the claim statement are not correct. The Petitioner is put to strict proof of all the allegations made by
him in his industrial dispute. The Respondent submitted that the Petitioner was appointed as a Clerk cum Cashier in the
year 1984. In the year 1985, while he was working as a computer operator in Hyderabad University campus branch of
the SBI, he had committed certain serious misconducts for which he was issued with Charge sheet dated 20.11.2001,
consisting of 11 Charges. The Petitioner had not submitted any explanation to the Charge sheet. Thereafter it was
decided to conduct an enquiry and accordingly Sri T.L. Hariharan, Chief Manager (GB), Region-III, SBI, Zonal Office,
Hyderabad was appointed as the Enquiry Officer under order dated 23.6.2002. The said officer conducted the enquiry
which was commenced on 11.2.2002 and completed on 30.8.2003. The Petitioner was given fair and reasonable
opportunity to participate in the enquiry. On behalf of the management exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.P50 and Ex.P51/1 to
Ex.P51/75 were marked. The Petitioner relied on some documents which were also marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D14. The
Petitioner was defended in the enquiry by appointing Sri B. Nanda Kishore, Dy. General Secretary, SBI Staff Union,
Hyderabad. After completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 23.12.2003 holding Charge
Nos. 1,2,4,6,8,9,10 & 11 as proved. Charge No.3 Partly proved and Charge Nos. 5 and 7 are as not proved. It is also
stated that the Asst. General Manager (Region-II) who was the Disciplinary Authority had examined the entire record
and agreed with the finding s of the Enquiry Officer and proposed the punishment of dismissal from service without any
notice. The Petitioner was given an opportunity to submit his explanation and to attend the personal hearing under Memo
dated 11.2.2004. The Petitioner was also furnished with a copy of the enquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority after
hearing the Petitioner and after examining the entire record once again, passed the order on 13.3.2004 imposing the
punishment of “dismissal from service without notice”. It is also submitted that the misconduct proved against the
Petitioner is very grave and serious in nature and the Petitioner does not deserve to be in service of a financial institution
and accordingly the punishment of dismissal is legal and justified. The Petitioner was given full opportunity during the
enquiry to defend himself and the enquiry was conducted in conformity with the principles of natural justice. The
enquiry is held legal and valid. It is further submitted that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is proper, legal and
justified. The allegation of the Petitioner that the Charges were not established and there is no evidence on record to
establish the Charges etc., are all incorrect. The Charges were found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer and the
findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on the evidence on record. The Disciplinary Authority has thoroughly
examined the evidence on record and agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. There is absolutely no ground
and no merit in the industrial dispute, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4.
The Petitioner filed rejoinder in brief with the following averments:
It is submitted that Sec.13-B of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946, mandates that, rules or
regulations of any employee prescribing service conditions of employees shall be gazetted by the appropriate Govt. in the
official Gazette. The Act mandates that, for affecting termination of an employee, one month notice is a condition
precedent, which was not admittedly given in this case to the Petitioner. The Petitioner further reiterated his
submissions regarding the 11 Charges levelled against him.
5.
I have already heard the Learned Counsel of both the sides on the matter. Written notes of arguments were also
filed by the parties on this aspect which have been taken into consideration.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4357
6.
The points for consideration are:
I.
Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in dismissing Petitioner Sri R. Venkateswara
Rao, clerk cum cashier from services w.e.f.13.4.2004 is legal and justified ?
II. If not, to what relief the Petitioner is entitled for?
7.
The Petitioner challenged the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted in this case and after hearing both the
sides the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondent Bank was held as illegal and not valid by this Tribunal vide
order dated 12.4.2016. In view of the same, the Respondent Bank has examined Sri K.V.V. Satyanaryana as MW1 and
marked four documents on it’s behalf as Ex.M1 to M4. Similarly, the Petitioner was examined himself as WW1 and
marked 12 documents in support of his claim, which are marked as Ex.W1 to W12.
8.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner workman contended that the Petitioner joined in the Respondent bank
in the year 1984 and got confirmed in the said post. While he was working at Hyderabad University campus branch, by
proceedings dated 1.21.2000 he was placed under suspension pending detailed enquiry alleging that certain serious
irregularities were committed by him while working in Chandulal Baradari Branch. The Petitioner was issued with
Memorandum of charges dated 20.11.2001 alleging 11 charges where one domestic enquiry was ordered to be
conducted by nominating Sri T.L. Hari Haran as the Enquiry Officer and the enquiry was held on 11.2.2002 and after
completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 23.12.2003 holding that charge Nos.1,2,4,6,8,9,10
and 11 are held proved, charge No.3 is partly proved and the charge Nos. 5 and 7 are not proved. Basing on the findings
of the Enquiry Officer the Petitioner workman was issued with the proceedings dated 11.2.2004 proposing to a
punishment of “dismissal from service without notice” for which the Petitioner submitted his representation on
12.3.2004. But without considering his representation vide proceedings dated 13.3.2004 the Petitioner workman was
imposed with a punishment of dismissal from service. She contended that the Petitioner workman was falsely
implicated in the charges leading to dismissal from service. The Petitioner workman also preferred an appeal before
the Deputy General Manager by filing representation dated 29.5.2004 which has not been disposed of, for which the
Petitioner was constrained to take shelter in the court. The domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondent bank was
held illegal and not valid by this Tribunal vide order dated 12.4.2016. The Respondent bank was given opportunity to
examine witnesses and the Respondent has also examined one witness as MW1 and proved 4 documents as Ex.M1 to
M4. The Petitioner has objected Exs.M3 and M4 during the course of hearing of the case and both are marked with
objection. She contended that Ex.M3 and M4 cannot be taken into consideration in view of the judgement of the Apex
Court reported in 1999(1)SCC page 517 decided in the case of Neeta Kaplish and the Presiding Officer, Labour Court
and another. She also contended that out of the 11 charges framed against the Petitioner charge Nos. 5 and 7 are false,
not proved, while charge No.3 is held as partly proved. Actually charge Nos.1,2 and 10 can not be framed against the
Petitioner because of the charges are not at all coming under the rule of misconduct. According to the terms of para 5 to
1 (4)(j) of the Sastri Award read with paragraph 18.28 of the Desai Award. Charge Nos. 1to 2 pertains to holding of SB
Account in joint with the Petitioner’s wife. The above referred paras do not prohibit the employee to hold and operate a
SB Account in joint with his wife. No other rule is expedite either in the charge sheet. She submitted that the
Respondent bank has not shown any rule for holding the joint pass book by an employee with his wife is coming under
the rule of misconduct. She also pointed out the evidence of MW1 who in his cross examination has admitted that no
notice was issued to the Petitioner relating to charge no.1 and 2 and further admitted that joint account is opened in
public category. Therefore, the Petitioner had no benefits of the staff category account. There is no allegation of
misappropriation of accounts against the Petitioner and the charges are made with biased view. She further contended
that on the other hand the Petitioner workman has marked 12 documents in support of his claim. The respondent bank
has not filed any document to prove the allegation made against the Petitioner. The respondent was also given ample
opportunity to substantiate the charges. But the respondent failed to prove those charges during the course of argument.
Rather, during the course of examination MW1 has admitted that there is no loss to the bank, charge No.3 itself is
speaking about payment of adjustment of Rs.48,500/- on 29.6.2000. The Petitioner workman deposited Rs.553/- in the
clients’ account towards interest. Even though there is allegation that the Petitioner had failed to met the liability of
cheques negotiated under NLC at his instance, and subsequently returned unpaid, immediately on the date of receipt of
the instrument at the branch and had gained pecuniary benefits for himself, the same was not proved. MW1 in his cross
examination has admitted that the Branch Manager had given permission to the Petitioner regarding the allegation made
in charge No.3. MW1 further admitted that there was no loss to the bank, only the Petitioner himself used his savings
account. As there was no sufficient evidence available against the Petitioner as regards charge No.3, the enquiry officer
of the respondent bank come to the conclusion that the charge No.3 is partly proved. He also contended that as regards
charge No.4, without production of the alleged cheque, this charge was held proved by the enquiry officer. During the
course of trial no document is filed by the respondent bank in support of charge No.4. In this regard she relied on a
decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1986 SC page No.2118(1) decided in the case of Kasinath Deekshita Vs.
Union of India and others wherein their Lordships held that “non-supply of copies of statement and documents relied on
by the Disciplinary Authority amounts to prejudice to employee”. The Hon’ble Court further held that the employee
has been denied a reasonable opportunity for exonerating himself from the charges. she also contended that the
observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court is squarely applicable to charges No.1,2,3,4,6,8,9, and 11 wherein the respondent
bank has failed to produce the documents relied on by him before this court during the course of trial. Relying on the
evidence of MW1 she contended that MW1 in his cross examination has admitted that the respondent bank has taken an
4358
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
amount of Rs.30000/- from the joint account of the Petitioner on 12.12.2001 vide Ex.W1. She further admitted that the
alleged cheque in respect of charge No.4 does not belong to the Petitioner and purportedly not produced before the court
to substantiate charge No.4 framed by the bank. Thus, Burden lies on the respondent bank how to prove charge No.4,
and it was proved. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that charge Nos.5 and 7 are also not proved.
Relying on the evidence of MW1 she contended that MW1 in his evidence has clearly admitted that charge Nos 5 and 7
are not proved. The respondent bank went on framing charges on assumptions and presumptions against the Petitioner,
which clearly evident from the charges framed against him and without proof of any of the charges, the Petitioner has
been dismissed from service. In this case the Presenting Officer was examined as MW1 who was not working by the
time of the alleged incident. He was having no knowledge of the things happened during the period of the allegation
made in the charge sheet. The respondent bank purportedly did not examine the officers who worked during the
period of the allegation made in the charge sheet. Due to the reasons that the officers worked during the period of
allegations and the charges are retained to authorize the transactions which were lodged by the bank as a misconduct on
the part of the workman. In fact those officers are responsible for the alleged misconduct. Only with a view to save the
skin of the officers they were not produced before the court to stand in the witness box and to make the Petitioner a
scape goat. She further contended that charge Nos. 5 and 6 pertains to operation of the accounts standing in the name
of Sri K. Ravi. Admittedly the respondent bank held Charge No.5 as not proved. The same would be accepted while
dealing with charge No.6 also. In charge No.6 the allegation is that the Petitioner has posted several debits/cheques to
the over draft account of Sri K.Ravi without obtaining the approval of the competent authority through the ‘çheques
referred and returned register’. ‘The limit sanctioned by the officers is upto Rs.3,60,000/-. As per allegation the debits
made on 16.4.1999 which are within the limit of Rs.3,60,000/- vide Ex.W6. Therefore, this charge cannot be
substantiated and proved. If the limit is Rs.1,80,000/- then, the supervisory ID of the concerned officer will be required,
if system rejects posting of the alleged cheques even after check ID of the concerned officer (YP N), then supervisory ID
of another officer or Branch Manager is required. Simultaneously, after rejection of the cheque by the computer, then
only the question of referring the cheques to the cheque referred and returned register will arise and the supervisory
officer has to put his ID “SUP ID”. As per her contention in Ex.W6 which is a day book of the bank dated 16.4.1999,
there is no “SUP ID” on the extreme right column top of Ex.W6. Only, user ID RVR” and “check ID YPN” are here.
At the bottom of Ex.W6 there is a note which is extracted and may be referred, “Transactions bearing supervisor ID’s in
the last column signify that they met with exception condition such as limit excess, dormancy etc. and were cleared by
supervisors.” There was no supervisory ID “SUP ID” in the right side top column of Ex.W6. therefore, charge No.6
cannot be proved. If the limit is only Rs.180000/- as alleged by the bank, supervisory ID is compulsory. Therefore,
the limit sanctioned by the officers is Rs.360000/- as mentioned in Ex.W6 and not Rs.180000/-. The limit is sanctioned
by the Branch Manager which has been reflected in the OD sanction letter which has not been produced by the
respondent bank. Basing on the OD sanction letter the officers will set the limit in the computer system. The duty of the
computer operator is only to enter the cheque and after such entry it has to be authorized by the officer. Therefore, it
was authorized by YPN with his check ID. The respondent bank failed to produce the OD sanction letter to prove its
stand. Further more, the transaction referred in cheque No.6 does not result in any pecuniary loss to the bank.
Therefore, there is no allegation that the Petitioner was benefited by posting of the said cheques. Further more, Ex.W6
dated 16.6.1999 which is the day book maintained by the respondent bank can speak about the limit of the cheque.
Unless the office checks the transaction, and puts his ID the posting of cheques is not completed. With the check ID of
the officer only the computer system can accept the transaction. The workman need not refer to the “cheques referred
and returned register” as alleged by the respondent bank. Because the limit is within the sanctioned limit of
Rs.360000/-, which is not done in this case. If there is any irregularity or mistake is crepted, as alleged by the bank in
charge No.6, the allegations has to be made against the officer Sri Y.P.N. who authorized the transaction with his “check
ID YPN” . But the bank has not made any allegation against the officer who authorized the transaction. Only with a
vindictive attitude the workman has been charged. Therefore, the allegation in charge No.6 is also not proved.
9.
She also contended that charge No.8 refers to debit to STDR interest account on 31.3.2000 for Rs.258600/- and
credited the proceeds to the closed STDR account pertains to Sri K. Ravi and subsequently the said account was
virtually withdrawn on 7.4.2000. No evidence is available with regard to the person who has withdrawn the amount on
7.4.2000 during the enquiry also. Without identifying the person who has withdrawn the amount on 7.4.2000, framing
of the charge against the Petitioner is unjustified. It is the specific stand of the Petitioner that he proceeded on leave
from 27.3.2000 to 31.3.2000. Therefore, the allegation made against the Petitioner in respect of charge No.8 is baseless.
She also contended that charge No.11 is also related to charge No.8. In charge No.11, allegation is that the Petitioner
used the password of Sri A.K. Prabhakar Rao, field officer, for check I.D., while debiting STDR interest account on
31.3.2000. But in this case Sri A.K. Prabhakar Rao was not examined during the course of the enquiry nor there was
any evidence on record to establish that the password of Sri A.K. Prabhakar Rao was used by the Petitioner. Without
any evidence either oral or documentary, this charge No.11 has been proved. The enquiry officer in his enquiry report
has also observed that there is no proof to say that the Petitioner used the ID of Sri A.K. Prabhakar Rao. But inspite of
that charge No.11 has been proved. The respondent bank has not produced any STDR vouchers either credit or debit or
any other document before this court, during the course of hearing or in the enquiry also. Rather, the Petitioner has filed
Ex.W5, the leave register, attendance register which shows that the Petitioner was on leave from 27.3.2000 to 31.3.2000.
In banking system every day the accounts should be settled by tallying them. The new accounts year starts on 1.4.2000
or on the 1st April every year. So, doing work of 31.3.2000 on subsequent dates does not arise. The Petitioner workman
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4359
could not be held responsible for the allegation made against him. No notice is given by the Respondent bank to the
Petitioner before submission of the charge sheet. On the other hand, MW1 in his evidence has deposed that only the
Branch Manager is the competent authority to open the closed accounts. He only got means to open or close the
account. But the Petitioner being an Award staff or computer operator can not open the closed accounts, and he has been
unnecessarily entangled in the alleged charge. She further contended that the power of debiting money from the STDR
account of the bank lies with the Branch Manager only and in any means it will not be provided to the clerk or award
staff. Thus, serious allegations are made with an impression that only the Petitioner is having the whole and sole
money/cheque powers in the bank treating the bank as a proprietor based business shop of the Petitioner. The
authorization of two officers is required, for the alleged transactions. Further more, Sri A.K. Prabhakar Rao has not
given any complaint against the Petitioner to the Respondent bank. The Petitioner was on leave on the alleged date i.e.,
on 31.3.2000, which is not considered by the Respondent and held charges Nos. 6,7,8 and 11 have been proved. In this
case Sri A. K. Prabhakar Rao who is a material witness has not been examined by the Respondent bank either during the
course of domestic enquiry or before the court during the course of trial to substantiate charge No.11 wherein the
Petitioner was deprived of getting reasonable opportunity to cross-examine him to prove his defence. In support of her
contention she relied on a decision reported in 2011(3) ALD 536 wherein their Lordships held that, crucial witness in
that case, the Head Master was not examined. The court held that non-examination of the head master denying the fair
opportunity to establish the defence of the workmen. As per her contention, when the material witness has not been
examined and fair opportunity has not been given to the Petitioner to prove his defence the alleged charge is also not
proved. She further contended that similarly charge No.9 has been framed against the Petitioner, on the allegation that
he raised a manually to the TDR account of A.P. State Wakf Board on 5.8.2000 for Rs.39,272/- and credited the same to
SB Account of Sri P. Raghuram. The alleged debit voucher or any other documentary proof is produced neither before
the Enquiry Officer nor before this court. The voucher which was marked as Ex.W2 would clearly show that it was
passed by the then branch account, who is an officer. hence, the same is also not attributed to him. The Disciplinary
Authority observed that while the credit is made by way of transfer, the Petitioner gave the narration by way of clearing,
is misconceived, in as much as the narration to the transaction will come automatically in the computer. Once
transaction type is selected, type of narration cannot be altered (system will not permit). During the posting of the
clearing transactions, the computer operator is left with no choice to alter the transaction type. The entire transaction
type from beginning to the end will take automatically for clearing transactions. The entry dated 5.8.2000 for an amount
of Rs.39,272/- is by way of clearing and it is cleared from the account statement of Ex.W7 and the then branch
accountant has been authorized the same with ID “YPN” in the right side column. She further contended that Ex.W2 is
the voucher which was passed by the officer. Exs.W2, W7 and W11 are sufficient to prove the innocence of the
Petitioner. Ex.W2 is the voucher passed by the officer of the Bank Sri Y.P. Nagendar, Ex.W7 is the account statement of
Sri P. Raghuram and Ex.W11 is day book of the bank dated 5.8.2000. The narration given in the account statement of
dated 5.8.2000 for an amount of rs.39,272/- is “by clearing”. The basis for that is Ex.W2 which is passed by an officer
as already stated above. The day book Ex.W11 is clearly showing that the officer permitted the transaction with his
check ‘ID’ ‘YPN’. The user ID ‘RVR’ belongs to the Petitioner. The entry made by the Petitioner is permitted by
officer ID ‘YPN’ in the computer. Not only the debit and credit vouchers or other document is filed by the Respondent
Bank before this Hon’ble Court. These exhibits W2, W7 and W11 are not disproved by the Respondent bank.
Therefore, charge No.9 can not be proved. She also contended that Charge No.10 pertains to offering the shares as
security to the loan sanctioned to A. Kiranmaye Sharma. Offering a security to a person, cannot be termed as a
misconduct. Further more, while granting the loan Petitioner has given a letter to the Manager before sanction of the
loan that he has no objection in sanctioning the loan, as such the charge cannot be termed as a misconduct. The said A.
Kiranmaya Sarma repaid the entire loan amount with interest, and when the Respondent did not return the share
certificates, he approached the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., by way of filing CRP No:3422 of 2004 and the Hon’ble High
Court of A.P., allowed the same on 21.4.2006. She further contended that even though the Petitioner made a prayer
before the court, to direct the Respondent bank to produce the documents which have been used against the Petitioner
during the course of enquiry the Respondent bank failed to produce the same. The Petitioner could not be able to defend
the allegation of the Respondent bank properly, whatever documents available before the court, those are not sufficient
to prove the charges levelled against the Petitioner. Therefore, the order of dismissal passed against the Petitioner be set
aside and the order may be passed to reinstate the Petitioner into service and the Petitioner be allowed to get all the
benefits as prayed for.
10.
On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent contended that, admittedly 11 charges
have been framed against the Petitioner out of which charge Nos.1,2,4,6,8,9,10 and 11 are proved. Charge No.3 is partly
proved. Charge Nos.5 and 7 are not proved. Since the important charges have been proved, the Enquiry Officer
suggested for dismissal of the Petitioner from service without notice. The Asst. General Manager(Region II) being the
Disciplinary Authority examined the entire report and agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and proposed
the punishment of dismissal from service. The Petitioner was given an opportunity to submit his explanation and to
attend personal hearing under memo dated 11.2.2004. The Petitioner was also furnished with a copy of the enquiry
report. The Disciplinary Authority after hearing the Petitioner and after examining the entire record once again passed
the order on 13.3.2004 imposing the punishment of “dismissal from service without notice”. It is submitted that the
Petitioner had joined his SB Account bearing no.011920012900 with his wife and he used to look into the business
transaction. The very purpose of opening a joint account along with his wife is to misuse his position in the bank,
4360
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
thereby to enrich himself illegally. Otherwise there is no reason of all justification to open the joint account. Though it
was a joint account it was operated often by the Petitioner and resorted to illegal credits to the account. It is his account
and under the guise of joint account he operated his account and the transactions belong to him only. The Petitioner did
not took permission from the bank to open the joint account. He also submitted that the Petitioner had taken an amount
of Rs.40,500/- from the bank in respect of a cheque dated 3.6.2000 and it was dishonoured by the Petitioner and proved.
The Petitioner himself admitted that when he came to know about return of the cheque unpaid, he has reimbursed the
amount with interest of Rs.553/- on 29.6.2000. Hence, charge No.3 is proved. Mere paying the amount with interest
does not absolve him of the allegation of misconduct. He also submitted that with regard to charge No.4, the Petitioner
purchased a cheque bearing No.097548 for Rs.30000/- and the proceeds were credited to his current account bearing
No.01090094035. The cheque pertains to the current account of the Petitioner and he could not be able to explain it.
The Petitioner could not be able to satisfy the respondent bank with the cheque which belongs to him and he purchased it
on behalf of the bank and credits the amount to his current account and failed to pay it back. Therefore, charge No.4 is
fully proved. The Petitioner had defrauded the bank. He had availed in the name K. Ravi, overdraft for Rs.180000/- on
16.3.1993 against a security of STDR No.697174 (account No.01292011198683) dated 24.12.1998 for RS.2,\31745/-
due on 23.12.1999 standing in the name of K.Ravi. In order to cancel the above fraudulent act, on 7.2.2000 he had
closed the said overdraft account by prematurely closing the STDR without producing any relevant receipt, without the
knowledge of the accountholder. The Petitioner had posted the above said overdraft account of K. Ravi, several
debits/cheques resulting in excess drawings without obtaining approval of the competent authority through “cheques
referred and returned register”. All the cheques posted by him are dated 16.4.1999, bearing No. 00100356 to
Rs.77000/-, bearing cheque No.00100354, and bearing No.00100355 to Rs.55000/-. The Petitioner had availed a demand
loan for Rs.180000/- on 2.3.1999 in the name of K. Venkat against a security of STDR bearing No.697174 under
account No.01292011983 dated 24.12.1998 for Rs.231745/- dated 23.12.1999 standing in the name of K. Venkat and to
cancel his fraudulent act, he closed the said demand loan by prematurely closing the said STDR without production of
the relevant receipt and without the knowledge of the account holder. The Petitioner has fraudulently raised a debit
STDR interest account on 31.3.2000 for Rs.258600/- and credited the proceeds thereof to the closed STDR account
No.0129201198300 of K. Ravi under user ID “RVR” exposing the bank to grave risk and the amount was so credited
fraudulently withdrawn on 7.4.2000 by the Petitioner. It is stated that the Petitioner had fraudulently debited manually
to the TDR account of AP State Wakf Board on 5.8.2000 for Rs.39272/- and credited the same to the SB Account of Sri
P. Raghuram under his USIR ID. The account of Sri P. Raghuram was introduced by the Petitioner who had furnished
his share as security for the loan raised by Sri P. Kiranmayi Sarma and he did not obtain permission for the competent
authority for doing so. The Petitioner used the pass word Sri A.K. Prabhakar Rao, the field officer for CHECH ID while
debiting the STDR interest account with Rs.258616/- on 31.3.2000 in connection with the STDR account of Sri K. Ravi.
The Petitioner had not submitted any explanation to the charge sheet submitted by the respondent bank. Therefore, it
was decided to conduct an enquiry and accordingly Sri T.L. Hariharan, Chief Manager (GB), Region –III, SBI Zonal
Office, Hyderabad was appointed as the enquiry officer. He conducted the enquiry after giving fair and reasonable
opportunity to the Petitioner. Lastly the Petitioner was defended in the enquiry by engaging Sri P. Nanda Kishore,
Deputy General Secretary, SBI Staff Union, Hyderabad and after completion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer
submitted his report holding all the charges as proved except charge No.5 and 7. The Assistant General Manager
(Region-II) who was the Disciplinary Authority had examined the enquiry report and so agreed with the findings of the
enquiry officer and proposed the punishment of dismissal from service without any notice. The Petitioner was given an
opportunity to submit his explanation and to attend personal hearing. The Petitioner was also given the copy of enquiry
report. The Disciplinary Authority after hearing the Petitioner and after examining the entire record once again passed
the order dated 13.3.2004 imposing the punishment of “Dismissal from service without notice”. The misconduct proved
against the Petitioner is grave and serious and the Petitioner does not deserve to be in service of a financial institution
and accordingly the punishment of dismissal from service is legal and justified. The Petitioner who has committed
serious and grave misconduct is not entitled to get any relief. The respondent bank has lost confidence on the
Petitioner. Therefore, the dispute raised by the Petitioner is liable to be dismissed and as such the Petitioner is not
entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
11.
Point No.I: On consideration of the rival contentions of both the sides, it is seen that the Petitioner was
working as a clerk under the Respondent bank. While he was working at Hyderabad University campus branch he was
placed under suspension on 12.12.2000 on the allegation that the Petitioner has committed certain serious irregularities
while working at Chandulal Baradari Branch. The Petitioner was issued with the Memorandum of Charges dated
20.11.2001 alleging 11 charges. Thereafter one domestic enquiry was conducted. The Petitioner was given ample
opportunity to defend his case in the enquiry. After conclusion of the domestic enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted
his report in which charge Nos.1,2,4,6,8,9,10 and 11 were proved. Charge No.3 was partially proved and charge Nos.5
and 7 were not proved. Basing on the findings of the Enquiry Officer the Petitioner workman was issued with the
enquiry proceeding dated 11.2.2004, proposing to impose a punishment of dismissal from service without notice. Upon
which the workman submitted one representation on 12.3.2004. But, on 13.4.2004 the Petitioner workman was
imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service and the representation of the Petitioner workman was not
considered properly. The counsel of the Petitioner workman has argued that without proof of any cogent evidence the
Enquiry Officer being biased prepared the enquiry report. Only on assumptions and presumptions he has prepared the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4361
report and submitted it to the Disciplinary Authority stating that charge Nos.1,2,4,6,8,9,10 and 11 were proved. Charge
No.3 was partially proved and charge Nos.5 and 7 were not proved and lastly suggested for the quantum of punishment.
12.
On the other hand the Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that the Petitioner workman was
involved in serious misconducts for which after conclusion of the domestic enquiry the Disciplinary Authority being
satisfied on the report of the Enquiry Officer has passed the order of dismissal from service. Even though the bank has
not sustained any financial loss, but the reputation of the bank has already been lost due to the misconduct of the
workman. In fact, the Petitioner workman has challenged the validity of the domestic enquiry. But after hearing from
both the sides it has already been held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondent management is not legal
and valid. The Petitioner workman had moved this court to direct the Respondent management for production of the
original documents which they have relied on during the course of the domestic enquiry to prove the alleged charges.
But the Respondent bank inspite of taking several opportunities failed to provide the original documents relied on by
them during the course of the domestic enquiry to the Petitioner/workman. The counsel for the Respondent during the
course of argument has only reiterated his argument basing on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The
Respondent bank has also given ample opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the charges which has been proved
during the course of the domestic enquiry. Rather the witness examined on behalf of the Respondent bank (MW1) has
admitted some of the plea of the Petitioner workman. The Respondent has also failed to prove the documents before
the court which have been relied on by the Respondent bank during the course of the domestic enquiry. When the
Respondent Bank failed to produce the documents relied on by the bank during the course of the domestic enquiry, it
clearly indicates that reasonable opportunity has not been given to the Petitioner workman for exonerating himself from
the charges. In a decision reported in AIR1986 SC page No.2118 (1), Kasinath Deekshitha Vs. Union of India, Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that non supply of copies of the statement and documents and relied on by the workman amounts to
prejudice occasioned to employee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the employee has been denied
reasonable opportunity for exonerating himself from charges. When the documents sought for by the Petitioner have
not been produced by the Respondent bank before the court it clearly shows that the Respondent Bank without giving
reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner workman has passed the order of dismissal of service of the Petitioner. Further
more, whatever, misconduct has been committed by the workman Petitioner, who was working as a mere clerk/computer
operator, he had no authority to commit such misconduct independently without the knowledge of his supervisor.
Because the Petitioner was working under the control of some supervisory authorities as per banking system. But, none
of the supervisory authorities have come forward to make any allegation against the Petitioner workman, while the
proceeding was going on. Even none of them have come forward to adduce evidence against the Petitioner workman,
either during the course of the enquiry or during the course of the trial before this court, which clearly indicates that in
order to escape themselves from the liability, the supervising officers have not come to the picture, and the Petitioner
workman was only entangled in the alleged charges. Even though all the charges have been interlinked to each other,
but without proving any documents, basing on assumptions and presumptions, charge Nos.1,2,4,6,8,9,10 and 11 are
proved and even though no document has been produced while proving charge No.3, it has been held that charge No.3 is
partially proved. charge Nos.5 and 7 are also not proved due to want of sufficient evidence. This shows that the
Respondent bank has not properly submitted the charge sheet and casually submitted it for an eye wash. Out of
presumptions and assumptions such a charge sheet has been submitted against the Petitioner workman and the Petitioner
workman has been given the capital punishment of dismissal from service. Even though appeal has been preferred the
result of the appeal was not communicated to the Petitioner workman before passing the final order for dismissal of
service of the Petitioner. The right of the Petitioner has not been safeguarded properly which clearly indicates that
without complying the proper procedure, order has been passed against the Petitioner without application of mind.
Therefore, the action of the Respondent management of the State Bank of India, in dismissing the Petitioner workman
Sri R.Venkateswara Rao, clerk cum cashier from service w.e.f. 13.4.2004 is not legal and justified, which needs the
interference of this Tribunal to set aside the above order.
Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.
13.
Point No.II:
In this point, it is to be decided what relief the Petitioner workman is entitled for. In view of
the findings given in Point No.I, the dismissal order passed against the workman Petitioner vide proceedings dated
13.4.2004 is not legal and valid and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. Hence, the Petitioner workman is entitled
to be reinstated into service if not superannuated. In fact, the Petitioner has not rendered any service to the respondent
bank due his dismissal from service, during the period from the date of dismissal of service till date. Thus, the Petitioner
is only entitled to get 50% of back wages with continuity of service and not entitled to get any other relief.
Thus, Point No.II is answered accordingly.
ORDER
The action of the management of State Bank of India, in dismissing the Petitioner Sri R. Venkateswara Rao,
Clerk cum Cashier vide proceedings dated 13.4.2004 is not legal and justified and is hereby set aside. The Petitioner is
entitled to get reinstatement into service if not superannuated, if superannuated, the Petitioner is only entitled to get 50%
4362
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of back wages with continuity of service and other service benefits as applicable to the employees of the Respondent
bank.
Award is passed accordingly.
Dictated to Smt P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 3rd day of
May, 2019.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri R. Venkateswara Rao
MW1: Sri K.V.V. Satyanarayana
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Statement of joint account of WW1 containing 4 pages
Ex.W2:
Attested copy of voucher dt.4.8.2000
Ex.W3:
Photostat copy of CRP No.3422/2004
Ex.W4:
Photostat copy of leave register of Respondent bank from 27.3.2000 to 31.3.2000
Ex.W5:
Photostat copy of attendance register of Respondent bank from 27.3.2000 to 31.3.2000
Ex.W6:
Photostat copy of day book of Respondent bank dt.16.4.1999
Ex.W7:
Photostat copy of SB A/c statement of Sri P. Raghuram dt.5.8.2000
Ex.W8:
Postal receipt of Sec’bad HPO RLAD C 7083 to DGM,SBI,Sec’bad
Ex.W9:
Photostat copy of IA NO.182/2013 & petition & Order of this court dt.8.1.2014
Ex.W10:
Photostat copy of IA No.174/2013 & list of documents
Ex.W11:
Photostat copy of day book of SBI, Cahndulal Baraari branch dt.5.8.2000
Ex.W12:
Proposed punishment order of the Disciplinary Authority dt.11.2.2004
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photostat copy of charge sheet
Ex.M2:
Photostat copy of punishment order
Ex.M3:
Photostat copy of enquiry report
Ex.M4:
Photostat copy of enquiry proceeding
नई दली, 11 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1037
1037
1037
1037.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
$गित ;ामीण ब#क $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय
सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण ब#गलोर के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं1 या 36/2013) को $कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को
11.06.2019 को $ा5 त 6ए थे।
[सं. एल-12012/047/2013-आईआर (बी-1)]
बी. एस. िब. ट, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 11th June, 2019
S.O. 1037.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 36/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Pragathi Gramin Bank
and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 11.06.2019.
[No. L-12012/47/2013-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4363
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED
: 4thAPRIL 2019
PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
C R No. 36/2013
I Party
II Party
Sri C Ramachandrappa,
S/o Sri Siddappa,
Chekuwadi Post, Tawargundi,
HarpanagalliTaluk,
DAVANGERE DIST.
The Chairman,
PragathiGramin Bank,
Head Office,
BELLARY DIST- 583 103.
Appearances
I Party :
Shri R. Nagendra Naik, Advocate
II Party :
Sh. B. C. Prabhakar, Advocate
1.
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-12012/47/2013-IR(B-I)dated 27.06.2013 in
exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as “The Act”) (14 of 1947) made this reference for adjudication of the following
Industrial Dispute:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of Pragathi Gramin Bank in dismissing the service of Sri C. Ramachandrappa applicant
workman is proper and justified? If not what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
The claim set forth by the I Party workman is that he was working in the Respondent Bank as clerk on
25.09.2009. He was kept under suspension, a charge sheet dated 28.01.2010 followed, the allegations in the charge sheet
were :
Charge No. 1 : On 27.11.2008 he has debited PSJND A/C No. 10040 for an amount of Rs. 45000/- Also he had
avoided entry in the pass book.
Charge No. 2 : On 21.05.2009 he has accepted case of Rs. 80000/- for credit of SJJND A/c No. 12. He has issued
the counterfoil, made the entry in the pass book and not account in the Bank’s Books of account and thereby
misappropriated the said amount.
Charge No. 3 : On 17.04.2009 and on 24.09.2009 a customer remitted Rs. 30000/- and Rs. 20000/- respectively
for credit of his SB A/c which he has accepted but did not accounted and misappropriated the amount.
Charge No. 4 : On 09.03.2009 a depositor remitted Rs. 25000/- to his BSB a/c NO. 115. He has accepted the
cash, but did not accounted it in the Banks Book of accounts and thereby he has misappropriated the amount.
Charge No. 5 : A depositor remitted Rs. 8000/- on 10.03.2008 and Rs. 10000/- on 04.08.2008 to his account. He
has accepted the cash but did not account in Banks Books of accounts and thereby misappropriated the amount.
Charge No. 6 : On 01.08.2009 he has accepted Rs. 15622/- cash for credit to SHGDIR 18/08. He has issued
counter foil and wrote on the loan card as account closed. But, did not account the same in the Banks Books of
Accounts.
Charge No. 7 : On 20.06.2008 a sum of Rs. 25000/- was remitted by a customer for credit of her SB A/c No. 1168
which was accepted by him, but did not account the same in Banks books of accounts.
Charge No. 8 : On 24.02.2009 Rs. 4000/- was debited to SB 1872 of a party without instrument. He was the
cashier who has posted the debit entry in the ledger and this is not shown in the pass book. Thus he has
misappropriated the amount.
3.
Since the workman in his reply denied the charges Domestic Enquiry was initiated by appointing Enquiry
Officer; the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report holding him guilty of misconduct; the Disciplinary Authority
concurred with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and dismissed him from service; his appeal before the Appellate
Authority did not survive; the enquiry was held without providing him single opportunity to appoint Defence
Representative; the Enquiry Officer was biased; the Presenting Officer was allowed to ask leading questions; the
objection of the Defence Representative for the same was over ruled without any reason; the written submission of
Defence Representative was not accepted by the Enquiry Officer on the ground of delay; the punishment imposed is
disproportionate to the charge alleged; management did not prove the charge by producing sufficient material; enquiry
4364
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
was held in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence the prayer to set aside the enquiry, the consequential
punishment order and reinstate him into service of the Bank.
4.
The II Party countered the claim statement allegations thus: - For the acts of misconduct he was issued charge
sheet dated 28.01.2001 and was called upon to submit his explanation. But he did not submit explanation, he participated
throughout the enquiry which was held in 12 sittings. During the enquiry, Charge Sheet was read over and explained to
him; procedure of enquiry was explained; he was permitted to take the assistance of Defence Representative and he took
the assistance of H. Nagabhushana Rao, Clerk-cum-Cashier list of witnesses and documents were furnished to him;
copies of documents were also furnished; he has cross-examined the management witnesses; after the evidence of the
management, enquiry was posted for his evidence; accordingly, he gave his evidence and closed his side. The Bank
marked 38 documents as exhibits and he marked 3 documents. Opportunity was given to address arguments and to file
written arguments. The Management Representative submitted its written arguments, same was forwarded to Defence
Representative on 17.01.2011 to submit written arguments within 15 days, from the date of receipt of the same. But he
did not submit his written arguments, he had all opportunity to conduct his defence. The finding of the Enquiry Officeris
based on the material placed during the enquiry, copy of the Enquiry Report was forwarded by the Disciplinary Authority
to him calling for his submission to the report, he submitted his submission with a letter dated 06.05.2011 by enclosing
the defence brief dated 27.03.2011 which was received on 12.05.2011. But his submission was found not satisfactory.
