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)

‘मा यतााt 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 मा यतााt 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 मा यता अिधसूचना क तारीख से अिधकतम 5 वष, के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका

नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मा यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क |या वही होगी जो मा यता दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

3. अपेि;त मा यता 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 समु ी 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% पेƒोिलयम 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 ए„ड नेचुरल गैस कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड,

टे†ोपोिलस िबडग, साट लेक िसटी,

कोलकाता – 700091

[सं. 11011/1/2017 (िह दी)]

ऊषा िब जोला, 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.—के ीय सरकार को, ऐसा तीत होता है क लोकिहत म% यह आवDयक है क मL य देश एवं उFर

देश राWय म% पेƒोिलयम पदाथ के प1रवहन के िलए बीना पंक (कानपुर) पाइपलाइन प1रयोजना के |या वयन हेतु भारत

पेƒोिलयम कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड Eारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाना आवDयक है।

के ीय 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, के ीय सरकार, पेƒोिलयम 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, इ‡स 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 पेƒोिलयम कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड बीना पंक (कानपुर) पेƒोिलयम 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.—के ीय सरकार को, ऐसा तीत होता है क लोकिहत म% यह आवDयक है क मL य देश एवं उFर

देश राWय म% पेƒोिलयम पदाथg के प1रवहन के िलए बीना पंक (कानपुर) पाइपलाइन प1रयोजना के |या वयन हेतु भारत

पेƒोिलयम कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड Eारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाना आवDयक है।

के ीय 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, के ीय सरकार, पेƒोिलयम 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, इ‡स 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 पेƒोिलयम कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड बीना पंक (कानपुर) पेƒोिलयम 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.—के ीय सरकार को, ऐसा तीत होता है क लोकिहत मे यह आवDयक है क मL य देश एवं उFर

देश राWय म% पेƒोिलयम पदाथ के प1रवहन के िलए बीना पंक (कानपुर) पाईपलाइन प1रयोजना के |या वयन हेतु भारत

पेƒोिलयम कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड Eारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाना आवDयक है।

के ीय 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, के ीय सरकार, पेƒोिलयम 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, इ‡स 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 पेƒोिलयम कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड बीना पंक (कानपुर) पेƒोिलयम 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.—के ीय सरकार को, ऐसा तीत होता है क लोकिहत म% यह आवDयक है क मL य देश एवं उFर देश

राWय म% पेƒोिलयम पदाथ के प1रवहन के िलए बीना पंक (कानपुर) पाईपलाइन प1रयोजना के |या वयन हेतु भारत

पेƒोिलयम कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड Eारा पाईपलाइन िबछाई जाना आवDयक है।

के ीय 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, के ीय सरकार, पेƒोिलयम 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, इ‡स 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 पेƒोिलयम कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड बीना पंक (कानपुर) पेƒोिलयम 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.—के ीय सरकार को, ऐसा तीत होता है क लोकिहत म% यह आवDयक है क मL य देश एवं उFर

देश राWय म% पेƒोिलयम पदाथg के प1रवहन के िलए बीना पंक (कानपुर) पाइपलाइन प1रयोजना के |या वयन हेतु भारत

पेƒोिलयम कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड Eारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाना आवDयक है।

के ीय 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, के ीय सरकार, पेƒोिलयम 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, इ‡स 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 पेƒोिलयम कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड बीना पंक (कानपुर) पेƒोिलयम 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.—के ीय सरकार ने पेƒोिलयम 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 पेƒोिलयम 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% िवनी‰दv 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% कŠे 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 संबि धत 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 के ीय सरकार को 1रपोट, दे दी है,

और के ीय 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, के ीय 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% िवनी‰दv भूिम म% पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अज,न

कया जाए,

और के ीय सरकार उI अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) Eारा दत शिIय का योग करते Vए, यह िनद‹श देती है

क उI भूिम म% उपयोग के अिधकार इस घोषणा के काशन क तारीख से के ीय सरकार म% िनिहत होने के बजाए, सभी

िवलंगमो से मुI होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड म% िनिहत होगी,

पेƒोिलयम 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 संबि धत कसी भी मामले पर के ीय 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.—के ीय सरकार ने पेƒोिलयम 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 पेƒोिलयम 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% िविन‰दv भूिम म% पिBम बंगाल राWय म% “हदीया-

बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस4ट)स प1रयोजना” हेतु िजला पूब, मेदनीपुर म% कŠे 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 संबि धत 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 के ीय सरकार को 1रपोट, दे दी है ,

और के ीय 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, के ीय 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% िविन‰दv भूिम म% पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अज,न

कया जाए ,

और के ीय सरकार उI अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) Eारा दत शिIय का योग करते Vए, यह िनद‹श देती है

क उI भूिम म% उपयोग के अिधकार इस घोषणा के काशन क तारीख से के ीय सरकार म% िनिहत होने के बजाए, सभी

िवलंगमो से मुI होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड म% िनिहत होगी,

पेƒोिलयम 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 संबि धत कसी भी मामले पर के ीय 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

न दकुमार

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)

न दकुमार

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)

न दकुमार

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)

न दकुमार

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 मं ालय

एवं रोजगार मं ालय

एवं रोजगार मं ालय

एवं रोजगार मं ालय

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 का पिनक ि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'