The proposal to dismissal had been communicated to him and an opportunity of personal hearing was given to him by
fixing the date of personal hearing. He attended the personal hearing. Considering the seriousness of the proved charges
and concurring with the views of the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment order of
Dismissal. The Appellate Authority upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Authority, he has involved in committing
misappropriation of the funds of the Bank / customers and defrauded the bank.The misconduct proved is serious and
grave. The punishment order is justified and is legal.
5.
On the rival pleadings my learned predecessor framed Preliminary Issue regarding fairness of Domestic
Enquiry, the management produced the enquiry records through its witness / Enquiry Officer. In his affidavit evidence,
he has stated that the 1st Party was given all reasonable opportunity in conducting the defence. The cross-examination to
the witness was unable to extract away thing contrary to his affidavit averments and the documents marked as Ex M-1 to
Ex M-22.The 1st Party did not adduce rebuttal evidence, but thereafter remained continuously absent.
6.
During the hearing before this Tribunal on 25.10.2016 on which date cross-examination of MW 1 was closed, it
was submitted that the workman is no more. From then onwards till now no steps is taken to bring his legal heirs on
record. I am convinced that enquiry was held by affording all reasonable opportunity to the workman to defend himself.
During the Domestic Enquiry management has examined 10 witnesses, 38 documents were marked. Among them 9 were
investigation reports. A complaint was lodged Police Station, Hoovinahadagli by the then Manager and the case was
registered for the offence under 409, 420 IPC read with 34 IPC. Enquiry Officer has given a detailed Enquiry Report
considering each and every piece of oral and documentary evidence before him and came to the conclusion that all the
eight charges are proved beyond reasnable doubt and the act of the workman is clear violation of Regulation 19 of
Pragathi Gramin Bank (Employees and Officer) Service Regulations 2005 presently Regulation 20 of Kaaveri Gramin
Bank Employees Officer reulation 10
7.
As Order Sheet of 25.10.2006 suggests, MW 1 was cross-examined by the learned counsel despite knowing the
fact that the 1stParty is no more. If the 1stparty counsel had reported the death of 1st Party workman within reasonable
time then there was no authority for the leaned counsel to continue vakalat anymore on behalf of the deceased workman.
In the given circumstance, it shall be deemed there is no claim before this tribunal in respect of the referred issue.
However, management through its evidence has established that they had proved the charges before the Enquiry Officer
through cogent evidence. Since the allegation pertains to misappropriation of public money, cheating, any continuation of
the workman in the institution would have been hazardous and rightly he is dismissed from service. Hence,
AWARD
Reference is Rejected
(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 4th April 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 11 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1038
1038
1038
1038.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
भारतीय टेट ब#क $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय
सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण ब#गलोर के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं1 या 16/2014) को $कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को
11.06.2019 को $ा5 त 6ए थे।
[सं. एल-12025/01/2019-आईआर (बी-1)]
बी. एस. िब. ट, अवर सिचव
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4365
New Delhi, the 11th June, 2019
S.O. 1038.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.06.2019.
[No. L-12025/01/2019-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED
:
20TH MAY 2019
PRESENT :
Justice Smt. Rathnakala, Presiding Officer
I.D No. 16/2014
I Party
II Party
Sh. Rahul,
H. No. 31, Chetana Colony,
Manjunath Nagar,
Gokul Road,
Hubli – 580 030.
The Regional Manager and
Disciplinary Authority,
State Bank of India,
Region V, Administrative Office,
T. S. Complex, Keshwapur,
Hubli – 580 023.
Appearance
Advocate for I Party : Mr. Anant P. Savadi
Advocate for II Party : Mr. Ramesh Upadhyaya
AWARD
1.
This petition is filed under section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The 1st Party workman has sought to
declare the order dated 23.11.2013 dismissing him from service by the Employer/Respondent. He is challenging the
dismissal order on various grounds like the charge sheet issued to him was not in accordance with Bipartite Settlement, it
was highly vague in nature; the subsistence allowance was not paid during the suspension period; the enquiry was held in
violation of principles of Natural justice; enquiry findings were perverse and the same is accepted mechanically by the
Disciplinary Authority to pass the punishment order etc.
2.
The 2nd Party had denied the petition allegations in its objection statement and sought to dismiss the petition.
3.
On completion of the pleadings there was a break in the trial, when the notice was issued to the 1st Party same
could not be served and was returned with the shara ‘LEFT’. In the absence of the 1st Party or his Counsel, there is no
use in continuing the proceedings. The Petitioner has failed to prosecute his case.
AWARD
The claim is dismissed for non-prosecution. Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 20th May, 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 11 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1039
1039
1039
1039.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
कना+टक ब#क िलिमटेड $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट औ ोिगक िववाद म
के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण ब#गलोर के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं1 या 10/1998) को $कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को
11.06.2019 को $ा5 त 6ए थे।
[सं. एल-12012/97/87-आईआर (बी-1)]
बी. एस. िब. ट, अवर सिचव
4366
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 11th June, 2019
S.O. 1039.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Karnataka Bank
Limited and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 11.06.2019.
[No. L-12012/97/87-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE – 560 022
DATED : 20TH MAY 2019
PRESENT : Justice Smt. Rathnakala, Presiding Officer
C.R No. 10/1988
I Party
II Party
Sh. M. Rama Rao,
No. 9, Corporation Building,
Broadway,
Hubli – 580 020.
The Chairman,
Karnataka Bank Limited,
Head Office,
Mangalore – 575 003.
Advocate for I Party : Advocate for II Party:
Party in Person Mr. Ramesh Upadhyaya
AWARD
The Central Government vide Order No.L-12012/97/87-D.IV(A) dated 07.03.1988 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 (for brevity ‘the Act’
hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.
“Whether the action of the Management of Karnataka Bank Limited in terminating Shri. M. Rama Rao,
Special Assistant, with effect from 14.09.1985 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman entitled?”
1.
The 1st Party workman joined the service of the 2nd Party in the year 1971 as Probationary Clerk his service was
confirmed and was posted as Special Assistant at Durgadbail Hubli Branch; he was also the General Secretary of
Dharwad District Bank Employees Association and certain other unions of the Bank Employees. He was issued charge
sheet dated 02.11.1981, 30.11.1983, 01.12.1983, 18.02.1985 and 28.02.1985; he had submitted his reply to all the charge
sheets. By order of the General Manager of the 2nd Party Domestic Enquiry was initiated in respect of the above charges.
Retired District Judge was appointed as the Enquiry Officer; on 3 dates enquiry sitting was held on the first and second
dates of 05.08.1985 and 03.09.1985 the Enquiry Officer recorded that, the notice of enquiry is not served on the Charge
sheeted Employee; on the 3rd enquiry sitting of 15.10.1985 the Management Representative filed a memo which read as
under:-
The above member was evading Enquiry Notices from the beginning. Management for the reasons stated in
their Termination Notice order No. HO/PIR/P/1709/85 dated 14.09.1985 have terminated his services to come
into effect from 16.09.1985. In view of the above circumstances, the Domestic Enquiry against the member may
please be discontinued; The Enquiry Officer accordingly discontinued the enquiry.
2.
The termination order issued to the 1st Party workman read as under :-
The Enquiry leveled against under charge sheets :
1.
HO/PIR/14284/81 dated 2.11.81
2.
HO/PIR/D/16779/83 dated 30.11.83
3.
HO/PIR/D/16808/83 dated 1.12.83
4.
HO/PIR/D/4187/85 dated 18.2.85 and
5.
HO/PIR/D/4961/85 dated 28.2.85
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4367
are pending enquiry and no progress could be made on account of the delaying tactics adopted by you. You,
instead of defending the enquiry on its merits, have resorted to highly objectionable activities with a view to
pressurising the management to drop the charges. You have even gone to the extent of scandalizing the Enquiry
Officer and the Bank through the Press. You have started indulging in defamatory publications against the
Bank calculated to undermine the confidence of the depositor in the Bank.
In view of these circumstances, the Bank finds it inexpedient to retain you any longer in service and accordingly
your services are terminated in terms of para 19.12(c) of the Bipartite Settlement 1966, with effect from the date
of service of the order.
We enclose herewith a pay order in your favour for a sum of Rs. 3,173. (Rupees Three thousand one hundred
seventy three and paise twenty only) being % one month’s salary.
Any other dues payable to you may be collected from the Bank. Please acknowledge the receipt.
3.
The order of termination is not served on the 1st Party personally and he has not received P.F and gratuity
amount consequential upon the termination order.
4.
The 1st Party in his claim statement contends that he was the Office Bearers of many trade unions. For his trade
union activities he is harassed and victimized by the 2nd Party. By virtue of his positions in the unions he is a protected
workman as per the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act. Many trade unions had protested against holding of the
enquiry against him and demanded withdrawal of their malafide steps. They had illegally terminated his service through
a news paper advertisement on 16.09.1985 in Samyukta Karnataka, Kannada Daily, published from Hubli. Such
termination of the service of a Staff through sudden Newspaper advertisement is not provided in the Awards/Bipartite
Settlements. They attempted to physically assault him on 16.09.1985 for which he lodged Police Complaint, they have
invoked section 36 AD of the Banking Regulation Act, without sufficient ground. They filed a Criminal Case against
him at Mangalore which is at a distance of 440 Kms from his residence. They instigated certain antisocial elements so as
to cause the destruction of the documents pertaining to the service conditions of the 1st Party by setting fire to the Office
of Dharwad District Bank Employees Association on 14.09.1987 night, Complaint was lodged to the police, due to fire,
several documents are lost. In addition they have filed a suit in Civil Court of Hubli, for recovering the loans availed by
him in one instalment, against the rules of sanction. They have closed the Fixed Deposit standing in his name and
withdrew the overdraft facility standing in his name. His termination under Para 19.12 (c) under Bipartite Settlement is
unconstitutional. He is unemployed.
5.
The 2nd Party countered the above statement on following lines:-
Being involved in various trade unions he was unable to devote full attention to Bank work. Hence, Charge Sheet was
issued in November 1981, on the complaint made by Hotel Owners 2nd Party issued charge sheet dated 30.11.1983. He
was said to be contesting for the corporation of Hubli and Dharwad from Communist Party of India despite intimation to
desist from participating in elections, he has contested the election. In this regard another charge sheet was issued. He
again contested from the Graduates Constituency for membership of Karnataka Legislative Council as an independent
candidate in the election held on 24.06.1984 and another charge sheet dated 27.02.1985 was issued on identical charges.
In the mean while, he made reference to Assistant Labour Commissioner, Mangalore through Karnataka Bank
Employees Association about the rejection and sought to permit him to contest the election. The Assistant Labour
Commissioner rejected to entertain the same as an Industrial Dispute. The Association filed a Writ Petition before the
Hon’ble High Court by arraying the Bank as 2nd Respondent. He coerced one of the Investigating Officer when he
visited the Branch Office on 18.02.1985; in this regard another charge sheet was issued.
6.
It is further stated by the 2nd Party that in respect of the pending cases, Sh. Seva Nami Raja Malla, Retired
District Judge was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The order of said appointment was communicate to him; the
association of which he was the General Secretary at his instance issued telegrams followed by letters urging to withdraw
the charges. He started publishing in the News Paper ‘DDBEA DHWANI’ (of which he is the editor and publisher)
about the entrustment of the matter to the Enquiry Officer for conducting Domestic Enquiry and expressing that the
proposed domestic enquiry was a ‘Drama’ which should be dropped by the Management failing which, he would resort
to agitation. He avoided the enquiry notices; he wrote articles in his paper against the appointment of the Enquiry
Officer, General Manager and the Chairman of the Bank etc. The paper cuttings of ‘DDBEA DHWANI’ indicated that
he was aware of the charge sheet issued against him and was determined to frustrate enquiry. He had written letter to
Government of Karnataka, requesting the Chief Minister that Government funds should not be deposited in Karnataka
Bank Limited as the financial position of the Bank was not strong. The gravity of the situation was such, that they had to
take some serious action in self interest only, for survival. The Management concluded with no useful purpose would be
served by the enquiry against the employee, who is determined to foil the enquiry. Accordingly the order of termination
was passed in terms of para 19.12(c) of the Bipartite Settlement, 1966. The termination order though was published in
the notice board since he refused to receive it; he tried to maintain that he was unaware of the termination order. He
lodged false complaint against the Officials of the Bank who attempted to serve the termination order. Hence, it became
4368
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
incumbent on the Bank to publish Termination order in Indian Express dated 02.09.1985. The Bank has taken lenient
view and has with held one increment with the effect of postponing future increment. The order of termination is not by
way of Disciplinary Action. Hence, they did not consider his request/appeal as it does not cover under any provisions of
the Bipartite Settlement. The civil suit filed by the Bank for recovery of the Loan is legal, the allegation of harassment,
victimization etc., levelled by him in his claim statement are all false.
7.
The 1st Party examined himself as WW-1 and marked documents Ex W-1 to Ex W-194. During cross
examination of WW-1 Ex M-1 and Ex M-2 are marked. Both have submitted oral and written arguments, as such it was
for the 2nd Party to justify their action in terminating the 1st Party from service. Unfortunately no evidence is adduced
from their side. My Learned Predecessor in office vide order dated 17.11.2017 (even after closure of 1st Party evidence)
afforded opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their stand taken in the counter statement, which was not availed
by the 2nd Party.
8.
As such this is not a civil dispute warranting a full fledged trial, if the dispute could be adjudicated on the basis
of records. The documents marked during the course of examination of WW-1 are Ex M-1 the paper publication
‘DDBEA DHWANI’ dated 27.7.1985 where in there is writing of both in Kannada and English language attacking the
charge sheet issued to the workman and the enquiry proposed there on; Ex M-2 is the Pamphlet (hand will) pertaining to
the 1st Party when he contested for Karnataka State Legislative Council, Graduate Constituency (West). Any
interference with regard to the allegation made against the 1st Party workman in the statement of the 2nd Party is not
permissible since the action taken against him is not by way of Disciplinary Action. Wherefore it is incumbent to
directly deal with the legality of the termination order which is passed under Para 19.12(c) of the Bipartite Settlement
1966.
9.
The said provision [Para 19.12(c)] is reproduced by the 1st Party in his written arguments read as under: -
“In awarding punishment by way of disciplinary action, the authority concerned shall take into account, the gravity of
misconduct, the previous record, if any, of the employee and any other aggravating or extenuating circumstances that
may exist. Where sufficiently extenuating circumstances exist, the misconduct may be condoned and in case such
misconduct is of the “gross” type, he may be merely discharged, with or without notice or on payment of a month’s pay
and allowance, in lieu of notice. Such discharge may also be given where the evidence is found to be insufficient to
sustain the charge and where the Bank does not, for reason or other think it to expedient to retain the employee in
question any longer in service. Discharge in such cases shall not be deemed to amount to disciplinary actions.”
10.
Unfortunately the 2nd Party failed to produce the records pertaining to the circumstances which calumniated in
issue of charge sheets to the workman. From the minutes of enquiry there is nothing indicating that the CSE has
purposefully avoided the enquiry. The termination order is passed during the pendency of the enquiry, thereafter enquiry
was discontinued. Wherefore obviously there is nothing to appreciate that he played delay tactics to strand the enquiry.
Without an oral evidence this Tribunal on its own cannot intern what was the perception of the Management on the New
item published by the 1st Party workman at Ex M-1 to uphold the order of termination.
11.
Sh. RU for the 2nd Party submits that, the Law Officer, The Assistant General Manager, and the Enquiry Officer
had filed their affidavits before this Tribunal on 23.11.1988 along with documents. But because of the intervening Writ
Petition filed by the 1st Party before the Hon’ble High Court and the trial was discontinued for a long time, authors of the
affidavits are not available. Their affidavits disclose the various activities indulged by the 1st Party outside the scope of
his employment, publishing the articles derogatory and against the interest of the Bank, holding Dharna, contesting the
elections against the instructions issued to him etc., are the gross misconducts which are not at all disputed by him. He
had made several allegations against the chairman of the 2nd Party which is highly unbecoming on the employee of the
Bank. It is not mandate in each and every case to hold Domestic Enquiry in an Industrial Adjudication under Industrial
Dispute Act 1947. He was very much aware of the enquiry as indicated in the News Paper Ex M-1 despite the same he
did not attend the enquiry, he had no intention to participate in the enquiry his answers given during cross examination is
evading.
12.
Learned Counsel Sh. RU further places his reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2005) 7
SCC 764 between Ajit Kumar Nag vs General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia and others dated
19.09.2005. It was the dismissal of a Senior Officer of the Indian Oil Corporation and on certain allegations was
dismissed from service without holding formal enquiry. The certified Standing Order of the Company provided for such
action relevant provision which was pressed into action by the Management was Standing Order 20(iv) which read thus:-
‘Where a workman has been convicted for a Criminal Offence in a Court of Law or where General Manager is
satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is neither expedient nor in the interest of security to
continue the workman, the workman may be removed or dismissed form service without following the
procedure laid down under III of this clause’. The employee challenged the order of his dismissal before
Hon’ble High Court but was not successful. His appeal also failed. He filed a substantive petition under Article
32 of Constitution of India, challenged the validity and vires of Clause (vi) of standing order 20 of the certified
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4369
standing order of the Corporation. He had also filed a special leave petition against the order passed by the
Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court in his appeal. The Apex Court noticed that sufficient guidelines and
safeguards have been provided in the standing orders themselves such as (i) Power is conferred on the highest
Administrative head of the Corporation, (ii) Eventualities were specifically and expressly stated in the clause
(vi), (iii) Satisfaction of the General Manager that such an eventuality has arisen, (iv) Recording of reasons in
writing, (v) Right of Appeal against the decision of the General Manager.
13.
Further, the Apex Court observed that order under challenge was a self contained order with detailed reasoning.
The General Manager had recorded the statement of eye witnesses who were present at the spot while the employee was
behaving violently by assaulting the Duty Doctor and disturbing the whole environment in the Hospital. This Judgment
in way lends its hand to the case of the 2nd Party for many reasons. (i) The employee was a Senior Officer of the
Corporation had not pressed into service adjudication under section 11-A of the Industrial Dispute Act. The 2nd Party has
taken away his right of Appeal, since the order is passed by Chairman of the Bank, who in the matter of punishment
orders in Disciplinary Proceedings is the Appellant Authority. (ii) The order under challenge therein was a detailed and
reasoned order. (iii) Though there is reference to the phrase ‘Labour Law’ during the course of discussion no where the
litigant therein is recognised as a ‘Workman’ under the provision of section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
14.
Learned Counsel Sh. RU placed his reliance yet on another Judgment (2013) 6 SCC 313 in the matter of Manoj
H Mishra vs Union of India and others. In this case the Apex Court upheld the dismissal of the workman on finding that
during Disciplinary proceedings he had admitted the charges. But that is not the situation in the case on hand. For each
and every charge sheet the workman had replied denying the allegations before enquiry was initiated. Assuming for a
while that by his contemptuous writings in the News Paper and activity is hostile to the Management and unbecoming of
a employee, 1st Party had become so dangerous that it was inevitable to remove him from service, then it was for the 2nd
Party to display before this Tribunal how the conduct was precarious outrageous and it was not in the interest of the
Bank to allow him to continue. After filing the counter statement the 2nd Party had filed affidavits of all the concerned
i.e. the Enquiry Officer and Senior Officials of the Bank etc., It was only subsequent to 2005 by bringing amendments to
civil procedure code there by the procedure of filing affidavit in lieu of examination in chief evidence was legally
accepted. The 1st Party had filed application to bring Authors of affidavits (supra) before the Tribuanl for cross
examination, and his application was rejected.
15.
This is not for the Tribunal to form opinion against the workman by reading in between lines of records, in the
absence of evidence by 2nd Party. The procedure before this Court is not in strict adherence to rules of Civil Procedure
of Evidence Act. But the parties are required to present before this Tribunal their statements in writing followed by oral
and documentary evidence. The 2nd Party herein is not defendant as in a Civil Suit or an accused person of a Criminal
Case. Though strict obedience to Evidence Act is not called for in an Industrial Adjudication under the provisions of the
Act. We cannot skip the elementary principle that a party who asserts a fact shall prove the same. The authors of the
affidavits of Authorities who were at helm of affairs for termination of the 1st Party if not available at this point of time
there must be records pertaining to the charge against him maintained during the course of administration, non
production of such document invites adverse inference against 1st Party.
16.
Going by para 19.12(c) of the certified standing order it is required that they have to take into consideration the
gravity of misconduct, his previous record and any other aggravating or extenuating circumstances that may exist.
Putting an end to the service of a workman in the mid way of his carrier is not a simple thing to be done at a stroke to be
forgotten forever. The authority which is responsible for the Termination ought to have assigned its reasons in a detailed
order when and how the conduct of the 1st Party workman amounted to grave misconduct. It is obvious having issued
charge sheet and dispensing with the enquiry they have passed the punishment order. Though they claim it is not a
punishment order but a termination simpliciter, virtually it is not so. Having issued charge sheet without proving the
charges they have passed the order which virtually ceased the carrier of the 1st Party workman. Way back in 1991 the
matter of Omprakash Goel vs Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Shimla and another, 1991 SSC
(L&S) 911 the Apex Court held that punishment order passed before conclusion of enquiry on the ground of misconduct
was in substance punitive..... It is only a camouflage with a view to avoid the enquiry under Article 311(2) of the
Constitution, then such termination is liable to be quashed. Added to this the complaint lodged by the 2nd Party against
the 1st Party workman ended in his acquittal.
17.
The 1st Party in his written arguments has contended that he is victimized because of his trade union activities
and he worked only after the office hours and he is entitled for special leave as a protected workman and as the office
bearer of the registered unions under the Bipartite Settlement he is entitled for the benefits of special category and also
for special facilities. For the moment the Tribunal will not expand its scope beyond what is referred for adjudication,
4370
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
things stand to the point that the Termination order is not a speaking order. The allegations made therein i.e. resorting to
highly objectionable activities with a view to pressurising the management to drop the charges and going to the extent of
scandalizing the Enquiry Officer and the Bank through Press and indulging in defamatory publications against the Bank
calculated to undermine the confidence of the depositor in the Bank are not proved. Hence, my answer to the above
referred issue is in the negative against the Management.
18.
Now comes the question of moulding the relief. The workman has already crossed the age of superannuation
long back, it is already more than 30 years since the dispute was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication. From the
order sheet I find the matter was stayed by the Hon’ble High Court for some time and from 29.01.1993 till 20.05.2010
the file was not brought to the open Court. Interim relief was an issue between the parties and both sides had led
evidence as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court; time was also spent on the application calling for documents
etc. The 1st Party is an active Trade Union Activist and he represents and conducts cases of workmen in other cases. The
claim that he is unemployed and he is sustaining himself on huge loan from his friends who support his causes, he claims
that he is not given the one month salary which they claim to have appended to the termination order. In the usual course
100% back wages is in the relief whenever the dismissal/termination is found illegal and set aside. The 1st Party
workman though contends that he is unemployed, he conducts cases on behalf of the workmen in other case, before this
Tribunal probablizing that he is sustaining on his own. In the facts and circumstances I am of the considered opinion that
he is entitled for 50% of the back wages from the date of his termination till the date of his superannuation with 100%
gratuity and provident fund amount. Hence, the following.
AWARD
The reference is accepted. The 2nd Party is directed to pay to the 1st Party Workman Sh. M Rama Rao 50% of the Back
wages in lump sum from the date of his termination i.e. from 14.09.1985 till the date of his superannuation and 100% of
Gratuity and Provident Fund amount for the above period. The order shall be complied within 60 days of publication of
the award failing which the amount shall carry future interest at 8% per annum.
(Dictated, corrected and signed by me on 20th May, 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 11 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1040
1040
1040
1040.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस+ Bसगारेनी कोिलयरीज कंपनी िलिमटेड के $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट
औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण-सह-Cम यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं1 या 20/2017)
को $कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 06.06.2019 को $ा5 त 6ए थे।
[सं. एल-22012/103/2016-आईआर (सीएम-II)]
राजे Bसह, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 11th June, 2019
S.O. 1040.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 20/2017) of the Central Government Industrial 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 which were received by the Central Government on 06.06.2019.
[No. L-22012/103/2016-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4371
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 1st day of May, 2019
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 20/2017
Between:
Sri Bandari Satyanarayana,
Sr.Vice President & Sreerampur Divn. President
Rashtriya Collieries Mazdoor Sangh (RCM)(INTUC)
Rajkumar Complex, Saibaba Tample Road,
Jaffar Nagar,Mancherial – 504208.
Adilabad Distt.
…Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Srirampur Area, Adilabad Distt.
(Telengana)-504303.
… Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
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- 22012/103/2016-IR(CM-II) dated 14.6.2017 referred
the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Srirampur Area, Adilabad
Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Banoth Lakya, Ex. CF, RK-7 Incline, Srirampur Area, with effect from
3.3.1998 without conducting of fair and legal disciplinary proceedings is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?’’
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 20/2017 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 1st day of May,
2019.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
4372
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 दली, 11 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1041
1041
1041
1041.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस+ Bसगारेनी कोिलयरीज कंपनी िलिमटेड के $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट
औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण-सह-Cम यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं1 या 33/2015)
को $कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 06.06.2019 को $ा5 त 6ए थे।
[सं. एल-22012/5/2015-आईआर (सीएम-II)]
राजे Bसह, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 11th June, 2019
S.O. 1041.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 33/2015) of the Central Government Industrial 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 which were received by the Central Government on 06.06.2019.
[No. L-22012/5/2015-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 1st day of May, 2019
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 33/2015
Between:
The President (Bandari Satyanarayana)
Rashtriya Collieries Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC)
Rajkumar Complex, Saibaba Tample Road,
Jaffar Nagar,Mancherial – 504208.
Adilabad Distt.
…Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Ramagundam-I Area, Godavarikhani – 505209.
Karimnagar Distt. (Telengana)
…Respondent
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4373
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent :
Sri V.S.V.S.R.K.S. Prasad, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 22012/5/2015-IR(CM-II) dated 5.5.2015 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 General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Ramagundam-I Area,
Godavarikhani, Karimnagar Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Nerella Thirupathi, Ex. Coal Filler, GDK-
2A Inc., RG-I Area with effect from 21.4.2010 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled
for?’’
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 33/2015 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 1st day of May,
2019.
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 दली, 11 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1042
1042
1042
1042.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस+ फूड कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंिडया के $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट औ ोिगक
िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण-सह-Cम यायालय सं1 या 2, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं1 या 44/2015) को
$कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 11.06.2019 को $ा5 त 6ए थे।
[सं. एल-22011/16/2015-आईआर (सीएम-II)]
राजे Bसह, अनुभाग अिधकारी
4374
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 11th June, 2019
S.O. 1042.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 44/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. 2, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. Food
Corporation of India and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 11.06.2019.
[No. L-22011/16/2015-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer
ID No.44/2015
Registered on:-18.12.2015
Sh. Inder Jeet Singh, General Secretary, Lal Jhanda FCI Workers
and Paledar Union (CITU), Patran Depot, Patiala-Punjab.
… Workmen-union
Versus
Area Manager, FCI, District Officer, Sirhind Road,
Near Anaj Mandi, Patiala, Punjab-147001.
…Management
AWARD
Passed on:-22.05.2019
Central Government vide Notification No. L-22011/16/2015-IR(CM-II) Dated 30.09.2015, under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of Management of Food Corporation of India of not changing the cadre of Shri Gualab Singh
from Ancillary Labour (A/L) to Handling Labour(H/L) is fair, legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to and from which date?”
1.
It is clear from the record that notice was sent to the parties when the reference was received by this Tribunal.
However, workers-union appeared and filed statement of claim, pleaded that the Manager(Depot)FCI, FSD Patran issued
an office letter No.IR-7(4) FSK/TMC/Compt/03/Voi(Change of Cadre A/L to H/L) dated 4.5.2013 and the H/L and A/L
workers position as on 1.4.21997 was 75 and the workman had applied for promotion from A/L to H/L work. Thereafter,
a list was prepared vide order dated 20.08.2013 and the name of claimant/workman Gulab Singh was enlisted at serial
no.5 and CPF No.23870 was allotted to him. The Manager(IR-L) again issued a letter bearing No.IR-/Gen/Labour
RJP/2008/388 dated 10.04.2013 and the name of workman was at serial no.5 and the Manager(D) has recommended that
all 11 applicants are fit to perform the duties of H/L and intimated that if these A/L are promoted as H/L work of A/L
labour will not suffer at Patran Depot and the same was sent to the Assistant General Manager, IRL, FCI Regional
Office, Chandigarh. On 28.06.2013, Manager IRL issued a letter bearing No.IR10(5)/DPS/2010/546 regarding the
change of cadre A/L to H/L in respect of DPS Labour of FSD Patran with the observation that approval of competent
authority is hereby conveyed to change the cadre of 7 Senior Most A/L from the list of 11 Ancillary Labours being send
to this office vide office letter no.388 dated 10.04.2013. Due to the collusing with labourers union, District Manager,
Patiala prepared the false and bogus list of labourers namely Parkash Singh, Shadi Singh, Major Singh, Pala Singh,
Uggar Singh, Lalu Singh and Godha Singh on the false ground of physical and obtained the false medical certificates of
these persons. That there is no requirement of physical test in the office of FCI Nabha and Patiala as well as depot of
Patran and the workman is entitled to be appointed as per list prepared vide office order no.FCI FSD/Patran/IR-AL/2013-
14 dated 20.08.2013 on the post of H/L along with arrears of wages and interest @ 18% per annum from the date of due
to actual till realization.
2.
Respondent-management filed written statement pleaded that the workman Gulab Singh is physically unfit for
the job of handling worker which is basic requirement for a worker to be appointed as handling labour and the physical
test was conducted on 31.08.2013 by a committee of three officers appointed by Area Manager, FCI Patiala in which the
workman could not qualify the said test. As a result of fitness test conducted by the said committee, the applicant being
unfit is not entitled to be appoijnted as Handling Lanour and the list prepared by Sh. Anil Parves AG1(D) FCI, Patran
was issued show cause notice dated 5.8.2013 for this lapse of preparation of list of 11 ancillary labourers for change of
their cadre on 1.4.2013 and therefore the claim of worker as filed, is liable to be dismissed.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4375
3.
Opportunity was given to both the parties to adduce evidence but, claimant/workmen opted to abstain away
from the proceedings. Consequently, opportunity of workman to adduce evidence is closed on 06.03.2019.
4.
The management has also not filed any evidence as such, opportunity of both the parties for adducing evidence
has been closed.
5.
Heard the learned counsel of management and perused the record.
6.
Since the claimant/worker has neither put his appearance nor has 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’. Since
there is no adjudication of reference or case on merits as such, it would not preclude the workmen from seeking fresh
reference or filing fresh case in accordance with Law.
7.
Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, for publication.
A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 11 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1043
1043
1043
1043.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस+ फूड कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंिडया के $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट औ ोिगक
िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण-सह-Cम यायालय, बंगलौर के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं1 या 62/2007) को $कािशत
करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 11.06.2019 को $ा5 त 6ए थे।
[सं. एल-22012/126/2001-आईआर (सीएम-II)]
राजे Bसह, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 11th June, 2019
S.O. 1043.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 62/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. Food
Corporation of India and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 11.06.2019.
[No. L-22012/126/2001-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE – 560 022
DATED
:
23rd MAY 2019
PRESENT
:
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
C R No.62/2007
I Party
II Party
The Regional Secretary, Food Corporation of India
Employees Union, Pallavi Complex, Subbaiah
Circle, Mission Road, BANGALORE – 560 027.
The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India, Regional Office,
Pallavi Complex, Subbaiah Circle, Mission Road,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
Appearances
I Party :
Shri S Raju, Advocate
II Party :
Sh. B L Sanjeev, Advocate
4376
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1.
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour,vide order No. L-22012/126/2001-IR(CM-II) dated 04.05.2007in
exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as “The Act”) (14 of 1947) referred the following Industrial Dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the claim of the Food Corporation of India Employees Union relating to the seniority and promotion in
respect of Shri P.S. Raghavendra Rao, Assistant Grade-I(Gen), Bangalore is admissible? If yes, to what relief is
the workman entitled?”
2.
The case of the 1st Party Union is :
The 1st Party workman joined the service of the 2nd Party on 19.05.1966 as Stenographer Grade-II, subsequently, he was
promoted as Assistant Grade – I, in the year 1974. As per the rule in the 2nd Party the Employee who is appointed as
Stenographer Grade – II/ Assistant Grade – II (General) will be further promoted as Assistant Grade – 1 and then as
Assistant Manager(General) and Stenographers will be put in common seniority with Assistant Grade –I(General) i.e.,
the Stenographers cadre would be lost in Assistant Grade-II level itself. The 1st Party was eligible as Assistant Manager
during the year 1976 along with some of his co-employees in the cadre of Assistant Grade – 1 (General) but he was not
given promotion as Assistant Manager. Since his request for promotion as Assistant Manager was not considered he filed
a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi along with similarly placed co-employees. The Writ Petition was
allowed directing the 2nd Party to give effect to the claim of the Writ petitioners. Similar order was passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras. Based on the interim order, the Zonal Office issued promotional order and subsequently
confirmed the promotion vide order dated 16.08.1996 w.e.f. 25.06.1976, the 2nd Party fits to the post of Seniority of
Assistant Grade – 1/ Stenographers as on 30.09.1975; the Seniority of the 1st Party was revised and refixed as 270(q)
immediately after Sh. Balarama Murthy. He is placed above the juniors Sh. YSS Shastri, Rajashekara Rao, however,
while issuing the promotion order with retrospective effect i.e., 25.06.1996 his name is not included, though there was no
adverse remarks of any kind in his Service Record during the year 1976. His several requests to rectify the anomaly of
denying the promotional benefit to him has gone in vain.
Further it is said that the 1st party workman was dismissed from service during 1985 on allegations. The appeal
preferred by him to the Zonal Office was allowed and the dismissal order was set aside. He retired from service
on attaining superannuation during November 2002. He ought to have been promoted along with his juniors w.e.f.
25.06.1996 from the cadre of Assistant Grade – 1 to that of Assistant Manager.
3.
The 2nd Party countered the claim on following lines:
‘the claim is not maintainable. As per the promotion policy adopted in the 2nd Party the Assistant Manager
(General) is a selection post, selected on merit cum seniority, the Assistant Grade – I coming under the zone of
consideration will be selected on Annual Performance report. The merited Assistants were empanelled in 1976.
1st Party did not posses required merit to consider him for the promotion post of Assistant Manager (General).
Though he was in the panel of promotion he could not be selected due to his low grading. Adverse remarks and
low remarks are equal. The adverse remark if noticed in the Annual Performance Report then only it will be
communicated to the workman but low grading since not an adverse remark is not communicated to him. The
Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Writ Appeal 376 – 377/1983 ordered to promote all the Stenographers who
would get the benefit from the Order of the Delhi High Court in the ROTA – QUOTA case (Deep Chanth case of
1983). The direction was pertaining to the Petitioners of those cases who could not get themselves empanelled
because of lesser grade. He lost his seniority during 1985 for the post of Assistant Grade – 1, in view of the
Departmental proceedings initiated against him; he was imposed the penalty of dismissal w.e.f. 16.09.1984, the
Appellate Authority modified the order of dismissal of service to that of reversion from the post of Assistant
Grade – I (General) to the post of Assistant Grade – II (General) further, he was not eligible for promotion for the
period of 5 years. Further his name which was on the top of Assistant Grade – II (General) in the Seniority list
came to Serial No. 283 in view of the order of Appellate Authority. Again he was promoted to the post of
Assistant Grade-I (General) only during 1993. His seniority was at Sl. No. 283 in the Seniority list of Assistant
Grade – I(General) as on 31.12.1999.
Further, it is contended that he was Charge Sheeted under major penalty clause while working as Assistant
Grade – I(General) and after enquiry he was imposed the penalty of dismissal from service w.e.f. 30.08.1985. In
appeal the punishment order was modified to that of ‘reduction in rank from the post of Assistant Grade –
I(General) to the post of Assistant Grade – II(General) for a period for 5 years fixing his pay at the minimum of
Assistant Grade-II (General) scale with further direction that during the period of penalty he will not earn
increments, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment and he was debarred from
promotion to the post of Assistant Grade – I (General) for a period of 5 years; on completion of 5 years he would
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4377
be considered for promotion as per the rules then existed’. His punishment order was modified by the Appellate
Authority though there was no mitigating circumstances but on humanitarian ground.
Further, it is stated that the promotion order of eligible employees with retrospective effect from 25.06.1976 was
issued in 1989. During the relevant time he was undergoing the punishment of reversion from the post of
Assistant Grade – II to Assistant Grade – I for 5 years i.e., 14.10.1985 to 13.10.1990. He had to wait for his turn
of promotion to the post of Assistant Grade – I (General). According to his seniority and availability of post. He
was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade – I during the year 1993 according to his turn. He cannot claim
promotion when there was no vacancy and he will not come under preview. After refixing his seniority as in the
case of other Steno Grade – 1 in 1976 eligible gradation was assigned to him as in the case of other similarly
placed. The procedure followed during 1976 (general) was followed after revision of the seniority of the 1st Party
workman. But even after refixing of the seniority from the post of Assistant Grade – I(General) during 1976 he
was not promoted as he was not merited as per his Annual Appraisal report.
4.
Both parties have adduced evidence, documents Ex M-1 to 14 are marked for the 2nd Party and Ex W-1 to W-9
are marked for the 1st Party. Oral Arguments heard from the 2nd Party, 1st Party has submitted his written arguments.
5.
After conclusion of the evidence at the instance of the 1st Party and as per the order of this Tribunal, the 2nd
Party produced the Attested copies of the confidential reports pertaining to the 1st Party for the period from 1975 to
1985. All through this period, he has fared well. Then what came in his way of consideration for promotion from the
cadre of Assistant Grade – I w.e.f. 25.061976, as on which date his Juniors were promoted is the point for focus.
6.
The 2nd Party has parallel defence in this regard, 1st fold of their contention is, though there was no adverse
remarks in his confidential report, his grading was low, second contention is he was punished for misconduct vide order
dated 30.08.1985 with dismissal and in appeal the dismissal was modified by the appellate authority vide order dated
06.08.1986. By the said order he was reinstated subject to reduction in rank from the post of Assistant Grade – I (G) to
AG (not legible) for a period of five years with following directions:
i)
His pay will be fixed at the minimum of time of pay of AG-II(G).
ii)
During the period of penalty he will not earn any increment and this will have the effect of postponement of
future increment of pay.
iii) He will not be considered for promotion for a period of five years and after completion of five years (not
legible) will be considered for promotion as per existing rules.
Now from the confidential reports the contention of the 2nd Party that his grading was low stands negated. If that were
to be so, the short question is ‘whether he is entitled for promotion with retrospective effect 25.06.1976 the day when his
Juniors were promoted?’
7.
It is to be noted that he superannuated during November 2002 but has raised the dispute in the year 2007. He
has not challenged the promotion granted to his Juniors so long he was in service. Without murmur he accepted his
promotion from the grade of Assistant Grade – II(General) to Assistant Grade I (General) in the year 1993. Assuming
that he was hesitant to challenge his department and his superiors while in service, what prevented him from raising the
dispute immediately after his superannuation is not explained. Virtually no industrial dispute existed as on the date the
union raised this dispute. The benefit now he is seeking for, is not towards any service rendered by him to the
department, but by virtue of the judgements passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated 18.03.1983 and judgement of
Hon’ble High Court of Madras dated 10.08.1984 that his seniority though was fixed at No. 270, he is not considered for
promotion. The answer is explicit from his own showing that he was charge sheeted in the year 1983 and was imposed
the dismissal order w.e.f. 10.09.1985. There appears to be no link between his annual Appraisals and the disciplinary
proceedings he was undergoing. Assuming for a while that the Order of the Disciplinary Authority was confirmed by the
Appellate Authority then there was no occasion for him to seek for promotion with retrospective effect on the ground that
his confidential report is favourable. As such the punishment order is not set aside, it was modified. When there was a
clear mandate in his punishment order that for the five years he will not earn any promotion, then there is no scope for
him to look for promotion on the basis of the seniority list dated 31.01.1985. On his Superannuation there is no
relationship of Employer and Employee between the parties. Therefore, the logical conclusion is the claim of the 1st
Party Union relating to the Seniority and promotion in respect of P S Raghavendra Rao, is not justified, he is not entitled
for any relief in this reference. Accordingly,
4378
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Reference is rejected.
(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 23rd May 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 11 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1044
1044
1044
1044.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस+ Bसगारेनी कोिलयरीज कंपनी िलिमटेड के $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म
िन-द. टऔ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण-सह-Cम यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं1 या
144/2006) को $कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 06.06.2019 को $ा5 त 6आ था।
[सं. एल-22013/01/2019-आईआर (सीएम-II)]
राजे Bसह, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 11th June, 2019
S.O. 1044.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 144/2006) of the Central Government Industrial 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 which were received by the Central Government on 06.06.2019.
[No. L-22013/01/2019-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 26th day of April, 2019
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 144/2006
Between:
Sri Kumbala Ramshankar,
S/o Narasaiah,
C/o Smt. A. Sarojana,
Advocate, Flat No.G7,
Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,
Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad.
…Petitioner
AND
1.
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Ramakrishnapur Area, Adilabad District.
2.
The Supreintendent of Mines,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
RK-6 Incline, Ramakrishnapur,
Adilabad District.
…Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent :
M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijayalaxmi Panguluri, Advocates
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4379
AWARD
Sri Kumbala Ramshankar who worked as Badli Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition
under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
seeking for declaring the proceeding No. RKP/Per/R/008/6360 dated 13.11.2002 issued by Respondent No.1 as illegal,
arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly
granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and
such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
The Petitioner was initially appointed as badli filler on 23.3.2000 and posted to work at RK-6 Incline. He was regular
to his duties during the year 2000. But during the year 2001 on account of his father’s ill-health and other family
problems the Petitioner could work only 96 days during the year 2001. While the matters stood thus, charge sheet dated
30.1.2002 was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondents alleging that the Petitioner absented for duty during the year
2001, which amounts to misconduct under company’s Standing Order No.25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was
conducted and during the time of the enquiry, the Petitioner was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to
put forth his grievances. Basing on such lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved and basing on
the erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 19.11.2002
vide office order dated 13.11.2002. It is stated that during the course of the enquiry the Petitioner has categorically stated
about his inability to perform his duties regularly during the year 2001, was only on account of his father’s ill-health.
But without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. It is also stated that the
action of the Respondents’ management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of
the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered two years of continuous service in the Respondents’
management till his dismissal. The Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically, but the
management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare
the impugned order No. RKP/Per/R/008/6360 dated 13.11.2002 issued by the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary and to
set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all
other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..
3.
The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief
which runs as follows:
In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner was
appointed in the Respondents’ company on 24.3.2000 as a Badli Filler. He was dismissed from service on proved
charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The
Petitioner has attended the dates fixed for the enquiry and had fully participated in the enquiry. He was given full, fair
and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted purely following the principles
of natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer
submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and the
enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner by way of show cause notice giving him an opportunity to make
representation against the findings of the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Petitioner is proved and it
was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone through
the enquiry proceeding and his past record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view
and lastly, the Respondents were constrained to dismiss the Petitioner from service. It is stated that in fact the Petitioner
was irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to him, and after
receiving the show cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is justified and legal
and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.
4.
In view of the memo filed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner not to challenge the validity of the domestic
enquiry conducted by the Respondents, the domestic enquiry is held as legal and valid vide order dated 24.2.2009.
5.
Both the parties have advanced their arguments U/s.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in support of their
claim.
6.
In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:
I.
Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the punishment
of dismissal from service to Sri Kumbala Ramshankar is legal and justified?
II.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?
III.
If not, to what other relief the Petitioner is entitled?
4380
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7.
Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
submitted that due to illness of his father and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty
sincerely. Even in his show cause the Petitioner has mentioned the above facts but it has not been considered during
the course of the enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on
the Petitioner. When the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to his father’s illness, and other family problems he could
not be able to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered his case while
imposing capital punishment. But the authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Petitioner, and has
imposed capital punishment to the Petitioner when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company’s
Standing Orders.
8.
On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the
Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty of the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed by
the Respondents’ company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to maintain
minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated into service.
9.
Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to ill
health of his father and other family problems of the Petitioner, he could not be able to regular in his duty, remained
absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the
enquiry, the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed. After
dismissal of service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family members. He
has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 31 years, he is now aged about 44 years
and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. The Petitioner being an able bodied
and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward to the court at the age of 44 years to work
under the Respondents. In such a circumstances, atleast one chance should be given to him for his reinstatement into
service in order to save his family members. Admittedly several modes of punishment are enumerated in company’s
Standing Orders. The Petitioner is a first offender and has worked about two years under the Respondents. While
imposing capital punishment to his employees, the management should think of the condition of the workers as well as
his family members. In this case, the punishment imposed by the Respondents for dismissal of service of the Petitioner
is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action taken by the management in imposing the punishment of
dismissal from service to Sri Kumbala Ramshankar is not legal and justified.
Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.
10.
Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service
to Sri Kumbala Ramshankar is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner
has already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given
a chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the
sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances
atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondents’
management. But in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. In the opinion
of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is only entitled to
be given a chance to work in the Respondents’ management.
Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.
ORDER
Proceeding No. RKP/Per/R/008/6360 dated 13.11.2002 issued by Respondent No.1 is declared as illegal and is hereby set
aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri Kumbala Ramshankar be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e., Badli
filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the
company Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of one year. The management is also
directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.
The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman shall have to
maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 190 musters in a year and the management shall have
the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short fall of attendance during
the period of the three months, the service of the workman shall not be terminated and he will be cautioned to improve
his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall of attendance during one year of
service of the workman, he will be terminated from service without any further notice and enquiry and in the event of
completion of one year of probation satisfactorily, the workman is to continue in service till the age of attaining
superannuation. The management shall consider any forced absenteeism on account of Mine accidents/ Natural disasters,
taking treatment in the company’s hospital, as attendance. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will be
applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc.. to the workman for appointment afresh.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4381
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 26th day of
April, 2019.
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 दली, 12 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1045
1045
1045
1045.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
पंजाब नेशनल ब#क के $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट औ ोिगक िववाद म
के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण/ Cम यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं1 या 120/2005) को $कािशत करती है जो
के ीय सरकार को 12.06.2019 को $ा5 त 6आ था।
[सं. एल-12011/82/2005-आईआर (बी-II)]
सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 12th June, 2019
S.O. 1045.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 120/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank
and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 12.06.2019.
[No. L-12011/82/2005-IR (B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/120/2005
Zonal Secretary,
Madhya Pradesh Bank Employees Association,
C/o State Bank of Indore,
Gorakhpur, Jabalpur
…Workman/Union
Versus
Regional Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Regional Office, 1227, Napier Town,
Jabalpur.
… Management
AWARD
Passed on this 14th day of May 2019
As per letter dated 19-10-05 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labor, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.
L-12011/82/2005-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
4382
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in imposing the punishment of
reduction in pay by two stages with cumulative effect and to treat the period remained under compulsory
retirement as loss of pay on Shri MunnalalMarskole, Daftary is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the workman concerned is entitled to?”
1.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman filed statement of claim. It is the case of
workman that he was working in the Bank during the period 9-6-96 to 23-4-98, he was issued a departmental chargesheet
dated 6-8-99. Charge against the workman was that he got opened an account of Shri Devraj Soni on 15-10-97 in the
Branch which was closed by the account holder on 8-12-97 after committing fraud in which workman helped the account
holder. Also that the workman dislocated the teller card and account opening form and made false entries in the account.
It is the case of workman that FIR was registered and disciplinary action started against him placing him on suspension
on 24-4-98. He submitted his reply dated 23-8-99 which was found unsatisfactory and Disciplinary instituted a
Departmental Enquiry information of which was given to workman vide letter dated 27-1-2000. After spending 24 years
of unblemished service, Bank clerk committed fraud in the said account and in the accounts of other account holders by
way of making false entries in the accounts regarding deposit of money in the said account. Being daftary, workman did
not have opportunity to make any entry in the account or maintained the account opening and other documents. That
enquiry is why the Enquiry Officer found him not guilty of any charge and exonerated from the charges in the Enquiry
Report submitted by him. So far as related to the present workman, bank clerk was found guilty in the enquiry and he
was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement. the Disciplinary Authority reverted the finding of Enquiry Officer
and illegally held the workman guilty of misconduct which is against law because he did not have any authority or
material apart from the Enquiry Report and enquiry papers to take a view against the findings recorded in the enquiry.
The Disciplinary Authority relied on documents in recording the impugned finding which were not supplied to the
workman during the enquiry proceedings. Thus the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority amounts to
victimization and unfair labor practice by the management. it is further the case of workman that he preferred an appeal
before Appellate authority who instead of quashing the order of Disciplinary Authority, modified it by order under
reference which is reduction of pay by two stages with cumulative effect treating the period of compulsory retirement as
loss of pay. Also, it has been alleged that after the receipt of order of Appellate Authority, the Disciplinary Authority
inflicted a further penalty in addition to order of Appellate Authority and reverted workman from post of Daftary to peon
hence committed illegality. Accordingly, it has been prayed that punishment by the Appellate Authority and Disciplinary
Authority be quashed and the employers be directed to provide all the consequential benefits including promotion to the
workman.
2.
Management filed Written Statement stating that the workman was working in the Bank during the period 9-6-
96 to 23-4-98, he was issued a departmental chargesheet dated 6-8-99. Charge against the workman was that he got
opened an account of Shri Devraj Soni on 15-10-97 in the Branch which was closed by the account holder on 8-12-97
after committing fraud in which workman helped the account holder. Also that the workman dislocated the teller card
and account opening form and made false entries in the account. FIR was registered and disciplinary action started
against him placing him on suspension on 24-4-98. He submitted his reply dated 23-8-99 which was found unsatisfactory
and Disciplinary instituted a Departmental Enquiry information of which was given to workman vide letter dated 27-1-
2000. It was further pleaded that the enquiry was conducted by Enquiry Officer after giving full opportunity to the
workman to take part in the enquiry. He cross examined witnesses and examined his witnesses. The Enquiry Officer
submitted his report dated 30-9-2000 holding the one charge which is Charge No.3 proved against the workman. Rest of
the charges were held not proved by the Enquiry Officer. Enquiry Report was furnished to the workman vide letter dated
14-10-2000 and he was called upon to submit his representation. He did file his representation dated 30-11-2000 and
after considering the Enquiry Report along with documents as well as the representation of the workman, Disciplinary
Authority disagreed with the finding of Enquiry Officer and hold all the charges proved against the workman vide
speaking order dated 28-11-2000 which was forwarded to workman to file his representation.
3.
Workman filed his further representation and was given opportunity of personal hearing on 27-1-2001. He was
given two other opportunities of personal hearing on 12-1-2001 & 5-2-2001 which he did not avail hence the
Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment vide order dated 19-2-02 compulsorily retiring the workman from service
and appeal was preferred by the workman before the Appellate Authority and after hearing the workman, the Appellate
Authority converted the order of compulsory retirement into reduction of pay by two stages with cumulative effect
treating the period under compulsorily retirement as loss of pay. It was further submitted by the management that all
charges were proved during the enquiry and punishment awarded is not disproportionate.
4.
Following additional issues were framed by my learned predecessor vide his order dated 15-4-2015:-
(1)
Whether the alleged misconduct is proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings?
(2)
Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed against workman is legal and proper?
(3)
If so, to what relief the workman is entitled to?
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4383
5.
Both the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence on additional issues. No further evidence was adduced
by any of the parties. This is also required to be mentioned here that during the course of proceedings, workman died and
now his LR, his widow is pursuing the case. I have heard argument of learned counsel for for management Shri
A.K.Shashi. None was present from the side of workman inspite of notice to learned counsel for the workman.
6.
Issue No.1:-
According to management, the charge against the deceased workman was that he got opened an account of Shri Devraj
Soni on 15-10-97 in Nagpur Road Jabalpur Branch of the Bank which was closed by the account holder on 8-12-97 after
committing fraud with the help of the workman. Workman dislocated the teller card and account opening form, he also
made false entries in the account of Account Holder. He failed to perform his routine official work. The record of the
enquiry has been produced before the Court. Perusal of record reveals that according to chargesheet, the deceased
workman was charged as follows:-
“Grave misconduct as per Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank or gross negligence or
negligence involving or likely to involve the Bank in serious loss thereby committing Para 19.5(j) of
Bipartite Agreement. Basis of this charge is as follows-
(1)
While working as Daftary in the Branch, the workman helped Devraj Soni in opening Account no. 18230
with the Bank on 15-10-97 and closing the account after committing frauds on 8-12-97.
(2)
That in order to prevent disclosure of the dislocated the teller card and account opening form of the said
account.
(3)
That the workman made fake entries in the account of Devraj Soni above mentioned without any vouchers
details of which are mentioned in the charge.
(4)
That the workman was instrumental in getting the amount of Rs.97636/- withdrawn from the aforesaid
account on different dates mentioned in the chargesheet.
(5)
That in order to conceal the fraud committed by him, the workman got deposited Rs.1000 on 25-11-97 &
27-11-97.
(6)
That the workman failed in discharging his duty as daftary in the Branch.
The initial enquiry report dated 30-9-2000 submitted by the Enquiry Officer shows that chare No.1 was held not proved,
charge No.2 not proved, charge No.3- Ist part not proved and 2nd part proved. Charge No.4 not proved, charge No.5- not
proved and Charge No.6 were found proved. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the finding of Enquiry Officer
and held Charge No.1,2,3,4 & 6 proved. He held Charge No.5 not proved. This order of the Disciplinary Authority dated
28-11-2000 is on record. The Disciplinary Authority had awarded punishment of compulsory retirement to the workman.
7.
The order of Appellate Authority passed by him on 28-2-2004 on appeal filed by the workman against the order
of punishment and finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority shows that workman had introduced the account
holder with the Bank in opening his account in which fraudulent entries and withdrawals were made during the course of
time. He gave benefit of doubt to the workman on Charge Nos.2, 3, 4 & 5 and held these charges not proved. He further
held charge No.6 proved and awarded the impugned punishment. Hence what requires to be seen here is whether all the
charges have been proved or not. After close scrutiny of evidence on record, I hold that the findings of Disciplinary
Authority are totally perverse with regard to proof of the charges. He has proceeded on the basic assumption that since
workman was in need of money at that time, he had a motive to commit frauds. We all are in need of money, some need
it for their bread, some for their luxuries. I find no occasion to disagree with the finding of Appellate Authority with
regards to his finding on proof of Charge No.1 which was that the workman introduced the account holder in opening the
account form but the point still remains whether it is a misconduct or not. No rule, regulation or circular has been cited
before this court which prohibits an employee from introducing a person of his acquaintance with the Bank in opening
his account cannot be held to be violative of any circular, rule or regulation of the Bank and accordingly it cannot be
basis of any misconduct against him.
8.
As regards the Charge No.3, it has been held partially proved against the workman, the Appellate Authority has
recorded that on 15-10-97, when first entry for deposit of Rs.8000/-was recorded in the said account, the workman was
present in the Branch. Charge No.3 w.r.t. alleged fraudulent entries in the said account relates to other various credit
entries in the ledger of the said account on various dates. Charge No.3 is as follows-
आपने बचत खाता मांक18230 , ी देवराज सोनी ने िविभ कापिनक ितिथय म जाली िवियाँ करके .97636/- का बक को
नुसान पँचाया/ जमा िविय के िव कोई समथ!क वाउचर "रकॉड! म उपल(ध नह+ है/ िविय का िववरण िन,ानुसार है-
4384
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
मांक -दनांक
बचत खाता सं/या
राशी
1.
17.10.97 अ1प
18230
8000.00
2.
21.10.97
18230
32160.00
3.
21.10.97 अ1प लेअ3नग तीत होता है
18230
22987.00
4.
…….. कोई िववरण नह+
18230
34489.00
97636.00
It does not show that any wrong credit entry was made on 15-10-97 which the Appellate Authority has held proved.
Apparently it is perverse because charge itself doesnot mention any false entry on 15-10-97. Regarding other entries,
Disciplinary Authority himself has held that these are not proved. This is also established that being a daftary in the
Bank, the workman was not entrusted or could not be entrusted with the job of making entries in ledgers which is done
by clerks in whose possession these ledger books are kept. Hence in absence of any evidence to the effect that the
workman had an access to ledger books, rather it is established that ledger books and the documents in which the alleged
false entries were made were in the custody of other employees. Simply on the ground that workman might have been
present on such dates or two contradictory handwriting expert reports, this charge also cannot be held proved.
Accordingly I hold Charge No.3 not proved on the basis of evidence produced in enquiry.
9.
As regards the other charges, perusal of evidence reveals that they are not proved as it has been concluded by
Appellate Authority. Hence I hold the other charges i.e. Charge No. 2,4 & 5 not proved in enquiry. The basis of Charge
No.6 is the earlier charges mentioned in Charge Nos.1 to 5. Since they have been held not proved, Charge No.6 is also
held not proved. Issue No.1 is decided accordingly.
10.
Issue No.2 & 3-
On the basis of finding recorded earlier, I hold that the impugned punishment awarded to the workman is bad in law and
fact and workman is held entitled to the consequential benefits setting aside the impugned punishment. Issue No.2 & 3
are answered accordingly.
11.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Punjab National Bank in imposing the punishment of reduction in
pay by two stages with cumulative effect and to treat the period remained under compulsory
retirement as loss of pay on Shri Munnalal Marskole, Daftary( now deceased) is held illegal and
unjustified.
(2)
Workman is entitled to all the consequential benefits.
12.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labor & Employment as per rules.
Dated:14.5.2019
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 12 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1046
1046
1046
1046.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
इलाहाबाद ब#क के $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय
सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण/ Cम यायालय, कानपुर (उ. $.) के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं1 या 78/2017) को $कािशत करती है जो
के ीय सरकार को 12.06.2019 को $ा5 त 6आ था।
[सं. एल-12011/45/2017-आईआर (बी-II)]
सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अिधकारी
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4385
New Delhi, the 12th June, 2019
S.O. 1046.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 78/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Kanpur (U.P.), as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Allahabad Bank
and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 12.06.2019.
[No. L-12011/45/2017-IR (B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI RAKESH KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 78 of 2017
Between:-
Allahabad Bank Staff Association (UP),
Allahabad Bank,
Hazaratganj Branch,
Lucknow.
AND
The Deputy General Manager,
Allahabad Bank,
Mandaliya Karyalay,
1/142, Babu Gulab Rai Marg,
Agra- 282005.
AWARD
1.
Central Government, Mol & Employment, New Delhi vide notification No.L-12011/45/2017-IR (B-II), dated
02.11.2017, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-
“Whether the action of the management of the Divisional Office, Allahabad Bank, Agra in awarding punishment
on Sri Satish Kumar Verma of “Be brought to down to two lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages” is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
2.
After receipt of reference order from the Ministry, registered notices dated 23.11.2017 and 30.01.2019 were
issued from the tribunal directing the Association to file claim petition supported with relevant documentary evidence by
fixing dates for hearing of the case i.e., 22.12.17, 09.02.18, 17.04.2018, 19.06.2018, 07.08.2018, 09.10.2018, 14.11.2018,
02.01.2019, 24.01.2019, 19.03.2019, 25.03.2019 and on 08.04.2019, but strange enough to note that on none of the dates
fixed in the case neither any representative of the Association raising the present dispute appeared in the case nor any
claim petition was filed in the case.
3.
On behalf of the management Sri Sharad Shukla and others have filed their authority letter to represent the
management in the case.
4.
By a bare perusal of the records, it is evident that the Association raising the present dispute on behalf of the
workman, despite availing of sufficient and reasonable opportunities have palpably failed in discharging its obligation in
filing the claim petition in support of its case, therefore, it is abundantly clear that neither the Association nor the
workman is interested in prosecuting the present case.
5.
Therefore, under the facts and circumstances, the case is adjudicated against the Union / Association holding
that the Association/workman is not entitled for any relief for want of pleadings and proof.
6.
Award in the present case is as above.
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
Date : 06.05.2019
4386
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दली, 12 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1047
1047
1047
1047.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
फाइव टार िशBपग एजे सी $ा. िल. के $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट
औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण/ Cम यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं1 या 01/2016) को
$कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 12.06.2019 को $ा5 त 6आ था।
[सं. एल-32011/03/2015-आईआर (बी-II)]
सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 12th June, 2019
S.O. 1047.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 01/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Kolkata, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Five Star Shipping
Agency Pvt. Ltd., and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 12.06.2019.
[No. L-32011/03/2015-IR (B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 01 of 2016
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Five Star Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.
AND
Their workmen
Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the Management
: None
.
On behalf of the Workmen
: None
Dated: 4th June, 2019
Industry: Port & Dock
AWARD
By Order No.L-32011/03/2015-IR(B-II) dated 17.12.2015 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of Five Star Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. terminating the service of
Shri Akbar Mallick, Mazdoor without adhering
the section 25F(a) & (b) under ID Act, 1947 is legal/or
justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled?’’
2.
When the case is taken up for hearing on 08.04.2019, none appeared for the parties concerned. It transpires from
record that though this reference is pending in this Tribunal since 08.01.2016 and inspite of all the opportunities, neither
the union has not filed its statement of claim, nor the management has filed its written statement to proceed further with
the case.
3.
On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the union has no grievance at present
in respect of termination of the workman concerned as mentioned in the order of reference. Therefore, there exists no
dispute for adjudication.
4.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of accordingly.
JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
Dated, Kolkata,
The 4th June, 2019
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4387
नई दली, 13 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1048
1048
1048
1048.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
केनरा ब#क के $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय
सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण/ Cम यायालय, बंगलोर के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं1 या 15/2006) को $कािशत करती है जो के ीय
सरकार को 13.06.2019 को $ा5 त 6आ था।
[सं. एल-12012/141/2005-आईआर (बी-II)]
सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 13th June, 2019
S.O. 1048.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 15/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Canara Bank and
their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 13.06.2019.
[No. L-12012/141/2005-IR (B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 03RD JUNE 2019
PRESENT : Justice Smt. Rathnakala, Presiding Officer
CR 15/2006
I Party
II Party
Sh. B. M. Ramaiah,
S/o Late Muniswamappa,
Since deceased by his LRs:
1. Smt. Shantha,
W/o Late B. M. Ramaiah,
2. Sh. Prathip Kumar B.R,
S/o Late B. M. Ramaiah,
3. Ms. Swetha B.R,
D/o Late B. M. Ramaiah,
The General Manager (P),
Canara Bank,
Head Office, (Personnel Wing)
112, J.C. Road,
Bangalore – 560 002.
Address of I Party LR’s
All are residing at
No. 11, 18th Cross, Lalji Nagar,
Lakkasandra Extension,
Bangalore – 560 030
Appearance
Advocate for I Party : Mr. Muralidhara
Advocate for II Party : Mr. T.R.K. Prasad
AWARD
The Central Government vide Order No.L-12012/141/2005-IR(B-II) dated 17.04.2006 in exercise of the
powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947
(for brevity ‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.
4388
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the action of Management of Canara Bank in passing the order of compulsory retirement from
the services of the Bank on Shri B.M. Ramaiah, Clerk, Bommasandra Branch, Canara Bank w.e.f
10.12.2003 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?”
1.
The 1st Party workman has raised the dispute against his employer 2nd Party Management. He joined the service
of the 2nd Party as a Clerk in the year 1978; his service was confirmed, he is an Ex-Service Man from the army and was
honoured with Sainya Seva Medal and Colour Service Medal; he was serving at Bommasandra Branch, Bangalore; he
was issued with a charge sheet dated 28.11.2002 alleging that he fraudulently retained Rs. 9,000/- out of the amount
remitted by a Customer and temporarily misappropriating the amount for personal benefit. Enquiry was initiated, he
participated in the enquiry; Enquiry Officer held him guilty of the misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority after calling
for his remarks to the Enquiry Report ordered his Compulsory Retirement under Chapter XI Regulations 4 Clause (b) of
Canara Bank Service Code. The appeal against the punishment order did not survive.
2.
The 1st Party in his claim petition contends that 17.08.2002 being a Saturday, and an half day for Banking
Transactions; he attended the Branch a little bit late with due permission from the Superior over phone. He was asked to
do cash work instead of his routine work, he came late to the Branch, the Manager himself was handling the cash
department, he hesitated to continue the work, but the Manager forced him to continue cash work in the large interest of
the public. He requested the Manager to tally the correctness of his cash work and handover the net cash balances with
the entries for further continuation of the cash work, but the Manager insisted to carry the cash work without going to
normal procedural formalities of tallying. Finally the 1st Party continued the remaining cash work. It was a heavy rush
day and he handled around 250 cash transactions, the cash was successfully handled and tallied, he handed over the same
to the cash supervisor for checking and attestation, he had to attend the court on 19.08.2002 and had requested for 4 days
leave from 19th onwards. But he was called to the Branch on 20.08.2002 saying that his presence is required urgently due
to some problem crept in on 17.08.2002. He cancelled his leave on 22.08.2002 and rushed to his Branch, he was
informed that a Customer by name Sh. Devaraju had complained that he had remitted Rs. 10,000/- to his S.B. Account on
17.08.2002 whereas the entry in the pass book shows Rs. 1,000/-. The customer was about to start agitation and the
Manager pleaded with him to wait for 3 days and received the complaint. Though, the whole Branch was involved to
investigate the transaction, they could not find out the whereabouts of the shortfall. At the instance of the Manager 1st
Party remitted the shortfall amount to save the name of the Bank. The Manager reported the whole episode to the
Administrative Section; said Manager was not in cordial terms with the 1st Party, the Investigating Officer investigated
the matter routinely. The Charge Sheet was fraught with infirmities, the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse,
the Enquiry Officer was biased and prejudiced against the 1st Party workman. When he was imposed penalty of
Compulsory Retirement from service he was left with 4 years of service and large liability. Aggrieved by the illegal
action of the 2nd Party, he caused a legal notice dated 01.01.2005 to the 2nd Party seeking for grounds to take such a severe
action of punishment equivalent to be imposed on the charges of major misconduct. He is not guilty of the alleged
charges; the punishment is too harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct alleged.
3.
The 2nd Party in their counter statement justified their action, it is stated that the complainant had S.B Account
No. 10269 at 2nd Party’s Bommasandra Branch; on 19.08.2002 on getting entry into his pass book reported to the
Manager that he had remitted Rs. 10,000/- to his S.B Account on 17.08.2002 but the entry in the pass book is Rs. 1,000/-
only. During the investigation it was found that Sh. Devaraju had remitted Rs. 10,000/- himself along with the credit
challan prepared through a friend. The denominations are Rs. 500 x 10 = 5,000/- and Rs. 100 x 50 = 5,000/- amount
being Rs. 10,000/-. The 1st Party workman had not reported any excess cash on that day. He was on leave from
19.08.2002 to 21.08.2002 and reported to duty on 22.08.2002. After searching for the challan the 1st Party told the
Manager that the challan is missing, he sought time till 26.08.2002 to verify the details of the transaction and settled the
matter. On 26.08.2002 he discounted a cheque of Rs. 12,000/- and remitted Rs. 9,000/- to the S.B Account of
Sh. Devaraju. Though the customer had remitted the cash at 12.00 noon on 17.08.2002, the relevant entry in the manual
cash shroff is shown as the last entry at Sl. No. 89. The transaction is recorded in the system as transaction No. 223, the
last transaction was No. 272, he has unauthorisedly removed Branch portion of the challan. Though, he has remitted Rs.
9,000/- to the S.B Account 10269 on 17.08.2002, he temporarily misappropriated the same for his personal needs. He
had not submitted his reply to the charge sheet. His allegation against the Manager has no relevance to the issue and it is
his own unfounded imagination. Likewise his allegations against the finding of enquiry are not tenable; his legal notice
was suitably replied by the 2nd Party.
4.
It is from the Charge sheet that the 1st Party was alleged with gross misconduct within the meaning of Chapter
XI Regulations 4 Clause (b) of Canara Bank Service Code.
5.
On the rival pleadings of the parties an issue regarding fairness of the Domestic Enquiry was framed, tried and
adjudicated upholding the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4389
6.
Thereafter the 1st Party adduced evidence on the contention victimization and unemployment. On giving
audience to both parties on merits of the case, the matter was reserved for award, at that stage 1st Party expired and his
Legal Heirs are brought on record.
7.
During the enquiry, on behalf of the Management five witnesses were examined, the Complainant was the first
witness, the Investigating Officer was the fourth witness and the remaining were the Manager and staff of the Branch, 20
documents were exhibited for the Management. Though the CSE did not opt to adduce oral evidence 4 documents
submitted for defence were taken on record as Ex D-1 to Ex D-4.
8.
The crucial question before the Enquiry Officer was, what amount had the S.B Account Holder remitted to his
account; the Complainant during his deposition had stated about remitting Rs. 10,000/- to his account with the credit
challan filled by the younger brother of his friend and he has seen that the denominations were written on it, and he
produced the Xerox copy of Counterfoil of his challan in which it was written Rs. 10,000/- in words and Rs. 1,000/- in
figures. Undisputably that the 1st Party was the cashier on that day and had mentioned Rs. 1,000/- in the Manual Shroff
book. The 1st Party had not disputed the photo copy of Counterfoil produced by the Complainant bearing his signature.
The office challan was not produced during the enquiry by the prosecution. However, the Special Assistant had stated
that he had seen the original challan in question while checking the entry and the amount was written in figures as Rs.
1,000/- and could not recollect the amount written in words. However, everybody agreed that there was not excess cash
on that day. The Investigating Officer also could not trace the original challan during his investigation. The cash receipt
waste dated 17.08.2002 depicted the amount credited to the S.B Account 10269 was Rs. 1,000/- vide receipt Sl. No. 89
and the entry was made by the 1st Party. The Enquiry Officer conveniently skipped the gap between the fact that the
Special Assistant on that day had seen the original office challan and thereafter it was missing, but proceeded on the
photo copy of Counterfoil challan, more specifically on the description of amount written in words as Ten Thousand. By
assuming that what was written on the Counterfoil should have been reflected in the main challan; he relied on the
evidence of the Complainant and also the view of the Investigating Officer that he had remitted the cash in the
denominations of 500 x 10 = 5000 and 100 x 50 = 5000. As such there was no dispute to the fact that the 1st Party
subsequently had remitted Rs. 9,000/- to the Account of the Customer. Thus, the Enquiry Officer reached the finding
that the 1st Party had retained Rs. 9,000/- out of the amount remitted by the Customer and has mis-utilised the same.
9.
Reading the Enquiry Report in juxtaposition to the evidence would surface that 1st Party was not a regular
cashier, he came little late to the Branch on that day, on the order of the Manager had to take up cash work, that being a
Saturday there was heavy transaction, the Complainant was unable to speak and write English, hence had to get the
challan filled up by a 3rd person and the author of the challan was not examined as a witness. The Complainant had not
ascertained on 17.08.2002 with others about what was written in the challan after verifying the entry in the pass book on
21.08.2002 he returned only on 26.08.2002. Suspicion against the 1st Party was he must have intentionally destroyed the
Bank challan, but the Enquiry Officer failed to take note of the fact that Special Assistant had seen the original challan,
once the original challan goes to the Accountant it is he who bundles it and it is not palatable to assume that 1st Party
working in the cash counter gets occasion to take the challan to his custody so as to destroy the evidence. The Enquiry
Officer emphasized on the fact that the 1st Party having made good of shortfall of the cash, admitted the temporary
misappropriation.
10.
The Manager during the cross examination had admitted that the 1st Party workman is a Hard Worker, his
customer service is excellent, he had no doubt about his Honesty and Integrity till the incident, his dedication towards the
institution was excellent he worked for long hours and alone balanced the ledger, he had helped for recovery of loans,
deposit, mobilization etc. It was he who told the 1st Party that the matter is to be settled, the 1st Party remitted Rs. 9,000/-.
When the customer complained on 19.08.2002 itself it was noticed that the office challan was missing, at the relevant
time the computerization work was going on in full swing, there was lot of work pending in respect of slip bundles, the
cash receipt waste was maintained both manually as well as on the computer simultaneously. Said work was done by
other official assisting the cashier, the customer was a vegetable vendor, it was a normal S.B Account without big
deposits.
11.
It is also worth to note that the Complainant who is unable to answer whether in the Counterfoil challan bears
the figures of the amount deposited was written, gives the specific denominations of the currency notes he deposited on
that day. During the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer who recorded the statement of the Complainant that
he had read the figure mentioned as Rs. 1,000/- in the Counterfoil as Rs. 10,000/-. The fact that the entry of the
transaction in the Manual Shroff Book was done as last entry at Sl. No. 89 but in the system it was the last transaction
bearing No. 272 does not have any significance since on Saturday Bank transaction is only far half day.
4390
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12.
The more interesting fact about the story is the Complainant had not produced the original Counterfoil challan
either before the Investigating Officer or before the Enquiry Officer. Commencing from the stage of actual remittance of
the amount in the cash counter there are gaps disconnecting the events. The Enquiry Officer has reached the conclusion
on the Principle of Preponderance of Probability, but failed to note that once the amount is received the Office challan
was sent for bundling, the original challan was seen by the Official while bundling; the 1st Party had no occasion to lay
his hand on the challan. The 1st Party reasoned out by producing a letter issued by his Counsel that the 1st Party attended
the Court on 19.08.2002, his absence on the subsequent days was with the leave of the Manager to attend the Court
hearing, there was no discrepancy between the manual entry and the computer entry. There was a discrepancy in the
version of the depositor. He says that he cannot read the writing in the challan, but would read from figures mentioned as
Rs. 1,000/- as Rs. 10,000/-. There appears to be something unnatural on the part of the Complainant in not producing his
original Counterfoil Challan. Wherefore in the opinion of this Tribunal holding the 1st Party guilty of the misconduct
only on the basis of the Xerox copy of the Counterfoil challan was not well founded.
13.
The Disciplinary Authority owe its obligation to re-read the evidence, interpret the allegation in relation to Past
Records of CSE. The 1st Party being an Ex-Service Man from the Army having maintained good record, it is not in a
natural course to presume that he would steal a depositor’s money without forethought of such conduct. Not only the
Enquiry Report which is founded on the fragile evidence is perverse, but also the punishment order imposed on the
workman, relying on such fragile Enquiry Report was not legal and not justified. The Mere fact that on the persuasion of
his Manager he deposited the shortfall, shall not subscribe for the allegation against him. In view of the punishment
order the workman lost 4 years of his valuable service. Since the punishment order is held not legal, the monetary loss
suffered by him the ignominy and the sufferings of the workman and the family have to be compensated by awarding
Monetary Relief.
AWARD
The reference is accepted. The Action of the 2nd Party in passing the order of Compulsory Retirement from
service against their employee Sh. B.M. Ramaiah is not legal and not justified. The class one Legal Heirs of the
deceased workman shall be paid 60% of his Back wages i.e. w.e.f. 10.12.2003 till the date of superannuation of the
workman within 60 days from the date of publication of the Award, failing which the amount shall bear future
interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 03rd June, 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 13 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1049
1049
1049
1049.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
केनरा ब#क के $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय
सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण/ Cम यायालय, बंगलोर के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं1 या 140/2007) को $कािशत करती है जो के ीय
सरकार को 13.06.2019 को $ा5 त 6आ था।
[सं. एल-12012/75/2007-आईआर (बी-II)]
सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 13th June, 2019
S.O. 1049.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 140/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Canara Bank and
their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 13.06.2019.
[No. L-12012/75/2007-IR (B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4391
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED
: 04TH JUNE 2019
PRESENT : Justice Smt. Rathnakala, Presiding Officer
CR 140/2007
I Party
II Party
Shri. D. H. Sreenivasa,
No. 461, Kumar Building,
Arisinakunte, Adarshanagar,
Nelamangala,
Uttara taluk.
The General Manager (P),
Canara Bank,
112, J.C. Road,
Bangalore – 560001.
Appearance
Advocate for I Party : Mr. K.V. Sathyanarayana
Advocate for II Party : Mr. T.R.K. Prasad
AWARD
The Central Government vide Order No.L-12012/75/2007-IR(B-II) dated 01.10.2007 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (for
brevity ‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.
“Whether the action of the Management of Canara Bank in imposition of punishment of dismissal from
the services on the workman, Shri D.H. Srinivasa, Ex-sub-Staff, Canara Bank, Levelle Road, Branch,
Bangalore w.e.f. 21.06.2003 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from
which date?”
1.
The undisputed facts of the case is, the 1st Party workman was appointed as daily wager sub-staff in the 2nd Party
Management during 1984. Subsequently his service was regularised as permanent employee. He was kept under
suspension, followed by the charge sheet dated 25.04.2002. Domestic Enquiry was initiated by appointing Enquiry
Officer and Presenting Officer. On the very same set of facts, the Jurisdictional Police had launched Criminal Case and
had charge sheeted him along with the co-accused for the offence under section 489-B, 489-C and 420 of IPC. The 1st
Party did not participate in the enquiry though had engaged Defence representative. After recording the statements of
Management witnesses the Enquiry Officer recorded his findings, holding the CSE guilty of all the charges. Acting on
the enquiry report the Disciplinary Authority has dismissed him from service.
2.
The Pith of the allegation against the 1st Party was, on 25.04.2002 he introduced one Sh. Sathyanarayana to the
Clerk of the Branch, persuaded him to exchange the currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination totally amounting to
Rs. 1,00,000/-, for the currency notes of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 50/-. Though the Official Sh. B. P. Nath advised the 1st Party
to go to RBI, for exchange of notes, he prevailed on him and got the notes exchanged. In the evening the Cashier found
that all the Rs. 500/- denomination currency notes were fake. However, on the same evening at the intervention of the 1st
Party the original currency notes of the Bank were returned. 1st Party had indulged in the above transaction, being lured
by Sh. Sathyanarayana of a commission of Rs. 6,000/-
3.
The 1st Party in his claim has assailed the procedure of enquiry adopted by Enquiry Officer as illegal and also
lack of opportunity to defend himself against the charges. His further case is the punishment is most disproportionate to
gravity of the alleged misconduct.
The 2nd Party in their counter statement justified the legality of the procedure adopted during the Domestic
Enquiry and denied all the allegation levelled by the 1st Party in his claim statement. It is further contended that Enquiry
Officer has given the detailed findings. Disciplinary Authority gave every opportunity to the 1st Party to make
submission on the Enquiry findings and arranged personal hearing on proposed punishment. It is contended that the
punishment commensurates with the gravity of misconduct proved during the Enquiry. Punishment Order is passed by
the Disciplinary Authority considering the records of the Enquiry, nature and gravity of the proved misconduct and facts
and circumstances of the case.
4.
On the rival pleadings of the parties regarding validity and fairness of Domestic Enquiry a preliminary issue was
framed, tried and adjudicated by upholding the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry.
4392
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
The 1st Party workman led his evidence to demonstrate that he is victimised by the 2nd Party for his legitimate
trade union activity. He along with his family members is suffering from mental agony, having no other alternative
means of livelihood.
6.
Written Argument is submitted by the 1st Party workman. The learned counsel for the 2nd Party has
submitted his oral argument.
7.
It was allegation against the 1st Party workman as per charge sheet was:-
By his action of abetting and instigating an outsider to get fake currency notes exchanged, he committed gross
misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI Regulation 3, Clause (n) CBSE.
He attempted to cause wilful damage to the property of the Bank, thus committed gross misconduct within the
meaning of Chapter XI regulation 3 Clause (j) of Canara Bank Service Code.
He acted without Honesty and integrity and thereby contravened Regulation 2A (l) XI Chapter 9 of Canara
Bank Service Code.
His action being prejudicial to the interest of the Bank, he has committed gross misconduct within the meaning
of Chapter XI, Regulation 3, Clause (m) of Canara Bank Service Code.
8.
During the enquiry the Management examined five witnesses and marked 15 documents. The witnesses
examined were all Official witnesses - the then Chief Manager of the Branch, the Clerk who was the Cashier on
08.02.2001 the Investigating Officer, Official from the Branch Sh. B P Nath who was persuaded by the 1st Party to hand
over genuine currency notes in exchange for fake currency notes and the Official looking after the Disciplinary matter
working at SSW CO Bangalore. The 1st Party though aware of the enquiry abstained from cross examining the
Management witnesses and presented his Defence Evidence.
9.
The Enquiry Officer without other go considered the uncontroverted oral and documentary evidence placed by
the Management to reach his conclusion. Among other things the vital documentary evidence (Ex MEX–10) was,
statement given by the 1st Party before the Investigating Officer in the criminal case confessing that Sh. Sathyanarayana
has promised him to give Rs. 6,000/- commission for exchange of the currency notes. Ex MEX–9 was the letter
addressed by the Jurisdictional Police to the Manager of the Branch stating that during the investigation the 1st Party
workman’s complicity in the offence was revealed and he is arrested. EX MEX–12 were the Bank Cheques issued by
the CSE to Sh. Sathyanarayana evincing the financial dealings with him; Ex MEX–10 was the statement given by the
CSE to the Investigating Officer.
10.
Appreciating the oral and documentary evidence the Enquiry Officer found the workman guilty of all the
charges. It is evident from the Enquiry Records that the workman was insisting to stay the enquiry on the ground that the
criminal case is in progress. It appears he had approached the Hon’ble High Court for the relief of stay of the Enquiry
proceedings on the said ground, possibly without any benefit. He has produced the judgement dated 31.07.2006 passed
by the Special Court in the session case No. 94/2002 acquitting him of all the charges. The seized counterfeit notes
are ordered to be confiscated and returned to RBI for destruction.
11.
Much of the facts alleged in the charge sheet are not in dispute and the evidence produced by the prosecution
during enquiry, since went uncontroverted no impropriety or illegality can be attributed against the enquiry report. As
such it was an effort to defraud the Bank by Rs. 1,00,000/-. The position of Law is very much firm that the result of the
criminal case has no bearing on the Domestic Enquiry or the consequences thereof. The Disciplinary Authority acting on
the Enquiry Report imposed the punishment order, after giving him an opportunity for personal hearing. At that stage
also the 1st Party was adamant and did not attend the personal hearing and sought to stop the Disciplinary Proceedings
until disposal of the session’s case. For not availing the opportunity at the crucial point of time, in the natural course he
was imposed the punishment order of dismissal.
12.
The short question now left open is, whether the punishment commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct
proved?
13.
As such the Bank did not suffer any loss due to the misconduct alleged. It appears till the present incident his
service records were clean. There was no tangible material before the Enquiry Officer to assume that he had involved in
the misconduct for personal gain of Rs. 6,000/-. Even the Police have not recovered the commission amount promised
by the accused from him custody. It is also possible that the whole episode occurred under blind belief. The statement
given by the accused before the Investigating Officer is not legal evidence and hit by section 26 of the Evidence Act and
also section 161 of CRPC. Off course criminal Jurisprudence and Industrial Jurisprudence operate in different spheres.
If the confession statement Ex MEX-10 is taken out, the gravity of the misconduct mitigates substantially. Looking from
that angle the punishment of dismissal imposed in the mid-way of his service without regard to his past record is too
harsh and shockingly disproportionate.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4393
14.
From the records I assume that he is already crossed the age of superannuation. In the given circumstance, in
the considered opinion of this Tribunal modification of punishment order of dismissal into termination with all monetary
benefits available to the years of service rendered by him to the Bank, would serve ends of justice being met.
AWARD
The reference is accepted. The punishment of dismissal imposed on the 1st Party workman Sh. D H
Srinivasa, Ex-Sub-Staff Canara Bank, Levelle Road Branch, Bangalore w.e.f 21.06.2003 by the Management of
Canara Bank is neither legal nor justified. The punishment order of dismissal is modified to the order of
termination w.e.f 21.06.2003 along with all terminal monetary benefits in respect of the years of his service that is
16.11.1984 to 21.06.2003, shall be paid to him within 60 days of publication of this award in the official gazette.
Otherwise the amount shall carry future interest at the rate of 8% per annum till the date of recovery.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 04th June, 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 13 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1050
1050
1050
1050.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
ब#क आफ महारा. J के $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट औ ोिगक िववाद म
के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण/ Cम यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं1 या 03/2015) को $कािशत करती है जो
के ीय सरकार को 13.06.2019 को $ा5 त 6आ था।
[सं. एल-12011/09/2015-आईआर (बी-II)]
सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 13th June, 2019
S.O. 1050.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of Maharashtra
and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 13.06.2019.
[No. L-12011/09/2015-IR (B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/03/2015-16
Date: 08.05.2019
Party No.1
:
The Assistant General Manager,
Bank of Maharashtra, Zonal Office,
Mahabank Bhavan, Sitabuldi,
Nagpur – 440012.
Versus
Party No.2
:
The General Secretary,
Union of the Maharashtra Bank Employees,
Ram Naresh Bhavan, 542, Congress Nagar,
Nagpur – 440012.
4394
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
(Dated: 08th May 2019)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their union, Maharashtra
Bank Employees Union for adjudication, as per letter No.L-12011/09/2015 (IR (B-II) dated 27.04.2015, with the
following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra, Nagpur in imposing the punishment of
bringing down to lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages for o ne year without cumulative effect vide
order dated 30.07.2011 and also punishment of recovery of Rs. 40,000/- from the salary of the workman
vide order dated 06.08.2011, are just, fair & legal? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled to?’’
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement, by registered post with acknowledge due fixing the date on 28.08.2015. On 08.10.2015, Shri S.T.
Sahasrabudhe, advocate filed vakalatnama for the petitioner and on 09.11.2017, Shri R.N. Sen, advocate filed
vakalatnama on behalf of the management. After that, this Tribunal also issued notice to the petitioner on 09.11.2017
and 21.09.2018, but neither petitioner /union nor his advocate appeared even service of the notice. Last notice was
issued on 21.09.2018 through registered post. This office supplied photocopy of Dispatch Register, which shows that,
presumption may be drawn against the petitioner/union for service of the notice.
3.
Advocate for the management filed an application for closing the reference on 10.08.2018, which is marked as
I.A. No. I and gave details of the proceedings, which shows that, petitioner/union is not interested to continue with this
reference. So, application I.A. No. I is allowed. Hence it is ordered:
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any
relief.
S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 13 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1051
1051
1051
1051.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
केनरा ब#क के $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय
सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण/ Cम यायालय, बंगलोर के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं1 या 139/2007) को $कािशत करती है जो के ीय
सरकार को 13.06.2019 को $ा5 त 6आ था।
[सं. एल-12012/74/2007-आईआर (बी-II)]
सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 13th June, 2019
S.O. 1051.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 139/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Canara Bank and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13.06.2019.
[No. L-12012/74/2007-IR (B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4395
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE – 560 022
DATED
: 06TH JUNE 2019
PRESENT : Justice Smt. Rathnakala, Presiding Officer
CR 139/2007
I Party
II Party
Sh. N Govindaraju,
S/o Sh. Nagaraju,
No. 34/35, 2nd Floor,
12th Main Road, 5th Cross,
Near Vijayanagar Police Station,
Bangalore - 560 040.
The Dy. General Manager,
Canara Bank,
Circle Office,
No. 86, III Floor,
Spencer Towers, M.G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
Appearance
Advocate for I Party : Mr. K.V. Sathyanarayana
Advocate for II Party : Mr. T.R.K. Prasad
AWARD
The Central Government vide Order No.L-12012/74/2007-IR(B-II) dated 27.09.2007 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 (for brevity
‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.
“Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank in imposition of punishment of compulsory
retirement from the services on the workman Sh. N. Govindaraju, Ex-Clerk, Canara Bank, V.G. Doddi
Branch w.e.f. 30.12.2005 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled and from which date?”
1.
The undisputed facts are,
The 1st Party workman joined the service of the 2nd Party Bank as Sub-Staff in the year 1977. He was promoted as Clerk
during 1996 and was posted to V.G. Doddi, Magadi Taluk, Bangalore Rural District without importing training for the
Promoted Post. He was kept under suspension on certain allegations and the Charge Sheet dated 28.04.2005 followed.
He denied the charges; Domestic Enquiry was initiated by appointing Enquiry Officer. After holding a full fledged
enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, holding the 1st Party guilty of the misconduct alleged. The Disciplinary
Authority called for the remarks of the 1st Party to the Enquiry Report, gave its audience him and imposed the
punishment of ‘Compulsory retirement’ from service w.e.f. 30.12.2005. The Appeal preferred thereon was of no benefit.
2.
The 1st Party claims that the Enquiry was held in violation of Principle of Natural Justice. The finding of the
Enquiry Officer was perverse. The Disciplinary Authority mechanically accepted the perverse findings and endorsed the
defective Enquiry. The Punishment imposed is most disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged charges; the
punishment order is illegal and capricious. He had filed the Appeal before the Appellate Authority by urging various
valid and tenable grounds. But the Appellate Authority without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
evidences has rejected the appeal with a closed mind. He was a member of the Union Viz Federation of Canara Bank
Employees Congress Affiliated to BEF and INTUC; he was taking active role in the Union and fighting for better service
conditions of the Employees. Hence, the Management developed Hostile attitude against him and victimised him. Due to
the illegal and arbitrary action of the Management he and his family members are facing financial hardship and mental
agony.
3.
The 2nd Party countered the claim, contending that the enquiry is conducted by duly following the Principles of
Natural Justice and as per the provisions of Canara Bank Service Code which is in conformity with the Bipartite
Settlements and Awards. He was given fair and reasonable opportunity during the enquiry. The finding of the Enquiry
Officer is well supported by the evidence and cogent reasons. He was cautioned several times for his financial
indiscipline. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment on considering his submissions during the personal
hearings, relevant records and the gravity of misconduct. The misconduct committed by him was tampering of the Bank
records, raising of funds for personal gain, the punishment imposed commensurates with the gravity of the misconduct.
4396
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appropriate punishments are imposed on the other concerned employees as per the gravity of offence committed by
them. Accordingly Sh. R R Hoover/the Manager of the Branch was imposed punishment of Compulsory Retirement for
the misconduct committed by him, as per the rules and regulations applicable to the category of Officers.
4.
On the rival pleadings regarding the validity of the Domestic Enquiry, Preliminary Issue was framed, tried and
adjudicated by upholding the validity of Domestic Enquiry. The 1st Party thereafter adduced evidence to reiterate that
because of his trade Union activities he is victimised.
5.
Written argument is submitted by the 1st Party. Learned Counsel for the 2nd Party advanced his oral argument.
6.
The 1st Party was charge sheeted on two counts. The gist of the allegation was that while working at V.G. Doddi
Branch from 23.10.1996 to 16.08.2004 he indulged in causing serious discrepancies....................in the advances
portfolio................. The charge sheet runs into several pages, However to epitomize the same :-
CHARGE - I
i)
On 29.04.2000 the then Manager of the branch Sh. R R Hoover discounted CDB 22/2000 a cheque bearing No.
537561 dated 31.03.2000 for Rs. 86,410 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Ramanagaram. The cheque was
discounted to S.B A/c No. 1901 of Sh. Ramaiah though the cheque was non-existent, Rs. 85,711/- was credited
to S.B A/c No. 1901 on 29.04.2000 and Rs. 699/- was credited to interest collected/commission account; Rs.
85,700.00 was withdrawn on 29.04.2000 through a withdrawal slip, the signature on the slips do not tally with
the signature on account opening form.
The ledger sheet having balance of Rs. 955/- is torn vertically and carried over to new sheet in the hand writing
of the 1st Party, as if it was carried over on 14.02.2000 though the balance on 14.02.2000 was Rs. 955/- the
carried over figure in new sheet is Rs. 966/-. That is the balance as on 29.04.2000; several adjustments are
made to camouflage the difference of Rs. 11/- by fabricating new ledger sheets; Sh. R R Hoveer has prepared
the slips pertaining to the transaction. This CDB is clear by way of fictitious entry, IBA 717 dated
01.05.2000 adjusted on 07.05.2000. As per the waste sheet and slip bundle CDB was actually adjusted on
22.05.2000 as below.
Dr. Cash : Rs. 59,100/-
Cr. SB 1901 : Rs. 59,100/- remitted to the cash SB 1901
Dr. VSL AG : Rs. 30,000/-
Cr. SB 1901 : Rs. 27,310/- of Sh. D Ramaiah
Cr.SB 1450 : Rs. 2690/- of Sh. L. Narayana - subsequently the amount recovered from SB 1901
No such VSL account is available; entry is not made in VSL subsidiary; the security for the loan of Rs. 30,000/- is not
known. Sh. R R Hoover in his statement dated 25.06.2004 admitted that it is a fictitious transaction……........ the 1st
party signed the withdrawal slip of SB 1901 of Sh. Ramaiah.
ii)
A fictitious loan of Rs. 15,000/- was sanctioned in favour one Smt. Kariamma, who had earlier availed loan
and the liability was transferred to LPD 83/2000 and was written off on 27.11.2000. Sh. R R Hoover in his
statement admitted that it was a fictitious loan and is adjusted to some other loan account.
iii)
Fictitious loan of Rs. 15,000/- was sanctioned in favour of Sh. Puttamadaiah and whose loan was written off
on 22.12.2000. Slips were not prepared for the transactions and the entries were not made in the waste sheet.
The 1st Party made entries in ALBC subsidiary and made adjustment in key register without slips. Thus, he
admitted in his statement that he had taken signature on the loan paper from some other Sh. Puttamadaiah.
Sh. R R Hoover as admitted that it is a fictitious loan and no slips were passed, and the proceeds of loan was
adjusted to some other loan account.
iv)
Rs. 15,000/- fictitious loan was sanctioned in favour of Sh. Maraiah whose earlier loan was written off on
22.12.2000. Sh. R.R Hoover prepared the loan papers made entries in the loan register without
corresponding slips, 1st Party carried over the balance of Rs. 7.50/- in the account from the old S.B ledger
sheet to new sheet and made credit entry of ALBC 3/00 deliberately suppressing the facts and tampering the
Bank records.
Likewise fictitious loan of Rs. 15,000/- was sanctioned in name of Smt. Sharadamaa, Rs. 15,000/- in the name of
Smt. Mahadevamma, Rs. 15,000/- in the name of Sh. Moodalaiah, Rs. 15,000/-in the name of Sh. Gangaiah, Rs.
25,000/- in the name of Sh. Venkatagiriyaiah, Rs. 25,000/- in the name of Sh. Umesh, Rs. 25,000/- to Smt. Komala,
and Rs. 20,000/- in the name of Sh. Kariappa. All the above persons on earlier occasions were sanctioned loan and their
loan account were written off/closed and the loan was sanctioned for the second time without their loan application.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4397
Though there is no person as Sh. Gangaiah fictitious loan account was opened and the loan was sanctioned. Sh. R R
Hoover has admitted all these fictitious transactions. The 1st Party identified Sh. Kariyappa as his relative though he was
not the resident of the service area. The 1st Party admitted that he has taken the loan by signing the documents. By his
actions he failed to discharge duty with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and contravened the provisions
of Chapter XI, Regulation (2A),(i) of the Canara Bank Service Code. He caused wilful damage to the property of the
Bank and its customers, committed Gross Misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI, Regulation 3(j) of Canara Bank
Service Code and being prejudicial to the interest of the Bank, committed Gross Misconduct within the meaning of
Chapter XI, Regulation 3, Clause(m) of Canara Bank Service Code.
CHARGE - II
a)
He has altered the figures in the key register on various dates to an extend of Rs. 1,30,000/- to offset the
entries, subsequently loans were created and from the fictitious loans sanctioned adjustments were made in
the key register on 26.05.2000 and 30.05.2000
b)
On 03.04.2000, 2 debit slips for Rs. 50,000/- each to the account of AGVSL 10/2000 and 11/2000
corresponding credit has gone to the account of Sh. Hombalaiah S.B Account 2157, entry is made in
Advances Control Register under VSL without debiting it under VSL subsidiary. On 15.05.2000 and
19.05.2000 Rs. 50,000/- was debited to ALS Head which has set off the fictitious entry of VSL by crediting it
under VSL head under Advances Control Register. As the VSL entries were not debited in the VSL
subsidiary the above amount has not been credited to VSL Subsidiary.
c)
Sh. Hombalaiah had deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- on 03.04.2000, 1st Party admitted giving fictitious credit entry
and subsequently gave fictitious credit to the S.B Account.
By the above actions he connived with Sh. R R Hovver/ Manager in all the fraudulent acts in raising funds through
fictitious loans, he made fraudulent entries without slips in ledger sheets of Parties accounts and helped for the
withdrawal of the amounts through these accounts. He made several alterations/adjustments in key register to avoid
detection of fraud and to keep the books tallied. He enjoyed the funds raised through fictitious loans. The 1st Party by
his actions failed to discharge duty with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and contravened the provisions
of Chapter XI, Regulation (2A),(i) of the Canara Bank Service Code. He caused wilful damage to the property of the
Bank and its customers, committed Gross Misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI, Regulation 3(j) of Canara Bank
Service Code and being prejudicial to the interest of the Bank, committed Gross Misconduct within the meaning of
Chapter XI, Regulation 3, Clause(m) of Canara Bank Service Code.
7.
During the Domestic Enquiry on behalf of the Management five witnesses were examined 114 documents were
marked. There was no oral/ documentary evidence from the side of the defence.
The first witness was the Present Manager of V.G Doddi Branch, he identified his statement given before the
Investigating Officer to the effect that Sh. Gangaiah S/o Munivenkatappa is not in Averahalli, and he was thoroughly
cross examined without any benefit for the defence.
The second witness was Sh. Robert Hover who was the Manager at the relevant point of time. He identified the
statement given by him before the investigating Officer, wherein he had admitted all the allegations and also about the
indulgence/involvement of the 1st Party workman in the misconduct.
The third witness was the Investigating Officer he identified, his report, statements of witness and relevant documents.
The fourth witness was the Officer, Staff Section, Circle Officer, Bangalore and identified the letter addressed by the
Central Office calling for explanation of the 1st Party pertaining to the irregularities and the reply submitted by the 1st
Party.
8.
The pith of the defence was since MW-2, the Manager had admitted his role that destroys all the allegations
against 1st Party. The entire operation was led by the Manager and 1st Party is used as a pawn. Being a peon promotee he
reposed total confidence in the acts of the Manager and performed the work as per his direction. The Manager used lack
of his knowledge to perpetuate various acts of misconduct. He was not involved in any acts of dishonesty until MW-2
(Hoover) took charge of the Branch during May 1991, he was utilised by taking advantage of his lack of knowledge.
4398
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9.
During the cross examination of MW-2(Hoover), he had admitted that the 1st Party worked according to his
instructions. The 1st Party emphasized on the said statement to get whirl out of the charge sheet.
10.
The fraudulent transaction having been proved through documentary evidence which was also admitted by the
then Manager Sh. R R Hoover and the indulgence of the 1st Party in the transactions not disputed.
11.The Enquiry Officer observed that “…CSE as a responsible employee of the Bank should have acted as a ‘Whistle
Blower’ instead of taking advantage of his lack of knowledge and shelter under MW-2 who owned up the responsibility.
He ruled out the contention that he being a peon promotee has reposed total faith in the acts of the Manger and performed
the work as per the directions of the Manager. He reasoned out that though ‘he is a peon promotee he should know that
all the entries in the Bank are being posted in the accounts/ledger with relevant slips. Since the CSE was having the
basic knowledge of the Banking like the above, he was promoted to Clerical Cadre. Hence, the lack of knowledge
cannot be taken as excuse for posting the entries without slips, but lack of knowledge can be claimed in other areas like
appraisals, documentation and preparation of statements etc’. Thus, he found the 1st Party had connived with Sh. Robert
Hoover in all the fraudulent acts and in raising funds from fictitious loans as enumerated in the Charge sheet; he had
made fraudulent entries without slips in the ledger sheets and in the parties accounts, subsidiaries and made several
alterations/adjustments in key register to keep the books tallied. He has also enjoyed the funds raised through fictitious
loans. Thus the finding of the Enquiry Officer was “All the charges are proved beyond doubt.....” The finding of the
Enquiry Officer is founded on undisputed documentary evidence and the admissions that emerged during the evidence of
the then Manager Sh. Hoover, who was the partner in the misconducts.
11.
Even if for any reason Sh. Hoover takes on the entire responsibility of the irregularities on himself, the 1st Party
who by his active indulgence and commission had connived with him cannot be absolved of the charges. Having served
in the Bank for 28 years, that too having served as a Clerk for more than a decade, it is not logical to attribute innocence
in his favour. The action of the Management in acting upon the Enquiry Report and punishing him with Compulsory
Retirement is within its propriety. The punishment commensurates with the gravity of offence it is not in the interest of
the institution to allow tainted employees whose commission and omission has bearing on the Administration, Business
and Finance of the Bank. The 1st Party workman is not entitled for any relief.
AWARD
The reference is rejected.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 06th June, 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 17 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1052
1052
1052
1052.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
आईएनजी वैK य ब#क िल. के $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट औ ोिगक िववाद म
के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण, ब#गलोर के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं1 या 55/2007) को $कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार
को 17.06.2019 को $ा5 त 6ए थे।
[सं. एल-12012/30/2007-आईआर (बी-1)]
बी. एस. िब. ट, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019
S.O. 1052.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (1947 of 14), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of ING Vysya Bank Ltd.
and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 17.06.2019.
[No. L-12012/30/2007-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4399
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE – 560 022
DATED : 03RD JUNE 2019
PRESENT : Justice Smt. Rathnakala, Presiding Officer
CR 55/2007
I Party
II Party
The Assistant Secretary,
All India ING Vysya Bank
Employees Union,
C/o ING Vysya Bank Ltd.,
Barandur – 577245,
SHIMOGA
The Vice- president - IR&W,
ING Vysya Bank Ltd.,
Corporate Office,
HRD Department, ING House,
M.G Road,
Bangalore – 560001.
Appearance
Advocate for I Party : Mr. Muralidhara
Advocate for II Party : Mr. B. C. Prabhakar
AWARD
The Central Government vide Order No.L-12012/30/2007(IR(B-I) dated 11.04.2007 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 (for brevity
‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.
“Whether the action of the Management of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. in imposing the punishment of
compulsory retirement with all benefits including pension w.e.f. 07.06.2006 on Shri. B.S.Navalgatti,
Ex.Clerk, ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Byadagi Branch is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled?”
1.
The 1st Party union has espoused the cause of Sh. B S Navalgatti. Their case is the 1st Party workman joined the
service of 2nd Party Bank on 20.10.1979 and was working in Byadagi Branch as clerk. On certain allegations he was
placed under suspension pending departmental enquiry, by the Head - employee relations. He was issued Charge Sheet
dated 10.06.2005 in respect of the incident of 28.05.2005; he denied the Charges; Departmental Enquiry was initiated by
appointing the Enquiry Officer and the Management Representative. The Enquiry Officer was biased, he held the
enquiry in violation of Bank Regulations and Bi-partite settlement and also against the principles of Natural Justice and
submitted the enquiry report that charges levelled against Sh. Navalgatti are established. The 1st Party submitted his
remarks to the enquiry report. However, the Head-Employee Relations/Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice
proposing the punishment of ‘compulsory Retirement’. He has submitted his objection to the proposal of punishment.
However, without considering his unblemished service and without assessing the evidence independently the 2nd Party
vide order dated 23.05.2006 imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement on him. The punishment order is grossly
disproportionate to the alleged act of misconduct. Now he is unemployed.
2.
The 2nd Party counters the claim that the enquiry was held in a fair and proper manner. The enquiry Officer held
him guilty of charges after conducting the enquiry and after analysis of the evidence, gave his conclusion with cogent
reasons. This Disciplinary Authority has rightly come to the conclusion in imposing the punishment. The punishment is
very much proportionate to the alleged misconduct.
3.
On pleadings of the parties preliminary issue regarding fairness of the Domestic Enquiry was framed, tried and
answered in favour of the Management, holding the Domestic Enquiry held against the 1st Party is fair and proper. The
1st Party workman thereafter has adduced evidence to bring on record that he is unemployed and the punishment order is
grossly excessive; the 2nd Party has continued other employees who though alleged of serious misconduct are continued
on service; he is victimised by the 2nd Party.
Both have addressed arguments.
4.
The allegation in the Charge Sheet is as under:-
4400
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
You have behaved in a disorderly, indecent, riotous and rude manner with Sri. B N Sodar, Branch Head on
28.05.2005by holding his shirt collar and scratching him on his face in the presence of customers inside the
premises of Byadagi Branch and thereby caused injuries to him on his face. Your above said behaviour which
adversely affected the image of the Bank, was also prejudicial to the interest of the Bank.
5.
The prosecution examined as many as five witnesses and marked seven documents. The 1st Party examined
himself as a witness and two witnesses.
6.
The first two witnesses for the Management are the customers of the Branch, they were the eye witness to the
incident. The Complainant/Manager of the Bank gave the detailed version of the incident. The Investigating Officer
who investigated the matter recorded the statement of witnesses was the fourth witness. The fifth witness was the
Assistant Manager of the Branch, who is also an eye witness.
7.
In sum and substance the prosecution case was, on 28.05.2012 the CSE came late to the Bank; when questioned
by the Manager, he told that his is sick. The Manager told him to return and come on 30.05.2005 with medical certificate.
The CSE started shouting on him and told him that the matter can be reported to anybody and he will see to it, he
bounced upon the Manager. The staff in the Branch came to the chamber, took CSE outside the chamber while the
Manager was telling him not to do like this in the presence of customers, the CSE raised his voice, told that what could
the Manager do for him and caught hold of his shirt collar; he scratched on his neck thereby causing bleeding. At the
intervention of Hombardi (1st witness) both were separated and the CSE was taken out and the matter was reported to the
Associate Wise President Regional Office Hubli. The Complainant got treated by the Doctor and produced the medical
certificate.
8.
The defence was that he went to the Branch 5-7 minutes late to the schedule time, he requested the Officer
(MW-5) for his permission to attend his duty. The Officer told him to go on leave as he was late and declined to allow
him to work; after a lapse of five minutes the Officer instructed him to meet the Manager and take permission; The
Manager did not allow him to attend the duty but said that he should apply for leave. He waited for 5 minutes again
made request, but the Manager insisted him to apply for sick leave, he went to the Manager to submit his casual leave
application, but the Manager refused saying he has availed three days leave and not entitled for casual leave. But he is
entitled for casual leave of three days. Hence, he questioned the Manager in this regard and the Manager pushed him to
go on leave; during the said process his hand touched his shirt. During cross examination he stated that his hand may
have touched his neck. The 2nd defence witness turned hostile to the defence stating that he heard loud voice from the
chamber but he has not seen any quarrelling of fighting. The 3rd defence witness is a customer of the Branch but not
a eye witness to the incident.
9.
From the evidence it was clear that the 1st Party came late to the Bank at 28.05.2005, and was not allowed to
resume duty but was insisted to report along with Medical Certificate. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
and also the CSE it is further clear that the CSE questioned the Manager and the incident culminated into heated
argument involving physical indulgence and there was nothing to presume the provocation was from the side of the
Manager. The overtact exhibited by the CSE is established by the Medical Certificate certifying that the Manager
suffered nail injury on his face. Rightly the Enquiry Officer held that charge levelled against CSE is proved. The CSE
had contended in his written brief submitted to the Enquiry Officer that his mother was sick and expired on 30.05.2005,
but the Enquiry Officer had observed that the Manager was not aware of the sickness of his mother.
10.
The Disciplinary Authority observed that as per clause 13.13 of 1st Bi-Partite settlement the Branch Head has
right to ask for medical certificate while re-joining to duty if the leave is availed for medical reasons; as per clause 13.06
leave cannot be availed as a matter of right. In the light of the above provisions the Disciplinary Authority supported the
stand of the Manager insisting for medical certificate when CSE informed that he went on leave for medical reasons and
on the above, proposed the punishment of compulsory retirement and passed the punishment order.
11.
The 1st Party in a rather sarcastic manner drafted his appeal memo contending that the basic issue of the Charge
Sheet was causing injury on the face of the Manager which was not proved. He alleged that unfair and unequal treatment
was given to him by the Bank Official on 28.05.2012; he questioned the veracity of the Medical Certificate. He alleged
that the witnesses examined were interested witnesses. He stressed upon the fact that he was not requesting for leave but
was forced to go on leave. He cited the cases where sick leave was given for two days without Medical Certificate.
According to him ‘in an extra ordinary situation like sick due to mother laying on death bed; special provision of Bi-
partite is not considered…..’
12.
The Appellant Authority was not persuaded by his defence and observed that ‘…..CSE not only caused injuries
to Branch Head but also contributed for adversely affecting the image of the Bank; his behaviour was prejudicial to the
interest of the Bank. The Behaviour of the above type if allowed to continue unchecked will lead to indiscipline and in
subordination among employees of the Bank which will in turn have adverse effect on the customer service and image of
the Bank…..’ .
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4401
13.
The service records of the 1st Party are marked as Ex M-1(v) to M-16(v). While joining to the Bank as Trainee
he had mentioned in his application dated 23.03.1978 that he knows Typewriting. But immediately thereafter vide letter
dated 17.02.1980 wrote to the Manager that he has not passed Typing examination and don’t know typing and requested
for the post as clerk and not as clerk cum typist. When a memo was issued to him in this regard, he resisted to say that he
knows type writing and can type very well. On that he was cautioned not to repeat such things in future. He was issued
memo dated 08.03.1980 (Ex M-7(v)) that he is slow in carrying out the work entrusted. Vide memo dated 19.10.1984 he
was called upon to show the reasons for not updating the allotted work, but he has replied that ‘any way you have got the
powers you please suspend me’, but did not give assurance to speed up the updating work.
14.
On 23.11.1984 he was issued show cause notice for not performing allotted duties vide Annexure M-9(v). Vide
show cause notice 31.05.1985 he was issued show cause notice for his behaviour and his disobedience during Office
hours; vide Administration Order dated 25.07.1985 (Ex M-13(v)) he was warned to be careful in future. Vide letter
dated 07.06.1989 (Ex M-16(v)) he submitted resignation letter (Ex M – 14(v)) which probably he withdrew later. Vide
memo dated 10.06.1989 (Ex M-15(v)) he was issued memo for not responding to the request of the customers and on
08.06.1989 instead of resuming to duty he had tendered his resignation and left the branch. The above are the undisputed
documents which go to establish the adamant nature and attitude of the 1st Party. It can be safely inferred from the above
documentary evidence that the incident of 28.05.2005 was not solitary or instantaneous but was his way and demeanour.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Singh Ex.Constable reported in (1992) 3
SCR 634, while elaborating on the term ‘Misconduct’ observed thus,
‘That the word misconduct though not capable of precise definition, its reflection receive its connotation from
the context, the delinquency in its performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of the duty. It may
involve moral turpitude, it must be improper or wrong behaviour, unlawful behaviour, wilful in character,
forbidden act, a transgression of established and definite rule of action or code of conduct but not mere error of
judgment, carelessness or negligence in performance of the duty; the act complained of bears forbidden quality
or character. Its ambit has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term
occurs, regard being had to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve’.
16. What is misconduct will naturally depend upon the circumstances of each case. When there are standing orders, there
would be no difficulty because they define misconduct. In the absence of the Standing Orders, however, the question will
have to be dealt with reasonably and in accordance with commonsense. As to what acts can be treated as acts of
misconduct, therefore, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The expression 'misconduct' covers a
large area of human conduct. Misconduct spreads over a wide and hazy spectrum of industrial activity, the most seriously
subversive conducts rendering an employee wholly unfit for employment to mere technical default are covered thereby.
To some extent, misconduct is a civil crime which is visited with civil and pecuniary consequences. That being the
principle operating in the area of adjudication of misconduct in Departmental/Domestic Enquiries, the overtact
committed by workman cannot be viewed leniently. He has shouted against his superior at the work place, when insisted
for Medical Certificate committed an act unbecoming of an employee of the Bank amounting to insubordination. His
demeanours is sure to adverse and affect the interest and business of the Bank
17.
In view of the above I find no illegality or in proprietary from the action of the 2nd Party in imposing punishment
of Compulsory Retirement with all terminal benefits and pension. The workman is not entitled for any further relief.
AWARD
The reference is rejected.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 03rd June, 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
4402
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दली, 17 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1053
1053
1053
1053.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
भारतीय टेट ब#क $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय
सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण नं. II, च0 डीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं3 या 8/2009) को $कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को
17.06.2019 को $ा7 त 8आ था।
[सं. एल-12012/06/2009-आईआर (बी-1)]
बी. एस. िब. ट, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019
S.O. 1053.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.8/2009) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No –II
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of india and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/06/2019.
[No. L-12012/06/2009-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present : Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer
ID No. 8/2009
Registered on: 10.08.2009
Sh. Amarjit Singh, S/o Sh. Fauja Singh, R/o H.No.441/1,
Village and Post Office Khuda Ali Sher, Chandigarh UT.
…Workman
Versus
1.
State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Mumbai, through its Chairman.
2.
State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh UT, through its Chief General Manager,
3.
State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Punjab, Post Box No.95,
SCO No.101-108, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh-160017,
through its Deputy General Manager.
..Respondents
AWARD
Passed on : 26.04.2019
Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/06/2009-IR(B-I) Dated 24.06.2009, under clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether Shri Amarjit Singh was a workman of the State Bank of India or not? If so, Whether the action of the
management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Amarjit Singh w.e.f. 7.1.2008, is
justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?”
1.
Both the parties were served with notices. The workman/claimant filed his statement of claim with the averment
that he was appointed as a Messenger on daily wages by the management vide order bearing no.CM(DGM) Circle(PB)
note no.AGM/57/664 dated 28.01.1992 and performed work of Peon-cum-Chowkidar/Guard as per direction of
management regularly with the management without any break. He was drawing a sum of Rs.3,700/- per month from the
management with other benefits etc. The management started victimizing the workman one or another ground in the
beginning of 2007, resulting non-payment of wages for the months of January, June, July, August and October 2007. In
spite of oral and written representations dated 14.11.2007, 29.11.2007, 17.12.2007 and 03.01.2008 management neither
rejected his representations nor replied till date. The management illegally retrenched the services of the workman on
07.01.2008 by oral order of Deputy General Manager without service of any notice, pay in lieu of notice against the
provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The work of Peon-cum-Chowkidar/Guard is
still existed with the management and is of permanent nature. Management had employed some new workers for the post
of workman through some contractors against the violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The
workman is still unemployed and willing to work with the management. The workman had never worked under any
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4403
contractor during his service with management-bank. In fact, the workman was serving only the bank under their control
in their office as well as per their requirements which is amply proved from the documents A to U mentioned in claim
petition which are in the form of letters, wages slips, cheques, income tax deductions and several representations etc. In
spite of demand notice, the dispute could not be settled amicably. Hence, present reference by the workman has been
made before this Tribunal. It is prayed that workman be reinstated with continuity of service with full back wages and all
other ancillary benefits as his services were terminated by the management.
2.
Respondent’s-bank have filed written statement dated 09.08.2010, alleging therein that workman had never in
the employment of the answering-management and there was no relationship of privity of contract whatsoever between
the workman and the answering management. The workman was engaged by the contractor for providing his services to
the said contractor to enable the contractor to provide necessary service to the answering respondent as per agreement
arrived at between the answering management and the contractor. It is pertinent to mention that the Zonal Office Punjab,
State Bank of India, Chandigarh, has obtained the parking place for the vehicles of its staff on rent basis from the Parking
Contractor of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation on annual lease basis and the services of the applicant were availed
by the contractor to fulfill his commitments. The claimant/workman was never appointed by the respondent-bank at any
time and he was never worked as a Gunman, Security Guard under answering respondent and his salary was never paid
by the respondent-bank. Thus, there was no relationship of employer and employee between the answering management
and the claimant/workman and his statement of claim is to be rejected on this ground alone. Respondent-management
never issued any appointment/termination letter to the claimant as such, there is no retrenchment dated 07.01.2008
against the claimant by the answering management. The claim of the workman is misconceived and he has concealed the
material facts that he was engaged by the parking contractor and was being paid by the said contractor. The order bearing
No.CM(DGM) Circle (PB) note no.AGM/57/664 dated 28.01.1992 does not pertain to the workman at all. The
representation dated 14.11.2007 has been duly replied by the management vide its letter dated 07.01.2008 as claimant
was not within the employment of the bank hence, retrenchment compensation, retaining juniors does not arise and the
management has not violated any provision of Section 25-F, 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The entire
amount of the claimant/workman in this regard had been paid to the said contractor as per agreement. The
claimant/workman has been gainfully employed throughout the period and the payment to the workman was made by the
debit to the contractor’s fee as per instructions and settlement with the contractor out of the total amount payable to the
contractor. The stand of the management is vindicated by the issuance of certificate of deduction of tax at source under
Section 203 of Income Tax Act 1961 vide TDS Form No.16-A which is applicable on the payment to contractors and
sub-contractors as mentioned in the certificate itself. It is requested that the claim filed by the workman is liable to be
dismisses with cost.
3.
The workman Amarjit Singh has filed his affidavit Ex.A1 in evidence along with documents pertaining to the
date 28.01.1992 to 03.01.2008 and proved by the workman as Ex.W-1 to W-22. During the course of cross-examination,
workman Amarjit Singh has accepted that letter of appointment was not issued to him by the management. He has denied
that he worked at the cycle stand as the man of the contractor. He has also accepted that bank did not give any
termination order but it was told orally. He has denied the suggestion that bank used to make the payment to the
contractor and the contractor used to pay him thereafter.
4.
The respondent-management has examined Sh. Rajesh Gupta, Chief Manager(HR), Zonal Office Sector 17-B,
Chandigarh, who has filed his affidavit Ex.R1 dated 12.03.2013 reiterating the facts alleged in the written statement
along with Annexure 1 to 3, which is regarding car parking contract. Sh. Rajesh Gupta, during the course of cross-
examination by the learned counsel of workman has alleged that he has not brought the copy of the contract entered into
between the management and contractor and he has also denied that original of Annexure 1 to Annexure 3 are not with
him at the time of cross-examination. This witness has accepted the genuineness of documents mention in the claim
petition as well as proved by the workman through his affidavit Ex.W1 to W22 which almost pertains to the
management-bank.
5.
I have heard Sh. Karam Singh, learned counsel for the workman and Sh. S.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the
management and have gone through the records carefully.
6.
Learned counsel of the workman has contended that claimant/workman has joined the management-bank in the
month of January, 1992 as Peon-cum-Chowkidar directly to perform his duties as waily wager and subsequently,
appointed on regular basis for a salary of Rs.3,700/- per month. It is also contended that claimant/workman is terminated
on 07.01.2008 without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 without any notice and
justification, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel has also argued that claimant/workman had
worked more than 240 days in each calendar year with the management since his appointment in the year 1992. It is also
contended that workman/claimant has never served to the management-bank as an employee of any contractor and if it is
found so, the alleged contract is shame and camouflage just to avoid the responsibility arising under Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. It is also argued that the alleged contractor was not a licenced contractor as such, respondent-bank had taken
his services against the provisions of Contract Labour(Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970.
7.
Per contra, learned counsel of the management-bank Sh. S.K. Gupta argued that claimant is neither a workman
nor appointed by the management-bank as alleged in the claim petition. It is also contended by the management-bank
that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the workman and management as such, respondent-
4404
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
management has no liability towards the workman. It is contended that being the employee of the contractor, if any
liability occurs, it is between workman/claimant and contractor under whom he served during the employment period.
Learned counsel of the management has also argued that on the face of the facts pleaded in claim petition, it is clear that
workman is not appointed after making advertisement and duly no selected by any committee so far hence, he cannot be
reinstated in service as is held in case of Madhyamik Shiksha Vs. Anil Kumar and others AIR 1994 Supreme Court
1638 as well as in the case of G.M. Tanda Thermal Power Project Vs. Jai Prakash Srivastava and ots. 2008(1) SLR
page 670 and in the case of U.P. Corporation Ltd. and others Vs. Bijali Mazdoor Sangh and other (2007)5 SSC 755.
8.
There is no dispute about preposition of law that onus to prove that claimant was in the employment of
management is always on the workman/claimant and it is for the workman to adduce evidence to prove factum of his
employment with the management. Such evidence may be in form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or record of
his appointment or engagement for that year to show that he has worked with the employer for 240 days or more in a
calendar year. In this regard, reference may be made to the case of Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Sowaran singh,
(2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 481 as well as Director Fisheries Terminated Division Vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai
Gavda (2012) 1 SCC 47.
9.
There is hardly any dispute with the preposition of law as propounded in the aforesaid cases. Question remains
to be seen whether the workman has proved that he was directly engaged under the respondent-management in the month
of January 1992 and regularly continued to work till his termination. This fact has to be proved through documentary
evidence as well as oral evidence. At the very outset, it may be mentioned that claimant/workman has filed a lot of
documents Ex.W2 to W12 relating to daily wage slips, cheque issued by the bank in favour of the workman, form 16-A
issued under Section 203 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which clearly prove that workman was in the service of
management initially as daily wager at the cost of Rs20/- per day, which was subsequently made Rs.3,700/- per month
and accordingly paid by cheque to the workman by the respondent-bank. These are the papers genuineness of which has
been accepted by the witness of the management Sh. Rajesh Gupta during his cross-examination by the workman
counsel. The documents Ex.W1 to W12 runs from the year 1992 to May 2007 fortifies the claim of the workman that he
was directly appointed by the respondent-bank from the year 1992 and served till his termination. This fact is reiterated
by the workman Amarjit Singh through his affidavit Ex.A1. Learned counsel of the management has not put any question
regarding the documents filed by the workman and duly proved through his affidavit filed as a piece of evidence before
the Tribunal.
10.
Contrary to this, learned counsel of the management argued that in fact workman was appointed by the
contractor Balbir Singh in the year 2004 to 2005 when he had got a contract from the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh
as is evident from Annexure A-2 and A3 filed by the management and proved by the witness of management Rajesh
Gupta through his affidavit Ex.R-1. Annexure 2 is a letter sent by the contractor Balbir Singh addressed to Chief
Manager, Zonal Office Punjab, regarding the allotment of the premises of Municipal Corporation and conditions
regarding security guards etc. while Annexure A-3 is a letter sent by the Deputy Chief Manager to claimant after his
termination and representation made by him for the payment withheld by the management-bank. Witness of management
Rajesh Gupta has accepted during the cross-examination that he has not brought the copy of the contract entered into
with contractor. He has also accepted that he has not brought the original of Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-3. Thus, in
spite of opportunity management has totally failed to submit the copy of agreement/contract entered into with contractor
Balbir Singh whose existence is not proved before September 2004. Thus, there is nothing on record to rebut the
documentary evidence filed by the workman regarding his employment as daily wager employee and subsequently as
regular employee on fixed pay of Rs.3,700/- per month. Thus, it can be safely observed that management has not
provided its best evidence in its possession regarding the contract with Balbir Singh which have got on the file may have
proved that the workman have ever been employed by the contractor. Legally speaking if there was no employment
between the workman and management and the workman had been paid to work on the premises of the establishment of
the management-bank. It was still to maintain the prescribed register and records pertaining to the contract labour as per
the provisions of Contract Labour(Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970 in short CLRA Act. The management being the
principle-employer was legally bound to maintain a register as envisaged under Section 29 of the Act and in terms of
Rule 73 of the Rules framed thereunder. The management should have to prove a licence registration under CLRA Act
while such records being maintained in case of the management denying relationship of employer could have been
considered in the light of the documentary evidence while no such evidence is brought to bear for the consideration
before this tribunal 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, has observed as follows:-
“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
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4405
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.”
Thus Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workmen also does not make any distinction
between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in plain language of
Section 2(S) from which it can be infer 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. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the above ruling,
in my considered opinion the claimant herein admittedly falls within the definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2(S) of
the Act.
11.
Equally settled is the position of law that when relationship of employer-employee stands proved between the
parties, then onus will shift upon the employer-management to show that the claimant has not worked for 240 days or
more in a calendar year or that the services of the claimant was terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
It is a specific case of the workman/claimant that he was engaged as a Peon-cum-Chowkidar on 28.01.1992 and he
worked as such till his termination in the year 2008 when his services were illegally terminated. He in fact had completed
more than 240 days of service in each calendar beginning from the year March 1992 till his termination in the year
January 2008 despite that no notice in lieu of notice period was given to him prior to the termination of his services by
the management. The affidavit filed by the workman/claimant is in the line with the averments made in the claim
petition. He has also filed on record wages slips for the month of March 1992, April 1992 along with cheques issued by
the management-bank for the payment of the services rendered by the workman which are marked as Ex.W2 to Ex.W8.
Ex.W9 and Ex.W10 filed by the workman is the certificate of deduction of tax at source under Section 203 of the Income
Tax Act 1961, which clearly establishes that management had directly deducted the deductions from the salary of the
workman for the year 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. In this context learned counsel of the workman has drawn my attention
towards Annexure-1 filed by the management which is a letter sent by the alleged contractor Balbir Singh to the Chief
Manager State Bank of India, Zonal Office Punjab dated 23.11.2005 mentioning the facts that he will continue with the
present security arrangement and will keep Amarjit Singh as Supervisor for the parking at Rs.3,700/- till the parking
contract. It also reveals that the payment has to be directly made to Amarjit Singh by debit to contractor’s fee. Thus,
according to the learned counsel of the management this document is ample proof that claimant Amarjit Singh has been
recruited for security purpose by the contractor Balbir singh and not by the management. I am not convince with the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel of the management because this letter relates to the date 23.11.2005 while the
deductions of the income tax is related to the year 2003-04, 2004-05 when contractor Balbir singh was nowhere in
existence. It appears that this letter was obtained by the management just to deny the claim of the workman proving him
as an employee of the contractor Balbir Singh.
12.
Learned counsel of the workman Sh. Karam Singh appearing for the workman has disagreed with the story of
the contractor Balbir Singh between the management and the claimant by referring to the pleadings before me. He drew
attention of this Tribunal to the written statement dated 09.08.2010 filed on behalf of the management before labour
court. There is conspicuous absence of any mentioning of the contractor Balbir Singh therein. I have no doubt in my
mind that attempt to introduce the contractor into the picture is clearly an afterthought. The management did not even
produce the licence of the alleged contractor Balbir Singh which otherwise could have substantiated the stand of the
management-bank as Security guard of the bank have been assigned to such contractor and the workman having further
been outsourced by the contractor and there is no relationship of employer and employee between the parties. Therefore,
in my opinion, the story of Balbir singh is an afterthought. Learned counsel has sited the basic law which required no
elaboration that what has not pleaded is not open to prove. There is merit in the contention against which Sh. S.K. Gupta
is unable to shrug of therefore when the management pleaded that there was no direct relationship of employer and
employee between the parties which could have proved each of the case from the stand point of the management alone.
Moreover, contractor Balbir singh is not a party to the reference the only possible way for the management to have come
out was to summon the contractor as his own witness for them to face cross-examination by the workman/claimant so
that the truth could be revealed.
13.
There is no merit in the stand taken by the management that no regular procedure was followed at the time of
engagement of the workman nor application was invited for the post of Peon-cum-Chowkidar. To my mind, the workman
herein is not seeking regularisation or permanent absorption with the management-bank simply because due procedure
was not followed at the time of engagement of the workman herein that would not give licence to the management to
terminate the service of the workman in arbitrary and illegal manner. There are several judgments of the Hon’ble Apex
Court that service of a daily wager or casual workman cannot be terminated without following the due procedure
contained in Section 25-F of the Act. Admittedly, in the present case, no show cause notice was served upon the
workman before ordering his termination nor one month salary in lieu of notice was given in advance to the workman at
the time of his termination. All these facts are duly admitted by the management in the written statement. It has been held
in several decisions by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as various High Courts that termination of service of a workman,
who has served for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination, will become arbitrary and illegal
unless one month notice or one month salary in lieu of such notice is given to such workman at the time of his
termination. In this regard, reference can be made to the case of Ajay Pal Singh Vs. Haryana Warehouse Corporation
2056 Supreme Court cases and ONGC 2483 Supreme Court Mechanised Company Vs. Mechanised Union 2004
4406
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Supreme Court cases 544. Since in the present case, the management has throw all the norms of natural justice as well as
provisions of ID Act to the winds. As such, the action of the management is held to be totally arbitrary and illegal under
the law.
14.
Now the residual question is whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement of service with back wages.
Admittedly, the workman was not holding any regular post nor any procedure was followed by the management at the
time of his engagement as Peon-cum-Chowkidar. But it is also a fact that management has been engaged him as Peon-
cum-Chowkidar in this manner, and workman has put more than 15 years of service.
15.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in case “Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya”
reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under:
“i)
In case of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is
the normal rule.
ii)
Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back
wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the
Court of first instance that he was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the
employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence
to prove that the workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he wads
drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof
of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its
existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the
employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove
that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar
emoluments.”
16. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan Singh, reported as 2005
SCC (L & S) 716 observed as under:-
“There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination of service
was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors like the manner and
method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications from
the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short term, daily wage, temporary or
permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like should be weighed and balanced in
taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important factors which has to be taken into
consideration is the length of service, which the workman had rendered with the employer. If the workman has
rendered a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or
partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this age and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a
position to get another employment. However, where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small,
the award of back wages for the complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our
experience shows is often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot
be compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calendar year.”
17. The Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the violation of Section 25-F of the Act in Incharge Officer & Anr.
V. Shankar Shetty, (2010) 9 SCC 126: 2010 LLR 1137 and after referred to the various decisions, this Court held that
the relief by way of back wages is not automatic and compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the
ends of justice and it reads as under:-
“2. Should an order of reinstatement automatically follow in a case where the engagement of a daily wager
has been brought to end in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(for short “the ID
Act”)? The course of the decisions of this Court in recent years has been uniform on the above question.
3. In Jagbir Singh V. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board, (2009) 15 SCC 327, delivering the judgment of
this Court, one of the us (R.M. Lodha, J.) noticed some of the recent decisions of this Court, namely, U.P.
State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. V. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479; Uttaranchal Forest Development
Corpn. V. M.C. Joshi, (2007) 9 SCC 353; State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 SCC 575; M.P.
Admn. V. Tribhuban, (2007) 9 SCC 748; Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, (2008)5
SCC 75; Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai, (2006) 11 SCC 684; GDA v. Ashok Kumar, (2008) 4
SCC 261 and Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, (2008) 1 SCC 575 and stated as follows:
(Jagbir Singh case (2009) 11 SCC 327, SCC pp. 330 & 335, paras 7 & 14)
“7. It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if
the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back-wages would
ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of
cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back-wages is not
automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4407
employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been
held to meet the ends of justice.
14. It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that
an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25F although may be set aside but an award of
reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed.”
18.
Yet, in another latest judgment i.e. District Development Officer Vs. Kanti Lal 2018 LLR 225 while
considering the question of reinstatement along with back wages of a daily wager, who have put two and a half years of
service, the Hon’ble Apex Court granted a lump sum compensation of Rs.2.50 lac in lieu of reinstatement. The workman
herein was not holding a regular post of Peon-cum-Chowkidar and he was simply engaged as daily wager. Moreover,
management has already employed some other workmen in his place as such, having regard to duration of service, it
would be in the interest of justice and fair play if compensation of Rs.6 lac be awarded as lump sum compensation to the
workman. Accordingly, the reference is answered by holding that action of the management-bank Chief Manager in
terminating the service of workman Amarjit Singh is unjust, unfair and illegal and a amount of Rs.6 lac is ordered to be
paid as lump sum compensation to the said workman by the management and in case, this amount is not paid within one
month from the date of publication of the award, the workman shall be entitled to the said amount with 6% interest from
the date of making of the reference till realisation.
A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 17 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1054
1054
1054
1054.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
दि;ण पूव+ म> य रेलवे $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट औ ोिगक िववाद म
के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं3 या 89/2013-14) को $कािशत करती है जो के ीय
सरकार को 17.06.2019 को $ा7 त 8आ था।
[सं. एल-41012/14/2014-आईआर (बी-1)]
बी. एस. िब. ट, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019
S.O. 1054.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 89/2013-14) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No –II
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of South East Central
Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/06/2019.
[No. L-41012/14/2014-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S.S.GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/89/2013-14
Date: 27.05.2019
Party No.1
:
The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
South East Central Railway,
Kingsway,
Nagpur (Maharashtra).
Versus
Party No.2
:
Shri Pawan Singh Thakur,
R/o. Punjabi Line, Near to Jain Building,
Brokar Chawl Bezon Bagh,
Nagpur
Party No.3
:
The General Secretary
Parcel Portal Sanghathan
New Mankapur Plot no. 37, Near Mhada Colony
Nagpur- 440030.
4408
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Party No.4
:
Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhawan,Estt.LL,
New Delhi: 110001.
Party No.5
:
The Chief Administrative Officer,
Garden Reach, Kolkata: 43.
AWARD
(Dated: 27th May, 2019)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Manganese Ore(India) Ltd. and their Union, Bhartiya
Manganese Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) for adjudication, as per letter No.L-41012/14/2014-IR (B-I) dated 25.02.2014, with
the following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of South East Central Railway, Nagpur in issuing the
termination notice to Shri Pawan Singh Thakur, Bunglow Peon to Dy. C.E. (Con.) Bilaspur is just fair
and legal? If not, to what relief is entitled to the concerned workman?”
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the union “Parcel Portal Sanghtana (“the union” in short) filed the statement of claim and the
management of South East Central Railway, and South Eastern Railway Gardenreach Road Kolkata (here-in-after
referred to as the “Party No. 1”) filed its written statement.
3.
Union filed the statement of claim by asserting that workman Shri Pawan Singh Thakur initially appointed as
Bungalow Peon by the party no.1 and he was paid salary and wages regularly as per Central Pay Scale applicable to
Group ‘D’ employees. His appointment was approved by General Manager of Zonal Railways (Personnel) and followed
by medical examination on behalf of Railway on 12.09.2000. According to the union in medical examination he was
found fit in Cee Two Medical category and after submitting medical certificate he joined Dy. C.E. Construction,
Bilaspur.
4.
After clearing all test and recruitment procedure for employment in railway service an office was order issued
by the C.E. Construction, Bilaspur and he was posted with Mr. Viren Kumar, Dy. Chief Engineer, as Bungalow Peon.
He was transferred to Garden rich Kolkata and Railway directed him to join as Bungalow peon with Mr. Viren Kumar at
Garden Reach Kolkata by the office order dated 03.10.2001. He also asserted that before the transfer to Kolkata he was
also transferred with Viren Kumar from Nagpur to Bilaspur. According to him office issued transfer pass, LPC along
with other transfer facility applicable at par with permanent staff to join Garden Rich Kolkata.
5.
According to the Union, Shri Viren Kumar advised him to report his duty at Bilaspur. After that Senior
Personnel Officer, Garden Rich Kolkata Memorandum declared the applicant unfit and issued notice of termination on
08.10.2001 for 14 days. According to the Union, Railway did not followed the procedure in termination proceedings
which is unjust, unfair and illegal and violation of the provision of 25-M of I.D. Act. Party no.1 and 5 did not pay lay off
compensation. No medical authority declared him unfit. In this way Union prays that termination is illegal and without
lay off compensation, so they pray that he may be reinstated with full back wages. They also pray for the retrenchment
compensation.
6.
On behalf of Party no.1 South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur filed written statement by taking preliminary
objection that 1. General Secretary, Parcel Portal Sangathan as no locus standi, 2. Chief Administration officer (C) GRC
Garden Rich Kolkata is not made a party, non they took plea of non joinder of necessary party, 3. This reference is time
barred, because matter of issue was relating to 2001 and they take objection that Garden Rich Kolkata was not made a
party. They also denied all relevant fact taken by the Union in statement of claim by asserting that workman was in
regular employment. According to them he will not confirmed in incumbent of any title of claim for future appointment.
Then reply to para no. 2 and 3 of statement of claim they asserted that fact mentioned in these paras are matter of record.
Rest of the facts denied by the management by asserting that post of workman is purely on temporarily basis. They also
denied that applicant has worked with full devotion, honestly and without break. It is also denied that workman was
entitled any compensation and also denied that violation of legal procedure in termination of workman. In prayer they
requested that statement of claim by rejecting with heavy and exempla nary cost.
7.
On behalf of SECR, Garden Rich Kolkata, (Party no. 5), also filed written statement by asserting that there is no
post as such. According to them Bunglow Peon now called as TADK-Telephone Attendant-cum-Dak Khalasi. They
also take preliminary objection that delay of 17 years so it is time barred. According to them 14 days notice of
termination is mandatory. They also objected that after more than 4 years they made party in this case. According to
them after 10 years paid vouchers not available in their office because they were destroyed. They also denied that
workman has a genuine case. According to them statement of claim is misconceived and misconstructed. They also took
plea that the Union Parcel Portal Sangathan has no Locus Standi.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4409
8.
According to the party no.5, Bungalow Peon is a temporary post and only recommendation of the incumbent
officers his service is regularized. According to them “workman had not acted in manner in which he was suppose to
perform his duties. Applicant has failed to show any laxity of the officer”. They pray that such time barred statement of
claim is to be rejected because cause of action arose in Kolkata, West Bengal, but petition was filed at Nagpur. They
also prayed that, reference is to be answered in negative.
9.
On behalf of the union or workman filed rejoinder by reiterating on same footings of statement of claim. They
also asserted that, preliminary objection raised by the management, violated the norms of pleading and also some short of
unfair labour practice. According to them, they raised their dispute before the proper forum and also prayed that, transfer
of officer from one place to another, the Bungalow peon to be left on the same place, where he was originally appointed
by keeping the welfare of workman in mind. As per rules transfer to other railway are not permitted to substitute even
Gr.”D” without approval of G.M. According to the union, workman was refused to give work at his new place and given
lay-off i.e. illegal, unfair and prohibited U/s 25-C of the I.D, Act and prayed that, Court adjudicates award for
reinstatement of the workman, who was terminated from service, unfair dismissal U/s 7-a & 10-A of the I.D. Act. They
also prayed that, workman be reinstated with 50% of back wages U/s 25-N of the I.D. Act.
10.
Point of determination:
i.
Whether termination notice issued by the Railway to the workman is legal and justified?
ii. Whether the workman is entitled for any relief?
Reasons for decision:
11.
On the basis of Indian Railway Establishment Rule Volume-I Chapter XV, Rule 76-A of Industrial Dispute
Central rules – 1957, Registers & Retrenchment laid down statutory provision of Railway Board’s Order under Master
Circular 48, Railway Board’s Order dated 30.09.2015 RBE No. 119/2015, Case Ajaypal Singh Vs Haryana Warehousing
Corporation (2015) 6 SCC 321, Divisional Railway Manager Vs. Presiding Officer Cheenai W.P. No. 23044 &
24473/2006 Date of decision 12.01.2011 and Tapash Kumar Paul Vs. BSNL Civil Appeal No. 4980/2014 date of order
28.01.1947, argued that, termination of workman without any rules and regulation, which is illegal and contrary to the
law U/s 25-F and 27-N of the I.D. Act. So, their workman is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. They also
argued that, all right and privilege are available even to temporary workers. He also argued that, workman devoted with
sincerity and honesty without break and no fault on his part. That argument was denied by the management i.e. Party
No, 1 and 5. Now I want to see the evidence.
12.
The workman, Pawan Singh Thakur (PW-1) admitted in para 14 of his cross-examination that, he was
terminated on 08.10.2001 by the memorandum issued by the management. He also admitted that, notice of termination is
on record, but he did not challenge this notice before any authority in form of representation in writing, but he made oral
request to the Chief Personal Officer and General Manager. They assured that, they would appoint him again, if vacancy
would available in future, but Railway did not appoint him. He also admitted that, after approval of the General Manager
of the Railway, he was posted with Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction), Shri Virendra Kumar as Bunglow Peon. He
denied that, he was appointed on purely temporary basis. According to him, he was supposed to be transferred with Shri
Virendra Kumar to Kolkata in the year of 2001, but Virendra Kumar orally instructed him to take leave for few days and
assured him to join after few times. In this way, this witness remained unrebutted in his cross-examination. Now I want
to see the management’s evidence.
13.
On behalf of the Railway, Shri N.N. Rao Acharya was examined to support the defence taken in W.S. He
admitted that, workman was appointed as a Bunglow Peon attached to Shri Virendra Kumar as a temporary basis as
substitute. He also admitted that, his appointment was approved by Railway General Manager. After appointment,
workman was examined by Medical Expert as per procedure. He also admitted that, Medical Fitness Certificate was
issued by the appropriate authority, but according to him, he did not file any original paper regarding service record of
the workman, in support of para 5 & 8 of his evidence of affidavit. According to him, original papers are not available,
but he admitted that, Xerox copy of the appointment letter shows that, he was appointed as a Bunglow Peon, but he is not
in position to say that, when he was terminated i.e. whether he had worked for more than one year or not? He is also not
in position to say about the Xerox copy of the Muster Roll, which was produced by the petitioner or any disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner. In this way, he gave a statement without full knowledge. Thus, his statement did not
highlight actual proceedings against the workman.
14.
On the contrary, workman filed Xerox copy of Identity Card, Privilege Pass, and Medical Facilities Card for
himself and his family at Railway Hospital. Workman also mentioned the date regarding his appointment, medical
examination, transfer to Kolkata, notice and order of termination, but management did not factually denied these dates
and occurrence by reliable evidence. In this way, workman’s evidence appears to be more reliable than management’s
evidence. After perusal of the pleadings of the management, it appears that, according to them, “Applicant had not acted
in manner, in which he was supposed to perform his duty” in para 7 of W.S. In same para, they asserted that, “The
workman discharged his duty as Substitute Bungalow Peon (now post is identified that TADK-Telephone Attendant-
cum-Dak Khalasi)” i.e. he was interested to take family work rather than official work from the workman or he indulged
to misuse the workman in taking personal work. So, it appears that, officer was angry after one year from the workman
4410
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and he wrote against him, which was not communicated to him. On the contrary, the workman trusted with the officer.
In my opinion, that comes under the purview of unfair labour practice.
15.
The workman was appointed with the approval of the General Manager, but notice of termination was issued by
the lower rank officer namely Chief Administrative Officer (Construction). It is against the principles of natural justice.
In my opinion, that practice is not allowed to prevail in the eye of law. Now I want to see the argument raised by the
management.
16.
On behalf of the management, it was argued that, present union has no locus-standi, so statement of claim of this
reference is not tenable. This argument was denied by the union. On perusal of the record, it appears that, present union
is registered under Trade Union Act, 1926 and carrying no. NGP-4403 and workman was the member of this union. They
filed Xerox copy of Registration of Trade Union and Membership Form of Pawan Singh Thakur. Management failed to
indicate that, in which provision; this Trade Union is barred to raise such type of dispute. Union evidence supports their
argument, but management evidence does not support their argument. Hence, in my opinion, this argument raised by the
management is not sustainable.
17.
Management raised a argument that, this reference is time bared by limitation, but union opposed this argument
by saying that, they started their proceedings before the ALC(C) in the year 2002, but this reference has been received
from Ministry on 25.02.2014 and amendment in reference has been made by the Ministry on 12.11.2018. According to
the union, it is not fault on part of the workman and union, so they may not be punished for the fault of the Ministry.
This Tribunal is bound to accept all references, which are made by the appropriate government U/s 10 of the I.D. Act.
After considering the argument of both the parties, my humble opinion is that, genuine claim cannot be rejected on the
basis of technicality, because Tribunal proceeding is quasi judicial. This principle held in case law, Stat of Mysore Vs.
Shivabarappa Shivappa Mokapur AIR 1963 SC 375. So, this argument of the management is not sustainable.
18.
On behalf of the management, it was argued that, Chief ADMN Officer (C) GRC, Garden Reach Kolkata has
not been made a party, so workman’s claim is rejected on the ground of non-joindering of necessary party, but Ministry
has amended the reference by Corrigendum dated 12.11.2018 and “The Chief Administrative Officer, Garden Reach,
Kolkata-43” has been made a party No. 5. This Tribunal issued notice to the above party and they filed their W.S. So,
this defect has been rectified by the Ministry, so in my opinion, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction, after amendment, reject
or dismiss the reference. So, in my view, management’s argument is not sustainable.
19.
On behalf of the Party No. 5, it was argued that, (Para No. 6-c of W.S.) actual cause of action occurred in South
Eastern Railway, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata, so this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide this matter. This argument
was denied by the union as asserted that, workman was appointed at Nagpur and transferred to Bilaspur and Kolkata.
Heard both parties on this point of argument, on perusal of the record, it appears that, last pay was drawn from Garden
Reach Kolkata, notice of termination was issued by the Railway on 08.10.2001 at the address of Nagpur. Workman is
also residing at Nagpur. From the very beginning Railway contested this case by filing W.S. Railway is very big
organization; they have their offices at different places. They have full of resources, they have also sufficient staff and
legal advisors.
On behalf of the union, it was argued that, in the year of 2001, South East Central Railway was having its Head
Quarter at Kolkata and Nagpur came in that division. After that, in the year 2003, this division was divided into three
parts, so, workman’s case is based on the year 2001, so this Tribunal has jurisdiction. This fact was not denied by the
management.
Section 11 of I.D. Act prescribes the power and procedure in conduction of reference matter, in which it is
mentioned that, “Tribunal shall follow such procedure as the arbitrator or other authority concerned may think fit”. In
my humble opinion, on the basis of technicalities of law, genuine claim cannot be rejected, poor worker are fighting in
Labour Court for their legal rights, which are denied by prosperous employer. If alternative argument is accepted, then
case may be transferred to the CGIT, Kolkata, 18 years have already been lapsed, next CGIT also requires some time for
decision, so in my opinion, relief will be postponed on technical ground for further period of two or three years. On the
contrary starving workman will suffer huge expences and time without job. Moreover, Railway has sufficient skilled
manpower, time and sufficient source to present their case before this Tribunal, so in my humble opinion, management’s
argument is not sustainable. Principles laid down in the above case laws:-
i.
“In case law Division Railway Manager, Hon’ble Madras High Court in para No. 11 and 12, on the basis of
(2010) 2 SCC 623 Chaitanya Prakash Vs. H. Omkarappa, (1974) 2 SCC 831 Samsher Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and (1999) 3 SCC 60 Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satvendra Nath Bose, referred that, “An order of
termination during the period of probation, on the ground of the performance not being satisfactory, It was
pointed out therein that the employer advised the employee to improve his performance”.
“If finding were arrived at in an inquiry as to misconduct, behind the back of the officer or without a regular
departmental enquiry, the simple order of termination is to be treated as founder on the allegations and will
be bad………….. In such a circumstance, the allegations would be a motive and not the foundation and the
simple order of termination would be valid”.
ii.
In Tapash Kumar case, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, “A court may pass an order substituting an order of
reinstatement by awarding compensation but the same has to be based on justifiable grounds ………… The
injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4411
easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the
employer-employee relationship…..Not only the employee concerned, but his entire family suffers grave
adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and
all opportunities of education and advancement in life……The denial of back wages to an employee, who
has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the employee
concerned and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the
emoluments”.
iii.
In para 23 of Tapash Kumar case, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, “Termination may well amount to unfair
labour practice. In such circumstances reinstatement ring the normal rule, it should be followed with full
back wages. Articles 41 and 43 of the constitution would assist us in reaching a just conclusion in this
respect”.
iv.
In para 9 of Ajay Pal case, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, on the basis of Ajaypal Singh Vs.
Haryana Warehousing Corporation 2015(6) SCC 321, Krishan Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, Haryana State
Agrucultural Marketing Borad 2010 (3) SCC 637 and Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing
Corporation 2010 (3) SCC 192, held that, “In that case selection and appointment was in accordance with
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India therefore, the Supreme Court has directed for reinstatement
………..Managing Director of respondent-Bank side track the constitutional provisions while appointing the
petitioner………has no right to seek for reinstatement”.
v.
In Senior Manager, First Flight Courier, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that, “Appropriate
government always depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case………..the action of the
appropriate government i.e. Chandigarh Administration has not been challenged by way of separate writ
petition……….Labour Court, Chandigarh was not even competent to transfer the dispute to the Labour
Court, Ludhiana”.
vi.
In Senior Manager, First Flight Courier, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that, “No prejudice is
going to be caused to the petitioner, if the Labour court, Chandigarh adjudicates the Industrial dispute
between………The Labour Court, Chandigarh, rightly concluded that since part of cause of action arose at
Chandigarh office of the petitioner, it has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the reference……….the reference
that has been made by the appropriate government, has become absolute”.
vii.
In para 3 of the Railway Board’s circular No. E(D&A) 2012 RG6-34 dated 30.09.2015,” A lower authority
who has merely issued/signed the order regarding appointment/promotion which has been ordered by a
higher authority, is not competent to impose the penalty or dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from
service on such Railway servant. Such action is not only violative of the RS (D&A) Rules but also unlikely
to withstand judicial scrutiny”.
20.
In case law--- Delhi Transport Corp. Vs. Ombir Singh 2017 LLR 252, Hon’ble Lordship held that “Where
principles of natural justice are not being complied with, then in such cases, compensation ought to be granted even if
termination of service is found to be valid”. On the basis of principle laid down in Engineering Laghu Udhyog
Employees Union vs Judge, Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal & others – (2003) 12 SCC 1 in which it was held that:-
“no difference whether the matter comes before the tribunal for approval under S.33 or on a reference under S.10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. In either case if the enquiry is defective or if no enquiry has been held as required by
Standing Orders, the entire case would be open before the tribunal and the employer would have to justify on facts as
well that its order of dismissal or discharge was proper.” “A defective enquiry in our opinion stands on the same footing
as no enquiry and in either case the tribunal would have jurisdiction to go into the facts and the employer would have to
satisfy the tribunal that on facts the order of dismissal or discharge was proper.” These principles are also laid down by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case laws- Punjab Urban Planning & Development authority Vs. Mandip Singh (2016) 7
SCC-571, UPSRTC Vs. Gopal Shukla (2015) SCC 603, Sanjay Singh Vs. National Seed Corporation (2017) 13 SCC
269, V.D. Vegad Vs. State of Gujurat (2017) 2 SCC 508 and Angikr Oriental (Arbic) Higher Secondary School Vs. A.
Harnoon (2017) 2 SCC 510.
21.
Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of the principles as mentioned above, as I observed that,
the appointment of the workman, Shri Pawan Singh Thakur is legal and proper. He worked for more than one year i.e. he
had completed 240 days in one calendar year. I also observed that, notice dated 08.10.2001 is illegal, because it is not
supported by any document and I also observed that, Medical Board or Medical Agency did not declare the workman
unfit for his job. I also observed that, part of the cause of action arose in the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. This Tribunal
has no power to transfer the reference. Both the parties agreed that, they would not challenge the reference order dated
25.02.2014 and Corrigendum dated 12.11.2018, before the Hon’ble High Court in Writ jurisdiction i.e. challenge the
validity of the reference. I also observed that, appointment of workman was made for the post of TADK-Telephone
Attendant-cum-Dak Khalasi but Mr. Virendra Kumar, Dy. Chief Engineer wanted to take different works, but it also
appears that, workman’s sympathy and devotion to the above officer remained even at last moment.
22.
Party No. 5, The Chief Administrative Officer, Garden Reach, Kolkata filed W.S., but did not produce any
evidence or documents i.e. opportunity of production of evidence was given to the Party No.5, Garden Reach Kolkata,
but they did not avail. Neither they prayed for adjournment nor showed any difficulty to produce evidence. In my
4412
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
opinion, management did not prejudice in conduction of Tribunal proceedings at Nagpur. The Party No. 3 is a registered
Trade Union and workman was their member. Both are parties in this case. I also observed that, delay is not on the part
of union or workman, so in my humble opinion, workman proved his case, but he is not entitled for full back wages,
because in prayer clause of rejoinder, he prayed for 50% of back wages. So, in my opinion, termination order of Pawan
Singh Thakur is illegal and based on unfair labour practice. He is also entitled for reinstatement with 50% of his back
wages from the date of his termination. The management/Railway may recover this amount from the defaulting officer,
Shri Virendra Kumar or The Chief Administrative Officer, Garden Reach, Kolkata or any officer, who were indulged in
this wrong proceeding. Hence, it is ordered:-
ORDER
The action of the management of South East Central Railway, Nagpur in issuing the termination notice to
Shri Pawan Singh Thakur, Bungalow Peon to Dy. C.E. (Con.) Bilaspur is not just, fair & legal. The workman is
entitled for reinstatement with 50% of his back wages from the date of his termination. Management, Party No. 1
& 5 should comply the order within one month from the date of publication of this award in official gazette,
failing which, workman is entitled to full future wages and will entitled for interest of 6% per annum from the
date of dues amount. The workman is not entitled for any other relief.
S. S. GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 17 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1055
1055
1055
1055.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
भारतीय टेट ब#क $बंधतं& के संबं' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय
सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण, अजमेर के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं3 या 10/17) को $कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को
17.06.2019 को $ा7 त 8आ था।
[सं. एल-12012/92/2016-आईआर (बी-1)]
बी. एस. िब. ट, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019
S.O. 1055.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 10/17) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ajmer as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 17.06.2019.
[No. L-12012/92/2016-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
vuqca/k
Je U;k;ky; ,oa vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] vtesj
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh&Jh ,l-,u-Vsyj] vkj-,p-ts-,l
izdj.k la[;k& lh vkbZ Vh vkj 10@17
lh vkbZ ,l ua- 46@2017
jsQjsal la[;k& ,y&12012@92@2016 ¼vkbZ vkj¼ch&1½ fnukad 17-10-17
Jh yky eksgEen iq= Jh c`tfd'kksj] 124] jktk vkJe ds lkeus] fØf'p;u dkWyksuh] enkj ukMh] vtesj ------izkFkhZ
cuke
eS- VkbZxj&4 flD;qfjVh ,aM fMVSfDVo bafM;k izk0 fy0 7] yksoj xzkmaM ¶yksj] ,y ,l lh ch&1] olar dqat] U;w nsgyh 110070
-----vizkFkhZ
mifLFkfr
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls
% Jh fQjkst [kku] vf/koDrk A
vizkFkhZ ds fo:) % ,di{kh; dk;ZokghA
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4413
fnukad 05-3-2019
vokMZ
1-
Je foHkkx] dsanz ljdkj dh vksj ls MsLd vkWfQlj ds vkns'k dz-,y&12012@92@2016¼vkbZ vkj¼ch&1½ fnukad
17-10-17 }kjk bl Je U;k;ky; dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ fuEu fookn funsZf'kr fd;k x;k gS%&
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Ajmer & M/s.Tiger 4 Security and
Detective India Pvt.Ltd. New Delhi, in terminating the service of Shri Lal Mohd.S/0 Shri Brju Kishore
w.e.f.10-11-2014 is legal and justified ? 2- Whether the demand of the concerned workman for payment
of three months wages towards compensation for financial and mental hardship caused to him by the
action of the management, is legal and justified? If yes, than to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled to?"
2-
ryc fd;s tkus ij izkFkhZ }kjk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse izLrqr fd;k tkdj mlesa vfHkopu fd;s x;s gS fd mlus vizkFkhZ
laLFkku esa crkSj lqj{kk xkMZ fn-1-9-13 ls dk;Z djuk 'kq: fd;k x;k ,oa mls fn-11-10-14 dks vizkFkhZ laLFkku }kjk
Je fof/k ds mYya?ku esa tqckuh rkSj ij lsokeqDr dj fn;k x;k A mlus izfro"kZ 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gS A
mldk osru lsokeqfDr ds le; ikap gtkj :i;s izfrekg Fkk ,oa mlds fo:) dksbZ vkjksi ugh jgs gS rFkk mlus
viuh fu"Bk o bZekunkjh ls dk;Z fd;k gS A fn- 8-10-14 dks mlus ,l ch vkbZ , Vh ,e yksdks odZ'kkWi vtesj ij
nksigj nks cts ls jkf= nl cts rd M~;wVh nh FkhA nl cts ds ckn esa vU; xkMZ fnus'k dqekj rSukr gqvk Fkk ftlus
, Vh ,e e'khu e; dejs] , lh] ykbZV] eksckbZy lgh laHkykdj M~;wVh jftLVj esa gLrk{kj fd;s Fks tks lh lh Vh
oh dSejs esa fjdkWMZ gS A fn- 9-10-14 dks ds;j Vsdj }kjk lwpuk nh x;h fd mDr , Vh ,e dk 'kVj uhps fd;k gqvk
gS dSejk ugh gS ukbZV M~;wVh xkMZ M~;wVh ij ugh Fkk ftls Qksu dj cqyk;k x;k ftlus viuh xyrh Lohdkj dh A
izkFkhZ dh dksbZ xyrh ugh FkhA izkFkhZ }kjk lgk;d Je vk;qDr dsanzh; esa f'kdk;r dh x;h A var esa izkFkhZ dh mDr
lsokeqfDr vuqfpr ,oa voS/k ?kksf"kr djrs gq, izkFkhZ dks iwoZ iw.kZ osru ifjykHk lfgr lsok esa cgky fd;s tkus dh
izkFkZuk dh x;h gS A
3- vizkFkhZ dks ryc fd;s tkus ij ckotwn rkehy ds mldh vksj ls fdlh ds Hkh mifLFkr ugh vkus ij fn- 30-1-2019
dks vizkFkhZ ds fo:) ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh vey esa yk;h x;h gS A
4- lk{; ,drjQk esa izkFkhZ }kjk Lo;a dh lk{; , Mc-1 yky eksgEen ds rkSj ij izLrqr fd;s tkrs gq, nLrkosth lk{;
esa izn'kZ Mc-1 o Mc-2 vkbZMsafVVh dkMZ QksVks izfr esa] izn'kZ Mc-3 izkFkhZ }kjk le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k is'k dh x;h
f'kdk;r] izn'kZ Mc-4 vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr tokc] izn'kZ Mc-5 izkFkhZ dk tokcqy tokc] izn'kZ Mc-6 izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk
i=] izn'kZ Mc-7 le>kSrk dk;Zokgh dh QksVks izfr is'k dj iznf'kZr djok;s x;s gS A
5- cgl ,di{kh; lquh x;h A fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZ ds LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse ds rF;ksa ds nksgjko ds lkFk rdZ jgs gS fd
Lo;a vizkFkhZ }kjk leKkSRkk vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr tokc izn'kZ Mc-4 esa vizkFkhZ laLFkku }kjk izkFkhZ dks gVk;k tkuk
Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS rFkk ?kVuk ds ckcr~ vuqla/kku yafcr gksuk Hkh of.kZr fd;k x;k gS A fcuk fu"d"kZ ds ,oa fcuk
izkFkhZ ds fo:) dksbZ tkap fd;s ,oa fcuk izkFkhZ ds nks"kh gq, izkFkhZ dks lsok ls vizkFkhZ laLFkku }kjk gVk;k tkuk fof/k
fo:) gS A izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr fd;s tkus esa Je dkuwuksa dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gS A izkFkhZ dks dksbZ fjVz~sapesaV
daials'ku ;k uksfVl ugh fn;k x;k gS A izkFkhZ Dhs lsokeqfDr voS/k gS A jsQjsal esa izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr dh fn- 10-11-14
v'kq) vafdr gS tcfd ;g fn- 11-10-14 gS rFkk ;g vizkFkhZ laLFkku dk le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr vius
tokc esa Lohd`r rF; Hkh gS A var esa izkFkhZ dk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse Lohdkj fd;k tkdj mDr funsZf'kr fookn dk
vf/kfu.kZ; izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h gS A
6-
izkFkhZ dhs vksj ls fn;s x;s ,di{kh; rdksZ ds en~ns utj lacaf/kr fof/k dks fopkj esa ysrs gq, i=koyh dk xaHkhjrkiwoZd
ifj'khyu fd;k x;k A
7-
izkFkhZ }kjk viuh ,di{kh; lk{; esa izLrqr eq[; ijh{kk ds 'kiFk i= esa vius vfHkopukuqlkj gh rF; ntZ djok;s
x;s gS A izn'kZ Mc-2 vkbZMsafVVh dkMZ dh QksVks dkWih ls Li"V gS fd ;g vkbZMsafVVh dkMZ fn- 14-9-13 dks vizkFkhZ
laLFkku }kjk izkFkhZ ds fgr esa mldk in ds;j Vsdj ¼lh Vh½ crkdj tkjh fd;k tkuk blesa of.kZr gS A ftldh
lekfIr dh frfFk fn- 13-9-14 ls igys ls gh fn- 5-3-14 dks fn- 5-2-15 rd ds fy, nwljk vkbZMsafVVh dkMZ ftldh
izfr izn'kZ Mc-1 gS izkFkhZ ds fgr esa vizkFkhZ laLFkku }kjk tkjh fd;k tkuk izn'kZ Mc- 1 esa of.kZr gS A izn'kZ Mc- 3
f'kdk;r esa izkFkhZ }kjk os gh rF; ntZ fd;s x;s gS tks fd izkFkhZ us vius LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa of.kZr fd;s gS A
izn'kZ Mc-4 tokc esa vizkFkhZ dhs vksj ls fn-8-10-14 dks ,l ch vkbZ , Vh ,e yksdkl ojf'ki vtesj czkap dk lh lh
Vh oh fn- 8-10-14 dks pksjh gks tkuk ikuk rFkk mlls lacf/kr lHkh rhu ds;j Vsdjksa dks ukSdjh ls gVk fn;k tkuk
,oa daiuh }kjk ekeys esa dksbZ ,Q vkbZ vkj vius fu;ksftrksa ds fo:) ntZ ugh djok;k tkuk fdarq vUos"k.k yafcr
gksuk of.kZr gS A izn'kZ Mc-5 tokcqy tokc izkFkhZ esa izkFkhZ }kjk vizkFkhZ ds mDr dFkuksa ds [kaMu esa rF; of.kZr fd;s
x;s gS A izn'kZ Mc-6 izkFkhZ ds izkFkZuk i= esa ekg vDVwcj o uoacj 2014 dh osru jkf'k :- 7151@&cdk;k jgus tks
izkIr gks tkus fdarq vizkFkhZ daiuh ds izfrfuf/k ds dgs vuqlkj rhu ekg ds osru dh {kfriwfrZ ugh izkIr gksus ls mls
fnyokus dh ekax dh x;h gS A izn'kZ Mc-7 esa vlQy okrkZ ckcr~ dk;Zokgh of.kZr gS A
4414
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8-
izkFkhZ }kjk vius LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse ds ek/;e ls mDr izdkj vfHkopu fd;s x;s gS ftuds leFkZu esa mldhs ekSf[kd
lk{; mlds eq[; ijh{kk ds 'kiFk i= esa ntZ gS A izn'kZ Mc-1 o Mc-2 vkbZMsafVVh dkMZ dh QksVks izfr;ksa ls izkFkhZ dk
vizkFkhZ laLFkku ds ;gka izkFkhZ }kjk vius vfHkopuksa esa crk;h x;h vof/k esas crkSj ds;j Vsdj fu;ksftr gksuk izdV
gksrk gS A vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr tokc izn'kZ Mc-4 ls ;g Li"V gS fd ,l ch vkbZ ,
Vh ,e yksdy ojf'ki vtesj czkap ls lh lh Vh oh dSejs pksjh gks tkuk fn-8-10-14 dks ik;s tkus ij izkFkhZ lfgr
rhu ds;j Vsdjksa dks gVk;k tkuk rFkk vizkFkhZ laLFkku }kjk muds fo:) ,Q vkbZ vkj ntZ ugh djok;k tkuk blesa
of.kZr fd;k x;k gS A blesa vUos"k.k Hkh yafcr gksuk of.kZr gS A izkFkhZ }kjk viuh lk{; esa mDr ?kVuk esa Lo;a dk
dksbZ nks"k ugh gksus ckcr~ rF; ntZ djok;s x;s gS ftl ekSf[kd lk{; dk i=koyh ij fdlh izdkj ls [kaMu ugh gS
rFkk izkFkhZ dks mDr ?kVuk ds laca/k esa dksbZ vkjksi i= fn;k x;k gks o tkap dh x;h gks o tkap ds i'pkr~ nks"kh
ik;s tkus ij izkFkhZ dks lsok ls gVk;k x;k gks ,slk dqN Hkh i=koyh ls izdV ugh gksrk gS A izkFkhZ dks ;fn mDr
?kVuk esa nks"kh ekurs gq, vkjksiksa ds vk/kkj ij gVk;k x;k gS rks izkFkhZ ds fo:) tkap esa vkjksi izekf.kr gksuk vizkFkhZ
laLFkku dks izdV djuk Fkk fdarq vizkFkhZ laLFkku ckotwn rkehy U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr ugh gqvk gS rFkk mlds fo:)
mDr izdkj ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh vey esa yk;h x;h gS A ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr ekSf[kd o nLrkosth
lk{; dk fdlh izdkj ls [kaMu ugh gksrk gS ftl dkj.k izkFkhZ dh ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; ij vfo'okl fd;s
tkus dk dksbZ vk/kkj i=koyh ij ugh gS A izkFkhZ }kjk j[ks x;s rF;ksa dks izn'kZ Mc-4 vizkFkhZ }kjk le>kSrk vf/kdkjh
ds le{k izLrqr tokc ds rF;ksa ,oa izkFkhZ dh f'kdk;r dh izfr izn'kZ Mc-3 rFkk tokcqy tokc dh izfr izn'kZ Mc-5
ds lkj ds lkFk i<us ls izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr fn-10-11-14 ds ctk; fn-11-10-14 dh izdV gksrh gS rFkk izkFkhZ dh vksj
ls fn;s x;s bl rdZ dks ugh ekus tkus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugh gS fd jsQjsal esa izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr dh frfFk
fn- 11-10-14 ds LFkku ij fn-10-11-14 v'kq) vafdr gS ftls 'kq) i<us esa dksbZ nks"k ugh gSA izkFkhZ dks mDr
lsokeqfDr ij dksbZ fjVz~sapesaV HkRrk o uksfVl Hkh fn;k tkuk izdV ugh gS A leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa izkFkhZ dh vizkFkhZ
laLFkku }kjk dh x;h lsokeqfDr voS/k gh izdV gksrh gS A ifj.kkeLo:i izkFkhZ }kjk mDr lsokeqfDr ij mDr foosfpr
izn'kZ Mc-6 izkFkhZ ds izkFkZuk i= esa of.kZrkuqlkj rhu ekg ds osru dh ekax crkSj {kfriwfrZ fd;k tkuk oS/k ,oa
U;k;laxr gS rFkk izkFkhZ vius izkFkZuk i= izn'kZ Mc-6 vuqlkj gh rhu ekg dk osru vizkFkhZ laLFkku ls crkSj {kfriwfrZ
izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ik;k tkrk gS A ;|fi mDr funsZf'kr fookn esa LVsV cSad vkWQ bafM;k] vtesj ds eSustesaV
dh dk;Zokgh dk Hkh vadu gS fdarq mDr cSad izdj.k esa i{kdkj ugh gS u gh izkFkhZ }kjk mlds i{kdkj ds rkSj ij
tksMs tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h gS A ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa izkFkhZ viuh mDr ekax iwfrZ vizkFkhZ laLFkku ls gh djok;s tkus
dk vf/kdkjh ik;k tkrk gS rFkk blh vuqlkj izkFkhZ dk mDr LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse fo:) vizkFkhZ ,di{kh; e; [kpkZ
Lohdkj fd;k tkrs gq, mDr funsZf'kr fookn dks vf/kfu.khZr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gS A
vkns'k
9-
vr% izkFkhZ dk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse fo:) vizkFkhZ ,di{kh; e; [kpkZ mijksDrkuqlkj Lohdkj fd;k tkdj mDr
funsZf'kr fookn izkFkhZ ds i{k esa o vizkFkhZ ds fo:) ,di{kh; bl izdkj vf/kfu.khZr fd;k tkrk gS fd vizkFkhZ laLFkku
}kjk izkFkhZ Jh yky eksgEen iq= Jh c`t fd'kksj dks fn-11-10-14 ls lsokeqDr fd;k tkuk vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gS rFkk
izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk rhu ekg ds osru dh crkSj {kfriwfrZ vizkFkhZ laLFkku ls dh x;h ekax oS/k o U;k;laxr gSA
ifj.kkeLo:i izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ laLFkku ls rhu ekg dk osru crkSj {kfriwfrZ izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS tks vizkFkhZ izkFkhZ
dks vfoyac vnk djsA rhu ekg esa mDr Hkqxrku vizkFkhZ }kjk ugh fd;s tkus ij izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ ls ukS izfr'kr okf"kZd
lk/kkj.k nj ls C;kt Hkh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxk A
,l- ,u- Vsyj] U;k;k/kh'k
नई दली, 17 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1056
1056
1056
1056.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
यू इंिडया ए@ योरस कंपनी िलिमटेड के $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट
औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं3 या 121/2005) को $कािशत करती
है जो के ीय सरकार को 17.06.2019 को $ा7 त 8आ था।
[सं. एल-17012/18/2004-आईआर (बी-1)]
बी. एस. िब. ट, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019
S.O. 1056.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 121/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court , Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of New India Assurance Company Limited
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.06.2019.
[No. L-17012/18/2004-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4415
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/121/2005
Shri Shiv Prasad Chourasiya,
Gram kotma, Balpurwa Road,
Distt. Shahdol (MP)
...Workman
Versus
Divisional Manager,
New India Assurance Company Limited,
Near Hotel Surya,
Shahdol (MP)
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 15th day of May 2019
1. As per letter dated 21.10.2005 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labor, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of Industrial Disputes Act 1947,hereinafter
referred to by the word ‘Act’, as per Notification No.L-17012/18/2004-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference
relates to:
‘‘Whether the action of the management of the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company
Limited (MP) in terminating the services of Shri Shiv Prasad Chourasiya is legal and justified? If not,
what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim.
According to workman, he was initially appointed as peon w.e.f. 1-9-93 and continued in service as peon till
17-7-03 for a period of 13 years hence acquired the status of regular employee but the management kept him
continuing as a daily rated employee by not regularizing his services without any legal justification.
Management terminated his services without enquiry, notice or compensation which is against provisions of
Section 25-F of the ‘Act’. Management further violated provision of Section 25-G & H of the ‘Act’ as well as
Rule 77,78 of ID(Central) Rules 1957 which amounts to victimization and unfair labor practice as well as illegal
retrenchment. Workman is unemployed after termination. Accordingly, the workman has prayed to answer the
reference in his favour by directing the management to reinstate him on the post of peon with all back wages
and benefits declaring his termination against law.
3. Case of the management is that firstly, the reference is vague because no particulars have been given w.r.t.
alleged services put by the claimant in the reference. In absence of these particulars, no adjudication is possible.
Also, it has been pleaded that there is no relationship of employer employee between any point of time hence
the workman is not a workman as defined in the ‘Act’. According to management, there are certain rules and
regulations regarding appointment on vacancies. The workman was simply a daily wager engaged according to
exigency of work for short period after intervals. He was not appointed as per rules against any vacancy hence
he cannot claim regularization. He was engaged for few hours intermittently on casual basis like cleaning of
office and was paid on daily basis. It is further the case of management that on 27-9-97, workman applied for
license as Insurance Agent which was granted and he was granted license No. NIA/12/SDL/0073 up to
28-10-2000 & a certificate to this effect was issued by the Branch office at Shahdol. This license was renewed
from time to time and certificates were issued between the period 29-10-97 to 28-10-03 hence workman cannot
be said to be an ‘workman as defined in the ‘Act’. Between this period, the casual work done by claimant prior
to 29-10-97 was paid by the company. Legal pleas regarding non-application of Section 25-F,G&H & Rule 77
& 78 of I.D.(Central) Rules were also taken by the employer. Accordingly, it was prayed that reference be
answered against the workman.
4. Workman filed and proved copy of ledger book and payment vouchers from 1997 to 1999 which have been
marked Exhibit W-1 & 2 respectively.
5. The workman has examined himself on oath as witness.
6. Management filed and proved agency allotment letter by the management company dated 29-10-97. License to
act as an agent dated 29-10-97, letter regarding payment of commission sent to agents including the present
workman dated 8-1-2002, certificates after renewal of agency license issued to the workman on 9-4-2003 and
4416
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
other date. License regarding agency issued on 9-6-03 agent master details containing the name of the present
workman as agent of the company maintained by the management and marked Exhibit M-1 to 9 respectively.
Management has examined its witness Shri Bhubeneshwar Choudhury ,Dy.Manager on oath.
7. I have heard argument of Mr. K.B. Singh, Advocate on behalf of workman and Shri A.K.Shashi, Advocate on
behalf of management and have gone through the record.
8. After perusal of record in the light o rival argument, following points come up in this case for determination-
(1)
Whether termination of the workman is justified in law?
(2)
Relief to which the workman is entitled?
9. Point for determination No.1-
Before entering into discussion, it is proper to refer to certain provisions which are being reproduced as follows-
Section 2(S)-
“workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled,
skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment
be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute,
includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a
consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not
include any such person-
(i)
who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the
Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii)
who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or
(iii)
who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(iv)
who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred
rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of
the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.]
Section 2(oo)
(a)
“retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever,
otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include- (a) voluntary
retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the
contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf;
or
3[(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the on- renewal of the contract of employment
between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a
stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or] (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of
continued ill-health;]
Section 25-F:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has been
in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-
(a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the
period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of
the notice:
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen
days' average pay 2[for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six
months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3[or such authority as may be
specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.
25G. Procedure for retrenchment.- Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of
India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the
absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily
retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded
the employer retrenches any other workman.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4417
25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.- Where any workmen are retrenched and the employer
proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an
opportunity 2[to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and
such retrenched workmen] who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.
77. Maintenance of seniority list of workmen:-The employer shall prepare a list of all workmen in the
particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated to be
arranged according to the seniority of
their service in that category and cause a copy thereof to be pasted on a notice board in a conspicuous place in
the premises of the industrial establishment at least seven days before the actual date of retrenchment.
78. Re-employment of retrenched workmen:-(1) At least ten days before the date on which vacancies are to
be filled, the employer shall arrange for the display on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the premises of
the industrial establishment details of those vacancies and shall also give intimation of those vacancies by
registered post to every one of all the retrenched workmen eligible to be considered therefor, to the address
given by him at the time of retrenchment or at any time thereafter : Provided that where the number of such
vacancies is less than the number of retrenched workmen, it shall be
sufficient if intimation is given by the
employer individually to the senior most retrenched workmen in the list referred to in rule 77 the number of
such senior most workmen being double the number of such vacancies: Provided further that where the
vacancy is of a duration of less than one month there shall be no obligation on the employer to send
intimation of such vacancy to individual retrenched workmen:
1[Provided also that if a retrenched workman, without sufficient cause being shown in writing to the employer,
does not offer himself for re-employment on the date or dates specified in the intimation sent to him by the
employer under this sub-rule, the employer may not intimate to him the vacancies that may be filled on any
subsequent occasion.] (2) Immediately after complying with the provisions of sub-rule (1), the employer shall
also inform the trade unions connected with the industrial establishment, of the number of vacancies to be filled
and names of the retrenched workmen to whom intimation has been sent under that sub-rule: Provided that the
provisions of this sub-rule need not be complied with by the employer in any case where intimation is sent to
every one of the workmen mentioned in the list prepared under rule 77.
The case of the workman is that he was employed as a peon from 1-9-93 to 17-7-03 and was terminated from
service without notice or compensation or any enquiry whereas the case of the management is that he was never
appointed against a vacancy. He was simply a daily wager called for duty as and when exigency of work
required and was paid his wages as daily wager. Further that he was granted license on 29-10-97 on his
application to work as an insurance agent on commission basis hence there was no relationship of employer
employee between the parties on the date of alleged termination of services that is on 17-07-03. Thus this is not
disputed by the management that workman was engaged between the period 1-9-93 to 29-10-97, the date when
he was granted license as an agent of the company though according to management, he was a casual wager and
was engaged according to availability of work from time to time for which he was paid. The point arises for
consideration is the relationship of employer employee may be as a casual labor continued up to 29-10-97
as stated by management or up to 17-7-03,as stated by him. There is oral statement of the workman on one
side and witness for management on the other side in support of their respective claims. Workman has filed and
proved copy of ledger book which is petty cash expense register in which it has been shown that the workman
was paid wage on daily basis for different dates for the period 1995 to 1997. Another document filed and proved
by the workman is Exhibit W-2 which are payment vouchers in 93 pages which range from 7-7-97 to 14-9-99.
They are of different amounts like Rs.40/- upto 1998, Rs.50/- in 1999 & thereafter Rs.100/- in 1999. Other sets
of photocopy documents filed by workman are not admitted by management and not proved hence they cannot
be read in evidence. On the other hand, management has filed Exhibit M-1 which is letter of management
granting license to the workman as an Insurance Agent, other documents Exhibit M-2,3,4,5,6,7& 8 are regarding
renewal of license and payment of commission as agent. These documents specially Exhibit M-3 which is
payment of commission of agents is of 18-1-2002 Exhibit M-4 & 5 are renewal of license dated 9-4-03. Exhibit
M-6 is regarding payment of commission as agent dated 28-10-2000 & M-7 is renewal of license dated 9-6-03.
Exhibit M-8 is also agent master details dated 7-1-2002, the name of present workman is mentioned in all these
documents as agent.
10.
Management has further filed and proved the agency license register which is maintained from 14-12-92 which
is Exhibit M-9. Name of present workman finds mention in this register of agency. All these documents corroborate the
statement of management’s witness that since October 97, the workman was issued license for Insurance Agent and he
started to work as Insurance Agent. There is no dispute on the point that Insurance Agent is not an employee of the
employer, he is independent person who is granted license to act as Insurance Agent. He get policies for the company and
commission is paid to him for this. it is the case of workman in his statement of claim that he was in employment/
engagement of the employers till 17-7-03 as a peon. Documents filed by the workman do not support his this allegation.
Taking into consideration the evidence of the parties as discussed above, there is no occasion to believe the case of
workman that he was in employment/ engagement of employers till July 2003. Rather case of management that earlier he
4418
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
was engaged as casual labo,r and in 1997 & thereafter he was granted license for Insurance Agent appears more reliable
and acceptable. Accordingly, the case of workman that he was in engagement/ employment of the employers till 17-
7-03 is held not proved and accordingly his case that he was disengaged on 7-7-03 is also held not proved. Hence,
ther is no question of disengagement of the present workman on 17-07-03 arises. Learned counsel for workman has
referred to case Rajkumar vs Director of Education and others (2016)6-SCC-541 but it is of no help to the workman
because facts are different.
Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
11.
Point No.2-
In the light of finding recorded earlier in this judgment, workman is held not entitled to any relief.
12.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management of the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited (MP) in
terminating the services of Shri Shiv Prasad Chourasiya is legal and justified.
(2) Workman Shri Shiv Prasad Chourasiya is not entitled to any relief.
Date : 15.5.2019
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 17 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1057
1057
1057
1057.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
भारतीय टेट ब#क $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय
सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं3 या 51/2012) को $कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को
17.06.2019 को $ा7 त 8आ था।
[सं. एल-12012/08/2012-आईआर (बी-1)]
बी. एस. िब. ट, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019
S.O. 1057.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.51/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of india and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 17.06.2019.
[No. L-12012/08/2012-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/51/2012
Shri Yogesh Kumar Yadav,
S/o Shri GaneshLal Yadav,
Handipara, Near Ghanshyam Temple.
Raipur (CG)
…Workman
Versus
Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Motibagh Branch,
Raipur
Zonal Manager,
State Bank of India,
Byron Bazar, Raipur (CG)
… Management
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4419
AWARD
Passed on this 9th day of May 2019
1.
As per letter dated 22-3-2012 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labor, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947,hereinafter referred to by word
‘Act’as per Notification No.L-12012/08/2012-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Motibagh, Raipur in
terminating the services of Shri Yogesh Yadav w.e.f. February 2010 is legal and justified? To what relief
the workman is entitled?”
2.
According to the workman, he was appointed as peon/ messenger by the Bank in Moti Nagar Branch, Raipur on
31-7-02 and was working with all sincerity and satisfaction of all concerned till February 2010 when his services were
orally terminated by the management (Opposite Party No.2) by an oral order without giving him any notice or
compensation. He had completed 240 days every year including the year preceding the date of his disengagement. He
raised a dispute with Assistant Labor Commissioner. After Failure of Conciliation, a reference was sent by a
Government to this Court. According to the workman, he was paid wages firstly at the rate of Rs.85/- per day and
Rs.165/- per day. Thereafter and was also paid bonus for the said period. Accordingly, it has been alleged that the
termination of the workman is against Section 25-F of the Act hence against law. Workman has prayed for a relief of his
reinstatement and regularization with full wages setting aside his termination holding it illegal.
3.
Management has admitted the case of workman with a caveat that he was not appointed according to rules
against any vacancy. He was simply engaged for the work of cleaning and providing drinking water in the Bank as a
casual labor on daily basis he was paid Rs.85/- per day in the beginning which was enhanced to Rs.165/- per day. He
never completed 240 days in continuous engagement in any year including the year preceding the date of his
disengagement. Hence his disengagement is not against Section 25-F of the Act. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the
reference be answered against the workman.
4.
In his rejoinder, workman has further reiterated his case as stated in claim, denying the pleadings of
management.
5.
At the stage of evidence, workman has examined himself and his witness Laxmi Narayan Yadav on oath. He
has not proved any document in his statement.
6.
Management has examined on oath Chief Manager Sanjay on oath. Workman has filed document photocopy,
reply of management filed before ALC and information given by the management in RTI Act (Copy), both admitted by
management.( Office is directed to mark exhibit as per rules) as these two documents. Rest of the photocopy of
documents filed by workman have been denied by management. they have not been proved even by secondly evidence
hence cannot be read into evidence.
7.
At the stage of argument, learned counsel for workman was not present hence his oral argument were not heard.
He filed written argument which is on record. Learned counsel for management Shri S.K.Yadav submitted his argument
and has also filed written argument which are also part of record. I have perused the written argument as well as the
record. Following points come out for determination in the present case-
(1)
Whether the action of the management of Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Motibagh, Raipur in
terminating the services of Shri Yogesh Yadav w.e.f. February 2010 is legal and justified?
(2) Relief to which the workman is entitled?
8. Point for Determination No.1-
Admitted between the parties is the fact that the workman was in the engagement of management since 31-7-2002 to
February 2010 in Motibagh branch, Raipur of the Bank. According to the workman, he was appointed as peon/
messenger whereas the case of the management is that he was not appointed as peon or messenger rather he was engaged
as the casual daily wager on daily basis for cleaning and servicing drinking water to the staff & visitors for which he was
paid on daily basis. The rate of payment is not disputed between the parties. Though it has been pleaded by the
management that the workman was never engaged for 240 days. This is also pertinent to mention here that when the
factum of engagement is admitted by the management. It is further supported by statement of two witnesses and also that
the period of engagement is also admitted by management Bank. It is further supported by statement of two witnesses
from the side of workman, then it can be safely held that in the case in hand, the workman has successfully discharged
his burden to prove his continuous 240 days in the year preceding date of his disengagement. Now the onus shifts on the
management to rebut the fact. Sole management witness is admitted in his cross examination that he was not posted in
the said Branch during the period 2002 to 2010 which is the relevant period in the case in hand .
4420
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9.
Workman has specifically stated that he received remuneration continuously for the said period up to February
2010 which is admitted by management and also received bonus for the said period which is admitted by management in
their pleadings. Management’s witness has expressed his ignorance regarding this payment which is not a fresh rebuttal
on this point. Principal of law laid down in case State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur versus Om Prakash Sharma
(2006)5 SCC-123, Range Forest Officer versus S.T.Hadimani (2002)3SCC-25 and similarly other cases as mentioned
in the written argument laid down that the initial burden to prove employment of 240 days is on the workman. In the case
in hand keeping in view, the admission by management corroborated by the oral statement as well as Exhibit W-1 & W-2
as mentioned above, it can be safely held that the workman has discharged his burden to prove this fact of his continuous
engagement for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his disengagement. Admitted is the fact between the parties
that no notice of compensation was given to the workman on his disengagement. Hence the disengagement of the
workman in the case in hand is held against the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and not justified in law. Point
No.1 is answered accordingly.
10.
Point for Determination No.2-
In the light of the finding that the disengagement of the workman is not justified in law, the point further arises as to
which benefit he is entitled to. Workman has sought firstly the relief of regularization and secondly reinstatement with
backwages and benefits. It is established from the evidence on record that workman was not appointed against any
vacancy hence he cannot be regularized against any vacancy. As regards next question, since his appointment was as a
daily wager and also that his engagement was not by following rules, his reinstatement will also not be justified.
Principal of law laid down in Case BSNL versus Mansingh (2012)1SCC-558 by management can be referred to in this
respect.
In the case of Tapash Kumar Paul(2014)15SCC-313, points to be considered while awarding compensation in lieu of
reinstatement have been mentioned in Para-4 of the judgment which is reproduced as follows-
“It is no doubt true that a Court may pass an order substituting an order of reinstatement by awarding compensation but
the same has to be based on justifiable grounds viz. (I) where the industry is closed; (ii) where the employee has
superannuated or going to retire shortly and no period of service is left to his credit; (iii) where the workman has been
rendered incapacitated to discharge the duties and cannot be reinstated and / or (iv) when he has lost confidence of the
Management to discharge duties. What is sought to be emphasized is that there may be appropriate case on facts which
may justify substituting the order of reinstatement by award of compensation, but that has to be supported by some legal
and justifiable reasons indicating why the order of reinstatement should be allowed to be substituted by award of
compensation.
Though the workman has alleged that he has been unemployed since his disengagement, he has not corroborated his this
allegation in his statement on oath hence keeping these facts in view, a lumpsum compensation of Rs.40,000 will meet
the ends of justice in my view. Keeping all the facts and circumstances of the cases in hand, lumpsum compensation
of 40,000 will be just and proper.
11.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Motibagh, Raipur in terminating the
services of Shri Yogesh Yadav w.e.f. February 2010 is illegal.
(2)
The workman Shri Yogesh Yadav is entitled to compensation Rs.40,000/-.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In case of
default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum from the date of award till its realization
Dated:9.5.2019
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 17 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1058
1058
1058
1058.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
पिAम म> य रेलवे के $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय
सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं3 या 6/2014) को $कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को
17.06.2019 को $ा7 त 8आ था।
[सं. एल-41012/96/2016-आईआर (बी-1)]
बी. एस. िब. ट, अवर सिचव
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4421
New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019
S.O. 1058.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 6/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court , Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of West Central Railway and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 17.06.2019.
[No. L-41012/96/2016-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/6/2014
Shri Ramratan Prasad,
S/o Shri Damodar Prasad,
R/o Village Badiy, Gopalpur,
Post Ramathpur, P.S.Sarmera,
Distt. Nalanda, Bihar
…Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager,
West Central Railway,
Jabalpur (MP)
… Management
AWARD
Passed on this 13th day of May 2019
1.
As per letter dated 9-1-2014 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of Industrial .Disputes Act 1947,hereinafter referred to
by the word ‘Act’as per Notification No.L-41012/96/2016-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of Divisional Railway Manager , West Central Railway, Jabalpur in terminating the
services of Shri Ram Ratan Prasad, Ex Casual Labour w.e.f. 19-7-84 was legal and justified? If yes, then
what relief he is entitled to?”
2.
According to the statement of claim, it is case of workman that he worked under the employer in different spells
of period from 20-4-1979 to 18-7-84 as casual labour. He was not given any work and his services were terminated by
oral order whereas similarly situated labors were continued in service who were regularized later on and are working at
present. After oral termination, he raised dispute before A.L.C. After failure of conciliation proceedings, reference was
made to this court for Award. According to the workman, no termination notice was served at any point of time before
his termination nor was he given one months salary or compensation though he has been employed for the period 20-4-
1979 to 18-7-1984, his services were not regularized nor was he granted permanent status in spite of the fact that he did
his job with all sincerity at his end and there was no departmental proceeding.
3.
As pleaded by the employer, the claim of the workman that he was in regular employment as casual labour from
20-8-79 to 18-7-84 was denied. It was further pleaded that he was never issued any casual service card, his name is not
mentioned in the live register maintained by the employer with regards to casual labour. He has raised the dispute after
20 years in 2014 hence the reference be answered against him on the ground of delay and latches, also pleaded that there
is no post of casual labours in Railways. The service conditions applicable to permanent or temporary staff don’t apply to
casual labor. Also, it was pleaded that his service was never terminated by management and accordingly, it was prayed
that the reference be answered against the workman.
4.
Workman filed and proved casual labour card Exhibit W-1 and examined himself on oath as witness. He also
examined one Nand Kishore Yadav, a co-worker as his witness. The employer filed and proved copy of live casual
labour register Exhibit M-1 and examined Shri Ramjeevan Goswami, CPWI as its witness.
5.
Mr. N.K.Salunke, Advocate appeared for workman and employer was represented by Shri S.Mishra, Advocate. I
have heard argument from both the sides and have perused the record.
4422
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for workman that ‘Act’ does not provide for limitation hence reference
cannot be rejected on the ground of delay and latches on the part of workman in raising the dispute. Also it was
submitted that the employer had issued casual labour card which has been filed and proved by workman which goes to
show the engagement of the workman for the period stated by him and this fact is further corroborated by the statement
of workman as well as his witness on oath. Hence the fact that the workman remained in employment of the employer for
a period of 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination is proved. It is also proved that he was not issued
any show cause or given any compensation hence his termination is against law as violative of Section 25-F of the Act.
Workman requires to be reinstated with all back wages and benefits.
7.
On the other hand, learned counsel for employer has stated that the dispute was raised by the workman after 20
years of his alleged termination of services for which there is no justification hence the reference should be answered
against him on the ground of delay only. Also, it was submitted that the casual labor card is a fictitious document
because it was not issued as per rules. the live casual labour register maintained by the employer doesnot mention the
name of the workman which is further corroborated by management witness hence a self serving statement of workman
on oath and as co-worker witness cannot be relied upon. Accordingly it has been submitted that workman has failed to
prove his engagement for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination he is not entitled to any relief
claimed and the reference be answered against the workman.
8.
On perusal of record in the light of rival argument, following points come up for determination:-
(1)
Whether the termination of services of the workman Shri Ram Ratan Prasad, Ex Casual Labour w.e.f. 19-7-
84 is legal and justified?
(2)
Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?
9.
Point for determination No.1-
The case of the parties on this point has been detailed earlier. Workman has examined himself on oath. He has stated that
he was first appointed as a daily wager in Katni on 20-4-1979. He had undergone the medical test. He continued in
service till 18-7-84 when his services were terminated by oral order. Thus if he continued in service of the employer for 5
years, more than 240 days in every year but he was not granted temporary employee status, he was not issued any notice
nor was he given any compensation. He has proved the service card issued to him as Exhibit W-1.
10.
In his cross examination by management learned counsel, he has admitted that this card is issued after
depositing Rs.2/- as fees of the card which he has not paid. He admitted that live register is maintained by employer with
regards to casual labor. He denied the case of management that in fact the service card is fictitious, Nand Kishore Yadav,
the workman witness has corroborated the statement of workman on oath. He stated that he was also working with the
workman as casual labor in Katni and he was regularized in 1987 and that the present workman had been his co-worker.
He also stated that o notice or compensation was given to the present workman. In his cross-examination, he adduced
that Rs.2/- is required as fee for issue of casual card.
11.
On the other hand, management witness happens to be CPWI in Katni- the place where the workman is said to
be working and further stated that the present workman was never engaged by management under CPWI Katni for the
period 20-4-79 to 18-7-84 as casual labor. He was never engaged as casual labor. His name does not find in live casual
labor register wherein the particulars of casual labor who worked in between July 1969 to 1986 were maintained. This
witness has further stated that the alleged Service Card No. 191484 was never issued by the department.
12.
This witness has proved the relevant entry of live casual register as Exhibit M-1. In his cross-examination, this
witness has stated that the casual live register proved contents, entries from 1969 to 1986. This witness admits that the
column12 of the register contains the number of days the workmen were put on work till 18-11-89. When this entry was
made he cannot tell.
13.
On the one side, there is a service card proved by the workman about which he admits that it was issued to him
inspite of the fact that he did not deposit the required fee for issuing it. Workman has not examined the official who has
signed and stamped or has made entries in this service card Exhibit W-1 in which first entry is of workman Amritlal-
date of his engagement as casual labor is mentioned 22-11-76 in Column 8, service card number of this workman is
mentioned 94887 in Column No.9. The last entry is at Sl.No.104 regarding workman Sonelal. According to the date
mentioned in Column No.8, this workman was engaged on 22-5-78. The perusal of this document shows that different
workmen in the list were engaged on different dates and the entries are not in descending order in terms of period of
engagement. The name of present workman doesnot find place in this list though other workman engaged in the year
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4423
1979 have been mentioned, for example; workman Jainarayan engaged on 22-8-79 mentioned at Sl.No.6, Shri Motilal
engaged on 27-0-79 mentioned at Sl.No.9. similarly Sl.No.65 to 69 are the details of workers engaged in different
months of 1979 out of which two workers Govind at Sl.No.67 & Gorelal at Sl.No.68 have been shown to be engaged in
the month of April which is 23-4-79 & 21-4-79. According to the case of workman, he was engaged on 20-4-79.
14.
Learned counsel for workman could not explain as to how the name of present workman who claims himself to
have been engaged in the same month and year as the other workmen mentioned earlier have been engaged does not find
mentioned in this list. As already stated, the casual labour card filed by workman and proved by him has not been issued
as per rules is the fact admitted by workman and his witness.
15.
In the light of above description of evidence, the document and oral statement of workman regarding his
engagement as casual labour does not inspire confidence. Accordingly, it is held that from the evidence on record,
engagement of workman as alleged by him is not proved. It is also not proved that the workman was in continuous
engagement for 240 days in the year preceding his date of disengagement. On the basis of this finding on fact, it is
held that the termination/ disengagement of workman is justified in law in the case in hand.
Point for determination No.1 is answered accordingly.
16.
Point for Determination No.2-
In the light of findings recorded at Point No.1, workman is held entitled to no relief. Even if the workman would have
been found to be in continuous engagement for 240 days in the year preceding date of his disengagement, he could not be
held entitled to any relief on the ground of delay and latches on his part in raising the present dispute. Settled law on the
point is that though there is no limitation provided in the Act for raising dispute, but if the dispute has been raised after an
inordinate delay, the workman has to show that he kept the dispute alive for that period. For this, he may show that he
made representations,Which were not heard or he was following remedy in other forums. This is not so in the case in
hand. on this ground also, workman is not entitled to any relief.
17.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of Divisional Railway Manager , West Central Railway, Jabalpur in terminating the services of
Shri Ram Ratan Prasad, Ex Casual Labor w.e.f. 19-7-84 is legal and justified.
(2)
Workman Shri Ram Ratan Prasad is not entitled to any relief.
Dated:13-5-2019
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 17 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1059
1059
1059
1059.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
भारतीय टेट ब#क के $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय
सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं3 या 45/2012) को $कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को
17.06.2019 को $ा7 त 8ए थे।
[सं. एल-12012/04/2012-आईआर (बी-1)]
बी. एस. िब. ट, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019
S.O. 1059.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 45/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of india and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 17.06.2019.
[No. L-12012/04/2012-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
4424
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/45/2012
Shri Jugal Kishore Kar,
S/o Shri Prafull Kar,
Ward No.-09, Dongaripara,
Jhilmila, Saraipalli,
Distt. Mahasamund (CG)
…Workman
Versus
Zonal Manager,
State Bank of India,
Byron Bazar, Raipur (CG)
Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Saraipally,
Mahasamund (CG)
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 7th day of May 2019
1.
As per letter dated 20-3-2012 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labor, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947,hereinafter referred by word ‘Act’, as
per Notification No.L-12012/04/2012-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Saraipali Branch, Mahasamuund (CG) in
terminating the service of Shri Jugal Kishore Kar w.e.f. 9-9-2010 without following the provision of law in an
illegal manner? To what relief the workman is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman filed statement of claim. It is the case of
workman in his statement of claim that he was appointed as canteen boy/ messenger on 18-8-02 by employer Branch
Manager State Bank of India and has been doing his job with all sincerity and dedication to the satisfaction of all
concerned till 9-9-2010, the date on which his services are orally terminated by the Branch Manager without giving any
show cause notice or compensation. He raised the dispute before Asstt. Labor Commissioner. After failure of
conciliation, the dispute was referred to this court. It is the case of the workman that he was doing the job of canteen boy
for which he was paid wages Rs.1000 per month. He also did the task of messenger for which he was paid Rs.50/- per
day. According to him, he had completed more than 240 days without any break in service of the employer on the date
preceding the date of his termination of his services which is 9-9-2010. He had completed 240 days in every year in
continuous service since 18-8-02 till 9-9-2010. Hence his termination was bad in law being violative of Section 25-F of
the Act because he was not given any prior notice or compensation. His termination is also bad as violative of bipartite
settlement. Accordingly, it was prayed that setting aside the termination, the workman be reinstated with back wages and
benefits.
3.
In the Written Statement filed by the employers, they did not dispute the case of the workman that he was in
engagement as canteen boy for the period 18-8-02 to 9-9-2010. The employers pleaded that his engagement was in the
canteen which was not run by Bank rather it was run and administered by a Committee. It was also pleaded that
appointment of any type of employees in the Bank is regulated by regulations since firstly, he was not an employee of the
Bank and secondly, he was a daily wager. His appointment was not according to rules. Hence there was no question of
his disengagement by Bank because he was not in the engagement of the Bank. It was further pleaded that additional task
of messenger was taken from him for which he was paid Rs.50 on daily basis. Accordingly, it was pleaded that there is
no relationship of employer and employee between the parties. He is not a workman as defined in the Act in the
engagement of Bank. Hence his engagement was not violative of Section 25-F of the Act.
4.
The workman filed rejoinder in which he controverted the pleadings of employer Bank in their Written
statement of defense.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4425
5.
The workman filed a certificate issued by Branch Manager dated 8-9-2008 & proved it as Exhibit W-1.
Workman has also filed photocopy of documents which are not admitted by employers and not proved by the workman
hence cannot be read into evidence.
6.
Workman examined himself and his witness Hukumchand Sharma, the Branch Manager during the period 2005
to 2006 in the said Bank. Employers examined on oath Shri Anup Kumar Roy, Branch Manager of the Bank. No
documents has been filed by the employers.
7.
At stage of argument, none was present hence oral argument were not heard. Parties were given liberty to file
written arguments. Learned counsel for employer filed written argument on 24-4-2019 and learned counsel for workman
filed written argument on 6-5-2019 which have been admitted on record. I have gone through the argument and have also
perused the records.
8.
The main course of argument from the side of workman is that he was in continuous engagement of the Bank
since 18-8-02 till 9-9-2010 which is not disputed by Bank and is proved by the then Branch Manager as well as the
workman in their statement on oath. This is also admitted that no notice or compensation was given hence it is proved
that his termination is against the Act and bad in law. He requires to be reinstated with back salary and wages setting
aside his termination. No case law has been referred.
9.
On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the employers that workman was a canteen boy which was
not run by the Bank but by a local implementation committee constituting of the Branch Manager as Chairman and some
other employees as members, his wages were paid from the funds of that committee and not from Bank hence he cannot
be said to be in engagement of Bank. Case law State Bank of India versus State Bank of India Canteen Employees
Union (Bengal Circle)- (2000) 5 SCC 531 has been referred to in this respect. It has also been submitted that workman
was never appointed as messenger. Additional task of messenger was taken from him when he was a daily wager canteen
boy for which he was paid Rs.50/- on daily basis. Also it was submitted that since he was never in the engagement of the
Bank, he cannot be said to be a workman with reference to Bank as defined in the Act hence there is no question of
violation of Section 25-F of the Act in his disengagement. Learned counsel has referred to following case laws in his
written arguments-
i.
Range Forest Officer vrs S.T.Hadimani- (2002)3-SCC-25.
ii.
Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. V. Mohd Rafi- (2009)1SCC-522
iii.
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad V. Siri Niwas (2004)8-SCC-1995
iv.
M.P.Electricity Board v. Hariram- (2004)8-SCC-246.
v.
RBI V. S.Mani- (2005)5.SCC-100
vi.
R.M.Yellatti V. Executive Engineer- (2006)1-SCC-106
vii.
Talwara Coop Credit and Service Society Ltd. V. Sushil Kumar – (2008)9-SCC-486.
viii.
Jagbir Singh V. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg.Board- (2009)15SCC-327
ix.
BSNL V. Man Singh- (2012)1 SCC-558
x.
Rajasthan Development Corp. V. Gitam Singh- (2013)5-SCC-136
xi.
District Dev.Officer Vs. Satish Kantilal Amrelia- (2018)12 SCC-298
10.
After having perused the records in the light of rival argument, following points come up for determination in
the case in hand-
1.
Whether the workman has been in employment/ engagement of Bank between the period 18-8-02 to
9-9-2010?
2.
Whether the termination of services of workman w.e.f. 9-9-2010 is against law?
3.
Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?
11.
Point for Determination No.1-
Admitted fact between the parties is that the workman was engaged as a canteen boy in the branch canteen for which he
was paid Rs.1000/-. The workman witness Hukum chand Sharma who was the Branch Manager of the said branch in the
period 2005-06 has admitted in his cross examination that the canteen was being run by Local Implementation
Committee, wages of the canteen boy were paid from the funds of this committee. The canteen used to run within the
Bank hours. Branch Manager is President of the Committee. Workman himself has admitted that he was engaged as a
canteen boy in the canteen though he has stated that additional task of messenger was also taken from him.
4426
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12.
Management’s witness Anup Kumar Roy has also stated in his statement that workman was a canteen boy
engaged in the staff canteen. He used to serve water and tea to the staff . Now the question arises whether employee of
canteen will be deemed to be Bank employee or not. This question has been answered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case State Bank of India versus State Bank of India Canteen Employees Union (Bengal Circle)- (2000) 5 SCC 531.
Relevant para of the said judgment referred by learned counsel by employers is being reproduced as under-
Learned counsel for the appellants further relied upon the
decision in M.M.R. Khan and Others v. Union of
India and Others [(1990) Supp. SCC 191] and submitted that status of the employees
of the canteen run by the LIC
should be that on non-statutory
recognized canteens as held in the said case. In our view, that very judgment was
considered by this Court in R.B.Is case and was distinguished. Therefore, it does not require further discussion
in
this matter. However, it is to be stated that in that judgment itself, the Court has observed that the canteens run by the
different Railway establishments were classifiable into three categories, namely,(1) Statutory Canteens These are
canteens required to be provided compulsorily in view of Section 46 of the Factories Act 1948.
(2) Non-Statutory Recognized Canteens These are run by any establishment which may or may not be
governed by the Act, but which admittedly employ 250 or less than 250 employees and hence, it is not obligatory on
the Railway to maintain them. However,
they have been set up as a staff welfare measure where employees exceed
100 in number. These canteens are established with prior
approval and recognition of the Railway Board as per the
prescribed detailed in the Railway Establishment Manual.
(3) Non-statutory Non-recognized canteens These canteen are run at establishments under category (2)
above,but employ 100 or less than 100 employees and are established without prior approval or recognition of the
Railway Board. With regard to the employees in categories(1) and (2) above, the Court held that they are Railway
employees for all purposes and they cannot be deprived of the status merely because some other employees similarly or
dissimilarly situated may also claim the same status. With regard to the third category, the Court held that employees of
non-statutory non-recognized canteens are not entitled to claim the status of the Railway servants because Railway
administration was having no control on their working. It also observed that no rules whatsoever were applicable to the
recruitment of the workers and their service conditions. In the present case, in our view, the canteens run by the LIC in
a branch having strength of less than 100 employees are non-statutory non- recognized canteens because admittedly
there is neither statutory provision nor any obligation arising out of award or contract between the employees of the
Bank in running such canteens. As stated earlier, finally the 4th settlement was arrived at between All India SBI Staff
Federation and the Bank which inter alia provides that Bank will take over canteens from Local Implementation
Committees concerned at such offices/branches having a minimum staff strength of 100 where the canteens are still
being run by the said Committees. Hence, contractual obligation is limited to that extent. For the canteens run by the
Local Implementation Committees, there is no question of its recognition by the State Bank as in the case of recognised
canteens in the Railways where Railway Board granted recognition to the canteens as per prescribed detail in the
Railway Establishment Manual. On the contrary, the status of canteens run by the LocalImplementation Committees
would be non-statutory non-recognised canteens. The employees of such canteens were not under the control of the
Bank and their appointments are not governed by any rules framed by the SBI.
The learned counsel for the employees further relied upon the decision in Parimal Chandra Raha and Others v.
Life Insurance Corpn. Of India and Others [1995 Supp (2) SCC 611] and submitted that as held in para 25 of the said
decision, it should impliedly be held that Bank was under an obligation to provide canteen facilities to the employees as
part of the service conditions.
Relevant para is as under:-
What emerges from the statute law and the judicial decisions is as follows:
(i) Whereas under the provisions of the Factories Act, it is statutorily obligatory on the employer to provide and
maintain canteen for the use of his employees, the canteen becomes a part of the establishment and,
therefore, the workers employed in such canteen are the employees of the management.
(ii) Where, although it is not statutorily obligatory to provide a canteen, it is otherwise an obligation on the
employer to provide a canteen, the canteen becomes a part of the establishment and the workers working in
the canteen, the employees of the management. The obligation to provide a canteen has to be distinguished
from the obligation to provide facilities to run canteen. The canteen run pursuant to the latter obligation, does
not become a part of the establishment.
(iii) The obligation to provide canteen may be explicit or implicit. Where the obligation is not explicitly accepted
by or cast upon the employer either by an agreement or an award, etc., it may be inferred from the
circumstances, and the provisions of the canteen may be held to have become a part of the service conditions
of the employees. Whether the provision for canteen service has become a part of the service conditions or
not, is a question of fact to be determined on the facts and circumstances in each case.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4427
Where to provide canteen services has become a part of the service conditions of the employees, the canteen
becomes a part of the establishment and the workers in such canteen become the employees of the
management.
(iv) Whether a particular facility or service has become implicitly part of the service conditions of the employees
or
not, will depend, among others, on the nature of the service/facility, the contribution the service in
question makes to the efficiency of the employees and the establishment, whether
the service is available
as a matter of right to all the
employees in their capacity as employees and nothing more, the number of
employees employed in the establishment and the number of employees who avail of the service, the length
of time for which the service has been continuously available, the hours
during which it is available, the
nature and character of management, the interest taken by the employer in providing, maintaining,
supervising and controlling the service, the contribution made by the management in the form of
infrastructure and funds for making the service available etc.
As stated above, in the present case there is no statutory or
otherwise obligation of the employer to provide
the canteen. Therefore, the aforesaid decision would have no bearing. However, the learned counsel for the employees
submitted that obligation to maintain canteen may be explicit or implicit as held in the said decision and that can be
inferred from the facts of the present case as the Bank has admitted by four settlements stated
above that it would
provide canteen facilities to the employees where staff strength in a particular branch is 100 and above. He, therefore,
submitted that thereafter there cannot be any discrimination for remaining branches. Hence it should be impliedly held
that there is an obligation to run the canteens. In our view, this type of inference is not
possible because the SBI Staff
Federation in various settlements stated
above has not considered it to be an obligation of the Bank to run
such
canteens. At the most, it can be inferred that Bank hasan obligation to promote running of canteens at its branches as a
part of its staff welfare activities.
Further, we entirely agree with the decision rendered in the R.B.Is case (supra) by the three-Judge Bench and
the facts in the
present case are similar to the facts of that case. Presuming that privilege of providing canteen
facilities to the employees exist, yet it would be difficult to hold that the Bank should provide the said facility by
running canteen by itself. To promote canteen facilities by providing subsidy or other facilities is altogether different
from running the canteen. Running of a canteen in a small branch having staff strength less than a particular limit may
not be economical, but may be waste. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Bank that in some areas,
staff strength may be less than 10. Further, the appointment of the employees by the Bank has been regulated by the State
Bank of India General Regulations, which are statutory regulations framed by the Reserve Bank of India with previous
sanction of the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the State Bank
of India Act, 1955. In the case of canteen employees run by the LIC, the Bank does not have any control in their
appointment and the aforesaid recruitment rules are not required to be observed.
We may mention here that learned counsel for the employees submitted that in such cases Court should lift the
veil and find out the real situation and if that is done it would be apparent that as a part of the service conditions Bank is
required to provide canteen facility to its employees. We may state that there is no veil and, therefore, there is no
question of lifting it. The Scheme framed by the Bank is crystal clear. It provides that Bank shall promote certain welfare
activities for the benefit of its employees. One of such welfare activities is promotion of canteen facility. There is a vast
difference between promotion and providing. Further, whether Bank should provide canteen facilities in a branch having
staff strength of 100 or more employees on the basis of bipartite agreement between the Bank Management and All India
SBI Staff Federation, is a matter of policy decision and may depend upon viability and other factors of running of such
canteens at other branches. It is for the Bank to decide in which branches canteen facilities should be provided and not
by the employees of the canteens run by the Local Implementation Committees. At the most, employees of the Bank can
raise such a contention. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that LIC consist of employees of the
Bank and those employees are directly under the control of the Bank, therefore, it should be held that Bank is the
employer of the persons working in the canteen. This submission, in our view, is totally far-fetched. Firstly, it is to be
stated that in a canteen which provides facilities to the members of the staff,
outsider is not required to be included in
the Committee or its Management. In the case of RBI (Supra), the LIC not only consisted of Bank employees but some
Bank employees were required to do full time work. Still, however, this Court has not considered that Bank was having
any control in working of the canteens. We may also state that in the present case there is no question of application of
provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and, therefore, the decisions rendered by this
Court interpreting the said Act are not discussed.
We, therefore, hold that employees of the canteens which are run at various branches by the Local
Implementation Committees as per the welfare scheme framed by the SBI would not become employees
of the Bank
as the Bank is not having any statutory or
contractual obligation or obligation arising under the Award to run such
canteens. Hence, it is not necessary to decide the second question that fresh petition for the same cause was not
maintainable in view of the order dated 14.10.1985 passed by this Court.
4428
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In this case it has been held that a canteen boy o canteen worker in a canteen over which Bank has no supervision or
control run by Local Implementation Committee is not a Bank servant. Same are the facts of the case in hand. In the
present case also, it is established that canteen was run as branch level, it was run and managed by Local Implementation
Committee over which Bank had no control hence the workman being canteen boy in the case in hand cannot be held to
be in service of the Bank.
13.
Reference of one more case Indian Overseas Bank versus IOB Staff Canteen Workers Union Civil Appeal No.
1407-1409/1998 decided on 11-4-2000 by Hon’ble Apex Court may also be referred to in this respect wherein the
principle of law laid down in State Bank case (Supra) has been affirmed.
14.
It is further a case of workman that task of messenger was also taken from him. This fact is not disputed. This is
also not disputed that workman was paid additional Rs.50/- for this task on daily basis. According to the case of
workman himself and his witnesses, this was additional task for which additional payment was paid to the workman
hence workman cannot be held to be engaged as messenger in this case.
15.
On the basis of above discussion, from the evidence on record the fact that workman was an employee of any
type in the engagment of Bank is held not proved. Point for Determination No.1 is answered accordingly.
16.
Point for Determination No.2-
Section 2(00) & Section 25(F) of the Act required to be referred here and are being reproduced as follows:-
Section 2(oo)
“retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of workman for any reason whatsoever,
otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include- (a) voluntary retirement of
the workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment
between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
3[(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the on- renewal of the contract of employment
between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation
in that behalf contained therein; or] (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;]
Section 25-F:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has been
in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- (a) the
workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice
has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen
days' average pay 2[for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six
months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3[or such authority as may be
specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.
In the light of finding recorded in Point No.1, it is held that there is no violation of Section 25-F of the Act in the case in
hand. There was no relation of master and servant between the parties.
17.Point for Determination No.3:-
In the light of findings recorded in Point No.1 & 2, workman is held entitled to no relief.
18.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of State Bank of India, Saraipali Branch, Mahasamuund (CG) in terminating
the service of Shri Jugal Kishore Kar w.e.f. 9-9-2010 is proper and legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
Dated: 7.5.2019
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4429
नई दली, 17 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1060
1060
1060
1060.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
भारतीय टेट ब#क के $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय
सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण /Eम यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं3 या 50/2017) को $कािशत करती है जो के ीय
सरकार को 17.06.2019 को $ा7 त 8आ था।
[सं. एल-12012/94/2017-आईआर (बी-II)]
सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019
S.O. 1060.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.50/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, NAGPUR
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of india and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 17/06/2019.
[No. L-12012/94/2017-IR (B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/50/2017-18
Date: 22.04.2019
Party No.1(a)
:
The Chairperson and Managing Director,
Bank of India, Star House,
C-5, ‘G’ Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051.
Party No.1(b)
:
The Assistant General Manager,
Bank of India, Nagpur 2 Zone,
Bank of India Buliding,
S.V. Patel Marg,
Nagpur – 440001.
Party No.1(c)
:
The Zonal Manager,
Bank of India, Zone-II, S.V. Patel Marg,
Kingsway, Station Road,
Nagpur – 440001.
Party No.1(d)
:
The Manager,
Bank of India, Main Branch, Chandrapur,
Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.).
Versus
Party No.2
:
Shri Rajendra D. Bakre,
R/o Samarth Apartments,
48, Ramkrishna Nagar, Khamla,
Nagpur – 440025.
4430
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
(Dated: 22nd April, 2019)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman, Shri Rajendra D.
Bakre for adjudication, as per letter No.L-12012/94/2017 (IR (B-II) dated 09.02.2018, with the following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in issuing Memorandum dated 09.12.2014
calling explanation for various misconducts and charge sheet dated 09.01.2015 containing various charges upon
Shri R.D. Bakre, an ex-clerk of the Bank of India, Main Branch, Chandrapur during the pendency of proceedings
before the Assistant Labour commissioner (Central), Chandrapur, is contravention of Section 33(1)(a) & (b) of
the I.D. Act, 1947 or not?
2.
Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in deducting amount of Rs. 6965.23 from salary
for the period of 3rd, 4th & 5th February, 2014 and not paying full salary amounting to Rs. 33250.30 for the month
of September, 2014 in respect of Shri R.D. Bakre an ex-clerk of Bank of India, Main Branch, Chandrapur arre
legal and justified? If not, what relief to the said workman is entitled to?
3.
Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in imposing the punishment of dismissal from
service vide Order No. VZO/IRD/C/159/267 dated 01.10.2015 of A.G.M. and Disciplinary Authority of Bank of
India, Zonal Office, Vidarbha Zone, Nagpur for the charges as contained in charge sheet dated 09.01.2015, is legal
and justified? If not, what relief to the concerned workman and from which date?
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement, by registered post with acknowledge due fixing the date on 02.07.2018. On that day, Shri Awadhoot Purohit,
advocate filed vakalatnama for the management, but the petitioner was absent. This Tribunal fixed dates to file statement
of claim on 16.08.2018, 12.10.2018, 01.11.2018, 10.12.2018, 04.01.2019, 15.02.2019 and 18.04.2019. Moreover, office
supplied the photocopy of the postal receipt through which, service of notice was sent to the petitioner. This receipt is
dated 22.05.2018. So, presumption of service of the notice to the petitioner may be drawn.
3.
Advocate for the management filed an application for issuance of directions for supply of copies, which is
marked as I.A. No. I, but neither petitioner nor his advocate appeared or participated in the proceedings. So, such order
could not be issued. Hence, application I.A. No. 1 is rejected, but it shows that, petitioner is not interested to proceed
with this reference. Hence it is ordered:
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any
relief.
S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 17 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1061
1061
1061
1061.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
भारतीय Jसिडकेट ब#क $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट औ ोिगक िववाद म
के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण/Eम यायालय, बंगलोर के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं3 या 15/2008) को $कािशत करती है जो
के ीय सरकार को 17.06.2019 को $ा7 त 8आ था।
[सं. एल-12012/120/2007-आईआर (बी-II)]
सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019
S.O. 1061.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 15/2008) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Syndicate india and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 17/06/2019.
[No. L-12012/120/2007-IR (B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4431
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
Dated :
10th June, 2019
Present :
Justice Smt. Rathnakala
C.R. No. 15/2008
Appearance
Authorised representative for I Party : Mr. M. Rama Rao
Advocate for II Party : Mr. Ramesh Upadhyaya
A W A R D
The Central Government vide Order No.L-12012/120/2007-IR(B-II) dated 18.02.2008 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 (for
brevity ‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.
“Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement from service imposed on Smt. Jaitumbi C
Karnool, Part-time Sweeper, by the management of Syndicate Bank is legal and justified? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled to?”
1.
The point for reference is, the Union has espoused the cause of Smt. Jaitumbi C Karnool who was working as a
Part time Employee/Sweeper in the 2nd Party Bank at Gadag Branch. She served for 15 years in the same position and
was issued articles of charge sheet dated 12.12.2005. The gist of the allegation was that on 23.05.2005 she
surreptitiously/stealthily removed/taken Bank’s cash in one packet of Rs. 500/- denomination amounting to Rs. 50,000/-
from the safe/double lock and was not available to discuss the matter; on the next morning on 24.05.2005 when enquired
she immediately handed over the packet containing Rs. 50,000/- to Smt. Sandhya Vasudev, who was the Assistant
Manager; she has given a apology letter which is drafter by her daughter on the same day. This act of ‘doing acts
prejudicial to the interest of the Bank’ vide Clause No. 5(j) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 amounts to
gross misconduct.
2.
The 1st Party workman denied the charges, Domestic Enquiry was initiated, and the Enquiry Officer submitted
his Enquiry Report by holding the charges, proved. The Disciplinary Authority called upon her remarks to the Enquiry
Report, she submitted that the Enquiry Officer had not considered her written brief and she had presented the copy of the
said written brief to the Disciplinary Authority for consideration. The Disciplinary Authority passed a detailed order and
proposed the punishment of Dismissal from the service of the Bank. However, called upon her to appear for personal
hearing held on 04.04.2007, she reiterated that she had kept the cash of Rs. 50,000/- found by her in Strong room in the
table drawer of Smt. Sandhya Vasudev/Officer on 23.05.2005 itself; she gave the letters to the Bank without knowing the
contents/consequences; she has pleaded for mercy and requested that mistakes on her part, if any, may be viewed
leniently. She also requested to allow her to retire from the services of the Bank honourably. The Disciplinary Authority
passed the order of Compulsory Retirement with superannuating benefits and without disqualification for future
employment.
3.
Before this Tribunal in its claim statement the 1st Union maintained that on 23.05.2005 she was cleaning the
double lock with another sub-staff, she found a bundle of Rs. 50,000/- notes and went to Smt. Sandhya Vasudev/Officer
and told her that the amount was lying on the floor of double lock. Smt. Sandhya Vasudev told her to put the amount in
the drawer since she was attending her work; on 24.05.2005 morning, the Branch Manager called 1st Party workman and
her daughter and dictated a letter to the 1st Party’s daughter and took signature of the 1st Party on the said letter and said
I Party
II Party
The General Secretary,
Dharwad District Bank
Employees Association,
No.9, Corporation Building,
Broadway,
Hubli – 580 020.
The Regional Manager,
Syndicate Bank,
Regional Office,
Manvi Building,
No. 144, Neeligin Road,
Hubli
4432
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
that, it pertains to handing over of Rs. 50,000/- to Smt. Sandhya Vasudev, Officer. However, she was issued with the
charge sheet. The Domestic Enquiry was held violating the Principle of Natural Justice. The Enquiry Officer without
considering her contentions has submitted his report. She had requested the Disciplinary Authority to send back the
Enquiry Report for consideration of her written arguments. The Disciplinary Authority did not consider her defence;
when she was ordered for Compulsory Retirement she was left with 51 days of service. The Punishment imposed on her
was illegal and excessive. The Officers responsible for the incident were left free and discriminated the 1st Party
workman. The General Manager/Appellate Authority without applying his mind mechanically disposed of the appeal.
She was not kept under suspension. She should have been allowed to continue in service for remaining 51 days.
4.
The 2nd Party in its counter statement maintained that, she had removed the currency note bundle of Rs. 50,000/-
on 23.05.2005 from the Bank’s safe/double lock while sweeping. The Branch Manager could not discuss the issue with
her as she was not available at that time; without any other option the Joint Custodians borrowed the money in the
evening and reimbursed the amount and tallied the cash. On 24.05.2005 the Branch Manager enquired the 1st Party
workman about the missing of the cash from double lock, immediately at 10.40 am she handed over the packet of Rs.
500/- denominations to Smt. Sandhya Vasudev; she submitted a letter to the Bank in this regard admitting that she had
taken away the Bank’s cash on 23.05.2005 and handed over the same on 24.05.2005 to the Branch Officials. The
enquiry was held by giving all reasonable opportunities to defend her. The Enquiry Officer based on the evidence led
before him came to conclusion that during the enquiry charge levelled against her is proved. She did not appear before
the Appellate Authority on the appointed date and adjourned date. Under the circumstances the punishment of the
Disciplinary Authority was confirmed.
5.
The fairness of the Domestic Enquiry is up held by the order of this Tribunal dated 19.08.2013. The disputed
fact in the present case is on what date the 1st Party workman handed over the Bank’s amount/bundle of currency notes of
Rs. 50,000/-. If the defence is admitted, immediately after finding the bundle while sweeping the double lock she handed
over the amount to the Assistant Manager, Smt. Sandhya Vasudev on 23.05.2005 but the officer since was busy with her
work asked the 1st Party workman to put the amount in the drawer and on the next morning the Branch Manager forcibly
took apology letter Ex MEX-2. The confession letter was marked during the enquiry as Ex MEX-2; a translated version
of the said letter would sound ‘I Smt. Jaitumbi Shilarsab Karnool state that, yesterday on 23.05.2005 at about 1.30
pm I had taken Rs. 50,000/- from the Strong room of the Bank, today at 10.40 am I surrendered the same to Smt.
Sandhya Vasudev, Officer, I should have returned the amount to the Manager yesterday itself, please condone my
mistake and I under take that I will not repeat the same in future’. The workman did not dispute executing such a
letter; however turned around at a later stage that she does not know to read and write Kannada, her daughter had drafted
the same as per the dictation of the Manager and she does not know the contents of the letter. Since, the said letter has
been produced from the custody of 2nd Party to appreciate the same it needs corroboration. The letter submitted by Smt.
Sandhya Vasudev, Assistant Manager (Ex MEX-3) would sound that on 24.05.2005 at 10.30 am the 1st Party handed
over a packet of Rs. 500/- notes, when asked from where she had procured it, she muttered something incoherently, she
ordered her to meet the Manager immediately and 1st Party straightway went and handed over the packet to the Manager.
The letter of the Assistant Manager (Ex MEX-4) was to the effect that on 23rd while keeping the cash in the double lock
in the evening it was noticed that there was shortage of Rs. 50,000/- of Rs. 500/- denominations; the amount was made
good by himself and the Senior Manager, on the next day after the Senior Manager interrogated Smt. Jaitumbi C Karnool
she handed over the packet of Rs. 50,000/- of Rs. 500/- denominations. As per the version of the Senior Manager (Ex
MEX-1/Ex M-22) he enquired both the sweepers on the morning on 24.05.2005, he doubted Smt. Jaitumbi, he warned
her of strict action, within 5 minutes of the warning she handed over the amount to the Lady Officer who promptly
reported the matter to him. There are glaring discrepancies between these letters, as one can easily make out.
6.
On the other hand the story set up by the 1st Party appears to be not in natural course, since Rs. 50,000/- as on
that day was a very big amount, no prudent Officer would have ignored if somebody would report that they found Bank
property of Rs. 50,000/- in the cash room. If the case of the 1st Party is to be rejected, then there is no other go except to
accept the Management case. Even, thereafter what remains to be adverted is immediately after being warned of strict
action, she has surrendered the amount, that means to say she had not removed the amount from the premises of the
Bank, probably the amount all along was within the corners of Bank only. If that be so, the amount is not temporarily
misused/misappropriated nor stolen from the Bank; more surprisingly it is reported that, no action is taken against the
Custodian and Joint Custodian of the Bank who exhibited gross negligence in allowing two sweepers to the double lock,
thereby allowing her access to the cash. Their omission is of higher degree than that of the commission of misconduct
alleged against the 1st Party workman. All through it was the defence case that, because she is a woman from the
minority community they have victimized her. Looking from that angle, the 2nd Party has sacrificed the humble lamb,
ditched the 1st Party workman to bail out the superiors. The woman at the fag end of service was punished. Though it
may not serve more beneficial by setting aside the punishment order, still the ends of justice would call upon to exercise
the Jurisdiction vested with this Authority by section 11-A of the Industrial Dispute Act to interfere with the matter. As
such the Bank did not suffer any financial loss, dislocation of work by her misconduct. Even they have not suspended
her during the Domestic Enquiry; her apology that, she will not repeat such misconduct is of no consequences since she
is not the person having any custody, authority or access to the property of the Bank more specifically the cash amount of
the Bank.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4433
7.
In that view of the matter I hold it is a fit case to unsettle the punishment order so that the Authority who are in
the helm of the affairs who are also the guardians of the public property will be alert henceforth in such matter rather than
fixing a scapegoat to get away from their responsibility.
A W A R D
The reference is accepted. The action of the Management of Syndicate Bank in imposing the punishment of
Compulsory Retirement from service on Smt. Jaitumbi C Karnool, Part-time Sweeper is not justified. Hence, said
punishment order is set aside, the 2nd Party is directed to release 100% of the Back wage from the date of the
punishment order till the date of her superannuation and also release the difference of amount of her
consequential terminal benefit within 60 days of the publication of the Award, otherwise the amount shall carry
future interest of 8% per annum.
(Dictated, corrected and signed by me on 10th June, 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 17 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1062
1062
1062
1062.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
भारतीय Jसिडकेट ब#क $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट औ ोिगक िववाद म
के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण/Eम यायालय, बंगलोर के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं3 या 41/2006) को $कािशत करती है जो
के ीय सरकार को 17.06.2019 को $ा7 त 8आ था।
[सं. एल-12011/47/2006-आईआर (बी-II)]
सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019
S.O. 1062.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.41/2006) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 17/06/2019.
[No. L-12011/47/2006-IR (B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
Dated
:
10th June, 2019
Present :
Justice Smt. Rathnakala, Prisiding Officer
C.R. No. 41/2006
I Party
II Party
The General Secretary
Dharwad District Bank
Empls. Asson.,
No. 9, Corporation Building,
Broadway,
Hubli - 580020
The Chairman
Syndicate Bank
Head Office, Manipal
UDUPI – 576101
(KARNATAKA)
4434
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearance
Advocate for I Party : Mr. M Rama Rao
Advocate for II Party : Mr. Ramesh Upadhyaya
A W A R D
The Central Government vide Order No. L-12011/47/2006-IR(B-II) dated 11.10.2006 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 (for
brevity ‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.
“Whether the management of Syndicate Bank is justified in dismissing the services of Shri
Manjunatha Revankar? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
1.
The 1st Party Union has espoused the cause of its member Sh. Manjunatha S Revankar (1st Party herein after), an
employee who was dismissed from service by the Management of Syndicate Bank (2nd Party herein after). The 1st Party
had served the 2nd Party for 13 years prior to his dismissal. He was kept under suspension vide order dated 06.05.2003
pending enquiry, and was issued charge sheet dated 01.10.2003. He replied to the charge sheet and denied the allegation.
The Enquiry was initiated by appointing Enquiry Officer and he participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer
submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the CSE are proved. The Disciplinary Authority called for
the remarks of the 1st Party on the enquiry report, and acting on the Enquiry Report dismissed him from service.
2.
The 1st Party in the claim petition pleads that the investigation report was not supplied to him, he was not
provided with sufficient opportunity during the enquiry and the enquiry was vitiated. The enquiry finding is perverse,
and the Disciplinary Authority ignored his contentions, acted in a mechanical manner, victimized and punished him.
3.
In its counter statement the 2nd Party denied the allegations levelled by the 1st Party and justified the action taken
against the 1st Party.
4.
Vide order dated 12.11.2013 the issue regarding the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry is upheld after a full-
fledged trial.
Both have submitted arguments.
5.
The gist of the charge sheet allegation was that he unauthorizedly remained absent from 13.03.2003 onwards.
Despite the same on the morning of 13.03.2003 he had gone to the Branch; a pensioner namely Mrs A.P. Marathe/a SB
A/c holder of 30197 had come to the Branch to collect her pension amount in the morning hours. She had obtained a
withdrawal slip bearing No. 463143 filled it up for Rs. 2,500/-, she was issued token No. 96 against the withdrawal slip.
She was informed that pension would be credited after 1st April. The 1st Party collected the token from her saying that
pension will not be paid on that day and she has to come on another day. Thereafter the withdrawal slip was passed for
payment; 1st Party collected the amount on behalf of the customer but did not pay the amount to the customer due to
which she lodged a complaint on 07.04.2003; the cashier credited Rs. 2,500/- to her account to protect the image of the
Branch.
The 2nd count of allegation is of unauthorized absence with consequent cut in the wages. Between 04.01.2003
till the date of suspension dated 06.05.2003, he attended the Branch only for 2 days.
6.
During the enquiry on behalf of the prosecution five witnesses were examined, the first one being the
complainant, the second one the Manager of the branch, the third - the Clerk of the branch, the fourth one - the
Investigating Officer, and the fifth one - the then Senior Branch Manager. The 1st Party examined himself as a witness
and was cross examined. Written brief was submitted by both the parties.
7.
The complainant deposed corroborating the charge sheet allegation to the extent that she was not paid the
pension amount on 13.03.2003 on the ground that the pension will not be paid on that day, and she returned the token and
left the Branch. She came to the branch again after 4 days and was told that she had withdrawn her pension for the
month of March 2003. She went back and after few days came to the Branch with her Uncle met the Branch Manager
gave the complaint, which was witnessed by her Uncle. However, she was paid pension for the said month of March
2003. Since, she did not corroborate the charge sheet allegations to the full extent she was treated as hostile witness for
the prosecution and was cross examined. It emerged that some Bank staff along with 2-3 others had gone to her house
and told her not to inform anything about collection of token by CSE. She could not remember as to whom she handed
over the token on that day.
8.
MW-2 is the Manager of the Branch, deposed about incident that occurred at his residence on the evening of
13.07.2003 in the presence of previous Branch Manager. As per his version the 1st Party barged into the house abused
him and others for suspending him. During cross examination he admitted that no Police complaint was given in respect
of the incident. He clarified about the issue of token in favour of the complainant recorded at the Sl. No 12 in the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4435
Officers Scroll (payments). He deposed that advance cash payments were made to VIP customers after obtaining tokens
from them.
9.
MW-3 is the Clerk of the Branch and identified a rough sheet pertaining to the transaction of 31.03.2003
wherein they record the cash received/ paid, while closing the cash balance on that day he made advance payments by
collecting tokens to some of the staff members / pigmy agents. The 1st Party was one among such persons. He further
deposed about making payment of Rs. 2,500/- to the 1st Party after recording the token number his name and the amount
paid in MEX-28 and the withdrawal slip Ex MEX-1 was duly passed. Thereafter the entry was made at Ex MEX-28 and
entered in his scroll MEX-30. Normally, he will not obtain the signatures of staff members when advance payments are
made to the customers through staff. He further deposed about the complaint given by the complainant on which
occasion, he revealed before the Manager that he received the token from 1st Party and made payment. At the instruction
of the Manager he paid Rs. 2,500/- to the complainant. As per his evidence 1st Party signed his attendance on 29.03.2003
and unauthorizedly absent during March 2003 except 12.03.2003 and subsequently his signature on 29.03.2003 was
cancelled. On 31.03.2003 the 1st Party was present in the Branch, the amount of Rs. 2,500/- paid to the customer is not
returned by the 1st Party. He further deposed about the incident wherein the 1st Party had threatened him in the Branch
Office consequent upon which he lodged the Police complaint on 08.06.2003, he gave the list of persons (Bank Officials
and customers) from whom 1st Party had borrowed money.
10.
MW-4 is the Manager, vigilance cell, he narrated the investigation carried out by him and statements recorded
of the witnesses and complaint, and documents collected.
11.
MW-5 is the then Senior Branch Manager of the Branch, he testified about the unauthorized absence of the
1st Party and identified the relevant attendance registers. He testified that on 29.03.2003 attendance was marked by the
1st Party but at 12 ‘O’ Clock when he went on rounds near the counters CSE was not found, he was not present in the
office for the entire day. Hence, his attendance was cancelled, and unauthorized absence was marked. Since, he had not
submitted leave letter; on 31.03.2003 1st Party was present in the Branch but attendance was not marked. He was found
preparing customers slips; and was asked to leave the Office if not joining the Branch; he identified the hand writing of
the 1st Party on the withdrawal slip presented on behalf of the Complainant/customer, same was marked as MEX 35.
He further stated that, the Branch had many customers since it was 31st March and they had decided not to pay
pension as it was crucial day and financial year end. He had informed the staff not to pay the pension cheques; if any
cheques had been passed earlier the amount may be credited to the respective SB A/c or the suspense A/c. On that day
40 cheques were passed within 20 minutes and the withdrawal slip pertaining to the complainant/MEX-1 is also one
among them. He further deposed about the complainant alleging fraudulent withdrawals on 07.04.2003; on verification
of the account there was debit on 31st March and the cash was already paid. He further deposed about the complaint
given by the complainant which was duly signed by her. On enquiry the Cashier informed that the cash was paid to the
1st Party on receiving token No. 96.
12.
During the Defence evidence 1st Party denied the allegations, specifically his acquaintance with the complainant
and pleaded alibi as on 31.03.2003. He deposed that he had submitted leave application along with Medical Certificate
for the leave period. He alleged that MW-5 owed to one Sh. Nithin Karande Rs. 100,000/- but did not return the
amount. On his failure to repay the amount the lender filed a Civil Suit against the 1st Party since, he was the person who
had received loan on behalf of MW–5.
13.
The Enquiry Officer has gone in detail while appreciating the evidence placed before him. He brushed aside the
contention of alibi taken up by the 1st Party that he was away at Mumbai as on 31.03.2003, by examining the
documentary proofs produced by the 1st Party. Relying on the evidence of MW–3, 4 and 5 supported by the attendance
register and the withdrawal slip which was in the hand writing of the 1st Party as identified by MW-5 he records that the
1st Party was in the Branch on 31.03.2003. Though the complainant deliberately had not identified the person to whom
she returned the token, she had stated before the Investigating Officer that she had returned the token to1st Party. By
relying on the eye witness account of the Official witnesses, supported by the documentary proof, the Enquiry Officer
held that, the 1st charge was proved. As regards violation of leave rules and absence from duties at frequent intervals
there was ample documentary proof supported by the evidence of the Official witnesses and thus enabled the Enquiry
Officer to reach the conclusion that charges levelled in the charge sheet are proved.
14.
It is a well-reasoned finding flowing from the proper appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution viz a viz
the defence taken. Though there is no financial implication on the Bank due to his misappropriation of Rs. 2,500/-
belonging to the customer, the misconduct has its ramification on the image that the Bank carries among the public.
Naturally same will have impact on the customers shaking the business. It is needless to say the unauthorized absence
violating the leave rules disturbs the work schedule in the establishment causing inconvenience on the day to day
administration of the Bank.
4436
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15.
It is from his past records that he was charge sheeted for his unauthorized absence and irregular attendance in
the year 1998 and was imposed minor punishment. Again, in the year 2000 also he was punished for similar misconduct.
In the year 2002 on the similar misconduct he was imposed minor punishment. In respect of the debts and liabilities
towards the outsiders, there were multiple complaints against him.
16.
The Disciplinary Authority observed that the misconduct as per the 1st charge is highly objectionable and
amounts to gross misconduct under the provision of Bipartite settlement. As regards of the charge of remaining
unauthorizedly absent without intimation it was observed that in spite of ample opportunities given to him he continued
to violate the leave rules and was absent from the duties at frequent intervals unauthorizedly. The Authority referred to
the untoward incident of 13.07.2003 wherein he abused the Former Branch Manager at the residence of the Manager and
threatened him. The Defence taken by the 1st Party in his remarks to the enquiry report did not weigh upon the
Authority. The Appellate Authority has also considered in detail the grounds urged by him in the appeal memo but did
not appreciate the same, concurring with the Disciplinary Authority confirmed the punishment.
17.
Looking to the gravity of the misconduct proved during the enquiry, and his tainted service records, I hold that
the action of the Management in dismissing him from service is legal and justified not calling for the intervention of the
jurisdiction under section 11 A of the I D Act.
AWARD
The reference is rejected.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 10th June, 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 17 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1063
1063
1063
1063.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
केनरा ब#क $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार
औ ोिगक अिधकरण/Eम यायालय, बंगलोर के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं3 या 45/2011) को $कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को
17.06.2019 को $ा7 त 8आ था।
[सं. एल-12012/24/2011-आईआर (बी-II)]
सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019
S.O. 1063.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.06.2019.
[No. L-12012/24/2011-IR (B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
Dated
:
13th June, 2019
Present :
Justice Smt. Rathnakala, Presiding Officer
C.R. No. 45/2011
I Party
II Party
Sh. M. S. Ramakrishna,
H. No. 336/A,
Near Ebenezar College,
Vinayaka Layout,
Railway Parallel Road,
Horamavu Village and Post,
Bangalore - 560 043.
The General Manager,
Canara Bank,
Head Office,
J.C. Road,
Bangalore - 560 002.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4437
Appearance
Advocate for I Party : Mr. M.M. Ashoka
Advocate for II Party : Mr. T.R.K. Prasad
AWARD
The Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/24/2011-IR(B-II) dated 08.11.2011 in exercise of the powers conferred
by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’
hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.
“Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank, Disciplinary Action Cell, Circle Office,
Bangalore in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement from the service w.e.f. 23.10.2008 on
Sh. M.S. Ramakrishna, Ex-Armed Guard is legal and justified? What relief the aggrieved workman is
entitled to?”
1.
The 1st Party herein is an Ex-serviceman and was appointed as Armed Guard in the 2nd Party Bank at M.G.
Road, Metro Circle Office and as on 12.05.2007, he was working at Benson Town Branch of the 2nd Party. His duty was
manning the main entrance of the Branch and accompanying the staffs while shifting the cash from place to place. On
the compliant of one Sh. Abdul Wajeed, a customer of the Bank he was kept under suspension w.e.f. 12.05.2007. Police
complainant was also lodged against him and 2 officials of the Bank, after investigation the police dropped the Criminal
Case against him. The 2nd Party initiated disciplinary action by issuing charge sheet dated 10.03.2008. The Enquiry
Officer after holding the enquiry gave finding that charge sheeted employee is guilty of the charges; he had sent his
submission to the findings of the Enquiry Officer. However, he was impugned the punishment of Compulsory
Retirement; his appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.
2.
The 1st Party claims before this Tribunal that the initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings against him is bad in law
and fully biased. He is imposed punishment on the basis of the statement given by the Co-accused which will not stand
the test of law. The enquiry initiated against him was biased, the Senior Manager of the 2nd Party had ill will against him
and colluded with 2nd Party Head Office to involve him in the case, he is unemployed and suffering from financial
hardship.
3.
The 2nd Party denied the claim statement allegations and contended the finding of the Enquiry Officer is fair,
proper and reasoned. The Appellate Authority afforded personal hearing to him on 12.03.2010 and heard his submission
and had no reasons to interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The Appellate Authority concurred with the
orders of the Disciplinary Authority. He has preferred the claim petition after prolonged, undue and unexplained delay.
4.
On the rival pleadings touching the procedure of Domestic Enquiry a Preliminary Issue was framed, tried and
adjudicated holding that the enquiry held against the 1st Party by the 2nd Party is fair and proper.
5.
The 1st Party in his affidavit evidence claims that he is made a victim due to the personal vengeance by the
Senior Manager of the 2nd Party Bank and he is not involved in the withdrawal of the cash from the account of Sh. Abdul
Wajeed.
Both have submitted their written arguments.
6.
The gist of the allegation against the 1st Party is one Sh. D T Raman a SB Account holder of the Benson Town
Branch was the neighbour of Sh. Abdul Wajeed an account holder of 6025 in the same Branch. Said D T Raman
fraudulently withdrew Rs. 2,75,000/- from the SB A/c No. 6025 on 19.04.2007, 23.04.2007 and 25.04.2007. The
investigation revealed that 1st Party was Sh. D T Raman’s friend for more than 2 years and assisted him to open the SB
A/c No. 36257 in the name of his wife Smt. Malini at Benson Town Branch; he attended drinks parties arranged by
Sh. D. T. Raman. During one such party for the query of Sh. D. T. Raman 1st Party informed him about the procedure
for withdrawing amounts from 3rd Party’s account, he gave the idea of withdrawing the amount from the old accounts
where the balance was more. On 04.05.2007 Sh. Abdul Wajeed visited the Branch and complained about the fraudulent
withdrawal of Rs. 2,75,000/- from his SB A/c. On 05.05.2007 the 1st Party attended the drinks party arranged by
Sh. D. T. Raman in a Bar along with Sh. Radha Krishna/Clerk of the Bank and all the three of them discussed about the
withdrawal of Rs. 2,75,000/-, they had assembled there to draw a strategy about the future course of action, he has
received Rs. 30,000/- from Sh. D. T. Raman out of the fraudulently withdrawn amount. He was visiting the house of Sh.
Radha Krishna, he was engaged in real estate business on commission basis along with his friends and was maintaining a
Office at Banaswadi.
7.
During the enquiry the Management examined five witnesses and marked 5 documents. The 1st Party opted not
to lead evidence however, 4 documents were marked from his side.
4438
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8.
The first witness for the Management was the Investigating Officer/MW-1, he produced his inquiry report, the
documents pertaining to the fraudulent withdrawal and statements of the witnesses recorded by him during the course of
his investigation. The cross-examination was focused more on the documents pertaining to the fraudulent withdrawal
rather than on the incriminating evidence against CSE which was in the nature of statement of the witnesses. MW-2 was
the Officer HRM section, Circle Office, Bangalore Metro; she identified the letter issued from the HRM section calling
for explanation from the 1st Party in the matter of fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 2,75,000/- and the reply submitted by him
etc. The third witness was the Chief Manager of the Branch/MW-3, his evidence was to the effect that he has given
statement to the Investigating Officer and identified another statement given by Sh. D T Raman in his presence to the
Investigating Officer. MW-4 is the complainant/holder of SB A/c No. 6025. MW-5 was the then Senior Manager; he
identified the statement given by Sh. D. T. Raman.
9.
The statement of the 1st Party given before the Investigating Officer was marked through him as
Ex MEX 02/14. The Defence had objected marking of the document on the ground that, while taking the statement, the
Investigating Officer had put some direct questions to him and obtained the reply by way of statements. The Enquiry
Officer at that time had over ruled the objection and the enquiry report observed that while over ruling the objection he
had clarified to the defence that the question whether the statement was obtained voluntarily/freely can be examined
during examination of witness. However, during cross-examination of witness defence did not pose any question
regarding Ex MEX 2/14. Sh. D. T. Raman had given statement before the Investigating Officer that, out of stolen money
he had parted Rs. 30,000/- with CSE. The defence before the Enquiry Officer was that Sh. D. T. Raman is a criminal and
his statement cannot be relied; the Management without verification involved innocent employees like himself and
others; his confession statement relating to the role of others should be supported with sufficient and authenticated
documentary evidence. His confession statement is illegal and false. Sh. D. T. Raman was not examined as a witness
before the enquiry; he had only explained the procedure when Sh. D. T. Raman enquired about the system and procedure
of withdrawing all the amounts from his own account. The Enquiry Officer ruled out the defence by observing that there
was nothing on record, suggesting enmity or personal grudge between the CSE and Sh. D. T. Raman. The Enquiry
Officer took clue from the defence Representative who had stated that the CSE is maintaining distance from Sh. D. T.
Raman and recorded his inference that unnecessarily naming an armed guard like the Charge Sheeted Employee to have
given the idea of obtaining cheque Book and withdrawing money fraudulently, there are no benefits available for
Sh. D. T. Raman and the defence case was not that investigating Officer has any grudge against the CSE to fix him by
obtaining any incriminating statement from Sh. D. T. Raman. Further the Enquiry Officer Observes that, the confession
statement has been witnessed in executing by the account holder, Branch In-Charge and the Senior Manager of the
Branch apart from the Investigating Officer against whom also the defence has no case of witch-hunting of CSE. The
Enquiry Officer further observed that the statement of CSE marked as Ex MEX 2/14 corroborates the statement of Sh. D
T Raman; the CSE had stated his close acquaintance with Sh. D T Raman for last two years and had admitted about
attending the drinks parties with Sh. D. T. Raman and during one such drink party Sh. D T Raman had enquired about
availing cheque book etc. Having no other reason to disbelieve the statement of Sh. D T Raman as to the involvement
of the CSE, the Enquiry Officer held that the involvement of the CSE in the fraudulent withdrawal transaction. Since,
the 1st Party has not built up a defence that, his statement was obtained under force and coercion. There was no cross -
examination to the witnesses in this regard.
10.
The 1st Party assailed the Enquiry report in his remarks submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. The
Disciplinary Authority without much deliberation on the remarks submitted by the CSE endorsed the finding of enquiry
and ordered Compulsory Retirement. The Appellate Authority followed the suit of Disciplinary Authority and dismissed
the appeal. The 1st Party has produced the certified copy of the charge sheet submitted by the J C Nagar Police station
dropping the proceedings against him for want of evidentiary materials. He has also produced the appreciation letter
given to him by the 2nd Party.
11.
As per prosecution case, the role attributed to the 1st Party in the fraudulent withdrawal is, he gave the idea of
taking cheque book of SB A/c No. 6025 of the account holder and withdrawing the amount from old accounts where the
balance was more, he was closely associated with Sh. D T Raman and had assisted him to open SB A/c in the name of
his wife, he attended the drinks party arranged by Sh. D T Raman on three occasions. Immediately after the fraud came
to light Sh. D T Raman arranged a drinks party on 05.05.2007 to the 1st Party and the Clerk Sh. Radha Krishna who
had passed the cheques. In pursuance of the discussion Sh. D T Raman destroyed the cheque book obtained by him
pertaining to SB A/c No. 6025, 1st Party received Rs. 30,000/- in cash from Sh. D T Raman from out of fraudulent
withdrawal. Sh. D T Raman on the subsequent dates on 07.05.2007 and 10.05.2007 met the 1st Party and had enquired
about the 3 cheques under which the money was withdrawn, Sh. D T Raman had made 5 to 6 calls to the mobile phone of
the 1st Party after remitting a part of fraudulently withdrawn amount to the Bank, which indicates that there was nexus
between the 1st Party and Sh. D T Raman and said Sh. D T Raman tried to contact him to recover the money paid to him
as confessed by him before the Investigating Officer during the investigation.
12.
It was not the case of the 2nd Party that the 1st Party physically indulged in the fraudulent withdrawal; at the most
his role is restricted to that of co-conspirator/abater of the offence and finally beneficiary of a portion of the stolen
money. However, no such amount is seized from his position. It is surprising that there was no cross-examination from
the defence side to Investigating Officer denying the so called statement given by the 1st Party as Ex MEX 2/14. The
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4439
statement given by Sh. D T Raman was marked as Ex MEX 2/13; the defence never made attempt to refute his
acquaintance of CSE with Sh. D T Raman or enjoying the drinks party given by Sh. D T Raman along with
Sh. Radha Krishna; he had every opportunity before the Enquiry Officer to give rebuttal/defence evidence which he did
not avail.
13.
As per the statement of Sh. D T Raman at Ex MEX 2/13 1st Party was the one who advised him to commit fraud
to share 50% of the amount withdrawn with Sh. Radha Krishna who issued the cheque book; he had paid Rs. 30,000/- to
the 1st Party on 24.04.2007 on the date he withdraw Rs. 60,500/- from SB A/c No. 6025. The 1st Party in his statement
admitted about participating in the drinks party offered by Sh. D T Raman and has stated that he only informed Sh. D T
Raman about withdrawal of Rs. 2,75,000/- from SB A/c vide 3 cheques; as such a guard has nothing to do in the clerical
or administrative work of the Branch. If that is so how should this guard come to know about the withdrawal of amount
of Rs. 2,75,000/- by way of 3 cheques and why he should pass on the said information to Sh. D T Raman/the main
culprit. This statement since not denied by the 1st Party there being no coercion on him to give this statement to the
Bank, the Enquiry Officer observes in his report that the said confession statement is witnessed in executing by the
Account Holder, Branch In-charge and the Senior Manager of the Branch and the Investigating Officer against him also
the defence has no case of witch-hunting of CSE for any reasons whatsoever and hence I find no information in the
evidentiary value of Ex MEX 2/13.
14.
The police have dropped the case against 1st Party for want of evidence but that cannot be a ground for him for
bailing him out of the charges in Domestic Enquiry. The nature of evidence in a Departmental Enquiry need not be on
the parameter of ‘proof beyond all reasonable doubt nor it should restrict itself to the ‘principles of preponderance of
probability’. During the cross-examination of management witness, the defence was trying to contradict the allegation of
fraudulent withdrawal by Sh. D T Raman there was not even a single question refusing the nexus between the 1st Party
and Sh. D T Raman; fraudulent withdrawal of cheque though by a 3rd Party with the assistance of the Bank employee
invokes serious distrust among the customers against the Bank. The Bank being a custodian of the public money owe it’s
responsibility to guard the interest of its customer and also has to maintain its image. However feeble may be the role of
the 1st Party in the fraudulent misconduct his complicity in the misconduct firstly as an abater, secondly as beneficiary is
glaring from his own statement. He is an Ex-serviceman having the benefit of pension; continuing a employee in service
whose activities are suspicious is deterrent to the business and administration of the Bank.
15.
Hence, I opine that the Enquiry Officer’s finding that the employee is guilty of the charges does not suffer from
flaw or perversity. He is imposed with the punishment of Compulsory Retirement which means to say that he is not
disentitled to get terminal benefits or pension like any other employee superannuating from services. The punishment
commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and the action of the management thus is legal and justified. The workman
is not entitled for any further relief under the reference.
AWARD
The reference is rejected.
(Dictated, corrected and signed by me on 13th June, 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 17 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1064
1064
1064
1064.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
केनरा ब#क के $बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कम+कार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. ट औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय
सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण/Eम यायालय, बंगलौर के पंचाट (संदभ+ सं3 या 53/2009) को $कािशत करती है जो के ीय
सरकार को 17.06.2019 को $ा7 त 8आ था।
[सं. एल-12012/71/2009-आईआर (बी-II)]
सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019
S.O. 1064.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/2009) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.06.2019.
[No. L-12012/71/2009-IR (B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
4440
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
Dated
:
13th June, 2019
Present :
Justice Smt. Rathnakala, Presiding Officer
C.R. No. 53/2009
I Party
II Party
Sri M. B. Ravikumar,
S/o V. Laxman,
Ex. Employee of Canara Bank,
At Post: Devikere,
Taluk: Jagalur,
District: DAVANGERE
The Deputy General Manager,
Canara Bank, Circle Office,
IMA House,
Bailappanavarangar,
Hubli – 29.
Appearance
Advocate for I Party : Mr. Anant P Savadi
Advocate for II Party : Mr. T.R.K. Prasad
AWARD
The Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/71/2009-IR(B-II) dated 24.11.2009 in exercise of the
powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act,
1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.
“Whether the imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement from service against Sri. M. M.
Ravikumar by the management of Canara Bank is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is
entitled to?”
1.
The 1st Party workman is an Ex-employee of the 2nd Party and is compulsorily retired from service, consequent
upon the disciplinary proceedings held against him. He was working as a Clerk and was issued charge sheet dated
29.08.2005. He submitted his objection to the charge sheet. The 2nd Party initiated departmental enquiry. The Enquiry
Officer after holding enquiry submitted his report that the charges are proved. The disciplinary Authority passed the
punishment order acting on the enquiry report.
2.
The 1st Party in his claim statement contented that the charge sheet was not issued by Competent Authority and
it was issued in a pre-judged and biased mind. He has not committed misconduct as alleged. The Enquiry Officer was
not appointed by competent Authority. The Enquiry Officer did not record his response to the incriminating evidence
appearing in the statement of Management witnesses; relevant witnesses were not examined by the Management. The
findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. Competent Authority has not passed punishment order. The Appellate has not
passed speaking order. Without considering his defence the Appellate Authority dismissed his appeal.
3.
While justifying their action, in their counter statement the 2nd Party contended that the domestic
enquiry was conducted as per the provisions of Canara Bank Service Code which is in consonance with the Bipartite
Settlement and Awards governing the 1st Party. During enquiry the Management examined 6 witnesses; they were cross-
examined by the Defence representative; 32 documents were marked as Management exhibits. Both parties were
permitted to file their written brief. The finding of the Enquiry Officer is fair, proper, and reasoned.
4.
It is further stated by the 2nd Party that, the finding of the Enquiry Officer was marked to him by the
Disciplinary Authority and he made his submissions to the findings. After analysing the findings of the Enquiry Officer
and the submissions made by CSE to the findings of Enquiry Officer, on consideration of gravity of misconduct
circumstances of this case, the Disciplinary Authority proposed the punishment of compulsory retirement; gave him a
personal hearing in this regard. He attended personal hearing and made his submission. The Disciplinary Authority
considering the entire material and the submissions of the 1st Party held that the CSE is guilty of the charges and imposed
the impugned punishment. The Appellate Authority after careful consideration of his appeal and after giving personal
hearing rejected the appeal, vide detailed order dated 06.06.2007. The Departmental proceeding held in fair and proper
manner, giving him due opportunity at every stage. The punishment order is proportionate to the proved misconduct,
same is legal valid and justified.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 22] 2019@vk"kk<+ 1] 1941
4441
On the rival pleadings in respect of Domestic Enquiry this Tribunal framed a preliminary issue as follows:-
“Whether the Domestic Enquiry held against the 1st Party by the 2nd Party is fair and proper?”
5.
To discharge their burden of proving the issue 2nd Party examined the Enquiry Officer who was the then Senior
Manager enquiry Set up circle Bangalore. He narrated in chronological order the details of the events of Enquiry and
produced the enquiry records as Ex M-1 to Ex M-23. He was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the 1st Party but
without any result. No rebuttal evidence was adduced on behalf of the 1st Party, he remained continuously absent.
Notice issued to him returned with the endorsement ‘Party expired returned to sender’. No steps are taken to bring his
legal heirs on record.
6.
I have gone through the Enquiry records; 1st Party workman was issued charge sheet dated 29.08.2005. But the
charge sheet returned unserved, on appointment of Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer notice of enquiry was issued
and the same was served on him. However, subsequently he has received the charge sheet and appeared before the
Enquiry Officer on 13.12.2005. He admitted having received the charge sheet, reading and understanding the same; he
denied the charges he was given permission to engage the Defence Representative of his choice.
7.
Regular enquiry commenced from 13.12.2005, the Management examined 6 witnesses and through them
produced 32 documents. The copy of day to day proceedings was furnished to him. The 1st Party opted not to cross
examine MW-1, MW-3 and MW-4 however, he cross-examined MW-2, MW-5 and MW-6. He opted not to adduce
defence evidence and three documents was produced by him were taken on record and marked as Exhibits. On both
parties submitting their written brief the Enquiry Officer submitted his written findings.
On a perusal on the above all, I am convinced that the enquiry held against the 1st Party workman was fair and
proper. Hence, answer the preliminary issue in the affirmative.
8.
The 1st Party was charge sheeted on 3 counts:-
Firstly, he issued a cheque dated 28.12.2004 bearing No. 789501 for Rs. 10,000/- favouring Sh. M.B
Krishnappa Clerk working at P.B Road Branch Davanagere. The cheque was discounted by the said Branch and same
was sent to Sindhanoor Branch by RPAD on 29.12.2004, which was received at Sindhanoor Branch at 31.12.2004. The
Officer Sh. S G Gopinath handed over entire tappal to the 1st Party for inwarding but he deliberately removed the
discounted cheque to avoid presentation on his SB A/c 9728. He unauthorizedly removed the cheque book bearing No.
789501 to 789510 from the Branch. He removed a cheque leaf bearing No, 789501 from the above cheque book and
issued the same in favour of Sh. M. B. Krishnappa, knowingly that sufficient balance was not available in his SB A/c.
Secondly, he borrowed money from the customers of the Branch and became due.
Thirdly, he is in the habit of remaining absent very frequently and unauthorizedly. He was advised to avail the
leave judiciously and follow leave rules scrupulously. He remained absent since 07.02.2005 without information/prior
leave application, thereby, he has committed misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI Regulation 2A, 3J,
Regulation 5 clause(a) of Canara Bank Service Code.
9.
In support of the 1st charge the Management examined 6 witnesses; the 1st witness was the Manager P B Road
Davanagere Branch. He confirmed that only one cheque of the CSE was discounted to Sh. N B Krishnappa at their
Branch, and the CDB NO. 202 pertaining to Sh. Krishnappa, but the amount was not realised. But the amount with
interest was recovered from the OD A/c 5176 of Sh. Krishnappa. The witness identified the letter transaction with the
Sindhanoor Branch there was no cross-examination to him.
The 2nd witness was the Investigating Officer he narrated in detail about tracing the missing of cheque issued by
the CSE and discounted to Sh. N B Krishnappa, through him the letter transaction between Sindhanoor Branch and
Davanagere Branch the statement of CSE and Sh. N B Krishnappa and the letters addressed to the Sindhanoor Branch by
the lenders to the CSE were marked.
The 3rd witness was Sh. N B Krishnappa who confirmed that CSE has not paid back the amount and the interest,
which was remitted by him to clear the liability of his CDB which was not realised. He was not cross-examined.
The 4th witness is the Manager Staff Section (O-BCO), he deposed about calling for explanation from the CSE
in the matter of missing of cheque issued by him and discounted by Sh. N B Krishnappa. He was not cross-examined.
The 5th witness was the then Officer Sindhanoor Branch at the relevant point of time. He identified the
documents pertaining to missing of discounted instrument discounted at P B Road Davangere pertaining to CSE and the
connected documents. He also identified the leave record during his tenure pertaining to CSE, he stated that CSE when
was absent he used to be absent continuously.
4442
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2019/ASADHA 1, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The 6th witness was the Official who had worked at Sindhanoor at the relevant point of time. He identified the
documents pertaining to the letter transaction with the Post Office while searching the missing instruments. He stated
that he has brought to the notice of the Circle Office the information received about CSE’s borrowing. He confirmed that
CSE is a frequent leave taker.
10.
The 1st Party did not adduce rebuttal evidence. In his detailed report the Enquiry Officer considered the
undisputed documentary evidence marked through the Official witnesses and recorded the finding of guilt in respect of
all the 3 charges.
11.
The Enquiry finding is supported by the proper appreciation of evidence and well-reasoned. The Disciplinary
Authority and the Appellate Authority, both on giving their personal hearing have passed the respective order. The
punishment of compulsory retirement viz a viz the misconduct proved during the enquiry is proportionate not calling for
interference. During his Official duty he has removed Cheque from the Branch so as to prevent presentation of the
cheque to his SB A/c to gain pecuniary advantage for himself. He has become due to several customers of the Bank.
Thus, he failed to discharge his duty with utmost integrity and committed misconduct. Borrowing from the clients of the
Bank amounts to misconduct as per the service code of the Bank. For 92 days he remained absent without prior sanction
of leave. Thus, he violated the leave rules of the Bank which amounts to a minor misconduct. In the meantime, the 1st
Party is said to have expired and his legal heirs have not come forward to prosecute his case. However, having
commenced probe into the Industrial Dispute it is necessary to adjudicate the dispute on merits without closing the
petition as abated on the death of the 1st Party workman.
12.
The action of the Management in imposing punishment of compulsory retirement from service against 1st Party
workman is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled for any relief under the reference. While parting, it is
noticed that the reference of the dispute pertains to the 1st Party workman namely Sh. M M Ravikumar, but at the same
time the address in the copy of the reference order is marked to Sh. M B Ravikumar, S/o V. Laxman, Ex. Employee of
Canara Bank, At Post: Devikere, Taluk: Jagalur, District: DAVANGERE and in the cause title of the claim statement 1st
Party workman is mentioned as Sh. M B Ravikumar, unfortunately at this stage there is no one to answer the
discrepancy. However, assuming that the 1st Party workman in the order of reference and the 1st Party before this
Tribunal are one and the same, this reference is disposed of.
AWARD
The reference is rejected. However, if the 2nd Party has with held any amount towards his terminal
benefit/Pension same shall be disbursed in favour of his Class-I Legal Heirs forthwith.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 13th June, 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. ALOK
KUMAR
Digitally signed
by ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2019.07.04
14:47:37 +05'30'